3M, DuPont PFAS settlements called inadequate by cities, other objectors

3M Co

13/11/2023 22:46

* 
      Some U.S. cities, towns and others want court to reject
PFAS
deals
    

        * 
      Detractors said deal is inadequate, curbs too much
liability
    

  
    By Clark Mindock
       Nov 13 (Reuters) - U.S. cities, towns and water
districts have challenged proposed class action settlements
worth more than $11 billion with 3M  MMM.N , DuPont de Nemours
 DD.N  and others, arguing the deals are too generous to the
chemical companies accused of contaminating U.S. water with
toxic "forever chemicals."
    The objections were filed late Friday and Saturday in
federal court in Charleston, South Carolina, by 22 governments
and agencies in New York, Texas, Colorado, California and
elsewhere. They said the settlements will not fully cover
cleanup and legal costs facing water providers after the
companies allegedly polluted drinking water with per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
    PFAS are used in a range of products from firefighting foam
to non-stick cookware, and have been linked to cancer and
hormonal dysfunction. The objections relate to a proposed deal
between 3M and U.S. water providers for $10.3 billion and a
separate $1.19 billion settlement agreed to by DuPont and
spin-off companies Corteva  CTVA.N  and Chemours  CC.N  in June.
Both settlements would end hundreds of lawsuits against the
companies.
    Many of the objectors said the settlement terms were too
broad and could inappropriately release the companies from too
much future potential liability over PFAS pollution — including
for remediation of soil or wastewater contamination, and from
some personal injury claims.
    "The funds proposed are grossly inadequate," said the City
of Dallas, Texas, asking the court to reject the settlements
until fixes are made.
    Similar arguments were made by others including Tacoma,
Washington, Las Cruces, New Mexico, and the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, which helps deliver water to 19
million people in the state.
    Paul Napoli, an attorney with the law firm Napoli Shkolnik
who negotiated the settlements on behalf of U.S. water
providers, said in an email on Monday that he and other
plaintiffs' attorneys take objections with "utmost seriousness."
He said many of the concerns have already been resolved, or were
raised by parties that are not members of the proposed class
action settlements.
    A DuPont spokesperson said the company is reviewing the
objections and remains confident in the settlement.
    A 3M spokesperson said its settlement would benefit water
systems that provide drinking water to the "vast majority of
Americans" without further litigation, and said the company
would respond to the objections in court.
    U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, who is overseeing
thousands of lawsuits against 3M, DuPont and others over PFAS
contamination, granted preliminary approval for the two
settlements in August.
    A group of 22 U.S. states and territories led by California
had earlier opposed the 3M deal over concerns it was too broad,
but those objections were pulled back after several changes were
made to the deal.
    California and several other states and U.S. territories
said then that they still think 3M should be paying more to
settle the cases, but would no longer formally oppose it.
     The DuPont settlement is scheduled for a final fairness
hearing in December. The 3M settlement will receive a final look
in February.
    The case is In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products
Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, case No. 2:18-mn-02873.
    For Dallas and several other objectors: Jessica Ferrell and
Jeff Kray of Marten Law
    For the plaintiffs: Paul Napoli of Napoli Shkolnik; Michael
London of Douglas & London; and Scott Summy of Baron & Budd
    For 3M: Richard Bulger, Daniel Ring and Michael Olsen of
Mayer Brown
    For DuPont: Molly Craig of the Hood Law Firm

 (Reporting by Clark Mindock)