Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
We are involved in various legal proceedings. In addition to information that is included below, we have included certain of the information required for this Item in Note 16 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, and we are incorporating that information here by reference.
Lead pigment litigation
Our former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. We, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the “former pigment manufacturers”), and the Lead Industries Association (LIA), which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.
The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs.
We believe these actions are without merit, and we intend to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. We do not believe it is probable we have incurred any liability with respect to pending lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, and with respect to all such lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, we believe liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:
● we have never settled any of the market share, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases (other than the Santa Clara case discussed below) ,
● no final, non-appealable adverse judgments have ever been entered against us, and
● we have never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a thirty-year period for which we were previously a party and for which we have been dismissed without any finding of liability.
Accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based.
-24-
In the matter titled County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al . (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) on July 24, 2019, an order approving a global settlement agreement entered into among all of the plaintiffs and the three defendants remaining in the case (the Sherwin Williams Company, ConAgra Grocery Products and us) was entered by the court and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The global settlement agreement provides that an aggregate $305 million will be paid collectively by the three co-defendants in full satisfaction of all claims resulting in a dismissal of the case with prejudice and the resolution of (i) all pending and future claims by the plaintiffs in the case, and (ii) all potential claims for contribution or indemnity between us and our co-defendants in respect to the case. In the agreement, we expressly deny any and all liability and the dismissal of the case with prejudice was entered by the court without a final judgment of liability entered against us. The settlement agreement fully concludes this matter.
Under the terms of the global settlement agreement, each defendant must pay an aggregate $101.7 million to the plaintiffs as follows: $25.0 million within sixty days of the court’s approval of the settlement and dismissal of the case, and the remaining $76.7 million in six annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the initial payment ($12.0 million for the first five installments and $16.7 million for the sixth installment). Our sixth installment will be made with funds already on deposit at the court, which is included in noncurrent restricted cash on our Consolidated Balance Sheets, that are committed to the settlement, including all accrued interest at the date of payment, with any remaining balance to be paid by us (and any amounts on deposit in excess of the final payment would be returned to us). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we placed an additional $9.0 million into an escrow account which is included in noncurrent restricted cash on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
For financial reporting purposes, using a discount rate of 1.9% per annum, we discounted the aggregate $101.7 million settlement to the estimated net present value of $96.3 million. We made the initial $25.0 million payment in September 2019 and the first, second and third annual installment payments of $12.0 million each in September 2020, 2021 and 2022. We recognized an aggregate of $1.3 million, $1.1 million and $.9 million of accretion expense in 2020, 2021, and 2022 respectively.
In November 2018, NL was served with two complaints filed by county governments in Pennsylvania. Each county alleges that NL and several other defendants created a public nuisance by selling and promoting lead-containing paints and pigments in the counties. The plaintiffs seek abatement and declaratory relief. We believe these lawsuits are inconsistent with Pennsylvania law and without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously. In February 2022, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court entered orders staying all proceedings in the trial courts and granting defendants’ request for an interlocutory appeal of earlier trial court rulings allowing the cases to proceed. The stay will remain in place until defendants’ appeals are resolved.
New cases may continue to be filed against us. We do not know if NL will incur liability in the future in respect of any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. In the future, if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us (such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such matters), at that time we would consider such information in evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to whether it might then have become probable we have incurred liability with respect to these matters, and whether such liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable. The resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity.
Environmental matters and litigation
Certain properties and facilities used in our former operations, including divested primary and secondary lead smelters and former mining locations, are the subject of civil litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under federal and state environmental laws and common law. Additionally, in connection with past operating practices, we are currently involved as a defendant, potentially responsible party (PRP) or both, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (CERCLA), and similar state laws in various governmental and private actions associated with waste disposal sites, mining locations, and facilities that we or our predecessors, our subsidiaries or their predecessors currently or previously owned, operated or used, certain of which are on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List or similar state lists. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for
-25-
substantial amounts. Although we may be jointly and severally liable for these costs, in most cases we are only one of a number of PRPs who may also be jointly and severally liable, and among whom costs may be shared or allocated. In addition, we are occasionally named as a party in a number of personal injury lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions alleging claims related to environmental conditions alleged to have resulted from our operations.
Obligations associated with environmental remediation and related matters are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons including the:
● complexity and differing interpretations of governmental regulations,
● number of PRPs and their ability or willingness to fund such allocation of costs,
● financial capabilities of the PRPs and the allocation of costs among them,
● solvency of other PRPs,
● multiplicity of possible solutions,
● number of years of investigatory, remedial and monitoring activity required,
● uncertainty over the extent, if any, to which our former operations might have contributed to the conditions allegedly giving rise to such personal injury, property damage, natural resource and related claims, and
● number of years between former operations and notice of claims and lack of information and documents about the former operations.
In addition, the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes regarding site cleanup costs or the allocation of costs among PRPs, solvency of other PRPs, the results of future testing and analysis undertaken with respect to certain sites or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of hazardous substances at other sites, could cause our expenditures to exceed our current estimates. Actual costs could exceed accrued amounts or the upper end of the range for sites for which estimates have been made, and costs may be incurred for sites where no estimates presently can be made. Further, additional environmental and related matters may arise in the future. If we were to incur any future liability, this could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.
We record liabilities related to environmental remediation and related matters (including costs associated with damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources) when estimated future expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable. We adjust such accruals as further information becomes available to us or as circumstances change. Unless the amounts and timing of such estimated future expenditures are fixed and reasonably determinable, we generally do not discount estimated future expenditures to their present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the payout. We recognize recoveries of costs from other parties, if any, as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. At December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022, we had not recognized any receivables for recoveries.
We do not know and cannot estimate the exact time frame over which we will make payments for our accrued environmental and related costs. The timing of payments depends upon a number of factors, including but not limited to the timing of the actual remediation process; which in turn depends on factors outside of our control. At each balance sheet date, we estimate the amount of our accrued environmental and related costs which we expect to pay within the next twelve months, and we classify this estimate as a current liability. We classify the remaining accrued environmental costs as a noncurrent liability.
On a quarterly basis, we evaluate the potential range of our liability for environmental remediation and related costs at sites where we have been named as a PRP or defendant, including sites for which our wholly-owned environmental management subsidiary, NL Environmental Management Services, Inc., (EMS), has contractually assumed our obligations. At December 31, 2022, we had accrued approximately $92 million related to approximately 33 sites associated with remediation and related matters we believe are at the present time and/or in their current phase reasonably estimable. The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to us for remediation and related matters for which we believe it is possible to estimate costs is approximately $119 million, including the amount currently accrued. These accruals have not been discounted to present value.
-26-
We believe it is not reasonably possible to estimate the range of costs for certain sites. At December 31, 2022, there were approximately five sites for which we are not currently able to reasonably estimate a range of costs. For these sites, generally the investigation is in the early stages, and we are unable to determine whether or not we actually had any association with the site, the nature of our responsibility, if any, for the contamination at the site, if any, and the extent of contamination at and cost to remediate the site. The timing and availability of information on these sites is dependent on events outside of our control, such as when the party alleging liability provides information to us. At certain of these previously inactive sites, we have received general and special notices of liability from the EPA and/or state agencies alleging that we, sometimes with other PRPs, are liable for past and future costs of remediating environmental contamination allegedly caused by former operations. These notifications may assert that we, along with any other alleged PRPs, are liable for past and/or future clean-up costs. As further information becomes available to us for any of these sites, which would allow us to estimate a range of costs, we would at that time adjust our accruals. Any such adjustment could result in the recognition of an accrual that would have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.
In June 2008, we received a Directive and Notice to Insurers from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regarding the Margaret’s Creek site in Old Bridge Township, New Jersey. NJDEP alleged that a waste hauler transported waste from one of our former facilities for disposal at the site in the early 1970s. NJDEP referred the site to the EPA, and in November 2009, the EPA added the site to the National Priorities List under the name “Raritan Bay Slag Site.” In 2012, EPA notified NL of its potential liability at this site. In May 2013, EPA issued its Record of Decision for the site. In June 2013, NL filed a contribution suit under CERCLA and the New Jersey Spill Act titled NL Industries, Inc. v. Old Bridge Township, et al . (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-03493-MAS-TJB) against the current owner, Old Bridge Township, and several federal and state entities NL alleges designed and operated the site and who have significant potential liability as compared to NL which is alleged to have been a potential source of material placed at the site by others. NL’s suit also names certain former NL customers of the former NL facility alleged to be the source of some of the materials. In January 2014, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to NL for clean-up of the site based on the EPA’s preferred remedy set forth in the Record of Decision. NL has denied liability and will defend vigorously against all claims while continuing to seek contribution from other PRPs.
In August 2009, we were served with a complaint in Raritan Baykeeper, Inc. d/b/a NY/NJ Baykeeper et al. v. NL Industries, Inc. et al. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No. 3:09-cv-04117). This is a citizen’s suit filed by two local environmental groups pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act against NL, current owners, developers and state and local government entities. The complaint alleges that hazardous substances were and continue to be discharged from our former Sayreville, New Jersey property into the sediments of the adjacent Raritan River. The former Sayreville site is currently being remediated by owner/developer parties under the oversight of the NJDEP. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, imposition of civil penalties and an award of costs. In June 2022, NL received a letter from the NJDEP informing NL that remediation of contaminated sites upriver of the former Sayreville site had progressed to the point that it was now appropriate for NL to resume investigating the sediments adjacent to the Sayreville site. NL informed the NJDEP by letter that it would resume that investigation. The lawsuit remains pending. NL continues to deny liability and will defend vigorously against all claims.
