Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Guarantees We occasionally provide guarantees that could obligate us to make future payments if the primary entity fails to perform under its contractual obligations. We have recognized liabilities for some of these guarantees in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as they meet the recognition and measurement provisions of U.S. GAAP. In addition to the liabilities that have been recognized, we are contingently liable for other potential losses under various guarantees. We do not believe that claims that may be made under such guarantees would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Under the terms of the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, BMO is our third-party preferred source of retail and lease customer financing for equipment offered by us and our dealers in the U.S. The Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, as amended, contains a loss sharing arrangement under which we generally reimburse BMO for excess credit losses as defined in the arrangement. 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 of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at both January 31, 2020 and October 31, 2019 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 $2.7 billion at January 31, 2020 and October 31, 2019, respectively. We have recognized a guarantee liability for our portion of estimated Navistar Capital credit losses. 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 $46 million and $51 million and financed lease obligations of $53 million and $60 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of January 31, 2020 and October 31, 2019, 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 January 31, 2020, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds issued was $67 million. In addition, as of January 31, 2020, we have $124 million of outstanding purchase commitments and contracts with $35 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 $19 million for these and other environmental matters, which are included within Other current liabilities and Other noncurrent liabilities, as of January 31, 2020. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2021. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. 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 asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, 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 (a) amend its February 2013 complaint (which sought injunctive relief for the Company to provide certain information to which the Committee was allegedly entitled under the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan (the "Profit Sharing Plan")) and (b) file 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 that the Company breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due under the Profit Sharing Plan and sought 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 Profit Sharing Plan. The Company and the Committee selected an arbitrator and the arbitration discovery process commenced. On June 29, 2017, the arbitrator ruled, among other things, that the arbitration will include Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014. On February 17, 2020, the Committee filed its written submission with the arbitrator and requested a damages award of $588 million comprised of $252 million in profit sharing contributions that the Committee asserts are due under the Profit Sharing Plan and $336 million of lost earnings that the Committee asserts the Supplemental Trust would have earned had those profit sharing contributions been made and invested. The Company’s written submission to the arbitrator is due March 16, 2020 and the Committee’s reply is due April 7, 2020. A hearing is scheduled for the week of April 27, 2020. By letter dated February 14, 2019, the Committee indicated the Profit Sharing Plan calculation for the plan year ending October 31, 2018 reflects numerous positions that have caused the Committee to dispute the Profit Sharing Plan calculations in the past, and on that basis the Committee disagrees with the 2018 calculation. The Committee also requested information about the 2018 calculation. On March 12, 2019, the Committee filed a motion to enforce the 1993 Settlement Agreement for the Company’s failure to respond to the Committee’s February 14, 2019 information requests. On May 15, 2019, the Company responded to the information requests. The motion to enforce is still pending with the Court, but on October 30, 2019, the Company and the Committee met with the Court regarding the motion to enforce, and agreed on a plan for the Company to respond to the Committee’s information and document requests related to the 2018 calculation (which also relates to the information requested for the Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014). Furthermore, the Committee informed the Company, by letter dated January 19, 2020, that it disputes the Company's Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2015 through October 31, 2019. 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 the possibility of a global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including the pending Profit Sharing Complaint. As a result, in-person hearings, an in-chambers conference and several telephone conferences were held with the Court. A hearing is scheduled for June 1, 2020. Additional hearings and/or conferences may be scheduled in the future. 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, a lawsuit was filed with the Court 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 certain Medicare Part D subsidies and a portion of certain Medicare Part D coverage-gap discounts (collectively, the “Subsidies”)), in each case that were received by the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Health Benefit Trust (the “Base Trust”) created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement for the Company’s benefit. The Committee Members requested 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 requested 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 Court bifurcated the case and in September 2018 the Court conducted a trial on the issue of whether the Committee Members’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On November 20, 2018, the Committee Members filed a motion for sanctions, alleging various discovery and trial misconduct by the defendants, and requested 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 March 26, 2019, the Court granted the Committee Members’ motion for sanctions and subsequently extended the statute of limitations discovery period to October 7, 2019. Briefing on the statute of limitations issue was completed in January 2020. The Court also ordered the Company to pay certain of the Committee Members' legal and other costs to file the motion for sanctions and to conduct additional discovery related to the statute of limitations issue. 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), the Company filed a motion to schedule a status hearing to request an in-person hearing to discuss the possibility of a 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, an in-chambers conference and several telephone conferences were held with the Court. A hearing is scheduled for June 1, 2020. Additional hearings and/or conferences 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 (the equivalent of approximately less than US$1 million as of January 31, 2020), which is not final or due 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 January 2018, the district attorney of the State of Santa Catarina (the "SC District Attorney"), local and state authorities, Selamix, IIAA and the 14 other companies (together, the "Companies") that are alleged to have significantly contributed to the contamination met to discuss the matter. 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 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. In June 2018, Selamix presented its Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report to the SC District Attorney and the Companies alleged to have contributed to the contamination. 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. One of the commercial proposals included an Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report ("Phase 1 Study") and indicated that a Phase 2 assessment should be performed. In July 2019, the SC District Attorney requested that each of the Companies (including IIAA) inform the SC District Attorney of whether they intended to contribute to the costs of the portion of the Phase 2 assessment related to geophysical investigations to identify buried drums at the Natureza Facility. The request did not include any information related to the potential range of the associated costs or indicate whether contributions for the cost of the other portions of the Phase 2 assessment would be sought from the Companies (including IIAA). IIAA responded to the request indicating that it would not contribute to the cost of the Phase 2 assessment related to geophysical investigations and requested a meeting with the SC District Attorney to discuss the next steps in the process. In late February 2020, IIAA became aware that the SC District Attorney filed an action in the civil court of Santa Catarina against nine of the Companies (including IIAA), Selamix, and the Municipality of Schroeder (where the Natureza Facility is located) requesting that the defendants in the action bear all of the potential costs of the investigation needed to determine the parties responsible for the contamination and manage the remediation of the contamination at the Natureza Facility and that the defendants place funds in escrow to cover such costs. Prior to ruling on these issues, the court has indicated that it will schedule a hearing to allow the defendants to set forth their defenses. IIAA continues to dispute the allegations in the FATMA Notice and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Sao Paulo Groundwater Notice In March 2014, IIAA, along with other nearby companies, received from the Sao Paulo District Attorney (the "District Attorney") a notice and proposed Consent Agreement relating to alleged neighborhood-wide groundwater contamination at or around its Sao Paulo manufacturing facility. The proposed Consent Agreement sought certain groundwater investigations and other technical relief and proposed sanctions in the amount of R$3 million (the equivalent of approximately less than US$1 million as of January 31, 2020). In November 2014, IIAA extended a settlement offer which 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 Sao 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 had made all necessary investigations and had taken remedial measures to address the contamination and that Companhia Ambiental do Estado de Sao Paulo, the environmental agency of Sao Paulo State, had agreed to the remedial measures taken by IIAA. A new district attorney (the “New District Attorney”) assumed responsibility for the case in February 2018. The New District Attorney indicated that it 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. On September 10, 2019, the judge granted the New District Attorney's request to require answers to inquiries related to the case from the Department of Water and Electric Energy ("DAEE") and Sao Paulo State Sewage Company ("SABESP"). DAEE and SABESP responded to the requests and the parties are currently reviewing the information provided. 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 various courts in Canada, including Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia 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. On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016 decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials. 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 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 named both NIC and NI, and alleged 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. In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order consolidating before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits that were pending on October 3, 2014 (the "MDL Action"). Non-class federal lawsuits presenting pre-trial issues similar to the MDL Action continue to be transferred to the MDL Action. On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the MDL Action filed a consolidated complaint, which was subsequently amended multiple times. In May 2019, the parties completed negotiation of a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the U.S. Actions. The plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval on May 28, 2019. 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. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires that (1) the parties 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 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 commit to make available rebates with a face value in the aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement class 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. On February 3, 2020, NIC and NI funded $85 million to the Cash Fund. On June 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. Members of the class were provided notice of the Settlement Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of the class who opted out will not receive any benefit from the Settlement Agreement or be bound by it. Four class members filed a consolidated objection to the Settlement Agreement on October 10, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the court entered an order rejecting the objection and finding the settlement to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court also granted the motion of lead counsel for the class plaintiffs for approval of an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2020, the court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Final Order and Judgment. 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. Several other 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, and resulted in a jury verdict of approximately $31 million against the Company, including $20 million in punitive damages. In the third quarter of 2017, we recorded $31 million of charges in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. On August 14, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion reversing the $31 million judgment and $1 million of fees and costs previously awarded to the Milan plaintiffs following an appeal filed by the Company in January 2018 challenging the jury verdict. In addition, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Navistar on the Milan plaintiffs' warranty claims. On October 11, 2019, the Milan plaintiffs filed an application for permission to appeal this ruling to the Tennessee Supreme Court. On January 16, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. 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. In addition, the Company has released a liability of $32 million, related to the judgment reversal in the Milan case in the third quarter ended July 31, 2019. These impacts were recorded in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. 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. On March 1, 2017, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (i) granting a motion by the DOJ for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to NI, (ii) denying a motion by the DOJ for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to NIC, and (iii) denying a motion by NIC for summary judgment against the EPA. 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. Fact discovery for the remedy phase is complete and at a status hearing on January 29, 2020, the court set a schedule for summary judgment filings to be completed by June 11, 2020. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the amended complaint above, we recorded an additional charge of $4 million in the first quarter of 2020 in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. Total charges and cash outlays in future periods could range from $6 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. 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. In August 2019, the Company and CARB reached a tentative resolution of this matter for approximately $2 million, subject to agreement on formal terms. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above action, the Company recorded a charge in the third quarter ended July 31, 2019 in the amount of $2 million as a reserve for its expected obligations in Engineering and product development costs in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. 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. Navistar Defense MRAP Litigation In the third quarter of 2016, Navistar Defense, LLC ("NDLLC") received a subpoena from the United States Department of Defense Inspector General (the "DOD IG"). The subpoena requested documents relating to NDLLC'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. Beginning in June 2016, NDLLC made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena and engaged in ongoing discussions with government representatives, including representatives from the DOD IG and the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). Such discussions included assertions that NDLLC may have overcharged the United States for the ISS components. In August 2017, NDLLC received a letter from the DOJ claiming that NDLLC made false and misleading statements during the course of price negotiations and during the Defense Contract Audit Agency audit which resulted in NDLLC 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. NDLLC 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 stating that NDLLC intends to vigorously defend its position. On December 8, 2017, NDLLC received another subpoena from the DOD IG which requested documents relating to NDLLC'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. NDLLC responded to the subpoena. On July 10, 2018, NDLLC received another subpoena from the DOD IG requesting additional custodian emails and documents related to the MRAP and ISS components. NDLLC responded to the subpoena. Additionally, in September and October 2018, the DOJ conducted interviews of certain current and former employees. On December 3, 2019, the DOJ filed a complaint against NDLLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partially intervening in what had been a sealed False Claims Act (“FCA”) case previously filed by a relator. The relator, a former NDLLC employee, filed his initial complaint in September 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The relator filed an amended complaint on November 1, 2019, alleging that NDLLC submitted false pricing support to the government in connection with three MRAP contract parts or part systems - the chassis, the engine, and 13 components of the 3,898 ISS kits (“Relator’s ISS Claim”). The relator alleges single damages of $1.1 billion for the chassis, $36 million for the engine, and $119 million for the Relator’s ISS Claim, totaling approximately $1.3 billion in single damages and $3.8 billion in treble damages. The DOJ’s complaint-in partial intervention alleges that NDLLC submitted false pricing support in connection with 11 of the components of 3,803 ISS kits and seeks damages of an unspecified amount under the FCA and common law theories of mistake, unjust enrichment, and fraud. On January 10, 2020, NDLLC filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois. On January 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order staying deadlines to respond to the complaints, pending resolution of the motion to transfer venue. NDLLC intends to defend itself vigorously. 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.

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

Under the terms of the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, BMO is our third-party preferred source of retail and lease customer financing for equipment offered by us and our dealers in the U.S. The Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, as amended, contains a loss sharing arrangement under which we generally reimburse BMO for excess credit losses as defined in the arrangement. 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 of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at both January 31, 2020 and October 31, 2019 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 $2.7 billion at January 31, 2020 and October 31, 2019, respectively. We have recognized a guarantee liability for our portion of estimated Navistar Capital credit losses. 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 $46 million and $51 million and financed lease obligations of $53 million and $60 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of January 31, 2020 and October 31, 2019, 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 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.

Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. 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 asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could become significant in the future.

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.

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 (a) amend its February 2013 complaint (which sought injunctive relief for the Company to provide certain information to which the Committee was allegedly entitled under the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan (the "Profit Sharing Plan")) and (b) file 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 that the Company breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due under the Profit Sharing Plan and sought 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 Profit Sharing Plan. The Company and the Committee selected an arbitrator and the arbitration discovery process commenced. On June 29, 2017, the arbitrator ruled, among other things, that the arbitration will include Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014. On February 17, 2020, the Committee filed its written submission with the arbitrator and requested a damages award of $588 million comprised of $252 million in profit sharing contributions that the Committee asserts are due under the Profit Sharing Plan and $336 million of lost earnings that the Committee asserts the Supplemental Trust would have earned had those profit sharing contributions been made and invested. The Company’s written submission to the arbitrator is due March 16, 2020 and the Committee’s reply is due April 7, 2020. A hearing is scheduled for the week of April 27, 2020.

By letter dated February 14, 2019, the Committee indicated the Profit Sharing Plan calculation for the plan year ending October 31, 2018 reflects numerous positions that have caused the Committee to dispute the Profit Sharing Plan calculations in the past, and on that basis the Committee disagrees with the 2018 calculation. The Committee also requested information about the 2018 calculation. On March 12, 2019, the Committee filed a motion to enforce the 1993 Settlement Agreement for the Company’s failure to respond to the Committee’s February 14, 2019 information requests. On May 15, 2019, the Company responded to the information requests. The motion to enforce is still pending with the Court, but on October 30, 2019, the Company and the Committee met with the Court regarding the motion to enforce, and agreed on a plan for the Company to respond to the Committee’s information and document requests related to the 2018 calculation (which also relates to the information requested for the Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014). Furthermore, the Committee informed the Company, by letter dated January 19, 2020, that it disputes the Company's Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2015 through October 31, 2019.

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 the possibility of a global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including the pending Profit Sharing Complaint. As a result, in-person hearings, an in-chambers conference and several telephone conferences were held with the Court. A hearing is scheduled for June 1, 2020. Additional hearings and/or conferences may be scheduled in the future.

On October 21, 2016, a lawsuit was filed with the Court 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 certain Medicare Part D subsidies and a portion of certain Medicare Part D coverage-gap discounts (collectively, the “Subsidies”)), in each case that were received by the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Health Benefit Trust (the “Base Trust”) created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement for the Company’s benefit.

The Committee Members requested 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 requested 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 Court bifurcated the case and in September 2018 the Court conducted a trial on the issue of whether the Committee Members’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On November 20, 2018, the Committee Members filed a motion for sanctions, alleging various discovery and trial misconduct by the defendants, and requested 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 March 26, 2019, the Court granted the Committee Members’ motion for sanctions and subsequently extended the statute of limitations discovery period to October 7, 2019. Briefing on the statute of limitations issue was completed in January 2020. The Court also ordered the Company to pay certain of the Committee Members' legal and other costs to file the motion for sanctions and to conduct additional discovery related to the statute of limitations issue.

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), the Company filed a motion to schedule a status hearing to request an in-person hearing to discuss the possibility of a 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, an in-chambers conference and several telephone conferences were held with the Court. A hearing is scheduled for June 1, 2020. Additional hearings and/or conferences may be scheduled in the future.

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.

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 January 2018, the district attorney of the State of Santa Catarina (the "SC District Attorney"), local and state authorities, Selamix, IIAA and the 14 other companies (together, the "Companies") that are alleged to have significantly contributed to the contamination met to discuss the matter. 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 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.

In June 2018, Selamix presented its Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report to the SC District Attorney and the Companies alleged to have contributed to the contamination. 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. One of the commercial proposals included an Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report ("Phase 1 Study") and indicated that a Phase 2 assessment should be performed. In July 2019, the SC District Attorney requested that each of the Companies (including IIAA) inform the SC District Attorney of whether they intended to contribute to the costs of the portion of the Phase 2 assessment related to geophysical investigations to identify buried drums at the Natureza Facility. The request did not include any information related to the potential range of the associated costs or indicate whether contributions for the cost of the other portions of the Phase 2 assessment would be sought from the Companies (including IIAA). IIAA responded to the request indicating that it would not contribute to the cost of the Phase 2 assessment related to geophysical investigations and requested a meeting with the SC District Attorney to discuss the next steps in the process.

In late February 2020, IIAA became aware that the SC District Attorney filed an action in the civil court of Santa Catarina against nine of the Companies (including IIAA), Selamix, and the Municipality of Schroeder (where the Natureza Facility is located) requesting that the defendants in the action bear all of the potential costs of the investigation needed to determine the parties responsible for the contamination and manage the remediation of the contamination at the Natureza Facility and that the defendants place funds in escrow to cover such costs. Prior to ruling on these issues, the court has indicated that it will schedule a hearing to allow the defendants to set forth their defenses. IIAA continues to dispute the allegations in the FATMA Notice and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself.

In March 2014, IIAA, along with other nearby companies, received from the Sao Paulo District Attorney (the "District Attorney") a notice and proposed Consent Agreement relating to alleged neighborhood-wide groundwater contamination at or around its Sao Paulo manufacturing facility. The proposed Consent Agreement sought certain groundwater investigations and other technical relief and proposed sanctions in the amount of R$3 million (the equivalent of approximately less than US$1 million as of January 31, 2020). In November 2014, IIAA extended a settlement offer which 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 Sao 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 had made all necessary investigations and had taken remedial measures to address the contamination and that Companhia Ambiental do Estado de Sao Paulo, the environmental agency of Sao Paulo State, had agreed to the remedial measures taken by IIAA.

A new district attorney (the “New District Attorney”) assumed responsibility for the case in February 2018. The New District Attorney indicated that it 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. On September 10, 2019, the judge granted the New District Attorney's request to require answers to inquiries related to the case from the Department of Water and Electric Energy ("DAEE") and Sao Paulo State Sewage Company ("SABESP"). DAEE and SABESP responded to the requests and the parties are currently reviewing the information provided.

On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia 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. On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016 decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials. 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 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 named both NIC and NI, and alleged 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.

In May 2019, the parties completed negotiation of a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the U.S. Actions. The plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval on May 28, 2019. 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.

Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires that (1) the parties 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 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 commit to make available rebates with a face value in the aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement class 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. On February 3, 2020, NIC and NI funded $85 million to the Cash Fund.

Four class members filed a consolidated objection to the Settlement Agreement on October 10, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the court entered an order rejecting the objection and finding the settlement to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court also granted the motion of lead counsel for the class plaintiffs for approval of an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2020, the court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Final Order and Judgment.

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. Several other 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, and resulted in a jury verdict of approximately $31 million against the Company, including $20 million in punitive damages.

On August 14, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion reversing the $31 million judgment and $1 million of fees and costs previously awarded to the Milan plaintiffs following an appeal filed by the Company in January 2018 challenging the jury verdict. In addition, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Navistar on the Milan plaintiffs' warranty claims. On October 11, 2019, the Milan plaintiffs filed an application for permission to appeal this ruling to the Tennessee Supreme Court. On January 16, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal.

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. In addition, the Company has released a liability of $32 million, related to the judgment reversal in the Milan case in the third quarter ended July 31, 2019. These impacts were recorded in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. 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.

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.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the amended complaint above, we recorded an additional charge of $4 million in the first quarter of 2020 in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. Total charges and cash outlays in future periods could range from $6 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.

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. In August 2019, the Company and CARB reached a tentative resolution of this matter for approximately $2 million, subject to agreement on formal terms.

Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above action, the Company recorded a charge in the third quarter ended July 31, 2019 in the amount of $2 million as a reserve for its expected obligations in Engineering and product development costs in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. 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.

Beginning in June 2016, NDLLC made submissions of documents responsive to the subpoena and engaged in ongoing discussions with government representatives, including representatives from the DOD IG and the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). Such discussions included assertions that NDLLC may have overcharged the United States for the ISS components. In August 2017, NDLLC received a letter from the DOJ claiming that NDLLC made false and misleading statements during the course of price negotiations and during the Defense Contract Audit Agency audit which resulted in NDLLC 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. NDLLC 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 stating that NDLLC intends to vigorously defend its position.

On December 3, 2019, the DOJ filed a complaint against NDLLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partially intervening in what had been a sealed False Claims Act (“FCA”) case previously filed by a relator. The relator, a former NDLLC employee, filed his initial complaint in September 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The relator filed an amended complaint on November 1, 2019, alleging that NDLLC submitted false pricing support to the government in connection with three MRAP contract parts or part systems - the chassis, the engine, and 13 components of the 3,898 ISS kits (“Relator’s ISS Claim”). The relator alleges single damages of $1.1 billion for the chassis, $36 million for the engine, and $119 million for the Relator’s ISS Claim, totaling approximately $1.3 billion in single damages and $3.8 billion in treble damages. The DOJ’s complaint-in partial intervention alleges that NDLLC submitted false pricing support in connection with 11 of the components of 3,803 ISS kits and seeks damages of an unspecified amount under the FCA and common law theories of mistake, unjust enrichment, and fraud. On January 10, 2020, NDLLC filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois. On January 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order staying deadlines to respond to the complaints, pending resolution of the motion to transfer venue.