| Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities | REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES FERC Proceedings Rover – FERC - Stoneman House In late 2016, FERC Enforcement Staff began a non-public investigation related to Rover’s purchase and removal of a potentially historic home (known as the Stoneman House) while Rover’s application for permission to construct the new 711-mile interstate natural gas pipeline and related facilities was pending. On March 18, 2021, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty (Docket No. IN19-4-000), ordering Rover to explain why it should not pay a $20 million civil penalty for alleged violations of FERC regulations requiring certificate holders to be forthright in their submissions of information to the FERC. Rover filed its answer and denial to the order on June 21, 2021 and a surreply on September 15, 2021. FERC issued an order on January 20, 2022 setting the matter for hearing before an administrative law judge. The hearing was set to commence on March 6, 2023; as explained below, this FERC proceeding has been stayed. On February 1, 2022, Energy Transfer and Rover filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“Federal District Court”) seeking an order declaring that FERC must bring its enforcement action in federal district court (instead of before an administrative law judge). Also on February 1, 2022, Energy Transfer and Rover filed an expedited request to stay the proceedings before the FERC administrative law judge pending the outcome of the Federal District Court case. On May 24, 2022, the Federal District Court ordered a stay of the FERC’s enforcement case and the District Court case pending the resolution of two cases pending before the United States Supreme Court. Arguments were heard in those cases on November 7, 2022. On April 14, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held against the government in both cases, finding that the federal district courts had jurisdiction to hear those suits and to resolve the parties’ constitutional challenges. The cases were remanded to the federal district courts for further proceedings. On September 13, 2023 the District Court ordered that the District Court case would be stayed pending the resolution of another case pending before the United States Supreme Court and that the FERC enforcement case would remain stayed. Energy Transfer and Rover intend to vigorously defend this claim. Rover – FERC - Tuscarawas In mid-2017, FERC Enforcement Staff began a non-public investigation regarding allegations that diesel fuel may have been included in the drilling mud at the Tuscarawas River horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) operations. Rover and the Partnership are cooperating with the investigation. In 2019, Enforcement Staff provided Rover with a notice pursuant to Section 1b.19 of the FERC regulations that Enforcement Staff intended to recommend that the FERC pursue an enforcement action against Rover and the Partnership. On December 16, 2021, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty (Docket No. IN17-4-000), ordering Rover and Energy Transfer to show cause why they should not be found to have violated Section 7(e) of the Natural Gas Act, Section 157.20 of FERC’s regulations, and the Rover Pipeline Certificate Order, and assessed civil penalties of $40 million. Rover and Energy Transfer filed their answer to this order on March 21, 2022, and Enforcement Staff filed a reply on April 20, 2022. Rover and Energy Transfer filed their surreply to this order on May 13, 2022. The primary contractor (and one of the subcontractors) responsible for the HDD operations of the Tuscarawas River site have agreed to indemnify Rover and the Partnership for any and all losses, including any fines and penalties from government agencies, resulting from their actions in conducting such HDD operations. Given the stage of the proceedings, the Partnership is unable at this time to provide an assessment of the potential outcome or range of potential liability, if any; however, the Partnership believes the indemnity described above will be applicable to the penalty proposed by Enforcement Staff and intends to vigorously defend itself against the subject claims. Other FERC Proceedings By an order issued January 16, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Panhandle’s then existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act to determine whether the rates charged by Panhandle are just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. On August 30, 2019, Panhandle filed a general rate proceeding under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. The Natural Gas Act Section 5 and Section 4 proceedings were consolidated by order of the Chief Judge on October 1, 2019. The initial decision by the administrative law judge was issued on March 26, 2021, and on December 16, 2022, the FERC issued its order on the initial decision. On January 17, 2023, Panhandle and the Michigan Public Service Commission each filed a request for rehearing of FERC’s order on the initial decision, which were denied by operation of law as of February 17, 2023. On March 23, 2023, Panhandle appealed these orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“Court of Appeals”), and the Michigan Public Service Commission also subsequently appealed these orders. On April 25, 2023, the Court of Appeals consolidated Panhandle’s and Michigan Public Service Commission’s appeals and stayed the consolidated appeal proceeding while FERC further considered the requests for rehearing of its December 16, 2022 order. On September 25, 2023, FERC issued its order addressing arguments raised on rehearing and compliance, which denied our requests for rehearing. Panhandle is evaluating the September 25 order and has sixty days from that date to appeal the order to the Court of Appeals. On December 1, 2022, Sea Robin filed a rate case pursuant to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. By order dated June 29, 2023, a revised procedural schedule was adopted in this