Note 17. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Litigation Overview

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to various lawsuits, claims, assessments, government investigations, regulatory proceedings and other legal proceedings with respect to product liability, intellectual property, personal injury, commercial, contractual, employment, regulatory, environmental, anti-trust, and other such matters that arise in the ordinary course of business in multiple jurisdictions. Any determination in such a proceeding that the Company’s operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with applicable laws or regulations could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement, temporary or permanent suspension of operations or debarment or injunctive relief. In addition, Chemours, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of EID prior to its separation on July 1, 2015 ("the Separation"), is subject to or required under the Separation-related agreements executed prior to the Separation to indemnify EID against various pending legal proceedings. The Company vigorously defends such lawsuits, claims, assessments, government investigations and other legal proceedings, whether raised against itself or under its indemnity obligation. Disputes between Chemours and EID may arise regarding indemnification matters, including disputes based on matters of law or contract interpretation. Should such disputes arise, they could materially adversely affect the Company.

When making determinations about recording liabilities related to legal proceedings or unasserted claims that are probable of assertion, the Company complies with the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. Where there is an estimated range of probable loss and an amount within the range of loss appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, the Company accrues a liability for that specific amount. When no amount within an estimated range of probable loss is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues a liability for the minimum amount in the range. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible, but not probable, the Company does not accrue a liability, but instead discloses the nature of the matter and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, to the extent such estimate can be made. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and whether a loss or range of loss is reasonably estimable. The Company’s judgments are subjective based on the status of the legal or regulatory proceedings, the merits of the Company’s defenses and consultation with in-house and outside legal counsel. Because of substantial uncertainties related to these matters, accruals are based on the best information available each period, including, among others, mediation, settlement discussions or agreements. As a matter progresses, the Company may receive information, through plaintiff demands, through discovery, in the form of reports of purported experts, or in the context of settlement or mediation discussions that purport to quantify an amount of alleged damages, but with which the Company may not agree. Furthermore, settlement discussions are complex and often involve potential amounts, scope and terms, which can be monetary and non-monetary, that one or more parties may not consider reasonable under the circumstances or indicative of the merits or potential outcome of any court proceeding with respect to the underlying claims. Such information may or may not lead the Company to determine that it is able to make a reasonable estimate as to a probable loss or range of loss in connection with a matter. As additional information becomes available, the Company reassesses the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise its estimates accordingly. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the legal and regulatory process in the multiple jurisdictions in the United States and internationally, management’s judgments may be materially different than the actual outcomes. The Company's ability to assess outcomes and make reasonable estimates of potential losses is further influenced by the fact that a resolution of one or more matters may impact the resolution of other similar matters in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both. Legal costs such as outside counsel fees and expenses are charged to expense in the period services are rendered.

Unless otherwise stated, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or a range of loss for the matters described below, potentially based on one or more of the following reasons: actual or potential plaintiffs have not claimed an amount of monetary damages or the amounts are unsupportable or exaggerated, the matters are in early stages, there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, there are significant factual issues to be resolved, the proceedings involve multiple defendants or potential defendants whose share of any potential responsibility has not been determined. Because litigation is subject to significant uncertainties, and adverse rulings, judgments or other outcomes could occur in the future, it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses substantially in excess of accrued liabilities or with respect to matters for which no liability has been accrued because losses are not currently probable and reasonably estimable.

Management believes the Company’s accounting treatment and disclosure for the matters discussed below are appropriate based on the facts and circumstances for each matter, which are discussed in further detail below.

Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with DuPont, Corteva and EID

In January 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID, a subsidiary of Corteva, entered into a binding MOU, reflecting the parties’ agreement to share potential future legacy liabilities relating to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (i.e., “Indemnifiable Losses”, as defined in the separation agreement, dated as of June 26, 2015, as amended, between EID and Chemours (the “Separation Agreement”)) until the earlier to occur of: (i) December 31, 2040; (ii) the day on which the aggregate amount of Qualified Spend is equal to $4,000; or, (iii) a termination in accordance with the terms of the MOU (e.g., non-performance of the escrow funding requirements pursuant to the MOU by any party). As defined in the MOU, Qualified Spend includes:

The parties have agreed that, during the term of the cost-sharing arrangement, Chemours will bear half of the cost of such future potential legacy PFAS liabilities, and DuPont and Corteva will collectively bear the other half of the cost of such future potential legacy PFAS liabilities up to an aggregate $4,000, of which approximately $1,300 is available after giving consideration for the funding of the payment to the State of Ohio and the supplemental payment to the State of Delaware as well as the net present value of the scheduled settlement payments per the terms of the settlement agreement with the State of New Jersey, described further below. Any PFAS-related insurance recoveries, as received, will increase the future amount available under the MOU. The $1,300 available amount above does not include any potential future insurance proceeds not yet received under noticed insurance policies, which have policy limits that total $750. Any recoveries of Qualified Spend from DuPont and/or Corteva under the cost-sharing arrangement will be recognized as an offset to the Company’s cost of goods sold or selling, general, and administrative expense, as applicable, when realizable. Any Qualified Spend incurred by DuPont and/or Corteva under the cost-sharing arrangement will be recognized in the Company’s cost of goods sold or selling, general, and administrative expense, as applicable, when the amounts of such costs are probable and estimable or expensed as incurred with respect to period costs, such as legal expenses. During the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, the Company incurred expenditures subject to reimbursement of cost-sharing as Qualified Spend under the MOU of approximately $20 and $43, respectively.

After the term of this arrangement, Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Separation Agreement would continue unchanged, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed to release certain claims regarding Chemours’ Delaware lawsuit and confidential arbitration (concerning the indemnification of specified liabilities that EID assigned to Chemours in its spin-off), including that Chemours has released any claim set forth in the complaint filed in the Delaware lawsuit, any other similar claims arising out of or resulting from the facts recited by Chemours in the complaint or the process and manner in which EID structured or conducted the spin-off, and any other claims that challenge the spin-off or the assumption of Chemours Liabilities (as defined in the Separation Agreement) by Chemours and the allocation thereof, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. The parties have further agreed not to bring any future, additional claims regarding the Separation Agreement or the MOU outside of arbitration.

As part of the MOU, the parties established an escrow account to support and manage the payments for potential future PFAS liabilities. The MOU provides that: (i) no later than each of September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, Chemours shall deposit $100 into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $100 in the aggregate into an escrow account, and (ii) no later than September 30 of each subsequent year through and including 2028, Chemours shall deposit $50 into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $50 in the aggregate into an escrow account. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the MOU, each party may be permitted to defer funding in any year. Additionally, if on December 31, 2028, the balance of the escrow account (including interest) is less than $700, Chemours will make 50% of the deposits and DuPont and Corteva together will make 50% of the deposits necessary to restore the balance of the escrow account to $700. Such payments will be made in a series of five consecutive annual equal installments commencing on September 30, 2029 pursuant to the escrow account replenishment terms as set forth in the MOU. Any funds that remain in escrow at termination of the MOU will revert to the party that deposited them. As such, future payments made by the Company into the escrow account will remain an asset of Chemours, and such payments will be reflected as a transfer to restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets. No withdrawals are permitted from the escrow account before January 2026, except for funding mutually agreed-upon third-party settlements in excess of $125. Starting in January 2026, withdrawals may be made from the escrow account to fund Qualified Spend if the parties’ aggregate Qualified Spend in that particular year is greater than $200. Starting in January 2031, the amounts in the escrow account can be used to fund any Qualified Spend. Future payments from the escrow account for potential future PFAS liabilities will be reflected on the Company’s consolidated statement of cash flows at that point in time.

In September 2023, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement to the MOU, whereby the parties agreed to (i) release the funds held in escrow to fund, in part, the Water District Settlement Fund (discussed further below), (ii) waive the escrow funding obligation of each party due no later than September 30, 2023, and (iii) with respect to the escrow funding obligation due no later than September 30, 2024, waive the obligation of each of the parties under certain conditions as agreed to by the parties. The parties agreed to fund the payments due by September 30, 2024, and the Company funded $50 into the escrow account on September 30, 2024. Pursuant to the terms of a PFAS Insurance Proceeds Memorandum of Understanding (the “PFAS Insurance MOU”), described below, the parties agreed to suspend the obligation of each of the parties to fund the $50 MOU payments due by September 30, 2025, and that future MOU funding requirements of Chemours will be reduced by amounts released from the insurance proceeds escrow to fund the New Jersey settlement, as described further below. As such, at March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had $50 deposited into the escrow account, respectively, which is recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets.

The parties have also sought insurance coverage for certain claims relating to PFAS matters, including claims in the AFFF MDL (as defined below). In July 2024, a $45 settlement agreement was reached amongst the parties with one of the insurance carriers. Per agreement with the parties, the Company received approximately $23 of the settlement as it was allocated amongst the parties in accordance with the percentage contribution in the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. Accordingly, during the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company recognized a $23 gain within selling, general, and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Since April 2025, six Demands for Arbitration have been sent to additional noticed insurance carriers and arbitrations are now proceeding.

In August 2025, in connection with agreeing to the New Jersey settlement as described further below, the parties entered a PFAS Insurance MOU. The PFAS Insurance MOU is contingent on achieving a binding settlement, pursuant to a final and effective Judicial Consent Order (“JCO”) with respect to the New Jersey settlement. Under the PFAS Insurance MOU, Chemours agreed to assign to the other parties its rights to receive certain insurance proceeds in return for $150 of consideration to be paid by the other parties into an escrow account that will be used to fund a portion of Chemours’ share of the New Jersey settlement. The other parties will be entitled to receive 100% of future PFAS-related insurance proceeds up to $300, as well as a fee paid from the receipt of additional PFAS-related insurance proceeds of $3 plus interest (at prime minus 2%) on any unrecovered fraction of $150, not to exceed $35 and subject to conditions within the PFAS Insurance MOU. After the other parties recover PFAS-related insurance proceeds pursuant to the terms above, Chemours shall be entitled to its 50% share of any further PFAS-related insurance recoveries. The PFAS Insurance MOU and the consideration the Company will receive represents a contingent gain which will not be recognized until the conditions above are met. The parties also acknowledge that for the purposes of Qualified Spend under the MOU: (i) relevant insurance proceeds received by a party will be netted against applicable costs included in the calculation of Qualified Spend, and (ii) for the New Jersey settlement, the net present value of the scheduled future payments will be applied against the MOU limit rather than the gross amount of future payments.

The parties will cooperate in good faith to enter into additional agreements reflecting the terms set forth in the MOU.

Asbestos

In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At both March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, there were approximately 850 lawsuits pending against EID alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.

With limited exception, the Company previously rejected EID’s demand for indemnity and defense of asbestos and product liability matters arising from an EID subsidiary, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., (“SGPI”). EID brought an arbitration proceeding on this issue and in November 2024, the Company and EID reached an agreement in principle and adjourned the arbitration. The Company finalized the settlement agreement in March 2025. Per the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company assumed the current SGPI asbestos cases as well as all future SGPI asbestos and asbestos related product liability claims. The agreement also includes that the Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases.

At March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, Chemours had accruals of $95 and $96 related to these matters, respectively. Asbestos reserves recorded, inclusive of SGPI asbestos and product liability claims, include estimated losses for current claims as well as an estimate of losses for future claims.

Benzene

In the Separation, EID assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, there were 26 and 24 cases pending against EID alleging benzene-related illnesses. These cases consist of premises matters involving contractors and deceased former employees who claim exposure to benzene while working at EID sites primarily in the 1960s through the 1980s, and product liability claims based on alleged exposure to benzene found in trace amounts in aromatic hydrocarbon solvents used to manufacture EID products such as paints, thinners, and reducers.

Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to the docket as a whole; however, given the evaluation of each benzene matter is highly fact-driven and impacted by disease, exposure, and other factors, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

PFOA

Chemours does not, and has never, used “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) as a polymerization aid nor sold it as a commercial product. Prior to the Separation, the performance chemicals segment of EID made PFOA at its Fayetteville Works site in Fayetteville, North Carolina (“Fayetteville”) and used PFOA as a polymerization aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers at certain sites, including: Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia; Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey ("Chambers Works"); Dordrecht Works, Netherlands; Changshu Works, China; and, Shimizu, Japan. These sites are now owned and/or operated by Chemours.

At March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, Chemours maintained an accrual of $40 and $39, respectively, related to PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement (discussed below), EID’s obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the “NJ DEP”). These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling, and testing drinking water in and around certain Company sites, and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the applicable levels. The Company will continue to work with EPA, NJ DEP and other authorities regarding the extent of work that may be required with respect to these matters.

Leach Settlement

In 2004, EID settled a class action captioned Leach v. DuPont, filed in West Virginia state court, alleging that approximately 80,000 residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. Among the settlement terms, EID funded a series of health studies by an independent science panel of experts (“C8 Science Panel”) to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol. Under the terms of the settlement, EID is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and pay the administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring implemented the program, and testing is ongoing with associated payments to service providers disbursed from an escrow account which the Company replenishes pursuant to the settlement agreement. Through March 31, 2026, approximately $2 has been disbursed from escrow related to medical monitoring. In September 2025, the medical panel directed modifications to the monitoring program based upon its review of program and medical record information. The Director of Medical Monitoring is working with the parties to implement those modifications which will include ongoing medical monitoring for kidney and testicular cancer and ulcerative colitis, allowing out of network providers and providing notice to the class of the program changes. While it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur additional costs related to the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, EID must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. At Separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours and is included in the accruals discussed above.

PFOA Leach Class Personal Injury

Further, under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against EID only for those diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were subsequently filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in Ohio federal court. These were resolved in March 2017 when EID entered into an agreement settling all MDL cases and claims, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that were part of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s claims inventory, as well as cases tried to a jury verdict (the “First MDL Settlement”) for $670.7 in cash, with half paid by Chemours, and half paid by EID.

Concurrently with the First MDL Settlement, EID and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (i.e. “Indemnifiable Losses”, as defined in the Separation Agreement between EID and Chemours) for a period of five years. The cost-sharing agreement entered concurrently with the First MDL Settlement has been superseded by the binding MOU addressing certain PFAS matters and costs. For more information on this matter refer to “Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with DuPont, Corteva and EID” within this “Note 17 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

While all MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the First MDL Settlement, the First MDL Settlement did not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Approximately 96 plaintiffs filed matters after the First MDL Settlement. In January 2021, EID and Chemours entered into settlement agreements with counsel representing these plaintiffs, providing for a settlement of all but one of the 96 then filed and pending cases, as well as additional pre-suit claims, under which those cases and claims of settling plaintiffs were resolved for approximately $83 (the “Second MDL Settlement”). Chemours contributed approximately $29, and DuPont and Corteva each contributed approximately $27 to the Second MDL Settlement.

The single matter not included in the Second MDL Settlement was a testicular cancer case tried in March 2020 to a verdict of $40 in compensatory and emotional distress damages and $10 in loss of consortium damages. The jury found that EID’s conduct did not warrant punitive damages. In March 2021, the trial court issued post-trial rulings which reduced the consortium damages to $0.25. The Company paid its share from the verdict in this matter in November 2023 after all of EID’s appeals process from United States Court of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court were denied.

