ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS LP

Litigation was initiated in November 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky*(Branson v. Webster County Coal, LLC, et al.)against certain of our subsidiaries in which the plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law due to alleged failure to compensate for time “donning” and “doffing” equipment and to account for certain bonuses in the calculation of overtime rates and pay. A similar lawsuit was initiated in March 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky(Brewer v. Alliance Coal, LLC, et al.).Subsequently, four additional lawsuits making similar allegations were initiated against certain of our subsidiaries: filed March 4, 2021 in the Circuit Court for Hopkins County, Kentucky(Johnson v. Hopkins County Coal, LLC, et al.); filed April 6, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia(Rettig v. Mettiki Coal WV, LLC, et al.);filed April 9, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois(Cates v. Hamilton County Coal, LLC, et al.); and filed April 13, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana(Prater v. Gibson County Coal, LLC, et al.).*The plaintiffs in these cases sought class and collective action certification, which we opposed. The plaintiffs sought to recover alleged compensatory, liquidated and/or exemplary damages for the alleged underpayment, and costs and fees that potentially may be recoverable under applicable law. In April 2024, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs pursuant to which we agreed to settle all six cases for $15.3 million. Following preliminary approval of the settlement on July 10, 2025, we paid $15.3 million into an escrow account. On October 23, 2025, a hearing was held, at which the court considered final approval of the settlement. On November 3, 2025, the court entered an order approving the parties’ settlement, subject to plaintiff’s counsel submitting an updated motion for costs and the settlement administrator’s proper and timely administration of the settlement funds. If the settlement is not approved by the court, we believe our ultimate exposure, if any should litigation resume, will not be material to our results of operations or financial position; however, if our current belief as to the merit of the claims in these lawsuits is not upheld if litigation were to resume, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations.