Alcoa Corp - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

[ x ] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2016

OR

[    ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number 1-37816

ALCOA CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

390 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022-4608

(Address of principal executive offices)     (Zip code)

212-518-5400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes      No ✓.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.  Yes       No ✓ .

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ✓       No     .

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes ✓       No      .

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [✓]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer [    ]       Accelerated filer [    ]       Non-accelerated filer [✓]       Smaller reporting company [    ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes       No ✓.

As of June 30, 2016, the registrant’s common stock was not publicly traded.

As of March 10, 2017, there were 184,204,763 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.

Documents incorporated by reference.

Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Note on Incorporation by Reference

In this Form 10-K, selected items of information and data are incorporated by reference to portions of Alcoa Corporation’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 10, 2017 (the “Proxy Statement”), which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the end of Alcoa Corporation’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Unless otherwise provided herein, any reference in this Form 10-K to disclosures in the Proxy Statement shall constitute incorporation by reference of only that specific disclosure into this Form 10-K.

Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains (and oral communications made by Alcoa may contain) statements that relate to future events and expectations and, as such, constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include those containing such words as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “forecasts,” “goal,” “intends,” “may,” “outlook,” “plans,” “projects,” “seeks,” “sees,” “should,” “targets,” “will,” “would,” or other words of similar meaning. All statements by Alcoa Corporation that reflect expectations, assumptions or projections about the future, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, forecasts concerning global demand growth for bauxite, alumina and aluminum, and supply/demand balances; statements, projections or forecasts of future financial results or operating performance; and statements about strategies, outlook, business and financial prospects. These statements reflect beliefs and assumptions that are based on Alcoa Corporation’s perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors that management believes are appropriate in the circumstances. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Although Alcoa Corporation believes that the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that these expectations will be attained and it is possible that actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these forward-looking statements due to a variety of risks and uncertainties. For a discussion of some of the specific factors that may cause Alcoa’s actual results to differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements, see the following sections of this report: Part I, Item 1A. (Risk Factors), Part II, Item 7. (Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations), including the disclosures under Segment Information and Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates, and the Derivatives Section of Note O to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8. (Financial Statements and Supplementary Data). Alcoa Corporation disclaims any obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether in response to new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. Market projections are subject to the risks discussed above and other risks in the market.

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1.  Business.

General

Alcoa Corporation, a Delaware corporation, became an independent, publicly traded company on November 1, 2016, as explained below under “Separation Transaction.” Alcoa Corporation has its principal office in New York, New York. In this report, unless the context otherwise requires, “Alcoa” or the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” means Alcoa Corporation and all subsidiaries consolidated for the purposes of its financial statements.

Alcoa is a global industry leader in the production of bauxite, alumina, and aluminum, with a strong portfolio of value-added cast and rolled products, as well as substantial energy assets. Alcoa is built on a foundation of strong values and operating excellence dating back nearly 130 years to the world-changing discovery that made aluminum an affordable and vital part of modern life. Since inventing the aluminum industry, and throughout our history, our talented Alcoans have followed on with breakthrough innovations and best practices that have led to efficiency, safety, sustainability, and stronger communities wherever we operate.

Aluminum is a commodity traded on the London Metal Exchange (“LME”) and priced daily. Additionally, alumina is subject to market pricing against the Alumina Price Index (“API”). As a result, the price of both aluminum and alumina is subject to significant volatility and, therefore, influences the operating results of Alcoa Corporation.

Alcoa is a global company with 43 operating locations across 10 countries. Alcoa’s operations consisted of six reportable segments for 2016: Bauxite, Alumina, Aluminum, Cast Products, Energy, and Rolled Products.

The Company’s Internet address is http://www.alcoa.com. Alcoa makes available free of charge on or through its website its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The information on the Company’s Internet site is not a part of, or incorporated by reference in, this annual report on Form 10-K. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains these reports at http://www.sec.gov.

Separation Transaction

On September 28, 2015, Alcoa Inc. (“ParentCo”) announced its intention to separate ParentCo into two standalone, publicly-traded companies (the “Separation Transaction”). Alcoa Corporation was formed to hold ParentCo’s Bauxite, Alumina, Aluminum, Cast Products and Energy businesses, as well as ParentCo’s rolling mill operations in Warrick, Indiana, and ParentCo’s 25.1% interest in the Ma’aden Rolling Company in Saudi Arabia (the “Alcoa Corporation Business”). Following the Separation Transaction, Alcoa Corporation holds the assets and liabilities of ParentCo relating to those businesses and the direct and indirect subsidiary entities that operated the Alcoa Corporation Business, subject to certain exceptions. Upon completion of the Separation Transaction, ParentCo was renamed Arconic Inc. (“Arconic”) and now holds ParentCo’s Engineered Products and Solutions, Global Rolled Products (other than the rolling mill operations in Warrick, Indiana, and the 25.1% interest in the Ma’aden Rolling Company in Saudi Arabia) and Transportation and Construction Solutions businesses (the “Arconic Business”), including those assets and liabilities of ParentCo and its direct and indirect subsidiary entities that operated the Arconic Business, subject to certain exceptions.

On September 29, 2016, the ParentCo Board of Directors approved the distribution of 80.1% of Alcoa Corporation’s issued and outstanding shares of common stock on the basis of one share of Alcoa Corporation common stock for every three shares of ParentCo common stock held as of the close of business on October 20, 2016, the record date for the distribution (the “Distribution”).

1

Table of Contents

The Separation Transaction and the Distribution were subject to a number of conditions, including, but not limited to: final approval by ParentCo’s Board of Directors (see below); the continuing validity of the private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service regarding certain U.S. federal income tax matters relating to the transaction; receipt of an opinion of legal counsel regarding the qualification of the Distribution, together with certain related transactions, as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes; and the SEC declaring effective a Registration Statement on Form 10, as amended, filed with the SEC on October 11, 2016 (effectiveness was declared by the SEC on October 17, 2016).

On November 1, 2016, the Separation Transaction was completed and became effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, at which time Alcoa Corporation became an independent, publicly traded company. To effect the Separation Transaction, ParentCo undertook a series of transactions to separate the net assets and certain legal entities of ParentCo, resulting in a cash payment of approximately $1.1 billion to ParentCo by Alcoa Corporation using the net proceeds of a debt offering. Also at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on November 1, 2016, the Distribution occurred. Immediately following the Distribution, Alcoa Corporation stockholders owned directly 80.1% of the outstanding shares of common stock of Alcoa Corporation, and Arconic retained 19.9% of the outstanding shares of common stock of Alcoa Corporation. 146,159,428 shares of Alcoa Corporation common stock were distributed to ParentCo stockholders, and Arconic retained 36,311,767 shares of Alcoa Corporation common stock representing its 19.9% retained interest (on February 14, 2017, Arconic sold 23,353,000 of these shares). ParentCo stockholders received cash in lieu of any fractional shares of Alcoa Corporation common stock that they would have received after application of the distribution ratio. Upon completion of the Separation Transaction and the Distribution, each ParentCo stockholder as of the record date continued to own shares of ParentCo (which, as a result of ParentCo’s name change to Arconic, are Arconic shares) and owned a proportionate share of the outstanding common stock of Alcoa Corporation that was distributed. ParentCo stockholders were not required to make any payment, surrender or exchange their ParentCo common stock or take any other action to receive their shares of Alcoa Corporation common stock in the Distribution. “Regular-way” trading of Alcoa Corporation’s common stock began with the opening of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on November 1, 2016 under the ticker symbol “AA.” Alcoa Corporation’s common stock has a par value of $0.01 per share.

Formation of Alcoa Corporation

Alcoa Upstream Corporation was formed in Delaware on March 10, 2016 for the purpose of holding ParentCo’s Alcoa Corporation Business, and it was renamed Alcoa Corporation in connection with the Separation Transaction and the Distribution.

As part of the Separation Transaction, and prior to the Distribution, ParentCo and its subsidiaries completed an internal reorganization in order to transfer the Alcoa Corporation Business to Alcoa Corporation. Among other things and subject to limited exceptions, the internal reorganization resulted in Alcoa Corporation owning, directly or indirectly, the operations comprising, and the entities that conduct, the Alcoa Corporation Business. The internal reorganization included various restructuring transactions pursuant to which the operations, assets, liabilities and investments of ParentCo and its subsidiaries used to conduct the Alcoa Corporation Business were separated from the operations, assets, liabilities and investments of ParentCo and its subsidiaries used to conduct the Arconic Business. Such restructuring transactions took the form of asset transfers, dividends, contributions and similar transactions, and involved the formation of new subsidiaries in U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions to own and operate the Alcoa Corporation Business or the Arconic Business in such jurisdictions.

Following the completion of the internal reorganization and immediately prior to the Distribution, Alcoa Corporation became the parent company of the entities that conduct the Alcoa Corporation Business, and ParentCo (through subsidiaries other than Alcoa Corporation and its subsidiaries) remained the parent company of the entities that conduct the Arconic Business.

In connection with the Separation Transaction, as of October 31, 2016, Alcoa Corporation entered into certain agreements with Arconic to implement the legal and structural separation between the two companies, govern the

2

Table of Contents

relationship between Alcoa Corporation and Arconic after the completion of the Separation Transaction, and allocate between Alcoa Corporation and Arconic various assets, liabilities and obligations, including, among other things, employee benefits, environmental liabilities, intellectual property, and tax-related assets and liabilities. These agreements included a Separation and Distribution Agreement, Tax Matters Agreement, Employee Matters Agreement, Transition Services Agreement, and certain Patent, Know-How, Trade Secret License and Trademark License Agreements.

Joint Ventures

AWAC

Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals (“AWAC”) is an unincorporated global joint venture between Alcoa Corporation and Alumina Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. AWAC consists of a number of affiliated entities that own, operate or have an interest in, bauxite mines and alumina refineries, as well as certain aluminum smelters, in seven countries. Alcoa Corporation owns 60% and Alumina Limited owns 40% of these entities, directly or indirectly, with such entities being consolidated by Alcoa Corporation for financial reporting purposes.

The scope of AWAC generally includes:

Alcoa is the industrial leader of AWAC and provides the operating management for all of the operating entities forming AWAC. The operating management is subject to direction provided by the Strategic Council of AWAC, which is the principal forum for Alcoa and Alumina Limited to provide direction and counsel to the AWAC companies regarding strategic and policy matters. The Strategic Council consists of five members, three of whom are appointed by Alcoa (of which one is the Chairman of the Strategic Council), and two of whom are appointed by Alumina Limited (of which one is the Deputy Chairman of the Strategic Council).

All matters before the Strategic Council are decided by a majority vote of the members, except for certain matters which require approval by at least 80% of the members, including changes to the scope of AWAC; changes in the dividend policy; equity calls in aggregate greater than $1 billion in any year; sales of all or a majority of the AWAC assets; loans from AWAC companies to Alcoa or Alumina Limited; certain acquisitions, divestitures, expansions, curtailments or closures; certain related-party transactions; financial derivatives, hedges or swap transactions; a decision by AWAC companies to file for insolvency; and changes to pricing formula in certain offtake agreements which may be entered into between AWAC companies and Alcoa or Alumina Limited.

AWAC Operations

AWAC entities’ assets include the following interests:

3

Table of Contents

Exclusivity

Under the terms of their joint venture agreements, Alcoa and Alumina Limited have agreed that, subject to certain exceptions, AWAC is their exclusive vehicle for their investments, operations or participation in the bauxite and alumina business, and they will not compete with AWAC in those businesses. In the event of a change of control of either Alcoa or Alumina Limited, this exclusivity and non-compete restriction will terminate, and the partners will then have opportunities to unilaterally pursue bauxite or alumina projects outside of or within AWAC, subject to certain conditions provided in the Amended and Restated Charter of the Strategic Council.

Equity Calls

The cash flow of AWAC and borrowings are the preferred sources of funding for the needs of AWAC. Should the aggregate annual capital budget of AWAC require an equity contribution from Alcoa Corporation and Alumina Limited, an equity call can be made on 30 days’ notice, subject to certain limitations.

Dividend Policy

AWAC will generally be required to distribute at least 50% of the prior calendar quarter’s net income of each AWAC company, and certain AWAC companies will also be required to pay a distribution every three months equal to the amount of available cash above specified thresholds and subject to the forecast cash needs of the company. Alcoa will obtain a limited amount of debt funding for the AWAC companies to fund growth projects, subject to certain restrictions.

