Chairman's - FMC Corporation

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Like hundreds of other industrial companies, we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestosrelated
personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment
manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses we owned or
operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day,
neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has
banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and equipment
were accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. Recently, a few jurisdictions have
permitted claims to proceed against equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other companies
on such machinery and equipment. We believe that, overall, the claims against FMC are without merit. Indeed,
the bulk of the claims against us to date have been dismissed without payment.
As of December 31, 2009, there were approximately 22,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending
against FMC in several jurisdictions. To date, we have had discharged approximately 85,000 asbestos claims
against FMC, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff.
Settlements by us with claimants to date have totaled approximately $31 million.
We intend to continue managing these cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have
established a reserve for this litigation and believe that the outcome of these cases will not have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In late June 2004, we were served in a lawsuit captioned “Lewis et al v FMC Corporation” which was filed
in United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The suit was brought by thirteen residents
of Middleport, New York who allege that we violated certain state and federal environmental laws and seeks
injunctive relief and monetary damages for personal injuries and property damage in connection with such
alleged violations. We believe this suit is without merit.
We have certain other contingent liabilities arising from litigation, claims, performance guarantees and other
commitments incident to the ordinary course of business. Based on information currently available and
established reserves, the ultimate resolution of our known contingencies, including the matters described in Note
18 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
our consolidated financial position or liquidity. However, there can be no assurance that the outcome of these
contingencies will be favorable, and adverse results in certain of these contingencies could have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
See Note 1 “Principal Accounting Policies and Related Financial Information—Environmental
Obligations,” Note 10 “Environmental” and Note 18 “Commitments, Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities” in
the notes to our consolidated financial statements beginning on page 61, page 80 and page 107, respectively,
included in this Form 10-K, the content of which are incorporated by reference to this Item 3.
21