Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is involved in certain claims, suits and legal proceedings in the normal course of business. The Company has accrued for litigation and claims where it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based upon information it currently possesses and taking into account established reserves for estimated liabilities and its insurance coverage, that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and actions is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements. It is reasonably possible, however, that some matters could be decided unfavorably to the Company and could require the Company to pay damages or make expenditures in amounts that could be material but cannot be estimated as of December 31, 2013.

In 1989, Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S.A. (“Eletrobrás”) filed suit in the Fifth District Court in the State of Rio de Janeiro (“FDC”) against Eletropaulo Eletricidade de São Paulo S.A. (“EEDSP”) relating to the methodology for calculating monetary adjustments under the parties’ financing agreement. In April 1999, the FDC found for Eletrobrás and in September 2001, Eletrobrás initiated an execution suit in the FDC to collect approximately R$1.43 billion ($605 million) from Eletropaulo (as estimated by Eletropaulo) and a lesser amount from an unrelated company, Companhia de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica Paulista (“CTEEP”) (Eletropaulo and CTEEP were spun off of EEDSP pursuant to its privatization in 1998). In November 2002, the FDC rejected Eletropaulo’s defenses in the execution suit. On appeal, the case was remanded to the FDC for further proceedings. In December 2012, the FDC issued a decision that Eletropaulo is liable for the debt. However, that decision was annulled on appeal and the case was remanded to the FDC for further proceedings. On remand at the FDC, an accounting expert will issue a report on the amount of the alleged debt and the responsibility for its payment in light of the privatization. The parties will be entitled to take discovery and present arguments on the issues to be determined by the expert. If the FDC again finds Eletropaulo liable for the debt, after the amount of the alleged debt is determined, Eletrobrás will be entitled to resume the execution suit in the FDC. If Eletrobrás does so, Eletropaulo will be required to provide security for its alleged liability. In that case, if Eletrobrás requests the seizure of such security and the FDC grants such request, Eletropaulo’s results of operations may be materially adversely affected and, in turn the Company’s results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, in February 2008, CTEEP filed a lawsuit in the FDC against Eletrobrás and Eletropaulo seeking a declaration that CTEEP is not liable for any debt under the financing agreement. Eletropaulo believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In September 1996, a public civil action was asserted against Eletropaulo and Associação Desportiva Cultural Eletropaulo (the “Associação”) relating to alleged environmental damage caused by construction of the Associação near Guarapiranga Reservoir. The initial decision that was upheld by the Appellate Court of the State of São Paulo in 2006 found that Eletropaulo should repair the alleged environmental damage by demolishing certain construction and reforesting the area, and either sponsor an environmental project which would cost approximately R$1.5 million ($635 thousand) as of December 31, 2012, or pay an indemnification amount of approximately R$15 million ($6 million). Eletropaulo has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Court. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the case is being remanded to the court of first instance for further proceedings and to monitor compliance by the defendants with the terms of the decision.

In December 2001, Gridco Ltd. ("Gridco") served a notice to arbitrate pursuant to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 on the Company, AES Orissa Distribution Private Limited (“AES ODPL”), and Jyoti Structures (“Jyoti”) pursuant to the terms of the shareholders agreement between Gridco, the Company, AES ODPL, Jyoti and the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. ("CESCO"), an affiliate of the Company. In the arbitration, Gridco asserted that a comfort letter issued by the Company in connection with the Company's indirect investment in CESCO obligates the Company to provide additional financial support to cover all of CESCO's financial obligations to Gridco. Gridco appeared to be seeking approximately $189 million in damages, plus undisclosed penalties and interest, but a detailed alleged damage analysis was not filed by Gridco. The Company counterclaimed against Gridco for damages. In June 2007, a 2-to-1 majority of the arbitral tribunal rendered its award rejecting Gridco’s claims and holding that none of the respondents, the Company, AES ODPL, or Jyoti, had any liability to Gridco. The respondents’ counterclaims were also rejected. A majority of the tribunal later awarded the respondents, including the Company, some of their costs relating to the arbitration. Gridco has filed challenges of the tribunal's awards with the local Indian court. Those challenges remain pending. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In March 2003, the office of the Federal Public Prosecutor for the State of São Paulo, Brazil (“MPF”) notified Eletropaulo that it had commenced an inquiry into the BNDES financings provided to AES Elpa and AES Transgás, the rationing loan provided to Eletropaulo, changes in the control of Eletropaulo, sales of assets by Eletropaulo, and the quality of service provided by Eletropaulo to its customers. The MPF requested various documents from Eletropaulo relating to these