In December 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("JPML") declined to close the Ohio MDL. Trial was scheduled to start in September 2024 for two plaintiffs, with a second trial scheduled to start in March 2025 for two plaintiffs. Prior to the start of the first trial in September, EID and Chemours entered into an agreement in principle with counsel representing MDL plaintiffs providing for settlement for all 45 filed and pending cases in the MDL as well as 29 additional pre-suit claims, under which those cases and claims of settling plaintiffs would be resolved and the MDL closed for $58.5, with Chemours contributing $29.25 and DuPont and Corteva contributing together contributing $29.25. The parties finalized and executed the term sheet as of November 13, 2024 on terms consistent with the above-referenced agreement in principle. In December 2024, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to terminate the MDL. In February 2025, the court entered an order granting the motion and suggesting dissolution of the MDL to the JPML and the JPML closed the MDL. In December 2024, the first payment under the term sheet became payable and Chemours paid its share of $14.75. In March 2025, the second and final payment under the term sheet became payable and Chemours paid its share of the final payment of $14.5.

PFAS

EID and Chemours have received governmental and regulatory inquiries and have been named in other litigations, including class actions, brought by individuals, municipalities, businesses, and water districts alleging exposure to and/or contamination from PFAS, including PFOA. Many actions include an allegation of fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours. Chemours has declined EID’s requests for indemnity for fraudulent transfer claims.

Chemours has responded to letters and inquiries from governmental law enforcement entities regarding PFAS, including in January 2020, a letter informing it that the U.S. Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are considering whether to open a criminal investigation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and asking that it retain its documents regarding PFAS and food contact applications. In July 2020, Chemours received a grand jury subpoena for documents. The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of any potential governmental, criminal, or civil proceeding that may result, the imposition of fines and penalties, and/or other remedies. The Company is also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any.

Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina

For information regarding the Company’s ongoing litigation and environmental remediation matters at Fayetteville, refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” under the “Environmental Overview” within this “Note 17 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

Aqueous Film Forming Foam Matters

Chemours does not manufacture or sell, and has never, manufactured nor sold aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”). Numerous defendants, including EID and Chemours, have been named in approximately 12,900 matters, involving AFFF, which is used to extinguish hydrocarbon-based (i.e., Class B) fires and subject to U.S. military specifications. Most matters have been transferred to or filed directly into a multi-district litigation (“AFFF MDL”) in South Carolina federal court or identified by a party for transfer. The matters pending in the AFFF MDL allege damages as a result of contamination, in most cases due to migration from military installations or airports, or personal injury from exposure to AFFF. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the contamination. Others have claims for personal injury, property diminution, and punitive damages.

In March 2021, ten water provider cases within the AFFF MDL were approved by the court for purposes of commencing initial discovery (Tier One discovery) and in October 2021, the court approved three of these cases for additional discovery (Tier Two discovery). In September 2022, a water provider action filed by the City of Stuart, Florida was selected for the first bellwether trial. The court encouraged all parties to discuss resolution of the water provider category of cases, and in October 2022 appointed a mediator to facilitate discussions among and between the parties. Chemours, Corteva/EID and DuPont, together, entered into U.S. public water system class action settlement agreement in June 2023, as further discussed below. Prior to the public water system class action suit settlement, in May 2023, the Plaintiffs filed, and the court granted, a motion to sever all claims against Chemours and EID from the first bellwether trial for the water provider cases. There are currently approximately 900 water provider cases in the AFFF MDL.

For non-water provider cases in the AFFF MDL (approximately 12,000), the parties are now proceeding with discovery in certain personal injury cases, with Tier One discovery completed in June 2024. In July 2024, the parties jointly submitted to the court a list of proposed Group A and Group B plaintiffs for purposes of staggering Tier 2 discovery. Tier 2 discovery for Group A cases was completed in December 2024 and Tier 2 discovery for Group B cases was completed in March 2026. Proposals for expert discovery for Group B cases are due by July 2026. The parties are discussing potential resolution of the personal injury category of cases and have engaged a mediator to facilitate discussions among and between the parties. Under the mutual obligations of the MOU, Chemours, Corteva/EID and DuPont, together, are engaged in these discussions, including through the mediator; however, there is no guarantee that the discussions will result in a settlement. In July 2025, the court entered an order relating to unfiled personal injury claims and their potential to disrupt the MDL’s operations as well as the settlement discussions. In August 2025, the court entered a case management order to address concerns regarding unfiled personal injury cases. The order vacated the first personal injury bellwether trial in the Group A cases scheduled for October 20, 2025 and its associated deadlines. The order also provided a 21-day window in which unfiled cases were to be filed as well as information plaintiffs must provide in association with their claims, such as medical records and evidence of exposure, before the end of the year. This order allows multi-plaintiff complaints to be filed, which allows for many individual plaintiffs to be consolidated in one case. Also, in August 2025, the Court entered a second case management order to address cases alleging PFAS-related injuries that have sought to avoid the AFFF MDL and/or federal jurisdiction. The order requests that these cases be transferred to the MDL for oversight and management. Since the court entered the August 2025 case management orders, a significant number of new claims asserting personal injury have been filed or transferred to the AFFF MDL. In February 2026, the court issued Case Management Order No. 37, which established a process for plaintiffs to cure deficiencies with their complaints. It also established a dismissal process for complaints with un-cured deficiencies within a set period of time. As of March 31, 2026, the Company believes that a loss is reasonably possible but is not estimable with respect to this category of cases, including on the basis that these new cases and submitted information will be further evaluated as part of the above-referenced litigation and mediation.

Also, as of April 2025, the parties are proceeding with product identification discovery on a selection of 12 real property cases. Product identification fact discovery was completed in December 2025. Further deadlines have not yet been set.

In February 2025, the court issued an order seeking a process for expert reports and Daubert briefing on the general causation on liver and thyroid cancers. The court held a “Science Day” in June 2025 to address the claimed association of these diseases with exposure to an AFFF source. In December 2025, the court issued a case management order for Daubert briefing on liver and thyroid cancers, with briefing set to conclude by July 2026. Further, the court has also established a case management process for reviewing and listing diseases claimed to be associated with exposure to an AFFF source as well a protocol for dismissing personal injury claims for unlisted diseases. Plaintiffs asserting these unlisted claims were required to dismiss their unlisted personal injury claims without prejudice by September 10, 2024 or produce medical records and expert reports on general and specific causation for the alleged disease.

There are also AFFF lawsuits pending outside the AFFF MDL in state courts across the country that currently identify EID and/or Chemours as a defendant. Other than matters relating to U.S. states or territories, municipalities or utilities (as provided below), these matters are:

Valero Refining (“Valero”) has five pending state court lawsuits filed commencing in June 2019 regarding its Tennessee, Texas, California, and Louisiana facilities. These lawsuits allege that several defendants that designed, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold AFFF or PFAS incorporated into AFFF have caused Valero to incur damages and costs including remediation, AFFF disposal, and replacement. Valero also alleges fraudulent transfer.

In June 2025, Marathon Petroleum Company LP and Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LCC (collectively, “Marathon”) filed suit in Washington state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours and EID, alleging that its refinery had been contaminated by AFFF. The complaint seeks damages and abatement. The case was removed to federal court and conditionally transferred to the AFFF MDL. In September 2025, the Western District of Washington granted Marathon’s motion to remand, finding that there was insufficient evidence to show that federal officer jurisdiction applied when Marathon provided affidavit evidence that it did not. The case will now proceed in Washington state court.

Since May 2022, two lawsuits have been filed in Illinois state court against numerous defendants, including EID, which also allege personal injury from occupational exposure, including from AFFF-related materials/products, and seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages. Chemours is not a named defendant in either of these lawsuits. One of the matters was resolved in 2023 and is closed; the second matter was dismissed without prejudice in January 2026 and is now closed.

In Ontario, Canada, three lawsuits were filed by two parties in December 2022 against DuPont and another defendant, seeking contribution and indemnification, interest, and costs in connection with three underlying actions filed by property owners in Canada, and a related third-party action filed by some defendants in one of the matters. The plaintiffs in the underlying actions allege PFAS contamination of their respective properties from the use of firefighting foam. Chemours is not a named defendant in any of these matters but has agreed to defend pursuant to the MOU. These lawsuits against DuPont were noticed for discontinuance by two of the filing parties.

In September 2024, a matter was filed in New Jersey state court against EID, DuPont, Chemours and other defendants alleging personal injury due to exposure to AFFF-related PFAS in drinking water. This matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL.

Non-served matters relating to certain municipalities, utilities or individuals including, in September 2019, four individuals filed a lawsuit in New York state court alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to AFFF in Long Island drinking water. Plaintiffs also allege violation of New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act and seek compensatory and punitive damages and medical monitoring.

In British Columbia, Canada, a civil claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in December 2023 against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as individuals with certain diagnosed conditions after using or being exposed to AFFF containing PFAS under certain conditions and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2026, Chemours, DuPont and EID filed a Third-Party Notice against the Government of Canada.

Also in the British Columbia court, in June 2024, a civil claim was filed by His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all provincial and territorial governments that have incurred expenditures relating to alleged PFAS contamination, including from AFFF, of its water resources as well as municipalities, regional districts, and other governance authorities and persons responsible for drinking water systems. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In July 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all natural and legal persons in Quebec who own, operate, or supply water through a drinking water disbursement system intended for human consumption, and whose water source is located near sites where PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed or sold by defendants. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In August 2024, a claim was filed in the Manitoba Court of King's Bench (Winnipeg Centre) by the Muskoday First Nation against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as Indian Bands as defined under Canadian law. Plaintiff alleges that “any water, fish, and game they obtain from the reserve is contaminated with PFAS” by PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, that were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, or sold by defendants near their water sources. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In August 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Superior Court of Ontario against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all persons in Canada who own property with a well and whose well contains PFAS. Plaintiff alleges that their well as the wells of class members were contaminated by PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, that were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, or sold by defendants near their water sources. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In July 2025, Mead requested that the court discontinue the action against all defendants. On January 30, 2026, the court discontinued the action.

In September 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all persons in Canada who currently own property with a well, and whose well water contains PFAS. Plaintiff alleges that their well, and the wells of class members, were contaminated by PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, that were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, or sold by defendants near their water sources. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In August 2025, a civil claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada by Doig River First Nation (“Doig River”) against multiple defendants, including Chemours and EID, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The proposed class seeks to capture all bands as defined in the Indian Act or First Nations peoples with a modern treaty or land claims agreement, all Inuit land claim organizations or similar governance structures, and all settlements or communities of Metis peoples in Canada that have incurred, and will incur, in the future, damages relating to PFAS contamination of their water resources, or who owned, operated, controlled, were responsible for, or were beneficiaries of a drinking water system that has been contaminated by PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as an injunction enjoining the defendants from manufacturing, distributing, and selling PFAS-containing products in Canada.

In January 2026, a civil claim was filed in the Superior Court of the Province of Québec, Canada by the City of Val d’Or (“City of Val d’Or”) against multiple defendants, including Chemours and DuPont, alleging PFAS contamination of two of its drinking water wells due to use of AFFF at the local airport. City of Val d’Or also alleges that AFFF was used regularly to put out fires or for firefighting training up until 1999, and that as of 2005 and onwards, the city’s firefighters used AFFF for training purposes. City of Val d’Or seeks money damages related to the construction of a new drinking water well.

United States Public Water System Class Action Suit Settlement and Related Opt-Outs

On June 1, 2023, Chemours, Corteva/EID, and DuPont, together, entered into a binding agreement in principle to comprehensively resolve all drinking water claims related to PFAS of a defined class of U.S. public water systems that serve the vast majority of the United States population arising out of the AFFF MDL, that was finalized by a definitive agreement on June 30, 2023 (the "Settlement Agreement"), subject to approval by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. A preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement by the court was granted on August 22, 2023.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont collectively established and contributed a total of $1,185 to a qualified settlement fund (“Water District Settlement Fund”). Contribution rates were consistent with the MOU, with Chemours (together with its subsidiaries) contributing 50%, and DuPont and Corteva collectively (together with their subsidiaries) contributing the remaining 50%. The settlement amounts were funded in full and deposited into the Water District Settlement Fund. On September 6, 2023, Chemours deposited $592 into the Water District Settlement Fund, which was recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2023. In exchange for the payment to the Water District Settlement Fund, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont (together with their subsidiaries) will receive a release of the claims from the Class (as defined below), upon entry into final judgment by the court in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by Chemours or the other parties.

The class represented in the Settlement Agreement is composed of all Public Water Systems, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 300f, with a current detection of PFAS or that are currently required to monitor for PFAS under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule or other applicable federal or state law (the “Class”). The following systems are excluded from the settlement class: water systems owned and operated by a State or the United States government; small systems that have not detected the presence of PFAS and are not currently required to monitor for it under federal or state requirements; and water systems in the lower Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina (which are included only if they so request). PFAS, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, includes PFOA and HFPO Dimer Acid among a broad range of fluorinated organic substances. While it is reasonably possible that the excluded systems or claims could result in additional future lawsuits, claims, assessments or proceedings, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any such matters, and as such, the Company is unable to develop an estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, at this time.

The Settlement Agreement does not resolve claims of Public Water Systems that are not included in the settlement as described above, or of Public Water Systems that requested exclusion from the Class (“opt out”) pursuant to the process established by the court. It also does not resolve potential future claims of Public Water Systems that have not detected and do not detect any PFAS contamination, but where such contamination first occurs in the future. The Settlement Agreement also does not resolve certain claims not related to drinking water, such as certain specified separate alleged claims relating to stormwater or wastewater treatment, or other alleged types of claims such as for personal injury or for natural resource damages claimed by state attorneys general, that remain outstanding in the AFFF MDL or other courts. Matters related to claims from other public water systems, state natural resources damages and other PFAS matters are further described below.

As part of the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement in August 2023, notice of the Settlement Agreement has been provided to class members and such members had until November 11, 2023 to object to the settlement or December 4, 2023 to submit a request for exclusion, indicating they wish to opt-out of the settlement class. A Final Fairness Hearing on the Settlement Agreement occurred on December 14, 2023.

On January 3, 2024, the court-appointed Notice Administrator for the settlement submitted a declaration regarding objections to the settlement and opt-outs, and on February 6, 2024, it submitted an updated report to the court regarding its further review of the submitted opt-outs. The Notice Administrator identified that, based on his then February 2024 review as done in accordance with the court's guidance, opt-outs had been received from approximately 1,000 of the 14,167 listed potential Class members. In addition to those opt-outs, the Notice Administrator stated that he also received requests for exclusion from approximately 300 additional entities that were not on the list of Class members. The Court issued an order providing that the deadline for entities to withdraw a previously submitted opt-out was March 1, 2024, which was subsequently extended to March 15, 2024 by the Court. The Notice Administrator’s determinations are not dispositive of the validity of opt-outs, which may be subject to judicial review and the Notice Administrator also continues to review the opt-outs for whether they were proper or duplicative.

Chemours, Corteva and DuPont deny the allegations in the underlying litigation and reserve all legal and factual defenses against such claims if they were litigated to conclusion. On February 8, 2024, the court issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement, and on February 26, 2024, the court entered a final order and judgment. On March 11, 2024, one public water system filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment, and such appeal was dismissed in April 2024. No additional appeals were filed during the appeal period, and accordingly the court's approval is a final judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Settling Defendants confirmed to the escrow agent in May 2024 that the Effective Date has occurred under the Settlement Agreement and Chemours no longer maintains its reversionary interest to the underlying restricted funds within the Water District Settlement Fund.

With respect to the submitted opt-outs, for those entities that have filed claims and/or lawsuit against numerous defendants, including Chemours, EID, Corteva, DuPont, either prior or subsequent to the Settlement Agreement, approximately 40 of such opt-out entities are in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina Multi-district litigation and approximately 100 of such opt-out entities are named plaintiffs in other various federal, state or local courts (see Other Public Water System Matters below). The Company’s assessment of its potential liability with respect to the opt-outs considers numerous factors, many of which are not yet determinable. Many of these lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues related to causation, scientific evidence and alleged actual damages and other substantial uncertainties.

Other than a single opt-out matter, for which the Company is engaged in discussions with the opt-out entity and maintains an immaterial accrual, and the Centre matter below, the Company has not accrued for any potential losses with respect to the opt-out population as of March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, as such losses are not probable or estimable. Additional future lawsuits, claims, assessments or proceedings, including for those identified in the Other Public Water Systems Matters below, could be brought or maintained either by entities that submitted opt-outs, or by entities asserting claims that are expressly excluded from the releases in the Settlement Agreement. However, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any such matter due to various reasons including, among others, legal and factual defenses against such claims including factors noted above, timing when such claims could be resolved in court, and the number of defendants in any of those claims. While management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to the matters, which could be material to the results of operations, financial position, or cash flows, the Company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, at this time.

Other Public Water System Matters

In addition to the matters described in the AFFF MDL, as well as the matters described in "Litigation and Other matters related to Fayetteville” within this “Note 17 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”, other public water systems have filed lawsuits against Chemours, Corteva/EID, and DuPont including the following:

In New York federal court, 23 Long Island water suppliers that have filed lawsuits since August 2019 against several defendants including EID and Chemours alleging PFAS, PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) contamination through releases from industrial and manufacturing facilities and business locations where PFAS-contaminated water was used for irrigation and sites where consumer products were disposed. Claims vary between matters but include claims of personal injury alleging various disease conditions, product liability, negligence, nuisance, trespass and fraudulent transfer. All matters are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and, in certain cases, medical monitoring, declaratory and/or injunctive relief. In January 2022, Chemours filed a third-party claim for indemnity in connection with one of the Long Island water supplier matters. One of the water suppliers filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In New York and New Jersey federal courts, lawsuits were filed by Suez Water in December 2020 against several defendants, including EID and Chemours, alleging damages from PFAS releases into the environment, including PFOA and PFOS, that impacted water sources that the utilities use to provide water, as well as products liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in both matters. The motion was denied in the Suez Water New Jersey lawsuit in October 2021. In January 2022, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Suez New York lawsuit without prejudice and the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February 2022. Following the filing of the second amended complaint in the Suez New York lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2023, the court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, dismissing all claims against Chemours with prejudice, and finding a claim for design defect could be maintained against EID. Suez filed to opt out these matters from the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In March 2024, the stays in these matters were lifted. Discovery in both matters is set to conclude in 2027.

In Georgia and Alabama courts, lawsuits were filed beginning in 2017 against numerous carpet manufacturers, certain municipal defendants, and suppliers and former suppliers, including EID and Chemours. The lawsuits include a matter filed by the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. The Town of Centre filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. The trial began January 26, 2026 but was resolved before the trial concluded for an amount that did not materially affect results of operations for the period, with Chemours share being 50% under the MOU, which has been reserved for as of March 31, 2026.

Also, in Alabama, a purported class action was filed in July 2022 in Alabama federal court by the Utilities Board of Tuskegee on behalf of certain drinking water utilities against 3M, EID, Corteva and the Company alleging contamination of drinking water. The complaints allege negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance and trespass. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In April 2023, Shelby County, Alabama and Talladega County, Alabama, filed suit in Alabama state court against numerous carpet manufacturers located near Dalton Georgia, suppliers, EID, Chemours, and other defendants to be named later. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance and trespass in the release by the carpet mills of PFAS compounds, including PFOA, into the water sources used by the Counties to provide drinking water. The Counties seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief to remove PFAS from the water supply and prevent alleged ongoing contamination. In May 2023, the matter was removed to federal court and later remanded to state court. In August 2023, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama also filed suit in Alabama state court against the Company, DuPont, Corteva and other suppliers to carpet mills in Dalton Georgia, as well as against various landfill and waste companies. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS compounds, including PFOA, reaching the town’s water source. Gadsden seeks compensatory damages as well as expenses, potential lost profits, punitive damages and injunctive release. These matters were stayed in September 2023 pending final approval of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. Shelby County, Talladega County, City of Gadsden and the Utilities Board of Tuskegee as well as other water utilities that may be within the class, filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement and the matters are now proceeding. In January 2025, 3M removed each of the Shelby and Talladega Counties matters to federal court and also sought transfer to the AFFF MDL. Plaintiffs’ filed a motion to remand, which is pending. The motion to transfer to the AFFF MDL was denied in April 2025. In September 2025, the Court stayed the matter pending an appeal of remand to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals filed in another matter, Pine Hill. In April 2026, the matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In November 2024, the Court dismissed the Utilities Board of Tuskegee matter without prejudice. Also in November 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court accepted Defendants’ mandamus petition seeking a writ to dismiss the Gadsden case on the grounds that all injuries have been redressed and that the claims are time barred. In March 2025, the Alabama Supreme Court granted the mandamus and directed the case against DuPont and the other supplier defendants to be dismissed on failure to timely file within the statute of limitations.

In March 2024, Woodward Iodine Corporation (“Woodward”) notified Chemours that it commenced arbitration against Chemours and EID, alleging contractual indemnity and other claims on the basis that Chemours and EID failed to disclose the presence of PFAS in the “wetcake” provided to Woodward under the terms of an Iodine Supply Agreement (“ISA”). Woodward’s statement of claim alleges that the “wetcake” caused contamination to Woodward’s processes, buildings, property, and groundwater. Woodward seeks a declaratory judgment that it has a future right to indemnity under the ISA for any fines, civil penalties, or third-party claims relating to the presence of PFAS as well as damages. An arbitration hearing was held in February 2026; the parties will submit post-hearing briefing with a further hearing to be held in May 2026.

In March 2024, the Municipal Utilities Board of the City of Albertville, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court against certain defendants, including Chemours and EID. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass and seeks compensatory damages, real property damages, as well as past and future expenses, potential lost profits, and punitive damages. The plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief. Albertville filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In September 2025, the Court dismissed the claims for private nuisance and trespass.

In Georgia, a lawsuit was filed by the City of Rome against numerous carpet manufacturers, certain municipal defendants, and suppliers and former suppliers, including EID and Chemours, alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. In June 2023, Chemours, DuPont and Corteva entered into a confidential settlement with the City of Rome and its claims against these parties related to this matter have been released and the matter dismissed.

In Georgia, a putative class action was filed in 2019 on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department against the City of Dalton, Georgia, numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, Chemours and EID, alleging negligence, nuisance and other claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to their water sources (“Rome ratepayer matter”). In November 2022, EID and Chemours were added as defendants in a purported class action filed on behalf of residents of Summerville, Georgia and Chattooga County, Georgia in Federal Court (“Summerville ratepayer matter”). Plaintiffs seek various statutory violations as well as negligence and nuisance and seek remedies, injunctive relief, personal injury and property damages, as well as punitive damages. These matters are pending in court. Floyd County, City of Rome and Summerville filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In September 2025, the Court denied class certification as to future damages, but granted class certification as to past damages for alleged PFAS contamination of drinking water. In December 2024, the court in the Rome ratepayer matter ruled that the putative class did not have standing to seek injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for Defendants on that count. The matter is proceeding, including a pending motion on class certification.

Additionally in Georgia state court, in January 2024, certain landowners of property in Gordon County, Georgia, filed suit against the City of Calhoun, numerous carpet manufacturers operating in Calhoun, and carpet mill suppliers, including 3M, EID and Chemours. The complaint alleges that the carpet manufacturers sent PFAS-containing wastewater to the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant for many years. It further alleges Calhoun spread the treated sludge containing PFAS from the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant on plaintiffs' land until 2023. Plaintiffs allege negligence and nuisance, and seek compensatory damages, including diminution of property value, and punitive damages, as well as an injunctive order to remediate the property. Calhoun filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In May 2024, a separate lawsuit was filed in Georgia state court on behalf of multiple plaintiffs located in Calhoun, Georgia, alleging that defendants, including Chemours and EID, manufacture chemicals used in carpet manufacturing processes which have been discharged in wastewater to the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant. Plaintiffs allege and seek damages for PFAS contamination of their properties due to sewage sludge dumped in close proximity to their properties by Defendant City of Calhoun. The lawsuit alleges negligence, failure to warn, nuisance, wanton conduct and punitive damages, public nuisance, abatement of public nuisance, and trespass. The Defendant City of Calhoun filed cross claims against numerous carpet manufacturers, and carpet mill suppliers, including EID and Chemours in both of these actions. The cross claims allege that the carpet manufacturers and suppliers knew PFAS-containing wastewater sent to the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant and would not be removed by Calhoun’s treatment systems. The City of Calhoun alleges negligence, nuisance, and statutory violations. Calhoun seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief ordering abatement, remediation, and attorneys’ fees. Chemours and EID moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims as well as the City of Calhoun's cross claims in the actions. In October 2024, the Court denied the motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims but dismissed the City of Calhoun’s cross claims. Trial is set for January 2027.

In July 2024, the Town of Lyerly, Georgia (“Lyerly”) filed suit in Georgia state court against multiple defendants, who are alleged to be responsible for the release of PFAS to the water supply from carpet mill operations or as suppliers to those carpet mills. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass and regulatory violations. Lyerly seeks compensatory damages for past and future expenses as well punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Lyerly has filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In July 2024, the Town of Pine Hill, Alabama (“Pine Hill”) filed suit in Alabama state court against multiple defendants, including, the Company, DuPont, and Corteva, who are alleged to be responsible for the release of PFAS to the water supply through paper mill operations or as suppliers to paper mills. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, wantonness and punitive damages. Pine Hill seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages for property damages, potential lost profits and past and future expense as well punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Town of Pine Hill has filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. The case was removed to federal court but later remanded to state court. The federal court’s decision to remand is currently on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit and the state court action has been stayed.

In August 2024, the City of Irondale, Alabama (“Irondale”) filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have manufactured, supplied, and/or sold products containing PFAS that have contaminated plaintiff's water systems. Irondale disclaims any claims or causes of actions relating to AFFF and has opted out of the Public Drinking Water Settlement. The case was removed to Alabama federal court. In September 2025, the case was stayed pending Irondale’s appeal of the court’s denial of its motion to remand. In April 2026, the matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In April 2025, the Water Works Board of the City of Opelika, Alabama (“Opelika”) filed suit in Alabama state court against 3M, the Company, DuPont, Corteva, Chromalloy Gas Turbine, Contitech, Duracell, Freudenberg-Nok, Henkel, Interface, Interfaceflor, JFA LLC, Kimberly-Clark, Kleen-Tex, Milliken, M+A Matting, Mountville Mills, Specialty Fabrics & Converting, Waste Away Group, Waste Management, West Point Foundry And Machine, Westpoint Home, Westrock Packaging Systems, and Fictitious Defendants A-Z, who are alleged to have released PFAS to the water supply, but whose identities are yet unknown. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and wantonness through defendants’ manufacturing, use and/or landfilling of materials made with PFAS which allegedly resulted in the release of PFAS compounds reaching the town’s water source. Opelika seeks compensatory damages for past and future damages, an injunction to abate and/or remove PFAS from Opelika’s drinking water supply, as well as punitive damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In June 2025, the matter was removed to federal court. Opelika filed to opt out of the Public Water Class Action Settlement. In October 2025, the case was transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In April 2025, the City of Chatsworth, Georgia sued the Company, Dupont, EID, Corteva, 3M, Aladdin, Atlas Industries, Daikin, Grassroots Tufting Services, Holtzclaw Holdings, J and H Carpets, Len-Dal Carpet & Rug, Marquis Industries, Mill Creek Investments, Millennium Carpet Mills, Mohawk, Orion Carpets, Polytech Fibers, Supreme Carpet, The Dixie Group, and Fictitious Defendants A—J in Georgia state court. As carpet manufacturing users or suppliers of PFAS-containing carpet treatment chemicals, Defendants are alleged to be responsible for contamination of Chatsworth’s and Murray County’s drinking water supply through discharge of PFAS-containing carpet treatment chemicals into the surrounding areas. Chatsworth alleges negligence, nuisance, abatement of nuisance, trespass, Georgia statutory violations, and punitive damages against all defendants and further alleges failure to warn against the PFAS supplier defendants. Chatsworth seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as an injunction requiring defendants to remove the PFAS from the source water supply and to prevent further PFAS contamination. Chatsworth had previously filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In June 2025, Chatsworth filed an amended complaint adding Chatsworth Water Works Commission as a plaintiff and removing defendants Atlas Industries, J and H Carpets, Mill Creek Investments, Millenium Carpet Mills, Orion Carpets, GrassRoots Tufting Services, Holtzclaw Holdings, Len-Dal Carpet & Rug, Marquis Industries, Polytech Fibers and Supreme Carpet.

In May 2025, the Utilities Board of the City of Foley, Alabama d/b/a Riviera Utilities (“Riviera”) sued the Company, Corteva, Dupont, EID, Chemours, 3M, Daikin and Vulcan in Alabama state court alleging that the defendants permitted PFAS contaminated waste streams from metal plating and other manufacturing in the area to discharge into plaintiffs’ water supply. Riviera provides drinking water to the City of Foley and Baldwin County and owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant. Riviera claims its water treatment and wastewater treatment are incapable of removing PFAS to safe levels. Plaintiffs assert negligence nuisance, abatement of nuisance, trespass, and injunctive relief and seek compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction requiring Defendants to abate and remove PFAS, attorneys’ fees and costs. Riviera had previously filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In January 2026, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss but certified its decision for appeal.

Starting in December 2024, lawsuits have been filed in Georgia state court in Gwinnett County by three counties (Gordon, Catoosa and Murray) and landowners in northwest Georgia against defendants, including Shaw, Aladdin, Mohawk, 3M, INV Performance Surfaces, EID, Corteva, and the Company alleging soil, groundwater and other property-related claims from disposal of carpet manufacturing wastes or other contamination PFAS supplied and/or used by defendants in nearby carpet mills. The suits claim, inter alia, common law tors, including negligence, nuisances, statutory violations, wanton conduct, and punitive damages. The plaintiffs seek compensation for past and future damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and other relief the Court deems just, equitable and proper. As of March 31, 2026, 23 such cases have been filed on behalf of multiple landowners.

