Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

In the ordinary course of its business, Arconic is involved in a number of lawsuits and claims, both actual and potential.

Environmental Matters

Arconic is involved in proceedings under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as Superfund (CERCLA) or analogous state provisions regarding the usage, disposal, storage or treatment of hazardous substances at a number of sites in the U.S. The Company has committed to participate, or is engaged in negotiations with federal or state authorities relative to its alleged liability for participation, in clean-up efforts at several such sites. The most significant of these matters, the remediation of the Grasse River in Massena, NY, is discussed in the Environmental Matters section of Note K to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Environmental Matters” on page 84.

As previously reported, on June 21, 2017, the UK Environment Agency (the “Agency”) confirmed that it will prosecute Firth Rixson Metals Limited in Chesterfield (UK) Magistrates Court in relation to an environmental incident that took place on April 22, 2015 at the Company’s Glossop UK site. It is alleged that an acid scrubber unit at the site caused a leak into the local river resulting in environmental damage, including the death of approximately 200 fish. Arconic was not successful in persuading the Agency to drop the prosecution in lieu of an enforcement undertaking (a civil remedy) despite the fact that cyanide, a compound not used on the site, had been identified in the samples of water taken at the time. A hearing before the Court was held on September 13, 2017 at which Firth Rixson pled guilty to the underlying offense of allowing a release to occur to the nearby stream. A follow-up hearing was held on December 6, 2017 at which the Court accepted Firth Rixson’s guilty plea. The Court categorized the Company’s level of culpability as negligent and the level of harm to the environment as level 2 (on a scale of 1 to 4 with 1 being the most serious). The Court fined Firth Rixson £80,000 (converted to approximately $108,355) plus costs of approximately £19,000 (converted to $25,734). The Company paid the fine and costs and accordingly, this matter is now closed and no further reports will be made.

Reynobond PE

As previously reported, on June 13, 2017, the Grenfell Tower in London, UK caught fire resulting in fatalities, injuries and damage. A French subsidiary of Arconic, 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 façade installer, who then completed and installed the system under the direction of the general contractor. Neither Arconic 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 Metro Police, a Public Inquiry by the British government and a consumer protection inquiry by a French public authority. AAP SAS has sought and received core participant status in the Public Inquiry. The Company will no longer sell the PE product for architectural use on buildings.

Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al. A purported class action complaint was filed on July 18, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Arconic Inc., as well as two former Arconic executives and several current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for Arconic’s September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering. The complaint alleges that statements in the registration statement for Arconic’s September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering were false and misleading in light of the subsequent Grenfell Tower fire. The complaint also alleges that Arconic’s failure to disclose at the time of the offering that it was obtaining significant profits through sales that exposed it to substantial liability violated the federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On August 25, 2017, this case was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice and re-filed on September 15, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members, the court consolidated Sullivan and Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., another case pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania (described below), and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al. A purported class action complaint was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc., and Klaus Kleinfeld. The complaint alleges that Arconic and Mr. Kleinfeld made various false and misleading statements, and omitted to disclose material information, about the Company’s business and financial prospects and, specifically, the risks of the Reynobond PE product. The complaint alleges that the statements in Arconic’s Form 10-K for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, its 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 Annual Reports, and its 2016 Annual Highlights Report about management’s recognition of its responsibility to conduct the Company’s affairs according to the highest standards of personal and corporate conduct and within the laws of the host countries in which it operates, and its failure to disclose that Arconic knowingly supplied highly flammable Reynobond PE cladding panels for use in construction that significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury and death, were false and misleading in violation of the federal securities laws and artificially inflated the prices of Arconic’s

securities. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., another case pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania (described above), and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

While the Company 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. Given the preliminary nature of these matters and the uncertainty of litigation, the Company 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. The Board of Directors has also received letters, purportedly sent on behalf of shareholders, reciting allegations similar to those made in the federal court lawsuits and demanding that the Board authorize the Company to initiate litigation against members of management, the Board and others. The Board of Directors has appointed a Special Litigation Committee of the Board to review these shareholder demand letters and consider the appropriate course of action. In addition, lawsuits are pending in state court in New York and federal court in Pennsylvania, initiated, respectively, by another purported shareholder and by the Company, concerning the shareholder’s claimed right, which the Company contests, to inspect the Company’s books and records related to the Grenfell Tower fire and Reynobond PE.

Other Matters

As previously reported, Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury as a result of occupational or other exposure to asbestos. Arconic, its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries have numerous insurance policies over many years that provide coverage for asbestos related claims. Arconic has significant insurance coverage and believes that Arconic’s reserves are adequate for its known asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of the Company.

Tax

Pursuant to the Tax Matters Agreement, dated as of October 31, 2016, entered into between the Company and Alcoa Corporation in connection with the Separation, the Company shares responsibility with Alcoa Corporation for, and Alcoa Corporation has agreed to partially indemnify the Company with respect to, the following matter.

As previously reported, in September 2010, following a corporate income tax audit covering the 2003 through 2005 tax years, an assessment was received as a result of Spain’s tax authorities disallowing certain interest deductions claimed by a Spanish consolidated tax group owned by the Company. An appeal of this assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court by the Company was denied in October 2013. In December 2013, the Company filed an appeal of the assessment in Spain’s National Court.

On January 16, 2017, Spain’s National Court issued a decision in favor of the Company related to the assessment received in September 2010. The Spanish Tax Administration did not file an appeal within the applicable period. Based on this decision and recent confirming correspondence from the Spanish Tax Administration, the matter is now closed. The Company will not be responsible for any assessment related to the 2003 through 2005 tax years.

Additionally, following a corporate income tax audit of the same Spanish tax group for the 2006 through 2009 tax years, Spain’s tax authorities issued an assessment in July 2013, similarly disallowing certain interest deductions. In August 2013, the Company filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court, which was denied in January 2015. The Company filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s National Court in March 2015. Spain’s National Court has not yet rendered a decision related to the assessment received in July 2013. The assessment for the 2006 through 2009 tax years is $155 million (€130 million), including interest.

The Company believes it has meritorious arguments to support its tax position and intends to vigorously litigate the assessments through Spain’s court system. However, in the event the Company is unsuccessful, a portion of the assessments may be offset with existing net operating losses available to the Spanish consolidated tax group, which would be shared between the Company and Alcoa Corporation as provided for in the Tax Matters Agreement. Additionally, while the tax years 2010 through 2013 are closed to audit, it is possible that the Company may receive similar assessments for tax years subsequent to 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an ultimate outcome for this matter.

Matters Previously Reported – Alcoa Corporation

We have included the matters discussed below in which the Company remains party to proceedings relating to Alcoa Corporation in accordance with SEC regulations. The Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated October 31, 2016, entered into between the Company and Alcoa Corporation in connection with the Separation, provides for cross-indemnities between

the Company and Alcoa Corporation for claims subject to indemnification. The Company does not expect any of such matters to result in a net claim against it.

St. Croix Proceedings

Abednego and Abraham cases. As previously reported, on January 14, 2010, Arconic was served with a multi-plaintiff action complaint involving several thousand individual persons claiming to be residents of St. Croix who are alleged to have suffered personal injury or property damage from Hurricane Georges or winds blowing material from the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (“SCA”) facility on the island of St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands) since the time of the hurricane. This complaint, Abednego, et al. v. Alcoa, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division. Following an unsuccessful attempt by Arconic and SCA to remove the case to federal court, the case has been lodged in the Superior Court. The complaint names as defendants the same entities that were sued in a February 1999 action arising out of the impact of Hurricane Georges on the island and added as a defendant the current owner of the alumina facility property.

Also as previously reported, on March 1, 2012, Arconic was served with a separate multi-plaintiff action complaint involving approximately 200 individual persons alleging claims essentially identical to those set forth in the Abednego v. Alcoa complaint. This complaint, Abraham, et al. v. Alcoa, et al., was filed on behalf of plaintiffs previously dismissed in the federal court proceeding involving the original litigation over Hurricane Georges impacts. The matter was originally filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division, on March 30, 2011.

Arconic and other defendants in the Abraham and Abednego cases filed or renewed motions to dismiss each case in March 2012 and August 2012 following service of the Abraham complaint on Arconic and remand of the Abednego complaint to Superior Court, respectively. By order dated August 10, 2015, the Superior Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaints without prejudice to re-file the complaints individually, rather than as a multi-plaintiff filing. The order also preserves the defendants’ grounds for dismissal if new, individual complaints are filed. On July 7, 2017, the Court issued an order and associated memoranda on plaintiff’s multiple motions for extension of time to file the individual Complaints. Following the court’s July 7, 2017 order, a total of 429 complaints were filed and accepted by the court by the deadline of July 30, 2017 (and consolidated into the Red Dust Claims docket (Master Case No.: SX-15-CV-620)). These complaints include claims of about 1,260 individual plaintiffs. As a result of the devastation caused by two hurricanes, court operations were suspended until very recently. On December 11, 2017, the court issued a new scheduling order and further set a scheduling conference for January 18, 2018. At that conference, the court set the next status conference for late July 2018.

Other Contingencies

In addition to the matters discussed 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 and tax matters. While the amounts claimed in these other matters may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot currently be determined because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. Therefore, it is possible that the Company’s liquidity or results of operations in a particular 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 the Company.