Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2016
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 with GE Capital which contains automatic extensions and is subject to early termination provisions (the "Navistar Capital Operating Agreement"). Effective December 1, 2015, GE Capital assigned the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement to BMO Financial Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary BMO Harris Bank N.A. as part of General Electric’s sale of its GE Transportation Finance business. Under the terms of the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, GE Capital was, and now BMO is, our third-party preferred source of retail customer financing for equipment offered by us and our dealers in the U.S. We refer to this alliance as "Navistar Capital." The Navistar Capital Operating Agreement contains a loss sharing arrangement for certain credit losses. Under the loss sharing arrangement, as amended, we generally reimburse our financing partner for credit losses in excess of the first 10% of the financed value of a contract; for certain leases we reimburse our financing partner for credit losses up to a maximum of the first 9.5% of the financed value of those lease contracts. Our exposure to loss is mitigated because contracts under the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement are secured by the financed equipment. There were $1.5 billion and $1.4 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, financed through the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement and subject to the loss sharing arrangements in the U.S. The related financed values of these outstanding contracts were $2.4 billion and $2.3 billion at October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Generally, we do not carry the contracts under the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, for certain Navistar Capital financed contracts which we have accounted for as borrowings, we have recognized equipment leased to others of $48 million and $102 million and financed lease obligations of $51 million and $110 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We also have issued a limited number of residual value guarantees, for which losses are generally capped, in connection with various leases. If substantial risk of loss has not transferred, we account for these arrangements as operating leases and revenue is recognized straight-line over the term of the lease. If substantial risk of loss has transferred, revenue is recognized upon sale and 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 October 31, 2016, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds was $88 million. In addition, as of October 31, 2016, we have entered into various purchase commitments of $22 million and contracts that have cancellation fees of $52 million with various expiration dates through 2021. 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, Solar Turbines in San Diego, California, and the Canton Plant in Canton, Illinois, were identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. Two sites in Sao Paulo, Brazil, one at which we are currently operating and one where we formerly operated, 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 $20 million for these and other environmental matters, which are included within Other current liabilities and Other noncurrent liabilities, as of October 31, 2016. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2017. 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"), composed of individuals not appointed by NI or NIC. 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 Benefit Trust 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 alleged the Company breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due under the Supplemental Benefit Trust 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 Benefit Trust 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 Benefit Trust 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. 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. In March 2015, the 6^thCircuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Court with instructions that the Committee’s claims in the Profit Sharing Complaint be arbitrated. In May 2015, the Court ordered that the claims in the Profit Sharing Complaint be arbitrated pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures in the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan. In November 2015, the Company and the Committee selected an arbitrator and the discovery process has commenced. On August 1, 2016, the parties submitted briefs on issues related to the scope of the arbitration. In addition, various local bargaining units of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("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. Retiree Health Care Litigation On October 21, 2016, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio relating to postretirement healthcare and life insurance obligations under the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The first lawsuit (the “Committee’s Complaint”) was filed by the Supplemental Benefit Program Committee, which pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement is composed of individuals not appointed by NI or NIC and is the Committee. The Committee’s Complaint was filed against NIC, NI, NFC and a former affiliate (collectively, the “Defendants”), all of which are parties to the 1993 Settlement Agreement. Since January 1, 2012, the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Health Benefit Trust, created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement (the “Base Trust”), has received certain Medicare Part D subsidies from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that were made available for prescription drug benefits provided to Medicare-eligible seniors pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and has also received certain Medicare Part D coverage-gap discounts from prescription drug manufacturers that were made available to eligible seniors pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (collectively, the “Subsidies”). The Committee alleges, among other things, that the Defendants breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement since January 1, 2012 by causing the Base Trust to allocate the Subsidies in a manner that improperly decreased the Defendants’ contributions to the Base Trust and increased retiree contributions. The Committee seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and