Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in various investigations, lawsuits, claims, demands, labor disputes and other legal proceedings, including with respect to environmental and human exposure or other personal injury matters, arising out of or incidental to the conduct of our business. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate disposition of each of these matters and proceedings, we do not believe that their ultimate disposition will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, we are involved in the following legal proceedings.

Arbitrations

We are involved in certain arbitrations as respondents/counterclaimants, pending before the International Chamber of Commerce with a few customers who, among other things, have failed to perform under their LTAs and in certain instances are seeking to modify or frustrate their contractual commitments to us. In particular, Aperam South America LTDA, Aperam Sourcing S.C.A., ArcelorMittal Sourcing S.C.A., and ArcelorMittal Brasil S.A. (collectively, the “Claimants”) initiated a single arbitration proceeding against two of the Company’s subsidiaries in the International Chamber of Commerce in June 2020. The Claimants argue, among other things, that they should no longer be required to comply with the terms of the LTAs that they signed due to an alleged drop in market prices for graphite electrodes in January 2020. Alternatively, the Claimants argue that they should not be required to comply with the LTAs that they signed due to alleged market circumstances at the time of execution. In June 2021, the Claimants filed their statement of claim, seeking approximately $61.0 million plus interest in monetary relief and/or reimbursement in respect of several fixed price LTAs that were executed between such subsidiaries and the Claimants in 2017 and 2018. On December 16, 2022, the Claimants revised their calculation of alleged damages to approximately $178.9 million including interest, with damages covering the period from the first quarter of 2020 through the end of the third quarter of 2022 and interest covering the period from June 2020 through December 16, 2022. In March 2023, an International Chamber of Commerce hearing was held before the party-appointed sole arbitrator with the Claimants, the Company, and witnesses in attendance. On March 31, 2023, the Claimants further revised their calculation of alleged damages to approximately $171.7 million, including interest, for the period covering the first quarter of 2020 through 2022. In June of 2023, the Claimants again revised their calculation of alleged damages to approximately $188.2 million, including interest, for the period covering the first quarter of 2020 through the first quarter of 2023. On April 16, 2024, we were formally notified that on March 14, 2024 the sole arbitrator appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce issued the final award in the arbitration in which he entirely dismissed all of the Claimants’ claims against the two Company subsidiaries, and ordered Claimants to pay an aggregate of approximately $9.2 million to the Company in legal fees and other related expenses, and ordered the Company to pay approximately $60,000 to the Claimants in legal fees and expenses. The Claimants paid the Company approximately $9.2 million during the second quarter of 2024, which is recorded in selling and administrative expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Pending litigation in Brazil has been brought by employees seeking to recover additional amounts and interest thereon under certain wage increase provisions applicable in 1989 and 1990 under collective bargaining agreements to which employers in the Bahia region of Brazil were a party (including our subsidiary in Brazil). Companies in Brazil have settled claims arising out of these provisions and, in May 2015, the litigation was remanded by the Brazilian Supreme Court in favor of the employees union. After denying an interim appeal by the Bahia region employers on June 26, 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the employees union on September 26, 2019. The employers union has determined not to seek annulment of such decision. Separately, on October 1, 2015, a related action was filed by current and former employees against our subsidiary in Brazil to recover amounts under such provisions, plus interest thereon, which amounts together with interest could be material to us. If the Brazilian Supreme Court proceeding above had been determined in favor of the employers union, it would also have resolved this proceeding in our favor. In the first quarter of 2017, the state court initially ruled in favor of the employees. We appealed this state court ruling, and the appellate court issued a decision in our favor on May 19, 2020. The employees have further appealed and, on December 16, 2020, the court upheld the decision in favor of GrafTech Brazil. On February 22, 2021, the employees filed a further appeal and, on April 28, 2021, the court rejected the employees’ appeal in favor of GrafTech Brazil. The employees filed a further appeal and on September 12, 2022, we filed our response in opposition. We intend to vigorously defend our position. As of December 31, 2024, we are unable to assess the potential loss associated with these proceedings as the claims do not currently specify the number of employees seeking damages or the amount of damages being sought.

Stockholder Class Action

On January 25, 2024, a stockholder of the Company filed a class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of GrafTech common stock between February 8, 2019 and August 3, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint, as amended, names the Company, certain past and present executive officers, and three entities associated with Brookfield Corporation and its affiliates (together, “Brookfield”) as defendants. The complaint alleges that certain public filings and statements made by the Company contained material misrepresentations or omissions relating to the circumstances before and after the prior temporary suspension of the Company’s graphite electrode manufacturing facility located in Monterrey, Mexico, in September 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. On May 15, 2024, the Court appointed the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On October 7, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, it is too early to determine if the matter would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Product Warranties

We generally sell products with a limited warranty. We accrue for known warranty claims if a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. We also accrue for estimated warranty claims incurred based on a historical claims charge analysis. Claims accrued but not yet paid and the related activity within the reserve for 2023 and 2024 are as follows:



	(Dollars in thousands)
Balance as of December 31, 2022	$	820
Product warranty charges/adjustments	25
Payments and settlements	(768)
Balance as of December 31, 2023	$	77
Product warranty charges/adjustments	322
Payments and settlements	(150)
Balance as of December 31, 2024	$	249

Tax Receivable Agreement

On April 23, 2018, the Company entered into the Tax Receivable Agreement that provides Brookfield, as the sole Pre-IPO stockholder, the right to receive future payments from us for 85% of the amount of cash savings, if any, in U.S. federal income tax and Swiss tax that we and our subsidiaries realize as a result of the utilization of the pre-IPO Tax Assets. In addition, we will pay interest on the payments we will make to Brookfield with respect to the amount of these cash savings from the due date (without extensions) of our tax return where we realize these savings to the payment date. On April 10, 2023, the Tax Receivable Agreement was amended and restated to change the applicable interest rate from LIBOR plus 1.00% per year to the one-month period SOFR plus 1.10%. The term of the Tax Receivable Agreement commenced on April 23, 2018 and will continue until there is no potential for any future tax benefit payments.

As of December 31, 2024, total Tax Receivable Agreement liability was $5.8 million, of which $2.0 million was classified as a current liability in Tax Receivable Agreement on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and $3.8 million was classified as a long-term liability in Tax Receivable Agreement long-term on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As of December 31, 2023, the total Tax Receivable Agreement liability was $11.1 million, of which $5.4 million was classified as a current liability and $5.7 million was classified as a long-term liability.

Mexico Value-Added Tax (“VAT”)

In July 2019, the Mexican Tax Authority (“MTA”) opened an audit of the VAT filings of GrafTech Comercial de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V. (“GrafTech Commercial Mexico”) for the period of January 1 to April 30, 2019. In September 2021, the MTA issued a tax assessment, claiming improper use of a certain VAT exemption rule for purchases from a foreign affiliate. As of December 31, 2024, the tax assessment for the four month period under audit amounted to approximately $26.1 million, including penalties, inflation and interest. Interest will continue to accrue up to five years from the date the corresponding VAT returns were filed and inflation will continue to accrue with the passage of time. GrafTech Commercial

Mexico filed an administrative appeal against the tax assessment with the MTA’s appeals office. In November 2022, the MTA’s appeals office concluded its review and confirmed the tax assessment. GrafTech Commercial Mexico believes that the purchases from a foreign affiliate are exempt from VAT back-up withholding and in December 2022, GrafTech Commercial Mexico filed a Claim for Nullity with the Chamber Specialized in exclusive resolution of substance of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice. On February 17, 2023, the MTA filed the response to the nullity petition. On May 31, 2023, the court held a hearing to determine the scope of the issues to be decided in the proceedings. At the court’s request, GrafTech Commercial Mexico submitted formal pleadings on August 1, 2023. On January 8, 2024, the court ruled in GrafTech Commercial Mexico’s favor and annulled the tax assessment. On January 31, 2024, the MTA filed an appeal for review. On March 15, 2024, GrafTech Commercial Mexico filed the Tax Adhesive Appeal for Review before the Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters who has authority to hear the MTA’s appeal. The MTA’s appeal and the Adhesive appeal are still pending to be resolved.

In March 2022, the MTA opened another audit of the VAT filings of GrafTech Commercial Mexico for the period January 1 to December 31, 2018. In the proposed assessment received in January 2023, the MTA is alleging the same improper use of certain VAT exemption rules on purchases from a foreign affiliate and has provided notice of its intent to assess approximately $51.0 million, including penalties, inflation and interest. Interest would continue to accrue up to five years from the date the corresponding VAT returns were filed and inflation would continue to accrue with the passage of time. In Mexico, each tax assessment requires a separate claim. In the first quarter of 2023, GrafTech Commercial Mexico requested a conclusive agreement with the Mexican ombudsman (“PRODECON”) to reach a settlement with the MTA. The MTA responded to GrafTech Commercial Mexico’s request on May 30, 2023. On August 2, 2023, GrafTech Commercial Mexico filed a motion exhibiting additional information and reaffirming its position. On September 22, 2023, the MTA responded to GrafTech Commercial Mexico’s motion. On October 2, 2023, GrafTech Commercial Mexico filed a motion requesting a formal meeting with the MTA and PRODECON, which occurred on November 14, 2023. During the meeting, the parties agreed that GrafTech Commercial Mexico will provide additional documentation and information to be evaluated by the MTA, and, on November 29, 2023, GrafTech Commercial Mexico filed the information requested. On January 24, 2024, the MTA filed its response. On that same day, GrafTech Commercial Mexico submitted before PRODECON the favorable ruling it obtained on January 8, 2024 in connection with the 2019 proceeding for the MTA’s consideration. On February 1, 2024, the MTA confirmed its position, holding that GrafTech Commercial Mexico was required to withhold the VAT. On March 20, 2024, a meeting was held at PRODECON where the parties confirmed their final positions. No agreement between the parties was reached, the conclusive agreement procedure came to an end, and the tax audit process resumed. On July 10, 2024, the MTA concluded the tax audit and determined that there is no tax deficiency to be assessed for the period January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.

As evidenced by the favorable court decision issued on January 8, 2024 with respect to the 2019 proceeding and the MTA’s conclusion of the tax audit for the 2018 proceeding, GrafTech Commercial Mexico’s application of the VAT exemption rules is appropriate and, accordingly, GrafTech Commercial Mexico does not believe that it is probable that it will incur a loss related to this matter for the 2019 proceeding under the MTA’s audit. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in the 2019 proceeding.

Brazil Income Tax Audit

On October 23, 2024, GrafTech Brasil Participações Ltda. received an income tax assessment notice from the Brazilian Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) totaling approximately $28.8 million including approximately $17.1 million of interest and penalties, resulting from an audit carried out between 2023 and 2024, related to the period from 2019 to 2020. In this assessment, two issues were raised by the tax auditor. The first item disallowed the investment tax incentive (75% reduction of income tax), under the allegation that the Company did not have a negative tax debt certificate. The second disallowed the use of the VAT benefit (called Desenvolve) to increase the investment tax incentive. The Company believes that the IRS assessment is incorrect and does not believe that it is probable that it will incur a loss related to these matters. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position regarding both items.