What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Financial Statements

2026-07-21 compared with 2026-04-21 · 582 added, 414 removed, 977 unchanged (50% of the section changed)

3 unchanged sentences

Three months ended

June 30, Six months ended

(Millions, except per share amounts) 2026 2025 2026 2025

13 unchanged sentences

Net income including noncontrolling interest

938 725 1,597 1,847

net income attributable to noncontrolling interest

9 unchanged sentences

Three months ended

June 30, Six months ended

(Millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

Net income including noncontrolling interest $ 938 $ 725 $ 1,597 $ 1,847

$ 659 $ 1,122

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:

4 unchanged sentences

Comprehensive income including noncontrolling interest

984 1,030 1,610 2,352

Comprehensive (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest

Comprehensive income attributable to 3M

( 5 ) ( 2 ) ( 8 ) ( 8 )

Comprehensive income attributable to 3M $ 979 $ 1,028 $ 1,602 $ 2,344

The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement.

1 unchanged sentence

Consolidated Balance Sheet

(Dollars in millions, except per share amount) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Dollars in millions, except per share amount) June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Current assets

12 unchanged sentences

Total assets $ 34,924 $ 37,733

Liabilities and equity

Current liabilities

13 unchanged sentences

944,033,056 shares issued

Shares outstanding - March 31, 2026:

Shares outstanding - June 30, 2026:

515,722,417 ;

3 unchanged sentences

Treasury stock, at cost ( 38,177 ) ( 35,936 )

Shares at March 31, 2026:

Shares at June 30, 2026:

428,310,639 ;

5 unchanged sentences

Total liabilities and equity

$ 34,924 $ 37,733

The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement.

1 unchanged sentence

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

Three months ended March 31,

Six months ended June 30,

(Millions) 2026 2025

20 unchanged sentences

Proceeds from maturities and sale of marketable securities and investments 622 2,130

Proceeds from (payments for) sale of businesses, net of cash sold ( 326 ) 5

Other — net 9 ( 3 )

20 unchanged sentences

Basis of Presentation:

As used herein, the term “3M” or “Company” includes 3M Company and its subsidiaries unless the context indicates otherwise.

The interim consolidated financial statements are unaudited but, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented.

4 unchanged sentences

Certain amounts in prior periods’ consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation.

In addition, effective in the first quarter of 2026, the Company made changes to the measure of segment operating performance and segment composition used by its chief operating decision maker ("CODM").These changes impacted the disclosed measure of segment profit and other segment-related amounts as further described in Note 16.

Also, effective in the first and second quarters of 2026, the Company made changes to the measure of segment operating performance and segment composition used by its chief operating decision maker ("CODM").

These changes impacted the disclosed measure of segment profit and other segment-related amounts as further described in Note 16.

3M's disclosed disaggregated revenue was also updated as a result of these changes (see Note 2).

4 unchanged sentences

The Company views the following disaggregated disclosures as useful to understanding the composition of revenue recognized during the respective reporting periods:

Three months ended March 31,

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

Net sales (millions)

2026 2025 2026 2025

Abrasives $ 342 $ 338 $ 691 $ 655

3 unchanged sentences

Industrial Specialties Division

326 294 612 582

Personal Safety 965 882 1,877 1,732

1 unchanged sentence

Total Safety and Industrial Business segment

3,091 2,857 6,021 5,602

Advanced Materials 162 148 309 291

1 unchanged sentence

Commercial Branding and Transportation

737 689 1,377 1,305

Electronics 682 633 1,259 1,215

Total Transportation and Electronics Business segment

2,066 1,944 3,914 3,760

Consumer Safety and Well-Being 289 280 567 554

3 unchanged sentences

Total Consumer Business segment

1,247 1,270 2,378 2,394

96 273 217 542

Total Company

$ 6,500 $ 6,344 $ 12,530 $ 12,298

Three months ended March 31,

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

Net sales by geographic area (millions)

2026 2025 2026 2025

Americas $ 3,516 $ 3,482 $ 6,669 $ 6,689

2 unchanged sentences

Worldwide $ 6,500 $ 6,344 $ 12,530 $ 12,298

Three months ended March 31,

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

Net sales by particular country (millions)

2026 2025 2026 2025

United States

1 unchanged sentence

China/Hong Kong

859 754 1,637 1,470

Acquisitions and Divestitures

Refer to Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information on relevant pre-2026 acquisitions and divestitures.

Announced Acquisitions:

In March 2026, 3M, in partnership with Bain Capital ("Bain"), entered into an agreement to acquire Madison Fire & Rescue ("Madison") for $ 1.95 billion, subject to closing and other adjustments.

Previously Announced Acquisition:

In July 2026, 3M, in partnership with Bain Capital ("Bain"), completed the acquisition of Madison Fire & Rescue ("Madison") for $ 1.95 billion, subject to closing and other adjustments.

Madison offers a portfolio of rescue technology and fire-suppression products.

Under related agreements, 3M and Bain will establish a venture to which 3M will contribute its self-contained breathing apparatus business ("SCBA") and Bain will contribute cash.

The venture will utilize the contribution and purchase Madison, while taking on leverage.

3M expects to consolidate the venture, of which 3M will own 50.1 % and Bain will own 49.9 %.

On a consolidated basis, 3M anticipates net proceeds of approximately $ 0.7 billion upon closing of the transactions, reflecting financing and Bain's contribution, net of amounts used to acquire Madison.

The transactions are expected to close in the second half of 2026, subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approval.

Under related agreements, 3M and Bain established a venture to which 3M contributed its self-contained breathing apparatus business ("SCBA") and Bain contributed cash.

The venture utilized the contribution and purchased Madison, while drawing on its term loan facility.

3M will consolidate the venture, of which it owns 50.1 %.

On a consolidated basis, 3M received net proceeds of approximately $ 0.7 billion in the third quarter of 2026 from closing of the transactions, reflecting proceeds from the term loan facility and Bain's contribution, net of amounts used to acquire Madison.

Madison will be combined with SCBA within 3M's Safety and Industrial segment.

Bain's noncontrolling interest is redeemable after five years , will be presented outside of permanent equity in the consolidated balance sheet and measured at the greater of its initial carrying amount updated for its share of earnings or estimated redemption value, affecting net income attributable to 3M.

Features of Bain's interest, along with other venture exit and liquidity provisions, also result in a derivative instrument that will be carried at fair value.

Given the acquisition's close on July 1, 2026, 3M will provide preliminary amounts recognized for major classes of assets acquired and liabilities assumed, including intangible assets and goodwill, in the third quarter.

Divestitures:

1 unchanged sentence

This business was classified as held for sale in the third quarter of 2025.

In 2025, 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 159 million for the excess of its carrying value over its selling price less cost to sell and recorded an immaterial amount in 2026 to reflect subsequent changes.

Selling price did not involve proceeds, but a balance of cash, subject to closing and other adjustments, was left in the transferring business.

3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 159 million for the excess of its carrying value over its selling price less cost to sell in 2025 and an insignificant amount in 2026 for subsequent changes.

This charge and related changes were reported within Corporate and reflected in loss on business divestitures on the consolidated statement of income.

The transaction did not involve proceeds, but a balance of cash, subject to closing and other adjustments, was left in the transferring business and an amount was paid to purchaser at close.

The business has annual sales of approximately $ 130 million and its operating income, excluding the charge reflected in Corporate, was not material.

In the second quarter of 2026, 3M approved and completed the divestiture of its Dyneon GmbH subsidiary, a manufacturer of PFAS prior to 3M's exit from PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025 (included in Corporate — see Note 16).

The transaction resulted in a $ 324 million pre-tax loss on business divestiture that was recorded within Corporate.

The transaction did not involve proceeds, but a balance of cash was left in the transferring business and an amount was paid to purchaser at close.

An accrued amount, subject to closing and other adjustments, is payable to purchaser upon finalization of those adjustments, expected later in 2026.

Refer to Note 15 for discussion of indemnifications related to certain legal matters associated with this transaction.

The below summarizes the carrying amounts of the major classes of assets and liabilities classified as held for sale in the consolidated balance sheet:

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) December 31, 2025

Assets held for sale

18 unchanged sentences

( 33 ) ( 8 ) ( 4 ) — ( 45 )

Balance as of March 31, 2026

Balance as of June 30, 2026

$ 4,538 $ 1,517 $ 261 $ 58 $ 6,374

(a) The amounts in the “Translation and other” primarily relate to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.

As of March 31, 2026, the Company's accumulated goodwill impairment loss is $ 0.3 billion.

As of June 30, 2026, the Company's accumulated goodwill impairment loss is $ 0.3 billion.

Acquired Intangible Assets:

The carrying amount and accumulated amortization of the Company's acquired finite-lived intangible assets and the balances of non-amortizable intangible assets are presented below:

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) Gross carrying amount Accumulated amortization Net carrying amount Gross carrying amount Accumulated amortization Net carrying amount

8 unchanged sentences

Indefinite lived intangible assets (b)

Total intangible assets $ 1,078 $ 1,103

Total intangible assets — net $ 1,053 $ 1,103

(b) Indefinite lived intangible assets primarily consists of certain tradenames acquired by 3M that are not amortized because they have existed for over 60 years, maintain leading-market share positions, are continuously renewed, and are associated with products expected to generate cash flows for 3M for an indefinite period.

Amortization expense follows:

Three months ended March 31,

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

(Millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

Amortization expense $ 24 $ 26 $ 49 $ 52

Expected amortization expense for acquired amortizable intangible assets recorded as of March 31, 2026 follows:

Expected amortization expense for acquired amortizable intangible assets recorded as of June 30, 2026 follows:

(Millions) Remainder of 2026

4 unchanged sentences

In the third quarter of 2025, 3M began a transformation program intended as a structural redesign of longer-term manufacturing, distribution, and business process services and locations.

During 2025, management approved and committed to initial restructuring actions resulting in a pre-tax charge of $ 51 million ($ 35 million in employee-related charges and $ 16 million in asset-related and other charges).

In the first quarter of 2026, management approved and committed to additional actions resulting in a pre-tax charge of $ 44 million, primarily employee related.

In the second quarter and first six months of 2026, management approved and committed to additional actions resulting in a pre-tax charge of $ 74 million and $ 118 million, respectively, primarily employee related.

Charges related to this initiative are reflected in Corporate (see Note 16) and primarily impacted selling, general and administrative expenses and cost of sales.

The accrued restructuring liability was $ 25 million as of December 31, 2025.

During 2026, 3M made related payments resulting in an accrued restructuring balance of $ 45 million as of March 31, 2026.

The accrued restructuring liability was $ 25 million as of December 31, 2025 and $ 66 million as of June 30, 2026, reflecting new charges partially offset by cash payments.

Additional actions are expected and are subject to management's future approval and commitment.

Supplemental Income Statement Information

Other expense (income), net consists of the following:

Three months ended March 31,

Other expense (income), net :

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

(Millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

Interest expense (a)

$ 202 $ 237 $ 416 $ 492

Interest income ( 32 ) ( 50 ) ( 81 ) ( 129 )

Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit cost (benefit) (b)

( 3 ) 23 ( 5 ) 51

Solventum ownership - change in value (c)

( 303 ) 7 53 ( 336 )

Total $ ( 136 ) $ 217 $ 383 $ 78

(a) Interest expense includes $ 106 million and $ 110 million in the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively, related to outstanding debt.

(a) Interest expense related to outstanding debt is as follows below.

Interest expense in the table above also includes imputed interest associated with the obligations resulting from the PWS Settlement, New Jersey Settlement, and CAE Settlement (all discussed in Note 15).

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

(Millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

Interest expense related to outstanding debt

$ 106 $ 116 $ 212 $ 226

(b) Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit income described in the table above includes all components of defined benefit plan net periodic benefit cost (benefit) except service cost, which is reported in various operating expense lines.

1 unchanged sentence

(c) Solventum ownership - change in value relates to the change in value of 3M's retained ownership interest in common stock of Solventum Corporation, an independent public company ("Solventum"), in connection with 3M's spin-off its former health care business completed in April 2024 ("Solventum Spin-off").

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 the balance of unrealized gain on this investment was $ 1.1 billion and $ 1.5 billion, respectively.

As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the balance of unrealized gain on this investment was $ 1.4 billion and $ 1.5 billion, respectively.

Currency Effects:

3M estimates that year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects impacted pre-tax income (loss) approximately as follows.

These estimates include transaction gains and losses, including derivative instruments designed to reduce foreign currency exchange rate risks.

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

(Millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

Year-on-year change in pre-tax income (loss) from foreign currency transactions $ ( 13 ) $ ( 30 ) $ ( 39 ) $ ( 25 )

Supplemental Balance Sheet Information

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Finished goods $ 1,776 $ 1,744

3 unchanged sentences

Property, Plant & Equipment

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Property, plant and equipment $ 23,887 $ 23,922

3 unchanged sentences

(Millions) Location on face of balance sheet

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Right of use assets

5 unchanged sentences

Separately, the banks may have arrangements with the suppliers that provide them the option to request early payment from the banks for invoices confirmed by 3M.

3M's outstanding balances of confirmed invoices in the programs as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 were each approximately $ 0.3 billion.

3M's outstanding balances of confirmed invoices in the programs as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025 were each approximately $ 0.3 billion.

These amounts are included within accounts payable on 3M's consolidated balance sheet.

2 unchanged sentences

Preferred stock, without par value, of 10 million shares is authorized but unissued.

Cash dividends declared and paid totaled $ 0.78 and $ 0.73 per share for the first quarter of 2026 and 2025, respectively.

The table below presents the consolidated changes in equity for three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025:

3M Company Shareholders Non-controlling interest

(Millions) Total Common stock and additional paid-in capital Retained earnings Treasury stock Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

Balance at December 31, 2025

Cash dividends declared and paid totaled $ 0.78 and $ 0.73 per share for the first and second quarters of 2026 and 2025, respectively, or $ 1.56 and $ 1.46 per share for the first six months of 2026 and 2025, respectively.

