Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 4. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Credit Risk In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, may exceed federally insurable limits. Legal Proceedings We are involved in various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, we had no amounts accrued for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River, and our methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) litigations in the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued General Notice Letters (“GNL”) to over 100 entities, including us, alleging that they are potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) with respect to a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River from Dundee Dam to the Newark Bay and its tributaries (the Lower Passaic River Study Area or “LPRSA”). The LPRSA is part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (“Superfund Site”) that includes the former Diamond Shamrock Corporation manufacturing facility located at 80-120 Lister Ave. in Newark, New Jersey (the “Diamond Shamrock Facility”), the LPRSA, and the Newark Bay Study Area (i.e., Newark Bay and portions of surrounding rivers and channels). One of the GNL recipients is Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”), the predecessor to the former owner/operator of the Diamond Shamrock Facility responsible for the discharge of 2,3,8,8-TCDD (“dioxin”) and other hazardous substances. In May 2007, over 70 GNL recipients, including us, entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the LPRSA to address investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the entire 17-mile LPRSA, which the EPA has designated Operable Unit 4 or “OU4”. Many of the parties to the AOC, including us, are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”). In 2015, the CPG submitted a draft RI/FS to the EPA setting forth various alternatives for remediating the LPRSA. In October 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for just the upper 9-miles of the LPRSA based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. On December 4, 2020, the CPG submitted a Final Draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study (“IR/FS”) to the EPA which identified various targeted dredge and cap alternatives for the upper 9-miles of the LPRSA. On September 28, 2021, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the upper 9-mile IR/FS (“Upper 9-mile IR ROD”) consisting of dredging and capping to control sediment sources of dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls at an estimated cost of $441.0 million. In addition to the RI/FS activities, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) with the EPA to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing, which remedial work has been completed. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8.3-miles of the LPRSA. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a ROD for the lower 8.3-miles (“Lower 8-mile ROD”) selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $1.4 billion. On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”) to more than 100 PRPs, including us, which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental (who the EPA considers the primary contributor of dioxin and other pesticides generated from the production of Agent Orange at its Diamond Shamrock Facility and a discharger of other contaminants of concern (“COCs”) to the Superfund Site) requiring Occidental to prepare the remedial design of the remedy selected in the Lower 8-mile ROD. The EPA has designated the lower 8.3 miles of the LPRSA as Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”, which is geographically subsumed within OU4. On September 30, 2016, Occidental entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for OU2. By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with certain PRPs who the EPA stated did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as a COC in the Lower 8-mile ROD to resolve their alleged liability for OU2. Cash out settlements were finalized in 2018 and 2021 with a total of 21 PRPs. The EPA’s March 30, 2017 letter also stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the COCs posing the greatest risk to the river) may also be eligible for cash out settlements, and that the EPA would begin a process for identifying such other PRPs for negotiation of future cash out settlements and to initiate negotiations with Occidental and other major PRPs for the implementation and funding of the OU2 remedy. In August 2017, the EPA appointed an independent third-party allocation expert to conduct a confidential allocation proceeding that would assign non-binding shares of responsibility to PRPs identified by the EPA for cash out settlements. Most of the PRPs identified by the EPA, including us, participated in the allocation process. Occidental did not participate in the allocation proceedings, but filed a complaint on June 30, 2018, listing over 120 defendants, including us, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for response costs incurred and to be incurred relating to the LPRSA, including the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the OU2 remedy (the “Occidental Lawsuit”). We continue to defend the claims asserted in the Occidental Lawsuit individually and in coordination with a group of several other named defendants known as the “Small Parties Group” or “SPG” consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings. On January 5, 2024, the Court entered an Order to Stay the Occidental Lawsuit pending the Court’s adjudication of a Motion to Enter the Modified Consent Decree filed by the United States on January 31, 2024, as discussed below. The allocator issued a final Allocation Recommendation Report in December 2020, which was based upon an allocation methodology approved by the EPA that contains associated allocation shares for each of the parties invited to participate in the allocation, including Occidental - who the allocator concluded was responsible for more than 99% of the costs to implement the OU2 remedy. As a result of the allocation process, the EPA and 85 parties (the “Settling Parties”), including us, began settlement negotiations and reached an agreement on a cash-out settlement to resolve their alleged liability for the remediation of the entire LPRSA. The EPA concluded that the Settling Parties, individually and collectively, were responsible for only a minor share of the response costs incurred and to be incurred at or in connection with implementing