Will one or more of the PFAS Defendants File Bankruptcy

The expectation that litigation over PFAS may exceed the Tobacco Litigation, in cost to defendants, has
created concern for many Plaintiff Firms. The question “ will the PFAS defendants go broke” has become
part of the conversation.

While it is possible that some of the companies in the “PFAS Manufacturers” group may seek bankruptcy
protection at some point, it is important to understand that this group presents the smallest number of
potential defendants in future PFAS litigation. The “PFAS Formulators” group presents the second
largest group of PFAS potential defendants. While only a handful of these PFAS Formulators were
named in the AFFF litigation (eg. Tyco Fireproducts), there are many others that will be named in other
cases. Many of the “PFAS Formulators” potential defendants enjoy financial strength on par with PFAS
Manufacturers such as 3M and Dupont.

The largest group of PFAS defendants, most of which have yet to be named in any complaint, will arise
from the “PFAS Product Commercial Users” group. While some of these defendants will be relatively
small defendants (under $50 million in annual revenues) many will be major corporations.

The takeaway from the above should be “do not let concern over some potential defendants in the
future PFAS litigations going broke, stop your firm from pursuing these cases”. There are as many as
10000 potential defendants for these cases enjoying revenues measured in trillions.

If your firm is interested in discovering the potential unique PFAS cases in your area, email, call or
text me: john@masstortsuccess.com or 954-803-3393.

I have taken the terminology commonly used by the EPA and other government agencies to explain the
difference in the primary three groups of PFAS defendants.

PFAS Manufacturers

Facilities that manufacture PFAS feedstock through electrochemical fluorination, fluorotelomerization,
or other processes. EPA refers to these facilities as “PFAS manufacturers”.

PFAS manufacturers could also be defined as companies that make “raw” PFAS chemicals primarily
intended to be used as a component in other products.

PFAS manufacturers present a small number of potential defendants (less than 20).

PFAS Formulators

Facilities that use these PFAS feedstocks as polymerization processing aids or in the production of
plastic, rubber, resin, coatings, commercial cleaning products. Lubricants and thousands of other
products.

PFAS formulators generally take the PFAS feedstock manufactured by the “manufacturer” group and
combine these chemicals with other chemicals to make end use products. It is important to note that
many of the companies in the “manufacturer” group also act as formulators.

In the AFFF litigation, the majority if not all the small number of PFAS manufacturers operating the US
were name, along with formulators such as Tyco Fire Products.

PFAS formulators present the second largest group of potential defendants (over 1000)

PFAS Product Commercial Users

Facilities or companies that use the products made by PFAS Formulators in commercial applications.
This is largest group of potential PFAS defendants. Numerous industries are known to use PFAS products
for a variety of purposes. These companies routinely expose their employees to these chemicals and are
likely to be major contributors to environmental PFAS pollution.

PFAS product commercial users present the largest group of potential PFAS defendants (over 10,000).

While many of the potential defendants in the “PFAS Product Commercial User” group may be small
(less than $50 million in annual revenues) others in the oil, paper products, textile, etc. industries may
be massive corporations.

Even the smaller defendants in this group will often be financially viable to pay their portion of liability in
each case as generally, small defendants will not be sued on a national basis. Cases against the small
entities will generally be regional and limited to less than 100 plaintiffs and less than 4 entities.