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, 2017.

In December 2001, Grid Corporation of Odisha (“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. A hearing on the liability award is scheduled for March 15, 2018. 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 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$1.17 billion ($353 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 (“Special Appeal”), which was rejected as untimely in October 2016. The Tax Authority thereafter filed an interlocutory appeal with the Superior Administrative Court (“SAC”). In March 2017, the President of the SAC determined that the SAC would analyze the Special Appeal on timeliness and, if required, the merits. AES Tietê has challenged the Special Appeal. 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 2017, the EPA issued a second NOV for DPL Stuart Station, alleging violations of opacity in 2016. Moreover, in February 2016, IPL received an NOV from the EPA alleging violations of 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. GG has refiled 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.

In January 2017, the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (“SMA”) issued a Formulation of Charges asserting that Alto Maipo is in violation of certain conditions of the Environmental Approval Resolution (“RCA”) governing Alto Maipo’s hydropower project, for, among other things, operating vehicles at unauthorized times and failing to mitigate the impact of water intrusion during tunnel construction. In February 2017, Alto Maipo submitted a compliance plan to the SMA which, if approved by the agency, would resolve the matter without materially impacting construction of the project. In June 2017, the SMA issued a resolution detailing its comments on the compliance plan. Alto Maipo responded to the SMA’s comments in July 2017. In January 2018, the SMA requested additional information from Alto Maipo relating to the compliance plan and Formulation of Charges. In February 2018, Alto Maipo submitted certain information to the SMA, which is under consideration by the agency. The outcome of this matter is uncertain, but an adverse decision by the SMA could have a negative impact on the construction of the project. Alto Maipo will pursue its interests vigorously in this matter; however, there can be no assurance that it will be successful in its efforts.

In June 2017, Alto Maipo terminated one of its contractors, Constructora Nuevo Maipo S.A. (“CNM”), given CNM’s stoppage of tunneling works, its failure to produce a completion plan, and its other breaches of contract. Alto Maipo also initiated arbitration against CNM to recover excess completion costs and other damages relating to these breaches. CNM subsequently initiated a separate arbitration, seeking a declaration that its termination was wrongful, damages, and other relief. CNM has not supported its alleged damages, but it has asserted that it is entitled to recover over $20 million in damages, legal costs, and approximately $73 million that was drawn by Alto Maipo under letters of credit. The arbitrations have been consolidated into a single action. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for May 20-31, 2019. In the interim, CNM requested that the arbitral Tribunal issue an order requiring Alto Maipo to immediately return or escrow the letter of credit funds. In February 2018, the Tribunal denied CNM’s request for interim relief. However, the ultimate merits of CNM’s arbitration claims will be decided after the May 2018 hearing, including in relation to the letters of credit. In addition, CNM is attempting to seek relief in the Chilean court of appeals concerning the draws on the letters of credit. That action is pending. Alto Maipo 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.

In October 2017, the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”) of the Republic of Kazakhstan (“ROK”) filed a lawsuit in the Specialized Economic Court of Eastern-Kazakhstan Region (“Economic Court”) against Tau Power BV (an AES affiliate), Altai Power LLP (an AES affiliate), the Company, and two hydropower plants (“HPPs”) previously under concession to Tau Power. In its lawsuit, the MOJ references a 2013 treaty arbitration award (“2013 Award”) against the ROK concerning the ROK’s energy laws. While its lawsuit is unclear, the MOJ appears to seek relief relating to the net income distributed by the HPPs during certain years of the concession period. In November 2017, the Economic Court issued a decision that purports to allow the MOJ to enforce the 2013 Award in Kazakhstan. The decision was affirmed on intermediate appeal. The AES defendants have appealed to the Kazakhstan Supreme Court. The AES defendants believe that the lawsuit is without merit and they will assert their defenses vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.