Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Guarantees We occasionally provide guarantees that could obligate us to make future payments if the primary entity fails to perform under its contractual obligations. We have recognized liabilities for some of these guarantees in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as they meet the recognition and measurement provisions of U.S. GAAP. In addition to the liabilities that have been recognized, we are contingently liable for other potential losses under various guarantees. We do not believe that claims that may be made under such guarantees would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Under the terms of the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, BMO is our third-party preferred source of retail and lease customer financing for equipment offered by us and our dealers in the U.S. The Navistar Capital Operating Agreement, as amended, contains a loss sharing arrangement under which we generally reimburse BMO for excess credit losses as defined in the arrangement. Our exposure to loss is mitigated because contracts under the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement are secured by the financed equipment. There were $1.5 billion of outstanding loan principal and operating lease payments receivable at both January 31, 2021 and October 31, 2020, financed through the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement and subject to the loss sharing arrangements in the U.S. The related financed values of these outstanding contracts were $2.4 billion and $2.5 billion at January 31, 2021 and October 31, 2020, respectively. We have recognized a guarantee liability for our portion of estimated Navistar Capital credit losses. Generally, we do not carry the contracts under the Navistar Capital Operating Agreement on our Consolidated Balance Sheets . For certain third-party financed contracts, we have recognized equipment leased to others of $39 million at both January 31, 2021 and October 31, 2020 and financed lease and other obligations of $47 million and $49 million, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of January 31, 2021 and October 31, 2020, respectively. We also have issued a limited number of residual value guarantees, for which losses are generally capped. If control has not transferred, we generally account for these arrangements as operating leases and revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. If control has transferred, revenue is recognized upon sale and the amounts of the guarantees are estimated and recorded. Our guarantees are contingent upon the fair value of the leased assets at the end of the lease term. We have recognized liabilities for some of these guarantees in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as they meet recognition and measurement provisions. In addition to the liabilities that have been recognized, we are contingently liable for other potential losses under various guarantees that are not recognized in our Consolidated Balance Sheets . We do not believe claims that may be made under such guarantees would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We obtain certain stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds from third-party financial institutions in the ordinary course of business when required under contracts or to satisfy insurance-related requirements. As of January 31, 2021, the amount of stand-by letters of credit and surety bonds issued was $84 million. In addition, as of January 31, 2021, we have $153 million of outstanding purchase commitments and contracts with $19 million of cancellation fees with expiration dates through 2028. In the ordinary course of business, we also provide routine indemnifications and other guarantees, the terms of which range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. We do not believe these will result in claims that would have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Environmental Liabilities We have been named a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), in conjunction with other parties, in a number of cases arising under an environmental protection law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, popularly known as the "Superfund" law. These cases involve sites that allegedly received wastes from current or former Company locations. Based on information available to us which, in most cases, consists of data related to quantities and characteristics of material generated at current or former Company locations, material allegedly shipped by us to these disposal sites, as well as cost estimates from PRPs and/or federal or state regulatory agencies for the cleanup of these sites, a reasonable estimate is calculated of our share of the probable costs, if any, and accruals are recorded in our consolidated financial statements. These accruals are generally recognized no later than upon completion of the remedial feasibility study and are not discounted to their present value. We review all accruals on a regular basis and believe that, based on these calculations, our share of the potential additional costs for the cleanup of each site will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition, other sites formerly owned by us or where we are currently operating have been identified as having soil and groundwater contamination. While investigations and cleanup activities continue at these sites, we believe that we have appropriate accruals to cover costs to complete the cleanup of all sites. We have accrued $18 million for these and other environmental matters, which are included within Other current liabilities and Other noncurrent liabilities , as of January 31, 2021. The majority of these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to 2021. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could become significant in the future. Legal Proceedings Overview We are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business and are party to various legal proceedings that constitute ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business. The majority of these claims and proceedings relate to commercial, product liability, and warranty matters. In addition, from time to time we are subject to various claims and legal proceedings related to employee compensation, benefits, and benefits administration, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and Department of Labor requirements. In our opinion, apart from the actions set forth below, the disposition of these proceedings and claims, after taking into account recorded accruals and the availability and limits of our insurance coverage, will not have a material adverse effect on our business or our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Profit Sharing Disputes Pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement, the program administrator and named fiduciary of the Supplemental Benefit Program is the Supplemental Benefit Program Committee (the "Committee"), composed of individuals not appointed by NI or NIC. In August 2013, the Committee filed a motion for leave to (a) amend its February 2013 complaint (which sought injunctive relief for the Company to provide certain information to which the Committee was allegedly entitled under the Supplemental Benefit Trust Profit Sharing Plan (the "Profit Sharing Plan")) and (b) file a proposed amended complaint (the "Profit Sharing Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "Court"). Leave to file the Profit Sharing Complaint was granted by the Court in October 2013. In its Profit Sharing Complaint, the Committee alleged that the Company breached the 1993 Settlement Agreement and violated ERISA by failing to properly calculate profit sharing contributions due under the Profit Sharing Plan and sought damages in excess of $50 million, injunctive relief and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs. In May 2015 the Court ordered that the claims in the Profit Sharing Complaint be arbitrated pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures in the Profit Sharing Plan. The Company and the Committee selected an arbitrator and the arbitration discovery process commenced. On June 29, 2017, the arbitrator ruled, among other things, that the arbitration will include Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014. The Company disputes the arbitrator's June 29, 2017 ruling. On February 17, 2020, the Committee filed its written submission with the arbitrator and requested a damages award of $588 million comprised of $252 million in profit sharing contributions that the Committee asserts are due under the Profit Sharing Plan and $336 million of lost earnings that the Committee asserts the Supplemental Trust would have earned had those profit sharing contributions been made and invested. On June 5, 2020 the parties and the arbitrator agreed the only years at issue for the arbitration are the plan years ending October 31, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. On September 15, 2020, the arbitrator issued a "Tentative Award" concluding the Company made certain incorrect Profit Sharing Plan calculations, rejecting the Committee's claim for lost earnings, and awarding the maximum rate of interest on the Tentative Award as allowed by Illinois law. Under Illinois statute 815 ILCS 2O5/2, the maximum prejudgment interest rate is 5% per year. On December 2, 2020, after additional briefing and closing arguments, the arbitrator informed the parties that the next arbitrator ruling issued would not include a computation amount and would not materially change from the Tentative Award. The Company disputes the Tentative Award. On December 11, 2020, the arbitrator issued a “Semi-Final Award”, concluding again, that the Company made certain incorrect Profit Sharing Plan calculations, rejecting again the Committee’s claim for lost earnings, and awarding the maximum rate of interest on the Semi-Final Award as allowed by Illinois law. The Company disputes the Semi-Final Award. The arbitrator ordered the parties to meet and confer and jointly recalculate Profit Sharing Plan contributions for years ending October 31, 2006 and 2008 through 2011 based on the Semi-Final Award. On January 31, 2021, the Company and the Committee agreed that the arbitrator’s final arbitration award should be $239 million, comprised of $156 million of Profit Sharing Plan contributions for years ending October 31, 2006 and 2008-2011 and $83 million of pre-award interest at 5% per year through January 31, 2021. On February 5, 2021, the arbitrator issued an Amended Final Award reflecting the $239 million award as agreed by the Company and the Committee. Also on February 5, 2021, the Committee filed with the Court a motion to confirm the Amended Final Award and assess interest. In the motion, the Committee requests 9% per year post-award interest under Illinois law from February 5, 2021 until the date the Court enters judgment confirming the Amended Final Award. The Company disputes the Amended Final Award, and on February 16, 2021 the Company filed with the Court its motion to vacate the Amended Final Award and stay the confirmation of the Amended Final Award pending the outcome of the Company’s motion to vacate and a determination of “Profit Sharing Cessation Date” (as referenced below) issues. On February 26, 2021, the Company filed its opposition to the Committee's motion to confirm the Amended Final Award and assess interest. By letter dated February 14, 2019, the Committee indicated the Profit Sharing Plan calculation for the plan year ending October 31, 2018 reflects numerous positions that have caused the Committee to dispute the Profit Sharing Plan calculations in the past, and on that basis the Committee disagrees with the 2018 calculation. The Committee also requested information about the 2018 calculation. On March 12, 2019, the Committee filed a motion to enforce the 1993 Settlement Agreement for the Company’s failure to respond to the Committee’s February 14, 2019 information requests. On May 15, 2019, the Company responded to the information requests. The motion to enforce is still pending with the Court, but on October 30, 2019, the Company and the Committee met with the Court regarding the motion to enforce, and agreed on a plan for the Company to respond to the Committee’s information and document requests related to the 2018 calculation (which also relates to the information requested for the Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2001 through October 31, 2014). Furthermore, the Committee informed the Company, by letter dated January 19, 2020, that it disputes the Company's Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2015 through October 31, 2019. For Profit Sharing Plan calculations for the years ending October 31, 2015 through 2020, the Company and the Committee agreed to confer regarding the impact of the arbitrator's Amended Final Award as referenced above, and to mediate with the Court any disputes they may have regarding the 2015-2020 calculations. As noted under “Retiree Health Care Litigation” below, on August 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to schedule a status hearing, in which the Company requested an in-person hearing to discuss the possibility of a global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including the pending Profit Sharing Complaint. As a result, in-person hearings, an in-chambers conference and several telephone conferences were held with the Court, and on April 17, 2020, the Company filed a motion to reform the 1993 Settlement Agreement. A hearing on the motion to reform the 1993 Settlement Agreement was held on June 1, 2020. On September 9, 2020, the Committee filed a motion to dismiss the Company's filed statement regarding “Phase 2” of the hearings, in which the Company requested the Court to reform the 1993 Settlement Agreement to provide clarity regarding certain “Profit Sharing Cessation Date” provisions, which relate to the timing and impact of the cessation of the Company’s Profit Sharing Plan contributions. The Committee argues the Court lacks jurisdiction because there are no pending disputes regarding the Profit Sharing Cessation Date provisions, and any future disputes fall under an arbitration provision in the 1993 Settlement Agreement. On September 30, 2020, the Company filed its opposition to the Committee’s motion to dismiss, and on October 14, 2020 the Committee filed its reply. The Company’s motion to reform the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including the Committee’s motion to dismiss regarding Phase 2 of the hearings, is pending with the Court. Additional hearings and/or conferences may be scheduled in the future. In addition, various local bargaining units of the UAW have filed separate grievances pursuant to the profit sharing plans under various collective bargaining agreements in effect between the Company and the UAW that may have similar legal and factual issues as the Profit Sharing Complaint. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we recorded a charge in the Company's fiscal quarter ending October 31, 2020 in the amount of $289 million for the estimated liability, including $85 million for estimated interest, related to the arbitrator's Amended Final Award noted above. These amounts include the estimated liability for all years ending on or before October 31, 2020. In the first quarter of 2021, we accrued an additional charge of $2 million for interest related to the estimated liability. The charge is included in SG&A expenses in our Consolidated Statement of Operations. Other than the aforementioned, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Retiree Health Care Litigation On October 21, 2016, a lawsuit was filed with the Court by two individual members of the Committee (the "Committee Members") who are retirees and participants in the Navistar, Inc. Health Benefit and Life Insurance Plan (the “Plan”) created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The Committee Members’ complaint (the “Committee Members’ Complaint”) was filed against NIC, NI, NFC and certain other former or current affiliates, all of which are parties or employers as defined in the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The Committee Members allege, among other things, that the Company violated the terms of the Plan, breached a fiduciary duty under ERISA, and engaged in ERISA-prohibited transactions by improperly using the Plan’s assets (a portion of certain Medicare Part D subsidies and a portion of certain Medicare Part D coverage-gap discounts (collectively, the “Subsidies”), in each case that were received by the Navistar, Inc. Retiree Health Benefit Trust created pursuant to the 1993 Settlement Agreement (the “Base Trust”)) for the Company’s benefit. The Committee Members requested that the Court order the defendants to restore all losses to the Base Trust, including approximately $26 million, which the Committee Members allege is the Plan participants’ “fair share” of the Subsidies that were allegedly misappropriated by the defendants from January 2012 through April 2015. The Committee Members also requested that the Court enjoin the defendants from alleged future violations of the Plan and ERISA with respect to treatment of the Subsidies, order the defendants to remedy all alleged ERISA-prohibited transactions and pay the Committee Members’ attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court bifurcated the case and in September 2018 the Court conducted a trial on the issue of whether the Committee Members’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On November 20, 2018, the Committee Members filed a motion for sanctions, alleging various discovery and trial misconduct by the defendants, and requested that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Committee Members with respect to the statute of limitations issue and award attorneys’ fees to the Committee Members. On March 26, 2019, the Court granted the Committee Members’ motion for sanctions and subsequently extended the statute of limitations discovery period to October 7, 2019. Briefing on the statute of limitations issue was completed in January 2020. The Court also ordered the Company to pay certain of the Committee Members' legal and other costs to file the motion for sanctions and to conduct additional discovery related to the statute of limitations issue. On August 14, 2018, under the original Shy et. al. v. Navistar International Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:92-CV-333 (S.D. Ohio 1992), the Company filed a motion to schedule a status hearing to request an in-person hearing to discuss the possibility of a global resolution of various disputes under the 1993 Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, resolving the pending Profit Sharing Complaint and Committee Members’ Complaint described above. As a result, on April 17, 2020, the Company filed a motion to reform the 1993 Settlement Agreement, and in-person hearings, an in-chambers conference and several telephone conferences were held with the Court. A hearing on the motion to reform the 1993 Settlement Agreement was held on June 1, 2020. Additional hearings and/or conferences may be scheduled in the future. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. However, future levels of the Subsidies could be impacted by the outcome of the above actions, which could be material to the Company's OPEB obligation. For more information see Note 9, Postretirement Benefits . FATMA Notice International Indústria Automotiva da América do Sul Ltda. ("IIAA"), formerly known as Maxion International Motores S/A ("Maxion"), now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, received a notice (the “FATMA Notice”) in July 2010 from the State of Santa Catarina Environmental Protection Agency ("FATMA") in Brazil. The FATMA Notice alleged that Maxion sent waste to a facility owned and operated by a company known as Natureza (the “Natureza Facility”) and that soil and groundwater contamination had occurred at the Natureza Facility. The FATMA Notice asserted liability against Maxion and assessed an initial penalty in the amount of R$2 million (the equivalent of less than US$1 million as of January 31, 2021), which is not final or due until all administrative appeals are exhausted. Maxion was one of numerous companies that received similar notices. IIAA filed an administrative defense in August 2010 and has not yet received a decision following that filing. In addition to the matter described above, there is a suit pending in the federal court of Brazil in which the federal district attorney has sued (a) FATMA, for claims related to FATMA’s actions in connection with licensing and inspection procedures related to the Natureza Facility, and (b) Selamix, as the current owner of the Natureza Facility. In this federal suit, Selamix was found liable for the contamination at the Natureza Facility due to it being the successor owner of the facility. However, the federal court’s decision does not prohibit Selamix from seeking to recover its damages from third parties that contributed to the contamination at the Natureza Facility. In January 2018, the district attorney of the State of Santa Catarina (the "SC District Attorney"), local and state authorities, Selamix, IIAA and the 14 other companies (together, the "Companies") that are alleged to have significantly contributed to the contamination met to discuss the matter. In March 2018, Selamix informed the SC District Attorney that it would voluntarily conduct a preliminary environmental study at the Natureza Facility in an attempt to determine and allocate the liability for the contamination pursuant to an agreement with the Companies after the study is completed. The SC District Attorney agreed to suspend further inquiry into the matter until Selamix’s study had been completed. In June 2018, Selamix presented its Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report to the SC District Attorney and the Companies alleged to have contributed to the contamination. Selamix also presented commercial proposals from two additional companies specializing in environmental studies to perform the next steps of the technical work. The SC District Attorney then requested a third commercial proposal. One of the commercial proposals included an Environmental Preliminary Assessment Report ("Phase 1 Study") and indicated that a Phase 2 assessment should be performed. In July 2019, the SC District Attorney requested that each of the Companies (including IIAA) inform the SC District Attorney of whether they intended to contribute to the costs of the portion of the Phase 2 assessment related to geophysical investigations to identify buried drums at the Natureza Facility. The request did not include any information related to the potential range of the associated costs or indicate whether contributions for the cost of the other portions of the Phase 2 assessment would be sought from the Companies (including IIAA). IIAA responded to the request indicating that it would not contribute to the cost of the Phase 2 assessment related to geophysical investigations and requested a meeting with the SC District Attorney to discuss the next steps in the process. In late February 2020, IIAA became aware that the SC District Attorney filed an action in the civil court of Santa Catarina against nine of the Companies (including IIAA), Selamix, and the Municipality of Schroeder (where the Natureza Facility is located) requesting that the defendants in the action bear all of the potential costs of the investigation needed to determine the parties responsible for the contamination and manage the remediation of the contamination at the Natureza Facility and that the defendants place funds in escrow to cover such costs. Prior to ruling on these issues, the court indicated that it will schedule a hearing to allow the defendants to set forth their defenses. In May 2020, the Municipality of Schroeder presented its defenses to the court and alleged that (i) it was not liable for contamination after FATMA, as a state agency, became responsible for the environmental licensing of Natureza, (ii) Selamix should be held liable for the contamination, and (iii) the other defendants (including IIAA) should be held liable for the contamination because their irregular disposal of toxic material contributed to the environmental damage. On October 5, 2020, IIAA presented its responses to the defenses of the Municipality of Schroeder. On December 16, 2020, the SC District Attorney filed a motion noting that it will present its counterarguments after the remaining defendant, ALSCO Toalheiro do Brasil Ltda., files its defense. IIAA continues to dispute the allegations in the FATMA Notice and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Sao Paulo Groundwater Notice In March 2014, IIAA, along with other nearby companies, received from the Sao Paulo District Attorney (the "District Attorney") a notice and proposed Consent Agreement relating to alleged neighborhood-wide groundwater contamination at or around its Sao Paulo manufacturing facility. The proposed Consent Agreement sought certain groundwater investigations and other technical relief and proposed sanctions in the amount of R$3 million (the equivalent of less than US$1 million as of January 31, 2021). In November 2014, IIAA extended a settlement offer which was never accepted, rejected or countered by the District Attorney. On August 31, 2016, the District Attorney filed civil actions against IIAA and other companies in the Central Forum of the capital of the State of Sao Paulo seeking soil and groundwater investigation and remediation, together with monetary payment in an unspecified amount. IIAA filed its defense to the civil action on January 26, 2017, alleging that IIAA had made all necessary investigations and had taken remedial measures to address the contamination and that Companhia Ambiental do Estado de Sao Paulo, the environmental agency of Sao Paulo State, had agreed to the remedial measures taken by IIAA. A new district attorney (the “New District Attorney”) assumed responsibility for the case in February 2018. The New District Attorney indicated that it would like the companies involved to try to reach a settlement agreement as to the remediation efforts to be taken after having discussions and negotiations with the New District Attorney’s technical experts. On September 10, 2019, the judge granted the New District Attorney's request to require answers to inquiries related to the case from the Department of Water and Electric Energy ("DAEE") and Sao Paulo State Sewage Company ("SABESP"), but DAEE and SABESP did not provide any additional, relevant information. IIAA is currently waiting for the New District Attorney's opinion on the matter and then intends to evaluate possible next steps. On November 8, 2020, it was determined that the New District Attorney had not presented the technical expert opinions within the applicable deadline and the New District Attorney subsequently filed a motion requesting an additional 30 days to present the technical expert opinions. The extension was granted, and the New District Attorney was required to present the technical expert opinions no later than March 2, 2021. There are no current demands or offers outstanding. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative class action lawsuit against NIC, NI, Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, seven additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in various courts in Canada, including Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11, MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA regulations. On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016 decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials. The next step will be an attendance before the case management judge regarding the details of the notice of certification to be given to the class. No date for this attendance has been set. On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against NI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions named both NIC and NI, and alleged matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, one or more of the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and NI failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order consolidating before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits that were pending on October 3, 2014 (the "MDL Action"). On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the MDL Action filed a consolidated complaint, which was subsequently amended multiple times. In May 2019, the parties to the MDL Action completed negotiation of a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the U.S. Actions. The plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval on May 28, 2019. The Settlement Agreement class consists of entities and natural persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped with a MaxxForce 11 or 13 liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology, provi |