matters. In July 2004, the MPF filed a public civil lawsuit in the Federal Court of São Paulo (“FCSP”) alleging that BNDES violated Law 8429/92 (the Administrative Misconduct Act) and BNDES’s internal rules by: (1) approving the AES Elpa and AES Transgás loans; (2) extending the payment terms on the AES Elpa and AES Transgás loans; (3) authorizing the sale of Eletropaulo’s preferred shares at a stock-market auction; (4) accepting Eletropaulo’s preferred shares to secure the loan provided to Eletropaulo; and (5) allowing the restructurings of Light Serviços de Eletricidade S.A. and Eletropaulo. The MPF also named AES Elpa and AES Transgás as defendants in the lawsuit because they allegedly benefited from BNDES’s alleged violations. In May 2006, the FCSP ruled that the MPF could pursue its claims based on the first, second, and fourth alleged violations noted above. The MPF subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals (“FCA”) seeking to require the FCSP to consider all five alleged violations. Also, in July 2006, AES Elpa and AES Transgás filed an interlocutory appeal with the FCA, which was subsequently consolidated with the MPF’s interlocutory appeal, seeking a transfer of venue and to enjoin the FCSP from considering any of the alleged violations. In June 2009, the FCA granted the injunction sought by AES Elpa and AES Transgás and transferred the case to the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro. In May 2010, the MPF filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”) challenging the transfer. In November 2012, the SCJ ruled that the lawsuit must be returned to the FCSP. AES Elpa and AES Brasiliana (the successor of AES Transgás) believe they have meritorious defenses to the allegations asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