In June 2011, we were served in ASARCO LLC v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, Case No. 4:11-cv-00138-DGK). The plaintiff brought this CERCLA contribution action against several defendants to recover a portion of the amount it paid in settlement with the U.S. Government during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy in relation to the Tar Creek site, the Cherokee County Superfund Site in southeast Kansas, the Oronogo-Duenweg Lead Mining Belt Superfund Site in Jasper County, Missouri and the Newton County Mine Tailing Site in Newton County, Missouri. We have denied liability and will defend vigorously against all of the claims. In the second quarter of 2012, NL filed a motion to stay the case. In the first quarter of 2013, NL’s motion was granted and the court entered an indefinite stay, which remains in place.
In September 2011, we were served in ASARCO LLC v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:11-cv-00864). The plaintiff brought this CERCLA contribution action against several defendants to recover a portion of the amount it paid in settlement with the U.S. Government during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy in relation to the Southeast Missouri Mining District. We have denied liability and will defend vigorously against all of the claims. In May 2015, the trial court on its own motion entered an indefinite stay of the litigation, which remains in place.
-27-
In July 2012, we were served in EPEC Polymers, Inc., v. NL Industries, Inc. , (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case 3:12-cv-03842-PGS-TJB). The plaintiff, a landowner of property located across the Raritan River from our former Sayreville, New Jersey operation, claims that contaminants from NL’s former Sayreville operation came to be located on its land. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and alleges, among other things, trespass, private nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and claims under CERCLA and the New Jersey Spill Act. We have denied liability and will defend vigorously against all of the claims.
In September 2013, EPA issued to NL and 34 other PRPs general notice of potential liability and a demand for payment of past costs and performance of a Remedial Design for the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site in Brooklyn, New York. In March 2014, EPA issued a UAO to NL and approximately 27 other PRPs for performance of the Remedial Design at the site. EPA contends that NL is liable as the alleged successor to the Doehler Die Casting Company, and therefore responsible for any potential contamination at the site resulting from Doehler’s ownership/operation of a warehouse and a die casting plant it owned 90 years ago. In April 2019, EPA issued a second UAO to NL and approximately 27 other PRPs for performance of certain work related to the Remedial Design at the site. NL believes that it has no liability at the site. NL is currently in discussions with EPA regarding a de minimis settlement and is otherwise taking actions necessary to respond to the UAO. If these discussions are unsuccessful, NL will continue to deny liability and will defend vigorously against all of the claims.
In January 2020, we were sued in Atlantic Richfield, Co. v. NL Industries, Inc. , (United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case 1:20-cv-00234). This is a CERCLA cost recovery action brought by a past owner and operator of certain mining properties located in Rico, Colorado. We have denied liability and will defend vigorously against all claims.
In December 2020, NL and several other defendants were sued in California Department of Toxic Substances v. NL Industries, Inc. , (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case 2:20-cv-11293). This complaint by a California state agency asserts claims under CERCLA, a state environmental statute, and the common law relating to lead contamination allegedly connected to a secondary lead smelter located in Vernon, California. In October 2022, the trial court issued an order finding that NL and the other defendants are not liable under CERCLA for lead contamination in residential neighborhoods surrounding, but at a distance from, the former secondary lead smelter. The case will continue with regard to the former smelter property and an adjacent industrial area. We have denied liability and will continue to defend vigorously against all claims.
Other litigation
We have been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by us. There are 109 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 583 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts’ medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.
Based on information available to us, including:
● facts concerning historical operations,
● the rate of new claims,
● the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
● our prior experience in the defense of these matters,
we believe the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices
-28-
regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us.
In addition to the matters described above, we and our affiliates are also involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage for environmental matters. We currently believe that the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes (including asbestos-related claims), individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided.
Insurance coverage claims
We are involved in certain legal proceedings with a number of our former insurance carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers’ obligations to us under insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits. The issue of whether insurance coverage for defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for our lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of factors and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will be available.
We have agreements with certain of our former insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our future lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier reimburses us for a portion of our future asbestos litigation defense costs. We are not able to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred by us because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense costs qualify for reimbursement. While we continue to seek additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be successful in obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. Accordingly, we recognize insurance recoveries in income only when receipt of the recovery is probable and we are able to reasonably estimate the amount of the recovery.
In January 2014, we were served with a complaint in Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, et al v. NL Industries, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 14/650103). The plaintiff, a former insurance carrier of ours, is seeking a declaratory judgment of its obligations to us under insurance policies issued to us by the plaintiff with respect to certain lead pigment lawsuits. Other insurers have been added as parties to the case and have also sought a declaratory judgment regarding their obligations under certain insurance policies. NL has filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that all of the insurers are obligated to provide NL with certain coverage and seeking damages for breach of contract. In December 2020, the trial court denied the insurers’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the arguments raised by the insurers did not bar NL from coverage under the relevant policies. We continue to believe the insurers’ claims are without merit and we intend to defend NL’s rights and prosecute NL’s claims in this action vigorously.
We have settled insurance coverage claims concerning environmental claims with certain of our principal former insurance carriers. We do not expect further material settlements relating to environmental remediation coverage.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable
-29-
PART II