Leveraging Policy

Debt of AWAC is subject to a limit of 30% of total capital (defined as the sum of debt (net of cash) plus any minority interest plus shareholder equity). The AWAC joint venture will raise a limited amount of debt to fund growth projects within 12 months of it becoming permissible under Alcoa’s revolving credit line, provided that the amount of debt does not trigger a credit rating downgrade for Alcoa.

Other

In December 2009, we entered into a joint venture with Saudi Arabian Mining Company (Ma’aden), which was formed by the government of Saudi Arabia to develop its mineral resources and is listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange (Tadawul), to develop a fully integrated aluminum complex in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This project is the most efficient aluminum production complex within the worldwide Alcoa system. In its initial phases, the complex includes a bauxite mine with an initial capacity of 4 million bone dry metric tons per year; an alumina refinery with an initial

4

Table of Contents

capacity of 1.8 million metric tons per year (mtpy); an aluminum smelter with an initial capacity of ingot, slab and billet of 740,000 mtpy; and a rolling mill with initial capacity of 380,000 mtpy. The smelter, refinery and mine are fully operational. Ma’aden owns a 74.9% interest in the joint venture. Alcoa owns a 25.1% interest in the smelter and in the rolling mill; and AWAC holds a 25.1% interest in the mine and refinery.

The ABI smelter is a joint venture between Alcoa and Rio Tinto. Alcoa is the operating partner and owns 74.95% of the joint venture.

The Machadinho Hydro Power Plant (HPP): Machadinho HPP is a consortium between Alcoa Alumĺnio (25.8%), Votorantim Energia (33.1%), Tractebel (19.3%), Vale (8.3%) and other partners (CEEE, InterCement and DME Energetica) located in the Pelotas River, southern Brazil.

Barra Grande Hydro Power Plant (HPP): Barra Grande HPP is a joint venture between Alcoa Alumĺnio (42.2%), CPFL Energia (25%), Votorantim Energia (15%), InterCement (9%) and DME Energetica (8.8%) located in the Pelotas River, southern Brazil.

Estreito Hydro Power Plant (HPP): Estreito HPP is a consortium between Alcoa Alumĺnio (25.5%), Tractebel (40.1%), Vale (30%) and InterCement (4.4%) located in the Tocantins River, northern Brazil.

Serra do Facão Hydro Power Plant (HPP): Serra do Facão HPP is a consortium between Alcoa Alumĺnio (34.9%), Furnas (49.4%), Dme Energetica (10%) and Camargo Correa Energia (5.4%) located in the Sao Marcos river, central-Brazil.

Manicouagan Power Limited Partnership (Manicouagan) is a joint venture between Alcoa Corporation and Hydro Quebec. Manicouagan owns and operates the 335 megawatt McCormick hydroelectric project, which is located on the Manicouagan River in the Province of Quebec. Manicouagan supplies approximately 27% of the electricity requirements of Alcoa’s Baie-Comeau, Quebec, smelter. Alcoa owns 40% of the joint venture.

The Strathcona calciner is a joint venture between Alcoa and Rio Tinto. The calciner purchases green coke from the petroleum industry and converts it into calcined coke. The calcined coke is then used as a raw material in an aluminum smelter. Alcoa Corporation owns 39% of the joint venture.

Description of the Business

Information describing Alcoa’s businesses can be found on the indicated pages of this report:

5

Table of Contents

Aluminum is one of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust. Aluminum metal is produced by smelting alumina using large amounts of electricity, and can be cast and rolled into many shapes and forms. Alumina is an intermediary product produced primarily from refining bauxite. The following tables and related discussion provide additional description of Alcoa’s businesses all along this value chain. The Company’s business segments in 2016 were Bauxite, Alumina, Aluminum, Cast Products, Energy and Rolled Products. The Bauxite and Alumina segments primarily consist of a series of affiliated operating entities collectively referred to as AWAC. Alcoa ultimately owns 60% and Alumina Limited, an unrelated third party, ultimately owns 40% of these individual entities.

Bauxite

Bauxite is Alcoa Corporation’s basic raw material input for its alumina refining process and is also sold into the third-party market. Bauxite contains various aluminum hydroxide minerals, the most important of which are gibbsite and boehmite. Alcoa Corporation processes most of the bauxite that it mines into alumina and sells the remainder to third parties. The Company obtains bauxite from its own resources and from those belonging to the AWAC enterprise, located in the countries listed in the table below, as well as pursuant to both long-term and short-term contracts and mining leases. Tons of bauxite are reported as bone dry metric tons (“bdmt”) unless otherwise stated. See the glossary of bauxite mining-related terms at the end of this section.

During 2016, mines operated by Alcoa Corporation produced 37.7 million bdmt and separately mines operated by third parties (with Alcoa Corporation and AWAC equity interests) produced 7.3 million bdmt on a proportional equity basis for a total bauxite production of 45.0 million bdmt.

Based on the terms of its bauxite supply contracts, AWAC bauxite purchases from Mineração Rio do Norte S.A. (“MRN”) and Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée (“CBG”) differ from its proportional equity in those mines. Therefore during 2016, including those purchases, AWAC had access to 47.5 million bdmt of production from its portfolio of bauxite interests.

During 2016, AWAC sold 6.4 million bdmt of bauxite to third parties and purchased 0.3 million bdmt from third parties. The bauxite delivered to Alcoa Corporation and AWAC refineries amounted to 41.4 million bdmt during 2016.

The Company is growing its third-party bauxite sales business. For example, in December 2016, Alcoa’s affiliate, AofA, received permission from the Government of Western Australia to export up to 2.5 million bdmt per year of bauxite for five years to third-party customers.

The Company has access to large bauxite deposit areas with mining rights that extend in most cases more than 20 years from the date of this report. For purposes of evaluating the amount of bauxite that will be available to supply its refineries, the Company considers both estimates of bauxite resources as well as calculated bauxite reserves. Bauxite resources represent deposits for which tonnage, densities, shape, physical characteristics, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a reasonable level of confidence based on the amount of exploration sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. Bauxite reserves represent the economically mineable part of resource deposits, and include diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined. Appropriate assessments and studies have been carried out to define the reserves, and include consideration of and modification by realistically assumed mining, metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors. Alcoa employs a conventional approach (including additional drilling with successive tightening of the drilling grid) with customized techniques to define and characterize its various bauxite deposit types allowing us to confidently establish the extent of its bauxite resources and their ultimate conversion to reserves.

The following table only includes the amount of proven and probable reserves controlled by the Company. While the level of reserves may appear low in relation to annual production levels, they are consistent with historical levels of reserves for the Company’s mining locations and consistent with the Company reserves strategy. Given the Company’s

6

Table of Contents

extensive bauxite resources, the abundant supply of bauxite globally and the length of the Company’s rights to bauxite, it is not cost-effective to invest the significant funds and efforts necessary to establish bauxite reserves that reflect the total size of the bauxite resources available to the Company. Rather, bauxite resources are upgraded annually to reserves as needed by the location. Detailed assessments are progressively undertaken within a proposed mining area and mine activity is then planned to achieve a uniform quality in the supply of blended feedstock to the relevant refinery. Alcoa Corporation believes its present sources of bauxite on a global basis are sufficient to meet the forecasted requirements of its alumina refining operations for the foreseeable future.

Bauxite Resource Development Guidelines

Alcoa Corporation has adopted best practice guidelines for bauxite reserve and resource classification at its operating bauxite mines. Alcoa’s reserves are declared in accordance with Alcoa Corporation’s internal guidelines as administered by the Alcoa Ore Reserves Committee (“AORC”). The reported ore reserves set forth in the table below are those that we estimated could be extracted economically with current technology and in current market conditions. We do not use a price for bauxite, alumina or aluminum to determine our bauxite reserves. The primary criteria for determining bauxite reserves are the feed specifications required by the receiving alumina refinery. More specifically, reserves are set based on the chemical composition of the bauxite in order to minimize bauxite processing cost and maximize refinery economics for each individual refinery. The primary specifications that are important to this analysis are the “available alumina” and “reactive silica” content of the bauxite. Each alumina refinery will have a target specification for these parameters, but may receive bauxite within a range that allows blending in stockpiles to achieve the receiving refinery’s target.

In addition to these chemical specifications, a number of other ore reserve design factors have been applied to differentiate bauxite reserves from other mineralized material. The contours of the bauxite reserves are designed using parameters such as available alumina content cutoff grade, reactive silica cutoff grade, ore density, overburden thickness, ore thickness and mine access considerations. These parameters are generally determined by using infill drilling or geological modeling.

Further, our mining locations utilize annual in-fill drilling or geological modeling programs designed to progressively upgrade the reserve and resource classification of their bauxite based on the above-described factors.

7

Table of Contents

Alcoa Corporation Bauxite Interests, Share of Reserves and Annual Production¹

8

Table of Contents

Qualifying statements relating to the table above:

Australia—Darling Range Mines: Huntly and Willowdale are the two active AWAC mines in the Darling Range of Western Australia. The mineral lease issued by the State of Western Australia to Alcoa Corporation’s majority owned subsidiary, AofA is known as ML1SA and encompasses a gross area of 712,881 hectares (including private land holdings, state forests, national parks and conservation areas) in the Darling Range and extends from east of Perth to east of Bunbury (the “ML1SA Area”). The ML1SA lease provides AofA with various rights, including certain exclusivity rights to explore for and mine bauxite, rights to deny third party mining tenements in limited circumstances, rights to mining leases for other minerals in the ML1SA Area, and the right to prevent certain governmental actions from interfering with or prejudicially affecting AofA’s rights. The ML1SA lease term extends to 2024, however it can be renewed for an additional 21 year period to 2045. The above-declared reserves are current as of December 31, 2016. The amount of reserves reflects the total AWAC share. Additional resources are routinely upgraded by additional exploration and development drilling to reserve status. The Huntly and Willowdale mines supply bauxite to three local AWAC alumina refineries.

Brazil—Poços de Caldas: The above-declared reserves are current as of December 31, 2016. Tonnage is total Alcoa share. Additional resources are being upgraded to reserves as needed.

Brazil—Juruti RN101, RN102, RN103, RN104, #34: The above-declared reserves are current as of December 31, 2016. All reserves are on Capiranga Plateau. Declared reserves are total AWAC share. Declared reserve tonnages and the annual production tonnage are washed product tonnages. The Juruti mine’s operating license is periodically renewed.

Suriname—Suralco: The AWAC mines in Suriname were curtailed in the fourth quarter of 2015 and in December 2016, the Company determined to close these mines. AWAC has no plans to restart these mines and there are no reserves to declare.

9

Table of Contents

Brazil—Trombetas-MRN: The above-declared reserves are as of December 31, 2016. The CP Report setting forth the December 31, 2016 reserves was issued on February 28, 2017. Declared and annual production tonnages reflect the total for Alumínio and AWAC shares (18.2%). Declared tonnages are washed product tonnages.

Guinea—Boké-CBG: The above-declared reserves are based on export quality bauxite reserves and are current as of December 31, 2016. The CP Report setting forth the December 31, 2016 reserves was issued on February 28, 2017. Declared tonnages reflect only the AWAC share of CBG’s reserves. Annual production tonnage is reported based on AWAC’s 22.95% share. Declared reserves quality is reported based on total alumina (TAl₂O₃) and total silica (TSiO₂) because CBG export bauxite is sold on this basis. Additional resources are being routinely drilled and modeled to upgrade to reserves as needed.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—Al Ba’itha: The Al Ba’itha Mine began production during 2014 and production was increased in 2016. Declared reserves are as of December 31, 2016. The CP Report setting forth the December 31, 2016 reserves was issued on February 28, 2017. The declared reserves are located in the South Zone of the Az Zabirah Bauxite Deposit. The reserve tonnage in this declaration is AWAC share only (25.1%).

