Contingencies and Commitments	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Commitments	Contingencies and Commitments The matters described within this section are those of ParentCo that are associated directly or indirectly with the Arconic Corporation Businesses. For those matters where the outcome remains uncertain, the ultimate allocation of any potential future costs between Arconic Corporation and Howmet Aerospace were addressed in the Separation and Distribution Agreement. Contingencies Environmental Matters. ParentCo participates in environmental assessments and cleanups at several locations. These include owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, previously owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, and waste sites, including Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)) sites. A liability is recorded for environmental remediation when a cleanup program becomes probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. As assessments and cleanups proceed, the liability is adjusted based on progress made in determining the extent of remedial actions and related costs. The liability can change substantially due to factors such as, among others, the nature and extent of contamination, changes in remedial requirements, and technological changes. Arconic Corporation’s remediation reserve balance was $208 (of which $81 and $83, respectively, was classified as a current liability) at both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, and reflects the most probable costs to remediate identified environmental conditions for which costs can be reasonably estimated for current and certain former Arconic Corporation operating locations. In the first quarter of 2020, the remediation reserve was increased by $1 related to the divestiture of a rolling mill in Brazil (see Note M). This charge was recorded in Restructuring and other charges (see Note E) on the accompanying Statement of Combined Operations. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $2 in the first quarter of 2020, which include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. In the first quarter of 2020, the change in the reserve also reflects an increase of $1 due to the effects of foreign currency translation. The following description provides details regarding the current status of one reserve, which represents the majority of the Company’s total remediation reserve balance, related to a current Arconic Corporation site. Massena West, NY—Arconic Corporation has an ongoing remediation project related to the Grasse River, which is adjacent to Arconic Corporation’s Massena plant site. Many years ago, it was determined that sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The project, which was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Record of Decision issued in April 2013, is aimed at capping PCB contaminated sediments with concentration in excess of one part per million in the main channel of the river and dredging PCB contaminated sediments in the near-shore areas where total PCBs exceed one part per million. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $170 and $171, respectively. Arconic Corporation completed the final design phase of the project, which was approved by the EPA in March 2019. Following the EPA’s approval, the actual remediation fieldwork commenced. The majority of the remaining expenditures related to the project are expected to occur between 2020 and 2022. In June 2019, Arconic Corporation increased the reserve balance by $25 due to changes required in the EPA-approved remedial design and post-construction monitoring. These changes were necessary due to several items, the majority of which relate to navigation issues identified by a local seaway development company. Accordingly, the EPA requested an addendum to the final remedial design be submitted to address these issues. The proposed remedy is to dredge certain of the sediments originally identified for capping in the affected areas of the Grasse River, resulting in incremental project costs. As the project progresses, further changes to the reserve may be required due to factors such as, among others, additional changes in remedial requirements, increased site restoration costs, and incremental ongoing operation and maintenance costs. Litigation. All references to ParentCo in the matters described under this section Litigation refer to Arconic Inc. only and do not include its subsidiaries, except as otherwise stated. Reynobond PE—On June 13, 2017, the Grenfell Tower in London, U.K. caught fire resulting in fatalities, injuries, and damage. A French subsidiary of ParentCo, Arconic Architectural Products SAS (AAP SAS), supplied a product, Reynobond PE, to its customer, a cladding system fabricator, which used the product as one component of the overall cladding system on Grenfell Tower. The fabricator supplied its portion of the cladding system to the facade installer, who then completed and installed the system under the direction of the general contractor. Neither ParentCo nor AAP SAS was involved in the design or installation of the system used at the Grenfell Tower, nor did it have a role in any other aspect of the building’s refurbishment or original design. Regulatory investigations into the overall Grenfell Tower matter are being conducted, including a criminal investigation by the London Metropolitan Police Service (the “Police”), a Public Inquiry by the British government, and a consumer protection inquiry by a French public authority. The Public Inquiry was announced by the U.K. Prime Minister on June 15, 2017 and subsequently was authorized to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the Grenfell Tower fire in order to make findings of fact and recommendations to the U.K. Government on matters such as the design, construction, and modification of the building, the role of relevant public authorities and contractors, the implications of the fire for the adequacy and enforcement of relevant regulations, arrangements in place for handling emergencies, and the handling of concerns from residents, among other things. Hearings for Phase 1 of the Public Inquiry began on May 21, 2018 and concluded on December 12, 2018. Phase 2 hearings of the Public Inquiry began in early 2020, following which a final report will be written and subsequently published. AAP SAS is participating as a Core Participant in the Public Inquiry and is also cooperating with the ongoing parallel investigation by the Police. ParentCo no longer sells the PE product for architectural use on buildings. Given the preliminary nature of these investigations and the uncertainty of potential future litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Behrens et al. v. Arconic Inc. et al. On June 6, 2019, 247 plaintiffs comprised of survivors and estates of decedents of the Grenfell Tower fire filed a complaint against “Arconic Inc., Alcoa Inc., and Arconic Architectural Products, LLC” (collectively, for purposes of the description of such proceeding, the “ParentCo Defendants”), as well as Saint-Gobain Corporation, d/b/a Celotex and Whirlpool Corporation, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The complaint alleges claims under Pennsylvania state law for products liability and wrongful death related to the fire. In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the ParentCo Defendants knowingly supplied a dangerous product (Reynobond PE) for installation on the Grenfell Tower despite knowing that Reynobond PE was unfit for use above a certain height. The ParentCo Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 19, 2019. On August 29, 2019, the ParentCo Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the bases, among other things, that: (i) the case should be heard in the United Kingdom, not the United States; (ii) there is no jurisdiction over necessary parties; and (iii) Pennsylvania product liability law does not apply to manufacture and sale of product overseas. On December 23, 2019, the Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on bases (ii) and (iii) suggesting a procedure for limited discovery followed by further briefing on those subjects. On January 23, 2020, the Court ordered that the parties complete discovery relating to forum non conveniens by March 16, 2020, but has since permitted discovery to extend past that deadline and cancelled the oral argument scheduled for May 7, 2020 to allow for ongoing discovery. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, the ParentCo Defendants cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al. A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for ParentCo’s September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering (the “Preferred Offering”). The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice. On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading statements and omitted to state material information, including by allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks posed by Reynobond PE sales. The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about ParentCo’s commitment to safety, business and financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product, including in ParentCo’s Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its official website. The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources identified above were misleading. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on November 26, 2019. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Raul v. Albaugh, et al. On June 22, 2018, a derivative complaint was filed nominally on behalf of ParentCo by a purported ParentCo stockholder against the then members of ParentCo’s Board of Directors and Klaus Kleinfeld and Ken Giacobbe, naming ParentCo as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint raises similar allegations as the consolidated amended complaint and second amended complaint in Howard, as well as allegations that the defendants improperly authorized the sale of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses, and asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Delaware state law. On July 13, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to stay this case until the final resolution of the Howard case, the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry in London, and the investigation by the Police and on July 23, 2018, the Court approved the stay. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome. While ParentCo believes that these cases are without merit and intends to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters. Stockholder Demands. The ParentCo Board of Directors also received letters, purportedly sent on behalf of stockholders, reciting allegations similar to those made in the federal court lawsuits and demanding that the ParentCo Board authorize ParentCo to initiate litigation against members of management, the ParentCo Board, and others. The ParentCo Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee of the ParentCo Board to review, investigate, and make recommendations to the ParentCo Board regarding the appropriate course of action with respect to these stockholder demand letters. On May 22, 2019, the Special Litigation Committee, following completion of its investigation into the claims demanded in the demand letters, recommended to the ParentCo Board that it reject the demands to authorize commencement of litigation. On May 28, 2019, the ParentCo Board adopted the Special Litigation Committee’s findings and recommendations and rejected the demands that it authorize commencement of actions to assert the claims set forth in the demand letters. General. In addition to the matters described above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against ParentCo or Arconic Corporation, including those pertaining to environmental, product liability, safety and health, employment, tax, and antitrust matters. While the amounts claimed in these other matters may be substantial, the ultimate liability is not readily determinable because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. Accordingly, it is possible that Arconic Corporation’s liquidity or results of operations in a reporting period could be materially affected by one or more of these other matters. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that the disposition of these other matters that are pending or asserted will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Arconic Corporation.

