On July 7, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its officers George C. Zoley and Brian R. Evans, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On November 18, 2020, the lead plaintiffs, James Michael DeLoach and Edward Oketola, filed a consolidated class action amended complaint against Messrs. Zoley and Evans––as well as current and former Company officers J. David Donahue and Ann M. Schlarb. On September 23, 2021, the court dismissed all claims against Messrs. Evans and Donahue, and Ms. Schlarb, and dismissed all claims against GEO and Mr. Zoley other than claims related to GEO's disclosures about pending litigation. On October 4, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that GEO and Mr. Zoley violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Mr. Zoley violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions related to pending litigation, and seeks relief individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities––other than the defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and

any entity in which the defendants have or had a controlling interest––who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the alleged class period from November 9, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive. The second amended complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On June 21, 2022, the court dismissed all claims in the second amended complaint other than those related to the Company’s statements about pending lawsuits made prior to July 17, 2019.

After the putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed, three related putative shareholder derivative actions have also been filed. These cases generally allege breaches of fiduciary duties related to the same underlying matters alleged in the class action. First, on July 1, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in Palm Beach County, Florida Circuit Court against the Company, as well as current and former Company directors and officers George C. Zoley, Jose Gordo, Brian R. Evans, Ann M. Schlarb, Richard H. Glanton, Anne N. Foreman, Christopher C. Wheeler, Julie M. Wood, Guido van Hauwermeiren, Scott M. Kernan, and Duane Helkowski (collectively, the “State Court Defendants”). Second, On November 12, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, the State Court Defendants, as well as current and former Company officers David Venturella and J. David Donahue (collectively, the “Derivative Defendants”). Third, on August 24, 2022, a putative stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and the Derivative Defendants. The state-court complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the State Court Defendants relating to purported healthcare and quality of care deficiencies, an allegedly inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged forced labor by detainees, and alleged exposure to pending litigation, which purportedly led to damage to GEO. The federal-court complaints make similar allegations of breach of fiduciary duty as to the Derivative Defendants, and also allege that the Derivative Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that Mr. Zoley contributed to alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The state-court lawsuit and the first federal-court lawsuit are currently stayed pending the resolution of the federal putative shareholder class action lawsuit described above.

GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these four lawsuits, and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from these lawsuits.

Civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched based on the level of payment the detainees received for work performed in a voluntary work program the Company is required to implement at the facility under the terms of its contract with the federal government. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the court granted the plaintiff-class’s motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 18, 2022, the court issued an Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Company’s affirmative defenses, denying the Company’s motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the class period for plaintiffs’ TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling against the Company’s motions for relief.

Since the Colorado suit was initially filed, four similar lawsuits have been filed - two in the state of Washington and two in California.

The first of the two state of Washington lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that Washington State minimum wage laws should be enforced with respect to detainees who volunteer to participate in a Voluntary Work Program administered by GEO at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (the "Center") as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the terms of GEO’s contract. The Center houses persons in the custody of federal immigration authorities while their immigration status is being determined by the federal government. In October 2021, an unfavorable jury verdict and Court judgment resulting in a combined $23.2 million judgment were entered against the Company in the retrial of the two cases, which judgment amounts were subsequently increased by a further award against the Company of attorney’s fees, costs, and interest in the amount of $12.7 million. The trial court has waived the necessity to post a supersedeas bond for the combined judgments and has stayed enforcement of the verdict and judgments while GEO’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is pending. Oral Argument was held on October 6, 2022. The case has been formally submitted to the three-judge panel for decision. GEO intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself. The Company has not established an accrual for this judgment as it believes a potential loss related to this case is not probable.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California. The California lawsuit alleges violations of the state’s minimum wage laws and that the Company violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute. The California court has certified a class of individuals who have been civilly detained at the Company's Adelanto Facility from December 19, 2014, until the date of Final judgment. On March 31, 2022, the court entered a stay of the California case until the Ninth Circuit rules on the Washington cases.

Current and former detainees of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and the Golden State Annex ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on July 13, 2022, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. This lawsuit is similar to the cases in Colorado, Washington and California discussed above. The complaint alleges that federal detainees who volunteer to participate in the Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") at GEO’s Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex ICE facilities are employees of GEO and entitled to the state’s minimum wage. Plaintiffs also make claims for unjust enrichment, human trafficking and forced labor.

GEO believes it operates the VWP in full compliance with its contract with ICE and all applicable laws, regulations, and standards. GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these lawsuits, and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from these lawsuits. GEO has not recorded any accruals relating to these lawsuits at this time as losses are not considered probable.

On December 30, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the State of California for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging California’s newly enacted law - Assembly Bill 32 ("AB-32"), - which prohibits the operation of "private detention facilities" in California, including facilities in which the Company provides secure immigration detention contract services to the Federal government. The Company’s lawsuit asserts that AB-32 violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which protects the federal government from regulation by any state. By prohibiting federal detention facilities in California, the suit argues AB-32 substantially interferes with the ability of USMS and ICE to carry out detention responsibilities for the federal government. Secondly, because AB-32 creates an exemption for the application of AB-32 for the State of California for the use of "private detention facilities" (to alleviate overcrowding), California’s statute unlawfully discriminates against the federal government. On January 24, 2020, the United States filed a lawsuit challenging AB-32. On October 8, 2020, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying in part, the Company’s and the United States’ motions for preliminary injunction and California’s motion to dismiss. Among other findings, the court (1) dismissed the Company’s intergovernmental immunity claims as well as the United States’ preemption claims as applied to ICE facilities; (2) found that the Company and the United States were likely to succeed on the preemption claims as applied to U.S. Marshals’ facilities and enjoined enforcing AB-32 against those facilities; and (3) refused to enjoin California from enforcing AB-32 against ICE contracts with the Company and the United States. The Company and the United States appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on June 7, 2021. On October 5, 2021, a three-Judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that AB-32 conflicted with federal law. California petitioned the Ninth Circuit for the matter to be heard by the Court sitting en banc, which petition was accepted. On September 26, 2022, in an 8-3 en banc decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that AB-32 violates the U.S. Constitution Supremacy Clause and that AB-32 is preempted, vacated the lower court’s denial of the Company’s and the United States’ motions for preliminary injunction, and remanded the case to the District Court to consider the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

On April 29, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the State of Washington for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the State of Washington’s newly enacted law – House Bill 1090 – that purports to prohibit the operation of "private detention facilities" in the state, which would prevent the United States from using privately contracted detention facilities to house detainees in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The court has entered a stay in this action pending the final resolution of the AB-32 appeal.

The nature of the Company's business also exposes it to various other third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by individuals in its care, medical malpractice claims, claims related to deaths in custody, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or detainees, including damages arising from the escape of an individual in its care or from a disturbance or riot at a facility.

The Company establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows or could result in a material impairment of the Company’s assets. The Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. The Company does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs but expenses those items as incurred.

A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had previously processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest related to the assessment is approximately $19.8 million. The Company is appealing an administrative ruling and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position. The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter.

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, among other things, allowed employers to defer the deposit and payment of the employer's share of Social Security taxes. The deferral applied to deposits and payments of the employer’s share of Social Security tax that would otherwise be required to be made during the period beginning on March 27, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2021. The deferred amounts are due to be paid in two equal installments no later than December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022. The Company paid the first installment in September 2021. The remaining balance of the deferred payroll taxes of approximately $20.0 million was paid in August 2022.

Effective September 20, 2022, the Company executed a Share and Unit Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") for the sale of its equity investment interest in the government-owned Ravenhall Correctional Centre ("Centre") project in Australia for approximately $84 million in gross proceeds, pre-tax to an unrelated third party. In accordance with the SPA, the Company sold its shares/units in GEO Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd, GEO Australasia Finance Holdings Pty Ltd and GEO Australasia Finance Holding Trust, the Company's former wholly owned subsidiaries. These subsidiaries held the contract receivable and related non-recourse debt which were transferred to the buyer and are no longer an asset or outstanding obligation of the Company. These subsidiaries also held restricted cash that was also transferred to the buyer. The Company continues to manage the operations of the Centre on behalf of the State of Victoria. As a result of the sale, the Company recorded a gain of approximately $29.3 million, pre-tax. The proceeds, along with available cash on hand, were used to repay all of the remaining outstanding principal of its Term Loan B and its newly issued Tranche 3 Loans. Refer to Note 10 - Debt for additional information.

The Company currently has contractual commitments for a number of projects using Company financing. The Company’s management estimates that the cost of these existing active capital projects will be approximately $32.4 million of which $13.2 million was spent through the first nine months of 2022. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these capital projects will be $19.2 million which will be spent through the remainder of 2022.

As of September 30, 2022, the Company was marketing eleven of its idle facilities to potential customers. The carrying values of these idle facilities are included in Property and Equipment, Net and Assets for Sale in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The following table summarizes each of the idled facilities and their respective carrying values, excluding equipment and other assets that can be easily transferred for use at other facilities. There was no indication of impairment related to the Company's idle facilities as of September 30, 2022.


						Secure Services		Reentry Services		Total
		Secure Services		Reentry Services		Net Carrying Value		Net Carrying Value		Net Carrying Value
Facility	Year Idled	Design Capacity		Design Capacity		September 30, 2022		September 30, 2022		September 30, 2022
Great Plains Correctional Facility	2021		1,940		—	$	70,016	$	—	$	70,016
D. Ray James Correctional Facility	2021		1,900		—		51,285		—		51,285
Northlake Correctional Facility	2022		1,800		—		69,113		—		69,113
Rivers Correctional Facility	2021		1,450		—		38,348		—		38,348
Big Spring Correctional Facility	2021		1,732		—		33,678		—		33,678
Flightline Correctional Facility	2021		1,800		—		35,586		—		35,586
McFarland Female Community Reentry Facility	2020		300		—		11,038		—		11,038
Cheyenne Mountain Recovery Center	2020		—		750		—		16,806		16,806
Albert Bo Robinson Assessment & Treatment Center	2022		—		900		—		14,198		14,198
Coleman Hall	2017		—		350		—		7,844		7,844
Hector Garza Center	2020		—		139		—		4,882		4,882
Total			10,922		2,139	$	309,064	$	43,730	$	352,794