27 Contingencies, commitments and restrictions on the distribution of profits

(i) Contingencies

Tenaris is from time to time subject to various claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings, including customer, employee, tax and environmental-related claims, in which third parties are seeking payment for alleged damages, reimbursement for losses, or indemnity. Management, with the assistance of legal counsel, periodically reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses potential financial exposure.

Some of these claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings involve highly complex issues, and often these issues are subject to substantial uncertainties and, therefore, the probability of loss and an estimation of damages are difficult to ascertain. Accordingly, with respect to a large portion of such claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings, the Company is unable to make a reliable estimate of the expected financial effect that will result from ultimate resolution of the proceeding. In those situations, the Company has not accrued a provision for the potential outcome of these cases.

If a potential loss from a claim, lawsuit or other proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, a provision is recorded. Accruals for loss contingencies reflect a reasonable estimate of the losses to be incurred based on information available to management as of the date of preparation of the financial statements and take into consideration litigation and settlement strategies. In a limited number of ongoing cases, the Company was able to make a reliable estimate of the expected loss or range of probable loss and, depending on the likelihood of occurrence, in some of such cases has accrued a provision for such loss but believes that publication of this information on a case-by-case basis would seriously prejudice the Tenaris’s position in the ongoing legal proceedings or in any related settlement discussions. Accordingly, in these cases, the Company has disclosed information with respect to the nature of the contingency but has not disclosed its estimate of the range of potential loss.

The Company believes that the aggregate provisions recorded for potential losses in these Consolidated Financial Statements are adequate based upon currently available information. However, if management’s estimates prove incorrect, current reserves could be inadequate and the Company could incur a charge to earnings which could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, net worth and cash flows.

Below is a summary description of Tenaris’s material legal proceedings which are outstanding as of the date of these Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings, none of which is believed to be material.

CSN claims relating to the January 2012 acquisition of Usiminas

The Company is party to a longstanding lawsuit filed in Brazil by Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (“CSN”), and various entities affiliated with CSN against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary Confab and three subsidiaries of Ternium, all of which compose the T/T Group under the Usiminas shareholders agreement. The entities named in the CSN lawsuit had acquired participations in Usiminas in January 2012. The CSN lawsuit alleges that, under applicable Brazilian laws and rules, the acquirers were required to launch a tag-along tender offer to all non-controlling holders of Usiminas ordinary shares for a price per share equal to 80% of the price per share paid in such acquisition, or BRL28.8, and sought an order to compel the acquirers to launch an offer at that price plus interest. If so ordered, the offer would need to be made to 182,609,851 ordinary shares of Usiminas not belonging to Usiminas’ control group. Confab’s share in the offer would be 17.9%.

On September 23, 2013, the first instance court dismissed the CSN lawsuit, and on February 8, 2017, the court of appeals maintained the understanding of the first instance court. On August 18, 2017, CSN filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”) seeking the review and reversal of the decision issued by the Court of Appeals. On September 10, 2019, the SCJ declared CSN’s appeal admissible. On March 7, 2023, the SCJ, by majority vote, rejected CSN’s appeal.

CSN made several submissions in connection with the SCJ’s March 7, 2023 decision, including a motion for clarification that challenged the merits of the SCJ decision. Decisions at the SCJ are adopted by majority vote. At an October 17, 2023 session, two justices of the SCJ voted in favor of remanding the case to the first instance for it to be retried following production and assessment of the new evidence, and two justices of the SCJ voted, without requiring any further evidence, in favor of granting CSN’s motion for clarification and reversing the March 7, 2023 decision that rejected CSN’s appeal; because the fifth member of SCJ excused himself from voting, a justice from another panel at the SCJ was summoned to produce the tie-breaking vote. On June 18, 2024, the SCJ completed its voting on CSN’s motion for clarification and reversed, by majority vote, its March 7, 2023 decision, and resolved that Confab and the three subsidiaries of Ternium should pay CSN an indemnification in connection with the acquisition by the T/T Group of a participation in Usiminas in January 2012, with CSN being allowed to retain ownership of the Usiminas ordinary shares it currently owns.

On August 1, 2024, Confab and the other T/T Group entities filed a motion for clarification against the SCJ decision and, subsequently, CSN filed its reply. On December 6, 2024, the SCJ rejected this motion for clarification, confirming the obligation of Confab and the other T/T Group entities to pay indemnification in connection with the 2012 acquisition of the participations in Usiminas. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the SCJ unanimously resolved to modify the applicable monetary adjustment mechanism and to cap the applicable attorney’s fees, thereby lowering the aggregate amount that would be payable if CSN ultimately prevails in this claim. Based on such SCJ decision, assuming monetary adjustment thorough December 31, 2024, and attorney’s fees in the amount of BRL5 million, the revised aggregate amount potentially payable by Confab if CSN finally prevails on its claims, would be of approximately BRL553.4 million (approximately $89.4 million at the BRL/$ rate as of such date).

The Company continues to believe that all of CSN's claims and allegations are unsupported and without merit, as confirmed by several opinions of Brazilian legal counsel, two decisions issued by the Brazilian securities regulator in February 2012 and December 2016, the first and second instance court decisions and the March 7, 2023 SCJ decision referred to above, and that in connection with the Usiminas acquisition the T/T Group was not required either to launch a tender offer or to pay indemnification to CSN. Accordingly, on February 10, 2025, Confab and the other T/T Group entities filed an extraordinary appeal against the SCJ decisions that ordered an indemnification payment, seeking their review and reversal by the Supreme Federal Tribunal. The Company, however, cannot predict the ultimate resolution of the matter.

Veracel celulose accident litigation

On September 21, 2007, an accident occurred in the premises of Veracel Celulose S.A. (“Veracel”) in connection with a rupture in one of the tanks used in an evaporation system manufactured by Confab. The Veracel accident allegedly resulted in material damages to Veracel. Itaú Seguros S.A. (“Itaú”), Veracel’s insurer at the time of the Veracel accident and then replaced by Chubb Seguros Brasil S/A (“Chubb”), initiated a lawsuit against Confab seeking reimbursement of damages paid to Veracel in connection with the Veracel accident. Veracel initiated a second lawsuit against Confab seeking reimbursement of the amount paid as insurance deductible with respect to the Veracel accident and other amounts not covered by insurance. Itaú and Veracel claimed that the Veracel accident was caused by failures and defects attributable to the evaporation system manufactured by Confab. Confab believes that the Veracel accident was caused by the improper handling by Veracel’s personnel of the equipment supplied by Confab in violation of Confab’s instructions. The two lawsuits were consolidated and are considered by the 6^th Civil Court of São Caetano do Sul. However, each lawsuit will be adjudicated separately.

On September 28, 2018, Confab and Chubb entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which on October 9, 2018, Confab paid an amount of approximately $3.5 million to Chubb, without assuming any liability for the accident or the claim.

On October 10, 2018, Confab was notified that the court had issued rulings for both lawsuits. Both decisions were unfavorable to Confab:

•	With respect to Chubb’s claim, the court subsequently homologated the above-mentioned settlement and, accordingly, the claim was finalized.

•	With respect to Veracel’s claim, Confab was ordered to pay the insurance deductible and other concepts not covered by insurance, currently estimated to amount to BRL110.5 million (approximately $17.8 million) including interest, fees and expenses. Both parties filed motions for clarification against the court’s decision, which were partially granted. Although the contract between Confab and Veracel expressly provided that Confab would not be liable for damages arising from lost profits, the court award would appear to include BRL94.8 million (approximately $15.3 million) of damages arising therefrom. Confab has additional defence arguments in respect of a claim for lost profits. On December 18, 2018, Confab filed an appeal against the first instance court decision, and on April 30, 2019, Veracel filed its response to the appeal. In June 2022, the court resolved that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on the appeal, which was re-allocated to another court. On August 26, 2024, the court issued a decision rejecting certain procedural objections and ordering that new expert evidence be produced. As a result, the trial was redirected to the first instance court for new technical evidence to be produced by a new expert. On September 9, 2024, Veracel filed a motion for clarification, which was responded by Confab on October 23, 2024, and remains pending decision. At this stage, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the claim or the amount or range of loss in case of an unfavourable outcome.

•	Petrobras-related proceedings and claims

Upon learning that Brazilian, Italian and Swiss authorities were investigating whether certain payments were made prior to 2014 from accounts of entities presumably associated with affiliates of the Company to accounts allegedly linked to individuals related to Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”) and whether any such payments were intended to benefit the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary Confab, the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors engaged external counsel in connection with the Company’s review of these matters. In addition, the Company voluntarily notified the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in October 2016. The Company conducted, with the assistance of external counsel, an internal investigation and found no evidence corroborating any involvement by the Company or its directors, officers or employees in respect of improper payments. An internal investigation commissioned by Petrobras also found no evidence that Confab obtained any unfair commercial benefit or advantage from Petrobras in return for payments, including improperly obtained contracts. On June 2, 2022, the Company resolved the investigation by the SEC, and the DOJ informed that it had closed its parallel inquiry without taking action. Under the settlement with the SEC, the Company neither admits nor denies the SEC’s findings and on June 24, 2022, paid $53.1 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and $25 million for a civil penalty to conclude the matter.

In July 2019, the Company learned that the public prosecutors’ office of Milan, Italy, had completed a preliminary investigation into the same alleged payments and had included in the investigation, among other persons, the Company’s Chairman and chief executive officer, two other board members, Gianfelice Rocca and Roberto Bonatti, and the Company’s controlling shareholder, San Faustin. The Company was not a party to the proceedings. On March 22, 2022, upon completion of the evidentiary phase of the trial, the acting prosecutor requested the first-instance court in Milan in charge of the case to impose sanctions on our Chairman and chief executive officer, on the other two board members, and on San Faustin. On May 26, 2022, the first-instance court dismissed the case brought by the public prosecutor against the defendants for lack of jurisdiction and stated that the criminal proceeding should not have been initiated. On February 22, 2024, the court of appeals referred the case to the court of cassation, which, on May 23, 2024, confirmed the decision of the first-instance court and closed the case.

In June 2020, the Brazilian public prosecutors’ office requested the indictment of several individuals, including three executives or former executives of Confab and a former agent of Confab, charging them with the alleged crimes of corruption in relation to contracts executed between 2007 and 2010, and money laundering in relation to payments between 2009 and 2013. On December 11, 2024, the Confab executives were acquitted. The acquittal has already been appealed, so the criminal proceedings continue to be underway. Neither the Company nor Confab is a party to these criminal proceedings.

In addition, Petrobras and the Brazilian public prosecutors filed civil claims for alleged damages arising from the same events against, among others, Confab and the Confab executives named in the criminal proceedings referred to above. Confab became aware of these civil claims in September 2022. As of December 31, 2024, the aggregate amount of these claims was estimated at BRL193.2 million (or approximately $31.2 million). The plaintiffs also seek that Confab be prohibited from contracting with, or receiving benefits or exemptions from, the Brazilian state for an unspecified term. Confab believes these claims do not address either the defence arguments or the evidence available to the plaintiffs in Brazil and presented in other jurisdictions and is contesting them. At this stage, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these civil proceedings.

In late March 2024, the Company became aware of a resolution of Brazil’s General Controllers Office, which opened administrative responsibility proceedings against Confab and other non-Tenaris affiliates and formed an investigative commission charged with investigating the same purported irregularities. Confab received notice of these proceedings in February 2025, and believes that the General Controllers’ Office’s allegations do not address either the defence arguments or the evidence available to the plaintiffs in Brazil and presented in other jurisdictions. Although the Company is defending itself, it cannot predict the outcome of these administrative proceedings.

Administrative proceeding concerning Brazilian tax credits

Confab is a party to an administrative proceeding concerning the recognition and transfer of tax credits for an amount allegedly exceeding the amount that Confab would have been entitled to recognize and / or transfer. The proceeding resulted in the imposition of a fine against Confab representing approximately 75% of the allegedly undue credits, which was appealed by Confab. On January 21, 2019, Confab was notified of an administrative decision denying Confab’s appeal, thereby upholding the tax determination and the fine against Confab. On January 28, 2019, Confab challenged such administrative decision. Special appeals were filed by Confab in July 2023 and by the Brazilian General Tax Attorney in September 2023. The parties are currently awaiting a resolution. In case of an unfavorable resolution, Confab may appeal before the courts. The estimated amount of this claim is BRL62.1 million (approximately $10.0 million). At this stage, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this claim.

U.S. patent infringement litigation

Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC (“TCT”), a U.S. subsidiary of the Company, was sued in 2017 by its competitor Global Tubing, alleging defamatory conduct by TCT and seeking a declaration that certain Global Tubing products do not infringe patents held by TCT. TCT counterclaimed that certain Global Tubing products did infringe patents held by TCT, and Global Tubing has since sought to invalidate such patents. On December 13, 2019, Global Tubing filed an amended complaint (including the Company as defendant), alleging, among other things, that TCT and the Company had misled the patent office. On March 20, 2023, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of Global Tubing, concluding that the patents at issue are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during the patent prosecution process. TCT appealed this judgment, and Global Tubing appealed a previous ruling of the judge. Global Tubing also filed a brief seeking to recover attorneys’ fees, without specifying the amount of those fees. Although it is not possible to predict the final outcome of this matter, the Company believes that any potential losses arising from this case will not be material.

U.S. Antidumping Duty Investigations

On October 27, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) initiated antidumping duty investigations of oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina, Mexico, and Russia. After the DOC issued affirmative preliminary and final antidumping determinations with respect to imports from Argentina, Mexico and Russia on October 27, 2022, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) determined that the imports under investigation caused injury to the U.S. OCTG industry. Tenaris and other parties have appealed the agency determinations from the investigation to the Court of International Trade, and, with respect to certain claims, to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, in response to a request from the Government of Argentina, the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) established a panel of experts to consider whether the DOC’s antidumping order applicable to Argentina is consistent with the international obligations of the United States. As a result of the investigation, and unless overturned on appeal, Tenaris is required to pay antidumping duty deposits (at a rate of 78.30% for imports from Argentina and 44.93% for imports from Mexico) until such time the imports are reviewed by the DOC to determine whether final duties are necessary for the specific period under review. Tenaris has been paying such deposits since May 11, 2022, reflecting the amount of such deposits in its costs. The deposit rates may be reset periodically based on the results of the review process. It is possible that, through the periodic review process, the deposits may be either returned to Tenaris in whole or in part, or may be increased.

(ii) Commitments and guarantees

Set forth is a description of the Tenaris’s main outstanding commitments:

Certain subsidiaries of the Company entered into a long-term contract with Praxair S.A. for the service of oxygen and nitrogen supply. As of December 31, 2024, the aggregate amount to take or pay the committed volumes for an original 14-year term totaled approximately $28.1 million.

A Mexican subsidiary of the Company entered into a 25-year contract (effective as of December 1, 2016, through December 1, 2041) with Techgen for the supply of 197 MW (which represents 22% of Techgen’s capacity). Monthly payments are determined on the basis of capacity charges, operation costs, back-up power charges, and transmission charges. As of the seventh contract year (as long as Techgen’s existing or replacing bank facility has been repaid in full), the Company’s subsidiary has the right to suspend or early terminate the contract if the rate payable under the agreement is higher than the rate charged by the Mexican Comisión Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”) or its successors. The Company’s subsidiary may instruct Techgen to sell to any affiliate, to CFE, or to any other third party all or any part of unused contracted energy under the agreement and the Company’s subsidiary will benefit from the proceeds of such sale.

A U.S. subsidiary of the Company is a party to a contract with Nucor Steel Memphis Inc. under which it is committed to purchase on a monthly basis a specified minimum volume of steel bars, at prices subject to quarterly adjustments. The contract became effective in April 2021, with an original duration of 3 years. In September 2023, the parties agreed to extend its term until December 31, 2024 and in October 2024, agreed a renovation until December 31,2025. As of December 31, 2024, the estimated aggregate contract amount calculated at current prices, was approximately $57.7 million. The contract gives the subsidiary of the Company the right to temporarily reduce the quantities to be purchased thereunder to 75% of the agreed-upon minimum volume in cases of material adverse changes in prevailing economic or market conditions.

In connection with the closing of the acquisition of IPSCO, a U.S. subsidiary of the Company entered into a 6-year master distribution agreement (the “MDA”) with PAO TMK (“TMK”) whereby, since January 2, 2020, Tenaris became the exclusive distributor of TMK’s OCTG and line pipe products in United States and Canada. At the end of the MDA’s 6-year term, TMK would have the option to extend the duration of its term for an additional 12-month period. Under the MDA, the Company is required to purchase specified minimum volumes of TMK-manufactured OCTG and line pipe products, based on the aggregate market demand for the relevant product category in the United States in the relevant year. In February 2022, however, the Company and TMK agreed that there would be no minimum yearly purchase requirement for the OCTG product category for 2022, and there would be no minimum yearly purchase requirement for TMK line pipe products under the MDA neither for 2022, nor for any subsequent contract year until expiration of the MDA’s term. In addition, no purchases of TMK products were made during 2023 or 2024.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company entered into a long-term contract with the supplier JFE Steel Corporation for the purchase of tubular material, including 13 chrome alloy products. Such contract foresees a penalty for a maximum amount of $25.1 million in case of early termination. The contract is valid until June 30, 2029.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company entered into short-term agreements with Vestas Group for the supply of materials and services related to the construction of a wind farm in Argentina. As of December 31, 2024, the amount related to these commitments was $90.1 million.

An Argentine subsidiary of the Company entered into short-term agreements with COARCO S.A. for execution of civil and electrical works, including auxiliary services, related with the construction of a wind farm in Argentina. As of December 31, 2024, the amount related to these commitments was $39.9 million.

A U.S. subsidiary of the Company entered into a one-year agreement with U.S. Steel Corporation under which it is committed to take or pay on a monthly basis a specified minimum volume of steel billets, at prices calculated on a monthly basis. As of December 31, 2024, the estimated aggregate contract amount, calculated at current prices, stands at approximately $31.2 million.

An Argentine subsidiary of the Company entered into a contract with Usiminas from which it committed to purchase steel coils for a remaining amount of approximately $88.2 million to use for manufacturing welded pipes for the VMOS project in the Vaca Muerta shale in Argentina.

In addition, Tenaris (i) applied for stand-by letters of credit as well as corporate guarantees covering certain obligations of Techgen as described in note 14 (c) and (ii) issued performance guarantees mainly related to long-term commercial contracts with several customers and Tenaris companies for approximately $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2024.

(iii) Restrictions on the distribution of profits and payment of dividends

In accordance with Luxembourg Law, the Company is required to transfer a minimum of 5% of its net profit for each financial year to a legal reserve is until such reserve equals 10% of the issued share capital.

On April 30, 2024, the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders approved the cancelation of 17,779,302 ordinary shares held in treasury by the Company and the corresponding reduction of the issued share capital of the Company and, accordingly, the legal reserve was proportionally reduced. As of December 31, 2024, this reserve remains fully allocated and additional allocations to the reserve are not required under Luxembourg law. Dividends may not be paid out of the legal reserve.

The Company may pay dividends to the extent, among other conditions, that it has distributable retained earnings calculated in accordance with Luxembourg law and regulations.