The table below presents the consolidated changes in equity for the three and six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025:

3M Company Shareholders Noncontrolling interest Total equity

(Millions) Common stock and additional paid-in capital Retained earnings Treasury stock Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

Balance at March 31, 2026

$ 7,509 $ 38,162 $ ( 37,309 ) $ ( 5,099 ) $ 48 $ 3,311

5 unchanged sentences

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans ( 61 ) 123 62

Balance at June 30, 2026

$ 7,549 $ 38,633 $ ( 38,177 ) $ ( 5,053 ) $ 53 $ 3,005

Balance at March 31, 2025

$ 7,310 $ 37,432 $ ( 34,747 ) $ ( 5,531 ) $ 59 $ 4,523

Net income 723 2 725

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 305 — 305

Solventum spin-off ( 14 ) 11 ( 3 )

Dividends declared ( 390 ) ( 390 )

Stock-based compensation 44 44

Reacquired stock ( 946 ) ( 946 )

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans ( 58 ) 151 93

Balance at June 30, 2025

$ 7,354 $ 37,693 $ ( 35,542 ) $ ( 5,215 ) $ 61 $ 4,351

Balance at December 31, 2025

3 unchanged sentences

Dividends declared ( 813 ) ( 813 )

Purchase of non-controlling interest

Stock-based compensation 100 100

1 unchanged sentence

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans ( 398 ) 762 364

Balance at March 31, 2025

Balance at June 30, 2026

$ 7,549 $ 38,633 $ ( 38,177 ) $ ( 5,053 ) $ 53 $ 3,005

Balance at December 31, 2024

$ 7,238 $ 36,797 $ ( 34,462 ) $ ( 5,731 ) $ 52 $ 3,894

Net income 1,839 8 1,847

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 505 — 505

Solventum spin-off ( 14 ) 11 ( 3 )

Dividends declared ( 786 ) ( 786 )

Purchase of noncontrolling interest 1 1

Stock-based compensation 116 116

Reacquired stock ( 2,221 ) ( 2,221 )

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans ( 143 ) 1,141 998

Balance at June 30, 2025 $ 7,354 $ 37,693 $ ( 35,542 ) $ ( 5,215 ) $ 61 $ 4,351

The table below presents the changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) attributable to 3M ("AOCI"), including the reclassifications out of AOCI by component:

3 unchanged sentences

Total accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

Balance at December 31, 2025, net of tax:

Balance at March 31, 2026, net of tax:

$ ( 2,612 ) $ ( 2,404 ) $ ( 83 ) $ ( 5,099 )

6 unchanged sentences

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax ( 2 ) 47 1 46

Balance at June 30, 2026, net of tax:

$ ( 2,614 ) $ ( 2,357 ) $ ( 82 ) $ ( 5,053 )

Balance at March 31, 2025, net of tax:

$ ( 2,782 ) $ ( 2,705 ) $ ( 44 ) $ ( 5,531 )

Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax:

Amounts before reclassifications 287 ( 7 ) ( 91 ) 189

Amounts reclassified out — 71 ( 14 ) 57

Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax 287 64 ( 105 ) 246

Tax effect (b)

52 ( 15 ) 22 59

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 339 49 ( 83 ) 305

Solventum spin-off — 11 — 11

Balance at June 30, 2025, net of tax:

$ ( 2,443 ) $ ( 2,645 ) $ ( 127 ) $ ( 5,215 )

Balance at December 31, 2025, net of tax:

7 unchanged sentences

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax ( 94 ) 94 16 16

Balance at March 31, 2025, net of tax:

Balance at June 30, 2026, net of tax:

$ ( 2,614 ) $ ( 2,357 ) $ ( 82 ) $ ( 5,053 )

(a) Based on exchange rates as of March 31, 2026, 3M expects to reclassify an immaterial amount of after-tax net unrealized loss over the next 12 months (with the impact offset by earnings/losses from underlying hedged items) of the total after-tax net unrealized balance.

(b) Includes tax expense (benefit) reclassified out of AOCI related to the following:

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

Defined benefit pension and postretirement plans adjustment $ ( 16 ) $ ( 18 )

Cash flow hedging instruments ( 2 ) 5

Balance at December 31, 2024, net of tax:

$ ( 2,953 ) $ ( 2,763 ) $ ( 15 ) $ ( 5,731 )

Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax:

Amounts before reclassifications 436 ( 7 ) ( 105 ) 324

Amounts reclassified out — 147 ( 37 ) 110

Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax 436 140 ( 142 ) 434

Tax effect (b)

74 ( 33 ) 30 71

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 510 107 ( 112 ) 505

Solventum spin-off — 11 — 11

Balance at June 30, 2025, net of tax:

$ ( 2,443 ) $ ( 2,645 ) $ ( 127 ) $ ( 5,215 )

(a) Based on exchange rates as of June 30, 2026, the after-tax net unrealized loss expected to be reclassified over the next 12 months is not significant, and the related impact will be offset by earnings or losses from underlying hedged items.

(b) Includes tax expense (benefit) reclassified out of AOCI, which was not significant for the periods presented.

Income taxes are not provided for foreign translation relating to permanent investments in international subsidiaries, but tax effects within cumulative translation do include impacts from items such as net investment hedge transactions.

4 unchanged sentences

• Cash flow hedging instruments, realized gain (loss):

amounts from foreign currency forward/option contacts were reclassified into cost of sales, while amounts from interest rate contracts were reclassified into interest expense (see Note 13).

amounts from foreign currency forward/option contracts were reclassified into cost of sales, while amounts from interest rate contracts were reclassified into interest expense (see Note 13).

• The tax effects, if applicable, associated with these reclassifications were reflected in provision for income taxes.

The effective tax rates were as follows:

Three months ended March 31,

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

(Percent of pre-tax income) 2026 2025 2026 2025

Effective tax rate 16.3 % 26.6 % 20.2 % 22.1 %

The primary factors that increased the Company's effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2026, compared to the same period in 2025, were the tax impacts of 3M's retained ownership interest in Solventum, partially offset by increased tax benefits from stock-based compensation.

The primary factors that decreased the Company's effective tax rate for the three months ended June 30, 2026, compared to the same period in 2025, were the tax impacts of 3M's retained ownership interest in Solventum and the tax impacts of net costs of significant litigation, partially offset by the loss on business divestiture.

The primary factors that decreased the Company's effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2026, compared to the same period in 2025, were the increased tax benefits from stock-based compensation and the tax impacts of net costs of significant litigation, partially offset by the loss on business divestiture and the tax impacts of 3M's retained ownership interest in Solventum.

Net deferred tax assets (net of valuation allowance and deferred tax liabilities) are included as components of other assets and other liabilities within the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

This net balance was comprised of the following:

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Deferred tax asset (net of valuation allowance) $ 3,586 $ 3,826

$ 3,707 $ 3,826

Deferred tax liability 412 418

3 unchanged sentences

Three months ended

June 30, Six months ended

(Amounts in millions, except per share amounts) 2026 2025 2026 2025

2 unchanged sentences

Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – basic

519.7 537.4 524.4 540.6

Dilution associated with stock-based compensation plans 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.6

Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – diluted

522.4 540.6 527.6 544.2

Earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders:

4 unchanged sentences

The difference in the weighted average 3M shares outstanding for calculating basic and diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders is the result of the dilution associated with the Company’s stock-based compensation plans.

Certain awards outstanding below under these stock-based compensation plans were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders because they would have had an anti-dilutive effect.

Certain awards outstanding under these stock-based compensation plans were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders because they would have had an anti-dilutive effect.

Three months ended

June 30, Six months ended

2026 2025 2026 2025

Weighted average number of antidilutive shares

13.1 17.9 10.1 16.2

Long-Term Debt and Short-Term Borrowings

1 unchanged sentence

Changes in future maturities of long-term debt since December 31, 2025 were not material.

The Company had no commercial paper outstanding at March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

In March 2026, 3M entered into a $ 1.45 billion unsecured term loan facility with a variable rate which was undrawn as of March 31, 2026.

The facility was established to provide financing flexibility in connection with the Madison acquisition and venture formation described in Note 3 and has a 364-day term from that transaction's closing date.

The Company had no commercial paper outstanding at June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

In April 2026, 3M and a subsidiary entered into a $ 1.43 billion unsecured term loan facility and a $ 200 million revolving credit facility, each with a variable rate and a 364-day term, replacing a facility established in March 2026.

Both facilities were undrawn as of June 30, 2026.

In July 2026, the subsidiary drew $ 1.43 billion under the term loan facility in connection with the acquisition of Madison and venture formation described in Note 3.

The facilities may be extended, at the borrower's request, for up to 12 months from the closing date of that transaction.

Pension and Postretirement Benefit Plans

3 unchanged sentences

The other components of net periodic benefit cost are reflected in other expense (income), net.

Components of net periodic benefit cost and other supplemental information for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025 follow:

Three months ended March 31,

Components of net periodic benefit cost and other supplemental information for the three and six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025 follow:

Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits Postretirement benefits

United States International

Three months ended June 30,

Net periodic benefit cost (benefit) (millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025 2026 2025

8 unchanged sentences

Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) $ 44 $ 61 $ ( 13 ) $ ( 5 ) $ 5 $ 10

For the three months ended March 31, 2026, contributions totaling $ 35 million were made to the Company’s U.S.

Six months ended June 30,

2026 2025 2026 2025 2026 2025

Operating expense

Service cost $ 49 $ 51 $ 20 $ 24 $ 9 $ 9

Non-operating expense

Interest cost 200 217 100 92 32 38

Expected return on plan assets ( 288 ) ( 284 ) ( 147 ) ( 131 ) ( 27 ) ( 28 )

Amortization of prior service benefit — — — 1 ( 14 ) ( 4 )

Amortization of net actuarial loss 127 138 4 4 8 8

Total non-operating expense (benefit) 39 71 ( 43 ) ( 34 ) ( 1 ) 14

Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) $ 88 $ 122 $ ( 23 ) $ ( 10 ) $ 8 $ 23

For the six months ended June 30, 2026, contributions totaling $ 67 million were made to the Company’s U.S.

and international pension plans and $ 6 million to its postretirement plans.

6 unchanged sentences

• Impact on other comprehensive income of non-derivative hedging and derivative instruments is included in Note 8.

• Fair value of derivative instruments is included in Note 14.

• Fair value of derivative instruments, excluding non-derivative instruments used as hedging instruments, and their location in the consolidated balance sheet is included in Note 14.

• Derivatives and/or hedging instruments associated with the Company’s long-term debt are described in Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Refer to the section below titled Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments for details on the location within the consolidated statements of income for amounts of gains and losses related to derivative instruments both designated and not designated as hedging instruments.

Refer to the section below titled Volume of Derivative Activity for information regarding the extent of 3M's use of derivatives.

Additional information relative to cash flow hedges, net investment hedges and derivatives not designated as hedging instruments is included below as applicable.

Cash Flow Hedges:

For the periods presented, the amounts of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges were immaterial .

Refer to the amounts before reclassifications on the changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) ("AOCI") table within Note 8 for the amount of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) ("OCI") related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges.

The amount of pre-tax (gain) loss on cash flow hedging relationships reclassified from AOCI into income was not significant.

Amounts from foreign currency forward/option contracts were reclassified into cost of sales, while the amounts from interest rate contracts were reclassified into interest expense.

Net Investment Hedges:

The gross notional amount of foreign exchange forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps designated in net investment hedges is included in the totals within the "Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments" table further below.

In addition, at March 31, 2026, 3M had a principal amount of long-term debt instruments designated in net investment hedges totaling € 1.8 billion.

The gross notional amount of foreign exchange forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps designated in net investment hedges are included in the totals within the gross notional table in the Volume of Derivative Activity section below.

In addition, at June 30, 2026, 3M had a principal amount of long-term debt instruments designated in net investment hedges totaling € 1.8 billion.

During the first quarter of 2026, 3M entered into foreign currency forward contracts and collared foreign currency forward contracts with a gross notional value at inception of $ 4.1 billion designated as hedges of portions of its net investment in international subsidiaries

The amount of gain (loss) excluded from effectiveness testing and recognized in income for instruments designated in net investment hedge relationships was immaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025.

The amounts of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative and non-derivative instruments designated as net investment hedges are as follows.

Pretax gain (loss) recognized as cumulative translation within other comprehensive income (loss)

Three months ended March 31,

The amount of gain (loss) excluded from effectiveness testing and recognized in income for instruments designated in net investment hedge relationships was not significant for the three and six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025.

The amounts of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in OCI related to derivative and non-derivative instruments designated as net investment hedges are as follows.

Pretax gain (loss) recognized as cumulative translation within OCI

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

(Millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

5 unchanged sentences

3M may de-designate a cash flow hedge before the forecasted transaction occurs if the forecasted transaction is no longer probable, if the hedge is no longer expected to be highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows of the forecasted transaction, or in certain other circumstances.

In addition, 3M enters into foreign currency contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships to offset changes in the value of various non-functional currency denominated items including certain intercompany financing balances.

These derivative instruments are not designated in hedging relationships;

therefore, fair value gains and losses on these contracts are recorded in earnings.

3M might also enter into foreign currency contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships to offset changes in the value of various non-functional currency denominated items (including certain intercompany financing balances).

Because these various derivatives are not designated in hedging relationships, fair value gains and losses on them are recorded in earnings.

The Company does not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes.

Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments:

For the periods presented, pre-tax amounts recognized in respective income statement line items were not significant related to derivative instruments in cash flow hedging relationships or regarding derivatives not designated as hedging instruments.

Amounts are reflected in costs of sales and other expense (income), net.

Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments:

The following table summarizes the fair value of 3M’s derivative instruments, excluding non-derivative instruments used as hedging instruments, and their location in the consolidated balance sheet.

Notional amounts below are presented at period end foreign exchange rates, except for certain interest rate swaps and foreign currency forward/option contracts, which are presented using the foreign exchange rate at inception.

Gross notional Amount

Assets Liabilities

(Millions) Location Fair value amount

Location Fair value amount

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

The location and amount of pre-tax (gain) or loss regarding derivatives not designated as hedging instruments follows:

(Gain) or loss on derivatives not designated as hedging instruments

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

Income statement location (millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

Cost of sales $ 1 $ ( 33 ) $ ( 3 ) $ ( 49 )

Other expense (income), net 1 ( 71 ) 20 ( 99 )

Volume of Derivative Activity:

The table below summarizes the gross notional amount of specific derivatives designated and not designated as hedging instruments.

Derivatives designated as hedging instruments consist of foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps.

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments, as presented in the table below, consist of foreign currency forward and option contracts.

Notional amounts for non-US denominated derivatives are presented at period-end foreign exchange rates, except for certain foreign currency forward/option contracts, which are presented using the foreign exchange rate at inception.

Gross notional amount (millions)

June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Derivatives designated as hedging instruments

Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps

$ 3,438 $ 1,842 Other current assets $ 49 $ 23 Other current liabilities $ 36 $ 35

Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 11,152 8,194 Other assets 169 161 Other liabilities 244 289

Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments 218 184 280 324

$ 14,561 $ 10,036

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments

Foreign currency forward/option contracts 2,603 2,188 Other current assets 14 8 Other current liabilities 17 6

Total derivative instruments $ 232 $ 192 $ 297 $ 330

Credit Risk and Offsetting of Assets and Liabilities of Derivative Instruments:

11 unchanged sentences

Offsetting of Financial Assets under Master Netting Agreements with Derivative Counterparties

Gross Amount of Derivative Assets Presented in the Consolidated Balance Sheet Gross Amount of Eligible Offsetting Recognized Derivative Liabilities Net Amount of Derivative Assets

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Derivatives subject to master netting agreements $ 232 $ 192 $ 190 $ 175 $ 42 $ 17

Derivatives subject to master netting agreements (millions) June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Gross amount of derivative assets presented in the consolidated balance sheet $ 233 $ 192

Gross amount of eligible offsetting recognized derivative liabilities 188 175

Net amount of derivative assets $ 45 $ 17

Offsetting of Financial Liabilities under Master Netting Agreements with Derivative Counterparties

(Millions) Gross Amount of Derivative Liabilities Presented in the Consolidated Balance Sheet Gross Amount of Eligible Offsetting Recognized Derivative Assets Net Amount of Derivative Liabilities

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Derivatives subject to master netting agreements $ 297 $ 330 $ 190 $ 175 $ 107 $ 155

Currency Effects:

3M estimates that year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects, impacted pre-tax income (loss) approximately as follows.

These estimates include transaction gains and losses, including derivative instruments designed to reduce foreign currency exchange rate risks.

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

Year-on-year change in pre-tax income (loss) from foreign currency transactions

Derivatives subject to master netting agreements (millions) June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Gross amount of derivative liabilities presented in the consolidated balance sheet $ 323 $ 330

Gross amount of eligible offsetting recognized derivative assets 188 175

Net amount of derivative liabilities $ 135 $ 155

Fair Value Measurements and Marketable Securities

1 unchanged sentence

Refer to Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K for a qualitative discussion of the assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring and nonrecurring basis, a description of the valuation methodologies used by 3M, and categorization within the valuation framework of ASC 820.

The following table provides information by level for material assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

The following table provides information by level for material assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

Fair value at Fair value measurements using inputs considered as

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

(Millions) March 31,

(Millions) June 30,

2026 December 31,

2025 March 31,

2025 June 30,

2026 December 31,

2025 March 31,

2025 June 30,

2026 December 31,

2025 March 31,

2025 June 30,

2026 December 31,

Available-for-sale marketable securities:

Marketable securities:

Corporate debt $ 201 $ 302 $ — $ — $ 201 $ 302 $ — $ —

6 unchanged sentences

1,973 2,026 1,973 2,026 — — — —

Derivative instruments — assets:

Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 232 192 — — 232 192 — —

Derivative instruments — liabilities:

Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 297 330 — — 297 330 — —

(a) Solventum common stock is reflected within other current assets on 3M's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

Derivative instruments (b)

233 192 — — 233 192 — —

Derivative instruments (c)

323 330 — — 323 330 — —

(a) Solventum common stock is reflected within other current assets on 3M's Consolidated Balance Sheet.

(b) Derivative assets are reflected within other current assets or other assets on 3M's Consolidated Balance Sheet.

(c) Derivative liabilities are reflected within other current liabilities or other liabilities on 3M's Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The Company had no material activity with level 3 assets and liabilities during the periods presented.

Marketable Securities:

At March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, gross unrealized, gross realized, and net realized gains and/or losses (pre-tax) were no t material.

The balances at March 31, 2026 for marketable securities by contractual maturity are shown below.

At June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, gross unrealized, gross realized, and net realized gains and/or losses (pre-tax) were no t material.

The balances at June 30, 2026 for marketable securities by contractual maturity are shown below.

Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because the issuers of the securities may have the right to prepay obligations without prepayment penalties.

3 unchanged sentences

Assets and Liabilities that are Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis:

Other than the below, 3M had no material measurements at fair value on a nonrecurring basis of applicable assets or liabilities for the first quarter of 2026 and 2025.

Other than the below, 3M had no material measurements at fair value on a nonrecurring basis of applicable assets or liabilities for the second quarter and first six months of 2026 and 2025.

In the third quarter of 2025, 3M's precision grinding and finishing business was classified as held for sale and written down to its fair value less costs to sell.

Fair value was determined based upon terms of the underlying agreement entered into to sell the business.

The disposal group continues to be similarly valued until the close of the transaction.

The disposal group was similarly valued until the close of the transaction in April 2026.

See Note 3 for additional information on the disposal group.

6 unchanged sentences

Information with respect to the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of these financial instruments follow:

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) Carrying value Fair value

2 unchanged sentences

The fair values reflected in the sections above consider the terms of the related debt absent the impacts of derivative/hedging activity.

The carrying amount of long-term debt referenced above is impacted by certain fixed-to-floating interest rate swaps that are designated as fair value hedges and by foreign exchange rates on non-U.S.

The carrying amount of long-term debt referenced above is impacted by foreign exchange rates on non-U.S.

dollar denominated debt.

15 unchanged sentences

employment and employee benefits;

consumer protection;

the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") and other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws;

international trade and sanctions compliance;

laws and regulations applicable to industries served by the Company, including the False Claims Act, anti-kickback laws, and the Sunshine Act;

laws and regulations applicable to industries served by the Company, including the False Claims Act, and anti-kickback laws;

and other matters.

11 unchanged sentences

The categories of legal proceedings in which the Company is involved may include multiple lawsuits and claims, may be spread across multiple jurisdictions and courts which may handle the lawsuits and claims differently, may involve numerous and different types of plaintiffs, raising claims and legal theories based on specific allegations that may not apply to other matters, and may seek substantial compensatory and, in some cases, punitive, damages.

category of legal proceedings may impact the resolution of other matters in that category in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both.

These and other factors contribute to the complexity of these lawsuits and claims and make it difficult for the Company to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of any resulting losses or ranges of possibles losses, which is further complicated by the fact that a resolution of one or more matters within a category of legal proceedings may impact the resolution of other matters in that category in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both.

The Company records accruals for legal proceeding liabilities in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance.

27 unchanged sentences

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") and similar state and foreign laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable, sometimes with other potentially responsible parties, for the costs of investigation and remediation of environmental contamination at current or former facilities and at off-site locations where hazardous substances have been released or disposed.

The Company has identified numerous locations around the world at which it has or may have liability for remediating contamination under

applicable environmental laws.

The Company has identified numerous locations around the world at which it has or may have liability for remediating contamination under applicable environmental laws.

Information regarding the Company's environmental accruals and related estimation considerations is provided in “ Environmental Liabilities.

11 unchanged sentences

For example, the Company's water treatment assets at facilities that manufactured PFAS will continue to treat PFAS from historical manufacturing activities and remediate residual PFAS in waste streams from the Company's operations.

The Company also will continue to work through the disposition of its assets and its interests in manufacturing facilities, which may include dismantling, cleaning and repurposing, and other dispositions of facilities or equipment.

The Company has worked, and expects to continue working, through the disposition of its assets and its interests in manufacturing facilities, which may include dismantling, cleaning, and repurposing, and other dispositions of facilities or equipment.

Notwithstanding the disposition of assets or interest in manufacturing facilities, in some circumstances the Company may continue to incur additional costs for dismantling, cleaning, repurposing, and other activities related to its now-discontinued manufacturing of PFAS.

The Company remains in ongoing discussions with customers, government authorities, and other stakeholders and interested parties about customer agreements and the Company's interests in assets and facilities, which may be owned or leased from other parties that have interests and rights related to those facilities, including their future ownership.

1 unchanged sentence

For PFAS-containing components not manufactured by the Company but used within its supply chain, the Company continues to evaluate the availability and feasibility of PFAS alternatives.

In certain cases, PFAS-containing third-party products (such as lithium ion batteries, printed circuit boards, certain seals and gaskets, and other products widely used in commerce across a variety of industries) will continue to be used beyond the end of 2025 due to technological constraints, regulatory or industry standards, or the need for customer transitions, certifications, or approvals.

In certain cases, PFAS-containing third-party products (such as lithium ion batteries, printed circuit boards, certain seals and gaskets, and other products widely used in commerce across a variety of industries) continue to be used beyond the end of 2025 due to technological constraints, regulatory or industry standards, or the need for customer transitions, certifications, or approvals.

Transitional efforts related to products manufactured prior to the end of 2025 and customer conversion processes also remain ongoing.

6 unchanged sentences

Regulatory or legislative changes could expand the Company's potential PFAS-related liability, including for activities prior to the Company's exit from PFAS manufacturing.

For example, as a result of the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances in 2024, and to the extent the EPA finalizes additional proposals related to PFAS, the Company may be required to undertake additional investigative, compliance, and remediation activities, including where the Company conducts operations or where the Company has disposed of waste.

For example, as a result of the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances in 2024, and to the extent the EPA finalizes additional proposals related to PFAS, the Company may be required to undertake additional investigative, compliance, and remediation activities, including where the Company conducts or conducted operations or where the Company has disposed of waste.

The Company may also face additional litigation for contribution claims sought by other potentially responsible parties for their increased costs.

6 unchanged sentences

Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation and the AFFF MDL

In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") approved motions to transfer and consolidate all aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") cases pending in federal courts into the multidistrict litigation proceeding (the "AFFF MDL") in the U.S.

District Court for the District of South Carolina (the "AFFF MDL Court") to centralize pre-trial proceedings.

As of April 1, 2026, based upon information published by the JPML, approximately 15,200 cases relating in whole or in part to alleged PFAS contamination or exposure associated with AFFF were pending in the AFFF MDL.

In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") approved motions to transfer and consolidate all aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") cases pending in federal courts into a multidistrict litigation proceeding ("AFFF MDL") in the U.S.

District Court for the District of South Carolina ("AFFF MDL Court") to centralize pre-trial proceedings.

As of July 1, 2026, based upon information published by the JPML, approximately 15,200 cases relating in whole or in part to alleged PFAS contamination or exposure associated with AFFF were pending in the AFFF MDL.

Many personal injury cases, both inside and outside the AFFF MDL, include multiple plaintiffs, so the number of plaintiffs asserting AFFF-related claims is substantially higher than the number of cases published by the JPML

1 unchanged sentence

Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages for personal injury, property damage, water treatment costs, medical monitoring, natural resource damages, and punitive damages.

Additional AFFF-related cases have been filed in state and other federal courts.

The parties in the AFFF MDL have conducted, or continue to conduct, master discovery and case-specific discovery for various categories of cases.

The parties in the AFFF MDL have conducted, or continue to conduct, master discovery, site-specific product identification discovery, and case-specific discovery for various categories of cases.

The Company generally seeks, where possible, to remove and transfer AFFF-related cases to the AFFF MDL and the vast majority of pending AFFF-related cases are being litigated in the AFFF MDL.

1 unchanged sentence

In general, preliminary judicial proceedings evaluate whether these lawsuits should proceed in the AFFF MDL or outside of the AFFF MDL, with some cases being moved to the AFFF MDL or remanded to another venue, such as state court.

In September 2022, the AFFF MDL Court denied defendants' AFFF MDL-wide summary judgment motions on the government contractor defense, although the defense may be presented to a jury at future trials.

AFFF MDL and Water System Cases

In June 2023, the Company entered into a class-action settlement to resolve a wide range of drinking water claims by eligible public water suppliers ("PWS") in the United States (the “PWS Settlement”).

In September 2022, the AFFF MDL Court denied defendants' AFFF MDL-wide summary judgment motions on the government contractor defense, although the defense may be presented to juries in future trials.

Water System Cases

The AFFF MDL Court approved the PWS Settlement in March 2024 and it became effective in May 2024.

5 unchanged sentences

The ultimate amount payable will be determined in part based on PFAS testing results received by certain class members by the end of 2025, and class members seeking compensation based on those results must submit them to the PWS Settlement's claims administrator by July 31, 2026.

AFFF MDL Personal Injury Cases

In December 2023, the AFFF MDL parties selected an initial set of 25 plaintiffs for potential bellwether AFFF-related personal injury cases (the "Initial AFFF Personal Injury Bellwether Group").

Personal Injury Cases

In December 2023, the AFFF MDL parties selected an initial set of 25 plaintiffs for potential bellwether AFFF-related personal injury cases ("Initial AFFF Personal Injury Bellwether Group").

In March 2024, the AFFF MDL Court established a process applicable to most personal injury claims for diseases not included in the Initial AFFF Personal Injury Bellwether Group and four additional diseases.

1 unchanged sentence

In July 2024, the AFFF MDL Court selected 9 cases in the Initial AFFF Personal Injury Bellwether Group for additional discovery, including expert discovery.

In April 2025, the court selected 3 additional cases for discovery.

In January 2025, the AFFF MDL Court set a first bellwether personal injury trial for October 2025, and in May 2025, indicated that the trial would involve one or more of three kidney cancer plaintiffs.

The AFFF MDL Court conducted a "Science Day" in June 2025 regarding liver and thyroid cancers.

In August 2025, the AFFF MDL Court vacated the schedule for the first bellwether personal injury trial that was to begin in October 2025.

No new trial date has been set.

The AFFF MDL Court conducted a "Science Day" in June 2025 regarding liver and thyroid cancers, and the parties completed general causation expert discovery for those conditions in April 2026.

In August 2025, the AFFF MDL Court also entered orders relating to filing personal injury cases in the AFFF MDL and requesting transfer of certain categories of cases, including those involving firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, to the AFFF MDL.

4 unchanged sentences

Noncompliant plaintiffs may be subject to further proceedings or dismissal by the AFFF MDL Court.

Under these procedures, some plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims, and defendants have filed motions to dismiss additional plaintiffs.

In June 2026, the AFFF MDL Court appointed a special master to address those motions to dismiss.

At the AFFF MDL Court's direction, the parties continue to participate in court-ordered settlement discussions regarding the personal injury claims.

Those ongoing discussions are being facilitated by a court-appointed mediator.

In November 2024, the AFFF MDL Court directed the parties to develop a process to select sites allegedly contaminated with PFAS from AFFF for focused product identification discovery.

In April 2025, the AFFF MDL Court entered a case management order identifying 12 sites for product-identification discovery.

Discovery relating to these sites concluded in December 2025, and the parties are discussing next steps, if any, relating to these sites.

Other AFFF Cases

3 unchanged sentences

The Company expects to seek removal to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL for most of these AFFF-related cases, where available.

However, some cases may remain pending in state courts.

However, some AFFF-related cases may remain pending in state courts.

State Attorneys General Litigation Related to PFAS

Overview and Relationship to AFFF MDL

As previously reported, several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging PFAS contamination.

Several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging PFAS contamination.

Certain matters are pending in the AFFF MDL, while others are proceeding outside the AFFF MDL.

1 unchanged sentence

Cases at times are moved to the AFFF MDL or remanded to another venue, such as a state court.

These lawsuits generally seek on a state-wide basis injunctive relief, investigative and remedial work, compensatory damages, natural resource damages, consumer protection civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and, where available, punitive damages related to the states’ response to PFAS contamination.

These state attorneys general lawsuits generally seek on a state-wide basis injunctive relief, investigative and remedial work, compensatory damages, natural resource damages, consumer protection civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and, where available, punitive damages related to the states’ response to PFAS contamination.

State attorneys general lawsuits pending in the AFFF MDL include actions on behalf of the people of the states of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

2 unchanged sentences

the "Chambers Works Facility" in Salem County and the "Parlin Facility" in Middlesex County, neither of which the Company ever owned or operated, based on allegations that the Company supplied PFAS to those facilities, which was then discharged into the environment.

In May 2025, the Company agreed to a proposed judicial consent order with New Jersey (the "New Jersey Settlement"), subject to public notice and comment and approval by the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "D.N.J.

In May 2025, the Company agreed to a proposed judicial consent order with New Jersey ("New Jersey Settlement"), subject to public notice and comment and approval by the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey ("D.N.J.

If approved by the D.N.J.

7 unchanged sentences

Court held a hearing in January 2026.

After New Jersey and objectors to the New Jersey Settlement submitted additional information, the D.N.J.

Court scheduled a hearing for June 2026.

After New Jersey and the remaining objectors to the New Jersey Settlement submitted additional information, the D.N.J.

Court held another hearing in June 2026.

The parties are now awaiting the D.N.J Court's ruling on the motion to approve the New Jersey Settlement.

Additional State Attorneys General Matters Outside of AFFF MDL

1 unchanged sentence

In addition, the Company is in discussions with several state attorneys general and agencies, responding to information and other requests, including entering into tolling agreements, relating to PFAS matters and exploring potential resolution of some of the matters raised.

In January 2024, the Connecticut Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

In January 2024, the Connecticut Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Connecticut state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal.

The federal court of appeals held a hearing on the Company's appeal in November 2025.

In March 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against the Company alleging contamination of the state's natural resources by PFAS compounds disposed of by, or discharged, or emitted from the Company's facility in Cordova, Illinois (the "Cordova Facility").

In November 2025, the federal court of appeals held a hearing on the Company's appeal.

The complaint requests monetary damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, a testing program, and a public outreach and information sharing program.

In August 2024, a federal court of appeals affirmed the order remanding the case to state court.

In April 2025, the state court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by the Company.

In October 2025, the Company re-removed the case to federal court.

In October 2025, the Company removed the case to federal court.

In November 2025, the federal court remanded the case back to state court.

1 unchanged sentence

In the interim, the case is proceeding in state court.

In February 2026, the state court set a trial date for March 2027.

In March 2023, the Maine Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

In February 2026, the state court set an updated trial date of March 2027 in lieu of the previously scheduled September 2026 trial date.

In March 2023, the Maine Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Maine state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals granted in November 2025.