10

Table of Contents

The following table provides additional information regarding the Company’s bauxite mines:

11

Table of Contents

12

Table of Contents

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Joint Venture

In December 2009, ParentCo and Saudi Arabian Mining Company (Ma’aden), which was formed by the government of Saudi Arabia to develop its mineral resources and is listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange (Tadawul), entered into a joint venture to develop a fully integrated aluminum complex in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In its initial phases, the complex includes a bauxite mine with an initial capacity of 4 million bdmt per year; an alumina refinery with an initial capacity of 1.8 million mt per year (mtpy); an aluminum smelter with an initial ingot, slab and billet capacity of 740,000 mtpy; and a rolling mill with initial capacity of 380,000 mtpy. The smelter, refinery and mine are fully operational. Ma’aden owns a 74.9% interest in the joint venture. Alcoa Corporation owns a 25.1% interest in the smelter and in the rolling mill; and AWAC holds a 25.1% interest in the mine and refinery.

The refinery, smelter and rolling mill are located within the Ras Al Khair industrial zone on the east coast of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

For additional information regarding the joint venture, see the Equity Investments section of Note H to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8. (Financial Statements and Supplementary Data).

Glossary of Bauxite Mining Related Terms

13

Table of Contents

Alumina

Alcoa Corporation was the world’s leading producer of alumina in 2016. Alcoa Corporation’s alumina refining facilities and its worldwide alumina capacity are shown in the following table:

14

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2016, Alcoa Corporation had approximately 2,305,000 mtpy of idle capacity relative to total Alcoa consolidated capacity of 15,064,000 mtpy. As noted above, Alcoa Corporation and Ma’aden developed an alumina refinery in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Initial capacity of the refinery is 1,800,000 mtpy, and it produced approximately 1,425,000 mt in 2016. For additional information regarding the joint venture, see Note H to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Investments—Equity Investments.”

In March 2015, the Company initiated a 12-month review of 2,800,000 mtpy in refining capacity for possible curtailment (partial or full), permanent closure or divestiture. This review was part of Alcoa Corporation’s target to lower the position of the Company’s refining operations on the global alumina cost curve to the 21st percentile by the end of 2016. The review resulted in the curtailment of the remaining capacity at the Suralco refinery (1,330,000 mtpy) in 2015 and the commencement of the curtailment of the remaining capacity of the Point Comfort, TX refinery (2,010,000 mtpy), which curtailment was completed in the first half of 2016. In the fourth quarter of 2016, Alcoa determined to close the Suralco alumina refinery and bauxite mines in Suriname, which have been fully curtailed since November 2015. For additional information regarding the curtailments, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Segment Information—Alumina.”

15

Table of Contents

Aluminum

Alcoa Corporation’s primary aluminum smelters and their respective capacities are shown in the following table:

16

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2016, Alcoa Corporation had approximately 778,000 mtpy of idle capacity relative to total Alcoa Corporation consolidated capacity of 3,132,000 mtpy. As noted above, Alcoa and Ma’aden have developed an aluminum smelter in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The smelter has an initial nameplate capacity of 740,000 mtpy. Since mid-2014, the smelter has been operating at full capacity, and it produced 756,840 mt in 2016.

In March 2015, ParentCo initiated a 12-month review of 500,000 mtpy of smelting capacity for possible curtailment (partial or full), permanent closure or divestiture. This review was part of ParentCo’s target to lower Alcoa Corporation’s smelting operations on the global aluminum cost curve to the 38th percentile by 2016. As a result of this review, the decision was made to curtail the remaining capacity (74,000 mtpy) at the São Luís smelter in Brazil and the Wenatchee, WA smelter (143,000 mtpy); and undertake permanent closures of the capacity at the Warrick, IN smelter (269,000 mtpy) (includes the closure of a related coal mine) and the infrastructure of the Massena East, NY smelter (potlines were previously shut down in both 2013 and 2014). In March 2016, the Warrick smelter was permanently closed.

Separate from the smelting capacity review described above, in June 2015, ParentCo decided to permanently close the Poços de Caldas smelter (96,000 mtpy) in Brazil, which had been temporarily idle since May 2014 due to challenging global market conditions for primary aluminum and higher operating costs, which made the smelter uncompetitive. The decision to permanently close the Poços de Caldas smelter was based on the fact that these underlying conditions had not improved.

For additional information regarding the curtailments and closures, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of Operations—2016 Actions.”

Cast Products

Alcoa’s cast products business offers differentiated, value-added aluminum products that are cast into specific shapes to meet customer demand. Alcoa Corporation has 18 casthouses capable of providing value-added products to customers in growing markets, with 15 currently operating, as shown in the following table:

17

Table of Contents

Energy

Employing the Bayer Process, Alcoa refines alumina from bauxite ore. We then produce aluminum from the alumina by an electrolytic process requiring substantial amounts of electric power. Energy accounts for approximately 19% of the Company’s total alumina refining production costs. Electric power accounts for approximately 24% of the Company’s primary aluminum production costs. In 2016, Alcoa generated approximately 14% of the power used at its smelters worldwide and generally purchased the remainder under long-term arrangements. The sections below provide an overview of our energy facilities and summarize the sources of power and natural gas for our smelters and refineries.

Energy Facilities

The following table sets forth the electricity generation capacity and 2016 generation of facilities in which Alcoa Corporation has an ownership interest:

18

Table of Contents

Alumínio owns a 25.74% stake in Consórcio Machadinho, which is the owner of the Machadinho hydroelectric power plant located in southern Brazil. Alumínio also has a 42.18% interest in Energética Barra Grande S.A. (“BAESA”), which built the Barra Grande hydroelectric power plant in southern Brazil. In addition, Alumínio also has a 34.97% share in Serra do Facão Energia S.A., which built the Serra do Facão hydroelectric power plant in the southeast of Brazil. Alumínio is also participating in the Estreito hydropower project in northern Brazil, through Estreito Energia S.A. (an Alumínio wholly owned company) holding a 25.49% stake in Consórcio Estreito Energia, which is the owner of the hydroelectric power plant.

Since May 2015 (after curtailment of the Poços de Caldas and São Luís (Alumar) smelters), the excess generation capacity from the above Brazilian hydroelectric projects, of around 480MW, has been sold into the market.

Power generated from Afobaka is primarily sold to the Government of Suriname under a bilateral contract.

In 2016, Alcoa Corporation’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (“APGI”) owned and operated a 215-megawatt Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (“Yadkin”), consisting of four hydroelectric power developments (reservoirs, dams and powerhouses), known as High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows and Falls, situated along a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin River through the central part of North Carolina. In July 2016, APGI reached an agreement to sell Yadkin to Cube Hydro Partners LLC. The transaction closed in February 2017. Alcoa Corporation will pay to Arconic the net after-tax proceeds it receives in accordance with the separation and distribution agreement entered into by both companies in conjunction with the Separation Transaction. Prior to the sale, power generated from APGI’s Yadkin system was largely sold to an affiliate, Alcoa Power Marketing LLC, and then to the wholesale market. After the March 2016 closure of the Warrick smelter, approximately 36% of the capacity from the Warrick coal-fired power plant has been sold into the market under its current operating permits. APGI also owns certain FERC-regulated transmission assets in Indiana, Tennessee, New York, and Washington.

Energy Sources

Electricity

North America

The Deschambault, Baie Comeau, and Bécancour smelters in Québec purchase all or a majority of their electricity under contracts with Hydro-Québec that expire on December 31, 2029. Upon expiration, Alcoa Corporation will have the option of extending the term of the Baie Comeau contract to February 23, 2036. The smelter located in Baie Comeau, Québec purchases approximately 73% of its power needs under the Hydro-Québec contract, and the remainder from a 40% owned hydroelectric generating company, Manicouagan Power Limited Partnership.

19

Table of Contents

In the State of Washington, Alcoa Corporation’s Wenatchee smelter is served by a contract with Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 (“Chelan PUD”) under which Alcoa Corporation receives 26% of the hydropower output of Chelan PUD’s Rocky Reach and Rock Island dams. The Wenatchee smelter was curtailed in 2015.

Starting on January 1, 2013, the Intalco smelter began receiving physical power under a contract with the Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”), pursuant to which the Company receives physical power at the Northwest Power Act mandated industrial firm power (“IP”) rate through September 30, 2022. In May 2015, the contract was amended to reduce the amount of physical power received from BPA and allow for additional purchases of market power. In February and April 2016, the contract was amended again to reduce the contractual amount through February 2018.

Luminant Generation Company LLC (formerly TXU Generation Company LP) (“Luminant”) supplies all of the Rockdale smelter’s electricity requirements under a long-term power contract that does not expire until at least the end of 2038, with the parties having the right to terminate the contract after 2013 if there has been an unfavorable change in law or after 2025 if the cost of the electricity exceeds the market price. On April 29, 2014, Luminant Generation LLC, Luminant Mining Company LLC, Sandow Power Company LLC and their affiliated debtors filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Subsequently, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the debtors’ amended plan of reorganization and entered an order approving the debtor’s assumption of the Sandow Unit 4 agreement and certain other related agreements with Alcoa Corporation. In October 2016, Luminant emerged from bankruptcy.

In the Northeast, the Massena West smelter in New York receives physical power from the New York Power Authority (“NYPA”) pursuant to a contract between Alcoa and NYPA that will expire in 2019.

Australia

The Portland smelter purchased electricity from the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (“SECV”) under a contract with Alcoa Portland Aluminium Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AofA, that extended to October 2016. Upon the expiration of this contract, the Portland smelter commenced to purchase power from the National Electricity Market (“NEM”) variable spot market. In March 2010, AofA and Eastern Aluminium (Portland) Pty Ltd separately entered into fixed for floating swap contracts with Loy Yang (now AGL) in order to manage their exposure to the variable energy rates from the NEM. The fixed for floating swap contract with AGL for the Portland smelter commenced operating from the date of expiration of the contract with the SECV and was terminated in accordance with its terms, effective July 31, 2017. A new fixed for floating swap contract for the Portland smelter was entered into with AGL in January 2017 to commence August 1, 2017.

Europe

Alcoa Corporation’s smelters at San Ciprián, La Coruña and Avilés, Spain purchase electricity under bilateral power contracts that expire December 31, 2017.

A competitive bidding mechanism to allocate interruptibility rights in Spain was settled during 2014 to be applied starting from January 1, 2015 and with several auctions to allocate annual rights taking place since then. The last auction process to allocate rights took place in November 2016, where Alcoa Corporation secured 610MW of interruptibility rights for the 2017 period for the three Spanish smelters and the San Ciprián refinery.

Alcoa Corporation owns two smelters in Norway, Lista and Mosjøen, which have long-term power arrangements in place that continue until the end of 2019. Financial compensation of the indirect carbon emissions costs passed through in the electricity bill is received in accordance with EU Commission Guidelines and Norwegian compensation regime.

Iceland

Landsvirkjun, the Icelandic national power company, supplies competitively priced electricity to Alcoa’s Fjarðaál smelter in eastern Iceland under a 40-year power contract. As a result of the Separation Transaction, Landsvirkjun

20

Table of Contents

agreed to assign the power contract to Alcoa, conditioned upon Alcoa Corporation and Arconic both continuing to guarantee the obligations under the power contract. Alcoa Corporation may request Landsvirkjun to review the appropriateness of the dual guarantee going forward.

Natural Gas

Spain

To facilitate the full conversion of the San Ciprián, Spain alumina refinery from fuel oil to natural gas, in October 2013, Alumina Española SA (AE) and Gas Natural Transporte SDG SL (GN) signed a take or pay gas pipeline utilization agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, the ultimate shareholders of AE, ParentCo and Alumina Limited, agreed to guarantee the payment of AE’s contracted gas pipeline utilization over the four years of the commitment period; in the event AE fails to do so, each shareholder is responsible for its respective proportionate share (i.e., 60/40). Such commitment came into force six months after the gas pipeline was put into operation by GN. The gas pipeline was completed in January 2015 and the refinery has switched to natural gas consumption for 100% of its needs. As a result of the separation, Alcoa Corporation agreed with GN to replace the ParentCo guarantee with an Alcoa Corporation guarantee.

Natural gas is supplied to the San Ciprián, Spain alumina refinery pursuant to two supply contracts with Endesa, expiring in June and December 2017, and one supply contract with Gas Natural Fenosa (GNF), expiring in December 2017. Pursuant to the Endesa agreements, Aluminio Español SL and Alumina Limited guarantee the payment of AE’s obligations, with each shareholder being responsible for its respective proportionate share (i.e., 60/40). Pursuant to the GNF agreement, Alcoa Inespal SL and Alumina Limited guarantee the payment of AE’s obligations, each shareholder being responsible for its respective proportionate share (i.e., 60/40).

North America

In order to supply its refinery and smelters in the U.S. and Canada, Alcoa generally procures natural gas on a competitive bid basis from a variety of sources including producers in the gas production areas and independent gas marketers. Pipeline transportation may be procured directly or via the local distribution companies. Contract pricing for gas is typically based on a published industry index such as the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) price. The Company may choose to reduce its exposure to NYMEX pricing by hedging a portion of required natural gas consumption.

Australia

AofA uses gas to co-generate steam and electricity for its alumina refining processes at the Kwinana, Pinjarra and Wagerup refineries. More than 90% of AofA’s gas requirements for the remainder of the decade are secured under long-term contracts. In 2015, AofA entered into a number of long-term gas supply agreements which secured a significant portion of AofA’s gas supplies to 2032. AofA is actively involved with projects aimed at developing cost-based gas supply opportunities. In April 2016, Alcoa Energy Holdings Australia Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of AofA) sold its 20% equity interest in the Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline, which transports gas from the northwest gas fields to AofA’s alumina refineries and other users in the Southwest of Western Australia, to DUET Investment Holdings Limited.

Rolled Products

This segment represents Alcoa’s rolling mill in Warrick, Indiana, which produces aluminum sheet primarily sold directly to customers in the packaging end market for the production of aluminum cans (beverage, food, and pet food). Seasonal increases in can sheet sales are generally experienced in the second and third quarters of the year. This segment also includes Alcoa Corporation’s investment in a rolling mill in Saudi Arabia through its Ma’aden joint venture; for additional information, see the Equity Investments section of Note H to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8. (Financial Statements and Supplementary Data).

21

Table of Contents

The Warrick rolling mill supports our participation in several market segments, including beverage can sheet, food can sheet, lithographic sheet, aluminum bottle sheet, and industrial products. The term “RCS” or Rigid Container Sheet is commonly used for both beverage and food can sheet. This includes the material used to produce the body of beverage containers (bodystock), the lid of beverage containers (endstock and tabstock), the material to produce food can body and lids (food stock) and the material to produce aluminum bottles (bottlestock) and bottle closures (closure sheet). The U.S. aluminum can business comprises approximately 96% beverage can sheet and approximately 4% food can sheet. Alcoa Corporation is one of the largest food can sheet producers. The Warrick rolling mill is expected to be the sole domestic supplier of lithographic sheet, focusing on quality, reduced lead-times and delivery performance.

In 2016, our Warrick facility produced and sold 272 kMT of RCS and industrial products, of which over 90% was sold to customers in North America. The majority of its sales were coated RCS products (food stock, beverage end and tab stock). Following the Separation Transaction, both Warrick and Ma’aden supply body stock material, temporarily supplemented by Arconic’s Tennessee Operations under a transition supply agreement.

Can sheet demand is a function of consumer demand for beverages in aluminum packaging. Aluminum cans have a number of functional advantages for beverage companies, including product shelf life, carbonation retention, and logistics/distribution efficiency. Demand is mostly affected by overall demand for carbonated soft drinks (“CSDs”) and beer. CSDs and beer compose approximately 60% and 40%, respectively, of overall aluminum can demand. In recent years, CSDs sales have been declining 1% to 4% year over year. At the same time, the aluminum can’s share of the beer segment has grown, nearly offsetting the drop in CSDs sales. In 2016, the U.S./Canada aluminum can shipments reached 94.3 billion cans, a growth of 1.2% over 2015. Alcoholic can shipments reached 37.9 billion cans, growing 2.6% year over year, while non-alcoholic can shipments were 56.4 billion, flat year over year.

Sources and Availability of Raw Materials

Generally, materials are purchased from third-party suppliers under competitively priced supply contracts or bidding arrangements. The Company believes that the raw materials necessary to its business are and will continue to be available.

For each metric ton of alumina produced, Alcoa Corporation consumes the following amounts of the identified raw material inputs (approximate range across relevant facilities):

For each metric ton of aluminum produced, Alcoa Corporation consumes the following amounts of the identified raw material inputs (approximate range across relevant facilities):

22

Table of Contents

Certain aluminum we produce includes alloying materials. Because of the number of different types of elements that can be used to produce our various alloys, providing a range of such elements would not be meaningful. With the exception of a very small number of internally used products, Alcoa produces its alloys in adherence to an Aluminum Association standard. The Aluminum Association, of which Alcoa Corporation is an active member, uses a specific designation system to identify alloy types. In general, each alloy type has a major alloying element other than aluminum but will also have other constituents as well, but of lesser amounts.

Competition

Alcoa is subject to highly competitive conditions in all aspects of the aluminum supply chain in which it competes. Competitors include a variety of both U.S. and non-U.S. companies in all major markets. Brand name recognition and loyalty also play a role. In addition Alcoa’s competitive position depends, in part, on the Company’s access to an economical power supply to sustain its operations in various countries.

Bauxite:

The third-party market for metallurgical grade bauxite is relatively new and growing quickly as global demand for bauxite increases—particularly in China. The majority of bauxite mined globally is converted to alumina for the production of aluminum metal. While Alcoa has historically mined bauxite for internal consumption in our alumina refineries, we are focused on building our third-party bauxite business to meet growing demand. We sold 6.4 million tons of bauxite to a diverse third-party customer base in 2016.

Competitors in the third-party bauxite market include Rio Tinto Alcan, Norsk Hydro and multiple suppliers from Guinea, Malaysia, India and other countries. We compete largely based on bauxite quality, price and proximity to end markets. Alcoa Corporation has a strong competitive position in this market for the following reasons:

Contracts for bauxite have generally been short-term contracts (two years or less in duration) with spot pricing and adjustments for quality and logistics, although we are currently pursuing long-term contracts with potential customers. The primary customer base for third-party bauxite is located in Asia—particularly China.

Alumina:

The alumina market is global and highly competitive, with many active suppliers including producers as well as commodity traders. Alcoa faces competition from a number of companies in all of the regions in which we operate, including Aluminum Corporation of China Limited, China Hongqiao Group Limited, Hindalco Industries Ltd., Hangzhou Jinjiang Group, National Aluminium Company Limited (“NALCO”), Noranda Aluminum Holding Corporation, Norsk Hydro ASA, Rio Tinto Inc., South32 Limited, State Power Investment Corporation, United Company RUSAL Plc, and Chiping Xinfa Alumina Product Co., Ltd. In recent years, there has been significant growth in alumina refining in China and India. The majority of our product is sold in the form of smelter grade alumina, with 5% to 10% of total global alumina production being produced for non-metallurgical applications.

23

Table of Contents

Key factors influencing competition in the alumina market include: cost position, price, reliability of bauxite supply, quality and proximity to customers and end markets. While we face competition from many industry players, we have several competitive advantages:

Contracts for smelter grade alumina are often multi-year, although contract structures have evolved from primarily long-term contracts with fixed or LME-based pricing to shorter-term contracts with more frequent pricing adjustment. A significant development occurred in the pricing structure for alumina beginning in 2010. Traditionally, most alumina outside of China had been sold to third party smelters with the price calculated as a percentage of the LME aluminum price.

In 2010, a number of key commodity information service providers began publishing daily and weekly alumina (spot) pricing assessments or indices. Since that time, Alcoa has been systematically moving its third-party alumina sales contracts away from LME aluminum-based pricing to published alumina spot or index pricing, thus de-linking the price for alumina from the aluminum price to better reflect alumina’s distinct fundamentals. In 2016, approximately 85% of Alcoa Corporation’s smelter grade alumina shipments to third parties were sold at published spot/index prices (compared to 54% in 2013 and 37% in 2012). We expect a similar percentage of our third-party alumina shipments to be based on API or spot pricing in 2017 as in 2016.

Alcoa’s largest customer for smelter grade alumina is its own aluminum smelters, which in 2016 accounted for approximately 34% of its total alumina sales. Remaining sales are made to customers all over the world and are typically priced by reference to published spot market prices.

Primary Aluminum / Cast Products

The market for primary aluminum is global, and demand for aluminum varies widely from region to region. We compete with commodity traders and aluminum producers such as Aluminum Corporation of China Limited, China Hongqiao Group Limited, East Hope Group Co. Ltd., Emirates Global Aluminum, Norsk Hydro, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., Shandong Xinfa Aluminum & Power Group, State Power Investment Co. (“SPIC”), United Company RUSAL Plc as well as with alternative materials such as steel, titanium, copper, carbon fiber, composites, plastic and glass, each of which may be substituted for aluminum in certain applications.

The aluminum industry itself is highly competitive; some of the most critical competitive factors in our industry are product quality, production costs (including source and cost of energy), price, proximity to customers and end markets, timeliness of delivery, customer service (including technical support), and product innovation and breadth of offerings. Where aluminum products compete with other materials, the diverse characteristics of aluminum are also a significant factor, particularly its light weight and recyclability.

In addition, in some end-use markets, competition is also affected by customer requirements that suppliers complete a qualification process to supply their plants. This process can be rigorous and may take many months to complete. However, the ability to obtain and maintain these qualifications can represent a competitive advantage.

24

Table of Contents

In recent years, we have seen increasing trade flows between regions despite shipping costs, import duties and the lack of localized customer support. There is a growing trade in higher value-added products, with recent trade patterns seeing more flow toward the deficit regions. However, suppliers in emerging markets may export lower value-added or even commodity aluminum products to larger, more mature markets, as we have seen recently with China.

The strength of our position in the primary aluminum market is largely attributable to the following factors:

Contracts for primary aluminum vary widely in duration, from multi-year supply contracts to monthly or weekly spot purchases. Pricing for primary aluminum products is typically comprised of three components: (i) the published LME aluminum price for commodity grade P1020 aluminum, (ii) the published regional premium applicable to the delivery locale and (iii) a negotiated product premium which accounts for factors such as shape and alloy.

Energy

Unlike bauxite, alumina and aluminum, electricity markets are regional. They are limited in size by physical and regulatory constraints, including the physical inability to transport electricity efficiently over long distances, the design of the electric grid, including interconnections, and by the regulatory structure imposed by various federal and state entities. Alcoa owns generation and transmission assets that produce and sell electric energy and ancillary services in the United States and Brazilian wholesale energy markets. Our competitors include integrated electric utilities that may be owned by governments (either fully or partially), cooperatives or investors, independent power producers and energy brokers and traders.

Competition factors in open power markets include fuel supply, production costs, operational reliability, access to the power grid, and environmental attributes (e.g., green power and renewable energy credits). As electricity is difficult and cost prohibitive to store, there are no electricity inventories to cushion the impact of supply and demand factors and the resultant pricing in electricity markets may be volatile. Demand for power varies greatly both seasonally and by time of day. Supply may be impacted in the short term by unplanned generator outages or transmission congestion and longer term by planned generator outages, droughts, high precipitation levels and fuel pricing (coal and/or natural gas).

Electricity contracts may be very short term (real-time), short term (day ahead) or years in duration, and contracts can be executed for immediate delivery or years in advance. Pricing may be fixed, indexed to an underlying fuel source or other index such as LME, cost-based or based on regional market pricing. Pricing may be all inclusive on a per energy

25

Table of Contents

unit delivered basis (e.g., dollars per megawatt hour) or the components may be separated and include a demand or capacity charge, an energy charge, an ancillary services charge and a transmission charge to make the delivered energy conform to customer requirements.

Alcoa’s energy assets enjoy several competitive advantages, when compared to other power suppliers:

Rolled Products

Rolled Products participates in various market segments, including beverage can sheet, food can sheet, lithographic sheet, aluminum bottle sheet, and industrial products. The term “RCS” or Rigid Container Sheet is commonly used for both beverage and food can sheet. The Warrick rolling mill competes with other North American producers of RCS products, namely Novelis Corp, Tri-Arrows Aluminum, and Constellium NV. The Warrick rolling mill is expected to be the sole domestic supplier of lithographic sheet, focusing on quality, reduced lead-times and delivery performance.

Buyers of RCS products in North America are large and concentrated and have significant market power. There are essentially five buyers of all the U.S. can sheet sold in the beverage industry (three can makers and the two beverage companies). In 2016, we estimate the North American (Canada/U.S./Mexico) aluminum can sheet buyers and their share of the industry are: AB-Inbev (>39%), Coke (>21%), Ball (>18%), Crown (>15%), Ardagh (>5%) and others (2%). Buyers traditionally buy RCS in proportions that represent the full aluminum can (80% body stock, 20% end and tab stock). In addition, as the aluminum can sheet represents approximately 60% of their manufacturing costs, there is a heavy focus on cost.

In 2016, our Warrick facility produced and sold 272 kMT of RCS and industrial products, of which over 90% was sold to customers in North America. The majority of its sales were coated RCS products (food stock, beverage end and tab stock). Following the Separation Transaction, both Warrick and Ma’aden supply body stock material, temporarily supplemented by Arconic’s Tennessee Operations under a transition supply agreement.

We also compete with competitive package types including PET bottles, glass bottles, steel tin plate and other materials. In the U.S., aluminum cans, PET bottles and glass bottles represent approximately 69%, 29% and 2%, respectively, of the CSDs segment. In the beer segment, aluminum cans, glass bottles, and aluminum bottles represent approximately 73-74%, 21-22% and 5%, respectively, of the business. In the food can segment, steel tin plate cans and aluminum food cans represent approximately 83% and 17%, respectively, with aluminum cans representing approximately 52% of the pet food segment.

We compete on cost, quality, and service. Alcoa Corporation intends to continue to improve our cost position by increasing recycled aluminum content in our metal feedstock as well as continuing to focus on capacity utilization. We believe our team of technical and operational resources provides distinctive quality and customer service.

Patents, Trade Secrets and Trademarks

The Company believes that its domestic and international patent, trade secret and trademark assets provide it with a significant competitive advantage. The Company’s rights under its patents, as well as the products made and sold under

26

Table of Contents

them, are important to the Company as a whole and, to varying degrees, important to each business segment. Alcoa’s business as a whole is not, however, materially dependent on any single patent, trade secret or trademark. As a result of product development and technological advancement, the Company continues to pursue patent protection in jurisdictions throughout the world. As of December 31, 2016, Alcoa’s worldwide patent portfolio consisted of approximately 600 granted patents and 285 pending patent applications.

The Company also has a number of domestic and international registered trademarks that have significant recognition within the markets that are served, including the name “Alcoa” and the Alcoa symbol for aluminum products. Our rights under its trademarks are important to the Company as a whole and, to varying degrees, important to each business segment.

As part of the Separation Transaction, two Arconic businesses, Alcoa Wheels and Spectrochemical Standards, have ongoing rights to use the Alcoa name. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions, and Director Independence—Agreements with Arconic—Intellectual Property License Agreements.”

Research and Development

Expenditures for research and development activities (“R&D”) were $33 million in 2016, $69 million in 2015, and $95 million in 2014.

Environmental Matters

Alcoa Corporation is subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, including those relating to the release or discharge of materials into the air, water and soil, waste management, pollution prevention measures, the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, the exposure of persons to hazardous materials, greenhouse gas emissions, and the health and safety of our employees. We participate in environmental assessments and cleanups at approximately 60 locations. These include owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, previously owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, and waste sites, including Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”)) sites. Approved capital expenditures for new or expanded facilities for environmental control were approximately $68 million for 2016 and are approximately $119 million for 2017. Additional information relating to environmental matters is included in Note R to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Contingencies and Commitments—Environmental Matters.”

Employees

Alcoa’s total worldwide employment at the end of 2016 was approximately 14,000 employees in 15 countries. Approximately 9,750 of these employees are represented by labor unions. The Company believes that relations with its employees and any applicable union representatives generally are good.

In the U.S., approximately 1,950 employees are represented by various labor unions. The largest collective bargaining agreement is the master collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers (“USW”). The USW master agreement covers approximately 1,400 employees at six U.S. locations. There are three other collective bargaining agreements in the U.S. with varying expiration dates. On a regional basis, collective bargaining agreements with varying expiration dates cover approximately 2,100 employees in Europe, 2,000 employees in Canada, 850 employees in Central and South America, and 2,750 employees in Australia.

27

Table of Contents

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The names, ages, positions and areas of responsibility of the executive officers of the Company as of March 1, 2017 are listed below.

Roy C. Harvey, 43, is the Chief Executive Officer of Alcoa Corporation. Mr. Harvey served as Executive Vice President of ParentCo and President of ParentCo’s Global Primary Products from October 2015 to November 2016. From June 2014 to October 2015, he was Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability at ParentCo. Prior to that, Mr. Harvey was Chief Operating Officer for Global Primary Products at ParentCo from July 2013 to June 2014, and was Chief Financial Officer for Global Primary Products from December 2011 to July 2013. In addition to these roles, Mr. Harvey served as Director of Investor Relations at ParentCo from September 2010 to November 2011 and was Director of Corporate Treasury from January 2010 to September 2010. Mr. Harvey joined ParentCo in 2002 as a business analyst for Global Primary Products in Knoxville, Tennessee.

William F. Oplinger, 50, is Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Alcoa Corporation. Mr. Oplinger served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ParentCo from April 1, 2013 to November 2016. Mr. Oplinger joined ParentCo in 2000 and held key corporate positions in financial analysis and planning and as Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Oplinger also held key positions in the ParentCo’s Global Primary Products business, including as Controller, Operational Excellence Director, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Operating Officer.

Tómas M. Sigurðsson, 49, is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Alcoa Corporation. Mr. Sigurðsson served as Chief Operating Officer of ParentCo’s Global Primary Products business from 2014 to November 2016. Mr. Sigurðsson was President of ParentCo’s European Region and Global Primary Products Europe from 2012 to 2014. From 2004 to 2011, Mr. Sigurðsson was Managing Director of Alcoa Iceland.

Leigh Ann Fisher, 50, is Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, overseeing Human Resources, Shared Services, Procurement and Information Technology of Alcoa Corporation. Ms. Fisher served as Chief Financial Officer of ParentCo’s Global Primary Products business from July 2013 to November 2016. Ms. Fisher was Group Controller for Global Primary Products at ParentCo from 2011 to 2013. From 2008 to 2011, Ms. Fisher was Group Controller for ParentCo’s Engineered Products and Solutions business.

Jeffrey D. Heeter, 51, is Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Alcoa Corporation. Mr. Heeter served as Assistant General Counsel of ParentCo from 2014 to November 2016. Mr. Heeter was Group Counsel for Global Primary Products at ParentCo from 2010 to 2014. From 2008 to 2010, Mr. Heeter was General Counsel of Alcoa of Australia in Perth, Australia.

Molly S. Beerman, 53, has been Vice President and Controller of Alcoa Corporation since December 2016. Ms. Beerman previously served as the Director, Global Shared Services Strategy and Solutions for Alcoa Corporation, with responsibility for the strategy, planning and implementation of transformation activities for Alcoa Corporation’s shared services organization beginning in November 2016. From January through October of 2016, prior to the Company’s Separation Transaction from ParentCo, Ms. Beerman was a consultant to ParentCo’s finance department and provided services in support of the Separation Transaction. From 2012 to 2015, she served as Vice President, Finance and Administration for a non-profit organization focused on community issues. Ms. Beerman first joined ParentCo in 2001, and was the director of ParentCo’s global procurement center of excellence from 2008 to 2012.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors.

Alcoa’s business, financial condition and results of operations may be impacted by a number of factors. In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this report, the following risks and uncertainties could materially harm its business, financial condition or results of operations, including causing Alcoa’s actual results to differ materially from those

28

Table of Contents

projected in any forward-looking statements. The following list of significant risk factors is not all-inclusive or necessarily in order of importance. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to Alcoa or that Alcoa currently deems immaterial also may materially adversely affect us in future periods.

Risks Related to Our Business

The aluminum industry and aluminum end-use markets are highly cyclical and are influenced by a number of factors, including global economic conditions.

The aluminum industry generally is highly cyclical, and we are subject to cyclical fluctuations in global economic conditions and aluminum end-use markets. The demand for aluminum is sensitive to, and quickly impacted by, demand for the finished goods manufactured by our customers in industries that are cyclical, such as the commercial construction and transportation, automotive, and aerospace industries, which may change as a result of changes in the global economy, currency exchange rates, energy prices or other factors beyond our control. The demand for aluminum is highly correlated to economic growth. For example, the European sovereign debt crisis that began in late 2009 had an adverse effect on European demand for aluminum and aluminum products. The Chinese market is a significant source of global demand for, and supply of, commodities, including aluminum. A sustained slowdown in China’s economic growth and aluminum demand, or a significant slowdown in other markets, that is not offset by decreases in supply of aluminum or increased aluminum demand in emerging economies, such as India, Brazil, and several South East Asian countries, could have an adverse effect on the global supply and demand for aluminum and aluminum prices.

While we believe the long-term prospects for aluminum and aluminum products are positive, we are unable to predict the future course of industry variables or the strength of the global economy and the effects of government intervention. Negative economic conditions, such as a major economic downturn, a prolonged recovery period, a downturn in the commodity sector, or disruptions in the financial markets, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

While the aluminum market is often the leading cause of changes in the alumina and bauxite markets, those markets also have industry-specific risks including, but not limited to, global freight markets, energy markets, and regional supply-demand imbalances. The aluminum industry specific risks can have a material effect on profitability for the alumina and bauxite markets.

We could be materially adversely affected by declines in aluminum prices, including global, regional and product-specific prices.

The overall price of primary aluminum consists of several components: (i) the underlying base metal component, which is typically based on quoted prices from the LME; (ii) the regional premium, which comprises the incremental price over the base LME component that is associated with the physical delivery of metal to a particular region (e.g., the Midwest premium for metal sold in the United States); and (iii) the product premium, which represents the incremental price for receiving physical metal in a particular shape (e.g., coil, billet, slab, rod, etc.) or alloy. Each of the above three components has its own drivers of variability. The LME price is typically driven by macroeconomic factors, global supply and demand of aluminum (including expectations for growth and contraction and the level of global inventories), and trading activity of financial investors. An imbalance in global supply and demand of aluminum, such as decreasing demand without corresponding supply declines, could have a negative impact on aluminum pricing. Speculative trading in aluminum and the influence of hedge funds and other financial institutions participating in commodity markets have also increased in recent years, contributing to higher levels of price volatility. In 2016, the cash LME price of aluminum reached a high of $1,777 per metric ton and a low of $1,453 per metric ton. High LME inventories, or the release of substantial inventories into the market, could lead to a reduction in the price of aluminum. Declines in the LME price have had a negative impact on our results of operations. Additionally, our results could be adversely affected by decreases in regional premiums that participants in the physical metal market pay for immediate delivery of aluminum. Regional premiums tend to vary based on the supply of and

29

Table of Contents

demand for metal in a particular region and associated transportation costs. LME warehousing rules and surpluses have caused regional premiums to decrease, which would have a negative impact on our results of operations. Product premiums generally are a function of supply and demand for a given primary aluminum shape and alloy combination in a particular region. Periods of industry overcapacity may also result in a weak aluminum pricing environment. A sustained weak LME aluminum pricing environment, deterioration in LME aluminum prices, or a decrease in regional premiums or product premiums could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations or cash flow.

Most of our alumina contracts contain two pricing components: (1) the API price basis and (2) a negotiated adjustment basis that takes into account various factors, including freight, quality, customer location and market conditions. Because the API component can exhibit significant volatility due to market exposure, revenue associated with our alumina operations are exposed to market pricing. Our bauxite-related contracts are typically one to two-year contracts with very little, if any, market exposure; however, we intend to enter into long-term bauxite contracts and therefore, our revenue associated with our bauxite operations may become further exposed to market pricing.

Changes to LME warehousing rules could cause aluminum prices to decrease.

Since 2013, the LME has been engaged in a program aimed at reforming the rules under which registered warehouses in its global network operate. The initial rule changes took effect on February 1, 2015. Additional changes occurred throughout 2015 and 2016, culminating in an increased minimum daily load-out rate and caps on warehouse charges. These rule changes, and any subsequent changes the exchange chooses to make, could impact the supply/demand balance in the primary aluminum physical market and may impact regional delivery premiums and LME aluminum prices. Decreases in regional delivery premiums and/or decreases in LME aluminum prices could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations or cash flow.

