Contingent Liabilities	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Contingent Liabilities	1.11 Contingent Liabilities Legal Proceedings Various claims, lawsuits and enforcement proceedings are pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, covering a range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities with respect to compliance with laws as well as commercial, product liability and other matters. Litigation and such related proceedings are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of any litigation or proceeding cannot be assured. However, after discussions with counsel, and with the exception of the matters addressed under “Antitrust Matters” below, management does not expect that any of the various lawsuits and proceedings to which the Company currently is a party will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position of Autoliv. However, the Company cannot assure that Autoliv will not experience material litigation, product liability or other losses or fines in the future, whether with respect to current or future litigations or proceedings. In 2009, Autoliv initiated a closure of its Normandy Precision Components (NPC) plant located in France. Most of the former NPC-employees that were not “protected” (i.e. union representatives) filed claims in French courts claiming damages in an aggregate amount of €12 million (approximately $15 million) and/or other remedies. In February 2012, the French labor court ruled in favor of some of these unprotected employees in an amount of €5.6 million (approximately $7.1 million), while rejecting the claims of certain other unprotected employees. Autoliv paid the €5.6 million amount in May 2012 and each of the parties involved have appealed decisions not in their favor. In May 2008, a French court placed Eric Molleux Technologies Composants (“EMT”) into receivership, and liquidation proceedings were initiated in July 2009. As a result of Autoliv’s previous relationship with EMT, in March 2012 the liquidator initiated proceedings against Autoliv France and requested payment of €16.3 million (approximately $20.5 million), which represents the total amount of debt owed by EMT to its creditors (including Autoliv). The liquidator also requested an additional €4 million (approximately $5 million) corresponding to the debts of Autoliv Turkey towards EMT. Although Autoliv is currently in settlement discussions with the liquidator, Autoliv disputes the aggregated claim amount and believes amounts owed by EMT to Autoliv should be set off against EMT’s total debt. On April 19, 2010, SEVA Technologies SA (“SEVA”) initiated actions against several employees and wholly-owned subsidiaries of Autoliv, Inc. In the actions, SEVA alleges that the defendants misappropriated confidential information disclosed under a non-disclosure agreement and used such information to obtain a patent. SEVA has indicated that it may seek damages of €22 million (approximately $28 million) but a formal claim has not yet been made. Autoliv has made no accruals for any penalties or expenses relating thereto. In March 2012, the court of first instance rejected SEVA’s claims. SEVA has appealed this decision. Antitrust Matters Autoliv ASP Inc., a Company subsidiary, received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on February 8, 2011. The subpoena requested documents and information as part of a broad and long-running investigation into possible anti-competitive behavior among suppliers to the automotive vehicle industry, including the Company. On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission (“EC”), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of Autoliv BV & Co KG, a Company subsidiary in Germany, to gather information for a similar inquiry. It is the Company’s policy to cooperate with governmental investigations. On June 6, 2012, the Company entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ that was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 21, 2012. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company pled guilty to two counts of antitrust law violations involving a Japanese subsidiary and paid a fine of $14.5 million in July, 2012. The DOJ will not otherwise prosecute Autoliv or any of its subsidiaries or present or former directors, officers or employees for the matters investigated. Three employees in the sales organization are excluded from the non-prosecution provision of the agreement, but no decision has been communicated by the DOJ to the Company regarding these employees. The Company will continue to cooperate with the DOJ in the DOJ’s investigation of other suppliers to the automotive vehicle industry. The Company previously accrued $14.5 million related to the DOJ investigation in the first quarter 2012. The DOJ settlement does not impact the ongoing investigation by the EC, as the EC investigation is a separate matter that involves the application of different legal standards. The Company remains unable to estimate the impact the EC investigation will have or predict the reporting periods in which such impact may be recorded. Consequently, with respect to the EC investigation, the Company has not recorded a provision for loss as of June 30, 2012. Although the duration or ultimate outcome of the EC investigation cannot be predicted or estimated, it is probable that the Company’s operating results and cash flows will be materially adversely impacted for the reporting periods in which the EC investigation is resolved or becomes estimable. The Company may be subject to investigations related to the matters investigated by the DOJ and EC in additional jurisdictions, including, following the plea agreement described above, Japan. The Company is also currently subject to civil litigation alleging anti-competitive conduct. Notably, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors have been named as defendants in a total of eight purported antitrust class actions in federal courts in the United States. The following cases were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Zirulnik v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., was filed on June 6, 2012, A1A Airport & Limousine Service, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. and Frank Cosenza v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. were each filed on June 8, 2012, Meetesh Shah v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. was filed on June 12, 2012, Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. and Richard W. Keifer, Jr. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. were each filed on June 26, 2012 and Findlay Industries, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. was filed on July 12, 2012. Melissa Barron v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. was filed on July 11, 2012 in the Northern District of California. Additional related cases may be filed in the future. Plaintiffs in the cases allege generally that the defendants have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant restraint systems or components thereof in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and various unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and various purported classes of direct and indirect purchasers of occupant restraint systems and purchasers or lessees of vehicles in which such systems have been installed, injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs in these cases make allegations that extend significantly beyond the plea discussed above. The Company denies these overly broad allegations and intends to actively defend itself against the same. While it is probable that the Company will experience a loss as a result of these cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has been recorded as of June 30, 2012. Product Warranty, Recalls and Intellectual Property Autoliv is exposed to various claims for damages and compensation if products fail to perform as expected. Such claims can be made, and result in costs and other losses to the Company, even where the product is eventually found to have functioned properly. Where a product (actually or allegedly) fails to perform as expected the Company faces warranty and recall claims. Where such (actual or alleged) failure results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury and/or property damage, the Company may also face product-liability claims. There can be no assurance that the Company will not experience material warranty, recall or product (or other) liability claims or losses in the future, or that the Company will not incur significant costs to defend against such claims. The Company may be required to participate in a recall involving its products. Each vehicle manufacturer has its own practices regarding product recalls and other product liability actions relating to its suppliers. As suppliers become more integrally involved in the vehicle design process and assume more of the vehicle assembly functions, vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking to their suppliers for contribution when faced with recalls and product liability claims. A warranty, recall or product-liability claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Vehicle manufacturers are also increasingly requiring their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the costs of repair and replacement of such products under new vehicle warranties. A vehicle manufacturer may attempt to hold the Company responsible for some, or all, of the repair or replacement costs of products when the product supplied did not perform as represented by us or expected by the customer. Accordingly, the future costs of warranty claims by the customers may be material. However, the Company believes its established reserves are adequate to cover potential warranty settlements. Autoliv’s warranty reserves are based upon the Company’s best estimates of amounts necessary to settle future and existing claims. The Company regularly evaluates the appropriateness of these reserves, and adjusts them when appropriate. However, the final amounts determined to be due related to these matters could differ materially from the Company’s recorded estimates. In addition, the global platforms and procedures used by vehicle manufacturers have led to quality performance evaluations being conducted on an increasingly global basis. Any one or more quality, warranty or other recall issue(s) (including those affecting few units and/or having a small financial impact) may cause a vehicle manufacturer to implement measures such as a temporary or prolonged suspension of new orders, which may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company believes that it is currently reasonably insured against recall and product liability risks, at levels sufficient to cover potential claims that are reasonably likely to arise in our businesses based on past experience. Autoliv cannot assure that the level of coverage will be sufficient to cover every possible claim that can arise in our businesses, now or in the future, or that such coverage always will be available should we, now or in the future, wish to extend or increase insurance. In its products, the Company utilizes technologies which may be subject to intellectual property rights of third parties. While the Company does seek to identify the intellectual property rights of relevance to its products, and to procure the necessary rights to utilize such intellectual property rights, we may fail to do so. Where the Company so fails, the Company may be exposed to material claims from the owners of such rights. Where the Company has sold products which infringe upon such rights, our customers may be entitled to be indemnified by us for the claims they suffer as a result thereof. Such claims could be material. The table in Note 1.7 Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product related liabilities for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011, respectively.