In April 2026, the JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL.

In May 2023, the Maryland Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

In May 2023, the Maryland Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Maryland state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal.

In March 2025, the federal court of appeals reversed the prior remand decision.

Maryland filed a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court in October 2025, which was denied in March 2026.

The Company's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL is pending.

In October 2025, Maryland filed a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court, which was denied in March 2026.

In June 2026, the JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL.

New Hampshire:

In May 2019, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

In May 2019, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals denied in March 2025.

The state court has set a Spring 2029 trial ready date.

In July 2026, the New York Attorney General filed a lawsuit in New York state court seeking relief based on alleged harm to consumers and the environment from sales in the state of consumer products containing PFAS, which the Company removed to federal court and is seeking to transfer to the AFFF MDL.

South Carolina:

In August 2023, the South Carolina Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to the AFFF MDL.

In August 2023, the South Carolina Attorney General filed a lawsuit in South Carolina state court, which the Company removed to the AFFF MDL.

Following the AFFF MDL Court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal.

In March 2025, the federal court of appeals reversed the prior remand decision.

South Carolina filed a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court in October 2025, which was denied in March 2026.

In October 2025, South Carolina filed a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court, which was denied in March 2026.

In April 2026, the AFFF MDL Court denied South Carolina's motion to remand the case to state court.

In December 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed a consumer protection lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an application for leave to appeal, which the federal court of appeals denied in October 2025.

In December 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed a consumer protection lawsuit in Texas state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an application for leave to appeal the remand order, which the federal court of appeals denied in October 2025.

After the state court denied the Company's January 2026 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Company filed an appeal in February 2026.

In June 2019, the Vermont Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

In June 2019, the Vermont Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Vermont state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

In December 2025, the federal court held a hearing on Vermont's motion to remand the case to state court.

12 unchanged sentences

These lawsuits name different companies as co-defendants, including DuPont/Chemours, and various carpet, paper, and textile manufacturers.

Historical PFAS Manufacturing Operations in Alabama (Decatur):

As previously reported, the Company resolved numerous claims relating to alleged PFAS contamination of properties and water supplies associated with its Decatur, Alabama facility (the "Decatur Facility"), and continues to make payments pursuant to those resolutions.

The Company continues efforts to address PFAS at certain other closed municipal sites at which the Company historically disposed of waste and conduct environmental characterization that complements the interim consent order (the "ADEM ICO") the Company entered into with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM") in July 2020, including sampling of environmental media for presence of PFAS and support for appropriate remedial actions.

See "Other PFAS-related Matters—Alabama (Decatur)" for more information about the Decatur Facility.

In August 2022, Colbert County, Alabama, filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging that discharge from operations in Decatur, Alabama had contaminated the Tennessee River, from which the County draws its drinking water.

The City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama filed a similar lawsuit in February 2023.

The Company removed both cases to federal court in August 2024, and the JPML transferred them to the AFFF MDL in December 2024.

In April 2025, the plaintiffs moved to remand the two cases to state court, which the AFFF MDL Court denied in March 2026.

Since December 2023, a number of personal injury actions have also been filed against the Company and other defendants, alleging exposure to PFAS from operations in Decatur.

The Company removed these cases to federal court, where they were transferred to the AFFF MDL, and plaintiffs have moved to remand most of these matters back to state court.

Additional Litigation:

In Alabama, the Company, together with multiple co-defendants, are defending several lawsuits brought by municipal water utilities, including Shelby and Talladega Counties in April 2023, Five Star Water Supply District in August 2025, City of Clanton Water Works & Sewer Board in August 2025, and Coosa Valley Water Supply District in September 2025.

The Company, together with multiple co-defendants, were named in several lawsuits filed in Alabama state court by municipal water utilities, including Shelby and Talladega Counties in April 2023, Five Star Water Supply District in August 2025, City of Clanton Water Works & Sewer Board in August 2025, and Coosa Valley Water Supply District in September 2025.

The plaintiffs in these four cases allege that the discharge of PFAS has contaminated drinking water supplies of cities located downstream along the Coosa River in Alabama.

The Company removed these cases to federal court.

The plaintiffs moved to remand all of these cases to state court, but were denied without prejudice and all of the cases have been stayed pending the ruling by the U.S.

The plaintiffs moved to remand all of these cases to state court, but were denied without prejudice and all of the cases were stayed pending the ruling by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("Eleventh Circuit") in the Pine Hill Appeal (described below).

1 unchanged sentence

The JPML transferred all three cases to the AFFF MDL in April 2026.

In March 2024, the City of Albertville, Alabama filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court against the Company and other defendants for alleged contamination of the Tennessee River (upstream of the Decatur Facility) by a carpet manufacturer in Alabama that used PFAS allegedly supplied by the defendants.

In March 2024, the City of Albertville, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state court alleging contamination of the Tennessee River (upstream of the Decatur Facility) by a carpet manufacturer in Alabama that used PFAS allegedly supplied by the defendants.

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss in May 2024.

The court dismissed plaintiff’s private nuisance and trespass claims, but allowed remaining claims to proceed.

A scheduling order has been entered, but no trial date has been set and fact discovery is ongoing.

In October 2025, the court dismissed plaintiff’s private nuisance and trespass claims, but allowed remaining claims to proceed.

In February 2026, a scheduling order was entered, but no trial date has been set and fact discovery is ongoing.

In April 2024, the Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state court alleging that the defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination of the city’s water supply resulting from PFAS released by a local landfill.

In October 2024, the court granted the Company’s and several other defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Claims against one local defendant remain pending, which prevents the motion to dismiss ruling from becoming final.

In July 2024, the Town of Pine Hill, Alabama ("Pine Hill") filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court against the Company and other defendants alleging that PFAS discharges from paper mills currently owned by International Paper contaminated its water supply.

The Company removed the case to federal district court.

In March 2025, the federal district court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court.

The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, and the federal district court granted the Company’s motion to stay the remand order (the "Pine Hill Appeal").

Claims against one defendant remain pending, which prevents the motion to dismiss ruling from becoming final.

In July 2024, the Town of Pine Hill, Alabama ("Pine Hill") filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state court alleging that PFAS discharges from paper mills currently owned by International Paper contaminated its water supply.

The Company removed the case to federal court.

In March 2025, the federal court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court.

In March 2025, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit ("Pine Hill Appeal"), and the federal court granted the Company’s motion to stay the remand order in April 2025 .

Briefing in the Eleventh Circuit was completed in August 2025.

In June 2025, the state court ruled that Pine Hill could proceed with discovery notwithstanding the federal district court’s stay of the remand order.

In July 2025, defendants filed a petition in the Alabama Supreme Court challenging that state court ruling.

Both the Pine Hill Appeal before the Eleventh Circuit and the petition before the Alabama Supreme Court have been fully briefed and remain pending.

The Alabama Supreme Court stayed the underlying case, pending decision on the Company's petition.

Oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit is scheduled for May 2026.

In August 2024, the City of Irondale, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging PFAS contamination of its water supply due to industrial discharges from several users of PFAS in different industries, including the Company's alleged customers.

In June 2025, the state court ruled that Pine Hill could proceed with discovery notwithstanding the federal court’s stay of the remand order.

In July 2025, the Company filed a petition in the Alabama Supreme Court challenging that state court ruling.

In April 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court granted the Company's petition and stayed the underlying case, pending the Eleventh Circuit's decision in the Pine Hill Appeal.

Oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit was held in May 2026.

In August 2024, the City of Irondale, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state court alleging PFAS contamination of its water supply due to industrial discharges from several users of PFAS in different industries, including the Company's alleged customers.

The Company removed the case to federal court and, in August 2025, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied.

In September 2025, the case was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in the Pine Hill Appeal.

The Company filed a notice with the JPML seeking to transfer this case to the AFFF MDL.

The JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL in April 2026.

In May 2025 the City of Foley, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging that releases by users of PFAS in local manufacturing operations contaminated groundwater used for drinking water supplies.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in July 2025.

While the case was stayed, the JPML transferred it to the AFFF MDL in April 2026.

In May 2025 the City of Foley, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state court alleging that releases by users of PFAS in local manufacturing operations contaminated groundwater used for drinking water supplies.

In July 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

In January 2026, the court granted the Company’s and other supplier defendants’ motions to dismiss.

One defendant remains in the action, preventing the dismissal order from becoming final.

The Company is also defending a mass tort action lawsuit filed in Alabama in June 2024 by hundreds of individual customers of the Water Works and Sewer Board for the City of Gadsden, Alabama, alleging emotional distress and property damage related to PFAS contamination of their drinking water.

The Company removed the case to federal court, where the case was proceeding through discovery.

Claims against one defendant remain pending, which prevents the motion to dismiss ruling from becoming final.

In May 2026, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the supplier defendants, including the Company, which was denied in July 2026.

In June 2024, a mass tort lawsuit was filed against the Company in Alabama state court by hundreds of individual customers of the Water Works and Sewer Board for the City of Gadsden, Alabama, alleging emotional distress and property damage related to PFAS contamination of their drinking water.

In June 2024, the Company removed the case to federal court, where the case was proceeding through discovery.

In December 2025, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations prior to the filing of the complaint.

In April 2026, the Court granted the Company's motion without prejudice.

In November 2025, the City of Fresno, California filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants alleging that various industrial PFAS discharges contaminated the city's drinking water.

The Company removed the case to federal court in December 2025.

In April 2026, the Court granted the Company's motion without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, so the court dismissed the case with prejudice in June 2026.

In December 2025, the City of Montevallo, Alabama, filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state court alleging that releases by users of PFAS in local commercial industries and in non-military firefighting foam contaminated groundwater used for drinking water supplies.

In February 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard in April 2026 and remains pending.

In April 2026, eighteen Alabama public water systems that opted out of the PWS Settlement filed lawsuits against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state and federal courts, alleging that releases by users and dischargers of PFAS in local commercial and manufacturing industries contaminated their drinking water sources.

Seven of those eighteen lawsuits were filed by the cities of Auburn, Grove Hill, West Escambia, Childersburg, Talladega, Tuskegee, and Weaver in Alabama federal court.

In April 2026, the Company filed notices with the JPML seeking to transfer those seven cases to the AFFF MDL, and in May 2026, the JPML transferred those seven cases to the AFFF MDL.

Another nine of those eighteen lawsuits were filed by the cities of Helena, Loachapoka, Alabaster, Leeds, Thomasville, Jackson, Huntsville, Grand Bay, and Pelham in Alabama state court.

In May 2026, the Company removed those nine lawsuits to federal court and sought to transfer them to the AFFF MDL.

Each of the nine plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, and the Company filed motions to stay a ruling on remand pending the JPML’s transfer decision.

In May 2026, conditional transfer orders were issued for each of those nine lawsuits.

In June 2026, each of the nine plaintiffs filed motions to vacate the conditional transfer orders, and briefing on those motions to vacate the conditional transfer orders is ongoing.

In all but the Grand Bay lawsuit, the federal court has entered a stay pending a decision on transferring to the AFFF MDL.

In the Grand Bay lawsuit, briefing in the federal court on the plaintiff's motion to remand is complete and a hearing is set for July 2026.

The final two of the eighteen lawsuits were filed by the cities of Saraland and Frisco City in Alabama state court, where they remain pending.

In June 2026, the Company and certain other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Saraland and Frisco City lawsuits.

In November 2025, the City of Fresno, California filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants in California state court alleging that various industrial PFAS discharges contaminated the city's drinking water.

In December 2025, the Company removed the case to federal court.

In April 2026, the JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL.

In March 2026, a putative nationwide class action was filed against the Company and numerous other defendants in California District Court on behalf of all entities who bought firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear and claims under RICO and common law conspiracy, product liability, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws.

In June 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and numerous other defendants by individual firefighters and several firefighter unions, alleging exposure to PFAS from certain firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, worn by the class members.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2025.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2025, which remains pending.

In February 2026, the plaintiffs dismissed all purchaser plaintiffs, who were subsequently added to the putative class action pending in Montana.

No scheduling order has been entered.

In May 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed alleging PFAS contamination of the class's water supply resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities.

In August 2023, the court dismissed all but plaintiffs' negligence claim.

In March 2025, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claim, and the only remaining claims in the case are against a defendant other than the Company.

In Georgia, the Company and other defendants are defending a putative class action lawsuit filed in federal court in February 2021, in which plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a class of individual ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who allege their water supply was contaminated by PFAS discharged from a textile mill.

The City of Summerville intervened in the case and also brought claims against 3M and other defendants.

Discovery is finished and briefing on dispositive motions concluded in July 2025.

Those motions remain pending.

In March 2026, a putative nationwide class action was filed against the Company and numerous other defendants in California federal court on behalf of all entities who bought firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants, alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear and claims under RICO and common law conspiracy, product liability, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws.

In June 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

This case is one of several subject to a pending motion for transfer to a new multidistrict litigation for certain turnout gear claims, described below under Minnesota .

In June 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and numerous other defendants in Connecticut federal court by individual firefighters and several firefighter unions, alleging exposure to PFAS from certain firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, worn by the class members.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2024 adding claims on behalf of certain plaintiffs that purchased turnout gear.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2025.

In June 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

In February 2026, the plaintiffs dismissed all purchaser plaintiffs, who were subsequently added in March 2026 to the putative class action pending in Montana.

No scheduling order has been entered, except for jurisdictional discovery regarding certain other defendants.

In May 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and multiple other defendants in Delaware state court alleging PFAS contamination of the class's water supply resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities.

In September 2019, the Company removed the case to federal court.

In August 2023, the court dismissed all claims against the Company except plaintiffs' negligence claim.

In March 2025, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claim.

The case is proceeding against the remaining defendants.

In February 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in Georgia federal court by plaintiffs seeking relief on behalf of a class of individual ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia, alleging their water supply was contaminated by PFAS discharged from a textile mill.

In March 2022, the City of Summerville intervened in the case and also brought claims against the Company and other defendants.

Discovery is finished and dispositive motions were denied in July 2026.

No trial date has been set.

Another lawsuit currently pending in federal court in Georgia was filed in November 2019 against the Company and other defendants by individuals alleging PFAS contamination and seeking economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers.

Class certification has been fully briefed, and the plaintiff's injunctive relief claims were recently dismissed.

In November 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in federal court in Georgia by individuals alleging PFAS contamination and seeking economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers.

Class certification has been fully briefed, and the plaintiff's injunctive relief claims were dismissed in December 2024.

Plaintiff's claims for economic damages related to alleged increases in their water rates due to the presence of PFAS remain pending.

Discovery was reopened in a limited fashion due to plaintiffs’ request to investigate whether recent increases in water utility rates by the City of Rome was attributable to PFAS.

Defendants filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment in December 2025.

In August 2025, discovery was reopened in a limited fashion due to plaintiffs’ request to investigate whether recent increases in water utility rates by the City of Rome was attributable to PFAS.

In December 2025, the defendants filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment.

No trial date has been set.

In February 2024, two landowners in Gordon County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging property contamination from wastewater treatment sludge containing PFAS from nearby carpet manufacturing operations.

In February 2024, two landowners in Gordon County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Georgia state court alleging property contamination from wastewater treatment sludge containing PFAS from nearby carpet manufacturing operations.

One of the Company's co-defendants, the City of Calhoun, Georgia, filed a cross claim against the Company and other defendants alleging that biosolids from its wastewater treatment plant were contaminated with PFAS that has migrated into its water supply.

In June 2024, a related lawsuit was filed on behalf of other property owners who allege that their properties are contaminated with PFAS due to runoff from the properties of the Gordon County landowners from the initial lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were denied, and discovery closed in December 2025.

In January 2026, a private plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Gordon County, Georgia alleging similar property contamination due to PFAS.

Fact discovery is complete, and the parties are currently engaged in expert discovery.

Tentative trial dates for three of the lawsuits are set between December 2026 and March 2027, and one is tentatively set for May 2027.

In June 2024, a related lawsuit was filed in Georgia state court on behalf of other property owners who allege that their properties are contaminated with PFAS due to runoff from the properties of the Gordon County landowners from the initial lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were denied, and fact and expert discovery are closed.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in July 2026.

In January 2025 and January 2026, two private plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in Georgia state court against the Company and other defendants in Gordon County, Georgia alleging similar property contamination due to PFAS.

Tentative trial dates for the first three lawsuits are set between December 2026 and May 2027.

No schedule has been set for the lawsuit filed in January 2026.

In July 2024, the City of Lyerly, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants, alleging that discharges from local carpet mills contaminated the city's water supply.

The Company's motion to dismiss is still pending and the parties are currently engaging in fact discovery.

In November 2024, Mohawk Industries, a carpet manufacturer, filed a lawsuit in Whitfield County, Georgia against the Company and other defendants, including DuPont, and Daikin, alleging various counts of tort and contract liability, including

fraud, related to sales of certain PFAS.

Motions to dismiss the case were denied.

In July 2024, the City of Lyerly, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Georgia state court, alleging that discharges from local carpet mills contaminated the city's water supply.

In August 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending.

The parties are currently engaging in fact discovery.

A tentative trial date is set for June 2027.

In November 2024, Mohawk Industries, a carpet manufacturer, filed a lawsuit in Whitfield County, Georgia state court against the Company and other defendants, including DuPont, and Daikin, alleging various counts of tort and contract liability, including fraud, related to sales of certain PFAS.

Motions to dismiss the case were denied in August 2025.

Discovery in the case is proceeding.

Trial is currently set for March 2027.

In December 2024, Dalton Utilities, located in Dalton, Georgia, filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants seeking clean-up costs under CERCLA and common law theories for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Dalton Land Application System, which is a nearly 10,000 acre field that has received carpet mill effluent pursuant to a Georgia Environmental Protection Division permit since the late 1980s.

A tentative trial date is set for August 2027.

In December 2024, Dalton Utilities, located in Dalton, Georgia, filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Georgia federal court seeking clean-up costs under CERCLA and common law theories for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Dalton Land Application System, which is a nearly 10,000 acre field that has received carpet mill effluent pursuant to a Georgia Environmental Protection Division permit since the late 1980s.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied in March 2026.

Discovery in the case is proceeding.

In December 2024, Murray County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants seeking clean-up costs for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Murray County landfill and other locations throughout the County.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied.

In May 2026, the Company filed a motion to transfer this case to the AFFF MDL.

In December 2024, Murray County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Georgia state court seeking clean-up costs for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Murray County landfill and other locations throughout the county.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied in October 2025.

Discovery in the case is proceeding.

In January 2025, Catoosa County, Georgia and Gordon County, Georgia filed lawsuits substantively identical to Murray County's against the Company and other defendants alleging similar PFAS impacts related to the Catoosa County and Gordon County landfills.

The Company filed motions to dismiss, which were denied.

In January 2025, Catoosa County, Georgia and Gordon County, Georgia filed lawsuits in Georgia state courts substantively identical to Murray County's lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging similar PFAS impacts related to the Catoosa County and Gordon County landfills.

The Company filed motions to dismiss, which were denied in October 2025.

Discovery in the cases is proceeding.

In October 2025, Walker County, Georgia filed a lawsuit substantively identical to those filed by Murray, Catoosa, and Gordon Counties alleging similar PFAS impacts related to the Walker County landfill.

The Company’s motion to dismiss is fully briefed and currently pending.

In June and July 2025, property owners in Gordon County and Murray County, Georgia, filed eight separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

Motions to dismiss these cases are fully briefed and currently pending.

In October 2025, property owners in Floyd County and Whitfield County, Georgia filed three separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants that are substantively identical to those filed by property owners in Gordon County and Murray County.

Motions to dismiss these cases are fully briefed and remain pending.

In April 2025, the City of Chatsworth, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging PFAS discharges have contaminated its water supply.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In April 2025, a private landowner and an environmental organization (Coosa River Basin Initiative) filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants, including carpet makers and Dalton Utilities, for property damages and injunctive relief related to the Dalton Utilities Land Application System.

In October 2025, Walker County, Georgia filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court substantively identical to those filed by Murray, Catoosa, and Gordon Counties alleging similar PFAS impacts related to the Walker County landfill.

In January 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and currently pending.

In June and July 2025, property owners in Gordon County and Murray County, Georgia, filed eight separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants in Georgia state courts alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

The Company filed motions to dismiss these cases, which were denied in April 2026 and May 2026.

Discovery in the cases is proceeding.

The court in one of these cases certified its motion to dismiss order for interlocutory appeal.

In June 2026, the defendants filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals requesting a review of the order denying the motion to dismiss, which was denied.

In July 2026, the defendants filed a Notice of Intent to appeal that ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court.

In October 2025, property owners in Floyd County and Whitfield County, Georgia filed two separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants in Georgia state courts that are substantively identical to those filed by property owners in Gordon County and Murray County.

In December 2025 and January 2026, the Company filed motions to dismiss these cases, which are fully briefed and remain pending.

In April 2025, the City of Chatsworth, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, in Georgia state court alleging PFAS discharges have contaminated its water supply.

In August 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In April 2025, a private landowner in Gordon County, Georgia and an environmental organization (Coosa River Basin Initiative) filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants, including carpet makers and Dalton Utilities, in federal court in Georgia for property damages and injunctive relief related to the Dalton Utilities Land Application System.

Dalton Utilities filed a motion to stay the case in favor of its pending action in the same district court, which was denied in March 2026.

In September 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with the putative class action of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers described above, which is pending before the same judge.

The motion remains pending.

In April 2025, private landowners in Chattooga County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants, including a textile mill, alleging that PFAS discharges to the Town of Trion, Georgia wastewater treatment plant made its way to sludge that was deposited on plaintiffs’ properties via land application for years.

In September 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with the putative class action of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers described above, but withdrew the motion to stay in April 2026.

Motion to dismiss briefing is underway.

In May 2026, the Company filed a motion to transfer this case to the AFFF MDL.

In April 2025, private landowners in Chattooga County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants, including a textile mill, in Georgia state court alleging that PFAS discharges to the Town of Trion, Georgia wastewater treatment plant made its way to sludge that was deposited on plaintiffs’ properties via land application for years.

In August 2025, the case was voluntarily dismissed.

In September 2025, it was re-filed in Gwinnett County, Georgia.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In September 2025, it was re-filed in Gwinnett County, Georgia in Georgia state court.

In December 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

No hearing date has been set.

In June 2025, private landowners in northwest Georgia filed three lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging PFAS from nearby carpet making facilities has contaminated soil, water, and indoor dust at their properties.

The Company filed motions to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In June 2025, Walker County, Georgia and the City of Chickamauga, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging that the carpet manufacturers discharged PFAS into the public sewer system, which caused it to enter plaintiffs’ drinking water.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a hearing but has not issued its ruling.

In September 2025, Dougherty County and Chattooga County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of all governmental entities in Georgia who own or operate municipal landfills impacted by PFAS.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In December 2025 and early January 2026, property owners in Murray, Whitfield, Gordon, and Catoosa counties filed seven separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In June 2025, Walker County, Georgia and the City of Chickamauga, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, in Georgia state court alleging that the carpet manufacturers discharged PFAS into the public sewer system, which caused it to enter plaintiffs’ drinking water.

In August 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a hearing but has not issued its ruling.

In September 2025, Dougherty County and Chattooga County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company in federal court in Georgia on behalf of a putative class of all governmental entities in Georgia who own or operate municipal landfills impacted by PFAS.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in November 2025, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

The case is stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

Between November 2025 and early January 2026, property owners in Murray, Whitfield, Gordon, and Catoosa counties filed eight separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants in Georgia state courts alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

In March 2026, the Company filed motions to dismiss in these cases.

Motions to dismiss were denied in six of these cases in April 2026 and May 2026.

The motions to dismiss remain pending in the other two cases.

In January 2026, the Cities of Blakely, Cartersville, Meigs, and Pelham filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of all governmental entities in Georgia that own a wastewater treatment facility impacted by PFAS.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In January 2026, private landowners in Gordon County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and several other defendants, including carpet manufacturers, alleging that PFAS contamination of soil, groundwater, private wells, and nearby

surface waters resulted from wastewater discharges and the land application of contaminated biosolids in the vicinity of their properties.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In Illinois, three separate lawsuits were filed against the Company in state court by individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and property damage relating to alleged PFAS contamination from the Cordova Facility.

The Company removed all three cases to federal court, where two were transferred to the AFFF MDL.

The remaining case, which includes several other defendants and non-PFAS claims, was remanded to state court in May 2025.

In October 2022, the Company and several other alleged chemical suppliers were added as defendants in a lawsuit in Maine federal district court previously filed by a group of landowners against several paper mills, alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by the paper mills that was then incorporated into biosolids.

The case involves 98 plaintiffs asserting property damage claims against the owner of one paper mill and three alleged chemical suppliers, including the Company.

Discovery closed as to the six original plaintiffs in December 2025.

The parties agreed to conduct fact discovery on six additional plaintiffs.

Expert discovery for all twelve initial plaintiffs is expected to conclude in September 2026.

In March 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending.

The case is stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

In April 2026, the City of Griffin filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court alleging that the Company and other defendants sold PFAS to industrial PFAS users and that these users and a landfill discharged PFAS-contaminated wastewater and leachate into the Flint River basin, contaminating the City of Griffin's water supply.

In May 2026, the case was removed from Clayton County to federal court in Georgia, where a motion to stay and a motion to remand are pending.

In May 2026, the Company sought to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL and a conditional transfer order was issued.

In June 2026, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the conditional transfer order.

Briefing on the plaintiff’s motions to vacate the conditional transfer order is ongoing.

In April 2026 and May 2026, property owners in Whitfield, Gordon, and Murray counties filed four separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants in Georgia state court alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

In June 2026, Paulding County, Georgia filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court substantively identical to those filed by Murray, Catoosa, and Gordon Counties against the Company and other defendants alleging similar PFAS impacts related to landfills in Paulding County.

In June 2026, Floyd County, Georgia filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court substantively identical to those filed by Murray, Catoosa, Gordon, and Paulding Counties against the Company and other defendants alleging similar PFAS impacts related to landfills in Floyd County.

In November 2023, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in state court by a plaintiff alleging personal injuries relating to alleged PFAS contamination from the Cordova Facility and exposure to various other chemicals from other sources.

The Company removed the case to federal court, but it was remanded back to state court in May 2025.

In October 2022, the Company and several other alleged chemical suppliers were added as defendants in a lawsuit in Maine federal court previously filed by a group of landowners against several paper mills, alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by the paper mills that was then incorporated into biosolids.

The case involves 98 plaintiffs asserting property damage claims against two alleged paper mill chemical suppliers, including the Company.

In December 2025, discovery closed as to the six original plaintiffs.

The parties agreed to conduct fact discovery on five additional plaintiffs.

Expert discovery for all eleven initial plaintiffs is expected to conclude in October 2026.

In June 2026, the parties stipulated to voluntarily dismiss the owner of the last paper mill in the action.

No trial date has been set.

6 unchanged sentences

The court denied the plaintiffs’ previous motion for class certification, without prejudice, to allow them to submit a motion and expert reports addressing the new defendants.

The plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification is due in June 2026.

The plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification is due in August 2026.

No trial date has been set.

In October 2024, one of the former plaintiffs in the putative class action described above filed a separate lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Massachusetts state court alleging PFAS-related personal injury.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss that case in June 2025.

In June 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

In March 2026, the court partially granted the Company’s motion, but allowed the plaintiff’s negligence and failure to warn claims to proceed.

The parties are negotiating a discovery schedule.

The case is in fact discovery, which is scheduled to close in November 2026.

No trial date has been set.

In March 2025, another resident of Westminster, Massachusetts filed an additional lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Massachusetts state court alleging PFAS-related personal injury.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in September 2025, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In April 2026, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s negligence and failure to warn claims.

The case is in fact discovery, which is scheduled to close in November 2026.

No trial date has been set

In May 2026, the parties responsible for site remediation costs in the above Massachusetts cases sought leave to file an amended complaint adding the Company and other defendants to their lawsuit seeking contribution to remediation costs from numerous suppliers and transporters of material to the composting facility at issue under Massachusetts law.

The Company's opposition to the motion for leave was filed in July 2026.

In May 2026, a third resident of Westminster, Massachusetts filed another lawsuit in Massachusetts state court alleging PFAS-related personal injury.

Although the original complaint named only other defendants, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June 2026 adding the Company as a defendant.

The Company previously settled claims brought by Wolverine World Wide ("Wolverine") related to Wolverine’s alleged use of 3M Scotchgard in its shoe manufacturing operations.

The Company continues to incur liabilities for immaterial amounts pursuant to the settlement agreement.

In December 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Wolverine in federal court in Michigan by the owners of two landfills alleging that the Company and Wolverine are both liable for the remediating PFAS contamination at and around the landfills under CERCLA and Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2026 and briefing is ongoing.

In May 2025, a putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and Chemours in federal court on behalf of all municipalities and governmental entities who purchased firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the protective equipment.

In February 2026, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and now only seeks to certify a Massachusetts-only purchaser class.

In January 2026, Corinth Gas & Water for the City of Corinth, Mississippi filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging that discharge from operations at the Decatur Facility contaminated the Tennessee River, which feeds water into the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Corinth’s primary source of drinking water.

In March 2026, the Company removed the case to federal court, and is seeking to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL.

In April 2024, the Company was added as a defendant to a pending putative class action lawsuit alleging PFAS contamination of the class's properties and drinking water from metal plating operations in southeastern Missouri.

In December 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Wolverine in Michigan federal court by the owners of two landfills alleging that the Company and Wolverine are both liable for remediating PFAS contamination at and around the landfills under CERCLA and Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

In February 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied in May of 2026.

Discovery is ongoing.

In May 2025, a putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and Chemours in Minnesota federal court on behalf of all municipalities and governmental entities who purchased firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the protective equipment.

In February 2026, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and now only seeks to certify a Massachusetts-only purchaser class instead of a nationwide class.

In April 2026, two additional putative nationwide class action lawsuits were filed in Minnesota federal court against the Company and other defendants on behalf of all municipalities and governmental entities who purchased firefighting personal protective equipment.

In May 2026, one of the two new putative nationwide class action plaintiffs, Rochester, filed a motion to create a new multidistrict litigation for claims by purchasers of turnout gear.

The motion identified the other two Minnesota putative class actions and the Montana and California putative class actions as related actions.

Responses to Rochester's motion have been filed by parties to all five cases, plus plaintiff from a tag-along action in New York, and the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel for the AFFF MDL.

The motion will be considered by the JPML at its July 2026 hearing session.

In January 2026, Corinth Gas & Water for the City of Corinth, Mississippi filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Mississippi state court alleging that discharge from operations at the Decatur Facility contaminated the Tennessee River, which feeds water into the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Corinth’s primary source of drinking water.

In March 2026, the Company removed the case to federal court.

In June 2026, the JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL.

