Darling Ingredients (DAR) Risk Analysis

The FDA has put in place restrictions to prevent the spread of BSE, and certain foreign governments have also restricted exports of beef and beef products from the United States following the detection of BSE in the United States in December 2003. The sixth case of BSE was reported in a six-year-old mixed-breed beef cow in August, 2018, which was the second case of BSE since the OIE characterized the United States' BSE status as one of "negligible risk" in 2013. The seventh and most recent case of BSE was announced in May 2023 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA"). According to the announcement, the animal was tested as part of USDA's routine surveillance of cattle that are deemed unsuitable for slaughter. As such, this animal never entered slaughter channels and at no time presented a risk to the food supply or to human health in the United States. On May 24, 2022, the OIE characterized Canada's BSE status as one of "negligible risk". On December 17, 2021 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed a case of atypical BSE in an 8.5 year old cow in Alberta. However, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reported zero cases of BSE in 2023. While these latest cases in the United States and Canada and previous cases were the atypical or sporadic form of BSE, which is not spread via feed and, therefore, did not affect the "negligible BSE risk" status of either country, continued concern about BSE in countries in which we operate now or in the future, may result in additional regulatory and market related challenges that may affect our operations or increase our operating costs. With respect to human food, pet food and animal feed safety in the United States, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act ("FSMA") gives the FDA various authorities and directs the FDA to promulgate new regulations pursuant to the FSMA, as described in the section entitled "Business-Regulations" included in this report. As a producer of meat-centric food products, we are subject to risks associated with the outbreak of disease in pork, beef livestock, and poultry flocks, including Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Avian Influenza and BSE. The outbreak of disease could adversely affect our supply of raw materials, increase the cost of production, and reduce operating margins. Additionally, the outbreak of disease may hinder our ability to market and sell products. We have developed business continuity plans for various disease scenarios; however, there is no assurance that these plans will be effective in eliminating the negative effects of any such diseases on our operating results. We have followed regulations enacted under the FSMA throughout the rulemaking process and have implemented Current Good Manufacturing Practices, food safety plans and other procedures at our domestic facilities, which we believe comply with the applicable final rules for preventive controls for human food and animal feed. Similar procedures have been implemented at our foreign facilities for compliance with the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs rule. Such rulemaking and implementation of compliant procedures could, among other things, limit our ability to import necessary raw materials or finished products or require us to amend certain of our other operational policies and procedures. Unforeseen issues and requirements may arise as the FDA implements and enforces these and other final rules or promulgates other new regulations provided for by the FSMA. The FDA has also established a Reportable Food Registry ("RFR") pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (the "FDAAA"), and has defined a reportable food, which the manufacturer or distributor would be required to report in the RFR, to include materials used as ingredients in animal feeds and pet foods if there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, such materials will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. Finalization of the RFR guidance documents and potential additional requirements relating to the RFR may impose additional requirements on us. According to the "Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 690.800, Salmonella in Food for Animals" (the "CPG"), any finished pet food contaminated with any species of Salmonella will be considered adulterated, and the FDA believes regulatory action is warranted in cases involving such pet foods because of the heightened risk to humans given the high likelihood of direct human contact with pet food. Finished animal feeds intended for pigs, poultry and other farmed animals, however, will be considered to be adulterated only if the feed is contaminated with a species of Salmonella that is considered to be pathogenic for the animal species for which the feed is intended. Any pathogen, such as Salmonella, that is correctly or incorrectly associated with our finished products could have a negative impact on the demand for our finished products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, results of operations or financial condition. As a result of our international operations, we could be adversely affected by additional non-U.S. regulations regarding BSE and other food safety issues. For example, an enforceable ban on the feeding of restricted animal material to ruminant animals is in place in Australia as part of a comprehensive national program to prevent the entry and establishment of the BSE agent in Australia and inspections and audits are undertaken to ensure compliance. In addition, in the EU, harmonized rules have been adopted for prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies ("TSEs"), which includes BSE, in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, as amended ("TSE Regulation"), and in Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, as amended ("Animal By-Products Regulation") and other food and feed hygiene regulations. The TSE Regulation establishes a "feed ban" consisting of a ban on the use of processed animal protein ("PAP"), in feed for ruminants according to which only certain animal proteins considered to be safe (such as fishmeal) can be used, but under very strict conditions. Since 1994, a ban on feeding MBM to ruminants has been in place in the EU and expanded in 2001, with the prohibition of feeding all PAP to all farmed animals, subject to certain limited exceptions. In 2009, the BSE-related feed ban was supplemented with the prohibition of intra-species recycling for all food-producing animals. Other animal-derived products besides PAP, such as collagen derived from non-ruminants and hydrolyzed protein derived from parts of non-ruminants or from ruminant hides and skins, were not included in the feed ban. The feed ban has been lifted for pig and poultry PAP in the feed of aquaculture animals, and insect PAP (a new source of animal protein) in the feed of aquaculture animals. In 2021, the European Commission relaxed the "feed ban" to allow the feeding of non-ruminant farmed animals with insect PAP, reauthorize the feeding of poultry with pig PAP, the feeding of pigs with poultry PAP and allow the use of ruminant derived gelatin in feeds for non-ruminant farmed animals. Darling Ingredients International may profit from the possible lifting of the ban for pigs and poultry, however, the introduction of changes to the feed ban and further restriction may adversely affect Darling Ingredients International, possibly restricting the allowed use of some of their products. The TSE Regulation applies to the production and placing on the market of live animals and products of animal origin on the EU market. The BSE status of EU Member States, non-EU members of the European Economic Area and other countries or regions ("Third Countries") is to be determined by classification made by the OIE into one of three BSE risk categories identified in the Regulation, i.e., negligible risk, controlled risk or undetermined risk. The BSE classification is based on a risk assessment and the implementation of a surveillance program. According to the Commission Decision of June 29, 2007, as amended, Greece is the only EU Member State classified as having a controlled BSE risk. The other EU Member States are classified as having a negligible BSE risk. Also, the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland), as a former a member of the EU is classified as controlled BSE risk. A change in the BSE status of one or more EU Member States may have a negative impact on Darling Ingredients International. Under EU legislation, imported products from outside the EU must meet the same safety standards as products produced in EU Member States. The TSE Regulation imposes strict import requirements related to TSEs for live animals and animal by-products, which depend on the BSE status of Third Countries. The Animal By-Products Regulation establishes rules intended to prevent the outbreak of certain diseases such as BSE. A BSE outbreak or other event viewed as hazardous to animal or human health could lead to the adoption of more stringent rules on the use and disposal of animal by-products, which could require Darling Ingredients International to change its production processes and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, EU legislation applicable to the agri-food sector could create additional compliance requirements and enforcement risks for us. For example, Regulation (EU) 2019/1381, as amended ("Food Transparency Regulation"), strengthens transparency requirements in EU food law. The European Food Safety Authority ("EFSA") must disclose scientific data, studies and other information supporting applications, including supplementary information supplied by applicants. EFSA is also tasked with establishing and managing a publicly accessible database of studies commissioned or carried out by business operators to support an application or notification in relation to which it must provide a scientific output. Business operators must notify EFSA of protected and detailed information concerning any study commissioned or carried out by them to support an application or a notification. Any potential disclosure of unfavorable studies and data as well as EFSA's ultimate decision-making power to determine what constitutes confidential information (and therefore subject or not to transparency obligations) may result in adverse publicity, negatively impact our reputation and/or require us to disclose commercially sensitive information and data. In addition, Regulation (EC) 2017/625, as amended ("Official Controls Regulation") requires that the EU Member States verify compliance with agri-food chain rules through official controls. To deter fraudulent practices, the Official Controls Regulation introduces more stringent rules for financial penalties, imposed by EU Member States, as well as new provisions to protect whistle-blowers to encourage and facilitate the reporting of non-compliance. More stringent and higher