Speaker 1: There are so many lawsuits out there over those toxic
Speaker 1: nonstick chemicals, it would be crazy for anyone to try
Speaker 1: to sort through all of them. Well, on this episode
Speaker 1: of Parts Pavilion, we do exactly that and give you
Speaker 1: a roundup of what might be the most consequential litigation
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty. Hello, and welcome back once again to
Speaker 1: another episode of Parts Pervilion, the podcast from Bloomberg Environment.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, David Schultz, So we've talked about it before,
Speaker 1: and we're going to talk about it again. The chemicals
Speaker 1: known as pfasts are going to be a big, big
Speaker 1: story in twenty twenty for those of you a little behind.
Speaker 1: These are the nonstick chemicals that are used in a
Speaker 1: variety of products, from pots and pans to firefighting foam,
Speaker 1: and they unfortunately almost never biodegrade, which means they just
Speaker 1: stick around in the environment and into human bodies. There's
Speaker 1: a ton of litigation over these chemicals from nearly every
Speaker 1: conceivable angle, and we're going to break all that legal
Speaker 1: action down for you, or at least try to win
Speaker 1: with me. Here today to take on this task are
Speaker 1: Ellen Gilmer and Pat Rizzuto. So bea character and will
Speaker 1: be joining us a little bit later. So Ellen, let's
Speaker 1: start with you. You have a case with the very
Speaker 1: catchy title of n ray Ei DuPont de Nimors and
Speaker 1: Company C eight Personal injury litigation. So that just really
Speaker 1: that's the sort of household name right there. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: really spicy stuff. What So Okay, what is this case?
Speaker 1: It's in Ohio? But who are the parties? What are
Speaker 1: the stakes here? So this is a set of cases
Speaker 1: that are all rolled together and what's called multi district litigation.
Speaker 1: Multi district litigation, that's right. So in an MDL, for short,
Speaker 1: a court will roll together a whole bunch of cases
Speaker 1: that are similar, just so it's a little bit easier
Speaker 1: to sort through them. Yeah. So this MDL is really
Speaker 1: interesting because it stems all the way back to litigation
Speaker 1: that was launched by Rob Blot, which a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are tracking p Fast know he is somebody.
Speaker 1: He is the lawyer from Ohio who's featured the recent
Speaker 1: movie Dark Waters. He's also the lawyer who many Press
Speaker 1: Pavillion listeners may know as a guest on the show
Speaker 1: who spoke with us recently. And yes, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: he was portrayed in the movie Dark Waters by Mark Ruffalo.
Speaker 1: So Rob a Lot and other lawyers worked on this
Speaker 1: case on a set of cases like twenty years ago.
Speaker 1: The defendant here is DuPont and it's spinoff Camores, right,
Speaker 1: And we're actually going to get to the relationship between
Speaker 1: DuPont and Camores in a little bit, so stay tuned
Speaker 1: for that. But it sounds like this is you know,
Speaker 1: dozens and dozens or maybe hundreds of people who are
Speaker 1: suing DuPont and Caimores because they say this p fast
Speaker 1: chemicals harm them, poison them, I guess. And this is
Speaker 1: all wrapped up in one court in Ohio, right right,
Speaker 1: So but a little bit of background that's important. What
Speaker 1: happened in earlier litigation is in a settlement, thousands of
Speaker 1: people got their blood tested to see if they had
Speaker 1: been exposed to pfast at what levels and what health
Speaker 1: impacts that might have had. So the case goes back
Speaker 1: to all of these people whose blood was tested for
Speaker 1: exposure and then scientists determined which health impacts were likely related.
Speaker 1: Now the stage in litigation that's happening now is people
Speaker 1: who have these different health problems that were linked to exposure,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to get DuPont comores to compensate them.
Speaker 1: I see, so this is so there. But didn't you
Speaker 1: say there was a settlement. I thought that this case
Speaker 1: got resolved. What's you know? I thought this was case closed.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot going on. So initially there was
Speaker 1: a settlement in which there was just money available, and
Speaker 1: that money was used for people to get their blood
Speaker 1: tested so we could figure out what was going on here.
Speaker 1: Subsequent to that, there are a bunch of people filed
Speaker 1: suit about their actual health problems. DuPont settled thousands of
Speaker 1: those cases, but there are still today dozens that are left.
Speaker 1: Some of them didn't settle correct and some were filed
Speaker 1: after this settlement because people are still becoming aware of
Speaker 1: health impacts they have that could be linked to their exposure.
Speaker 1: So DuPont's already paid out a lot of money for this,
Speaker 1: but it sounds like some of these cases are going
Speaker 1: to be going to trial, and you know, DuPont may
Speaker 1: have to pay out a lot more to those folks.
Speaker 1: What's you know? What are the stakes here for DuPont
Speaker 1: if they lose those cases at trial, which would be
Speaker 1: pretty remarkable. So it's really important because it can what
Speaker 1: happens with this litigation, even though it's been going on
Speaker 1: and there have been previous settlements the cases. There's one
Speaker 1: case that's set to go to trial later this month
Speaker 1: if it stays on track, that's part of this multi
Speaker 1: district litigation. And depending on what happens in the trial
Speaker 1: or a settlement, that sends signals to all this other
Speaker 1: pfaest litigation that's going on all around the country for
Speaker 1: what plaintiffs should be working for. Yeah, so if they
Speaker 1: you know, if these folks in Ohio win, you know,
Speaker 1: a really big settlement, then other folks who are suing
Speaker 1: other people across the country will say, well, we can
Speaker 1: get that too, So we should be able to sue
Speaker 1: other companies and get the same amount. So this is
Speaker 1: the stakes here are enormous for these companies that made
Speaker 1: p fas right, right, And the calculus when you're negotiating
Speaker 1: a settlement really changes based on all these external factors. So,
Speaker 1: with the heightened awareness of p fas in general that
Speaker 1: it isn't working well in DuPont's favor, if they were
Speaker 1: going to try to settle this these cases, depending on
Speaker 1: the outcome, could this case have implications for the companies
Speaker 1: that have used PIFO to make other chemicals that they
Speaker 1: use for other manufacturing processes. Definitely. So this case deals
Speaker 1: with people who live around DuPont chemical manufacturing site on
Speaker 1: the Ohio River. But there are all of these other
Speaker 1: cases like you mentioned, where other types of companies who
Speaker 1: just use those chemicals in their own manufacturing process they're
Speaker 1: getting suit too, and make the chemicals, they just use them.
Speaker 1: They just use them to make other things like shoes
Speaker 1: and plastics. So that's a great segue into Paths lawsuit because,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, the folks who are suing DuPont in Ohio,
Speaker 1: are you know, were exposed to the chemicals because they
Speaker 1: live next to a chemical manufacturing plant. The plaintiffs in
Speaker 1: your case, I get the sense are a little bit
Speaker 1: broader than that. That's an understatement what's going on in
Speaker 1: your case. It's HARDWEK v. Three M also in Ohio.
Speaker 1: It's Kevin Hardwick who's worked as a firefighter in the
Speaker 1: Cincinnati area for about forty years and he's suing ten
Speaker 1: companies that are making or have made different types of
Speaker 1: p fast chemicals. And what he's looking for on behalf
Speaker 1: of himself and every person in the US who has
Speaker 1: these chemicals in their blood, which means everybody. We should
Speaker 1: That's the point that we should sort of belabor here,
Speaker 1: like the this is a class action suit for it
Speaker 1: seeks to be it seeks to be a class action
Speaker 1: suit for every single person who has pfast in their bloodstream,
Speaker 1: which theoretically could be everyone. Correct. How so, I mean,
Speaker 1: where what is his argument that literally everyone in the
Speaker 1: United States should be a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit.
