Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Guarantees We occasionally provide guarantees that could obligate us to make future payments if the primary entity fails to perform under its contractual obligations. We have recognized liabilities for some of these guarantees in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as they meet the recognition and measurement provisions of U.S. GAAP. In addition to the liabilities that have been recognized, we are contingently liable for other potential losses under various guarantees. We do not believe that claims that may be made under such guarantees would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. In March 2010, we entered into an operating agreement, as amended, which contains automatic extensions and is subject to early termination provisions, with GE (the "GE Operating Agreement"). Under the terms of the GE Operating Agreement, as amended, GE is our preferred source of retail customer financing for equipment offered by us and our dealers in the U.S. We provide GE with a loss sharing arrangement for certain credit losses. Under the loss sharing arrangement, as amended, we generally reimburse GE for credit losses in excess of the first 10% of the financed value of a contract; for certain leases we reimburse GE for credit losses up to a maximum of the first 9.5% of the financed value of those lease contracts. The Company’s exposure to loss is mitigated because contracts under the GE Operating Agreement are secured by the financed equipment. There were $1.5 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at both January 31, 2015 and October 31, 2014, financed through the GE Operating Agreement and subject to the loss sharing arrangements in the U.S. The related financed values of these outstanding contracts were $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion at January 31, 2015 and October 31, 2014, respectively. Generally, we do not carry the contracts under the GE Operating Agreement on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, for certain GE financed contracts which we have accounted for as borrowings, we have recognized equipment leased to others of $139 million and financed lease obligations of $158 million in our Consolidated Balance Sheets for the period ended January 31, 2015. Historically, our losses, representing the entire loss amount, on similar contracts, measured as a percentage of the average balance of the related contracts, ranged from 0.3% to 2.1%. Under limited circumstances NFC retains the right to originate retail customer financings. Based on our historic experience of losses on similar contracts and the nature of the loss sharing arrangement, we do not believe our share of losses related to balances currently outstanding will be material. For certain independent dealers’ wholesale inventory financed by third-party banks or finance companies, we provide limited repurchase agreements to the respective financing institution. The amount of losses related to these arrangements has not been material to our Consolidated Statements of Operations or Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and the value of the guarantees and accruals recorded are not material to our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We also have issued limited residual value guarantees in connection with various leases. The amounts of the guarantees are estimated and recorded. Our guarantees are contingent upon the fair value of the leased assets at the end of the lease term. The amount of losses related to these arrangements has not been material to our Consolidated Statements of Operations or Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and the value of the guarantees and accruals recorded are not material to our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We obtain certain stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds from third-party financial institutions in the ordinary course of business when required under contracts or to satisfy insurance-related requirements. As of January 31, 2015, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds was $88 million. We extend credit commitments to certain truck fleet customers, which allow them to purchase parts and services from participating dealers. The participating dealers receive accelerated payments from us with the result that we carry the receivables and absorb the credit risk related to these customers. As of January 31, 2015, the total credit limit under this program was $11 million of which $7 million was unused. In addition, as of January 31, 2015, we have entered into various purchase commitments of $154 million and contracts that have cancellation fees of $39 million with various expiration dates through 2020. In the ordinary course of business, we also provide routine indemnifications and other guarantees, the terms of which range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. We do not believe these will result in claims that would have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Environmental Liabilities We have been named a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), in conjunction with other parties, in a number of cases arising under an environmental protection law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, popularly known as the "Superfund" law. These cases involve sites that allegedly received wastes from current or former Company locations. Based on information available to us which, in most cases, consists of data related to quantities and characteristics of material generated at current or former Company locations, material allegedly shipped by us to these disposal sites, as well as cost estimates from PRPs and/or federal or state regulatory agencies for the cleanup of these sites, a reasonable estimate is calculated of our share of the probable costs, if any, and accruals are recorded in our consolidated financial statements. These accruals are generally recognized no later than upon completion of the remedial feasibility study and are not discounted to their present value. We review all accruals on a regular basis and believe that, based on these calculations, our share of the potential additional costs for the cleanup of each site will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Two sites formerly owned by us: (i) Solar Turbines in San Diego, California, and (ii) the Canton Plant in Canton, Illinois; were identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. Two sites in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where we are currently operating, were identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. While investigations and cleanup activities continue at these and other sites, we believe that we have adequate accruals to cover costs to complete the cleanup of all sites. We have accrued $22 million for these and other environmental matters, which are included within Other current liabilities and Other noncurrent liabilities, as of January 31, 2015. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2015. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could become significant in the future. Legal Proceedings Overview We are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business, and are party to various legal proceedings that constitute ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business. The majority of these claims and proceedings relate to commercial, product liability, and warranty matters. In addition, from time to time we are subject to various claims and legal proceedings related to employee compensation, benefits, and benefits administration including, but not limited to, compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and Department of Labor requirements. In our opinion, apart from the actions set forth below, the disposition of these proceedings and claims, after taking into account recorded accruals and the availability and limits of our insurance coverage, will not have a material adverse effect on our business or our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Profit Sharing Disputes Pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement, the program administrator and named fiduciary of the Supplemental Benefit Program is the Supplemental Benefit Program committee (the "Committee"), comprised of non-Company individuals. In August 2013, the Committee filed a motion for leave to amend its February 2013 complaint (which sought injunctive relief for the Company to provide certain information to which it was allegedly entitled under the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan) and a proposed amended complaint (the "Profit Sharing Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "Court"). Leave to file the Profit Sharing Complaint was granted by the Court in October 2013. In its Profit Sharing Complaint, the Committee alleges the Company breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due under the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan. The Committee seeks damages in excess of $50 million, injunctive relief and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2013, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Profit Sharing Complaint and to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan. In March 2014, the Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss and ruled, among other things, that the Company waived its right to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan. In April 2014, the Company appealed the Court's refusal to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute resolution process to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and the briefs for the appeal were completed in June 2014. The Company also filed a motion with the Court to stay all proceedings pending the appeal. In May 2014, the Court granted the motion to stay all proceedings, including discovery, pending the appeal. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit occurred on January 14, 2015, and the appeal is pending. In addition, various local bargaining units of the UAW have filed separate grievances pursuant to the profit sharing plans under various collective bargaining agreements in effect between the Company and the UAW that may have similar legal and factual issues as the Profit Sharing Complaint. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. FATMA Notice International Indústria de Motores da América do Sul Ltda. ("IIAA"), formerly known as Maxion International Motores S/A ("Maxion"), now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, received a notice in July 2010 from the State of Santa Catarina Environmental Protection Agency ("FATMA") in Brazil. The notice alleged that Maxion had sent wastes to a facility owned and operated by a company known as Natureza and that soil and groundwater contamination had occurred at the Natureza facility. The notice asserted liability against Maxion and assessed an initial penalty in the amount of R$2 million (the equivalent of approximately US$1 million at January 31, 2015), which is not due and final until all administrative appeals are exhausted. Maxion was one of numerous companies that received similar notices. IIAA filed an administrative defense in August 2010 and has not yet received a decision following that filing. IIAA disputes the allegations in the notice and intends to vigorously defend itself. Sao Paulo Groundwater Notice In March 2014, IIAA, along with other nearby companies, received from the Sao Paulo District Attorney a notice and proposed Consent Agreement relating to alleged neighborhood-wide groundwater contamination at or around its Sao Paulo manufacturing facility. The proposed Consent Agreement seeks certain groundwater investigations and other technical relief and proposes sanctions in the amount of R$3 million (the equivalent of approximately US$1.1 million at January 31, 2015). In November 2014, IIAA extended a settlement offer and the parties remain in discussions regarding this matter. MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, five additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, sixteen additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Texas, the District of Minnesota and the Middle District of Pennsylvania (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). The U.S. Actions alleged matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Action") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions then pending, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal district courts. On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions pending on the date the motion was filed before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The MDL Panel also consolidated certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar’s original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S Actions. At the request of the various law firms representing the plaintiffs in the U.S. Actions, Judge Gottschall set a briefing schedule for the appointment of interim class counsel. On the Court's own motion, a status hearing scheduled for February 20, 2015 was stricken. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. EPA Notice of Violation In February 2012, Navistar, Inc. received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The NOV pertains to approximately 7,600 diesel engines which, according to the EPA, were produced by Navistar, Inc. in 2010 and, therefore, should have met the EPA's 2010 emissions standards. Navistar, Inc. previously provided information to the EPA evidencing its belief that the engines were in fact produced in 2009. The NOV contains the EPA's conclusion that Navistar, Inc.'s alleged production of the engines in 2010 violated the Federal Clean Air Act. The NOV states that the EPA reserves the right to file an administrative complaint or to refer this matter to the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") with a recommendation that a civil complaint be filed in federal district court. In July 2014, the DOJ informed Navistar that the matter had been referred to the DOJ and the parties are currently discussing the matter. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the NOV above, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of this matter may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CARB Notice of Violation In April 2013, Navistar, Inc. received a notice of violation and proposed settlement ("Notice") from the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). The Notice alleges violations of the California regulations relating to verification of after-treatment devices and proposed civil penalties of approximately $2.5 million, among other proposed settlement terms. Beginning in June 2013, the Company has made settlement offers to CARB and remains in discussions regarding this matter. In October 2014, the parties tentatively agreed to resolve the matter for a penalty payment of $0.3 million and the Company's agreement to conduct certain in-use testing. As certain non-monetary terms remain to be resolved, a formal settlement has not yet been reached. Shareholder Litigation In March 2013, a putative class action complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J. Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5 Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and future business prospects and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings with the SEC concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating all cases before one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013. The consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen additional current and former directors and officers as defendants. In December 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In July, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motions to Dismiss, denied the lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. In August, 2014, the plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways. First, the plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the defendants, asserting claims against only Navistar, Dan Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The plaintiff also shortened the putative class period by changing the class period commencement date from June 9, 2009 to March 10, 2010. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in September, 2014 and in October, 2014, the plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants Motion to Dismiss. In November, 2014, defendants filed their reply brief in support of defendants Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Also in November 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as a defendant. The Court had set a ruling date on the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for February 17, 2015. On the Court's own motion, the ruling date was extended to April 15, 2015. In March 2013, James Gould filed a derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against us and certain of our current and former directors and former officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our current and former directors and former officers committed a breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and were unjustly enriched in relation to similar factual allegations made in the 10b-5 Cases. The plaintiff in this matter seeks compensatory damages, certain corporate governance reforms, certain injunctive relief, disgorgement of the proceeds of certain defendants' profits from the sale of Company stock, and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On May 3, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order to Stay Action, staying the case pending further order of the court or entry of an order on the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. On July 31, 2014, after the amended complaint was dismissed, the parties filed a status report, and the court entered an order on August 27, 2014 continuing the stay pending a ruling on defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. Each of these matters is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. In August 2013, Abbie Griffin, filed a derivative complaint in the State of Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of the Company and all similarly situated stockholders, against the Company, as the nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former directors and former officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our current and former directors and former officers committed a breach of fiduciary duty, in relation to similar factual allegations made in the 10b-5 Cases. The plaintiff in this matter seeks compensatory damages, certain corporate governance reforms, certain injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On August 29, 2013, the court entered an order staying the case pending resolution of the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. On August 5, 2014, the parties filed a status report with the court requesting that the August 2013 stay order remain in place pending a ruling on defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases and on November 9, 2014, the court entered an order continuing the stay pending a ruling on defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying these matters described above, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these matters may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Brazil Truck Dealer Disputes In January 2014, IIAA initiated an arbitration proceeding under the International Chamber of Commerce rules seeking payment for goods sold and unpaid, in the amount of R$64 million (approximately US$24 million as of January 31, 2015), including penalties and interest, from a group of four truck dealers in Brazil. The truck dealers are affiliated with each other, but not with us, and are collectively referred to as Navitrucks. In the proceeding, IIAA also seeks a declaration of fault against Navitrucks related to the termination of the truck dealer agreements between IIAA and Navitrucks. Navitrucks responded in part by submitting counterclaims against IIAA seeking the amount of R$128 million (approximately US$48 million as of January 31, 2015) for damages related to alleged unfulfilled promises and injury to Navitrucks’ reputation. In October 2014 Navitrucks amended their counterclaims by increasing the amount of damages and as of January 31, 2015 the amount of damages claimed by Navitrucks is R$178 million (approximately US$66 million as of January 31, 2015). The first phase of the arbitration proceeding will address only the validity of the arbitration clause in the truck dealer agreements and its application to these claims. The issue has been briefed by the parties and the arbitral tribunal has set an evidentiary hearing date of March 15, 2015. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition, two other truck dealers and a truck fleet owner in Brazil have initiated separate adversarial proceedings against IIAA that may have similar legal and factual issues as the Navitrucks claim. These other claims are not material either individually or in the aggregate. Other U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Inquiry In June 2012, Navistar received an informal inquiry from the Chicago Office of the Enforcement Division of the SEC seeking a number of categories of documents for the periods dating back to November 1, 2010, relating to various accounting and disclosure issues. We received a formal order of private investigation in July 2012. We have received subsequent subpoenas from the SEC in connection with their inquiry. In December 2014, the SEC filed an application in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking an order compelling the production of certain documents withheld by Navistar from its responses to the administrative subpoenas on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. The discovery dispute involves a small number of documents in relation to the number of documents already produced by Navistar. The court set a status hearing on this matter for April 2, 2015. We continue to cooperate with the SEC in this matter. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of this matter may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Guarantees

