| COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES FirstEnergy has various financial and performance guarantees and indemnifications, which are issued in the normal course of business. These contracts include performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications. FirstEnergy enters into these arrangements to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties by enhancing the value of the transaction to the third party. As of September 30, 2022, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $1.1 billion, consisting of parental guarantees on behalf of its consolidated subsidiaries ($591 million) and other assurances ($460 million). COLLATERAL AND CONTINGENT-RELATED FEATURES In the normal course of business, FE and its subsidiaries may enter into physical or financially settled contracts for the sale and purchase of electric capacity, energy, fuel and emission allowances. Certain agreements contain provisions that require FE or its subsidiaries to post collateral. This collateral may be posted in the form of cash or credit support with thresholds contingent upon FE’s or its subsidiaries’ credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies. The collateral and credit support requirements vary by contract and by counterparty. As of September 30, 2022, $36 million of collateral has been posted by FE or its subsidiaries and is included in “Prepaid taxes and other current assets” on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. FE or its subsidiaries are holding $321 million of cash collateral as of September 30, 2022, from certain generation suppliers, primarily due to the rise in power prices, and such amount is included in “Other current liabilities” on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. These credit-risk-related contingent features stipulate that if the subsidiary were to be downgraded or lose its investment grade credit rating (based on its senior unsecured debt rating), it would be required to provide additional collateral. The following table discloses the potential additional credit rating contingent contractual collateral obligations as of September 30, 2022: Potential Collateral Obligations Utilities and Transmission Companies FE Total (In millions) Contractual Obligations for Additional Collateral Upon Further Downgrade $ 64 $ — $ 64 Surety Bonds (Collateralized Amount) (1) 61 249 310 Total Exposure from Contractual Obligations $ 125 $ 249 $ 374 (1) Surety Bonds are not tied to a credit rating. Surety Bonds’ impact assumes maximum contractual obligations, which is ordinarily 100% of the face amount of the surety bond except with the respect to $39 million of surety bond obligations for which the collateral obligation is capped at 60% of the face amount, and typical obligations require 30 days to cure. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, and other environmental matters. While FirstEnergy’s environmental policies and procedures are designed to achieve compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, such laws and regulations are subject to periodic review and potential revision by the implementing agencies. FirstEnergy cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome of any of these reviews or how any future actions taken as a result thereof may materially impact its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. Clean Air Act FirstEnergy complies with SO 2 and NOx emission reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, utilizing combustion controls and post-combustion controls and/or using emission allowances. CSAPR requires reductions of NOx and SO 2 emissions in two phases (2015 and 2017), ultimately capping SO 2 emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO 2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO 2 emission allowances with some restrictions. On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit ordered the EPA to reconsider the CSAPR caps on NOx and SO 2 emissions from power plants in 13 states, including West Virginia. This followed the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling generally upholding the EPA’s regulatory approach under CSAPR but questioning whether the EPA required upwind states to reduce emissions by more than their contribution to air pollution in downwind states. The EPA issued a CSAPR Update on September 7, 2016, reducing summertime NOx emissions from power plants in 22 states in the eastern U.S., including West Virginia, beginning in 2017. Various states and other stakeholders appealed the CSAPR Update to the D.C. Circuit in November and December 2016. On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit remanded the CSAPR Update to the EPA citing that the rule did not eliminate upwind states’ significant contributions to downwind states’ air quality attainment requirements within applicable attainment deadlines. Also in March 2018, the State of New York filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that NOx emissions from nine states (including West Virginia) significantly contribute to New York’s inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition sought suitable emission rate limits for large stationary sources that are allegedly affecting New York’s air quality within the three years allowed by CAA Section 126. On September 20, 2019, the EPA denied New York’s CAA Section 126 petition. On October 29, 2019, the State of New York appealed the denial of its petition to the D.C. Circuit. On July 14, 2020, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded the New York petition to the EPA for further consideration. On March 15, 2021, the EPA issued a revised CSAPR Update that addresses, among other things, the remands of the prior CSAPR Update and the New York Section 126 petition. In December 2021, MP purchased NOx emissions allowances to comply with 2021 ozone season requirements. On April 6, 2022, the EPA published proposed rules seeking to impose further significant reductions in EGU NO x emissions in 25 states, including West Virginia. The EPA held a virtual public hearing