PPG is involved in a number of lawsuits and claims, both actual and potential, including some that it has asserted against others, in which substantial monetary damages are sought. These lawsuits and claims may relate to contract, patent, environmental, product liability, asbestos exposure, antitrust, employment, securities and other matters arising out of the conduct of PPG’s current and past business activities. To the extent these lawsuits and claims involve personal injury, property damage and certain other claims, PPG believes it has adequate insurance; however, certain of PPG’s insurers are contesting coverage with respect to some of these claims, and other insurers may contest coverage. PPG’s lawsuits and claims against others include claims against insurers and other third parties with respect to actual and contingent losses related to environmental, asbestos and other matters. From the late 1880’s until the early 1970’s, PPG owned property located in Cadogan and North Buffalo Townships, Pennsylvania which was used for the disposal of solid waste from PPG’s former glass manufacturing facility in Ford City, Pennsylvania. In October 2018, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the “DEP”) approved PPG’s cleanup plan for the Cadogan Property. In April 2019, PPG and the DEP entered into a consent order and agreement (“CO&A”) which incorporated PPG’s approved cleanup plan and a draft final permit for the collection and discharge of seeps emanating from the former disposal area. The CO&A includes a civil penalty of $1.2 million for alleged past unauthorized discharges. PPG’s former disposal area is also the subject of a citizens’ suit filed by the Sierra Club and PennEnvironment seeking remedial measures beyond the measures specified in PPG’s approved cleanup plan, a civil penalty in addition to the penalty included in the CO&A and plaintiffs’ attorneys fees. PPG and the plaintiffs settled plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief and PPG agreed to enhancements to the DEP approved cleanup plan and a $250,000 donation to a Pennsylvania nonprofit organization. This settlement has been memorialized by an amendment to the CO&A which was appended to a Consent Agreement between PPG and the plaintiffs which has been entered by the federal court. The remaining claims in the case for attorneys’ fees and a civil penalty are not affected by this settlement. A trial on the issue of a civil penalty under the Clean Water Act was held in June 2024. Following the trial, the parties filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the matter is now ready for a decision by the Court. With regard to plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, the Court appointed a Special Master to review the parties' positions regarding the amount of fees that should be awarded. In 2006, a lawsuit was filed in Manaus, Brazil, captioned Di Gregório Navegação LTDA v. PPG Industries, Inc. (the “Di Gregório litigation”). The lawsuit asserted claims arising from a November 1998 fire on a cargo ship off the coast of Brazil; the lawsuit alleges the fire was caused by PPG chemical products that were part of the ship’s cargo. The plaintiff, a charterer of the ship, brought claims for various alleged damages. This litigation was pending as of July 18, 2012 when PPG and Eagle Spinco Inc. (“Eagle Spinco”) signed a Separation Agreement setting forth the separation of the assets and liabilities of PPG’s commodity chemicals business to an entity to be later identified by Eagle Spinco. The assets and liabilities identified in the Separation Agreement specifically included all liabilities relating to the Di Gregório litigation. On January 22, 2013, PPG and Eagle US 2, LLC (“Eagle US 2”) signed a Contribution Agreement, by which PPG transferred to Eagle US 2 the assets and liabilities as set forth in the Separation Agreement. Georgia Gulf Corporation then acquired Eagle Spinco and Eagle US 2 in a merger transaction after which Georgia Gulf was renamed Axiall Corporation (“Axiall”). Thereafter, Axiall owned Eagle Spinco and Eagle US 2. Under the terms of the Contribution Agreement, Eagle US 2 acquired the assets and liabilities as defined in the Separation Agreement, including the Di Gregório litigation. In 2016, Westlake Corporation acquired Axiall and its subsidiaries, including Eagle Spinco and Eagle US 2. For convenience, Westlake Corporation, Axiall, Eagle Spinco, and Eagle US 2 collectively are referred to as “Westlake.” Under the Separation Agreement and Contribution Agreement, Eagle US 2 assumed the Di Gregório litigation liability, and Eagle Spinco and Eagle US 2 were required to remove PPG as an obligor for this liability. To the extent PPG was not removed as an obligor, the Separation Agreement provides that Eagle Spinco and Axiall must act as agents or subcontractors of PPG and pay any liability in the matter on PPG’s behalf. The Separation Agreement also provides PPG an uncapped right of indemnification for all damages PPG incurs arising from the Di Gregório litigation and for any breach of the Separation Agreement or Contribution Agreement. Since 2013, Westlake exclusively has controlled the defense of the Di Gregório litigation. In 2024, PPG learned that Westlake never substituted itself into the case in place of PPG or otherwise informed the Brazilian court that Westlake is the real party in interest and assumed all liability for the matter. On May 30, 2024, Westlake informed PPG that the Brazilian court entered an award against PPG (which remains the nominal defendant) that with prejudgment interest, fees, and costs would total over $700 million. More recently, Westlake informed PPG that it believes simple prejudgment interest applies to the judgment which would result in the final award being approximately $350 million. Westlake informed PPG that although it will continue to defend the case and pursue an 38 Table of Contents appeal of the award, it will not post any bond, pay any judgment, or take any steps to prevent the plaintiff from attempting to execute on the judgment against PPG. On May 17, 2024, Eagle Spinco filed a lawsuit against PPG in Delaware Superior Court alleging breach of the Separation Agreement and requesting declaratory relief (the “Eagle Spinco Lawsuit”). In its lawsuit, Eagle Spinco sought to have the Di Gregório liability determined to be one in which its obligation is only to indemnify PPG for any damages PPG incurs net of any insurance coverage available from PPG’s insurers. On June 13, 2024, PPG filed a lawsuit against Westlake in the Court of Chancery in Delaware (the “PPG Lawsuit”), asserting claims for specific performance, declaratory relief, breach of contract, and equitable estoppel. The PPG Lawsuit asserts: (a) Westlake assumed all liability for the Di Gregório litigation, (b) Westlake is obligated to remove PPG as an obligor in the litigation and has a continuing duty to act as PPG’s agent to satisfy any award if PPG is not removed as an obligor in the case, (c) Westlake has the duty to pay any award, bond, court fees and other costs awarded in the Di Gregório litigation, (d) Westlake’s obligations are unconditional and not contingent upon the recovery of any insurance proceeds and Westlake did not acquire any right to PPG’s insurance assets, and (e) PPG has an uncapped right of indemnification if Westlake fails to satisfy its obligations under the Separation Agreement and Contribution Agreement. Eagle Spinco filed counterclaims in the PPG Lawsuit restating the claims originally asserted in the Eagle Spinco Lawsuit, and dismissed the Eagle Spinco Lawsuit. PPG intends to vigorously enforce its rights under the Separation Agreement and Contribution Agreement and to hold Westlake accountable for any damages PPG suffers as a result of Westlake’s breach of contract. A bench trial for the PPG Lawsuit was held in the Delaware Court of Chancery in May 2025. The court ordered post-trial briefing, and an oral argument was held in July 2025. An additional hearing has been scheduled for August 2026. PPG expects the trial court to issue its final decision in 2026. PPG believes the risk of loss associated with this matter is remote. For many years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. PPG has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging bodily injury from the purported inhalation of ethylene oxide air emissions. For a description of asbestos and ethylene oxide litigation affecting the Company, see Note 13, “Commitments and Contingent Liabilities” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q.