`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`State of Alaska
`Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General
`Dary! A. Zakov
`Department of Law
`1031 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
`Anchorage, AK 99501
`daryl.zakov@alaska.gov
`Telephone 907.269.5100
`Facsimile 907.276.3697
`
`David Karl Gross
`Aaron D. Sperbeck
`Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot
`510 L Street, Suite 700
`Anchorage, AK 98501
`dgross@bhb.com
`asperbeck@bhb.com
`Telephone 907.276.1550
`Facsimile 907.276.3680
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
`
`FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT FAIRBANKS
`
`Case No.4FA-21-01451C)
`
`
`Cl
`CASE NO.4FA-21-
`PAGE 1 OF 38
`
`))))|
`
`)
`)
`|}
`)
`)
`—}
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`STATE OF ALASKA ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`3M COMPANY, E. 1. OUPONT DE
`NEMOURS AND COMPANY,THE
`CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS
`COMPANY FC, LLC, DUPONT DE
`NEMOURS, INC., CORTEVA, INC., TYCO
`FIRE PRODUCTS LP, CHEMGUARD, INC.,
`JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL,
`PLC, CENTRAL SPRINKLER,LLC, FIRE
`PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC, KIDDE-
`FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, INC., CHUBB
`FIRE, LTD., UTC FIRE & SECURITY
`AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.,
`RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
`CORPORATION, CARRIER GLOBAL
`CORPORATION, NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
`ANGUS INTERNATIONAL SAFETY GROUP,
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`04076332,DOCX
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of B81, p. 1
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`LTD, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
`COMPANY, ARKEMA,INC., BASF
`CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
`PRODUCTS, INC., DYNAX CORPORATION,
`CLARIANT CORPORATION, CHEMICALS
`INCORPORATED, NATION FORD
`CHEMICAL COMPANY, AGC, INC., AGC
`CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.,
`DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.,
`ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`ARCHROMAU.S., INC., and JOHN DOE
`DEFENDANTS1-49,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`meeeaeeadeethageeeNigga”Stenmart“mye”“gee”NagStage“tape
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff, the State of Alaska, (“Plaintiff’ or “the State”) and alleges
`
`for its Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for contamination of the
`1.
`natural resources of the State, including but not limited to the lands, waters, biota, and
`
`wildlife, as a result of the release of per- and polyfiuoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) into the
`
`environment through the handling, use, disposal, and storage of products containing
`
`PFAS.
`
`2.
`
`PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals that include perfluorooctane
`
`sulfonate (“PFOS”) and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA’).
`
`3.
`
`In this Complaint, references to PFOS and PFOAalso include ail of their
`
`salts and precursor chemicals.
`
`4,
`
`Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, sold and/or assumed or
`
`acquired liabilities for the manufacture and/or sale of PFOS, PFOA, and/or products
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332,DOCX
`
`
`Cl
`CASE NO.4FA-21-
`PAGE 2 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of B§. 1, p.2
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`containing PFOS or PFOA,including but not
`
`limited to aqueous film-forming foam
`
`(“AFFF”) (collectively, “Fluorosurfactant Products”).
`
`5.
`
`PFOS and PFOA present a significant
`
`threat
`
`to the State’s natural
`
`resources, properties, and residents. PFOS and PFOAare highly mobile and persistent
`
`in the environment, and they are toxic at extremely low levels. Furthermore, they are
`
`bioaccumulative and biomagnify up the food chain.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants designed, manufactured, formulated, distributed, marketed,
`
`and/or sold Fluorosurfactant Products with the knowledge that these compounds were
`
`toxic and that they would be released into the environment even when usedas directed
`
`and intended by Defendants.
`
`7.
`
`Additionally, Defendants failed to provide adequate warningsorinstructions
`
`with their Fluorosurfactant Products, both before and after selling such Products.
`
`Defendants failed to adequately advise their customers, the public, or the State about the
`
`threats PFOS or PFOA poseto natural resources and human health if released into the
`
`environment.
