6-K 1 tm2021482-1_6k.htm FORM 6-K

United States

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

Report of Foreign Private Issuer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16

of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of

May 2020

Vale S.A.

Praia de Botafogo nº 186, 18º andar, Botafogo
22250-145 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

(Address of principal executive office)

(Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.)

(Check One) Form 20-F x Form 40-F ¨

(Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1))

(Check One) Yes ¨ No x

(Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7))

(Check One) Yes ¨ No x

(Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.)

(Check One) Yes ¨ No x

(If “Yes” is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b). 82- .)

1. Identification of the people responsible for the content of the form

1.1 - Statement and Identification of People in Charge

Name of the person responsible for the content of the form	Eduardo de Salles Bartolomeo
Position of the person in charge	Chief Executive Officer
Name of the person responsible for the content of the form	Luciano Siani Pires
Position of the person in charge	Chief Investor Relations Officer
The aforementioned officers state that:
a. they reviewed the reference form; b. all information contained in the form complies with the provisions of CVM Instruction 480, in particular articles 14 to 19; c. the set of information contained therein is a true, accurate and complete portrait of the economic-financial situation of the issuer and the risks inherent to its activities and the securities issued by it.

STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITEM 1.1 OF THE REFERENCE FORM

Eduardo de Salles Bartolomeo, a Brazilian citizen, married, engineer, bearer of Identity Card IFP/RJ no. 053253845, enrolled with the CPF/MF under no. 845.567.307-91, residing and domiciled in the city and state of Rio de Janeiro, with business address at Torre Oscar Niemeyer, Praia de Botafogo, 186, suite 701 to 1901, Botafogo, CEP 22250-145, in the city and state of Rio de Janeiro, in the capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Vale S.A., a corporation with its principal place of business in the city and state of Rio de Janeiro, at Torre Oscar Niemeyer, Praia de Botafogo, 186, suite 701 to 1901, Botafogo, CEP 22250-145, enrolled with the CNPJ/MF under no. 33.592.510/0001-54 ("Company”), hereby states that:

a. he reviewed the Company's Reference Form;

b. all information contained in the Reference Form complies with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Instruction no. 480, of December 7^th, 2009, as amended, especially articles 14 to 19; and

c. the set of information contained therein is a true, accurate and complete portrait of the Company's economic-financial situation and the risks inherent to its activities and the securities issued by it.

_____________________________________

Eduardo de Salles Bartolomeo

Chief Executive Officer

STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND CHIEF INVESTOR RELATIONS OFFICER

FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITEM 1.1 OF THE REFERENCE FORM

Luciano Siani Pires, a Brazilian citizen, married, mechanical engineer, bearer of Identity Card IFP/RJ no. 07.670.915-3, enrolled with the CPF/MF under no. 013.907.897-56, residing and domiciled in the city and state of Rio de Janeiro, with business address at Torre Oscar Niemeyer, Praia de Botafogo, 186, suite 701 to 1901, Botafogo, CEP 22250-145, in the city and state of Rio de Janeiro, in the capacity of Chief Financial Officer and Investor Relations Officer of Vale S.A., a corporation with its principal place of business in the city and state of Rio de Janeiro, at Torre Oscar Niemeyer, Praia de Botafogo, 186, suite 701 to 1901, Botafogo, CEP 22250-145, enrolled with the CNPJ/MF under no. 33.592.510/0001-54 ("Company"), for the purposes of item 1.1 of the Company Reference Form, hereby states that:

a. he reviewed the Company's Reference Form;

___________________________________________________

Luciano Siani Pires

Chief Financial Officer and Chief Investor Relations Officer

1.2 - Individual statement of new holder of the position of Chief Executive Officer or Investor Relations Officer duly signed, attesting that:

Item not applicable.

2. Auditors

2.1/2.2 - Identification and Remuneration of Auditors

Do you have an auditor?	YES
CVM Code	2879
Type of auditor	National
Company Name	PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes
CPF/CNPJ	61.562.112/0001-20
Contract date for the services	February 15, 2019
End of service provision:	Not applicable.
Description of contracted service	Provision of professional services related to the audit of the financial statements, both for local and international purposes, and work of certification of internal controls (in compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) for the financial years of 2019 to 2023, and Review of Quarterly Financial Information (ITR) from the period of March 31st, 2019 to December 31st, 2023. In addition, the scope of work also encompasses the provision of other audit-related services, such as issue of previously agreed procedural reports in accordance with NBC TSC4400.
Total amount of remuneration for certifying accountant separated by service	The services contracted with the Company's external auditors for the financial year ended December 31st, 2019 for the Company and its subsidiaries were as follows:
			In thousands of Brazilian reais
		Accounting Audit	24,182
		Auditing - Sarbanes Oxley Act	2,304
		Audit Related Services(1)	724
		Total External Audit Services	27,210
		⁽¹⁾ Those services are mostly procured for periods of less than one year.
Reason for substitution	Not applicable.
Reason presented by the auditor in case of disagreement with the issuer's justification	Not applicable.

Name of
technician
responsible

Period of services
provision

CPF

Address

Patricio Marques Roche

As from January 1st, 2019

993.005.407-34

Rua do Russel, 804, 6º e 7º Ed. Manchete – Glória, Rio de Janeiro/RJ, 22210-907

e-mail: patricio.roche@pwc.com

Telephone:(21) 3232-6112

Do you have an auditor?	YES
CVM Code	418-9
Type of auditor	National
Company Name	KPMG Auditores Independentes
CPF/CNPJ	57.755.217/0001.29
Contract date for the services	April 30, 2014
End of service provision:	December 31st, 2018
Description of contracted service	Provision of professional services related to the audit of the financial statements, both for local and international purposes, and work of certification of internal controls (in compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) for the financial years of 2014 to 2018, and Review of Quarterly Financial Information (ITR) from June 30th, 2014 to September 30, 2018. In addition, the scope of work also encompassed the provision of other audit-related services, such as issuing previously agreed procedural reports in accordance with NBC TSC4400.
Total amount of remuneration for certifying accountant separated by service	KPMG did not provide services to the Company in the last fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Reason for substitution	The replacement of KPMG by PwC aimed to comply with the provisions of art. 31 of CVM Instruction 308/99, which determines the rotation of certifying accountants every five years, and was approved by the current auditors.
Reason presented by the auditor in case of disagreement with the issuer's justification	Not applicable.

Name of
technician
responsible

Period of services
provision

CPF

Address

Manuel Fernandes Rodrigues de Sousa

From April 1st, 2014 to July 25, 2018

783.840.017-15

Rua do Passeio, 38, setor 2, 17º andar – Centro/RJ
Edifício Passeio Corporate

20021-290, Rio de Janeiro, RJ

E-mail: mfernandes@kpmg.com.br

Phone: (21) 2207-9400

Bernardo Moreira Peixoto Neto

From July 26, 2018 to December 31st, 2018

877.721.757-87

Rua do Passeio, 38, setor 2, 17º andar – Centro/RJ
Edifício Passeio Corporate

20021-290, Rio de Janeiro, RJ

E-mail: bmoreira@kpmg.com.br

Phone: (21) 2207-9400

2.3 - Other relevant information

Vale's Board of Directors, at a meeting held on September 27, 2018, approved the hiring of PricewarterhouseCoopers Independent Auditor (“PwC”), to provide financial statement auditing services for a period of five years from the year 2019. The provision of the services started with the review of the quarterly information (“ITRs”) for the first quarter of 2019.

The Company has specific internal procedures for the pre-approval of services contracted with its external auditors, in order to avoid conflict of interest or the loss of objectivity of its independent auditors.

The Company's policy, in relation to independent auditors and in the provision of services not related to external auditing, is based on principles that preserve its independence.

In line with best corporate governance practices, all services provided by our independent auditors are pre-approved by our Fiscal Council and a letter of independence is also obtained from the external auditors.

In addition, the Company clarifies that there are no material transfers of services or resources between the auditors and parties related to the Company, as defined in CVM Deliberation 642/10, which approves Technical Pronouncement CPC 05 (R1).

3. Selected financial information

3.1 - Financial Information - Consolidated

(In Reais)	Fiscal Year (December 31st, 2019)			Fiscal Year (December 31st, 2018)		Fiscal Year (December 31st, 2017)
Net Assets		157,149,000,000.00			173,683,000,000.00		148,106,000,000.00
Total Assets		369,671,000,000.00			341,713,000,000.00		328,097,000,000.00
Net Revenue/Intermediary Revenue Financing/ Premium Insurance Gains		148,640,000,000.00			134,483,000,000.00		108,532,000,000.00
Gross Profit or Loss		64,804,000,000.00			53,282,000,000.00		41,275,000,000.00
Net (Loss) Profit		(6,672,000,000.00	)		25,657,000,000.00		17,627,000,000.00
Number of Shares, Former Treasury		5,128,282,469			5,126,258,410		5,197,432,093
Equity Value of Shares (Reais/Unit)		30.643590			33.881050		28.495995
Base Profit or Loss per Share		(1.30	)		4.95		3.39
Profit or Loss Diluted per Share		(1.30	)		4.95		3.39

3.2 - Non-accounting measurements

a. value of non-accounting measurements

The Company uses Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBIT as non-accounting measurement methods. In 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively, (i) the adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations was assessed in the amount of R$42,307 million, R$ 61,065 million and R$ 48,992 million, and (ii) the Adjusted EBIT from continuing operations was assessed in the amount of R$27,556 million, R$ 48,825 million, R$ 37,150 million, respectively.

b. reconciliations between the amounts disclosed and the amounts of the audited financial statements

	Fiscal year ended on December 31
(in R$ million)	2019			2018			2017
Net profit (loss) attributable to the Vale’s shareholders		(6,672	)		25,657			17,627
Net income (loss) attributable to non-controlling shareholders		(2,025	)		117			43
Net income (loss)		(8,697	)		25,774			17,670
(+) Taxation on profit		(2,509	)		(966	)		4,607
(+) Financial results, net		13,446			18,058			9,650
EBIT (LAJIR)		2,240			42,866			31,927
(+) Depreciation, amortization and depletion		14,751			12,240			11,842
EBITDA		16,991			55,106			43,769
Result of interests and other results in associates and joint ventures⁽¹⁾		2,684			693			277
Dividends received and interest from loans of affiliates and joint ventures⁽²⁾		1,870			1,433			1,313
Impairment and write-off of non-current assets⁽³⁾		20,762			3,523			1,025
Loss from discontinued operations		-			310			2,608
Adjusted EBITDA of the continued operations		42,307			61,065			48,992
Depreciation, amortization and depletion		(14,751	)		(12,240	)		(11,842	)
Adjusted EBIT (LAJIR) of the continued operations		27,556			48,825			37,150

(1) For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, this line included dividends received and interest on loans from affiliates and joint ventures, which were presented separately in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

(2) Includes the yield on the financial instrument in the coal segment.

(3) For the year ended December 31st, 2018, this line was described as "special events".

c. reason why the Company understands that such measurement is more appropriate for the correct understanding of its financial condition and the result of its operations

The Company calculated Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA according to CVM Instruction No. 527 of October 04, 2012 (“CVM Instruction 527”).

The Adjusted EBITDA corresponds to the operating profit or loss plus dividends received from investees and interest on loans from associates and joint ventures, excluding (i) depreciation, depletion and amortization and (ii) reduction of impairment and write-off of non-current assets. The Adjusted EBITD presents an approximate measure of the Company's cash generation, since it excludes non-recurring effects and non-cash.

Adjusted EBIT corresponds to Adjusted EBITDA including depreciation, amortization, and depletion, and dividends received and interest from affiliates and joint ventures.

Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBIT are not measurement methods acknowledged by BRGAAP or IFRS. Adjusted EBITDA does not represent the cash flow for the periods presented and should therefore not be considered as an alternative measure for net profit (loss) as an isolated indicator of operating performance or as an alternative to cash flow or as a liquidity source.

The definitions of Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBIT used by Vale may not be compared to Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBIT disclosed by other companies.

3.3 - Events subsequent to the latest financial statements

The Company's Consolidated Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended December 31^st, 2019 were approved by the Company's Board of Directors and issued on February 20, 2020.

The Company’s Consolidates Financial Statements, pursuant to the rules provided in the Technical Pronunciation CPC 24, as approved by Deliberation CVM No. 593/09, contain the following subsequent events:

In July 2019, the Company acquired control of Ferrous Resources Limited, a company that currently owns and operates iron ore mines in Minhas Gerais. On February 20, 2020, the Board of Directors decided for the merger of the totally-owned subsidiary Ferrous Resources do Brasil S.A., and submitted to the Shareholders' General Meeting held on April 30, 2020.

Vale Canada Limited ("VCL") and the Canadian tax agency, linked to the Canadian Department of Justice, have executed a settlement on a tax litigation related to the appropriate tax treatment of certain receipts and expenses incurred by VCL in merger transactions and acquisition in 2006. In 2019, the Company recognized a contingent asset in the amount of R$ 685 million (CAD 221 million), which corresponds to the amount due from the income tax refund, including estimated interest. On the date of filing of this Reference Form, the company has already received all of this contingent asset.

3.4 – Income Allocation Policy

	Fiscal year ended on December 31
	2019	2018	2017
a. Earnings Retention Rules	Pursuant to Article 37 of the By-laws, the creation of a (i) tax incentive reserve, to be created in accordance with the legislation in force; and of a (ii) investment reserve, must be considered in the proposal for the distribution of profits, in order to ensure the maintenance and development of the main activities that make up the Company's corporate purpose, in an amount not exceeding 50% of net income distributable up to the maximum limit of the Company's capital stock.
a.i Values for Earnings Retentions	The loss of R$ 6,671,445,224.86 for the year was fully absorbed through investment reserves.	Out of the total net income of R$ 25,656,525,836.23 for the year, (i) R$1,282,826,291.81 were allocated to the legal reserve, (ii) R$1,496,628,728.93 to the tax incentive reserve, and (iii) R$15,182,992,215.49 to the investment reserve.	Out of the total net income of R$ 17,627,200,889.00 for the year, (i) R$ 881,360,044.45 were allocated to the legal reserve, (ii) R$ 692,831,841.06 to the tax incentive reserve, and (iii) R$ 11,331,535,765.58 to the investment reserve.
a.ii Percentages in relation to total reported income	Loss for the year 100% absorbed through investment reserve.	Out of the total net income for the year, (i) 5% were allocated to the legal reserve, (ii) 6% to the tax incentive reserve, and (iii) 59% to the investment reserve.	Out of the total net income for the year, (i) 5% were allocated to the legal reserve, (ii) 4% to the tax incentive reserve, and (iii) 64% to the investment reserve.
b. Dividend distribution rules	Pursuant to Article 38 of the By-Laws, at least 25% of the annual net profits, adjusted according to the law, will be used to pay dividends. In the last three fiscal years, pursuant to Article 5, Paragraph 5, of the By-laws, the holders of preferred shares were entitled to receive dividends to be distributed, as calculated pursuant to Chapter VII of the By-laws, in accordance with the following criterion: (a) priority in receiving the dividends corresponding to (i) a minimum of 3% of the net equity value of the share, as calculated based on the financial statements drawn up, which served as reference for the payment of dividends, or (ii) 6% calculated over the part of the capital constituted by this class of share, whichever of the two is greater; (b) the right to share distributed profits, under equal conditions with the common shares, after being assured the latter a dividend equal to the minimum priority established in accordance with item "a" above; (c) the right to share any bonuses, under equal conditions with the common shares, observing the priority established for the distribution of dividends. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be noted that, in 2017, the Company’s Class A preferred shares then issued were converted into common shares. The Company also has 12 special class preferred shares (Golden Shares). For further information, see item 3.9 of this Reference Form.
c. Frequency of dividend distributions	None.	Out of the results for the fiscal year of 2018, R$ 6,801,433,061.10 were paid as interest on the shareholders' equity and R$ 892,645,538.90 by way of dividends, which were paid on September 20, 2018.	Out of the results for the fiscal year of 2017, R$4,721,473,237.91 were paid as interest on the shareholders' equity, which were paid in March 2018.

d. Any restrictions on the distribution of dividends enforced by legislation or special regulation applicable to the issuer, as well as contracts and court, administrative or arbitration decisions.

None.

e. If the issuer has a formally approved income allocation policy, stating the body responsible for approval, date of approval and, if the issuer discloses the policy, sites on the World Wide Web where the document can be consulted.

The compensation policy applicable to the 2019 fiscal year is the compensation policy approved on March 29, 2018 by the Board of Directors, which is available for consultation at the CVM’s website (www.cvm.gov.br) and the Company’s website (www.vale.com). Nevertheless, the validity of this policy is suspended. For further information, see item 3.9 of this Reference Form.

The compensation policy applicable to the 2018 fiscal year is the compensation policy approved on March 29, 2018 by the Board of Directors, which is available for consultation at the CVM’s website (www.cvm.gov.br) and the Company’s website (www.vale.com). Nevertheless, the validity of this policy is suspended. For further information, see item 3.9 of this Reference Form.

The compensation policy applicable to the 2017 fiscal year is the compensation policy approved on April 25^th, 2016 by the Company's General Meeting, which is available for consultation at the CVM’s website (www.cvm.gov.br) and the Company’s website www.vale.com).

3.5 - Distribution of dividends and retention of net income

(In Reais)	Fiscal Year of December 31st, 2019		Fiscal Year of December 31st, 2018		Fiscal Year of December 31st, 2017
Adjusted net income		0.00		22,877,070,815.49		16,053,009,003.49
Dividend distributed in relation to adjusted net income		0.00		33.632272		29.410000
Rate of return in relation to the issuer's net assets		0.00		15.056415		11.901611
Total distributed dividend		0.00		7,694,078,600.00		4,721,473,237.91
Retained net income		0.00		17,962,447,236.23		12,905,727,651.09
Date of approval of the retention		04/30/2020		April 30, 2019		April 13, 2018

January 1^st, 2019 to December 31^st, 2019

Type of Share				Class of Share				Distributed Dividend				Amount (Unit)				Dividend Payment
	-				-				-				0.00				-

January 1^st, 2018 to December 31^st, 2018

Type of Share

Class of Share

Distributed Dividend

Amount (Unit)

Dividend Payment

Common Shares

Interest on the Stockholder's Equity

6,801,433,061.10

September 20, 2018

Common Shares

Mandatory dividends

892,645,538.90

September 20, 2018

January 1^st, 2017 to December 31^st, 2017

Type of Share

Class of Share

Distributed Dividend

Amount (Unit)

Dividend Payment

Common Shares

Interest on the Stockholder's Equity

4,721,473,237.91

March 15, 2018

3.6 - Report of dividends as retained earnings or reserves

	Fiscal year ending on December 31st,
Dividends distributed to the account of (in R$ thousand):	2019			2018		2017
Retained Earnings		-			-		-
Realization of Reserves		7,253,260	⁽¹⁾		-		2,064,505

⁽¹⁾

On December 19, 2019, the Board of Directors decided on the statement of interest on the stockholder's equity for the calendar-year of 2019, calculated on the basis of the appropriated retained earnings of the balance sheet of September 30, 2019. This decision does not change the Board of Directors' determination to suspend the Shareholders’ Compensation Policy. The allocation of interest on stockholders’ equity will be decided on in due course, which will not occur during the suspension of the Shareholders’ Compensation Policy. For further information, see item 3.9.

3.7 - Level of indebtedness

Financial Year	Sum of current liabilities and non-current liabilities	Type of ratio	Level of indebtedness	Description and reason for using another ratio
December 31st, 2019	R$212,522,000,000.00	Level of indebtedness	0.46	Not applicable.
December 31st, 2019	0	Other ratios	1.24	Gross debt/Adjusted EBITDA. The ratio is based on the US Dollar. Gross debt consists of the sum of “Short-term loans and financing”, “Current installment of long-term loans” and “Long-term loans and financing”. Adjusted EBITDA is calculated as described in item 3.2.b of this annualized Reference Form for the last twelve months - ADJUSTED EBITDA. The Gross Debt/Adjusted EBITDA ratio indicates the approximate time it would take for a company to pay all debts exclusively using its cash generation. The Company adopts the Gross Debt/Adjusted EBITDA ratio and the interest coverage ratio of Adjusted EBITDA/Interest expenses. These ratios are widely used by the market (rating agencies and financial institutions) and serve as a benchmark for assessing the Company's financial situation.
December 31st, 2019	0	Other ratios	10.86	Adjusted EBITDA/Interest Expense - This ratio is based on US Dollar. Adjusted EBITDA is calculated as described in item 3.2.b of this Reference Form excluding non-recurring items. Interest expenses comprise the sum of all accrued or capitalized interest, whether paid or not, in a given period, arising from the Company's indebtedness. The interest coverage ratio (Adjusted EBITDA/Interest expenses) is used to determine the company’s capacity to generate sufficient cash flow to cover its interest expenses. The Company adopts the Gross Debt/Adjusted EBITDA ratio and the interest coverage ratio of Adjusted EBITDA/Interest expenses. These ratios are widely used by the market (rating agencies and financial institutions) and serve as a benchmark for assessing the Company's financial situation.

3.8 - Obligations according to nature and maturity

Last Accounting Information (December 31st, 2019)
Type of obligation	Type of security	Other security or liens	Less than one year	One to three years	Three to five years	Over five years	Total
Debt securities	Unsecured		2,056,037,119.67	1,148,390,838.13	3,615,512,549.95	24,239,988,143.83	31,059,928,651.58
Loans	Unsecured		2,805,424,143.71	5,348,776,048.20	9,508,877,554.06	3,014,768,975.92	20,677,846,721.89
Loans	Secured		71,101,975.08	816,192,068.90	0.00	0.00	887,294,043.98
Total			4,932,563,238.46	7,313,358,955.23	13,124,390,104.01	27,254,757,119.75	52,625,069,417.45

Note: The information contained in this item refers to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The debt securities field comprises debt securities and transactions in the stock market.

3.9 - Other relevant information

Additional Information relating to Item 3.4

On November 27, 2017, all shares issued by Vale under negotiation at B3 became common, with the exception of 12 special class preferred shares held by the Federal Government. For further information on this issue, see item 15.7 of this Reference Form.

Additional Information on Financial Agreements

Part of the financing agreements entered into by the Company, as well as the outstanding debt securities issued by the Company (for more information on such securities, see item 18 of this Reference Form) contain clauses that determine the early maturity of outstanding installments in case of cross acceleration of another financial agreement entered into with the same counterparty and/or any other financial agreement.

Additional Information on Compensation Policies

At a meeting held on March 29, 2018, the Board of Directors approved a new Shareholders’ Compensation Policy, replacing the previous policy, the content of which is available for consultation at the CVM’s website (www.cvm.gov.br) and the Company’s website (www.vale.com). According to said approved policy:

Shareholders’ compensation will be composed of two semiannual installments, the first in September of the current year and the second in March of the following year, provided that the Board of Directors may declare interest on the stockholder's equity in the month of December of each year for payment in March of the next year. Such amounts will be deducted from the March installment.

The compensation will be 30% of the Adjusted EBITDA minus Current Investment calculated in the first half income statement for the September installment, and the second half income statement for the March installment.

The Board of Directors may resolve on additional compensation by way of distribution of extraordinary dividends.

Suspension of the Shareholders’ Compensation Policy in force

According to a Material Fact disclosed by the Company on January 27, 2019, due to the failure of Dam I of the Córrego do Feijão Mine, in Brumadinho (MG), the Board of Directors, in a special meeting held on January 27, 2019 decided for and approved, among other things, the suspension of the Shareholders’ Compensation Policy and, consequently, the non-payment of dividends and interest on the stockholder's equity, as well as any other resolution on the repurchase of shares of its own issuance.

4. Risk factors

4.1 – Description of risk factors

(a) Risks relating to the Rupture of the Dam

The rupture of Dam I in Minas Gerais has adversely affected the Company's business, financial condition and reputation, and the overall impact of the dam rupture is still uncertain.

On January 25, 2019, the rupture of Dam I of the Córrego do Feijão Mine, which is part of Paraopebas Complex in the Southern System, located in Brumadinho, Minas Gerais, Brazil, and resulting in 270 deaths or presumed deaths, as well as personal, material and environmental damages. For more information, see items 7.9 and 10.3 of this Reference Form. This event has adversely affected and will continue to adversely affect Vale's operations.

Liabilities and lawsuits. The Company is a defendant in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs claim significant amounts for damages and other measures against the Company resulting from the rupture, and other additional lawsuits and investigations may be initiated in the future. These claims may have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and financial condition. For more information, see items 4.3 to 4.7 and 7.9 of this Reference Form.

Liquidity. Some assets remain restricted as a result of court orders, and additional assets may be blocked in the future. On December 31, 2019, the value of blocked assets, including values as security, was BRL 5.5 billion.

Suspension of operations. After the dam rupture, several operations were suspended, which negatively impacted and may continue to impact the production and cash flows of the Company. As a consequence of these suspensions, it may be necessary to purchase iron ore and iron ore pellets on the market to honor obligations in the Company's existing trading agreements, which may increase its overall costs and adversely affect its business and financial condition. It is even possible that some of these suspended operations will not be resumed.

Increase in production costs and capital expenditures. Capital expenditures or adjustments may need to be made in operations that are not affected by the dam rupture to increase production, mitigate the impact in discontinued operations or meet additional safety requirements. Alternative disposal methods may also have to be used to continue operating some of the mines and plants, particularly those that depend on tailings dams. These alternative methods may be more expensive or require significant capital expenditures in mines and plants. As a result, costs are expected to increase, which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and financial condition.

Increased taxation and other obligations. The Company may be subject to the creation of new or higher taxes or other obligations to finance remediation measures and to compensate for the direct and indirect impacts resulting from the rupture of Dam I. In addition, agreements were entered into with the State of Minas Gerais and some municipalities in order to minimize the socioeconomic effects of the shutdown of some operations.

Additional regulation and restrictions on mining operations. Several government authorities have proposed and approved new rules related to the licensing, use and operation of dams in response to the rupture of Dam I. See item 7.5 of this Reference Form for more information. New rules imposing restrictions on mining operations and ancillary activities can be approved. The process of licensing the Company's operations may become longer and subject to further uncertainties. These additional laws and regulations may impose restrictions on operations,

		require additional capital expenditures, or even require additional operations to be suspended, which may adversely affect the Company’s business.

	·	Reserves. Events resulting from the rupture of Dam I, particularly new regulations applicable to the licensing and use of dams and ongoing procedures and investigations, may result in reductions in the Company’s reserves or in the reclassification of reserves classified as probable reserves. The Company continuously reviews the impact of new regulations, procedures and investigations on its reported reserves.

Inability to meet additional safety requirements or obtain the required certifications. Dam safety rules are becoming stricter after the rupture of Dam I. In addition, outside experts may be reluctant to attest to the stability and safety of the Company's dams as a result of uncertainties as to the causes of the Dam I rupture and increasing liability risks. If any of the Company's dams are unable to meet safety requirements or if the Company is unable to obtain the required certification for any of its dams, it may suspend operations and evacuate the area, reallocate communities and take other emergency actions. These measures are expensive, and can cause financial and image impacts on the Company.

Inability to pay dividends. Reduced cash flows and higher liabilities may adversely affect the Company's ability to pay dividends or make other distributions to its shareholders. Immediately after the dam rupture, Vale's Board of Directors decided the suspension of the Shareholders Remuneration Policy.

Greater need for financing. The Company may need to raise funds in the financial markets to meet its existing commitments and possible obligations and capital expenditures associated with the repair of environmental damages. The Company may not be able to get financing at attractive rates.

Increase in insurance costs. The Company's insurance cost is expected to increase, and the Company may not be able to obtain insurance for certain risks.

Management focus. Since the day the dam’s rupture, the focus of the Company’s senior management and Board of Directors has been on emergency actions and other measures in response to the crisis.

Impact on financial performance. The rupture of Dam I is expected to continue to have a significant impact on the Company's financial performance, including reduced revenue due to the suspension of operations, increased spending on assistance and remediation, reduction in the recoverable value of fixed assets, provisions for costs de-characterization, restoration and recovery and provisions for lawsuits.

Additional environmental impacts. The additional environmental consequences of the dam rupture are still uncertain. The impact of the rupture of Dam I in the quality of the Paraopeba river water may have affected its use down to the city of Pompéu, including the public water supply for the cities of Pará de Minas and Paraopeba. Heavy rains in the Paraopeba river basin in January 2020 may have increased the impacts in the quality of the Paraopeba river water, and there is no guarantee that interstate rivers will also be impacted, which could lead to additional lawsuits and investigations by federal authorities. To mitigate eventual impacts, in December 2019, Vale completed construction works to guarantee no additional waste flow impact the Paraopeba river and works also considered waste dredging. Eventual failure to implement our de-characterization plan for the Company’s dams and the measures to avoid

new accidents may also lead to additional environmental damages in our operations and additional claims, investigations and lawsuits against the Company.

The rupture of a dam or similar structure can cause serious damage, and the de-characterization of upstream dams can be long and expensive.

The Company has several dams and structures similar to Dam I. In addition, it holds interests in companies that own a number of dams or similar structures, including Samarco Mineração S.A. (“Samarco”) and Mineração Rio do Norte S.A. (“MRN”). The rupture of any of these structures could cause loss of lives and serious personal, property and environmental damages, and could have adverse effects on our business and reputation of the Company, as evidenced by the consequences of the rupture of Dam I in Córrego do Feijão. Some of the Company's dams, and some of the dams owned by its investees, such as Samarco and MRN, were built using the "upstream” raising method, which presents specific stability risks.

The recently approved laws and regulations require the Company to de-characterize all of its upstream dams according to a defined schedule. Appropriate measures are still being determined to de-characterize each upstream dam. This process will require significant expenditures, and the process of de-characterization may take a long time. According to the de-characterization plan, the Company estimates that the costs for completing the de-characterization process will be USD 2.6 billion and, although it expects to complete the de-characterization process for all its upstream dams in five years, it may not manage to meet that deadline.

The obligations and possible responsibilities arising from the rupture of a tailings dam owned by Samarco, in Minas Gerais, could adversely affect the Company's business, financial conditions and reputation.

In November 2015, the Fundão tailings dam owned by Samarco collapsed, causing fatalities and environmental damage to the surrounding area. The rupture of Samarco's tailings dam has adversely affected and will continue to affect the Company's business, and the total impact is still uncertain and cannot be estimated. See below the main effects of the dam's rupture on the Company's business.

Lawsuits. The Company is involved in a number of lawsuits and investigations related to the rupture of the Fundão tailings dam, and other proceedings and investigations may arise in the future. These lawsuits include class actions brought by investors against the Company and some of its directors and ex-directors in the United States, a criminal proceeding in Brazil, public-interest civil actions filed by Brazilian authorities, and several lawsuits involving claims for significant amounts of damages and reparation measures. Adverse outcomes in such lawsuits may have a negative effect on the Company's liquidity and financial condition. Tax authorities or other Samarco creditors may attempt to recover from the Company the amounts owed by Samarco. For more information on these lawsuits, see items 4.3 to 4.7 of this Reference Form.

Obligations of reparation and other commitments. In March 2016, Samarco and its shareholders, Vale and BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda. ("BHPB"), a Brazilian subsidiary of BHP Billiton plc, entered into the Term of Transaction and Adjustment of Conduct ("TTAC") with several government officials, under which Samarco, Vale and BHPB agree to create a foundation (Fundação Renova) to develop and implement long-term recovery and compensation programs. Under the terms of the TTAC, these programs must be revised within three years. In June 2018, Samarco, Vale and BHPB signed a comprehensive agreement with the offices of federal and state prosecutors (Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo), public defenders and attorney-generals, among other parties, in accordance with the preliminary agreements and in order to improve the governance mechanism of the Fundação Renova. The comprehensive agreement established, among other things, a process for potential revisions of the restoration programs provided for in the TTAC, based on the conclusions of the experts hired by Samarco to inform the MPF (Federal Public Prosecutor's Office) over a two-year period. The preliminary agreements contemplate a potential revision of the reparation programs provided for in the TTAC, based on the findings of the experts chosen by MPF. For more information, see items 4.7 and 7.9 of this Reference Form.

The Company and BHPB are financing Fundação Renova and providing funds directly to Samarco in order to preserve its operations. In October 2019, Samarco received the Corrective Operational

License (LOC) for its operating activities in the Germano Complex and Samarco estimates the resumption of activities towards the end of 2020.

Risk of further environmental damage. Failure to contain remaining tailings at Samarco's dams may cause further environmental damage, additional impacts on Company's operations, and additional claims, fines and lawsuits against Samarco and the Company. Failure to contain remaining tailings could also affect the feasibility and the schedule for the resumption of Samarco's operations.

Other impacts. The Company may face delays in obtaining environmental and other licenses for its tailings dams and other facilities, and Brazilian authorities may impose stricter conditions on the licensing process for its projects and operations. In addition, as one of Samarco's shareholders, the Company's reputation has been negatively affected by the rupture of Samarco's tailings dam.

(a) Risks related to the Company

Lawsuits and investigations that may have a material adverse effect on the Company's business in the event of unfavorable outcomes.

The Company is involved in lawsuits in which the adverse parties sought preliminary injunctions to suspend certain operations or claim substantial amounts. In addition, the Company's executive officers and employees may be subject to criminal investigations and criminal procedures related to allegations of violations of environmental, labor or tax laws, and the Company or its subsidiaries may be subject to criminal investigations and criminal procedures related to allegations of violation of environmental laws.

Defending these legal procedures can be costly and time consuming. The possible consequences of adverse results in some lawsuits include suspension of operations, payment of significant amounts, mobilization of resources from creditors and damage to reputation, which could lead to a material adverse effect on the results of operations or the financial condition of the Company.

Lower cash flows, as a result of the suspension of operations or fall in prices of the Company's products, may adversely affect the Company's credit ratings, as well as the cost and availability of financing.

Suspension of operations or a decline in the prices of the Company's products may adversely affect its future cash flows, credit ratings and its ability to obtain financing at attractive rates. It can also negatively affect its ability to finance its capital investments, including disbursements necessary to remedy and compensate for the damage resulting from the rupture of Dam I, provide the financial guarantees necessary to obtain licenses in certain jurisdictions, pay dividends and meet financial commitments (covenants) in some of its long-term debt instruments.

The Company's projects are subject to risks that may result in an increase in costs or a delay in its implementation.

The Company is investing to maintain and further increase its production capacity and logistics capabilities. Vale reviews on a regular basis the economic feasibility of its projects. As a result of this review, the Company may decide to delay, suspend or interrupt the execution of certain projects. Its projects are also subject to a number of risks that may adversely affect its growth prospects and profitability, including the following:

The Company may not be able to get financing at attractive rates.

There may be delays or higher-than-estimated costs in obtaining the necessary equipment or services and in implementing new technologies to build and operate a project.

Its efforts to develop projects on schedule may be hindered by the lack of infrastructure, including reliable telecommunication and power supply services.

Suppliers and contractors may fail to meet their contractual obligations assumed to the Company.

The Company may face unexpected weather conditions or other force majeure events.

The Company may not be able to get the required permits and licenses to build a project, or it may experience delays or higher-than-estimated costs in obtaining or renewing them.

Changes in market conditions or regulations may make a project less profitable than expected at the time the work was started.

There may be accidents or incidents during project implementation.

It may face shortages of skilled workforce.

Operational problems may materially and adversely affect the Company's business and financial performance.

Ineffective project management and operational flaws might require the Company to suspend or curtail operations, which could generally reduce its productivity. Operational flaws may entail failure of plants and machinery. There may be no assurance that an inefficient project management or other operational problems will not occur. Any damages to the Company's projects or delays in its operations caused by ineffective project management or operational flaws may materially and adversely affect its business and operating results. The Company's business is subject to a number of operational risks that may adversely affect the results of its operations, such as:

Unexpected weather conditions or other force majeure events.

Adverse mining conditions delaying or hampering its ability to produce the expected quantity of minerals and to meet specifications required by customers, which can trigger price adjustments.

Accidents or incidents involving its mines and related infrastructure, such as dams, plants, railroads, railway bridges, ports and ships.

The Company may experience delays or interruptions in the transportation of its products, including in railroads, ports and ships.

Tropical diseases, HIV/AIDS, viral outbreaks, such as the coronavirus, and other contagious diseases in regions where some of its operations or projects are located, posing health and safety risks to its employees.

Employment disputes that may eventually disrupt its operations.

Changes in market conditions or regulations may affect the economic prospects of an operation and make it inconsistent with the Company's business strategy.

Failure to get the required permits and licenses renewed, or delays or higher-than-expected costs to get them.

Disruptions to or unavailability of crucial information technology systems and services resulting from accidents or wilful misconduct.

The Company's business may be adversely affected by the failure or unavailability of certain critical assets or infrastructure.

The Company has some critical assets and infrastructure to produce and transport its products to customers. These critical assets include mines, industrial facilities, ports, railways, roads and bridges. The failure or

unavailability of any critical asset, whether resulting from natural events or operational problems, may have a material adverse effect on its business.

Substantially all the iron ore production in the Northern System is transported from Carajás, in the State of Pará, to the Ponta da Madeira Port, in the State of Maranhão, through the Carajás Railroad (EFC acronym in Portuguese). Any interruption of the EFC or the Ponta da Madeira port may significantly impact the Company's ability to sell its production from the Northern system. Regarding the EFC, there is a particular risk of interruption on the bridge over the Tocantins River, where trains run on a single railway line. At the Ponta da Madeira port, there is a particular risk of interruption in the São Marcos access channel, a deep water channel that provides access to the port. In addition, any failure or interruption of the long-distance conveyor belt (TCLD) used to transport the iron ore production from the S11D mine to the beneficiation plant could negatively impact operations at the S11D mine.

The Company's business may be adversely affected by the failure of its counter-parties, joint venture partners or non-controlling joint ventures to comply with their obligations.

Customers, suppliers, contracted companies, financial institutions, joint venture partners and other counter-parties may fail to perform existing contracts and obligations, which may unfavorably impact the Company's operations and financial results. The ability of Company's suppliers and customers to perform their obligations may be adversely affected in times of financial stress or economic downturn.

Significant parts of Vale's iron ore, pelletizing, nickel, coal, copper, energy and other business segments are operated through joint ventures. This may reduce the Company's level of control, as well as its ability to identify and manage risks. Vale's forecasts and plans for these joint ventures and consortia assume that its partners will fulfill their obligations to make capital transfers, purchase products and, in some cases, provide skilled and competent managerial personnel. If any of its partners fails to fulfill their commitments, the affected joint venture or consortium may not be able to operate in accordance with its business plans, or it might be that the Company has to increase the level of its investment to implement these plans.

Some of the Company's investments are controlled by partners or have a separate and independent management. These investments may not fully comply with the Company's standards, controls and procedures, including health, safety, environment and community standards. Failure by any of its partners or joint ventures to adopt adequate standards, controls and procedures may lead to higher costs, reduced production or environmental, health and safety incidents or accidents, which may adversely affect the Company's results and reputation.

The Company may not have adequate insurance coverage for some business risks.

The Company's business is generally subject to a number of risks and hazards, which could affect persons, assets and the environment. The insurance that Vale maintain against risks that are typical in its business may not provide adequate coverage. Insurance against some risks (including liabilities for environmental damage, damages resulting from the rupture of dams, spilling or leak of hazardous substances and interruption of certain business activities) may not be available at a reasonable cost, or at all. Even when available, the Company may self-insure in cases where it determines that this will bring it a higher cost-benefit ratio. As a result, accidents or other negative events involving its mining, production or transportation facilities may not be covered by insurance and may have a material adverse effect on its operations.

Labor disputes may interrupt the Company's operations from time to time.

A substantial number of the Company's employees, and some of the employees of its subcontractors, are represented by labor unions and are covered by collective labor agreements or collective negotiations, subject to periodic negotiation. Strikes and other labor stoppages in any of its operations may adversely affect the operation of these facilities, the timing of completion and cost of the Company's main projects. For more information on labor relations, see item 14 of this Reference Form.

In addition to it, the Company may be adversely affected by labor stoppages involving third parties who provide it with goods or services.

Higher energy costs or energy shortages can adversely affect the Company's business.

Fuel oil, gas and electricity costs are a significant component of the Company's production cost, accounting for 10.6% of its total cost of goods sold in 2019. In order to fulfill its demand for energy, the Company depends on the following sources: oil byproducts, which accounted for 31% of total energy needs in 2019, electricity (29%), natural gas (15%), coal (16%) and other energy sources (9%).

Electricity costs accounted for 4.0% of its total cost of goods sold in 2019. If the Company is unable to secure reliable access to electricity at acceptable prices, it may be forced to curtail production or may experience higher production costs, either of which would adversely affect its operating results. The Company faces the risk of energy shortages in the countries where it has operations and projects, especially in Brazil, due to lack of infrastructure or weather conditions, such as floods or droughts. Future shortages, and government efforts to respond to or prevent shortages, may adversely impact the cost or supply of electricity for the Company's operations.

Failures in the Company's information technology systems, operational technology, computer security, and telecommunications may adversely affect the Company's business and reputation.

The Company relies heavily on information technology systems, operational technology and telecommunications for the operation of its various business processes. Failures in these systems, whether caused by obsolescence, technical flaws, negligence, accident or wilful misconduct, may result in the disclosure or theft of confidential information, misappropriation of funds, and interference or interruption in the Company's business operations. The Company may be the target of attempts to get unauthorized access to operational technology and information technology systems through the Internet, including sophisticated and coordinated attempts, often referred to as advanced persistent threats. Disruptions in key information technology, operational technology, computer security, or telecommunications systems, or information security breaches, may damage the Company's reputation and materially adversely affect its operating performance, earnings and financial position.

The Company's reserve estimates may differ materially from the quantities of minerals that the Company can actually recover; the Company's estimates of the mine's life cycle may be inaccurate; stricter regulations and fluctuations in market prices and changes in operating and capital costs may make certain ore reserves not viable for mining.

The reserves reported by the Company are estimated quantities of ore and minerals that the Company has determined can be economically and legally mined and processed under present and assumed future conditions. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of reserves and in projecting potential future rates of mineral production, including factors beyond the Company's control. Reserve reporting involves estimating deposits of minerals that cannot be measured in an exact manner, and the accuracy of any reserve estimate is a function of the quality of available data, engineering and geological interpretation and judgment. As a result, no assurance can be given that the indicated amount of ore will be recovered or that it will be recovered at the rates the Company's anticipates. Reserve estimates and estimates of the mines' life cycle may require revisions based on production experience, projects, updated exploratory drilling data and other factors. Lower market prices of minerals and metals, stricter regulations, reduced recovery rates or increased operating and capital costs due to inflation, exchange rates, changes in regulatory requirements or other factors may render proven and probable reserves economically unfeasible to mine and may result in a reduction of reserves. In addition, the Company's inability to obtain licenses for new operations, support structures or activities, or to renew existing licenses, may cause a reduction in its reserves. Such a reduction may affect depreciation and amortization rates and have an adverse effect on the Company's financial performance. As of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, the Company will be required to comply with the new SEC reporting rules on mining activities. Currently, the reported mining reserves are being revised and the Company may need to adjust its reported reserves in order to report in accordance with the new rules.

The Company may not be able to replenish its reserves, which could adversely affect its mining prospects.

The Company engages in mineral exploration, which is highly uncertain in nature, involves many risks and frequently is non-productive. The Company's exploration programs, which involve significant expenditures,

may fail to result in the expansion or replacement of reserves depleted by current production. If the Company does not develop new reserves, it will not be able to sustain its current level of production beyond the remaining life cycle of its existing mines.

The feasibility of new mineral projects may change over time.

Once mineral deposits are discovered, it can take a number of years from the initial phases of drilling until production is possible, during which the economic feasibility of production may change. Substantial time and expenditures are required to:

establish mineral reserves through drilling;

determine appropriate mining and metallurgical processes for optimizing the recovery of metal contained in ore;

obtain environmental and other licenses;

construct mining and processing facilities and infrastructure required for brownfield and greenfield areas; and

obtain the ore or extract the minerals from the ore.

If a project proves not to be economically feasible by the time the Company is able to exploit it, it may incur substantial losses and be obliged to write-off its assets. In addition, potential changes or complications involving metallurgical and other technological processes arising during the life of a project may result in delays and cost overruns that may render the project not economically feasible.

The Company faces an increase in extraction costs and investment requirements as reserves are depleted.

Reserves are gradually depleted in the ordinary course of a given open pit or underground mining operation. As mining progresses, distances to the primary crusher and to tailings deposits become longer, pits become steeper, mines may move from being open pit to underground, and underground operations become deeper. In addition, for some types of reserves, mineralization grade decreases and hardness increases at greater depths. As a result, over time, the Company typically experiences rising extraction costs per unit with respect to each mine, or it may need to make additional investments, including for adaptation or construction of processing plants and for expansion or construction of tailings dams. Several of the Company's mines have been operating for long periods, and it will likely experience rising extraction costs per unit in the future at these operations in particular.

The Company's governance and compliance processes may fail to prevent violations of legal, accounting or governance rules.

The Company operates in a global setting and its activities extend across countless jurisdictions and across complex regulatory structures with growing inspection activities around the world. The Company's governance and compliance processes, which include review of internal controls over financial statements, may not timely identify or prevent future violations of governance, accounting or legal standards. The Company may be subject to breaches of its Code of Conduct, of anti-corruption policies and of business conduct protocols and to instances of fraudulent behavior, corrupt practices and dishonesty by its employees, contractors or other agents. Failure to comply with applicable laws and other standards by the Company may subject it to investigations by the authorities, litigation, fines, loss of its licenses to operate, disgorgement of profits, involuntary dissolution and reputational damage.

It could be difficult for investors to enforce any court order rendered outside Brazil against the Company or any of its associates.

The Company's investors may be located in jurisdictions outside Brazil and could file actions against it or against its directors or executive officers in the Courts of their home jurisdictions. Vale is a Brazilian company,

and the majority of its officers and directors are residents of Brazil. The vast majority of the Company's assets and the assets of its officers and directors are likely to be located in jurisdictions other than the home jurisdictions of its foreign investors. It might not be possible for investors outside Brazil to serve process within their home jurisdictions upon the Company or upon its officers or directors who reside outside their jurisdictions. In addition to it, a conclusive foreign judgment may be executed in the Brazilian Courts without a new examination of the merits only if previously ratified by the Superior Court of Justice, and the ratification shall only be granted if the foreign judgment: (a) comply with all the formalities required for its enforceability under the law of the country where it was rendered; (b) has been rendered by a competent court after the due service of process upon defendant, as required by applicable law; (c) is not subject to appeal; (d) does not conflict with a final and unappealable decision rendered by a Brazilian judicial authority; (e) has been certified by a Brazilian consulate in the country where it was rendered or it is duly apostilled in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of the Requirement to Legalize Foreign Public Documents and accompanied by a sworn translation into Portuguese, unless such procedure has been exempted by an international treaty signed by Brazil; (f) does not cover matters of exclusive competence of the Brazilian Courts; and (g) is not contrary to Brazilian national sovereignty, public policies or good customs. Therefore, investors might not obtain a favorable judgment in legal proceedings against the Company or its directors and officers on judgments of the courts of their home jurisdictions predicated upon the laws of such jurisdictions.

(c) Risks related to the Controller or Controlling Group of the Company and Risks related to the Company's shareholders.

The shareholders who sign the Company's Shareholders' Agreement have significant influence over Vale.

On August 14, 2017, Litel Participações S.A. ("Litel"), Bradespar S.A. ("Bradespar"), Mitsui & Co., Ltd. ("Mitsui") and BNDES Participações S.A. (“BNDESPAR”) entered into a shareholders' agreement, which was entered into, on September 9, 2019, by means of a Term of Adhesion, by Litela Participações SA (“Litela” and, together with the others, "Agreement Signatory Shareholders”), by which they undertake to vote jointly on certain key matters ("Shareholders' Agreement"). Such Shareholders' Agreement entered into force on August 14^th, 2017 and will remain in effect until November 9^th, 2020. On December 31^st, 2019, Litel, Litela, Bradespar, Mitsui and BNDESPAR jointly held, approximately, 36% of the Company's total capital stock. As long as they have such a shareholding and no other shareholder or group of shareholders has a higher shareholding, the Agreement Signatory Shareholders may elect a majority of members of the Board of Directors of Vale and control the results of certain shares that require the approval by the shareholders. For a better detailing of the Company's shareholding structure and the current shareholders' agreement, see item 15 of this Reference Form.

The Brazilian Federal Government has certain veto rights.

The Brazilian Federal Government holds 12 golden shares (special class preferred shares) in Vale, which gives it a limited veto power over certain matters involving the Company, such as changes to the corporate name, to the location of its headquarters and to its corporate purpose, regarding mining activities. For a detailed description of the veto power of golden shares, see item 18.1 of this Reference Form.

(d)

Risks related to the Company's subsidiaries

For information on the risks related to the Company's investees, see the Risk Factor described in item (a) above: "The Company's business may be adversely affected by the failure of its counter-parties, joint venture partners or non-controlling joint ventures to comply with their obligations".

(e)

Risks related to the Company's suppliers

For information on risks related to the Company's suppliers, see the Risk Factors described in item (b) above: “Higher energy costs or energy shortages can adversely affect the Company's business" and “The Company's business may be adversely affected by the failure of its counter-parties, joint venture partners or non-controlling joint ventures to comply with their obligations".

(f)

Risks related to the Company's customers

For information on risks related to the Company's customers, see the risk factor described in item (b) above: "The Company's business may be adversely affected by the failure of its counter-parties, joint venture partners or non-controlling joint ventures to comply with their obligations".

(g)

Risks related to the Economic Sectors in which the Company operates

The Company's business is exposed to the cyclicality of global economic activity and requires significant investments of capital.

As a mining company, Vale is a supplier of industrial raw materials. Industrial production tends to be the most cyclical and volatile component of global economic activity, which affects demand for minerals and metals. At the same time, investment in mining requires a substantial amount of funds in order to replenish reserves, expand and maintain production capacity, build infrastructure, preserve the environment, prevent fatalities and occupational risks and minimize social impacts. Susceptibility to industrial production, together with the need for significant long-term capital investments, are important sources of risk to Vale's financial performance and growth prospects.

It also possible that the Company will not be able to adjust production volume in a timely or cost-effective manner in response to changes in demand. Lower utilization of capacity during periods of weak demand may expose the Company to higher unit production costs, since a significant portion of its cost structure is fixed in the short term due to the capital intensity of mining operations. In addition, efforts to reduce costs in periods of weak demand could be limited by labor regulations or previous collective-bargaining agreements or by agreements with the government. Conversely, during periods of high demand, Vale's ability to rapidly increase production capacity is limited, which could prevent it from meeting demand for its products.

Moreover, there is a possibility that the Company will not be able to complete expansions and new greenfield projects in time to take advantage of rising demand for iron ore, nickel or other products. When demand exceeds its production capacity, the Company may meet excess customer demand by purchasing iron ore, pellets or nickel from joint ventures or from third parties and reselling them, which increase its costs and narrow its operating margins. If Vale is unable to meet excess customer demand in this way, it may lose customers. In addition, operating close to full capacity may expose the Company to higher costs, including demurrage fees due to capacity restraints in its logistics systems.

Adverse economic developments in China may have a negative impact on Vale's revenue, cash flow and profitability.

China has been the main driver of global demand for minerals and metals over the last few years. In 2019, China's demand accounted for 73% of global demand for seaborne iron ore, 56% of global demand for nickel and 51% of global demand for copper. The percentage of the Company's net operating revenue attributable to sales to customers in China was 48.6% in 2019. Therefore, any contraction of China’s economic growth could result in lower demand for products, leading to lower revenues, cash flow and profitability. Poor performance in the Chinese real estate sector, the largest consumer of carbon steel in China, would also negatively impact the Company's results. These risks may be intensified in 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

(h)

Risks related to the Regulation of Sectors in which the Company operates

Political, economic and social conditions in countries where the Company operates or has projects may have an adverse impact on its businesses.

Vale may have its financial performance negatively affected by regulatory, political, economic and social conditions in the countries where it has significant operations or projects. In many of these jurisdictions, Vale is exposed to various risks, such as political instability, bribery, extortion, corruption, robbery, sabotage, kidnapping, civil war, acts of war, guerrilla activities, piracy on international transport routes, and terrorism.

Such problems may adversely affect the economic conditions and other conditions under which the Company operates in several manners, significantly hindering its business.

Disagreements with local communities may cause a negative impact in its business and reputation.

Legal disputes with communities located where the Company has operations may arise from time to time. Accidents or incidents involving mines, industrial facilities and related infrastructure, such as the rupture of Dam I, can significantly affect the communities where the Company operates. In some instances, the Company's operations and mineral reserves are located on indigenous lands or on nearby lands owned or used by indigenous people or other groups of stakeholders.

Some of the Company's mining and other operations are located on territories whose ownership may be subject to disputes or uncertainties, or in areas intended for agriculture or land reform purposes, which may lead to disagreements with landowners, organized social movements, local communities and the government. In some jurisdictions, the Company may be required to consult and negotiate with these groups as part of the process to obtain licenses required to operate, in order to mitigate impact on the Company's operations or to obtain access to lands.

Disagreements or disputes with local groups, including indigenous groups, organized social movements, and local communities can lead to delays in obtaining licenses, increases in planned budget, delays or disruptions in operations. These issues may have a negative effect on the Company's reputation or even hinder its ability to work in the reserves and carry out its operations. For more information, see items 4.3 to 4.7 of this Reference Form.

The Company may be adversely affected by changes in public policies or by trends such as resource nationalization, including the imposition of new taxes or royalties on mining activities.

Mining is subject to government regulation, including taxes and royalties, which can have a significant financial impact on the Company's operations. In countries where the Company is present, it is exposed to potential renegotiation, annulment or forced amendment to existing contracts and licenses, expropriation or nationalization of properties, exchange controls, changes to local laws, regulations and policies, and audits and revaluations. The Company is also exposed to new taxes or increase in existing royalties and tax rates, reduction of exemptions and tax benefits, renegotiation of tax stabilization agreements or changes to the tax base in a way that is unfavorable to the Company. Governments that have committed to provide a stable taxation or regulatory environment may alter those commitments or shorten their duration. The Company also faces the risk of having to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court or arbitration tribunal or having to enforce a judgment against a sovereign nation within their own territory. For more information, see item 7.5 of this Reference Form.

The Company is also required to meet domestic beneficiation requirements in certain countries where it operates, such as local processing standards, export duties or restrictions, or charges on crude ores. The imposition or increase in such requirements, taxes or charges can significantly increase the risk profile and the operating costs in those jurisdictions. The Company and the mining industry are subject to rising trends of resource nationalization in certain countries in which it operates that can result in constraints on its operations, increased taxation or even expropriations and nationalizations.

As a supplier of iron ore, nickel and other raw materials to the global steel market, the Company is subject to additional risks arising from the imposition of taxes, export and import control tariffs and other trade barriers, impacting the Company's products and the products the customers produce. Global trade is subject to a growing trend of increased trade barriers, which may exacerbate commodity price volatility, and thus result in price instability in the Company’s products.

Concessions, authorizations, licenses and permits are subject to expiration, limitations on renewal and various other risks and uncertainties.

Vale's operations depend on authorizations and concessions from governmental regulatory agencies in the countries in which it operates. The Company is subject to laws and regulations in many jurisdictions that can change at any time, and such changes in laws and regulations may require modifications to Vale's technologies and operations and result in unanticipated capital expenditures.

Some of Vale's mining concessions are subject to fixed expiration dates and might only be renewed a limited number of times for a limited period of time. Apart from mining concessions, it is possible that the Company has to obtain several authorizations, licenses and permits from governmental bodies and regulatory agencies in connection with the planning, maintenance, operation and closure of the Company's mines and related logistics infrastructure, which may be subject to fixed expiration dates or periodic revision or renewal. There is no assurance that such renewals will be granted when requested, and there is no assurance that new conditions will not be imposed in connection with the renewal. Fees payable for mining concessions might increase substantially due to the passage of time from the original issuance of each individual exploration license. If it happens, the costs to keep or renew the mining concessions may render the Company's business purposes unfeasible. Accordingly, the Company needs to continually assess the mineral potential of each mining concession, particularly at the time of renewal, to determine if the costs of maintaining the concessions are justified by the results of operations to date, and thus it might elect to let some of its concessions lapse. There may be no guarantee that concessions will be obtained on favorable terms for the Company, or that they will obtained for its intended exploration or mining goals.

In a number of jurisdictions where the Company has exploration projects, it may be required to return to the State a certain portion of the area covered by the exploration permit as a condition to renewing the permit or obtaining a mining concession. This obligation can lead to a substantial loss of part of the mineral deposit originally identified in the Company's feasibility studies. For more information on mining concessions and other similar rights, see "Mining Rights and Regulation of Mining Activities" in item 7.5 of this Reference Form.

(i)

Risks related to the Company's ADS (American Depositary Shares)

If ADR holders exchange the ADSs for underlying shares, they risk losing the ability to remit foreign currency abroad.

The custodian of shares underlying the Company's ADSs maintains a registration with the Central Bank of Brazil, entitling it to qualify foreign institutional investors to buy and sell securities on B3 and to remit U.S. dollars abroad from Brazil for payments of dividends and other distributions relating to the shares underlying the ADSs or upon the disposition of the underlying shares. If the ADR holder exchanges its ADSs for the underlying shares, it shall be entitled to rely on the custodian's registration for only five business days from the date of exchange. Subsequently, an ADR holder may not be able to get and remit foreign currency abroad upon the disposition of, or distribution relating to, the underlying shares, unless it obtains its own registration in accordance with the applicable regulation. Refer to item 18.8 for a better description of Vale’s ADSs. If the ADR holder attempts to obtain its own registration, it may incur expenses or suffer delays in the application process, which could delay the receipt of dividends and other distributions relating to the underlying shares or the return of capital in a timely manner.

The custodian's registration or any registration obtained may be affected by future legislative changes, and additional restrictions applicable to ADR holders, the disposition of the underlying shares or the repatriation of the product from the disposition could be imposed in the future.

ADR holders may not have all the rights of Vale's shareholders and may not be able to exercise preemptive rights related to the shares underlying their ADSs.

ADR holders may not have the same rights that are assigned to the Company's shareholders under Brazilian law or under its by-laws, and the rights of ADR holders may be subject to certain limitations laid down in the deposit agreement or by the intermediary institutions through which ADR holders hold their securities. Moreover, the ability of ADR holders to exercise their preemptive rights is not assured, particularly if the applicable law in the holder's jurisdiction (for example, the Securities Act in the United States) requires that either a registration statement be effective or an exemption from registration be available with respect to those rights, as is in the case of the United States. The Company is not obligated to extend the offer of preemptive rights to ADR holders, to file a registration statement in the United States, or to make any other registration in any other jurisdiction, relating to preemptive rights, or to undertake steps that may be needed to make exemptions from registration available, and it cannot assure holders that it will file any registration statement or take such steps.

ADR Holders may face difficulties in the exercise of their voting rights.

ADR holders do not have the rights of shareholders. They have only the contractual rights set forth for their benefit under the deposit agreements. ADR holders are not permitted to attend shareholders' meetings, and they may only vote by giving instructions to the depositary. In practice, the ability of a ADR holder to instruct the depositary as to voting will depend on the timing and procedures for giving instructions to the depositary, either directly or through the holder's custody and clearing system. With respect to ADSs for which no instructions are received, the depositary may, being subject to certain limitations, grant a proxy to someone designated by the Company.

The legal protections for holders of the Company's securities differ from one jurisdiction to another and may be inconsistent, unfamiliar or less effective than investors anticipate.

Vale is a global company with securities traded in several different markets and with investors located in countless countries. The legal regime for the protection of investors varies around the world, sometimes in a substantial manner, and investors in the Company’s securities should recognize that the protections and remedies available to them may be different from those used in their home markets. . The Company is subject to securities legislation in several countries, which have different rules, supervision and enforcement practices. The only Corporation Act applicable to the Company is the Brazilian corporation act, with its specific substantive rules and legal procedures. The Company is also subject to corporate governance rules in several jurisdictions where its securities are listed, but, as a foreign private issuer, the Company is not required to follow many of the corporate governance rules that apply to U.S. domestic issuers with securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and it is not subject to the U.S. proxy rules.

(j) Risks related to social and environmental issues

The Company's business is subject to environmental, health and safety incidents.

The Company's operations involve the use, handling, storage, discharge and disposal of hazardous substances in the environment and the use of natural resources, resulting in significant risks and hazards, including fire, explosion, leakage of toxic gases, spillage of polluting substances or other hazardous materials, rockslides, accidents involving dams, failure of other operational structures, as well as activities involving equipment, vehicles or mobile machinery and other potentially fatal incidents and accidents. Incidents may occur due to deficiencies in the identification and assessment of risks or in the implementation of robust risk management and, once these risks materialize, they can result in significant environmental and social impacts, damages or destruction of mines or production facilities, injuries, illness and fatalities, involving employees, service providers or members of the community surrounding the operations, as well as production delays, financial losses and possible civil liability. In addition to the above, employees may be exposed to tropical and contagious diseases capable of affecting their health and safety. Notwithstanding the Company's standards, policies, controls and procedures, its operations remain subject to incidents or accidents that may have a negative effect on its business, shareholders or reputation.

The Company's business may be adversely affected by environmental and health and safety regulations, including regulations pertaining to climate change.

Nearly all aspects of its activities, products and services associated with the Company's capital projects and operations around the world are subject to social, environmental, health and safety regulations, which may expose it to increased liability or increased costs. Such regulations require Vale to have environmental licenses, permits and authorizations for its operations and projects, and to carry out environmental and social impact assessments in order to get approval for its projects and permission for initiating construction and continue operations. Significant changes to existing operations are also subject to these requirements. Difficulties in obtaining or renewing licenses can lead to construction delays, cost increases, and may adversely impact its production volumes. Social, environmental and health and safety regulations also impose standards, procedures and controls on activities relating to mineral exploration, mining, processing, pelletizing activities, railway and marine services, ports, decommissioning, distribution and marketing of its products. Such regulation may give rise to significant costs and liabilities. Litigation regarding these and other related matters may adversely affect the Company's financial condition or otherwise harm its reputation.

Social, environmental and health and safety regulations in many countries in which Vale operates have become stricter in recent years, and it is possible that more regulations or a stricter application of existing regulations may adversely affect it by imposing restrictions on its activities and products, creating new requirements for the issuance or renewal of environmental licenses and work permits, resulting in licensing and operating delays, increasing their costs or requiring the engagement in costly recovery efforts.

In response to the failure of Dam I, other environmental and health and safety laws and regulations have been passed, and others may arise, and authorities may impose stricter conditions in relation to the licensing process for the Company's projects and operations. Moreover, Vale may face stricter requirements and delays in receiving environmental licenses to operate other tailings dams.

National policies and international regulations on climate change can affect many of the Company's business in several countries. Ratification of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2016 increased the international pressure to establish a global carbon price and on companies to adopt carbon pricing strategies. The pricing of greenhouse gas emissions can affect the Company's operating costs, mainly through higher prices for fossil fuels, since mining is an energy intensive industry, as well as the Company's international freight costs. In particular, the consumption of thermal coal, one of the products that the Company sells, is currently facing pressure from international institutions due to its carbon intensity.

Regulatory initiatives at the national and international levels, as evidenced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Standard 2020, which prohibits fuel oil with a high sulfur content, as well as the IMO objectives on greenhouse gas reductions in the industry, may affect transportation practices, potentially increasing its costs or requiring the Company to make new capital expenditures. Other regulations, mainly from the European Union and China, may impose additional requirements for their products related to the safety of downstream users.

Natural disasters may cause severe damage to Company's operations and projects in the countries where it operates and may have a negative impact on its sales to countries adversely affected by such disasters.

Natural disasters, such as windstorms, droughts, floods, earthquakes and tsunamis, may have a negative effect on Vale's operations and projects in the countries where it operates, and may cause a contraction in sales to countries affected by, among other factors, power outages and the destruction of industrial facilities and infrastructure. The physical impact of climate change on business remains uncertain, but Vale may experience changes in rainfall patterns, increased temperatures, water shortages, rising sea levels, increased storm frequency and intensity as a result of climate change, which may adversely affect its operations. On some occasions in recent years, the Company has determined that force majeure events have occurred due to effect of severe weather on its mining and logistics activities.

(k) Risks related to Coronavirus¹

Events related to the coronavirus outbreak may have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial conditions or operating results.

In December 2019, an outbreak of a contagious disease, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) began in mainland China and has since spread to several countries. There have been reports of multiple fatalities resulting from the virus in several countries, including Brazil and Canada, where the Company has its main operations. On March 11^th, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an outbreak pandemic of COVID-19. During March 2020, government authorities in several jurisdictions imposed blockages or other restrictions in order to contain the virus and several companies suspended or reduced operations. The final impact on the global economy and financial markets is still uncertain, but it is expected to be significant.

¹ Due to the recent nature of the coronavirus outbreak, this risk factor it not classified in the decreasing order of relevance, since the impacts on Vale are still being evaluated and, at the time of presentations of this Reference Form, were still uncertain.

The outbreak began to advance in regions where the Company's operations are concentrated. Vale reduced the pace in some operations and revised plans for others. The Company may face new restrictions imposed by regulators and authorities, difficulties related to absenteeism of employees that would result in insufficient contingent to operate in some locations, interruption of our supply chain, deterioration in the financial health of its customers, higher costs and expenses associated with the suspension of the work of contractors on non-essential projects, operational difficulties, such as the postponement of the resumption of production capacity due to delays in inspections, assessments and authorizations, among other operational difficulties. The Company may need to adopt additional contingency measures or eventually suspend additional operations, which may have a material adverse impact on its financial conditions or operations.

As a result of this pandemic coronavirus outbreak, commercial activities worldwide, including construction and manufacturing activities that drive demand for iron ore and other metals, have started to decline and are expected to have a significant impact. If the coronavirus outbreak continues and efforts to contain the pandemic, governmental or not, further limit commercial activity or the Company's ability to transport its products to customers in general for an extended period, demand for its products may be adversely affected. These factors may also adversely affect the Company's financial condition or operating results. For further information, see itens 8.4 and 10.3 of this Reference Form.

4.2 - Description of the main market risks

Significant Market Risks Applicable to the Company

Considering the nature of the Company’s business and operations, the main market risk factors that it is exposed to are:

price of products and inputs;

foreign exchange rates and interest rates.

Price risk of products and inputs

The Company is exposed to market risks related to volatility in the prices of its production inputs and products, as follows:

Global prices for the Company's products are subject to volatility, which may affect negatively its own business.

Global prices for metals are subject to significant fluctuations and are affected by many factors, including actual and expected global macroeconomic and political conditions, regional and sectorial factors, levels of supply and demand, the availability and cost of substitutes, inventory levels, technological developments, regulatory issues and foreign trade issues, investments by commodity funds, and actions of participants in the commodity markets. The preservation of low market prices for products sold by the Company may result in the suspension of some of its projects and operations, the reduction of its mineral reserves and the loss of value of its assets, which may adversely affect the cash flows, financial situation and results of operations. The Company expects the price of its products to be subject to additional volatility in the year 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Demand for our iron ore, coal and nickel products depends on global demand for steel. Iron ore and iron ore pellets, which together accounted for 78% of the Company’s 2019 net operating revenues, are used to produce carbon steel. Nickel, which accounted for 7.7% of the Company’s 2019 net operating revenues, is used mainly to produce stainless and alloy steels. The prices of different steels and the performance of the global steel industry are highly cyclical and volatile, and these economic cycles in the steel industry affect demand and prices for the Company’s products. In addition, vertical backward integration of the steel and stainless steel industries and the use of scrap could reduce the global seaborne trade of iron ore and primary nickel. The demand for copper is affected by the demand for copper wire, and a sustained decline in the construction industry demand could have a negative impact on the Company’s copper business.

The Company is more affected by changes in iron ore prices. For example, a price reduction of USD 1 per dry metric ton unit (“dmt”) in the average iron ore price would have reduced the Company’s operating income for the year ended December 31, 2019 by approximately USD 290 million. Average iron ore prices have changed significantly in the past five years, from USD 55.5 per dmt in 2015, USD 58.5 per dmt in 2016, USD 71.3 per dmt in 2017, USD 69.5 per dmt in 2017, USD 69.5 per dmt in 2018 and USD 93.4 per dmt in 2019, according to the Platts IODEX average (62% Fe CFR China). On March 18, 2020, the average price of Platts IODEX iron ore in the year was USD 90.75 per dmt. For further information on the average prices obtained for the products sold by the Company, refer to item 10.2 of this Reference Form.

For information on the risks related to inputs, see the Risk Factors described in item 4.1(b) above: [“Higher energy costs or energy shortages would adversely affect the Company’s business”].

Exchange risks

The Company's cash flow is subject to the volatility of several currencies, since the prices of its products are predominantly indexed to US Dollar, while a significant part of the costs, expenses and investments are indexed to other currencies, mainly Reais and Canadian Dollars, as highlighted in the risk below.

The Company also has debt instruments and other liabilities denominated in currencies other than US Dollar, mainly in Brazilian Reais and Euros. The Company may use swaps and future transactions to convert to US dollars a portion of the cash outflows of these liabilities.

Changes in the exchange rates of the currencies in which the Company conducts its operations may adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations.

A substantial portion of the Company’s revenues, trade receivables and debt is denominated in U.S. Dollars, and considering that its functional currency is Brazilian Reais, changes in exchange rates may result in (i) losses or gains on its net U.S. dollar-denominated debt and accounts receivable and (ii) market value losses or gains on exchange derivatives used to stabilize its cash flow in U.S. Dollars. In 2019, the Company had net foreign exchange losses of USD 39 million, while it had net foreign exchange gains of USD 2.247 million in 2018 and net foreign exchange losses of USD 467 million in 2017. In addition, the fluctuating values of the Brazilian Reais, the Canadian Dollar, the Australian Dollar, the Euro, the Indonesian Rupiah, the Chinese yuan and other currencies against the U.S. Dollar affects the Company’s results since most of its costs of goods sold are denominated in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar, principally the Real (44% in 2019) and the Canadian Dollar (6% in 2019), while its revenues are mostly U.S. dollar-denominated. Currency fluctuations should continue to affect the Company's financial income, expenses and cash flow generation.

Significant volatility in currency prices may also result in disturbances in foreign exchange markets, which could limit the Company’s ability to transfer or to convert certain currencies into U.S. Dollars and other currencies for the purpose of making timely payments of interest and principal on its indebtedness. The central banks and governments of the countries in which Vale operates may institute restrictive exchange rate policies in the future and impose taxes on foreign exchange transactions.

Interest Rate Risk

The Company is also exposed to interest rates on loans and financings. Debts with fluctuating interest rates in US Dollars consist mainly of loans, including export prepayment operations and loans from commercial banks and multilateral organizations. In general, these debts are indexed to the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate). Floating debts denominated in Reais are indexed mainly to the Interbank Deposit Certificate (CDI), Long Term Interest Rate (TJLP) and the National Consumer Price Index (IPCA), and part of these debts are converted to fixed interest rates in US Dollars through swap operations.

On December 31, 2019, 71.8% of the indebtedness of the Company was denominated in US Dollars (USD), corresponding to BRL 37,767,094,598.60, of which BRL 25,535,319,739.26 at fixed interest and BRL 12,231,774,859.34 linked to Libor. Other 18.9% of the debt was denominated in Reais (BRL), corresponding to BRL 9,919,816,574.15, of which BRL 9,566,234,992.56 related to the DI Rate and TJLP and BRL 353,581,581.59 at fixed interest and others. The remaining 9.3% of debt, corresponding to BRL 4,938,658,183.21 at fixed interest rates, was denominated predominantly in Euros (€).

4.3 - Relevant non-secret legal, administrative or arbitration proceedings

Item 4.3 comprises proceedings considered relevant to the Company's and/or its subsidiaries' businesses as of December 31, 2019. For the relevant proceedings instituted, as applicable, after December 31, 2019, see item 4.7 of this Reference Form.

As at December 31, 2019, the Company was not party to any non-secret arbitration.

Vale is a party to labor, civil, tax and other lawsuits in progress at the administrative and judicial levels. The provisions for losses arising from these actions are estimated and updated by the Company, supported by the opinion of legal advisors.

For the purposes of this item 4.3, they were considered as individually relevant processes, among or those that may significantly impact the Company's equity or business, quantitatively representing a value involved higher than the equivalent of 1% of the Company's Shareholders' Equity, in December 31, 2019. Additionally, without prejudice to the materiality criterion highlighted above, relevant proceedings were also included, in other respects, regardless of the amount involved.

On December 31, 2019, the provision for contingencies arising from administrative and judicial proceedings of a tax, civil, labor and environmental nature recognized in the Company's consolidated financial statements totaled R $ 5.895 billion, and its composition can be summarized as follows:

Provision for litigation (In millions of Brazilian reais)	December 31, 2019
Tax litigation		2.804
Civil litigation		1.213
Labor litigation		1.835
Environmental litigation		43
Total		5.895

(i)

Labor

As of December 31, 2019, the Company and its controlled companies were parties to 15.044legal proceedings of a labor nature, involving the total amount of R$ 19.5 billion. On that same date, the amount of R $ 1.835 billion was provisioned in the Company's consolidated financial statements to cover probable losses. The labor lawsuits brought against the Company relate to matters such as overtime, commuting hours, premium for unhealthy and hazardous work, outsourcing, among others.

The tables below present an individual description of labor proceedings considered relevant to the Company's and/or its subsidiaries' businesses as of December 31, 2019:

1) Case no. 0126600-17.2006.5.03.0012
Court	6^thPanel of the Superior Labor Court (TST)
Higher	Instance
Date of filing	Nov 27, 2006
Parties to the proceeding	Labor Prosecution Office of Minas Gerais (“MPT-MG”) (plaintiff) and Vale (defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$18,044,883.86
Main facts	MPT-MG filed on November 27, 2006, a public civil action aimed at preventing the outsourcing of services of (i) operation of machinery and equipment for mining, such as loader, excavator and drill; (ii) monitoring and reading of instruments in waste dams and sterile piles; and (iii) preparation and performance of a fire plan (detonation). On August 20, 2009, a judgment was rendered (partially granted) ordering Vale to refrain from outsourcing the aforementioned services and, therefore, to conduct such activities through its own employees. The court understood that such services would be the Company's end activities and thus could not be outsourced.

	On February 22, 2010, the Regional Labor Court of the 3^rd Region ("TRT3") dismissed the appeal filed by Vale and partially granted the MPT-MG appeal, in order to grant the interlocutory relief for immediate enforcement of the judgment. On May 18, 2010, Vale filed an appeal to the Superior Labor Court (“TST“), sustaining the violation to art. 129, III, of the Federal Constitution and to art. 83 of Complementary Law No. 75/93, as well as jurisprudential divergence regarding the lack of collective interest to authorize the filing of the civil action by the MPT-MG, which would imply its illegitimacy to propose the action, and, consequently, the extinction of the proceedings without judgment of merit (art. 267, I and VI and art. 295, V, of the Code of Civil Procedure). Vale also claimed breach of article 5, paragraphs XXII, LIV and LV, of the Federal Constitution, and article 899 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), due to the unreasonable judicial mortgage determined by TRT3 without there being an execution procedure. Finally, Vale claimed breach of items II and XIII of article 5, and sole paragraph of article 170, both of the Federal Constitution, for disrespect to the right to free exercise of the job or legal profession, since the legal qualifications are met, since the activities performed by the service providers are specialized and can be legitimately contracted. On May 21, 2010, in the action for a provisional remedy filed by Vale, TST granted an injunction request to suspend the interlocutory relief that determined the immediate enforcement of the judgment. On July 19, 2010, Vale filed an interlocutory appeal with TST due to the denial of the Review Appeal by TRT3. On March 18, 2015, the Interlocutory Appeal was filed by Vale, determining the consideration of Vale's Review Appeal. On April 8, 2015, the Review Appeal was found partially favorable to Vale by annulling the decision of the Motion for Clarification issued by TRT3. Despite the above decision, MPT-MG understands there is a fine for alleged noncompliance with the decision, and, as a precaution, Vale calculated the amounts sought by the Prosecution Office (approximately R$7.6 million) which would be added to the original requests of the case and classified with chance of remote loss. Due to the aforementioned questioning by MPT-MG, the amount involved in the case was reassessed in order to consider the new MPT-MG’s allegations regarding noncompliance with the court decision. Accordingly, the amount of the claim was revalued from R$ 856,000 on December 31, 2014 to R$ 12.8 million on December 31, 2015, although Vale does not agree with the determination of noncompliance and the application of the fine. The documents returned to TRT3, for a new judgment of the Motion for Clarification. Upon delay of the Motion for Clarification, a new Review Appeal was filed and, in view of its denial, an Interlocutory Appeal was filed, which is pending before the TST and was assigned to the 6^th Panel. In March 2018, Vale filed a petition before the TST requesting that the Court recognize that the action became moot, as Laws 13,429/17 and 13,467/17 authorize the outsourcing of the end activity. Subsequently, in the event of non-acceptance of this request, the Rapporteur of the appeal was requested to limit the adverse judgment until November 2017, when the mentioned law came into force. In September 2018, the lawsuit was dismissed because it depends on the STF's judgment on the “outsourcing” matter.
Chances of loss	1.90% of the total updated order was classified as Likely Loss, the remaining amount being classified as Remote Loss.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	In case the court holds the unfavorable decision, Vale will be obliged, in the region of Minas Gerais, to refrain from outsourcing the aforementioned services, and conduct such activities, therefore, through its own employees; and to cause the termination of outsourcing agreements that have such services as purpose. However, with the adoption of labor reform and consequent legal permission to outsource end activities, there is the possibility of the recognition of mootness of the action or, also, limitation of the adverse judgment until adoption of the new legislation.
Notes	Not applicable.

2) Case no. 0292800-44.2009.5.08.0117
Court	2^nd Labor Court of Marabá - PA
Higher	Trial Court
Date of filing	Dec 10, 2009
Parties to the proceeding	Vale S.A. (defendant) and Labor Prosecution Office of Pará (“MPT – PA”) (plaintiff)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$ 2,331,321.23 (by 12/31/2019)
Main facts	In 2009, after a fatal accident with the Company’s employee, MPT-PA filed a Public Civil Action petitioning for occupational safety and health measures, and in the end requested that the company be ordered to pay the amount of R$1 million, as collective mental distress damages, in addition to a fine of R$50,000 per unfulfilled obligation. Subsequently, the MPT-PA amended the statement of claims to require that the mental distress damages be increased to R$10 million. On June 11, 2015 a judgment was issued by the court of Marabá who ordered the Company to pay collective mental distress damages in the amount of R$44.1 million, that is, in a much higher amount than required by MPT-PA. It also condemned Vale, extra petita (not required in the request made by MPT-PA), to pay R$326.3 million for social dumping, as well as to pay retroactive default interest in the amount of R$310.2 million and a fine of R$7.7 million per fine for malicious prosecution and court costs of R$15.8 million, so that the amount of the adverse judgment totaled R$804.1 million. On June 16, 2015, an injunction was issued on the Writ of Mandamus filed by Vale before the Regional Labor Court ("TRT"), ordering the reduction of the court costs to R$200.000 so as to assure the right of the Company to file an appeal against the judgment of the Marabá court. On October 20, 2015, after Vale's Ordinary Appeal, a judgment was issued by the Second Panel of the TRT of the Eighth Region, largely favorable to Vale, determining reversal of the decision issued by the court of Marabá, to reduce the amount of collective mental distress damages to R$1 million and exclude from the adverse judgment the social dumping indemnity and the fine for malicious prosecution granted by the court of Marabá. Upon this second instance decision the total award was reduced from R$804 million to R$1.1 million. On October 26, 2015, Vale filed a Motion for Clarification seeking to suppress omission and contradiction of the judgment, due to the lack of challenge to the amount in dispute. Vale reiterated the preliminary argument of defect of the amendment to the complaint claiming that plaintiff could not have increased the amount in controversy more than 10 times without any justification and grounds. However, in August 2016, the Motion for Clarification was denied. On September 27, 2016, the MPT filed a Review Appeal, which was granted and consequently, contradicted by the Company. The Review Appeal was submitted to the Superior Labor Court (“TST”) on March 16, 2017. On May 31, 2019, an order was published denying the entertainment of the Appeal filed by the MPT. In the absence of a statement, res judicata took place on August 21, 2019. With the calculations updated by the Labor Court, Vale deposited the additional amount. Urged, the MPT requested a deadline to check the update, with which it agreed. On March 6, 2020, the MPT filed a petition in the records suggesting the project to implement infrastructure to reduce social exposure of young people and adolescents in Vila União, in Marabá/PA, with the United Nations Office of Services for Projects - UNOPS being the responsible for carrying out the activities and delivering the products planned under the project and achieving the proposed results.
Chances of loss	Likely loss, since, after judgment in the TST, only collective moral damage, in the amount of R$ 2,331,321.23, was upheld. The difference in the amount (groundless subject matters) involved against the amount of the award is considered to be a remote loss.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company.	The Company considers the process to be relevant and strategic because of the matter discussed in the suit, and the amount involved, which is linked to health and safety standards.

Notes

Not applicable.

3) Notices of Violation 20.588.905-1 and 20.589.903-0
Administrative Level	Ministry of Labor and Employment (“MTE”)
Instance	2^nd Administrative Instance
Date of filing	Feb 12, 2015
Parties to the proceeding	MTE and Vale
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$560,520.40 (being R$559,759.39 relating to notice 20.588.905-1 and R$761.01 relating to notice 20.589.903-0)
Main facts	In February 2015, the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MTE) supervised the activities of company Ouro Verde Locação e Serviços SA ("Ouro Verde"), which provided services to Vale for the transportation of finished products between Pico Mine (Itabirito-MG) and the railway terminals in Fábrica Mine (Congonhas-MG). The referred inspection resulted in notices of violation issued by the MTE, related to alleged (i) inadequate hygiene conditions; (ii) violation of safety standards; (iii) excessive working hours; (iv) outsourcing of finished products considered as end activity not subject to outsourcing; and (v) due to all of the aforementioned violations, the MTE filed a notice of violation for practices similar to slave labor. Although all the practices subject to the notices of violation refer to Ouro Verde, as the outsourcing was considered illegal, all the notices were drawn against Vale. Vale filed administrative defense before the MTE claiming: (i) that the transportation of products is outsourced; (ii) that there is no direct employment relationship between Vale and the employees of Ouro Verde; (iii) that there was a misunderstanding of the classification of alleged irregularities as “practice similar to slave labor”. The administrative defenses were not granted and Vale appealed to the second administrative instance. In April 2016, decisions were issued denying Vale's appeals. Once the administrative level had been exhausted, Vale filed an Action for Provisional Remedy (case n. 0010627-83.2016.5.03.0005) in which it obtained an injunction in favor of Vale to suspend the enforceability of the fine. The main action, an Action for Annulment of Notices of Violation was assigned to the same judge presiding over a connected lawsuit on May 27, 2016. As a result of the notices of violation issued by the MTE, the Labor Prosecution Office ("MPT") commenced Public Civil Inquiry No. 3212.2014.03.000/9-12 to investigate the alleged practice similar to slave labor in the services provided by Ouro Verde, upon Vale having signed with MPT Consent Decree no. 118/2015 ("TAC"), by means of which preventive and corrective measures were agreed to guarantee the labor rights of the employees of the companies that provide services. The commitments undertaken have been properly implemented. For information on said TAC, see item 4.7 of this Reference Form. Due to the fulfillment of the agreed commitments, the Civil Inquiry is provisionally closed. By adopting a broad interpretation of the law, the Ministry of Labor concluded that the employees had been working under conditions similar to slavery. Upon becoming aware of the findings, the Company promptly remedied the issues and, subsequently, terminated the contract with the transportation company. However, the Ministry of Labor filed an administrative proceeding against the Company. Vale presented its defense, which was rejected, the subsistence of the records being maintained. Against this decision, an administrative appeal was filed, which was not accepted, and the administrative proceeding was terminated. In June 2016, Vale commenced a legal proceeding requesting the annulment of administrative notices of violation and that the Ministry of Labor refrain from classifying it as a company involved in practices similar to slavery. For information on such lawsuits, see items 4 and 5 below. On April 30, 2018, the judgments regarding the annulment actions mentioned in items 4 and 5 et seq. were rendered, through which revoked, among other things, interlocutory relief that prevented the registration of the fines as overdue tax liability.

	Against said judgments, the competent appeals were filed. After assessing the appeals filed by Vale S.A., the notice of violation No. 20.588.905-1 was annulled by the TRT of the 3rd region and the outsourcing of the activities provided by the company Ouro Verde Locações e Serviços S.A. was deemed lawful. With regard to the lawsuit discussing the notice of violation No. 20.589.903-0, Vale S.A.'s appeal was dismissed and the Company remains appealing of the decisions.
Chances of loss	Remote for notice no. 20.588.905-1 and Likely for notice of violation no. 20.589.903-0
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company.	Low economic value, but relevant due to the impact to image.
Notes	Not applicable.

4) Case no. 0010784-59.2016.5.03.0004
Court	5^th Labor Court of Belo Horizonte/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	May 27, 2016
Parties to the proceeding	Vale S.A. (Plaintiff) Federal Government (Defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$8,401.45
Main facts	The subject matter of this suit is the annulment of notice of violation No. 20.588.905-1, drawn up against Vale by the Ministry of Labor, and based on the understanding of the supervisory authority, that the transportation of ore in the section of Pico/Fábrica road would not be subject to outsourcing, which is why the contracting between the Company and employees of Ouro Verde Locação e Serviços S.A. ("Ouro Verde") would have been illegal. On May 10, 2016, interlocutory relief was granted in favor of Vale by determining, through a Preliminary Injunction distributed on April 29, 2016, that the Ministry of Labor refrain from promoting the registration of the Notice of Violation in active debt as well as executing it, "before the final decision on the annulment suit that will be filed by the plaintiff" (Vale). On May 2, 2018, a judgment was issued dismissing the annulment action and repealing the injunction previously granted. Motion for Clarification was filed by Vale on May 9, 2018, to remedy omissions and contradictions, among which the pertinent point to revocation of the guardianship. The opposing Motion for Clarification has been accepted in part. Subsequently, Vale filed an Ordinary Appeal, and it was provided in December 2018 to render ineffective notice of violation No. 20.588.905-1, considering the legal outsourcing. At the date of this Reference Form, Vale awaits the judgment of the appeal filed by the Federal Government, forwarded to the TST.
Chances of loss	Remote.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company.	The maintenance of the understanding of illegality, in principle, would compel the Company to prioritize the transportation of ore, even in the case of a finished product, in the Pico/Fábrica area. The adverse judgment in said lawsuit may cause financial and reputational losses to the Company.
Notes	The subject matter of said lawsuit has correlation with lawsuit 5 below. Thus, see also the description and impacts of lawsuit 5 described below.

5) Case no. 0010787-11.2016.5.03.0005
Court	5^th Labor Court of Belo Horizonte/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	May 27, 2016
Parties to the proceeding	Vale S.A. (Plaintiff) Federal Government (Defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$16,349.23
Main facts	The subject matter of this action is the annulment of notice of violation no. 20.589.903-0 drawn up against Vale by the Ministry of Labor based on the understanding of the supervisory authority that employees of Ouro Verde Locação e Serviços SA ( "Ouro Verde") worked under conditions similar to slavery, subject to exhaustive working hours and degrading working

	conditions. Due to the understanding maintained by the auditors of the Ministry of Labor regarding the unlawfulness of the outsourcing between the Company and Ouro Verde, the notice of violation related to work similar to slavery was issued against Vale. On May 10, 2016, interlocutory relief was granted, through a Preliminary Injunction distributed on April 29, 2016, in favor of Vale, determining that the Ministry of Labor refrain from promoting the registration of the Notice of Violation in active debt, as well as before the final decision on the annulment suit filed by the plaintiff (Vale). On May 2, 2018, the sentence dismissing the suit was published. On May 9, 2018, Vale filed motion for clarification, and it was decided, on May 21, 2018, that the repeal of the interlocutory relief will only take effect after the decision has been res judicata, which has not yet occurred in view of the fact that the deed is in the appeal phase. Vale filed an Ordinary Appeal on June 6, 2018. In February 2019, despite the fact that the employment relationship between Vale and the employees of Ouro Verde Locações e Serviços S.A. was withdrawn, this fact was once again challenged, which had given rise to Vale's assessment of the degrading conditions of work, the 4th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of MG, through a non-unanimous decision, maintained the notice of violation, denying the Ordinary Appeal. Vale filed a motion for clarification, which has been deemed groundless. An Appeal was filed against the decision that upheld the aforementioned notice of violation, which was not entertained. An Interlocutory Appeal was filed against the decision that refused to entertain the Appeal, which is pending judgment by the TST. At the date of this Reference Form, Vale awaits the judgment of the appeal filed by Vale S.A., forwarded to the TST.
Chances of loss	Likely
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company.	The eventual loss of said proceeding and that described in item 4 above may cause significant financial and reputational losses to the Company, especially as it could cause Vale to be included in the list of slave employers maintained by the Ministry of Labor.
Notes	Not applicable.

6) Case no. 0001698-92.2014.5.03.0179
Court	41^stLabor Court of Belo Horizonte/MG
Instance	Higher Instance
Date of filing	May 29, 2014
Parties to the proceeding	Sindicato dos Trabalhadores em Empresas Ferroviarias de Belo Horizonte – STEFBH (Plaintiff) Vale S.A. (Defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Amount in controversy attributed by the Sindicato (Union) was R$40,000.00. The updated amount in controversy (as of December 31, 2019), to the knowledge of the Company, was R$25,066,661.88.
Main facts	By means of the aforementioned labor claim, Sindicato (Union) indented the following requests to be granted: (i) individual mental distress damages; (ii) collective mental distress damages; (iii) 01 extra daily hour with 50% overtime premium or higher conventional rate for not granting the full intra-day interval; (iv) payment of overtime premium for the whole period available as hours of commuting, standby and readiness; (v) union fees; (vi) mandatory injunction for abstaining from adopting a mono conduction system and to adopt a dual conduction system, to provide appropriate sanitary conditions, to adopt mono conduction with permission to use toilets during journeys or stops, to open stations in the travel sections so that they can be used for meal and satisfaction of physiological needs, all under penalty of fine to be determined by the court; (vii) interlocutory relief for fulfillment of the obligations to do; (viii) union fees. On June 09, 2014, Vale presented its defense initially addressing the Union’s lack of standing to sue, and exclusion of the non-associate substitutes. It

argued that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and on the merits it fully challenged all the pleas.

The hearing was scheduled for November 26, 2014. At the hearing the testimony of Vale’s representative and the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness was gathered. The trial date was set for December 5, 2014.

In the judgment, the court dismissed the case in relation to those substituted in case records 0001784-59.2012.5.03.0106 due to the lis alibi pendens of the requests, it rejected the preliminary arguments, declared the prescription of the claims prior to December 09, 2008, and ordered Vale to pay the following portions:

(i) interval between shifts and its reflexes;

(ii) handover time and its reflexes;

(iii) Union fees to the amount of 15% of the net value calculated in settlement of the case;

It arbitrated the judgment of R$ 30,000.00 with costs by Vale in the amount of R$ 600.00.

Vale filed an Ordinary Appeal asking for a review of the decision so that the lack of standing to sue with the union as plaintiff might be recognized and on the merits that the interval between shifts, handover time and union fees might be separated from the judgment.

The Union, as plaintiff, prepared an Ordinary Appeal asking for a revision of the judgment to determine that the defendant operate the locomotives with two drivers; ordering the defendant to pay individual and collective non-pecuniary damages; payment of the deferred portions with the inclusion of the portions yet to be paid.

In the TRT3, the relevance and public interest of the matters contained in the records was recognized and their submission to the Labor Prosecution Office, which manifested itself in favor of partial granting of the Ordinary Appeal filed by the Union, as plaintiff, to order the defendant to adopt the two driver system and compensation for individual and collective non-pecuniary damages.

The judgment rejected the preliminary arguments and on the merits partially granted the Ordinary Appeal filed by Vale to separate the order to pay handover time and its reflexes.

However, the referred to judgment partially granted the Ordinary Appeal filed by the Union, as plaintiff, to add to the judgment:

(i) on one side, to abstain from adopting a single-driver system and to adopt the two-driver system of the locomotives as from the final decision under a penalty of a daily fine of R$2,000.00 for each adversely affected worker found in an irregular situation at each monthly observation of non-compliance;

(ii) compensation for individual non-pecuniary damages to the amount of R$ 10,000.00 for each one substituted;

(iii) compensation for collective non-pecuniary damages to the amount of R$ 500,000.00 reverted to the Workers’ Support Fund (FAT – Fundo de Amparo ao Trabalhador);

(iv) add the portions payable of the obligations of payment of interval overtime, while the situations remain that gave raise to them;

(v) collection of FGTS, specifying that they should consider as a basis for calculation, the interval overtime already increased by the granted reflexes;

It raised the value of the judgment from R$ 30,000.00 to R$ 550,000.00 with consequent procedural costs in the amount of R$ 11,000.00.

The Union, as plaintiff, filed an Appeal to change the judgment with regard to the rejection of the hours of readiness and standby.

Vale filed an Appeal for Review for a change of the judgment for recognition of the lack of standing to sue of the plaintiff Union, nullity of the judgment for lack of jurisdiction, in the measure that it did not examine the thesis addressed in the Ordinary Appeal, as well as the absence of exhaustive or analytical grounds of the judgment, a decision above and beyond the request; and on the merits a review with regard to the granting of interval overtime, an obligation to do or not do relating to the adoption of a two-driver system;

	compensation for individual and collective non-pecuniary damages and reduction of the compensatory amount and application of a fine for bad-faith litigation. The Regional Court of the 3^rd Region received the Appeal for Review prepared by the Union, as plaintiff, and denied continuation of the Appeal issued by Vale. The Interlocutory Appeal filed by Vale was rejected by the TST. The Company filed an extraordinary appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. Awaiting judgment of the appeal on the date of this Reference Form. Case held by the judge under advisement. Provisory Execution dismissed.
Chances of loss	Likely (80%) and Remote (20%)
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The relevance of the case comes about because if the decision of the Regional Court is maintained, Vale, in the territorial area of the STEFBH, will have to implement the two-driver scheme, that is, the drivers must be accompanied by another employee when traveling. The loss of the referred to case could cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

7) Case no. 0010261-67.2019.5.03.0028
Court	5^th Labor Court of Betim/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	March 25, 2019
Parties to the proceeding	Labor Prosecution Office (“MPT”)/Sindicato dos Empregados em Empresas de Asseio/ Sindicato dos Empregados em Empresas de Refeições Coletivas/Public Defender’s Office of the Federal Government/SINDIASSEIO/Sindicato dos Trabalhadores na Indústria da Extração de Ferro e Metais Básicos de Brumadinho e Região/ Sindicato dos Trabalhadores nas Empresas de Produção, Organização e Projetos de Eventos do Estado de Minas Gerais/ SITICOP MG/ FETICOM MG/ SINTRAL MG/ Sindados (Plaintiffs) and Vale S.A. (Defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$3,600,000,000.00 (amount in dispute on December 31, 2019)
Main facts	The subject matter of this suit is to provide for the protection of the employment contracts of those who worked in the Feijão mine at the time of the Brumadinho dam rupture, in addition to the pension of dependents of deceased/disappeared employees, payment of collective moral damages and social dumping. The initial hearing was scheduled for May 17, 2019 and later re-scheduled for June 03, 2019. The amount of R$ 1,600,000,000.00 was blocked in Vale's accounts, due to a judicial order issued in the Interlocutory Relief, case no. 0010080-15.2019.5.03.0142, which preceded the filing of this Public Civil Action. On July 15, 2019, an agreement was signed between Vale the MPT, with the participation of unions, through which the following indemnity parameters were established for the relatives of workers who were victims of the failure of the B1 Dam: (i) parents, spouses or partners, and children of deceased workers will individually receive R$ 500 thousand for moral damages, and the payment of an additional insurance for work accidents in the amount of R$ 200 thousand, (b) brothers will receive R$ 150 thousand. There will also be the payment of pecuniary damage to the family of dependents, whose minimum value is R$ 800 thousand. The agreement also provides for the benefit of daycare assistance in the amount of R$ 920 per month for children of deceased workers up to 3 years of age, and education aid in the amount of R$ 998 per month for children between 3 and 25 years of age. There is also the granting of a lifetime health plan for spouses or partners and for children up to 25 years of age. The agreement also provides for stability for own and outsourced workers, stationed at the Córrego do Feijão mine on the day of the failure, and for the survivors who were working at the time of the failure, for a period of 03 years, counted from January 25, 2019, which can be converted into cash. The agreement also provides for the payment of R$ 400.0 million as collective moral damages. Finally, the agreement also determined the release of BRL 1.6 billion initially blocked by Vale.

	On August 4, 2019, Vale proved in the records the deposit in court, as a result of the consent decree, in the amount of R$ 400 million as collective moral damage. On September 26, 2019, a decision was issued, stating that “the termination of the employment relationship is a precondition (necessary precedent) for the exercise of the power to convert provisional stability into cash. With regard to the health plan, the approved agreement guarantees such benefit only to spouses, partners, children and dependents of employees who died or disappeared due to the failure of the B1 dam in Brumadinho (item 4 of the agreement), not reaching surviving employees who exercise the option to convert provisional stability into cash.”, and the request for schedule of a hearing was rejected. On February 10, 2020, in view of a statement by the MPT, Vale stated in the records elucidating the impossibility of discussing the terms of the ACP agreement, in view of the impossibility of investing against the approved instrument of conciliation, clarifying that any and all pending incident or issue is to be solved in the areas of qualifications. On March 26, 2020, the judge granted the management committee's request for allocation of the amount of the indemnity for moral damages, so that part of the amount was allocated to combat Covid-19.
Chances of loss	Likely for the collective moral damage object and for the other indemnity installments provided for in the ACP agreement of July 15, 2019, namely: daycare allowance, education aid, moral damages, pecuniary damages, additional insurance for occupational accidents, health plan, stability, psychological/psychiatric assistance. The other subject matters are considered as remote loss.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company.	The July 15, 2019 agreement ended the ACP cognizance phase. The process is strategic for the Company, since it established, by consensus, the compensation parameters for the relatives of the workers of the victims of the failure of the BI dam.
Notes	Not applicable.

8) Case no. 0010357-31.2019.5.03.0142
Court	5^th Labor Court of Betim/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	April 10, 2019
Parties to the proceeding	Metabase Brumadinho / SITICOP-MG / SEERC-MG / FETICOM / SINTEPOPE / Rental Companies MG Workers Union / SINDADOS-MG
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$ 10,000,000,000.00 (amount in dispute on December 31, 2019)
Main facts	The purpose of this action is to pay indemnity to the families of deceased or missing victims in the amount of R $ 10,000,000.00, as well as an indemnity of R $ 1,500,000.00 to rescued survivors and R $ 1,000,000.00 to survivors who they were not at the site, but who had a job or work relationship with Vale. The claim also covers the payment of compensation for material damage to the families of the fatal victims and to the surviving victims. At the end, there is still a claim for indemnity for collective moral damage equivalent to R $ 4,000,000,000.00 and indemnity for social dumping. And, finally, the authors intend that Vale should be obliged to keep workers' jobs, wages and benefits until mining activity is resumed on site and, at least, for a period of 3 years, while the decommissioning lasts, condemning the Company to reinstate employees eventually dismissed after January 25, 2019. A freezing of R$5,480,000,000.00 was requested in Vale’s accounts, which was rejected because the magistrate did not perceive the existence of risk of harm or risk to the useful outcome of the proceeding. Initial hearing held, with the presentation of defense and documents by Vale. Hearing for attempted conciliation scheduled for August 19, 2019, postponed to February 17, 2020, when the Judge granted a new deadline for the parties to attempt at a conciliation, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for March 27, 2020. On said date, the proceeding was removed from the docket, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

	Subsequently, the Company entered into a partial agreement with SITICOOP, SEERC, SINDIASSEIO, and the Union of Employees in Security and Surveillance Companies. The Judge will designate a videoconference hearing, to examine the partial agreements and check the possibility of conciliation with the other Union Entities.
Chances of loss	Blocking of registration: Remote loss Constitution of the provision: Remote loss Individual property damages: Possible loss Individual mental distress damages: Possible loss Collective mental distress damages: Remote loss Social dumping damages: Remote loss Obligation to abstain from dismissing employees with stability: Possible loss
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The fact in question may cause financial losses to the Company, especially with respect to collective moral damages, in view of the arbitration sought by the union agencies (R$4,000,000,000.00). In addition, it strengthens the damage to Vale’s reputation, either because it keeps in evidence all the facts that happened in Brumadinho due to the rupture of the dam and its serious repercussions, or because it continuously revolves the situation of the workers that survived the failure of B1 Dam, as well as the workers allocated to Córrego do Feijão Mine.
Notes	Not applicable.

9) Case no. 0010319-76.2019.5.03.0026
Court	5^th Labor Court of Betim/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	April 05, 2019
Parties to the proceeding	SITRAMONTI-MG - Industrial Assemblies of Minas Gerais Workers Union
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$500,000.00 (amount in dispute on December 31, 2019)
Main facts	The subject matter of this lawsuit is the payment of compensation for material damages to dependents of deceased / missing employees; indemnity for material damages related to all the benefits provided in ACT/CCT, in a single installment; and, alternatively, in the form of pension. The union also intends the payment of compensation of not less than R$5,000,000.00 for each family group and, finally, the payment of legal fees. Initial hearing held on July 7, 2019, with the presentation of defense and documents by Vale. Judgment was handed down, which dismissed the proceeding without resolution on the merits, considering that the lawsuit represented a simulated dispute between the parties, as there is a class action in progress with other unions that address the subject matter of compensation for dependents of missing or deceased employees, and the Plaintiff of this lawsuit does not appear as plaintiff in said class action, and sentenced the parties (plaintiff and defendant) to pay a fine for bad faith litigation, in the amount of R$ 10,000.00 for each. Vale filed an ordinary appeal, which was dismissed by the TRT. Vale filed an appeal. Currently, the lawsuit awaits an analysis of admissibility of the appeal filed by VALE.
Chances of loss	Maintenance of the employment agreement benefits: Remote loss Individual property damages: Remote loss Individual mental distress damages: Remote loss Attorney’s fees: Remote loss Fine for malicious prosecution: Likely loss Obligation to do, consisting in the disclosure of documents: Remote loss
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	In addition, it increases the damage to Vale’s reputation.
Notes	Not applicable.

10) Cases no. 0000356-94.2019.5.08.0126 and 0000361-07.2019.5.08.0130
Court	2^nd Labor Court of Parauapebas – PA

Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Jul 16, 2019 and Jul 19, 2019 - respectively
Parties to the proceeding	Vale S.A. (defendant) and Labor Prosecution Office of Pará (“MPT – PA”) (plaintiff)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$ 134,483,000.00 and R$ 134,483,000.00 – respectively.
Main facts	On June 16 and 19, 2019, the MPT-PA filed a Public-Interest Civil Action against Vale S.A., claiming several obligations and collective moral damage due to the Water Catchment Dams and Tailings Ponds, located in the Igarapé Bahia Mine - Parauapebas/PA. These obligations would be: (i) immediate declaration of the emergency of both dams; (ii) preparation of an independent technical audit report on the possibility of carrying out emergency activities remotely; (iii) implementing remote correction mechanisms and all necessary safety measures described in the report in favor of protecting direct and indirect workers; (iv) performing a special safety inspection prepared by a multidisciplinary team of experts, hired and paid for by Vale; (v) preparing PSB and PAE/PAEBM for the aforementioned dams, containing specifications for the effective protection of workers' safety in the event of failure; (vi) implementing the entire PAE/PAEBM of these dams in the entire area, which could be affected by failure or serious misfortune, and carrying out capacity building and training of workers exposed to risk; (vii) hire a certifying accountant firm to review and certify the full compliance of the PSB and PAE/PAEBM; (viii) submitting monthly reports in court, signed by a multidisciplinary team of experts or a company hired for this purpose, until a significant reduction in the risk of rupture, and express declaration of workers' safety, or even the issuance of the stability certificate upon presentation of the DCE signed by a competent professional - all of these under penalty of a daily fine of one million reais (R$ 1,000,000.00). With regard to action no. 361-07.2019.0130, Vale has the following obligations: (i) prove the hiring of companies responsible for the execution of all stages of the construction project, necessary to prevent risks of rupture/overtopping of the indicated dams; (ii) prove the hiring of a company responsible for the design and execution of temporary emergency measures, such as water pumping and control of the free board of dams; arranging for the hiring of a certifying accountant firm to monitor and certify the court on compliance with obligations; (iii) perform basic safety maintenance works/services at the dams; (iv) preparing and implementing a specific risk study; (v) perform risk mitigation measures, implementing the water pumping system, and control of free board of the dams; (vi) prepare a specific risk study; (vii) carry out the projects to implement the spillway systems of both dams; (viii) preparing and implementing a specific study of risks to which the workers who will carry out the measures will be exposed; (ix) execute mitigating measures recommended by the independent external audit; (x) disclose on major newspapers, as a relevant fact, the decisions on provisional and definitive relief; (xi) periodically submit - 30 days - progress report on the measures described in the previous orders; all of these obligations are linked to a fine of one million reais (R$ 1,000,000.00) in case of noncompliance; collective moral damage. On July 19, 2019, a decision was issued on the request for injunction for Vale to declare the emergency situation of both dams, submit a report to be prepared by an independent technical audit, among others, under penalty of a daily fine of one million reais (R$ 1,000,000.00). A request for reconsideration was requested by Vale, which was accepted by the court that suspended the injunction. On August 2, 2019, the first hearing took place, where the parties decided to reconcile (in both actions) with regard to some obligations, one of which being the declaration of an emergency situation (although it does not recognize it), in addition to several obligations, each with a specific term. All obligations are being fulfilled, observing the agreed term. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for 7/21/2020.
Chances of loss	Remote loss, as the lawsuit is at the production of evidence phase, with all obligations being fulfilled, awaiting a hearing for the parties' testimony.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company.	The Company considers the lawsuits to be relevant and strategic because of the amount involved and the matter discussed in the suits, which is linked to the dam safety issue.
Notes	These lawsuits are being processed together and serve the same subject matter on the same site - Igarapé Bahia and its water intake and tailings dams and ponds. A first agreement was formalized in both proceedings where the obligations of one complement the other.

(ii) Taxes

The tables below present an individual description of tax proceedings considered relevant to the Company's and/or its subsidiaries' businesses as of December 31, 2019.

As a result of the classification of tax cases as likely loss, the Company has constituted, over the years, a provision that added up to, on December 31, 2019, the amount of R$2.804,billion, of which (i) R$357 millionare linked to its controlled companies abroad, and (ii) R$ 2.447 billionrefer to the Company and its Brazilian controlled companies and sold companies, the liabilities of which remain under the responsibility of Vale.

1) Action for Relief from Judgment no. 2006.02.01001869-2
Court	Regional Federal Court of the 2^nd Region
Instance	Appellate Court
Date of filing	Feb 20, 2006
Parties to the proceeding	Federal Government (plaintiff) and Vale (defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Until December 31, 2019, R$ 8 billion in CSLL were deducted from the calculation base of the IRPJ.
Main facts	In 2004, a judgment by the Higher Court of Justice (“STJ”) became unappealable in favor of Vale, which granted it the right to deduct the amounts that it pays by way of Social Security Contributions over Net Profit (“CSLL”) from Corporate Income Tax (“IRPJ”). In 2006, the Federal Government filed an Action for Relief from Judgment aiming at reviewing the final decision of 2004. Such action was rejected by the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro and by the Federal Court of Appeals (“TRF”) of the 2^nd Region. In 2008, the Federal Government filed motion for clarification against the TRF’s decision, which were deprived. In 2009, the Federal Government appealed to the STJ and the Federal Supreme Court (“STF”). In 2012, the Special Appeal of the Federal Government was not entertained, and it filed an internal interlocutory appeal. This, in turn, was granted, which lead to the presentation of an internal interlocutory appeal by Vale in 2014. In 2016, Vale’s internal interlocutory appeal was rejected and the STJ ordered that the case be referred to the TRF for a new judgment of the motions for clarification by the Federal Government in 2008. In 2017, Vale filed the appellee’s brief. In 2019, the TRF, in a new judgment, granted the motion for clarification filed by the Federal Government, in order to terminate the decision favorable to the Company, handed down in 2004. In view of the new TRF decision, the Company filed a motion for clarification, to which supersedeas was rejected. Currently, Vale is awaiting judgment of the motion for clarification filed by Vale.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	In case an Action for Relief from Judgment is fully granted, determining the annulment of the 2004 judgment, the Company can lose the right to deduction of CSLL from taxable income.
Notes	Due to the recent developments of this action, the Company decided not to deduct CSLL from its taxable profit, prospectively, as of the end of the year of 2019.

2) Writ of Mandamus no. 2011.51.01.011763-1
Court	Supreme Federal Court
Instance	Higher Instance
Date of filing	Aug 05, 2011
Parties to the proceeding	Inspector of the Federal Revenue Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro (defendant) and Vale S.A. (successor of Valepar S.A. by merger, as of 2017, plaintiff).
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Total legal deposits: R$2.48 billion (December 31, 2019) and R$ 533 million referring to the adhesion to Refis.
Main facts	In 2011, Valepar (merged into Vale in 2017) filed a Writ of Mandamus with the purpose of guaranteeing its right not to include the amounts received as

	interest on the stockholder's equity (“JCP”) in the calculation base of PIS and COFINS as of 2004. It argued, in summary, the inequality of the treatment given to taxpayers according to the tax regime and / or domicile of the partner. The PIS and COFINS amounts on the JCP were deposited at each distribution. The trial court’s judgment extinguished the lawsuit without judgment of merit, in view of alleged lis alibi pendens with another Writ of Mandamus previously filed, which although also aimed at removing the application of PIS and COFINS on JCP had a different cause of action. In 2012, the Appeal filed by Valepar was deemed groundless. In October 2013, Valepar filed Special and Extraordinary Appeals. In December 2013, the company adhered to REFIS, instituted by Law no. 12.865/2013, and partially withdrew from the legal discussion regarding the events that led to the generating events of Oct/2004, Apr/2005, Oct/2005, Apr/2006, Oct/2006, Apr/2007, Oct/2007, Apr/2008 and Oct/2008. After joining, a decision was issued that ratified the partial withdrawal of resources in relation to the taxable events included in Refis. In 2014, the Special and Extraordinary Appeals were inadmissible, and Interlocutory Appeals were filed against the denial decisions. In 2016, Valepar’s Special Appeal was judged favorably in order to dismiss the lis alibi pendens, annulling the judgment and determining the return of the records to the origin to analyze the merits. In 2017, an unfavorable judgment was pronounced, with the determination of conversion of all the deposits made into income, conditioned to the lawsuit becoming unappealable. Motion for clarification was filed, and was dismissed. In 2018, an Appeal was filed, and was judged as unfounded. The Motion for Clarification filed against this decision was rejected. In 2019, Vale filed a new Extraordinary Appeal, rejected by the Vice President of the Regional Federal Court of the 2^nd Region Thus, an Extraordinary Appeal was filed. Upon receiving the case, the Federal Supreme Court determined the overturn of the Writ of Mandamus due to the general repercussion in RE 607.642. Vale filed an interlocutory appeal in view of this decision demonstrating that the general repercussion does not apply to the case, considering that in that leading case what is being discussed is the constitutionality of the non-cumulative nature of PIS established by Law no. 10,637/02 on the billing of legal entities that provide services. The examination of the Extraordinary Appeal filed by Vale is awaited.
Chances of loss	Likely
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	In the event of an unfavorable final decision, the legal deposits will be converted into income in favor of the Federal Government.
Notes	Not applicable.

3) Administrative Proceeding no. 16682.720914/2019-17
Court	Regional Judgment Office (“DRJ”)
Instance	1st administrative instance
Date of filing	Nov 26, 2019
Parties to the proceeding	Federal Government (plaintiff) and Vale (defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	On December 31, 2019, the total amount in dispute was R$ 1.4 billion, compared to the base year of 2016, in addition to the reduction of tax losses calculated in 2015 and 2016 in the amounts of R$ 3.271 billion and R$ 900 million, respectively.
Main facts	In November 2019, Vale was assessed for the collection of corporate income tax (IRPJ) and social contribution on net income (CSLL), for the base years of 2015 and 2016. This charge arises from the deduction, allegedly unjustified, of the costs of intermediation in the determination by the Company of the transfer price on the export of iron, copper and manganese to its subsidiary abroad.

	This assessment was challenged in all aspects and an administrative decision is awaited.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	In case of an unfavorable final administrative decision, there exists the possibility of a requirement for a guarantee of the amounts in question.
Notes	It is possible that similar tax assessments may be received in relation to other years.

4) Tax Provisional Remedy no. 0021378-63.2018.4.01.380
Court	27^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Jun 05, 2018
Parties to the proceeding	Federal Government (plaintiff) and Vale (defendant), and others.
Amounts, goods or rights involved	The request addresses the unavailability of assets and rights for remedy of tax and social security credit of R$ 10,773,665,721.36 (base date of Jun 20, 2018).
Main facts	The Federal Government requested before the 27th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte, the unavailability of Samarco shareholders' assets and rights, as a precautionary measure for guarantee of alleged tax and social security debts of this company, in the amount of R$ 10,773,665,721.36 (base date of Jun 20, 2018). Initially, an injunction was granted to render Vale's assets and rights unavailable. This decision was reversed in all relevant aspects, because all the debts covered by said injunction had enforceability suspended under Brazilian law. Vale’s summons was attached to the case record in January 2019, and the Company filed its defense in a timely manner. The defense was based on the lack of legal grounds for the filing of such lawsuit, in view of the suspended enforceability of the tax and social security debts, as well as in the non-occurrence of the legal hypotheses that would authorize Vale to be held liable for paying the amounts in question. In May 2019, a favorable judgment was rendered for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, due to lack of interest in the suit. Against this decision, the Federal Government filed a Motion for Clarification. In June 2019, a decision was issued that partially accepted such Motion for Clarification solely to restrict the confidentiality of documents attached to the records. In July 2019, the Federal Government filed an appeal against that decision, and Vale presented its briefs. Currently, judgment of the appeal is pending.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Unavailability of assets and rights for remedy of tax and social security credit of R$ 10,773,665,721.36 (base date of Jun 20, 2018).
Notes	Not applicable.

5) Administrative Proceeding no. 16682.721173/2013-04
Court	Higher Chamber of Tax Appeals of CARF
Instance	3rd administrative instance
Date of filing	Nov 14, 2013
Parties to the proceeding	Federal Government (plaintiff) and Vale (defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$ 1.8 billion referring to the collection by the Brazilian Internal Revenue Service of an isolated fine, due to omissions and inaccuracies in the fulfillment of accessory obligation - PIS/COFINS 2008 to 2010.
Main facts	Vale was assessed by the Brazilian Internal Revenue Service for the collection of an isolated fine due to alleged omissions and inaccuracies in magnetic files in the delivery of accessory obligations related to PIS and COFINS from 2008 to 2010, based on IN/RFB 86. The collection considered as basis for calculation 1% of the gross revenue in the years 2008 to 2010. A favorable decision was rendered at the 1st administrative level, which reduced the percentage of the fine on gross revenue from 1% to 0.2%. At the 2nd administrative level, the Company obtained yet another favorable decision, which maintained the percentage of 0.2% and limited the calculation base, so that only the billing for the month prior to the delivery of the magnetic files is considered.

	The Federal Government filed a last administrative appeal, which is pending judgment by the Higher Chamber of Tax Appeals of CARF.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	In the event of an unfavorable final administrative decision, there will be the possibility of presenting a guarantee for discussion at the judicial level.
Notes	Not applicable.

(iii) Civil

As of December 31, 2019, the amount of R $ 1.213 billion was provisioned in the consolidated financial statements of the Company to cover the probable losses from civil proceedings.

The tables below present an individual description of the civil cases deemed relevant for the businesses of the Company and/or of its controlled companies, established by December 31, 2019.

1) Case no. 0063023-34.2008.8.19.0001
Court	41^st Civil Court of the State Appellate Court of Rio de Janeiro
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Mar 17, 2008
Parties to the proceeding	Vale (plaintiff) and the Landless Workers Movement (“MST”) (defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Protection of the Company’s assets and guarantee of its operational activities.
Main facts	Vale filed a lawsuit with the purpose of ceasing violent acts of violation or incitement that would cause the halting of the Company’s operational activities by the MST. The request for interlocutory relief was granted so as to determine that the MST refrain from such acts. The MST failed to comply with said judicial order, reason for which Vale requested an increase to the fine established in case of non-compliance, which was granted by the court. In 2012, the parties initiated efforts towards a possible settlement for the resolution of this case. On July 06, 2015, an order was published determining that the parties should state whether they were in fact interested in entering into an agreement, it being no longer possible for the parties to request the suspension of the case. Production of evidence phase started. By reason of the recent non-compliance with the judicial order that granted the interlocutory relief on the case, Vale requested a new application and increase to the fine previously established. On September 30, 2016, the case left the sentencing group because the judge found that part of the order had not been complied with. Following that, the judge ordered the Plaintiff to request the collection of costs for the expedition of the rogatory letters intended to collect the testimony of the witnesses he wrote, a decision published on October 19, 2016. On October 26, 2016, Vale filed the petition declining from the testimonial evidence due to the long time elapsed since the filing of the lawsuit, requesting the confirmation of the preliminary injunction granted in 2008 and the granting of the claim of the initial pleading, as well as the increase to the fine for failure to comply with the interlocutory relief, in view of the new non-compliances reported in the record. On February 15, 2018, a judgment was entered in the record and, thus, Vale’s claim was granted to determine that the defendants abstain from inciting and promoting the practice of violent acts against the facilities of the plaintiff, as well as acts that might cause the interruption of the plaintiff company’s activities, within 72 hours counting from the disclosure of the judgment, under penalty of a fine of R$ 100,000.00 per act practiced in disagreement with this precept. The judgment also confirmed the order, making it definite, observing the increase to the applied fine. The defendants were also ordered to pay the procedural costs and attorney’s fees in favor of the plaintiff’s lawyer, which were set at 10% of the amount in dispute. On April 20, 2018, the notary office certified that the decision was made final and unappealable. In mid-2018, the execution of the judgment was begun to receive fines, costs and sucumbencial fees, and, on February 26, 2019, the issuance of a rogatory

	letter for subpoena and summons of the enforced parties was deferred, not having been dispatched. On May 14, 2019, the Letter Rogatory is received at the TJ/SP and returns to the TJ/RJ in September 2019 with a negative result. As a result, the issuance of a new letter was requested, which has been granted, and its dispatch is awaited.
Chances of loss	Remote
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The case was initiated with the purpose of guaranteeing the protection of the Company’s assets and its operational activities. An eventual unfavorable decision might increase the company’s exposure to the incitement acts of the MST.
Notes	Not applicable.

2) Case no. 0009362-71.1997.4.02.5001
Court	5^th Panel of the Regional Federal Court of the 2^nd Region
Instance	Appellate Court
Date of filing	Nov 10, 1997
Parties to the proceeding	Public Prosecution Office of Espírito Santo (plaintiff); federal government, Gerdau Açominas S.A., Companhia Siderúrgica de Tubarão, Usinas Siderúrgicas de Minas Gerais S.A., Vale, Odacir Klein, Luis Andre Rico Vicente, Jorge Eduardo Brada Donato, José Armando Figueiredo Campos, Rinaldo Campos Soares, João Jackson Amaral, Claudio José Anchieta de Carvalho Borges, Ivo Costa Serra, and Companhia Docas do Espírito Santo (CODESA) (defendants)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Incalculable – Request to annul the port concession contract for Tubarão Complex’s terminals.
Main facts	This is a public-interest civil action that seeks to annul the authorization by which Vale and some of the other defendants operate Praia Mole Port Terminal in the state of Espírito Santo. In November 2007, 10 years after the case was filed, a sentence was issued, deeming the case to be completely groundless and recognizing the validity of the concession contracts that permit the use of the port terminals located at Praia Mole. On July 03, 2012, the judgment was upheld by the Regional Federal Court of the 2^nd Region (TRF2) when judging an appeal filed by the Federal Prosecution Office. The latter, unhappy with the decision of the TRF2, filed a Special (STJ) and Extraordinary (STF) Appeal on October 23, 2012. Judgment of Special Appeal no. 1534854/RJ is pending before the STJ. Case held by the judge under advisement for judgment since June 14, 2019.
Chances of loss	Remote
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Incalculable value, as it could impact Vale’s operations in the State of Espírito Santo, since this proceeding questions the validity of the concession agreement for the exploration of the Tubarão Complex Terminals.
Notes	Not applicable.

3) Case no. 0024892-89.2011.8.13.0570
Court	1^st Civil Court of the Judicial District of Salinas/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Sep 14, 2011
Parties to the proceeding	Public Prosecution Office of the State of Minas Gerais (“MPMG”) (Plaintiff); Vale S.A., Instituto de Terras de Minas Gerais (“ITER”), Manoel da Silva Costa Junior, Evandro Carvalho, Mauro Eurípedes Rocha Mendes, Ricardo de Carvalho Rocha, Luciana Rocha Mendes, Orozino Marques de Carvalho, Adelzuith Marques Santos, Altemar Alves Ferreira, and Breno Rodrigues Mendes (Defendants).
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Compensation for damages to the state government of Minas Gerais amounting to at least R$200 million, a civil fine of no less than R$600 million, and the ownership of lands acquired by Vale. However, it should be noted that these sums were attributed by the Plaintiff, and it is not possible at this time to estimate the possible amount to be settled by the Company.
Main facts	This is a public-interest civil action filed by the State Public Prosecution Office against Vale and 10 other defendants. In short, the Public Prosecutors’ Office argues for the existence of an “organized group of people who have acted to illegally appropriate lands belonging to the state government of Minas Gerais.” The Public Prosecution Office requested an injunction to seize the assets of the defendants, except Vale, up to the sum of R$200,000,000, to carry out a search and seizure of movable assets, and to remove their banking and tax confidentiality. The injunction was granted by the court and upheld by the

	Minas Gerais Court of Appeals. In the end, the Public Prosecution Office requested the following: “the suspension of all effects – and consequent annulment – of all titles of legitimate agricultural use issued by ITER involving lands located in the municipalities of Salinas, Santa Cruz de Salinas, Padre Carvalho, Fruta de Leite and Rubelita, in the period between January 2007 and August 2011”; an order for ITER “to hire a specialized company, at its own expense, to carry out an audit of all the titles of legitimate agricultural use issued by the state government of Minas Gerais in the period between January 2007 and August 2011”; to condemn all the defendants “to the loss of illegally gained goods or sums”; to “provide full compensation for the harm imposed on the state government of Minas Gerais, whose minimum value must be R$200,000,000”; to levy a “civil fine of no less than R$600,000,000”; to “remove their public functions and positions”; to “suspend their political rights”; and to “prohibit them from entering into contracts with the public authorities or receiving benefits from them.” Vale presented its defense (challenge) on March 15, 2012, but the fact-checking stage has not yet begun. On March 23, 2017, a conflict of jurisdiction was claimed. On May 8, 2017, the Judge raised a "positive conflict of jurisdiction", which is why the TJMG established the conflict of jurisdiction of No. 0238729-84.2017.8.13.0000, defining the jurisdiction of the Judge of the 1st Civil Court of the County of Salinas to judge the public civil lawsuit. On October 26, 2018, the Motion for Clarification filed by Vale was not accepted, which refuted the removal of the preliminary indictees, and a review was not filed due to the prohibition of art. 1015 of CPC/15. In any case, the Judge deferred the probation delay and the possibility of defining the object of the investigation to be performed at the time of the Instruction and Judgment Hearing, not causing damages to the Company. On May 3, 2019, the case was closed for dispatch. A Pretrial Hearing was assigned for September 14, 2020.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Harm to the Company’s image by having its name associated with the practice of fraudulent appropriation of lands in the northern part of the state of Minas Gerais, the cancellation of land acquisitions, and the loss of sums paid by Vale (approximately R$35.0 million).
Notes	Not applicable.

4) Extraordinary Appeal – 808621
Court	Supreme Federal Court
Instance	Instance
Date of filing	May 15, 2014
Parties to the proceeding	Interunion Capitalização S.A. and others (plaintiffs); Companhia Paulista de Ferro Ligas (CPFL) (defendant)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	R$ 1,721,472,458.63 (on December 31, 2019)
Main facts	Interunion filed an enforcement procedure against Vale subsidiary CPFL to demand R$248,968,222.18, corresponding to 200 bonds that were the subject of a contract that despite being titled “Purchase and Sale of Bonds,” was in fact a bond lease contract. The defense (motion to stay execution) presented by CPFL was rejected, leading it to file an appeal with the Bahia Court of Appeals. In judging this appeal, the Bahia Court of Appeals upheld the decision to reject the appeal. CPFL then filed a special appeal with the Superior Court of Appeals. The Superior Court of Appeals accepted CPFL’s special appeal and ordered the annulment of the enforcement process, deeming that Interunion had not adequately demonstrated the calculation of the enforced amount, which is indispensable when requesting such an enforcement process. Interunion then filed a series of appeals against the Superior Court of Appeals’ decision (a motion for clarification, an appeal against a divergent decision, an internal interlocutory appeal, and a new motion for clarification), all of which were rejected in turn. Interunion then filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Federal Court. When examining this appeal’s admissibility, the Superior Court of Appeals deemed that the appeal was groundless and did not allow it to progress to the Supreme Federal Court for analysis of the case’s merits, in line with the ruling published on March 10, 2014. Interunion filed an appeal against this decision of inadmissibility (interlocutory appeal), and on April 22, 2014 it was submitted to the Supreme Federal Court. The Office of the Prosecutor General then issued an opinion, ruling that the extraordinary appeal should not be allowed to proceed.

	After this opinion was issued by the Office of the Prosecutor General, a single-judge decision was handed down, rejecting the extraordinary appeal, published on August 30, 2016. On September 5, 2016, Interunion filed an internal interlocutory appeal against the single-judge decision. On September 13, 2016, permission was granted for the other party to see the appellee’s brief. The appeal was judged on October 4, 2016. On the same date, in a subsequent act, the records were concluded with the Justice Rapporteur and are pending judgment. On August 7, 2017, the internal interlocutory appeal was included in a virtual list to be tried, however, Interunion, due to the relevance of the case, filed a timely petition requiring that the judgment not be given virtually. This request was accepted by Justice Rapporteur Gilmar Mendes on August 23, 2017. On August 21, 2017, it was deferred emphasis on face-to-face trial of the extraordinary appeal. As a result, the records returned for completion on September 15, 2017 and remain so until then.
Chances of loss	Remote
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	An unfavorable decision in the case would generate financial losses for the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

5) Case no. 0069758-61.2015.4.01.3400
Court	12^th Federal Court of Minas Gerais
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Dec 17, 2015
Parties to the proceeding	Federal Government, Brazilian Environmental Protection Agency (“IBAMA”), Chico Mendes Institute, National Water Agency (“ANA”), National Mineral Production Department (“DNPM”), state government of Minas Gerais, State Forest Institute (“IEF”), Minas Gerais Water Management Institute (“IGAM”), State Environmental Foundation (“FEAM”), state government of Espírito Santo, State Environment and Water Resources Institute (“IEMA”), and State Water Resources Agency (“AGERH”) (“Plaintiffs”); Samarco, Vale and BHPB (“Defendants”)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Sum demanded by the Plaintiffs: R$ 23,955,160,294.89. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On December 17, 2015, the federal government filed a public-interest civil action aimed at forcing Vale, Samarco and BHPB to take a series of urgent measures, in order to repair alleged social and environmental damage arising from the failure of Samarco’s tailings dam in the municipality of Mariana (“Fundão Dam”) and to prevent potential future environmental damage. For information on this accident, see item 7.9 of this Reference Form. On December 18, 2015, a decision was handed down, granting an injunction required by the plaintiffs to: (i) forbid Samarco from discharging the volume of tailings that were still retained behind the failed dam (or prove that these tailings had already been contained); (ii) order the Defendants to: (a) hire companies to immediately start evaluating the contamination of fish by inorganic substances and any potential risks caused by human consumption of these fish, and to control the proliferation of species benefiting from the manmade occurrence; and (b) carry out studies and take measures to prevent the volume of mud discharged into the Doce River from reaching the Doce River lagoon system and to protect the mineral water sources mapped by DNPM; (c) carry out studies to map the different levels of potential resilience of the impacted locations; (iii) order Samarco to make an initial deposit in court of R$2.0 billion; (iv) freeze the Defendants’ existing mining concession licenses; (v) grant an injunction to force the Defendants to present an overall social and environmental recovery plan for the Doce River Basin and the entire degraded area; and (vi) order the provision of services to the people impacted by the disaster. Within the scope of the decision in question, a daily fine of R$150,000 was also established in the event of non-compliance with each of the measures imposed on the Defendants, and a daily fine of R$1.5 million was established in the event of a delay in making the aforementioned mandatory R$2.0 billion deposit in court. On January 7, 2016, Samarco filed a petition, requesting the following: (i) A On January 7, 2016, Samarco filed a petition, through which was requested the reconsideration of an injunction.After this, on January 14, 2016, Vale, Samarco

and BHP filed an interlocutory appeal against the injunction, requesting the grating of supersedeas, and a comprehensive review of it.

On February 5, 2016, Samarco filed a challenge, arguing there was a lack of procedural assumptions and merit. Samarco also argued that it had been taking the measures envisaged in the case voluntarily, and it requested the dismissal of the initial requests.

On February 10, 2016, Vale filed a challenge, through which it requested the dismissal of the case, without judgment of its merits, given the Plaintiffs’ lack of interest in acting. Considering the hypothesis of the case not being dismissed without resolution of its merit, Vale also requested judgment of the rejection of the requests formulated initially, through the repeal of the interlocutory relief and provisional remedies, as well as condemnation of the Plaintiffs to pay the case’s costs and legal fees.

On March 2, 2016, the federal government, the state government of Minas Gerais and various other governmental bodies entered into a Transaction and Conduct Adjustment Agreement (“TTAC”), which was submitted to the court on March 7^th with a request for its legal approval.

On May 5, 2016, at a hearing attended by the parties to the case and the Federal Prosecution Office, the TTAC was registered within the Federal Court Conciliation System, an organization that is part of the structure of the Regional Federal Court of the 1^st Region, and the lawsuit was suspended during the period of execution of the obligations assumed by the parties within the scope of the TTAC.

The Federal Prosecution Office filed a motion for clarification against the decision that approved the TTAC, questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Federal Court of the 1^st Region to approve the TTAC. In addition, the Federal Prosecution Office questioned the terms of the TTAC, regarding the appropriateness of the measures established in it, as well as the legitimacy of the agreement’s parties to enter into the TTAC. Accordingly, it requested the granting of infringing effects to the motion for clarification and the suspension of the decision’s effectiveness.

On August 17, 2016, the Fifth Panel of the Regional Federal Court of the 1^st Region declared null and void the decision that approved the TTAC and rejected the interlocutory appeals made by Vale, BHP and Samarco, while upholding the injunction granted by the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte on December 18, 2015, including the freezing of the Defendants’ mining concessions, but without limiting their production and sale activities.

On November 4, 2016, the Federal Courts ordered the Defendants to: (i) present evidence, within 90 days, that the leakage of waste from the Fundão Dam had been definitively contained; (ii) to submit conclusive studies within six months, endorsed by the relevant environmental agencies, regarding an action plan and the feasibility of removing the mud spread along the banks of the Doce River, along its streams and in areas near its estuary; and (iii) to make a deposit of R$1.2 billion, within 30 days, to guarantee future remedial measures. This cash deposit of R$1.2 billion was provisionally replaced by the guarantees provided for in preliminary consent decree I (“Preliminary Consent Decree I”). On November 16, 2016, Samarco filed a motion for clarification about the said decision.

On December 6, 2016, Samarco filed a petition requesting the granting of an additional 30 days to make the deposit in court, what was granted on December 7, 2016.On January 18, 2017, the Federal Public Prosecution Office, Vale, Samarco and BHPB filed a petition to: (i) report the signing of Preliminary Consent Decree I by the parties; (ii) accept the guarantees provided for in this agreement for the purpose of provisional compliance with the requirement to make the deposit specified in the injunction granted within the scope of Public-Interest Civil Action 0069758-61.2015.4.01.3400; and (iii) request the suspension of the case.

On January 26, 2017, a decision was handed down, suspending the procedural timeframe related to the deposit of R$1.2 billion and providing five days for the plaintiffs to express their opinion on Preliminary Consent Decree I, entered into by the defendants and the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office.

On March 16, 2017, a decision was issued, which: (i) partially approved

Preliminary Consent Decree I, ordering the suspension of the case until a further judicial resolution; and (ii) accepted, for the time being, the guarantees provided for in Preliminary Consent Decree I, with the condition that they would not replace or modify the order for a cash deposit specified in the injunction.

On April 24, 2017, Samarco filed a petition, requesting the incorporation of the On June 29, 2017, a decision was issued to grant the request to extend the deadline formulated by the parties and consequently to approve a partial alteration to the TAP, granting a deadline of October 30, 2017 for the parties to present the court with the terms of the final agreement (TACF). The same decision extended the legal and procedural effects of the Preliminary Consent Decree and the approval granted on March 16, 2017.

On August 14, 2017, Samarco filed a petition requesting the incorporation of documents related to the obligation to present studies about the plan to remove mud deposited along the banks of the Doce River.

On October 31, 2017, a decision was issued, which granted the request made by Samarco, Vale, BHP and the Federal Prosecution Office and approved a partial alteration to the Preliminary Consent Decree, granting a deadline of November 16, 2017 to present the terms of the final agreement (TACF). The same decision extended the legal and procedural effects of the Preliminary Consent Decree and the approval granted on March 16, 2017.

On November 20, 2017, a decision was rendered which, by granting a request submitted by Samarco, Vale, BHP and the Federal Prosecution Office, ratified a partial amendment to the Preliminary Consent Decree, granting the deadline until April 20, 2018 for the submission of the terms of the final agreement (TACF). The same decision extended the legal and procedural effects of the Preliminary Consent Decree and the approval granted on March 16, 2017.

On May 3, 2018, a decision was rendered authorizing the hiring of the Getúlio Vargas Foundation to act in the socio-economic diagnosis of the impacts resulting from the rupture of the Fundão Dam as a techinical assistant.

On August 8, 2018, the Consent Decree ("TAC Governance") was approved in its entirety and the amendment term to the preliminary adjustment term (TAP) was ratified in part and with interpretative/additive opinions. In view of these ratifications, the phase of knowledge of ACP No. 0069758-61.2018.4.01.3400 was dismissed with prejudice. It should be noted that the TAC Governance consists of an instrument signed on June 25, 2018 with the Federal Prosecution Office, Public Prosecution Office of the State of Minas Gerais, Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Espírito Santo, Public Defender's Office, State Public Defender's Office of Minas Gerais, the Public Defender's Office of the State of Espírito Santo and other public entities, whose purpose is (a) to change the governance process provided for in the TTAC to define and execute the programs, projects and actions that are intended to provide full compensation for damages arising from the failure of the Fundão Dam, (b) improvement of mechanisms for effective participation of those affected by the failure, and (c) establishment of a negotiation process aimed at the eventual renegotiation of the programs.

The TTAC remains valid and the parties will continue to fulfill their obligations already provided for.

For additional information on the main terms and conditions of the TTAC, Preliminary Consent Decree I and TAC Governance mentioned above, see "Terms Relating to the Failure of the Samarco Dam" in item 4.7 of this Reference Form.

On October 16, 2019, a decision was issued that ratified the Settlement Agreement for judicial representation of the Interfederative Committee - CIF. The defendants filed the motion for clarification.

On December 11, 2019, a hearing was held to present the thematic axes defined as priorities by the stakeholders, in addition to any agreements or controversial points to be considered in due course, whereby the parties submitted these divergences to the interpretation and / or fulfillment by Fundação Renova of the obligations provided for in the TTAC for judicial review.

Such thematic axes were agreed in addition to the mechanisms provided for in the TTAC, which had been used, for administrative discussion within the scope

of the CIF and presentation of divergence incidents, in order to speed up the solution of priority divergences.

On January 2020, the following decisions were rendered in the ACP case records in reference: (i) decision that granted the extension of the deadline for issuance of statement on the hiring of Technical Advisors until January 29, 2020, at 6:00 pm, (ii) decisions that granted Samarco's and Vale's request and determined the immediate dispatch of an official letter to ANM, determining the lifting of judicial encumbrances that possibly fall on the mining concessions held by the defendants, (iii) determined the notification of the defendants to issue their statements on the hiring of technical advisory services to those affected by January 17, 2020.

Furthermore, considering that, at the hearing held on October 15, the obligation of the parties involved to present to the court the thematic axes considered as priorities was established, to speed up the execution of the reparation and indemnity programs, on January 7, 20.1. 20, the creation of the following thematic axes was instituted, to be discussed in specific records, but being linked to the specific records of this action:

- Priority Axis nº 1: Extra and intra-channel environmental recovery - process n. 1000242-22.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 2: Human Health Risk and Ecological Risk resulting from the breach - process n 1000260-43.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 3: Resettlement of Gesteira in Barra Longa - process n.1000321-98.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 4: Infrastructure and Resettlement - process n. 1000398-10.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 5: Operational return of the Risoleta Neves Hydroelectric Plant - process no. 1000406-84.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 6: performance editing and monitoring - process no. 1000412-91.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 7: Registration and indemnities of those impacted by the breach - process no. 1000415-46.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 8: Resumption of economic activities impacted by the disruption - process no. 1000417-16.2020.4.01.3800;

- Priority Axis nº 9: Supply of water for human consumption - process no. 1000462-20.2020.4.01.3800.

On January 31, 2020, was issued a decision that determined the creation of Priority Axis nº 10, which aims to discuss the Contracting of Technical Advisors in favor of those impacted by the Disruption (process no. 1003050-97.2020.4.01.3800).

On March 25, 2020, a decision was handed down, and it was determined that: (i) the MPF's claim became moot, which requested that for Axis 1 (environmental recovery inside and outside the gutter), Axis 2 (risk to human health and ecological risk) ), Axis 6 (measurement and monitoring performance), Axis 8 (resumption of economic activities), some defined axes are considered, such as the proposals of the Justice Institutions, the wording contained in the spreadsheet attached by them; (ii) dismissing the motion for clarification filed by the defendant companies and, as a result, reaffirming all the terms of the decision that ratified the judicial representation of the CIF. (iii) upholding the decision appealed by the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office against the interpretative reservations that the court imposed on all decisions rendered in the Priority Axes, and rejecting the revocation judgment

On April 03, 2020, the States of MG and ES filed a petition, requesting the parties to release to the States the amount of R$ 100,000,000.00, deposited at the disposal of this Court, in proportion to the extent of socioeconomic damage, of which R$ 70,000,000.00 to the State of Minas Gerais and R$ 30,000,000.00 to Espirito Santo, by way of partial advance of compensatory remedies related to the damages resulting from the overload of the State Health Systems caused by the failure.

On April 13, 2020, a decision was issued, which (a) ratified the agreement on the division of funds; (b) granted the request by the AGE/PGE to release the judicial guarantees for their sole use in actions of prevention, control and containment of risks, damages and injuries arising from the Coronavirus. Thus, the amount of R$ 84,088,086.34 was made available to the State of Minas Gerais, and R$ 36,037,751.29 to the State of Espirito Santo; (c) the immediate acquisition of 1,600 lung ventilators was authorized, using to this end the

	available amount of R$ 84,088,086.34; (d) the use of the amount of R$ 36,037,751.29 was authorized for “immediate adaptation of the physical structure of 4 state hospital units to create beds (Hospital Estadual Maternidade Silvio Avidos - HEMSA; Hospital Geral de Linhares - HG; Hospital Estadual João Santos Neves, and Hospital Estadual Roberto Silvares - HERAS); immediate acquisition of 150 (one hundred and fifty) microprocessed electronic lung ventilators; immediate acquisition of 150 (one hundred and fifty) multiparametric monitors.” (e) granted the defendants' request, so that the amount used by the states - R$ 120,125,837.63 - should be considered as an advance for reparation of the environmental damage caused by the failure of the Fundão Dam, as a measure of monetary compensation to the entities of the State Government and the community; (f) granted the request made by the defendants, so as to state that the partial release of judicial guarantees and their resulting use by the State of Minas Gerais and the State of Espírito Santo does not mean judicial recognition of mandatory default, nor does it match the foreclosure of guarantee, which is why it will not give rise, at least on this specific point, to future setlement of this guarantee; (g) notified the defendant companies to comment on the request of the AGE/MG and PGE/ES, in the sense that the acquisition of hospital equipment is made directly by them, optimizing the acquisition and delivery process, with which the court was in full agreement, in case of understanding in this regard. On April 26, 2020, a decision was issued that (i) granted the request made by the State of Minas Gerais (AGE/MG) and, as a result, ratified commercial proposal no. 293/2020 by company KTK Ind. Imp. Exp. Com. de Equip. Hosp. Ltda, in the amount of R$43,965,000.00 (ID 224441890), (ii) granted the allocation of funds in favor of company KTK Ind. Imp. Exp. Com. de Equip. Hosp. Ltda, in specific judicial account. On April 28, 2020, Vale certified the deposit of R$ 60,460,721.71, as partial advance of compensatory measures to the damages resulting from the overload of the State Health Systems caused by the failure. On the same date, AGU, representing the ANM, presented a statement in the case records suggesting that Vale check with the ANM any pending matters of an administrative nature for the lifting of encumbrances falling under Vale's mining rights. To that end, it indicated administrative proceedings no. 00786.000089/2020-76 and 00786.001036/2018-58. On April 29, 2020, a decision was issued granting the request made by the State of Minas Gerais (AGE/MG) and, as a result, ratifying the commercial proposal made by company Air Liquide Brasil Ltda., in the amount of R$ 7,291,923.00 (ID 226248353), authorizing the immediate acquisition of 300 PHILIPS Respironics E30 ventilators.
Chance of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The process is relevant by virtue of matter and value. A TTAC was signed between the parties, through which it was agreed to carry out programs, necessary for the environmental and social recovery in the areas impacted by the accident. For more information about the TTAC, see item 4.7 of this Reference Form. In addition, the Preliminary Consent Decree I was signed with respect to the guarantees and the TAC Governance that extinguished this lawsuit. For more information, see item 4.7 of this Reference Form.
Notes	Not applicable.


6) Case no. 0007284-81.2016.4.01.3800 (0197171-92.2015.8.13.0521)
Court	12^thFederal Court of BH (2^nd Civil Court of Ponte Nova - TJMG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Nov 17, 2015
Parties to the proceeding	Núcleo Assessoria Comunidades Atingidas Por Barragens (NACAB) (“Plaintiff”); Samarco, Vale and BHPB (together “Defendants”)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Value in dispute: R$119,568,504.25. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a public-interest civil action requesting an injunction to force the Defendants to submit and execute, for the region of the municipalities of Santa Cruz do Escalvado, Rio Doce and Barra Longa, along

	the Carmo and Doce rivers: (i) recovery programs for the permanent preservation areas and headwaters affected by the mud that spilled from Samarco’s failed dam; and (ii) a database of impacted people and the respective damage, including plans for immediate social assistance and compensation. In other specific areas, the demand was to carry out long-term monthly monitoring and genetic population studies of the rivers’ aquatic fauna, and then submit an emergency recovery program. A request was also made to force the Defendants to pay compensation to all the people impacted by the accident, as well as environmental compensation, totaling R$100,000,000. On November 18, 2015, a sentence was issued, assigning the case to the Belo Horizonte Federal Court District. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal, requesting an injunction against the decision made, a review of the first-instance decision, and the maintenance of the case with the State Courts. In addition, NACAB requested an interim measure to oblige the Defendants to take several measures in order to remedy the damage caused by the accident. This included the submission, within 30 days, of a recovery program for the aquatic fauna of the Doce, Carmo and Piranga rivers in the municipalities of Santa Cruz do Escalvado, Rio Doce, Barra Longa and Ponte Nova, and the provision of social assistance to victims of the accident, among other things. On November 26, 2015, a decision was issued that postponed the analysis of the request for the injunction until after the analysis of the Defendants’ challenge. On December 17, 2015, the rapporteur issued an order convening an extraordinary conciliation session at the Minas Gerais Court of Appeals. On January 7, 2016, the Federal Government petitioned in the records to express its agreement with the decision that ordered the referral of the case to the Federal Court, in view of its interest in the case. On February 3, 2016, given the Federal Government’s explicit interest, the case was transferred to the 12^th Federal Court, in accordance with article 109, I of the 1988 Federal Constitution. On February 16, 2016, the case was received by the 12^th Federal Court of the Judiciary Section of Belo Horizonte. On July 22, 2016, a decision was issued, calling for the case to be merged into Public-Interest Civil Action 23863-07.2016.4.01.3800, and to suspend the process. On March 27, 2017, a decision was published that, considering the approval granted in cases 697586120154013400 and 238630720164013800, suspended the case until subsequent judgment. On May 30, 2017, the suit was suspended, as per the decision of March 27, 2017. On the date of this Reference Form, the action was still suspended.
Chances of loss	Possible
Analysis of impact in the case of losing the suit / Reasons this case is significant to the Company	The amount in dispute demanded by the Plaintiff is R$100,000,000,00. However, it should be emphasized that the suit is still on a very preliminary stage, which makes it difficult to perform a more accurate analysis of the damages, in the event of loss.
Notes	Not applicable.

7) Case no. 0008423-17.2016.8.13.0400 (0146085-58.2015.4.02.5101)
Court	1^st Court of Mariana
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Nov 30, 2015
Parties to the proceeding	Sohumana Sociedade Humanitária Nacional (“Plaintiff”) and Samarco, Vale, BHPB (jointly, “Defendants”)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Amount in dispute of R$23,698,040,000.00, as filed by the Plaintiff. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.

Main facts

On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a public civil action intending to convict the Defendants for the payment of an indemnification to the victims of the accident or their family members, as well as to the municipalities, in order to restore the public property, proportionally to the impacts resulting from the accident. For information on the accident, see item 7.9 of this Reference Form.

On November 30, 2015, there was sentence rendered transferring the jurisdiction for prosecution of the suit to one of the courts of the State Legal Courts of Mariana (Minas Gerais State).

On December 11, 2015, Vale entered an appeal moving to reconsider the judgment rendered, so that the Union should manifest itself regarding its interest on the appeal, before the submittal of the records to the Federal Legal Court of Minas Gerais, because if the response of the Union should be positive, the appeal should continue on the federal jurisdiction, according to article 109, I, of the Federal Constitution.

On December 15, 2015, Sohumana, filed an appeal moving the reconsideration of the judgment rendering the transference of jurisdiction, thus asking for the submittal of records to the Federal Court of Minas Gerais, based on the interest and legitimacy of BNDESPAR, which, in its capacity as shareholder of Vale, would have interest on the appeal.

On December 16, 2015, there was a judgment rendered maintaining the establishment of the transference of jurisdiction, reasserting the total lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the unsuitability of notice to any possible interested party, including the Union.

On March 10, 2016, the suit was received by the court of the 1^st Court of Mariana.

On April 1^st, 2016, there was an order published moving the regularization of the suit representation by the Plaintiff.

On April 20, 2016, there was the publishing of a judgment denying the initial appeal, due to lack of correct process representation, thus dismissing the suit without resolution on the merits.

On June 07, 2016, there was the certification of the res judicata of the judgment.

On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal moving the formalization of the suit.

On February 06, 2017, there was a judgment that did not analyze the appeals made since the judgment was already res judicata.

On March 06, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 14, 2017, there was an order stating that the defendants should file answer brief.

On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification, moving for the cure for alleged omission regarding the term for the return of the suit from the section of Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil – OAB (Brazilian Bar Association).

On March 29, 2017, a decision was handed down dismissing the motions filed by the Plaintiff.

On April 10, 2017, reply briefs were entered to the appeal submitted by SAMARCO.

On April 11, 2017, answer briefs were entered to the appeal submitted by BHP.

On July 13, 2017, there was the publication of a judgment not acknowledging the appeal filed by SOHUMANA.

On July 24, 2017, answer briefs were entered regarding the appeal submitted by VALE.

On August 3, 2017, an internal interlocutory appeal was entered submitted by SOHUMANA, moving the reversal of the judgment that did not acknowledge its

	appeal. On September 18, 2017, the appellees were granted permission to see the records, so that they could issue an opinion on the internal interlocutory appeal filed, within a 30-day term. On September 15, 2017, answer briefs from BHP and SAMARCO were entered. On September 29, 2017, Vale submitted its reply briefs. On 23 de November de 2017, an appellate decision was published denying specific relief of the appeal filed by Sohumana. On January 5, 2018, Sohumana filed motion for clarification against the appellate decision denying its internal interlocutory appeal. On April 6, 2018, there was an appellate decision not acknowledging the motion for clarification filed by Samarco. On August 17, 2018, the motion for clarification filed by Sohumana was rejected. On February 22, 2019, the lawsuit was definitely remanded.
Chances of loss	Remote.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Notwithstanding the entering of the judgment through which the suit was dissolved without resolution of merits, the Company considers the suit as significant on account of the amount involved.
Notes	Not applicable.

8) Case no. 0028358-94.2016.4.01.3800 (former number 0426085-72.2015.8.13.0105)
Court	12^th Federal Court Judicial District of Belo Horizonte (former 7^th Civil Court of Governador Valadares – TJMG)
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Dec 14, 2015
Parties to the proceeding	MP-MG (“Plaintiff”) and Samarco and Vale (jointly, “Defendants”)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Amount in dispute of R$6,046,597,637.06, as filed by the Plaintiff. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On December 14, 2015, the PO-MG filed this civil public suit, through which intends the conviction of the Defendants to adoption of several measures towards the mitigation of impacts resulting from the rupture of the Fundão dam. The Plaintiff moves for, in preliminary injunction, under penalty of a daily fine of R$2,000,000.00, that the defendants: (i) take steps to and maintain the measures granted by Civil Public Provisional Remedy no. 0395595-67.2015.8.13.0105, which preceded this suit, therefore presenting the same subject matter (as described below in “Observations”),(ii) create and implement and executive project to construct collection stations, bombing and adduction of water from Suaçuí Pequeno and Grande rivers up to the stations of the Serviço Autônomo de Água e Esgoto (“SAAE”) (Autonomous Service of Water and Sewage) within 12 months maximum; (iii) provide regularly to SAAE the necessary polymers to treat the water of Rio Doce until the operation of the installations for collection and adduction above mentioned; (iv) install equipment to provisional water collection and adduction of Suaçuí Pequeno or Grande rivers as to diminish the collection in Rio Doce, within 45 days maximum; (v) install a water treatment station, with treatment capacity of 120 liters per second, (vi) all their accounts are frozen to the minimum amount R$ 100.000.000,00 Brazilian reais, and (vii) a confirmation of the preliminary injunction and indemnification for collective mental distress claim amounting to R$ 5.000.000.000,00 Brazilian reais. On December 17, 2015, there was a judgment partially granting the preliminary injunction to revert the burden of proof and ruling that the Defendants shall bear the expenses for monitoring the quality of the waters of Rio Doce and of the fresh water provided to the population, under penalty of a daily fine of R$2.000.000,00 Brazilian reais. In addition, it was determined that the preliminary injunction granted in the case file No. 0395595-67.2015.8.13.0105, including the determination of water delivery in the residences, within 48 hours, as well as the presentation of a logistics regarding the delivery of water in the residences, within 10 days, should be fulfilled.

	The PO-MG filed an interlocutory appeal against the preliminary decision, moving the interlocutory relief of appeals, for the adoption of provisional and emergency remedies within the regions impacted by the accident. On February 17, 2016, there was the judgment suspending the processing of the mentioned interlocutory appeal. Thus, the interlocutory appeal was suspended until the entry of the final judgment in the records of the Positive Jurisdiction Dispute filed by Samarco, aiming at pacifying the discussion on jurisdiction of Federal or State Court to judge the issues regarding the city of Governador Valadares. The dispute originated from the fact that there are two Public Civil Lawsuits regarding the distribution and drinkability of the water in Governador Valadares, one pending before federal court and the other before state court. The Jurisdiction Conflict was not judged, however, there is a judgment that as long as there is not a final judgment, urgent measures shall be taken by the federal court. On May 10, 2016, the following were entered into the records (i) a lower court decision, in appellate court, rendered in the records of the interlocutory appeal filed by the PO-MG, from January 28, 2016, establishing the submittal of records, as well as connected appeals to the 12^ndFederal Court of the Legal Court of Belo Horizonte; (iii) a motion from the Municipality of Governador Valadares, from February 16, 2016, showing interest in entering into the active pole of the suit; (iii) office from the Court of the 12^ndFederal Court of the Minas Gerais moving the entering into the records of an appeal from the Federal Prosecutors Office (MPF) and judgment of its execution, in face of the judgment in the Jurisdiction Dispute that was pending on the STJ. On May 24, 2016, the case was assigned to the 12^nd Federal Court. On July 04, 2016, VALE’s answer was filed, arguing lack of interest in the suit by the MPMG (Prosecution Office of Minas Gerais) in face of the measures already implemented by the defendants, as well as the fact that the water quality of rivers has already returned to the same status as previous to the accident. Vale also alleged in its defense the legitimacy to be in the passive pole of the suit, in face of the lack of causal nexus between any action of omission on its part and the accident that happened. Vale also maintains the lack of collective mental distress claim and the impossibility of reversion of the burden of proof. On July 04, 2016, there was also an answer filed by Samarco, o merits reasons similar to the ones alleged by Vale. On March 21, 2017, a joint decision was entered into the records of lawsuits no. 0069758-61.2015.4.01.3400 and 0023863-07.2016.4.01.3800, probating, in part, o The Preliminary Adjustment Term I, only referring to the socio-environmental diagnosis (to be performed by the Instituto de Tecnologia para o Desenvolvimento - LACTEC and diagnosis and monitoring of programs in course (to be performed by Ramboll Brasil Engenharia and Consultoria Ambiental Ltda., granting the suspension of other suits connected to them, in order to avoid conflicting judgments. On March 29, 2017, an order was published considering the probate decision rendered in the scope of lawsuits n^.69758-61.2015.4.01.3400 and 23863-07.2016.4.01.3800, suspending the feat until further legal deliberation. On January 23, 2020, after the restart of the proceeding due to the request for copies, the proceeding was once again suspended.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	MPMG attributed the value of R$5,100,000,000.00 (Brazilian reais) to the suit. However, it should be emphasized that the suit is still on a very preliminary stage, which makes it difficult to perform a more accurate analysis of the damages, in the event of loss.
Notes	Public Civil Injunction No. 0395595-67.2015.8.13.0105 refers to preparatory provisional remedy for the above described suit 0426085-72.2015.8.13.0105. Such suit was filed on November 10, 2015 by the MPMG against Samarco, before the 7^th Civil Court of Governador Valadares – TJMG and later sent to the MM. Judge of the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte.

9) Case no. 0043356-50.2015.8.13.0400 (10264-98.2016.4.01.3800)
Court	2^nd Civil Court of the County of Mariana - (returned from the 12^d Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Belo Horizonte)

Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Dec 10, 2015
Parties to the proceeding	MP-MG (“Plaintiff”) and Samarco, Vale, and BHPB (jointly, “Defendants”)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Amount in dispute of R$2,343,788,000.00, as filed by the Plaintiff. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On December 10 2015, the PO-MG filed a public civil action, through which it moves, under penalty of a daily fine amounting to R$200.000,00 (Brazilian reais), the conviction of the Defendants to the (i) adoption of several measures oriented to the mitigation of impacts from the rupture of the Fundão dam, (ii) implementation of a social communication program on the activities executed, (iii) provision of health and education assistance to those impacted, and (iv) support in retrieval of assets, animals and others; retrieval of tombs and mortal remains existing in places impacted, among others. The main move aims at the conversion of the preliminary injunction in definite one, as to allow the whole reimbursement of the alleged individual material damages and mental distress claim suffered by those impacted by the accident and payment of a Recovery Plan that allows the social and environmental recovery in face of the damages verified resulting from the accident at the Fundão dam. The MP-MG also moves for the resettlement and economic and social reorganization of the impacted families and the effects of the judgment granted as preliminary in the provisional remedy action no. 0039891-33.2015.8.13.0400, previous to this suit, granting the freeze of the amount of R$300,000,000.00. On December 16, 2015, there was an order postponing the appreciation of the preliminary injunction for after the settlement hearing. On the same date, the PO-MG moved for the amendment of the complaint so that it includes new motions, among them: (i) the granting of interlocutory relief, (ii) payment of R$10.000,00 (Brazilian reais) as a financial contribution to the victims (iii) identification and of the remainder leisure practices developed by the impacted, (iv) increase and pay the value of assistance to the victims, (v) pay a financial support to the victims that have not been directly impacted in their income, and (vi) submit an immediate and concrete actions plan, among other measures. On December 23 2015, there was a hearing among the parties, reaffirmed by the judge, with discussion of: (i) the allocation of families in rented houses, observing that, regarding this matter, Samarco said that it had already fulfilled spontaneously part of the referred measure; (ii) emergency support, and Samarco said that it was already paying a minimum wage to each person of the family who loss their income due to the accident, accrued by 20% by dependent member of the family, besides the amount corresponding to a food parcel per family and having compromised to support the referred monthly amount for twelve months, according to the conditions of the term of the hearing; (iii) payment by Samarco of (a) R$100,000.00 by family unit that lost family members in the event, and of (b) R$10,000.00 as indemnification advancement, by family unit, for those families that suffered physical displacement, that is, had their houses destructed, independently of having lost income from such real estate; (iv) accountability by Samarco, submitted to court, on the amount spent on indemnifications and recovery of the area, until January 31, 2016. A permit amounting to R$5.500.000,00 was issued for the payment of the values above-mentioned, except for the monthly support. On January 20, 2016, there was a second hearing among the parties, confirmed by the judge, where there was discussion of the following, besides discussion of individual cases: (i) the advancement of R$10,000.00 to those persons impacted by the accident, and Samarco compromised to advance the indemnification on the mentioned amount, as settled in the previous hearing, for those individuals that lost their real stated erected in their property, which were not used as their regular living place, according to the terms settled in the hearing; (ii) the indemnification for the loss of vehicles, and Samarco compromised to indemnify individuals that lost their vehicles; (iii) the release permit, through which Samarco agreed to release R$1,0 million to implement the above-mentioned actions. On February 17, 2016, owing to the express interest of the Union, the records were sent to the 12^th Federal Court, according to art. 109, I of the Federal Constitution. Pending trial.

On March 28, 2016, Vale filed an answer, moving for the extinction of the suit, without appreciation of merits, owing to the lack of interest of action by the Plaintiff. Considering the hypothesis of non-extinction of the suit without resolution of merits, Vale also moved for the judgment of the inappropriateness of the moves formulated in the complaint; besides the conviction of the Plaintiff to pay award of costs and attorneys’ fees.

On July 15 2016, the Federal Prosecution Office filed a motion moving for the decline of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to the State Court, since: (a) in the actual Interlocutory Appeal, establishing the remittance, and afterwards, the Supreme Court Judge reconsidered his decision; (b) according to decision by the STJ, on June 22, 2016, on the Jurisdiction Dispute n. 144.922/MG, referring to the suit on the accident in Mariana, the Federal Justice would have jurisdiction for the demands of diffuse and transindividual rights, as well as socio-economic and socio-environmental demands, while the State Court would have jurisdiction on individual homogeneous suits, such as the ones of this suit, referring to personal damages of families impacted by the rupture of the Fundão Dam.

On 23 de August de 2016, at the 12^th Federal Court of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte/MG, a judgment was awarded establishing the devolution of the records to the Court of the 2^nd Civil, Criminal and Criminal Executions Court of the County of Mariana/MG.

On September 5, 2016, there was a determination of devolution of the records to the 2^nd Civil Court of Mariana, Minas Gerais.

On 12 de September de 2016, o MP-MG filed a motion, at the 2^nd Court of the County of Mariana, moving for the following, among others: (a) the reactivation of the Lawsuit at the State Court; (b) attachment of the technical assistance process to the records of the main lawsuit and to the provisional remedy; (c) release of the amount of R$3.5 million, through legal order, to Cáritas Brasileira Regional MG, a non-governmental organization, responsible to start the job of technical assistance to the victims; (d) inclusion in the records of several documents, including the receipt evidencing of the deposit of R$500 thousand, by Samarco; (and) assignment of a new settlement hearing.

On September 30, 2016, there was an order establishing the attachment of the execution of the sentence into the main records and establishing the remittance of records to the 12^thFederal Court of the Judicial District of Minas Gerais, for its appreciation of the motions for clarification filed by Samarco.

On November 11, 2016, Samarco filed a motion informing that it filed motion for clarification against the judgment made by the 12^thFederal Court of Belo Horizonte, establishing the remittance of the records to the State Court, reason why it motioned for the devolution of the records to the Federal Court for appreciation of the motion for clarification.

On November 28, 2016, there was a settlement hearing, when there was the ratification of a settlement among the parties.

On February 08, 2017, the records were sent to the 12^thFederal Court of Belo Horizonte.

On February 09, 2017, there was a judgment denying the motion for clarification filed by Samarco.

On April 07, 2017, a settlement hearing was held at the 2^nd Civil Court of Mariana, Minas Gerais.

On May 15, 2017, the Public Prosecution Office filed a motion for subpoena of the defendants so that they, within 5 days: (i) reply on their agreement regarding the analysis methodology on the events of non-compliance, (ii)included into the records the reply to the events of non-compliance, (iii) included into the records copies of the deeds of the real estates purchased for the resettlement of Bento Rodrigues and Paracatu, referring to lawsuit no. 0400.15.004335-6.

On June 14, 2017, an order was published notifying the defendants to express their views on the motions by the Public Prosecution Office on pages 4.659/4.663, as well as regarding the methodology it proposed.

On June 29, 2017, SAMARCO filed a motion reiterating the clarifications made regarding the steps made referring to (i) the answer submitted by SAMARCO on the alleged new cases of non-compliance of Settlements and (ii) on the real estates aimed at the resettlement of Bento Rodrigues and Paracatu, motioning for an additional term date of 20 days for the submittal of an answer regarding the methodology proposed by the MPMG referring to that analysis and answer of the motion made by the impacted.

On July 19, 2017, SAMARCO filed a motion for the proposal of a methodology of submittal of answer to the impact, who should direct their questions to SAMARCO/Fundação.

On September 28, 2017, the Public Prosecution Office was awarded to see the records.

On February 6, 2018, a settlement hearing among the parties was held, where there was an agreement on the reparation guidelines referring to the right of housing of the impacted by the rupture of the Fundão dam, through a partial settlement.

On March 27, 2018, a settlement hearing among the parties was held.

On June 26, 2018, the Public Prosecution Office filed a motion for the establishment of the raising of the amount of R$5.477.850,04, which shall be used to continue the work of registration of all victims of Mariana, owing to the rupture of Fundão dam.

On May 3, 2018, Vale, Samarco and BHP filed a motion for an answer to the motion for the raising made by the Public Prosecution Office, so that this measure should be bound to the submittal of specific documents by Cáritas — report on the progress of the works and accountability.

On May 14, 2018, there was the judgment granting the motion made by the State Public Prosecution Office, to grant the raising of the amount of R$5.477.850,04 (Brazilian reais), which shall be used on the progress of the work of registration of the victims of Mariana, owing to the rupture of the Fundão dam.

On May 25, 2018, a decision was rendered that rejected the motion for clarification opposed by Samarco.

On June 12, 2018, a decision was handed down rejecting the motion for clarification opposed by Vale and BHP.

On August 21, 2018, a conciliation hearing was held, setting a deadline of 10 days "for companies to express their opinion on the proposal for a generic indemnification agreement presented by the MPMG."

On September 27, 2018, there was a summons to the parties to appear on documents joined by the MPMG (proposal for Indemnification Transaction Term)

On October 2, 2018, a new conciliation hearing was held and the transaction approved.

On November 29, 2018, joint petitions were joined together with a proposal for a Transaction Agreement and a statement that those who have already expressed their interest in negotiating with the Renova Foundation may contact them for final indemnification negotiations.

On February 19, 2019, an order was issued that approved the agreement entered into by the parties, determining the issuance of a license to collect the amount on behalf of Rodrigo Ires Vieira, representative of Cáritas Brasileira Regional Minas Gerais.

On March 20, 2019, the MPMG requested FGV to present in detail the scope of its socio-economic diagnosis of the damage occurred in Rio Doce Watershed.

Hearing was held on June 27, 2019, an opportunity at which it was stated that 1) There will be a meeting of those affected from Bento Rodrigues, to decide on the readjustment of collective resettlement, on the location of the Sewage Treatment Plant, the readjustment of projects and the destination of vacant

	lots, the result of which will be brought at the next hearing; 2) The defendant companies will have a common period of 15 days to comment on the compensation proposals for collective and family resettlements, presented by the Public Prosecution Office at this hearing; 3) The defendant companies will have a period of 5 days to attach the updated schedule for the resettlement of those affected (family, community and reconstructions); 4) As of this date, Cáritas Brasileira will attach to the records of those affected the instrument of refusal of inspection, or the reason why such inspection was not carried out. For previous registrations, the defendant companies, through the Renova Foundation, may request the instrument of refusal of inspection or the reason why such inspection was not carried out, directly to Cáritas Brasileira, which will have a period of fifteen (15) days for the answer; 5) The Public Prosecution Office presented the following agenda for the next hearing: Analysis of the milestone and negotiations for the new family nuclei. A hearing was held on August 6, 2019, it was stated that 1) The Public Prosecution Office informed the defendant companies of the result of the Meeting of those affected, of the change in the location of the Bento Rodrigues collective resettlement ETE, in accordance with proposal "10", under the terms of the SEMAD representative; 2) Cáritas must deliver the list of those affected who wish to relocate or readjust the lots of the Bento Rodrigues collective resettlement by September 5, 2019, directly to the Renova Foundation, without prejudice to the addition of those affected who are identified later; 3) The defendant companies must submit, at the next hearing, a counterproposal of an agreement related to the resettlement of those affected, addressing the change in the location of the ETE; 4) The Public Prosecution Office suggested as the agenda for the next hearing, the milestone for creation of new family nuclei. A hearing was held on September 17, 2019, it was stated that 1) The matter regarding the reallocation or readjustment of Bento Rodrigues collective resettlement lots will be discussed at a specific hearing, with individual analysis of the cases presented by Caritas Brasileira. 2) Those affected will analyze the proposal submitted by the defendant companies with regard to compensation for missing, tested area and slope for families in the collective resettlement of Bento Rodrigues and Paracatu, and must submit a response until the next hearing; 3) Those affected will analyze the proposal submitted by the defendant companies regarding the deadline for completion of the resettlement of the communities of Bento Rodrigues and Paracatu and family resettlement, and must submit a response by the next hearing; 4) The defendant companies undertake to assess and submit a response to the proposal for compensation and conversion related to family resettlement, within fifteen (15) days, in the case records and directly to the Public Prosecution Office. On October 8, 2019, Samarco commented on item 4 indicated at the hearing held on September 17, 2019, striving to set the compensation and conversion criteria under the terms set out by the Renova Foundation, in line with the terms of the agreed resettlement guidelines and with the applicable civil legislation, within the principles of reasonableness. On October 22, 2019, Samarco clarified the situation and destination of one of the resettlement plots, as determined at the hearing, and the relevant clarifications were provided on the list of alleged dissatisfactions with collective resettlement plots. On October 29, 2019, a decision was rendered rejecting the ratification of the “Instrument of Entry and Awareness of Rights at the Extrajudicial Negotiation Phase (Fne)" and the “Instrument of Repentance" submitted by the MPMG, which in turn filed motion for clarification on November 13, 2019. On January 15, 2020, the Renova Foundation informed and confirmed the payment of the indemnities by judicial deposit to the incapacitated affected parties.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The amount in dispute, as filed by the MPMG, is R$2.000.000.000,00. The terms of the agreement, however, are illiquid, which makes it difficult to specify the exact figures involved. As a result of the proceeding, individual and collective judgments were sent to the same Court.
Notes	Not applicable.

10) Case no. 0273073-38.2015.8.13.0105
Court	5^th Civil Court of Governador Valadares – TJMG
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Dec 28, 2015
Parties to the proceeding	MP-MG (“Plaintiff”) and Samarco, Vale, Serviço Autônomo de Água and Esgoto (“SAAE”, and, jointly with Samarco and Vale, “Defendants”)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Value attributed to the claim by the Plaintiff of R$1,000,000.00. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On 23 de December 23, 2015, o MP-MG filed a civil lawsuit aiming at the conviction of the Defendants (i) to submit a management plan for the solid residues from the water treatment stations in the municipality of Governador Valadares, with the adequate final destination of those residues; as well as (ii) to abstain from allocating, in any way, residues from the water treatment in any water course or in natura, until the implementation of the management plan. On December 25, 2015, there was a judgment granting the motioned preliminary injunction, establishing that the Defendants should submit a solid residues management plan on water treatment stations of the Municipality of Governador Valadares and that those should abstain to allocate residues from the water treatment in any water course in natura or in opencast until the implementation and operationalization of the mentioned plan, establishing a daily fine in the event of non-compliance and establishing the reversion of the burden of proof. Against this decision, Samarco and Vale filed an interlocutory appeal, which was granted a partial supersedeas. On January 29, 2016, Vale filed the answer alleging being legitimate party to be on the passive pole of the complaint, since SAAE is the single responsible for the public supply of water in Governador Valadares. Owing to this, it moved for the extinction of the suit, without appreciation of merits, owing to the lack of interest of action by the Plaintiff. Considering the hypothesis of non-extinction of the suit without resolution of merits, Vale also moved for the judgment of the inappropriateness of the moves formulated in the complaint; besides the conviction of the Plaintiff to pay award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On February 22, 2016, SAAE filed a motion for the judgment of inappropriateness of the suit, so that the obligation to give final destination to the mud extracted after the water treatment be attributed to Vale and Samarco. On May 05, 2016, o MP-MG filed impeachment to the answers submitted by the defendants. On May 17, 2016, there was an order subpoenaing the defendants to indicate the evidences they intend to produce. On July 05, 2016, Vale, Samarco and BHPB filed a motion in the records for the production of additional documentary and expert evidences. On September 30, 2016, Samarco filed a motion into the records for the submittal of the suit to the 12^nd Federal Court of Belo Horizonte. On November 1, 2016, the appellate decision was included in the records, accepting the injunction of non-jurisdiction of the 5^th Civil Court of the County of Governador Valadares, ordering the remittance of the records to the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte. Then, the MP-MG was granted permission to see the records. On December 05, 2016, the MP-MG filed a motion for the pursuance of the feat, since the appellate decision that accepted the injunction of non-jurisdiction has not been res judicata. On March 27, 2017, the appellate decision was included into the records regarding the interlocutory appeal no. 0040043-83.2016.8.13.0000, filed by VALE, accepting the injunction mentioned, to order the submittal of the records to the 12^th Federal Court of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte. On May 31, 2017, SAMARCO motioned for the submittal of the records to the Federal Court, notwithstanding the granting of supersedeas to the special appeal submitted by the Public Prosecution Office, motioning for the

	amendment of the appellate decision that recognized the jurisdiction of the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte to judge the suit. On March 23, 2018, there was an order granting the motion for production of expert evidence. On August 8, 2018, an order was issued that appointed the expert. On March 13, 2019, an order was issued, determining the remittance of the case records to the 12th Federal Court.
Chance of loss	Possible
Analysis of impact in the case of losing the suit / Reasons this case is significant to the Company	The Public Prosecution Office alleges that the accident of the Fundão dam impacted directly the water supply in the Municipality of Governador Valadares and intends to perform a continuous evaluation of the drinkability of the water supplied in that locality. The action is still in a very initial stage in order to evaluate the impacts. Notwithstanding the above, the Company also considers the suit relevant on account of the subject discussed.
Notes	Not applicable.

11) Case no. 1:15-cv-09539
Court	Nova York Federal Court
Instance	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Date of filing	December 07, 2015 (First Complaint) and 04/29/2016 (“Amended Complaint”).
Parties to the proceeding	Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association and Orange County Employees Retirement System (“Plaintiffs”) and Vale S.A., Murilo Pinto de Oliveira Ferreira, Luciano Siani Pires and Gerd Peter Poppinga (“Defendants”).
Values, assets or rights involved.	The plaintiffs did not specify the values of the alleged damages. The Parties are awaiting final approval of an agreement on the total amount of twenty-five million American dollars (US$25,000,000.00) for dismissal of the action.
Main facts	Vale and some of its executives were considered defendants in class actions referring to securities before the New York Federal Court, moved by investors holding American Depositary Receipts issued by Vale, base of the American federal law on securities (U.S. federal securities laws). In legal suits it is alleged that Vale made false and deceitful affidavits or did not divulge the risks and dangers of the operations of the Fundão dam of Samarco and the adequacy of the related programs and procedures. The plaintiffs did not specify a value for the alleged damages, in these suits, they have only motioned for the conviction of the defendants in reimbursing the damages suffered, which shall be calculated during the expertise evaluation stage. On March 7, 2016, the relevant judge in class actions related to securities ordered the consolidation of those actions and assigned lead plaintiffs and attorney. On April 29, 2016, the leading plaintiffs of the action motioned for a complaint amended and consolidated, which shall be the initial motion in the suit. On July 25, 2016, Vale filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated motion to dismiss, alleging basically (i) that the cause to ask from the plaintiffs does not justify a Securities Fraud Claim; (ii) that the plaintiffs did not identify which omissions had been perpetrated by the defendants; (iii) that the plaintiffs did not demonstrated malice from the defendants in swindling the market; and (iv) that the plaintiffs did not impute any illicit act to individual defendants. On March 23, 2017, the Court issued a decision dismissing the suit with respect to most of the claims filed against Vale and the defendant individuals, in addition to judging that all the requests made against the Chief Executive Officer of Vale at the time, Mr. Murilo Ferreira, and concerning the personal liability of control of defendant individuals are extinct. The small part of the suit that remains limited to some declarations regarding the risk mitigation that were part of the Sustainability Report of Vale, in 2013, and isolated declarations regarding Vale’s liability for the rupture of the Fundão Dam, made during a single telephone conference, in November 2015. On April 06, 2017, a Vale moved for clarifications/reconsideration asking that other motions made by the plaintiffs shall be considered extinct. On April 07, 2017, a Vale submitted a schedule proposal for the next measures

	regarding the action. The parties agreed regarding this schedule and, on April 14, 2017 they had a meeting with the judge in order to establish future term dates. At end of April 2017, the discovery stage began, during which the plaintiffs submitted initial disclosures, asking the submittal of several documents and the referral of persons that may have knowledge of facts or bear documents related to the rupture of the Fundão dam. On May 05, 2017, Vale submitted its Initial Disclosures, with the referral of persons that might furnish documents or render declarations regarding to facts alleged in the lawsuit. During the period from August to December 2018, there were 10 depositions of witnesses indicated by the plaintiffs, and the Fact Discovery phase was finalized on December 21, 2018. On April 15, 2019, there was a mediation session determined by the Court, however, it was not possible to reach an agreement. With that, the phase of production of technical evidence (“Expert Discovery”) began, with the preparation of technical opinions by the experts of the Parties, as well as the testimony of all experts (“Experts depositions”), and this phase ended in October 2019. On September 27, 2019, the Court denied motion for class certification, without prejudice. On December 26, 2019, the Court issued a decision stating that the parties had reached the early stages of an agreement. On February 7, 2020, the parties submitted a request for approval of a proposed settlement. On February 22, 2020, the Court accepted the proposal submitted by the parties, preliminarily approving the agreement and also ordered a public hearing to be held on June 10, 2020, in which the terms and final approval of the proposed settlement will be discussed.
Chances of loss	The Parties await the final approval of an agreement, in the amount of US$25.0 million, with the resulting dismissal of the action. The value of the agreement was fully advanced and will be fully supported by the insurance company, under the terms of the D&O policy, which is why there was no provision for this amount.
Analysis of impact in the case of losing the suit / Reasons this case is significant to the Company.	Eventual loss could result in financial damages and in the image and reputation of the Company. With the possible final approval of the proposed agreement, the action will be dismissed.
Notes	Not applicable.

12) Case no. 0073114-91.2016.4.01.3800 (former number 0000640-06.2016.8.08.0014)
Court	12th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte (origin: 2nd Civil Court of Colatina – Court of Justice of the State of Espírito Santo)
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Jan 15, 2016
Parties to the proceeding	Public Prosecution Office of the State of Espírito Santo (Plaintiff) ("MP-ES") and Samarco Mineração S.A. ("Samarco"), Vale S.A. ("Company" or "Vale") and BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda. ("BHPB") (together, "Defendants")
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Amount in dispute of R$2,343,560,742.81, as filed by the Plaintiff. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On January 15, 2016, the MP-ES filed a public interest civil action seeking the condemnation of Samarco for the payment of diffuse emotional distress, due to the alleged constraints experienced by the population of the municipality of Colatina, due to the failure of the tailings dam in the city by Mariana. For information on this accident, see item 7.9 of this Reference Form. The plaintiff has filed provisional remedies, through which he intends: (i) to block the amount of R$ 2 billion in the Defendants’ accounts, in order to guarantee future execution; (ii) removal of the fiscal confidentiality of the Defendants; (iii) provision of documentation relevant to the accident; and (iv) communication to the CVM regarding this demand.

In this sense, the MP-ES requested the disregard of the corporate entity of the shareholders of Samarco, claiming that, although there is no evidence that Samarco, owner and operator of the Fundão Dam, is in a state of insolvency, it could happen.

On January 22, 2016, the MP-ES filed an amendment to the complaint, whereby it included as a beneficiary the Municipal Consumer Protection and Defense Fund, in the amount of R$ 2,000,000.00.

On January 19, 2016, Samarco filed a defense whereby it argued that measures to protect those impacted by the accident had already been implemented and that the financial resources were being fully used to remediate the damages caused by the accident. In addition, Samarco argued that provisional remedies were not useful to justify their acceptance, and that, in addition, they could jeopardize additional efforts to mitigate the impacts caused by the accident.

On February 11, 2016, the decision denying the interlocutory relief requested by the MP-ES regarding the freeze of moneys of the defendants was handed down.

On February 17, 2016, the MP-ES filed an interlocutory appeal (“AI") against the decision that denied the provisional remedy, requesting the freezing of R$ 2.0 billion Reais and disregarding of corporate entity of the Defendants, among other measures.

On March 10, 2016, the decision that postponed the analysis of the active effect sought by the MP-ES was issued, so that, before the decision, the Trial Court Judge was notified to provide information, as well as summoned the Defendants to produce a statement.

On March 23, 2016, a decision was pronounced regarding the AI filed by the MP-ES, which maintained the decision that had been appealed. Since it is a decision by the trial court, however, one must await the trial of the appeal by a panel of judges.

On April 19, 2016, Vale filed appellee’s brief to the appeal, requesting its rejection.

On April 25, 2016, Vale filed a defense, requesting the judgment of insufficiency of the plaintiff's claims; in addition to the judgment against the Plaintiff for the payment of legal costs and fees, in the absence of collective emotional distress to be indemnified.

On June 16, 2016, the MP-MG filed an objection to the answers presented by the defendants, reiterating in full the terms of the complaint.

On October 3, 2016, an order was issued, attesting to the existence of a positive conflict of jurisdiction regarding claims related to the dispute, and for this reason, determined the subpoena of the MP-MG for statement on the appellate decision.

On November 04, 2016, a decision was rendered determining the remittance of the case to the 12^th Federal Court, in compliance with the appellate decision rendered within the scope of the interlocutory appeal no. 000320103.2016.8.08.0014, filed by the MP-MG, which accepted the preliminary argument of lack of jurisdiction raised by the defendants and ordered the remittance of the case to the 12^th Federal Court.

On November 23, 2016, the case was remitted to the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte.

On March 29, 2017, a decision was issued that, considering the homologation decision handed down in proceedings 697586120154013400 and 238630720164013800, suspended the deed until further judicial decision.

In the trial court, the Defendants have already filed a defense, requesting the denial of the claim.

On May 30, 2017, the suspension of the proceeding was determined, in accordance with the decision rendered on March 29, 2017.

	On February 13, 2020, after the restart of the proceeding due to the request for copies, the proceeding was once again suspended.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The financial impact can reach up to R$ 343,560,742.81, which was the amount in dispute given by the MP-ES. However, it should be emphasized that the suit is still on a very preliminary stage, which makes it difficult to perform a more accurate analysis of the damages, in the event of loss.
Notes	Not applicable.

13) Case no. 0062888-27.2016.4.01.3800 (old number 0016395-63.2016.8.13.0521)
Court	12th Federal Court of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte (origin: 2^nd Civil Court of the Judicial District of Ponte Nova – Court of Appeals of the State of Minas Gerais ("TJMG")
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Feb 18, 2016
Parties to the proceeding	Public Prosecution Office of the State of Minas Gerais (Plaintiff) (“MP-MG”) and Samarco, Vale and BHP (collectively “Defendants”)
Amounts, goods or rights involved	Amount in dispute of R$696,658,960.41, as filed by the Plaintiff.In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On February 17, 2016, the MP-MG filed a public-interest civil action, whereby it intends to order that Defendants adopt certain measures aimed at recovering the damages allegedly caused to the urban environmental heritage of the Municipality of Barra Longa, District of Gesteira and Village of Barretos. The MP-MG intends to determine the compliance, by the Defendants, of generic obligations to do, as well as the preventive constriction of a sum in order to "guarantee" the future performance of measures still unknown. On February 19, 2016, a decision was rendered by the TJMG, granting the preliminary injunction, in order to (i) partially grant the interlocutory relief determining the fulfillment of the following obligations, under penalty of a daily fine of R$ 500,000.00: (a) of basic, structural and executive projects for the full recovery of impacted public assets, and (b) to carry out works to contain the entire Rio do Carmo river bed in the necessary stretches, (ii) to determine the blockade of R$ 500,000,000.00, and (iii) to determine the submission of an agreement proposal, if any. On February 18, 2016, Samarco filed a petition, whereby (i) it requested that (a) the case be remitted to the Federal Court, given the lack of jurisdiction of the TJMG to adjudicate the case, (b) the designation of a conciliation hearing between the parties before the examination of a possible preliminary injunction, as well as (ii) it stated that Samarco has already implemented several supporting measures, in addition to the execution of a preliminary commitment instrument with the Federal Prosecution Office and the MP-MG for the creation of a fund, in the amount of R$ 1.0 billion, to repair social and environmental damages resulting from the disaster. Additionally, in the context of the above-mentioned petition, Samarco already clarified that documents that demonstrate the relevant deposits and guarantees have been provided, in the amount of R$ 2.3 billion, as well as the adoption of measures aimed at repairing alleged social and environmental damages of the Fundão Dam's accident. Furthermore, it argued that the granting of financial constraints could have negative effects on Samarco and on the obligations assumed by it to mitigate the impacts resulting from the rupture of the dam in Mariana. Therefore, it requested the dismissal of the injunction formulated at the initial. On February 23, 2016, a decision was issued that determined the maintenance of the records in the State Court. On March 1, 2016, Samarco, on petition, stated its interest in settling on the terms of the claim. On March 4, 2016, Samarco filed a petition with the purpose of expressing its opinion on the decision that granted the preliminary injunction, in which it stated that it had begun the works for the reconstruction, recovery and repair of the public assets affected by the accident, as well as contracting specialized company, called 3T Construções, to act in this action. On March 17, 2016, Samarco filed a petition in which it demonstrated the full

	compliance with the preliminary injunction, and it is certain that all necessary emergency measures are already being executed. On March 18, 2016, Vale filed a petition for the purpose of evidencing compliance with the preliminary injunction, stating that Samarco hired specialized companies to start the Barra Longa infrastructure reconstruction activities, and the projects are in the elaboration phase. Against the injunction, Vale, BHP and Samarco filed an interlocutory appeal, to which supersedeas was granted. On April 8, 2016, Vale filed an answer in order to demonstrate that the measures pleaded by the Plaintiff have already been spontaneously complied with by Samarco. As a result, it requested the dismissal of the case, without prejudice, given the Plaintiff's lack of interest to sue. Considering the hypothesis of the case not being dismissed without solving the merits, Vale also requested the judgment for the defendant of the requests formulated at the initial pleading, by means of the revocation of the granted injunction, in addition to the conviction of the Plaintiff for the payment of attorneys' fees and costs. On May 11, 2016, the plaintiff challenged the arguments presented by the defendants, reiterating the reasons stated in the initial pleading. On March 30, 2016, a permit was issued for the withdrawal of the blocked amounts in Samarco’s accounts. On June 8, 2016, a permit was issued for the withdrawal of the blocked amounts in Vale and BHPB’s accounts. On June 27, 2016, the parties were summoned to indicate the evidence they intended to produce. On July 5, 2016, Vale filed a petition stating that it intends to produce oral evidence, complementary documentary evidence, expert evidence and judicial inspection. Similarly, Samarco and BHPB have manifested themselves. On October 11, 2016, a decision was issued that determined the submission of the case to the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte. On October 25, 2016, the records were received at the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte. On March 29, 2017, a decision was published that, considering the homologation decision issued in the scope of cases No. 697586120154013400 and 238630720164013800, suspended the act until further decision. On July 6, 2017, SAMARCO filed a petition requesting the issuance of a permit to collect the amounts still uncompleted in an account linked to the proceeding. On September 15, 2017, the permit for the withdrawal of the amounts in favor of SAMARCO was issued. On March 21, 2018, the proceeding was suspended in accordance with the decision rendered on March 29, 2017. On February 11, 2020, after the restart of the proceeding due to the request for copies, the proceeding was once again suspended.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The financial impact may reach up to R$696,658,960.41, which was the amount in dispute as determined by the Minas Gerais Public Prosecution Office (MP-MG). It should be noted; however, that no decision on merits has yet been made in respect of the claims made in the case, which makes it difficult to analyze more precisely the losses in the event of loss.
Notes	Not applicable.


14) Public-Interest Civil Action no. 23863-07.2016.4.01.3800
Court	12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	May 03, 2016
Parties to the proceeding	The Federal Prosecution Office (“MPF” or “Plaintiff”) and Samarco, BHPB, Vale, the Union, Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo States, the Brazilian Water Agency (“ANA”), the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (“IBAMA”), the Brazilian Department of Mineral Production (“DNPM”), the Chico Mendes Institute of Biodiversity (“ICMBio”), the Brazilian Indian Foundation (“FUNAI”), the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (“ANVISA”), the Brazilian Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (“IPHAN”), the Brazilian Bank of Economic and Social Development (“BNDES”), the State Forestry Institute (“IEF”), the Minas Gerais Water Management Institute (“IGAM”), the State Foundation of the Environment (“FEAM”), the Minas Gerais State Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (“IEPHA”), the State Institute of Environment and Water Resources (“IEMA”), the Espírito Santo Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Defense (“IDAF”) and the State Agency for Water Resources (“AGERH”) (together, “Defendants”).
Amounts, goods or rights involved	The amount in dispute is R$175,853,091,492.95, as filed by the Plaintiff. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On May 03, 2016, the MPF filed a public-interest civil action, through which it requires (i) the adoption of measures aimed at mitigating the social, economic and environmental impacts resulting from the rupture of the Fundão dam, as well as other emergency measures; (ii) judgement against the Defendants for the payment of compensation to the community for the time in which it would have been impossible to enjoy a balanced environment; and (iii) judgement against the Defendants for the payment of collective personal injury. The following are among the requests made: that (i) the Defendants, mutually, within 30 days, deposit in their own private fund, under their own management and inspection by certifying accountant of a specialized company, the initial value of R$ 7,752,600.000,00, which will be intended for the execution of the socio-environmental and socio-economic initial and emergency programs; (ii) the defendant companies, mutually, within 30 days, present adequate bonds in the amount of R$ 155,052,000,000.00; (iii) the defendant companies, mutually, in the event of a blocking or restrictive measure on the values of the fund, pay, within 5 business days, an amount equivalent to the amount blocked, in order to recover the minimum available net balance; (iv) a determination of the prohibition of encumbrance or alienation of the fixed assets of the Defendant companies, and the measure shall include, but not limited to, real estate, mining rights and equity interests held in the national territory; (v) the prohibition of distribution of profits by the defendant companies be ordered, either on the form of dividends, interest on own capital, or any other means; (vi) the judicial blocking of amounts derived from the profits of the companies that have not been distributed to date be ordered; (vii) the defendant companies, mutually and, in a subsidiary manner, the public entities: a) present a plan for the recovery, mitigation and social and environmental compensation of the entire environmental impact occurred as a result of the rupture of the Fundão dam, within 90 days; b) present a plan for the recovery, mitigation, compensation and socioeconomic indemnity of the entire socioeconomic impact occurred as a result of the rupture of the Fundão dam, within 90 days; (viii) the defendant companies and, in a subsidiary manner, the public entities, who pay the expenses and fees of international bodies that may be involved in the definition processes the most appropriate economic, social and environmental reparation measures, especially in the intermediation and interlocution with the affected communities; (ix) the defendant companies start and implement, as soon as the technique permits, the necessary actions to reestablish the environmental balance, restoration of the environment affected by the rupture of the Fundão dam, and recovery, compensation and indemnification for socioeconomic damages, through the programs, projects and actions comprised in the environmental recovery plan of the entire environmental impact and in the socioeconomic recovery plan previously expected and duly approved by the Government, and this obligation must fall mutually between the defendant companies, and in a subsidiary manner to the public entities; (x) the Defendants adopt effective measures capable of permanently interrupting the dragging of mining tailings still retained in the Germano Complex or accumulated on the banks of the Gualaxo do Norte, Carmo and Doce rivers to their water bodies; (xi) the Defendant companies adopt effective measures capable of ensuring the stability and safety of the remaining structures used by Samarco in the city of Mariana and, within 30 days, present: a) proof of the adoption of measures to ensure the

stability of the Germano Dam, the Santarém Dam and the other structures remaining in the Fundão (Dykes 2, Sela, Tulipa and Selinha); b) plan of emergency actions to be adopted in case of rupture of structures; c) systematized update of the existing Emergency Action Plan based on a new “Dam Break” study of the Germano Dam, Santarém Dam and other remaining structures of Fundão; d) improvement of the roads indicated for the displacement of the population potentially affected in the event of a new rupture, including by paving the expected escape route for the population of Barra Longa, which connects this municipality to that of Ponte Nova (MG); (xi) the companies, within 10 days, submit a detailed plan of short-term actions, without harm to the subsequent presentation of a definitive plan, for the management of the tailings from the Fundão dam; (xii) the Defendant companies carry out the environmentally appropriate disposal of mining waste that is removed from the area affected by the rupture of the Fundão dam, with its introduction into another production chain; (xiii) the defendant companies, within 10 days, submit a detailed short-term action plan, without harm to the presentation of a subsequent definitive plan, for emergency actions for revegetation, reforestation and restoration of permanent preservation areas; (xiv) the defendant companies present, within 60 days, a preliminary diagnosis of all permanent preservation areas degraded along the marginal riverbanks of the Doce River Hydrographic Basin and, based on the diagnosis, elaborate a plan of emergency actions of its full recovery; (xvi) the defendant companies, within 30 days, initiate the execution of a plan of emergency actions for the recovery and conservation of the aquatic fauna, which must contain at least the following lines of action: a) schedule of actions for temporary restocking of affected native species; b) measures to support entities that have conserved specimens collected in the Arca de Noé Operation for the conservation of genetic material and the development of research; (xvii) that, within 30 days, the defendant companies submit and initiate the execution of a plan of emergency actions for the recovery of cultural assets of material nature and preservation of the cultural heritage of the districts of Bento Rodrigues, Paracatu de Baixo and Gesteira, as well as the Municipality of Barra Longa, following at least the following parameters: a) development and implementation, through authorized professionals, of archaeological project of the affected sites; b) dissemination of the scientific knowledge already produced regarding the archaeological heritage of the affected region, which access and continuation of research was made unfeasible by the changes in relief caused by the rupture; c) execution of works of recovery of the affected cultural heritage, preferably by means of school-sites that favor the use and training of local labor; d) actions for the rescue, the generational transmission and the promotion of the cultural activities of the communities, such as parties and celebrations, traditional knowledge and techniques, workmanship and cooking; (xviii) to the defendant companies that, within 30 days, complete the process of registration of all those affected, considering for this purpose all entities, individual or legal, and communities that have suffered material or immaterial impacts as a result of the rupture of the Fundão dam, located in the municipalities bathed by the Doce, Gualaxo do Norte, Carmo Rivers, Santarém creek and estuarine, coastal and marine areas between the municipalities of São Mateus (ES) and Aracruz (ES), among others.

According to MPF's request, the values indicated therein were not determined by reason of Samarco's dam accident, but by an unsubstantiated comparison of oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

On May 9, 2016, the records were withdrawn by the Office of the General Counsel for the Federal Government, for statement purposes. Then, the Federal Government filed for the denial of the preliminary injunction claims.

On June 03, 2016, a petition was filed by BHPB without prejudice to the filing of an answer within the legal term, requesting the denial of the MPF's preliminary injunctions without first hearing the defendants. It was basically alleged: (i) the absence of periculum in mora (danger of delay); (ii) the absence of fumus boni iuris (appearance of truth); and (iii) the existence of significant reverse risk.

On June 21, 2016, the State of Minas Gerais filed a petition requesting the denial of the claims for interlocutory relief made by plaintiff and requesting the dismissal of the case without prejudice due to the lack of interest in the suit by the MPF.

In July 2016, the Court excluded all government authorities and BNDES as defendants in this proceeding. In addition to it, the decision postponed the

examination of preliminary injunctions for after the preliminary conciliation hearing and gave Samarco a notice to clarify, within 30 days, the issue of containment of the mud carried by the rains, specifying the emergency measures to be adopted.

On July 26, 2016, a decision was rendered granting the motion for clarification from MPF to institute a fine of R$ 150,000.00 against defendants on the ground of failure to comply with the preliminary injunction.

On August 10, 2016, Samarco filed a petition stating that it would comply with the preliminary injunction and take all necessary measures to reinforce the remaining structures, in addition to the containment and management of the Fundão tailings. However, it stated that, given the complexity of the necessary measures, the definitive solutions take time, so that it would be unreasonable to comply with the MPF's preliminary injunction requesting that the defendants be ordered to pay a fine and to dredge and dry the tailings existing in the region.

In September 2016, a preliminary conciliation hearing was held.

On October 05, 2016, a hearing was held among the parties and their lawyers to determine how to hire the firms specialized in expert evidence. Moreover, the compensation program developed by the companies was submitted and will be assessed by the MPF. A new meeting was held on October 28, 2016, in which the same topics were addressed.

On November 11, 2016, a decision was rendered shifting the burden of proof and notifying the experts to submit their fee proposals. In addition to it, the decision gave the defendants notice to file their defenses.

In January 2017, Samarco, Vale and BHPB entered into two preliminary agreements with the Federal Prosecution Office regarding this public-interest civil action and the public-interest civil action under No. 0023863-07.2016.4.01.3800 filed by the Brazilian government and others.

The Preliminary Consent Decree I, already partially ratified, has the purpose of defining the procedures and the negotiation schedule for the execution of a final consent decree, expected to occur by June 30, 2017. This Preliminary Consent Decree I creates the basis for the conciliation of two public-interest civil actions that seek to establish socio-economic and socio-environmental reparations and compensations for the impacts of the rupture of the Fundão Dam: (i) the Public-Interest Civil Action No. 0023863-07.2016.4.01.3800, filed by the MPF (the amount indicated by plaintiff of R$ 155 billion), and (ii) the Public-Interest Civil Action No. 0069758-61.2015.4.01.3400, filed by the Federal Government, by the States of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo, and other government officials (R$ 20.2 billion).

Both actions are pending before the 12^th Federal Court of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte.

The Preliminary Consent Decree I further provides: (a) the hiring of "experts" chosen by the MPF and paid for by the companies to perform a diagnosis and monitor the progress of the 41 programs of the TTAC signed on March 2, 2016 between the companies, the Federal Government and the governments of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo and other governmental authorities; and (b) the holding of at least 11 public hearings by April 15, 2017, 5 being in Minas Gerais, 3 in Espírito Santo, and the others in the indigenous lands of Krenak, Comboios and Caieiras Velhas, with the purpose of allowing the participation of the communities in the definition of the content of the final consent decree.

Additionally, a second Preliminary Consent Decree was executed, which establishes a timetable for the availability of funds for the programs of reparation of the socio-economic and socio-environmental damages caused by the failure of the Fundão Dam in the municipalities of Barra Longa, Rio Doce, Santa Cruz do Escalvado and Ponte Nova, worth R$ 200 million ("Preliminary Consent Decree II"). This Preliminary Consent Decree II was ratified by the Judge of 12^th Federal Court on March 23, 2017.

On January 24, 2017, Vale filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision that shifted the burden of proof, alleging, among other things, the inapplicability of the precautionary principle to the case, violation of the principle of legality, and the inconsistency of the shifting of the burden to the

hypothesis.

On January 26, 2017, a decision was rendered suspending the course of the procedural deadline for the deposit of R$ 1.2 billion and opened a five-day deadline for the plaintiffs to express their opinion on the Preliminary Consent Decree I, executed between the defendants and the MPF.

On March 16, 2017, a decision was rendered which (i) partially ratified the Preliminary Consent Decree I and II, determining the suspension of the case until further judicial resolution, (ii) accepted, for the time being, the guarantees provided for in the Preliminary Consent Decree I, with the caveat that they do not replace or modify the preliminary injunction order for cash deposit.

On May 15, 2017, a joint petition was filed by the defendants, requiring an additional 30 days to define the entity that will carry out the socio-economic diagnosis of those affected.

On May 15, 2017, a decision was rendered granting the delay of the term required by the defendants.

On June 13, 2017, a petition of the defendants was inserted in the record requesting an additional 30 days to conclude the negotiations on the definition of the company that will carry out the socio-economic diagnosis, upon which the Federal Prosecution Office agreed by means of a petition filed on June 26, 2017.

On July 6, 2017, a joint petition of Samarco, Vale and BHP was filed requesting the extension of the term of suspension of the case until October 30, 2017.

On July 17, 2017, a decision was rendered which (i) reiterated the suspension of the case to safeguard the term for objecting to the Federal Prosecution Office's answer, and (ii) failed to examine the request filed by the Public Defender's Office for the Federal Government, towards joining the suit, as it will be the object of deliberation in the record of the ACP (Public-Interest Civil Action) of R$20 billion.

On August 28, 2017, a petition was filed by the Municipality of Mariana requesting its acceptance as an assistant co-party or, alternatively, as a simple assistant.

On October 31, 2017, a decision was rendered which, by granting the request submitted by Samarco, Vale, BHP and the Federal Prosecution Office, ratified a partial amendment to the Preliminary Consent Decree, granting the deadline until November 16, 2017 for the submission of the terms of the final agreement (TACF). The same decision extended the legal and procedural effects of the Preliminary Consent Decree and of the confirmatory decision dated March 16, 2017.

On April 24, 2018, Samarco, Vale and BHP filed a petition, requesting authorization to hire the Getúlio Vargas Foundation to act in the socio-economic diagnosis of the impacts resulting from the breaking of the Fundão Dam.

On May 3, 2018, a decision was rendered authorizing the hiring of the Getúlio Vargas Foundation to act in the socio-economic diagnosis of the impacts resulting from the breaking of the Fundão Dam.

On May 4, 2018, Samarco filed a motion for clarification on the decision that authorized the hiring of the Getúlio Vargas Foundation to act in the socio-economic diagnosis of the impacts resulting from the breaking of the Fundão Dam, so that a material mistake could be remedied, clarifying that it will act as technical assistant to the Federal Prosecution Office.

On May 8, 2018, a decision was rendered granting the motion for clarification filed by Samarco, to clarify that the Getúlio Vargas Foundation will act as

technical assistant to the Federal Prosecution Office.

Currently, the parties remain in negotiations for the final consent decree, and the action is suspended until June 25, 2018, prevailing the effects of the decision rendered on March 16, 2017.

On August 31, 2018, a joint decision was issued that (i) deemed the phase of the acquaintance of ACP No. O069758-61.2015.340O extinct, pursuant to article 487, item III, "b" and Article 354; both of the CPC; so that it may have its juridical and legal effects; (ii) suspended ACP No. 0023863-07.2016.4.01.3800 in relation to applications not contemplated in the Term of Conduct Adjustment (TAC Governance) and Amendment to the Preliminary Adjustment Agreement - which is intended to adjust the provisions of the TAP in what concerns the activities related to the socioeconomic axis, allowing the socioeconomic diagnosis and the contracting of the technical advisory services to the affected people -, duly homologated; (iii) immediately suspended ACP No. 0023863-07.2016.4.01.3800, until the MPF and the companies, by mutual agreement, define the remaining requests, submitting them to the deliberation of this judgment. Against this decision, a clarification request was made regarding the adequacy of the TAP and its amendment. This request for clarification was received as a statement of objection only with respect to that part of the judgment that is the subject of the request for clarification.

On September 24, 2018, a decision was issued determining the drawing up of a certificate of res judicata and suspension of this Public Civil Action.

On September 27, 2018, a decision was issued that (i) denied the request for intervention of the Municipality of Ponte Nova as amicus curiae or joint litigant, (ii) denied the request of the Federal Government Public Defender’s Office ("DPU”) to enter the suit as a party, allowing only its admission in the deed as amicus curiae, (iii) denied the request of the Municipality of Mariana to join the proceedings as a simple assistant or joint litigant, (iv) denied the request for intervention by the Bar Association as amicus curiae, (v) dismissed the request for intervention of the Municipality of Ouro Preto for admission to the event by means of anomalous intervention, (vi) rejected the request for intervention from the Group of Socio-environmental Studies and Research GEPSA HOMA Centro de Direitos Humanos and Companies of ORGANON Núcleo de Estudo Pesquisa e Extensão em Mobilizações Sociais and Extensão Política Economia Mineração Ambiente e Sociedade POEMAS as amicus curiae, (vii) denied the request for intervention of the Municipality of Anchieta to join in the act by means of anomalous intervention, (viii) denied the request for suspension of the effects of the decision until the judgment of the requests now ready and devoid. The decision also emphasized that the additive interpretative legal reservations imposed by the court remain valid and determined the summons of other procedural interested parties for demonstration within the legal term of the motions for clarification. Finally, the institutional adhesion of the Prosecution Office of the State of Espírito Santo, the DPU of the Office of the Public Defender of the State of Minas Gerais and the Office of the Public Defender of the State of Espírito Santo to the Preliminary Adjustment Term (TAP) was homologated, so that it makes the legal effects. Following and in fulfillment of the decision of sheets 13884, it was determined the suspension of this suit until further judicial deliberation.

On November 14, 2018, a joint petition was filed requesting a 90-day extension for the completion of the work and adjustment of the Renova Foundation Statute.

On December 5, 2018, the proceeding was suspended.

Then, digitalization of the records is certified.

On March 09, 2020, Vale entered a petition in the records, requiring authorization to enter into agreements and finance teaching programs and courses, provided by FGV, to company employees.

On April 01, 2020, the MPF expressed its opinion reiterating the terms of the decision rendered on April 6, 2018, which determined that the defendants should make available all the material included in the database of the Ombudsman's Office of the Renova Foundation.

On April 27, 2020, the MPF reiterated the terms of the statement dated April 1, 2020 and reported that the restriction to data that the Renova Foundation has imposed on experts is not just limited to access to data from dashboards,

	but also to all information necessary to carry out the monitoring and diagnosis of the damage caused by the failure of the Fundão dam.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The amount in dispute given by the MPF is R$ 155,052,000,000.00. It should be noted that a decision on the merits of the claims made in the application has not yet been issued, which makes it difficult to analyze more precisely the losses in the event of loss.
Notes	Not applicable.

15) Case no. 16-CV-8800
Court	New York Federal Court
Instance	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Filed on	March 6, 2017
Parties	Holders of debt securities issued by Samarco Mineração S.A. (“Plaintiffs”), and Samarco, Vale and BHPB (collectively, “Defendants”)
Involved values, assets or rights	Amount to be assessed during the pre-trial phase, if the appeal from the Plaintiffs is granted.
Main facts	In March 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a collective action claiming indemnification for alleged violations of bond laws and other credits related to the purchase and sale of debt securities issued by Samarco. The Plaintiffs claim that Vale would have made false and misleading representations or omitted disclosures on the risks and hazards of the operations at Samarco’s Fundão dam and the adjustment of related programs and procedures. After the failure of the Fundão dam that took place in November 2015, the Plaintiff state that the bonds sustained a severe devaluation, so that the investors who had mistakenly purchased them should be indemnified. On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a petition voluntarily waiving any suits that had been raised against individual Defendants. On June 26, 2017, Vale and the other Defendants collectively filed a motion to dismiss the suit. On August 1, 2017, the motion to dismiss was disputed by the Plaintiffs. On August 31, 2017, Vale and the other Defendants collectively filed a counter-defense against the dispute filed by the Plaintiffs. In March 2018, the Judge handed down a decision that rendered the motion to dismiss as extinct without prejudice, and determined that the Plaintiffs should submit an amendment of the complaint. The Plaintiffs have already submitted the amendment and on April 30, 2018 the judge defined a new schedule for the lawsuit, according to which a new motion to dismiss should be submitted on May 21, 2018 against the group of Defendants. On May 21, 2018 the Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss. On October 5, 2018, there was a special hearing with the Judge, in which the parties presented verbal arguments on the case. In June 2019, the Judge dismissed the case, accepting the motion to dismiss submitted by the Defendants. On December 2019, the plaintiff submitted a protest informing that the decision would be appealed. On March 10, 2020, the Author filed his reasons for appeal. On March 20, 2020, the Defendants jointly submitted a petition to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, requesting that June 8, 2020 is defined as the final date for joint submission of the answer brief for appeal, which was accepted by the Court of Appeals and this date was defined as the final date for action response of the Court of Appeals which is, therefore, in course at the moment of submitting this Reference Form.
Chances of loss	Possible
Analysis of impact in the case of losing the suit / Reasons this case is significant to the Company	An ultimately unfavorable decision in the lawsuit could cause financial losses to the Company, as well as damage to its image.

Notes Not applicable.

16) Case no. 0033942-91.2016.8.13.0400
Court	1^st Civil Court of Mariana/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	September 28, 2016
Parties	Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais (Plaintiff) (“MP-MG”) and Samarco, Vale and BHP (“Defendants”)
Involved values, assets or rights	Amount in dispute of R$1,546,286.55, as filed by the Plaintiff. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On August 29, 2016, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais filed this public civil action claiming that the suspension of Samarco’s activities might have prevented the City of Mariana from receiving the Financial Compensation for the Exploitation of Mineral Resources — “CEFEM”, which proceeds would be usually destined to health and education expenditures. This is the reason why it asks for the Defendants to be preliminarily required to make a monthly payment to the Government of the City of Mariana in the amount of R$ 1,394,308.39, corresponding to the monthly average amount of the City’s revenue from Samarco’s activities. On September 12, 2017, a decision was handed down rejecting the temporary restraining order requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais. Against that decision, the Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged a bill of review, the temporary restraining order of which was rejected (case no. 0766492-37.2016.8.13.0000) On December 6, 2017, Samarco filed an objection stating that Public Prosecutor’s Office’s request was unreasonable, since the Public Prosecutor’s Office was not entitled to do so. Moreover, Samarco states that the payment of such compensation is not due, since its operations have been stopped. On August 31, 2017, Vale submitted its objection, where it requested the litigation to be extinct, since the Public Prosecutor’s Office is not entitled to claim any ownership rights inherent to the City of Mariana; and the requests to be judged with prejudice, as the payment of a compensation would not be applicable given the suspension of Samarco’s operations. On November 7, 2017, an order was handed down summoning the parties and asking them to point out any questions of fact and law that they regarded as relevant to the judgment of the case. On November 20, 2017, the petitions were filed in accordance with the order dated November 7, 2017. On April 2, 2019, the records were sent to the 12th federal court of BH.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The financial impact may reach R$1,546,286.55, which was the amount in dispute as determined by the Minas Gerais Public Prosecution Office (MP-MG). However, it should be emphasized that the suit is still on a very preliminary stage, which makes it difficult to perform a more accurate analysis of the damages, in the event of loss.
Notes	Not applicable.

17) Case no. 0019601-77.2017.4.01.3800 (formerly case no. 0041994-76.2016.8.13.0400)
Court	12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte/MG
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	October 26, 2016
Parties	Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais (Plaintiff) (“MP-MG”) and Samarco, Vale and BHP (“Defendants”)
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount in dispute is R$165,968,116.41. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	On October 26, 2016, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais filed this public civil action in an attempt to have VALE, SAMARCO and BHP sentenced to recover any damages allegedly caused to speleological assets, such

	as shelters, grottoes, and caves. On November 22, 2016, the pre-trial conference was held; however, the parties failed to reach an agreement. On February 8, 2017, SAMARCO filed its opposition asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed, as virtually all of the cavities identified by the Plaintiff as challenged are not legally protected. As for the other points, SAMARCO demonstrated the lack of evidence of the alleged damages as claimed by the Plaintiff. Moreover, Samarco asked the records to be sent to the 12^th Federal Court, given the interest of the Federal Government in this litigation. On February 16, 2017, the oppositions submitted by VALE and BHP were adjoined, both of which requested the lawsuit to be dismissed. On April 7, 2017, the case records were definitely sent back to the 12^th Federal Court of Belo Horizonte. On September 6, 2017, an order was published granting the MPF access to the records, so that the MPF could submit its position on its entitlement to file this lawsuit. On October 30, 2017, an order was published determining a stay of proceedings considering the decision handed down in cases no. 23863-07.2016.4.01.3800 and no. 69758-61.2015.4.01.3400. On February 7, 2018, the suspension of the suit was determined, in accordance with the decision rendered on September 6, 2017. On January 23, 2020, after access to the case records for copies was allowed, the case records were once again suspended.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The financial impact may reach R$150,000,000.00, which was the amount in dispute as determined by the MP-MG. It should be noted; however, that the lawsuit is still at a very early stage, which makes it difficult to analyze damages more precisely in the event of loss.
Notes	Not applicable.

18) Case no. 1009492-23.2017.4.01.3400
Court	22^nd Federal Court of the Federal District Chapter
Instance	Trial Court
Date of filing	Aug 9, 2017
Parties to the proceeding	Max Mauran Pantoja da Costa, Antonio Augusto de Miranda e Souza, Ronaldo Tedesco Vilardo, Silvio Sinedino Pinheiro, and Délvio Joaquim Lopes de Brito as the Plaintiffs, and Vale S.A., Valepar S.A., Banco Nacional do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social – BNDES, BNDES Participações S.A. – BNDESPAR, Fundação dos Economiários Federais – FUNCEF, Fundação Petrobrás de Seguridade – PETROS, Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil – PREVI and the Federal Government, as the Defendants.
Amounts, assets or rights involved.	Invaluable amount.
Main facts	This citizen suit was filed by some FUNCEF executives and oil workers against Vale, Valepar, BNDES, BNDESPAR, the Federal Government, FUNCEF, PETROS and PREVI, with a request for an injunction, so that a suspension would be granted for: i) the conversion of Vale preferred shares into common stocks; ii) the extinction of the existing control block; iii) the merger of Valepar into Vale; and iv) all other acts and resolutions made at the Special General Meeting held on June 27, 2017, where the acts required for Vale to have access to the B3 Novo Mercado were approved. As for the merits, the annulment of said General Meeting was requested pursuant to the allegation that Vale’s new corporate structure and its access to the New Market would cause damage and losses to the Federal Government and the respective entities and controlled companies. The injunction was rejected by the Court and as no appeal was lodged against it, it is now stabilized. On January 22, Vale, on its own behalf and as a successor to Valepar, objected to the action. The other defendants then submitted their defenses. On December 18, 2018, PREVI joined the lawsuit, requesting conformation in the

	process, since it was not yet mentioned. The plaintiffs did not file a counter-defense to the answers submitted by the Defendants, which was certified by the notary office. On April 12, 2019, the Federal Public Prosecution Office filed a request with the Court to issue an official letter to the CVM, to inform the stage of Case no. 19957.006030/2017-13 before this agency, which addresses the object of this citizen suit, being the purpose of said administrative proceeding to ascertain alleged irregularities “in the process of resolution of the statutory bodies of Litel Participações S.A., Valepar S.A., and Vale S.A.”. On July 4, 2019, the CVM responded to the Official Letter required by the MPF, informing about the stage of Proceeding no. 19957.006030/2017-13 and demonstrating that the investigation report stated that it was not possible, based on the plaintiff's statement, "to reach the conclusion that there was undue external interference in the process that decided for the Corporate Restructuring of the Company". We inform that, according to the contact made by the Company with the CVM, said administrative proceeding is closed. On October 18, 2019, after CVM's response to the aforementioned administrative proceeding before this Agency, the MPF submitted a statement to the Court giving its opinion on the judgment of the case in the state it is in, with the dismissal the plaintiff's request. On March 23, 2020, a decision was rendered ordering the parties to make a statement on the opinion of the Federal Prosecution Office (MPF). On May 21, 2020, Vale filled a petition, reiterating the defense arguments, and reinforcing the understanding of the MPF, so that the action is dismissed.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company.	The lack of success in such lawsuit may cause relevant financial and reputational losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

19) Case no. 0024916-76.2013.8.08.0024
Court	10^th Civil Court of Vitória/ES
Instance	Appellate court
Date of filing	April 20, 2005 (Labor Court) and July 10, 2013 (State Court)
Parties to the proceeding	Sindfer – Union of Railway Company Workers of the States of Espírito Santo and Minas Gerais X Vale S.A. and Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social – Valia
Involved values, assets or rights	Value of the matter in controversy as attributed by the Union is R$ 18,000.00. The amount involved, according to an analysis of the Company as of December 31, 2019 was R$ 1,297,010,617.88.
Main facts	This lawsuit was filed on April 20, 2005 with the Labor Court under no. 0045300-92.2005.5.17.0007, where the Union appeared as a procedural representative and the substituted parties were workers admitted before April 30, 2005 who continued with a valid employment relationship. In this action, the workers claim that at their admission they automatically adhered to the Private Retirement Plan maintained by Vale with VALIA, whereby they regarded such plan as an integral part of their employment agreement for all legal purposes. In this action, the workers claim: • The nullity of the agreement regarding the migration from the Valia Supplementary Retirement Plan to Vale Mais, with a return to the previous plan; • That the Defendants should be ordered to maintain all the conditions and advantages of the existing plan when each of the workers was admitted, provided that any more beneficial conditions that may have occurred after the migration are preserved; • That the Defendants should be ordered to proceed with the collection of any differences in contributions in favor of Fundação Valia since the date of the undue migration to the Vale Mais Plan, namely from 05.01.2000 until the date of the actual full payment, as well as with the collection of any amounts to establish the mathematical reserve, in accordance with the rules in force at the

	admission of each of the workers, duly adjusted; • Indemnification for pain and suffering to be paid to each worker, in an amount equal to 10 basic wages earned by such worker, plus any legal advantages as in force at the time when the lawsuit was initiated; and • Payment of any differences related to any benefits that may have been granted after this action was filed and as granted under the Vale Mais Plan rules. On October 8, 2010, the sentence dismissing the action was published. The Union and Plaintiff lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment and, on November 12, 2011, a court decision was published admitting the ordinary appeal lodged by the Plaintiff and, as for the merits, the appeal was partially granted so as to admit the preliminary allegation claiming non-adjudication based on the lack of analysis and judgment of the request for pain and suffering; as well as it partially accepted the preliminary allegation of nullity of the judgment based on the curtailment of the right of defense to declare the nullity of the judgment and determine that the court records should return to the court of origin, in order to resume the pre-trial phase. After the records were returned to the court of origin, a new pre-trial phase began with expert evidence proceedings. However, on March 18, 2013 a new first-instance decision was handed down, where the judge understood that, as the lawsuit involved a complementary allowance to the retirement plan from a non-profit retirement entity, based on the interpretation of the Brazilian Supreme Court - STF, Labor Courts would not have material jurisdiction, which is granted to the State Courts. After the parties were summoned, no appeals were lodged, and the case was sent ex officio on July 8, 2013 to the State Court of Vitória/ES under no. 0024916-76.2013.8.08.0024. Then, the judgment dismissing the claim was handed down. The Union and Plaintiff lodged an appeal and we filed our answer brief. At the session held on March 13, 2018, the lodged appeals were judged so as to unanimously accept VALIA’s Consolidated Appeal to declare the forfeiture of the request for nullity of the migration to the Vale Mais Plan, considering the expiration of the deadline for filing an action. The plaintiffs have filed motion for clarification, which was not heard. On February 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs interposed a Special Appeal and Vale submitted its answer brief on August 19, 2019. On October 18, 2019, the sentence dismissing the Special Appeal was published.
Chances of loss	Remote
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The relevance of the action is due to the adjusted amount of the remote loss forecast (as of December 31, 2019), that is, R$ 1,297,010,617.88.
Notes	Not applicable.

20) Case no. 5010709-36.2019.8.13.0024 (ACP 5026408-67.2019.8.13.0024)
Court	2nd Court of the Public Treasury and Government Agencies of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	January 25, 2019
Parties	State of Minas Gerais v. Vale S.A.
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount attributed to the case was R$20,000,000,000.00, however, there are illiquid orders and / or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic character. The amount in dispute, adjusted for inflation until December 31, 2019, was R$20,644,456,000.00.
Main facts	It is an interlocutory relief in advance, later amended to change into a Public-Interest Civil Action, proposed by the State of Minas Gerais against Vale S.A. due to the failure of tailings dam I of the Córrego do Feijão Mine in Brumadinho, and the damages caused to the environment and to the victims, aiming at the integral reparation for the environmental and socioeconomic damages resulting from the damaging event. An injunction was granted on January 25, 2019 to determine the unavailability and freezing of R$1,000,000,000.00 of Vale S.A. or any of its subsidiaries; as well as the execution of several emergency measures and the submission, within 48 hours, of the detailed report on the measures already taken; follow the general protocols for accidents of this nature in order to stop the volume of tailings and

mud launched by the failure of the dam, informing weekly the activities carried out and the results obtained to the court and to the competent authorities; mapping of the different resilience potentials of the affected area, observing the thickness of the mud cap, granulometry and the pH of the material, in addition to the possible concentration of heavy materials; prevent the waste from contaminating sources of riverheads and water capture, as indicated by the DNPM, reporting on the initiatives adopted; to control the proliferation of synanthropic species (rats, cockroaches etc.) and vectors of diseases transmissible to humans and animals close to homes and communities by themselves or by a duly hired specialist.

There was an amendment to the complaint on January 25, 2019. Several court-appointed hearings were held, opportunities in which different agreements were executed between Vale and the plaintiffs, such as, for example, emergency payment for those affected, a procedure to reimburse State expenses, a work suggested by COPASA for water capture in the Paraopeba River in a different location from the current one, clearance of R$500,000,000.00 previously freezed.

The judgment that granted the injunction on January 25, 2019 was challenged by an interlocutory appeal, to which the grant of supersedeas was denied. Subsequently, the interlocutory appeal was partially provided, in order to determine that the amount deposited in court (R$ 500 million) is used only in cases of prior consent from the parties or a court decision. The appellate decision became final and unappealable on February 10, 2020.

On February 20, 2019, a conciliation hearing was held, in which the parties entered into the Preliminary Agreement for emergency payment to those affected. In these terms, Vale undertook to advance the indemnification of 1 minimum monthly wage for all adults, as well as 50% of this amount for adolescents and 25% for children: (a) all persons registered in the city of Brumadinho, up to the date of the failure of the Dam; (b) residents up to 1 km from the Paraopeba river bed, from Brumadinho to the city of Pompéu, at the Retiro Baixo dam.

On March 07, 2019, the parties entered into an “Agreement of Procedures for the Reimbursement and Supply of Emergency Measures to the State of Minas Gerais” In this context, Vale has undertaken to reimburse the State's expenses with the remedial measures due to the failure of the dam, and contract services and provide equipment for any necessary measures.

On April 04, 2019, the TAC Pará de Minas as ratified, which provides for the preparation, the costing, and performance of the project and works for the construction of new systems of intake and supply of untreated water, suitable and sufficient to ensure at least flow of 284 liters per second, as a minimum, to be made available at the existing water treatment plant, located in Pará de Minas, in replacement of the abstraction that was made at Paraopeba River.

Subsequently, at a hearing held on May 9, 2019, Vale agreed to carry out at its expense new water intake from the Paraopeba River, indicated by COPASA, 12 km above the entity's current point of abstraction. In addition, the issuance of a R$ 500 million release permit was determined, by replacing this amount with a performance bond.

A pretrial decision was rendered at a hearing held on July 9, 19, in which the merits were partially judged, considering the other requests made in the statements of claim, and granted the replacement of half the frozen amount with performance bond, i.e. R$ 5 billion, as R$ 500 million had already been released.

Then, the Public Prosecution Office and Vale filed interlocutory appeals. The former has not yet been judged on the merits, on the other hand, the latter has not been heard, which is why an internal appeal was filed by Vale.

The technical advisory services chosen by the community were approved, with the participation of the Public Prosecution Office, namely, AEDAS (Regions 1 and 2), NACAB (Region 3), and Instituto Guaicuy (Regions 4 and 5), at the hearings of May 21, 2019 and July 8, 2019.

TAC COPASA was also signed on July 8, 2019, for the purposes of monitoring AECOM on compliance with measures aimed at restoring water abstraction by COPASA for the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte and other municipalities affected by the rupture. Two amendments to the instrument were subsequently approved, on September 24, 2019 and October 24, 2019.

	On November 21, 2019, the instrument signed between the parties was ratified at the hearing, with the intervention of AECOM, IGAM and MPF, for monitoring of water management of the Paraopeba River. On November 28, 2019, a decision was rendered at a hearing that ratified the agreement signed by the parties, through which they agreed on a new emergency payment to certain people affected by the failure of the Brumadinho dam. On March 5, 2020, a conciliation hearing was held in which, among other issues, the working conditions of the technical advisors, such as deadline and scope, and technical audit, were agreed upon. With regard to this decision, the Company filed a motion for clarification, which was partially provided.
Chances of loss	Possible.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the lawsuit stems from the fact that it is a public civil lawsuit filed by the State of Minas Gerais, the Prosecution Office of Minas Gerais and the Public Defender’s Office, aiming at adopting remedial measures to environmental and socioeconomic damages, due to the tailings arising from the failure of Dams I, IV and IV-A of the Feijão Mine Complex, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

21) Case no. 5044954-73.2019.8.13.0024
Court	2nd Court of the Public Treasury and Government Agencies of Belo Horizonte
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	January 25, 2019
Parties	Prosecution Office of the State of Minas Gerais v. Vale S.A.
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount attributed to the case was R$5,000,000,000.00, however, there are illiquid orders and / or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic character.
Main facts	It is a interlocutory relief lawsuit in an antecedent character, to defend the Environment, proposed by the Prosecution Office of Minas Gerais against Vale SA, due to the failure of dams I, IV and IV-A, which are part of the Mining Complex in Córrego do Feijão, located in the municipality of Brumadinho. A judgment was rendered on January 26, 2019, determining: (a) the adoption of all necessary measures to guarantee the stability of dam VI of the Feijão Mine Complex; (b) presentation of reports, every 6 hours or in the shortest time necessary, to SEMAD, the State Civil Defense and that of the municipalities at risk and the Fire Department on the measures being taken and the situation whether Dam VI is stable or not; (c) freezing of amounts found in Vale’s accounts in amounts not lower than 5 billion, to guarantee only emergency measures. In case there is no available balance, it was requested the unavailability of automobiles through Renajud and real estate through dispatch of official letters to the registers of deeds of Belo Horizonte and Brumadinho. Subsequently, the interlocutory appeal was partially provided, in order to determine that the amount deposited in court (R$ 500 million) is used only in cases of prior consent from the parties or a court decision. The appellate decision became final and unappealable on February 10, 2020. On February 20, 2019, the parties entered into the Preliminary Agreement for emergency payment to those affected. In these terms, Vale undertook to advance the indemnification of 1 minimum monthly wage for all adults, as well as 50% of this amount for adolescents and 25% for children: (a) all persons registered in the city of Brumadinho, up to the date of the failure of the Dam; (b) residents up to 1 km from the Paraopeba river bed, from Brumadinho to the city of Pompéu, at the Retiro Baixo dam. In this context, several agreements have been signed, ratified in court, with efforts to mitigate the impacts caused by the rupture of Dam I. A pretrial decision was rendered at a hearing held on September 9, 2019, in which the merits were partially judged, and granted the replacement of half the frozen amount with performance bond, i.e. R$ 5 billion, as R$ 500 million had already been released. Then, the Public Prosecution Office and Vale filed interlocutory appeals. The former has not yet been judged on the merits, on the other hand, the latter has not been heard, which is why an internal appeal was filed by Vale. Ratification of the technical advisories chosen by the community, with the Public

	Prosecution Office, namely, AEDAS (Regions 1 and 2), NACAB (Region 3), and Instituto Guaicuy (Regions 4 and 5); however, the work plans are still being analyzed. On November 28, 2019, a decision was rendered at a hearing that ratified the agreement signed by the parties, through which they agreed on a new emergency payment. Oral evidence was produced, and witnesses were heard. The production of expert evidence was determined, and the Federal University of Minas Gerais - UFMG was appointed as the court expert. On March 23, 2020, a decision was rendered that did not accept the Motion for Clarification for omission pointed out by the MPMG and for contradiction pointed out by Vale, regarding the initial term and amount to be paid to technical assistants. The omission pointed out by Vale was partially accepted, which is why it was allowed that any amount not used in the month could be deducted from subsequent transfers. Vale's request was accepted and the transfer of R$ 48,000,000.00 was determined to the accounts indicated in the petition of the plaintiffs with cash available to the court. The transfer of the amount of R$ 6,099,371.28 to the Checking Account defined by the Court was determined, and rendering of accounts should be included in the case records after the use of funds. On March 31, 2020, a decision was issued authorizing the release of R$ 500 million by EMG, as an advance of indemnity for the damages indicated in the Sentence in partial judgment of the merits, handed down on July 10, 2019.
Chances of loss	Possible.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the lawsuit stems from the fact that it is a public civil lawsuit filed by the Prosecution Office due to the failure of Dams I, IV and IV-A of the Feijão Mine Complex, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Interlocutory Appeal 0130955-24.2019.8.13.0000, filed against a decision that determined Vale to deposit the remaining amount of R$3,495,971,337.12 within 12 hours. On February 2, 2019, a decision was rendered rejecting the grant for supersedeas.

22) Case no. 5012680-56.2019.8.13.0024
Court	66th Court of the Public Treasury and Government Agencies of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte.
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	January 30, 2019
Parties	Network of Non-Governmental Organizations of the Atlantic Rainforest (“RMA”) v. Vale S.A.
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount attributed to the case was R$30,000,000,000.00, however, there are illiquid orders and / or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic character.
Main facts	It is a public civil lawsuit, which object is the indemnification for collective moral damages in the amount of R$30,000,000,000.00 and individual moral damages in the amounts of R$1,000,000.00 or R$500,000.00, depending on the severity of the damage. In addition, it requires the indemnification for property damage. Proceeding suspended since March 11, 2019 until the trial of case no. 5010709-36.2019.8.13.0024. Proceeding assigned to the 2nd Court of the Public Treasury and Government Agencies of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte, due to the termination of the judiciary unit. In addition, there is a writ of mandamus filed against the decision of the court of the 6th Court of the Public Treasury and Government Agencies of Belo Horizonte, current 2nd Court of Public Treasury, which determined the suspension of the proceeding due to the previous pending lawsuit proposed by the State of Minas Gerais. Having the injunction requested under a writ of mandamus been rejected, the RMA filed an internal interlocutory appeal, an ordinary and special appeal. The internal appeal was not heard and the special appeal was dismissed. The ordinary appeal is pending judgment.
Chances of loss	Possible.

Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the lawsuits stems from the fact that it is a public civil lawsuit filed by the Network of Non-Governmental Organizations of the Atlantic Rainforest aiming at the indemnification for collective and individual moral damage, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable

23) Case no. 5000045-50.2019.8.13.0054
Court	Sole Court of the Jurisdictional District of Barão de Cocais
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	Feb 25, 2019
Parties	Prosecution Office of Minas Gerais (“MPMG”), Public Defender’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais and Vale S.A.
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount in dispute was R$ 20,000.00, however, there are illiquid orders and/or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic nature. A request was granted for freezing in the amount of R$ 3,000,000,000.00, which adjusted for inflation until December 31, 2019, amounted to R$3,085,560,300.00.
Main facts	The generating fact of this lawsuit was the evacuation carried out by Vale at the dawn on February 8, 2019, determined by the National Mining Agency, of approximately 500 residents of the communities of Socorro, Tabuleiro, Piteiras and Vila Congo, all located in the Municipality of Barão de Cocais, downstream of the dam of the Gongo Soco Mine. It is a Provisional Remedy in Antecedent Character with an Injunction Request in defense of the human rights of environmental refugees arising from the evacuation and those who suffered material and moral damages due to the risk of faliure of the tailings dam located in the municipality of Barão de Cocais. On February 25, 2019, an injunction was filed seeking compensation for the damages caused as a result of the aforementioned evacuation. An interlocutory appeal was filed by Vale against the decision, rendered on February 26 and March 1, 2019 (correcting a material error in the previous one), which partially granted the interlocutory relief requested in the statement of claim, with partial supersedeas to the appeal having been granted, to suspend the order to freeze R$ 3 billion. After the filing of a petition by the MPMG, informing the risk of rupture of the Sul Superior Dam, a new preliminary decision was issued on March 25, 2019, determining the adoption of a series of measures to mitigate the damage deriving from the evacuation of the area. Then, the Company filed a new interlocutory appeal, which was also granted supersedeas, to override the part of the decision that determined the hiring of an entity to provide technical advisory to residents of Barão de Cocais and indemnify the residents of ZSS. Interlocutory appeals were filed by the Public Prosecution Office, and another by the Federal Public Prosecution Office against the interlocutory decision, on July 17, 2019, which only partially granted the required preliminary measures. The interlocutory appeal by the Federal Public Prosecution Office was not heard, on the grounds that the body was an illegitimate party to the filing of the appeal, as it appears in the action only as amicus curiae. In the main case records, the TAC signed between Vale, the Labor Prosecution Office, and the Public Prosecution Office of Minas Gerais was approved, with the dismissal of part of the requests contained in the statement of claim. The proceeding is currently at its evidentiary stage.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the lawsuit stems from the fact that it is a public civil lawsuit filed by the Prosecution Office and by the Public Defender’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais, aiming at the reparation and adoption of measures in case of failure of the Gongo Soco dam, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

24) Case no. 5027434-03.2019.8.13.0024
Court	17th Civil Court of the Court District Belo Horizonte

Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	February 26, 2019
Parties	Interstate Commission for the Defense of Human Rights and Citizenship - CIDDHC and Vale S.A.
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount in dispute was R$8,710,000,000.00; however, there are illiquid orders and/or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic nature. The amount adjusted on December 31, 2019 was equivalent to R$20,570,402,000.00.
Main facts	Public Civil Lawsuit of obligation to do c/c reparation for collective moral damages and request for interlocutory relief. It requires the intensification of the search and rescue of the bodies of the victims of the accident in the Córrego do Feijão dam. On May 12, 2019, Vale filed a petition requesting the rejection of the injunction requests. On May 25, 2019, Vale filed a new petition, in addition to the previous one, requesting the extinction of the deed. On April 15, 2019, the Prosecution Office produced an opinion affirming that the jurisdiction for judgment of the lawsuit is of the District of Brumadinho. On April 22, 2019, a decision was rendered determining the summons of the parties to manifest on the opinion of the Prosecution Office. Vale has already presented its manifestation. On June 5, 2019, a CIDDHC petition was filed requesting the granting of interlocutory relief. On June 17, 2019, a decision was rendered declining jurisdiction, determining the reassignment of the case to the judicial district of Brumadinho. On August 9, 2019, a certificate was issued certifying the lack of statement by the plaintiff and the first defendant. On August 13, 2019, a petition was filed informing the decision of the interlocutory appeal. On September 5, 2019, a petition was filed reinstating the request for the granting of interlocutory relief, and on November 10, 2019, a judgment was handed down dismissing the case without resolution of merit, due to the CIDDHC’s lack of standing to sue. In addition, the defendants' lack of standing to be sued and lis alibi pendens with other public-interest civil actions were recognized. On December 10, 2019, CIDDHC filed an appeal, and on February 11, 2020, Vale filed its answer brief to the appeal. On February 18, 2020, an order was issued upholding the decision and ordering the case records to be sent to the Court of Justice. On March 4, 2020, a res judicata certificate was attached to the case records of the decision that did not hear the Interlocutory Appeal filed against the decision to decline jurisdiction. On March 30th, Samarco added its answer brief to the appeal, and on April 1st, BHP added its answer brief to the appeal.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the lawsuit stems from the fact that it is a public civil lawsuit filed by the CIDDHC, aiming at a reparation and the adoption of measures due to the failure of Dams B1, BIV and BIV-A, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses the company.
Notes	Not applicable.

25) Case no. 5000430-27.2019.8.13.0400
Court	1st Civil, Criminal and Juvenile Court of the District of Mariana
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	March 7, 2019
Parties	Prosecution Office (“MPMG”) and VALE S.A.

Involved values, assets or rights	The amount attributed to the case was R$10,000,000.00, however, there are illiquid orders and / or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic character.
Main facts	It is a Public Civil Action with a preliminary injunction filed by the MPMG against Vale S/A, which objective is to hold the company responsible for the damages caused to the population of Mariana/MG, due to the situation in which the BR-356 is, with the implementation of a “STOP AND GO" system, due to the elevation of the risk of the “Vargem Grande” tailings dam to level 2. Agreement homologated in a hearing on April 16, 2019.
Chances of loss	Possible.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Considering the execution of the Conduct Adjustment Agreement - TAC and that Vale has been implementing the measures established therein, eventual impacts are of low economic potential, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

26) Case no. 5000901-97.2019.8.13.0188
Court	2nd Civil Court of the Court District of Nova Lima
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	March 14, 2019
Parties	Prosecution Office, Public Defender’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais and Vale S.A.
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount in dispute was R$ 2,000,000,000.00; however, there are illiquid orders and/or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic nature. Said amount adjusted for inflation on December 31, 2019 was R$2,045,992,000.00.
Main facts	It is a provisional remedy in advance with an injunction request in defense of the human rights of people who were evacuated, and those who, in any way, suffered material and moral damages due to the raised level of emergency of dam B3/B4, located in the District of São Sebastião das Águas Claras - Nova Lima - MG. On March 15, 2019, a preliminary injunction granting the interlocutory relief requested by the MPMG was issued, determining the freezing of R$1 billion, in addition to the adoption of several measures. Against this decision, Vale filed an interlocutory appeal, which supersedeas was fully granted. Motion for clarification was filed by the Public Defender’s Office against the decision that granted supersedeas, which was rejected on June 4, 2019. Negative conflict of jurisdiction has arisen due to the reassignment of the appeal by the Appellate Judge. The conflict was accepted, and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Judge was determined. An interlocutory appeal was filed by the Public Defender’s Office against the trial court decision, given the partial granting of the preliminary injunctions, whose request for attribution of supersedeas was denied. On July 01, 2019, an amendment to the statement of claim of the Public Prosecution Office was filed. Then, on July 2, 2019, a new preliminary decision was issued regarding the requests made in the amendment. A new interlocutory appeal was filed by Vale against this decision, which also had its supersedeas granted on August 9, 2019. As a result, all obligations imposed in said decision were suspended, except for the payment of food voucher and the cost of food, lodging and transportation for the evacuees. The motion for clarification filed by Vale in this regard was dismissed on September 20, 2019. An internal interlocutory appeal was filed by the Public Prosecution Office, aiming at amending the supersedeas granted to the preliminary decision. On February 13, 2020, Vale filed its answer brief. The appeals were pending judgment of the conflict of jurisdiction. After the decision, the parties were notified to present their reply briefs to the appeals. The parties jointly petitioned, on March 20, 2020, requesting the replacement of the food vouchers provided to those affected with payment, due to the emergency situation of COVID-19. After judicial approval; however, the Public Defender’s Office filed a motion for clarification, claiming that the Judge did not

	observe the situation of economic reduction due to the coronavirus when granting the reduction in the amount to be paid to those affected. For this reason, it requires again the granting of the measure presented by the agency, that is, bank deposit without reduction in the amounts. As of the date of this Reference Form, such decision was still pending judgment.
Chances of loss	Possible.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the lawsuit stems from the fact that it is a public civil lawsuit filed by the Prosecution Office and by the Public Defender’s Office of the State of Minas Gerais, aiming at the reparation and adoption of measures in case of failure of the B3/B4 dam, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable

27) Case no. 5036049-79.2019.8.13.0024
Court	2nd Court of the Public Treasury and Government Agencies of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	March 21, /2019
Parties	Association of Servants of the Fire Department and Military Police of the State of Minas Gerais - ASCOBOM/MG v. Vale S.A. and the State of Minas Gerais
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount attributed to the case was R$100,000.00, however, there are illiquid orders and / or orders involving the adoption of several measures, which of course have an economic character.
Main facts	It is a public civil lawsuit managed by the Association, aiming at the protection of all the military firefighters who worked in the search and rescue activities in the city of Brumadinho, due to the environmental tragedy. Still without the appraisal of the preliminary injunction, the State of Minas Gerais requested the referral of the case records to the 6th Court of Public Treasury and Government Agencies of the Judicial District of Belo Horizonte, current 2nd Court of Public Treasury, so that the preliminary injunction could be considered in conjunction with the decisions of public-interest civil actions no. 5046408-67.2019.8.13.0024 and no. 5026408-67.2019.8.13.0024. The request was accepted on September 9, 2019 and the case records were sent to the 6th Court of Public Treasury and Government Agencies of Belo Horizonte, current 2nd Court of Public Treasury.
Chances of loss	Possible.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the lawsuit stems from the fact that it is a public civil lawsuit filed by the Association, aiming at the protection of all the military firefighters who worked in the search and rescue activities in the city of Brumadinho, due to the environmental tragedy, and losing the lawsuit may cause significant financial losses to the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

28) Case no. 1:19-cv-526-RJD-SJB
Court	New York Federal Court
Instance	United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Filed on	January 28, 2019 (First Complaint) and 10/25/2019 (“Amended Complaint”).
Parties	Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Pensions Plan (“Authors”) e Vale S.A., Murilo Ferreira, Fabio Schvartsman, Luciano Siani, Peter Poppinga and Luis Eduardo Osorio (“Defendants”).
Involved values, assets or rights	The plaintiffs did not specify the values of the alleged damages.
Main facts	Vale and some of its current and former executives were considered defendants in class actions referring to securities before the New York Federal Court, moved by investors holding American Depositary Receipts issued by Vale, base of the American federal law on securities (U.S. federal securities laws). In legal suits it is alleged that Vale made false and deceitful affidavits or did not divulge the risks and dangers of the operations of Barragem I and the adequacy of the related programs and procedures. The authors did not specify a value for the alleged damages, in these suits, they have only motioned for the conviction of the defendants in reimbursing the damages suffered, which shall be calculated during the expertise evaluation stage. On May 13, 2019, the Judge of the District Court of the East District of New York City decided on the consolidation of these suits and assigned the lead plaintiff for the case and respective attorney.

	On October 25, 2019, the lead plaintiff of the action filed an initial complaint amended and consolidated, which shall be the statement of claim in the suit. On December 13, 2019, Vale filed an opposition to the amended and consolidated motion to dismiss, alleging basically (i) that the cause to ask from the plaintiff does not justify a Securities Fraud Claim; (ii) that the plaintiff did not identify which omissions had been perpetrated by the defendants nor demonstrated that the alleged false statements were, in fact, false at the time in which they were published; (iii) that the plaintiff did not demonstrate malice from the defendants in swindling the market; and (iv) that the plaintiff did not demonstrate any causality nexus between the initial allegations and alleged damages which may have authorized any claims for compensation. The individual defendants were still not formally mentioned and, therefore, the defense was submitted only on behalf of the Company, and individual defendants must consolidate their defenses in a timely manner. On January 31, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss from Vale. On February 21, 2020, Vale filed a counter-defense to the opposition. On May 20, 2020, the Court issued a decision partially rejecting the preliminary defense presented by Vale (Motion to Dismiss), and dismissing the action as only related to some of the plaintiff's allegations. In this sense, part of the preliminary allegations (Statements) cited by the Plaintiff were upheld by the Court's decision, and, with that, the action will proceed to the phase of producing evidence (Discovery), still without a term defined by the Court.
Chances of loss	Possible.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Possible loss could result in financial damages and in the image and reputation of the Company.
Notes	Not applicable.

29) Case no. 5002549-18.2019.8.13.0090
Court	1st Civil, Criminal and Juvenile Court of the District of Brumadinho
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	Oct 17, 2019
Parties	Prosecution Office of the State of Minas Gerais (“MPMG”)
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount attributed to the case was 30.004.900.000,00.
Main facts	MPMG filed a lawsuit against Vale, based on Brazilian Law n. Lei nº 12.846/2013, as, according to the understanding of the Prosecution Office, Vale, through the actions of its employees, hindered inspection activities by Public Agencies in the Mining Complex of Córrego do Feijão, where the BI Dam was located, thus rendering the Company liable for liability based on the administrative and civil sanctions provided for in articles 6 and 19 of the aforementioned Law. The responsible court granted, on May 26, 2020, a preliminary request from the MPMG, determining the presentation, by the Company, of guarantees in the total amount of R $ 7,931,887,500.00, within 10 (ten) days. Vale will file an interlocutory appeal against the decision handed down.
Chances of loss	Remote.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Invaluable. The relevance of the action stems from the fact that it is a Responsibility Action filed by the State Public Ministry of MG, based on Law 12.846 / 2013.
Notes	Not applicable.

(iv) Environmental

As of December 31, 2019, the amount of R $ 43 million was provisioned in the Company's consolidated financial statements to cover probable losses from environmental proceedings.

The tables below contain an individual description of the environmental lawsuits regarded as relevant for the businesses of the Company and/or its controlled companies.

1) Case no. 0317.02.002974-8
Court	2^nd Civil Court of the Judicial District of Itabira - Minas Gerais
Instance	Trial court
Date of filing	Sep 26, /1996
Parties to the proceeding	Government of the City of Itabira (Plaintiff) and Vale (Defendant)
Involved values, assets or rights	R$ 6,568,561,270.33 As at December 31, 2019.
Main facts	The city of Itabira claims indemnification for the expenditures it might have incurred with public services rendered as a consequence of Vale’s mining operations. The proceeding was suspended on that occasion, as it awaited the trial of a writ of mandamus filed by Vale so that a favorable evidence produced in another proceeding be used in this proceeding (item 2 below). In January 2012, the writ of mandamus was judged to the detriment of Vale. However, this proceeding remained suspended at that time, since the first-instance court had not yet received any information from the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais related to the judgment of the writ of mandamus. The parties filed a joint petition on March 12, 2013 asking for the action to be put in abeyance until an agreement was reached. On March 27, 2014, the proceedings were stayed by an agreement between the parties, but it was later resumed as the parties failed to reach an agreement. On November 19, 2015 an order was published asking the City of Itabira to inform of the judgment of the writ of mandamus. On March 29, 2016, the City of Itabira informed that Writ of Mandamus no. 1.0000.07.465984-8/000 was denied and summoned the already appointed Expert to produce an expert testimony. On June 12, 2017, the subpoena of the municipality of Itabira was determined to express its opinion on the proposal of fees, under penalty of debarment of the evidence. On November 20, 2017, the records of the municipality of Itabira were received, in which the author requested the appointment of a conciliation hearing, with the purpose of reaching a composition between the parties. On June 11, 2018, the records were handed over to the Attorney General's Office and returned on June 20, 2018. On August 15, 2018, the records were closed for the procedural order. On October 14, 2019, a settlement hearing among the parties was held, but no settlement was reached. Awaiting the case recovery and eventual expert evidence.
Chances of loss	Total amount split between a possible loss (15%) and remote loss (85%).
Analysis of impact in the case of losing the suit / Reasons this case is significant to the Company	An occasional unfavorable decision in the lawsuit would cause significant financial losses to the Company, but there is no risk that the operations might stop. Considering that the purpose of the public civil action is declaratory in nature, there is no way to estimate, a priori, the total economic value involved in the cause.
Notes	Not applicable.

2) Case no. 0317.02.007032-0
Court	1^st Civil Court of the Judicial District of Itabira - Minas Gerais
Instance	Trial court
Filed on	Aug 22, 1996
Parties to the proceeding	Government of the City of Itabira (Plaintiff) and Vale (Defendant)
Involved values, assets or rights	R$ 5,672,529,620.42 (as of December 31, 2019).
Main facts	The action initiated by the City of Itabira, in the State of Minas Gerais, claiming that the operations in the iron mines at Itabira caused environmental and social damages and demanding the restoration of the location and the conduction of

	environmental recovery programs in the region. An expert examined was made for this action and the expert report jointly issued by the Brazilian Environment and Natural Resources Institute (“IBAMA”) and the State Environment Foundation (“FEAM”) was favorable to Vale. However, the City requested new expert evidence to be produced, which was accepted by the judge. For this purpose, a multidisciplinary from the Lavras Federal University was designated. On November 6, 2012 a conciliation hearing was held, where the request for staying the proceedings until May 6, 2013 was accepted so that the parties would try to reach an agreement. Considering the expiry of the stay term, the City was summoned to express its opinion on the amount of the expert’s fees. In February 2014, the City of Itabira submitted its declaration regarding the proposal of expert’s fees and asked the amount of R$1,604,000.00 to be reviewed, considering that the City may provide some inputs, such as accommodations, meals and the plants, maps or sketches. On May 7, 2015 a judicial order was published summoning the appointed expert to express himself and inform on the possibility of reducing the expert’s fees within ten (10) days. On January 19, 2016, the declaration petition was filed by Vale, which confirmed that the expert examination to be prepared for this action had been requested by the City of Itabira and, for that reason, the Company is not responsible for paying the expert’s fees, in accordance with Article 33 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. 33 do Case Code. On February 15, 2016 it was informed that the deadline for the Plaintiff—the City of Itabira—for filing its declaration had expired without any declaration being submitted. On June 6, 2016 another expert was appointed to replace the former one and the presentation of the respective fees is still pending. On January 30, 2017 the case records were sent to the City Treasury Attorney’s Office. On January 30, 2018, the records were prepared for a judicial order. On June 11, 2018, the records were handed over to the Itabira Municipal Tax Attorney and returned on June 20, 2018, with a request for a conciliation hearing. On February 14, 2019, a conciliation hearing was held. Vale expressed interest in conciliating, which resulted in the suspension of the proceeding until the technical report was joined in the records of Public Civil Action No. 0029771-40.2002.8.13.0317, at which time Vale will meet with the municipality and the Public Prosecutor to try to conciliate. On February 22, 2019, a certificate was attached to the file, attesting the distribution dates of the lawsuits in which the municipality of Itabira and the company are held, and have cause for request and similar request. On March 23, 2019, the case was suspended by judicial decision. On August 23, 2019, the decision was given determining the suspension of the case until the report is attached to the case 0317.02.0029977-1.
Chances of loss	Total amount as split between a possible loss (7%) and a remote loss (93%).
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	An occasional unfavorable decision in the lawsuit would cause significant financial losses to the Company, but there is no risk that the operations might stop. Considering that the purpose of the public civil action is declaratory in nature, there is no way to estimate, a priori, the total economic value involved in the cause.
Notes	Not applicable.

3) Case no. 26.295.47.2012.4.3700
Court	8^th Federal Court of São Luís - Maranhão
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	July 22, 2012
Parties	Sociedade Maranhense de Direitos Humanos, Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI), Centro de Cultura Negra do Maranhão - CNN (Plaintiffs) and IBAMA and VALE (Defendants).
Involved values, assets or rights	Invaluable.
Main facts	The aim of a public civil action is to suspend the licensing process for the expansion of the Carajás railway. For that purpose, the Plaintiffs claim that the environmental licenses granted by IBAMA were based on an environmental study that was insufficient to characterize – globally - the impacts caused by the works, in addition to fragmenting the environmental licenses in order to replace the company’s obligation with the environmental compensation due as

	a consequence of the installation of the site. Finally, after some criticism against the required licensing model, the Plaintiffs required a declaration of invalidity of the licensing process. In July 2012, the court granted the requested injunction by determining the suspension of all the building works and operations related to the expansion of the Carajás railway. Both Vale and IBAMA lodged appeals (bills of review) intending to revert the judicial decision, as well as submitted to the President of the TRF (Regional Federal Court) of the 1^st Region (DF) a request for an injunction suspension by claiming (i) the risk of serious, irreversible economic losses that might occur if said injunction remained in force, as well as (ii) the fact that the environmental study prepared by Vale fully complied with CONAMA Resolution 237, so that there was no justification for the Plaintiff’s request related to the risk of a serious social and environmental unbalance. The request for suspension was accepted by the President of the TRF of the 1^st Region and the Plaintiffs lodged an appeal against that decision. However, they were not successful in it and the decision in favor of Vale was maintained. At the first instance, both Vale and IBAMA submitted their defenses claiming (a) the regularity of the licensing process, (b) that the study clearly defined all the diagnoses as to the impacts on the areas and communities under direct or indirect influence of the works (including traditional communities), and (c) the need for respecting the competence and technical discretion of IBAMA to conduct and complete the environmental study. In a recent decision, a federal judge has accepted the Federal Public Defender’s request to become a Plaintiff in the action. Vale lodged an appeal against that decision, which was in line with the opinion issued by the Federal Prosecutor Office (“MPF”), by stating that the Public Defender’s Office lacked legitimacy to appear in the action. The appealed decision was maintained, and the succession term was re-established for the Public Defender’s Office, IBAMA and VALE to submit their oppositions. The Public Defender’s Office corroborated the annulment of the Licensing and IBAMA was requested to submit new information on the operation of the railway and how the families would be removed from the area. After IBAMA declaration on August 12, 2014, the records were sent to the judge’s analysis. The injunction was rejected on September 15, 2014, and the State of Pará stated that it had no interest in the lawsuit. On February 27, 2015, an order was published informing the beginning of the term for Vale to submit its declaration on the licensing process produced by IBAMA. On March 17, 2016 the production of expert evidence was accepted, as requested by Vale, which presented requisites and technical assistants on April 5, 2016. On December 5, 2016, the MPF filed a petition opposing to the requisites presented by Vale. On May 23, 2017, the records were prepared for the judge to decide on the acceptance of the requisites presented by Vale and the opposition submitted by the MPF. The parties are still awaiting the above-mentioned order to be handed down and the requested expert examination to be provided. The judicial expertise was designated for July 22, 2019, whose scope will be the analysis and verification of regularity of documents and information presented in the process of environmental licensing of the enterprise. The experts petitioned in the records for an extension of the date for November 14, 2019, and the Judge granted the petition on the same day. The delivery of the expert report is awaited to this day.
Chances of loss	Possible
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Despite the conclusion of the EFC expansion works, an eventual decision against Vale may affect the licensing process for the EFC expansion, as well as impact VALE’s logistic operations for the implementation of the distribution plan for the production originated from the S11D Project.
Notes	Not applicable.

4) Case no. 0013741-46.2017.8.08.0024
Court	5^th State Court of the Treasury, City, Public Registers, Environment and Health
Instance	Trial Court

Filed on	May 25, 2017
Parties	Associação Juntos SOS ES Ambiental (plaintiff) and Vale (defendant)
Involved values, assets or rights	Loss and/or limitation of the right to exploit artesian wells, payment of damages (without liquidation at the complaint), material (without liquidation at the complaint) and moral losses (without liquidation at the complaint) due to the claim of diseases caused by an alleged contamination, as well as the payment of collective moral or material indemnification resulting from an alleged violation of diffuse rights (as liquidated at the complaint in the amount of R$ 11,850,001.19). The value of the litigation is set in R$ 100,000,000.00.
Main facts	This Public Civil Action was filed by the Associação Juntos SOS ES Ambiental against Vale with a preliminary request for an urgent relief and a penalty involving an obligation to act, where the exploitation of artesian wells is question and the contamination of the Greater Vitória aquifers by Vale is claimed, as well as its operation of the Tubarão Complex. The urgency relief was requested for Vale to (i) suspend the exploitation of artesian wells, (ii) take measures to eliminate the alleged contamination of tanks, reservoirs and ponds of its industrial complex, (iii) submit evaluations at all water collection wells, tanks, reservoirs and ponds, (iv) implement an improvement plan for the sanitary treatment systems, (v) submit/execute implementation or expansion projects for high environmental risk undertakings and any other sources of great environmental impact (vi) submit a hydrological study to evaluate water availability and non-impact on the Greater Vitória aquifer, and (vii) submit an authorization for using underground water. The requests for an urgency relief were not granted. As for the merits, the Plaintiff requests that Vale should be sentenced to pay damages, property damages and those resulting from pain and suffering, to those who suffered from any diseases caused by the alleged contamination, as well as to pay an indemnification for personal or property damages, as a consequence of the alleged violation of diffuse rights, in the amount of R$ 10,000,000.00. The amount in controversy is established at R$ 100,000,000.00. Vale was served process on October 10, 2017, and filed an appeal. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the complaint on January 31, 2019. On February 6, 2019, a pretrial order was issued that dismissed all preliminary actions argued by Vale and all parties were subpoenaed to submit any evidence discovered. Vale interposed an interlocutory appeal after this decision, on March 2, 2019. Pending trial.
Chances of loss	Remote.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	In an event of a negative outcome, the Company will suffer expressive losses and inestimable damages to its reputation.
Notes	Not applicable.

5) Case no. 0002505-76.2015.4.02.5001
Court	1^st Federal Criminal Court of the Federal Justice of Espírito Santo
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	Dec 4, 2015
Parties	Federal Police of Brazil (Plaintiff) and Vale (Defendant)
Involved values, assets or rights	Suspension of Vale’s operations at Pier II and the Coal Pier at the Port of Tubarão due to potential environmental damages resulting from the fall of iron ore and the emission of particulate materials into the atmosphere and at the marine area around Pier II and the Coal Pier. Incalculable amount.
Main facts	As part of an environmental investigation conducted by the Federal Police, on January 21, 2016, an innominate Provisional Remedy was filed, in which the PF requested the temporary suspension of the exercise of economic activity by Vale and Arcellor in PIER II and Praia Mole, until the implementation of effective measures to combat the emission of pollutants into the air, and the Federal Justice of Espírito Santo ordered the suspension of the Company’s operations at Pier II and the Coal Pier at the Port of Tubarão, due to potential environmental damages resulting from the fall of iron ore and the emission of particulate materials into the atmosphere and at the marine area around Pier II and the Coal Pier. Vale’s operations at Pier II and the Coal Pier at the Port of Tubarão were stopped for four days until the Regional Federal Court of the Second Region (“TRF”) suspended the effects of the injunction. TRF granted Vale 60 days for it to implement certain actions to monitor, control and attenuate the fall of iron ore and the emission of particulate materials into the

	atmosphere and the ocean. This 60-day term expired on March 25, 2016, and the Company understands that it is compliant with the requirements imposed by the TRF. At the first instance, an expert was appointed by the judge, and both Vale and the Public Attorney’s Office (“MPF”) submitted their requisites. The expert examination determined at the judgment of the writ of injunction began in April 2018. On July 4, 2016, the TRF confirmed that the effects of the injunction had been suspended and ordered an expert examination to confirm whether Vale had properly implemented the actions to monitor, control and mitigate the release of iron ore at the terminal. Vale lodged an appeal against a portion of the TRF order. However, such action will not impact the performance of such expert examination, which began in April 2018. As part of this process, the Company may be required to meet certain additional requirements to prevent or mitigate the decrease of iron ore and the emission of particulate matter in the sea and atmosphere or to suspend its activities in the port of Tubarão. On September 28, 2017, Police Investigation no. 523/2014 (“IPL”), which caused the injunction, was reported and suggested that Vale should be charged. In June 2018, the MPF requested that the Federal Police reopen and continue the investigation. In September 2018, the Company entered into a Term of Environmental Commitment (“TCA”) with the MPF, the state attorneys general and the environmental and water authority of the State of Espírito Santo (IEMA), under which it agreed to adopt additional measures to control emissions and implement certain measures recommended by the environmental agency of the State of São Paulo (CETESB), which was summed by IEMA to perform due diligence. The capital expenditures estimated by the Company that are necessary to comply with these measures are of approximately R$1.27 billion. As a result of the execution of the TCA for the adoption of improvements in the environmental controls of the Tubarão Unit, the MPF requested the provisional filing of Police Inquiry No. 523/2014. It occurs that the court understood that it would not be the case of filing and, according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred the records for deliberation of the filing by the Federal Public Prosecution Council. This resolution was still pending analysis on the date of this Reference Form. At the same time, the Experts of the Court delivered the expert report in the proceedings of the Unspecified Injunction Order. Vale will present its response in the records, when the Court may, in due course, decide on new prohibitions in the Tubarão Unit. The expert report was recorded on March 8, 2019 and Vale filed an objection and comments on June 5, 2019. Documents generated were sent for composition of the records of the Police Investigation 523/2014. Proceeding archived permanently on October 31, 2019.
Chances of loss	Remote. Proceeding dismissed.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	The process was relevant in view that it could may culminate in the interdiction of the port at any point in the process. In an event of a negative outcome, the Company would suffer expressive losses and inestimable damages to its reputation. However, the process was permanently archived on October 31, 2019.
Notes	After the archiving of the process on October 31, 2019, the innominate Provisional Remedy, the writ of injunction and the IPL dealing with the issue were filed.

6) Case no. 0002383-85.2012.4.01.3905
Court	Federal Court of the Judiciary Subsection of the City of Redenção
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	May 28, 2012
Parties	Federal Government Attorney’s Office (“MPF” in Portuguese) (plaintiff);

Kakarekré Indigenous Association of Defense of the Xikrin People of the Djudjeko, Tuto Pombo Indigenous Association, Porekro Indigenous Association of Defense of the Xikrin People of the Cateté, Pore Kayapó Indigenous Association, Bayprã Indigenous Association of Defense of the Xikrin People of the Oodja (“Associate Co-plaintiffs”); Vale, National Indian Foundation (“FUNAI”) and the State of Pará (“Defendants”).

Involved values, assets or rights

The value is undefined, taking into consideration that it is a claim involving (i) indemnity value, which will depend on the expert examination for definition, as well as (ii) the request to stop the nickel operations of the Onça Puma Company, in the State of Pará.

Main facts

In 2012, MPF filed a Public Civil Action (“PCA”) against Vale, the State of Pará and FUNAI, pursuing the suspension of the nickel Company operations at the Onça Puma mine, in the State of Pará, due to the alleged impact over the Xikrin of the Cateté and Kayapó indigenous communities located near the mining site. MPF argues (i) that the Company’s operations would be contaminating the waters of the Cateté River which crosses the Xikrin indigenous land (“IL”), (ii) that the Company failed to meet certain conditions originating from the environmental licensing of the Onça Puma mine undertaking and (iii) that the State of Pará should not have granted an environmental license for said undertaking. Additionally, MPF has claimed the payment of indemnity in favor of the Indians and a monthly deposit of the amount of BRL 1.0 million, until the final and unappealable decision of the suit, in favor of the Xikrin and Kayapó indigenous villages.

On October 18, 2012, the court did not recognize the urgency of the preliminary injunction entered in the sphere of the PCA, having denied said injunction requested by MPF.

On May 25, 2015, past three years after the denial of the injunction, MPF filed a request for reconsideration by the court of Redenção, claiming that the operations of the Onça Puma mine undertaking would be contaminating the Cateté river, causing health damage to the indigenous tribes and, therefore, it reiterated the request to stop the undertaking and start payment of a monthly indemnity in the amount of BRL 1.0 million for the benefit of the Xikrin and Kayapó indigenous villages.

On June 02, 2015, the court of Redenção partially accepted MPF plea, determining that Vale would monthly deposit the approximate amount of BRL 400 thousand, to be received and divided proportionally among the villages integrating the Xikrin IL.

On July 14, 2015, the MPF filed an appeal requesting the increase of the monthly deposit obligation initially determined by the Redenção judge, requesting that Vale be required to deposit the monthly amount of R$1 million per village affected by the project, as well as such as the immediate stoppage of the Onça Puma mine project. The Rapporteur's Judge granted the preliminary injunction formulated and fully accepted the request formulated by the MPF.

On August 21, 2015, Vale entered a new Writ of Mandamus (“MS”), addressed to the President of TRF 1, against this new injunction for compensation increase and stoppage of the undertaking activities.

On August 28, 2015, Rapporteur Judge received the MS formulated by Vale, and granted an injunction in favor of the Company, determining the suspension of the effects of the order that determined the stoppage of the Onça Puma mine project and the (second) increase in the monthly value to be deposited.

On September 16, 2015, on account of this new decision regarding the WM, MPF filed a claim for stay of preliminary order before the President of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ in Portuguese), claiming a public order and health nature risk. After gathering the manifestation of all the interested parties (Vale, the State of Pará and the Indigenous Associations), the STJ Chief Justice Minister recognized the risks presented by MPF and granted an injunction, determining the suspension of the effects of the previous one obtained by Vale in a WM, deciding for a new stoppage of the Onça Puma mine and the resuming of the monthly deposits (R$ 7 million).

On October 29, 2015, the State of Pará filed an appeal to suspend the injunction before the Federal Supreme Court (STF in Portuguese) Chief Justice, arguing that the paralysis of the undertaking would bring a series of damages to the State. The STF Chief Justice determined all the interested parties to manifest

themselves about the request made by the State of Pará. In this opportunity, Vale complemented the information presented by the State.

On December 16, 2015, STF suspended the effects of the injunction granted by STJ, thus releasing the operation of the Onça Puma mine undertaking, also determining the implementation, in up to 120 days, of the Management Plan and the remaining mitigating and compensatory measures regarding the impacts of the Onça Puma undertaking over the ILs.

On June 15, 2016, the STF trial of the appeals filed by VALE (ED) and MPF (Internal Interlocutory Appeal - AGR) against the order issued by the Min. Chairman of the STF in the records of SL No. 933-PA/2016, which released the operation of the Onça Puma enterprise and determined the implementation of the management plan and other mitigating measures within 120 days, under penalty of return of the monthly deposit obligation. On account of some doubts from the part of the other participating ministers, especially Justice Barroso, which requested to see the records, the judgment was suspended.

On May 31, 2017, the judgment of SL no. 933/PA-2015 was resumed, and Min. Barroso submitted his vote to, diverging from the initial rapporteur of the case (Min. Ricardo Lewandowski), revoking the decision, which suspended the effects of the injunction which ordered the interruption of the undertaking and payment of R$1,000,000.00/month/village, thus returning the issue to the ordinary instances, for understanding that it was not the STF’s role to evaluate factual matters.

On September 13, 2017, the judgment of the AI no. 0042106-84.2015 took place, where the 5^th Panel of the TRF 1^st Region decided to partially accept the opinion of the Reporting Appellate Judge and, as a support to the Principles of Precaution and Prevention, determined the stoppage of the Onça Puma project and decreased the amount of the monthly compensatory sum of R$ 1 million/month/village to 1 minimum wage/Indian/month, until Vale implemented the PGE.

On September 15, 2017, Vale was summoned of the court decision issued by the 5^th Panel of the TRF 1^st Region and, in compliance with the decision, suspended the activities of the Onça Puma mines operations.

On September 22, 2017, Vale entered a Motion for Clarification (MC) against the decision issued by the 5^th Panel of the TRF 1^st Region, indicating its obscurities, since the 5^th Panel failed to analyze several arguments displayed by the company, as well as the emphasized contradictions.

On January 28, 2018, an expert examination was carried out at the Onça Puma undertaking, in the specialties of Civil Engineering, Forest Engineering, Metallurgy, Limnology, Ichthyology, Geology and Social Assistance.

On October 23, 2018, the filing of the motions for clarification presented by Vale were judged and considered improper, and the integrity of the judgment handed down in the case file of instrument 00042307-42.2016, which resulted in the stoppage of the project and the payment of a monthly amount for the indigenous peoples.

On November 6, 2018, the reports of the assessments made up to that date - Civil Eng., Forestry, Metallurgy, Agronomy, Sociology, Geology, Limnology and Biology - were added to the Public Civil Action records, which concluded that the enterprise of Onça Puma does not contaminate the Cateté river.

On December 12, 2018, Vale filed an injunction (TC01 - Proc. 1036188-62.2018.4.01.0000), requesting the grant of suspensive effect to the Special and Extraordinary Appeal presented by Vale against the judgment that determined the stoppage of the Onça Puma mines and the payment of the monthly sum.

On January 7, 2019, Ourilândia do Norte City Hall joined the STF with a request for Suspension of Injunction (STP-PA 105/2019), presenting the losses that the municipality will suffer with the total stoppage of the Onça Puma enterprise in reason of the maintenance of the decision rendered by TRF1st R, in the records of the Appeal of Instrument No. 00042307-42.2016.

On January 12, 2019, Min. President of the STF ordered on the record the request for Suspension of the Provisional Relief presented by the Municipality

	of Ourolândia do Norte (STP 105-PA/2019), postponing the appraisal of the filing for an injunction after the manifestation of the other interested parties and determined to notice everyone. On April 15, 2019, Min. President of the STF appointed a conciliation hearing for April 30, 2019. On April 30, 2019, a conciliation hearing was held in the STF, where Vale submitted a proposal for an agreement, which was rejected by the indigenous people and MPF. Due to the refusal to conciliate, the documents were conclusive for the STF Minister President to decide on the application for release of the enterprise. On September 16, 2019, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Federal Court drew up a monocratic preliminary decision of full permit for operation of the Onça Puma entrepreneurship, in addition to surveys by the Xikrin of the amounts deposited by Vale in a legal account. On November 3, 2019, indigenous associations have emphasized the request for payment of differences in amount due to the population increase of the villages, pleading a supplementary payment around R$ 40 million. This request is still pending analysis by the Judiciary. ON December 2019, Vale filed a legal reporting request, claiming that the indigenous associations failed to uphold the provisions of the decision from the 5th Panel of the 1st Region Federal court, in addition to the conditions settled in the Consent Decree Term, entered into with the MPF/Redenção. This legal reporting request is pending analysis by the Federal Court Judge of Redenção (PA).
Chances of loss	Possible loss, since the proceeding is still in the instruction phase, and the technical expert examination requested by the parties is not yet concluded.
Impact analysis in case of loss/ Reasons of the relevance of the lawsuit for the Company	Possibility of considerable financial impact in case Vale is convicted, as well as in case of stoppage of the operations in the Onça Puma Mine.
Notes	Not applicable.

7) Case no. 0001254-18.2016.4.01.3901
Court	2^nd Federal Civil Court of the Judiciary Subsection of Marabá
Instance	Trial Court
Filed on	May 12, 2016
Parties	Associação Indígena Kakarekré for Defense of the Xikrin do djudjêkô People, Associação Indígena Bayaprã Indigenous Association for the Defense of the Xikrin do O-Odja People and Porekro Indigenous Association for the Defense of the Xikrin do Catetê People (“Plaintiff Associations”) and Company, FUNAI, IBAMA and BNDES (jointly “Defendants”)
Involved values, assets or rights	The amount in dispute is R$ 72,385,600,000.00, as filed by the Plaintiffs. In view of the subject matter and progress of the proceeding, the Company understands to be invaluable the amount involved in a possible adverse judgment.
Main facts	The Plaintiffs Associations filed a public civil action requesting (i) suspension of the environmental licensing process of the S11D project, (ii) settlement of pecuniary damages and emotional distress to be ascertained, and (iii) settlement of a monthly allowance of R$ 2,000,000.00/per village, by failure of performing the Indigenous Component Study (ECI) and the prior consultation with the indigenous Xikrin community. On September 22, 2016, an order was filed in the records (i) designating November 7, 2016 for judicial inspection to superficially verify the alleged impacts; (ii) that Vale should provide the means necessary to transport representatives of the plaintiffs, the defendants and their respective attorneys and the Federal Attorney to the indicated site, and; (iii) certify the exclusion of lawyers. On November 7, 2016, the judicial inspection of the S11D enterprise was carried out. On January 24, 2017, the decision of the judge who accompanies the case denying the preliminary injunction, arguing, in a very brief summary, that at least in this preliminary phase it is not proven that the S11D enterprise causes any impact on the Xikrin indigenous lands.

On February 13, 2017, the Bayprã Association informed the trial court the filing of an interlocutory appeal challenging the decision that denied the S11D enterprise suspension injunction, requesting the reconsideration of the refusing decision of the pleaded injunction, alleging the new fact of Vale having received from IBAMA the Operating License of the S11D Mine. The Reporting Justice of AI (5755-44.2017) denied the preliminary injunction formulated by the Indigenous Associations.

On March 14, 2017, Vale filed its answer, restating the points presented in the preliminary manifestation and, complementing, emphasized the importance of the enterprise for the region and for the country, and lack of interest in the suit of the indigenous. On the merits, highlighted the absence of the impact alleged by the indigenous, as well as the presumption of legality and legitimacy of the administrative acts executed during the licensing. Lastly, required the termination of the case.

On June 14, 2017, the MPF/Marabá filed to the ACP court a motion for rehearing of the adverse decision of the preliminary injunction filed.

On June 20, 2017, the MPF/Marabá filed an Interlocutory Appeal against the adverse decision of the ACP court, requiring the granting of a preliminary injunction to make Vale to carry out the study of the indigenous component of the S11D enterprise.

On July 18, 2017, the case court partially reconsidered the disallowance of the initial request, under the argument that the performing of the study in nothing would impair the procedural relation, as well as the enterprise operation, and determined that Vale executed and presented in court within 180 days the indigenous component study of the S11D enterprise, keeping the disallowance of the standstill of the mine and of the payment of the monthly indemnification.

On July 20, 2017, Vale was given notice of the decision of the partial reconsideration of the refusing order of the preliminary injunction and went aware of the obligation to execute and present the indigenous component study of the S11D enterprise.

On November 28, 2017, there was a manifestation of the MPF suggesting the holding of a conciliation hearing for alignment of the questions related to the execution of the study determined.

On February 5, 2018, Vale presented a petition not opposing to the holding of the conciliation hearing to be assigned by the court.

On April 6, 2018, it was held the conciliation hearing for the definition of the representations for the accomplishment of the decision that determined the execution of the study of the indigenous component by Vale. The court accepted the arguments of the motion for clarification presented by Vale and rejected those presented by the Associations, as well as the reconsideration request presented by those, and a deadline of 60 days was established for Vale to present the work plan and the technical team to carry out the study. In addition, a period of 15 days was established for FUNAI to approve or require complementation to the work plan. Once approved the plan, it will be submitted to the indigenous for analysis and approval. The community does not have a deadline for this analysis.

On April 23, 2018, the Association presented instrument appeal against the decision that rejected the reconsideration request and postponed the decision for determination or not of the hiring of the technical team to assist the indigenous in the analysis of the study.

On April 27, 2018, Vale presented an appeal of instrument appeal against the decision that determined the company to execute the study of the indigenous component of the S11D enterprise.

On May 2, 2018, it was denied the preliminary injunction pleaded by the indigenous and kept the effects of the first instance decision that denied the stoppage of the enterprise and the payment of the monthly amount as Indemnification.

On June 8, 2018, Vale petitioned in the records informing that on the same date, it carried out the aforementioned protocol before FUNAI of the Work Plan

and appointment of staff.

On August 16, 2018, the MPF requested: a) FUNAI's subpoena to present a statement on the documents submitted by Vale; and b) subpoena of the authorial Associations to make a sound statement regarding the work plan - technical staff - of Vale.

On August 22, 2018, the MPF petitioned for a request to attach Official Letter No. 437/2018/CGLIC/DPDS-FUNAI to the records and, considering the reservations pointed out by FUNAI, Vale's injunction to remedy them within 20 days before FUNAI.

On September 20, 2018, a petition was filed by the MPF to request to attach official letter No. 437/2018/CLIC/DPDS-FUNAI and be manifested by FUNAI's order to: a) clarify whether the additional information provided by Vale is satisfactory , and, if so, b) define the dates on which the municipality and Vale will present the work plan to the indigenous communities.

On February 15, 2019, FUNAI announced the designation of the dates of April 1 and 2, 2019 to hold the event to present the Work Plan of the Study of the Indigenous Component in the Xikrin villages.

On March 28, 2019, FUNAI informed Vale and the associations representing the Xikrin that it would have to postpone the meetings scheduled for 01 and 02 April 2019 and that the new dates for these meetings would be communicated in the future.

On July 16, 2019, a meeting was held at the Djudjekô village for presentation of the Work Plan (“PT”) of the Indigenous Component Study of the S11D project. The indigenous leaderships did not allow the event to be concluded and disagreed with the Work Plan, requesting that Vale paid for a technical team for the indigenous people, so that they could carry out the study themselves.

On July 29, 2019, Vale informed the court of the imposs