Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Federal Securities Laws Litigation

On January 2, 2018, a purported shareowner filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the federal securities laws against the Company and certain of its current and former executives (Frankfurt-Trust Investment Luxemburg AG v. United Technologies Corporation et al.), which further amends a previously disclosed complaint that was filed on May 10, 2017. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff purports to

represent a class of shareowners who purchased the Company’s stock between December 11, 2014 and July 20, 2015. The second amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, related to alleged false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact made in connection with the Company’s 2015 earnings expectations. This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could result from this action.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

As previously disclosed, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) was named as a defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons who alleged that third-party entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers listed on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In each putative class action suit, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. Each violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages or up to $1,500 for any willful violation. In August 2016, UTCFS moved for summary judgment in the Northern District of West Virginia, the court in which all of the pending TCPA cases has been consolidated, arguing that the third parties who placed the calls in alleged violation of the TCPA were not acting as UTCFS’ agents and, therefore, UTCFS could not be vicariously liable for those calls under the TCPA. On December 22, 2016, the district court granted UTCFS’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the claims against UTCFS. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 14, 2017. Oral arguments on the appeal were presented before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 24, 2018.

DOJ/SEC Investigations

As previously disclosed, in December 2013 and January 2014, UTC made voluntary disclosures to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Enforcement and the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office to report the status of its internal investigation regarding a non-employee sales representative retained by United Technologies International Operations, Inc. (UTIO) and IAE for the sale of Pratt & Whitney and IAE engines and aftermarket services, respectively, in China. On April 7, 2014, the SEC notified UTC that it was conducting a formal investigation and issued a subpoena to UTC. The SEC issued a second subpoena on March 9, 2015 seeking documents related to internal allegations of violations of anti-bribery laws from UTC’s aerospace and commercial businesses, including but not limited to Otis businesses in China. UTC continues to cooperate fully with the investigations and provide documents and information related to UTC’s aerospace and commercial businesses worldwide. Because the investigations are ongoing, we cannot predict the outcome or the consequences thereof at this time.

Mos Otis FAS Investigation

As previously disclosed, following inspections carried out by the Russian Federal Anti-monopoly Service (FAS) at the offices of Mos Otis and the production of documents by Mos Otis, in October 2014 FAS notified Mos Otis that it had found indications of violations of Russian competition law in the market for maintenance of unified dispatch systems, which remotely monitor elevators and dispatch service technicians in Moscow. Mos Otis is an indirectly owned and controlled joint venture between Otis and the City of Moscow. FAS has not pursued an administrative action against Mos Otis, and the statute of limitations has run with regard to any such potential action related to this matter.

In addition, we are subject to a number of other lawsuits, investigations and claims (some of which involve substantial amounts). For a discussion of contingencies related to certain other legal proceedings, see Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2017 Annual Report. Except as indicated herein or in Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2017 Annual Report, we do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

A further discussion of government contracts and related investigations, as well as a discussion of our environmental liabilities, can be found under the heading "Other Matters Relating to Our Business as a Whole – Compliance with Environmental and Other Government Regulations" in Item 1, "Business," and in Item 1A, "Risk Factors," in this Form 10-K.