In the ordinary course of its business operations, the Company enters into arrangements that obligate it to make future payments under contracts such as lease agreements. Additionally, the Company is involved, from time to time, in commercial litigation, employment disputes, administrative proceedings, business disputes and other legal proceedings. The Company has established accruals for certain proceedings based on an assessment of probability of loss. The Company believes that any such currently-pending proceedings are either covered by insurance or would not have a material effect on the business or its consolidated financial statements if decided in a manner that is unfavorable to the Company. Such proceedings are exclusive of environmental remediation matters which are discussed separately below.

The Company is currently defending a number of product liability lawsuits arising out of vehicle collisions with highway barriers incorporating the Company’s X-Lite® end terminal. Despite the September 2018 reversal of a sizable judgment against a competitor and the October 2023 dismissal of the FCA Lawsuit (as defined below), the Company

expects that the significant attention brought to the infrastructure products industry by the original judgment may lead to additional lawsuits being filed against the Company and others in the industry.

Following the March 2019 filing of a qui tam lawsuit (as amended, the “FCA Lawsuit”) by an individual relator (the “Relator”) on behalf of the United States and twelve individual states, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (the “U.S. District Court”), the Department of Justice, Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York (the “U.S. Attorney’s Office”) proceeded to initiate an investigation into the Relator’s allegations relating to the Company's X-Lite end terminal and potential violations of the False Claims Act. On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office submitted a letter motion (the “Letter Motion”) informing the U.S. District Court that the United States had investigated the Relator’s allegations and now sought to move to dismiss the FCA Lawsuit as it had “determined that dismissal is commensurate with the public interest because the claims lack merit and the matter does not warrant the continued expenditure of resources to pursue or monitor the action.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office also noted that it had “been advised by counsel for the twelve states that the states [had] no objection to the U.S. District Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and to dismissing those claims without prejudice to the states.” On October 2, 2023, the U.S. District Court granted the Letter Motion and indicated that a motion to dismiss could be filed without further order or pre-motion conference. On October 12, 2023, after the Relator proceeded to file his own notice of voluntary dismissal, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed its notice of consent to the Relator’s voluntary dismissal. On October 26, 2023, the U.S. District Court ordered the dismissal of the FCA Lawsuit without prejudice as to the Relator, the United States, and each of the 12 state plaintiffs.

On November 27, 2023, following the dismissal of the Relator’s FCA Lawsuit, the Relator filed under seal subsequent qui tam lawsuits on behalf of each of the States of Tennessee and California against the Company, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain third parties which originally designed the X-Lite end terminal. The Tennessee lawsuit (the “Tennessee FATA Lawsuit”) was filed in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, Nashville, Tennessee (the “Tennessee Circuit Court”), and the California lawsuit (the “California FATA Lawsuit”) was filed in the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County (the “California Superior Court”). Both lawsuits make substantially similar allegations as those originally made in the FCA Lawsuit with respect to the Company’s X-Lite end terminal and potential violations of each state’s respective Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. The State of Tennessee filed under seal a notice of its election to decline to intervene on March 26, 2024, the Tennessee Circuit Court ordered the Tennessee FATA Lawsuit unsealed later in 2024, and the Company learned of the Tennessee FATA Lawsuit when it and its named subsidiaries were served in June 2024. The State of California similarly filed under seal a notice of its election to decline to intervene on September 13, 2024, the California Superior Court ordered the California FATA Lawsuit unsealed in 2025, and the Company learned of the California FATA Lawsuit when it and its named subsidiaries were served in June 2025.

The Company, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain third parties which originally designed the X-Lite end terminal have also been named in a lawsuit filed on June 9, 2020 in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri by Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (“MHTC”). MHTC alleges, among other things, that the X-Lite end terminal was defectively designed and failed to perform as designed, intended, and advertised, leading to MHTC’s removal and replacement of X-Lite end terminals from Missouri’s roadways. MHTC alleges strict liability (defective design and failure to warn), negligence, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties (merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose), fraud, and public nuisance. MHTC seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages.

The Company believes it has meritorious factual and legal defenses to each of the lawsuits discussed above and is prepared to vigorously defend its interests. Based on the information currently available to the Company, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable in any of these lawsuits; therefore, no accrual has been included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. While it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred, the Company is unable to estimate a range of potential loss due to the complexity and current status of these lawsuits. However, the Company maintains insurance coverage to mitigate the impact of adverse exposures in these lawsuits and does not expect that these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its business or its consolidated financial statements.

In previous years, the Company committed to a plan to remediate environmental contamination of the groundwater at and adjacent to its Lindsay, Nebraska facility (the “site”). The current estimated aggregate accrued cost of $10.6 million is based on consideration of remediation options which the Company believes could be successful in meeting the long-term regulatory requirements of the site. The Company submitted a revised remedial alternatives evaluation

report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (the “NDEE”) in August 2020 to review remediation alternatives and proposed plans for the site. While the proposed remediation plan is preliminary and has not been approved by the EPA or the NDEE, they approved an in situ thermal remediation pilot study that was conducted by the Company at a specific location on the site. The Company completed the pilot program in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2023. A final report was submitted to the EPA and NDEE for review in November 2023. The Company continues to work with the EPA and the NDEE on finalizing the proposed remediation plans for the site. Of the total liability as of August 31, 2025 and 2024, $8.0 million was calculated on a discounted basis using a discount rate of 1.2 percent, which represents a risk-free rate. This discounted portion of the liability amounts to $9.1 million on an undiscounted basis at August 31, 2025 and 2024.

The Company accrues the anticipated cost of investigation and remediation when the obligation is probable and can be reasonably estimated. While the plan has not been formally approved by the EPA, the Company believes the current accrual is a good faith estimate of the long-term cost of remediation at this site; however, the estimate of costs and their timing could change as a result of a number of factors, including but not limited to (1) EPA input on the proposed remediation plan and any changes which the EPA may subsequently require, (2) refinement of cost estimates and length of time required to complete remediation and post-remediation operations and maintenance, (3) effectiveness of the technology chosen in remediation of the site as well as changes in technology that may be available in the future, and (4) unforeseen circumstances existing at the site. As a result of these factors, the actual amount of costs incurred by the Company in connection with the remediation of contamination of its Lindsay, Nebraska site could exceed the amounts accrued for this expense at this time. While any revisions could be material to the operating results of any fiscal quarter or fiscal year, the Company does not expect such additional expenses would have a material adverse effect on its liquidity or financial condition.

The following table summarizes the environmental remediation liability classifications included in the consolidated balance sheets as of August 31, 2025 and 2024:


($ in thousands)	August 31,
Balance sheet location	2025		2024
Other current liabilities	$	509	$	462
Other noncurrent liabilities		10,123		10,167
Total environmental remediation liabilities	$	10,632	$	10,629