regarding the proposed rules on April 21, 2022, and MP submitted written comments on June 21, 2022. Depending on the outcome of any appeals and how the EPA and the states ultimately implement the revised CSAPR Update, the future cost of compliance may materially impact FirstEnergy’s operations, cash flows and financial condition. Climate Change There are several initiatives to reduce GHG emissions at the state, federal and international level. Certain northeastern states are participating in the RGGI and western states led by California, have implemented programs, primarily cap and trade mechanisms, to control emissions of certain GHGs. Additional policies reducing GHG emissions, such as demand reduction programs, renewable portfolio standards and renewable subsidies have been implemented across the nation. In September 2016, the U.S. joined in adopting the agreement reached on December 12, 2015, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings in Paris to reduce GHGs. The Paris Agreement’s non-binding obligations to limit global warming to below two degrees Celsius became effective on November 4, 2016. On June 1, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the Paris Agreement. On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order re-adopting the agreement on behalf of the U.S. In November 2020, FirstEnergy published its Climate Story which includes its climate position and strategy, as well as a new comprehensive and ambitious GHG emission goal. FirstEnergy pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and set an interim goal for a 30% reduction in GHGs within FirstEnergy’s direct operational control by 2030, based on 2019 levels. Future resource plans to achieve carbon reductions, including any determination of retirement dates of the regulated coal-fired generation, will be developed by working collaboratively with regulators in West Virginia. Determination of the useful life of the regulated coal-fired generation could result in changes in depreciation, and/or continued collection of net plant in rates after retirement, securitization, sale, impairment, or regulatory disallowances. If MP is unable to recover these costs, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy’s and/or MP’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow. Furthermore, FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO 2 emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require material capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. In December 2009, the EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for GHGs under the Clean Air Act,” concluding that concentrations of several key GHGs constitute an “endangerment” and may be regulated as “air pollutants” under the CAA and mandated measurement and reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources, including electric generating plants. Subsequently, the EPA released its final CPP regulations in August 2015 to reduce CO 2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs and finalized separate regulations imposing CO 2 emission limits for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Numerous states and private parties filed appeals and motions to stay the CPP with the D.C. Circuit in October 2015. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule during the pendency of the challenges to the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. On March 28, 2017, an executive order, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” instructed the EPA to review the CPP and related rules addressing GHG emissions and suspend, revise or rescind the rules if appropriate. On June 19, 2019, the EPA repealed the CPP and replaced it with the ACE rule that established guidelines for states to develop standards of performance to address GHG emissions from existing coal-fired generation. On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the ACE rule declaring that the EPA was “arbitrary and capricious” in its rule making and, as such, the ACE rule is no longer in effect and all actions thus far taken by states to implement the federally mandated rule are now null and void. Vacating the ACE Rule had the unintended effect of reinstating the CPP because the repeal of the CPP was a provision within the ACE Rule. The D.C. Circuit decision was appealed by several states and interested parties, including West Virginia, arguing that the EPA did not have the authorization under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to require “generation shifting” as a way to limit GHGs. On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA’s regulation of GHGs under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act was not authorized by Congress and remanded the Rule to the EPA for further reconsideration. Clean Water Act Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal CWA and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy’s facilities. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy’s operations. On September 30, 2015, the EPA finalized new, more stringent effluent limits for the Steam Electric Power Generating category (40 CFR Part 423) for arsenic, mercury, selenium and nitrogen for wastewater from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water. The treatment obligations were to phase-in as permits are renewed on a five-year cycle from 2018 to 2023. However, on April 13, 2017, the EPA granted a Petition for Reconsideration and on September 18, 2017, the EPA postponed certain compliance deadlines for two years. On August 31, 2020, the EPA issued a final rule revising the effluent limits for discharges from wet scrubber systems, retaining the zero-discharge standard for ash transport water, (with some limited discharge allowances), and extending the deadline for compliance to December 31, 2025 for both. In addition, the EPA allows for less stringent limits for sub-categories of generating units based on capacity utilization, flow volume from the scrubber system, and unit retirement date. The EPA is reconsidering the ELG rule with a publicly