In June 2025, the Walker County Water and Sewerage Authority and the City of Chickamauga, Georgia sued the Company, EID, Dupont, Corteva, 3M, Aladdin, Daikin, Shaw, Yates Bleachery Company and Fictitious Defendants A—J in Georgia state court. As carpet and textile manufacturing users and/or suppliers of PFAS-containing carpet and fabric treatment chemicals, Defendants are alleged to be responsible for contamination of Walker County’s and Chickamauga’s drinking water supply through discharge of PFAS-containing chemicals into the surrounding areas. The plaintiffs allege negligence, nuisance, abatement of nuisance, trespass, Georgia statutory violations, and punitive damages against all defendants and further alleges failure to warn against the PFAS supplier defendants. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as damages that will require defendants to remove the PFAS from the source water supply and to prevent further PFAS contamination. Plaintiffs had each previously filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In May 2025, the City of Peabody, Massachusetts ("Peabody") filed suit in Minnesota federal court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, relating to the alleged presence of PFAS in turnout gear. Peabody alleges claims on behalf of all proposed class members defined to be all municipalities or other governmental entities in the various states of the United States of America that have purchased fire fighter PPE. Peabody seeks compensatory damages to allow Peabody and the class members to remove and dispose of the PPE containing PFAS and purchase replacement sets that do not contain PFAS, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

In June 2025, Joseph Lepouski and Lisa Marie Lepouski (“Lepouski”) filed suit in Pennsylvania state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, alleging that alleged presence of PFAS in turnout gear resulted in Mr. Lepouski developing testicular cancer. Lepouski alleges that each Defendant breached implied and express warranties of marketability through their sale of PFAS-containing turnouts, that each Defendant was negligent in their role resulting in Plaintiffs’ exposure to PFAS, that each Defendant is strictly liable for defectively designing turnouts and failing to warn Plaintiffs of the risk of PFAS, and that each Defendant’s conduct was willful and wanton. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other noneconomic damages; economic damages in the form of medical expenses, out of pocket expenses, lost earnings, and other economic damages; and punitive damages. Plaintiff has dismissed this case and is refiling in the AFFF MDL.

In July 2025, Robert Taylor (“Taylor”) filed suit in Pennsylvania state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, alleging that alleged presence of PFAS in turnout gear resulted in Taylor developing kidney cancer. Taylor alleges that each Defendant breached implied and express warranties of marketability through their sale of PFAS containing turnouts, that each Defendant was negligent in their role resulting in Plaintiffs’ exposure to PFAS, that each Defendant is strictly liable for defectively designing turnouts and failing to warn Plaintiffs of the risk of PFAS, and that each Defendant’s conduct was willful and wanton. Taylor seeks compensatory damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other noneconomic damages; economic damages in the form of medical expenses, out of pocket expenses, lost earnings, and other economic damages; and punitive damages. Plaintiff has dismissed this case and is refiling in the AFFF MDL.

In August 2024, the Supreme Court of South Carolina vested the Honorable Grace Gilchrist Knie, a South Carolina state circuit court judge, with exclusive power to hear and dispose of all PFAS litigation cases filed in South Carolina state court and to consolidate such cases for pre-trial purposes. Since June 2024, Chemours, EID, and/or DuPont have been named in 19 lawsuits involving water authorities in South Carolina (Berkeley County, City of Clinton, City of Florence, City of Union, Gaffney Board of Public Works, Georgetown County Water and Sewer District, Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority, I, Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority II, Greenwood Commissioners of Public Works, Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Laurens County Water and Sewer Commission, Saluda County Water and Sewer Authority, South Carolina Public Service Authority, City of Columbia, City of Georgetown, Town of Cheraw, Town of Lexington, Town of Whitmire, Woodruff-Roebuck Water District), alleging PFAS contamination of drinking water sources and seeking recovery of costs for treatment, remediation, and other relief. These cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and tagged to the AFFF MDL, where the plaintiffs have filed motions to remand which remain pending. In March 2026, the court denied nine plaintiffs’ (City of Columbia, City of Georgetown, Town of Cheraw, Georgetown County Water and Sewer District, Berkeley County, Town of Lexington, Town of Whitmire, Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Saluda County Water and Sewer Authority) motions to remand and those cases will proceed in the AFFF MDL. Motions to remand remain pending in the other cases. Should the motions to remand be granted, it is expected that those cases will precede before Judge Knie in South Carolina state court. See discussion of AFFF MDL above.

In September 2025, Jason Crady and Nicole Crady (collectively, “Crady) filed suit in Missouri state court against multiple defendants, including DuPont, alleging that Jason Crady was exposed to PFAS substances through products that defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed, such as turn out gear. Crady seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. The case has been removed to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL has been requested. In post-removal filings with the Court, Crady acknowledged that he may have been exposed to AFFF. In December 2025, the JPML denied transfer to the AFFF MDL. In April 2026, the case was remanded to Missouri state court.

In August 2025, Five Star Water Supply District in Alabama (“Five Star”) filed suit in Alabama state court against 3M, Daikin, Aladdin, Mohawk, Shaw, Auto Custom Carpets, Owens Plating Company, EID; Dupont, Corteva, the Company and Fictitious Defendants A-J, who are alleged to have released PFAS to the water supply, but whose identities are yet unknown. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and wantonness through defendants’ manufacturing, use and/or landfilling of materials made with PFAS which allegedly resulted in the release of PFAS compounds reaching the town’s water source. Five Star seeks compensatory damages for past and future damages, an injunction to abate and/or remove PFAS from Five Star’s drinking water supply, as well as punitive damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Five Star filed to opt out of the Public Water Class Action Settlement. In September 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court. In November 2025, the action was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit appeal of the remand in the Pine Hill matter. In April 2026, the matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In August 2025, the City of Clanton, Alabama Water Works and Sewer Board (“Clanton”) filed suit in Alabama state court against 3M, Daikin, Aladdin, Mohawk, Shaw, Auto Custom Carpets, Owens Plating Company, EID; Dupont, Corteva, the Company and Fictitious Defendants A-J, who are alleged to have released PFAS to the water supply, but whose identities are yet unknown. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and wantonness through defendants’ manufacturing, use and/or landfilling of materials made with PFAS which allegedly resulted in the release of PFAS compounds reaching the town’s water source. Clanton seeks compensatory damages for past and future damages, an injunction to abate and/or remove PFAS from Clanton’s drinking water supply, as well as punitive damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Clanton filed to opt out of the Public Water Class Action Settlement. In September 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court. In November 2025, the action was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit appeal of the remand in the Pine Hill matter. In April 2026, the matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In September 2025, the Coosa Valley Water Supply District, Inc. (“Coosa Valley”) filed suit in Alabama state court against 3M, Daikin, Aladdin, Mohawk, Shaw, Auto Custom Carpets, Owens Plating, the Company, DuPont, Corteva, and certain fictitious defendants who are alleged to be responsible for the release of PFAS to its water supply through carpet, flooring, textile and metal finishing operations, or as suppliers to those operations. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, wantonness, and punitive damages. Coosa Valley seeks injunctive relief to abate and remove PFAS from the water supply, compensatory damages for removal and disposal of PFAS, property damages, potential lost profits and past and future expense as well punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Coosa Valley filed to opt out of the Public Water Class Action Settlement. In November 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court. In November 2025, the action was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit appeal of the remand in the Pine Hill matter. In April 2026, the matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In October 2025, Walker County, Georgia sued 3M, Daikin, Shaw, Aladdin, Mohawk, INV Performance Surfaces, EID, Corteva and the Company in Georgia state court alleging PFAS contamination from disposal of carpet manufacturing wastes into its landfills. Walker County asserts Georgia statutory violations as well as common law torts, including negligence and nuisance, and seeks damages arising from PFAS contamination of its property. Walker County also seeks punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

In January 2026, Coosawattee Hills, LLC and other individual plaintiffs sued 3M, Daikin, Shaw, Aladdin, Mohawk, INV Performance Surfaces, EID, Corteva, the Company and other defendants in Georgia state court alleging PFAS contamination of their properties from wastewater discharges by carpet manufacturers and sludge disposal. Plaintiffs assert common law torts, including negligence and nuisance and seek damages arising from PFAS contamination of its property. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

In March 2026, the County of San Mateo, California (“San Mateo”) filed suit in California federal court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, relating to the alleged presence of PFAS in turnout gear. The complaint alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") as well as multiple statutory and common law claims, including consumer protection, false advertising, and unfair competition laws. The complaint also includes product liability claims.

In April 2026, nine lawsuits were filed in Alabama state courts and four in Alabama federal court by municipal water authorities against DuPont, Corteva, EID, the Company and various other PFAS manufacturers and users alleging defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination of the water supply. The claims asserted include negligence, negligent failure to warn, extended manufacturer liability, nuisance, trespass, punitive damages, wantonness, and injunctive relief. The municipal water authorities seek compensatory damages for the removal and disposal of PFAS from drinking water, real property damages, and past and future expenses, as well as potential lost profits and punitive damages. The municipal water authorities also seek an injunction requiring defendants to remove PFAS from the water supply and affected properties and to prevent further PFAS contamination. These municipal water authorities each filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In April 2026, three lawsuits were filed in Alabama federal court by municipal water authorities against DuPont, Corteva, EID, the Company and various other PFAS manufacturers and users, alleging that the defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination of the water supply from AFFF used in firefighting. The claims asserted include negligence, nuisance, trespass, punitive damages, wantonness, and injunctive relief. The municipal water authorities seek compensatory damages for the removal and disposal of PFAS from drinking water, real property damages, past and future expenses, potential lost profits, and punitive damages. The municipal water authorities also seek an injunction requiring defendants to remove PFAS from the water supply and affected properties and to prevent further PFAS contamination. Given the claims related to AFFF, these matters are expected to be transferred to the AFFF MDL. These municipal water authorities each filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In April 2026, the City Of Griffin, Georgia (Griffin”) sued 3M, Atlas Roofing Corporation Of Mississippi, Clorox, Daikin, Express Container Services Of Atlanta, LLC, Georgia Waste Systems, Stephens Industries, Tensar International, Sherwin-Williams, Waste Management Of Georgia, Corteva, DuPont, EID, the Company and fictitious defendants A-Z, in Georgia state court alleging defendants responsible for PFAS contamination of the water supply as PFAS manufacturers or users or as landfills that accepted PFAS waste. The complaint asserts negligence, nuisance, trespass, Georgia Water Quality Control Act violations, failure to warn, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Griffin seeks compensatory damages to compensate it for removal and disposal of PFAS from drinking water, real property damages, as well as past and future expenses, potential lost profits, and punitive damages. Griffin also seeks an injunction requiring defendants to remove PFAS from its water supply and property and to prevent PFAS from continuing to get into its water supply and property. Griffin has filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

State Natural Resource Damages Matters

In addition to the State of New Jersey actions (as detailed below), a majority of the states and certain territories of the U.S., have filed lawsuits or are investigating claims against various defendants, including EID and Chemours, relating to the alleged contamination of state natural resources with PFAS compounds either from AFFF and/or other sources. These lawsuits seek damages including costs to investigate, clean up, restore, treat, monitor, or otherwise respond to contamination of natural resources and some include counts for fraudulent transfer. Chemours, Corteva/EID and DuPont, together under the MOU, are engaged with States and their counsel on certain of these cases. It is reasonably possible that these discussions could result in a loss, which could be material; however, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of such discussions, and because of these uncertainties, the Company is also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any.

In February 2018, the State of Ohio initiated litigation against EID regarding historical PFOA emissions from the Washington Works site. Chemours is an additional named defendant. Ohio alleges damage to natural resources and fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours and seeks damages including remediation and other costs and punitive damages. On November 28, 2023, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Ohio to settle claims, including environmental releases or sales of products containing PFAS or other known contaminants. Under the agreement, Chemours will pay $55 to the State of Ohio, which shall be used to support environmental restoration. Chemours' contribution is consistent with the 50% contribution rate under the MOU. Consistent with the reserve established in November 2023, in November 2025, in partial payment of the Consent Judgment, DuPont and Corteva together paid $ 45 to the State and the Company paid $ 45. In January 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court declined the review of an open appeal. As there was no further pursuit of additional appeals, the additional $20 due under the Consent Judgment was paid in April 2026, with the Company paying $10.

On July 13, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Delaware to settle such potential claims, including for environmental releases or sales of products containing PFAS or other known contaminants. Under the agreement, in January 2022, the companies paid a total amount of $50 to the State of Delaware, which shall be utilized to fund a Natural Resources and Sustainability Trust (the “Trust”) to be used for environmental restoration and enhancement of resources, sampling and analysis, community environmental justice and equity grants, and other natural resource needs. Chemours contributed $25 to the settlement and the remaining $25 was divided between DuPont and Corteva which shall be treated as Qualified Spend under the MOU. If the companies enter into a proportionally similar agreement to settle or resolve claims of another state for PFAS-related natural resource damages, for an amount greater than $50, the companies may be required to make one or more supplemental payment(s) directly to the Trust, with such payment(s) not to exceed $25 in the aggregate. Following entry of the settlement agreement with the State of Ohio and its payment and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the State of Delaware, the Companies will make a supplemental payment directly to the Trust in an amount equal to $25 in the aggregate. Chemours’ share of such supplemental payment is approximately $13, which is included in Accrued Litigation and has been paid in January 2026.

In December 2024, the State of Texas filed a Deceptive Trade Practices action in federal court against 3M Company, EID, DuPont and Corteva alleging that the companies engaged in deceptive trade practices by failing to disclose certain health risks and environmental harm related to PFAS. The lawsuit alleges that the EID defendants’ corporate restructurings were designed to avoid liability for these actions. The suit seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties. In January 2025, the case was removed to federal court. In September 2025, the case was remanded to state court; and discovery in the matter will proceed.

Other PFAS Matters

In New York courts, EID has been named in approximately 40 lawsuits beginning in 2017, which are not part of the Leach class, brought by individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into drinking water against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. Two additional lawsuits have been filed by a business seeking to recover its losses and by nearby property owners and residents in a putative class action. The lawsuit filed by the business was dismissed, but the claims by the individual business owner were allowed to proceed. In September 2022, the Court certified the class action, and EID filed a petition for review of the certification, which was denied in January 2023. Chemours and EID, entered into settlement agreements in principle to resolve all but seven of the pending lawsuits, including the class action suit, during the second quarter of 2023 and were substantially paid in the fourth quarter of 2023. In February 2024, the Company agreed to resolve all of the remaining individual cases and claims, including six of the seven pending lawsuits for $0.4. As of September 2024, these settlements have all been paid consistent with prior reserves in the matters. Upon completion and dismissal of the individual matters, the class action is the sole remaining lawsuit pending for these matters. In December 2024, the court scheduled the class action trial for July 2025. In June 2025, EID and Chemours reached an agreement to resolve the class action for a total of $27. This was finalized and preliminarily approved by the court in November 2025. Of this total, an initial payment of $22 shall be paid after the court’s final approval of the settlement, and $5 shall be paid in $1 increments annually, starting on the one year anniversary date of the initial payment. This agreement is subject to final court approval after notice to the class and a hearing. A reserve in the amount of $13.5 was established, representing Chemours' portion of the total settlement in accordance with the MOU.

In April 2025, Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc., and Donald J. Sutton filed suit in federal court in New York against Saint-Gobain, Honeywell F/K/A Allied-Signal, EID, and 3M alleging their real property, groundwater, soils, aquifers and tree nursery in Hoosick Falls, New York are contaminated by PFAS emissions from the nearby Saint Gobain manufacturing facility. An amended complaint was filed in September 2025. The plaintiffs assert that as a result of the PFAS contamination, the drinking water on their property is not fit for consumption, the property is not fit for agricultural use, including as a tree nursery, and that the nursery trees are not fit for use and sale. Plaintiffs seek to hold responsible Saint Gobain and Honeywell as the owner and former owner of the facility, and 3M and EID, as suppliers of PFAS used at the facility. The complaint asserts counts for negligence, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief against all defendants, strict products liability against EID and 3M, and nuisance, trespass and strict liability against Saint Gobain and Honeywell. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the defendants to remove the PFAS contamination and to provide an alternative water supply as well as compensatory and punitive damages, fees, and costs.