We occasionally provide guarantees that could obligate us to make future payments if the primary entity fails to perform under its contractual obligations. We have recognized liabilities for some of these guarantees in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as they meet the recognition and measurement provisions of U.S. GAAP. In addition to the liabilities that have been recognized, we are contingently liable for other potential losses under various guarantees. We do not believe that claims that may be made under such guarantees would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

In March 2010, we entered into an operating agreement, as amended, which contains automatic extensions and is subject to early termination provisions, with GE (the "GE Operating Agreement"). Under the terms of the GE Operating Agreement, as amended, GE is our preferred source of retail customer financing for equipment offered by us and our dealers in the U.S. We provide GE with a loss sharing arrangement for certain credit losses. Under the loss sharing arrangement, as amended, we generally reimburse GE for credit losses in excess of the first 10% of the financed value of a contract; for certain leases we reimburse GE for credit losses up to a maximum of the first 9.5% of the financed value of those lease contracts. The Company’s exposure to loss is mitigated because contracts under the GE Operating Agreement are secured by the financed equipment. There were $1.5 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at both January 31, 2015 and October 31, 2014, financed through the GE Operating Agreement and subject to the loss sharing arrangements in the U.S. The related financed values of these outstanding contracts were $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion at January 31, 2015 and October 31, 2014, respectively. Generally, we do not carry the contracts under the GE Operating Agreement on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, for certain GE financed contracts which we have accounted for as borrowings, we have recognized equipment leased to others of $139 million and financed lease obligations of $158 million in our Consolidated Balance Sheets for the period ended January 31, 2015.

Historically, our losses, representing the entire loss amount, on similar contracts, measured as a percentage of the average balance of the related contracts, ranged from 0.3% to 2.1%. Under limited circumstances NFC retains the right to originate retail customer financings. Based on our historic experience of losses on similar contracts and the nature of the loss sharing arrangement, we do not believe our share of losses related to balances currently outstanding will be material.

For certain independent dealers’ wholesale inventory financed by third-party banks or finance companies, we provide limited repurchase agreements to the respective financing institution. The amount of losses related to these arrangements has not been material to our Consolidated Statements of Operations or Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and the value of the guarantees and accruals recorded are not material to our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We also have issued limited residual value guarantees in connection with various leases. The amounts of the guarantees are estimated and recorded. Our guarantees are contingent upon the fair value of the leased assets at the end of the lease term. The amount of losses related to these arrangements has not been material to our Consolidated Statements of Operations or Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and the value of the guarantees and accruals recorded are not material to our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We obtain certain stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds from third-party financial institutions in the ordinary course of business when required under contracts or to satisfy insurance-related requirements. As of January 31, 2015, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds was $88 million.

We extend credit commitments to certain truck fleet customers, which allow them to purchase parts and services from participating dealers. The participating dealers receive accelerated payments from us with the result that we carry the receivables and absorb the credit risk related to these customers. As of January 31, 2015, the total credit limit under this program was $11 million of which $7 million was unused.

In addition, as of January 31, 2015, we have entered into various purchase commitments of $154 million and contracts that have cancellation fees of $39 million with various expiration dates through 2020.

In the ordinary course of business, we also provide routine indemnifications and other guarantees, the terms of which range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. We do not believe these will result in claims that would have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Environmental Liabilities

We have been named a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), in conjunction with other parties, in a number of cases arising under an environmental protection law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, popularly known as the "Superfund" law. These cases involve sites that allegedly received wastes from current or former Company locations. Based on information available to us which, in most cases, consists of data related to quantities and characteristics of material generated at current or former Company locations, material allegedly shipped by us to these disposal sites, as well as cost estimates from PRPs and/or federal or state regulatory agencies for the cleanup of these sites, a reasonable estimate is calculated of our share of the probable costs, if any, and accruals are recorded in our consolidated financial statements. These accruals are generally recognized no later than upon completion of the remedial feasibility study and are not discounted to their present value. We review all accruals on a regular basis and believe that, based on these calculations, our share of the potential additional costs for the cleanup of each site will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Two sites formerly owned by us: (i) Solar Turbines in San Diego, California, and (ii) the Canton Plant in Canton, Illinois; were identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. Two sites in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where we are currently operating, were identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. While investigations and cleanup activities continue at these and other sites, we believe that we have adequate accruals to cover costs to complete the cleanup of all sites.

We have accrued $22 million for these and other environmental matters, which are included within Other current liabilities and Other noncurrent liabilities, as of January 31, 2015. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2015.

Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could become significant in the future.

Legal Proceedings

Overview

We are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business, and are party to various legal proceedings that constitute ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business. The majority of these claims and proceedings relate to commercial, product liability, and warranty matters. In addition, from time to time we are subject to various claims and legal proceedings related to employee compensation, benefits, and benefits administration including, but not limited to, compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and Department of Labor requirements. In our opinion, apart from the actions set forth below, the disposition of these proceedings and claims, after taking into account recorded accruals and the availability and limits of our insurance coverage, will not have a material adverse effect on our business or our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Profit Sharing Disputes

Pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement, the program administrator and named fiduciary of the Supplemental Benefit Program is the Supplemental Benefit Program committee (the "Committee"), comprised of non-Company individuals. In August 2013, the Committee filed a motion for leave to amend its February 2013 complaint (which sought injunctive relief for the Company to provide certain information to which it was allegedly entitled under the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan) and a proposed amended complaint (the "Profit Sharing Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "Court"). Leave to file the Profit Sharing Complaint was granted by the Court in October 2013. In its Profit Sharing Complaint, the Committee alleges the Company breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due under the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan. The Committee seeks damages in excess of $50 million, injunctive relief and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2013, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Profit Sharing Complaint and to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan. In March 2014, the Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss and ruled, among other things, that the Company waived its right to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the Supplemental Benefits Profit Sharing Plan. In April 2014, the Company appealed the Court's refusal to compel the Committee to comply with the dispute resolution process to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and the briefs for the appeal were completed in June 2014. The Company also filed a motion with the Court to stay all proceedings pending the appeal. In May 2014, the Court granted the motion to stay all proceedings, including discovery, pending the appeal. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit occurred on January 14, 2015, and the appeal is pending.

In addition, various local bargaining units of the UAW have filed separate grievances pursuant to the profit sharing plans under various collective bargaining agreements in effect between the Company and the UAW that may have similar legal and factual issues as the Profit Sharing Complaint.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

FATMA Notice

International Indústria de Motores da América do Sul Ltda. ("IIAA"), formerly known as Maxion International Motores S/A ("Maxion"), now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, received a notice in July 2010 from the State of Santa Catarina Environmental Protection Agency ("FATMA") in Brazil. The notice alleged that Maxion had sent wastes to a facility owned and operated by a company known as Natureza and that soil and groundwater contamination had occurred at the Natureza facility. The notice asserted liability against Maxion and assessed an initial penalty in the amount of R$2 million (the equivalent of approximately US$1 million at January 31, 2015), which is not due and final until all administrative appeals are exhausted. Maxion was one of numerous companies that received similar notices. IIAA filed an administrative defense in August 2010 and has not yet received a decision following that filing. IIAA disputes the allegations in the notice and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Sao Paulo Groundwater Notice

In March 2014, IIAA, along with other nearby companies, received from the Sao Paulo District Attorney a notice and proposed Consent Agreement relating to alleged neighborhood-wide groundwater contamination at or around its Sao Paulo manufacturing facility. The proposed Consent Agreement seeks certain groundwater investigations and other technical relief and proposes sanctions in the amount of R$3 million (the equivalent of approximately US$1.1 million at January 31, 2015). In November 2014, IIAA extended a settlement offer and the parties remain in discussions regarding this matter.

MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, five additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions").

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, sixteen additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Texas, the District of Minnesota and the Middle District of Pennsylvania (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). The U.S. Actions alleged matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Action") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions then pending, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal district courts. On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions pending on the date the motion was filed before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The MDL Panel also consolidated certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar’s original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S Actions. At the request of the various law firms representing the plaintiffs in the U.S. Actions, Judge Gottschall set a briefing schedule for the appointment of interim class counsel. On the Court's own motion, a status hearing scheduled for February 20, 2015 was stricken.

EPA Notice of Violation

In February 2012, Navistar, Inc. received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The NOV pertains to approximately 7,600 diesel engines which, according to the EPA, were produced by Navistar, Inc. in 2010 and, therefore, should have met the EPA's 2010 emissions standards. Navistar, Inc. previously provided information to the EPA evidencing its belief that the engines were in fact produced in 2009. The NOV contains the EPA's conclusion that Navistar, Inc.'s alleged production of the engines in 2010 violated the Federal Clean Air Act. The NOV states that the EPA reserves the right to file an administrative complaint or to refer this matter to the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") with a recommendation that a civil complaint be filed in federal district court. In July 2014, the DOJ informed Navistar that the matter had been referred to the DOJ and the parties are currently discussing the matter.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the NOV above, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of this matter may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CARB Notice of Violation

In April 2013, Navistar, Inc. received a notice of violation and proposed settlement ("Notice") from the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). The Notice alleges violations of the California regulations relating to verification of after-treatment devices and proposed civil penalties of approximately $2.5 million, among other proposed settlement terms. Beginning in June 2013, the Company has made settlement offers to CARB and remains in discussions regarding this matter. In October 2014, the parties tentatively agreed to resolve the matter for a penalty payment of $0.3 million and the Company's agreement to conduct certain in-use testing. As certain non-monetary terms remain to be resolved, a formal settlement has not yet been reached.