Speaker 1: What he's seeking isn't damages. What he's seeking is information.
Speaker 1: What he wants is information that will let us know
Speaker 1: whether this experiment in which we've been exposed to these
Speaker 1: synthetic chemicals is making us ill. So, I mean Ellen's
Speaker 1: lawsuit that we just talked about sounds like it was
Speaker 1: mainly limited to the Ohio Valley, and that lawsuit had
Speaker 1: huge implications. I mean, it resulted in a movie starring
Speaker 1: Mark Ruffalo. Like that's a pretty big implication onto itself.
Speaker 1: It sounds like what you're talking about is taking that
Speaker 1: type of a lawsuit and making it nationwide, right, that
Speaker 1: could what I mean, and adding who knows how many
Speaker 1: chemicals to it? So if mister Hardwick, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: is successful here. What are the stakes? I mean, what
Speaker 1: could potentially happen for these chemical makers or just for everyone.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, we'd get information that we just
Speaker 1: don't have. It's often surprising to people, and it's surprising
Speaker 1: to regulators who are suddenly finding this in their communities
Speaker 1: water that we don't know much about these chemicals, some
Speaker 1: of which have been in commerce for decades and decades,
Speaker 1: some of which are newer. It would be an information
Speaker 1: forcing lawsuit because in the decades that EBA hasn't known
Speaker 1: about these chemicals, it has never actually required companies to
Speaker 1: provide information about them. On the other hand, the companies
Speaker 1: that are being litigated say, just because you've got chemicals
Speaker 1: in your body doesn't mean they're causing harm. A couple
Speaker 1: of key things haven't been decided yet. One is can
Speaker 1: there be a class action that's this bit. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the huge question. I'm not an attorney, but I
Speaker 1: just have to imagine that's like would be one of
Speaker 1: the biggest class actions in US history. So even before that,
Speaker 1: of course, as you'd expect, the companies that are defending
Speaker 1: themselves have been trying to get the case dismissed that
Speaker 1: didn't work. Now. The next case is they want this
Speaker 1: case to be transferred into another multi district litigation case
Speaker 1: that is focused on what's called a triple F foam.
Speaker 1: It's a specialized type of firefighting and that's I happen
Speaker 1: to know what that stands for. It is aqueous film
Speaker 1: forming foam. Yes, it's so. So they want to get
Speaker 1: this this case moved into you know, be heard with
Speaker 1: dozens or hundreds of other cases. But it sounds like
Speaker 1: that's yet to be decided, and that decision is supposed
Speaker 1: to be made January thirtieth. All right, well, thank you
Speaker 1: Pat and Ellen for bringing us up to speed on
Speaker 1: those cases. We're going to take a little break, but
Speaker 1: stay tuned because we're going to be talking about the
Speaker 1: military's role in all of this and also why p
Speaker 1: fast is causing too corporate titans to duke it out
Speaker 1: in court. Stay tuned. All right, we're back and we're
Speaker 1: talking about p fast litigation. We're picking our top four
Speaker 1: most interesting p FAST lawsuits for twenty twenty, and Sylvia
Speaker 1: Carridin has joined us. In Sylvia, we haven't really talked
Speaker 1: about the military that much and their role in this
Speaker 1: whole saga, but it sounds like you have a case
Speaker 1: that involves them. What's this case all about? Right? So
Speaker 1: this case is essentially Giovanni versus the US Navy. Giovanni
Speaker 1: versus US Navy. Okay, So Christian Giovanni representing herself, her spouse,
Speaker 1: and her kids. Okay. They all live fairly close to
Speaker 1: two Navy facilities in eastern Pennsylvania, and they've been concerned
Speaker 1: about pfast in their drinking water. All right, and we
Speaker 1: should say that the Pfast it sounds like, got in
Speaker 1: there drinking water from the Navy facilities that use it
Speaker 1: in the firefighting phone. Yes, they suspect it's from the phone.
Speaker 1: There may be is like a fire on base or
Speaker 1: a training exercise. Training exercise, they spray the pham, the
Speaker 1: phone gets into the water and it migrates. So they
Speaker 1: are concerned, and they're suing the Navy. What are they
Speaker 1: suing them over? What do they want? So the big
Speaker 1: concern here is medical monitoring. Basically, they want the Navy
Speaker 1: to be able to pay for eddy medical exams they
Speaker 1: have in years to come to just see if they
Speaker 1: have any sort of effects from being exposed to p
Speaker 1: fast chemicals. That sounds pretty simple. What's what's the twist here?
Speaker 1: The twist is super fund? Who super fun? What's tell
Speaker 1: me more about that? So do you have anni family
Speaker 1: sued under Pennsylvania's version of super fund law? Basically, they're saying,
Speaker 1: the Navy is polluting and we want to hold you
Speaker 1: responsible under state law. And we should also say for
Speaker 1: those that are not, you know, humongous nerds. Super fund
Speaker 1: is the law that or the nickname for the law
Speaker 1: that governs how you clean up polluted contaminated sites. Right
Speaker 1: e there's a pollution on a site, this is the
Speaker 1: law that tells you how to do it. There's a
Speaker 1: whole process that you go through to do the cleanup.
Speaker 1: There is an actual super fund, Like there's a fund.
Speaker 1: There is a fund with money in it, a little
Speaker 1: bit of money in it from the EPA to hand
Speaker 1: out to some of these sites. Okay, so they're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, there's this our site, the place where we
Speaker 1: live is contaminated and the Navy is responsible for contamination.
Speaker 1: You need to clean it up. So the Navy doesn't
Speaker 1: want to do any of those things. Okay. The Navy
Speaker 1: says that in order to give you guys the medical
Speaker 1: monitoring that you're asking for pfast would have to be
Speaker 1: declared hazardous, so super fun law. Federal law does not
Speaker 1: do that yet, Pennsylvania law does not do that yet,
Speaker 1: So they are essentially waiting for either the state or
Speaker 1: the EPA to say that pfasts are hazardous substances. So
Speaker 1: without that designation, they won't be able to be eligible
Speaker 1: for that medical monitoring. But it sounds like the Giovanni's
Speaker 1: are saying, like, why do we need to wait for this?
Speaker 1: You know, we already know that our waters contaminated and
Speaker 1: we know that we have a pretty good idea it
Speaker 1: was a Navy's fault. Why do we need to wait
Speaker 1: for some sort of designation? Hey, we need like can
Speaker 1: pay for this medical monitoring now, right? That is their argument.
Speaker 1: They're saying that, you know, basically, the EPA is on
Speaker 1: the cusp of doing this designation anyway, and Pennsylvania is
Speaker 1: already in progress, So why don't we just go ahead
Speaker 1: and move forward with the case. The Navy's saying, let's
Speaker 1: hold on, maybe we put a stay on this case
Speaker 1: for about six months and wait and see how it goes.
Speaker 1: The court didn't like that. They don't like stays. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I guess the next decision will be for the
Speaker 1: judge to say whether you know, we're going to hold
Speaker 1: off or move forward with the case. Interesting, all right,
Speaker 1: we'll be keeping an eye on that. And then finally
Speaker 1: we are going to land at a dispute between not
Speaker 1: between people and a company, but between a company and
Speaker 1: a company. Companies are people too, Yeah, thanks, thanks, mister Romby.
