LITIGATION

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

LITIGATION

LITIGATION

In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of actual and potential claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, raw materials used in our products, personal injury, environmental (including alleged natural resource damages), intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims, that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. Uncertainties to which litigation is inherently subject include, among other things, costs, unpredictable court or jury decisions that could affect other litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings, and differing laws and regulations in jurisdictions where the Company operates. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the avoidance or reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that a loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In matters where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability will be incurred or the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those matters where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred.

Due to the uncertainties involved in claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings, management is unable to predict the outcome of the matters identified below, the number or nature of possible future claims, lawsuits, and proceedings, or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on such matters or the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such matters, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. We currently have not accrued any amounts for the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation identified below because the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss will occur, or the Company believes it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. Due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flow, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been

based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. Other than currently pending cases and the California Proceedings, identified in the Public Nuisance Claim Litigation section, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful. The Company is vigorously defending all lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any additional litigation that may be filed, including utilizing all avenues of appeal, if necessary.

Public Nuisance Claim Litigation. The Company and other companies have been defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by various states, cities and counties, including by the State of Rhode Island; the City of St. Louis, Missouri; various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey; various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio; the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the County of Santa Clara, California and other public entities in the State of California (the California Proceedings); and Lehigh and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. Except for the California Proceedings in which the Company reached a court-approved agreement in 2019 after nearly twenty years of litigation, all of those legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. Most recently, on May 7, 2024, as further described below in Wisconsin Litigation, three plaintiffs filed amended complaints alleging, in part, public nuisance claims.

Wisconsin Litigation. The Company and other companies are or have been defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. The current proceedings consist of two federal court cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Ernest Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al. and Deziree and Detareion Valoe v. American Cyanamid, et. al.) and one case pending in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin (Arrieona Beal v. Armstrong Containers, Inc., et al.). Those matters include claims by four individuals allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint while they were minors. The plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages and have invoked Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory (which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff.

In the Gibson and Valoe cases, which are pending in federal court, the three individual plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May 7, 2024, alleging strict liability, negligence and public nuisance claims. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints on June 20, 2024. On November 8, 2024, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaints, dismissing the second cause of action for general negligence and plaintiffs’ abatement allegations, but otherwise permitting the case to proceed. On December 6, 2024, the Company and some of the other defendants filed a third-party complaint against NL Industries, Inc. (NL) and the owners and landlords of the properties where the Gibson and Valoe plaintiffs resided. On January 30, 2025, the federal court entered a stipulated order dismissing NL pursuant to the execution of a Pierringer release settlement agreement between plaintiffs and NL where the plaintiffs have agreed to indemnify NL against claims for contribution from the Company and some of the other defendants. Some of the owners and landlords filed motions to dismiss the third-party complaints, which motions the federal court denied on September 4, 2025. The parties in the Gibson case continue to conduct discovery, which is scheduled to be completed by December 15, 2026. In the Valoe case, on April 6, 2026, the federal court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to stay all proceedings and vacated all case deadlines pending the resolution of certain issues raised by opposing counsel related to one of the plaintiffs.

In the Beal case, which is pending in state court, on August 24, 2021, Arrieona Beal filed an amended complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, naming the Company and other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers as defendants pursuant to the risk contribution liability theory. The plaintiff previously had sued her landlords. On January 3, 2024, the Company and some of the other manufacturing defendants filed a third-party complaint against NL and cross-claims against the landlord defendants. On January 10, 2024, one of the landlord defendants filed a counterclaim and cross-claim against all parties. On February 27, 2025, landlord defendants Hattie and Jerry Mitchell were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to the execution of a Pierringer release settlement agreement between plaintiff and the landlord defendants where the plaintiff has agreed to

indemnify the landlord defendants against claims for contribution from the Company and the other defendants. As of July 2026, the Company and each of the other remaining parties have filed motions for summary judgment.

Other matters. On December 18, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund (collectively, the NJ DEP) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division in Camden County, New Jersey. The NJ DEP seeks to recover natural resource damages, punitive damages and litigation fees and costs, as well as other costs, damages, declaratory relief and penalties pursuant to New Jersey state statutes and common law theories in connection with the alleged discharge of hazardous substances and pollutants at the Company’s Gibbsboro, New Jersey site, a former manufacturing plant and related facilities. There is an ongoing discovery dispute that remains pending between the Company and the NJ DEP. The court adjourned a February 2026 trial date, and a new trial date has not yet been scheduled.

In July 2024, a third-party assurance, testing, inspection and certification provider (the Third-Party Provider) changed its listing for Firetex FX9502, one of the Company’s protective coatings products, an intumescent coating used for fire protection of steel beam assemblies. The Company has received claims regarding this matter, including from a competitor (which culminated in the false advertising claim described below), and is working with its customers and end users to assist in understanding the potential impacts of the listing change, including the extent of potential remedial action that may involve application of additional product. The Company is also investigating potential inaccuracies for certain other Firetex intumescent products arising out of tests conducted on those products by the Third-Party Provider. Additionally, the Company is investigating issues in connection with its Firetex Design Estimator software in which, for certain intumescent products, the software recommended under-estimated dry film thicknesses (DFT), or estimated DFTs that were in excess of published maximum DFTs, for which the Company has also received claims. The Company’s review of these matters is ongoing.

On September 2, 2025, Carboline Global Inc. (Carboline) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Eastern District of Missouri, which alleges that the Company violated the Lanham Act by disseminating false advertisements related to Firetex FX9502, an intumescent coating used for fire protection of steel beam assemblies. Carboline’s claim arises from a change to the product’s listing by the Third-Party Provider. Carboline seeks actual damages, treble damages, fees and costs, and injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss Carboline’s complaint on October 24, 2025. Carboline filed an amended complaint on November 14, 2025, which the Company moved to dismiss on November 28, 2025.