proceeding setting the commencement of the hearing for January 9, 2024, with an initial decision anticipated by May 21, 2024. Subsequently, by Order of the Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge, deadlines in the procedural schedule were extended, including revised hearing commencement and initial decisions deadlines to March 26, 2024 and August 8, 2024, respectively. In May 2021, the FERC commenced an audit of SPLP for the period from January 1, 2018 to present to evaluate SPLP’s compliance with its FERC oil tariffs, the accounting requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts as prescribed by the FERC, and the FERC’s Form No. 6 reporting requirements. An audit report was received in September 2023 noting no issues that would have a material impact on the Partnership's financial position or results of operations. Internal Revenue Service Audits The Partnership’s 2020 U.S. Federal income tax return is currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). In general, Energy Transfer and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to examination by the IRS and most state jurisdictions for 2017 and prior tax years. USAC is currently under examination by the IRS for years 2019 and 2020. The IRS has issued preliminary partnership examination changes, along with imputed underpayment computations. Based on discussions with the IRS, USAC has estimated a potential range of loss up to $25 million. Once a final partnership imputed underpayment, if any, is determined, USAC’s general partner may either elect to pay the imputed underpayment (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly to the IRS or, if eligible, issue a revised information statement to each USAC unitholder, and former USAC unitholder, with respect to an audited and adjusted return. Commitments In the normal course of business, Energy Transfer purchases, processes and sells natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and enters into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. Energy Transfer believes that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial position or results of operations. Our joint venture agreements require that we fund our proportionate share of capital contributions to our unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon the unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations. We have certain non-cancelable rights-of-way (“ROW”) commitments which require fixed payments and either expire upon our chosen abandonment or at various dates in the future. The following table reflects ROW expense included in operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations: Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended 2023 2022 2023 2022 ROW expense $ 20 $ 16 $ 46 $ 44 Litigation and Contingencies We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Due to the flammable and combustible nature of natural gas and crude oil, the potential exists for personal injury and/or property damage to occur in connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the future. We or our subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, arbitrations and/or regulatory proceedings incidental to our businesses. For each of these matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and the availability of insurance coverage. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome of a particular matter is probable and can be estimated, we accrue the contingent obligation, as well as any expected insurance recoverable amounts related to the contingency. As new information becomes available, our estimates may change. The impact of these changes may have a significant effect on our results of operations in a single period. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, accruals of approximately $947 million and $200 million, respectively, were reflected on our consolidated balance sheets related to contingent obligations that met both the probable and reasonably estimable criteria. In addition, we may recognize additional contingent losses in the future related to (i) contingent matters for which a loss is currently considered reasonably possible but not probable and/or (ii) losses in excess of amounts that have already been accrued for such contingent matters. In some of these cases, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. For such matters where additional contingent losses can be reasonably estimated, the range of additional losses is estimated to be up to approximately $200 million. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter will not result in the payment of amounts that have not been accrued for the matter. Furthermore, we may revise accrual amounts or our estimates of reasonably possible losses prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome. The following sections include descriptions of certain matters that could impact the Partnership’s financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows in future periods. The following sections also include updates to certain matters that have previously been disclosed, even if those matters are not anticipated to have a potentially significant impact on future periods. In addition to the matters disclosed in the following sections, the Partnership is also involved in multiple other matters that could impact future periods, including other lawsuits and arbitration related to the Partnership’s commercial agreements. With respect to such matters, contingencies that met both the probable and reasonably estimable criteria have been included in the accruals disclosed above, and the range of additional losses disclosed above also reflects any relevant amounts for such matters. Dakota Access Pipeline On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) challenging permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) that allowed Dakota Access to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The case was subsequently amended to challenge an easement issued by the USACE that allowed the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River. Dakota