Sherwin-Williams revisits lead-paint settlement
With the ink dry on a landmark lead-paint lawsuit settlement, Sherwin-Williams revisited the topic – and its $101.7 million share of the payout -- while reporting its second-quarter results. James Jaye, senior VP of investor relations and communications offered the update on the settlement, which involved 10 California cities and counties and defendants Con Agra Grocery Products, NL and Sherwin-Williams.
The parties announced a settlement July 17. (Read the Sherwin-Williams statement here.)
“The agreement ends a nearly 20-year legal battle that challenged the company's legal advertising of lead-based paints over a century ago when such paints were the gold standard and specified for use by the federal government as well as state and local governments across the country,” Jaye said during the company's second-quarter earnings call this week.
The settlement calls for a total payment of $305 million over six years -- $101.7 million from each defendant. Originally, the defendants faced a $1.15 billion judgement, and a reduced $409 million judgement following an appeal.
“Sherwin-Williams continues to believe the California case was an aberration,” Jaye said. “All other appellate courts have found that companies should not be held retroactively liable for lawful conduct and truthful commercial speech decades after they took place.”
According to the plaintiffs, the ten cities and counties will divide the settlement funds based on the number of homes with lead paint in each jurisdiction. They will then set up local clean-up programs designed to meet the needs in each city or county.
“Lead paint has created a public health crisis for communities in California and across our nation,” said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “This agreement ensures that significant resources will go to address the lead paint crisis and that local governments have the flexibility to best protect children from this pervasive environmental hazard.”
Lead-paint defendants have had more success outside of California, Jaye pointed out in comments to analysts during the earnings call.
“Seven other states have already rejected public nuisance claims similar to those brought in California,” he said. “Sherwin-Williams is pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve this litigation and it will continue to vigorously and aggressively defend against any similar current or future litigation.”
Sherwin-Williams posted net income growth of 17% in its second quarter, as sales increased 2.2% to $4.88 billion.
The parties announced a settlement July 17. (Read the Sherwin-Williams statement here.)
“The agreement ends a nearly 20-year legal battle that challenged the company's legal advertising of lead-based paints over a century ago when such paints were the gold standard and specified for use by the federal government as well as state and local governments across the country,” Jaye said during the company's second-quarter earnings call this week.
The settlement calls for a total payment of $305 million over six years -- $101.7 million from each defendant. Originally, the defendants faced a $1.15 billion judgement, and a reduced $409 million judgement following an appeal.
“Sherwin-Williams continues to believe the California case was an aberration,” Jaye said. “All other appellate courts have found that companies should not be held retroactively liable for lawful conduct and truthful commercial speech decades after they took place.”
According to the plaintiffs, the ten cities and counties will divide the settlement funds based on the number of homes with lead paint in each jurisdiction. They will then set up local clean-up programs designed to meet the needs in each city or county.
“Lead paint has created a public health crisis for communities in California and across our nation,” said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “This agreement ensures that significant resources will go to address the lead paint crisis and that local governments have the flexibility to best protect children from this pervasive environmental hazard.”
Lead-paint defendants have had more success outside of California, Jaye pointed out in comments to analysts during the earnings call.
“Seven other states have already rejected public nuisance claims similar to those brought in California,” he said. “Sherwin-Williams is pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve this litigation and it will continue to vigorously and aggressively defend against any similar current or future litigation.”
Sherwin-Williams posted net income growth of 17% in its second quarter, as sales increased 2.2% to $4.88 billion.