In February 2005, putative direct and indirect purchaser class action complaints were fi led against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide producers (and certain of their foreign affi liates) in various federal courts alleging violations of antitrust laws. Related cases were also filed in various state courts. In January 2009, FMC reached an agreement to settle with the direct purchaser class for $10 million, with a pro rata credit for opt outs. The $10 million figure was included as a component of “Restructuring and other charges (income)” in our consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2008. Ten companies (predominantly paper producers) opted out of this class settlement. FMC settled with two of the ten companies for an amount within the opt out credit described above. The remaining eight opt outs filed suit against FMC and, in some cases, Foret. These cases were assigned to the same judge as the class action. FMC’s motion to dismiss the opt out claims to the extent they were based on foreign purchases was granted on April 1, 2010. FMC has settled the remaining claims of these eight opt outs for an aggregate of $1.7 million which is net of a $0.3 million opt out credit. Another individual opt out case was dismissed following the bankrupt opt out’s decision to participate in the class settlement. FMC settled the indirect purchaser class claims for $0.25 million. The settlement has been finally approved by the Court, and all remaining state court cases have been dismissed with prejudice. We recorded the $2.0 million as a component of “Restructuring and other charges (income)” in our consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2010. As a result, all U.S. litigation against FMC regarding alleged price fi xing in the hydrogen peroxide industry is now concluded. We still face putative class actions against FMC and five other major hydrogen peroxide producers in provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of Canada. Four of the defendants have settled these claims for a total of approximately $20.5 million. On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide. FMC moved for leave to appeal the class certifi cation decision, which was denied in June 2010. Th  e Company intends to defend these cases. Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect to the merits, we believe an exposure of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. 

Like hundreds of other industrial companies, we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related 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. We intend to continue managing these cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. 

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. A motion for summary was filed by the Company in 2007 and is expected to be decided in 2011. We believe this suit is without merit, and therefore have not established a reserve for it. 

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 this Note 18, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated fi nancial 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 eff ect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. 