In April 2024, the Company was added as a defendant to a pending putative class action lawsuit filed in Missouri federal court alleging PFAS contamination of the class's properties and drinking water from metal plating operations in southeastern Missouri.

In October 2024, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in January 2026.

A trial date is set for October 2027.

In September 2025, a personal injury lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in Missouri state court alleging injuries caused by exposure to PFAS in firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear.

2 unchanged sentences

In April 2026, the case was remanded to state court.

In April 2025, a putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and Chemours in Montana District Court on behalf of all entities who bought firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear and claims under RICO and state conspiracy, product liability, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws.

The Company is appealing this order.

Meanwhile, the case is pending in state court, where defendants moved to transfer venue in May 2026.

In April 2025, a putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and Chemours in Montana federal court on behalf of all entities who purchased firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear and claims under RICO and state conspiracy, product liability, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws.

In September 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the federal court in the District of Delaware.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in October 2025, which the court denied in January 2026.

In October 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied in January 2026.

In March 2026, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding alleged purchaser plaintiffs from Connecticut, California, Maryland, and Missouri.

The plaintiffs further amended their complaint to add additional purchaser plaintiffs and claims in May 2026.

Motions to dismiss are fully briefed, and a hearing on the motions to dismiss was held in July 2026.

This case is one of several subject to a pending motion for transfer to a new multidistrict litigation for certain turnout gear claims, described above under Minnesota .

The Company and several co-defendants are defending numerous lawsuits filed in New Jersey federal court by individuals with private drinking water wells near certain DuPont and Solvay facilities that were allegedly supplied with PFAS manufactured by the Company.

4 unchanged sentences

In May 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and several other defendants in New Jersey state court by individuals who resided near Solvay’s facility alleging personal injuries to themselves or to their children from PFAS exposure.

The Company removed the case to federal court in August 2025.

The Company's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL was denied in December 2025.

In January 2026, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Company without prejudice.

In November 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Middlesex Water Company in New Jersey federal court by individuals who received drinking water from Middlesex Water Company allegedly contaminated with PFOA.

In May 2022, Middlesex Water Company filed a third-party complaint against the Company in New Jersey state court in a putative class action brought by the water company's customers, seeking contribution and indemnity from the Company.

In November 2023, Middlesex Water Company dismissed its third-party complaint against the Company in connection with the settlement of Middlesex Water Company's separate action against the Company.

The parties to the New Jersey federal and state court class actions agreed to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, which the state court approved in October 2025.

The New Jersey state and federal court class actions have each been dismissed.

In March 2023, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Middlesex Water Company by another Middlesex Water Company customer alleging personal injury from drinking water allegedly contaminated with PFAS.

The trial date previously set for May 11, 2026 has been cancelled by the court.

In May 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc., and DuPont in New York by the owner of a tree nursery located in Hoosick Falls alleging property damage from PFOA contamination the plaintiff attributes to a nearby fabric coating facility.

The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2025, which remains pending.

In August 2025, the Company removed the case to federal court.

In December 2025, the Company's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL was denied.

In January 2026, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Company without prejudice.

In June 2026, the plaintiffs in that action and a number of other individuals filed a new lawsuit against the Company in New Jersey federal court.

In June 2026, the estate of an individual who resided near certain DuPont and Solvay facilities filed a lawsuit against the Company and several other defendants in New Jersey state court alleging personal injuries and wrongful death from alleged PFAS exposure.

In March 2023, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Middlesex Water Company by a Middlesex Water Company customer alleging personal injury from drinking water allegedly contaminated with PFAS.

In May 2026, the case was settled for an immaterial amount.

In July 2026, the plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.

In May 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc., and DuPont in New York federal court by the owner of a tree nursery located in Hoosick Falls alleging property damage from PFOA contamination the plaintiff attributes to a nearby fabric coating facility.

In October 2025, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

In June 2026, a state-wide putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in New York state court on behalf of all New York municipalities and governmental entities who purchased firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants.

In June 2026, the Company removed the case to federal court and identified it as a potential related action with respect to the pending motion to create a new multidistrict litigation for certain turnout gear claims, described above under Minnesota .

In October 2018, a putative class action was filed against the Company and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "S.D.

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ("S.D.

Ohio Court") by the named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all U.S.

1 unchanged sentence

In March 2022, the S.D.

Ohio Court certified a class of "[i]ndividuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 [parts per trillion ("ppt")] of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum." In November 2023, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the "Sixth Circuit") issued an order vacating the class certification decision and remanding the case with instructions that the S.D.

Ohio Court certified a class of individuals subject Ohio laws, who have 0.05 parts per trillion ("ppt") of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum.

In November 2023, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Sixth Circuit") issued an order vacating the class certification decision and remanding the case with instructions that the S.D.

Ohio Court dismiss the case and later denied a motion for rehearing en banc.

5 unchanged sentences

In October 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

In March 2026, the court denied the Company's motion to

dismiss in part, held a part of the argument for a later decision, and certified a legal question to the Sixth Circuit regarding one of the Company's arguments for dismissal.

In March 2026, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss in part, held a part of the argument for a later decision, and certified a legal question to the Sixth Circuit regarding one of the Company's arguments for dismissal.

The case is stayed pending a ruling by the Sixth Circuit on the Company's request for leave to appeal the certified issue.

In March 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and the designers, manufacturers, and distributors of AstroTurf in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by former Philadelphia Phillies players alleging personal injury claims allegedly resulting from exposure to PFAS and ethylene oxide in AstroTurf at Veterans Stadium.

1 unchanged sentence

In September 2025, the Company removed the case to federal court.

In October 2025, plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court.

That motion was denied in February 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 2, 2026.

In October 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which was denied in February 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in April 2026.

In March 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

In July 2026, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL.

South Carolina

In March 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in South Carolina state court alleging property damage from contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at a defunct textile plant in Society Hill, South Carolina and seeking both property and punitive damages.

The case was removed to federal court.

In August 2024, a companion personal injury lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in South Carolina state court.

The Company removed this case to federal court.

In May 2022, the case was removed to federal court.

Discovery is proceeding in the putative property damage class action.

In the personal injury case, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss, which are fully briefed and remain pending.

In August 2024, a companion personal injury lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in South Carolina state court and the Company removed case to federal court.

Before ruling on the motions to dismiss by the Company and other defendants, the federal court remanded the personal injury case to state court in April 2026.

The Company re-filed a motion to dismiss in May 2026, which remains pending.

In August 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in Virginia state court alleging that plaintiff’s decedent, a civilian firefighter, died from cancer allegedly caused by exposure to PFAS in firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear.

3 unchanged sentences

I n December 2025, the JPML declined to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL.

In March 2026, one of the cases was remanded to state court.

In March 2026, one of the cases was remanded to state court, and the removing defendant has appealed that order.

The plaintiffs’ motion to remand the other case remains pending.

2 unchanged sentences

In December 2025, the JPML declined to transfer one case to the AFFF MDL, and the Company withdrew its motions to transfer the other two cases.

The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to remand.

One case was remanded to state court in March 2026.

The plaintiffs' motions to remand the other two cases remain pending.

In August 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in federal court by several residents of Oneida County alleging property damage resulting from PFAS contamination they attribute to waste generated from the operations of a paper mill in Rhinelander, Wisconsin that was then incorporated into biosolids.

The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to remand to state court.

Two cases were remanded to state court in March 2026 and July 2026, and the Company is appealing both orders.

The plaintiffs' motion to remand the remaining case to state court remains pending.

In August 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in Wisconsin federal court by several residents of Oneida County alleging property damage resulting from PFAS contamination they attribute to waste generated from the operations of a paper mill in Rhinelander, Wisconsin that was then incorporated into biosolids.

The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in June 2025.

The case is in class certification expert discovery, and the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due in July 2026.

The court set a trial date in June 2027.

In December 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court by several private well owners near the Company's Wausau Greystone quarry alleging property damages and medical monitoring costs related to PFAS contamination.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due in August 2026.

In June 2026, the court removed the trial date previously set for June 2027, and no new trial date has been set.

In December 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in Wisconsin federal court by several private well owners near the Company's Wausau Greystone quarry alleging property damages and medical monitoring costs related to PFAS contamination.

The case also includes non-class personal injury and property damage claims on behalf of select plaintiffs.

1 unchanged sentence

In March 2026, the court partially granted the Company's motion to dismiss, narrowing certain claims in the case.

Discovery is ongoing.

In June 2026, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which eliminated the medical monitoring class and substituted a personal injury class.

Other PFAS-related Matters

2 unchanged sentences

Department of Justice ("DOJ"), state environmental agencies, and state attorneys general, in connection with information requests, inspections, and other agency actions.

The Company is in negotiations with the EPA, the DOJ, and state environmental agencies, including Alabama, Illinois, and Minnesota, regarding potential claims arising under different authorities, including the U.S.

The Company is in negotiations with the EPA, the DOJ, and state environmental agencies, including the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM"), the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"), and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA"), regarding potential claims arising under different authorities, including the U.S.

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 ("TSCA"), the U.S.

Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (the "CWA"), the U.S.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (the "SDWA"), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), related to the Company’s operations in those states.

Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended ("CWA"), the U.S.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended ("SDWA"), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), related to the Company’s operations in those states.

The Company cannot predict the outcomes of these matters, the actions that may be taken by the regulatory agencies, or the potential consequences to the Company.

1 unchanged sentence

Grand Jury Matter:

The Company previously operated under a 2009 consent order issued under the TSCA (the “2009 TSCA Consent Order”) covering manufacture and use of two PFAS (FBSA and FBSEE) at the Decatur Facility in Alabama, and that prohibits release of these materials into “the waters of the United States.” In March 2019, after learning that these materials may have been released into the Tennessee River from specified processes at the Decatur Facility, the Company halted the manufacture, processing, and use of these materials at the Decatur Facility and voluntarily disclosed the matter to the EPA and ADEM in April 2019.

The Company previously operated under a 2009 consent order issued under the TSCA (“2009 TSCA Consent Order”) covering manufacture and use of two PFAS (FBSA and FBSEE) at the Decatur Facility in Alabama, and that prohibits release of these materials into “the waters of the United States.” In March 2019, after learning that these materials may have been released into the Tennessee River from specified processes at the Decatur Facility, the Company halted the manufacture, processing, and use of these materials at the Decatur Facility and voluntarily disclosed the matter to the EPA and ADEM in April 2019.

During June and July 2019, the Company implemented controls intended to fully capture wastewater and treat air emissions from the specified processes.

The specified processes that were the subject of the Company's April 2019 disclosure are no longer in use.

As previously reported, in December 2019, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S.

In December 2019, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S.

Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama ("USAO-NDAL") seeking documents relating to, among other matters, compliance with the 2009 TSCA Consent Order and alleged unpermitted discharges into the Tennessee River from the Decatur Facility.

The Company continues to cooperate with the USAO-NDAL, the DOJ, and the EPA with respect to these issues.

In parallel, the Company continues to engage with the EPA, ADEM, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") related to potential civil claims arising out of the discharges at issue in the above-described grand jury matter and certain discharges of PFAS from the Company's Cottage Grove, Minnesota facility (the "Cottage Grove Facility") and Cordova Facility, which are described below.

In parallel, the Company continues to engage with the EPA, ADEM, MPCA, and the IEPA related to potential civil claims arising out of the discharges at issue in the above-described grand jury matter and certain discharges of PFAS from the Company's Cottage Grove, Minnesota facility (the "Cottage Grove Facility") and Cordova Facility, which are described below.

Other Regulatory:

The Decatur Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by ADEM.

As previously reported, in June 2019 the Company voluntarily disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that certain monthly and quarterly reports contained incorrect values and submitted corrected information.

In June 2019 the Company voluntarily disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that certain monthly and quarterly reports contained incorrect values and submitted corrected information.

In September 2019, the Company also disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that it had discovered that the Decatur Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge, and temporarily idled certain manufacturing processes at the Decatur Facility.

1 unchanged sentence

ADEM and the Company are discussing the NPDES permit modification application.

In July 2020, the Company and ADEM entered into the ADEM ICO addressing PFAS-related wastewater discharges and air emissions from the Decatur Facility.

The ADEM ICO includes requirements relating to ongoing operations (including notices, reporting, analytical and characterization studies, capital improvements, and remediation activities, including on-site and off-site investigations and studies).

Compliance with the ADEM ICO or any further investigations may result in additional operating costs and capital expenditures over multiple years.

In July 2020, the Company and ADEM entered into an interim consent order ("ADEM ICO") addressing PFAS-related wastewater discharges and air emissions from the Decatur Facility.

The ADEM ICO included requirements relating to ongoing operations (including notices, reporting, analytical and characterization studies, capital improvements, and remediation activities, including on-site and off-site investigations and studies).

In May 2026, the Company and ADEM entered into an addendum to the ADEM ICO reflecting changed conditions at the Decatur Facility, including the exit from PFAS manufacturing, the completion of many of the requirements of the ADEM ICO, and the completed construction of an advanced wastewater treatment system at Decatur.

The addendum also requires limited additional private well water sampling for certain PFAS within a four-mile radius of the Decatur Facility.

Compliance with the ADEM ICO, the addendum, or any further investigations may result in additional operating costs and capital expenditures over multiple years.

Illinois/Iowa (Cordova)

The Cordova Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by the IEPA.

As previously reported, in November 2019, the Company disclosed to the EPA, and in January 2020 disclosed to the IEPA, that the Cordova Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge.

The Cordova Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by IEPA.

In November 2019, the Company disclosed to the EPA, and in January 2020 disclosed to IEPA, that the Cordova Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge.

As noted above, the Company continues to engage with the EPA and IEPA on potential civil claims related to these discharges.

The Company submitted an application to modify the NPDES permit and implemented additional wastewater treatment controls, which are now operating as the Company continues optimization efforts.

IEPA and the Company are discussing the NPDES permit modification.

In November 2022, the Company entered into an administrative consent order under the SDWA (the "SDWA ACO") requiring ongoing sampling and surveying of private and public drinking water wells near the Cordova Facility, treatment of private wells within a three-mile radius, and provision of alternate treatment or supply for the City of Camanche, Iowa's public drinking water system.

IEPA and the Company are discussing the NPDES permit modification application.

In November 2022, the Company entered into an administrative consent order with the EPA under the SDWA ("SDWA ACO") requiring ongoing sampling and surveying of private and public drinking water wells near the Cordova Facility, treatment of private wells within a three-mile radius, and provision of alternate treatment or supply for the City of Camanche, Iowa's public drinking water system.

The Company continues to implement the SDWA ACO in coordination with the EPA and the City of Camanche, Iowa.

In January 2025, the Company entered into a consent order (the "RCRA CO") with the EPA under the RCRA requiring the Company to delineate PFAS in soil and groundwater at the Cordova Facility and a surrounding area that extends up to 1/2 mile from the Cordova Facility, including specified soil and groundwater sampling obligations at up to 80 locations in the area extending 5 miles from the Cordova Facility.

In January 2025, the Company entered into a consent order ("RCRA CO") with the EPA under the RCRA requiring the Company to delineate PFAS in soil and groundwater at the Cordova Facility and a surrounding area that extends up to 1/2 mile from the Cordova Facility, and to undertake specified soil and groundwater sampling at up to 80 locations in the area extending 5 miles from the Cordova Facility.

The Company continues implement the RCRA CO in coordination with the EPA.

6 unchanged sentences

Minnesota 2018 Natural Resources Defense Settlement:

As previously disclosed, in the first quarter of 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 897 million (inclusive of legal fees and related obligations) in connection with a settlement with the State Minnesota relating to PFAS in certain natural resources in the state (the "MN NRD Settlement").

The MN NRD Settlement established a fund intended to enhance drinking water quality in the East Metropolitan Area of Minneapolis-St.

4 unchanged sentences

Cottage Grove:

The Cottage Grove Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by the MPCA.

As previously reported, in early 2020, the Company disclosed to the EPA and MPCA that the Cottage Grove Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge.

As noted above, the Company continues to engage with the EPA and MPCA on potential civil claims related to these discharges.

The Company completed construction of a new wastewater treatment system to address PFAS.

The Company continues to work with the MPCA under the previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order ("SACO") addressing certain PFAS in soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Cottage Grove Facility.

The SACO includes obligations relating to evaluating PFAS releases and response actions, including treatment or alternative drinking water where concentrations exceed applicable Minnesota Department of Health ("MDH") health-based values or health risk limits for certain PFAS, remediation of identified sources of other PFAS not controlled by actions addressing PFOA and PFOS, and information-sharing with the MPCA.

In January 2024, the MDH issued updated, more stringent, health-based values for PFOA and PFOS, and in October 2024, MDH proposed health risk limits for those PFAS.

The Cottage Grove Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by MPCA.

In early 2020, the Company disclosed to the EPA and MPCA that the Cottage Grove Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge.

The Company continues to engage with the EPA and MPCA on potential civil claims related to these discharges.

In July 2025, the Company commenced operation of a new wastewater treatment system to address PFAS.

The Company continues to work with MPCA under the previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order ("SACO") addressing certain PFAS in soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Cottage Grove Facility.

In January 2024, MDH issued updated, more stringent, health-based values for PFOA and PFOS, and in October 2024, MDH proposed health risk limits for those PFAS.

The Company continues to evaluate potential impacts of these developments on its SACO obligations.

The Company also continues to implement the previously disclosed remedial decisions adopted by MPCA in 2008 (Woodbury and Oakdale) and 2009 (Cottage Grove Facility).

In January 2021, MPCA issued a notice of violation addressing the presence of PFAS in wastewater and requiring certain improvements related to the wastewater discharge system at the Cottage Grove Facility.

The Company continues to work with MPCA regarding the notice.

In June 2022, MPCA directed the Company to address PFAS in its stormwater discharges from the Cottage Grove Facility.

The Company coordinated with MPCA to develop a plan that is in a MPCA order issued in December 2022, which the Company is working to implement.

The Company coordinated with MPCA to develop a plan that is in a MPCA order issued in December 2022, which the Company is working to implement ("December 2022 MPCA Order").

In May 2025, MPCA issued a final NPDES permit for the Cottage Grove Facility, effective June 1, 2025.

The permit includes ultra-low effluent limits for certain PFAS, including limits below current quantification levels for some compounds, and also includes lower, but measurable limits for demonstrating permit compliance.

In June 2025, the Company appealed elements of the NPDES permit not related to the discharge limits for PFAS, and a hearing on the appeal was held in March 2026.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the appeal, and depending on its outcome or future potential permit modifications, additional capital or operational expenditures may be required to meet permit requirements.

If the Cottage Grove Facility is unable to meet applicable discharge limits, it could have a significant adverse impact on the Company's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Cottage Grove Facility, some of which may not be available in similar quantities or at all from the Company's other facilities, which could in turn impact the Company's ability to fulfill supply obligations to its customers.

The permit includes ultra-low effluent limits for certain PFAS, including limits below current quantification levels for some compounds, and also includes low, but measurable, limits for demonstrating permit compliance.

In June 2025, the Company appealed elements of the NPDES permit not related to the discharge limits for PFAS.

In June 2026, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an order ruling in favor of the Company in part, in favor of MPCA in part, and remanding to MPCA for further proceedings.

If the Cottage Grove Facility is unable to meet permit requirements, it could have a significant adverse impact on the Company's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Cottage Grove Facility, some of which may not be available in similar quantities or at all from the Company's other facilities, which could in turn impact the Company's ability to fulfill supply obligations to its customers.

In April 2026, the State of Minnesota by and through MPCA filed a lawsuit against the Company seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief related in part to alleged PFAS releases at and from the Cottage Grove Facility, and relating in part to the January 2021 Notice, the December 2022 MPCA Order, and the SACO.

The Company has removed the lawsuit to federal court and has moved to transfer it to the AFFF MDL.

The case has been stayed pending a transfer ruling.

In July 2025, MPCA issued a notice of violation alleging stormwater and fire-water discharges containing PFAS at the Company's Fairmont, Minnesota facility and requiring corrective actions, including a stormwater action plan and a soil and groundwater investigation.

The Company responded contesting the alleged violations and provided a plan to address the requested corrective actions.

The Company continues to engage with the MPCA regarding the alleged violations.

The Company continues to engage with MPCA regarding the alleged violations.

In March 2023, MPCA issued a notice of violation alleging stormwater discharges containing PFAS at the Company's Hutchinson, Minnesota facility.

1 unchanged sentence

Wisconsin (Wausau)

In August 2024, the Company received an EPA request for information under CERCLA seeking information and documents regarding PFAS use and disposal at the Company's Greystone facility (the "Greystone Facility") and its downtown facility in

Wausau, Wisconsin.

In August 2024, the Company received an EPA request for information under CERCLA seeking information and documents regarding PFAS use and disposal at the Company's Greystone facility ("Greystone Facility") and its downtown facility in Wausau, Wisconsin.

The Company provided responsive information and, in October 2025, the EPA informed the Company it had not identified an immediate need for additional action.

In March 2025, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ("WDNR") notified the Company that it determined there had been a release of hazardous substances from the Greystone Facility based on PFAS detected in groundwater and ordered the Company to submit a site investigation work plan.

The Company submitted an initial work plan in June 2025, which WDNR has approved.

The Company reported initial sampling results to WDNR in January 2026, and is continuing to engage with WDNR on this matter.

In June 2025, the Company submitted an initial work plan, which WDNR has approved.

In January 2026, the Company reported initial sampling results to WDNR.

In April 2026, the Company submitted a site investigation report to WDNR, and is continuing to engage with WDNR on this matter.

PFAS Litigation, Investigations, and Other Activities Outside the United States

In May 2025, the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice requiring 3M Australia to investigate and clean up PFAS contamination at a site formerly leased by 3M Australia.

3M is working with the regulator regarding the notice.

In May 2025, the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice requiring 3M Australia Pty Ltd.

("3M Australia") to investigate and clean up PFAS contamination at a site formerly leased by 3M Australia.

The Company is working with the regulator regarding the notice, has obtained limited access from the site owner to conduct investigation activities under the notice, and is proceeding with those activities.

The Company has also been conducting sampling of adjacent properties.

The Company is aware of a writ of summons filed against the Company and its subsidiary, 3M Australia Pty Ltd, in the Supreme Court of Victoria in November 2024 on behalf of individuals with connections to property allegedly impacted by Company products containing PFAS.

The Company has not been served with the writ, but the service period has been extended to June 8, 2026.

The Company has not been served with the writ, but the service period has been extended to December 8, 2026.

In May 2026, the Commonwealth of Australia filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, 3M Australia, in the Victoria Registry of the Federal Court of Australia.

The lawsuit seeks damages related to alleged AFFF contamination at Australian military bases, including compensation for amounts previously paid by the Commonwealth to settle prior lawsuits related to AFFF use as well as past and future cleanup costs.

Since December 2023, numerous PFAS-related actions have been filed against the Company, 3M Canada Company - Compagnie 3M Canada ("3M Canada"), and other defendants in Canada.

As of March 31, 2026, a total of sixteen PFAS-related actions were pending in Canadian courts in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Ontario, and Quebec.

As of June 30, 2026, a total of eighteen PFAS-related actions were pending in Canadian courts in British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario, and Quebec.

These matters include class and non-class claims by individuals, municipalities, federal, provincial, and territorial governments, Indian Bands, and other entities for alleged impacts from AFFF and other PFAS-containing products, including property, drinking water, and other natural resources contamination, personal injury, and other damages.

1 unchanged sentence

PFAS manufacturing in Zwijndrecht, Antwerp, Belgium:

3M Belgium, a subsidiary of the Company, owns and operates a facility in Zwijndrecht, Antwerp, Belgium (the "Zwijndrecht Facility") where PFAS manufacturing ceased in 2024 as part of the Company’s global exit from PFAS manufacturing.

3M Belgium continues to engage with the Public Flemish Waste Agency ("OVAM") and other authorities to investigate and remediate PFAS impacts associated with the historical operations at the Zwijndrecht Facility, including with respect to soil, groundwater, wastewater treatment, and a nearby ring road construction project in Antwerp (the "Oosterweel Project").

3M Belgium, a subsidiary of the Company, owns and operates a facility in Zwijndrecht, Antwerp, Belgium ("Zwijndrecht Facility") where PFAS manufacturing ceased in 2024 as part of the Company’s global exit from PFAS manufacturing.

Over the years, regulatory proceedings have included permit reviews, appeals, parliamentary investigations, and ongoing remediation oversight.

4 unchanged sentences

It is possible that the outcome of the appeal or future permit amendments will alter discharge limits and will require additional actions to reduce legacy sources of PFAS, or that the wastewater treatment system there will be unable to meet future discharge limits.

If 3M Belgium is unable to meet the eventual discharge limits, such development could have a significant adverse impact on 3M Belgium's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Zwijndrecht Facility, some of which may not be available or available in similar quantities from the Company's other facilities, which could in turn impact these businesses' ability to fulfill supply obligations to their customers.

If 3M Belgium is unable to meet the eventual discharge limits, it could have a significant adverse impact on 3M Belgium's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Zwijndrecht Facility, some of which may not be available or available in similar quantities from the Company's other facilities, which could in turn impact these businesses' ability to fulfill supply obligations to their customers.

Soil remediation and environmental law compliance in Belgium:

Flemish government actions and the 2022 Flemish Remediation Agreement:

In July 2022, 3M Belgium entered into a remediation agreement with the Flemish government (the “Flemish Remediation Agreement”) under which 3M Belgium committed € 571 million to address issues associated with PFAS relating to the Zwijndrecht Facility, including enhancements to site discharge control technologies, support for qualifying local commercial farmers impacted by restrictions on sale of agricultural products, ongoing off-site descriptive soil investigations, amounts to address certain identified priority remedial actions (which may include supporting additional actions as required under the Decree on Soil Remediation and Soil Protection (the "Flemish Soil Decree")), funds to be used by the Flemish government in its sole discretion in connection with PFAS emissions from the Zwijndrecht Facility, and support for the Oosterweel Project in cash and support services.

The Flemish Remediation Agreement contains certain provisions ending litigation and providing certain releases of liability for 3M Belgium,

while preserving the Flemish government's regulatory authority.

The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $ 500 million in connection with the Flemish Remediation Agreement in the first half of 2022.

Recently, the Flemish government requested a series of technical meetings with 3M Belgium regarding the scope and implementation of 3M Belgium’s commitments under the Flemish Remediation Agreement.

3M Belgium is continuing regular interactions with the government on these topics.

In July 2022, 3M Belgium entered into a remediation agreement with the Flemish government ("Flemish Remediation Agreement") under which 3M Belgium committed € 571 million to address issues associated with PFAS relating to the Zwijndrecht Facility, including enhancements to site discharge control technologies, support for qualifying local commercial farmers impacted by restrictions on sale of agricultural products, ongoing off-site descriptive soil investigations, amounts to address certain identified priority remedial actions (which may include supporting additional actions as required under the Decree on Soil Remediation and Soil Protection ("Flemish Soil Decree")), funds to be used by the Flemish government in its sole discretion in connection with PFAS emissions from the Zwijndrecht Facility, and support for the Oosterweel Project in cash and support services.

The Flemish Remediation Agreement contains certain provisions ending litigation and providing certain releases of liability for 3M Belgium, while preserving the Flemish government's regulatory authority.

In the first half of 2022, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $ 500 million in connection with the Flemish Remediation Agreement.

The Flemish government requested a series of technical meetings with 3M Belgium regarding the scope and implementation of 3M Belgium’s commitments under the Flemish Remediation Agreement.

3M Belgium is continuing regular interactions with the government on these topics and discussions to address issues raised by both the Flemish Government and 3M Belgium are ongoing.

Soil/groundwater remediation:

Consistent with Flemish environmental law, 3M Belgium has submitted to OVAM required descriptive soil investigations (“DSIs”), conducted by an accredited third-party soil remediation expert, to assess areas of potential PFAS contamination that may require remediation.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, OVAM required 3M Belgium to submit an additional DSI relating to ultra-short chain PFAS by June 2026.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, OVAM required 3M Belgium to submit an additional DSI relating to ultra-short chain PFAS by June 2026, which was timely submitted.

The accredited third-party soil remediation expert has prepared multiple remedial action plans ("RAPs") that have been approved by OVAM and implementation activities are underway.

1 unchanged sentence

OVAM provided extensions of time for 3M Belgium to revise and re-submit each RAP OVAM found to be non-conforming.

In May 2026, 3M Belgium submitted a revised RAP for soil and groundwater at the site.

3M Belgium representatives continue to engage with the Flemish authorities regarding further soil remediation and related groundwater actions in connection with the Flemish Soil Decree.

5 unchanged sentences

To date, no such financial assurances or allocation of remediation costs have been sought or imposed on 3M Belgium.

In May 2026, the Flemish government proposed draft legislation that, if ultimately enacted, would empower the relevant executive branch agency in the Flemish Region to seek, in certain circumstances such as the financial insecurity of a Belgian company, to hold non-Belgian parent or affiliate entities of Belgian companies jointly and severally liable for soil remediation costs.

The proposal is subject to threshold legal review by the Belgian Council of State’s Legislative section.

Other litigation:

As of March 31, 2026, eighteen actions against 3M Belgium were pending in Belgian civil courts, and 3M Belgium has also received pre-litigation notices from others in Belgium indicating potential claims.

As of June 30, 2026, twenty-two actions against 3M Belgium were pending in Belgian civil courts, and 3M Belgium has also received pre-litigation notices from others in Belgium indicating potential claims.

These matters include claims by individuals, municipalities, and other entities for alleged PFAS impacts, including soil, wastewater, and rainwater contamination, nuisance, tort liability, personal injury, and requests for injunctive relief.

8 unchanged sentences

The parties resolved certain claims in November 2025, while the remaining claims are proceeding, with all pre-hearing submissions scheduled to be completed by November 2026.

In May 2026 and June 2026, the Company, 3M Global Capital Limited, and 3M EMEA GmbH were added to two existing lawsuits against 3M Belgium brought by EVAL Europe N.V.

and NV Borealis Antwerpen, two companies neighboring the Zwijndrecht facility, seeking damages for PFAS remediation on their sites.

Separate initial hearings are set for November 2026.

Other investigations:

2 unchanged sentences

3M Belgium has not been served with any of the complaints and has been cooperating with the investigation.

Dyneon Divestiture:

In June 2026, the Company's German subsidiary, 3M Deutschland GmbH (“3M Deutschland”) completed the divestiture of its subsidiary, Dyneon GmbH (“Dyneon”).

Dyneon manufactured PFAS prior to the Company’s exit from PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025.

Under the terms of the transaction, 3M Deutschland remains responsible for PFAS-related claims arising from activities conducted prior to the divestiture of Dyneon, and is coordinating the response to such claims, including those described below.

Government interactions related to PFAS manufacturing in Gendorf, Germany:

Dyneon GmbH ("Dyneon"), a limited liability company wholly owned by the Company's German subsidiary, 3M Deutschland GmbH, and prior operators of the Gendorf, Germany facility (the "Gendorf Facility") commissioned a voluntary feasibility study by an independent soil consultant evaluating the potential feasibility, environmental impact, approaches, and related costs for remediating PFOA in soil and groundwater around the Gendorf Facility.

