Waste Connections, Inc. Commitments Disclosure

13.   COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS

Financial Surety Bonds

The Company uses financial surety bonds for a variety of corporate guarantees. The two largest uses of financial surety bonds are for municipal contract performance guarantees and asset closure and retirement requirements under certain environmental regulations. Environmental regulations require demonstrated financial assurance to meet final capping, closure and post-closure requirements for landfills. In addition to surety bonds, these requirements may also be

met through alternative financial assurance instruments, including insurance, letters of credit and restricted cash and investment deposits.

At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company had provided customers and various regulatory authorities with surety bonds in the aggregate amounts of approximately $1,040,159 and $934,330, respectively, to secure its asset closure and retirement requirements and $1,117,272 and $1,077,021, respectively, to secure performance under collection contracts and landfill operating agreements.

The Company owns a 9.9% interest in a company that, among other activities, issues financial surety bonds to secure landfill final capping, closure and post-closure obligations for companies operating in the solid waste industry. The Company accounts for this investment under the cost method of accounting. There have been no identified events or changes in circumstances that may have a significant adverse effect on the carrying value of the investment. This investee company and the parent company of the investee have written financial surety bonds for the Company, of which $557,912 and $492,711 were outstanding as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. The Company’s reimbursement obligations under these bonds are secured by a pledge of its stock in the investee company.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

At December 31, 2025, the Company’s unconditional purchase obligations consist of multiple fixed-price fuel purchase contracts under which it has 56.2 million gallons remaining to be purchased for a total of $173,644. These fuel purchase contracts expire on or before September 30, 2029. During the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, the Company paid $144,425, $139,973 and $145,598, respectively, under the respective fuel purchase contracts then outstanding.

As of December 31, 2025, future minimum purchase commitments, by calendar year, are as follows:

​

​

​

CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Risks

The Company expenses costs incurred to investigate and remediate environmental issues unless they extend the economic useful lives of the related assets. The Company records liabilities when it is probable that an obligation has been incurred and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The remediation reserves cover anticipated costs, including remediation of environmental damage that waste facilities may have caused to neighboring landowners or residents as a result of contamination of soil, groundwater or surface water, including damage resulting from conditions existing prior to the Company’s acquisition of such facilities. The Company’s estimates are based primarily on investigations and remediation plans established by independent consultants, regulatory agencies and potentially responsible third parties. The Company does not discount remediation obligations. At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the current portion of remediation reserves was $42,177 and $8,808, respectively, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the long-term portion of remediation reserves was $7,109 and $7,186, respectively, which is included in Other long-term liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any substantial increase

in the liabilities for remediation of environmental damage incurred by the Company could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of its business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste and E&P waste industries, the Company is subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving Canadian regulatory authorities as well as U.S. federal, state and local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may subpoena the Company for records, or seek to impose fines on the Company or revoke or deny renewal of an authorization held or sought by the Company, including an operating permit. From time to time, the Company may also be subject to actions brought by special interest or other groups, adjacent landowners or residents in connection with the permitting and licensing of landfills, transfer stations, and E&P waste treatment, recovery and disposal operations, or alleging environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which the Company operates.  The Company uses $1,000 as a threshold for disclosing environmental matters involving a governmental authority and potential monetary sanctions.

In addition, the Company is a party to various claims and suits pending for alleged damages to persons and property, alleged violations of certain laws and alleged liabilities arising out of matters occurring during the normal operation of the Company’s business. Except as noted in the matters described below, as of December 31, 2025, there is no current proceeding or litigation involving the Company or its property that the Company believes could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Landfill Litigation

Between June 2016 and December 31, 2020, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Louisiana Regional Landfill Company (“LRLC”), conducted certain operations at a municipal solid waste landfill known as the Jefferson Parish Landfill (the “JP Landfill”), located in Avondale, Louisiana, near the City of New Orleans. LRLC’s operations were governed by an Operating Agreement entered into in May 2012 by LRLC under its previous name, IESI LA Landfill Corporation, and the owner of the JP Landfill, Jefferson Parish (the “Parish”).  The Parish also holds the State of Louisiana permit for the operation of the JP Landfill. Aptim Corporation, and later River Birch, LLC, operated the landfill gas collection system at the JP Landfill under a separate contract with the Parish.

