AFFF MDL Client Update Attorney Partner

Andrew W. Croner – Partner

*** ********* ******, **** *****,

New York, NY 10017

September 9, 2026

VIA EMAIL OR FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Michael Yearwood NPS 181666

**** ****** ******

APT 5L

Brooklyn, NY 11236

Attorney Client Communication

Not Subject to Public Records Requests

Do Not Disseminate

Re: In Re: AFFF Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 Second Half 2026 General Update

Dear Michael Yearwood:

I am writing to provide you with an updated status report regarding In Re: AFFF Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, which remains pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard Gergel. Since my last general update letter significant work has been done to move the litigation and settlement process forward. Below I provide a general update on the overall litigation, while the attached insert includes an update on your individual case. A Message About Senior Partner Paul Napoli

Before turning to updates in the litigation, I would be remiss if I did not mention that one of our founding partners, Paul Napoli, passed away suddenly on June 30, 2026. His loss is beyond tragic and continues to be deeply felt by all of us. Although Paul's passing was unexpected, the firm has always operated with a long-term leadership structure and succession planning in place. Marie Napoli, Hunter Shkolnik, and Paul co-managed the firm and, like any well-run partnership, recognized the importance of ensuring continuity regardless of unforeseen circumstances. This includes the AFFF MDL where Hunter Shkolnik has been named to the Plaintiff Executive Committee, ensuring our firm remains in a leadership position in this litigation.

The firm continues to operate as it always has, with the same leadership team, attorneys, and staff advancing the causes of our clients. Marie Napoli and Hunter Shkolnik remain actively engaged in leading the firm, and the environmental department is continuing to press on, inspired by the passion, dedication, and commitment that Paul brought to every matter he touched. His legacy continues in the work we do every day for our clients.

Since My Last Update, the Court’s Primary Focus Has Been Plaintiff Fact Sheet Submissions to Better Understand and Narrow the MDL’s Docket of Pending Personal Injury Cases Over the past year, the Court’s primary focus has been the Court-ordered review of Plaintiff Fact Sheet submissions and related documents to both better understand and potentially narrow the docket of personal injury (“PI”) cases pending the MDL. In simple terms, the Court wants to know who has a filed NAPOLILAW.COM 360 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 212-***-**** case, what injury is being claimed, where and how the person was exposed to PFAS/AFFF, and whether there is medical proof of the claimed injury. This process helps the Court manage the MDL, assists the parties in evaluating claims for settlement discussions, and reduces confusion caused by incomplete information or duplicate filings.

Some cases may be placed on a non-compliance list if Defendants believe required information or documents have not been provided. That does not automatically mean a case is dismissed; rather, it means the issue must be fixed, disputed, or otherwise addressed under the Court’s process. In other words, the Court is not currently “approving” or “confirming” individual PI cases, and for the vast majority of our PI clients who have provided the required information, Defendants have not challenged their submissions. If we contact you about a fact sheet, signature, medical record, proof of diagnosis, exposure information, address update, or other missing information, please respond as quickly as possible so we can keep your case compliant with the Court’s requirements. Resolution of Multiple Filings or Multiple Law Firms The Court has also ordered that the lawyers who represent PI plaintiffs in the MDL address and resolve situations where the same plaintiff appears to have more than one PI case pending in the MDL, often with different law firms. As you might expect, the Court’s position is that each unique plaintiff should proceed with one action that covers their full personal injury claim, which eliminates the possibility that the claims of any single plaintiff are counted twice when evaluating the overall docket of PI cases for a potential settlement. If this applies to you, we will work with your other counsel to determine which filing should remain active and which duplicate filing should be dismissed. A dismissal of a duplicate filing is just a means to clean up the docket and avoid duplicate cases. It should not be treated as a decision that your remaining personal injury claims lack merit, and it does not prevent the remaining action from continuing.

Mediation and Settlement Progress

We continue to be actively engaged in mediation with defense leadership and the Court- appointed mediator, retired Judge Layn Phillips. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide more detail on those discussions because the mediation process is subject to a confidentiality order. We recognize that the process has moved more slowly than we would like, but we believe meaningful progress is being made. Unfortunately, Defendants still are not making or considering individual settlement offers and, to date, have not entered into personal injury settlements. Even so, we believe the Court-directed review of filed plaintiff cases is producing important data that can help the parties, the mediator, and the Court evaluate the claims and support the development of a broader settlement framework more quickly. Although we cannot promise whether or when any settlement will occur, we remain committed to working through the mediation process toward a fair and meaningful resolution for our clients. Status of Bellwether Trial Cases

As I have explained in previous letters, we have long requested that the Court begin holding

“bellwether” trials for personal injury cases. In the MDL setting, a “bellwether” case is one selected from a large pool of lawsuits because the case is representative of the larger pool of cases. Bellwethers are used as test cases to promote settlement and to provide both the parties and the Judge with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position, the expected costs and resources required for subsequent trials, and the potential value associated with a particular type of case. NAPOLILAW.COM 360 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 212-***-**** Since late 2023 the parties have been conducting fact and expert discovery as to the first group of personal injury bellwether trial pool cases. The Court identified three plaintiffs who allege they suffered kidney cancer as a result of PFAS/AFFF exposure as the likely first bellwether trial cases. The parties have now exchanged expert reports and conducted expert depositions regarding these plaintiffs. Each side also filed motions to exclude or limit the testimony of those experts. The next step is for the Court to hear and decide those motions, and to schedule a bellwether trail. We have requested the Court schedule bellwether trials for these plaintiffs as we believe it would significantly advance this litigation. However, the Court has decided that the process of reviewing the Plaintiff population should be further advanced before scheduling a bellwether trial. We hope and expect that those trials will move forward if and when the Court determines that process has been sufficiently resolved.

Claims for Additional Injuries

As I have described in previous letters, in 2024 the Court directed the plaintiffs to “clean up the docket” by dismissing their claims for any injury besides the six which are part of active litigation: 1) kidney cancer, 2) testicular cancer, 3) ulcerative colitis, 4) thyroid disease, 5) liver cancer, and 6) thyroid cancer. The Court’s Order is aimed towards narrowing the issues before the Court and reducing the number of cases in active litigation to a more manageable number, controlling the costs for the parties and more easily facilitating settlement of those claims. While we complied with the Court’s Order, we continue to monitor developing science on the link between PFAS exposure and other injuries and will continue to work to identify the proper legal avenue to file or re-file claims for some or all of these

“other” injuries when and how appropriate.

Development in the Kidde-Fenwal Bankruptcy Proceedings In the middle of 2023 Kidde-Fenwal Inc. (“KFI”) – one of the defendants in this litigation – elected to declare bankruptcy rather than negotiate a settlement. We continue to litigate that bankruptcy along with KFI’s other creditors. The bankruptcy process is always a complicated one, involving competing claims of various creditors, including in this case thousands of plaintiffs with claims against KFI – “the debtor” as referred to in bankruptcy filings. Ultimately the KFI’s assets will be distributed to a group of eligible creditors, but a specific plan for doing so has not been agreed to or ordered by the Court. We continue to work through the Bankruptcy Court process to ensure that any resolution of KFI’s bankruptcy results in the largest possible recovery for plaintiffs with AFFF claims against KFI. Please also remember that KFI is just one of a large number of defendants in the AFFF MDL. We continue to litigate against other defendants in the MDL, and those claims are not affected by KFI’s pending bankruptcy.

Final Thoughts and Next Steps

We understand that this litigation has been pending far longer than any of our plaintiffs would want. At the same time, this is an unusually complex case involving many plaintiffs, many defendants, and detailed questions about exposure, injury, medical proof, and claim eligibility. The Court is moving carefully and deliberately to ensure that every plaintiff has a fair opportunity to establish their claim and that the filed cases are evaluated on the most complete information available. To that end, we encourage you to take the time to review your claim status carefully and provide us with any information or documents that may help make your case stronger. Specifically: NAPOLILAW.COM 360 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 212-***-****

• Review your attached update page. The attached client specific case update confirms the current status we have recorded for your case. Please review it carefully and contact us to discuss any discrepancies.

• Complete any Plaintiff Fact Sheet request. If you receive a request from us to complete, update, or sign your Plaintiff Fact Sheet, please respond immediately.

• Send medical proof. If we ask for proof of diagnosis, medical records, insurance records, pathology reports, physician notes, or other documents, please send them as soon as possible. If you do not have them, contact us so we can discuss options.

• Keep your contact information current. Please tell us right away if your mailing address, phone number, email address, medical providers, or diagnosis information has changed.

• Tell us about unusual circumstances. If illness, disability, a family emergency, difficulty accessing records, military service, incarceration, natural disaster, or another serious issue has affected your ability to respond, please tell us right away so we can evaluate whether that information should be raised in the MDL process.

* * *

We will continue to update you on the progress of your case and any important developments. Your case is very important to us, and we value the trust you have placed in us. If you have questions about testing options or need help providing records, please contact us at 888-***-**** or email *************@*********.***.

Sincerely,

Andrew W. Croner

Partner

Contact this candidate