v3.22.1

Contingencies and Commitments​ | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Commitments​ | Contingencies and Commitments Unless specifically described to the contrary, all matters within Note O are the full responsibility of Arconic pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement. Additionally, the Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for cross-indemnities between the Company and Howmet for claims subject to indemnification. Contingencies Environmental Matters. Arconic 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. The Company’s remediation reserve balance was $61 and $64 (of which $16 and $15, respectively, was classified as a current liability) at March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, and reflects the most probable costs to remediate identified environmental conditions for which costs can be reasonably estimated. In the 2022 first quarter, the Company recorded a charge of $1 (see Note E) and increased the remediation reserve by the same amount to reflect an estimate of Arconic’s share of newly-identified costs for additional remediation work related to a recently completed project at a former site in Italy where the Company is one of several responsible parties. The additional remediation work is subject to review by Italy’s Ministry of the Environment. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $4 in the 2022 first quarter, which include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. The Separation and Distribution Agreement includes provisions for the assignment or allocation of environmental liabilities between Arconic and Howmet, including certain remediation obligations associated with environmental matters. In general, the respective parties are responsible for the environmental matters associated with their operations, and with the properties and other assets assigned to each. Additionally, the Separation and Distribution Agreement lists environmental matters with a shared responsibility between the two companies with an allocation of responsibility and the lead party responsible for management of each matter. For matters assigned to Arconic and Howmet under the Separation and Distribution Agreement, the companies have agreed to indemnify each other in whole or in part for environmental liabilities arising from operations prior to the Separation Date. The following description provides details regarding the Company's largest reserve (next largest is $5), which relates to one of Arconic's current operating locations. Massena West, NY—Arconic has an ongoing remediation project related to the Grasse River, which is adjacent to the Company’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. Arconic 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. In April 2020, the EPA approved an addendum to the final remedial design to address newly-identified matters, including river navigation issues, which resulted in changing the original remedy for a specific segment of the river to dredging from capping. In the 2021 third quarter, following substantial completion of remedial construction activities on the Grasse River and an assessment of anticipated remaining future costs, primarily for post-construction monitoring, the reserve was reduced by $11. 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. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $28 and $30, respectively. Approximately $3 of the remaining expenditures represent costs that are expected to be paid in 2022. The other $25 in remaining expenditures, most of which relates to operations, maintenance, and monitoring work, are expected to occur between 2023 and 2027. 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. Federal Antimonopoly Service Of The Russian Federation Litigation—The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation (“FAS”) filed a lawsuit on March 17, 2020 with the Arbitrazh (State Commercial) Court of Samara Region against two of the Company’s subsidiaries, Arconic Rus Investment Holdings LLC (“LLC ARIH”) and AlTi Forge Holding Sarl (the “Arconic Russian Holding Companies”), naming Elliott Associates L.P., Elliott International L.P., and Elliot International Capital Advisors Inc. (“Elliott”) as third parties. Also named as interested parties are: Parent Co. and certain of its foreign subsidiaries; and Arconic Netherland B.V., the Company’s subsidiary that directly and indirectly owns LLC ARIH, Arconic SMZ JSC and JSC AlTi Forge (the “Arconic Russian Subsidiaries”). FAS alleges that Elliott indirectly acquired control over the Arconic Russian Subsidiaries when, in May 2019, directors who had previously been nominated by Elliott and appointed or elected to Parent Co.’s board of directors pursuant to certain settlement agreements among Parent Co. and Elliott constituted a majority of that board as a result of a reduction in the size of the board. FAS claims alleged non-compliance with Russian Federal Law No. 57-FZ, which governs foreign ownership of certain Russian companies and requires certain governmental approvals for a foreign investor to acquire control over strategically important Russian companies. On April 6, 2020, the Samara Court granted injunctions against the Arconic Russian Holding Companies prohibiting the taking of certain corporate governance actions, including with respect to: (i) the disposal of shares in the Arconic Russian Subsidiaries; and (ii) the making of certain decisions with respect to the Arconic Russian Subsidiaries, including decisions regarding the payment of dividends, placement of bonds, amendment of bylaws and internal documents, the appointment, change and compensation of the Arconic Russian Subsidiaries’ CEO, and the election of the Arconic Russian Subsidiaries’ board of directors. On April 29, 2020, the Arconic Russian Holding Companies simultaneously filed an appeal and motion to revoke the previously issued injunctions. Both the appeal and motion to revoke were denied. A hearing on the merits of the claim was scheduled for June 8, 2021 but was postponed several times and most recently further postponed until July 21, 2022. As a consequence of the alleged violation, FAS is seeking removal and exclusion of the Arconic Russian Holding Companies from the affairs of the Arconic Russian Subsidiaries, resulting in the deprivation of the benefits of their ownership interests in the Arconic Russian Subsidiaries, including the rights currently restricted in the injunctions granted on April 6, 2020. We continue to operate the Samara location without restrictions other than as disclosed above, and we maintain a renewable intercompany loan facility that could be, but has not yet been utilized. The following table presents selected financial information related to our operations in Russia:
|  | March 31, 2022 |  | December 31, 2021
Cash and cash equivalents |  | $ | 26 |  |  | $ | 79 |
Receivables from customers |  | 131 |  | 120
Inventories |  | 130 |  | 102
Properties, plants and equipment, net |  | 196 |  | 200
Accounts payable, trade |  | 46 |  | 47
|  | For the first quarter ended March 31, 2022 |  | For the year ended December 31, 2021
Third-party sales* |  | $ | 233 |  |  | $ | 968 |
Segment Adjusted EBITDA |  | 18 |  | 87
_____________________ *In all periods presented, Third-party sales includes aluminum products manufactured at Arconic’s plant in Russia and sold through the Company’s international selling company located in Hungary. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Cash and cash equivalents presented above were held in Russia and were not available for dividends. Cash and cash equivalents held in Russia represented 2% of Arconic’s liquidity (comprised of Cash and cash equivalents of $210 and undrawn availability of $1,065 under Arconic’s ABL Credit Agreement (see Note N)) at March 31, 2022. In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 and year ended December 31, 2021, our Samara, Russia facility generated 13% and 16% of Third-party sales (including packaging, industrial, aerospace, and defense), respectively, and 10% and 13% of Segment Adjusted EBITDA, respectively, for the Rolled Products segment. In March 2022, we announced a pause in new contracts in Russia and we are deliberately and actively pursuing additional options for our Russian business while complying with legal and contractual obligations. We cannot at this time reasonably estimate the likelihood or timing of any resolution of the regulatory proceedings or underlying claims, whether such resolution would include the removal of the injunctions or the imposition of additional restrictions, or whether we would divest assets related to the Samara facility. The potential impacts of an unfavorable resolution of the proceedings and underlying claims include: •continued unavailability of funds for the payment of dividends to Arconic Corporation; •decreases in or loss of third-party sales and Segment Adjusted EBITDA generated by our Samara facility; •restrictions on capital investments in the facility; •losses on any potential divestiture; •the inability of other Arconic facilities to assume capacity to offset decreases in sales or Segment Adjusted EBIDTA or to assume potential divested capacity; and •increased expenses related to relocation of capacity to other facilities. Any of the foregoing could have a significant indirect impact on the performance of our other locations. In addition, any impact on our ability to fulfill delivery obligations could subject us to reputational harm and potential litigation involving customers and suppliers. Increased restrictions on our operation of the Samara facility may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation and of efforts to resolve this matter with FAS, we 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. Additionally, our operations in Russia, and our ability to resolve the proceedings and underlying claims related to our facility in Samara, Russia, are likely to be negatively impacted by the disruption and geopolitical instability resulting from the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. 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 Arconic Corporation (of ParentCo at that time), 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. As Phase 2 of the public inquiry continues, the testimony has supported AAP SAS’s position that the choice of materials and the responsibility of ensuring compliance of the cladding system with relevant U.K. building code and regulations was with those individuals or entities who designed and installed the cladding system such as the architects, fabricators, contractors and building owners. The ongoing hearings in the U.K. have revealed serious doubts about whether these third parties had the necessary qualifications or expertise to carry out the refurbishment work at Grenfell Tower, adequately oversaw the process, conducted the required fire safety testing or analysis, or otherwise complied with their obligations under U.K. regulations. AAP SAS is participating as a Core Participant in the Public Inquiry and is also cooperating with the ongoing parallel investigation by the Police. Arconic Corporation does not sell and ParentCo previously stopped