Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

The litigation process is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable with assurance. See Note 25 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for a discussion of loss contingencies. Following is a discussion of our significant pending legal proceedings:

PRODUCT LIABILITY MATTERS

We are a defendant in numerous actions in state and federal courts within and outside of the United States alleging damages from injuries resulting from (or aggravated by) alleged defects in our vehicles. In many actions, no monetary amount of damages is specified or the specific amount alleged is the jurisdictional minimum. Our experience with litigation alleging a specific amount of damages suggests that such amounts, on average, bear little relation to the actual amount of damages, if any, that we will pay in resolving such matters.

In addition to pending actions, we assess the likelihood of incidents that likely have occurred but not yet been reported to us. We also take into consideration specific matters that have been raised as claims but have not yet proceeded to litigation. Individual product liability matters that have more than a remote risk of loss and such loss would likely be significant if the matter is resolved unfavorably to us would be described herein. Currently there are no such matters to report.

ASBESTOS MATTERS

Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We believe that we are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for such claims.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings (Continued)

Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are prepared to defend these cases and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants, sometimes more than one hundred. Many of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often we are unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future. Our accrual for asbestos matters includes probable losses for both asserted and unasserted claims.

CONSUMER MATTERS

We provide warranties on the vehicles we sell. Warranties are offered for specific periods of time and/or mileage and vary depending upon the type of product and the geographic location of its sale. Pursuant to these warranties, we will repair, replace, or adjust parts on a vehicle that are defective in factory-supplied materials or workmanship during the specified warranty period. We are a defendant in numerous actions in state and federal courts alleging breach of warranty and claiming damages based on state and federal consumer protection laws. Remedies under these statutes may include vehicle repurchase, civil penalties, and payment by Ford of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. In some cases, plaintiffs also include an allegation of fraud. Remedies for a fraud claim may include contract rescission, vehicle repurchase, and punitive damages.

The cost of these litigation matters is included in our warranty costs. We accrue obligations for warranty costs at the time of sale using a patterned estimation model that includes historical information regarding the nature, frequency, and average cost of claims for each vehicle line by model year. We reevaluate the adequacy of our accruals on a regular basis.

We are currently a defendant in a significant number of litigation matters relating to the performance of vehicles, including those equipped with DPS6 transmissions.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

We have received notices under various federal and state environmental laws that we (along with others) are or may be a potentially responsible party for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling, or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. We also may have been a generator of hazardous substances at a number of other sites. The amount of any such costs or damages for which we may be held responsible could be significant. At this time, we have no legal proceedings arising under any federal, state, or local provisions that have been enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment, in which (i) a governmental authority is a party, and (ii) we believe there is the possibility of monetary sanctions (exclusive of interest and costs) in excess of $1,000,000.

CLASS ACTIONS

In light of the fact that few of the purported class actions filed against us in the past have been certified by the courts as class actions, in general we list those actions that (i) have been certified as a class action by a court of competent jurisdiction (and any additional purported class actions that raise allegations substantially similar to an existing and certified class), and (ii) have more than a remote risk of loss, and such loss would likely be significant if the action is resolved unfavorably to us. At this time, we have no such class actions filed against us.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings (Continued)

OTHER MATTERS

Brazilian Tax Matters. One Brazilian state (São Paulo) and the Brazilian federal tax authority currently have outstanding substantial tax assessments against Ford Motor Company Brasil Ltda. (“Ford Brazil”) related to state and federal tax incentives Ford Brazil received for its operations in the Brazilian state of Bahia. The São Paulo assessment is part of a broader conflict among various states in Brazil. The federal legislature enacted laws designed to encourage the states to end that conflict, and in 2017 the states reached an agreement on a framework for resolution. Ford Brazil continues to pursue a resolution under the framework and expects the amount of any remaining assessments by the states to be resolved under that framework. The federal assessments are outside the scope of the legislation.

All of the outstanding assessments have been appealed to the relevant administrative court of each jurisdiction. To proceed with an appeal within the judicial court system, an appellant may be required to post collateral. To date, we have not been required to post any collateral. If we are required to post collateral, which could be in excess of $1 billion, we expect it to be in the form of fixed assets, surety bonds, and/or letters of credit, but we may be required to post cash collateral. Although the ultimate resolution of these matters may take many years, we consider our overall risk of loss to be remote.

European Competition Law Matter. On October 5, 2018, FCE Bank plc (“FCE”) received a notice from the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) concerning an alleged violation of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The ICA alleged that FCE and other parties engaged in anti-competitive practices in relation to the automotive finance market in Italy. On January 9, 2019, FCE received a decision from the ICA, which included an assessment of a fine against FCE in the amount of €42 million. On March 8, 2019, FCE appealed the decision and the fine to the Italian administrative court, and on November 24, 2020, the Italian administrative court ruled in favor of FCE. On December 23, 2020, the ICA filed an appeal of the Italian administrative court’s decision to the Italian Council of State, and a hearing on the appeal was held on January 13, 2022. On February 1, 2022, the Italian Council of State dismissed the ICA’s appeal.

Emissions Certification. Beginning in 2018 and continuing into 2020, the Company investigated a potential concern involving its U.S. emissions certification process. The matter focused on issues related to road load estimations, including analytical modeling and coastdown testing. The potential concern did not involve the use of defeat devices (see Item 1, Governmental Standards for a definition of defeat devices). We voluntarily disclosed this matter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) on February 18, 2019 and February 21, 2019, respectively. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) opened a criminal investigation into the matter. In addition, we notified a number of other state and federal agencies. We cooperated fully with these government agencies. We received notifications from EPA, CARB, and DOJ that these agencies have closed their inquiries into the matter and do not intend to take any further action. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s request for information has been completed.

Transit Connect Customs Penalty Notice. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) ruled in 2013 that Transit Connects imported as passenger wagons and later converted into cargo vans are subject to the 25% duty applicable to cargo vehicles, rather than the 2.5% duty applicable to passenger vehicles. We filed a challenge in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), and CIT ruled in our favor in 2017. CBP subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled in favor of CBP. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of our petition for a writ of certiorari in 2020, we paid the increased duties for certain prior imports, plus interest, and disclosed that CBP might assert a claim for penalties. Subsequently, CBP issued a penalty notice to us dated July 22, 2021, and on November 18, 2021, CBP assessed against us a monetary penalty of $1.3 billion and additional duties of $181 million, plus interest. We intend to vigorously defend our actions and contest payment of the penalty and the additional duties.