Access and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”) intervened. Separate lawsuits filed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe (“OST”) and the Yankton Sioux Tribe (“YST”) were consolidated with this action and several individual tribal members intervened (collectively, with SRST and CRST, the “Tribes”). On March 25, 2020, the District Court remanded the case back to the USACE for preparation of an Environment Impact Statement (“EIS”). On July 6, 2020, the District Court vacated the easement and ordered the Dakota Access Pipeline to be shut down and emptied of oil by August 5, 2020. Dakota Access and the USACE appealed to the Court of Appeals which granted an administrative stay of the District Court’s July 6 order and ordered further briefing on whether to fully stay the July 6 order. On August 5, 2020, the Court of Appeals (1) granted a stay of the portion of the District Court order that required Dakota Access to shut the pipeline down and empty it of oil, (2) denied a motion to stay the March 25 order pending a decision on the merits by the Court of Appeals as to whether the USACE would be required to prepare an EIS and (3) denied a motion to stay the District Court’s order to vacate the easement during this appeal process. The August 5 order also states that the Court of Appeals expected the USACE to clarify its position with respect to whether USACE intended to allow the continued operation of the pipeline notwithstanding the vacatur of the easement and that the District Court may consider additional relief, if necessary. On August 10, 2020, the District Court ordered the USACE to submit a status report by August 31, 2020, clarifying its position with regard to its decision-making process with respect to the continued operation of the pipeline. On August 31, 2020, the USACE submitted a status report that indicated that it considered the presence of the pipeline at the Lake Oahe crossing without an easement to constitute an encroachment on federal land, and that it was still considering whether to exercise its enforcement discretion regarding this encroachment. The Tribes subsequently filed a motion seeking an injunction to stop the operation of the pipeline and both USACE and Dakota Access filed briefs in opposition of the motion for injunction. The motion for injunction was fully briefed as of January 8, 2021. On January 26, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s March 25, 2020 order requiring an EIS and its July 6, 2020 order vacating the easement. In this same January 26 order, the Court of Appeals also overturned the District Court’s July 6, 2020 order that the pipeline shut down and be emptied of oil. Dakota Access filed for rehearing en banc on April 12, 2021, which the Court of Appeals denied. On September 20, 2021, Dakota Access filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Oppositions were filed by the Solicitor General (December 17, 2021) and the Tribes (December 16, 2021). Dakota Access filed their reply on January 4, 2022. On February 22, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The District Court scheduled a status conference for February 10, 2021 to discuss the effects of the Court of Appeals’ January 26, 2021 order on the pending motion for injunctive relief, as well as USACE’s expectations as to how it will proceed regarding its enforcement discretion regarding the easement. On May 3, 2021, USACE advised the District Court that it had not changed its position with respect to its opposition to the Tribes’ motion for injunction. On May 21, 2021, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. On June 22, 2021, the District Court terminated the consolidated lawsuits and dismissed all remaining outstanding counts without prejudice. On September 8, 2023, the USACE published the Draft EIS. The USACE anticipates that a Final EIS and Record of Decision would be issued in 2024. The pipeline continues to operate pending completion of the EIS. Energy Transfer cannot determine when or how future lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Bakken Pipeline, which consists of both Dakota Access and the Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline; however, Energy Transfer expects that after the law and complete record are fully considered, any such proceeding will be resolved in a manner that will allow the pipeline to continue to operate. In addition, lawsuits and/or regulatory proceedings or actions of this or a similar nature could result in interruptions to construction or operations of current or future projects, delays in completing those projects and/or increased project costs, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Mont Belvieu Incident On June 26, 2016, a hydrocarbon storage well located on another operator’s facility adjacent to Lone Star NGL Mont Belvieu LP’s (“Lone Star”), now known as Energy Transfer Mont Belvieu NGLs LP, facilities in Mont Belvieu, Texas experienced an over-pressurization resulting in a subsurface release. The subsurface release caused a fire at Lone Star’s South Terminal and damage to Lone Star’s storage well operations at its South and North Terminals. Normal operations resumed at the facilities in the fall of 2016, with the exception of one of Lone Star’s storage wells at the North Terminal that has not been returned to service. Lone Star has obtained payment for most of the losses it has submitted to the adjacent operator. Lone Star continues to quantify and seek reimbursement for outstanding losses. MTBE Litigation ETC Sunoco and Energy Transfer R&M (collectively, “Sunoco Defendants”) are defendants in lawsuits alleging methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs, state-level governmental entities, assert product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and/or deceptive business practices claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. As of September 30, 2023, Sunoco Defendants are defendants in two cases: one case initiated by the State of Maryland and one by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The actions brought also named as defendants ETO, ETP Holdco Corporation and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., now known as Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. ETP Holdco Corporation and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Energy Transfer. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized in the remaining cases; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. An adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any such adverse determination occurs, but such an adverse determination likely would not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position. Litigation Filed By or Against Williams In April and May 2016, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) filed two lawsuits (the “Williams Litigation”) against Energy Transfer, LE GP, LLC, and, in one of the lawsuits, Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC (collectively, “Energy Transfer Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (“the Court”), alleging that the Energy Transfer Defendants breached their obligations under the Energy Transfer-Williams merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”). In general, Williams alleges that the Energy Transfer Defendants breached the Merger Agreement by (a) failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) the delivery of a tax opinion concerning Section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code (“721 Opinion”), (b) issuing the Partnership’s Series A convertible preferred units (the “Issuance”) and (c) making allegedly untrue representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement. Williams asked the Court to compel the Energy Transfer Defendants to close the merger or take various other affirmative actions. After a two-day trial on June 20 and 21, 2016, the Court ruled in favor of the Energy Transfer Defendants and issued a declaratory judgment that Energy Transfer could terminate the merger after June 28, 2016 because of Latham’s inability to provide the required 721 Opinion. The Court did not reach a decision regarding Williams’ claims related to the Issuance or certain of the alleged untrue representations and warranties. On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this ruling on the June 2016 trial. In September 2016, the parties filed amended pleadings. Williams filed an amended complaint seeking a $410 million termination fee (the “Termination Fee”) based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement listed above. The Energy Transfer Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses, asserting that Williams materially breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, (a) modifying and qualifying its board recommendation in a manner adverse to the merger, (b) failing to use its reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger, (c) failing to provide material information to Energy Transfer for inclusion in the Form S-4 related to the merger, (d) failing to facilitate the financing of the merger and (e) breaching the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. The Energy Transfer Defendants sought a $1.48 billion termination fee under the Merger Agreement and additional damages caused by Williams’ misconduct. On September 29, 2016, Williams filed a motion to dismiss the Energy Transfer Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of the Energy Transfer Defendants’ affirmative defenses. On December 1, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Williams’ motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed, among other things, the Energy Transfer Defendants’ claim for a $1.48 billion termination fee. Trial was held on all remaining claims on May 10-17, 2021, and on December 29, 2021, the Court ruled in favor of Williams and awarded it the Termination Fee plus certain fees and expenses, holding that the Issuance breached the Merger Agreement and that Williams had not materially breached the Merger Agreement, though the Court awarded sanctions against Williams due to its CEO’s intentional spoliation of evidence. The Court subsequently awarded Williams approximately $190 million in attorneys’ fees, expenses and pre-judgment interest. On September 21, 2022, the Court entered a final judgment against the Energy Transfer Defendants in the amount of approximately $601 million plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 3.5% per year, compounded quarterly. The Energy Transfer Defendants filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 2022 and filed their opening brief in support of their appeal on December 30, 2022. Williams filed their answering brief on January 20, 2023, and the Energy Transfer Defendants filed their reply brief on February 6, 2023. The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument on July 12, 2023. On October 10, 2023, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. On October 25, 2023, Energy Transfer Defendants filed a motion for reargument. Therefore, the mandate will not issue until the Delaware Supreme Court disposes of that motion. Once the mandate issues, the previously-stayed judgment in the amount of approximately $617 million will become effective, plus additional post-judgment interest. Rover - State of Ohio On November 3, 2017, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) filed suit against Rover and other defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking to recover approximately $2.6 million in civil penalties allegedly owed and certain injunctive relief related to permit compliance. The Defendants filed several motions to dismiss, which were granted on all counts. The Ohio EPA appealed, and on December 9, 2019, the Fifth District Court of Appeals entered a unanimous judgment affirming the trial court. The Ohio EPA sought review from the Ohio Supreme Court. On April 22, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court granted the review. On March 17, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded to the Ohio trial court. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Rover that the State of Ohio had waived its rights under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act but remanded to the trial court to determine whether any of the allegations fell outside the scope of the waiver. On remand, the Ohio EPA voluntarily dismissed four of the other five defendants and dismissed one of its counts against Rover. In its Fourth Amended Complaint, the Ohio EPA removed all paragraphs that alleged violations by the four dismissed defendants, including those where the dismissed defendants were alleged to have acted jointly with Rover or others. At a June 2, 2022, status conference, the trial judge set a schedule for Rover and the other remaining defendant to file motions to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On August 1, 2022, Rover and the other remaining defendant each filed their respective motions. Briefing on those motions was completed on November 4, 2022. By order issued on October 20, 2023, the trial judge dismissed the Ohio EPA’s Fourth Amended Complaint. Unitholder Litigation Regarding Pipeline Construction Various purported unitholders of Energy Transfer have filed derivative actions against various past and current members of Energy Transfer’s Board of Directors, LE GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer, as a nominal defendant that assert claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, breach of Energy Transfer’s Partnership Agreement, tortious interference, abuse of control and gross mismanagement related primarily to matters involving the construction of pipelines in Pennsylvania and Ohio. They also seek damages and changes to Energy Transfer’s corporate governance structure. See Bettiol v. LE GP, Case No. 3:19-cv-02890-X (N.D. Tex.); Davidson v. Kelcy L. Warren, Cause No. DC-20-02322 (44th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas); Harris v. Kelcy L. Warren, Case No. 2:20-cv-00364-GAM (E.D. Pa.); Barry King v. LE GP, Case No. 3:20-cv-00719-X (N.D. Tex.); Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc. v. LE GP, et at., Case No. 2022-0139-SG (Del. Ch.); Elliot v. LE GP LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01527-B (N.D. Tex.); Chapa v. Kelcy L. Warren, et al., Index No. 611307/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Elliott v. LE GP et al, Cause No. DC-22-14194 (Dallas County, Tex.); and Charles King v. LE GP, LLC et al, Cause No. DC-22-14159 (Dallas County, Texas). The Barry King action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:20-cv-00719-X) has been consolidated with the Bettiol action. On August 9, 2022, the Elliot action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:22-cv-01527-B) was voluntarily dismissed. Another purported unitholder of Energy Transfer, Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System (“ACERS”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a suit under the federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class, against Energy Transfer and three of Energy Transfer’s directors: Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds and Thomas E. Long. See Allegheny County Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Energy Transfer LP, Case No. 2:20-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.). On June 15, 2020, ACERS filed an amended complaint and added as additional defendants Energy Transfer directors Marshall McCrea and Matthew S. Ramsey, as well as Michael J. Hennigan and Joseph McGinn. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related primarily to matters involving the construction of pipelines in Pennsylvania. On August 14, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss ACERS’ amended complaint. On April 6, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that ACERS could proceed with its claims regarding certain statements put at issue by the amended complaint while also dismissing claims based on other statements. The court also dismissed without prejudice the claims against defendants McReynolds, McGinn and Hennigan. Discovery is ongoing. On August 23, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part ACERS’ motion for class certification. The court certified a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired common units of Energy Transfer between February 25, 2017 and November 11, 2019. On June 3, 2022, another purported unitholder of Energy Transfer, Mike Vega, filed suit, purportedly on behalf of a class, against Energy Transfer and Messrs. Warren, Long, McCrea and Whitehurst. See Vega v. Energy Transfer LP et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-4614 (S.D.N.Y.). The action asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related primarily to statements made in connection with the construction of Rover. On August 10, 2022, the court appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council and Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (the “New Mexico Funds”) as lead plaintiffs. New Mexico Funds filed an amended complaint on September 30, 2022 and added as additional defendants Energy Transfer directors John W. McReynolds and Matthew S. Ramsey. On November 7, 2022, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer and transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the New Mexico Funds’ amended complaint. The defendants cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing, nor can the defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. However, the defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them. Cline Class Action On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), LLC (now known as Energy Transfer R&M) and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. (collectively, “ETMT”) that alleged ETMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the District Court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012, and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as “minimum pay,” prior period adjustments and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies. After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion t |