`
`8,
`
`Defendants, by their actions and/or inactions, bear ultimate responsibility
`
`for the release of vast amounts of PFOS and PFOAinto Alaska’s environment,
`
`contaminating the State’s water
`
`resources,
`
`soils,
`
`sediments, biota and wildlife,
`
`threatening the health, safety, and well-being of the State’s residents.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants’ Fluorosurfactant Products have caused and will continue to
`
`causeinjury to the State’s environment, natural resources, properties, and residents.
`
`10.
`
`Accordingly, the State, through this action, seeks to require Defendants to
`
`payall costs necessary to fully investigate and determine the various locations throughout
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332,DOCX
`
`Cl
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`PAGE 3 OF 38
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 3 of BR 1, p.3
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 3 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/5/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Alaska where their Fluorosurfactant Products were used, stored, discharged, released,
`
`spilled, and/or disposed, as well as all areas affected by their Fluorosurfactant Products.
`
`11.
`
`Likewise,this action seeks to require Defendantsto pay all costs necessary
`
`to investigate, assess, remediate, monitor,filtrate and/or restore the sites in Alaska where
`
`their Flucrosurfactant Products were used, stored, discharged, spilled, and/or disposed,
`
`including but not limited to the sediment, soil, surface waters, groundwaters, drinking
`
`water or water systems located thereon as well as any off-site areas and natural
`
`resources that have been contaminated by their Fluorosurfactant Products.
`
`12.
`
`Additionaily, this action seeks to require Defendants to pay all past and
`
`future costs incurred by the State in investigating, monitoring, and otherwise responding
`
`to injuries and/or threats to public heaith, as weil as damages for harm to the State’s
`
`natural resources, caused by Defendants’ Fluorosurfactant Products.
`
`13.
`
`Further, Alaska governmental
`
`entities
`
`that purchased Defendants’
`
`Fluorosurfactant Products are now forced to spend additional moneyto properly dispose
`
`of any remaining inventory. Such costs are rightfully borne by Defendants and, as such,
`
`are also sought through this action.
`
`14.
`
`Lastly, Plaintiff seeks from Defendants all damagesthat Plaintiff is entitled
`
`ta recoverincluding, but notlimited to, property damages to State and local government-
`
`owned properties, economic damages,punitive damages, and all other damages,fees,
`
`costs, and equitablerelief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
`
`STATE V, 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332. DOCX
`
`Cl
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`PAGE4 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 4 of 88.1, ». 4
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 4 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15,
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction based upon AS 22.10.020,
`
`44.23.020 and 45.50.501, which grant the State authority to file suit against Defendants.
`
`The State seeks damagesin excess of $100,000, the exact amount to be provenattrial.
`
`16,
`
`Personal
`
`jurisdiction over these Defendants is proper because they
`
`regularly conduct business in Alaska and/or have the requisite minimum contacts with
`
`Alaska necessary to constitutionally permit the Court to exercise jurisdiction over them
`
`pursuant to Alaska’s Long-Arm Statute, as codified at AS 09.05.015.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in the Fourth Judicial District at Fairbanks pursuant to
`
`Alaska R. Civ. P. 3 in that many of Defendants’ unlawful acts and/or practices that give
`
`rise to this Complaint were committedin this judicial district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff is the State of Alaska, acting by and through its Attorney General,
`
`Treg R. Taylor, in its sovereign capacity in order to protect the interests of the State and
`
`its citizens. The Attorney General brings this action pursuant to his constitutional,
`
`statutory, and commonlaw authority, including the authority granted in AS 44.23.020, and
`
`the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and ConsumerProtection Act, AS 45.50.471, et. seq.
`
`19,
`
`Upon information and belief, the following Defendants, at all times relevant
`
`to this action, designed, manufactured, formulated, marketed, distributed, sold, and/or
`
`assumed or acquired liabilities for the manufacture and/or sale of Fluorosurfactant
`
`Products that Defendants knew or reasonably should have known would enter the State
`
`of Alaska and be released into the environment, or otherwise conducted business in the
`
`State.
