The Company is involved in certain claims, suits, and legal proceedings in the normal course of business. The Company has accrued for litigation and claims when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based upon information it currently possesses and taking into account established reserves for estimated liabilities and its insurance coverage, that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and actions is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements. It is reasonably possible, however, that some matters could be decided unfavorably to the Company and could require the Company to pay damages or make expenditures in amounts that could be material, but cannot be estimated as of June 30, 2026. Pursuant to SEC amendments Item 103 of SEC Regulation S-K, AES’ policy is to disclose environmental legal proceedings to which a government authority is a party if such proceedings are reasonably expected to result in monetary sanctions of greater than or equal to $1 million. In December 2001, Grid Corporation of Odisha (“GRIDCO”) served a notice to arbitrate pursuant to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 on the Company, AES Orissa Distribution Private Limited (“AES ODPL”), and Jyoti Structures (“Jyoti”) pursuant to the terms of the shareholders agreement between GRIDCO, the Company, AES ODPL, Jyoti and the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (“CESCO”), an affiliate of the Company. In the arbitration, GRIDCO asserted that a comfort letter issued by the Company in connection with the Company's indirect investment in CESCO obligates the Company to provide additional financial support to cover all of CESCO's financial obligations to GRIDCO. GRIDCO appeared to be seeking approximately $189 million in damages, plus undisclosed penalties and interest, but a detailed alleged damage analysis was not filed by GRIDCO. The Company counterclaimed against GRIDCO for damages. In June 2007, a 2-to-1 majority of the arbitral tribunal rendered its award rejecting GRIDCO's claims and holding that none of the respondents, the Company, AES ODPL, or Jyoti, had any liability to GRIDCO. The respondents' counterclaims were also rejected. A majority of the tribunal later awarded the respondents, including the Company, some of their costs relating to the arbitration. GRIDCO filed challenges of the tribunal's awards with the local Indian Commercial Court in Bhubaneswar (“Court”). GRIDCO's challenge of the costs award was previously dismissed by the Court. In July 2026, the Court dismissed the challenge of the liability award for GRIDCO’s default. It is unclear whether GRIDCO will seek to contest the dismissal. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts. Pursuant to their environmental audit, AES Sul and AES Florestal discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other contaminants at a pole factory that AES Florestal had been operating. The conclusion of the audit was that a prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia (“CEEE”), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. On their initiative, AES Sul and AES Florestal communicated with Brazilian authorities and CEEE about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. In March 2008, the State Attorney of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil filed a public civil action against AES Sul, AES Florestal and CEEE seeking an order requiring the companies to mitigate the contaminated area located on the grounds of the pole factory and an indemnity payment of approximately R$6 million ($1 million). In October 2011, the State Attorney filed a request for an injunction ordering the defendant companies to contain and remove the contamination immediately. The court granted injunctive relief on October 18, 2011, but determined that only CEEE was required to perform the removal work. In May 2012, CEEE began the removal work in compliance with the injunction. The case is now awaiting judgment. The removal and remediation costs are estimated to be approximately R$15 million to R$60 million ($3 million to $12 million), and there could be additional costs which cannot be estimated at this time. In June 2016, the Company sold AES Sul to CPFL Energia S.A. and as part of the sale, AES Guaiba, a holding company of AES Sul, retained the potential liability relating to this matter. The Company believes that there are meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts. In September 2015, AES Southland Development, LLC and AES Redondo Beach, LLC filed a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission (the “CCC”) over the CCC's determination that the site of AES Redondo Beach included approximately 5.93 acres of CCC-jurisdictional wetlands. The CCC has asserted that AES Redondo Beach has improperly installed and operated water pumps affecting the alleged wetlands in violation of the California Coastal Act and Redondo Beach Local Coastal Program (“LCP”). Potential outcomes of the CCC determination could include an order requiring AES Redondo Beach to perform a restoration and/or pay fines or penalties. AES Redondo Beach believes that it has meritorious arguments concerning the underlying CCC determination, but there can be no assurances that it will be successful. On March 27, 2020, AES Redondo Beach, LLC sold the site to an unaffiliated third-party purchaser that assumed the obligations contained within these proceedings. On May 26, 87 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q 2020, CCC staff sent AES an NOV directing AES to discontinue any operation of the water pumps in the alleged wetlands and to submit a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) application for the removal of the water pumps within the alleged wetlands. The NOV also directed AES to submit technical analysis regarding additional water pumps located within onsite electrical vaults and, if necessary, a CDP application for their continued operation. With respect to the vault pumps, AES provided the CCC with the requested analysis and the CCC has not required further action. With respect to the pumps in the alleged wetlands, AES locked out those pumps to prevent further operation and submitted the CDP to the permitting authority, the City of Redondo Beach (the “City”), with respect to AES’ plans to disable or remove the pumps. On October 14, 2020, the City deemed the CDP application to be complete and indicated a public hearing will be required. AES submitted all required information and waited for the City to continue processing the application. In December 2023, the City indicated it would continue processing the CDP application; AES has since followed up with the City and awaits the next phase of the permitting process. AES will vigorously defend its interests with regard to the NOV, but we cannot predict the outcome of the matter at this time. However, settlements and litigated outcomes of Coastal Act and LCP claims alleged against other companies have required them to pay significant civil penalties and undertake remedial measures. On March 23, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana approved and entered a judicial consent decree among AES Indiana, the United States on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and IDEM. The decree resolved allegations by the EPA and IDEM that AES Indiana had violated the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) at its Petersburg Station, which AES denies. Under the decree, AES Indiana agreed to certain emission limits and annual caps on NOX, SO2 and particulate matter emissions at the four Units at the station; paid a civil penalty of $1.525 million; retired Units 1 and 2, spent $325,000 on an environmentally beneficial project to preserve local, ecologically-significant lands (notice of completion of which was provided May 8, 2025 and confirmed satisfactory by IDEM on September 8, 2025); and is spending a total of $5 million on a further environmental mitigation project to build and operate a new, non-emitting source of generation at the site. In December 2018, a lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company, AES Puerto Rico, and three other AES affiliates. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 100 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths, and demands $476 million in alleged damages. The lawsuit does not identify, or provide any supporting information concerning, the alleged injuries of the claimants individually. Nor does the lawsuit provide any information supporting the demand for damages or explaining how the quantum was derived. The AES companies moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In May 2026, the relevant court of first instance in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, dismissed the entire case due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. It is unclear whether the claimants will seek to appeal the dismissal. The AES companies believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts. In February 2019, a separate lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company, AES Puerto Rico, two other AES affiliates, and an unaffiliated company and its principal. Subsequently, the claimants withdrew the lawsuit with respect to AES Puerto Rico. The lawsuit remains pending against the other AES defendants (“AES Defendants”) and the unaffiliated defendants. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 200 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2003 and 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths and demands over $900 million in alleged damages. The lawsuit does not identify, or provide any supporting information concerning, the alleged injuries of the claimants individually, nor does the lawsuit provide any information supporting the demand for damages or explaining how the quantum was derived. In August 2020, at the request of the relevant AES companies, the case was transferred to a different civil court, namely, the Civil Court of La Vega (“CFI”). In May 2024, the CFI dismissed the entire case due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. Later in 2024, the claimants appealed the dismissal to the relevant intermediate appellate court. The appellate court heard the parties’ respective oral arguments in September 2025. In May 2026, the appellate court issued a decision affirming the CFI’s ruling that the case is time-barred. In July 2026, the claimants filed an appeal with the Dominican Supreme Court of Justice. The AES Defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts. In October 2019, the Superintendency of the Environment (the "SMA") notified AES Andes of certain alleged breaches associated with the environmental permit of the Ventanas Complex, initiating a sanctioning process through Exempt Resolution N° 1 / ROL D-129-2019. The alleged charges include (i) exceeding generation limits, (ii) failing to reduce emissions during episodes of poor air quality, (iii) exceeding limits on discharges to the sea, and (iv) exceeding noise limits. 