1.11 Contingent Liabilities

Legal Proceedings

Various claims, lawsuits and enforcement proceedings are pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, covering a range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities with respect to compliance with laws as well as commercial, product liability and other matters.

Litigation and such related proceedings are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of any litigation or proceeding cannot be assured. However, after discussions with counsel, and with the exception of the matters addressed under “Antitrust Matters” below, management does not expect that any of the various lawsuits and proceedings to which the Company currently is a party will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position of Autoliv. However, the Company cannot assure that Autoliv will not experience material litigation, product liability or other losses or fines in the future, whether with respect to current or future litigations or proceedings.

In 2009, Autoliv initiated a closure of its Normandy Precision Components (NPC) plant located in France. Most of the former NPC-employees that were not “protected” (i.e. union representatives) filed claims in French courts claiming damages in an aggregate amount of €12 million (approximately $15 million) and/or other remedies. In February 2012, the French labor court ruled in favor of some of these unprotected employees in an amount of €5.6 million (approximately $7.1 million), while rejecting the claims of certain other unprotected employees. Autoliv paid the €5.6 million amount in May 2012 and each of the parties involved have appealed decisions not in their favor.

In May 2008, a French court placed Eric Molleux Technologies Composants (“EMT”) into receivership, and liquidation proceedings were initiated in July 2009. As a result of Autoliv’s previous relationship with EMT, in March 2012 the liquidator initiated proceedings against Autoliv France and requested payment of €16.3 million (approximately $20.5 million), which represents the total amount of debt owed by EMT to its creditors (including Autoliv). The liquidator also requested an additional €4 million (approximately $5 million) corresponding to the debts of Autoliv Turkey towards EMT. Although Autoliv is currently in settlement discussions with the liquidator, Autoliv disputes the aggregated claim amount and believes amounts owed by EMT to Autoliv should be set off against EMT’s total debt.

On April 19, 2010, SEVA Technologies SA (“SEVA”) initiated actions against several employees and wholly-owned subsidiaries of Autoliv, Inc. In the actions, SEVA alleges that the defendants misappropriated confidential information disclosed under a non-disclosure agreement and used such information to obtain a patent. SEVA has indicated that it may seek damages of €22 million (approximately $28 million) but a formal claim has not yet been made. Autoliv has made no accruals for any penalties or expenses relating thereto. In March 2012, the court of first instance rejected SEVA’s claims. SEVA has appealed this decision.

Antitrust Matters

Autoliv ASP Inc., a Company subsidiary, received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on February 8, 2011. The subpoena requested documents and information as part of a broad and long-running investigation into possible anti-competitive behavior among suppliers to the automotive vehicle industry, including the Company. On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission (“EC”), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of Autoliv BV & Co KG, a Company subsidiary in Germany, to gather information for a similar inquiry. It is the Company’s policy to cooperate with governmental investigations.

On June 6, 2012, the Company entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ that was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 21, 2012. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company pled guilty to two counts of antitrust law violations involving a Japanese subsidiary and paid a fine of $14.5 million in July, 2012. The DOJ will not otherwise prosecute Autoliv or any of its subsidiaries or present or former directors, officers or employees for the matters investigated. Three employees in the sales organization are excluded from the non-prosecution provision of the agreement, but no decision has been communicated by the DOJ to the Company regarding these employees. The Company will continue to cooperate with the DOJ in the DOJ’s investigation of other suppliers to the automotive vehicle industry. The Company previously accrued $14.5 million related to the DOJ investigation in the first quarter 2012.

The DOJ settlement does not impact the ongoing investigation by the EC, as the EC investigation is a separate matter that involves the application of different legal standards. The Company remains unable to estimate the impact the EC investigation will have or predict the reporting periods in which such impact may be recorded. Consequently, with respect to the EC investigation, the Company has not recorded a provision for loss as of June 30, 2012. Although the duration or ultimate outcome of the EC investigation cannot be predicted or estimated, it is probable that the Company’s operating results and cash flows will be materially adversely impacted for the reporting periods in which the EC investigation is resolved or becomes estimable.

The Company may be subject to investigations related to the matters investigated by the DOJ and EC in additional jurisdictions, including, following the plea agreement described above, Japan.

The Company is also currently subject to civil litigation alleging anti-competitive conduct. Notably, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors have been named as defendants in a total of eight purported antitrust class actions in federal courts in the United States. The following cases were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Zirulnik v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., was filed on June 6, 2012, A1A Airport & Limousine Service, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. and Frank Cosenza v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. were each filed on June 8, 2012, Meetesh Shah v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. was filed on June 12, 2012, Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. and Richard W. Keifer, Jr. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. were each filed on June 26, 2012 and Findlay Industries, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. was filed on July 12, 2012. Melissa Barron v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. was filed on July 11, 2012 in the Northern District of California. Additional related cases may be filed in the future.

Plaintiffs in the cases allege generally that the defendants have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant restraint systems or components thereof in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and various unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and various purported classes of direct and indirect purchasers of occupant restraint systems and purchasers or lessees of vehicles in which such systems have been installed, injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs in these cases make allegations that extend significantly beyond the plea discussed above. The Company denies these overly broad allegations and intends to actively defend itself against the same. While it is probable that the Company will experience a loss as a result of these cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has been recorded as of June 30, 2012.

Product Warranty, Recalls and Intellectual Property

Autoliv is exposed to various claims for damages and compensation if products fail to perform as expected. Such claims can be made, and result in costs and other losses to the Company, even where the product is eventually found to have functioned properly. Where a product (actually or allegedly) fails to perform as expected the Company faces warranty and recall claims. Where such (actual or alleged) failure results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury and/or property damage, the Company may also face product-liability claims. There can be no assurance that the Company will not experience material warranty, recall or product (or other) liability claims or losses in the future, or that the Company will not incur significant costs to defend against such claims. The Company may be required to participate in a recall involving its products. Each vehicle manufacturer has its own practices regarding product recalls and other product liability actions relating to its suppliers. As suppliers become more integrally involved in the vehicle design process and assume more of the vehicle assembly functions, vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking to their suppliers for contribution when faced with recalls and product liability claims. A warranty, recall or product-liability claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Vehicle manufacturers are also increasingly requiring their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the costs of repair and replacement of such products under new vehicle warranties. A vehicle manufacturer may attempt to hold the Company responsible for some, or all, of the repair or replacement costs of products when the product supplied did not perform as represented by us or expected by the customer. Accordingly, the future costs of warranty claims by the customers may be material. However, the Company believes its established reserves are adequate to cover potential warranty settlements. Autoliv’s warranty reserves are based upon the Company’s best estimates of amounts necessary to settle future and existing claims. The Company regularly evaluates the appropriateness of these reserves, and adjusts them when appropriate. However, the final amounts determined to be due related to these matters could differ materially from the Company’s recorded estimates.

In addition, the global platforms and procedures used by vehicle manufacturers have led to quality performance evaluations being conducted on an increasingly global basis. Any one or more quality, warranty or other recall issue(s) (including those affecting few units and/or having a small financial impact) may cause a vehicle manufacturer to implement measures such as a temporary or prolonged suspension of new orders, which may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company believes that it is currently reasonably insured against recall and product liability risks, at levels sufficient to cover potential claims that are reasonably likely to arise in our businesses based on past experience. Autoliv cannot assure that the level of coverage will be sufficient to cover every possible claim that can arise in our businesses, now or in the future, or that such coverage always will be available should we, now or in the future, wish to extend or increase insurance.

In its products, the Company utilizes technologies which may be subject to intellectual property rights of third parties. While the Company does seek to identify the intellectual property rights of relevance to its products, and to procure the necessary rights to utilize such intellectual property rights, we may fail to do so. Where the Company so fails, the Company may be exposed to material claims from the owners of such rights. Where the Company has sold products which infringe upon such rights, our customers may be entitled to be indemnified by us for the claims they suffer as a result thereof. Such claims could be material.

The table in Note 1.7 Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product related liabilities for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011, respectively.