selling the PE product for architectural use on buildings. Given the preliminary nature of these investigations and the uncertainty of potential future litigation, Arconic Corporation 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. United Kingdom Litigation. Multiple claimant groups comprised of survivors and estates of decedents of the Grenfell Tower fire have filed claims in the U.K. arising from that fire, including as follows: •On June 12, 2020, four claimants represented by Birnberg Peirce Ltd filed suit against AAP SAS. •On June 12, 2020, two claimants represented by Howe & Co Solicitors filed suit against AAP SAS. •On June 26, 2020, three claimants represented by Russell-Cooke LLP filed suit against AAP SAS. •On December 23, 2020, several additional suits were filed by claimant groups comprised of survivors and estates of decedents. These suits were all filed against the same group of 23 defendants: AAP SAS, Arconic Corporation, Howmet Aerospace Inc., the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Ltd, the London Fire Commissioner, the UK Home Office, The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Rydon Maintenance Ltd, Celotex Ltd, Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK Limited, Kingspan Insulation Limited, Kingspan Group PLC (suits have since been discontinued), Studio E Architects Ltd (In liquidation), Harley Facades Ltd, Harley Curtain Wall Limited (In liquidation), CEP Architectural Facades Ltd, Exova (U.K.) Ltd, CS Stokes & Associates Ltd, Artelia Projects UK Limited (suits have since been discontinued), Whirlpool UK Appliances Limited, Whirlpool Company Polska Sp.z.o.o. and Whirlpool Corporation. These suits include as follows (represent preliminary best estimates of claimants in each suit): ◦Seven claimants represented by Deighton Pierce Glynn; ◦Six (previously five) claimants represented by SMQ Legal Services; ◦Three (previously four) claimants represented by Scott Moncrieff; ◦Twenty-seven (previously thirty-one) claimants represented by Saunders Law; ◦Thirty-three (previously thirty-four) claimants represented by Russell Cooke LLP. On March 29, 2022, Russell Cooke issued a further suit against the above-mentioned 21 Defendants on behalf of one Claimant. It is anticipated that the suits issued by Russell Cooke will be consolidated in due course; ◦Forty-seven (previously forty) claimants represented by Imran Khan & Partners; ◦Fifty-eight (previously sixty-one) claimants represented by Howe & Co.; ◦One hundred fourteen claimants represented by Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitor. On March 29, 2022, Hodge Jones and Allen issued a further suit against the above-mentioned 21 Defendants on behalf of five Claimants. It is anticipated that the suits issued by Hodge Jones and Allen will be consolidated in due course; ◦Twenty-three (previously nineteen) claimants represented by Hickman & Rose; ◦Ten (previously five) claimants represented by Duncan Lewis Solicitors; ◦One hundred thirteen (previously one hundred eighteen) claimants represented by Birnberg Peirce; ◦Three hundred forty-one claimants represented by Bindmans LLP. On March 31, 2022, Bindmans issued a further suit against the above-mentioned 21 Defendants on behalf of five Claimants. It is anticipated that the suits issued by Bindmans will be consolidated in due course; ◦Seventy-six (previously eighty-two) claimants represented by Bhatt Murphy Ltd; and ◦Twenty-four (previously twenty-seven) claimants represented by Slater & Gordon. Multiple claimant groups comprised of emergency responders who attended the Grenfell Tower fire have also filed claims against AAP SAS arising from that fire, including as follows: •On June 11, 2020, 98 (previously 80) firefighters represented by Thompsons Solicitors filed suit against AAP SAS, as well as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Ltd, Celotex Ltd, Exova (U.K.) Ltd, Rydon Maintenance Ltd, Studio E Architects Ltd, Harley Facades Ltd, CEP Architectural Facades Ltd, CS Stokes & Associates Ltd, and the London Fire Commissioner. Since then, another 10 (previously 7) firefighters have sought to be added to the suit. •On June 12, 2020, 36 (previously 27) police officers represented by Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP filed suit against AAP SAS, as well as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Ltd, Celotex Ltd, Exova (U.K.) Ltd, Rydon Maintenance Ltd, Studio E Architects Ltd, Harley Facades Ltd, CEP Architectural Facades Ltd, CS Stokes & Associates Ltd, London Fire Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis. Since then, some claimants have withdrawn and others have sought to be added to the suit. •On June 12, 2020, two firefighters represented by Pattinson and Brewer filed suit against AAP SAS, as well as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Ltd, Celotex Ltd, Exova (U.K.) Ltd, Rydon Maintenance Ltd, Studio E Architects Ltd, Harley Facades Ltd, CEP Architectural Facades Ltd, CS Stokes & Associates Ltd, and the London Fire Commissioner. A third firefighter, also represented by Pattinson and Brewer, brought a claim against the same defendants on June 15, 2020. One of the original firefighter claimants has now withdrawn from the suit. On December 17, 2020, a claim was issued by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Ltd against: (1) Whirlpool Company Polska Spolka z Organiczona; and (2) AAP SAS. The Claimants seek damages in respect of their own losses and/or a contribution to the extent that they are found to be liable by the London High Court for any losses arising out of the Grenfell Tower