Monsanto Statement on Ruling on Motions to Dismiss PCB Indemnity Suit

Consistent with the court’s decision, Monsanto will refile its complaint and provide more detail on the
defendants’ nexus to the underlying PCB litigation, including environmental and injury cases. Monsanto
is confident it can do so as several of the defendants have a well-documented history of being identified
as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in PCB-related cleanups in jurisdictions that have brought PCB
litigation against Monsanto or as known sources of PCB impairments:
 

• Westinghouse’s successors have been named as PRPs in the Sharon, Pennsylvania Superfund
  Site, where Westinghouse operated a transformer production facility until 1985;
• General Electric and Westinghouse both operated equipment service facilities near the
  Willamette River in Portland, Oregon – the Portland Harbor is a Superfund Site, and GE has been
  identified as a PRP, and in 2018, Westinghouse’s successor signed onto an EPA Administrative
  Settlement Agreement for cleaning a portion of the River;
• GE was identified in the State of Washington’s suit against Monsanto as having operated an
  apparatus service shop nearby the Spokane River in Spokane, Washington, until 1980, and GE
  disposed of PCBs in dry wells/sumps, some of which were unlined and designed for soil
  infiltration;
• Magnetek’s predecessor is identified in the State of New Jersey’s PCB impairment suit against
  Monsanto, having purchased and used PCBs at a facility in Totowa, New Jersey throughout the
  1970’s, and PCB impairment associated with the facility’s operations have been identified in
  nearby waterways.

Monsanto will continue to pursue this litigation against former purchasers as the language of the Special
Undertaking Contracts is clear and broad—requiring Defendants to defend and indemnify Monsanto for
‘any and all liabilities’ ‘arising out of or in connection with’ post-Special Undertaking PCBs ‘whether alone
or in combination with other substances.’