In New Jersey federal court, lawsuits were filed against several defendants including EID and Chemours beginning in November 2019. The lawsuits include 12 lawsuits alleging that defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in groundwater and drinking water. During the second quarter of 2023, the companies resolved these claims. Eight lawsuits were also filed alleging exposure to PFAS and other chemicals, including two lawsuits by parents on behalf of their adult children claiming pre-natal exposure, resulted in the children’s cognitive delays, neurological, genetic, and autoimmune conditions. Further, eleven additional lawsuits were filed in state court with similar allegations of personal injury, which have been removed to New Jersey federal court (and one of which was transferred to the AFFF MDL). In May 2024, a pro se case alleging wrongful death from exposure to PFAS and other chemicals on behalf of two deceased residents of Salem County, NJ was filed naming Chemours in New Jersey state court. The case has also been removed to federal court and is administratively terminated while plaintiff seeks representation of counsel. Plaintiff was unable to retain counsel by the Court’s deadline and in February 2026 the Court dismissed the case.

Since January 2025, sixteen lawsuits have been filed in New Jersey, New York, Delaware and Illinois on behalf of multiple plaintiffs alleging, inter alia, personal injury related to exposure to PFAS. The complaints demand compensatory and punitive damages. The cases have been tagged to the AFFF MDL.

In Ohio federal court, a putative class action ("Hardwick") was filed in October 2018 against several defendants including 3M, EID and Chemours seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a detectable level of PFAS in their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a “PFAS Science Panel”. In March 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s class certification and certified a class covering anyone subject to Ohio laws having minimal levels of PFOA plus at least one other PFAS in their blood. The court requested further briefing on whether the class should be extended to include other states that recognize the claims for relief filed in the action. The defendants, including EID and Chemours, jointly filed a petition to appeal the class certification decision and in September 2022 the petition was granted. During the fourth quarter of 2023, the court dismissed the class action against 3M, EID, Chemours and the other defendants. In December, 2023, the plaintiff filed a petition for reconsideration and for rehearing en banc with the Sixth Circuit. In January 2024, the Sixth Circuit denied the request for rehearing. In March 2024, the case was dismissed. In June 2024, Hardwick refiled a putative national class action in federal court in Ohio against 3M, DuPont, and the Company. The refiled Hardwick suit seeks class status for all those in the United States who have 2 ppb or more of “C8 (PFOA and PFOS combined)” in their blood and who are subject to the laws of a state that recognizes medical monitoring. The complaint alleges negligence, battery and conspiracy and seeks equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief including medical monitoring overseen by a court-appointed independent science panel. The complaint does not seek monetary damages or personal injury. In October 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the matter. In March 2026, the court denied the motion to dismiss. At the same time, the court certified the matter for interlocutory appeal and stayed the matter at the district court level. Defendants have filed a petition for appeal with the Sixth Circuit.

In Delaware state court, a putative class action was filed in May 2019 against two electroplating companies, 3M and EID, and two other defendants added in an amended complaint, alleging responsibility for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water and the environment in the nearby community. In November 2023, a motion to amend the complaint was filed seeking to add Chemours as a defendant. The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal injury and property damages, and punitive damages. The matter has been removed to federal court. In January 2025, the federal magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of EID and two other defendants based on lack of any record connecting the PFAS contamination alleged with products sold by these defendants. In March 2025, the court accepted the magistrate’s recommendation and entered summary judgment as to EID and those other two defendants.

In South Carolina, a putative class action was filed in March 2022 in the state court against 3M, EID and the Company alleging PFAS contamination from a former textile plant located in Society Hill, South Carolina which allegedly used PFAS-containing textile treatment chemicals supplied by the defendants. The lawsuit alleges negligence, trespass, strict liability and nuisance and seeks monetary damages, including property diminution, and injunctive relief, including water treatment and remediation, as well as punitive damages. The matter has been removed to federal court. In December 2025, plaintiffs proposed an amended complaint adding additional defendants and adding another Company as an additional class representative and dropping the nuisance claim. In April 2024, EID and Chemours filed a third-party complaint against Huntsman, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Galey & Lord, Nanotex and John Does alleging indemnification and contribution. In September 2024, Huntsman filed a counterclaim against EID and Chemours alleging indemnification and contribution. In August 2024, a complaint related to the same fabric mill was filed on behalf of an individual in South Carolina state court against 3M, EID, Chemours and other companies alleging personal injuries resulting from exposure to PFAS emissions from the former textile plant. The complaint alleged negligence, strict liability, products liability counts, and fraud and seek compensatory and punitive damages and costs. In August 2024, 3M removed the matter to federal court. In April 2026, the matter was remanded to state court.

In July 2023, Massachusetts Natural Fertilizer Company sent Notices of Potential Liability to Corteva, DuPont, the Company and others related to the presence of PFAS in its composting operation in Westminster, Massachusetts (the “Mass Natural Site”). The Notices demanded that the companies perform or fund clean-up response activities at the Mass Natural Site. In response, in August 2023, the Company sent a letter denying liability. In March 2025, Mass Natural, The Newark Group, Otter Farm, Inc., and Seaman Paper Company filed suit in Worcester County, Massachusetts Superior Court against Corteva, DuPont, EID, the Company and several other defendants alleging defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination of the Site, which operates on land owned by Otter Farms and Seaman Paper. The plaintiffs assert state superfund claims against defendants seeking compensatory damages to cover the costs of clean-up and diminution of property value, as well as fees and costs.

In April 2024, three defendants in a 2022 Massachusetts federal court putative class action alleging PFAS contamination and related in part to the Massachusetts Natural Fertilizer Company Site, The Newark Group, Seaman Paper Company and Otter Farm, Inc., filed cross claims against the Company, DuPont, Corteva, EID and other defendants, including John Doe defendants, for the sole purpose of pleading and protecting any claims for indemnity or contribution they may have against the cross claim defendants, if they are found liable in the underlying putative class action. In October 2024, the Court disallowed the cross claims which ends the matter as to the Company. In December 2024, The Newark Group moved for the court to reconsider its denial of the cross claims against the Company and others and argues that the Court misapplied the law on timeliness and proper joinder. In April 2025, the court denied the motion for reconsideration.

In February 2025, a second putative class action was filed in federal court in Massachusetts, this time against EID, Dupont, Corteva, Ball Corporation, Rust-Oleum Corporation, New England Waste Systems d/b/a Casella Organics, Synagro Technologies, New England Fertilizer Company, NEFCO, and the Company. The complaint alleges Defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination from the Massachusetts Natural Fertilizer Company Site. As to the DuPont entities, Corteva and the Company, the complaint alleges medical monitoring, negligence, and breach of warranty for failure to warn and seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as medical monitoring and other injunctive and declaratory relief. In April 2025, an amended complaint was filed adding allegations for property damages under a state statute.

In June 2024, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut federal court on behalf of multiple firefighter unions and individual firefighters against multiple defendants, including Chemours, EID, and DuPont, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manufactured, sold, or supplied chemicals containing PFAS which was allegedly found in turnout gear. Plaintiffs allege strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, negligent design and manufacture, medical monitoring, and statutory punitive damages.

In September 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all resident persons or entities in Canada who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products through a retailer or distributor before January 1, 2020 and had it installed in a building still owned by such persons or entities and who have not removed the carpeting. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In September 2023, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, alleging breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS, PFAS-containing chemical feedstock, and PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including Virginia where plaintiff’s husband was a firefighter. Plaintiff alleges that repeated and extensive exposure to PFAS resulted in her husband’s brain cancer. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2025, the case was removed to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL has been requested. In December 2025, the JPML denied transfer to the AFFF MDL. The case is currently proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia.

In April 2024, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, alleging breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS, PFAS-containing chemical feedstock, and PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including Virginia. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March 2025, which was served on Chemours and EID in April 2025. In September 2025, the case was removed to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL has been requested. In December 2025, the JPML denied transfer to the AFFF MDL. The case is currently proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia. In March 2026, the case was remanded to Virginia state court.

In August 2024, a putative national class action was filed in federal court in Minnesota against 3M, EID and Chemours related to PFAS in carpet. Violations of RICO are alleged as well as violations of over 30 state statutes, including consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, misrepresentation, and unfair competition laws. The complaint also includes product liability and nuisance claims. EID and Chemours filed a motion to dismiss; the basis for dismissal of the civil RICO claims include lack of standing, failure to allege and enterprise, lack of proximate cause, failure to allege racketeering activity and that the State’s claims are unsubstantiated. In September 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The matter was dismissed and is now closed.

In November 2024, Aladdin Manufacturing Corporation, Mohawk Industries, Inc. and Mohawk Carpet, LLC (hereinafter “Mohawk”), which are carpet manufacturers with operations in Georgia, sued carpet treatment chemical suppliers 3M, EID, Daikin and the Company in Georgia state court alleging fraud, misrepresentation, contractual and common law indemnity, negligence, nuisance, punitive damages and other claims related to future and past PFAS liabilities and attorney’s fees incurred by Mohawk. Mohawk alleges concealment and misrepresentation by the suppliers related to PFAS and the carpet treatment chemicals supplied. Mohawk further claims that it has been named as a defendant in at least 8 lawsuits brought by water suppliers downstream of its carpet manufacturing operations and has already paid over $100 in settlements of some of those matters. Mohawk seeks a declaratory judgment holding the suppliers responsible for its PFAS liabilities, including damages to Mohawk’s property interests, past, present, and future compensatory damages, including settlements already paid, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. In January 2025, DuPont and the Company filed a counterclaim against Mohawk asserting contribution, indemnity, frivolous and abusive litigation, declaratory judgment, and punitive damages seeking damages, fees and expenses as well as a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs must pay for, or reimburse Defendants for, any past or future judgments and settlement costs incurred in past, current, or future litigation arising out of Plaintiffs’ improper wastewater disposal practices. In February 2026, DuPont and the Company filed a waiver and withdrew the counterclaim. Trial is scheduled for March 2027.

In December 2024, the City of Dalton, Georgia, acting through its Board of Water, Light and Sinking Fund Commissioners, d/b/a Dalton Utilities (hereinafter “Dalton”) sued 3M, EID, Daikin, INV Performance Surfaces, Aladdin Manufacturing, Shaw Industries, unnamed DOES and the Company in federal court in Georgia. Dalton has received and treated waste from carpet and flooring manufacturers since the 1970s and alleges that Defendants have caused long-running contamination of Dalton’s wastewater treatment operations through the sale, use and disposal of PFAS. Dalton’s operations include Riverbend Land Application System (“LAS”) where treated wastewater is land-applied, as well as three wastewater treatment plants (collectively, the “POTW”). Dalton alleges that the Defendants sold and used PFAS-containing carpet treatment chemicals while knowing the PFAS would not be removed by the POTW. Dalton further alleges that Defendants did not provide disclosures or warnings to Dalton or the public. CERCLA (as defined below) is asserted as the basis for cost recovery and for a declaration of Defendants’ joint and several liability for past and future response costs by the POTW and abatement of PFAS. Dalton also alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability and violations of various state statutes and seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In April 2025, Dalton filed an amended complaint.

In January 2025, James and Pamela Stephens filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court against the City of Calhoun, 3M, INV Performance Surfaces, Daikin, Arrowstar, Aladdin, Mohawk, Shaw, Milliken, Mannington Mills, Dixie Group, Marquis Industries, EID and the Company. Plaintiffs assert that PFAS-containing waste from defendant carpet manufacturers and suppliers was sent to Calhoun’s treatment facility and Calhoun disposed of its post treatment sludge on nearby and adjacent property which resulted in PFAS contamination to their historic home, property, creek and drinking water. Plaintiffs’ assertions include negligence, nuisance, and trespass, and they seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as abatement, removal of PFAS from their property, attorneys’ fees and costs. A trial is expected to be held in May 2027.

In January 2026, 1001 Newark Ave. Associates, LLC filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey against General Spray Drying Services, Inc.; Fabvan Sales Company (d/b/a General Spray Drying); and several unnamed fictitious entities asserting claims under the New Jersey Spill Act related to alleged PFAS contamination at a property at which various PFAS processing services were allegedly conducted from the 1950s through today. In March 2026, General Spray Drying filed a third party complaint against the Company, EID; DuPont; and Corteva, Inc. alleging responsibility for the alleged PFAS contamination at the property under the New Jersey Spill Act, New Jersey environmental statutes, CERCLA, and common law. This plaintiff previously filed a similar case in January 2025 in New Jersey Federal Court that was dismissed pursuant to a motion to dismiss. At this stage, no assessment can be made due to significant unresolved factual and legal issues.

In February 2025, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, Georgia (“Savannah”) filed suit in Georgia state court against multiple defendants, including the Company, DuPont, Corteva, and EID, alleging that all caused or contributed to PFAS in Plaintiffs’ water supply that is used to produce drinking water. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, abatement of nuisance, failure to warn, statutory violations, and punitive damages. Savannah also seeks compensatory damages as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and punitive damages. Savannah also seeks a court order requiring defendants to abate and remove PFAS from the water supply. Savannah opted out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In March 2025, the matter was removed to federal court and in June 2025 was transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In January 2025, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, by Johnny Oscar Moretz (“Moretz”) alleging breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and wanton misconduct. Chemours and EID have not yet been served in this matter. Moretz alleges that the defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS, PFAS-containing chemical feedstock, and PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including Virginia. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2025, the case was removed to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL has been requested. Following the JPML’s denial of transfer of other turnout gear cases in December 2025, the request to transfer was withdrawn. The case is currently proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia. In March 2026, the case was remanded to Virginia state court.

In April 2025, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, by multiple plaintiffs alleging breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS, PFAS-containing chemical feedstock, and PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including Virginia. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2025, the case was removed to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL has been requested. Following the JPML’s denial of transfer of other turnout gear cases in December 2025, the request to transfer was withdrawn. The case is currently proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia.

In April 2025, the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, Montana filed suit in Montana federal court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, relating to the alleged presence of PFAS in turnout gear. The complaint alleges violations of RICO as well as over 80 statutory and common law claims, including consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition laws. The complaint also includes product liability claims.

In July 2024, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours by Jonathan Clarke (“Clarke”), alleging that plaintiff was exposed to PFAS substances through products that defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed, such as turn out gear and AFFF. Clarke seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. In April 2025, Clarke amended their complaint and removed allegations relating to AFFF. Chemours was served in June 2025. In September 2025, the case was removed to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL has been requested. In December 2025, the JPML denied transfer to the AFFF MDL. The case is currently proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia.

In April 2025, Coosa River Basin Initiative, Raymond J. Perkins, Jr., and J. Perkins Farms, LLC filed suit against 3M, EID, Corteva, Dupont, Inv Performance Surfaces, Daikin, Shaw, Aladdin, Mohawk, the City of Dalton, and the Company in federal court in Georgia alleging the Defendants caused PFAS contamination of the Dalton Land Application System thereby causing downstream PFAS contamination as well as damage to the plaintiffs property. The plaintiffs assert negligence, nuisance, abatement and punitive damages counts as well as various additional counts against certain other defendants, including federal and state violations. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief as well as any other relief the court deems just, proper and equitable.

In March 2025, a lawsuit was filed against EID, Corteva, DuPont and other defendants in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of seven former major league baseball players. Plaintiffs allege that their injuries, including brain, testicular or thyroid cancer, were caused by exposure to PFAS via AstroTurf at Veterans Stadium. The lawsuit demands compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2025, the case was removed to federal court.