In July and August 2018, four separate lawsuits seeking class action status were filed against LRLC and certain other Company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation in Louisiana state court, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, before Judge Susie Morgan in New Orleans. The court later consolidated the claims of the putative class action plaintiffs (the “Ictech-Bendeck” action).

The Ictech-Bendeck class plaintiffs asserted claims for damages from odors allegedly emanating from the JP Landfill. The consolidated putative class action complaint alleged that the JP Landfill released “noxious odors” into the plaintiffs’ properties and the surrounding community and asserted a range of liability theories—nuisance, negligence (since dismissed), and strict liability—against all defendants. The Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs sought unspecified damages.

After a general causation trial limited the nature of the claims and limited the time period to July 2017 to December 2019, extensive discovery occurred in 2023 and 2024. On May 15, 2024, the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification, which the defendants opposed.  Plaintiffs described the putative class as residents of the Parish suffering an injury as a result of exposure to odors from the JP Landfill between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019, in five proposed geographic sub-classes encompassing residents within a delineated area of the Parish that extended roughly five miles from the JP Landfill to the north and east. Counsel for the putative class asked the court to certify a class on liability and allocation issues and that specific causation be left for individual determinations after a class trial.

On August 8, 2024, the Parish and the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs notified the court and the other parties that they had reached an agreement in principle on settlement of the plaintiffs’ class claims against the Parish, including a settlement amount of $4,500 to be paid by the Parish to the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs. The settlement agreement purports to assign to the Ictech-Bendeck settlement class the Parish’s claims against the Company defendants and Aptim Corporation. On March 27, 2025, the court approved the settlement.

On March 27, 2025, the court denied the motion for class certification. On July 16, 2025, the Company and counsel for the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the five individual plaintiffs’ claims against the Company in an amount not material to the Company’s financial statements. On July 18, 2025, the court entered an order dismissing the Ictech-Bendeck claims against the Company without prejudice pending consummation of the settlement agreements.

On June 3, 2025, counsel for the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs filed a new mass action on behalf of approximately 1,600 plaintiffs in state court (24th Judicial District, Jefferson Parish) against LRLC, certain other Company subsidiaries, and Aptim Corporation (the “Crossman” action). The case is assigned to Judge Jacqueline F. Maloney. The Crossman petition asserts claims for damages from odors allegedly emanating from the JP Landfill from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. The petition seeks unspecified damages, but stipulates that no individual plaintiff’s damages exceed $74.999, and waives the right to recover in excess of that amount per plaintiff. On August 7, 2025, the Company’s subsidiaries filed and served their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Crossman petition.

At this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome regarding the claims of the individual plaintiffs in the Crossman action, including the allocation of any potential liability among the Company defendants, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation, and is not able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Los Angeles County, California Landfill Expansion Litigation

In October 2004, the Company’s subsidiary, Chiquita Canyon, LLC (“CCL”), then under prior ownership, filed an application (the “Application”) with the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) Department of Regional Planning (“DRP”) for a conditional use permit (the “CUP”) to authorize the continued operation and expansion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill (the “CC Landfill”). The CC Landfill has operated since 1972, and as a regional landfill, accepted approximately 2.3 million tons of materials for disposal and beneficial use in 2024.  The CC Landfill was the second largest landfill in the County and played a vital role in the County’s ability to safely and quickly gather, process, and dispose of thousands of tons of waste, six days a week.  The Application requested expansion of the existing waste footprint on CCL’s contiguous property, an increase in maximum elevation, creation of a new entrance and new support facilities, construction of a facility for the County or another third-party operator to host household hazardous waste collection events, designation of an area for mixed organics/composting, and other modifications.

After many years of reviews and delays, upon the recommendation of County staff, the County’s Regional Planning Commission (the “Commission”) approved the Application on April 19, 2017, but imposed operating conditions, fees and exactions that substantially reduced the historical landfill operations and represented a large increase in aggregate taxes and fees. CCL objected to many of the requirements imposed by the Commission.  Estimates for new costs imposed on CCL under the CUP are in excess of $300,000, if the CC Landfill was still open for the acceptance of waste.

CCL appealed the Commission’s decision to the County Board of Supervisors (“Board”), but the appeal was not successful.  At a subsequent hearing, on July 25, 2017, the Board approved the CUP.  On October 20, 2017, CCL filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint against the County and the Board captioned Chiquita Canyon, LLC v. County of Los Angeles (the “Complaint”).  The Complaint challenges the terms of the CUP in 13 counts generally alleging that the County violated multiple California and federal statutes and California and federal constitutional protections. CCL seeks the following relief: (a) an injunction and writ of mandate against certain of the CUP’s operational restrictions, taxes and fees, (b) a declaration that the challenged conditions are unconstitutional and in violation of state and federal statutes, (c) reimbursement for any such illegal fees

paid under protest, (d) damages, (e) an award of just compensation for a taking, (f) attorney fees, and (g) all other appropriate legal and equitable relief.

Following extensive litigation in 2018 and 2019 on the permissible scope of CCL’s challenge, the Superior Court issued its decision on July 2, 2020, granting CCL’s petition for writ of mandate in part and denying it in part. CCL prevailed with respect to 12 of the challenged conditions, many of which imposed new fees and exactions on the CC Landfill.  On October 11, 2022, CCL and the County entered into a settlement agreement that required CCL to file a CUP modification application with the County embodying the terms of the settlement agreement.  CCL filed the CUP modification application on November 10, 2022, an addendum to CCL’s environmental impact report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act on January 12, 2024, and a revised addendum on September 30, 2024.  The next steps contemplated by the settlement agreement included: completion of review by the County; scheduling the CUP modification application for a hearing before the Commission; if appealed, a hearing before the Board; and, upon approval by the Board of the CUP modification application and satisfaction of certain other contingencies, CCL would dismiss this lawsuit.

At a meeting between the County and the Company on September 23, 2024, the County first stated that it would not be possible to complete the environmental review and present the CUP modification to the Commission in 2024.  Absent approval of the modified CUP, beginning January 1, 2025, the CUP requires CCL to reduce its maximum annual solid waste tonnage capacity from approximately two million tons of solid waste per year to approximately one million tons of solid waste per year.  CCL and the County were required under the settlement agreement to cooperate to take additional lawful and reasonable measures to effectuate the basic terms and goals of the settlement agreement, which included modifying this tonnage reduction to a gradual step-down in tonnage.  However, because the County was unable to fully implement the settlement agreement or provide a viable alternative solution to address the severe tonnage restrictions that took effect on January 1, 2025, maintaining ongoing operations at the CC Landfill was no longer economically viable. Thus, CCL closed active waste disposal operations as of December 31, 2024.

On January 10, 2025, CCL and the County appeared before the Superior Court for a trial setting conference and the Court set the remaining claims for a bench trial, beginning October 13, 2025. The County filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement on July 23, 2025, and, on September 10, 2025, the Court granted the County’s motion, vacated the trial date, and set a case management conference for January 9, 2026. On October 16, 2025, CCL filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, requesting the Court to enter judgment embodying the July 2020 writ decision. On November 10, 2025, the Court entered CCL’s proposed judgment. Following additional motions practice, the County served notice of the judgment on December 24, 2025. The County filed a notice of appeal on January 16, 2026, and CCL filed its cross-appeal on January 23, 2026. At this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.

Elevated Temperature Landfill Event

Beginning in May 2023, the Company’s subsidiary, CCL, began receiving NOVs from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) for alleged violations of Section 41700 of the California Health & Safety Code and SCAQMD Rule 402 based on complaints from the public of odors, which SCAQMD inspectors stated that they verified were from the CC Landfill. Each Rule 402 NOV alleges the CC Landfill is “discharging such quantities of air contaminants to cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of persons.” CCL’s retained expert consultants in Elevated Temperature Landfill (“ETLF”) events have attributed the odors and other impacts to an ETLF event that is occurring in a lined, non-active area of the CC Landfill.

Since May 2023, CCL has received approximately 410 NOVs for alleged violations of SCAQMD Rule 402. CCL has also received 26 additional NOVs from SCAQMD alleging violations of the Stipulated Order for Abatement, the California Health & Safety Code, other SCAQMD rules, and CCL’s Title V permit.