announced target of issuing a proposed revised rule in the Fall of 2022 and a final rule by the Spring of 2023. In the interim, the rule issued on August 31, 2020, remains in effect. Depending on the outcome of appeals and how final rules are ultimately implemented, the compliance with these standards, could require additional capital expenditures or changes in operations at Ft. Martin and Harrison power stations from what was filed with the WVPSC in December 2021 that seeks approval of environmental compliance projects to comply with the EPA’s 2020 ELG Rule. Regulation of Waste Disposal Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the RCRA, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Certain CCRs, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA’s evaluation of the need for future regulation. In April 2015, the EPA finalized regulations for the disposal of CCRs (non-hazardous), establishing national standards for landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to assure the safe disposal of CCRs from electric generating plants. On September 13, 2017, the EPA announced that it would reconsider certain provisions of the final regulations. On July 29, 2020, the EPA published a final rule again revising the date that certain CCR impoundments must cease accepting waste and initiate closure to April 11, 2021. The final rule also allows for an extension of the closure deadline based on meeting proscribed site-specific criteria. On November 30, 2020, AE Supply submitted a closure deadline extension request to the EPA seeking to extend the closure date of McElroy's Run CCR impoundment facility until 2024, which request is pending technical review by the EPA. AE Supply continues to operate McElroy’s Run as a disposal facility for FG’s Pleasants Power Station. FE or its subsidiaries have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the CERCLA. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2022, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FirstEnergy’s proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $103 million have been accrued through September 30, 2022, of which, approximately $65 million are for environmental remediation of former MGP and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. FE or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the loss or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time. OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS United States v. Larry Householder, et al. On July 21, 2020, a complaint and supporting affidavit containing federal criminal allegations were unsealed against the now former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and other individuals and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Householder. Also, on July 21, 2020, and in connection with the investigation, FirstEnergy received subpoenas for records from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District Ohio. FirstEnergy was not aware of the criminal allegations, affidavit or subpoenas before July 21, 2020. On July 21, 2021, FE entered into a three-year DPA with the U.S. Attorney’s Office that, subject to court proceedings, resolves this matter. Under the DPA, FE has agreed to the filing of a criminal information charging FE with one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. The DPA requires that FirstEnergy, among other obligations: (i) continue to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in all matters relating to the conduct described in the DPA and other conduct under investigation by the U.S. government; (ii) pay a criminal monetary penalty totaling $230 million within sixty days, which shall consist of (x) $115 million paid by FE to the United States Treasury and (y) $115 million paid by FE to the ODSA to fund certain assistance programs, as determined by the ODSA, for the benefit of low-income Ohio electric utility customers; (iii) publish a list of all payments made in 2021 to either 501(c)(4) entities or to entities known by FirstEnergy to be operating for the benefit of a public official, either directly or indirectly, and update the same on a quarterly basis during the term of the DPA; (iv) issue a public statement, as dictated in the DPA, regarding FE’s use of 501(c)(4) entities; and (v) continue to implement and review its compliance and ethics program, internal controls, policies and procedures designed, implemented and enforced to prevent and detect violations of the U.S. laws throughout its operations, and to take certain related remedial measures. The $230 million payment will neither be recovered in rates or charged to FirstEnergy customers nor will FirstEnergy seek any tax deduction related to such payment. The entire amount of the monetary penalty was recognized as expense in the second quarter of 2021 and paid in the third quarter of 2021. Under the terms of the DPA, the criminal information will be dismissed after FirstEnergy fully complies with its obligations under the DPA. Legal Proceedings Relating to United States v. Larry Householder, et al. On August 10, 2020, the SEC, through its Division of Enforcement, issued an order directing an investigation of possible securities laws violations by FE, and on September 1, 2020, issued subpoenas to FE and certain FE officers. On April 28, 2021, and July 11, 2022, the SEC issued additional subpoenas to FE, with which FE has complied. While no contingency has been reflected in its consolidated financial statements, FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of the SEC investigation. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of the review, inquiries and investigations, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss that may arise from the resolution of the SEC investigation. In addition to the subpoenas referenced above under “—United States v. Larry Householder, et. al.” and the SEC investigation, certain FE stockholders and FirstEnergy customers filed several lawsuits against FirstEnergy and certain current and former directors, officers and other employees, and the complaints in each of these suits is related to allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavit relating to HB 6 and the now former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and other individuals and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Householder. The plaintiffs in each of the below cases seek, among other things, to recover an unspecified amount of damages (unless otherwise noted). Unless otherwise indicated, no contingency has been reflected in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements with respect to these lawsuits as a loss is neither probable, nor is a loss or range of a loss reasonably estimable. • In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio); on July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE’s business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. • MFS Series Trust I, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al. and Brighthouse Funds II – MFS Value Portfolio, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al. (S.D. Ohio) on December 17, 2021 and February 21, 2022, purported stockholders of FE filed complaints against FE, certain current and former officers, and certain current and former officers of EH. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing alleged misrepresentations or omissions regarding FE’s business and its results of operations, and seek the same relief as the In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation described above. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur losses in connection with the resolution of these lawsuits. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. • State of Ohio ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al. and City of Cincinnati and City of Columbus v. FirstEnergy Corp. (Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, OH, all actions have been consolidated); on September 23, 2020 and October 27, 2020, the OAG and the cities of Cincinnati and Columbus, respectively, filed complaints against several parties including FE (the OAG also named FES as a defendant), each alleging civil violations of the Ohio Corrupt Activity Act in connection with the passage of HB 6. On January 13, 2021, the OAG filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against FirstEnergy seeking to enjoin FirstEnergy from collecting the Ohio Companies' decoupling rider. On January 31, 2021, FE reached a partial settlement with the OAG and the cities of Cincinnati and Columbus with respect to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction request and related issues. In connection with the partial settlement, the Ohio Companies filed an application on February 1, 2021, with the PUCO to set their respective decoupling riders (CSR) to zero. On February 2, 2021, the PUCO approved the application of the Ohio Companies setting the rider to zero and no additional customer bills will include new decoupling rider charges after February 8, 2021. The cases are stayed pending final resolution of the United States v. Larry Householder, et al. criminal proceeding described above, although on August 13, 2021, new defendants were added to the complaint, including two former officers of FirstEnergy. On November 9, 2021, the OAG filed a motion to lift the agreed-upon stay, which FE opposed on November 19, 2021; the motion remains pending. On December 2, 2021, the cities and FE entered a stipulated dismissal with prejudice of the cities’ suit. • Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Buldas v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., and Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc. v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al. (S.D. Ohio, all actions have been consolidated); on July 27, 2020, July 31, 2020, and August 5, 2020, respectively, purported customers of FE filed putative class action lawsuits against FE and FESC, as well as certain current and former FE officers, alleging civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations and related state law claims. FE agreed to a class settlement to resolve these claims on April 11, 2022. In the fourth quarter of 2021, FirstEnergy recognized a pre-tax reserve of $37.5 million in the aggregate with respect to these lawsuits and the Emmons lawsuit below. On June 22, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class settlement and scheduled the final fairness hearing for November 9, 2022. • Emmons v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al. (Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, OH); on August 4, 2020, a purported customer of FirstEnergy filed a putative class action lawsuit against FE, FESC, the Ohio Companies, along with FES, alleging several causes of action, including negligence and/or gross negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair or deceptive consumer acts or practices. FE agreed to a class settlement to resolve these claims on April 11, 2022. In the fourth quarter of 2021, FirstEnergy recognized a pre-tax reserve of $37.5 million in the aggregate with respect to this lawsuit and the lawsuits above consolidated with Smith in the S.D. Ohio alleging, among other things, civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On June 22, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class settlement and scheduled the final fairness hearing for November 9, 2022. On February 9, 2022, FE, acting through the SLC, agreed to a settlement term sheet to resolve the following shareholder derivative lawsuits relating to HB 6 and the now former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and other individuals and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Householder that were filed in the S.D. Ohio, the N.D. Ohio, and the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Summit County: • Gendrich v. Anderson, et al. and Sloan v. Anderson, et al. (Common Pleas Court, Summit County, OH, all actions have been consolidated); on July 26, 2020 and July 31, 2020, respectively, purported stockholders of FE filed shareholder derivative action lawsuits against certain FE directors and officers, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty. • Miller v. Anderson, et al. (N.D. Ohio); Bloom, et al. v. Anderson, et al.; Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Jones, et al.; Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Anderson et al.; Massachusetts Laborers Pension Fund v. Anderson et al.; The City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement v. Anderson et al.; Atherton v. Dowling et al.; Behar v. Anderson, et al. (S.D. Ohio, all actions have been consolidated); beginning on August 7, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed shareholder derivative actions alleging the FE Board and officers breached their fiduciary duties and committed violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 11, 2022, the parties executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, and filed a motion the same day requesting preliminary settlement approval in the S.D. Ohio, which the S.D Ohio granted on May 9, 2022. Subsequently, following a hearing on August 4, 2022, the S.D. Ohio granted final approval of the settlement on August 24, 2022. The settlement agreement is expected to resolve fully these shareholder derivative lawsuits and includes a series of corporate governance enhancements, that have resulted in the following: • Six members of the FE Board, Messrs. Michael J. Anderson, Donald T. Misheff, Thomas N. Mitchell, Christopher D. Pappas and Luis A. Reyes, and Ms. Julia L. Johnson did not stand for re-election at FE’s 2022 annual shareholder meeting; • A special FE Board committee of at least three recently appointed independent directors was formed to initiate a review process of the then current senior executive team. The review of the senior executive team by the special FE Board committee and the FE Board was completed in September 2022; • The FE Board will oversee FE’s lobbying and political activities, including periodically reviewing and approving political and lobbying action plans prepared by management; • An FE Board committee of recently appointed independent directors will oversee the implementation and third-party audits of the FE Board-approved action plans with respect to political and lobbying activities; • FE will implement enhanced disclosure to shareholders of political and lobbying activities, including enhanced disclosure in its annual proxy statement; and • FE will further align financial incentives of senior executives to proactive compliance with legal and ethical obligations. The settlement also includes a payment to FE of $180 million, to be paid by insurance after the judgment has become final, less $36 million in court-ordered attorney’s fees awarded to plaintiffs. On September 20, 2022, a purported FE stockholder filed a motion for reconsideration of the S.D. Ohio’s final settlement approval. The parties filed oppositions to that motion on October 11, 2022. The N.D. Ohio matter remains pending. On June 2, 2022, the N.D. Ohio entered an order to show cause why the court should not appoint new plaintiffs’ counsel, and thereafter, on June 10, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice, which the N.D. Ohio denied on July 5, 2022. On August 15, 2022, the N.D. Ohio issued an order stating its intention to appoint one group of applicants as new plaintiffs’ counsel, and on August 22, 2022, the N.D. Ohio ordered that any objections to the appointment be submitted by August 26, 2022. The parties filed their objections by that deadline, and on September 2, 2022, the applicants responded to those objections. In the meantime, on August 25, 2022, a purported FE stockholder represented by the applicants filed a motion to intervene, attaching a proposed complaint-in-intervention purporting to assert claims that the FE Board and officers breached their fiduciary duties and committed violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as a claim against a third party for professional negligence and malpractice. The parties filed oppositions to that motion to intervene on September 8, 2022, and the proposed intervenor's reply in support of his motion to intervene was filed on September 22, 2022. On August 24, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action pending in the N.D. Ohio based upon and in light of the final approval of the settlement by the S.D. Ohio. On August 30, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the state court action, which the court dismissed with prejudice on September 2, 2022. In letters dated January 26, and February 22, 2021, staff of FERC's Division of Investigations notified FirstEnergy that the Division is conducting an investigation of FirstEnergy’s lobbying and governmental affairs activities concerning HB 6, and staff directed FirstEnergy to preserve and maintain all documents and information related to the same as such have been developed as part of an ongoing non-public audit being conducted by FERC's Division of Audits and Accounting. FirstEnergy believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of the FERC investigation. As FirstEnergy has entered into settlement discussions with FERC, it currently expects that its loss in connection with the resolution of the FERC investigation would not exceed $5 million. FE terminated Charles E. Jones as its chief executive officer effective October 29, 2020. As a result of Mr. Jones’ termination, and due to the determination of a committee of independent members of the FE Board that Mr. Jones violated certain FirstEnergy policies and its code of conduct, all grants, awards and compensation under FirstEnergy’s short-term incentive compensation program and long-term incentive compensation program with respect to Mr. Jones that were outstanding on the date of termination were forfeited. In November 2021, after a determination by the Compensation Committee of the FE Board that a demand for recoupment was warranted pursuant to the Recoupment Policy, FE made a recoupment demand to Mr. Jones of compensation previously paid to him totaling approximately $56 million, the maximum |