costs for all alleged violations of the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including approximately $26 million, which the Committee alleges is the eligible retirees’ “fair share” of the Subsidies that were allegedly misappropriated by the Defendants from January, 2012 through April, 2015. The second lawsuit was filed by two individual members of the Committee (the “Committee Members”) who are retirees and participants in the Navistar, Inc. Health Benefit and Life Insurance Plan (the “Plan”) created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The Committee Members’ complaint (the “Committee Members’ Complaint”) was filed against NIC, NI, NFC and certain other former or current affiliates, all of which are parties or employers as defined in the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The Committee Members allege, among other things, that the Company violated the terms of the Plan, breached a fiduciary duty under the ERISA, and engaged in ERISA-prohibited transactions by improperly using the Plan’s assets (a portion of the Subsidies) for the Company’s benefit. The Committee Members request that the court order Defendants to restore all losses to the Base Trust, including approximately $26 million, which the Committee Members allege is the Plan participants’ “fair share” of the Subsidies that were allegedly misappropriated by the Defendants from January 2012 through April 2015. The Committee Members also request that the court enjoin the defendants from alleged future violations of the Plan and ERISA with respect to treatment of the Subsidies, order the Defendants to remedy all alleged ERISA-prohibited transactions and pay the Committee Members’ attorneys’ fees and costs. The Defendants' responses to each complaint are due in January 2017. 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 Automotiva 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 less than US$1 million at October 31, 2016), 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 (the "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 sought certain groundwater investigations and other technical relief and proposed sanctions in the amount of R$3 million (the equivalent of approximately US$1 million at October 31, 2016). In November 2014, IIAA extended a settlement offer. The parties remained in discussions and IIAA’s settlement offer was never accepted, rejected or countered by the District Attorney. On August 31, 2016, the District Attorney filed civil actions against IIAA and other companies seeking soil and groundwater investigation and remediation, together with monetary payment in an unspecified amount. IIAA has not yet been served with the action. MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class action lawsuit against NIC, NI, Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, six additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). From June 13-17, 2016, the court conducted a certification hearing in the N&C Action. On November 16, 2016, the court certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11, MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA regulations. The N&C court denied certification to persons who operated but did not buy the trucks in question. There are no court dates scheduled in any of the other Canadian Actions at this time. On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against NI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, seventeen 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 Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the Western District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions name both NIC and NI, and allege 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 the Company and NI 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 NI filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") 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 then-pending U.S. Actions, 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 to consolidate the U.S. Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar’s motion before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts. For putative class action EGR warranty 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 MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The parties to the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015. The Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. On May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order setting a July 13, 2017, date for plaintiffs’ class certification motion. On September 22, 2016, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Amended Consolidated Complaint”). The Amended Consolidated Complaint added twenty-five additional named plaintiffs. NI and NIC answered the Amended Consolidated Complaint on October 20, 2016. After a status hearing on November 30, 2016, the court entered an order referring discovery matters to a magistrate judge for supervision. 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 Clean Air Act Litigation In February 2012, NI received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") pertaining to certain heavy-duty diesel engines which, according to the EPA, were not completely assembled by NI until calendar year 2010 and, therefore, were not covered by NI's model year 2009 certificates of conformity. The NOV concluded that Navistar, Inc.'s introduction into commerce of each of these engines violated the Federal Clean Air Act. On July 14, 2015, the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), on behalf of the EPA, filed a lawsuit against NIC and NI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Similar to the NOV, the lawsuit alleges that NIC and NI introduced into commerce approximately 7,749 heavy-duty diesel engines that were not covered by model year 2009 certificates of conformity because those engines were not completely assembled until calendar year 2010, resulting in violations of the Federal Clean Air Act. On July 16, 2015, the DOJ filed an Amended Complaint clarifying the amount of civil penalties being sought. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties of up to $37,500 for each violation. On September 14, 2015, NIC and NI each filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit. Discovery in the matter will proceed in two phases. Fact discovery for the liability phase commenced on December 9, 2015. Pursuant to a Case Management Order entered on August 1, 2016, fact discovery is currently scheduled to be completed on February 9, 2017, followed by expert discovery, and the deadline for dispositive motions is July 20, 2017. After completion of the first phase, the court will, if necessary, set further dates for a remedy phase. On May 13, 2016, the DOJ filed a motion for summary judgment on liability. On June 30, 2016, NIC and NI opposed EPA's motion for summary judgment, and NIC cross-moved for summary judgment against EPA. NIC and NI filed a notice of supplemental authority and moved to supplement the summary judgment record on September 22, 2016. The parties’ dispositive motions are fully briefed and a ruling on the motions is pending. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the complaint 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. 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 U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (“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 10b-5 Cases before one judge sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 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. On December 17, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 22, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by August 22, 2014. On August 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, On July 10, 2015, the court issued its Opinion and Order on defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court (i) dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims against the Company, Andrew J. Cederoth and Jack Allen and (ii) dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims against Daniel C. Ustian, the only remaining defendant, except for claims regarding two of Mr. Ustian’s statements. Further, all of the dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice except for claims based on statements made subsequent to the lead plaintiff’s last purchase of the Company’s stock (the “Post-Purchase Claims”). At a December 1, 2015 status conference, the parties reported that a settlement in principle had been reached. On May 25, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, as well as the class notice to be sent in connection with the settlement. On November 1, 2016, following the final approval hearing, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and terminating the 10b-5 Cases. In March 2013, James Gould filed a derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 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. 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. The court has continued to extend the stay since that time. In August 2013, Abbie Griffin filed a derivative complaint in the State of Delaware Court of Chancery, 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, 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 requesting that the August 2013 stay order remain in place pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. The court has continued to extend the stay since that time. On November 9, 2016, the parties conducted a mediation and reached an agreement in principle to settle both the Gould action and the Griffin action. The settlement includes certain corporate governance reforms and an agreement on a total fee petition on behalf of plaintiffs’ counsel. The Company expects the fee to be paid by insurance. On November 22, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in the Gould case stating that they had reached an agreement in principle. On December 6, 2016, the parties executed the Stipulation of Settlement, and plaintiff in the Gould action filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Shareholder Derivative Settlement. On December 12, 2016, the Gould court entered an Order preliminarily approving of Settlement and providing for notice of the settlement. Also on December 12, 2016, the parties in the Griffin action filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending Stay, notifying the Delaware Court of the settlement and the Gould court’s preliminary approval. The Delaware Court entered that order on December 13, 2016. Stockholders are directed to "Quick Links" on the Company’s Investor Relations Webpage at http://www.navistar.com/navistar/investors/ for additional information concerning the settlement, including a link to the Stipulation of Settlement and the Notice of Proposed Settlement. Any final resolution of these matters is contingent on the Court’s final approval of the Settlement at a hearing scheduled for February 15, 2017. If the settlement is finally approved, both the Gould action and the Griffin action will be dismissed with prejudice. 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$20 million as of October 31, 2016), including penalties and interest, from a group of affiliated 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$40 million as of October 31, 2016) 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. During a preliminary hearing before the arbitral tribunal on March 24, 2015, the parties agreed to submit all of the pending claims between the parties to the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Pursuant to the timetable issued in the arbitration proceeding, IIAA presented its complaint in July 2015, Navitrucks filed its answer and counterclaims on August 24, 2015, and IIAA filed its rebuttal and answer to Navitrucks’ counterclaims on October 22, 2015. On December 7, 2015, Navitrucks filed its rebuttal to IIAA’s answer to counterclaims. On June 13-15, 2016, the arbitral tribunal held hearings on the parties presenting witnesses and evidence. On July 18, 2016, IIAA and Navitrucks presented additional documents and information related to such hearings. On September 30, 2016, the parties presented their closing arguments. As of October 31, 2016, the approximate amount of the IIAA claim against Navitrucks is R$135 million (approximately US$42 million as of October 31, 2016), of which Navitrucks has acknowledged that IIAA is entitled to a credit in the approximate amount of R$75 million (approximately US$24 million as of October 31, 2016), and the approximate amount of the Navitrucks claim against IIAA is R$144 million (approximately US$45 million as of October 31, 2016). 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 two truck fleet owners in Brazil have separate adversarial proceedings pending 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. IC Bus Civil RICO Litigation On June 1, 2016, plaintiffs Polar Express School Bus and Lakeview Bus Lines filed a lawsuit against NIC, NI, and IC Bus, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that the 40 IC brand buses owned or operated by plaintiffs contain defective ABS braking systems and also engines with defective emissions control systems. Plaintiffs claim that NIC, its subsidiaries, and their authorized dealers deliberately concealed the alleged defects, and the lawsuit seeks to plead causes of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and common law fraud. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount of $7 million, treble damages, punitive damages in the amount of $50 million, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit, and in August 2016 we filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety. On December 16, 2016, the Court granted the motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ RICO claims without prejudice. Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state common law fraud claim. The order provides that if Plaintiffs do not amend their Complaint within twenty-one days, the dismissal will convert automatically into a dismissal with prejudice. 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. Other U.S. Securities and Exchange Administrative Order In June 2012, NIC 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 staff of 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 NIC from its responses to the administrative subpoenas on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. The discovery dispute involved a small number of documents in relation to the number of documents already produced by NIC. On June 30, 2015, following an in camera review of some of the documents at issue, the court entered an Order sustaining the privilege claims in part and overruling the claims in part. The court also entered related orders dated August 31, 2015 and October 21, 2015. Pursuant to those Orders, Navistar completed the production of those documents, or portions of documents, for which its privilege claims were denied, as well as other documents subject to the SEC’s December 2014 application that the Company determined were not privileged under the reasoning of the court’s June 30, 2015 Order. On August 13 and 17, 2015, the SEC staff transmitted “Wells Notices” in connection with the formal order of investigation from July 2012 described above. The Notices stated that the staff had made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company and its former chief executive officer, Daniel Ustian, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, certain related regulations, the Securities Act of 1933, and an August 5, 2010 Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings against the Company. On September 17, 2015, NIC submitted to the SEC a response to its Wells Notices. On October 13, 2015, Navistar met with the SEC to further respond to the Wells Notices, subsequent discussions followed, and the Company made an offer of settlement. On March 31, 2016, the SEC accepted the Company’s offer and issued an administrative cease-and-desist order reflecting the terms of the settlement. The Company neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. The order includes negligence-based charges pertaining to periodic filing requirements and material misstatements or omissions related to three applications in 2011 and 2012 by Navistar to the EPA for certification of heavy-duty diesel engines emitting 0.2g of nitrogen oxide ("NOx"). The order also requires the Company to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $7.5 million, which the Company has paid and which it previously accrued for on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of October 31, 2015. U.S. Department of Defense Subpoena In the third quarter of 2016, Navistar Defense, LLC ("ND") received a subpoena from the United States Department of Defense Inspector General (the "DOD IG"). The subpoena requested documents relating to ND's sale of its independent suspension systems for military vehicles to the government for the time period of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. On June 3, 2016, ND met with government representatives, including representatives from DOD IG and the U.S. Department of Justice, to discuss the matter. ND made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena in June and August 2016 and has substantially completed its subpoena response. 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 with GE Capital which contains automatic extensions and is subject to early termination provisions (the "Navistar Capital Operating Agreement"). Effective December 1, 2015, GE Capital assigned the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement to BMO Financial Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary BMO Harris Bank N.A. as part of General Electric’s sale of its GE Transportation Finance business. Under the terms of the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, GE Capital was, and now BMO is, our third-party preferred source of retail customer financing for equipment offered by us and our dealers in the U.S. We refer to this alliance as "Navistar Capital." The Navistar Capital Operating Agreement contains a loss sharing arrangement for certain credit losses. Under the loss sharing arrangement, as amended, we generally reimburse our financing partner for credit losses in excess of the first 10% of the financed value of a contract; for certain leases we reimburse our financing partner for credit losses up to a maximum of the first 9.5% of the financed value of those lease contracts. Our exposure to loss is mitigated because contracts under the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement are secured by the financed equipment. There were $1.5 billion and $1.4 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, financed through the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement and subject to the loss sharing arrangements in the U.S. The related financed values of these outstanding contracts were $2.4 billion and $2.3 billion at October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Generally, we do not carry the contracts under the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, for certain Navistar Capital financed contracts which we have accounted for as borrowings, we have recognized equipment leased to others of $48 million and $102 million and financed lease obligations of $51 million and $110 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of October 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

We also have issued a limited number of residual value guarantees, for which losses are generally capped, in connection with various leases. If substantial risk of loss has not transferred, we account for these arrangements as operating leases and revenue is recognized straight-line over the term of the lease. If substantial risk of loss has transferred, revenue is recognized upon sale and 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 October 31, 2016, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds was $88 million.

In addition, as of October 31, 2016, we have entered into various purchase commitments of $22 million and contracts that have cancellation fees of $52 million with various expiration dates through 2021.

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, Solar Turbines in San Diego, California, and the Canton Plant in Canton, Illinois, were identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. Two sites in Sao Paulo, Brazil, one at which we are currently operating and one where we formerly operated, 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 $20 million for these and other environmental matters, which are included within Other current liabilities and Other noncurrent liabilities, as of October 31, 2016. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2017.

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"), composed of individuals not appointed by NI or NIC. 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 Benefit Trust 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 alleged the Company breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due under the Supplemental Benefit Trust 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 Benefit Trust 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 Benefit Trust 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. 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. In March 2015, the 6^thCircuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Court with instructions that the Committee’s claims in the Profit Sharing Complaint be arbitrated. In May 2015, the Court ordered that the claims in the Profit Sharing Complaint be arbitrated pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures in the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan. In November 2015, the Company and the Committee selected an arbitrator and the discovery process has commenced. On August 1, 2016, the parties submitted briefs on issues related to the scope of the arbitration.

In addition, various local bargaining units of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("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.

Retiree Health Care Litigation

On October 21, 2016, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio relating to postretirement healthcare and life insurance obligations under the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The first lawsuit (the “Committee’s Complaint”) was filed by the Supplemental Benefit Program Committee, which pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement is composed of individuals not appointed by NI or NIC and is the Committee. The Committee’s Complaint was filed against NIC, NI, NFC and a former affiliate (collectively, the “Defendants”), all of which are parties to the 1993 Settlement Agreement. Since January 1, 2012, the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Health Benefit Trust, created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement (the “Base Trust”), has received certain Medicare Part D subsidies from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that were made available for prescription drug benefits provided to Medicare-eligible seniors pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and has also received certain Medicare Part D coverage-gap discounts from prescription drug manufacturers that were made available to eligible seniors pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (collectively, the “Subsidies”). The Committee alleges, among other things, that the Defendants breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement since January 1, 2012 by causing the Base Trust to allocate the Subsidies in a manner that improperly decreased the Defendants’ contributions to the Base Trust and increased retiree contributions. The Committee seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and costs for all alleged violations of the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including approximately $26 million, which the Committee alleges is the eligible retirees’ “fair share” of the Subsidies that were allegedly misappropriated by the Defendants from January, 2012 through April, 2015.

The second lawsuit was filed by two individual members of the Committee (the “Committee Members”) who are retirees and participants in the Navistar, Inc. Health Benefit and Life Insurance Plan (the “Plan”) created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The Committee Members’ complaint (the “Committee Members’ Complaint”) was filed against NIC, NI, NFC and certain other former or current affiliates, all of which are parties or employers as defined in the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The Committee Members allege, among other things, that the Company violated the terms of the Plan, breached a fiduciary duty under the ERISA, and engaged in ERISA-prohibited transactions by improperly using the Plan’s assets (a portion of the Subsidies) for the Company’s benefit. The Committee Members request that the court order Defendants to restore all losses to the Base Trust, including approximately $26 million, which the Committee Members allege is the Plan participants’ “fair share” of the Subsidies that were allegedly misappropriated by the Defendants from January 2012 through April 2015. The Committee Members also request that the court enjoin the defendants from alleged future violations of the Plan and ERISA with respect to treatment of the Subsidies, order the Defendants to remedy all alleged ERISA-prohibited transactions and pay the Committee Members’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Defendants' responses to each complaint are due in January 2017.

FATMA Notice

International Indústria Automotiva 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 less than US$1 million at October 31, 2016), 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 (the "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 sought certain groundwater investigations and other technical relief and proposed sanctions in the amount of R$3 million (the equivalent of approximately US$1 million at October 31, 2016). In November 2014, IIAA extended a settlement offer. The parties remained in discussions and IIAA’s settlement offer was never accepted, rejected or countered by the District Attorney. On August 31, 2016, the District Attorney filed civil actions against IIAA and other companies seeking soil and groundwater investigation and remediation, together with monetary payment in an unspecified amount. IIAA has not yet been served with the action.

MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation

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

From June 13-17, 2016, the court conducted a certification hearing in the N&C Action. On November 16, 2016, the court certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11, MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA regulations. The N&C court denied certification to persons who operated but did not buy the trucks in question. There are no court dates scheduled in any of the other Canadian Actions at this time.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against NI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, seventeen 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 Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the Western District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions name both NIC and NI, and allege 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 the Company and NI 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 NI filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") 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 then-pending U.S. Actions, 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 to consolidate the U.S. Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar’s motion before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts. For putative class action EGR warranty 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 MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The parties to the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015. The Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. On May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order setting a July 13, 2017, date for plaintiffs’ class certification motion. On September 22, 2016, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Amended Consolidated Complaint”). The Amended Consolidated Complaint added twenty-five additional named plaintiffs. NI and NIC answered the Amended Consolidated Complaint on October 20, 2016. After a status hearing on November 30, 2016, the court entered an order referring discovery matters to a magistrate judge for supervision.

EPA Clean Air Act Litigation

In February 2012, NI received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") pertaining to certain heavy-duty diesel engines which, according to the EPA, were not completely assembled by NI until calendar year 2010 and, therefore, were not covered by NI's model year 2009 certificates of conformity. The NOV concluded that Navistar, Inc.'s introduction into commerce of each of these engines violated the Federal Clean Air Act.

On July 14, 2015, the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), on behalf of the EPA, filed a lawsuit against NIC and NI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Similar to the NOV, the lawsuit alleges that NIC and NI introduced into commerce approximately 7,749 heavy-duty diesel engines that were not covered by model year 2009 certificates of conformity because those engines were not completely assembled until calendar year 2010, resulting in violations of the Federal Clean Air Act. On July 16, 2015, the DOJ filed an Amended Complaint clarifying the amount of civil penalties being sought. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties of up to $37,500 for each violation. On September 14, 2015, NIC and NI each filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit.

Discovery in the matter will proceed in two phases. Fact discovery for the liability phase commenced on December 9, 2015. Pursuant to a Case Management Order entered on August 1, 2016, fact discovery is currently scheduled to be completed on February 9, 2017, followed by expert discovery, and the deadline for dispositive motions is July 20, 2017. After completion of the first phase, the court will, if necessary, set further dates for a remedy phase. On May 13, 2016, the DOJ filed a motion for summary judgment on liability. On June 30, 2016, NIC and NI opposed EPA's motion for summary judgment, and NIC cross-moved for summary judgment against EPA. NIC and NI filed a notice of supplemental authority and moved to supplement the summary judgment record on September 22, 2016. The parties’ dispositive motions are fully briefed and a ruling on the motions is pending.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the complaint 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.

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 U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (“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 10b-5 Cases before one judge sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 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. On December 17, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 22, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by August 22, 2014.

On August 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, On July 10, 2015, the court issued its Opinion and Order on defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court (i) dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims against the Company, Andrew J. Cederoth and Jack Allen and (ii) dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims against Daniel C. Ustian, the only remaining defendant, except for claims regarding two of Mr. Ustian’s statements. Further, all of the dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice except for claims based on statements made subsequent to the lead plaintiff’s last purchase of the Company’s stock (the “Post-Purchase Claims”). At a December 1, 2015 status conference, the parties reported that a settlement in principle had been reached. On May 25, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, as well as the class notice to be sent in connection with the settlement. On November 1, 2016, following the final approval hearing, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and terminating the 10b-5 Cases.

In March 2013, James Gould filed a derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 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. 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. The court has continued to extend the stay since that time.

In August 2013, Abbie Griffin filed a derivative complaint in the State of Delaware Court of Chancery, 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, 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 requesting that the August 2013 stay order remain in place pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. The court has continued to extend the stay since that time.

On November 9, 2016, the parties conducted a mediation and reached an agreement in principle to settle both the Gould action and the Griffin action. The settlement includes certain corporate governance reforms and an agreement on a total fee petition on behalf of plaintiffs’ counsel. The Company expects the fee to be paid by insurance. On November 22, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in the Gould case stating that they had reached an agreement in principle. On December 6, 2016, the parties executed the Stipulation of Settlement, and plaintiff in the Gould action filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Shareholder Derivative Settlement. On December 12, 2016, the Gould court entered an Order preliminarily approving of Settlement and providing for notice of the settlement. Also on December 12, 2016, the parties in the Griffin action filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending Stay, notifying the Delaware Court of the settlement and the Gould court’s preliminary approval. The Delaware Court entered that order on December 13, 2016.

Stockholders are directed to "Quick Links" on the Company’s Investor Relations Webpage at http://www.navistar.com/navistar/investors/ for additional information concerning the settlement, including a link to the Stipulation of Settlement and the Notice of Proposed Settlement.

Any final resolution of these matters is contingent on the Court’s final approval of the Settlement at a hearing scheduled for February 15, 2017. If the settlement is finally approved, both the Gould action and the Griffin action will be dismissed with prejudice.

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$20 million as of October 31, 2016), including penalties and interest, from a group of affiliated 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$40 million as of October 31, 2016) 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. During a preliminary hearing before the arbitral tribunal on March 24, 2015, the parties agreed to submit all of the pending claims between the parties to the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Pursuant to the timetable issued in the arbitration proceeding, IIAA presented its complaint in July 2015, Navitrucks filed its answer and counterclaims on August 24, 2015, and IIAA filed its rebuttal and answer to Navitrucks’ counterclaims on October 22, 2015. On December 7, 2015, Navitrucks filed its rebuttal to IIAA’s answer to counterclaims. On June 13-15, 2016, the arbitral tribunal held hearings on the parties presenting witnesses and evidence. On July 18, 2016, IIAA and Navitrucks presented additional documents and information related to such hearings. On September 30, 2016, the parties presented their closing arguments. As of October 31, 2016, the approximate amount of the IIAA claim against Navitrucks is R$135 million (approximately US$42 million as of October 31, 2016), of which Navitrucks has acknowledged that IIAA is entitled to a credit in the approximate amount of R$75 million (approximately US$24 million as of October 31, 2016), and the approximate amount of the Navitrucks claim against IIAA is R$144 million (approximately US$45 million as of October 31, 2016).

In addition, two other truck dealers and two truck fleet owners in Brazil have separate adversarial proceedings pending 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.

IC Bus Civil RICO Litigation

On June 1, 2016, plaintiffs Polar Express School Bus and Lakeview Bus Lines filed a lawsuit against NIC, NI, and IC Bus, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that the 40 IC brand buses owned or operated by plaintiffs contain defective ABS braking systems and also engines with defective emissions control systems. Plaintiffs claim that NIC, its subsidiaries, and their authorized dealers deliberately concealed the alleged defects, and the lawsuit seeks to plead causes of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and common law fraud. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount of $7 million, treble damages, punitive damages in the amount of $50 million, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit, and in August 2016 we filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety. On December 16, 2016, the Court granted the motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ RICO claims without prejudice. Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state common law fraud claim. The order provides that if Plaintiffs do not amend their Complaint within twenty-one days, the dismissal will convert automatically into a dismissal with prejudice.

Other

U.S. Securities and Exchange Administrative Order

In June 2012, NIC 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 staff of 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 NIC from its responses to the administrative subpoenas on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. The discovery dispute involved a small number of documents in relation to the number of documents already produced by NIC. On June 30, 2015, following an in camera review of some of the documents at issue, the court entered an Order sustaining the privilege claims in part and overruling the claims in part. The court also entered related orders dated August 31, 2015 and October 21, 2015. Pursuant to those Orders, Navistar completed the production of those documents, or portions of documents, for which its privilege claims were denied, as well as other documents subject to the SEC’s December 2014 application that the Company determined were not privileged under the reasoning of the court’s June 30, 2015 Order.

On August 13 and 17, 2015, the SEC staff transmitted “Wells Notices” in connection with the formal order of investigation from July 2012 described above. The Notices stated that the staff had made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company and its former chief executive officer, Daniel Ustian, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, certain related regulations, the Securities Act of 1933, and an August 5, 2010 Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings against the Company. On September 17, 2015, NIC submitted to the SEC a response to its Wells Notices. On October 13, 2015, Navistar met with the SEC to further respond to the Wells Notices, subsequent discussions followed, and the Company made an offer of settlement. On March 31, 2016, the SEC accepted the Company’s offer and issued an administrative cease-and-desist order reflecting the terms of the settlement. The Company neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. The order includes negligence-based charges pertaining to periodic filing requirements and material misstatements or omissions related to three applications in 2011 and 2012 by Navistar to the EPA for certification of heavy-duty diesel engines emitting 0.2g of nitrogen oxide ("NOx"). The order also requires the Company to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $7.5 million, which the Company has paid and which it previously accrued for on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of October 31, 2015.

U.S. Department of Defense Subpoena

In the third quarter of 2016, Navistar Defense, LLC ("ND") received a subpoena from the United States Department of Defense Inspector General (the "DOD IG"). The subpoena requested documents relating to ND's sale of its independent suspension systems for military vehicles to the government for the time period of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. On June 3, 2016, ND met with government representatives, including representatives from DOD IG and the U.S. Department of Justice, to discuss the matter. ND made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena in June and August 2016 and has substantially completed its subpoena response. 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.