Pursuant to their environmental audit, AES Sul and AES Florestal discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other contaminants at a pole factory that AES Florestal had been operating. The conclusion of the audit was that a prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia (“CEEE”), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. On their initiative, AES Sul and AES Florestal communicated with Brazilian authorities and CEEE about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. In March 2008, the State Attorney of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil filed a public civil action against AES Sul, AES Florestal and CEEE seeking an order requiring the companies to recover the contaminated area located on the grounds of the pole factory and an indemnity payment (approximately R$6 million ($3 million)) to the State’s Environmental Fund. In October 2011, the State Attorney Office filed a request for an injunction ordering the defendant companies to remediate the contaminated area immediately. The court granted injunctive relief on October 18, 2011, but determined only that defendant CEEE was required to proceed with the remediation work. In May 2012, CEEE began the remediation work in compliance with the injunction. The remediation costs are estimated to be approximately R$60 million ($25 million) and the work is ongoing. The case is in the evidentiary stage awaiting the production of the court’s expert opinion on several matters, including which of the parties had utilized the products found in the area. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In January 2004, the Company received notice of a “Formulation of Charges” filed against the Company by the Superintendence of Electricity of the Dominican Republic. In the “Formulation of Charges,” the Superintendence asserts that the existence of three generation companies (Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A. (“Itabo”), Dominican Power Partners, and AES Andres BV) and one distribution company (Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, S.A. (“Este”)) in the Dominican Republic, violates certain cross-ownership restrictions contained in the General Electricity Law of the Dominican Republic. In February 2004, the Company filed in the First Instance Court of the National District of the Dominican Republic an action seeking injunctive relief based on several constitutional due process violations contained in the “Formulation of Charges” (“Constitutional Injunction”). In February 2004, the Court granted the Constitutional Injunction and ordered the immediate cessation of any effects of the “Formulation of Charges,” and the enactment by the Superintendence of Electricity of a special procedure to prosecute alleged antitrust complaints under the General Electricity Law. In March 2004, the Superintendence of Electricity appealed the Court’s decision. In July 2004, the Company divested any interest in Este. The Superintendence of Electricity’s appeal remains pending. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In March 2009, AES Uruguaiana Empreendimentos S.A. (“AESU”) in Brazil initiated arbitration in the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) against YPF S.A. (“YPF”) seeking damages and other relief relating to YPF’s breach of the parties’ gas supply agreement (“GSA”). Thereafter, in April 2009, YPF initiated arbitration in the ICC against AESU and two unrelated parties, Companhia de Gas do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul and Transportador de Gas del Mercosur S.A. (“TGM”), claiming that AESU wrongfully terminated the GSA and caused the termination of a transportation agreement (“TA”) between YPF and TGM (“YPF Arbitration”). YPF sought an unspecified amount of damages from AESU, a declaration that YPF’s performance was excused under the GSA due to certain alleged force majeure events, or, in the alternative, a declaration that the GSA and the TA should be terminated without a finding of liability against YPF because of the allegedly onerous obligations imposed on YPF by those agreements. In addition, in the YPF Arbitration, TGM asserted that if it was determined that AESU was responsible for the termination of the GSA, AESU was liable for TGM’s alleged losses, including losses under the TA. In April 2011, the arbitrations were consolidated into a single proceeding. The hearing on liability issues took place in

December 2011. In May 2013, the arbitral Tribunal issued a liability award in AESU's favor. YPF thereafter challenged the award in Argentine court. That challenge is pending. Also, after it issued the liability award, the arbitral Tribunal temporarily suspended the next phase of the arbitration on damages issues, but the Tribunal subsequently lifted that suspension. AESU has made its initial submission on damages. The Tribunal has advised that the final evidentiary hearing will take place in December 2014. AESU believes it has meritorious claims and defenses and will assert them vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In April 2009, the Antimonopoly Agency in Kazakhstan initiated an investigation of the power sales of Ust-Kamenogorsk HPP (“UK HPP”) and Shulbinsk HPP, hydroelectric plants under AES concession (collectively, the “Hydros”), for the period of January-February 2009. The Antimonopoly Agency determined that the Hydros abused their market position and charged monopolistically high prices for power from January-February 2009. The Agency sought an order from the administrative court requiring UK HPP to pay an administrative fine of approximately KZT 120 million ($1 million) and to disgorge profits for the period at issue, estimated by the Antimonopoly Agency to be approximately KZT 440 million ($3 million). No fines or damages have been paid to date, however, as the proceedings in the administrative court have been suspended due to the initiation of related criminal proceedings against officials of the Hydros. In the course of criminal proceedings, the financial police have expanded the periods at issue to the entirety of 2009 in the case of UK HPP and from January-October 2009 in the case of Shulbinsk HPP, and sought increased damages of KZT 1.2 billion ($8 million) from UK HPP and KZT 1.3 billion ($8 million) from Shulbinsk HPP. The Hydros believe they have meritorious defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

In October 2009, AES Merida III, S. de R.L. de C.V. (AES Merida), one of our businesses in Mexico, initiated arbitration against its fuel supplier and electricity offtaker, Comisión Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”), seeking a declaration that CFE breached the parties’ power purchase agreement (“PPA”) by supplying gas that did not comply with the PPA’s specifications. Alternatively, AES Merida requested a declaration that the supply of such gas by CFE is a force majeure event under the PPA. CFE disputed the claims. Although it did not assert counterclaims, in its closing brief CFE asserted that it is entitled to a partial refund of the capacity charge payments that it made for power generated with the out-of-specification gas. In July 2012, the arbitral Tribunal issued an award in AES Merida’s favor. In December 2012, CFE initiated an action in Mexican court seeking to nullify the award. That action remains pending. AES Merida has opposed the request and asserted a counterclaim to confirm the award. AES Merida believes it has meritorious defenses in that action; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful.