fire on June 14, 2017. On March 29, 2022, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Ltd sought permission to join two further Defendants to these proceedings, namely: (i) Whirlpool EMEA S.p.A.; and (ii) Whirlpool UK Appliances Limited. All of these claims were filed in the High Court in London. On October 2, 2020, the High Court ordered that: (a) the suits of the survivors and estates of decedents that were issued in June 2020 be stayed until a hearing scheduled by the High Court for June 9-10, 2021; and (b) that the suits of emergency responders be stayed until a hearing scheduled by the High Court for July 7-8, 2021. The hearing scheduled for June 9-10, 2021 was subsequently vacated by the Court. The above-mentioned suits brought by: (1) the survivors and estates of decedents; (2) the emergency responders; and (3) the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for contributions, were heard together at a procedural hearing on July 7-8, 2021, before Senior Master Fontaine. At the hearing, the Senior Master made several directions for the future management of the Grenfell Tower litigation, including staying all suits against Arconic Corporation and its affiliates until the next directions hearing, which was held on April 26, 2022. The Senior Master has not yet issued a decision as to whether to continue the stay following the April 26, 2022 directions hearing. The duration of the prior stay was intended to allow Arconic Corporation, along with several other co-defendants to the above-mentioned litigations, to engage in preliminary discussions with the claimants' legal representatives in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. The parties have now agreed to overarching terms as to the form of Alternative Dispute Resolution that they are willing to participate in. Those discussions are ongoing. Given the preliminary nature of these matters and the uncertainty of litigation, Arconic Corporation 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 in any of the above-referenced disputes. 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 September 16, 2020, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, subject to certain conditions, determining that the United Kingdom, and not the United States, is the appropriate place for plaintiffs to bring their case. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on November 23, 2020. Plaintiffs are appealing this judgment; ParentCo Defendants are cross-appealing one of the conditions. The briefing has now been completed and oral argument is scheduled for June 6, 2022. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, Arconic Corporation 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. On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic Corporation and the individual defendants filed a letter apprising the Court of a recent decision by the Third Circuit and discussing its relevance to the pending motion to dismiss. Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on July 9, 2020. On June 23, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ claim against ParentCo, certain officers and directors and the underwriters based on the registration statement for the Preferred Offering, with the exception of one statement and only as to purchases made before October 23, 2015. In addition, plaintiffs’ claim based on ParentCo’s statements in other SEC filings, in product brochures, and on websites was dismissed in its entirety as to Kleinfeld and dismissed in part and allowed in part as to ParentCo. The Court also dismissed the control-person liability claims in their entirety. On August 11, 2021, ParentCo filed a motion with the district court for certification of an interlocutory appeal and a stay pending appeal. The motion seeks to appeal the aspect of the court’s June 23, 2021 opinion concerning the complaint’s pleading of ParentCo’s alleged scienter. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on August 17, 2021, and ParentCo filed a reply brief on August 24, 2021. On August 12, 2021, defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint. A status conference was held before the Court on January 11, 2022 during which the Court heard argument from both parties on the pending motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The motion remains pending before the district court. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, Arconic Corporation 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, Arconic Corporation 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. General. While Arconic believes that all the above referenced Reynobond PE cases are without merit and intends to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters. Tax. Under the terms of the agreements that govern the 2016 Separation Transaction, Arconic may be entitled to future economic benefits resulting from Alcoa Corporation’s utilization of certain value-added tax credits that were generated, in part, by the Company’s former operations in Brazil in years prior to 2015. Because Arconic is not party to the regulatory filings with the Brazilian government and, therefore, does not have a basis to conclude on the realizability of these value-added tax credits by Alcoa Corporation, the Company will recognize income when amounts are realized, if any. General. In addition to the matters described above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against Arconic, 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 the Company’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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration