Defendant Name: Navistar International Corporation

Defendant Type: Public Company
SIC Code: 3711
CUSIP: 63934E10

Initial Case Details

Legal Case Name In the Matter of Navistar International Corporation
First Document Date 31-Mar-2016
Initial Filing Format Administrative Action
File Number 3-17190
Allegation Type Issuer Reporting and Disclosure

Violations Alleged

Exchange Act
Rule 12b-20
Sec 13(a)
Rule 13a-1
Rule 13a-11
Rule 13a-13
Securities Act
Sec 17(a)(2)
Sec 17(a)(3)


First Resolution Date 31-Mar-2016
Headline Total Penalty and Disgorgement

See Related Documents

Related Documents:

33-10061 31-Mar-2016 Administrative Proceeding
Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order
On March 31, 2016, the SEC initiated settled cease-and-desist proceedings against Navistar International Corporation. According to the SEC: "From 2011 to 2012, Navistar made misleading statements regarding its development of an engine that could meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ('EPA') Clean Air Act standards that became fully effective in 2010. Navistar was the only U.S. engine manufacturer developing an exhaust-gas-recirculation-only technology, known as 'EGR,' to comply with the EPA's 2010 emissions standard for nitrogen oxides of 0.20 (the 'EPA 2010 standard'). Navistar's then Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Daniel C. Ustian ('Ustian'), was a staunch proponent of Navistar's EGR-only technology. By 2010, however, Navistar had not developed a commercially viable engine that could meet the EPA 2010 standard without emissions credits. Navistar's competitors, who all used a selective catalytic reduction technology, known as 'SCR,' began to suggest publicly that Navistar would not be able to develop a 0.2 NOx engine with EGR alone and, even if it did, Navistar would not be able to maintain competitive fuel economy and performance. 2. To reassure the public about its EGR-only strategy, Navistar submitted a certification application for an EGR-only engine at 0.2 NOx to the EPA in early 2011 for an engine that it knew was not ready for production and sale to customers. The EPA never approved that application for certification. Navistar submitted two additional certification applications in 2012 for certification of an EGR-only engine at 0.2 NOx. In numerous communications with Navistar from early 2011 through the summer of 2012, the EPA staff repeatedly told Navistar that it would not be able to approve the company's applications if Navistar did not submit additional information and make changes to the technology to ensure that the engine complied with the EPA's emissions testing requirements. Navistar made some of these changes, but doing so negatively impacted the engine's fuel economy and performance. Navistar also failed to make other changes requested by the EPA. 3. Despite these difficulties, Navistar repeatedly addressed investor concerns about the status of development and certification work through statements in Commission filings, press releases, and presentations to investors that created the misimpression that the certification process was proceeding as it typically did and that the forthcoming engine would be commercially competitive. In these statements, Navistar failed to fully disclose the serious difficulties it was experiencing."
2016-62 31-Mar-2016 Press Release--Administrative Proceeding
SEC: Navistar International and Former CEO Mislead Investors About Advanced Technology Engine
On March 31, 2016, the SEC announced that it "charged Navistar International Corp. with misleading investors about its development of an advanced technology truck engine that could be certified to meet U.S. emission standards."
LR-23507_Navistar 31-Mar-2016 Litigation Release--Mentions Administrative Proceeding
Litigation Release
In a litigation release issued on March 31, 2016, the SEC announce that it had "charged Navistar International Corp. with misleading investors about its development of an advanced technology truck engine that could be certified to meet U.S. emission standards."

Related Actions:

SEC v. Daniel C. Ustian