In October 2009, IPL received a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) and Finding of Violation from the EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Section 113(a). The NOV alleges violations of the CAA at IPL’s three primarily coal-fired electric generating facilities dating back to 1986. The alleged violations primarily pertain to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and nonattainment New Source Review requirements under the CAA. Since receiving the letter, IPL management has met with EPA staff regarding possible resolutions of the NOV. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate resolution of this matter. However, settlements and litigated outcomes of similar cases have required companies to pay civil penalties, install additional pollution control technology on coal-fired electric generating units, retire existing generating units, and invest in additional environmental projects. A similar outcome in this case could have a material impact to IPL and could, in turn, have a material impact on the Company. IPL would seek recovery of any operating or capital expenditures related to air pollution control technology to reduce regulated air emissions; however, there can be no assurances that it would be successful in that regard.

In November 2009, April 2010, December 2010, April 2011, June 2011, August 2011, and November 2011, substantially similar personal injury lawsuits were filed by a total of 49 residents and decedent estates in the Dominican Republic against the Company, AES Atlantis, Inc., AES Puerto Rico, LP, AES Puerto Rico, Inc., and AES Puerto Rico Services, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware. In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the coal combustion byproducts of AES Puerto Rico’s power plant were illegally placed in the Dominican Republic from October 2003 through March 2004 and subsequently caused the plaintiffs’ birth defects, other personal injuries, and/or deaths. The plaintiffs did not quantify their alleged damages, but generally alleged that they are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. The Company is not able to estimate damages, if any, at this time. The AES defendants moved for partial dismissal of both the November 2009 and April 2010 lawsuits on various grounds. In July 2011, the Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ international law and punitive damages claims, but held that the plaintiffs had stated intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability claims under Dominican law, which the Superior Court found governed the lawsuits. The Superior Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints in accordance with its decision, and in September 2011, the plaintiffs in the November 2009 and April 2010 lawsuits did so. In November 2011, the AES defendants again moved for partial dismissal of those amended complaints, and in both lawsuits, the Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for future medical monitoring expenses but declined to dismiss their claims under Dominican Republic Law 64-00. The AES defendants filed an answer to the November 2009 lawsuit in June 2012. The Superior Court has stayed the remaining six lawsuits, as well as any subsequently filed similar lawsuits. The Superior Court has also ordered that, for the present, discovery will proceed only in the November 2009 lawsuit and will be limited to causation

and exposure issues. The AES defendants believe they have meritorious defenses and will defend themselves vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

On December 21, 2010, AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD, which owns a 670 MW lignite-fired power plant in Bulgaria, made the first in a series of demands on the performance bond securing the construction Contractor’s obligations under the parties’ EPC Contract. The Contractor failed to complete the plant on schedule. The total amount demanded by Maritza under the performance bond was approximately €155 million. The Contractor obtained an injunction from a lower French court purportedly preventing the issuing bank from honoring the bond demands. However, the Versailles Court of Appeal canceled the injunction in July 2011, and therefore the issuing bank paid the bond demands in full. In addition, in December 2010, the Contractor stopped commissioning of the power plant’s two units, allegedly because of the purported characteristics of the lignite supplied to it for commissioning. In January 2011, the Contractor initiated arbitration on its lignite claim, seeking an extension of time to complete the power plant, an increase to the contract price, and other relief, including in relation to the bond demands. The Contractor later added claims relating to the alleged unavailability of the grid during commissioning. Maritza rejected the Contractor’s claims and asserted counterclaims for delay liquidated damages and other relief relating to the Contractor’s failure to complete the power plant and other breaches of the EPC Contract. Maritza also terminated the EPC Contract for cause and asserted arbitration claims against the Contractor relating to the termination. The Contractor asserted counterclaims relating to the termination. The Contractor is seeking approximately €240 million ($330 million) in the arbitration, unspecified damages for alleged injury to reputation, and other relief. The arbitral hearing took place on November 27-December 6, 2013, and on January 6-17, 2014. The parties will make final written and oral submissions later this year. Maritza believes it has meritorious claims and defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