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332.DOCX
`
`
`Ci
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`PAGE 5 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 5 of B81, p.5
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 5 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`20,
`
`Defendant 3M Company ("3M"), formerly Known as Minnesota Mining and
`
`Manufacturing Company, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M is the only company that manufactured AFFF
`
`containing PFOS and/orits precursor chemicals. 3M is authorized to conduct businessin
`
`Alaska.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant E.|. DuPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business located at 974 Centre Road, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware. DuPontis registered to do business in Alaska.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant The Chemours Company (“Chemours”})
`
`is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business located at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware. Chemours is registered to do business in Alaska.
`
`23.
`
`In 2015, DuPont spun off
`
`its “Performance Chemicals” business to
`
`Chemours, along with certain environmental liabilities. Upon information and belief, at the
`
`time of the transfer of its Performance Chemicals business to Chemours, DuPont had
`
`been sued, threatened with suit and/or had knowledge ofthelikelihood of litigation to be
`
`filed regarding DuPont's liability for damages andinjuries arising from the manufacture
`
`and sale of fluorosurfactants and the products that contain fluorosurfactants.
`
`24,
`
`Defendant The Chemours Company FC, LLC (“Chemours FC")
`
`is a
`
`Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 1007
`
`Market Street Wilmington, Delaware. Chemours FC operates as a subsidiary of
`
`Chemours. Upon information and belief, Chemours FC is the successor-in-interest to
`
`DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise. Chemours FC is registered to do business in
`
`Alaska.
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332,D0CX
`
`Ci
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`PAGE 6 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 6 of 88.1, ». 6
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 6 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILERINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Defendant DuPont De Nemours,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“New DuPont")
`
`is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business located at 974 Centre Road, Building 730,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware. Upon information and belief, DowDuPont, Inc. was formed in 2017
`
`as a result of the merger of Dow Chemical and DuPont. DowDuPont,
`
`Inc. was
`
`subsequently divided into three publicly-traded companies and on June 1, 2019,
`
`DowDuPent,
`
`Inc. changed its registered name to DuPont de Nemours,
`
`Inc. Upon
`
`information and belief, DowDuPent, Inc. and/or New DuPont have conducted business
`
`throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant Corteva,
`
`Inc. (“Corteva”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 974 Centre Road, Building 730, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware. Upon information and belief, Corteva is one of the aforementioned spin-off
`
`companies from DowDuPont, Inc., and is believed to have assumed someof the PFAS
`
`liabilities of the former DuPont. Corteva is authorized to conduct business in Alaska.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant Tyco Fire Products LP (“Tyco”) is a Delaware limited partnership
`
`with principal offices located at 1400 Pennbrook Parkway, Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Upon
`
`information and belief, Tyco is the successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company (“Ansul’)
`
`and manufactures the Ansul brand of products. Tyco is an indirect subsidiary ultimately
`
`wholly owned by Johnson Controls international, plc, an Irish public limited company.
`
`Tyco is registered to do businessin Alaska.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant Chemguard, Inc. ("“Chemguard”} is a Texas corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. On
`
`information and belief, Chemguard acquired Williams Fire and Hazard Control,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“WEFHC") in 2010. On information and belief, on or around July 9, 2011, Tyco acquired
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332,DOCX
`
`
`Ci
`CASE NO, 4FA-21-
`PAGE7 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 7 of 88.1, ».7
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 7 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Chemguard and its subsidiary, WFHC. Upon information and belief, Chemguard has
`
`conducted and/or availed itseif of doing business throughout the United States, including
`
`in Alaska.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant Johnson Controls International, plc (“JCI ple”) is an Irish public
`
`limited company with its principal place of business located at One Albert Quay, Cork,
`
`Ireland.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Central Sprinkler, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`with its principal place of business located at 1400 Pennbrook Parkway, Lansdale,
`
`Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, this Defendantis a limited partner of Tyco.
