Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Set forth below is information related to the Company’s material pending legal proceedings as of February 16, 2022, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, required to be disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The information below should be read together with Note 17—Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with the SEC’s disclosure rules, the Company has elected to disclose environmental proceedings involving the Company and a governmental authority if the amount of potential monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, that the Company reasonably believes will result from such proceeding is $1 million or more**.**

Alternative Water Supply in Lieu of Carmel River Diversions

Compliance with SWRCB Orders to Reduce Carmel River Diversions

Under the 2009 Order, California-American Water Company, the Company’s California subsidiary (“Cal Am”) is required, among other things, to decrease significantly its yearly diversions of water from the Carmel River according to a set reduction schedule. See Item 1—Business—Regulated Businesses—Water Supply and Wastewater Services and Item 1A—Risk Factors. The 2009 Order responded to claims that Cal Am had not sufficiently implemented actions to terminate its unpermitted diversions of water from the Carmel River as required by a 1995 order of the SWRCB. In July 2016, at the request of Cal Am and several Monterey County government agencies, the SWRCB issued the 2016 Order approving the 2021 Deadline.

Table of Contents

The 2009 Order includes a condition prohibiting Cal Am from diverting water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. In 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission (the “CPUC”) issued a decision directing modifications in Cal Am’s tariffs to recognize the moratorium mandated by the 2009 Order, and directing Cal Am to seek written guidance from the SWRCB with respect to any unresolved issues of interpretation or implementation of this condition. In 2012, the Deputy Director of the SWRCB sent a letter to Cal Am providing an interpretation as to the calculation of a baseline to determine increases in use of water at existing service addresses. In March 2018, the MPWMD adopted a resolution directing Cal Am to interpret the baseline in a manner that conflicts with the SWRCB’s written interpretation. In May 2018, Cal Am notified the MPWMD and the SWRCB that it intends to seek declaratory relief concerning the conflicting regulatory interpretations under the 2009 Order. In an attempt to resolve these conflicting interpretations prior to seeking judicial intervention, Cal Am has met with the MPWMD and the SWRCB several times. The SWRCB agreed to circulate revisions to its 2012 interpretive letter, which would be subject to a public comment period. Any failure to follow the MPWMD’s resolution or the SWRCB’s written interpretation, despite these conflicting interpretations, could potentially result in fines, penalties and other actions against Cal Am.

Cal Am continues to work constructively with all appropriate agencies to provide necessary information in connection with obtaining required approvals for the Water Supply Project. However, there can be no assurance that the Water Supply Project in its current configuration will be completed on a timely basis, if ever. Beginning in January 2022, Cal Am expects to be able to comply with the diversion reduction requirements contained in the 2016 Order, but continued compliance with the diversion reduction requirements for 2023 and future years will depend on successful development of alternate water supply sources sufficient to meet customer demand. The 2009 Order and the 2016 Order remain in effect until Cal Am certifies to the SWRCB, and the SWRCB concurs, that Cal Am has obtained a permanent supply of water to substitute for past unauthorized Carmel River diversions. While the Company cannot currently predict the likelihood or result of any adverse outcome associated with these matters, further attempts to comply with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order in the future may result in material additional costs and obligations to Cal Am, including fines and penalties against Cal Am in the event of noncompliance with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

CPUC Final Approval of Water Supply Project

Cal Am’s ability to move forward on the Water Supply Project is and has been subject to extensive administrative review by the CPUC and other government agencies, obtaining necessary permits, and intervention from other parties. In September 2016, the CPUC unanimously approved a final decision to authorize Cal Am to enter into a water purchase agreement for the GWR Project and to construct a pipeline and pump station facilities and recover up to the incurred $50 million in associated costs plus AFUDC, subject to meeting certain criteria.

In July 2019, Cal Am notified the MPWMD and Monterey One Water (collectively, the “Agencies”) that an event of default occurred under the water purchase agreement for the GWR Project because the Agencies failed to deliver to Cal Am by July 1, 2019 advanced treated recycled water produced by the GWR Project. In its notification to the Agencies, Cal Am expressly reserved its right to terminate the water purchase agreement until the Performance Start Date, which was September 1, 2020. As of June 30, 2021, Cal Am determined that the Agencies met their performance obligations under the water purchase agreement with respect to the first fiscal year of the contract.

In September 2018, the CPUC unanimously approved another final decision finding that the Water Supply Project meets the CPUC’s requirements for a CPCN and an additional procedural phase was not necessary to consider alternative projects. The CPUC’s 2018 decision concludes that the Water Supply Project is the best project to address estimated future water demands in Monterey, and, in addition to the cost recovery approved in its 2016 decision, adopts Cal Am’s cost estimates for the Water Supply Project, which amounted to an aggregate of $279 million plus AFUDC at a rate representative of Cal Am’s actual financing costs. The 2018 final decision specifies the procedures for recovery of all of Cal Am’s prudently incurred costs associated with the Water Supply Project upon its completion, subject to the frameworks included in the final decision related to cost caps, O&M costs, financing, ratemaking and contingency matters. The reasonableness of the Water Supply Project costs will be reviewed in the first general rate case filed by Cal Am after it becomes operational. Cal Am is also required to implement mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or offset significant environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the Water Supply Project and comply with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, a reimbursement agreement for CPUC costs associated with that program, and reporting requirements on plant operations following placement of the Water Supply Project in service. Cal Am has incurred $186 million in aggregate costs as of December 31, 2021 related to the Water Supply Project, which includes $47 million in AFUDC.

Table of Contents

In September 2021, Cal Am, Monterey One Water and the MPWMD reached an agreement on Cal Am’s purchase of additional water from the expansion to the GWR Project, which is not expected to produce additional water until 2024 at the earliest. The amended and restated water purchase agreement for the GWR Project is subject to review and approval of the CPUC, and on November 29, 2021, Cal Am filed an application with the CPUC seeking review and approval of the amended and restated water purchase agreement. Cal Am is also requesting rate base treatment of the additional capital investment for certain Cal Am facilities required to maximize the water supply from the expansion to the GWR Project and a related Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, totaling approximately $81 million. This amount is in addition to, and consistent in regulatory treatment with, the prior $50 million of recovery for facilities associated with the original water purchase agreement, which was approved by the CPUC in its 2016 final decision.

While Cal Am believes that its expenditures to date have been prudent and necessary to comply with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order, as well as the CPUC’s 2016 and 2018 final decisions, Cal Am cannot currently predict its ability to recover all of its costs and expenses associated with the Water Supply Project and there can be no assurance that Cal Am will be able to recover all of such costs and expenses in excess of the $50 million in construction costs previously approved by the CPUC in its 2016 final decision. See Note 17—Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Coastal Development Permit Application

In June 2018, Cal Am submitted a coastal development permit application to the City of Marina (the “City”) for those project components of the Water Supply Project located within the City’s coastal zone. Members of the City’s Planning Commission, as well as City councilpersons, have publicly expressed opposition to the Water Supply Project. In May 2019, the City issued a notice of final local action based upon the denial by the Planning Commission of Cal Am’s coastal development permit application. Thereafter, Cal Am appealed this decision to the Coastal Commission, as permitted under the City’s code and the California Coastal Act. At the same time, Cal Am submitted an application to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit for those project components located within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. In October 2019, staff of the Coastal Commission issued a report recommending a denial of Cal Am’s application for a coastal development permit with respect to the Water Supply Project, largely based on a memorandum prepared by the general manager of the MPWMD that contradicted findings made by the CPUC in its final decision approving the Water Supply Project. In November 2019, discussions between staffs of the Coastal Commission and the CPUC took place regarding the Coastal Commission staff recommendation, at which time the CPUC raised questions about the Coastal Commission staff’s findings on water supply and demand, groundwater impacts and the viability of a project that the Coastal Commission staff believes may be a possible alternative to the Water Supply Project.

In August 2020, the staff of the Coastal Commission released a report again recommending denial of Cal Am’s application for a coastal development permit. Although the report concluded that the Water Supply Project would have a negligible impact on groundwater resources, the report also concluded it would impact other coastal resources, such as environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands, and that the Coastal Commission staff believes that a feasible alternative project exists that would avoid those impacts. The staff’s report also noted disproportionate impacts to communities of concern. In September 2020, Cal Am withdrew its original jurisdiction application to allow additional time to address the Coastal Commission staff’s environmental justice concerns. The withdrawal of the original jurisdiction application did not impact Cal Am’s appeal of the City’s denial, which remains pending before the Coastal Commission. Cal Am refiled the original jurisdiction application in November 2020. In December 2020, the Coastal Commission sent to Cal Am a notice of incomplete application, identifying certain additional information needed to consider the application complete.

In March 2021, Cal Am provided responses to the Coastal Commission’s notice of incomplete application. On June 18, 2021, the Coastal Commission responded, acknowledging the responses and requesting certain additional information before the application could be considered complete. Cal Am responded with the requested additional information on January 11, 2022, and on February 8, 2022, the Coastal Commission requested additional information. The original jurisdiction application remains pending.

Table of Contents

Desalination Plant Development Permit

The proposed desalination plant for the Water Supply Project is to be located in an unincorporated portion of Monterey County, California on a site owned by CEMEX, Inc. (“CEMEX”), and requires a combined development permit from the County of Monterey prior to commencement of construction. On April 24, 2019, the County’s Planning Commission voted to approve the permit. In July 2019, the Board of Supervisors heard appeals filed by MCWD and a public advocacy group, at which time it denied the appeals and approved the permit. In August 2019, MCWD filed a petition in Monterey County Superior Court challenging Monterey County’s approval of Cal Am’s combined development permit application and seeking injunctive relief to enjoin Monterey County and Cal Am from commencing construction of the desalination plant. In October 2019, after a hearing, the court denied, without prejudice, MCWD’s motion for a preliminary injunction, but issued a stay of the County’s approval of the combined development permit, precluding commencement of physical construction of the desalination plant, but allowing Cal Am to continue to obtain permits needed for the desalination plant’s construction. On January 21, 2021, the court issued its decision granting in part and denying in part MCWD’s petition. The court found that the County of Monterey did not completely comply with all of the requirements necessary to approve the combined development permit and set aside its approval so that the County could come into compliance. The court denied all of MCWD’s other claims. The court also lifted its stay on physical construction at the plant site.

On May 25, 2021, Cal Am filed a notice of appeal as to the Monterey County Superior Court’s January 21, 2021 decision, seeking to challenge the court’s decision on Monterey County’s statement of overriding considerations. Monterey County filed a notice of appeal as to the same issue on May 26, 2021. On June 22, 2021, MCWD filed cross-appeals on its claims that had been denied by the court.

Proposed Zoning Changes at CEMEX Site for Slant Wells

In August 2018, the City circulated a public review draft of proposed amendments to its local coastal program and zoning ordinance, and placed the matter for consideration on the Planning Commission’s agenda for its September 2018 meeting. The proposed amendments would change zoning at the CEMEX site to open space and restrict future uses, including with respect to Cal Am’s planned use of the site for the slant wells for the Water Supply Project. Any change to the City’s local coastal program must ultimately be approved by the Coastal Commission. Cal Am, CEMEX and the Coastal Commission each submitted letters opposing the proposed amendments. At its November 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Marina City Council consider approving the amendments.

In December 2018, the Marina City Council considered the proposed amendments. Cal Am, CEMEX and the Coastal Commission again submitted letters opposing the proposed changes, but the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution amending its local coastal plan and a draft amendment to its zoning ordinance. Changes to the ordinance require a second reading before becoming final, which occurred at the City’s December 2018 meeting. The changes to the local coastal plan must be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval and are not effective until such approval is obtained.

Test Slant Well Permitting

A preliminary step to building the Water Supply Project desalination plant is the construction and operation of a test slant well to confirm the suitability of the property on which intake wells will be located to draw water from under Monterey Bay. In November 2014, the Coastal Commission approved coastal development permits for the test slant well, enabling Cal Am to construct and operate the test slant well. Because Cal Am may use the test slant well as one of the slant wells for the Water Supply Project, Cal Am sought and obtained from the Coastal Commission permit amendments to allow the test slant well to remain in place and be maintained until February 23, 2023. A required lease obtained from the California State Lands Commission, as amended, will expire on December 16, 2022. Effective February 28, 2018, test slant well pumping ceased, except for minimal maintenance pumping activities, in accordance with Cal Am’s coastal development permits.

Table of Contents

Water Supply Project Land Acquisition and Slant Well Site Use

In July 2017, the Coastal Commission adopted a consent agreement and cease and desist order requiring sand mining operations on the property owned by CEMEX on which intake wells for the Water Supply Project will be located, to cease by the end of 2020 and the property to be sold to either a non-profit or governmental entity. The consent agreement strictly limits future use of the property but preserves Cal Am’s existing property rights and allows uses consistent with existing easements and other rights of record. A permanent easement granted by CEMEX to Cal Am was recorded in June 2018 to allow Cal Am access to the property and to construct, operate and maintain the Water Supply Project intake wells. On November 26, 2019, the City notified CEMEX that, based on this permanent easement and Cal Am’s proposed use of the site for the intake wells, CEMEX has breached or will soon breach a prior 1996 annexation agreement (to which Cal Am was not a party). The City states that it intends to seek declaratory relief from CEMEX and Cal Am ordering that Cal Am’s extraction is limited to 500 acre-feet per year of groundwater, that Cal Am cannot export extracted water out of the basin, and that the permanent easement granted by CEMEX to Cal Am is void. CEMEX has denied the City’s claims and requested indemnification from Cal Am under the terms of the permanent easement. Cal Am and CEMEX believe that there is no valid limitation under the annexation agreement on Cal Am’s right to pump brackish groundwater and seawater at the site for desalination and use by Cal Am’s customers.

In May 2020, the City filed a lawsuit in Monterey County Superior Court, naming Cal Am and CEMEX as defendants, and MCWRA and MCWD as real parties in interest. The lawsuit, as amended, alleges a claim for breach of contract against CEMEX and seeks declaratory relief to void the permanent easement and prohibiting extraction of water by Cal Am’s slant wells at the CEMEX site in excess of 500 acre-feet per year and the export of such water outside the groundwater basin. In November 2020, Cal Am, CEMEX and MCWRA filed demurrers, which were overruled by the court at a hearing held on February 9, 2021.

In August 2020, MCWD filed a cross-complaint in the May 8, 2020 lawsuit against Cal Am, CEMEX and MCWRA, alleging claims for specific performance of certain provisions of the 1996 annexation agreement related to the property owned by CEMEX on which intake wells for the Water Supply Project will be located, as well as claims of water rights, nuisance and unreasonable water use, and seeking additional declaratory relief. Following various rulings on demurrers filed by Cal Am, CEMEX and MCWRA, on February 23, 2021, the court sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer to MCWD’s nuisance claim and overruled the remainder of the demurrers. On October 7, 2021, the court granted a motion filed by Cal Am related to MCWD’s cross-complaint, which motion requested a referral of certain issues related to MCWD’s water rights and unreasonable use claims to the SWRCB for its expert advisory opinion.

