LITIGATION	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION	LITIGATION In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims, that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. Uncertainties to which litigation is inherently subject include, among other things, costs, unpredictable court or jury decisions that could affect other litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings and differing laws and regulations in jurisdictions where the Company operates. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred or the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred. Due to the uncertainties involved in litigation, management is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation identified below, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. With respect to the litigation identified below, the Company has only accrued for the court-approved agreement related to the California Proceedings, identified in the Public Nuisance Claim Litigation section. For the remaining litigation identified below, the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss has occurred, or the Company believes it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. Due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flow, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties. Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. Other than the California Proceedings and currently pending cases, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful. The Company is vigorously defending all lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any additional litigation that may be filed, including utilizing all avenues of appeal, if necessary. Public Nuisance Claim Litigation. The Company and other companies have been defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by various states, cities and counties, including by the State of Rhode Island; the City of St. Louis, Missouri; various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey; various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio; the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the County of Santa Clara, California and other public entities in the State of California (the California Proceedings); and Lehigh and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. Except for the California Proceedings in which the Company reached a court-approved agreement in 2019 after nearly twenty years of litigation, all of those legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. Most recently, on May 7, 2024, as further described below in Wisconsin Litigation, three plaintiffs filed amended complaints alleging, in part, public nuisance claims. Wisconsin Litigation. The Company and other companies are or have been defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. The current proceedings consist of two federal court cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Ernest Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al. and Deziree and Detareion Valoe v. American Cyanamid, et. al.) and one case pending in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin (Arrieona Beal v. Armstrong Containers, Inc., et al.). Those matters include claims by four individuals allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint while they were minors. The plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages and have invoked Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory (which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. On May 20, 2021, as a result of a decision in favor of the Company by United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Ravon Owens v. American Cyanamid, et al., Cesar Sifuentes v. American Cyanamid, et al. and Glenn Burton, Jr. v. American Cyanamid, et al. cases, the Company and the three other defendants filed motions for summary judgment to dismiss all claims of the approximately 150 plaintiffs then pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, including the claims of Gibson and the Valoes. On March 3, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants. On September 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal with the Seventh Circuit, seeking to appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants. On February 9, 2024, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants in all cases except those filed by Gibson and the Valoes, which cases were remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Following remand of the Gibson and Valoe cases, the three remaining plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May 7, 2024, alleging strict liability, negligence and public nuisance claims. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints on June 20, 2024. On November 8, 2024, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaints, dismissing the second cause of action for general negligence and plaintiffs’ abatement allegations, but otherwise permitting the case to proceed. On December 6, 2024, the Company and some of the other defendants filed a third-party complaint against NL Industries, Inc. (NL) and the owners and landlords of the properties where plaintiffs resided. On January 30, 2025, the district court entered a stipulated order dismissing NL pursuant to the execution of a Pierringer release settlement agreement between plaintiffs and NL where the plaintiffs have agreed to indemnify NL against claims for contribution from the Company and some of the other defendants. Some of the owners and landlords have filed motions to dismiss the third-party complaints, to which the Company has filed oppositions; these motions are pending. In the separate state court proceeding, on August 24, 2021, Arrieona Beal filed an amended complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, naming the Company and other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers as defendants pursuant to the risk contribution liability theory. The plaintiff previously had sued her landlords. On January 3, 2024, the Company and some of the other manufacturing defendants filed a third-party complaint against NL and cross-claims against the landlord defendants. On January 10, 2024, one of the landlord defendants filed a counterclaim and cross-claim against all parties. On February 27, 2025, landlord defendants Hattie and Jerry Mitchell were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to the execution of a Pierringer release settlement agreement between plaintiff and the landlord defendants where the plaintiff has agreed to indemnify the landlord defendants against claims for contribution from the Company and the other defendants. Other matters. On December 18, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund (collectively, the NJ DEP) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division in Camden County, New Jersey. The NJ DEP seeks to recover natural resource damages, punitive damages and litigation fees and costs, as well as other costs, damages, declaratory relief and penalties pursuant to New Jersey state statutes and common law theories in connection with the alleged discharge of hazardous substances and pollutants at the Company’s Gibbsboro, New Jersey site, a former manufacturing plant and related facilities. Following expert discovery, on November 20, 2024, the Company filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking to enforce the terms of an April 2019 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree between the Company and the United States Environmental Protection Agency that is being attacked by the NJ DEP’s state court lawsuit. On December 21, 2024, the United States filed a brief in opposition to the Company’s motion, to which the Company filed a reply brief. On July 16, 2025, the federal court held a hearing on the Company’s motion and denied the motion without prejudice. In the state court case, there is an ongoing discovery dispute that remains pending between the Company and the NJ DEP. The state court has set a trial date of February 23, 2026. In July 2024, a third-party assurance, testing, inspection and certification provider changed its listing for one of the Company’s protective coatings products, an intumescent coating used for fire protection of steel beam assemblies. The Company has received claims regarding this matter, including from a competitor, and is working with its customers and end users to assist in understanding the potential impacts of the listing change, including the extent of potential remedial action that may involve the application of additional product. The Company is also investigating potential inaccuracies for certain other Firetex intumescent products arising out of tests conducted on those products by the same third-party provider. Additionally, the Company is investigating an issue in connection with its Firetex Design Estimator software in which the software recommended estimated dry film thicknesses (DFT) for certain intumescent products that were in excess of published maximum DFTs, for which the Company has also received claims. The Company’s review of these matters is ongoing. Except for an immaterial product warranty liability which remains recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2025, any additional amount or range of potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims, that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. Uncertainties to which litigation is inherently subject include, among other things, costs, unpredictable court or jury decisions that could affect other litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings and differing laws and regulations in jurisdictions where the Company operates. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred or the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred.

Due to the uncertainties involved in litigation, management is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation identified below, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. With respect to the litigation identified below, the Company has only accrued for the court-approved agreement related to the California Proceedings, identified in the Public Nuisance Claim Litigation section. For the remaining litigation identified below, the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss has occurred, or the Company believes it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. Due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flow, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. Other than the California Proceedings and currently pending cases, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings.

In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful. The Company is vigorously defending all lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any additional litigation that may be filed, including utilizing all avenues of appeal, if necessary.

Public Nuisance Claim Litigation. The Company and other companies have been defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by various states, cities and counties, including by the State of Rhode Island; the City of St. Louis, Missouri; various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey; various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio; the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the County of Santa Clara, California and other public entities in the State of California (the California Proceedings); and Lehigh and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. Except for the California Proceedings in which the Company reached a court-approved agreement in 2019 after nearly twenty years of litigation, all of those legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. Most recently, on May 7, 2024, as further described below in Wisconsin Litigation, three plaintiffs filed amended complaints alleging, in part, public nuisance claims.

Wisconsin Litigation. The Company and other companies are or have been defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. The current proceedings consist of two federal court cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Ernest Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al. and Deziree and Detareion Valoe v. American Cyanamid, et. al.) and one case pending in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin (Arrieona Beal v. Armstrong Containers, Inc., et al.). Those matters include claims by four individuals allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint while they were minors. The plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages and have invoked Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory (which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff.

On May 20, 2021, as a result of a decision in favor of the Company by United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Ravon Owens v. American Cyanamid, et al., Cesar Sifuentes v. American Cyanamid, et al. and Glenn Burton, Jr. v. American Cyanamid, et al. cases, the Company and the three other defendants filed motions for summary judgment to dismiss all claims of the approximately 150 plaintiffs then pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, including the claims of Gibson and the Valoes. On March 3, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants. On September 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal with the Seventh Circuit, seeking to appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants. On February 9, 2024, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants in all cases except those filed by Gibson and the Valoes, which cases were remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Following remand of the Gibson and Valoe cases, the three remaining plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May 7, 2024, alleging strict liability, negligence and public nuisance claims. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints on June 20, 2024. On November 8, 2024, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaints, dismissing the second cause of action for general negligence and plaintiffs’ abatement allegations, but otherwise permitting the case to proceed. On December 6, 2024, the Company and some of the other defendants filed a third-party complaint against NL Industries, Inc. (NL) and the owners and landlords of the properties where plaintiffs resided. On January 30, 2025, the district court entered a stipulated order dismissing NL pursuant to the execution of a Pierringer release settlement agreement between plaintiffs and NL where the plaintiffs have agreed to indemnify NL against claims for contribution from the Company and some of the other defendants. Some of the owners and landlords have filed motions to dismiss the third-party complaints, to which the Company has filed oppositions; these motions are pending.

In the separate state court proceeding, on August 24, 2021, Arrieona Beal filed an amended complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, naming the Company and other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers as defendants pursuant to the risk contribution liability theory. The plaintiff previously had sued her landlords. On January 3, 2024, the Company and some of the other manufacturing defendants filed a third-party complaint against NL and cross-claims against the landlord defendants. On January 10, 2024, one of the landlord defendants filed a counterclaim and cross-claim against all parties. On February 27, 2025, landlord defendants Hattie and Jerry Mitchell were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to the execution of a Pierringer release settlement agreement between plaintiff and the landlord defendants where the plaintiff has agreed to indemnify the landlord defendants against claims for contribution from the Company and the other defendants.

Other matters. On December 18, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund (collectively, the NJ DEP) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division in Camden County, New Jersey. The NJ DEP seeks to recover natural resource damages, punitive damages and litigation fees and costs, as well as other costs, damages, declaratory relief and penalties pursuant to New Jersey state statutes and common law theories in connection with the alleged discharge of hazardous substances and pollutants at the Company’s Gibbsboro, New Jersey site, a former manufacturing plant and related facilities. Following expert discovery, on November 20, 2024, the Company filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking to enforce the terms of an April 2019 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree between the Company and the United States Environmental Protection Agency that is being attacked by the NJ DEP’s state court lawsuit. On December 21, 2024, the United States filed a brief in opposition to the

In July 2024, a third-party assurance, testing, inspection and certification provider changed its listing for one of the Company’s protective coatings products, an intumescent coating used for fire protection of steel beam assemblies. The Company has received claims regarding this matter, including from a competitor, and is working with its customers and end users to assist in understanding the potential impacts of the listing change, including the extent of potential remedial action that may involve the application of additional product. The Company is also investigating potential inaccuracies for certain other Firetex intumescent products arising out of tests conducted on those products by the same third-party provider. Additionally, the Company is investigating an issue in connection with its Firetex Design Estimator software in which the software recommended estimated dry film thicknesses (DFT) for certain intumescent products that were in excess of published maximum DFTs, for which the Company has also received claims. The Company’s review of these matters is ongoing. Except for an immaterial product warranty liability which remains recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2025, any additional amount or range of potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.