Prior to the divestiture, Dyneon and prior operators of the Gendorf, Germany facility ("Gendorf Facility") commissioned a voluntary feasibility study by an independent soil consultant evaluating the potential feasibility, environmental impact, approaches, and related costs for remediating PFOA in soil and groundwater around the Gendorf Facility.

The study was shared with the competent German authority, which provided feedback and requested additional investigations and measures.

Dyneon has agreed to sponsor environmental studies related to potential soil disposal solutions.

Dyneon agreed to sponsor environmental studies related to potential soil disposal solutions.

A local authority indicated that Dyneon should contribute to those soil disposal solutions.

In July and August 2025, authorities issued orders requiring Dyneon to plan a hydraulic barrier to capture a PFOA plume in groundwater originating from the Gendorf Facility and assess remediation measures in and around the site.

In July and August 2025, authorities issued orders requiring Dyneon to plan a hydraulic barrier to capture a PFOA plume in groundwater originating from the Gendorf Facility and to assess remediation measures in and around the site.

In August and September 2025, Dyneon appealed these orders and enforceability is suspended by this appeal.

Dyneon continues discussions with authorities regarding potential future remedial actions related to the Gendorf Facility.

Despite the suspension of those orders, in June 2026, Dyneon received a new administrative order requiring it to install the hydraulic barrier that is the subject of the suspended planning order.

Dyneon intends to appeal the order, which is likely to be suspended pending the outcome of that appeal.

Following the Dyneon divestiture, 3M Deutschland will continue discussions with authorities regarding potential future remedial actions related to the Gendorf Facility.

In July 2025, Dyneon received pre-litigation notices from two German cities and a private citizen seeking payment for alleged costs associated with PFAS-impacted soil encountered during construction works.

2 unchanged sentences

The notice purports to identify claims by the Dutch government and references potential damages to other parties.

3M Belgium has met with representatives of the Dutch government to discuss the notice as well as with parties whose interests the Dutch government may also represent.

3M Belgium continues to meet with representatives of the Dutch government to discuss the issues raised in the notice as well as with parties whose interests the Dutch government may also represent.

Certain private groups in the Netherlands have indicated that they may bring legal claims on behalf of one or more parties for purported damages allegedly caused by PFAS.

9 unchanged sentences

Certain items were corrected during the inspection, and the Company responded to the notice in March 2025.

In July 2024, the Company received a violation notice from the IEPA alleging regulatory violations relating to certain air emissions of volatile organic material at the Cordova Facility.

In May 2025, the EPA issued a notice of violation and opportunity to confer.

The Company is cooperating with EPA.

In July 2024, the Company received a violation notice from IEPA alleging regulatory violations relating to certain air emissions of volatile organic material at the Cordova Facility.

The Company has responded to the violation notice.

In January 2026, the Company received a violation notice from IEPA alleging regulatory violations tied to emissions of volatile organic material at the Cordova Facility.

The Company responded to the notice and is cooperating with IEPA.

The Company responded to the notice.

In April 2026, the Company received notice from IEPA that it did not accept the terms proposed by the Company for a compliance commitment agreement and in May 2026 the Company received a notice of intent to pursue legal action.

The Company continues to cooperate with IEPA.

Environmental Liabilities

1 unchanged sentence

For the matters described under "Environmental Matters", unless otherwise described below, no liability has been recorded because the Company believes a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable and the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss at this time.

During the first quarter of 2026, the Company increased its accrual for PFAS-related environmental matters and made related payments, primarily due to interest accretion associated with the PWS Settlement.

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had recorded “other environmental liabilities” of $ 7.8 billion ($ 0.8 billion within other current liabilities and $ 7.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet) and $ 7.7 billion ($ 0.7 billion within other current liabilities and $ 7.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively.

During the first six months of 2026, the Company increased its accrual for PFAS-related environmental matters primarily for interest accretion associated with the PWS Settlement and made related payments.

As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had recorded “other environmental liabilities” of $ 7.4 billion ($ 2.9 billion within other current liabilities and $ 4.5 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet) and $ 7.7 billion ($ 0.7 billion within other current liabilities and $ 7.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively.

These accruals represent the Company’s estimate of probable losses associated with the PFAS-related environmental matters described above.

The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued at this time.

As of March 31, 2026, the Company recorded $ 39 million of liabilities for estimated costs for non-PFAS environmental matters related to the investigation, treatment, or removal of hazardous substances at current or former Company manufacturing sites and certain third-party sites.

As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company's recorded liabilities for estimated costs for non-PFAS environmental matters were not significant.

These matters relate to the investigation, treatment, or removal of hazardous substances at current or former Company manufacturing sites and certain third-party sites.

The Company evaluates each site quarterly and records remediation liabilities on an undiscounted basis when costs are probable and reasonably estimable, generally no later than completion of feasibility studies or commitment to a remediation plan.

2 unchanged sentences

The Company expects to pay the amounts recorded over remediation periods that currently extend up to approximately 20 years.

Estimating environmental compliance and remediation costs involve significant uncertainties, including evolving scientific and regulatory standards, changes in environmental laws, permissible contaminant levels, or enforcement policies, development of new analytical or remediation technologies;

allocation of liability among responsible parties, and the financial condition of co-responsible parties and indemnitors.

For sites where remediation activities are substantially complete and remaining obligations primarily relate to operation, maintenance, or monitoring, the Company believes the risk of loss in excess of recorded amounts would not be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

10 unchanged sentences

Background of Non-Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation

As of March 31, 2026, the Company is a named defendant, together with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits pending in various courts that collectively involve approximately 3,900 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,700 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2025.

As of June 30, 2026, the Company is a named defendant, together with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits pending in various courts that collectively involve approximately 4,000 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,700 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2025.

The vast majority of resolved or pending lawsuits and claims allege use of the Company’s mask or respirator products and seek damages for alleged personal injury arising from occupational exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally present in the workplace.

16 unchanged sentences

No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time, and is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to unresolved factual and legal issues.

On December 22, 2025, West Virginia filed an additional complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia alleging violations of the WVCCPA related to the Company's 8210 respirators.

The Company removed the case to federal court on December 23, 2025.

In December 2025, West Virginia filed an additional complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia alleging violations of the WVCCPA related to the Company's 8210 respirators.

In December 2025, the Company removed the case to federal court.

West Virginia moved to remand the case to state court.

1 unchanged sentence

In April 2026, the court denied West Virginia's motion to remand and granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

In May 2026, West Virginia filed a motion seeking to set aside the dismissal of its complaint.

In June 2026, the court denied that motion.

Non-Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities

3 unchanged sentences

Developments that could affect these estimates include, changes in claim volume or mix, defense and resolution costs, trial and appellate outcomes, applicable law and procedure, and financial condition of co-defendants and insurers.

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company's accruals for non-Aearo respirator mask/asbestos liabilities and defense costs were $ 460 million and $ 473 million, respectively.

As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company's accruals for non-Aearo respirator mask/asbestos liabilities and defense costs were $ 456 million and $ 473 million, respectively.

These accruals represent the Company’s estimate of probable loss and an estimation period for future claims extending through approximately 2050.

5 unchanged sentences

Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities

As of March 31, 2026, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, recorded accruals of $ 58 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos, silica-related, and coal mine dust claims.

As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, recorded accruals of $ 57 million and $ 59 million , respectively, for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos, silica-related, and coal mine dust claims.

Responsibility for defense costs, settlements, and judgments is shared among Aearo and other parties and their insurers pursuant to an informal arrangement based on the number of years each company sold applicable respiratory products and the years of exposure alleged by the plaintiff.

6 unchanged sentences

Background of Combat Arms Earplugs Litigation

Aearo manufactured and sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 Earplugs (the "CAE") beginning in approximately 1999.

Aearo manufactured and sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 Earplugs ("CAE") beginning in approximately 1999.

Following the Company's acquisition of Aearo in 2008, the Company sold CAE until they were discontinued in 2015.

11 unchanged sentences

As a result of the CAE Settlement, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 4.2 billion in the third quarter of 2023, reflecting the discounted present value of the Company's $ 5.3 billion pre-tax contributions to the CAE Settlement (discounted at an estimated 5.6 % interest rate at the settlement time), net of the Company's then-existing accrual of $ 1.1 billion related to this matter.

During the first quarter of 2026, the Company increased its existing accrual for CAE primarily for interest accretion on the CAE Settlement which was offset by related payments.

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, and the Company had accrued liabilities related to the CAE litigation of $ 2.2 billion ($ 1.3 billion within other current liabilities and $ 0.9 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet) and $ 2.4 billion ($ 1.4 billion within other current liabilities and $ 1.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively.

During the first six months of 2026, the Company increased its existing accrual for CAE primarily for interest accretion on the CAE Settlement and made related payments.

As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, and the Company had accrued liabilities related to the CAE litigation of $ 1.9 billion ($ 1.0 billion within other current liabilities and $ 0.9 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet) and $ 2.4 billion ($ 1.4 billion within other current liabilities and $ 1.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively.

These accruals represent the Company’s estimate of probable losses associated with the CAE litigation.

1 unchanged sentence

Watson Grinding

In March 2026, judgment was entered in Texas state court on a verdict from a November 2025 trial, where a jury determined the Company was partially liable in connection with claims related to gas detection services provided by a former subsidiary, Detcon, Inc., which the Company sold in August 2019.

The March 2026 judgment is part of proceedings in Houston, Texas captioned In Re January 24th Explosion Litigation , Master Docket No.

2021-15294, relating to a January 2020 explosion at a Watson Grinding facility in Houston.

The Company is a defendant in proceedings in Texas state court under a master docket relating to the January 2020 explosion at a Watson Grinding facility in Houston, Texas.

Over 1,900 claimants allege claims against multiple defendants.

Jury trials took place in June 2025 and November 2025, and additional trials are scheduled in 2026.

The claims against the Company relate to services on gas detection devices provided by a former subsidiary, Detcon, Inc., which the Company sold in August 2019.

Jury trials took place in June 2025, November 2025, and April 2026, and additional trials are scheduled in 2026.

In the June 2025 trial, a jury determined the Company was partially liable.

The Company appealed the judgment entered following that trial, and that appeal remains pending.

If post-trial briefing of the March 2026 judgment is unsuccessful, the Company intends to appeal that judgment.

No liability has been recorded for these judgments because the Company believes a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time, and is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to unresolved factual and legal issues.

In October 2025, the Company appealed the judgment entered following the June 2025 trial, and that appeal remains pending.

In the November 2025 trial, a jury determined the Company was partially liable and, in June 2026, the Company's post-trial motions were denied.

In June 2026, the Company appealed the judgment entered following the November 2025 trial, and that appeal remains pending.

In the April 2026 trial, a jury determined the Company was not liable in connection with the Watson Grinding facility explosion.

No liability has been recorded for any of these judgments because the Company believes a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time, and is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to unresolved factual and legal issues.

Other Matters

In May 2023, an incident at the Company's Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin facility resulted in an employee fatality.

Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) initiated an investigation and, as reflected in a DOL press release dated November 7, 2023, issued two citations to the Company alleging willful safety violations.

Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) initiated an investigation after the Company reported the incident.

In November 2023, the DOL announced that it issued two citations to the Company alleging willful safety violations.

In September 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA and the DOL relating to the incident that included an immaterial payment amount and did not include a finding of willful safety violations.

1 unchanged sentence

Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin seeking records relating to, among other matters, the Prairie du Chien facility, the incident, workplace injuries at Prairie du Chien and certain other Company facilities, and OSHA inspections at other Company facilities.

The Company has substantially complied with the subpoena and will continue to cooperate with the investigation.

The Company will continue to cooperate with the investigation.

Insurance Recoveries

2 unchanged sentences

courts, arbitration proceedings, mediations, and negotiations with insurers.

During the three months ended March 31, 2026, the Company recorded insurance recovery benefits of $ 277 million related to respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related matters.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2026, the Company recorded insurance recovery benefits of $ 13 million and $ 290 million, respectively, related to respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related matters.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company recorded insurance recovery benefits of $ 59 million and $ 85 million, respectively, related to respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related matters.

Under the CAE Settlement, insurance recoveries under relevant policies are contributed to the qualified settlement fund as part of the settlement consideration.

15 unchanged sentences

The CODM uses business segment operating income to allocate resources in the planning and forecasting process and in reviews of results and overall market activity.

Effective in the first quarter of 2026, the measure of segment operating performance and segment composition used by the CODM changed.

As a result, 3M’s disclosed measure of segment profit and other segment-related amounts were updated to align with these changes.

The financial information presented herein reflects the impact of these changes for all periods presented.

These include:

• Reflecting manufactured PFAS products activity and net costs for respirator mask/asbestos litigation special items within Corporate:

Previously, these special items were included in the Transportation and Electronics segment and Safety and Industrial segment, respectively.

Elements related to manufactured PFAS products activity are now included in Corporate, with sales and income (loss) reflected as a special item.

Net costs related to respirator mask/asbestos are now also reflected in Corporate, within the net costs for significant litigation Corporate special item.

In the first and second quarters of 2026, the measure of segment operating performance and segment composition used by the CODM changed.

As a result, 3M’s disclosed measure of segment profit and other segment-related amounts were updated to reflect these changes for all periods presented.

The changes include the following items now reflected within Corporate:

• Effective first quarter 2026—manufactured PFAS products activity and net costs for respirator mask/asbestos litigation special items:

These special items were moved into Corporate from the Transportation and Electronics segment and Safety and Industrial segment, respectively.

• Effective second quarter 2026—business acquisition-related costs:

These costs are now reflected as a Corporate special item rather than within reportable business segment operating income.

There were no such material costs in prior periods presented.

Business Segment Information

Three months ended March 31,

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

Net sales (millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

3 unchanged sentences

Total reportable business segment net sales 6,404 6,071 12,313 11,756

Corporate 96 273 217 542

Total Company $ 6,500 $ 6,344 $ 12,530 $ 12,298

$ 6,030 $ 5,954

Significant segment expenses and operating performance (millions)

6 unchanged sentences

Cost of sales 1,176 1,110 2,271 2,176

Selling, general, administrative expenses 233 251

Selling, general and administrative expenses 259 245 492 496

Research, development and related expenses 128 110 249 219

7 unchanged sentences

Corporate special items:

Net (costs) benefit from significant litigation

Net costs for significant litigation and PFAS exit ( 183 ) ( 347 ) ( 13 ) ( 421 )

Business acquisition-related costs ( 12 ) — ( 12 ) —

(Loss) gain on business divestitures ( 336 ) ( 3 ) ( 343 ) ( 3 )

5 unchanged sentences

Income before income taxes $ 1,120 $ 923 $ 1,998 $ 2,308

$ 878 $ 1,385

Three months ended March 31,

Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,

Depreciation and amortization (millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025

2 unchanged sentences

Consumer 43 36 83 75

Corporate 55 21 109 45

Total $ 335 $ 290 $ 661 $ 580

Capital expenditures (millions)

2 unchanged sentences

Consumer 20 16 31 27

Assets (millions)

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Corporate 14 11 85 80

Total $ 223 $ 208 $ 448 $ 444

Assets (millions) June 30, 2026 December 31, 2025

Business segment assets:

16 unchanged sentences

• Corporate special items include, for the periods presented:

◦ net costs for significant litigation impacting operating income (loss),

◦ net costs for significant litigation and PFAS exit impacting operating income (loss),

◦ business acquisition-related costs,

◦ manufactured PFAS products activity,

2 unchanged sentences

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Financial Statements