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 T to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Environmental Matters”.

Reynobond PE

As previously reported, on June 13, 2017, the Grenfell Tower in London, U.K. 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 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. The Company 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, 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.

Behrens et al. v. Arconic Inc. et al. As previously reported, 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 “Arconic 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 Arconic 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 Arconic 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 Arconic 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 products 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) and suggesting a procedure for limited discovery followed by further briefing on those subjects. Discovery is ongoing on defendants’ motion to have the case dismissed in favor of a UK forum (forum non conveniens). On January 23, 2020, the Court ordered that the parties complete discovery relating to forum non conveniens by March 16, 2020, and that briefing conclude on April 13, 2020. The Court will hold oral argument on this motion on May 7, 2020. Given the preliminary nature of this matter 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.

Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al. As previously reported, 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 Arconic Inc. 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 Arconic Inc. three former Arconic executives, several current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for Arconic’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 Arconic and Kleinfeld made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about the Company’s commitment to safety, business and financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product, including in Arconic’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, 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.

Raul v. Albaugh, et al. As previously reported, on June 22, 2018, a derivative complaint was filed nominally on behalf of Arconic by a purported Arconic stockholder against the then members of Arconic’s Board of Directors and Klaus Kleinfeld and Ken Giacobbe, naming Arconic 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 Exchange Act 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, 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.

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.

Stockholder Demands. As previously reported, the 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 Board authorize the Company to initiate litigation against members of management, the Board, and others. The Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee of the Board to review, investigate, and make recommendations to the 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 Board that it reject the demands to authorize commencement of litigation. On May 28, 2019, the 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.

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 of Alcoa, 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 July 2013, following a Spanish corporate income tax audit covering the 2006 through 2009 tax years, an assessment was received mainly disallowing certain interest deductions claimed by a Spanish consolidated tax group owned by the Company. In August 2013, the Company filed an appeal of this assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court, which was denied in January 2015. Arconic filed another appeal in Spain’s National Court in March 2015 which was denied in July 2018. The National Court’s decision requires the assessment for the 2006 through 2009 tax years to be reissued to take into account the outcome of the 2003 to 2005 audit which was closed in 2017. The Company estimates the revised assessment to be $172 million (€154 million), including interest.

In March 2019, the Supreme Court of Spain accepted the Company’s petition to review the National Court’s decision, and the Company has filed a formal appeal of the assessment. The Supreme Court is reviewing the assessment on its merits and will render a final decision. In the event the Company receives an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court of Spain, a portion of the assessment may be offset with existing net operating losses and tax credits 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.

In the third quarter of 2018, Arconic established an income tax reserve, and an indemnification receivable representing Alcoa Corporation’s 49% share of the liability. As of the end of 2019, the balances of the reserve, including interest, and the receivable are $59 million (€53 million) and $29 million (€26 million), respectively.

Additionally, while the tax years 2010 through 2013 are closed to audit, it is possible that the Company may receive assessments for tax years subsequent to 2013. Any potential assessment for an individual tax year is not expected to be material

to the Company’s consolidated operations. 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 of Alcoa, 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

Red Dust Docket Cases, (St. Croix) f/k/a Abednego, Laurie L.A., et al. v. St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C., et al*.* 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.

On November 5, 2018, notice of an order of reassignment was entered, transferring the claims to the newly created Complex Litigation Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. On January 28, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking for a determination that expert testimony will not be required on the issue of causation, which defendants opposed. The Court has not ruled on that motion.

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, tax and antitrust 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 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.