In the Netherlands, Chemours, along with DuPont and Corteva, received a civil summons filed before the Court of Rotterdam by four municipalities (Dordrecht, Papendrecht, Sliedrecht and Molenlanden) seeking liability declarations relating to the Dordrecht site’s operations and emissions. Chemours reviewed the summons and filed a statement of defense during the fourth quarter of 2021, and in September 2022 the court entered an interlocutory judgment denying in part certain aspects of such statement of defense. A hearing on the merits of the municipalities’ claims took place in March 2023. On September 27, 2023, the court entered a second interlocutory judgment, ruling, inter alia, that defendants were liable to the municipalities for (i) PFOA emissions during a certain time period and (ii) removal costs if deposited emissions on the municipalities land infringes their property rights by an objective standard. Any damages will be decided in a separate, subsequent proceeding. Chemours is in discussions with the municipalities to identify actions that may resolve their and other community concerns, including providing technical and financial support for activities. An initial estimate of this liability was included in Accrued Litigation at December 31, 2023 and was reclassified to Accrued Environmental Remediation as of December 31, 2024 based on the remediation plan to be implemented as part of the letter of intent ("LOI") described below.

In June 2024 the Company and the Municipalities signed a LOI that includes the implementation of a specific remediation plan for the restoration of restricted vegetable gardens in certain areas of those municipalities to be funded by Chemours, sampling and developing a program to address the Merwelanden recreational lake, and further settlement discussions, including a fund to cover certain other expenditures aimed at environmental-related activities. The LOI contemplates the possibility of settling the court dispute, although still subject to further discussions which are ongoing with the municipalities and there is no guarantee that these discussions will result in a settlement. Settlement discussions are complex and often involve potential amounts, scope and terms, which can be monetary and non-monetary. The Company does not consider these ongoing settlement discussions, including any amounts with respect to a potential fund that the municipalities put forward as part of such negotiations, to be indicative of the merits or potential outcome of any court proceeding with respect to the underlying claims. Previously, the Company had not accrued for any amounts related to the fund. Although the Company believed a loss was probable and could be material, an amount of loss was not deemed estimable. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the Company, along with DuPont and Corteva pursuant to the MOU, proposed a settlement framework. Based on the proposed framework, the Company reassessed the low end of the range of probable outcomes for this matter with respect to the potential fund. As such, in the fourth quarter of 2025, the Company accrued an amount that did not materially affect results of operations for the period related to the potential fund which represents its 50% share of the total funding included in the settlement framework. This amount remains accrued as of March 31, 2026.

Further, in the Netherlands, in September 2023, a Dutch criminal defense lawyer announced a criminal complaint with the support of a few thousand citizens against Chemours and its current and former directors for alleged unlawful emissions of PFOA and GenX in Dordrecht. This claim has been filed with the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which is proceeding with the investigation.

In May 2020, the Company was notified of an alleged criminal offense related to the Netherlands’ Environmental Management Act and the Working Conditions Decree, regarding the use of PFOA during the pre-spin time period of June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012. The investigation was initiated in the first quarter of 2016 by a public prosecutor. The Company believes that it has complied with all relevant laws, and the Company is in contact with the prosecutor.

In addition to the above matters, the Company may engage in discussions or dispute resolutions with various parties regarding other claims, including third-party indemnity claims, and potential resolutions of such matters. As of March 31, 2026, the Company has recorded immaterial amounts related to one or more of these matters.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Directives and Litigation

In March 2019, NJ DEP issued two Directives and filed four lawsuits against Chemours and other defendants. The Directives are: (i) a state-wide PFAS Directive issued to EID, DowDuPont, DuPont Specialty Products USA (“DuPont SP USA”), Solvay S.A., 3M, and Chemours seeking a meeting to discuss future costs for PFAS-related costs incurred by NJ DEP and establishing a funding source for such costs by the Directive recipients, and information relating to historic and current use of certain PFAS compounds; and, (ii) a Pompton Lakes Natural Resources Damages (“NRD”) Directive to EID and Chemours demanding $0.1 to cover the cost of preparation of a natural resource damage assessment plan and access to related documents.

The lawsuits filed in New Jersey state courts by NJ DEP are: (i) in Salem County, against EID, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, the Water Pollution Control Act (“WPCA”), the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), and common law regarding past and present operations at Chambers Works, a site assigned to Chemours at Separation; (ii) in Middlesex County, against EID, DuPont SP USA, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, ISRA, WPCA, and common law regarding past and present operations at Parlin, an EID owned site; (iii) in Gloucester County, against EID and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, WPCA, and common law regarding past operations at Repauno, a non-operating remediation site assigned to Chemours at Separation which has been sold; and, (iv) in Passaic County, against EID and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, WPCA, and common law regarding past operations at Pompton Lakes, a non-operating remediation site assigned to Chemours at Separation. The alleged pollutants listed in the Salem County and Middlesex County matters above include PFAS. Each lawsuit also alleges fraudulent transfer.

In August 2020, a Second Amended Complaint was filed in each matter, adding fraudulent transfer and other claims against DuPont SP USA, Corteva, and DuPont. For the Salem County matter, NJ DEP added claims relating to failure to comply with state directives, including the state-wide PFAS Directive.

The matters were removed to federal court and consolidated for case management and pretrial purposes. In December 2021, the federal court entered a consolidated order granting, in part, and denying, in part, a motion to dismiss or strike parts of the Second Amended Complaints. In January 2022, NJ DEP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring EID and Chemours to establish a remediation funding source (“RFS”) in the amount of $943 for the Chambers Works site, the majority of which is for non-PFAS remediation items. In March 2023, the four NJ DEP lawsuits were referred to mediation by the federal court, with the proceedings in the matters stayed pending the mediation. In April 2024, NJ DEP submitted to the court a letter declaring that the parties had reached an impasse in the mediation. A case management schedule was entered by the court in May 2024, with the Chambers Works and Pompton Lakes matter being active and the other two matters being administratively terminated without prejudice. In August 2024, Third Amended Complaints were filed in the Chambers Works and Pompton Lakes Works matters.

The Chambers Works matter trial began on May 19, 2025. The court has proceeded through a series of “mini-trials”, focused on: Third Amended Complaint Spill Act (Count 1) (liability) and Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (Count 4) against defendants EID; Spill Act (Count 1)(liability) and Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (Count 4) against defendant Chemours; Water Pollution Act (Count 2)(liability) against defendants EID and Chemours; Fraudulent transfer (actual and constructive)(Counts 13-16) against all defendants); Industrial Site Recovery Act (Count 3)(against all defendants except Chemours); the CRACO defense; and the Government contractor defense. As of June 9, 2025, the Court had progressed through the Spill Act and Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act mini-trials, the Water Pollution Control Act mini-trial, the CRACO defense mini-trial, and the Government Contractor defense mini-trial. Post-trial briefing related to those mini trials concluded in July 2025. On July 1, 2025, the Court postponed the rest of the mini-trials pending further order of the Court.

In June 2024, Carneys Point Township filed a motion to intervene in such matter seeking to bring counterclaims against both the State of New Jersey and defendants, including Chemours, related to natural resource damages, RFS, ISRA penalties, off-site remediation and lost property taxes. In November 2024, Carneys Point Township’s motion to intervene was denied and it is proceeding separately in its 2016 state court matter. In April 2025, the defendants’ appeal was ordered for consideration on the merits and is pending before the NJ Superior Court.

On February 28, 2025, NJ DEP sent to Chemours a letter indicating that the agency had placed the Chambers Works facility under discretionary direct oversight status, applicable to both Chemours and EID. The letter included requirements similar to those at issue in the ongoing litigation, including establishing a RFS and paying all NJ DEP oversight costs. Defendants raised this matter with the Court and sought withdrawal of the February 2025 letter by NJ DEP. While NJ DEP recognized that the letter’s requirements are currently stayed, it has not withdrawn the letter. Chemours and EID have appealed the February 2025 letter in the New Jersey Superior Court, which has been dismissed without prejudice pending the Chambers Works matter trial. The Company expects this matter to be resolved in connection with the New Jersey settlement described further below.

EID requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it in these matters. Chemours has accepted the indemnity and defense of EID while reserving rights and declining EID’s demand as to matters involving other EID entities, as well as ISRA and fraudulent transfer, subject to the terms of the MOU.

In the course of mediation related to these matters, Chemours, Chemours FC LLC, Corteva, EID, DuPont and DuPont Specialty Products (collectively, “the NJ Settling Companies”) agreed to a recommended settlement agreement in principle with NJ DEP and other State of New Jersey offices, including the Attorney General (collectively, the “State of New Jersey”), to comprehensively resolve these matters. In August 2025, the NJ Settling Companies and the State of New Jersey agreed to and announced a proposed JCO on terms consistent with the recommended settlement agreement. The JCO has been submitted for public notice and comment and is subject to Court approval following that period. A hearing on the JCO was held on January 7, 2026. The settlement provides that the Company does not admit any liability or wrongdoing and does not waive any defenses. The settlement will resolve all statewide claims by the State of New Jersey pending against the NJ Settling Companies related to PFAS, including claims not related to operating sites and from the use of AFFF. The settlement will also resolve legacy contamination claims related to NJ Settling Companies' four current and former operating sites in the NJ lawsuits (Chambers Works, Parlin, Pompton Lakes and Repauno) in the State of New Jersey, including claims for natural resource damages from the sites.

Under the JCO, the Companies will make scheduled annual settlement payments totaling $875 over a 25-year period. Payment allocations will be consistent with the Companies’ January 22, 2021 cost-sharing MOU, with Chemours (together with its subsidiaries) contributing 50 percent and DuPont and Corteva (together with their subsidiaries) contributing the remaining 50 percent. As of March 31, 2026, inclusive of accretion, the Company has recorded $266 which represents its allocation of the scheduled annual settlement payments on a net present value basis using an 8% discount rate. $98 is recorded within current accrued litigation and the remaining amount is recorded in long-term accrued litigation. The first of the scheduled annual payments will be due within 30 days of the date the JCO is entered by the Court. A hearing on the JCO was held on January 7, 2026 at the conclusion of which the court directed the State to supplement the record related to certain issues raised by objectors. The Court has set a further hearing on June 24, 2026 to consider the Plaintiffs’ supplemental record and objections thereto. The settlement also establishes a process for determining the amount of the RFS at each of the four current and former operating sites as well as other mechanisms which will secure funding for future remediation at the sites as needed. The proposed RFS amounts and related environmental liabilities for the sites covered by the New Jersey settlement agreement are further described in the Environmental section below.

PFOA and PFAS Summary

With the exception of the individual matters specifically noted otherwise above, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to PFOA and/or PFAS matters in excess of amounts accrued, but any such losses, which could be material to results of operations, financial position, or cash flows are not estimable at this time due to various reasons, including, among others, that some matters are in their early stages and that there are significant factual issues to be resolved.

U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc.

There are five lawsuits currently pending in Indiana federal court, including a putative class action, and one in Indiana state court, by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for EID environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and other damages. At Separation, EID assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. Management believes a loss, which could be material, is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved.

Securities Related Litigation and Requests for Information Arising From Audit Committee Internal Review, and Related Indemnification Agreements

The Audit Committee, with the assistance of independent counsel, conducted an internal review in the first quarter of 2024 arising from a report made to the Chemours Ethics Hotline, and its findings include that the Company’s then CEO, CFO and Controller violated the Chemours Code of Ethics for those positions. Chemours is cooperating with requests for information from the SEC and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York concerning the results of the Audit Committee Internal Review and the Company’s SEC filings and has received subpoenas from the SEC. In March 2024, two putative class actions were filed in Delaware federal court against the Company and former officers of the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaints allege claims on behalf of proposed classes of purchasers of Chemours stock beginning February 10, 2023 and ending February 28, 2024 and seek compensatory damages and fees. In September 2024, an Amended Complaint was filed, and the Company and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in October 2024. In April 2024, June 2024, July 2024, August 2024 and October 2024, the Company received seven stockholder demands for inspection of books and records under Section 220 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and the common law (“Section 220 Demand”), including in its purpose the investigation of possible wrongdoing, mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and/or senior management in connection with the compensation of executive officers and oversight over the Company’s accounting practices. In June 2025, the Company received a demand letter from one of these stockholders requesting that the Board investigate allegations that the Company made false and misleading disclosures regarding its financial condition and controls. The Board considered the demand letter and deferred any further investigation during the pendency of the other ongoing litigation and investigations as described herein.

In April 2025, two stockholder derivative actions were filed in Delaware state court against the Company, former officers of the Company, and past and current members of the Board. The complaints allege, inter alia, claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Pursuant to court order, these actions have been consolidated and stayed pending the earlier of the date that: (i) the Delaware district court action is dismissed with prejudice and all appeals therefrom are exhausted; or (ii) any defendant in the Delaware district court action files an answer to the operative complaint in that action. A third stockholder derivative action was filed in June 2025 in Delaware state court against the Company, former officers of the Company and past and present members of the Board. The third action has been consolidated with the other stockholder derivative actions and stayed. In addition, the Company is aware of additional efforts by private law firms to solicit clients in regard to potential securities class action or derivative litigation. Management believes that it is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these matters or to estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, as the matters are in their early stages with significant issues to be resolved, including, for certain matters, whether a claim will be made.

The Company has indemnification and expense advancement obligations pursuant to its bylaws and indemnification agreements with respect to certain current and former members of senior management and the Company’s directors. In connection with the Audit Committee Internal Review, and above litigation matters, the Company has received requests from former members of senior management under such indemnification agreements and its bylaws to provide advances of funds for legal fees and other expenses and expects additional requests in connection with the investigation and any future related litigation. The Company incurred less than $1 of costs for these indemnification agreement requests during the three months ended March 31, 2026. These costs have been recorded within Selling, general, and administrative expense. The Company has not recorded any material liabilities for these matters as of March 31, 2026 as it cannot estimate the ultimate outcome at this time.

Arbitration Related to DeLisle Site

In 2024, we announced that the PCC Group planned to build and operate a chlor-alkali facility on the grounds of our TiO2 plant in DeLisle, Mississippi and that the PCC Group and the Company entered into a chlorine supply agreement (“CSA”) which was subject to certain conditions precedent. During project development, the parties discussed certain items, including the projected cost and timeline to build the chlor-alkali facility, and the impact certain of these developments would have on the CSA, In March 2026, the CSA was terminated, and the project to build the chlor-alkali facility is not proceeding. The Company filed a request for arbitration in April 2026 with regards to the CSA termination. As of March 31, 2026, the Company accrued an amount that did not materially affect results of operations for the period related to this matter.

Environmental Overview

Chemours, due to the terms of the Separation-related agreements with EID, is subject to contingencies pursuant to environmental laws and regulations that in the future may require further action to correct the effects on the environment of prior disposal practices or releases of chemical substances, which are attributable to EID’s activities before it spun-off Chemours. Much of this liability results from the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”, often referred to as “Superfund”), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and similar federal, state, local, and foreign laws. These laws may require Chemours to undertake certain investigative, remediation, and restoration activities at sites where ownership was transferred to Chemours under the Separation-related agreements or at sites where EID-generated waste was disposed before the 2015 separation. The accrual also includes estimated costs related to a number of sites identified for which it is probable that environmental remediation will be required, but which are not currently the subject of enforcement activities.

Chemours accrues for remediation activities when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of the liability can be made. Where the available information is sufficient to estimate the amount of liability, that estimate has been used. Where the available information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability, and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. Estimated liabilities are determined based on existing remediation laws and technologies and the Company’s planned remedial responses, which are derived from environmental studies, sampling, testing, and analyses. Inherent uncertainties exist in such evaluations, primarily due to unknown environmental conditions, changing governmental regulations regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies. The Company, from time to time, may engage third parties to assist in obtaining and/or evaluating relevant data and assumptions when estimating its remediation liabilities. These liabilities are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress and as additional technological, regulatory, and legal information becomes available. Environmental liabilities and expenditures include claims for matters that are liabilities of EID and its subsidiaries, which Chemours may be required to indemnify pursuant to the Separation-related agreements. When the aggregate amount of the liability, or component, and the amount and timing of cash payments for the liability, or component, are fixed or reliably determinable, the amounts are discounted using the risk-free rate. If the amount or timing are not fixed or reliably determinable, the accrued liabilities are undiscounted. In any case, the liabilities do not include claims against third parties. Costs related to environmental remediation are charged to expense in the period that the associated liability is accrued.

Typically, the timeframe for a site to go through all phases of remediation (investigation and active clean-up) may take about 15 to 20 years, followed by years of operation, maintenance, and monitoring (“OM&M”) activities. In most cases, the duration of OM&M is uncertain and therefore the Company estimates the duration of OM&M based on all available site-specific facts and circumstances including, where relevant, any regulatory agreements, guidance or discussions. Remediation activities, including OM&M activities, vary substantially in duration and cost from site to site. These activities, and their associated costs, depend on the mix of unique site characteristics, evolving remediation technologies, and diverse regulatory requirements, as well as the presence or absence of other potentially responsible parties. In addition, for claims that Chemours may be required to indemnify EID pursuant to the Separation-related agreements, Chemours, through EID, has limited available information for certain sites or is in the early stages of discussions with regulators. For these sites in particular, there may be considerable variability between the clean-up activities that are currently being undertaken or planned and the ultimate actions that could be required. Therefore, considerable uncertainty exists with respect to environmental remediation costs and, under adverse changes in circumstances, management currently estimates the potential liabilities may range up to approximately $630 above the amount accrued at March 31, 2026. This estimate is not intended to reflect an assessment of Chemours’ maximum potential liability. As noted above, the estimated liabilities are determined based on existing remediation laws and technologies and the Company’s planned remedial responses, which are derived from environmental studies, sampling, testing, and analyses. Inherent uncertainties exist in such evaluations, primarily due to unknown environmental conditions, changing governmental regulations regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies. Management will continue to evaluate as new or additional information becomes available in the determination of its environmental remediation liability.

In October 2021, EPA released its PFAS Strategic Roadmap, identifying a comprehensive approach to addressing PFAS. The PFAS Strategic Roadmap sets timelines by which EPA planned to take specific actions through 2024, including establishing a national primary drinking water regulation for PFOA and PFOS and taking Effluent Limitations Guidelines actions to regulate PFAS discharges from industrial categories among other actions. As provided under its roadmap, EPA also released its National PFAS Testing Strategy, under which the agency will identify and select certain PFAS compounds for which it will require manufacturers to conduct testing pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) section 4. Chemours has received various test orders and has formed consortia to jointly manage compliance with the test order requirements. Chemours expects to receive future test orders, however the timing of the remaining test orders is not determinable at this time. The timing of the draft Effluent Limitations Guidelines for PFAS manufacturers as announced in the PFAS Strategic Roadmap is uncertain. In April 2025, EPA outlined actions that it will be taking to address PFAS across its program offices, including with respect to the implementation of the TSCA testing strategy and developing Effluent Limitations Guidelines ("ELGs").

Also in October 2021, EPA published a final toxicity assessment for GenX compounds that decreased the draft reference dose for GenX compounds based on EPA’s review of new studies and analyses. On March 18, 2022, Chemours filed a petition to EPA requesting to withdraw and correct its toxicity assessment for GenX compounds, which was denied by EPA on June 14, 2022. The next day, on June 15, 2022, EPA released health advisories for four PFAS, including interim updated lifetime drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, and final health advisories for GenX compounds, including hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO Dimer Acid”), and another PFAS compound (PFBS). On July 13, 2022, the Company filed a Petition for Review of the GenX compounds health advisory, and the Third Circuit held argument on the petition in January 2024. In July 2024, the Third Circuit dismissed the Company’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the health advisory was not a final agency action.

In March 2023, EPA proposed a national primary drinking water regulation ("NPDWR") to establish Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs") for six PFAS, with PFOA and PFOS having MCLs as individual compounds (each proposed as 4 parts per trillion ("ppt")) and four other PFAS compounds, including HFPO Dimer Acid, having a hazard index approach limit on any mixture containing one or more of the compounds. The proposed PFAS NPDWR was subject to public comment until May 30, 2023, and on April 10, 2024 EPA issued its final rule, which included promulgating individual MCLs for PFOA and PFOS at 4ppt and individual MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO Dimer Acid at 10ppt. In addition, EPA finalized a hazard index of 1 (unitless) as the MCL for any mixture of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO Dimer Acid and PFBS. The final rule became effective 60 days from publication in the Federal Register and the compliance date for public water systems in the U.S. to meet the MCLs is five years from the publication date. In June 2024, Chemours, as well as other organizations including the American Water Works Association and the American Chemistry Council, filed petitions for review of the final rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal had been held in abeyance since February 2025 until July 2025 to allow EPA to review the underlying rule. In May 2025, EPA announced that it intends to retain the MCLs for PFOS and PFOA, with rulemaking for additional time for compliance, and to rescind the other MCLs and hazard index. In July 2025, EPA moved for the court to take the appeal out of abeyance in order for parties to complete briefing. Also in April 2024, EPA issued a final rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, which has also been challenged in the same appeals court. On September 11, 2025, EPA moved for partial vacatur of the regulation, requesting vacatur of its determination to regulate three individual compounds, including HFPO-DA, and mixtures of those compounds and another through a “hazard index”. EPA did not seek vacatur of the portions of the regulation governing PFOA and PFOS. Further briefing was ordered by the court and was completed in March 2026. EPA has commenced the rulemaking process to rescind the Index PFAS portions of the 2024 MCLs regulation. EPA has moved to hold this appeal also in abeyance to allow review of the underlying rule and, as such, abeyance continues into August 2025. Depending on the ultimate outcome of EPA’s actions, the Company's estimated environmental remediation liabilities and accrued litigation could increase to meet any new drinking water standards, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

As further discussed in the Other PFAS Matters section above, the Company and the municipalities of Dordrecht, Papendrecht, Sliedrecht and Molenlanden signed an LOI that includes the implementation of a specific remediation plan for the restoration of restricted vegetables in certain areas of those municipalities to be funded by Chemours, sampling and developing a program to address the Merwelanden recreational lake, and further settlement discussions. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company received comments from the Municipality of Dordrecht and the Province of South Holland on a Plan of Action for Vegetable Gardens ("Plan of Action") in the municipalities and approval for the pilot stage of the plan. The Plan of Action provides for replacement of soil impacted with PFOA above certain levels to remove RIVM documented consumption restriction as well as providing for alternative irrigation water, if necessary, as determined by PFOA levels. Accruals related to the Plan of Action of $25 and $26 are included in the environmental remediation balance as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. Further, The Dordrecht Works facility discharges, through outfalls at the site, wastewater and stormwater pursuant to permits issued by the applicable local authorities, including the DCMR Environmental Protection Agency ("DCMR”). As the regulatory landscape has evolved in the Netherlands over the last years, there is increased focus on PFAS compounds discharged under the site’s permits, including compounds that were previously discharged at undetected levels, and the site has been ordered to meet certain limits for these discharges or be subject to conditional fines. The Company regularly carries out analyses of its wastewater to assess compliance with current emission limits as well as detect other contaminants as analysis methods develop. The Company identified the presence of certain compounds based upon new analysis methods and reported these to DCMR and in December 2023 submitted an application under normal permitting practice for a discharge requirement based on limited information for these compounds. The Company has continued to engage with regulatory authorities on the application, including providing additional data and information in November 2024. In February 2025, the Company submitted a revised permit application.

In December 2024, DCMR indicated an intention to impose a conditional fine of up to €3.7 million for one of the compounds, for which the Company has objected. The Company has responded to this intention, including that such intention is not consistent with normal permitting practice. In February 2025, DCMR responded to the Company indicating it will impose the conditional fine, after a grace period. In March 2025, DCMR adjusted the conditional fine to allow a grace period until July 2025 subject to certain conditions. Objections have been submitted against the adjustment. The Company has filed a pro forma objection to the conditional fine. This procedure is on hold upon the Company’s request because of the pending permit application. The Company has piloted abatement technology and continues to implement such technology to reduce discharges below the conditional fine level. The Company has not recorded a liability for this matter as of March 31, 2026 as it believes that it is operating in compliance with the applicable permitting and is not subject to any conditional fines that the DCMR previously asserted it would raise. As of March 31, 2026, the Company does not believe the above matter will have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The environmental remediation liabilities and accrued litigation, as applicable, recorded for Fayetteville, Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Dordrecht Works, Netherlands and Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey as of March 31, 2026 are based upon the existing Consent Orders, agreements and/or voluntary commitments with EPA, state and other local regulators and depending on the ultimate outcome of EPA’s actions, could require adjustment to meet any new drinking water standards. It is reasonably possible that additional costs could be incurred in connection with EPA’s actions, however, the Company cannot estimate the potential impact or additional cost at this time, due in part to the uncertainties of challenges to them, the, regulatory implementation site by site, where applicable, the current condition and the additional sampling required to determine the level of contamination at the site, possible method(s) of remediation that may be required, and determination of other potential responsible parties. Refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” below for further detail on the impact of EPA’s final drinking water health advisory for GenX compounds, including HFPO Dimer Acid.

In addition to the scheduled annual settlement payments pursuant to the New Jersey settlement described more fully in the Litigation section above, the settlement also obligates the NJ Settling Companies to continue to undertake remediation at the four sites (notably Chambers Works and, Pompton Lakes, as well as Repauno and Parlin), which will be determined in accordance with applicable law. As part of the settlement, the NJ Settling Companies have agreed to a process to review and establish the RFS for each of the four sites (in the form of surety bond, or similar financial instrument) to ensure available funds for future remediation at the sites, including using a binding third-party licensed site remediation professionals ("LSRP") review if the parties cannot agree. The Company is the primary responsible party at Chambers Works, Pompton Lakes and Repauno.

In connection with the New Jersey settlement negotiations, in the second quarter of 2025, the Company recorded a $60 increase to certain of its environmental and legal remediation reserves related to the sites covered by the settlement. The increase was driven by the Company’s change in estimate based on the best available information of the length of time that long-term OM&M is expected to continue for at these sites based on site-specific facts and considering settlement discussions and the range of RFS amounts for which the state of New Jersey is seeking financial assurance as part of the settlement. As of March 31, 2026, the Company has total environmental and legal remediation-related liabilities recorded for these sites of $166, of which a component is discounted at the risk free rate of approximately 5%, as well as certain asset-retirement obligations recorded for certain of the sites and other financial assurances already in place. The gross (undiscounted) amount of environmental and legal remediation-related liabilities for these sites is approximately $264.

The Company has reserved for environmental remediation liabilities based on existing remediation laws and technologies and the Company’s planned remedial responses, which are derived from environmental studies, sampling, testing, and analyses. The New Jersey settlement outlines a range of potential RFS for the sites. For the sites for which the Company is the primary responsible party, the RFS ranges total from $177 to $1,048 in the first year after settlement. In early October 2025, the Company put in place surety bonds totaling $108 to satisfy the interim RFS requirements of the NJ DEP settlement agreement. These RFS ranges per the settlement represent negotiated amounts, and the bottom of the range reflects the Company’s prior or current financial assurances and current view for potential future remediation activities at the sites. The range of potential RFS amounts in the settlement reflect potential additional scope or activities that are not currently required under the existing remediation plans for these specific remediation sites. As identified above, during the RFS process outlined in the settlement agreement, the Company will work with the NJ DEP and, potentially LSRPs, to determine the appropriate RFS amounts and review the future scope of remediation for each of the four sites. Given the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the RFS review process, there is a risk that the outcome of these technical evaluations could lead the Company to determine that additional remediation activities are required. Any such determination could result in future changes to the Company’s environmental reserve estimates.

Chemours incurred environmental remediation expenses of $13 and $10 for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively, of which $4 in each period relate to Fayetteville (discussed further below).

Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Fayetteville has been in operation since the 1970s and is located next to the Cape Fear River southeast of the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina. HFPO Dimer Acid is manufactured at Fayetteville. The Company has operated the site since its Separation from EID in 2015.

While the Company believes that discharges from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River, on-site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions have not impacted the safety of drinking water in North Carolina, the Company is cooperating with a variety of ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state, and local authorities, regulators, and other governmental entities including EPA.

Consent Order with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NC DEQ”)

In February 2019, the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County approved a Consent Order (“CO”) between NC DEQ, Cape Fear River Watch ("CFRW"), and the Company, resolving the State’s and CFRW’s lawsuits and other matters (including Notices of Violation (“NOV”) issued by the State). Under the terms of the CO, Chemours paid $13 in March 2019 to cover a civil penalty and investigative costs and agreed to certain compliance measures (with stipulated penalties for failures to do so), including the following:

In August 2020, NC DEQ, CFRW, and the Company reached agreement on the terms of an addendum to the CO (the “Addendum”), which includes procedures for implementing specified remedial measures for reducing PFAS loadings from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River. The Addendum also includes stipulated financial penalties, inclusive of daily and weekly fines for untimeliness in meeting deadlines for construction, installation and other requirements, as well as intermittent performance-based fines for noncompliance in meeting PFAS loading reduction requirements and removal efficiency targets. In October 2020, the Addendum was approved by the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County.

Off-site replacement drinking water supplies

The CO requires the Company to provide permanent replacement drinking water supplies, including via connection to public water supply, whole building filtration units and/or RO units, to qualifying surrounding residents, businesses, schools, and public buildings with private drinking water wells. Qualifying surrounding properties with private drinking water wells that have tested for GenX above the state provisional health goal of 140 ppt, or any applicable health advisory, whichever is lower, may be eligible for public water or a whole building filtration system. NC DEQ provided notice that the June 2022 release of the final health advisory for GenX compounds by EPA constituted an applicable health advisory for determining eligibility for public water or whole house filtration system. Additionally, under the CO, qualifying surrounding properties with private drinking water wells that have tested above 10 ppt for other perfluorinated compounds (“Table 3 Compounds”) are eligible for three under-sink RO units. The Company provides bottled drinking water to a qualifying property when it becomes eligible for a replacement drinking water supply, and continues to provide delivery of bottled drinking water to the qualifying property until the eligible supply is established or installed. Under the terms of the CO, Chemours must make the offer to install a water treatment system to property owners in writing multiple times, and property owners have approximately one year to accept the Company’s offer before it expires. In September 2021, the Company entered into an agreement with Bladen County, North Carolina to fund public water system upgrades and connections associated with providing permanent replacement drinking water supplies under the CO.

Further, in addition to the surrounding counties, in November 2021, NC DEQ sent a notice to Chemours regarding PFAS contamination from the Cape Fear River of groundwater monitoring wells and water supply wells in New Hanover County and potentially three other downstream counties based on new sampling data by NC DEQ and its determination of Chemours’ obligations for such contamination. NC DEQ directed Chemours to submit for its review and approval a comprehensive groundwater contamination assessment in such counties, as well as an updated drinking water program to provide for sampling under the CO in such counties. In 2022, the Company submitted an interim drinking water plan and a separate assessment framework plan, which were subsequently updated and resubmitted, based on comments received from NC DEQ. In 2023, NC DEQ provided additional comments identifying additional actions regarding the groundwater assessment as well as the drinking water program, which the Company responded to.