Speaker 1: So the case here is Comores versus DuPont. As we mentioned,
Speaker 1: DuPont was one of the big makers of Pfast for
Speaker 1: a long time, but then in twenty fifteen they spun
Speaker 1: off this other company called Camores, and one of the
Speaker 1: conditions of the spinoff was that Camores would take all
Speaker 1: of the liability that DuPont may have in the future
Speaker 1: from p Fast Chemicals and just sort of agree to
Speaker 1: pay that. So that was going okay for a while
Speaker 1: until a few years later when they realized we could
Speaker 1: have a lot of liability like p Fast could create
Speaker 1: just a massive amount of lawsuits and we would have
Speaker 1: to pay for that. So Kimore's suit its former parent
Speaker 1: company in court under a sealed lawsuits so no one
Speaker 1: knew this had happened, and they said, this agreement that
Speaker 1: you made when you spun us off was unfair. We
Speaker 1: don't think this is legit. We think that you should
Speaker 1: we should be able to sort of open this back
Speaker 1: up and rewrite it again. Sealed lawsuit, no one knew
Speaker 1: what had happened, except then it got unsealed, and then
Speaker 1: everyone saw it happened, and Kimore's investors were very upset
Speaker 1: because the people who had invested in Kimor's had been told,
Speaker 1: everything's fine, we can manage the p fast liability. We're
Speaker 1: you know, making plans, and this is something we can
Speaker 1: pay for. I thought it was fascinating because, you know,
Speaker 1: it's like a child suing their parent and you know,
Speaker 1: saying like, you didn't set me up for my future.
Speaker 1: You didn't give me enough allowance in the years when
Speaker 1: I was living in your house for me to be
Speaker 1: able to move out on my own. Yeah. I mean
Speaker 1: this is like Shakespearean levels of like you know, father
Speaker 1: son conflict, and like maybe I'm just reading in too
Speaker 1: much of it. Sure, and I don't know where the
Speaker 1: investors fit in that analogy, but they're basically saying that
Speaker 1: the parent company, or excuse me, that the child company,
Speaker 1: you know, executives knew all of this information that they
Speaker 1: were very worried enough to go to court about it,
Speaker 1: but they weren't revealing all of that to the investors. Right,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right that they said that not only did
Speaker 1: you know the Kimor's executives not have enough to handle
Speaker 1: all of these liabilities, but that they knew that and
Speaker 1: they lied about it. Now, of course Kimors is denying that.
Speaker 1: They're saying, you know, just because we're suing our former
Speaker 1: parent company doesn't mean we're insolvent. We can still handle
Speaker 1: all these liabilities. We just want to rewrite the agreement
Speaker 1: and maybe get that out on a get us on
Speaker 1: a better footing, all right. That was Bloomberg Environments Sylvia
Speaker 1: Kergnan and Ellen Gilmer with pat Rizutak chiming in a
Speaker 1: little bit earlier, as well as myself giving you a
Speaker 1: roundup of a few significant p Fast lawsuits. We have
Speaker 1: so so much more about pa Fast on our website
Speaker 1: news dot Blueberg environment dot com. Seriously, go check it out.
Speaker 1: There is good stuff there. If you want to chat
Speaker 1: with us on social media, use the hashtag parts per b.
Speaker 1: That hashtag, once again is parts per b. Today's episode
Speaker 1: of Parts Billion was produced by myself, along with Marissa Horn,
Speaker 1: Jessica Coombs, Our j Jewell, and special assistance from Anna Yukonanov.
Speaker 1: The music for this episode is a message by Jazar
Speaker 1: and the Detroit Dipper by Phil Chilton, getting used under
Speaker 1: a Creative Commons license. Thank you for listening. Cases and
Speaker 1: controversies is all about the Supreme Court. Come on, come on, well,
Speaker 1: I agree with serious. We sit down with leading practitioners
Speaker 1: and scholars to break down these cases. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: glad you brought that up so I didn't have to,
Speaker 1: but oh, that's interesting. I guess my imagination is running wild.
Speaker 1: Tune in every week for our Deep Dive and Sneak
Speaker 1: Peak episodes wherever you get your podcasts. As always, check
Speaker 1: out the latest news up Bloomberg Law dot com