Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may be or are subject to various lawsuits and other claims, as well as gain contingencies, in the ordinary course of our business. In addition, from time to time, we receive communications from government or regulatory agencies concerning investigations or allegations of noncompliance with laws or regulations in jurisdictions in which we operate. We assess these regulatory and legal actions to determine if a contingent liability should be recorded. In making these determinations, we may, depending on the nature of the matter, consult with internal and external legal counsel and technical experts. We establish reserves for specific liabilities in connection with regulatory and legal actions that we determine to be both probable and reasonably estimable. The outcomes of regulatory and legal actions can be difficult to predict and are often resolved over long periods of time, making our probability and estimability determinations highly judgmental. Probability determinations require the analysis of various possible outcomes, assessments of potential damages and the impact of multiple factors beyond our control, including potential actions by others, interpretations of the law, and changes and developments in relevant facts, circumstances, regulations and other laws. If a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability is disclosed, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if the range is determinable and material. In certain of the matters described below, we are not able to estimate potential liability because of the uncertainties related to the outcome(s) and/or the amount(s) or range(s) of loss. The ultimate resolution of pending regulatory and legal matters in future periods, including the matters described below, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and/or liquidity. The Company may also incur material defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other adverse effects on our business, financial condition, and/or results of operations. The information regarding those matters set forth below is as of June 30, 2026, except as otherwise indicated. Ethylene Oxide Tort Litigation Sterigenics U.S., LLC (“Sterigenics”) and other medical supply sterilization companies have been subjected to tort lawsuits alleging various injuries caused by low-level environmental exposure to EO used at or emitted or released from sterilization facilities. Those lawsuits, as detailed further below, are individual claims, as opposed to class actions. California As of July 31, 2026, subsidiaries of the Company and other parties are defendants in lawsuits pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court in which the plaintiffs assert approximately 150 claims for personal injury or wrongful death allegedly resulting from use, emissions and releases of EO from Sterigenics’ Vernon facilities (the “Vernon Cases”). The Vernon Cases have been assigned to one judge, with initial trials scheduled for January and April 2027. Eight individual claims have been selected as the “First Plaintiff Group” and are being prioritized for discovery. Georgia Subsidiaries of the Company and other parties are defendants in lawsuits in Georgia in which plaintiffs allege personal injuries, wrongful death and property devaluation resulting from use, emissions and releases of EO from or at Sterigenics’ Atlanta facility. As of July 31, 2026, approximately 500 personal injury and wrongful death claims filed in the State Court of Cobb County (the “Georgia Trial Court”) are assigned to a single judge (the “Georgia Personal Injury Cases”). The Georgia Personal Injury Cases are governed in the Georgia Trial Court by case management orders pursuant to which general causation issues in a pool of eight cases were to be adjudicated in Phase 1 and specific causation issues in those pool cases were to be adjudicated in Phase 2; the remaining Georgia Personal Injury Cases, including 15 cases that include both personal injury and property claims and one personal injury lawsuit that is pending before a different judge, are stayed. On November 22, 2024, the Georgia Trial Court issued a Phase 1 ruling on general causation issues granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to exclude certain Phase 1 expert testimony and defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Phase 1 issues (the “First General Causation Ruling”). Plaintiffs and defendants appealed the First General Causation Ruling to the Court of Appeals of Georgia (the “Phase 1 General Causation Appeals”). While the Phase 1 General Causation Appeals were pending, three of the pool cases, selected by plaintiffs’ counsel, proceeded to Phase 2 (the “Phase 2 Cases”). On October 17, 2025, the Georgia Trial Court issued its Phase 2 rulings on specific causation issues granting Sterigenics’ motions to exclude three of plaintiffs’ specific causation expert witnesses and granting Sterigenics’ motions for summary judgment in all three Phase 2 Cases (the “Specific Causation Ruling”). On October 28, 2025, the Georgia Trial Court entered an order also adopting its Specific Causation Ruling with respect to our subsidiary Sotera Health LLC. Plaintiffs in the Phase 2 Cases appealed the Specific Causation Ruling to the Court of Appeals of Georgia (the “Phase 2 Specific Causation Appeals”). On October 31, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled on the Phase 1 General Causation Appeals, finding that as Sterigenics contended on appeal, the First General Causation Ruling failed to apply the proper standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony on general causation, vacating