| Contingent Liabilities | 12 Contingent Liabilities Legal Proceedings Various claims, lawsuits and proceedings are pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, covering a range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities with respect to commercial, product liability and other matters. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of any litigation cannot be assured. After discussions with counsel, and with the exception of losses resulting from the antitrust proceedings described below, it is the opinion of management that the various legal proceedings and investigations to which the Company currently is a party will not have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position of Autoliv, but the Company cannot provide assurance that Autoliv will not experience material litigation, product liability or other losses in the future. In October 2014, one of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries received a notice of deficiency from the state tax authorities from the state of São Paulo, Brazil which, primarily, alleged violations of ICMS (VAT) payments and improper warehousing documentation. The aggregate assessment for all alleged violations was R$68.5 million (approximately $21.0 million), inclusive of fines, penalties and interest. The Company believes the full amount assessed is baseless and that it has reasonable legal and factual defenses to the assessment and, consequently, plans to defend its interests vigorously. However, the Company believes that a loss is probable with respect to at least a portion of the assessed amount and has accrued an not material to the Company’s results of operations However, the Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. In March 2015, the Company was informed of an investigation being conducted in Turkey by the Directorate of Kocaeli Customs Custody, Smuggling and Enquiry into the Company’s import and customs payment structure and the associated import taxes and fees for the period of 2006–2012. The Company cannot predict the duration, scope or ultimate outcome of this investigation and is unable to estimate the financial impact it may have, or predict the reporting periods in which any such financial impacts may be recorded. Consequently, the Company has made no provision for any expenses as of September 30, 2016 with respect to this investigation. ANTITRUST MATTERS Authorities in several jurisdictions are currently conducting broad, and in some cases, long-running investigations of suspected anti-competitive behavior among parts suppliers in the global automotive vehicle industry. These investigations include, but are not limited to, segments in which the Company operates. In addition to pending matters, authorities of other countries with significant light vehicle manufacturing or sales may initiate similar investigations. It is the Company’s policy to cooperate with governmental investigations. On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission (“EC”), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of a Company subsidiary in Germany to gather information for an investigation of anti-competitive behavior among suppliers of occupant safety systems. The investigation is still pending and the Company remains unable to estimate the financial impact such investigation will have or predict the reporting periods in which such financial impact may be recorded and has consequently not recorded a provision for loss as of September 30, 2016. However, management has concluded that it is probable that the Company’s operating results and cash flows will be materially adversely impacted for the reporting periods in which the EC investigation is resolved or becomes estimable. In August 2014, the Competition Commission of South Africa (the “CCSA”) contacted the Company regarding an investigation into the Company’s sales of occupant safety systems in South Africa. The Company is cooperating with the CCSA. The Company believes that a loss with respect to this investigation is probable and accrued an amount for the period ended June 30, 2016 related to this investigation. Due to further developments with respect to this investigation, the Company accrued an additional amount during the three month period ended September 30, 2016. The aggregate accrued amount remains not material to the Company’s results of operations. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of the CCSA investigation. On July 6, 2015, the Company learned that the General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“CADE”) in Brazil had initiated an investigation of an alleged cartel involving sales in Brazil of seatbelts, airbags, and steering wheels by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary and the Brazilian subsidiary of a competitor. The Company believes that a loss in the form of a civil penalty is probable with respect to this matter and accrued an initial amount for the period ended December 31, 2015. Due to further developments with CADE’s investigation the Company accrued an additional amount during the period ended March 31, 2016. The aggregate accrued amount remains not material to the Company’s results of operations. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. The Company is also subject to civil litigation alleging anti-competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes - direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and, as of the filing of the last class action in June 2015, truck and equipment dealers - who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts. In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims regarding their U.S. purchases that were or could have been asserted on behalf of the three classes in the MDL. In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to approximately $35.5 million because of opt-outs; in December 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer class settlement; and on June 20, 2016, the MDL court granted final approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the objections of several individual class members, some of whom have appealed the MDL court’s approval of the Company’s end-payor settlement and several other defendants’ settlements that were approved at the same time. This appeal will delay the finality of the Company’s settlement with the end-payor class. In addition, several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) have opted-out of all of the pending end-payor class settlements, including the Company’s settlement. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the venue for the MDL, against the Company and the other settling defendants in the end-payor class settlement. The Company has not been served with the lawsuit. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability, reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers’ global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser class settlement described above. The total amount of these additional settlements was $81 million. Autoliv expensed during the first quarter of 2015 approximately $77 million as a result of these additional settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued in 2014. In April 2016, the Company reached an agreement to settle with the truck and equipment dealers class for a non-material amount. The settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the class and the opportunity for class members to object to or opt-out of the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for November 17, 2016. The remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen’s Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. On October 13, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in three of the four class actions to settle on a nationwide class basis for an amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations. The settlement is subject to the execution of a formal settlement agreement and court approval following notice to the class members. Once approved, this national settlement will include the claims of the putative members of the fourth class action. The Company accrued amounts during the three month periods ended March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016 and an additional amount during the three month period ended September 30, 2016 in connection with these claims. PRODUCT WARRANTY, RECALLS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Autoliv is exposed to various claims for damages and compensation if products fail to perform as expected. Such claims can be made, and result in costs and other losses to the Company, even where the product is eventually found to have functioned properly. Where a product (actually or allegedly) fails to perform as expected, the Company faces warranty and recall claims. Where such (actual or alleged) failure results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury and/or property damage, the Company may also face product-liability claims. There can be no assurance that the Company will not experience material warranty, recall or product (or other) liability claims or losses in the future, or that the Company will not incur significant costs to defend against such claims. The Company may be required to participate in a recall involving its products. Each vehicle manufacturer has its own practices regarding product recalls and other product liability actions relating to its suppliers. As suppliers become more integrally involved in the vehicle design process and assume more of the vehicle assembly functions, vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking to their suppliers for contribution when faced with recalls and product liability claims. Government safety regulators may also play a role in warranty and recall practices. A warranty, recall or product-liability claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Vehicle manufacturers are also increasingly requiring their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the costs of repair and replacement of such products under new vehicle warranties. A vehicle manufacturer may attempt to hold the Company responsible for some, or all, of the repair or replacement costs of products when the product supplied did not perform as represented by us or expected by the customer. Accordingly, the future costs of warranty claims by the customers may be material. However, the Company believes its established reserves are adequate. Autoliv’s warranty reserves are based upon the Company’s best estimates of amounts necessary to settle future and existing claims. The Company regularly evaluates the adequacy of these reserves, and adjusts them when appropriate. However, the final amounts actually due related to these matters could differ materially from the Company’s recorded estimates. In addition, as vehicle manufacturers increasingly use global platforms and procedures, quality performance evaluations are also conducted on a global basis. Any one or more quality, warranty or other recall issue(s) (including those affecting few units and/or having a small financial impact) may cause a vehicle manufacturer to implement measures such as a temporary or prolonged suspension of new orders, which may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company carries insurance for potential recall and product liability claims at coverage levels based on our prior claims experience. Autoliv cannot assure that the level of coverage will be sufficient to cover every possible claim that can arise in our businesses, now or in the future, or that such coverage always will be available should we, now or in the future, wish to extend, increase or otherwise adjust our insurance. On June 29, 2016, the Company announced that it is cooperating with Toyota Motor Corp. in its recall of approximately 1.4 million vehicles equipped with a certain model of the Company’s side curtain airbag (the “Toyota Recall”). Toyota has informed the Company that there have been eight reported incidents where a side curtain airbag has partially inflated without a deployment signal from the airbag control unit. The incidents have all occurred in parked, unoccupied vehicles and no personal injuries have been reported. The root cause analysis of the issue is ongoing. However, at this point in time the Company believes that a compromised manufacturing process at a sub-supplier may be a contributing factor and, as no incidents have been reported in vehicles produced by other OEMs with the same inflator produced during the same period as those recalled by Toyota, that vehicle-specific characteristics may also contribute to the issue. The sub-supplier’s manufacturing process was changed in January 2012, and the vehicles now recalled by Toyota represent more than half of all inflators of the relevant type manufactured before the sub-supplier process was changed. As previously disclosed in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016, the Company determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss with respect to this issue is reasonably possible. If the Company is obligated to indemnify Toyota for the costs associated with the Toyota Recall, the Company expects that its insurance will generally cover such costs and liabilities and estimates that the Company’s loss, net of expected insurance recoveries, would be less than $20 million. However, the ultimate costs of the Toyota Recall could be materially different. The main variables affecting the ultimate cost for the Company are: the determination of proportionate responsibility (if any) among Toyota, the Company, and any relevant sub-suppliers; the ultimate number of vehicles repaired; the cost of repair per vehicle; and the actual recoveries from sub-suppliers and insurers. The Company’s insurance policies generally include coverage of the costs of a recall, although costs related to replacement parts are generally not covered. In its products, the Company utilizes technologies which may be subject to intellectual property rights of third parties. While the Company does seek to procure the necessary rights to utilize intellectual property rights associated with its products, it may fail to do so. Where the Company so fails, the Company may be exposed to material claims from the owners of such rights. Where the Company has sold products which infringe upon such rights, its customers may be entitled to be indemnified by the Company for the claims they suffer as a result thereof. Such claims could be material. The table in Note 9 Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product related liabilities for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015. |