financial penalties may potentially result in significant and unexpected costs and enhanced provisions regarding whistle-blowers may result in more regulatory investigations and enforcement actions, both of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In the UK and the EU, pension funds are generally subject to the Institution for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive (Directive 2003/41/EC) (the "IORP Directive") as implemented in the relevant EU Member States (and the UK). The IORP Directive provides for certain general solvency requirements but allows EU Member States discretion to impose specific national requirements. As a result, the solvency of EU pension funds is mostly regulated on a national level. On December 23, 2016, the new IORP Directive ("IORP Directive II") was published on the Official Journal of the European Union and entered into force on January 12, 2017, though this did not make substantive changes to the solvency requirements under the original IORP Directive. The IORP Directive II recognizes in one of its recitals that changes in this area could potentially decrease the willingness of employers to provide occupational pension schemes. EU Member States were required to implement IORP Directive II into national legislation by January 13, 2019, noting that the IORP Directive was repealed from that date. Pursuant to Article 62.2., letters (a) and (c), of the IORP Directive II, the Commission was required to review and report on the application of the directive by January 13, 2023, to look at the adequacy of the directive "from a prudential and governance point of view" and the impact of the directive on the stability of IORPs. In preparation thereof, the Commission issued a call for technical advice from the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions ("EIOPA") regarding the evaluation and review of the IORP Directive II. The EIOPA submitted their technical advice on the review on September 28, 2023 where they proposed that the Commission: (a) keeps the regulatory framework for IORPs relevant; (b) recognizes the need for existing defined benefit IORPs to be properly regulated and supervised; and (c) enhance proportionality measures. During the course of 2021, members of the Commission commented that the planned review would likely be postponed until 2024 given that many EU Member States were late in fully transposing the directive (including France, Ireland, Spain and Sweden), and the EIOPA noted in October 2023 that the review may be delayed further until 2025 given upcoming elections at the European Commission. The UK introduced legislation with effect from January 13, 2019 to implement certain parts of IORP Directive II: (i) the Occupational Pension Schemes (Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1103, which implemented the governance provisions; (ii) the Occupational Pension Schemes (Cross-border Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1102, which implemented the requirements relating to cross-border activity and cross-border transfers; and (iii) the Pension Protection Fund (Pensionable Service) and Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/988, which (among other things) made amendments to the content requirements of statements of investment principles so as to require trustees to state, from October 1, 2019, their policy on ‘financially material considerations'. The UK government considered that the other aspects of IORP Directive II were already adequately covered by the existing UK law. Given that IORP Directive II had already been implemented in UK law, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the "EUWA 2018") had preserved any legislation made in the UK to implement the obligations under IORP Directive II (including those carried over from the IORP Directive). That legislation has not changed following Brexit, and there is not yet indication that the UK legislation and regulation which apply to IORPs will diverge from that of the EU, however this may happen over time, given mechanisms in the EUWA 2018 allow for departure from retained EU case law, and the effect of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (the "REUL Act") (which achieved Royal Assent in the UK on June 29, 2023) on the status, operation and content of retained EU law. Although the REUL Act does not revoke legislation specific to IORPs, other provisions of it, such as the removal of general principles of EU law, may have an impact to the UK's legislation and regulations which apply to IORPs in the future. In March 2021, the UK Pensions Regulator ("TPR") published a consultation on its new code of practice, and a draft of the single code (the "Code"), which will cover additional governance requirements to implement IORP Directive II in the UK. The Code will consolidate TPR's existing codes of practice and introduce new modules to cover the requirements of IORP Directive II (and the underlying UK regulations which implemented the directive). These include the requirement for trustees to have in place remuneration policies and "own risk assessments", and guidance on topics such as continuity planning. The Code was laid before the UK parliament on January 10, 2024, and came into force on March 28, 2024. The final version of the Code contains new governance requirements and sets out TPR's expectations of how occupational pension schemes should be managed, but does not differ in any material respect from the draft version of the Code that was introduced in 2021.

Our operations are highly dependent on the use of natural gas, diesel fuel and electricity and a disruption in any of them could have a material adverse effect on the business and results of operations of the affected facility. We consume significant volumes of natural gas to operate boilers in our plants, which generate steam to heat raw materials, and natural gas prices represent a significant cost of facility operations included in cost of sales. We also consume significant volumes of diesel fuel to operate our fleet of tractors and trucks used to collect raw materials, and diesel fuel prices represent a significant component of cost of collection expenses included in cost of sales. Prices for both natural gas and diesel fuel can be volatile, partially due to the ongoing Russian-Ukraine war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other Middle Eastern conflicts or the inflationary environment, and therefore, represent an ongoing challenge to our operating results. Although we continually manage these costs and hedge our exposure to changes in fuel prices through our formula pricing, and from time to time, derivatives, a material increase in prices for natural gas and/or diesel fuel over a sustained period of time could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. We also require a significant amount of electricity in operating certain of our facilities, a significant increase in the cost of which could have a material adverse effect on the business and results of operations of the affected facility. Additionally, the availability of natural gas, diesel fuel and electricity can be affected by numerous events such as weather (e.g., hurricanes and periods of considerable heat or cold), pipeline and other logistics interruptions, electric grid outages, cybersecurity incidents, intermittent electricity generation, hostilities, sanctions and supply and demand imbalances.

The food and pet food industries in general are subject to changing consumer trends, demands and preferences. Trends within the food and pet food industries change often, and failure to identify and react to changes in these trends could lead to, among other things, reduced demand and price reductions for our products or those of our customers for whom we manufacture products, and could have an adverse effect on our financial results.

Our management believes that the most competitive aspect of our business is the procurement of raw materials rather than the sale of finished products. Many of our raw materials are derived directly or indirectly from animal by-products, which results in the following challenges: - In North America, consolidation within the meat processing industry has resulted in bigger and more efficient slaughtering operations, the majority of which utilize "captive" rendering (rendering operations integrated with the meat or poultry packing operation). - Concurrently, there has been limited to no growth in the number of small U.S. meat processors, which have historically been a dependable source of supply for non-captive or independent U.S. renderers, such as us. - The slaughter rates in the U.S. and international meat processing industry are subject to decline during poor economic conditions when consumers generally reduce their consumption of protein, and as a result, during such periods of decline, the availability, quantity and quality of raw materials available to independent renderers, such as us, decreases. In addition, raw material volumes are subject to decline due to government regulations limiting animal production. - In addition, the Company has seen an increase in the use of used cooking oil in the production of biofuels, which has increased competition for the collection of used cooking oil from restaurants and other food service establishments and contributed to an increase in the frequency and magnitude of theft of used cooking oil in the United States. - Furthermore, a decline in the general performance of the global economy (including a decline in consumer confidence and inflation) and an inability of consumers and companies to obtain credit in the financial markets could have a negative impact on our raw material volume, such as through the forced closure of any of our raw material suppliers. A significant decrease in available raw materials or a closure of a significant number of raw material suppliers could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, including the carrying value of certain of our assets. The rendering industry is highly fragmented and both the rendering and bakery residual industries are very competitive. We compete with other rendering businesses and alternative methods of disposal of animal by-products, bakery residue and used cooking oil provided by trash haulers, waste management companies and biofuel companies, as well as the alternative of illegal disposal. See Item 1. "Competition." In addition, U.S. restaurants experience theft of used cooking oil, the frequency and magnitude of which increases with the rise in value of used cooking oil. Depending on market conditions, we either charge a collection fee to offset a portion of the cost incurred in collecting raw material, collect on a no pay/no charge basis or pay for the raw material. To the extent suppliers of raw materials look to alternate methods of disposal, whether as a result of our collection fees being deemed too expensive, the payments we offer being deemed too low or otherwise, our raw material supply and/or collection fee revenues will decrease, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the amount of raw material acquired, which has a direct impact on the amount of finished goods produced, can also have a material effect on our gross margin reported, as the Company has a substantial amount of fixed operating costs. In addition, we utilize an extensive vehicle fleet to collect and transport raw material, for which we compete with other industries for qualified drivers. The U.S. has been experiencing a growing shortage of truck drivers. Our failure to hire and retain a sufficient number of truck drivers to operate our fleet could negatively impact our ability to collect and transport raw materials in an efficient and cost-effective manner. A majority of the Company's U.S. volume of animal by-product raw materials, including its significant U.S. accounts, and substantially all of the Company's U.S. bakery feed raw materials, are acquired on a "formula basis," which allows us to adjust our costs of materials based on changes in the price of our finished products, and are in most cases set forth in contracts with our suppliers. Such contracts generally provide for multi-year terms. The formulas provided in these contracts are reviewed and modified during their term and upon renewal of the contracts to maintain acceptable risk allocations between us and our suppliers related to movements in commodity prices. Changes to these formulas or the inability to renew such contracts could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. A majority of the Company's Canadian volume of animal by-product raw materials are acquired on a monthly fixed-price basis with suppliers, while the remainder are acquired on a "formula basis." A majority of Darling Ingredients International's volume of animal by-product raw materials are acquired at spot or quarterly fixed prices.

We evaluate our business regularly and, from time to time, we may decide to divest ourselves of brands or businesses that do not meet our strategic objectives or do not meet our growth or profitability targets. No assurance can be given that we will be able to divest of a brand or business on favorable terms or without significant costs or that we will be able to achieve the anticipated benefits or cost savings from the divestitures. Any such divestitures may adversely affect our results of operations if we are unable to offset the dilutive impacts from the loss of revenue associated with the divested brands or businesses, or otherwise achieve the anticipated benefits or cost savings from the divestitures. Moreover, we may incur asset impairment charges related to divestitures that reduce our profitability.

The UK ceased to be a member of the EU on January 31, 2020 ("Brexit"), creating uncertainty in the global financial markets. On December 24, 2020, the EU and the UK reached an agreement in principle on certain agreements and declarations governing the ongoing relationship between the EU and the UK (the "EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement"). The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement was provisionally applied from January 1, 2021 before entering into force on May 1, 2021. In accordance with the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, UK exports of products that are derived from animal by-products entering the EU must follow third country rules, including being accompanied by an export health certificate or model declaration form, and can be subjected to veterinary checks or having to enter through designated board inspection posts. Under the UK Border Target Operating Model, certain additional controls on imports into the UK have been introduced in a phased manner under transitional measures. These include the introduction of physical inspections of imports of food, plant and animal produce from the EU from April 30, 2024. As matters currently stand, under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol (the "NI Protocol"), contained within the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, Northern Ireland is treated for the same purposes as if it were still an EU Member State, and must remain aligned to the EU single market and customs rules. Following a series of negotiations between the UK and the EU on the NI Protocol, on March 24, 2023, the UK government amended the NI Protocol by implementing the Windsor Framework (the "Framework") which aims to, inter alia, (a) reduce the level of controls on goods coming from Great Britain which are intended to be sold in Northern Ireland, and (b) ensure EU law only applies in Northern Ireland to the minimum extent necessary to avoid a hard border with Ireland and allow Northern Ireland businesses to continue accessing the EU market. The Framework also introduced the ‘Stormont Brake', a mechanism that gives the Northern Ireland assembly the power to call on the UK to veto the application of EU goods rules that would have significant and lasting effects in Northern Ireland. The Framework will be implemented in stages through 2025, to provide businesses time to adapt to the new arrangements. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement allows for future deviation from the current regulatory framework and it is not known if and/or when any deviations may occur, which may have an impact on Darling Ingredient's business. These developments and the impact of the terms of the NI Protocol can cause import/export delays between the EU and the UK, and can entail additional costs within the UK itself, where imports/exports are with Northern Ireland. Additionally, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement can potentially impair the ability of Darling Ingredients International to transact business in the UK, including by restricting the free travel of employees. Freedom of movement between the UK and EU has ended, meaning neither UK nor EU citizens are able to live and work in the EU or UK, respectively, without certain visas (other than short-term visits for specific purposes (e.g., attending meetings, conducting training) in accordance with local immigration laws). Moreover, the application of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and any other relevant agreements that have been and may be made between the UK and the EU, and the divergence of laws applicable in the EU and UK as the UK adopts its own legislation will continue to present legal uncertainty. Significantly, the REUL Act makes provision for changes to the status, operation and content of retained EU law, largely through amendments of the EUWA 2018. In particular, the REUL Act: (a) revoked at the end of 2023 specific legislation and retained direct EU legislation (as specified in Schedule 1 of the REUL Act); (b) repealed elements of EU-derived rights, principles of supremacy and general principles of EU law (such as proportionality, protection of fundamental rights and the principle of equal treatment) from UK law; (c) downgraded the status of retained direct principal EU legislation, allowing this type of law to be amended more simply and with a reduced degree of scrutiny; (d) renamed retained EU law and related bodies or types of law as "assimilated law"; and (e) conferred powers on the UK government to restate, revoke and replace secondary retained EU law and secondary assimilated law. While the REUL Act makes significant changes to the content and operation of retained EU law, the effects of such changes will remain unclear until resolved under the UK courts. For example, where domestic legislation has already been enacted to implement an EU directive, there may be relevant context in applying the framework of the EUWA 2018 (i.e., the continued application of the supremacy of EU law and the principle of "indirect effect"). In addition, the extent of the effects of the REUL Act in certain legal practice areas and sectors will also partly depend on the statutory instruments which the UK government makes, which will depend on consultations, policy decisions and the extent to which the UK government decides to reform assimilated law. These developments may continue to adversely affect European and worldwide economic conditions, as uncertainties remain relating to certain aspects of the UK's future economic, trading and legal relationships with the EU and with other countries. These effects could have an adverse effect on our business, investments and future operations in the UK and Europe.

The actual or perceived effects of a disease outbreak, epidemic, pandemic or similar widespread public health concern, such as COVID-19, could negatively affect our operations, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations. The spread of pandemics, epidemics or disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 may disrupt our third-party business partners' ability to meet their obligations to us which may negatively affect our operations. These third parties include those who supply our raw materials and other necessary operating materials and logistics and transportation services providers. Ports and other channels of entry may be closed or operate at only a portion of capacity, as workers may be prohibited or otherwise unable to report to work, and means of transporting products within regions or countries may be limited for the same reason. Furthermore, transport restrictions related to quarantines or travel bans could be put in place and global supply may become constrained, each of which may cause the price of certain raw materials used in our products to increase and/or we may experience disruptions to our operations. In addition, any such outbreaks may affect the prices and demand for our finished products. Workforce limitations and travel restrictions resulting from pandemics, epidemics or disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 and related government actions may affect many aspects of our business. If a significant percentage of our workforce is unable to work, including because of illness or travel or government restrictions in connection with pandemics or disease outbreaks, our operations and financial reporting capabilities may be negatively affected. In addition, pandemics or disease outbreaks could result in a widespread health crisis that could adversely affect the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in an economic downturn that could affect our raw material supply and our customers' demand for our finished products. Our efforts to manage and mitigate these factors may be unsuccessful, and the effectiveness of these efforts depends on factors beyond our control, including the duration and severity of any pandemic, epidemic or disease outbreak, as well as third-party actions taken to contain its spread and mitigate public health effects. The risks described above also apply to the DGD Joint Venture and its business and operations.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively, the "ACA"), was signed into law in the United States. This healthcare reform legislation and its applicable implementing regulations contain provisions that could materially impact our healthcare costs, including the contributions we are required to make to our benefit plans. In particular, the requirement that we either offer our full-time employees healthcare coverage that satisfies the ACA's affordability and minimum value standards or potentially be subject to a penalty became effective in calendar year 2015. In addition, beginning in 2016, we had to file information returns with the IRS regarding the health insurance coverage offered to our full-time employees in the prior calendar year and furnish to employees a statement that includes the same information provided to the IRS. Although we are no longer required to furnish to employees these statements (except at their request), we are still required to file the required returns with the IRS. While we have timely filed such returns and provided our employees with the required statements to date, failure to do so in the future could expose us to reporting penalties under applicable sections of the Internal Revenue Code. These provisions could reduce our net income and adversely affect our cash flows. There have been several legislative changes to, or regulatory changes under, all or certain portions of the ACA since its enactment. For example, on December 20, 2019, then President Trump signed Public Law 116-94, a spending bill that included provisions repealing the so-called "Cadillac" tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share. Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, but bills affecting the implementation of the ACA have been signed into law. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in December 2017, includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate" (although a few states have adopted individual mandate requirements that assess penalties against individuals based on their uninsured status). The American Rescue Plan Act also temporarily increased premium tax credit assistance for individuals eligible for subsidies under the ACA for 2021 and 2022 and removed the 400% federal poverty level limit that otherwise applies for purposes of eligibility to receive premium tax credits. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in August 2022, extended this increased tax credit assistance and removal of the 400% federal poverty limit through 2025. There have also been various judicial challenges to the ACA. For example, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states (which argued that, without the individual mandate, the entire ACA was unconstitutional) without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Another significant challenge to the ACA is currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, the plaintiffs argue that the ACA's requirement that insurance cover certain preventive services without cost sharing is unconstitutional. In September 2022, a federal district court in Texas ruled partly in favor of the plaintiffs and partly in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is defending the ACA, finding, among other things, that the requirement that self-funded plans and insurers cover certain preventive services violates the plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The federal government appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which partially upheld the district court's ruling, finding that the ACA's requirement to cover preventative services without cost-sharing is unconstitutional. However, the Fifth Circuit overruled the lower court's nationwide injunction, holding that only the plaintiffs' health care plans are permitted to exclude the ACA-mandated preventative services from their plans, and remanded certain of the plaintiffs' other claims back to the federal district court for further consideration. On September 19, 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services filed its petition seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. We cannot say for certain whether there will be additional future challenges to the ACA or what impact, if any, such challenges may have on our obligations to provide healthcare coverage. There is uncertainty regarding any future healthcare reform that the administration or Congress may propose, if any, including whether any proposals will encompass or potentially alter the full-time employee healthcare coverage requirements and reporting obligations imposed on large employers like us. Any changes may likely take time to unfold, and we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing, or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation or related proposals and policies on us. We cannot assure that healthcare coverage laws, as currently enacted or as repealed or amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business.

We maintain valuable patents, trademarks, service marks, copyrights, trade names, trade secrets, proprietary technologies and similar intellectual property, and consider our intellectual property to be of material value. Our efforts to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights may not be sufficient. Patents may not be issued for any pending or future patent applications owned by or licensed to us, and the claims allowed under any issued patents may not be sufficiently broad to protect our technology. Any issued patents owned by or licensed to us may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights under these patents may not provide us with competitive advantages. In addition, competitors may design around our technology or develop competing technologies. Intellectual property rights may also be unavailable or limited in some foreign countries, which could make it easier for competitors to capture market position in such countries by utilizing technologies that are similar to those developed or licensed by us. If we do not obtain sufficient protection for our intellectual property, or if we are unable to effectively protect our intellectual property rights, our competitiveness could be impaired, which would limit our growth and future revenue. Any litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets or determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources, with no assurance of success.

The pace of artificial intelligence advancements (including generative artificial intelligence) and its complex and dynamic regulatory environment subjects the Company to a variety of risks. This includes risks to the privacy and security of the Company's data, such as unauthorized disclosures of data which could be used to the detriment of the Company. Artificial intelligence also introduces tools that could be used for malicious purposes, such as advanced deceitful communication methods used to harm the Company. Artificial intelligence also subjects the Company to potential competitive disadvantages in its business and missed innovation opportunities.