Contingencies and Commitments

The matters described within this section are those of ParentCo that are associated directly or indirectly with the Arconic Corporation Businesses. For those matters where the outcome remains uncertain, the ultimate allocation of any potential future costs between Arconic Corporation and Howmet Aerospace were addressed in the Separation and Distribution Agreement.

Contingencies

Environmental Matters. ParentCo participates in environmental assessments and cleanups at several locations. These include owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, previously owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, and waste sites, including Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)) sites.

A liability is recorded for environmental remediation when a cleanup program becomes probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. As assessments and cleanups proceed, the liability is adjusted based on progress made in determining the extent of remedial actions and related costs. The liability can change substantially due to factors such as, among others, the nature and extent of contamination, changes in remedial requirements, and technological changes.

Arconic Corporation’s remediation reserve balance was $208 (of which $81 and $83, respectively, was classified as a current liability) at both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, and reflects the most probable costs to remediate identified environmental conditions for which costs can be reasonably estimated for current and certain former Arconic Corporation operating locations. In the first quarter of 2020, the remediation reserve was increased by $1 related to the divestiture of a rolling mill in Brazil (see Note M). This charge was recorded in Restructuring and other charges (see Note E) on the accompanying Statement of Combined Operations. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $2 in the first quarter of 2020, which include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. In the first quarter of 2020, the change in the reserve also reflects an increase of $1 due to the effects of foreign currency translation.

The following description provides details regarding the current status of one reserve, which represents the majority of the Company’s total remediation reserve balance, related to a current Arconic Corporation site.

Massena West, NY—Arconic Corporation has an ongoing remediation project related to the Grasse River, which is adjacent to Arconic Corporation’s Massena plant site. Many years ago, it was determined that sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The project, which was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Record of Decision issued in April 2013, is aimed at capping PCB contaminated sediments with concentration in excess of one part per million in the main channel of the river and dredging PCB contaminated sediments in the near-shore areas where total PCBs exceed one part per million. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $170 and $171, respectively. Arconic Corporation completed the final design phase of the project, which was approved by the EPA in March 2019. Following the EPA’s approval, the actual remediation fieldwork commenced. The majority of the remaining expenditures related to the project are expected to occur between 2020 and 2022.

In June 2019, Arconic Corporation increased the reserve balance by $25 due to changes required in the EPA-approved remedial design and post-construction monitoring. These changes were necessary due to several items, the majority of which relate to navigation issues identified by a local seaway development company. Accordingly, the EPA requested an addendum to the final remedial design be submitted to address these issues. The proposed remedy is to dredge certain of the sediments originally identified for capping in the affected areas of the Grasse River, resulting in incremental project costs. As the project progresses, further changes to the reserve may be required due to factors such as, among others, additional changes in remedial requirements, increased site restoration costs, and incremental ongoing operation and maintenance costs.

Litigation.

All references to ParentCo in the matters described under this section Litigation refer to Arconic Inc. only and do not include its subsidiaries, except as otherwise stated.

Reynobond PE—On June 13, 2017, the Grenfell Tower in London, U.K. caught fire resulting in fatalities, injuries, and damage. A French subsidiary of ParentCo, Arconic Architectural Products SAS (AAP SAS), supplied a product, Reynobond PE, to its customer, a cladding system fabricator, which used the product as one component of the overall cladding system on Grenfell Tower. The fabricator supplied its portion of the cladding system to the facade installer, who then completed and installed the system under the direction of the general contractor. Neither ParentCo nor AAP SAS was involved in the design or installation of the system used at the Grenfell Tower, nor did it have a role in any other aspect of the building’s refurbishment or original design. Regulatory investigations into the overall Grenfell Tower matter are being conducted, including a criminal investigation by the London Metropolitan Police Service (the “Police”), a Public Inquiry by the British government, and a consumer protection inquiry by a French public authority. The Public Inquiry was announced by the U.K. Prime Minister on June 15, 2017 and subsequently was authorized to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the Grenfell Tower fire in order to make findings of fact and recommendations to the U.K. Government on matters such as the design, construction, and modification of the building, the role of relevant public authorities and contractors, the implications of the fire for the adequacy and enforcement of relevant regulations, arrangements in place for handling emergencies, and the handling of concerns from residents, among other things. Hearings for Phase 1 of the Public Inquiry began on May 21, 2018 and concluded on December 12, 2018. Phase 2 hearings of the Public Inquiry began in early 2020, following which a final report will be written and subsequently published. AAP SAS is participating as a Core Participant in the Public Inquiry and is also cooperating with the ongoing parallel investigation by the Police. ParentCo no longer sells the PE product for architectural use on buildings. Given the preliminary nature of these investigations and the uncertainty of potential future litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome.

Behrens et al. v. Arconic Inc. et al. On June 6, 2019, 247 plaintiffs comprised of survivors and estates of decedents of the Grenfell Tower fire filed a complaint against “Arconic Inc., Alcoa Inc., and Arconic Architectural Products, LLC” (collectively, for purposes of the description of such proceeding, the “ParentCo Defendants”), as well as Saint-Gobain Corporation, d/b/a Celotex and Whirlpool Corporation, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The complaint alleges claims under Pennsylvania state law for products liability and wrongful death related to the fire. In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the ParentCo Defendants knowingly supplied a dangerous product (Reynobond PE) for installation on the Grenfell Tower despite knowing that Reynobond PE was unfit for use above a certain height. The ParentCo Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 19, 2019. On August 29, 2019, the ParentCo Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the bases, among other things, that: (i) the case should be heard in the United Kingdom, not the United States; (ii) there is no jurisdiction over necessary parties; and (iii) Pennsylvania product liability law does not apply to manufacture and sale of product overseas. On December 23, 2019, the Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on bases (ii) and (iii) suggesting a procedure for limited discovery followed by further briefing on those subjects. On January 23, 2020, the Court ordered that the parties complete discovery relating to forum non conveniens by March 16, 2020, but has since permitted discovery to extend past that deadline and cancelled the oral argument scheduled for May 7, 2020 to allow for ongoing discovery. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, the ParentCo Defendants cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome.

Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al. A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for ParentCo’s September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering (the “Preferred Offering”). The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice. On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading statements and omitted to state material information, including by allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks posed by Reynobond PE sales. The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about ParentCo’s commitment to safety, business and financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product, including in ParentCo’s Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its official website. The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources identified above were misleading. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on November 26, 2019. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome.

Raul v. Albaugh, et al. On June 22, 2018, a derivative complaint was filed nominally on behalf of ParentCo by a purported ParentCo stockholder against the then members of ParentCo’s Board of Directors and Klaus Kleinfeld and Ken Giacobbe, naming ParentCo as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint raises similar allegations as the consolidated amended complaint and second amended complaint in Howard, as well as allegations that the defendants improperly authorized the sale of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses, and asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Delaware state law. On July 13, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to stay this case until the final resolution of the Howard case, the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry in London, and the investigation by the Police and on July 23, 2018, the Court approved the stay. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome.

While ParentCo believes that these cases are without merit and intends to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters.

Stockholder Demands. The ParentCo Board of Directors also received letters, purportedly sent on behalf of stockholders, reciting allegations similar to those made in the federal court lawsuits and demanding that the ParentCo Board authorize ParentCo to initiate litigation against members of management, the ParentCo Board, and others. The ParentCo Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee of the ParentCo Board to review, investigate, and make recommendations to the ParentCo Board regarding the appropriate course of action with respect to these stockholder demand letters. On May 22, 2019, the Special Litigation Committee, following completion of its investigation into the claims demanded in the demand letters, recommended to the ParentCo Board that it reject the demands to authorize commencement of litigation. On May 28, 2019, the ParentCo Board adopted the Special Litigation Committee’s findings and recommendations and rejected the demands that it authorize commencement of actions to assert the claims set forth in the demand letters.

General. In addition to the matters described above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against ParentCo or Arconic Corporation, including those pertaining to environmental, product liability, safety and health, employment, tax, and antitrust matters. While the amounts claimed in these other matters may be substantial, the ultimate liability is not readily determinable because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. Accordingly, it is possible that Arconic Corporation’s liquidity or results of operations in a reporting period could be materially affected by one or more of these other matters. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that the disposition of these other matters that are pending or asserted will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Arconic Corporation.