We may not be able to realize the expected benefits from our strategy of creating a lower cost, competitive commodity business by optimizing our portfolio.

We are continuing to execute a strategy of creating a lower cost, competitive integrated aluminum production business by optimizing our portfolio. We are creating a competitive standalone business by taking decisive actions to lower the cost base of our upstream operations, including closing, selling or curtailing high-cost global smelting capacity, optimizing alumina refining capacity, and pursuing the sale of our interest in certain other operations.

We have made, and may continue to plan and execute, acquisitions and divestitures and take other actions to grow or streamline our portfolio. There is no assurance that anticipated benefits of our strategic actions will be realized. With respect to portfolio optimization actions such as divestitures, curtailments and closures, we may face barriers to exit from unprofitable businesses or operations, including high exit costs or objections from various stakeholders. In addition, we may incur unforeseen liabilities for divested entities if a buyer fails to honor all commitments. Our business operations are capital intensive, and curtailment or closure of operations or facilities may include significant charges, including employee Separation Transaction costs, asset impairment charges and other measures. There can be no assurance that divestitures or closures will be undertaken or completed in their entirety as planned at the anticipated cost, or that such actions will be beneficial to the Company.

Market-driven balancing of global aluminum supply and demand may be disrupted by non-market forces or other impediments to production closures.

In response to market-driven factors relating to the global supply and demand of aluminum and alumina, we have curtailed or closed portions of our aluminum and alumina production capacity. Certain other industry producers have independently undertaken to reduce production as well. Reductions in production may be delayed or impaired by the terms of long-term contracts to buy power or raw materials.

30

Table of Contents

The existence of non-market forces on global aluminum industry capacity, such as political pressures in certain countries to keep jobs or to maintain or further develop industry self-sufficiency, may prevent or delay the closure or curtailment of certain producers’ smelters, irrespective of their position on the industry cost curve. For example, Chinese excess capacity and increased exports from China of heavily subsidized aluminum products could materially disrupt world aluminum markets causing pricing deterioration. If industry overcapacity exists due to the disruption by such non-market forces on the market-driven balancing of the global supply and demand of aluminum, a resulting weak pricing environment and margin compression may adversely affect the operating results of the Company.

Our operations consume substantial amounts of energy; profitability may decline if energy costs rise or if energy supplies are interrupted.

Our operations consume substantial amounts of energy. Although we generally expect to meet the energy requirements for our alumina refineries and primary aluminum smelters from internal sources or from long-term contracts, certain conditions could negatively affect our results of operations, including the following:

If events such as those listed above were to occur, the resulting high energy costs or the disruption of an energy source or the requirement to repay all or a portion of the benefit we received under a power supply interruptibility regime could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our global operations expose us to risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows.

We have operations or activities in numerous countries and regions outside the United States, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe, Guinea, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Company’s global operations are subject to a number of risks, including:

31

Table of Contents

While the impact of any of the foregoing factors is difficult to predict, any one or more of them could adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows. Existing insurance arrangements may not provide protection for the costs that may arise from such events.

Our global operations expose us to various legal and regulatory systems, and changes in conditions beyond our control in foreign countries.

In addition to the business risks inherent in operating outside the United States, legal and regulatory systems may be less developed and predictable and the possibility of various types of adverse governmental action more pronounced. Unexpected or uncontrollable events or circumstances in any of these foreign markets, including actions by foreign governments such as changes in fiscal regimes, termination of our agreements with such foreign governments or increased government regulation could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Substantial changes to fiscal, tax and trade policies and legislation could affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Executive and legislative actions, including changes in fiscal, tax and trade policies, may adversely affect our business. At this time it is unclear what the new U.S. administration and Congress may do with respect to these policies, regulations, and legislation. The new U.S. administration has called for substantial changes to U.S. trade policy and has raised the possibility of imposing significant increases in U.S. import tariffs. Changes in international trade agreements, regulations, restrictions, and tariffs may increase our operating costs and make it more difficult for us to compete in the U.S. and overseas markets, and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely impacted.

We face significant competition, which may have an adverse effect on profitability.

We compete with a variety of both U.S. and non-U.S. aluminum industry competitors. Our metals also compete with other materials, such as steel, titanium, plastics, composites, ceramics, and glass, among others. Technological advancements or other developments by or affecting Alcoa’s competitors or customers could affect our results of operations. In addition, our competitive position depends, in part, on its ability to leverage its innovation expertise across its businesses and key end markets and having access to an economical power supply to sustain its operations in various countries. See “Business—Competition.”

Our business is capital intensive, and if there are downturns in the industries that we serve, we may be forced to significantly curtail or suspend operations with respect to those industries, which could result in our recording asset impairment charges or taking other measures that may adversely affect our results of operations and profitability.

Our business operations are capital intensive, and we devote a significant amount of capital to certain industries. If there are downturns in the industries that we serve, we may be forced to significantly curtail or suspend our operations with respect to those industries, including laying-off employees, recording asset impairment charges and other measures. In addition, we may not realize the benefits or expected returns from announced plans, programs, initiatives and capital investments. Any of these events could adversely affect our results of operations and profitability.

Our business and growth prospects may be negatively impacted by limits in our capital expenditures.

We require substantial capital to invest in growth opportunities and to maintain and prolong the life and capacity of our existing facilities. Insufficient cash generation or capital project overruns may negatively impact our ability to fund as planned our sustaining and return-seeking capital projects. We may also need to address commercial and political

32

Table of Contents

issues in relation to reductions in capital expenditures in certain of the jurisdictions in which we operate. If our interest in our joint ventures is diluted or we lose key concessions, our growth could be constrained. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Our capital resources may not be adequate to provide for all of our cash requirements, and we are exposed to risks associated with financial, credit, capital and banking markets.

In the ordinary course of business, we expect to seek to access competitive financial, credit, capital and/or banking markets. Currently, we believe we have adequate access to these markets to meet our reasonably anticipated business needs based on our historic financial performance, as well as our expected continued strong financial position. To the extent our access to competitive financial, credit, capital and/or banking markets was to be impaired, our operations, financial results and cash flows could be adversely impacted.

Deterioration in our credit profile could increase our costs of borrowing money and limit our access to the capital markets and commercial credit.

The major credit rating agencies evaluate our creditworthiness and give us specified credit ratings. These ratings are based on a number of factors, including our financial strength and financial policies as well as our strategies, operations and execution. These credit ratings are limited in scope, and do not address all material risks related to investment in us, but rather reflect only the view of each rating agency at the time the rating is issued. Nonetheless, the credit ratings we receive impact our borrowing costs as well as our access to sources of capital on terms that will be advantageous to our business. Failure to obtain sufficiently high credit ratings could adversely affect the interest rate in future financings, our liquidity or our competitive position and could also restrict our access to capital markets. In addition, our credit ratings could be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in its judgment, the circumstances warrant. If a rating agency were to downgrade our rating, our borrowing costs would increase, and our funding sources could decrease. As a result of these factors, a downgrade of our credit ratings could have a materially adverse impact on our future operations and financial position.

Our indebtedness restricts our current and future operations, which could adversely affect our ability to respond to changes in our business and manage our operations.

On September 16, 2016, Alcoa and Alcoa Nederland Holding B.V. (“ANHBV”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcoa, entered into a revolving credit agreement with a syndicate of lenders and issuers named therein, as amended, (the “Revolving Credit Agreement”). The terms of the Revolving Credit Agreement and the indenture governing our notes include a number of restrictive covenants that impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us, including restrictions on our ability to, among other things:

33

Table of Contents

In addition, the Revolving Credit Agreement requires us to comply with financial covenants. The Revolving Credit Agreement requires that we maintain a leverage ratio no greater than 2.25 to 1.00 and an interest expense coverage ratio no less than 5.00 to 1.00, in each case, for any period of four consecutive fiscal quarters of Alcoa.

For more information on the restrictive covenants in the Revolving Credit Agreement, see Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Financing Activities.”

Our ability to comply with these agreements may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. These covenants could have an adverse effect on our business by limiting our ability to take advantage of financing, merger and acquisition or other opportunities. The breach of any of these covenants or restrictions could result in a default under the Revolving Credit Agreement or the indenture governing our notes.

Our failure to comply with the agreements relating to our outstanding indebtedness, including as a result of events beyond our control, could result in an event of default that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

If there were an event of default under any of the agreements relating to our outstanding indebtedness, including the Revolving Credit Agreement and the indenture governing our notes, we may not be able to incur additional indebtedness under the Revolving Credit Agreement and the holders of the defaulted debt could cause all amounts outstanding with respect to that debt to be due and payable immediately. We cannot assure you that our assets or cash flow would be sufficient to fully repay borrowings under our outstanding debt instruments if accelerated upon an event of default, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to operate as a going concern. Further, if we are unable to repay, refinance or restructure our secured indebtedness, the holders of such indebtedness could proceed against the collateral securing that indebtedness. In addition, any event of default or declaration of acceleration under one debt instrument also could result in an event of default under one or more of our other debt instruments.

We may not realize expected benefits from our productivity and cost-reduction initiatives.

We have undertaken, and may continue to undertake, productivity and cost-reduction initiatives to improve performance and conserve cash, including procurement strategies for raw materials, labor productivity, improving operating performance, deployment of Company-wide business process models, such as our degrees of implementation process in which ideas are executed in a disciplined manner to generate savings, and overhead cost reductions. There is no assurance that these initiatives will be successful or beneficial to us or that estimated cost savings from such activities will be realized.

Cyber attacks and security breaches may threaten the integrity of our intellectual property and other sensitive information, disrupt our business operations, and result in reputational harm and other negative consequences that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We face global cybersecurity threats, which may range from uncoordinated individual attempts to sophisticated and targeted measures, known as advanced persistent threats, directed at the Company. Cyber attacks and security breaches may include, but are not limited to, attempts to access information, computer viruses, denial of service and other electronic security breaches.

We believe that we face a heightened threat of cyber attacks due to the industries we serve and the locations of our operations. We have experienced cybersecurity attacks in the past, including breaches of our information technology systems in which information was taken, and may experience them in the future, potentially with more frequency or sophistication. Based on information known to date, past attacks have not had a material impact on our financial condition

34

Table of Contents

or results of operations. However, due to the evolving nature of cybersecurity threats, the scope and impact of any future incident cannot be predicted. While the Company continually works to safeguard our systems and mitigate potential risks, there is no assurance that such actions will be sufficient to prevent cyber attacks or security breaches that manipulate or improperly use our systems or networks, compromise confidential or otherwise protected information, destroy or corrupt data, or otherwise disrupt our operations. The occurrence of such events could negatively impact our reputation and our competitive position and could result in litigation with third parties, regulatory action, loss of business, potential liability and increased remediation costs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, such attacks or breaches could require significant management attention and resources, and result in the diminution of the value of our investment in research and development.

Our profitability could be adversely affected by increases in the cost of raw materials, by significant lag effects of decreases in commodity or LME-linked costs or by large or sudden shifts in the global inventory of aluminum and the resulting market price impacts.

Our results of operations are affected by changes in the cost of raw materials, including energy, carbon products, caustic soda and other key inputs, as well as freight costs associated with transportation of raw materials to refining and smelting locations. We may not be able to fully offset the effects of higher raw material costs or energy costs through price increases, productivity improvements or cost reduction programs. Similarly, our operating results are affected by significant lag effects of declines in key costs of production that are commodity or LME-linked. For example, declines in the costs of alumina and power during a particular period may not be adequate to offset sharp declines in metal price in that period. We could also be adversely affected by large or sudden shifts in the global inventory of aluminum and the resulting market price impacts. Increases in the cost of raw materials or decreases in input costs that are disproportionate to concurrent sharper decreases in the price of aluminum, or shifts in global inventory of aluminum that result in changes to market prices, could have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

Joint ventures and other strategic alliances may not be successful.

We participate in joint ventures and have formed strategic alliances and may enter into other similar arrangements in the future. For example, AWAC is an unincorporated global joint venture between Alcoa and Alumina Limited. AWAC consists of a number of affiliated entities, which own, operate or have an interest in, bauxite mines and alumina refineries, as well as an aluminum smelter, in seven countries. In addition, Alcoa Corporation is party to a joint venture with Ma’aden, the Saudi Arabian Mining Company, to develop a fully integrated aluminum complex (including a bauxite mine, alumina refinery, aluminum smelter and rolling mill) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Although the Company has, in connection with these and our other existing joint ventures and strategic alliances, sought to protect our interests, joint ventures and strategic alliances inherently involve special risks. Whether or not the Company holds majority interests or maintains operational control in such arrangements, our partners may:

There can be no assurance that our joint ventures or strategic alliances will be beneficial to us, whether due to the above-described risks, unfavorable global economic conditions, increases in construction costs, currency fluctuations, political risks, or other factors.

35

Table of Contents

We could be adversely affected by changes in the business or financial condition of a significant customer or joint venture partner.

A significant downturn or deterioration in the business or financial condition of a key customer or joint venture partner could affect our results of operations in a particular period. Our customers may experience delays in the launch of new products, labor strikes, diminished liquidity or credit unavailability, weak demand for their products or other difficulties in their businesses. If we are not successful in replacing business lost from such customers, profitability may be adversely affected. Our joint venture partners could be rendered unable to contribute their share of operating or capital costs, having an adverse impact on our business.

Customer concentration and supplier capacity in the Rolled Products segment could adversely impact margins.

Our Rolled Products segment primarily serves the North American aluminum food and beverage can and bottle markets. Four aluminum can and bottle manufacturers comprise over 90% of the aluminum beverage can and bottle market; Rolled Products competes with both domestic and foreign sheet rolling mills to supply these manufacturers. In this segment, customers tend to sign multiple year supply contracts for the vast majority of their requirements. Our customer mix reflects industry concentrations and norms; loss of existing customers or renegotiated pricing on new contracts could adversely affect both operating levels and profitability.

An adverse decline in the liability discount rate, lower-than-expected investment return on pension assets and other factors could affect our results of operations or amount of pension funding contributions in future periods.

Our results of operations may be negatively affected by the amount of expense we record for our pension and other post-retirement benefit plans, reductions in the fair value of plan assets and other factors. We calculate income or expense for our plans using actuarial valuations in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

These valuations reflect assumptions about financial market and other economic conditions, which may change based on changes in key economic indicators. The most significant year-end assumptions used by the Company to estimate pension or other postretirement benefit income or expense for the following year are the discount rate applied to plan liabilities and the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets. In addition, the Company is required to make an annual measurement of plan assets and liabilities, which may result in a significant charge to stockholders’ equity. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” and Note N to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits.” Although GAAP expense and pension funding contributions are impacted by different regulations and requirements, the key economic factors that affect GAAP expense would also likely affect the amount of cash or securities we would contribute to the pension plans.

Potential pension contributions include both mandatory amounts required under federal law and discretionary contributions to improve the plans’ funded status. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (“MAP-21”), enacted in 2012, provided temporary relief for employers like the Company who sponsor defined benefit pension plans related to funding contributions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by allowing the use of a 25-year average discount rate within an upper and lower range for purposes of determining minimum funding obligations. In 2014, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act (“HATFA”) was signed into law. HATFA extended the relief provided by MAP-21 and modified the interest rates that had been set by MAP-21. In 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (“BBA 2015”) was enacted, which extends the relief period provided by HAFTA. We believe that the relief provided by BBA 2015 will moderately reduce the cash flow sensitivity of the Company’s U.S. pension plans’ funded status to potential declines in discount rates over the next several years. However, higher than expected pension contributions due to a decline in the plans’ funded status as a result of declines in the discount rate or lower-than-expected investment returns on plan assets could have a material negative effect on our cash flows. Adverse capital market conditions could result in reductions in the fair value of plan assets and increase our liabilities related to such plans, adversely affecting our liquidity and results of operations.

36

Table of Contents

We are exposed to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates, as well as inflation, and other economic factors in the countries in which we operate.

Economic factors, including inflation and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates, competitive factors in the countries in which we operate, and continued volatility or deterioration in the global economic and financial environment could affect our revenues, expenses and results of operations. Changes in the valuation of the U.S. dollar against other currencies, particularly the Australian dollar, Brazilian real, Canadian dollar, Euro and Norwegian kroner, may affect our profitability as some important inputs are purchased in other currencies, while our products are generally sold in U.S. dollars. In addition, although a strong U.S. dollar generally has a positive impact on our near-term profitability, over a longer term, a strong U.S. dollar may have an unfavorable impact on our position on the global aluminum cost curve due to the company’s U.S. smelting portfolio. As the U.S. dollar strengthens, the cost curve shifts down for smelters outside the United States but costs for our U.S. smelting portfolio may not decline.

Weakness in global economic conditions or in any of the industries or geographic regions in which we or our customers operate, as well as the cyclical nature of our customers’ businesses generally or sustained uncertainty in financial markets, could adversely impact our revenues and profitability by reducing demand and margins.

Our results of operations may be materially affected by the conditions in the global economy generally and in global capital markets. There has been extreme volatility in the capital markets and in the end markets and geographic regions in which we or our customers operate, which has negatively affected our revenues. Many of the markets in which our customers participate are also cyclical in nature and experience significant fluctuations in demand for our products based on economic conditions, consumer demand, raw material and energy costs, and government actions. Many of these factors are beyond our control.

A decline in consumer and business confidence and spending, together with severe reductions in the availability and cost of credit, as well as volatility in the capital and credit markets, could adversely affect the business and economic environment in which we operate and the profitability of our business. We are also exposed to risks associated with the creditworthiness of our suppliers and customers. If the availability of credit to fund or support the continuation and expansion of our customers’ business operations is curtailed or if the cost of that credit is increased, the resulting inability of our customers or of their customers to either access credit or absorb the increased cost of that credit could adversely affect our business by reducing our sales or by increasing our exposure to losses from uncollectible customer accounts. These conditions and a disruption of the credit markets could also result in financial instability of some of our suppliers and customers. The consequences of such adverse effects could include the interruption of production at the facilities of our customers, the reduction, delay or cancellation of customer orders, delays or interruptions of the supply of raw materials we purchase, and bankruptcy of customers, suppliers or other creditors. Any of these events could adversely affect our profitability, cash flow and financial condition.

Unanticipated changes in our tax provisions or exposure to additional tax liabilities could affect our future profitability.

We are subject to income taxes in both the United States and various non-U.S. jurisdictions. Our domestic and international tax liabilities are dependent upon the distribution of income among these different jurisdictions. Changes in applicable domestic or foreign tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation and application, including the possibility of retroactive effect, could affect the company’s tax expense and profitability. Our tax expense includes estimates of additional tax that may be incurred for tax exposures and reflects various estimates and assumptions. The assumptions include assessments of future earnings of the company that could impact the valuation of our deferred tax assets. Our future results of operations could be adversely affected by changes in the effective tax rate as a result of a change in the mix of earnings in countries with differing statutory tax rates, changes in the overall profitability of the company, changes in tax legislation and rates, changes in generally accepted accounting principles, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, the results of tax audits and examinations of previously filed tax returns or related litigation and continuing assessments of our tax exposures. Corporate tax reform and tax law changes

37

Table of Contents

continue to be analyzed in the United States and in many other jurisdictions. Significant changes to the U.S. corporate tax system in particular could have a substantial impact, positive or negative, on our effective tax rate, cash tax expenditures and deferred tax assets and liabilities.

We may be exposed to significant legal proceedings, investigations or changes in U.S. federal, state or foreign law, regulation or policy.

Our results of operations or liquidity in a particular period could be affected by new or increasingly stringent laws, regulatory requirements or interpretations, or outcomes of significant legal proceedings or investigations adverse to the Company. We may become subject to unexpected or rising costs associated with business operations or provision of health or welfare benefits to employees due to changes in laws, regulations or policies. We are also subject to a variety of legal compliance risks. These risks include, among other things, potential claims relating to product liability, health and safety, environmental matters, intellectual property rights, government contracts, taxes and compliance with U.S. and foreign export laws, anti-bribery laws, competition laws and sales and trading practices. We could be subject to fines, penalties, damages (in certain cases, treble damages), or suspension or debarment from government contracts. In addition, if we violate the terms of our agreements with governmental authorities, we may face additional monetary sanctions and such other remedies as a court deems appropriate.

While we believe we have adopted appropriate risk management and compliance programs to address and reduce these risks, the global and diverse nature of our operations means that these risks will continue to exist, and additional legal proceedings and contingencies may arise from time to time. In addition, various factors or developments can lead the Company to change current estimates of liabilities or make such estimates for matters previously not susceptible of reasonable estimates, such as a significant judicial ruling or judgment, a significant settlement, significant regulatory developments or changes in applicable law. A future adverse ruling or settlement or unfavorable changes in laws, regulations or policies, or other contingencies that the company cannot predict with certainty could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period. See “Item 3, Legal Proceedings” and Note R under the caption “Contingencies and Commitments—Contingencies—Litigation” to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

We are subject to a broad range of health, safety and environmental laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate and may be exposed to substantial costs and liabilities associated with such laws and regulations.

Our operations worldwide are subject to numerous complex and increasingly stringent health, safety and environmental laws and regulations. The costs of complying with such laws and regulations, including participation in assessments and cleanups of sites, as well as internal voluntary programs, are significant and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Environmental laws may impose cleanup liability on owners and occupiers of contaminated property, including past or divested properties, regardless of whether the owners and occupiers caused the contamination or whether the activity that caused the contamination was lawful at the time it was conducted. Environmental matters for which we may be liable may arise in the future at our present sites, where no problem is currently known, at previously owned sites, at sites previously operated by the Company, at sites owned by our predecessors or at sites that we may acquire in the future. Compliance with environmental, health and safety legislation and regulatory requirements may prove to be more limiting and costly than we anticipate. Our results of operations or liquidity in a particular period could be affected by certain health, safety or environmental matters, including remediation costs and damages related to certain sites. Additionally, evolving regulatory standards and expectations can result in increased litigation and/or increased costs, all of which can have a material and adverse effect on earnings and cash flows.

Climate change, climate change legislation or regulations and greenhouse effects may adversely impact our operations and markets.

Energy is a significant input in a number of our operations. There is growing recognition that consumption of energy derived from fossil fuels is a contributor to global warming.

38

Table of Contents

A number of governments or governmental bodies in areas of the world where we operate have introduced or are contemplating legislative and regulatory change in response to the potential impacts of climate change. We will likely see changes in the margins of greenhouse gas-intensive assets and energy-intensive assets as a result of regulatory impacts in the countries in which we operate. These regulatory mechanisms may be either voluntary or legislated and may impact our operations directly or indirectly through customers or our supply chain. Inconsistency of regulations may also change the attractiveness of the locations of some of the Company’s assets. Assessments of the potential impact of future climate change legislation, regulation and international treaties and accords are uncertain, given the wide scope of potential regulatory change in countries in which we operate. We may realize increased capital expenditures resulting from required compliance with revised or new legislation or regulations, costs to purchase or profits from sales of, allowances or credits under a “cap and trade” system, increased insurance premiums and deductibles as new actuarial tables are developed to reshape coverage, a change in competitive position relative to industry peers and changes to profit or loss arising from increased or decreased demand for goods produced by the Company and, indirectly, from changes in costs of goods sold.

The potential physical impacts of climate change on the Company’s operations are highly uncertain, and will be particular to the geographic circumstances. These may include changes in rainfall patterns, shortages of water or other natural resources, changing sea levels, changing storm patterns and intensities, and changing temperature levels. These effects may adversely impact the cost, production and financial performance of our operations.

Our operations may impact the environment or cause exposure to hazardous substances, and our properties may have environmental contamination, which could result in material liabilities to us.

We may be subject to claims under federal and state statutes and/or common law doctrines for toxic torts and other damages as well as for natural resource damages and the investigation and clean-up of soil, surface water, groundwater, and other media under laws such as the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilities Act (CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund). Such claims may arise, for example, out of current or former conditions at sites that we own or operate currently, as well as at sites that we and companies we acquired owned or operated in the past, and at contaminated sites that have always been owned or operated by third parties. Liability may be without regard to fault and may be joint and several, so that we may be held responsible for more than our share of the contamination or other damages, or even for the entire share.

