Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-27 | 2026-03-26 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · As previously disclosed, we are currently defending five lawsuits based generally on alleged damages related to historical use of certain products alleged to have contained PFAS chemicals in our manufacturing processes. Following the end of the quarter, we engaged in settlement discussions with the plaintiffs in four of these pending claims. These pending matters are those styled: Moss Land Company, LLC, et al. v. City of Calhoun, et al., in the Superior Court of Gordon County, Georgia, Case No. 24CV73929; The City of Calhoun, Georgia v. Daikin America, Inc., et al., in the Superior County of Gordon County, Georgia, Case No. 24CV73929; William Hartwell Brooks v. City of Calhoun, Georgia, et al., in the Superior Court of Gordon County, Georgia, Case No. 24CV74289; and James Haley Stephens v. 3M Company, et al., in the Superior Court of Gordon County, Georgia, Case No. 25CV75072. As a result of those discussions, we have reached a memorandum of understanding to settle the Moss claims subject to certain conditions and negotiation of a final settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and have settled all claims with respect to The City of Calhoun in such matters. Accordingly, we have est… Item 9A · ICFR · Management has concluded that, during the period covered by this Report, its internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 27, 2025, based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that, as of the Evaluation Date, that due to the existence of a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting described below, that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. | ||||||
| 2024-12-28 | 2025-04-08 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We have been sued together with 15 other defendants in a civil action filed January 22, 2024, in the Superior Court of Gordon County Georgia. The case is styled: Moss Land Company, LLC and Revocable Living Trust of William Darryl Edwards, by and through William Darryl Edwards, Trustee vs. City of Calhoun et al. Civil Action Number 24CV73929. The plaintiffs are two landowners located in Gordon County Georgia. The relief sought is compensation for alleged damages to the plaintiffs’ real property, an injunction from alleged further damage to their property and abatement of alleged nuisance related to the presence of PFAS and related chemicals on their property. The Plaintiffs allege that such chemicals have been deposited on their property by the City of Calhoun as a byproduct of treating water containing such chemicals used by manufacturing operations in and around Calhoun Georgia. The defendants include the City of Calhoun Georgia, several other carpet manufacturers, and certain manufacturers and sellers of chemicals containing PFAS. No specific amount of damages has been demanded. We have denied liability and are vigorously defending the matter. On March 1, 2024, the City of Calhou… Item 9A · ICFR · Management has concluded that, during the period covered by this Report, its internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 28, 2024, based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that, as of the Evaluation Date, that due to the existence of a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting described below, that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. | ||||||
| 2023-12-30 | 2024-03-20 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We have been sued together with 15 other defendants in a civil action filed January 22, 2024, in the Superior Court of Gordon County Georgia. The case is styled: Moss Land Company, LLC and Revocable Living Trust of William Darryl Edwards, by and through William Darryl Edwards, Trustee vs. City of Calhoun et al. Civil Action Number 24CV73929. The plaintiffs are two landowners located in Gordon County Georgia. The relief sought is compensation for alleged damages to the plaintiffs’ real property, an injunction from alleged further damage to their property and abatement of alleged nuisance related to the presence of PFAS and related chemicals on their property. The Plaintiffs allege that such chemicals have been deposited on their property by the City of Calhoun as a byproduct of treating water containing such chemicals used by manufacturing operations in and around Calhoun Georgia. The defendants include the City of Calhoun Georgia, several other carpet manufacturers, and certain manufacturers and sellers of chemicals containing PFAS. No specific amount of damages has been demanded. We have not yet answered the complaint but anticipate denying liability and vigorously defending the m… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the Evaluation Date. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-08 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We have been sued, together with approximately 90 other defendants, in a lawsuit styled: Brenda E. Bostian, individually and as representative of the Estate of Hoyle Steven Bostian, deceased, case number 2021-CP-40-04877 South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit- Richland County (Columbia SC), alleging that indirect exposure to asbestos at a plant in North Carolina contributed to the wrongful death of Mr. Bostian. The complaint alleges that Mr. Hoyle Bostian’s father worked at a facility in North Carolina where he was exposed to asbestos and that Mr. Bostian’s exposure indirectly caused Mr. Bostian (the decedent) to be exposed to asbestos. The plaintiff’s “secondary” exposure allegedly occurred in the 1950s - prior to our 1987 acquisition of China Grove Cotton Mills, the company that owned the facility. No damage amount has been alleged. We have denied liability and are vigorously defending the matter. We have been sued together with several other defendants, in a lawsuit styled: James Franklin Davis and Vera C. Davis v. 3M Company, et al., in the court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit, County of Richmond, State of South Carolina (C'/A NO. 2022-CP-40-02381… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the Evaluation Date. | ||||||
| 2021-12-25 | 2022-03-23 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We have been sued, together with 3M Company and approximately 30 other named defendants and unnamed "fictitious defendants" including various carpet manufacturers and suppliers, in four lawsuits whereby the plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief related to the manufacture, supply, and/or use of certain chemical products in the manufacture, finishing, and treatment of carpet products in the Dalton, Georgia area. These chemical products allegedly include without limitation perflourinated compounds ("PFC") such as perflourinated acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"). In each lawsuit, the plaintiff(s) alleged that, as a consequence of these actions, these chemical compounds have discharged or leached into the water systems around Dalton and then flow into the waters in or near the water bodies from which the plaintiff(s) draw for drinking water. Two of these lawsuits were filed in Alabama. The first lawsuit in Alabama was filed on September 22, 2016 by The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden (Alabama) in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama (styled The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Ac… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the Evaluation Date. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.