On August 15, 2023, SCAQMD petitioned its Hearing Board for an Order for Abatement in Hearing Board Case No. 6177-4 to address the Rule 402 NOVs issued by SCAQMD inspectors as a result of the ETLF event. SCAQMD and CCL

negotiated a Stipulated Order for Abatement (the “Stipulated Order”), which was issued by the Hearing Board on September 6, 2023. Modifications to the Stipulated Order were approved by the Hearing Board after hearings on January 16 and 17, March 21, April 24, August 17, 20, and 27, and November 13, 2024, April 16, 2025, June 4, 17, and 24, and December 9, 2025. The modified Stipulated Order contains 107 conditions. The next status and modification hearing is scheduled for May 28, 2026.

On November 22, 2023, CCL received an NOV from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”) for alleged violations of CCL’s Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R4-2018-0172, including the Monitoring and Reporting Program. The allegations relate to increased leachate production and leachate seeps caused by the ETLF event. CCL has received three more NOVs from the Water Board regarding alleged discharges, reporting, and other compliance violations. CCL has submitted full responses to each of the November 22, 2023, and January 24, March 28, and April 9, 2024 NOVs from the Water Board.

On June 27, 2024, CCL received a fifth NOV from the Water Board for alleged non-compliance with a March 20, 2024 Investigative Order issued by the Water Board pursuant to California Water Code §§ 13267 and 13383. CCL has provided a full response to the alleged violations.

On January 6, 2026 (revised January 7), CCL received a sixth NOV from the Water Board for alleged violations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2018-0028-DWQ). The allegations relate to an allegedly unauthorized discharge of stormwater commingled with characteristically hazardous leachate. CCL is working on its response to the alleged violations.

On February 15 and March 29, 2024, CCL received two Summaries of Violations (“SOV”) from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”). The SOVs allege violations of California’s hazardous waste control laws and their implementing regulations related to three incidents in which offsite shipments of leachate, which tested above a regulatory threshold, were shipped to non-hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities. CCL has submitted full responses to both SOVs from DTSC.

On April 1, 2025, CCL received a third SOV from DTSC. The SOV alleges violations of California’s hazardous waste control laws and their implementing regulations related to three loads of leachate which allegedly failed to comply with landfill disposal restriction requirements and for allegedly failing to minimize the possibility of a release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. CCL has submitted a full response to this SOV.

On November 18, 2025, CCL received a fourth SOV from DTSC. The SOV alleges violations of California’s hazardous waste control laws and their implementing regulations for allegedly failing to minimize the possibility of a release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents, failing to properly complete hazardous waste manifests for hazardous waste condensate, and failing to properly label tanks containing hazardous waste leachate. CCL has submitted full responses to this SOV.

On April 2, 2025, CCL, Chiquita Canyon, Inc., and Waste Connections US, Inc. (“Respondents”) received from DTSC an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order (“ISE Order”) for alleged violations of the California Health & Safety Code. The ISE Order alleges that “there may be an imminent and/or substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the environment because of the release and/or the threatened release of the hazardous substances at the Site.” The order requires Respondents to implement three removal actions: (1) extension of the geomembrane cover, (2) interim relocation of a tank farm, and (3) protection of Cell 8A. CCL filed a notice of intent to comply and sufficient cause defenses on April 9, 2025, which included its objection to DTSC’s inclusion of improper parties, Chiquita Canyon, Inc. and Waste Connections US, Inc. CCL has been working closely with DTSC to implement the three removal actions. On December 26, 2025, DTSC issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Noncompliance with the ISE Order, alleging that Respondents have failed to submit adequate workplans for each of the removal actions. CCL disagrees with these allegations and submitted its response on January 12, 2026. On January 26, 2026, DTSC issued

Respondents a Final Determination of Noncompliance with, and Violation of, the ISE Order. CCL is preparing a response to the alleged violations.

On June 4, 2024, CCL received a Finding of Violation (“FOV”) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, alleging violations of the New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) for municipal solid waste landfills, the NSPS and NESHAP General Provisions, and certain conditions of CCL’s Title V permit. CCL has submitted a full response to the alleged violations.  

At this time, CCL is not able to determine the likely penalties that the regulatory agencies will seek for these alleged violations, but they could be substantial. CCL is also incurring substantial costs in conjunction with efforts to address the ETLF event and any related impacts, including attendant air emissions, and to manage the increased production and changing composition of the leachate. At this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome of the resolution of these alleged violations, and not able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Chiquita Canyon Landfill Civil Litigation

Given the facts related to the ETLF event and the alleged violations described above, numerous civil lawsuits have been filed against CCL and other Company subsidiaries, including Chiquita Canyon, Inc., Waste Connections of California, Inc., Waste Connections Management Services Inc. and Waste Connections US, Inc.  These began with Howse et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Co. Superior Court; filed September 5, 2023, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. October 4, 2023).  That case included class action claims, but in May 2024, those claims were dropped and the case continues as a mass tort case in federal district court.  In November 2024, Judge Frimpong in the Central District of California consolidated Howse and all other then filed, related cases into In re Chiquita Landfill Litigation. Master File No. 2:23-CV-08380-MEMF-MAR. (C.D. Cal.). As additional, related cases have been filed, the Company has sought to consolidate them with In re Chiquita Landfill Litigation. The Court consolidated the County Action (described below) with In re Chiquita Landfill Litigation for discovery purposes only.

There are approximately 11,700 total plaintiffs in these civil lawsuits as of February 6, 2026, which includes some from cases filed but not yet served, and the Company expects additional complaints and plaintiffs in the future.

The claims in the ongoing cases allege, among other things, nuisance odors, chemical exposures and other torts, including private nuisance (continuing and permanent), public nuisance (continuing and permanent), negligence, negligence per se, strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, and a violation of Health and Safety Code § 41700.  Plaintiffs seek damages for physical injury, fear of future physical injury, increased risk of future injury, including the need for medical monitoring, emotional distress, harm to real and personal property, medical expenses, relocation expenses, and punitive damages.  Plaintiffs seek all costs of suits and attorneys’ fees.  Some of the cases allege that officers and directors and/or agents of the Company’s subsidiaries had advance knowledge that failure to properly maintain and operate the CC Landfill would result in the sorts of harms that the plaintiffs allegedly suffered.  Some of the cases seek injunctive relief to prevent further harm to the plaintiffs or to close the CC Landfill.

The additional cases include: Suggs et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed February 2, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. March 25, 2024)‎; Siryani et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed March 27, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on April 29, 2024)‎; Adams Evans et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed April 15, 2014, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 5, 2024)‎; Aleksanyan et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed May 20, 2024);  Jolene Acosta et al., v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed May 29, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 12, 2024); Quaiden Fenstermaker et. al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed May 29, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 13, 2024)‎; Briana Mejia et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed May 29, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 15, 2024); Araiza et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed June 3, 2024); Melineh Gasparians et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed June 10, 2024; removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on September 4, 2024); Claudia Rivera et al. v. Chiquita

Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed June 14, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 22, 2024)‎; Alejandra Suarez et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed June 20, 2024; removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 29, 2024) ; ‎ Geon Hwang, et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed July 8, 2024); Anabel Austin, et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed July 9, 2024; removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on August 16, 2024); Isabell ‎Dolores Palomino et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed July 12, 2024); Stephanie Audish et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed July 16, 2024); Scott Benjamin Siegal et. al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed July 16, 2024); Alina Hakopyan et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed August 6, 2024); Kaiden Alim et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed September 27, 2024); Nicholas Difatta et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed October 5, 2024); Jane Chun-Won Yang et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. filed on November 19, 2024); K.E. et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. filed on November 22, 2024); Maria Magdalena Alanis, et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. filed January 6, 2025); Grace Lara et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. filed February 10, 2025); Babken Egoian et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed March 31, 2025); Kiwi Chang et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed February 24, 2025); Molina et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-05352, filed June 10, 2025); Mietzner et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-06061, filed July 2, 2025 but plaintiffs objected to consolidation and those objections have not yet been ruled on); Fernando Perez et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. filed December 30, 2024); Nancy Mariel Aguilar et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed January 27, 2025); Leticia Ojeda et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed March 6, 2025); Bertha Bacon et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-09403, filed October 2, 2025);Reyna Aguilar et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-10271, filed October 24, 2025); Rhea Estacio et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-10408, filed October 29, 2025 but not yet consolidated) ; Sterling Gateway, L.P. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-06328, filed July 10, 2025); and Joseph Ryan Stanley et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-12304, filed December 29, 2025). One law firm filed 359 individual cases in Los Angeles Superior Court, which the Company related and consolidated to that firm’s first filed case, Serieddine et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed January 8, 2024), and removed the cases en masse as In re Serieddine. In re Serieddine was consolidated with In re Chiquita Landfill Litigation.

