Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2017
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. Under the terms of the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, BMO Financial Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary BMO Harris Bank N.A. (together "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 $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at April 30, 2017 and October 31, 2016, 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 $2.3 billion and $2.4 billion at April 30, 2017 and October 31, 2016, 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 $93 million and $48 million and financed lease obligations of $102 million and $51 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of April 30, 2017 and October 31, 2016, respectively. We also have issued a limited number of residual value guarantees, for which losses are generally capped. If substantial risk of loss has not transferred, we account for these arrangements as operating leases and revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis 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. We have recognized liabilities for some of these guarantees in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as they meet recognition and measurement provisions. In addition to the liabilities that have been recognized, we are contingently liable for other potential losses under various guarantees that are not recognized in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We do not believe claims that may be made under such guarantees would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. 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 April 30, 2017, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds was $85 million. In addition, as of April 30, 2017, we have $22 million of outstanding purchase commitments and contracts with $40 million of cancellation fees with 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. In addition, other sites formerly owned by us or where we are currently operating have been identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. While investigations and cleanup activities continue at these sites, we believe that we have appropriate 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 April 30, 2017. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2018. 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. Following the resolution of a procedural dispute by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit, 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. The Committee’s Complaint was filed against NIC, NI, NFC and a former affiliate, 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 the 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 filed motions to dismiss each respective complaint on January 10, 2017. On May 10, 2017, the court dismissed the Committee's Complaint with prejudice stating that the Committee lacked standing to bring its claims and overruled the defendants' motion to dismiss the Committee Members' Complaint, subject to the parties conducting limited discovery and filing cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the Committee Members' Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations by August 10, 2017. On April 6, 2017, a motion was 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 motion was filed by the current "Other Member" of the Health Benefit Program Committee ("HBPC"). The HBPC is provided for in the 1993 Settlement Agreement and the HBPC currently consists of the Other Member, three members appointed by the Company ("Company Members"), and two members appointed by the UAW. NI and the Company Members are named as defendants in the motion. The motion alleges that NI and the Company Members impermissibly interfered with the Other Member's ability to discharge his rights and duties relating to eligibility for Plan benefits for an unknown number of non-represented employees and retirees. He requests the court (a) find that all prior Plan eligibility determinations made by NI and the HBPC are invalid to the extent they were not based on eligibility criteria in a plan which pre-dated the Plan; and (b) find all employees or retirees who were improperly denied Plan benefits based on the application of incorrect eligibility criteria, to retroactively enroll them in the Plan, and to reimburse those retirees for costs they incurred as a result of the prior improper determinations of Plan eligibility. He estimates 1,000 non-represented employees or retirees were wrongfully denied Plan benefits. He also requests the court direct him to oversee NI's compliance with the requested relief order. The defendants filed their response to the motion on May 11, 2017 and the Other Member filed his reply on May 17, 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 April 30, 2017), 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 April 30, 2017). 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 filed its defense to the civil action on January 26, 2017, alleging that IIAA has made all necessary investigations and has taken remedial measures to address the contamination and that Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo (CETESB), the environmental agency of São Paulo State, has agreed to the remedial measures taken by IIAA. 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 court in the N&C Action denied certification to persons who operated but did not buy the trucks in question. To date, no appeals have been filed, but the deadline for the Company to appeal the class certification decision has been extended indefinitely, subject to a 15-day termination. On June 5, 2017, a hearing was held in the Quebec putative class action lawsuit captioned 4037308 Canada Inc. v. Navistar Canada Inc., NI, and NIC. At that hearing, the Court ruled on certain motions regarding evidence related to certification but deferred a ruling on plaintiff’s proposed amendment to narrow the proposed class to Quebec-only purchasers and lessees of model year 2010-13 vehicles containing MaxxForce 11, 13, and 15 liter engines. The class authorization hearing in Quebec has not been scheduled, and 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. 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 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. On May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order setting a July 13, 2017 date for plaintiffs' class certification motion. On November 30, 2016, the court entered an order referring discovery matters to a magistrate judge for supervision. Pursuant to the magistrate’s order, the parties jointly filed a new proposed case management order on January 25, 2017, which extends the fact discovery deadline to November 22, 2017. On January 31, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion with Judge Gottschall requesting adjustment of the class action briefing schedule to April 24, 2018. On February 2, 2017, Judge Gottschall granted the parties' motion extending the deadline to complete the class certification briefing to April 24, 2018. On February 6, 2017, the magistrate approved the parties' January 25, 2017 proposed case management order extending the deadline for fact discovery to November 22, 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. 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 NI'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 is proceeding in two phases: fact discovery followed by expert discovery. Fact discovery for the liability phase commenced on December 9, 2015. Pursuant to the court's Second Amended Scheduling Order entered on January 23, 2017, the Phase I liability fact discovery is to be completed by August 9, 2017, and the deadline for dispositive motions is set for February 16, 2018. After completion of the liability phase, the court will set further dates for a remedy phase. On May 13, 2016, the DOJ, on behalf of the EPA filed a motion for summary judgment on liability. On June 30, 2016, NIC and NI opposed the EPA's motion for summary judgment, and NIC cross-moved for summary judgment against EPA. On March 1, 2017, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (i) granting the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to NI, (ii) denying the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to NIC, and (iii) denying NIC’s motion for summary judgment. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the complaint above, potential charges to the Consolidated Statement of Operations and cash outlays in future periods could range from $2 million to $291 million related to the resolution of this matter. Other than the aforementioned, we are unable to provide further meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of this matter 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$20 million as of April 30, 2017), 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 April 30, 2017) 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 the hearing held on June 13-15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the parties presented their final allegations. On April 20, 2017, the arbitral tribunal issued a partial award granting a portion of the relief sought by each of the parties. Specifically, the arbitral tribunal held that: (a) Navitrucks failed to pay certain amounts to IIAA for the purchase of vehicles under its agreements with IIAA, thereby breaching its contractual obligations; and (b) IIAA breached its contractual obligations under its agreements with Navitrucks due to its failure to fulfill its promises to invest in products, infrastructure, and a dealership network. Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal held that, due to the mutual breach of the agreements between IIAA and Navitrucks, the agreements should be deemed terminated. The damages calculation phase is the next step in the arbitration and is estimated to be one year or longer in duration. In the damages calculation phase, the actual monetary amount of the damages owed from one party to the other will be definitively determined. As of April 30, 2017, the approximate amount of the IIAA claim against Navitrucks is R$145 million (approximately US$45 million as of April 30, 2017), of which Navitrucks has acknowledged that IIAA is entitled to a credit in the approximate amount of R$81 million (approximately US$25 million as of April 30, 2017), and the approximate amount of the Navitrucks claim against IIAA is R$153 million (approximately US$48 million as of April 30, 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. 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. On December 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint but with leave to amend. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The allegations and relief sought are substantially similar to the original complaint, except that Plaintiffs added causes of action for breach of warranty and breach of implied warranty. NIC and NI filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 17, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on March 17, 2017, and the court terminated the case on March 21, 2017. Other 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 ("ISS") for military vehicles to the government for the period from 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 has been in ongoing discussions with the DOD IG and the Department of Justice. ND made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena in June and August 2016 and has substantially completed its subpoena response. On May 1, 2017, ND met with government representatives, including representatives from DOD IG and the U.S. Department of Justice, to further discuss the matter. ND has agreed to provide additional information relating to pricing of the ISS and to meet with the government again on June 13, 2017. 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.

Under the terms of the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, BMO Financial Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary BMO Harris Bank N.A. (together "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 $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at April 30, 2017 and October 31, 2016, 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 $2.3 billion and $2.4 billion at April 30, 2017 and October 31, 2016, 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 $93 million and $48 million and financed lease obligations of $102 million and $51 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of April 30, 2017 and October 31, 2016, respectively.

We also have issued a limited number of residual value guarantees, for which losses are generally capped. If substantial risk of loss has not transferred, we account for these arrangements as operating leases and revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis 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. We have recognized liabilities for some of these guarantees in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as they meet recognition and measurement provisions. In addition to the liabilities that have been recognized, we are contingently liable for other potential losses under various guarantees that are not recognized in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We do not believe claims that may be made under such guarantees would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

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 April 30, 2017, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds was $85 million.

In addition, as of April 30, 2017, we have $22 million of outstanding purchase commitments and contracts with $40 million of cancellation fees with 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.

In addition, other sites formerly owned by us or where we are currently operating have been identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. While investigations and cleanup activities continue at these sites, we believe that we have appropriate 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 April 30, 2017. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2018.

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. Following the resolution of a procedural dispute by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit, 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. The Committee’s Complaint was filed against NIC, NI, NFC and a former affiliate, 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 the 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 filed motions to dismiss each respective complaint on January 10, 2017. On May 10, 2017, the court dismissed the Committee's Complaint with prejudice stating that the Committee lacked standing to bring its claims and overruled the defendants' motion to dismiss the Committee Members' Complaint, subject to the parties conducting limited discovery and filing cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the Committee Members' Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations by August 10, 2017.

On April 6, 2017, a motion was 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 motion was filed by the current "Other Member" of the Health Benefit Program Committee ("HBPC"). The HBPC is provided for in the 1993 Settlement Agreement and the HBPC currently consists of the Other Member, three members appointed by the Company ("Company Members"), and two members appointed by the UAW. NI and the Company Members are named as defendants in the motion. The motion alleges that NI and the Company Members impermissibly interfered with the Other Member's ability to discharge his rights and duties relating to eligibility for Plan benefits for an unknown number of non-represented employees and retirees. He requests the court (a) find that all prior Plan eligibility determinations made by NI and the HBPC are invalid to the extent they were not based on eligibility criteria in a plan which pre-dated the Plan; and (b) find all employees or retirees who were improperly denied Plan benefits based on the application of incorrect eligibility criteria, to retroactively enroll them in the Plan, and to reimburse those retirees for costs they incurred as a result of the prior improper determinations of Plan eligibility. He estimates 1,000 non-represented employees or retirees were wrongfully denied Plan benefits. He also requests the court direct him to oversee NI's compliance with the requested relief order. The defendants filed their response to the motion on May 11, 2017 and the Other Member filed his reply on May 17, 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 April 30, 2017), 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 April 30, 2017). 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 filed its defense to the civil action on January 26, 2017, alleging that IIAA has made all necessary investigations and has taken remedial measures to address the contamination and that Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo (CETESB), the environmental agency of São Paulo State, has agreed to the remedial measures taken by IIAA.