88 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q With respect to the sanctioning procedure, AES Andes has submitted a proposed “Compliance Program” (“Programa de Cumplimiento”) to the SMA for the Ventanas Complex. The latest version of this Compliance Program was submitted on May 26, 2021 and approved by the SMA on December 30, 2021. AES Andes has completed the execution of the Compliance Program and filed a request for final compliance report in late 2025. The SMA will review the final report and, if approved, the Compliance Program will be considered fully completed, resulting in the permanent extinction of administrative liability associated with the charges included in this proceeding. To date, this sanctioning procedure remains on stand-by pending the decision of the final report, and no fines have been imposed in connection with it. Separately, and in an independent sanctioning procedure not related to the foregoing Compliance Program, the SMA initiated an ex officio action concerning an alleged failure of the Ventanas Complex to adequately reduce emissions during episodes of poor air quality. In connection with this separate proceeding, on April 21, 2023, the SMA notified AES Andes of a resolution alleging an additional “serious” non-compliance. On May 24, 2023, AES Andes submitted disclaimers to the SMA in response to this resolution. On May 10, 2024, the Company was notified of a fine for $180,515. On June 3, 2024, the Company appealed this fine to the Environmental Court. The appellate hearing occurred on April 3, 2025 and the Environmental Court subsequently upheld the sanction imposed by the SMA, confirming the fine. The Company has paid the fine and will appeal this decision before the Supreme Court. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and will continue to assert them vigorously in this dispute; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful. On May 12, 2021, the Mexican Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (the “Agency”) initiated an environmental audit at the Termoeléctrica del Peñoles thermal generation facility (“TEP”). On January 20, 2023, TEP was notified of the resolution issued by the Agency, which alleges breaches of air emission regulations, including the failure to submit reports. The resolution imposes a fine of $27,615,140 pesos (approximately $1.6 million), as well as a series of corrective measures. On March 3, 2023, TEP filed a lawsuit in an administrative court—The Specialized Chamber of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal (“Chamber”)—challenging the legality of the Agency’s resolution and fine. On May 30, 2025, the Chamber issued a final administrative ruling denying TEP’s lawsuit. On July 1, 2025, TEP appealed to the Federal District Court. TEP’s appeal challenges the constitutionality of the Agency’s regulations (demanda de amparo) and requests a stay of enforcement of the Chamber’s final administrative ruling. The appeal has been duly admitted, initial discovery completed, and the Federal District Court’s decision on the injunction request is pending. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts. TEP subsequently challenged the ruling through an amparo proceeding, however, TEP did not prevail in the amparo. As a result, TEP was required to file an additional request for legal remedy to prevent the collection of the fine and to preserve its ability to negotiate a potential reduction or commutation of the sanction. There is no guarantee TEP will be successful in any negotiation or commutation request. Additionally, applicable surcharges and inflation adjustments may increase the total amount of the fine to approximately $50 million pesos (approximately $3 million). The company continues to assess the available legal and negotiation alternatives, but there can be no assurances that it will be successful in these efforts. In February 2022, a lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 425 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2003 and 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths and demands over $600 million in alleged damages. The lawsuit does not identify or provide any supporting information concerning the alleged injuries of the claimants individually. Nor does the lawsuit provide any information supporting the demand for damages or explaining how the quantum was derived. In February 2024, at the request of the Company, the Dominican Supreme Court of Justice transferred the case to a different civil court, namely, the Civil Court of La Vega (“CFI”). The claimants’ attempt to recuse the presiding judge was rejected by the relevant Dominican appellate court. The parties completed briefing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In May 2026, the CFI dismissed the entire case due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. The claimants may seek to appeal. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts. On January 26, 2023, the SMA notified Alto Maipo SpA of four alleged serious charges relating to the Alto Maipo environmental permit. The alleged charges include: untimely completion of certain intake works; insufficient capture of species; non-compliance with certain forest management plan goals; and intervention of a restricted paleontological area. On February 16, 2023, the Alto Maipo project submitted a proposed compliance program to the SMA. On October 13, 2025, the SMA ultimately rejected an updated version of the compliance program and restarted the sanctions process for the alleged charges. Alto Maipo filed a legal action before the environmental tribunal seeking annulment of the decision that rejected the proposed compliance program. This legal action is pending. Separately, on October 15, 2025, Alto Maipo submitted to SMA its defense response to the four alleged 89 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q charges. A decision from SMA is still pending. If Alto Maipo’s defense response arguments are not acceptable to the SMA, the imposition of fines is possible. Separately, Alto Maipo filed a legal action seeking annulment of the decision that rejected its proposed compliance program. In April 2025, an alleged shareholder of Fluence Energy, Inc. (“Fluence”) filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“Court”) against Fluence and certain of Fluence’s officers and directors. The complaint in the case also named the Company and AES Grid Stability, LLC as defendants (together, the “AES Defendants”). In May 2025, the Court consolidated the lawsuit with another putative securities class action against Fluence and certain of its officers and directors. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff (the “Plaintiff”) and lead plaintiffs’ counsel for the consolidated lawsuit. In June 2025, the Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against Fluence, certain of its officers and directors (the “Individual Fluence Defendants” and, together with Fluence, the “Fluence Defendants”), and the AES Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of Fluence Class A common stock between October 28, 2021 and February 10, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges that the Fluence Defendants made allegedly false or misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Individual Fluence Defendants and the AES Defendants as alleged “control persons” under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In July 2025, the Fluence Defendants and the AES Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit. In March 2026, the Court issued an order dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiff’s consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. In its order, the Court noted that it will issue a more detailed memorandum opinion in the future, after which Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint. The memorandum opinion has not been issued to date. The AES Defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts. In May 2025, a special session of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region of Brazil ("TRF1”) issued a decision dismissing the claims of Sul, which was sold to a third party in 2016 (“Buyer”), to annul ANEEL’s Order 288. Order 288 was issued in May 2002 and retroactively changed the effects of the Wholesale Energy Market (“MAE”) for the year 2001. The aggregate impact of Order 288 for AES Sul was to reverse a gain on certain purchases and sales into an approximately R$75 million ($14 million) loss, estimated as of May 2002. The TRF1’s May 2025 decision reversed its April 2013 decision in Sul’s favor that annulled Order 288. In August 2025, Sul filed a motion for clarification of the decision with the TRF1, which is considering the motion. After the motion is decided, Sul will have the ability to file appeals with the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court. In the event of an unsuccessful outcome for Sul, the Buyer may attempt to seek recovery of losses relating to the R$75 million ($14 million) loss above, an additional amount of approximately R$27 million ($5 million) that was collected by Sul in 2008 and may need to be reimbursed, plus interest on these amounts, from the AES seller and The AES Corporation under the sale agreement. In that event, AES would defend itself vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that it would be successful in its efforts. On May 30, 2025, an arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) issued an arbitration award in the Company’s favor (“Award”) in connection with a treaty arbitration initiated by the Company against the Argentine Republic (“Argentina”) under the US-Argentina bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”). In the Award, the Tribunal found that certain measures taken by Argentina in relation to its power sector, beginning in late 2001, breached the BIT. The Tribunal ordered Argentina to pay to the Company approximately $733 million in damages, including an award of costs, as well as accrued interest. In August 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“DDC”) to recognize and enforce the ICSID Award against Argentina. In September 2025, Argentina filed an application with ICSID to annul the Tribunal’s Award. In its application, Argentina also requested a stay of enforcement of the Award pending the completion of the annulment proceedings ("Stay Request"). Argentina’s annulment application will be decided by a new three-person panel (“Annulment Panel”), which was appointed by ICSID in January 2026. In March 2026, the Annulment Panel issued a procedural order scheduling the hearing on the annulment petition for March 4-5, 2027. In April 2026, the Annulment Panel issued an order (“Order”) conditionally granting Argentina’s Stay Request subject to Argentina’s provision of a bank guarantee that covers the full amount of damages and interest and that can be collected by the Company if Argentina’s annulment application is ultimately rejected. The Order also required that the terms of the bank guarantee were to be negotiated by the Parties, and if such negotiations were unsuccessful, would be established by the Annulment Panel. Further, the Order provided that if Argentina failed to post the bank guarantee, the conditional stay would be lifted automatically. Argentina failed to procure the bank guarantee and, consequently, the Annulment Panel has confirmed that the conditional stay has been lifted. The Company will now continue its enforcement efforts in the DDC. The Company can provide no assurance as to how the Annulment Panel will rule on the annulment application. Relatedly, measures to enforce the Award through judicial means entail a process that is inherently unpredictable; as a result, the Company cannot provide any assurance as to the timing 90 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q or success of such enforcement measures. The Company may attempt to settle this dispute with Argentina. However, the Company can provide no assurances regarding the likelihood, substance, or timing of any such settlement. On December 30, 2025, the Company received a complaint filed in Virginia state court by Sinolam LNG Terminal, SA and Sinolam Smarter Energy LNG Power Co. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against the Company, AES Latin America, S. de R.L., AES Panama, S.R.L. (“AES Panama”), AES Colon Holding, S. de R.L., Costa Norte LNG Terminal, S. de R.L., Gas Natural Atlantico S. de R.L., InterEnergy Holdings UK Limited (“IEHL”) (a third party), and Group Energy Gas Panama, S.R.L. (“GEGP”) (a partnership between IEHL and AES Panama) (collectively, “Defendants”). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants interfered with the Plaintiffs’ efforts to develop an LNG-fired power plant and an LNG terminal in Panama. The Plaintiffs appear to seek recovery of alleged lost profits totaling about $4 billion, alleged out-of-pocket damages, interest, statutory damages, and other relief from the Defendants. The Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“EDVA”) and thereafter moved to dismiss the case. Post-removal, the Plaintiffs dismissed AES Panama from the case. Also, in response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming only the Company, IEHL, and GEGP as defendants. In April 2026, the EDVA granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The Company has again moved to dismiss the case. IEHL and GEGP have also filed motions to dismiss. The Parties are undertaking limited discovery on the Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts. In July 2026, an alleged shareholder of Fluence Energy, Inc. (“Fluence”) filed a derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery allegedly on behalf of Fluence and against the Company and AES Grid Stability, LLC (the “AES Defendants”); Siemens Industry, Inc., and Siemens AG (the “Siemens Defendants”); Qatar Investment Authority and Qatar Holding, LLC (the “QIA Defendants”); and certain Fluence officers and directors (the “Fluence Defendants”). The Plaintiff alleges that Fluence failed to disclose information about, among other things, alleged deficiencies in its products and financial reporting and controls; that the AES Defendants, Siemens Defendants, and QIA Defendants possessed material nonpublic information on those subjects, among others, at the time of Fluence’s December 2023 secondary public offering (the “SPO”); and that Fluence’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the SPO, while the AES Defendants, Siemens Defendants, and QIA Defendants breached alleged fiduciary duties by selling Fluence stock in the SPO. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting insider selling against the AES Defendants, Siemens Defendants, and QIA Defendants in connection with the SPO. The Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief from all defendants. The AES Defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts. To date, the Company is aware of two (2) complaints that have been filed as individual actions in connection with the Merger by purported stockholders of the Company against the Company and the individual members of the Company’s Board of Directors. The complaints are captioned as follows: Miller v. The AES Corporation, et al, Index No. [Unassigned] (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Jun. 3, 2026) and Wright v. The AES Corporation, et al, Index No. [Unassigned] (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Jun. 5, 2026) (the “Complaints”). The Complaints seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger unless the defendants disclose certain purportedly material information alleged to have been omitted from the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on May 4, 2026 (the “Preliminary Proxy Statement”) and/or the Definitive Proxy Statement filed on May 15, 2026 (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”), respectively, and/or damages if the Merger is consummated. In addition to the Complaints, to date, the Company has received sixteen (16) demand letters from law firms claiming to represent purported Company stockholders, which also generally allege disclosure deficiencies in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and/or the Definitive Proxy Statement (collectively, the “Demand Letters” and, together with the Complaints, the “Matters”). The Company and the other defendants named in the Matters deny all allegations in the Matters and believe that the Matters are without merit and that no supplemental disclosure to the Preliminary Proxy Statement and/or the Definitive Proxy Statement was or is required under any applicable law, rule or regulation. However, solely to minimize the burden and expense of potential litigation, avoid nuisance and potential delay or disruption to the Merger and provide additional information to the Company’s stockholders, the Company determined to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement in a Form 8-K filed on June 12, 2026. The Company believes that the disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law and nothing will be deemed an admission of legal necessity or materiality under applicable law with respect to the legal proceedings described herein. In addition, the Company has received two (2) stockholder books and records demands and one stockholder demand for an appraisal of the stockholder’s alleged shares. 91 | The AES Corporation | June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q