The condensed consolidated financial statements ("consolidated financial statements") include the accounts of Crown Holdings, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (the “Company”). The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Form 10-Q instructions. In the opinion of management, these consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments of a normal and recurring nature necessary for a fair statement of the financial position of the Company as of March 31, 20232024 and the results of its operations for the three months ended March 31, 20232024 and 20222023 and of its cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 20232024 and 2022.2023. The results reported in these consolidated financial statements are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year. These results have been determined on the basis of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), the application of which requires management’s utilization of estimates, and actual results may differ materially from the estimates utilized.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements presented in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted. The year-end condensed balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP. The accompanying consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022.2023.

In September 2022,November 2023, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued new guidance whichthat requires enhancedincremental disclosures related to reportable segments. That standard requires disclosure, on an annual and interim basis, of supplier finance programs.significant segment expenses that are regularly provided to the chief operating decision mater ("CODM") and included within each reported measure of profit or loss. The guidance requires buyers in a supplier finance programtitle and position of the CODM and how the reported measure of segment profit or loss is used by the CODM to disclose sufficient information about the program’s nature, activity during the period, changes from periodassess segment performance and allocate resources is also required to period, and potential magnitude.be disclosed. The guidance became effective for the Company on January 1, 2023, except for thestandard also permits disclosure of rollforward information, whichadditional measures of segment profit. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023.2023, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024. As the guidance impacts disclosure only, it will not have an impact on the Company's financial results. These changes in disclosure will initially be reflected in the annual financial statement footnotes for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (“Crown Cork”) is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.

Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor’s liability for asbestos to the acquired company’s asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company’s adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor’s assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor’s assets.

In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

The states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming have enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims at the time of enactment, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the legislation on Crown Cork.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a material impact on the Company.

During the three months ended March 31, 2023,2024, the Company paid $4$3 to settle asbestos claims and pay related legal and defense costs and had approximate claims activity as follows:

In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes these claims by year of exposure and state filed. As of December 31, 2022,2023, the Company's outstanding claims were:

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company’s accrual as the claims were filed in states, as described above, where the Company’s liability is limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlements in states where the Company’s liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims in Texas as described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation products as the cause of injury. Given the Company's settlement experience with post-1964 claims, it does not believe that an adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with respect to such claims.

As of December 31, 20222023 and 2021,2022, the percentage of outstanding claims related to claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily mesothelioma and other malignancies) were as follows:

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs’ counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in the Company’s estimated liability as of March 31, 2023.2024.

As of March 31, 2023,2024, the Company’s accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $216,$201, including $172$145 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time period.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company’s accrual. However, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company’s accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2022)2023), the Company and claimant’s willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant’s ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company’s asbestos cases are filed).

The Company, along with others in most cases, has been identified by the EPA or a comparable state environmental agency as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) at a number of sites and has recorded aggregate accruals of $12 for its share of estimated future remediation costs at these sites. The Company has been identified as having either directly

or indirectly disposed of commercial or industrial waste at the sites subject to the accrual, and where appropriate and supported by available information, generally has agreed to be responsible for a percentage of future remediation costs based on an estimated volume of materials disposed in proportion to the total materials disposed at each site. The Company has not had monetary sanctions imposed nor has the Company been notified of any potential monetary sanctions at any of the sites.

The Company has also recorded aggregate accruals of $8$7 for remediation activities at various worldwide locations that are owned by the Company and for which the Company is not a member of a PRP group. Although the Company believes its accruals are adequate to cover its portion of future remediation costs, there can be no assurance that the ultimate payments will not exceed the amount of the Company’s accruals and will not have a material effect on its results of operations, financial position and cash flow. Any possible loss or range of potential loss that may be incurred in excess of the recorded accruals cannot be estimated.

In March 2015, the Bundeskartellamt, or German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”), conducted unannounced inspections of the premises of several metal packaging manufacturers, including a German subsidiary of the Company. The local court order authorizing the inspection cited FCO suspicions of anti-competitive agreements in the German market for the supply of metal packaging products. The Company conducted an internal investigation into the matter and discovered instances of inappropriate conduct by certain employees of German subsidiaries of the Company. The Company cooperated with the FCO and submitted a leniency application with the FCO which disclosed the findings of its internal investigation to date. In April 2018, the FCO discontinued its national investigation and referred the matter to the European Commission (the “Commission”). Following the referral, Commission officials conducted unannounced inspections of the premises of several metal packaging manufacturers, including Company subsidiaries in Germany, France and the U.K. The Company cooperated with the Commission and submitted a leniency application with the Commission with respect to the findings of its internal investigation in Germany. In July 2022, the Company reached a settlement with the Commission relating to the Commission’s investigation, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $8. Fining decisions based on settlements can be appealed under EU law. The Company is seeking annulment of the Commission’s fining decision on the basis that the referral of the case from the FCO to the Commission was unjustified. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of such appeal.

In March 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) at the Port of Milwaukee issued a penalty notification alleging that certain of the Company’s subsidiaries intentionally misclassified the importation of certain goods into the

On October 7, 2021, the French Autorité de la concurrence (the French Competition Authority or “FCA”) issued a statement of objections to 14 trade associations, one public entity and 101 legal entities from 28 corporate groups, including the Company, certain of its subsidiaries, other leading metal can manufacturers, certain can fillers and certain retailers in France. The FCA alleged violations of Articles 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and L.420-1 of the French Commercial Code. The statement of objections alleges, among other things, anti-competitive behavior in connection with the removal of bisphenol-A from metal packaging in France. The removal of bisphenol-A was mandated by French legislation that went into effect in 2015. IfOn December 29, 2023, the FCA finds thatissued a decision imposing a fine of €4 million on the Company. The Company or its subsidiaries violated competition law,has appealed the decision of the FCA, may levy fines. Proceedings with respect to this matter are ongoing andhowever there can be no assurance regarding the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome including the amount of fines, if any, that may be levied by the FCA. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the statement of objections.such appeal.

The Company and its subsidiaries are also subject to various other lawsuits and claims with respect to labor, environmental, securities, vendor and other matters arising out of the Company’s normal course of business. While the impact on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists, management believes that the ultimate liabilities resulting from such lawsuits and claims will not materially affect the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position or cash flow. The Company has various commitments to purchase materials, supplies and utilities as part of the ordinary conduct of business. At times, the Company guarantees the obligations of subsidiaries under certain of these contracts and is liable for such arrangements only if the subsidiary fails to perform its obligations under the contract.

The Company’s basic raw materials for its products are aluminum and steel, both of which are purchased from multiple sources. The Company is subject to fluctuations in the cost of these raw materials and has periodically adjusted its selling prices to reflect these movements. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be able to fully recover any increases or fluctuations in raw material costs from its customers. The Company also has commitments for standby letters of credit and for purchases of capital assets.

At March 31, 2023,2024, the Company was party to certain indemnification agreements covering environmental remediation, lease payments and other potential costs associated with properties sold or businesses divested. The Company accrues for costs related to these items when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Under U.S. GAAP a framework exists for measuring fair value, providing a three-tier hierarchy of pricing inputs used to report assets and liabilities that are adjusted to fair value. Level 1 includes inputs such as quoted prices which are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the report date. Level 2 includes inputs other than those available in active markets included in Level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. Level 3 includes unobservable pricing inputs that are not corroborated by market data or other objective sources. The Company has no recurring items valued using Level 3 inputs other than certain pension plan assets.

The Company utilizes market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of assets and liabilities measured at fair value and their placement within the fair value hierarchy.

The Company applies a market approach to value its commodity price hedge contracts. Prices from observable markets are used to develop the fair value of these financial instruments and they are reported under Level 2. The Company uses an income approach to value its foreign exchange forward contracts. These contracts are valued using a discounted cash flow model that calculates the present value of future cash flows under the terms of the contracts using market information as of the reporting date, such as foreign exchange spot and forward rates, and are reported under Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

In the normal course of business the Company is subject to risk from adverse fluctuations in currency exchange rates, interest rates and commodity prices. The Company manages these risks through a program that includes the use of derivative financial instruments, primarily swaps and forwards. Counterparties to these contracts are major financial institutions. The Company is exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by these counterparties. The Company does not use derivative instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

The Company’s objective in managing exposure to market and interest rate risk is to limit the impact on earnings and cash flow. The extent to which the Company uses such instruments is dependent upon its access to these contracts in the financial markets and its success using other methods, such as netting exposures in the same currencies to mitigate foreign exchange risk, using sales agreements that permit the pass-through of commodity price and foreign exchange rate risk to customers and borrowing both fixed and floating debt instruments to manage interest rate risk.

For derivative financial instruments accounted for in hedging relationships, the Company formally designates and documents, at inception, the financial instrument as a hedge of a specific underlying exposure, the risk management objective and the manner in which effectiveness will be assessed. The Company formally assesses, both at inception and at least quarterly thereafter, whether the hedging relationships are effective in offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows of the related underlying exposures. When a forecasted transaction is reasonably possible, but not probable of occurring, the hedge no longer qualifies for hedge accounting and the change in fair value from the date of the last effectiveness test is recognized in earnings. Any gain or loss which has accumulated in other comprehensive income

at the date of the last effectiveness test is reclassified into earnings at the same time of the underlying exposure or when the forecasted transaction becomes probable of not occurring.

The Company uses commodity forward contracts to hedge anticipated purchases of various commodities, primarily aluminum as well as natural gas and electricity, and these exposures are hedged by a central treasury unit.

The Company also designates certain foreign exchange contracts as cash flow hedges of anticipated foreign currency denominated sales or purchases. The Company manages these risks at the operating unit level. Often, foreign currency risk is hedged together with the related commodity price risk.

The Company may also use interest rate swaps to convert interest on floating rate debt to a fixed-rate. 

The following tables set forth financial information about the impact on other comprehensive income ("OCI"), accumulated other comprehensive income ("AOCI") and earnings from changes in the fair value of derivative instruments.