On February 11, 2011, Eletropaulo received a notice of violation from São Paulo State’s Environmental Authorities for allegedly destroying 0.32119 hectares of native vegetation at the Conservation Park of Serra do Mar (“Park”), without previous authorization or license. The notice of violation asserted a fine of approximately R$1 million ($423 thousand) and the suspension of Eletropaulo activities in the Park. As a response to this administrative procedure before the São Paulo State Environmental Authorities (“São Paulo EA”), Eletropaulo timely presented its defense on February 28, 2011 seeking to vacate the notice of violation or reduce the fine. In December 2011, the São Paulo EA declined to vacate the notice of violation but recognized the possibility of 40% reduction in the fine if Eletropaulo agrees to recover the affected area with additional vegetation. Eletropaulo has not appealed the decision and is now discussing the terms of a possible settlement with the São Paulo EA, including a plan to recover the affected area by primarily planting additional trees. In March 2012, the State of São Paulo Prosecutor’s Office of São Bernardo do Campo initiated a Civil Proceeding to review the compliance by Eletropaulo with the terms of any possible settlement. Eletropaulo has had several meetings and field inspections to settle the details of the recovery project. Eletropaulo was informed by the Park Administrator that the area where the recovery project was to be located was no longer available. The Park Administrator subsequently approved a new area for the recovery project, subject to approval of the current owner, which Eletropaulo is seeking. Eletropaulo is also considering alternatives to recover the damage other than reforestation.

In February 2011, a consumer protection group, S.O.S. Consumidores (“SOSC”), filed a lawsuit in the State of São Paulo Federal Court against the Brazilian Regulatory Agency (“ANEEL”), Eletropaulo and all other distribution companies in the State of São Paulo, claiming that the distribution companies had overcharged customers for electricity. SOSC asserted that the distribution companies’ tariffs had been incorrectly calculated by ANEEL, and that the tariffs were required to be corrected from the effective dates of the relevant concession contracts. SOSC asserted that ANEEL erred in May 2010, when the agency corrected the alleged error going forward but declared that the tariff calculations made in the past were correct. Eletropaulo opposed the lawsuit on the ground that it had not wrongfully collected amounts from its customers, as its tariffs had been calculated in accordance with the concession contract with the Federal Government and ANEEL’s rules. Subsequently, the lawsuit was transferred to the Federal Court of Belo Horizonte ("FCBH"), which was presiding over similar lawsuits against other distribution companies and ANEEL. In January 2014, the FCBH dismissed the lawsuit against Eletropaulo and the other distribution companies. SOSC may appeal. Even if it does not, SOSC's lawsuit will continue against ANEEL. If SOSC ultimately prevails against the agency, it is possible that SOSC may file a lawsuit against Eletropaulo seeking refunds. Eletropaulo estimates that its liability to customers could be approximately R$855 million ($362 million). Eletropaulo believes it has meritorious defenses and will defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In June 2011, the São Paulo Municipal Tax Authority (the “Municipality”) filed 60 tax assessments in São Paulo administrative court against Eletropaulo, seeking approximately R$1.2 billion ($508 million) in services tax (“ISS”) that allegedly had not been collected on revenues for services rendered by Eletropaulo. Eletropaulo challenged the assessments on the ground that the revenues at issue were not subject to ISS. In October 2013, the First Instance Administrative Court determined that Eletropaulo is liable for approximately R$1.03 billion ($436 million) in ISS and related penalties. Eletropaulo has appealed to the Second Instance Administrative Court. Eletropaulo believes it has meritorious defenses to the assessments

and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In January 2012, the Brazil Federal Tax Authority issued an assessment alleging that AES Tietê paid PIS and COFINS taxes from 2007 to 2010 at a lower rate than the tax authority believed was applicable. AES Tietê challenged the assessment on the ground that the tax rate was set in the applicable legislation. In April 2013, the First Instance Administrative Court determined that AES Tietê should calculate the taxes at the higher rate and that AES Tietê was liable for R$829 million ($351 million) in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. AES Tietê has filed an appeal to the Second Instance Administrative Court and no tax is due while the appeal is pending. AES Tietê believes it has meritorious defenses to the claim and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In August 2012, Fondo Patrimonial de las Empresas Reformadas (“FONPER”) (the Dominican instrumentality that holds the Dominican Republic’s shares in Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A. (“Itabo”)) filed a criminal complaint against certain current and former employees of AES. The criminal proceedings include a related civil component initiated against Coastal Itabo, Ltd. (“Coastal”) (the AES affiliate shareholder of Itabo) and New Caribbean Investment, S.A. (“NCI”) (the AES affiliate that manages Itabo). FONPER asserts claims relating to the alleged mismanagement of Itabo and seeks approximately $270 million in damages. The Dominican District Attorney (“DA”) has admitted the criminal complaint and is investigating the allegations set forth therein. In September 2012, one of the individual defendants responded to the criminal complaint, denying the charges and seeking an immediate dismissal of same. In April 2013, the DA requested that the Dominican Camara de Cuentas ("Camara") perform an audit of the allegations in the criminal complaint. The audit is ongoing and the Camara has not issued its report to date. Further, in August 2012, Coastal and NCI initiated an international arbitration proceeding against FONPER and the Dominican Republic, seeking a declaration that Coastal and NCI have acted both lawfully and in accordance with the relevant contracts with FONPER and the Dominican Republic in relation to the management of Itabo. Coastal and NCI also seek a declaration that the criminal complaint is a breach of the relevant contracts between the parties, including the obligation to arbitrate disputes. Coastal and NCI further seek damages from FONPER and the Dominican Republic resulting from their breach of contract. FONPER and the Dominican Republic have denied the claims and challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal has not yet established the procedural schedule for the arbitration. The AES defendants believe they have meritorious claims and defenses, which they will assert vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that they will be successful in their efforts.

In April 2013, the East Kazakhstan Ecology Department (“ED”) issued an order directing AES Ust-Kamenogorsk CHP ("UK CHP") to pay approximately KZT 720 million ($4.6 million) in damages (“ED's April 2013 Order”). The ED claimed that UK CHP was illegally operating without an emissions permit for 27 days in February-March 2013. In June 2013, the ED filed a lawsuit with the Specialized Interregional Economic Court (the “Economic Court”) seeking to require UK CHP to pay the assessed damages. UK CHP thereafter filed a separate lawsuit with the Economic Court challenging the ED's April 2013 Order and ED's allegations. In August 2013, the Economic Court ruled in favor of UK CHP in the lawsuit filed by UK CHP and required the ED to vacate the ED's April 2013 Order. That ruling was upheld on intermediate appeal. The ED may appeal. The Economic Court also dismissed the lawsuit filed by the ED. UK CHP believes it has meritorious claims and defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurance that it will be successful in its efforts.

In December 2013, AES Changuinola’s EPC Contractor initiated arbitration pursuant to the parties’ EPC Contract and related settlement agreements. The Contractor alleges, among other things, that AES Changuinola has failed to make a settlement payment, release retainage, and acknowledge completion of AES Changuinola hydropower facility. In total, the Contractor seeks approximately $41 million in damages, plus interest and costs. AES Changuinola will contest the claims. AES Changuinola believes it has meritorious defenses which it will assert vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that it will be successful in its efforts.