Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2019
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, Navistar Capital (a program of BMO Harris Bank N.A. and Bank of Montreal (together "BMO")) is our third-party preferred source of retail and lease 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 BMO for credit losses in excess of the first 10% of the financed value of a contract; for certain leases we reimburse BMO 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 $1.6 billion and $1.5 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at both April 30, 2019 and October 31, 2018, 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 $2.6 billion and $2.5 billion at April 30, 2019 and October 31, 2018, 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 $45 million and $104 million and financed lease obligations of $53 million and $122 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of April 30, 2019 and October 31, 2018, respectively. We also have issued a limited number of residual value guarantees, for which losses are generally capped. If control 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 control 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, 2019, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds issued was $98 million. In addition, as of April 30, 2019, we have $135 million of outstanding purchase commitments and contracts with $20 million of cancellation fees with expiration dates through 2025. 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, 2019. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2020. 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 6th 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 commenced. On August 1, 2016, the parties submitted briefs on issues related to the scope of the arbitration. On June 29, 2017, the arbitrator ruled, among other things, that the arbitration will include Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014. On May 2, 2018, the Committee submitted to the arbitrator a proposed schedule for the presentation of the issues to be addressed in the arbitration. On September 21, 2018, the arbitrator set a schedule to rule on all issues and determine final calculations in April 2020. In April 2019, the Company and the Committee submitted separate proposals for a new arbitration schedule and the arbitrator ordered a new arbitration schedule under which the arbitrator's final determination is expected by April 30, 2020. As noted under “Retiree Health Care Litigation” below, on August 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to schedule a status hearing, in which the Company requested an in-person hearing to discuss global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including the pending Profit Sharing Complaint. As a result, in-person hearings were held on November 2, 2018 and February 22, 2019. Additional hearings may be scheduled in the future. Although not currently in arbitration, on February 14, 2019, the Committee sent the Company a notice of disagreement for the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan calculation for the year ended October 31, 2018, and subsequently filed a motion to enforce the 1993 Settlement Agreement requesting that the Court order the Company to respond within five days of the Court’s order, to the Committee’s requests for information related to the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan calculation for the year ending October 31, 2018. The Company provided the requested information, and the Court has not ruled on the motion to enforce. In addition, various local bargaining units of the UAW have filed separate grievances pursuant to the profit sharing plans under various collective bargaining agreements in effect between the Company and the UAW that may have similar legal and factual issues as the Profit Sharing Complaint. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. 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 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. With respect to the Committee Members’ Complaint, the court declined to dismiss the complaint, but ordered the parties to conduct discovery regarding whether the Committee Members’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and to file a motion for summary judgment thereafter on that issue of timeliness. The defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on September 21, 2017, the Committee Members’ filed their opposition on November 2, 2017, and the defendants filed their reply on November 22, 2017. On June 26, 2018, the court conditionally overruled the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court bifurcated the case and conducted a trial on the issue of whether the Committee Members’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations in September 2018. On November 20, 2018, the Committee Members filed a motion for sanctions, alleging various discovery and trial misconduct by the defendants and requesting that the court enter judgment in favor of the Committee Members with respect to the statute of limitations issue and award attorneys’ fees to the Committee Members. On December 11, 2018, the defendants filed their opposition to the Committee Members’ motion for sanctions. On March 26, 2019, the court granted the Committee Members’ motion for sanctions and ordered that discovery related to the statute of limitations be re-opened through May 28, 2019, and on May 31, 2019, the court extended the statute of limitations discovery period to June 20, 2019. As a result, the Company must pay the Committee Members’ legal and other costs for the motion for sanctions and to conduct the additional discovery through June 20, 2019. On August 14, 2018, under the original Shy et. al. v. Navistar International Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:92-CV-333 (S.D. Ohio 1992), we filed a motion to schedule a status hearing to request an in-person hearing to discuss global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to resolving the pending Profit Sharing Complaint and Committee Members’ Complaint described above. As a result, in-person hearings were held on November 2, 2018 and February 22, 2019. Additional hearings may be scheduled in the future. 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 (the “FATMA Notice”) in July 2010 from the State of Santa Catarina Environmental Protection Agency ("FATMA") in Brazil. The FATMA Notice alleged that Maxion sent waste to a facility owned and operated by a company known as Natureza (the “Natureza Facility”) and that soil and groundwater contamination had occurred at the Natureza Facility. The FATMA Notice asserted liability against Maxion and assessed an initial penalty in the amount of R$2 million (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019), 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. In addition to the matter described above, there is a suit pending in the federal court of Brazil in which the federal district attorney has sued (a) FATMA, for claims related to FATMA’s actions in connection with licensing and inspection procedures related to the Natureza Facility, and (b) Selamix, as the current owner of the Natureza Facility. In this federal suit, Selamix was found liable for the contamination at the Natureza Facility due to it being the successor owner of the facility. However, the federal court’s decision does not prohibit Selamix from seeking to recover its damages from third parties that contributed to the contamination at the Natureza Facility. In connection with the FATMA Notice, IIAA presented a motion to the district attorney of the State of Santa Catarina (the “SC District Attorney”) to set forth its defenses and correct inaccuracies in the FATMA Notice in August 2017. In September 2017, the SC District Attorney informed IIAA that it intended to present a Consent Agreement to all of the companies that sent waste to Natureza to determine the allocation of the liability for generating the waste which led to the contamination of the Natureza Facility. IIAA then filed a motion requesting that the SC District Attorney consider certain facts and circumstances prior to presenting the Consent Agreement. In January 2018, the SC District Attorney, local and state authorities, Selamix, IIAA and the 14 other companies that are alleged to have significantly contributed to the contamination met to discuss the matter. Selamix then presented three proposals for conducting a preliminary environmental assessment in the area to determine the allocation of liability among the companies. In March 2018, Selamix informed the SC District Attorney that it would voluntarily conduct a preliminary environmental study at the Natureza Facility in an attempt to determine and allocate the liability for the contamination pursuant to an agreement with all of the companies after the study is completed. The SC District Attorney agreed to suspend further inquiry into the matter until Selamix’s study had been completed. The other companies involved in the matter have expressed an interest in having an independent environmental study conducted. The SC District Attorney has indicated that it may consider requiring an independent environmental study after Selamix’s environmental study is completed. In June 2018, Selamix presented its Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report to the SC District Attorney and the other companies alleged to have contributed to the contamination and the report indicated that the entire property should be subject to further studies to confirm the type and extent of the contamination due to signs of buried residues in several areas. Selamix also presented commercial proposals from two additional companies specializing in environmental studies to perform the next steps of the technical work. The SC District Attorney then requested a third commercial proposal which will be presented and paid for by Selamix. A new district attorney recently assumed responsibility for this matter and we are awaiting its analysis of the actions to date. IIAA continues to dispute the allegations in the FATMA Notice and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Currently, no demands or offers are outstanding. 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 (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019). 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 in the Central Forum of the capital of the State of São Paulo 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. On June 20, 2017, IIAA presented a petition requesting a 90-day suspension of the lawsuit. IIAA has since held and is currently engaged in discussions with the District Attorney regarding settlement of this matter. The District Attorney agreed to an initial suspension on June 30, 2017 and a subsequent suspension for an additional 90 days which ended on July 9, 2018. A new district attorney (the “New District Attorney”) assumed responsibility for the case in February 2018. The New District Attorney would like the companies involved to try to reach a settlement agreement as to the remediation efforts to be taken after having discussions and negotiations with the New District Attorney’s technical experts. IIAA attempted to schedule a meeting with the New District Attorney’s technical experts. IIAA met with the New District Attorney on July 25, 2018. The New District Attorney has indicated that he will request information related to the status of the current remediation from CETESB. After receiving that information, the New District Attorney has indicated that he will schedule a meeting with IIAA to discuss the proposed terms of a potential settlement agreement and granted a third suspension on August 14, 2018 which ended on November 14, 2018. Although the suspension was technically terminated, the New District Attorney continued to evaluate the possibility of settlement. In February 2019, the New District Attorney requested a 120 day suspension, which was granted by the court and began on February 19, 2019. There are no current demands or offers outstanding. MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") 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, seven 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. On November 2, 2017, NIC, NI, Navistar Canada Inc. and Harbour International Trucks filed a notice of appeal. On December 8, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of cross-appeal. Both the appeal and cross-appeal were heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on February 9, 2018. On August 1, 2018, the appellate court denied our appeal and granted, in part, N&C's cross-appeal and as such certified three narrow issues on whether misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials. On September 28, 2018, Navistar sought leave to appeal the certification decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, but leave was denied on March 28, 2019. The next step will be an attendance before the case management judge regarding the details of the notice of certification to be given to the class. No date for this attendance has been set. 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. On November 23, 2017, we filed a motion to stay the Quebec case until the British Columbia Court of Appeal rules on the certification order in the N&C Action. The stay motion was granted on December 7, 2017. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was provided to the Quebec court. On September 6, 2018, the stay was extended until the Supreme Court of Canada decides the application for leave to appeal in the N&C Action. The stay has since been removed, but no hearing date or certification schedule has been set. In the Manitoba putative class action lawsuit captioned Vern Brown v. Navistar International Corporation and Navistar Canada, Inc., the court held a case management conference on June 29, 2018, after the plaintiff failed to file a complete certification record by the previously court-ordered due date. The plaintiff advised that it expected to file its remaining certification affidavits by August 31, 2018, and the court suspended certification scheduling in the interim. The plaintiff filed an additional affidavit on July 5, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the court adjourned the certification application indefinitely to allow the plaintiff to obtain an expert report. There are no certification or other hearings 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, one or more of 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. Non-class federal lawsuits presenting pre-trial issues similar to the MDL Action continue to be transferred to the MDL Action. Approximately 28 such actions are currently pending. 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 extended 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' schedule set forth in the case management order jointly filed on January 25, 2017. In September 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to further extend the case deadlines. On October 5, 2017, Judge Gottschall entered an Agreed Order Extending the Discovery Cutoff ordering that fact discovery relevant to class certification be completed by March 13, 2018 and that the class certification briefing be completed by July 31, 2018. On March 5, 2018, Judge Gottschall extended the fact discovery deadline to May 25, 2018. Subsequent extensions followed. Fact discovery relevant to class certification is now complete. On October 13, 2017, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, as well as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Claims without Prejudice relating to 15 previously named plaintiffs. On January 4, 2018, Judge Gottschall granted both motions. On January 9, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint removed 15 named plaintiffs and substituted in eight new named plaintiffs. As a result, the total number of named plaintiffs is now 37 and three class action cases were dismissed entirely without prejudice because there were no longer any remaining plaintiffs in those cases. On August 16, 2018, Judge Gottschall entered a minute order setting a status hearing for September 26, 2018 in light of the ongoing settlement efforts of the parties. During the September 26, 2018 status hearing, the parties advised the court that additional settlement discussions were scheduled. Accordingly, on September 27, 2018 Judge Gottschall entered a minute order extending class plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification and supporting expert reports until November 16, 2018. Since September 2018, Judge Gottschall has extended the deadlines for class certification briefing several times to allow for settlement discussions. On May 28, 2019, NIC and NI entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with certain named plaintiffs to settle the class actions consolidated in the U.S. Actions. On May 28, 2019, plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval. The Settlement Agreement class consists of entities and natural persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped with a MaxxForce 11 or 13 liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology, provided that vehicle was purchased or leased in the U.S. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the parties will establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of cash (the “Cash Fund”) and rebates (the “Rebate Fund”) with a total value of $135 million (the “Settlement Fund”); (2) NIC and NI will contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class; (3) NI will commit to make available rebates with a face value in the aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement class will release NIC and NI and their affiliates from all claims and potential claims arising from or related to the allegations in the U. S. Actions, except for claims for personal injury or damage to third-party property. The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the “Waterfall”). Any Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped at $35 million. Finally, the Settlement Agreement states that NIC and NI deny all claims in the U.S. Actions, deny wrongdoing, liability or damage of any kind, and deny that NIC and NI acted improperly or wrongfully in any way. The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the court, including possible appeals. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, members of the class will be provided notice of the Settlement Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of the class who opt out will not receive any benefit from the Settlement Agreement or be bound by it. Following the notice and opportunity for objections and opt outs, the court will schedule a fairness hearing at which the court will determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved and whether the proposed Final Order and Judgment should be entered. Depending on opt out numbers and certain oversubscription numbers, NIC and NI or lead counsel for the class will have the option to withdraw from the Settlement Agreement. On May 31, 2019, Judge Gottschall held a hearing on plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The court asked plaintiffs to supplement their motion with additional information by June 5, 2019. On November 11, 2017, seven plaintiffs (the “Direct Action Plaintiffs”) in the MDL moved for a separate trial and discovery schedule independent of the class action schedule. On January 2, 2018, Judge Gottschall granted in part and denied in part the Direct Action Plaintiffs’ motion, allowing two of the Direct Action Plaintiffs to begin limited discovery on plaintiff-specific issues. The parties submitted competing proposed discovery schedules. In a minute order dated January 26, 2018, Judge Gottschall declined to enter either schedule but ordered the parties to confer on a schedule for prioritizing the plaintiff-specific discovery after the close of fact discovery relevant to class certification issues. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. One of the Direct Action Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint on September 25, 2018 and that motion was granted by the court in a minute order dated December 13, 2018. The First Amended Complaint was filed on December 18, 2018 and our response was filed on January 8, 2019. There are also non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits filed against the Company in various state courts. A number of non-class action lawsuits have been resolved in favor of the Company prior to trial or settled for immaterial amounts. Several cases have been resolved at trial with varying results. Approximately 40 state court non-class actions are pending at this time. One of the non-class action lawsuits ("Milan"), alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and fraud and involving approximately 235 trucks, was tried in Tennessee state court in August 2017. On August 10, 2017, the Milan jury returned a verdict of approximately $31 million against the Company, including $20 million in punitive damages. On October 2, 2017, the Company filed various motions in the trial court challenging the verdict, including a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, in the Alternative, a New Trial and Motion to Disapprove of the Award of Punitive Damages. The hearing on these motions was held on December 1, 2017 and the court denied the Company's motions, denied Milan’s motion for pre-judgment interest and granted Milan $1.4 million in fees and costs. On January 11, 2018, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals challenging the verdict. Briefing on the appeal was completed on March 18, 2019, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals set a hearing for oral arguments on June 19, 2019. In the third quarter of 2017, we recorded $31 million of charges in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, the Company has recorded a charge in the Company’s fiscal second quarter ended April 30, 2019 in the amount of $159 million as a reserve for its expected obligations under the Settlement Agreement as well as for current period liabilities and potential future settlements with respect to certain other MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits that are not included in the Settlement Agreement. Other than the aforementioned, we are unable to provide further meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these matters 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 for the liability phase commenced on December 9, 2015. Pursuant to the court's minute order entered on July 12, 2017, the Phase I liability fact discovery was completed as of November 9, 2017. 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 the 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. On April 3, 2018, the parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for NIC only. The stipulation with prejudice has no effect on the claims made against NI. With the dismissal of NIC, the matter moved to the remedy phase with respect to NI. The court entered a scheduling order on May 3, 2018, setting a fact discovery deadline of May 22, 2019, expert report and deposition deadlines through November 7, 2019, and a deadline for submission of dispositive motions of December 9, 2019. As a result of the partial federal government shutdown, on January 8, 2019, the Chief District Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered Amended General Order 18-0028, holding in abeyance civil matters involving the United States as a party. Following the conclusion of the partial shutdown, the court issued General Order 19-0004, which provided that all discovery deadlines are extended by 42 days. As a result, the deadline for fact discovery is now July 3, 2019, expert report and deposition deadlines are through December 19, 2019 and a deadline for dispositive motions is scheduled for January 21, 2020. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the amended complaint above, potential charges to the Consolidated Statements 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$16 million as of April 30, 2019), 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$32 million as of April 30, 2019) 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 (the "Initial Award") granting a portion of the relief sought by each of the parties. Specifically, the arbitral tribunal's Initial Award 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. On June 3, 2017, IIAA and Navitrucks filed an application to clarify certain interpretations of the Initial Award and to correct clerical errors in the Initial Award. IIAA also requested an award to (a) set the indisputable amount of the Initial Award, and (2) order Navitrucks to promptly pay such amount. On June 8, 2017, the arbitral tribunal invited IIAA and Navitrucks to present their respective comments on each other’s applications on or before June 27, 2017. On June 3, 2017 and June 27, 2017, IIAA and Navitrucks, respectively, filed their comments. On September 29, 2017, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision on the applications filed by both parties in which it rejected all of the requests made in the applications of both parties. On October 31, 2017, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision relating to the timeline for the production of technical evidence to be used in the calculation phase in which the actual monetary amount of the damages owed by each party to the other will be definitively determined. As determined by the arbitral tribunal, IIAA (a) designated its expert assistant and disclosed the questions to be answered by the arbitral expert (official expert designated by the arbitral tribunal); (b) presented a summary of the amount that Navitrucks owes to IIAA in accordance with the previous calculation and related award issued on April 20, 2017; and (c) presented its replies to the Navitrucks' petitions. On May 11, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision allowing the calculation to be made by the parties’ experts and scheduled the calculation phase hearing for August 16, 2018. On July 6, 2018, each party’s experts presented their reports indicating the calculation of the total amount due from each party to the other party. On August 6, 2018, the parties jointly filed a petition informing the arbitral tribunal that they reached an agreement as to the total amount due from each party to the other party. Pursuant to the agreement, Navitrucks agreed that it owes IIAA the total amount of R$107 million (approximately US$27 million as of April 30, 2019) after deducting the agreed amount of Navitrucks' claim against IIAA. In addition, the parties requested: (a) the cancellation of the hearing scheduled for August 16, 2018; (b) a 15 day period for the parties to present their respective costs incurred in connection with the arbitral proceeding; and (c) the closure of the calculation phase with the final ruling of merits. On August 13, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision canceling the hearing scheduled for August 16, 2018 and directed the parties to prove their respective incurred costs with the arbitral proceeding and to specify whether there were any additional productions of evidence or considerations by August 23, 2018. On August 23, 2018, IIAA filed a petition indicating that its costs incurred in connection with the arbitral proceeding were R$6 million (approximately US $2 million as of April 30, 2019). On the same date, Navitrucks filed a petition indicating that its costs incurred in connection with the arbitral proceeding were R$3 million (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019). On September 18, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision (i) declaring the end of the evidence phase, (ii) ordering the parties to present their closing arguments on or before October 31, 2018, and (iii) stating that the final decision on the merits will be issued on or before December 20, 2018. On October 31, 2018, the parties submitted their closing arguments. On or about March 1, 2019, IIAA and Navitrucks received the award of the arbitral tribunal. The award orders the Navitrucks entities to pay IIAA a total of R$107 million (approximately US $27 million as of April 30, 2019), subject to inflation adjustment and default interest. In addition, the arbitral tribunal ordered the Navitrucks entities to reimburse IIAA in the amount of R$3 million (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019) for a portion of IIAA’s costs incurred in the arbitration. The parties will have 30 days from the date of receipt of the award to apply for the correction of errors and/or clarifications related to the award. On March 29, 2019, IIAA filed an application for clarifications related to certain clerical errors in the award. On April 22, 2019, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision ordering Navitrucks to submit any comments regarding the application for clarifications filed by IIAA on or before April 25, 2019 and indicated that the arbitral tribunal will issue a final award with respect to IIAA’s application for clarifications by May 25, 2019; however, it has not yet been issued. After the rendering of the final award with respect to IIAA’s application for clarifications, Navitrucks will be required to pay the amount of the judgment within 20 days. We have not recorded a receivable related to this matter in our Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, 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. California Air Resources Board Notice of Violation On March 28, 2019, Navistar received a notice of violation ("NOV") from the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). In the NOV, CARB alleges that Navistar failed to disclose a running change to 1,385 engines including certain model year 2013 to 2015 N13 engines and 2014 to 2015 N9/10 engines. CARB alleges that the running change in question made modifications to the emissions control system such that the engines no longer conformed to the configuration as certified. The Company is evaluating the NOV and is engaged in discussions with CARB. Other U.S. Department of Defense Matter 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 the DOD IG and the DOJ to discuss the matter. Since then, ND has been in ongoing discussions with the DOD IG and the DOJ. ND made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena in June and August 2016 and completed its subpoena response. On May 1, 2017, ND met with government representatives, including representatives from the DOD IG and the DOJ, to further discuss the matter, including assertions that ND may have overcharged the United States for the ISS components. ND agreed to provide additional information relating to the pricing of the ISS components. The parties met again on June 13, 2017. In August 2017, ND received a letter from the DOJ claiming that ND made false and misleading statements during the course of price negotiations and during the Defense Contract Audit Agency audit which resulted in ND overcharging the United States for the ISS components by approximately $88 million and asking for treble damages and penalties for a total demand of approximately $264 million. ND has responded to the DOJ’s demand letter explaining its position that it has no liability in this matter and outlining the bases for such position, and that ND intends to vigorously defend its position. ND and the DOJ communicated between October 5, 2017 and December 8, 2017 to discuss their respective positions on both liability and damages. On December 8, 2017, ND received another subpoena from the DOD IG which requested documents relating to ND's pricing of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (“MRAP”) vehicle and its sale of parts to the government for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2013. ND responded to the subpoena and made four productions of responsive documents. On July 10, 2018, ND received another subpoena from the DOD IG requesting additional custodian emails and documents related to the MRAP and ISS components. ND is responding to the subpoena and has made four productions of responsive documents. Additionally, in September and October 2018 the DOJ conducted interviews of certain current and former employees and will likely conduct additional interviews in the future. The parties currently are engaged in mediation, which began in February 2019. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, including whether a settlement will be reached, 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, Navistar Capital (a program of BMO Harris Bank N.A. and Bank of Montreal (together "BMO")) is our third-party preferred source of retail and lease 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 BMO for credit losses in excess of the first 10% of the financed value of a contract; for certain leases we reimburse BMO 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 $1.6 billion and $1.5 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at both April 30, 2019 and October 31, 2018, 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 $2.6 billion and $2.5 billion at April 30, 2019 and October 31, 2018, 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 $45 million and $104 million and financed lease obligations of $53 million and $122 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of April 30, 2019 and October 31, 2018, respectively.

