Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Contingencies
Contingencies	21. Contingencies Ball is subject to numerous lawsuits, claims or proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business, including actions related to product liability; personal injury; the use and performance of company products; warranty matters; patent, trademark or other intellectual property infringement; contractual liability; the conduct of the company’s business; tax reporting in domestic and non-U.S. jurisdictions; workplace safety and environmental and other matters. The company has also been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several waste disposal sites under U.S. federal and related state environmental statutes and regulations and may have joint and several liability for any investigation and remediation costs incurred with respect to such sites. In addition, the company has received claims alleging that employees in certain plants have suffered damages due to exposure to alleged workplace hazards. Some of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings involve substantial amounts, including as described below, and some of the environmental proceedings involve potential monetary costs or sanctions that may be material. Ball has denied liability with respect to many of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings and is vigorously defending such lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company carries various forms of commercial, property and casualty, and other forms of insurance; however, such insurance may not be applicable or adequate to cover the costs associated with a judgment against Ball with respect to these lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company estimates that potential liabilities for all currently known and estimable environmental matters are approximately $24 million in the aggregate, and such amounts have been included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities at September 30, 2023. In February 2012, Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (BMBCC) filed an action against Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Crown) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the Court) seeking a declaratory judgment that the manufacture, sale and use of certain ends by BMBCC and its customers do not infringe certain claims of Crown’s U.S. patents. Crown subsequently filed a counterclaim alleging infringement of certain claims in these patents seeking unspecified monetary damages, fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a claim construction order at the end of December 2015 and held a scheduling conference on February 10, 2016, to determine the timeline for future steps in the litigation. The case was stayed by mutual agreement of the parties into the third quarter of 2016, during which Crown made preparations for its discovery with respect to certain ends previously produced by Rexam’s U.S. subsidiary, Rexam Beverage Can Company (RBCC). Such discovery began during the first half of 2017 and concluded in the fourth quarter of 2018. The parties attempted to mediate the case on August 1, 2017, but no progress was made, and the case continued as scheduled. In December 2018, BMBCC and RBCC filed a motion for summary judgment that the Crown patents at issue are invalid and that the applicable ends supplied by BMBCC and RBCC did not infringe the patents. Crown did not file a motion for summary judgment. On June 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order sustaining the BMBCC/RBCC motion as to invalidity, declining to rule on the other grounds as moot, and indicating that an expanded opinion and an appealable order would be forthcoming. The expanded opinion was docketed on July 22, 2019. The final, appealable order was issued by the Court on September 25, 2019, and the expanded opinion was unsealed. On October 22, 2019, Crown filed a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the Court to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 31, 2020, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The District Court held a telephonic hearing with counsel for the parties in March 2021 to discuss the scope of the proceedings on remand and initial position statements regarding remand which was submitted by each party. The District Court also directed each party to submit a document in response to the initial position statements of the other party in April 2021. The parties submitted their position statements to the District Court on April 21, 2021. On August 25, 2021, the Court issued its order regarding the further proceedings permitting each party to submit supplemental expert reports and depositions of the experts. On September 9, 2021, the parties submitted a Submission Regarding Scheduling in which most issues were agreed, but the Court was requested to resolve a disagreement regarding the process and timing for the submission of each expert’s report and the deposition of the experts. The Court issued its Order resolving the disagreement on August 12, 2022, and issued a further Scheduling Order on August 30, 2022, that outlines the litigation process and schedule for the proceedings on remand over the following twelve months. On March 10, 2023, Ball filed its renewed Motion for Summary Judgment based on indefiniteness with the Court. Crown subsequently filed a surreply brief on the motion to which Ball responded, and Crown requested leave to file its own motion for summary judgment on indefiniteness, which was opposed by Ball. On August 2, 2023, the Court granted Ball’s motion for summary judgment and found that the relevant patents are invalid because of indefiniteness. Based on the information available at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. A former Rexam Personal Care site in Annecy, France, was found in 2003 to be contaminated following a leak of chlorinated solvents (TCE) from an underground feedline. The site underwent extensive investigation and an active remediation treatment system was put in place in 2006. The business operating from the site was sold to Albea in 2013 and in turn to a French company CATIDOM (operating as Reboul). Reboul vacated the site in September 2014, and the site reverted back to Rexam during the first quarter of 2015. As part of the site closure regulatory requirements, a regulatory permit (Prefectoral Order) was issued in June 2016, which included requirements to undertake a cost-benefit analysis and pilot studies of further treatment for the known residual solvent contamination following the shutdown of the current on-site treatment system. A management plan based on the findings of this analysis was proposed to the French environmental authorities in 2018. Following discussions with the authorities, the final proposals for remediation works and subsequent monitoring have been agreed and were included in a Prefectural Order issued by the French Authorities in December 2022. Contracts have also recently been signed with the preferred supplier of the remedial works and those works commenced in the first half of 2023. Based on the information available at this time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. The company’s operations in Brazil are involved in various governmental assessments, which have historically mainly related to claims for taxes on the internal transfer of inventory, gross revenue taxes, and indirect tax incentives and deductibility of goodwill. In addition, one of the company’s Brazilian subsidiaries received an income tax assessment focused on the disallowance of deductions associated with the acquisition price paid to a third party for a portion of its operations. The company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially impact its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Under customary local regulations, the company’s Brazilian subsidiaries may need to post cash or other collateral if the process to challenge any administrative assessment proceeds to the Brazilian court system; however, the level of any potential cash or collateral required would not significantly impact the liquidity of those subsidiaries or Ball Corporation. On October 7, 2021, the French Autorité de la concurrence (the French Competition Authority or “FCA”) issued a statement of objections to 14 trade associations, one public entity and 101 legal entities from 28 corporate groups, including the company, other leading metal can manufacturers, certain can fillers and certain retailers in France. The FCA alleged violations of Articles 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and L.420-1 of the French Commercial Code. The statement of objections alleges, among other things, anti-competitive behavior in connection with the removal of bisphenol-A from metal packaging in France. The removal of bisphenol-A was mandated by French legislation that went into effect in 2015. If the FCA finds that the company violated competition law, the FCA may levy fines. The oral hearing in the matter took place in January this year and the first instance decision is likely to be made late this year or Q1 of 2024. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome, and the company is vigorously defending against the allegations in the statement of objections.

Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

21. Contingencies

Ball is subject to numerous lawsuits, claims or proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business, including actions related to product liability; personal injury; the use and performance of company products; warranty matters; patent, trademark or other intellectual property infringement; contractual liability; the conduct of the company’s business; tax reporting in domestic and non-U.S. jurisdictions; workplace safety and environmental and other matters. The company has also been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several waste disposal sites under U.S. federal and related state environmental statutes and regulations and may have joint and several liability for any investigation and remediation costs incurred with respect to such sites. In addition, the company has received claims alleging that employees in certain plants have suffered damages due to exposure to alleged workplace hazards. Some of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings involve substantial amounts, including as described below, and some of the environmental proceedings involve potential monetary costs or sanctions that may be material. Ball has denied liability with respect to many of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings and is vigorously defending such lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company carries various forms of commercial, property and casualty, and other forms of insurance; however, such insurance may not be applicable or adequate to cover the costs associated with a judgment against Ball with respect to these lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company estimates that potential liabilities for all currently known and estimable environmental matters are approximately $24 million in the aggregate, and such amounts have been included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities at September 30, 2023.

In February 2012, Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (BMBCC) filed an action against Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Crown) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the Court) seeking a declaratory judgment that the manufacture, sale and use of certain ends by BMBCC and its customers do not infringe certain claims of Crown’s U.S. patents. Crown subsequently filed a counterclaim alleging infringement of certain claims in these patents seeking unspecified monetary damages, fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a claim construction order at the end of December 2015 and held a scheduling conference on February 10, 2016, to determine the timeline for future steps in the litigation. The case was stayed by mutual agreement of the parties into the third quarter of 2016, during which Crown made preparations for its discovery with respect to certain ends previously produced by Rexam’s U.S. subsidiary, Rexam Beverage Can Company (RBCC). Such discovery began during the first half of 2017 and concluded in the fourth quarter of 2018. The parties attempted to mediate the case on August 1, 2017, but no progress was made, and the case continued as scheduled. In December 2018, BMBCC and RBCC filed a motion for summary judgment that the Crown patents at issue are invalid and that the applicable ends supplied by BMBCC and RBCC did not infringe the patents. Crown did not file a motion for summary judgment. On June 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order sustaining the BMBCC/RBCC motion as to invalidity, declining to rule on the other grounds as moot, and indicating that an expanded opinion and an appealable order would be forthcoming. The expanded opinion was docketed on July 22, 2019. The final, appealable order was issued by the Court on September 25, 2019, and the expanded opinion was unsealed. On October 22, 2019, Crown filed a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the Court to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 31, 2020, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The District Court held a telephonic hearing with counsel for the parties in March 2021 to discuss the scope of the proceedings on remand and initial position statements regarding remand which was submitted by each party. The District Court also directed each party to submit a document in response to the initial position statements of the other party in April 2021. The parties submitted their position statements to the District Court on April 21, 2021. On August 25, 2021, the Court issued its order regarding the further proceedings permitting each party to submit supplemental expert reports and depositions of the experts. On September 9, 2021, the parties submitted a Submission Regarding Scheduling in which most issues were agreed, but the Court was requested to resolve a disagreement regarding the process and timing for the submission of each expert’s report and the deposition of the experts. The Court issued its Order resolving the disagreement on August 12, 2022, and issued a further Scheduling Order on August 30, 2022, that outlines the litigation process and schedule for the proceedings on remand over the following twelve months. On March 10, 2023, Ball filed its renewed Motion for Summary Judgment based on indefiniteness with the Court. Crown subsequently filed a surreply brief on the motion to which Ball responded, and Crown requested leave to file its own motion for summary judgment on indefiniteness, which was opposed by Ball. On August 2, 2023, the Court granted Ball’s motion for summary judgment and found that the relevant patents are invalid because of indefiniteness. Based on the information available at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

A former Rexam Personal Care site in Annecy, France, was found in 2003 to be contaminated following a leak of chlorinated solvents (TCE) from an underground feedline. The site underwent extensive investigation and an active remediation treatment system was put in place in 2006. The business operating from the site was sold to Albea in 2013 and in turn to a French company CATIDOM (operating as Reboul). Reboul vacated the site in September 2014, and the site reverted back to Rexam during the first quarter of 2015. As part of the site closure regulatory requirements, a regulatory permit (Prefectoral Order) was issued in June 2016, which included requirements to undertake a cost-benefit analysis and pilot studies of further treatment for the known residual solvent contamination following the shutdown of the current on-site treatment system. A management plan based on the findings of this analysis was proposed to the French environmental authorities in 2018. Following discussions with the authorities, the final proposals for remediation works and subsequent monitoring have been agreed and were included in a Prefectural Order issued by the French Authorities in December 2022. Contracts have also recently been signed with the preferred supplier of the remedial works and those works commenced in the first half of 2023. Based on the information available at this time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

The company’s operations in Brazil are involved in various governmental assessments, which have historically mainly related to claims for taxes on the internal transfer of inventory, gross revenue taxes, and indirect tax incentives and deductibility of goodwill. In addition, one of the company’s Brazilian subsidiaries received an income tax assessment focused on the disallowance of deductions associated with the acquisition price paid to a third party for a portion of its operations. The company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially impact its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Under customary local regulations, the company’s Brazilian subsidiaries may need to post cash or other collateral if the process to challenge any administrative assessment proceeds to the

Brazilian court system; however, the level of any potential cash or collateral required would not significantly impact the liquidity of those subsidiaries or Ball Corporation.

On October 7, 2021, the French Autorité de la concurrence (the French Competition Authority or “FCA”) issued a statement of objections to 14 trade associations, one public entity and 101 legal entities from 28 corporate groups, including the company, other leading metal can manufacturers, certain can fillers and certain retailers in France. The FCA alleged violations of Articles 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and L.420-1 of the French Commercial Code. The statement of objections alleges, among other things, anti-competitive behavior in connection with the removal of bisphenol-A from metal packaging in France. The removal of bisphenol-A was mandated by French legislation that went into effect in 2015. If the FCA finds that the company violated competition law, the FCA may levy fines. The oral hearing in the matter took place in January this year and the first instance decision is likely to be made late this year or Q1 of 2024. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome, and the company is vigorously defending against the allegations in the statement of objections.