Item 4. Controls and Procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. James D. Farley, Jr., our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), and John T. Lawler, our Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), have performed an evaluation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, as that term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), as of September 30, 2023, and each has concluded that such disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our periodic reports filed under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified by SEC rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the CEO and CFO to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There were no changes in internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended September 30, 2023 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. Legal Proceedings.

PRODUCT LIABILITY MATTERS

Hill v. Ford (as previously reported on page 29 of our 2022 Form 10-K Report). Plaintiffs in this product liability action pending in Georgia state court allege that the roof of a 2002 Ford F-250 involved in a rollover accident was defectively designed. During the first trial in 2018, the judge declared a mistrial, ruled that Ford’s attorneys had violated pre-trial rulings while presenting evidence, and sanctioned Ford by prohibiting Ford from introducing any evidence at the second trial to show that the roof design of the F-250 was not defective. During the second trial in August 2022, a jury found that Pep Boys (the party that sold the tires on the vehicle involved in the rollover accident) was responsible for 30% of the damages, and Ford, as a direct result of the sanctions order prohibiting Ford from presenting its defense, was responsible for 70% of the damages, resulting in $16.8 million in damages being apportioned to Ford. The jury subsequently awarded punitive damages against Ford in the amount of $1.7 billion. Ford filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial, and on September 14, 2023, the trial court denied Ford’s post-trial motions. On October 13, 2023, Ford filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. We believe the law supports our position that Ford is entitled to a new trial with the right to present evidence in its defense.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Any legal proceeding 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 is described on page 30 of our 2022 Form 10-K Report and page 64 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2023.

OTHER MATTERS

Brazilian Tax Matters (as previously reported on page 31 of our 2022 Form 10-K Report, page 64 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2023, and page 65 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2023). 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.