Note 20 - Contingencies - Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Notes to Financial Statements
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	20. Contingencies - Legal Proceedings Liabilities relating to legal proceedings and government inquiries, to the extent that we have concluded such liabilities are probable and the amounts of such liabilities are reasonably estimable, are recorded in the consolidated balance sheets. It is possible that future developments in our legal proceedings and inquiries could require us to (i) adjust or reverse existing accruals, or (ii) record new accruals that we did not originally believe to be probable or that could not be reasonably estimated. Such changes could be material to our financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows in any particular reporting period. In addition, disclosure is required when a material loss is probable but not reasonably estimable, a material loss is reasonably possible but not probable, or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the amount recorded. The total liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, were $0 and $129 million, respectively. The total range of possible loss related to (i) matters considered reasonably possible, and (ii) reasonably possible amounts in excess of accrued losses recorded for probable loss contingencies, including those related to liquidated damages, could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements if they become probable and the reasonably estimable amount is determined. *Ordinary Course Legal Proceedings* In the ordinary course of business, we and our affiliates are involved in various legal proceedings alleging, among other things, liability issues or breach of contract or tortious conduct in connection with the performance of services and/or materials provided, the various outcomes of which often cannot be predicted with certainty. For information on our accounting policies regarding affirmative claims and back charges that we are party to in the ordinary course of business, see Note 1. We and our affiliates are also subject to government inquiries in the ordinary course of business seeking information concerning our compliance with government construction contracting requirements and various laws and regulations, the outcomes which often cannot be predicted with certainty. Some of the matters in which we or our joint ventures and affiliates are involved may involve compensatory, punitive, or other claims or sanctions that, if granted, could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures in amounts that are not probable to be incurred or cannot currently be reasonably estimated. In addition, in some circumstances our government contracts could be terminated, we could be suspended, debarred or incur other administrative penalties or sanctions, or payment of our costs could be disallowed. While any of our pending legal proceedings may be subject to early resolution as a result of our ongoing efforts to resolve the proceedings, whether or when any legal proceeding will be resolved is neither predictable nor guaranteed. *Securities Litigation and Derivative Lawsuits* On August 13, 2019, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. An amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2020 that, among other things, added Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired our common stock between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019, and alleged claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. After the filing of the amended complaint, this case was re-titled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al. The amended complaint sought damages based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts in the Company’s SEC filings about its business, operations and prospects. On January 21, 2021, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On October 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, titled Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al., was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and the then-serving Board of Directors on behalf of persons who acquired shares of Company common stock in the Company’s June 2018 merger with Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”). The complaint asserted causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleged that the registration statement and prospectus were negligently prepared and included materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed and seeks monetary damages based on the allegations. On April 29, 2021, we entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to settle Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement also settled claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay or cause to be paid a total of $129 million in cash, $63 million of which was paid through insurance proceeds, to a settlement fund that would pay all settlement fees and expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and cash payments to members of the settlement class. The settlement class agreed to release us, the other defendants named in the lawsuits and certain of their respective related parties from any and all claims, rights, causes of action, liabilities, actions, suits, damages or demands of any kind whatsoever, that relate in any way to the purchase, acquisition, holding, sale or disposition of our common stock during the period between February 17, 2017 and October 24, 2019 that arose out of or are based upon or related to the facts alleged or the claims or allegations set forth in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. or relate in any way to any alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or any other state, federal or foreign jurisdiction’s securities or other laws, any alleged misstatement, omission or disclosure (including in financial statements) or other alleged securities-related wrongdoing or misconduct, including all claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement contained no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. As a result of entering into the Settlement Agreement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $66 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2021. On October 6, 2021, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, $129 million was paid to the settlement escrow account. $66 million was paid by the Company and $63 million was paid through insurance proceeds. The total $129 million was included in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2021 as an accrued liability and as a deposit in other current assets. Members of the settlement class had the opportunity to object to the settlement at a fairness hearing held by the court to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved and whether the proposed order and final judgment should be entered. The fairness hearing occurred on February 24, 2022. On March 17, 2022, the court granted final approval of the settlement, granted the request for attorneys’ fees by class representative's counsel, granted in part and denied in part the request for attorneys’ fees by the plaintiff in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al., and entered final judgment. On April 29, 2022, the Superior Court granted the request by plaintiff in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. that the Nasseri case be dismissed with prejudice in light of the final approval of the settlement. On December 15, 2022, the court approved the plaintiffs’ application to release payments to the class from the settlement fund. As a result, we removed the accrued liability and deposit from our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. On May 6, 2020, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled English v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleged that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint sought monetary damages and corporate governance reforms. On May 12, 2021, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled Davydov v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against James H. Roberts, Jigisha Desai, Laurel Krzeminski, Craig Hall, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Compliance Officer, and Secretary, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleged that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint sought monetary damages and corporate governance reforms. On April 14, 2022, the parties in Davydov v. Roberts et al., the plaintiff in English v. Roberts et al., and the Company entered into a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement providing that (i) defendants will cause insurers to pay $7.5 million, which amount, less court-awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses, will be paid to the Company, (ii) the Company shall implement agreed upon corporate governance provisions within 30 days of final approval of the settlement, and (iii) all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted against the defendants or their related persons in Davydov v. Roberts, et al., English v. Roberts, et al., or any other proceeding on behalf of the Davydov plaintiff, the English plaintiff, the Company or any Granite stockholder, will be released. On April 14, 2022, the plaintiff in Davydov v. Roberts, et al. filed the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement and a proposed scheduling order for a hearing in the Delaware Court of Chancery for review of the settlement. The Delaware Court of Chancery held a fairness hearing concerning its review of the settlement on July 12, 2022. On July 27, 2022, the Court in Davydov v. Roberts, et al. entered an order and final judgment approving the terms of the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. On July 28, 2022, the Court in English v. Roberts, et al. entered a stipulation and order of dismissal that dismissed the case with prejudice. The Company received a payment of $5.0 million for the settlement, which was net of court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses, that was recorded in Other costs, net on the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2022. As of December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 (other than the Settlement Agreement charge described above), we did not record any liability related to the above matters because we concluded such liabilities were resolved or not probable and the amounts of such liabilities were not reasonably estimable. *Other Matters* In connection with our prior disclosure of the Audit/Compliance Committee’s independent investigation of prior-period reporting for the former Heavy Civil operating group and the extent to which those matters affected the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (the “Investigation”), we voluntarily contacted the San Francisco office of the SEC Division of Enforcement regarding the Investigation. The SEC issued subpoenas for documents in connection with the accounting issues identified in the Investigation. We produced documents to the SEC and fully cooperated with the SEC in its investigation. In the second quarter of 2022, we recorded a $12 million charge for the expected resolution of this investigation which was reflected in Other costs, net in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2022. During the third quarter of 2022, we reached a settlement with the SEC. Under the terms of the settlement, we, without admitting or denying any allegations made by the SEC, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12 million and to be enjoined from violating specified provisions of the federal securities laws and rules promulgated thereunder. On August 25, 2022, the SEC filed a complaint against us, along with our consent to the entry of judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and requested entry of judgment. Judgment concluding and resolving this matter in its entirety was entered on September 9, 2022, and on September 16, 2022, we paid the $12 million penalty. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Layne, was a subcontractor on the foundation for the Salesforce Tower office building in San Francisco in 2013 and 2014. Certain anomalies were discovered in March 2014 in the foundation’s structural concrete, which were remediated by the general contractor during 2015. Layne assigned any insurance claims it may have had under the project’s builder’s risk insurance policy to the general contractor. During 2014, the project owner and the general contractor submitted a claim to the project’s builder’s risk insurers to cover the cost of remedial work and related damages. The claim was denied by the builder’s risk insurers. The project owner and the general contractor subsequently filed a legal proceeding against the insurers seeking coverage under the builder’s risk insurance policy, which proceeding was then transferred by agreement to arbitration. On July 20, 2021, we were informed of an arbitration award denying insurance coverage for claims related to the remedial measures undertaken by the general contractor of the Salesforce Tower and related damages. Although we were not a party to this legal proceeding, we believe, based on court filings and developments in the arbitration, that the project owner and the general contractor asserted a claim for damages against the project’s builder’s risk insurers for an amount in excess of $100 million. On February 3, 2022, a lawsuit titled Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”), a subrogee of Clark/Hathaway Dinwiddie, a Joint Venture (“CHDJV”) v. Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”), was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, seeking damages of approximately $70 million for costs incurred by Steadfast on behalf of CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. On February 4, 2022, CHDJV submitted an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against Granite Construction Incorporated seeking to recover approximately $30 million for costs incurred by CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. CHDJV subsequently dismissed Granite and added Layne as a respondent to the arbitration. On March 8, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss the CHDJV arbitration. On April 8, 2022, we filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the Steadfast lawsuit. On May 6, 2022, CHDJV consolidated its claims with those of Steadfast and joined as a plaintiff in the Steadfast lawsuit, and on May 16, 2022, the arbitration was stayed. On June 14, 2022, we filed a demurrer to the amended complaint seeking to dismiss the claims of both Steadfast and CHDJV. On August 24, 2022, the court overruled our demurrer. We believe Layne has multiple defenses and counterclaims to the claims at issue. Layne intends to vigorously defend against the claims and prosecute its counterclaims, but we cannot provide assurance that Layne will be successful in these efforts. We do not believe it is probable this matter will result in a material loss, however, if we are unsuccessful, we believe the range of reasonably possible loss upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $100 million.

Note 20 - Contingencies - Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

20. Contingencies - Legal Proceedings

Liabilities relating to legal proceedings and government inquiries, to the extent that we have concluded such liabilities are probable and the amounts of such liabilities are reasonably estimable, are recorded in the consolidated balance sheets. It is possible that future developments in our legal proceedings and inquiries could require us to (i) adjust or reverse existing accruals, or (ii) record new accruals that we did not originally believe to be probable or that could not be reasonably estimated. Such changes could be material to our financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows in any particular reporting period. In addition, disclosure is required when a material loss is probable but not reasonably estimable, a material loss is reasonably possible but not probable, or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the amount recorded.

The total liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, were $0 and $129 million, respectively. The total range of possible loss related to (i) matters considered reasonably possible, and (ii) reasonably possible amounts in excess of accrued losses recorded for probable loss contingencies, including those related to liquidated damages, could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements if they become probable and the reasonably estimable amount is determined.

Ordinary Course Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we and our affiliates are involved in various legal proceedings alleging, among other things, liability issues or breach of contract or tortious conduct in connection with the performance of services and/or materials provided, the various outcomes of which often cannot be predicted with certainty. For information on our accounting policies regarding affirmative claims and back charges that we are party to in the ordinary course of business, see Note 1. We and our affiliates are also subject to government inquiries in the ordinary course of business seeking information concerning our compliance with government construction contracting requirements and various laws and regulations, the outcomes which often cannot be predicted with certainty.

Some of the matters in which we or our joint ventures and affiliates are involved may involve compensatory, punitive, or other claims or sanctions that, if granted, could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures in amounts that are not probable to be incurred or cannot currently be reasonably estimated. In addition, in some circumstances our government contracts could be terminated, we could be suspended, debarred or incur other administrative penalties or sanctions, or payment of our costs could be disallowed. While any of our pending legal proceedings may be subject to early resolution as a result of our ongoing efforts to resolve the proceedings, whether or when any legal proceeding will be resolved is neither predictable nor guaranteed.

Securities Litigation and Derivative Lawsuits

On August 13, 2019, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. An amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2020 that, among other things, added Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired our common stock between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019, and alleged claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. After the filing of the amended complaint, this case was re-titled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al. The amended complaint sought damages based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts in the Company’s SEC filings about its business, operations and prospects. On January 21, 2021, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

On October 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, titled Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al., was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and the then-serving Board of Directors on behalf of persons who acquired shares of Company common stock in the Company’s June 2018 merger with Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”). The complaint asserted causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleged that the registration statement and prospectus were negligently prepared and included materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed and seeks monetary damages based on the allegations.

On April 29, 2021, we entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to settle Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement also settled claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay or cause to be paid a total of $129 million in cash, $63 million of which was paid through insurance proceeds, to a settlement fund that would pay all settlement fees and expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and cash payments to members of the settlement class. The settlement class agreed to release us, the other defendants named in the lawsuits and certain of their respective related parties from any and all claims, rights, causes of action, liabilities, actions, suits, damages or demands of any kind whatsoever, that relate in any way to the purchase, acquisition, holding, sale or disposition of our common stock during the period between February 17, 2017 and October 24, 2019 that arose out of or are based upon or related to the facts alleged or the claims or allegations set forth in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. or relate in any way to any alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or any other state, federal or foreign jurisdiction’s securities or other laws, any alleged misstatement, omission or disclosure (including in financial statements) or other alleged securities-related wrongdoing or misconduct, including all claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement contained no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. As a result of entering into the Settlement Agreement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $66 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2021.

On October 6, 2021, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, $129 million was paid to the settlement escrow account. $66 million was paid by the Company and $63 million was paid through insurance proceeds. The total $129 million was included in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2021 as an accrued liability and as a deposit in other current assets. Members of the settlement class had the opportunity to object to the settlement at a fairness hearing held by the court to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved and whether the proposed order and final judgment should be entered. The fairness hearing occurred on February 24, 2022. On March 17, 2022, the court granted final approval of the settlement, granted the request for attorneys’ fees by class representative's counsel, granted in part and denied in part the request for attorneys’ fees by the plaintiff in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al., and entered final judgment. On April 29, 2022, the Superior Court granted the request by plaintiff in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. that the Nasseri case be dismissed with prejudice in light of the final approval of the settlement. On December 15, 2022, the court approved the plaintiffs’ application to release payments to the class from the settlement fund. As a result, we removed the accrued liability and deposit from our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022.

On May 6, 2020, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled English v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleged that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint sought monetary damages and corporate governance reforms.

On May 12, 2021, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled Davydov v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against James H. Roberts, Jigisha Desai, Laurel Krzeminski, Craig Hall, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Compliance Officer, and Secretary, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleged that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint sought monetary damages and corporate governance reforms.

On April 14, 2022, the parties in Davydov v. Roberts et al., the plaintiff in English v. Roberts et al., and the Company entered into a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement providing that (i) defendants will cause insurers to pay $7.5 million, which amount, less court-awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses, will be paid to the Company, (ii) the Company shall implement agreed upon corporate governance provisions within 30 days of final approval of the settlement, and (iii) all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted against the defendants or their related persons in Davydov v. Roberts, et al., English v. Roberts, et al., or any other proceeding on behalf of the Davydov plaintiff, the English plaintiff, the Company or any Granite stockholder, will be released. On April 14, 2022, the plaintiff in Davydov v. Roberts, et al. filed the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement and a proposed scheduling order for a hearing in the Delaware Court of Chancery for review of the settlement. The Delaware Court of Chancery held a fairness hearing concerning its review of the settlement on July 12, 2022. On July 27, 2022, the Court in Davydov v. Roberts, et al. entered an order and final judgment approving the terms of the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. On July 28, 2022, the Court in English v. Roberts, et al. entered a stipulation and order of dismissal that dismissed the case with prejudice. The Company received a payment of $5.0 million for the settlement, which was net of court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses, that was recorded in Other costs, net on the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2022.

As of December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 (other than the Settlement Agreement charge described above), we did not record any liability related to the above matters because we concluded such liabilities were resolved or not probable and the amounts of such liabilities were not reasonably estimable.

Other Matters

In connection with our prior disclosure of the Audit/Compliance Committee’s independent investigation of prior-period reporting for the former Heavy Civil operating group and the extent to which those matters affected the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (the “Investigation”), we voluntarily contacted the San Francisco office of the SEC Division of Enforcement regarding the Investigation. The SEC issued subpoenas for documents in connection with the accounting issues identified in the Investigation. We produced documents to the SEC and fully cooperated with the SEC in its investigation. In the second quarter of 2022, we recorded a $12 million charge for the expected resolution of this investigation which was reflected in Other costs, net in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2022.

During the third quarter of 2022, we reached a settlement with the SEC. Under the terms of the settlement, we, without admitting or denying any allegations made by the SEC, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12 million and to be enjoined from violating specified provisions of the federal securities laws and rules promulgated thereunder. On August 25, 2022, the SEC filed a complaint against us, along with our consent to the entry of judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and requested entry of judgment. Judgment concluding and resolving this matter in its entirety was entered on September 9, 2022, and on September 16, 2022, we paid the $12 million penalty.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Layne, was a subcontractor on the foundation for the Salesforce Tower office building in San Francisco in 2013 and 2014. Certain anomalies were discovered in March 2014 in the foundation’s structural concrete, which were remediated by the general contractor during 2015. Layne assigned any insurance claims it may have had under the project’s builder’s risk insurance policy to the general contractor. During 2014, the project owner and the general contractor submitted a claim to the project’s builder’s risk insurers to cover the cost of remedial work and related damages. The claim was denied by the builder’s risk insurers. The project owner and the general contractor subsequently filed a legal proceeding against the insurers seeking coverage under the builder’s risk insurance policy, which proceeding was then transferred by agreement to arbitration. On July 20, 2021, we were informed of an arbitration award denying insurance coverage for claims related to the remedial measures undertaken by the general contractor of the Salesforce Tower and related damages. Although we were not a party to this legal proceeding, we believe, based on court filings and developments in the arbitration, that the project owner and the general contractor asserted a claim for damages against the project’s builder’s risk insurers for an amount in excess of $100 million.

On February 3, 2022, a lawsuit titled Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”), a subrogee of Clark/Hathaway Dinwiddie, a Joint Venture (“CHDJV”) v. Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”), was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, seeking damages of approximately $70 million for costs incurred by Steadfast on behalf of CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. On February 4, 2022, CHDJV submitted an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against Granite Construction Incorporated seeking to recover approximately $30 million for costs incurred by CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. CHDJV subsequently dismissed Granite and added Layne as a respondent to the arbitration. On March 8, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss the CHDJV arbitration. On April 8, 2022, we filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the Steadfast lawsuit. On May 6, 2022, CHDJV consolidated its claims with those of Steadfast and joined as a plaintiff in the Steadfast lawsuit, and on May 16, 2022, the arbitration was stayed. On June 14, 2022, we filed a demurrer to the amended complaint seeking to dismiss the claims of both Steadfast and CHDJV. On August 24, 2022, the court overruled our demurrer. We believe Layne has multiple defenses and counterclaims to the claims at issue. Layne intends to vigorously defend against the claims and prosecute its counterclaims, but we cannot provide assurance that Layne will be successful in these efforts. We do not believe it is probable this matter will result in a material loss, however, if we are unsuccessful, we believe the range of reasonably possible loss upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $100 million.