additional investigations or litigation, any of which could exacerbate these risks or expose us to potential criminal or civil liabilities, sanctions or other remedial measures, and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows. On August 10, 2020, the SEC, through its Division of Enforcement, issued an order directing an investigation of possible securities laws violations by FirstEnergy, and on September 1, 2020, issued subpoenas to FirstEnergy and certain of its officers. We are cooperating with the SEC in their ongoing investigation. We believe that it is probable that FE will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of the SEC’s investigation. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such investigation, we cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss that may arise from the resolution of the SEC investigation, but such resolution could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows. We also believe that it is probable that FE will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, we cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss that may arise from its resolution. However, if it is resolved against us substantial monetary damages could result and our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows may be materially adversely affected. These matters are likely to continue to have an adverse impact on the trading prices of our securities. See Note 13, “Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies,” of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional details on the government investigations and subsequent litigation surrounding HB 6. The HB 6 Related State Regulatory Investigations Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on our Reputation, Business, Financial Condition, Results of Operations, Liquidity or Cash Flows There are several state regulatory matters associated with the ongoing governmental investigations including, but not limited to, the following: • On August 16, 2022, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio requested that the PUCO stay the following pending HB 6 related matters for a period of six months, which request was granted by the PUCO on August 24, 2022: ◦ On September 15, 2020, the PUCO opened a new proceeding to review the political and charitable spending by the Ohio Companies in support of HB 6 and the subsequent referendum effort. ◦ On November 4, 2020, the PUCO initiated an additional corporate separation audit as a result of the FirstEnergy leadership transition announcement made on October 29, 2020 ◦ On December 30, 2020, the PUCO directed PUCO staff to solicit a third-party auditor and conduct a full review of the DMR to ensure funds collected from customers through the DMR were only used for the purposes established in ESP IV. The auditor’s report was filed on January 14, 2022 and the parties submitted final comments and responses in the second quarter 2022. See ”Outlook – Ohio” below for additional information regarding the auditor’s findings. ◦ On March 10, 2021, the PUCO expanded the scope of an ongoing annual audit of the Ohio Companies’ Rider DCR for 2020 to include a review of certain transactions that were either improperly classified, misallocated, or lacked supporting documentation, and to determine whether funds collected from customers were used to pay the vendors, and if so, whether or not the funds associated with those payments should be returned to customers through Rider DCR or through an alternative proceeding. • On May 11, 2021, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel filed a petition asking the MDPSC to open an investigation regarding several matters including possible impacts to PE as a result of the HB 6 investigations in Ohio. On July 26, 2021, the MDPSC opened a proceeding to allow discovery into: (i) whether the HB 6 investigations in Ohio have impacted or could impact the cost to PE of borrowing funds from the regulated companies money pool; (ii) whether money from PE was used to pay for bribes or other misconduct associated with the HB 6 investigations in Ohio or the legal costs related to those matters; and (iii) whether the Icahn Capital appointed directors would have the ability to assert substantial influence over PE in their roles as FE directors. While FirstEnergy is committed to pursuing an open dialogue with stakeholders in an appropriate manner with respect to the numerous regulatory proceedings currently underway, the rates our Utilities and Transmission Companies are allowed to charge may be decreased as a result of actions taken by a regulator to which our Utilities and Transmission Companies are subject to jurisdiction, whether as a result of the DPA, any failure to have complied with anti-corruption laws, or otherwise. We are unable to predict the adverse impacts on such regulatory matters, including with respect to rates, and, therefore, any of these risks could impact us significantly beyond expectations. Moreover, we are unable to predict the potential for any additional regulatory actions, any of which could exacerbate these risks or expose us to adverse outcomes in pending or future rate cases, and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows. 10
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTIzOTM0