The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Crown Holdings, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (the “Company”). The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Form 10-Q instructions. In the opinion of management, these consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments of a normal and recurring nature necessary for a fair statement of the financial position of the Company as of June 30, 2020March 31, 2021 and the results of its operations for the three and six months ended June 30,March 31, 2021 and 2020 and 2019 and of its cash flows for the sixthree months ended June 30, 2020March 31, 2021 and 2019.2020. The results reported in these consolidated financial statements are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year including the impact of the coronavirus pandemic which cannot be determined at this time.year. These results have been determined on the basis of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), the application of which requires management’s utilization of estimates, and actual results may differ materially from the estimates utilized.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements presented in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted. The year-end condensed balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP. The accompanying consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.2020.

On April 8, 2021, the Company entered into a Share and Asset Purchase Agreement which provides for the sale (the “Transaction”) of its European Tinplate business (the “Business”) to Kouti B.V., an affiliate of KPS Capital Partners LP. The Business comprises the Company’s European Food segment and its European Aerosol and Promotional Packaging reporting unit which is reported in the Company's other segments. In March 2020, the FASB issued guidance which provides optional expedientsBusiness had net sales of $2,183. The Company expects to receive pre-tax proceeds of approximately €1.9 billion ($2.2 billion at March 31, 2021) from the Transaction and exceptions for applying GAAPretain a 20% minority interest in the Business.

The completion of the Transaction is subject to the fulfillment of various conditions, including, among others, receipt of approvals from antitrust regulators in certain contract modifications and hedging relationships that reference London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) or another reference ratejurisdictions. Completion of the Transaction is expected to be discontinued. The guidanceoccur during the third quarter of 2021. However, given the number of jurisdictions in which antitrust approval is effective upon issuance andrequired, there is no assurance that the Transaction can be applied through December 31, 2022. The Company is currently evaluatingcompleted on that timeframe.

Beginning with the impactquarterly period ended June 30, 2021, the assets and liabilities of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.the Business will be presented as held for sale in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet and the results of operations will be reported as discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash included in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statement of Cash Flows were as follows:

Amounts included in restricted cash primarily represent amounts required to be segregated by certain of the Company's receivables securitization agreements.

Total amortization expense of intangible assets for the three ended March 31, 2021 and six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019 was $44 and $89 and $47 and $94.$45.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor’s liability for asbestos to the acquired company’s asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company’s adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor’s assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor’s assets.

In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense strategy.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a material impact on the Company.

During the sixthree months ended June 30, 2020,March 31, 2021, the Company paid $5$2 to settle outstandingasbestos claims and pay related legal and defense costs and had claims activity as follows:

In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes these claims by year of exposure and state filed. As of December 31, 2019,2020, the Company's outstanding claims were:

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company’s accrual as the claims were filed in states, as described above, where the Company’s liability is limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlements in states where the Company’s liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims in Texas as described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased difficulty of establishing identification of

relevant insulation products as the cause of injury. Given the Company's settlement experience with post-1964 claims, it does not believe that an adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with respect to such claims.

As of December 31, the percentage of outstanding claims related to claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily mesothelioma and other malignancies) were as follows:

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs’ counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in the Company’s estimated liability as of June 30, 2020.March 31, 2021.

As of June 30, 2020,March 31, 2021, the Company’s accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $264,$249, including $221$207 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time period.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company’s accrual. However, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company’s accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was not specified for approximately 81% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2019)2020), the Company and claimant’s willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant’s ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company’s asbestos cases are filed).

In March 2015, the Bundeskartellamt, or German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”), conducted unannounced inspections of the premises of several metal packaging manufacturers, including a German subsidiary of the Company. The local court order authorizing the inspection cited FCO suspicions of anti-competitive agreements in the German market for the supply of metal packaging products.  The Company conducted an internal investigation into the matter and discovered instances of inappropriate conduct by certain employees of German subsidiaries of the Company. The

Company cooperated with the FCO and submitted a leniency application with the FCO which disclosed the findings of its internal investigation to date.  In April 2018, the FCO discontinued its national investigation and referred the matter to the European Commission (the “Commission”). Following the referral, Commission officials conducted unannounced inspections of the premises of several metal packaging manufacturers, including Company subsidiaries in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. 

The Commission's investigation is ongoing and, to date, the Commission has not officially charged the Company or any of its subsidiaries with violations of competition law.  The Company is cooperating with the Commission and submitted a leniency application with the Commission with respect to the findings of the investigation in Germany referenced above.  This application may lead to the reduction of possible future penalties. At this stage of the investigation the Company believes that a loss is probable but is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the Commission’s investigation and is unable to estimate the loss or possible range of losses that could be incurred, and has therefore not recorded a charge in connection with the actions by the Commission.  If the Commission finds that the Company or any of its subsidiaries violated competition law, fines levied by the Commission could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for the periods in which they are resolved or become reasonably estimable.

In March 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) at the Port of Milwaukee issued a penalty notification alleging that certain of the Company’s subsidiaries intentionally misclassified the importation of certain goods into the U.S. during the period 2004-2009. CBP initially assessed a penalty of $18 and subsequently mitigated to $6. The Company has acknowledged to CBP that the goods were misclassified and has paid all related duties. The Company has asserted that the misclassification was unintentional and disputes the penalty assessment. At the present time, based on the information available, the Company does not believe that a loss for the alleged intentional misclassification is probable. There can be no assurance the Company will be successful in contesting the assessed penalty.

The Company and its subsidiaries are also subject to various other lawsuits and claims with respect to governmental, labor, environmental, securities, vendor and other matters arising out of the Company’s normal course of business. While the impact on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists, management believes that the ultimate liabilities resulting from such lawsuits and claims will not materially affect the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position or cash flow.

The Company has various commitments to purchase materials, supplies and utilities as part of the ordinary course of business. The Company’s basic raw materials for its products are steel and aluminum, both of which are purchased from multiple sources. The Company is subject to fluctuations in the cost of these raw materials (including in

At June 30, 2020,March 31, 2021, the Company was party to certain indemnification agreements covering environmental remediation, lease payments and other potential costs associated with properties sold or businesses divested. The Company accrues for costs related to these items when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Under GAAP a framework exists for measuring fair value, providing a three-tier hierarchy of pricing inputs used to report assets and liabilities that are adjusted to fair value. Level 1 includes inputs such as quoted prices which are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the report date. Level 2 includes inputs other than those available in active markets included in Level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. Level 3 includes unobservable pricing inputs that are not corroborated by market data or other objective sources. The Company has no recurring items valued using Level 3 inputs other than certain pension plan assets.

The Company utilizes market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment

and may affect the valuation of assets and liabilities measured at fair value and their placement within the fair value hierarchy.

The Company applies a market approach to value its commodity price hedge contracts. Prices from observable markets are used to develop the fair value of these financial instruments and they are reported under Level 2. The Company uses an income approach to value its foreign exchange forward contracts. These contracts are valued using a discounted cash flow model that calculates the present value of future cash flows under the terms of the contracts using market information as of the reporting date, such as foreign exchange spot and forward rates, and are reported under Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

In the normal course of business the Company is subject to risk from adverse fluctuations in currency exchange rates, interest rates and commodity prices. The Company manages these risks through a program that includes the use of derivative financial instruments, primarily swaps and forwards. Counterparties to these contracts are major financial institutions. The Company is exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by these counterparties. The Company does not use derivative instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

The Company’s objective in managing exposure to market and interest rate risk is to limit the impact on earnings and cash flow. The extent to which the Company uses such instruments is dependent upon its access to these contracts in the financial markets and its success using other methods, such as netting exposures in the same currencies to mitigate foreign exchange risk, using sales agreements that permit the pass-through of commodity price and foreign exchange rate risk to customers and borrowing both fixed and floating debt instruments to manage interest rate risk.

For derivative financial instruments accounted for in hedging relationships, the Company formally designates and documents, at inception, the financial instrument as a hedge of a specific underlying exposure, the risk management objective and the manner in which effectiveness will be assessed. The Company formally assesses, both at inception and at least quarterly thereafter, whether the hedging relationships are effective in offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows of the related underlying exposures. When a hedge no longer qualifies for hedge accounting, the change in fair value from the date of the last effectiveness test is recognized in earnings. Any gain or loss which has accumulated in other comprehensive income at the date of the last effectiveness test is reclassified into earnings at the same time of the underlying exposure.

When the Company discontinues hedge accounting because it is no longer probable that an anticipated transaction will occur in the originally specified period, changes to the fair value accumulated in other comprehensive income are recognized immediately in earnings.

The Company uses commodity forward contracts to hedge anticipated purchases of various commodities, including aluminum, fuel oil and natural gas, and these exposures are hedged by a central treasury unit.

The Company also designates certain foreign exchange contracts as cash flow hedges of anticipated foreign currency denominated sales or purchases. The Company manages these risks at the operating unit level. Foreign currency risk is generally hedged with the related commodity price risk.

The following tables set forth financial information about the impact on other comprehensive income ("OCI"), accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) and earnings from changes in the fair value of derivative instruments.