the OU2 and OU4 remedies for the entire 17-mile Lower Passaic River. In December 2022, the EPA and the Settling Parties finalized their agreement in a proposed consent decree (“CD”), pursuant to which and without admitting liability, the Settling Parties agree to pay the EPA the collective sum of $150.0 million in exchange for contribution protection from claims by non-settling PRPs (including Occidental) for the matters addressed in the CD and the issuance of a notice of completion by the EPA of both the 2007 RI/FS AOC and the 10.9 AOC, upon completion of certain defined tasks in the CD. All 85 Settling Parties contributed to an escrow account agreed upon shares of the settlement amount, which are subject to a confidentiality agreement. Our settlement contribution is in line with our legal reserves previously established. On December 16, 2022, the United States filed an action in the New Jersey District Court against the Settling Defendants which included lodging of the proposed CD to resolve claims against the Settling Parties for costs associated with cleaning up the LPRSA. This action (the “CD Action”) is subject to public comment and court approval. On December 22, 2022, the EPA published a notice of lodging of the proposed CD in the Federal Register, opening a 45-day public comment period, which was subsequently extended to 90-days. On December 23, 2022, Occidental filed a motion to intervene in the CD Action, and subsequently filed voluminous comments objecting to the entry of the proposed CD. On January 17, 2024, the United States informed the Court that it completed reviewing public comments, including those from Occidental, and found no reasons to consider the proposed CD as inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Nevertheless, the United States decided that certain limited changes to the CD should be made prior to moving for approval thereof. These changes involved removing three parties and a modification to the United States’ reservation of rights. The remaining 82 Settling Parties, including us, concurred with these changes, leading to the United States filing the Modified Consent Decree (“Modified CD”), with the Court on the same day, January 17, 2024. On January 31, 2024, the United States filed a copy of all public comments received on the proposed CD, its Response to the public comments and a Motion to Enter the Modified CD. The Motion to Enter the Modified CD and accompanying memorandum of law states that the United States has determined that the proposed settlement is reasonable, fair and consistent with the statutory purpose of CERCLA. The Court has issued an order requiring that responses to the Motion to Enter the Modified CD be filed by April 1, 2024, and any replies to these responses are due by May 1, 2024, prior to adjudication of the motion. If the Modified CD is approved in its current form, our alleged liability to the EPA and to any non-settling parties, including Occidental, for the remediation of the entire 17-mile Lower Passaic River and its tributaries will be resolved. If the District Court does not approve the Modified CD, then, based on currently known facts and circumstances, including, among other factors, the EPA’s conclusion that we are individually and collectively with numerous other parties only responsible for a minor share of the response costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the LPRSA, our relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and 10.9 AOC, our belief that there was not any use or discharge of dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls in connection with our former petroleum storage operations at our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal, and that there are numerous other parties who will likely bear the costs of remediation and/or damages, we do not believe that resolution of the Lower Passaic River proceedings as relates to us is reasonably likely to have a material impact on our results of operations. Nevertheless, if the Modified CD is not approved by the District Court in its current form, performance of the EPA’s selected remedies for the LPRSA may be subject to future negotiation, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation and, on this basis, our ultimate liability in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the LPRSA remains uncertain and subject to contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. In prior years, we have established an estimated legal reserve and subsequently transferred funds to an escrow account based on likelihoods reasonably known to us at this time, however it is possible that circumstances may change and losses related to the Lower Passaic River proceedings could exceed the amounts we have accrued. MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The named plaintiff is the State, by and through (then) Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane (as Trustee of the waters of the State), the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (which governs and administers the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (vested with the authority to protect the environment) and the Pennsylvania Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund. The complaint names us and more than 50 other petroleum refiners, manufacturers, transporters, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE who are alleged to have manufactured, distributed, stored and sold MTBE gasoline in Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and act in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law. The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations against the defendants. We joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us, which was granted in part and denied in part. The discovery phase of the litigation is now closed, and active pretrial motion practice is ongoing. The State has filed a motion to remand the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for trial, though a trial date is yet to be scheduled. Multiple defendants in the case have settled with plaintiff. We continue to vigorously defend the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies, the outcome of which are not yet known. MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code. On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. We are vigorously defending the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies the outcome of which are not yet known.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 4. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Credit Risk

In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, may exceed federally insurable limits.

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, we had no amounts accrued for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River, and our methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) litigations in the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River

In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued General Notice Letters (“GNL”) to over 100 entities, including us, alleging that they are potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) with respect to a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River from Dundee Dam to the Newark Bay and its tributaries (the Lower Passaic River Study Area or “LPRSA”). The LPRSA is part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (“Superfund Site”) that includes the former Diamond Shamrock Corporation manufacturing facility located at 80-120 Lister Ave. in Newark, New Jersey (the “Diamond Shamrock Facility”), the LPRSA, and the Newark Bay Study Area (i.e., Newark Bay and portions of surrounding rivers and channels). One of the GNL recipients is Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”), the predecessor to the former owner/operator of the Diamond Shamrock Facility responsible for the discharge of 2,3,8,8-TCDD (“dioxin”) and other hazardous substances. In May 2007, over 70 GNL recipients, including us, entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the LPRSA to address investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the entire 17-mile LPRSA, which the EPA has designated Operable Unit 4 or “OU4”. Many of the parties to the AOC, including us, are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”). In 2015, the CPG submitted a draft RI/FS to the EPA setting forth various alternatives for remediating the LPRSA. In October 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for just the upper 9-miles of the LPRSA based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. On December 4, 2020, the CPG submitted a Final Draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study (“IR/FS”) to the EPA which identified various targeted dredge and cap alternatives for the upper 9-miles of the LPRSA. On September 28, 2021, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the upper 9-mile IR/FS (“Upper 9-mile IR ROD”) consisting of dredging and capping to control sediment sources of dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls at an estimated cost of $441.0 million.

In addition to the RI/FS activities, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) with the EPA to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing, which remedial work has been completed. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8.3-miles of the LPRSA. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a ROD for the lower 8.3-miles (“Lower 8-mile ROD”) selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $1.4 billion.

On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”) to more than 100 PRPs, including us, which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental (who the EPA considers the primary contributor of dioxin and other pesticides generated from the production of Agent Orange at its Diamond Shamrock Facility and a discharger of other contaminants of concern (“COCs”) to the Superfund Site) requiring Occidental to prepare the remedial design of the remedy selected in the Lower 8-mile ROD. The EPA has designated the lower 8.3 miles of the LPRSA as Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”, which is geographically subsumed within OU4. On September 30, 2016, Occidental entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for OU2.

By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with certain PRPs who the EPA stated did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as a COC in the Lower 8-mile ROD to resolve their alleged liability for OU2. Cash out settlements were finalized in 2018 and 2021 with a total of 21 PRPs. The EPA’s March 30, 2017 letter also stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the COCs posing the greatest risk to the river) may also be eligible for cash out settlements, and that the EPA would begin a process for identifying such other PRPs for negotiation of future cash out settlements and to initiate negotiations with Occidental and other major PRPs for the implementation and funding of the OU2 remedy. In August 2017, the EPA appointed an independent third-party allocation expert to conduct a confidential allocation proceeding that would assign non-binding shares of responsibility to PRPs identified by the EPA for cash out settlements. Most of the PRPs identified by the EPA, including us, participated in the allocation process. Occidental did not participate in the allocation proceedings, but filed a complaint on June 30, 2018, listing over 120 defendants, including us, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for response costs incurred and to be incurred relating to the LPRSA, including the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the OU2 remedy (the “Occidental Lawsuit”). We continue to defend the claims asserted in the Occidental Lawsuit individually and in coordination with a group of several other named

defendants known as the “Small Parties Group” or “SPG” consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings. On January 5, 2024, the Court entered an Order to Stay the Occidental Lawsuit pending the Court’s adjudication of a Motion to Enter the Modified Consent Decree filed by the United States on January 31, 2024, as discussed below.

The allocator issued a final Allocation Recommendation Report in December 2020, which was based upon an allocation methodology approved by the EPA that contains associated allocation shares for each of the parties invited to participate in the allocation, including Occidental - who the allocator concluded was responsible for more than 99% of the costs to implement the OU2 remedy. As a result of the allocation process, the EPA and 85 parties (the “Settling Parties”), including us, began settlement negotiations and reached an agreement on a cash-out settlement to resolve their alleged liability for the remediation of the entire LPRSA. The EPA concluded that the Settling Parties, individually and collectively, were responsible for only a minor share of the response costs incurred and to be incurred at or in connection with implementing the OU2 and OU4 remedies for the entire 17-mile Lower Passaic River.