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 court in the N&C Action denied certification to persons who operated but did not buy the trucks in question. To date, no appeals have been filed, but the deadline for the Company to appeal the class certification decision has been extended indefinitely, subject to a 15-day termination.

On June 5, 2017, a hearing was held in the Quebec putative class action lawsuit captioned 4037308 Canada Inc. v. Navistar Canada Inc., NI, and NIC. At that hearing, the Court ruled on certain motions regarding evidence related to certification but deferred a ruling on plaintiff’s proposed amendment to narrow the proposed class to Quebec-only purchasers and lessees of model year 2010-13 vehicles containing MaxxForce 11, 13, and 15 liter engines. The class authorization hearing in Quebec has not been scheduled, and 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.

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 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.

On May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order setting a July 13, 2017 date for plaintiffs' class certification motion. On November 30, 2016, the court entered an order referring discovery matters to a magistrate judge for supervision. Pursuant to the magistrate’s order, the parties jointly filed a new proposed case management order on January 25, 2017, which extends the fact discovery deadline to November 22, 2017. On January 31, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion with Judge Gottschall requesting adjustment of the class action briefing schedule to April 24, 2018. On February 2, 2017, Judge Gottschall granted the parties' motion extending the deadline to complete the class certification briefing to April 24, 2018. On February 6, 2017, the magistrate approved the parties' January 25, 2017 proposed case management order extending the deadline for fact discovery to November 22, 2017.

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 NI'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 is proceeding in two phases: fact discovery followed by expert discovery. Fact discovery for the liability phase commenced on December 9, 2015. Pursuant to the court's Second Amended Scheduling Order entered on January 23, 2017, the Phase I liability fact discovery is to be completed by August 9, 2017, and the deadline for dispositive motions is set for February 16, 2018. After completion of the liability phase, the court will set further dates for a remedy phase.

On May 13, 2016, the DOJ, on behalf of the EPA filed a motion for summary judgment on liability. On June 30, 2016, NIC and NI opposed the EPA's motion for summary judgment, and NIC cross-moved for summary judgment against EPA. On March 1, 2017, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (i) granting the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to NI, (ii) denying the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to NIC, and (iii) denying NIC’s motion for summary judgment.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the complaint above, potential charges to the Consolidated Statement of Operations and cash outlays in future periods could range from $2 million to $291 million related to the resolution of this matter. Other than the aforementioned, we are unable to provide further meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of this matter 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$20 million as of April 30, 2017), 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 April 30, 2017) 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 the hearing held on June 13-15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the parties presented their final allegations. On April 20, 2017, the arbitral tribunal issued a partial award granting a portion of the relief sought by each of the parties. Specifically, the arbitral tribunal held that: (a) Navitrucks failed to pay certain amounts to IIAA for the purchase of vehicles under its agreements with IIAA, thereby breaching its contractual obligations; and (b) IIAA breached its contractual obligations under its agreements with Navitrucks due to its failure to fulfill its promises to invest in products, infrastructure, and a dealership network. Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal held that, due to the mutual breach of the agreements between IIAA and Navitrucks, the agreements should be deemed terminated.

The damages calculation phase is the next step in the arbitration and is estimated to be one year or longer in duration. In the damages calculation phase, the actual monetary amount of the damages owed from one party to the other will be definitively determined.

As of April 30, 2017, the approximate amount of the IIAA claim against Navitrucks is R$145 million (approximately US$45 million as of April 30, 2017), of which Navitrucks has acknowledged that IIAA is entitled to a credit in the approximate amount of R$81 million (approximately US$25 million as of April 30, 2017), and the approximate amount of the Navitrucks claim against IIAA is R$153 million (approximately US$48 million as of April 30, 2017).

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. On December 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint but with leave to amend. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The allegations and relief sought are substantially similar to the original complaint, except that Plaintiffs added causes of action for breach of warranty and breach of implied warranty. NIC and NI filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 17, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on March 17, 2017, and the court terminated the case on March 21, 2017.

Other

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 ("ISS") for military vehicles to the government for the period from 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 has been in ongoing discussions with the DOD IG and the Department of Justice. ND made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena in June and August 2016 and has substantially completed its subpoena response. On May 1, 2017, ND met with government representatives, including representatives from DOD IG and the U.S. Department of Justice, to further discuss the matter. ND has agreed to provide additional information relating to pricing of the ISS and to meet with the government again on June 13, 2017. 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.