We also have issued a limited number of residual value guarantees, for which losses are generally capped. If control 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 control 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, 2019, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds issued was $98 million.

In addition, as of April 30, 2019, we have $135 million of outstanding purchase commitments and contracts with $20 million of cancellation fees with expiration dates through 2025.

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, 2019. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2020.

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 6th 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 commenced. On August 1, 2016, the parties submitted briefs on issues related to the scope of the arbitration. On June 29, 2017, the arbitrator ruled, among other things, that the arbitration will include Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014. On May 2, 2018, the Committee submitted to the arbitrator a proposed schedule for the presentation of the issues to be addressed in the arbitration. On September 21, 2018, the arbitrator set a schedule to rule on all issues and determine final calculations in April 2020. In April 2019, the Company and the Committee submitted separate proposals for a new arbitration schedule and the arbitrator ordered a new arbitration schedule under which the arbitrator's final determination is expected by April 30, 2020. As noted under “Retiree Health Care Litigation” below, on August 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to schedule a status hearing, in which the Company requested an in-person hearing to discuss global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including the pending Profit Sharing Complaint. As a result, in-person hearings were held on November 2, 2018 and February 22, 2019. Additional hearings may be scheduled in the future. Although not currently in arbitration, on February 14, 2019, the Committee sent the Company a notice of disagreement for the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan calculation for the year ended October 31, 2018, and subsequently filed a motion to enforce the 1993 Settlement Agreement requesting that the Court order the Company to respond within five days of the Court’s order, to the Committee’s requests for information related to the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan calculation for the year ending October 31, 2018. The Company provided the requested information, and the Court has not ruled on the motion to enforce.

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

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

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 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. With respect to the Committee Members’ Complaint, the court declined to dismiss the complaint, but ordered the parties to conduct discovery regarding whether the Committee Members’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and to file a motion for summary judgment thereafter on that issue of timeliness. The defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on September 21, 2017, the Committee Members’ filed their opposition on November 2, 2017, and the defendants filed their reply on November 22, 2017. On June 26, 2018, the court conditionally overruled the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court bifurcated the case and conducted a trial on the issue of whether the Committee Members’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations in September 2018. On November 20, 2018, the Committee Members filed a motion for sanctions, alleging various discovery and trial misconduct by the defendants and requesting that the court enter judgment in favor of the Committee Members with respect to the statute of limitations issue and award attorneys’ fees to the Committee Members. On December 11, 2018, the defendants filed their opposition to the Committee Members’ motion for sanctions. On March 26, 2019, the court granted the Committee Members’ motion for sanctions and ordered that discovery related to the statute of limitations be re-opened through May 28, 2019, and on May 31, 2019, the court extended the statute of limitations discovery period to June 20, 2019. As a result, the Company must pay the Committee Members’ legal and other costs for the motion for sanctions and to conduct the additional discovery through June 20, 2019.

On August 14, 2018, under the original Shy et. al. v. Navistar International Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:92-CV-333 (S.D. Ohio 1992), we filed a motion to schedule a status hearing to request an in-person hearing to discuss global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to resolving the pending Profit Sharing Complaint and Committee Members’ Complaint described above. As a result, in-person hearings were held on November 2, 2018 and February 22, 2019. Additional hearings may be scheduled in the future.

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 (the “FATMA Notice”) in July 2010 from the State of Santa Catarina Environmental Protection Agency ("FATMA") in Brazil. The FATMA Notice alleged that Maxion sent waste to a facility owned and operated by a company known as Natureza (the “Natureza Facility”) and that soil and groundwater contamination had occurred at the Natureza Facility.

The FATMA Notice asserted liability against Maxion and assessed an initial penalty in the amount of R$2 million (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019), 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.

In addition to the matter described above, there is a suit pending in the federal court of Brazil in which the federal district attorney has sued (a) FATMA, for claims related to FATMA’s actions in connection with licensing and inspection procedures related to the Natureza Facility, and (b) Selamix, as the current owner of the Natureza Facility. In this federal suit, Selamix was found liable for the contamination at the Natureza Facility due to it being the successor owner of the facility. However, the federal court’s decision does not prohibit Selamix from seeking to recover its damages from third parties that contributed to the contamination at the Natureza Facility.

In connection with the FATMA Notice, IIAA presented a motion to the district attorney of the State of Santa Catarina (the “SC District Attorney”) to set forth its defenses and correct inaccuracies in the FATMA Notice in August 2017. In September 2017, the SC District Attorney informed IIAA that it intended to present a Consent Agreement to all of the companies that sent waste to Natureza to determine the allocation of the liability for generating the waste which led to the contamination of the Natureza Facility. IIAA then filed a motion requesting that the SC District Attorney consider certain facts and circumstances prior to presenting the Consent Agreement.

In January 2018, the SC District Attorney, local and state authorities, Selamix, IIAA and the 14 other companies that are alleged to have significantly contributed to the contamination met to discuss the matter. Selamix then presented three proposals for conducting a preliminary environmental assessment in the area to determine the allocation of liability among the companies. In March 2018, Selamix informed the SC District Attorney that it would voluntarily conduct a preliminary environmental study at the Natureza Facility in an attempt to determine and allocate the liability for the contamination pursuant to an agreement with all of the companies after the study is completed. The SC District Attorney agreed to suspend further inquiry into the matter until Selamix’s study had been completed. The other companies involved in the matter have expressed an interest in having an independent environmental study conducted. The SC District Attorney has indicated that it may consider requiring an independent environmental study after Selamix’s environmental study is completed.

In June 2018, Selamix presented its Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report to the SC District Attorney and the other companies alleged to have contributed to the contamination and the report indicated that the entire property should be subject to further studies to confirm the type and extent of the contamination due to signs of buried residues in several areas. Selamix also presented commercial proposals from two additional companies specializing in environmental studies to perform the next steps of the technical work. The SC District Attorney then requested a third commercial proposal which will be presented and paid for by Selamix. A new district attorney recently assumed responsibility for this matter and we are awaiting its analysis of the actions to date.

IIAA continues to dispute the allegations in the FATMA Notice and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Currently, no demands or offers are outstanding.

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 (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019). 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 in the Central Forum of the capital of the State of São Paulo 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. On June 20, 2017, IIAA presented a petition requesting a 90-day suspension of the lawsuit. IIAA has since held and is currently engaged in discussions with the District Attorney regarding settlement of this matter. The District Attorney agreed to an initial suspension on June 30, 2017 and a subsequent suspension for an additional 90 days which ended on July 9, 2018.

A new district attorney (the “New District Attorney”) assumed responsibility for the case in February 2018. The New District Attorney would like the companies involved to try to reach a settlement agreement as to the remediation efforts to be taken after having discussions and negotiations with the New District Attorney’s technical experts. IIAA attempted to schedule a meeting with the New District Attorney’s technical experts. IIAA met with the New District Attorney on July 25, 2018. The New District Attorney has indicated that he will request information related to the status of the current remediation from CETESB. After receiving that information, the New District Attorney has indicated that he will schedule a meeting with IIAA to discuss the proposed terms of a potential settlement agreement and granted a third suspension on August 14, 2018 which ended on November 14, 2018. Although the suspension was technically terminated, the New District Attorney continued to evaluate the possibility of settlement. In February 2019, the New District Attorney requested a 120 day suspension, which was granted by the court and began on February 19, 2019.

There are no current demands or offers outstanding.

MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") 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, seven 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. On November 2, 2017, NIC, NI, Navistar Canada Inc. and Harbour International Trucks filed a notice of appeal. On December 8, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of cross-appeal. Both the appeal and cross-appeal were heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on February 9, 2018. On August 1, 2018, the appellate court denied our appeal and granted, in part, N&C's cross-appeal and as such certified three narrow issues on whether misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials. On September 28, 2018, Navistar sought leave to appeal the certification decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, but leave was denied on March 28, 2019. The next step will be an attendance before the case management judge regarding the details of the notice of certification to be given to the class. No date for this attendance has been set.

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. On November 23, 2017, we filed a motion to stay the Quebec case until the British Columbia Court of Appeal rules on the certification order in the N&C Action. The stay motion was granted on December 7, 2017. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was provided to the Quebec court. On September 6, 2018, the stay was extended until the Supreme Court of Canada decides the application for leave to appeal in the N&C Action. The stay has since been removed, but no hearing date or certification schedule has been set.

In the Manitoba putative class action lawsuit captioned Vern Brown v. Navistar International Corporation and Navistar Canada, Inc., the court held a case management conference on June 29, 2018, after the plaintiff failed to file a complete certification record by the previously court-ordered due date. The plaintiff advised that it expected to file its remaining certification affidavits by August 31, 2018, and the court suspended certification scheduling in the interim. The plaintiff filed an additional affidavit on July 5, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the court adjourned the certification application indefinitely to allow the plaintiff to obtain an expert report. There are no certification or other hearings 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, one or more of 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. Non-class federal lawsuits presenting pre-trial issues similar to the MDL Action continue to be transferred to the MDL Action. Approximately 28 such actions are currently pending.

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 extended 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' schedule set forth in the case management order jointly filed on January 25, 2017. In September 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to further extend the case deadlines. On October 5, 2017, Judge Gottschall entered an Agreed Order Extending the Discovery Cutoff ordering that fact discovery relevant to class certification be completed by March 13, 2018 and that the class certification briefing be completed by July 31, 2018. On March 5, 2018, Judge Gottschall extended the fact discovery deadline to May 25, 2018. Subsequent extensions followed. Fact discovery relevant to class certification is now complete.

On October 13, 2017, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, as well as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Claims without Prejudice relating to 15 previously named plaintiffs. On January 4, 2018, Judge Gottschall granted both motions. On January 9, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint removed 15 named plaintiffs and substituted in eight new named plaintiffs. As a result, the total number of named plaintiffs is now 37 and three class action cases were dismissed entirely without prejudice because there were no longer any remaining plaintiffs in those cases. On August 16, 2018, Judge Gottschall entered a minute order setting a status hearing for September 26, 2018 in light of the ongoing settlement efforts of the parties. During the September 26, 2018 status hearing, the parties advised the court that additional settlement discussions were scheduled. Accordingly, on September 27, 2018 Judge Gottschall entered a minute order extending class plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification and supporting expert reports until November 16, 2018. Since September 2018, Judge Gottschall has extended the deadlines for class certification briefing several times to allow for settlement discussions. On May 28, 2019, NIC and NI entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with certain named plaintiffs to settle the class actions consolidated in the U.S. Actions. On May 28, 2019, plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval. The Settlement Agreement class consists of entities and natural persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped with a MaxxForce 11 or 13 liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology, provided that vehicle was purchased or leased in the U.S.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the parties will establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of cash (the “Cash Fund”) and rebates (the “Rebate Fund”) with a total value of $135 million (the “Settlement Fund”); (2) NIC and NI will contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class; (3) NI will commit to make available rebates with a face value in the aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement class will release NIC and NI and their affiliates from all claims and potential claims arising from or related to the allegations in the U. S. Actions, except for claims for personal injury or damage to third-party property. The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the “Waterfall”). Any Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped at $35 million. Finally, the Settlement Agreement states that NIC and NI deny all claims in the U.S. Actions, deny wrongdoing, liability or damage of any kind, and deny that NIC and NI acted improperly or wrongfully in any way.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the court, including possible appeals. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, members of the class will be provided notice of the Settlement Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of the class who opt out will not receive any benefit from the Settlement Agreement or be bound by it. Following the notice and opportunity for objections and opt outs, the court will schedule a fairness hearing at which the court will determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved and whether the proposed Final Order and Judgment should be entered. Depending on opt out numbers and certain oversubscription numbers, NIC and NI or lead counsel for the class will have the option to withdraw from the Settlement Agreement.

On May 31, 2019, Judge Gottschall held a hearing on plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The court asked plaintiffs to supplement their motion with additional information by June 5, 2019.

On November 11, 2017, seven plaintiffs (the “Direct Action Plaintiffs”) in the MDL moved for a separate trial and discovery schedule independent of the class action schedule. On January 2, 2018, Judge Gottschall granted in part and denied in part the Direct Action Plaintiffs’ motion, allowing two of the Direct Action Plaintiffs to begin limited discovery on plaintiff-specific issues. The parties submitted competing proposed discovery schedules. In a minute order dated January 26, 2018, Judge Gottschall declined to enter either schedule but ordered the parties to confer on a schedule for prioritizing the plaintiff-specific discovery after the close of fact discovery relevant to class certification issues. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. One of the Direct Action Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint on September 25, 2018 and that motion was granted by the court in a minute order dated December 13, 2018. The First Amended Complaint was filed on December 18, 2018 and our response was filed on January 8, 2019.

There are also non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits filed against the Company in various state courts. A number of non-class action lawsuits have been resolved in favor of the Company prior to trial or settled for immaterial amounts. Several cases have been resolved at trial with varying results. Approximately 40 state court non-class actions are pending at this time. One of the non-class action lawsuits ("Milan"), alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and fraud and involving approximately 235 trucks, was tried in Tennessee state court in August 2017. On August 10, 2017, the Milan jury returned a verdict of approximately $31 million against the Company, including $20 million in punitive damages. On October 2, 2017, the Company filed various motions in the trial court challenging the verdict, including a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, in the Alternative, a New Trial and Motion to Disapprove of the Award of Punitive Damages.

The hearing on these motions was held on December 1, 2017 and the court denied the Company's motions, denied Milan’s motion for pre-judgment interest and granted Milan $1.4 million in fees and costs. On January 11, 2018, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals challenging the verdict. Briefing on the appeal was completed on March 18, 2019, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals set a hearing for oral arguments on June 19, 2019. In the third quarter of 2017, we recorded $31 million of charges in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, the Company has recorded a charge in the Company’s fiscal second quarter ended April 30, 2019 in the amount of $159 million as a reserve for its expected obligations under the Settlement Agreement as well as for current period liabilities and potential future settlements with respect to certain other MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits that are not included in the Settlement Agreement. Other than the aforementioned, we are unable to provide further meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these matters 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 for the liability phase commenced on December 9, 2015. Pursuant to the court's minute order entered on July 12, 2017, the Phase I liability fact discovery was completed as of November 9, 2017.

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 the 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.

On April 3, 2018, the parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for NIC only. The stipulation with prejudice has no effect on the claims made against NI. With the dismissal of NIC, the matter moved to the remedy phase with respect to NI. The court entered a scheduling order on May 3, 2018, setting a fact discovery deadline of May 22, 2019, expert report and deposition deadlines through November 7, 2019, and a deadline for submission of dispositive motions of December 9, 2019. As a result of the partial federal government shutdown, on January 8, 2019, the Chief District Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered Amended General Order 18-0028, holding in abeyance civil matters involving the United States as a party. Following the conclusion of the partial shutdown, the court issued General Order 19-0004, which provided that all discovery deadlines are extended by 42 days. As a result, the deadline for fact discovery is now July 3, 2019, expert report and deposition deadlines are through December 19, 2019 and a deadline for dispositive motions is scheduled for January 21, 2020.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the amended complaint above, potential charges to the Consolidated Statements 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$16 million as of April 30, 2019), 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$32 million as of April 30, 2019) 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 (the "Initial Award") granting a portion of the relief sought by each of the parties. Specifically, the arbitral tribunal's Initial Award 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.

On June 3, 2017, IIAA and Navitrucks filed an application to clarify certain interpretations of the Initial Award and to correct clerical errors in the Initial Award. IIAA also requested an award to (a) set the indisputable amount of the Initial Award, and (2) order Navitrucks to promptly pay such amount. On June 8, 2017, the arbitral tribunal invited IIAA and Navitrucks to present their respective comments on each other’s applications on or before June 27, 2017. On June 3, 2017 and June 27, 2017, IIAA and Navitrucks, respectively, filed their comments. On September 29, 2017, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision on the applications filed by both parties in which it rejected all of the requests made in the applications of both parties. On October 31, 2017, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision relating to the timeline for the production of technical evidence to be used in the calculation phase in which the actual monetary amount of the damages owed by each party to the other will be definitively determined.