Challenges Related to Compliance with California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) enacted in 2015, groundwater basins designated by the state as critically overdrafted must be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency (“GSA”) by 2020 in accordance with an approved groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) designed to achieve sustainability by 2040. Under the SGMA, GSAs have broad powers to achieve sustainability including, but not limited to, regulating groundwater extraction by imposing fees on groundwater extractions and controlling groundwater extractions by regulating, limiting or suspending extractions from wells. The 400-acre CEMEX site overlies a small portion of the 180/400 Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin; the 84,000-acre 180/400 Subbasin has been designated by the state as critically overdrafted, mainly due to seawater intrusion into the subbasin.

In late 2016, the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (the “SVBGSA”) was formed as a joint powers authority to become the GSA for the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and prepare a GSP. In April 2018, the City filed a notice to become the GSA for the CEMEX site, creating an overlap with the SVBGSA’s filing for the 180/400 Subbasin. In 2016, the SVBGSA commenced preparation of a GSP covering the entire 180/400 subbasin, including the CEMEX site, but in August 2019 the City filed a notice that it intends to prepare its own GSP for the CEMEX site with the intent to severely limit or prohibit groundwater pumping at that site. The State Department of Water Resources (“SDWR”) has taken the position that until the overlap is resolved, it will not accept the GSP from either agency, placing the subbasin at risk of being placed in a probationary status and subject to state management. In December 2019, the County of Monterey filed its own notice to become the exclusive GSA at the CEMEX site in order to resolve the overlap, which is permitted under SGMA. SDWR accepted Monterey County’s filing on December 18, 2019, and now lists Monterey County as the exclusive GSA for the site.

Table of Contents

On December 30, 2019, the City filed a lawsuit in Monterey County Superior Court challenging Monterey County’s filing, and SDWR’s acceptance of the filing, as the exclusive GSA for the CEMEX site. The City has named Monterey County and its Board of Supervisors, its GSA, and SDWR and its director as defendants, and the SVBGSA and its Board of Directors as real parties. The City seeks to invalidate Monterey County’s filing, as well as injunctive relief to preserve the City’s status as a GSA for the site. To protect its interest in the matter, Cal Am filed an application to intervene in this lawsuit, which was granted. Monterey County filed cross-claims against the City and SDWR. After a hearing, on August 24, 2021, the court denied the claims brought by the City and granted Monterey County’s cross-claims, finding that the City’s GSA notice was untimely, the Monterey County GSA was the exclusive GSA for the CEMEX site, and the SVBGSA’s GSP was properly adopted for the entire 180/400 subbasin, including the CEMEX site. On November 15, 2021, the City appealed this decision, and on December 13, 2021, Monterey County appealed the court’s decision as to the finding that the City’s action creating a GSA was not void.

On September 14, 2020, Cal Am filed a separate but related complaint in Monterey County Superior Court challenging the validity of actions taken by the City and its GSA in adopting a groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX site, and the validity of the provisions of such plan. Due to the overlap of issues in the City’s lawsuit with those in the validation action, the parties stipulated to a stay of the validation action pending determination of the claims in the City’s action, which was approved by the court in December 2020.

On February 16, 2021, the City filed a separate but related in rem reverse validation complaint challenging the adoption by Monterey County of a GSP for the CEMEX site. This complaint remains pending. Currently, both validation actions remain stayed during the pendency of the City’s appeals.

Challenge of Certification — Proposed Monterey System Acquisition Final Environmental Impact Report

In November 2018, voters in Monterey, California passed “Measure J,” which decided that the MPWMD should conduct a feasibility study concerning the potential purchase of Cal Am’s Monterey system assets, and, if feasible, to proceed with a purchase of those assets without an additional public vote. This service territory represents approximately 40,000 customers. See Item 1—Business—Regulated Businesses—Condemnation and Eminent Domain for more information on this matter. In August 2019, the MPWMD’s General Manager issued a report that recommends that the MPWMD board, among other things, (1) evaluate whether the acquisition of the Monterey system assets by the MPWMD is in the public interest and sufficiently satisfies the criterion of “feasible” as provided in Measure J, (2) ensure there is significant potential for cost savings before agreeing to commence an acquisition, and (3) develop more fully alternate operating plans before deciding whether to consider a Resolution of Necessity.

On October 7, 2020, the MPWMD issued a FEIR for the potential acquisition of the Monterey system assets, and on November 4, 2020, the MPWMD certified the FEIR, which purports to analyze the environmental impacts of the MPWMD’s project to (1) acquire the Monterey system assets through the power of eminent domain, if necessary, and (2) expand its geographic boundaries to include all parts of this system. On November 25, 2020, Cal Am filed a petition for writ of mandate in Monterey County Superior Court challenging certification of the FEIR, alleging that the MPWMD’s analysis of environmental impacts was inadequate and that certification was improper. A hearing on the matter was held on August 30, 2021, and on November 19, 2021, the court denied Cal Am’s petition.

West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill

See Note 17—Commitments and Contingencies—Contingencies—West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the final court approval of the global settlement with respect to the January 2014 Freedom Industries, Inc. chemical spill.

Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action Litigation

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by West Virginia-American Water Company, the Company’s West Virginia subsidiary (“WVAWC”). The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored on July 1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event.

Table of Contents

On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC’s facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage.

In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying the issues class. On January 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a decision issued in another case relating to the class certification issues raised on appeal. On July 16, 2021, oral argument was heard by the Circuit Court on the issue of addressing the Supreme Court of Appeals’ remand. This matter remains pending.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint and WVAWC will continue to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

Chattanooga, Tennessee Class Action Litigation

On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company, the Company’s Tennessee subsidiary (“TAWC”), experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019.

On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and Service Company (collectively, the “Tennessee-American Water Defendants”), on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident (the “Tennessee Plaintiffs”). The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ claims in their complaint, except for the breach of contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been engaging in discovery. The court has entered an agreed scheduling order, which sets a hearing in October 2022 to address the question of class certification.

TAWC and the Company believe that TAWC has meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint, and TAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations.

Other Matters

On April 2, 2021, American Water Resources, LLC (“AWR”), which, prior to the Closing Date was one of the indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries comprising the Company’s former HOS operations, received a grand jury subpoena in connection with an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (the “EDNY”). The subpoena seeks documents regarding AWR’s operations and its contractor network in the New York City metropolitan area.

In connection with the sale of the HOS operations to the Buyer (including all of the Company’s equity interests in AWR), the Company, AWR and the Buyer entered into a Common Interest and Cooperation Agreement (the “Cooperation Agreement”), dated as of the Closing Date, which facilitates a common defense for, and the sharing of information concerning, the EDNY investigation and any legal or regulatory inquiries or proceedings related to or resulting from it or the subject matter in the subpoena (collectively, the “Covered Matters”). The Company, on behalf of AWR, is required to defend any Covered Matter, using commercially reasonable efforts to resolve it on a reasonably expedient basis. Further, the Company is required to consult with the Buyer in specified circumstances and obtain its prior written consent (which consent may not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed) before entering into any resolution of any Covered Matter that imposes non-monetary provisions or undertakings or any other terms for which there will be no indemnification under the Cooperation Agreement. In addition, for the period from the Closing Date to March 9, 2025, the Company is required to indemnify the Buyer for any monetary losses or out-of-pocket damages (as described in the Cooperation Agreement) incurred by the Buyer or certain of the HOS subsidiaries to the extent directly arising in connection with, or directly resulting from, any Covered Matter.

Table of Contents

Based on the subpoena and discussions with the EDNY, the investigation does not appear to be focused on the Company, and the Company is cooperating fully with the investigation. While it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the investigation or determine the amount, if any, of fines, penalties or other liabilities that may be incurred in connection with it, the Company does not currently believe that the investigation will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

General

Periodically, the Company is involved in other proceedings or litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than those proceedings described in this Item 3—Legal Proceedings, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially affect its financial position or results of operations. However, litigation and other proceedings are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that some litigation and other proceedings could be decided unfavorably to the Company, and that any such unfavorable decisions could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.