Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
Example: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release."
Output: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

New input case for you: The case centers on theliabilities Chemours was saddled with after DuPont spun off its former performance chemicals unit in 2015. The judge's granted Chemours' request to pause the arbitration on Thursday, one day after he heard arguments on DuPont's dismissal motion. Chemours sued DuPont earlier this year, alleging that DuPont deliberately lowballed the cost of environmental liabilities Chemours would face in indemnifying DuPont for pollution related to man-made chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The chemicals have been used in firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing and many other household and personal items. They sometimes are referred to as "forever chemicals" because of their longevity in the environment. The PFAS family of chemicals, which have been associated with increased risk of cancer and other health problems, includes perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which was used in the production of Teflon. At the time of the Chemours spinoff, DuPont was facing multidistrict litigation involving 3,500 personal injury claims related to PFOA. DuPont pegged the maximum liability for those cases at $128 million. It settled 19 months later for $671 million, with DuPont agreeing to pay half the settlement amount, and up to $125 million more toward costs of other PFOA-related litigation. DuPont has argued that the lawsuit must be dismissed because the separation agreement with Chemours mandates that any disputes arising from the 2015 spinoff must be resolved through private arbitration. Chemours says it was never in the position to consent to arbitration and that the arbitration clause is therefore invalid. The judge ruled Thursday that if Chemours is correct, allowing the arbitration to proceed would force Chemours to submit to an arbitration absent a contractual obligation to do so, which he said would amount to irreparable harm to Chemours.
Output:
Judge halts arbitration in Chemours-DuPont dispute.