BALL Corp Commitments Disclosure

22. 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 $25 million in the aggregate, and such amounts have been included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities at December 31, 2025. Based on the information available at the present time, any reasonably possible loss that may be incurred in excess of the recorded accruals cannot be estimated.

​

In September 2025, the company received notice from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection challenging the tariff classification and applicable rate of duty of certain aluminum imports asserting that additional duties and tariffs are payable, as well as our use of certain exemptions. The company intends to vigorously defend the matter. While the outcome of this matter is uncertain at this time, the company believes it is reasonably possible any such additional tariffs, interest and penalties could be owed and impact the company’s results of operations. The company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of loss at this time. The company has not recorded a reserve.

​

On February 1, 2012, Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (“BMBCC”) filed suit against Crown Technology Holding, Inc. (“Crown”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaratory judgment that the CDL beverage can end made and sold by BMBCC did not infringe certain U.S. patents held by Crown. In response, Crown filed a counterclaim alleging that the CDL ends made and sold by BMBCC infringed the subject patents and seeking damages. On September 25, 2019, the District Court granted BMBCC’s motion for summary judgment holding that the patents at issue were invalid due to indefiniteness. On October 20, 2019, Crown appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). On December 31, 2020, the CAFC in a non-precedential decision, vacated the decision of the District Court finding that the District Court had not considered an additional factor under a novel position advanced by the CAFC, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 2, 2023, the District Court again granted summary judgment to Ball finding that patent claims at issue are invalid due to invalidity under the revised analytical framework specified by the CAFC. On August 4, 2023, Crown appealed this decision to the CAFC. On June 30, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the decision of the District Court. Crown has neither sought reconsideration of the CAFC’s decision nor filed writ of certiorari for review by the Supreme Court, therefore, this matter is now considered closed.

​

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. Based on the information available at the present time, the company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these claims including the amount of reasonably possible loss and intends to vigorously defend these matters.

​