Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including the proceedings specifically discussed below. Management

believes that, except as disclosed in “U.S. Federal Income Tax Dispute” below, the total liabilities of the Company that may arise as a result of currently pending legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company taken as a whole.

Aqua-Chem Litigation

On December 20, 2002, the Company filed a lawsuit (The Coca-Cola Company v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., Civil Action No. 2002CV631-50) in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (“Georgia Case”), seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company has no obligation to its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. (“Aqua-Chem”), for any past, present or future liabilities or expenses in connection with any claims or lawsuits against Aqua-Chem. Subsequent to the Company’s filing but on the same day, Aqua-Chem filed a lawsuit (Aqua-Chem, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Civil Action No. 02CV012179) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (“Wisconsin Case”). In the Wisconsin Case, Aqua-Chem sought a declaratory judgment that the Company is responsible for all liabilities and expenses not covered by insurance in connection with certain of Aqua-Chem’s general and product liability claims arising from occurrences prior to the Company’s sale of Aqua-Chem in 1981, and a judgment for breach of contract in an amount exceeding $9 million for costs incurred by Aqua-Chem to date in connection with such claims. The Wisconsin Case initially was stayed, pending final resolution of the Georgia Case, and later was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Aqua-Chem.

The Company owned Aqua-Chem from 1970 to 1981. During that time, the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future costs for certain product liability and other claims. The Company sold Aqua-Chem to Lyonnaise American Holding, Inc., in 1981 under the terms of a stock sale agreement. The 1981 agreement, and a subsequent 1983 settlement agreement, outlined the parties’ rights and obligations concerning past and future claims and lawsuits involving Aqua-Chem. Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem, manufactured boilers, some of which contained asbestos gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has approximately 15,000 active claims pending against it.

The parties agreed in 2004 to stay the Georgia Case pending the outcome of insurance coverage litigation filed by certain Aqua-Chem insurers on March 26, 2004. In the coverage action, five plaintiff insurance companies filed suit (Century Indemnity Company, et al. v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No. 04CV002852) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, against the Company, Aqua-Chem and 16 insurance companies. Several of the policies that were the subject of the coverage action had been issued to the Company during the period (1970 to 1981) when the Company owned Aqua-Chem. The complaint sought a determination of the respective rights and obligations under the insurance policies issued with regard to asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The action also sought a monetary

judgment reimbursing any amounts paid by the plaintiffs in excess of their obligations. Two of the insurers, one with a $15 million policy limit and one with a $25 million policy limit, asserted cross-claims against the Company, alleging that the Company and/or its insurers are responsible for Aqua-Chem’s asbestos liabilities before any obligation is triggered on the part of the cross-claimant insurers to pay for such costs under their policies.

Aqua-Chem and the Company filed and obtained a partial summary judgment determination in the coverage action that the insurers for Aqua-Chem and the Company were jointly and severally liable for coverage amounts, but reserving judgment on other defenses that might apply. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who paid funds into escrow accounts for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100% of Aqua-Chem’s losses up to policy limits. The court’s judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to pursue and obtain coverage agreements for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem with those insurance companies that did not settle in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. The Company anticipated that a final settlement with three of those insurers (“Chartis insurers”) would be finalized in May 2011, but the Chartis insurers repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce the coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company’s interpretation of the court’s judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

In February 2012, the parties filed and argued a number of cross-motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the enforceability of the settlement agreement and the exhaustion of policies underlying those of the Chartis insurers. The court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment that the 2011 Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet were not binding contracts, but denied their similar motions related to plaintiffs’ claims for promissory and/or equitable estoppel. On or about May 15, 2012, the parties entered into a mutually agreeable settlement/stipulation resolving two major issues: exhaustion of underlying coverage and control of defense. On or about January 10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of the estoppel claims and all of the remaining coverage issues, with the exception of one disputed issue relating to the scope of the Chartis insurers’ defense obligations in two policy years. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem on that one open issue and entered a final appealable judgment to that effect following the parties’ settlement. On January 23, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s summary judgment ruling. On October 29, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem. On November 27, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and on December 11, 2013, the Company filed its opposition to that petition. On April 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied the Chartis insurers’ petition for review.

The Georgia Case remains subject to the stay agreed to in 2004.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Dispute

On September 17, 2015, the Company received a Statutory Notice of Deficiency (“Notice”) from the IRS seeking approximately $3.3 billion of additional federal income tax for years 2007 through 2009. In the Notice, the IRS stated its intent to reallocate over $9 billion of income to the U.S. parent company from certain of its foreign affiliates that the U.S. parent company licensed to manufacture, distribute, sell, market and promote its products in certain non-U.S. markets.

The Notice concerned the Company’s transfer pricing between its U.S. parent company and certain of its foreign affiliates. IRS rules governing transfer pricing require arm’s-length pricing of transactions between related parties such as the Company’s U.S. parent and its foreign affiliates.

To resolve the same transfer pricing issue for the tax years 1987 through 1995, the Company and the IRS had agreed in 1996 on an arm’s-length methodology for determining the amount of U.S. taxable income that the U.S. parent company would report as compensation from its foreign licensees. The Company and the IRS memorialized this accord in a closing agreement resolving that dispute (“Closing Agreement”). The Closing Agreement provided that, absent a change in material facts or circumstances or relevant federal tax law, in calculating the Company’s income taxes going forward, the Company would not be assessed penalties by the IRS for using the agreed-upon tax calculation methodology that the Company and the IRS agreed would be used for the 1987 through 1995 tax years.

The IRS audited and confirmed the Company’s compliance with the agreed-upon Closing Agreement methodology in five successive audit cycles for tax years 1996 through 2006.

The September 17, 2015, Notice from the IRS retroactively rejected the previously agreed-upon methodology for the 2007 through 2009 tax years in favor of an entirely different methodology, without prior notice to the Company. Using the new tax calculation methodology, the IRS reallocated over $9 billion of income to the U.S. parent company from its foreign licensees for tax years 2007 through 2009. Consistent with the Closing Agreement, the IRS did not assert penalties, and it has yet to do so.

The IRS designated the Company’s matter for litigation on October 15, 2015. Litigation designation is an IRS determination that forecloses to a company any and all alternative means for resolution of a tax dispute. As a result of the IRS’ designation of the Company’s matter for litigation, the Company was forced to either accept the IRS’ newly imposed tax assessment and pay the full amount of the asserted tax or litigate the matter in the federal courts. The matter remains subject to the IRS’ litigation designation, preventing the Company from any attempt to settle or otherwise mutually resolve the matter with the IRS.

The Company consequently initiated litigation by filing a petition in the Tax Court in December 2015, challenging the tax adjustments enumerated in the Notice.

Prior to trial, the IRS increased its transfer pricing adjustment by $385 million, resulting in an additional tax adjustment of $135 million. The Company obtained a summary judgment in its favor on a different matter related to Mexican foreign tax credits, which thereafter effectively reduced the IRS’ potential tax adjustment by $138 million.

The trial was held in the Tax Court from March through May 2018, and final post-trial briefs were filed and exchanged in April 2019.

On November 18, 2020, the Tax Court issued the Opinion in which it predominantly sided with the IRS but agreed with the Company that dividends previously paid by the foreign licensees to the U.S. parent company in reliance upon the Closing Agreement should continue to be allowed to offset royalties, including those that would become payable to the Company in accordance with the Opinion. On November 8, 2023, the Tax Court issued a supplemental opinion, siding with the IRS in concluding both that the blocked-income regulations apply to the Company’s operations and that the Tax Court opinion in 3M Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner (February 9, 2023) controlled as to the validity of those regulations.

The Company believes that the IRS and the Tax Court misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable regulations in reallocating income earned by the Company’s foreign licensees to increase the Company’s U.S. tax. Moreover, the Company believes that the retroactive imposition of such tax liability using a calculation methodology different from that previously agreed upon by the IRS and the Company, and audited by the IRS for over a decade, is unconstitutional. The Company intends to assert its claims on appeal and vigorously defend its position.

In determining the amount of tax reserve to be recorded as of December 31, 2020, the Company completed the required two-step evaluation process prescribed by Accounting Standards Codification 740, Accounting for Income Taxes. In doing so, we consulted with outside advisors, and we reviewed and considered relevant laws, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Opinions and relevant caselaw. We also considered our intention to vigorously defend our positions and assert our various well-founded legal claims via every available avenue of appeal. We concluded, based on the technical and legal merits of the Company’s tax positions, that it is more likely than not the Company’s tax positions will ultimately be sustained on appeal. In addition, we considered a number of alternative transfer pricing methodologies, including the methodology asserted by the IRS and affirmed in the Opinions (“Tax Court Methodology”), that could be applied by the courts upon final resolution of the litigation. Based on the required probability analysis, we determined the methodologies we believe the federal courts could ultimately order to be used in calculating the Company’s tax. As a result of this analysis, we recorded a tax reserve of $438 million during the year ended December 31, 2020 related to the application of the resulting methodologies as well as the different tax treatment applicable to dividends originally paid to the U.S. parent company by its foreign licensees, in reliance upon the Closing Agreement, that would be recharacterized as royalties in accordance with the Opinions and the Company’s analysis.

The Company’s conclusion that it is more likely than not the Company’s tax positions will ultimately be sustained on appeal is unchanged as of December 31, 2023. However, we updated our calculation of the methodologies we believe the federal courts could ultimately order to be used in calculating the Company’s tax. As a result of the application of the required probability analysis to these updated calculations and the accrual of interest through the current reporting period, we updated our tax reserve as of December 31, 2023 to $439 million.

While the Company strongly disagrees with the IRS’ positions and the portions of the Opinions affirming such positions, it is possible that some portion or all of the adjustment proposed by the IRS and sustained by the Tax Court could ultimately be upheld. In that event, the Company would likely be subject to significant additional liabilities for tax years 2007 through 2009, and potentially also for subsequent years, which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company calculated the potential impact of applying the Tax Court Methodology to reallocate income from foreign licensees potentially covered within the scope of the Opinions, assuming such methodology were to be ultimately upheld by the

courts, and the IRS were to decide to apply that methodology to subsequent years, with consent of the federal courts. This impact would include taxes and interest accrued through December 31, 2023 for the 2007 through 2009 litigated tax years and for subsequent tax years from 2010 through 2023. The calculations incorporated the estimated impact of correlative adjustments to the previously accrued transition tax payable under the Tax Reform Act. The Company estimates that the potential aggregate incremental tax and interest liability could be approximately $16 billion as of December 31, 2023. Additional income tax and interest would continue to accrue until the time any such potential liability, or portion thereof, were to be paid. We currently project the continued application of the Tax Court Methodology in future years, assuming similar facts and circumstances as of December 31, 2023, would result in an incremental annual tax liability that would increase the Company’s effective tax rate by approximately 3.5%.

The Company and the IRS are now in the process of agreeing on the tax impacts of the Opinions. Subsequent to the completion of this process, the Tax Court will render a decision in the case. The Company will have 90 days thereafter to file a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The IRS will then seek to collect, and the Company expects to pay, any additional tax related to the 2007 through 2009 tax years reflected in the Tax Court decision (and interest thereon). The Company currently estimates that the payment to be made at that time related to the 2007 through 2009 tax years, which is included in the above estimate of the potential aggregate incremental tax and interest liability, would be approximately $5.8 billion (including interest accrued through December 31, 2023), plus any additional interest accrued through the time of payment. Some or all of this amount, plus accrued interest, would be refunded if the Company were to prevail on appeal.