3M: Recap of our expert webinar with a toxic tort lawyer

Research evidence excerpt

3M: Recap of our expert webinar with a toxic tort lawyer

Varun Govindaraj +1 917 344 8543 varun.govindaraj@bernsteinsg.com 24 June 2026

DETAILS

We ran an expert webinar earlier today with Kevin Mayer, a lawyer focused on toxic tort litigation (generally representing the

defense). This note summarizes our key takeaways and highlights from that discussion in the context of 3M’s PFAS exposure.

We have also added our Bernstein persectives as an overlay.

Three broad tracks of expsoure for 3M in terms of PFAS litigation. First bucket is public water systems (PWS) where the claim

is that PFAS materials have contaminated and need to be removed from those water systems so they can be made potable.

The second track are the personal injury claims, both in federal multi-district litigation and individual state court actions.

Those are ongoing. The third track are the state sovereign natural resources defense cases, which are accelerating. This is

particularly topical since Chemours announced a settlement with the US DOJ for PFAS related damages in West Virginia, North

Carolina, and New Jersey. There are also broader international cases (e.g., Australia suing 3M) which were not covered in this

conversation.

What are the main buckets of cases?

The first track on PWS is most mature; 3M has reached a settlement for between $10 - 12.5B (depending on how you look

at it). The window for claims on this amount is expected to close in July 2026 (so within a month or so). A large share of payments

have already been paid out by 3M and the company has published a schedule; this is expected to continue into 2036. We think

the damages here are bounded and well-understood.

The second big bucket of risk for 3M is Personal Injury. This is relating to any illnesses that defendents may claim stemmed