the First General Causation Ruling and remanding the pool cases to the Georgia Trial Court with instructions to apply the proper standard in ruling on general causation issues. The Court of Appeals also instructed the Georgia Trial Court to consider whether plaintiffs can prove general causation through epidemiological evidence and background risks of the diseases at issue. On March 30, 2026, the Georgia Trial Court granted defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation experts and entered summary judgment for defendants in the five remanded pool cases (the “Second General Causation Ruling and Judgment”). Plaintiffs in the five remanded pool cases appealed the Second General Causation Ruling and Judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia (the “Second Phase 1 General Causation Appeals”). Proceedings in the Georgia Trial Court are stayed pending resolution of the Second Phase 1 General Causation Appeals and the Phase 2 Specific Causation Appeals. Subsidiaries of the Company and other parties are also defendants in a lawsuit filed in May 2020 in which employees of a sterilization customer of Sterigenics allege they were injured while working at the customer’s distribution facility by exposure to residual EO allegedly emanating from products of the customer that had been sterilized by Sterigenics. The case is proceeding in the Superior Court of Cobb County on plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the customer’s contract with Sterigenics, the customer is indemnifying Sterigenics against this lawsuit. As of July 31, 2026, approximately 305 lawsuits have been filed in the Georgia Trial Court against subsidiaries of the Company and other parties in which plaintiffs allege property devaluation resulting from use, emissions and releases of EO from or at Sterigenics’ Atlanta facility. These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes (the “Consolidated Property Cases”). Proceedings in a pool of nine of the Consolidated Property Cases are governed by case management orders pursuant to which the parties completed discovery and defendants filed motions to exclude certain plaintiffs’ expert testimony and motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. The remaining cases are stayed. Illinois Lawsuits against subsidiaries of the Company and other parties have been filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by plaintiffs alleging personal injury or wrongful death resulting from use, emissions and releases of EO from Sterigenics’ former Willowbrook facility (the “Illinois Cases”). As of July 31, 2026, subsidiaries of the Company and other parties are defendants in approximately 15 Illinois Cases that are in various stages of pleadings, motions practice and fact discovery. New Mexico On June 24, 2026, the Company and certain subsidiaries agreed with the State of New Mexico to settle the lawsuit filed by the New Mexico Attorney General in the Third Judicial District Court, Doña Ana County, New Mexico (the “Trial Court”) in December 2020. The settlement, which was entered into without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by any defendant, fully and finally resolved all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, in the litigation for an amount that was not material to the Company. On July 7, 2026, the Trial Court entered a Consent Order Dissolving Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Dismissal With Prejudice. * * * Additional EO lawsuits have been threatened relating to Sterigenics’ current and former EO sterilization facilities in the United States and may be filed in the future. These threats of additional EO lawsuits are comparable to threats that have similarly been made against other companies within our industry. Based on our view of the strength of the science and related evidence that emissions of EO from Sterigenics’ operations have not caused and could not have caused the harms alleged in such lawsuits, we believe that losses in the remaining or future EO cases through trials and any appeals that may prove necessary are not probable. Although the Company is vigorously defending against the EO tort claims, future settlements of EO tort claims are reasonably possible. The previously disclosed settlements of certain cases related to our facilities in Willowbrook and Atlanta were driven by dynamics unique to the claims that were settled and thus should not give rise to presumptions that the Company will settle additional EO tort claims and/or that any such settlements will be for comparable amounts. Potential trial and settlement outcomes can vary widely based on a host of factors. EO tort lawsuits will be presided over by different judges, tried by different counsel presenting different evidence and decided by different juries. The substantive and procedural laws of jurisdictions vary and can meaningfully impact the litigation process and outcome of a case. Each plaintiff’s claim involves unique facts and evidence, including the circumstances of the plaintiff’s alleged exposure, the type and severity of the plaintiff’s disease, the plaintiff’s medical history and course of treatment, the location of and other factors related to the plaintiff’s real property, and other circumstances. The outcomes of trials before juries are rarely certain and a judgment rendered or settlement reached in one case is not necessarily representative of potential outcomes of other seemingly comparable cases. As a result, it is not possible to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss with respect to any future EO tort lawsuit, trial or settlement. We are vigorously defending the EO tort lawsuits.

From time to time, we may be or are subject to various lawsuits and other claims, as well as gain contingencies, in the ordinary course of our business. In addition, from time to time, we receive communications from government or regulatory agencies concerning investigations or allegations of noncompliance with laws or regulations in jurisdictions in which we operate. We assess these regulatory and legal actions to determine if a contingent liability should be recorded. In making these determinations, we may, depending on the nature of the matter, consult with internal and external legal counsel and technical experts.

We establish reserves for specific liabilities in connection with regulatory and legal actions that we determine to be both probable and reasonably estimable. The outcomes of regulatory and legal actions can be difficult to predict and are often resolved over long periods of time, making our probability and estimability determinations highly judgmental. Probability determinations require the analysis of various possible outcomes, assessments of potential damages and the impact of multiple factors beyond our control, including potential actions by others, interpretations of the law, and changes and developments in relevant facts, circumstances, regulations and other laws. If a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability is disclosed, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if the range is determinable and material. In certain of the matters described below, we are not able to estimate potential liability because of the uncertainties related to the outcome(s) and/or the amount(s) or range(s) of loss. The ultimate resolution of pending regulatory and legal matters in future periods, including the matters described below, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and/or liquidity. The Company may also

Sterigenics U.S., LLC (“Sterigenics”) and other medical supply sterilization companies have been subjected to tort lawsuits alleging various injuries caused by low-level environmental exposure to EO used at or emitted or released from sterilization facilities. Those lawsuits, as detailed further below, are individual claims, as opposed to class actions.

As of July 31, 2026, subsidiaries of the Company and other parties are defendants in lawsuits pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court in which the plaintiffs assert approximately 150 claims for personal injury or wrongful death allegedly resulting from use, emissions and releases of EO from Sterigenics’ Vernon facilities (the “Vernon Cases”). The Vernon Cases have been assigned to one judge, with initial trials scheduled for January and April 2027. Eight individual claims have been selected as the “First Plaintiff Group” and are being prioritized for discovery.

As of July 31, 2026, approximately 500 personal injury and wrongful death claims filed in the State Court of Cobb County (the “Georgia Trial Court”) are assigned to a single judge (the “Georgia Personal Injury Cases”). The Georgia Personal Injury Cases are governed in the Georgia Trial Court by case management orders pursuant to which general causation issues in a pool of eight cases were to be adjudicated in Phase 1 and specific causation issues in those pool cases were to be adjudicated in Phase 2; the remaining Georgia Personal Injury Cases, including 15 cases that include both personal injury and property claims and one personal injury lawsuit that is pending before a different judge, are stayed.

On November 22, 2024, the Georgia Trial Court issued a Phase 1 ruling on general causation issues granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to exclude certain Phase 1 expert testimony and defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Phase 1 issues (the “First General Causation Ruling”). Plaintiffs and defendants appealed the First General Causation Ruling to the Court of Appeals of Georgia (the “Phase 1 General Causation Appeals”). While the Phase 1 General Causation Appeals were pending, three of the pool cases, selected by plaintiffs’ counsel, proceeded to Phase 2 (the “Phase 2 Cases”). On October 17, 2025, the Georgia Trial Court issued its Phase 2 rulings on specific causation issues granting Sterigenics’ motions to exclude three of plaintiffs’ specific causation expert witnesses and granting Sterigenics’ motions for summary judgment in all three Phase 2 Cases (the “Specific Causation Ruling”). On October 28, 2025, the Georgia Trial Court entered an order also adopting its Specific Causation Ruling with respect to our subsidiary Sotera Health LLC. Plaintiffs in the Phase 2 Cases appealed the Specific Causation Ruling to the Court of Appeals of Georgia (the “Phase 2 Specific Causation Appeals”).