`
`Upon information and belief, Chemguard is wholly-owned by Central Sprinkler, LLC.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`companywith its principal place of business located at 9 Roszel Road, Princeton, New
`
`Jersey. Upon information and belief, this Defendant is a general partner of Tyco.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. (“Kidde”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at One Financial Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. Upon
`
`information and belief, Kidde was part of UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.
`
`Upon information and belief, Kidde is the successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.
`
`Kidde is registered to do businessin Alaska.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant Kidde PLC,Inc. (“Kidde PLC”) is a Delaware corporation withits
`
`principal place of business located at 9 Farm Springs Road, Farmington, Connecticut.
`
`Upon information and belief, Kidde PLC was part of UTC Fire & Security Americas
`
`Corporation, Inc. Upon information and belief, Kidde PLC has conducted and/or availed
`
`itself of doing business throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,EF AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332, DOCX
`
`
`Ci
`CASE NO, 4FA-21-
`PAGE8 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 8 of B81, p.8
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 8 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Defendant Chubb Fire, Ltd. (“Chubb”) is a foreign private limited company,
`
`United Kingdom registration number 134210, with offices at Littleton Road, Ashford,
`
`Middlesex, United Kingdom. Upon information and belief, Chubb is or has been
`
`composed of different subsidiaries and/or divisions including, but not limited to, Chubb
`
`Fire & Security Ltd., Chubb Security, PLC, Red Hawk Fire & Security, LLC, and/or Chubb
`
`National Foam, Inc. Upon information and belief, Chubb has conducted and/or availed
`
`itself of doing business throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (“UTC Fire &
`
`security’) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 13995 Pasteur
`
`Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Upon information and belief, UTC Fire & Security
`
`was a division of United Technologies Corporation. Upon information and belief, UTC
`
`Fire & Security has conducted and/or availed itself of doing business throughout the
`
`United States, including in Alaska.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant Raytheon Technologies Corporation (“RTC”)
`
`is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 10 Farm Springs Read, Farmington,
`
`Connecticut. Upon information and belief, RTC was formerly known as United
`
`Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) until in or around April 2020 (collectively, “RTC fik/a
`
`UTC”). Upon information and belief, RTC and/or UTC has conducted business throughout
`
`the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant Carrier Global Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 13995 Pasteur Boulevard, Palm Beach Gardens,
`
`Florida. On information and belief, on or around April 3, 2020, UTC completed the spin-off
`
`of one of its reportable segments into a separate publicly-traded company known as
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`04076332,DO0X
`
`
`Cl
`CASE NO.4FA-21-
`PAGE 9 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 9 of 88.1, ».9
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 9 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDiNTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Carrier Global Corporation (“Carrier”). Carrier's operations are classified into three
`
`segments: HVAC, Refrigeration, and Fire & Security. Upon information and belief,
`
`Carrier's Fire & Security products and services are sold under brand namesincluding
`
`Chubb and Kidde. Carrier is registered to do business in Alaska.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant National Foam, Inc. (“NF”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 141 Junny Road, Angier, North Carolina. NF is a
`
`wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Angus International Safety Group, Ltd. Upon
`
`information and belief, NF manufactures the Angus Fire brand of AFFF products. Upon
`
`information and belief, NF has conducted and/or availed itself of doing business
`
`throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant Angus International Safety Group, Ltd. ¢"AISG”) is a foreign
`
`private limited company, United Kingdom registration number 8441763, with offices at
`
`Station Road, High Bentham, Near Lancaster, United Kingdom. Upon information and
`
`belief, AISG is the parent company of National Foam, Inc.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant Buckeye Fire Equipment Company (“Buckeye”) is an Ohio
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North
`
`Carolina. Upon information and belief, Buckeye conducted and/or availeditself of doing
`
`business throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant Arkema, Inc. (“Arkema”) is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 900 1st Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Upon
`
`information and belief, Arkema conducted and/or availed itself of doing business
`
`throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332.D0CX
`
`Cl
`CASE NO.4FA-21-
`PAGE 10 OF 38
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 10 qf8), p. 10
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 10 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Defendant BASF Corporation (“BASF”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey. Upon
`
`information and belief, BASF acquired Ciba-Geigy Corporation and/or Ciba Specialty
`
`Chemicals. BASF is authorized to conduct business in Alaska.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant ChemDesign Products, Inc. (“CDP1”) is a Texas corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 2 Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Upon
`
`information and belief, CDPI manufactured, formulated, and/or sold Fluorosurfactant
`
`Products to certain Defendants for use in AFFF. Upon information and belief, CDPI
`
`conducted and/or availed itself of doing business throughout the United States, including
`
`in Alaska.
`
`44,
`
`Defendant Dynax Corporation ("Dynax’) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 103 Fairview Park Drive, Elmsford, New York. Upon
`
`information and belief, Dynax manufactured, formulated, and/or sold Fluorosurfactant
`
`Products to certain Defendants for use in AFFF. Upon information and belief, Dynax has
`
`conducted and/oravailed itself of doing business throughout the United States, including
`
`in Alaska.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant Clariant Corporation (“Clariant”) is a New York corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 4000 Monroe Road, Charlotte, North Carolina.
`
`Clariant is authorized to conduct businessin Alaska.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant Chemicals incorporated (“Chem Inc.”) is a Texas corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located at 12321 Hatcherville Road, Baytown, Texas.
`
`Upon information and belief, Chem Inc. manufactured,
`
`formulated, and/or sold
`
`Flucrosurfactant Products to certain Defendants for use in AFFF. Upon information and
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332, DOCX
`
`
`cl
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`PAGE 11 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 11 qf8), p. ll
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 11 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`belief, Chem Inc. has conducted and/or availed itself of doing business throughout the
`
`United States, including in Alaska.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant Nation Ford Chemical Company (“Nation Ford”) is a South
`
`Carolina corporation with its headquarters located at 2300 Banks Street, Fort Mill, South
`
`Carolina. Upon information andbelief, Nation Ford manufactured, formulated, and/or sold
`
`Fluorosurfactant Products to certain Defendants for use in AFFF. Upon information and
`
`belief, Nation Ford has conducted and/or availed itself of doing business throughout the
`
`United States, including in Alaska.
`
`48,
`
`Defendant AGC, Inc. (“AGC”), formerly known as Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Asahi Glass”), is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business located at
`
`1-5-1, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan. Upon information and belief, Asahi Glass
`
`Co., Lid. changed its name to AGC, Inc. in 2018.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant AGC Chemicals Americas,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“AGCCA”)
`
`is a Delaware
`
`corporation withits principal place of business located at 55 E. Uwchian Ave., Suite 201,
`
`Exton, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, AGCCAis a subsidiary of AGC and/or
`
`Asahi Glass. Upon information and belief, AGCCA has conducted and/or availed itself of
`
`doing business throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant Deepwater Chemicais Company (“Deepwater”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal business office at 196122 E County Road 40, Woodward,
`
`Oklahoma. Upon information and belief, Deepwater manufactured, formulated, and/or
`
`sold Fluorosurfactant Products to certain Defendants for use in AFFF. Uponinformation
`
`and belief, Deepwater has conducted and/or availeditself of doing business throughout
`
`the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332,.DO0CX
`
`cl
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`PAGE 12 OF 38
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 12 qf88p12
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 12 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Defendant Archroma Management, LLC (“Archroma’”) is a foreign limited
`
`liability company registered in Switzerland, with a principal business address of
`
`Neuhofstrasse 11, 4153 Reinach, Basel-Land, Switzerland.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant Archroma U.S., Inc. (“Archroma U.S.”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located at 5435 77 Center Dr., #10, Charlotte, North
`
`Carolina. Upon information and belief, Archroma U.S. is a subsidiary of Archroma. Upon
`
`information and belief, Archroma U.S. has conducted and/or availed itself of doing
`
`business throughout the United States, including in Alaska.
`
`53.
