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, 2016.

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 in favor of Eletrobrás and in September 2001, Eletrobrás initiated an execution suit in the FDC to collect approximately R$2.0 billion ($602 million) from Eletropaulo as estimated by Eletropaulo (or approximately R$2.6 billion ($802 million) as of September 2016, as estimated by Eletrobrás, and possibly legal costs) 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 to determine whether Eletropaulo is liable for the debt. 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, the FDC appointed an accounting expert to analyze the issues in the case. In September 2015, the expert issued a preliminary report concluding that Eletropaulo is liable for the debt, without quantifying the debt. Eletropaulo thereafter submitted questions to the expert and reports rebutting the expert's preliminary report. In April 2016, Eletrobrás requested that the expert determine both the criteria to calculate the debt and the amount of the debt. The FDC is considering whether the criteria can be determined by the expert or must be determined by the FDC. After that issue is resolved, the expert may issue a final report. Ultimately, a decision will be issued by the FDC, which will be free to reject or adopt in whole or in part the expert's report. If the FDC again determines that Eletropaulo is liable for the debt, 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 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. If Eletrobrás requests the seizure of the security noted above and the FDC grants such request (or if a court determines that Eletropaulo is liable for the debt), Eletropaulo's results of operations may be materially adversely affected and, in turn, the Company's results of operations may also be materially adversely affected. Eletropaulo and the Company could face a loss of earnings and/or cash flows and may have to provide loans or equity to support affected businesses or projects, restructure them, write down their value, and/or face the possibility that Eletropaulo cannot continue operations or provide returns consistent with our expectations, any of which could have a material impact on the Company.

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$2 million ($614 thousand) as of December 31, 2015, or pay an indemnification amount of approximately R$15 million ($5 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 has been remanded to the court of first instance for further proceedings and to monitor compliance by the defendants with the terms of the decision. In January 2014, Eletropaulo informed the court that it intended to comply with the court's decision by donating a green area inside a protection zone and restore watersheds, the aggregate cost of which is expected to be approximately R$2 million ($614 thousand). Eletropaulo also requested that the court add the current owner of the land where the Associação facilities are located, Empresa Metropolitana de Águas e Energia S.A. (“EMAE”), as a party to the lawsuit and order EMAE to perform the demolition and reforestation aspects of the court's decision. In July 2014, the court requested the Secretary of the Environment for the State of São Paulo to notify the court of its opinion regarding the acceptability of the green areas to be donated by Eletropaulo to the State of São Paulo. In January 2015, the Secretary of the Environment for the State of São Paulo notified Eletropaulo and the court that it would not accept Eletropaulo's proposed green areas donation. Instead of such green areas donation, the Secretary of the Environment proposed in March 2015 that Eletropaulo undertake an environmental project to offset the alleged environmental damage. Since March 2015, Eletropaulo and the Secretary of Environment have been working together to define an environmental project, which will be submitted for approval by the Public Prosecutor. The cost of such project is currently estimated to be R$3 million ($1 million).

In December 2001, 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 filed challenges of the tribunal's awards with the local Indian court. GRIDCO's challenge of the costs award has been dismissed by the court, but its challenge of the liability award remains 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. In April 2015, the FCA issued a decision holding that the FCSP should consider all five alleged violations. AES Elpa and AES Brasiliana (the successor of AES Transgás) have appealed the April 2015 decision to the Superior Court of Justice. The lawsuit remains pending before the FCSP. AES Elpa and AES Brasiliana 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 of approximately R$6 million ($2 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 contain and remove the contamination immediately. The court granted injunctive relief on October 18, 2011, but determined only that defendant CEEE was required to proceed with the removal work. In May 2012, CEEE began the removal work in compliance with the injunction. The removal costs are estimated to be approximately R$60 million ($18 million) and the work was completed in February 2014. In parallel with the removal activities, a court-appointed expert investigation took place, which was concluded in May 2014. The court-appointed expert final report was presented to the State Attorneys in October 2014, and in January 2015 to the defendant companies. In March 2015, AES Sul and AES Florestal submitted comments and supplementary questions regarding the expert report. 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 2009, AES Uruguaiana Empreendimentos S.A. (“AESU”) in Brazil initiated arbitration 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 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 AESU were found liable for terminating the GSA, AESU should also be found liable for TGM's alleged losses, under the TA. In April 2011, the arbitrations were consolidated into a single proceeding. In May 2013, the arbitral tribunal issued an award finding YPF liable to AESU and TGM. Thereafter, in April 2016, the tribunal issued a damages award ordering YPF to pay damages to AESU and TGM. In January 2017, AESU and YPF settled their dispute.

In October 2009, IPL received a NOV and Finding of Violation from the EPA pursuant to the 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. IPL management previously 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 June 2011, the São Paulo Municipal Tax Authority (the “Tax Authority”) filed 60 tax assessments in São Paulo administrative court against Eletropaulo, seeking to collect services tax (“ISS”) that allegedly had not been paid on revenues for services rendered by Eletropaulo. Eletropaulo challenged the assessments on the grounds that the revenues at issue were not subject to ISS. In October 2013, the First Instance Administrative Court (“FIAC”) determined that Eletropaulo was liable for ISS, interest, and related penalties totaling approximately R$3.3 billion ($1.0 billion) as estimated by Eletropaulo. Eletropaulo thereafter appealed to the Second Instance Administrative Court (“SIAC”). In January 2016, the Tax Authority nullified most of the ISS sought from Eletropaulo.In January 2017, the SIAC issued a decision confirming the reduction and rejecting certain other amounts of ISS as time-barred, but finding that Eletropaulo was liable for the remainder of ISS totaling approximately R$200 million ($61 million). The matter is on appeal before the Municipal Council of Taxes. Eletropaulo believes it has meritorious defenses 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 had 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 grounds that the tax rate was set in the applicable legislation. In April 2013, the FIAC determined that AES Tietê should have calculated the taxes at the higher rate and that AES Tietê was liable for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties totaling approximately R$960 million ($295 million) as estimated by AES Tietê. AES Tietê appealed to the SIAC. In January 2015, the SIAC issued a decision in AES Tietê's favor, finding that AES Tietê was not liable for unpaid taxes. The public prosecutor subsequently filed an appeal, which was denied as untimely. The Tax Authority thereafter filed a motion for clarification of the SIAC's decision, which was denied in September 2016. The Tax Authority later filed a special appeal, but that appeal was rejected in October 2017. The Tax Authority has filed an interlocutory appeal, which 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 January 2015, DPL received NOVs from the EPA alleging violations of opacity at Stuart and Killen Stations, and in October 2015, IPL received a similar NOV alleging violations at Petersburg Station. In February 2016, IPL received an NOV from the EPA alleging violations of New Source Review (“NSR”) and other CAA regulations, the Indiana SIP, and the Title V operating permit at Petersburg Station. It is too early to determine whether the NOVs could have a material impact on our business, financial condition or results of our operations. IPL would seek recovery of any operating or capital expenditures, but not fines or penalties, related to air pollution control technology to reduce regulated air emissions; however, there can be no assurances that we would be successful in this regard.

In September 2015, AES Southland Development, LLC and AES Redondo Beach, LLC filed a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission (the “CCC”) over the CCC's determination that the site of AES Redondo Beach included approximately 5.93 acres of CCC-jurisdictional wetlands. The CCC has asserted that AES Redondo Beach has improperly installed and operated water pumps affecting the alleged wetlands in violation of the California Coastal Act and Redondo Beach Local Coastal Program and has ordered AES Redondo Beach to restore the site. Additional potential outcomes of the CCC determination could include an order requiring AES Redondo Beach to fund a wetland mitigation project and/or pay fines or penalties. AES Redondo Beach believes that it has meritorious arguments and intends to vigorously prosecute such lawsuit, but there can be no assurances that it will be successful.

In October 2015, Ganadera Guerra, S.A. (“GG”) and Constructora Tymsa, S.A. (“CT”) filed separate lawsuits against AES Panama in the local courts of Panama. The claimants allege that AES Panama profited from a hydropower facility (La Estrella) being partially located on land owned initially by GG and currently by CT, and that AES Panama must pay compensation for its use of the land. The damages sought from AES Panama are approximately $685 million (GG) and $100 million (CT). In October 2016, the court dismissed GG's claim because of GG's failure to comply with a court order requiring GG to disclose certain information. It is expected that GG will refile its lawsuit. Also, there are ongoing administrative proceedings concerning whether AES Panama is entitled to

acquire an easement over the land and whether AES Panama can continue to occupy the land. AES Panama believes it has meritorious defenses and claims and will assert them vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.