On October 31, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled on the Phase 1 General Causation Appeals, finding that as Sterigenics contended on appeal, the First General Causation Ruling failed to apply the proper standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony on general causation, vacating the First General Causation Ruling and remanding the pool cases to the Georgia Trial Court with instructions to apply the proper standard in ruling on general causation issues. The Court of Appeals also instructed the Georgia Trial Court to consider whether plaintiffs can prove general causation through epidemiological evidence and background risks of the diseases at issue. On March 30, 2026, the Georgia Trial Court granted defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation experts and entered summary judgment for defendants in the five remanded pool cases (the “Second General Causation Ruling and Judgment”). Plaintiffs in the five remanded pool cases appealed the Second General Causation Ruling and Judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia (the “Second Phase 1 General Causation Appeals”). Proceedings in the Georgia Trial Court are stayed pending resolution of the Second Phase 1 General Causation Appeals and the Phase 2 Specific Causation Appeals.

Subsidiaries of the Company and other parties are also defendants in a lawsuit filed in May 2020 in which employees of a sterilization customer of Sterigenics allege they were injured while working at the customer’s distribution facility by exposure to residual EO allegedly emanating from products of the customer that had been sterilized by Sterigenics. The case is proceeding in the Superior Court of Cobb County on plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the customer’s contract with Sterigenics, the customer is indemnifying Sterigenics against this lawsuit.

As of July 31, 2026, approximately 305 lawsuits have been filed in the Georgia Trial Court against subsidiaries of the Company and other parties in which plaintiffs allege property devaluation resulting from use, emissions and releases of EO from or at Sterigenics’ Atlanta facility. These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes (the “Consolidated Property Cases”). Proceedings in a pool of nine of the Consolidated Property Cases are governed by case management orders pursuant to which the parties completed discovery and defendants filed motions to exclude certain plaintiffs’ expert testimony and motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. The remaining cases are stayed.

Lawsuits against subsidiaries of the Company and other parties have been filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by plaintiffs alleging personal injury or wrongful death resulting from use, emissions and releases of EO from Sterigenics’ former Willowbrook facility (the “Illinois Cases”). As of July 31, 2026, subsidiaries of the Company and other parties are defendants in approximately 15 Illinois Cases that are in various stages of pleadings, motions practice and fact discovery.

On June 24, 2026, the Company and certain subsidiaries agreed with the State of New Mexico to settle the lawsuit filed by the New Mexico Attorney General in the Third Judicial District Court, Doña Ana County, New Mexico (the “Trial Court”) in December 2020. The settlement, which was entered into without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by any defendant, fully and finally resolved all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, in the litigation for an amount that was not material to the Company. On July 7, 2026, the Trial Court entered a Consent Order Dissolving Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Dismissal With Prejudice.

Additional EO lawsuits have been threatened relating to Sterigenics’ current and former EO sterilization facilities in the United States and may be filed in the future. These threats of additional EO lawsuits are comparable to threats that have similarly been made against other companies within our industry. Based on our view of the strength of the science and related evidence that emissions of EO from Sterigenics’ operations have not caused and could not have caused the harms alleged in such lawsuits, we believe that losses in the remaining or future EO cases through trials and any appeals that may prove necessary are not probable. Although the Company is vigorously defending against the EO tort claims, future settlements of EO tort claims are reasonably possible. The previously disclosed settlements of certain cases related to our facilities in Willowbrook and Atlanta were driven by dynamics unique to the claims that were settled and thus should not give rise to presumptions that the Company will settle additional EO tort claims and/or that any such settlements will be for comparable amounts.

Potential trial and settlement outcomes can vary widely based on a host of factors. EO tort lawsuits will be presided over by different judges, tried by different counsel presenting different evidence and decided by different juries. The substantive and procedural laws of jurisdictions vary and can meaningfully impact the litigation process and outcome of a case. Each plaintiff’s claim involves unique facts and evidence, including the circumstances of the plaintiff’s alleged exposure, the type and severity of the plaintiff’s disease, the plaintiff’s medical history and course of treatment, the location of and other factors related to the plaintiff’s real property, and other circumstances. The outcomes of trials before juries are rarely certain and a judgment rendered or settlement reached in one case is not necessarily representative of potential outcomes of other seemingly comparable cases. As a result, it is not possible to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss with respect to any future EO tort lawsuit, trial or settlement. We are vigorously defending the EO tort lawsuits.