As determined by the arbitral tribunal, IIAA (a) designated its expert assistant and disclosed the questions to be answered by the arbitral expert (official expert designated by the arbitral tribunal); (b) presented a summary of the amount that Navitrucks owes to IIAA in accordance with the previous calculation and related award issued on April 20, 2017; and (c) presented its replies to the Navitrucks' petitions.

On May 11, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision allowing the calculation to be made by the parties’ experts and scheduled the calculation phase hearing for August 16, 2018. On July 6, 2018, each party’s experts presented their reports indicating the calculation of the total amount due from each party to the other party. On August 6, 2018, the parties jointly filed a petition informing the arbitral tribunal that they reached an agreement as to the total amount due from each party to the other party. Pursuant to the agreement, Navitrucks agreed that it owes IIAA the total amount of R$107 million (approximately US$27 million as of April 30, 2019) after deducting the agreed amount of Navitrucks' claim against IIAA.

In addition, the parties requested: (a) the cancellation of the hearing scheduled for August 16, 2018; (b) a 15 day period for the parties to present their respective costs incurred in connection with the arbitral proceeding; and (c) the closure of the calculation phase with the final ruling of merits.

On August 13, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision canceling the hearing scheduled for August 16, 2018 and directed the parties to prove their respective incurred costs with the arbitral proceeding and to specify whether there were any additional productions of evidence or considerations by August 23, 2018.

On August 23, 2018, IIAA filed a petition indicating that its costs incurred in connection with the arbitral proceeding were R$6 million (approximately US $2 million as of April 30, 2019). On the same date, Navitrucks filed a petition indicating that its costs incurred in connection with the arbitral proceeding were R$3 million (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019). On September 18, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision (i) declaring the end of the evidence phase, (ii) ordering the parties to present their closing arguments on or before October 31, 2018, and (iii) stating that the final decision on the merits will be issued on or before December 20, 2018. On October 31, 2018, the parties submitted their closing arguments.

On or about March 1, 2019, IIAA and Navitrucks received the award of the arbitral tribunal. The award orders the Navitrucks entities to pay IIAA a total of R$107 million (approximately US $27 million as of April 30, 2019), subject to inflation adjustment and default interest. In addition, the arbitral tribunal ordered the Navitrucks entities to reimburse IIAA in the amount of R$3 million (approximately US$1 million as of April 30, 2019) for a portion of IIAA’s costs incurred in the arbitration. The parties will have 30 days from the date of receipt of the award to apply for the correction of errors and/or clarifications related to the award. On March 29, 2019, IIAA filed an application for clarifications related to certain clerical errors in the award. On April 22, 2019, the arbitral tribunal issued a decision ordering Navitrucks to submit any comments regarding the application for clarifications filed by IIAA on or before April 25, 2019 and indicated that the arbitral tribunal will issue a final award with respect to IIAA’s application for clarifications by May 25, 2019; however, it has not yet been issued. After the rendering of the final award with respect to IIAA’s application for clarifications, Navitrucks will be required to pay the amount of the judgment within 20 days.

We have not recorded a receivable related to this matter in our Consolidated Financial Statements.

In addition, 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.

California Air Resources Board Notice of Violation

On March 28, 2019, Navistar received a notice of violation ("NOV") from the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). In the NOV, CARB alleges that Navistar failed to disclose a running change to 1,385 engines including certain model year 2013 to 2015 N13 engines and 2014 to 2015 N9/10 engines. CARB alleges that the running change in question made modifications to the emissions control system such that the engines no longer conformed to the configuration as certified. The Company is evaluating the NOV and is engaged in discussions with CARB.

Other

U.S. Department of Defense Matter

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 the DOD IG and the DOJ to discuss the matter.

Since then, ND has been in ongoing discussions with the DOD IG and the DOJ. ND made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena in June and August 2016 and completed its subpoena response. On May 1, 2017, ND met with government representatives, including representatives from the DOD IG and the DOJ, to further discuss the matter, including assertions that ND may have overcharged the United States for the ISS components. ND agreed to provide additional information relating to the pricing of the ISS components. The parties met again on June 13, 2017. In August 2017, ND received a letter from the DOJ claiming that ND made false and misleading statements during the course of price negotiations and during the Defense Contract Audit Agency audit which resulted in ND overcharging the United States for the ISS components by approximately $88 million and asking for treble damages and penalties for a total demand of approximately $264 million. ND has responded to the DOJ’s demand letter explaining its position that it has no liability in this matter and outlining the bases for such position, and that ND intends to vigorously defend its position. ND and the DOJ communicated between October 5, 2017 and December 8, 2017 to discuss their respective positions on both liability and damages.

On December 8, 2017, ND received another subpoena from the DOD IG which requested documents relating to ND's pricing of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (“MRAP”) vehicle and its sale of parts to the government for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2013. ND responded to the subpoena and made four productions of responsive documents.

On July 10, 2018, ND received another subpoena from the DOD IG requesting additional custodian emails and documents related to the MRAP and ISS components. ND is responding to the subpoena and has made four productions of responsive documents. Additionally, in September and October 2018 the DOJ conducted interviews of certain current and former employees and will likely conduct additional interviews in the future.

The parties currently are engaged in mediation, which began in February 2019.

At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, including whether a settlement will be reached, 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.