In December 2022, the EPA and the Settling Parties finalized their agreement in a proposed consent decree (“CD”), pursuant to which and without admitting liability, the Settling Parties agree to pay the EPA the collective sum of $150.0 million in exchange for contribution protection from claims by non-settling PRPs (including Occidental) for the matters addressed in the CD and the issuance of a notice of completion by the EPA of both the 2007 RI/FS AOC and the 10.9 AOC, upon completion of certain defined tasks in the CD. All 85 Settling Parties contributed to an escrow account agreed upon shares of the settlement amount, which are subject to a confidentiality agreement. Our settlement contribution is in line with our legal reserves previously established. On December 16, 2022, the United States filed an action in the New Jersey District Court against the Settling Defendants which included lodging of the proposed CD to resolve claims against the Settling Parties for costs associated with cleaning up the LPRSA. This action (the “CD Action”) is subject to public comment and court approval. On December 22, 2022, the EPA published a notice of lodging of the proposed CD in the Federal Register, opening a 45-day public comment period, which was subsequently extended to 90-days. On December 23, 2022, Occidental filed a motion to intervene in the CD Action, and subsequently filed voluminous comments objecting to the entry of the proposed CD. On January 17, 2024, the United States informed the Court that it completed reviewing public comments, including those from Occidental, and found no reasons to consider the proposed CD as inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Nevertheless, the United States decided that certain limited changes to the CD should be made prior to moving for approval thereof. These changes involved removing three parties and a modification to the United States’ reservation of rights. The remaining 82 Settling Parties, including us, concurred with these changes, leading to the United States filing the Modified Consent Decree (“Modified CD”), with the Court on the same day, January 17, 2024. On January 31, 2024, the United States filed a copy of all public comments received on the proposed CD, its Response to the public comments and a Motion to Enter the Modified CD. The Motion to Enter the Modified CD and accompanying memorandum of law states that the United States has determined that the proposed settlement is reasonable, fair and consistent with the statutory purpose of CERCLA. The Court has issued an order requiring that responses to the Motion to Enter the Modified CD be filed by April 1, 2024, and any replies to these responses are due by May 1, 2024, prior to adjudication of the motion.

If the Modified CD is approved in its current form, our alleged liability to the EPA and to any non-settling parties, including Occidental, for the remediation of the entire 17-mile Lower Passaic River and its tributaries will be resolved. If the District Court does not approve the Modified CD, then, based on currently known facts and circumstances, including, among other factors, the EPA’s conclusion that we are individually and collectively with numerous other parties only responsible for a minor share of the response costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the LPRSA, our relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and 10.9 AOC, our belief that there was not any use or discharge of dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls in connection with our former petroleum storage operations at our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal, and that there are numerous other parties who will likely bear the costs of remediation and/or damages, we do not believe that resolution of the Lower Passaic River proceedings as relates to us is reasonably likely to have a material impact on our results of operations. Nevertheless, if the Modified CD is not approved by the District Court in its current form, performance of the EPA’s selected remedies for the LPRSA may be subject to future negotiation, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation and, on this basis, our ultimate liability in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the LPRSA remains uncertain and subject to contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. In prior years, we have established an estimated legal reserve and subsequently transferred funds to an escrow account based on likelihoods reasonably known to us at this time, however it is possible that circumstances may change and losses related to the Lower Passaic River proceedings could exceed the amounts we have accrued.

MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania

On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The named plaintiff is the State, by and through (then) Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane (as Trustee of the waters of the State), the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (which governs and administers the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (vested with the authority to protect the environment) and the Pennsylvania Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund. The complaint names us and more than 50 other petroleum refiners, manufacturers, transporters, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE who are alleged to have manufactured, distributed, stored and sold MTBE gasoline in Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and act in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from

public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law.

The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations against the defendants. We joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us, which was granted in part and denied in part.

The discovery phase of the litigation is now closed, and active pretrial motion practice is ongoing. The State has filed a motion to remand the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for trial, though a trial date is yet to be scheduled. Multiple defendants in the case have settled with plaintiff. We continue to vigorously defend the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies, the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland

On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code.

On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. We are vigorously defending the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies the outcome of which are not yet known.