The Company’s estimated liability for off-site replacement drinking water supplies is based on management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances for this matter, including comments received from NC DEQ, which are subject to various assumptions that include, but are not limited to, the number of affected surrounding properties, response rates to the Company’s offer, the timing of expiration of offers made to the property owners, the type of water treatment systems selected (i.e., public water, whole building filtration, or RO units), the cost of the selected water treatment systems, and any related OM&M requirements, fines and penalties, and other charges contemplated by the CO. For off-site drinking water supplies, OM&M is accrued for 20 years on an undiscounted basis based on the Company’s current plans under the CO.

At March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, the Company had $123 and $124 of accrued liabilities, respectively, for off-site groundwater testing and water treatment system installations at qualifying third-party properties primarily in Bladen and Cumberland counties surrounding Fayetteville, which is expected to be disbursed over approximately 20 years. In addition, as of March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, the Company had $19 and $20, respectively for both periods, of accrued liabilities for the assessment and for sampling related to potential PFAS contamination of groundwater and supply of alternative drinking water in New Hanover and three other downstream counties. Off-site installation, maintenance, and monitoring cost estimates are based on management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances for these matters, including comments received from NC DEQ, and could change as actual experience may differ from management's estimates or new information may become available.

The estimated liability was based on certain assumptions, which management believes are reasonable under the circumstances and include, but are not limited to, implementation of the soil and groundwater assessment, the source and cause of PFAS contamination for the four downstream counties, the estimated number of properties at which sampling is conducted and whether such property will qualify for an alternative drinking water supply, other potentially responsible parties and the method of long-term alternative water supply, if any. Further, management’s estimate of the ultimate liability for this matter is dependent upon NC DEQ approval of the proposed plans in response to various NC DEQ letters, obtaining additional information, implementation of EPA’s health advisories, additional feasibility and investigation work that has not yet been scoped or performed, and the estimated additional future cost of OM&M. The ultimate resolution of the matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flow.

On-site surface water and groundwater remediation

Abatement and remediation measures already taken by Chemours, including the capture and disposal of its operations process wastewater and other interim actions, have addressed and abated nearly all PFAS discharges from the Company’s continuing operations at Fayetteville. However, the Company continues to have active dialogue with NC DEQ and other stakeholders regarding the potential incremental remedies that are both economically and technologically feasible to achieve the CO and Addendum objectives related to the impact of site surface water and groundwater contamination from historical operations, during and subsequent to the optimization period of the groundwater treatment system and following installation of the barrier wall.

In 2019, the Company completed and submitted its Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan - Supplemental Information Report and its CAP to NC DEQ. The Supplemental Information Report provided information to support the evaluation of potential interim remedial options to reduce PFAS loadings to surface waters. The CAP described potential long-term remediation activities to address PFAS in groundwater and surface waters at the site, in accordance with the requirements of the CO and the North Carolina groundwater standards, and built upon the previous submissions to NC DEQ. The NC DEQ received comments on the CAP during a public comment period, and the Company is awaiting formal response to the CAP from NC DEQ. With respect to the CO, the Addendum was approved by the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County in October 2020 and establishes the procedure to implement specified remedial measures for reducing PFAS loadings from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River, including construction of a barrier wall with a groundwater extraction system, which was completed in June 2023, followed by an engineers certification confirming that the barrier wall was constructed and documented to be in conformance with the approved design.

Based on the CO, the Addendum, the CAP, and management’s plans, which are based on current regulations and technology, the Company has accrued $174 and $176 at March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, respectively, related to the estimated cost of on-site remediation, based on the range of potential outcomes on current potential remedial options, and the projected amounts to be paid over a period of approximately 20 years. The final costs of any selected remediation will depend primarily on permit compliance requirements, ongoing dialogue with NC DEQ and other stakeholders regarding the potential incremental remedies that are both economically and technologically feasible to achieve the CO and Addendum objectives, and estimated future cost and time period of OM&M. Further, the final cost of the on-site groundwater treatment system depends on water treatment requirements and estimated treatment reagent and media usage. As such, cost estimates could change as actual experience may differ from management's estimates. Changes in estimates are recorded in results of operations in the period that the events and circumstances giving rise to such changes occur.

The Company’s estimated liability for the remediation activities that are probable and estimable is based on the CO, the Addendum, the CAP, and management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances, which is subject to various assumptions including the transport pathways (being pathways by which PFAS reaches the Cape Fear River) that will require remedial actions, the types of interim and permanent site surface water and on-site remedies and treatment systems selected and implemented, the estimated cost of such potential remedies and treatment systems, any related OM&M requirements, and other charges contemplated by the CO and the Addendum.

The Company accrued 20 years of OM&M for Fayetteville environmental remediation systems based on the CO and Addendum, which includes estimated higher power consumption, ongoing monitoring, pretreatment, filtering supplies (principally carbon) and regular maintenance of the system over a 20-year period of estimated operation starting in 2023.

It is possible that issues relating to site discharges in various transport pathways, the selection of remediation alternatives to achieve PFAS loading reductions, or the operating effectiveness of the TO could result in further litigation and/or regulatory demands with regards to Fayetteville, including potential permit modifications or penalties under the CO and the Addendum. It is also possible that, as additional data is collected on the transport pathways and dialogue continues with NC DEQ and other stakeholders, the type or extent of remediation actions required to achieve the objectives committed to in the CO may change (increase or decrease) or remediation activities could be delayed. If such issues arise, or if the CO is further amended, an additional loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time.

Litigation and Other matters related to Fayetteville and other U.S. Advanced Performance Materials sites

In February 2019, the Company received a NOV from EPA, alleging certain TSCA violations at Fayetteville. Matters raised in the NOV could have the potential to affect operations at Fayetteville. For this NOV, the Company responded to EPA in March 2019, asserting that the Company has not violated environmental laws. The Company continues to progress in discussion with EPA regarding PFAS-related allegations at its U.S. Advanced Performance Materials sites. In connection with these ongoing discussions, during the first quarter of 2026 the Company accrued an amount that did not materially affect results of operations for the period relating to alleged violations and exceedances. The Company believes it is reasonably possible that a resolution of these discussions may also include abatement and could include commitments to make multi-year future capital and other operating-related expenditures at its sites, or requirements to pay certain amounts, as well as possible changes to programs near the sites. These discussions are complex and involve multiple parties, and, as such, the amount of any reasonably possible loss cannot be estimated as there continues to be significant uncertainty as to any potential outcome of these discussions, including potential scope, terms, or timing. There can be no assurance that any discussion will result in a resolution. Any potential resolution of these discussions and any reasonably possible future committed expenditures could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Beginning in 2017, civil actions have been filed against EID and Chemours in North Carolina courts relating to discharges from Fayetteville. These actions include a consolidated action brought by four public water suppliers seeking damages and injunctive relief, a consolidated purported class action seeking medical monitoring, and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, and two actions encompassing approximately 2,600 private well owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Ruling on the Company’s motions in April 2019, the court dismissed the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged causes of actions in these lawsuits. In October 2023, the court certified the property damages class action. In December 2024, EID and Chemours filed a motion to decertify the class on the grounds, among others, that the class representatives are inadequate and not representative. In September 2025 the Court denied the motion to decertify without prejudice. In January 2026, the Court scheduled a one-week trial in July 2026 that will cover four individual well owner cases. The Court also plans to have another one-week trial in the fourth quarter of 2026 covering two individual well owner cases. In March 2023, one of the public water suppliers brought a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against EID, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont alleging voidable transfer and other claims arising from the Chemours separation and DowDuPont merger and subsequent restructurings, asset transfers and separations; the matter is now stayed.

In addition to natural resource damages matter filed by the State of North Carolina (as discussed within the “PFAS” section of this “Note 17 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”), in September 2020, three additional lawsuits were filed in North Carolina state court against Chemours and EID, as well as other defendants. One of the lawsuits is a putative class action on behalf of residents who are served by the Cape Fear Public Water utility, alleges negligence, nuisance, and other claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds from Fayetteville, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages and medical monitoring. The other two lawsuits were filed on behalf of individuals residing near Fayetteville and allege negligence, nuisance, and other claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds. The individuals seek compensatory property damages, punitive damages, and, in some cases, medical monitoring. All three lawsuits allege fraudulent transfer against EID and other EID entities, but not against Chemours. In October 2020, the cases were removed to federal court and then the two lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals were remanded back to state court.

In March 2022, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of an individual residing near the Fayetteville site against Chemours, EID and other defendants alleging negligence, nuisance and other claims related to the discharges from the Fayetteville site. The individual seeks compensatory property damages, punitive damages and medical monitoring. The lawsuit also alleges fraudulent transfer against EID and other EID entities, but not against Chemours.

Also, in March 2022 Cumberland County, North Carolina filed suit in state court against Chemours, EID and other defendants related to discharges from the Fayetteville site alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and fraudulent transfer. The lawsuit seeks damages as well as injunctive and equitable relief. In April 2024, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the fraudulent transfer counts. In September 2025, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Cumberland County on liability for nuisance and trespass, leaving the issue of damages, if any, for trial. In December 2025, Defendants petitioned for appeal of this ruling, which was denied in February 2026. Trial is scheduled for August 2026.

In December 2022, Aqua North Carolina, Inc. filed suit in North Carolina state court alleging EID, DuPont, DowDuPont, Inc and the Company are responsible for polyfluorinated chemical contamination of the Cape Fear River, groundwater and other water sources used by Aqua North Carolina across the state to serve its water customers. The complaint was later amended to add Corteva and to drop DowDuPont. The complaint alleges product liability, negligence, trespass, deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment and fraudulent transfer. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2023, the matter was removed to federal court. In July 2024, the court dismissed the claims for products liability, deceptive trade practices and public nuisance.

In April 2026, Aqua North Carolina filed suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina against Corteva, DuPont, the Company and John Doe defendants, asserting cost recovery claims under CERCLA for response costs and damages regarding PFAS contamination of source waters serving affected Aqua water utilities and wastewater treatment plants in southeastern North Carolina.

As of March 31, 2026, lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of 59 individuals residing near Fayetteville against Chemours, EID, Corteva and DuPont alleging personal injury, property damages and deceptive trade practices related to the discharges from Fayetteville. The individuals seek compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorney fees and punitive damages. In December 2023 and January 2024, amended complaints were filed in each case dropping fraudulent transfer claims. In September 2024, the court dismissed claims for deceptive trade practices, public nuisance, negligence per se and trespass to chattels.

It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or EID concerning the Fayetteville discharges. It is not possible at this point to predict the timing, course, or outcome of all governmental and regulatory inquiries and notices and litigation related to Fayetteville, and it is reasonably possible that these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. In addition, local communities, organizations, and federal and state regulatory agencies have raised questions concerning HFPO Dimer Acid and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds at certain other manufacturing sites operated by the Company. It is possible that additional developments similar to those described above and centering on Fayetteville could arise in other locations.

Other Environmental and Environmental-Related Matters

On October 31, 2024, the Company received a request from the Dutch ILT agency to amend the Company's F-gas reporting for certain years to reflect hydrofluorocarbons ("HFCs") produced and consumed or destroyed at the Dordrecht Works facility. In November 2024, the Company made minor amendments to its F-gas reporting for the above years and consulted with the Dutch ILT agency and EU Commission to address the Dutch ILT's assertion that certain compounds are subject to the F-gas quota system. In February 2025, the Company received an intention for the ILT to collect a penalty of €1 million based on the consideration that HFC-23 imported or acquired on the market and added to the production process rather than directly sent for destruction is quota consuming. The Company reviewed the ILT intention and met with the agency in April 2025 to review the matter and Dordrecht Works’ HFC-23 related operations. In May 2025, ILT noticed the collection of the penalty of €1 million (Euro), which was paid by the Company in June 2025. The Company has submitted an objection to the collection of the penalty. In June 2025, the European Commission sent a compliance letter related to the Dordrecht Works operations alleging infringement of Article 16(1) of the F-gas regulation by exceeding its annual quota between 2016 to 2019 and 2021 to 2024, asserting a total reduction of 1,114,016 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The Company responded to the compliance letter and on August 1, 2025 the European Commission sent a letter-decision imposing a 200% quota reduction penalty applicable in 2026. On October 9, 2025, the Company filed an application for annulment of such decision in the General Court of the European Union based upon the decision violating EU law and its principle of proportionality. The Company also filed for an interim action to suspend the August 1, 2025 decision and the court issued an order granting temporary relief whereby the quota reduction decision was suspended during the interim proceedings. In January 2026 the court issued an order dismissing the interim action and temporary suspension. The annulment matter is proceeding.

In June 2025 the European Commission also sent a compliance letter asserting that, based upon its 2024 reporting year submission, a quota exceedance occurred making it subject to a reduced quota allocation in the future and penalties.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may make certain commitments, including representations, warranties, and indemnities relating to current and past operations, including environmental remediation and other potential costs related to divested assets and businesses, and issue guarantees of third-party obligations. The Company accrues for these matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated.

In connection with the sale of the Mining Solutions business, the Company provided a limited indemnification with respect to environmental liabilities that may arise from activities prior to the closing date. Such indemnification would not exceed approximately $78 and will expire on December 1, 2026. No liabilities have been recorded a March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively, with respect to this indemnification.

In December 2024, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition filed a complaint under the Clean Water Act in West Virginia federal court alleging past and ongoing exceedances of certain effluent discharge limits, including those for PFOA and HFPO Dimer Acid, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit held by the Chemours Washington Works facility. The complaint alleges CWA violations since December 2019 and seeks civil penalties of less than $0.1 per day for each violation, as well as injunctive relief. The complaint lists 199 separate violations, including daily and monthly reporting. In February 2025, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to impose injunctive relief while the litigation continues. The court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction from May 21-23, 2025 during which the court moved the trial date from March 2026 to September 16, 2025. In June 2025, the court granted a motion to intervene filed by Little Hocking Water Association ("LHWA"). On August 7, 2025, the Court issued a preliminary injunction that enjoined Chemours from discharging HFPO-DA in excess of effluent limits set by its NPDES Permit limits including by, but not limited to, production changes, process modifications, off-site treatment, or temporary cessation of operations. Chemours appealed the court’s preliminary injunction order to the Fourth Circuit and oral argument was held in March 2026. In the district court, Chemours filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision by the Fourth Circuit which was granted, and the underlying matter is now stayed. Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible but not estimable as there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved.

Chemours Washington Works discharges, through outfalls at the site, wastewater, and stormwater pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WV DEP"). In addition, we discharge treated wastewater and non-contact cooling water from a second perfluoroalkoxy (“PFA”) processing line pursuant to a separate NDPES permit which expires in July 2026. We have continued to engage with regulatory authorities on these NPDES permits including providing additional data and information as requested. In April 2026, we submitted a modification to allow extension of the second PFA processing line NPDES permit while the site-wide NPDES permit renewal application continues to be evaluated. If we are unable to agree with the WV DEP on NPDES permit renewals or extensions at our Washington Works site, this could impact our ability to operate the site and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows, including that this could represent an indicator of potential impairment of the Company’s long-lived assets which could trigger an assessment of the recoverability of the related assets and such an assessment could result in future impairment losses.