Six cases have been filed, but not yet served: Gary Wells et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 25STCV29317, filed October 3, 2025); Mariya Savchenko et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-10615, filed November 4, 2025); Anahit Pogosyan, by and through her Successor in Interest, Armen Pogosian, v. Chiquita Canyon LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-11732, filed December 10, 2025); William John Blatter et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-12056, filed December 19, 2025); Alvaro Luis Gutierrez v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed February 4, 2026); Geoffre Tisdale et al. v. Chiquita Canyon LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-01288, filed February 6, 2026).

The Company is continuing to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits; however, at this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome regarding the underlying claims, and not able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

County of Los Angeles Litigation

Based upon the same facts alleged in the above-referenced “Chiquita Canyon Landfill Civil Litigation,” on December 17 2024, Los Angeles County filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 2:24-cv-10819-RGK-PD, against Chiquita Canyon, LLC, Chiquita Canyon, Inc. and Waste Connections US, Inc. titled The People of the State of California and The County of Los Angeles v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal, filed December 17, 2024).  This case has been assigned to Judge Frimpong, the same judge overseeing In Re Chiquita Landfill Litigation and is now consolidated with the mass tort for discovery purposes.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2025 and that motion was heard on May 29, 2025. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on May 30, 2025.

The County’s lawsuit alleges public nuisance under California statutes and Los Angeles County ordinances, public nuisance per se, and unfair business practices related to the alleged violation of ordinances referenced in the public nuisance claims.  The County seeks an injunction to bring the CC Landfill into compliance with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations, including all necessary measures to “contain and extinguish” the ETLF event, prevent odors and gases from reaching any residential zone, and eliminate leachate seeps; subsidize the relocation of affected citizens living near the CC Landfill; and subsidize mitigation measures undertaken by affected citizens living, working, or studying near the CC Landfill, such as the purchase of air purification systems, double paned windows, home hardening, and assistance with utility bills. Alternatively, the County requests the appointment of a receiver to take possession and control of the CC Landfill.  The County also seeks to recover civil penalties and attorney’s fees. The Company is not able to determine the potential penalty amount that the County will seek in this lawsuit.

On May 29, 2025, the County filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking the creation of at least a $20,000 abatement fund to relocate 938 residents from Val Verde and Castaic and/or for home hardening expenses. The County bases that request on numerous declarations from residents and regulators, SCAQMD complaint data, SCAQMD NOVs, and a voluntary online odor survey hosted by the Los Angeles Department of Public Health. An evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on July 14 and 15, and the hearing on the motion was held on July 17, 2025.  On August 29, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but failed to define the scope of the relief ordered. At this time, the Company has not been ordered to pay any money to create a relocation or home hardening fund. The Company filed in the district court an ex parte application to stay the preliminary injunction. That motion has not been decided. The Company also filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on September 10, 2025, and the appeal is now fully briefed. No oral argument is scheduled yet in the Ninth Circuit.

The Company is continuing to vigorously defend itself in this matter; however, at this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome regarding the underlying claims, and is not able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

As of December 31, 2025, approximately 16% of the Company’s workforce, were employed under collective bargaining agreements. The Company has 23 collective bargaining agreements covering 1,414 employees, or approximately 6% of its workforce, that have expired or are set to expire in 2026. In 2025, the Company did not experience any work stoppages or days idle due to labor issues.