Shareholder Litigation

In March 2013, a putative class action complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J. Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5 Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and future business prospects and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings with the SEC concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating all cases before one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013. The consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen additional current and former directors and officers as defendants. In December 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In July, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motions to Dismiss, denied the lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. In August, 2014, the plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways. First, the plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the defendants, asserting claims against only Navistar, Dan Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The plaintiff also shortened the putative class period by changing the class period commencement date from June 9, 2009 to March 10, 2010. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in September, 2014 and in October, 2014, the plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants Motion to Dismiss. In November, 2014, defendants filed their reply brief in support of defendants Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Also in November 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as a defendant. The Court had set a ruling date on the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for February 17, 2015. On the Court's own motion, the ruling date was extended to April 15, 2015.

In March 2013, James Gould filed a derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against us and certain of our current and former directors and former officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our current and former directors and former officers committed a breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and were unjustly enriched in relation to similar factual allegations made in the 10b-5 Cases. The plaintiff in this matter seeks compensatory damages, certain corporate governance reforms, certain injunctive relief, disgorgement of the proceeds of certain defendants' profits from the sale of Company stock, and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On May 3, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order to Stay Action, staying the case pending further order of the court or entry of an order on the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. On July 31, 2014, after the amended complaint was dismissed, the parties filed a status report, and the court entered an order on August 27, 2014 continuing the stay pending a ruling on defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases.

Each of these matters is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

In August 2013, Abbie Griffin, filed a derivative complaint in the State of Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of the Company and all similarly situated stockholders, against the Company, as the nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former directors and former officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our current and former directors and former officers committed a breach of fiduciary duty, in relation to similar factual allegations made in the 10b-5 Cases. The plaintiff in this matter seeks compensatory damages, certain corporate governance reforms, certain injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On August 29, 2013, the court entered an order staying the case pending resolution of the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. On August 5, 2014, the parties filed a status report with the court requesting that the August 2013 stay order remain in place pending a ruling on defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases and on November 9, 2014, the court entered an order continuing the stay pending a ruling on defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying these matters described above, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these matters may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Brazil Truck Dealer Disputes

In January 2014, IIAA initiated an arbitration proceeding under the International Chamber of Commerce rules seeking payment for goods sold and unpaid, in the amount of R$64 million (approximately US$24 million as of January 31, 2015), including penalties and interest, from a group of four truck dealers in Brazil. The truck dealers are affiliated with each other, but not with us, and are collectively referred to as Navitrucks. In the proceeding, IIAA also seeks a declaration of fault against Navitrucks related to the termination of the truck dealer agreements between IIAA and Navitrucks. Navitrucks responded in part by submitting counterclaims against IIAA seeking the amount of R$128 million (approximately US$48 million as of January 31, 2015) for damages related to alleged unfulfilled promises and injury to Navitrucks’ reputation. In October 2014 Navitrucks amended their counterclaims by increasing the amount of damages and as of January 31, 2015 the amount of damages claimed by Navitrucks is R$178 million (approximately US$66 million as of January 31, 2015). The first phase of the arbitration proceeding will address only the validity of the arbitration clause in the truck dealer agreements and its application to these claims. The issue has been briefed by the parties and the arbitral tribunal has set an evidentiary hearing date of March 15, 2015.

In addition, two other truck dealers and a truck fleet owner in Brazil have initiated separate adversarial proceedings against IIAA that may have similar legal and factual issues as the Navitrucks claim. These other claims are not material either individually or in the aggregate.

Other

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Inquiry

In June 2012, Navistar received an informal inquiry from the Chicago Office of the Enforcement Division of the SEC seeking a number of categories of documents for the periods dating back to November 1, 2010, relating to various accounting and disclosure issues. We received a formal order of private investigation in July 2012. We have received subsequent subpoenas from the SEC in connection with their inquiry. In December 2014, the SEC filed an application in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking an order compelling the production of certain documents withheld by Navistar from its responses to the administrative subpoenas on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. The discovery dispute involves a small number of documents in relation to the number of documents already produced by Navistar. The court set a status hearing on this matter for April 2, 2015. We continue to cooperate with the SEC in this matter. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of this matter may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.