Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

| --- | --- |

On January 26, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) naming as defendants Costa Crociere S.p.A., Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc (Gary Lobaton v. Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc and Costa Crociere S.p.A.). The defendants have been served with the action. The plaintiff purports to represent an alleged class of the passengers and crew of Costa Concordia who were on board the ship during the ship incident in January 2012. The complaint alleges the defendants violated the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, breached contracts with employees and passengers and acted negligently. The plaintiff also alleges unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary and punitive damages, interests and costs, among other things.

On May 3, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc, Costa Crociere S.p.A. and Costa Cruise Lines, Inc. (Giglio Sub v. Carnival Corporation). The defendants have been served with the action. The plaintiffs are a purported class of business owners and wage earners on Giglio Island in Italy who claim they have been injured as a result of the ship incident in January 2012. The plaintiffs allege negligence, gross negligence and nuisance against the defendants. The complaint seeks monetary damages in the amount of $75 million, punitive damages, interests, costs and an injunction that future travel near Giglio Island will be conducted at safe distances. On September 26, 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims to Italy based on the forum non conveniens doctrine. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which is pending.

On June 25, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Costa Crociere S.p.A., Micky Arison, Howard Frank, Arnold Donald, Joseph Farcus, and Joseph Farcus, Architect, P.A. (Sandoval v. Carnival Corporation). The defendants have been served with the action, although the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims against Costa Crociere S.p.A. The action was filed by two plaintiffs in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The case is scheduled for trial in June 2013.

Table of Contents

On July 5, 2012, an action was filed in the Circuit Court serving Miami-Dade County, Florida naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival Corporation & plc, Costa Cruise Lines, Inc., Costa Crociere S.p.A. and Joseph Farcus P.A. (Scimone v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have been served with the action. The plaintiffs filed the action in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The action contains claims for negligence, product liability, professional negligence and intentional tort. The complaint seeks economic and compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The plaintiffs state they will amend their complaint to state a claim for punitive damages. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and moved to dismiss to Italy based on forum non conveniens and the forum selection clauses in certain of the plaintiffs’ Passage Ticket Contracts. The case is scheduled for trial in 2014.

On July 5, 2012, an action was filed in the Circuit Court serving Miami-Dade County, Florida naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival Corporation & plc, Costa Cruise Lines, Inc., Costa Crociere S.p.A. and Joseph Farcus P.A. (Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have been served with the action. The plaintiffs filed the action in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The action contains claims for maritime negligence, gross negligence, negligence-product defect as to Carnival Corporation, professional negligence in ship design, intentional failure to warn, intentional failure to abandon ship, intentional failure to notify authorities, corporate policies and practice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent retention, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement. The complaint seeks economic and compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The plaintiffs state they will amend their complaint to state a claim for punitive damages. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and moved to dismiss to Italy based on forum non conveniens and the forum selection clauses in certain of the plaintiffs’ Passage Ticket Contracts.

On July 13, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival Corporation & plc, Costa Cruise Lines, Inc., and Costa Crociere S.p.A (Warrick v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have been served with the action. The plaintiffs, consisting of five U.S. citizens, filed the action in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. Three of the plaintiffs were passengers on the ship and they assert claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, maritime negligence, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, fraudulent inducement and deceptive trade practices arising out of the incident, as well as vicarious liability and actual and apparent agency. The remaining two plaintiffs did not sail because one did not have the required visa and the other opted to also stay behind. These two plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks economic and compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims to Italy based on forum non conveniens and the forum selection clauses in the plaintiffs’ Passage Ticket Contracts.

On September 4, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Costa Cruise Lines Inc., and Costa Crociere S.p.A. (Perez v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have been served with the action. The plaintiffs, consisting of 154 individuals, filed the action in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The action seeks damages for negligence, negligent retention, and negligent training (against Carnival Corporation only). The defendants moved to dismiss to Italy based on the forum non conveniens doctrine and the forum selection clauses in certain of the plaintiffs’ Passage Ticket Contracts.

On January 9, 2013, an action was filed in the Circuit Court serving Miami-Dade County naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc, Costa Crociere S.p.A. and Costa Cruise Lines, Inc. (Gual v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have not yet been served with the action. The plaintiffs, consisting of ten Spanish citizens, filed the action in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The plaintiffs’ claims are for maritime negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, negligent training, gross negligence, intentional tortious conduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death under Florida law and breach of contract.

On January 11, 2013, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival Corporation & plc, Costa Cruise Lines, Inc., and Costa Crociere S.p.A. (Ankhimova v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have not yet been served with the action. The action was filed by two plaintiffs in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The action seeks damages for negligence, negligent retention, negligent training, gross negligence, maritime negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of services.

On January 11, 2013, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc, Costa Crociere S.p.A. and Costa Cruise Lines, Inc. (Lynch v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have not yet been served with the action. The action was filed by two plaintiffs in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The action seeks damages for maritime tort, deceptive trade practice under California Civil Code, intentional tort, fraud in the inducement and punitive conduct, breach of contract, gross negligence and false advertising and deceptive trade practices under California’s Business and Professions Code.

Table of Contents

On January 14, 2013, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming as defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc, Costa Crociere S.p.A. and John Does 1-10 (King v. Carnival Corp.). The defendants have not yet been served with the action. The action was filed by two plaintiffs in connection with the ship incident in January 2012. The action seeks damages for violation of the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, punitive damages, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision and gross negligence.

On January 24, 2013, Costa was notified by the Chief Prosecutor of Grosseto, Italy of his intention to seek to charge Costa pursuant to Section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 (“Law 231”) for acts committed by its employees in connection with the Costa Concordia incident. If the prosecutor proceeds, he will be required to present his evidence against Costa to a court in a preliminary hearing to be held in the spring of 2013. If the court finds sufficient evidence to support a claim against Costa, the court will order a formal trial that would be expected to commence in the fall of 2013. We believe Costa has meritorious defenses to the claims under Law 231 and that any liability that may arise as a result of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial results.