`
`Upen
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief, Defendants
`
`John Doe
`
`1-49 were
`
`manufacturers and/or sellers of Fluorosurfactant Products that are responsible for the
`
`damages caused to Plaintiff described herein. Although the identities of the John Doe
`
`Defendants are currently unknown, it is expected that their names will be ascertained
`
`during discovery, at which time Plaintiff will move for leave of this Court to add those
`
`individuals to the Complaint as Defendants.
`
`54,
`
`Any and ail references to a Defendant or Defendants in this Complaint
`
`include any predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions of
`
`the named Defendant.
`
`55.
`
`When the term “Defendants”Is used alone, it refers to all Defendants named
`
`in this Complaintjointly and severally. When reference is made to any act or omission of
`
`the Defendants,
`
`it shail be deemed to mean that the officers, directors, agents,
`
`employees, or representatives of the Defendants committed or authorized such act or
`
`omission, or failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332,D0CxX
`
`Ci
`CASE NO,4FA-21-
`PAGE 13 OF 38
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 13 qf88 p. 13
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 13 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`while engaged in the management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of
`
`Defendants, and did so while acting within the scope of their employment or agency.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`THE CONTAMINANTS: PFOS AND PFOA
`
`56.
`
`PFOS and PFOA are man-made chemicals within a class known as
`
`perfluoroalkyl acid (“PFAA”), PFAAs ate part of the larger chemica! family known as
`
`PFAS. PFAA is composed of a chain of carbon atoms in whichall but one of the carbon
`
`atoms are bondedto fluorine atoms, and the last carbon atom is attached to a functional
`
`group. The carbon-fluorine bond is one of the strongest chemical bonds that occurin
`
`nature, which is a reason why these molecules are so persistent. PFOS and PFOA
`
`contain eight carbon-fluorine bonds. For this reason, they are sometimes referred to as
`
`“C8.”
`
`57.
`
`PFAAs are sometimes described as long-chain and short-chain, depending
`
`on the number of carbon atoms contained in the carbon chain. PFOS and PFOA are
`
`considered long-chain PFAAs because they contain eight carbon atomsin their chains;
`
`short-chain PFAAs havesix or less carbon atomsin their chains.
`
`58.
`
`PFOS and PFOA are highly watersoluble, which increasesthe rate at which
`
`they spread throughout the environment, contaminating soil, groundwater, and surface
`
`water. Their mobility is made more dangerous by their persistence in the environment
`
`and resistance to biologic, environmental, or photochemical degradation.'
`
`EPA, Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), EPA Doc.
`1
`Number: 822-R-16-005 (May 2016) at 16; Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane
`Sulfonate (PFOS), EPA Doc. Number: 822-R-16-004 (May 2016) at 16, available at
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`Cl
`COMPLAINT
`PAGE 14 OF 38
`01076332.DOCx
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 14 qf88p14
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 14 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILED1NTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`59.
`
`PFOS and PFOAare readily absorbed in animal and human tissues after
`
`oral exposure and accumulate in the serum, kidney, and liver. They have been found
`
`globally in water, soil and air, as well as in human food supplies, breast milk, umbilical
`
`cord blood, and human blood serum.”
`
`60.
`
`PFOS and PFOAare persistent in the human body. A short-term exposure
`
`can result in a body burden that persists for years and can increase with additional
`
`exposures.?
`
`61.
`
`Since they werefirst produced, information has emerged showing negative
`
`heaith effects caused by exposure to PFOS and PFOA.
`
`62.
`
`According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”),
`
`“,. studies indicate that exposure to PFOA and PFOS over certain levels may result
`
`in...developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breastfed infants (e.g., low
`
`birth weight, accelerated puberty, skeletal variations), cancer (e.g., testicular, kidney),
`
`liver effects (e.g.,
`
`tissue damage),
`
`immune effects (e.g., antibody production and
`
`immunity), thyroid effects and other effects (e.g., cholesterol changes}.”4
`
`https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/supporting-documents-drinking-water-
`heaith-advisories-pfoa-and-pios.
`2
`EPA Doc. Number: 822-R-16-005 (May 2016) at 18-20, 25-27; and EPA Doc. Number:
`822-R-16-004 (May 2016) at 19-21, 26 28.
`3
`EPA Doc. Number: 822-R-16-005 (May 2016) at 55; and EPA Doc. Number: 822-R-16-
`004 (May 2016) at 55.
`4
`“Fact Sheet PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories,” EPA Doc. Number: 800-
`F-16-003,
`available
`at
` https:/Awww.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/supporting-
`documents-drinking-water-heailth-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos.
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332.D0GX
`
`Ci
`CASE NO. 4FA-21-
`PAGE 15 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 15 qf88 p. 15
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 15 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`63.
`
`EPA has also warned that “there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
`
`potential for PFOS."5
`
`64,
`
`EPA has noted that drinking water can be an additional source of
`
`PFOA/PFOSin the body in communities where these chemicals have contaminated water
`
`supplies.
`
`In communities with contaminated water supplies, “such contamination is
`
`typically localized and associated with a specific facility, for example...an airfield at which
`
`[Fluorosurfactant Products] were used forfirefighting.”®
`
`B.
`
`AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAM
`
`65.
`
`AFFFis a type of water-based foam that wasfirst developed in the 1960’s
`
`to extinguish flammableliquid fuet fires at airports and military bases, among other places.
`
`66.
`
`The AFFF designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold by
`
`Defendants contained PFOS and/or PFOA.
`
`67.
`
`PFOS and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS contained in 3M’s AFFF
`
`were manufactured by 3M’s patented process of electrochemical fluorination ("ECF"). 3M
`
`was the only manufacturer that used ECF; all other AFFF producers manufactured
`
`fluorosurfactants for use in AFFF through the processof telomerization, which produced
`
`fluorotelomers, including PFOA and/or the chemical precursors to PFOA.
`
`for Perfluorcoctane Sulfonate (PFOS)” U.S.
`“Health Effects Support Document
`$
`Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Health and Ecological Criteria Division, EPA
`Doc. Number: 822-R-16-002, available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-
`water/supporting-documents-drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos.
`6
`“Fact Sheet PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories,” EPA Doc. Number: 800-
`F-16-003,
`available
`at
`https://Awww.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/supporting-
`documents-drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos.
`
`STATE V. 3M COMPANY,ET AL.
`COMPLAINT
`01076332.DOCX
`
`Cl
`CASE NO,4FA-21-
`PAGE 16 OF 38
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 16 qf88 p. 16
`Case 4:21-cv-00020-HRH Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/21 Page 16 of 38
`
`Ex. 1, p. 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDINTHEALASKATRIALCOURTSON4/6/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`68.
`
`AFFF can be made without PFOS or PFOA.Fluorine-free and short-chain
`
`foams do not release PFOS or PFOAinto the environment.
`
`69.
`
`AFFFis used to extinguish fires that are difficult to fight, particularly fires
`
`that involve petroleum or other flammable liquids. AFFF is typically sprayed directly onto
`
`a fire, where it works by coating the ignited fuel source, preventing its contact with oxygen
`
`and suppressing combustion.
`
`70.
`
`When used as the Defendants intended and directed, Defendants’ AFFF
`
`releases PFOS and/or PFOAinto the environment.
`
`71.
`
`Once PFOS and PFOAarefree in the environment, they do not hydrolyze,
`
`photolyze, or biodegrade undertypical environmental conditions, and are extremely
`
`persistent in the environment. As a result of their persistence, they are widely distributed
`
`throughout soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater.
`
`72,
`
`The use of Defendants’ Fluorosurfactant Products as directed and intended
`
`by the Defendants allowed PFOS and PFOAto enter the State of Alaska’s natural
`
`resources, where these compounds migrated through the subsurface and into the
`
`groundwater, thereby contaminating the surface water, soil, sediment, and groundwater,
`
`as well as causing other extensive and ongoing damageto Plaintiff.
`
`73