These and other similar unforeseen impacts that our operations may have on the environment, as well as exposures to hazardous substances or wastes associated with our operations, could result in costs and liabilities that could materially and adversely affect us.

Loss of key personnel may adversely affect our business.

Our success greatly depends on the performance of our executive management team. The loss of the services of any member of our executive management team or other key persons could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Union disputes and other employee relations issues could adversely affect our financial results.

A significant portion of our employees are represented by labor unions in a number of countries under various collective bargaining agreements with varying durations and expiration dates. See “Business—Employees.” We may not be able to satisfactorily renegotiate collective bargaining agreements when they expire. In addition, existing collective bargaining agreements may not prevent a strike or work stoppage at our facilities in the future. We may also be subject to general country strikes or work stoppages unrelated to our business or collective bargaining agreements. Any such work stoppages (or potential work stoppages) could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

39

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Separation Transaction

We have only operated as an independent company since November 1, 2016, and our historical financial information is not necessarily representative of the results that we would have achieved as a separate, publicly traded company during the time periods represented and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.

The historical information about Alcoa Corporation in this report refers to Alcoa Corporation’s businesses as operated by and integrated with ParentCo prior to November 1, 2016. Our historical financial information included in this report is derived from the consolidated financial statements and accounting records of ParentCo. Accordingly, the historical financial information and fourth quarter and fiscal year financial information included in this report does not necessarily reflect the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows that we would have achieved as a separate, publicly traded company during the periods presented or those that we will achieve in the future primarily as a result of the factors described below:

Other significant changes may occur in our cost structure, management, financing and business operations as a result of operating as a company separate from ParentCo. For additional information about the past financial performance of our business and the basis of presentation of the historical consolidated financial statements, see “Selected Financial Data of Alcoa Corporation,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the historical financial statements and accompanying notes included elsewhere in this report.

We may not achieve some or all of the expected benefits of the Separation Transaction, and failure to realize such benefits in a timely manner may materially adversely affect our business.

We may not be able to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits expected to result from the Separation Transaction, or such benefits may be delayed or not occur at all. The Separation Transaction was expected to provide various benefits, including enabling each company to more effectively pursue its own distinct operating priorities and

40

Table of Contents

strategies, to focus on its core business, and to pursue distinct and targeted opportunities for long-term growth and profitability, including capital structures and capital allocation strategies. We may not achieve these and other anticipated benefits for a variety of reasons, including that we may be more susceptible to market fluctuations, including fluctuations in commodities prices than if we were still a part of ParentCo because our business is less diversified than ParentCo’s business prior to the Separation Transaction, we may be unable to obtain certain goods, services and technologies at prices or on terms as favorable as those ParentCo obtained prior to the Separation Transaction, and the Separation Transaction required and may continue to require Alcoa to pay costs that could be substantial and material to our financial resources. If we fail to achieve some or all of the benefits expected to result from the Separation Transaction, or if such benefits are delayed, it could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The costs incurred with respect to the Separation Transaction may not yield the expected benefits, which could disrupt or adversely affect our business.

The process of completing the Separation Transaction was time-consuming and involved significant costs and expenses. For example, for the first ten months of 2016, ParentCo recorded nonrecurring Separation Transaction costs of $152 million, of which $68 million was allocated to the Company, which costs were primarily related to third-party consulting, contractor fees and other incremental costs directly associated with the Separation Transaction process. The Separation Transaction costs may not yield a discernible benefit if the expected benefits of the Separation Transaction are not realized. Executing the Separation Transaction also required significant amounts of management’s time and effort, which diverted management’s attention from operating and growing our business. Other challenges associated with effectively executing and implementing the Separation Transaction include attracting, retaining and motivating employees; addressing disruptions to our supply chain, manufacturing and other operations resulting from separating ParentCo into two large but independent companies; separating ParentCo’s information systems; and establishing a new brand identity in the marketplace. We have incurred, as a result of the Separation Transaction, both one-time and ongoing costs and expenses. These increased costs and expenses arose and may continue to arise from various factors, including financial reporting, costs associated with complying with federal securities laws (including compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (“Sarbanes-Oxley”), tax administration, and legal and human resources related functions), and it is possible that these costs will be material to our business.

Challenges in the commercial and credit environment may adversely affect our future access to capital.

Our ability to issue debt or enter into other financing arrangements on acceptable terms could be adversely affected if there is a material decline in the demand for our products or in the solvency of our customers or suppliers or other significantly unfavorable changes in economic conditions. Volatility in the world financial markets could increase borrowing costs or affect our ability to access the capital markets. These conditions may adversely affect our ability to obtain and maintain investment grade credit ratings.

Our accounting and other management systems and resources may not be adequately prepared to meet the financial reporting and other requirements to which we are and will be subject as a standalone publicly traded company.

Our financial results previously were included within the consolidated results of ParentCo, and we believe that our reporting and control systems were appropriate for those of subsidiaries of a public company. However, we were not directly subject to the reporting and other requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). As a standalone, publicly traded company, we are directly subject to reporting and other obligations under the Exchange Act, and will be subject to the requirements of Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which will require annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and a report by our independent registered public accounting firm addressing these assessments, beginning with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. These reporting and other obligations will place significant demands on our management and administrative and operational resources, including accounting resources.

Implementing any appropriate changes to our internal controls may require specific compliance training for our directors, officers and employees, require the hiring of additional finance, accounting and other personnel, entail

41

Table of Contents

substantial costs to modify our existing accounting systems, and take a significant period of time to complete. Such changes may not, however, be effective in maintaining the adequacy of our internal controls, and any failure to maintain that adequacy, or consequent inability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, could increase our operating costs and could materially impair our ability to operate our business. Moreover, adequate internal controls are necessary for us to produce reliable financial reports and are important to help prevent fraud. As a result, our failure to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 on a timely basis could result in the loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

Arconic may fail to perform under various transaction agreements that were executed as part of the Separation Transaction or we may fail to have necessary systems and services in place when certain of the transaction agreements expire.

In connection with the Separation Transaction, Alcoa Corporation and Arconic entered into the separation and distribution agreement and also entered into various other agreements, including a transition services agreement, a tax matters agreement, an employee matters agreement, a stockholder and registration rights agreement with respect to Arconic’s continuing ownership of Alcoa common stock, intellectual property license agreements, a metal supply agreement, real estate and office leases, a spare parts loan agreement and an agreement relating to the North American packaging business. The separation and distribution agreement, the tax matters agreement and the employee matters agreement, together with the documents and agreements by which the internal reorganization was effected, determined the allocation of assets and liabilities between the companies following the Separation Transaction for those respective areas and included any necessary indemnifications related to liabilities and obligations. The separation and distribution agreement also provides that Alcoa will pay over to Arconic the proceeds in respect of the sale of Alcoa’s Yadkin hydroelectric project. The transition services agreement provides for the performance of certain services by each company for the benefit of the other for a period of time after the Separation Transaction. Alcoa will rely on Arconic to satisfy its performance and payment obligations under these agreements. If Arconic is unable or unwilling to satisfy its obligations under these agreements, including its indemnification obligations, we could incur operational difficulties and/or losses. If we do not have in place our own systems and services, or if we do not have agreements with other providers of these services once certain transaction agreements expire, we may not be able to operate our business effectively and our profitability may decline. We are in the process of creating our own, or engaging third parties to provide, systems and services to replace many of the systems and services that ParentCo provided to us. However, we may not be successful in implementing these systems and services, we may incur additional costs in connection with, or following, the implementation of these systems and services, and we may not be successful in transitioning data from ParentCo’s systems to ours.

In connection with our Separation Transaction from ParentCo, Arconic has agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities and we have agreed to indemnify Arconic for certain liabilities. If we are required to pay under these indemnities to Arconic, our financial results could be negatively impacted. The Arconic indemnity may not be sufficient to hold us harmless from the full amount of liabilities for which Arconic will be allocated responsibility, and Arconic may not be able to satisfy its indemnification obligations in the future.

Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement and certain other agreements with ParentCo, Arconic has agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities, and we have agreed to indemnify Arconic for certain liabilities, in each case for uncapped amounts, as discussed further in “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions.” Indemnities that we may be required to provide Arconic are not subject to any cap, may be significant and could negatively impact our business. Third parties could also seek to hold us responsible for any of the liabilities that Arconic has agreed to retain. Any amounts we are required to pay pursuant to these indemnification obligations and other liabilities could require us to divert cash that would otherwise have been used in furtherance of our operating business. Further, the indemnity from Arconic may not be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, and Arconic may not be able to fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from Arconic any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses ourselves. Each of these risks could negatively affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

42

Table of Contents

We may be held liable to Arconic if we fail to perform certain services under the transition services agreement, and the performance of such services may negatively impact our business and operations.

Alcoa Corporation and Arconic entered into a transition services agreement in connection with the Separation Transaction pursuant to which Alcoa and Arconic provide each other, on an interim, transitional basis, various services, including, but not limited to, employee benefits administration, specialized technical and training services and access to certain industrial equipment, information technology services, regulatory services, continued industrial site remediation and closure services on discrete projects, project management services for certain equipment installation and decommissioning projects, general administrative services and other support services. If we do not satisfactorily perform our obligations under the agreement, we may be held liable for any resulting losses suffered by Arconic, subject to certain limits. In addition, during the transition services periods, our management and employees may be required to divert their attention away from our business in order to provide services to Arconic, which could adversely affect our business.

We may not be able to engage in desirable capital-raising or strategic transactions following the Separation Transaction.

Under current U.S. federal income tax law, a spin-off that otherwise qualifies for tax-free treatment can be rendered taxable to the parent corporation and its stockholders as a result of certain post-spin-off transactions, including certain acquisitions of shares or assets of the spun-off corporation. To preserve the tax-free treatment of the Separation Transaction and the Distribution, and in addition to Alcoa’s indemnity obligation described above, the tax matters agreement restricts Alcoa Corporation, for the two-year period following the Distribution, except in specific circumstances, from: (i) entering into any transaction pursuant to which all or a portion of Alcoa stock would be acquired, whether by merger or otherwise, (ii) issuing equity securities beyond certain thresholds, (iii) repurchasing shares of Alcoa stock other than in certain open-market transactions, (iv) ceasing to actively conduct certain of its businesses or (v) taking or failing to take any other action that prevents the Distribution and certain related transactions from qualifying as a transaction that is generally tax-free, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code. These restrictions may limit our ability to pursue certain equity issuances, strategic transactions or other transactions that may maximize the value of our business. For more information, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions, and Director Independence—Tax Matters Agreement.”

The terms we will receive in our agreements with Arconic could be less beneficial than the terms we may have otherwise received from unaffiliated third parties.

The agreements we entered into with Arconic in connection with the Separation Transaction, including a separation and distribution agreement, a transition services agreement, a tax matters agreement, an employee matters agreement, a stockholder and registration rights agreement with respect to Arconic’s continuing ownership of Alcoa common stock, intellectual property license agreements, a metal supply agreement, real estate and office leases, a spare parts loan agreement and an agreement relating to the North American packaging business were prepared in the context of the Separation Transaction while Alcoa Corporation was still a wholly owned subsidiary of ParentCo. Accordingly, during the period in which the terms of those agreements were prepared, we did not have an independent Board of Directors or a management team that was independent of ParentCo. As a result, the terms of those agreements may not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between unaffiliated third parties. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions.”

If the Distribution, together with certain related transactions, does not continue to qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, Arconic, Alcoa Corporation, and Arconic stockholders could be subject to significant tax liabilities and, in certain circumstances, Alcoa Corporation could be required to indemnify Arconic for material taxes and other related amounts pursuant to indemnification obligations under the tax matters agreement.

It was a condition to the Distribution that (i) the private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) regarding certain U.S. federal income tax matters relating to the Separation Transaction and the Distribution received

43

Table of Contents

by ParentCo remain valid and be satisfactory to the ParentCo Board of Directors and (ii) ParentCo receive an opinion of its outside counsel, satisfactory to the ParentCo Board of Directors, regarding the qualification of the distribution, together with certain related transactions, as a transaction that is generally tax-free, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The IRS private letter ruling and the opinion of counsel were based upon and rely on, among other things, various facts and assumptions, as well as certain representations, statements and undertakings of ParentCo and Alcoa Corporation, including those relating to the past and future conduct of Arconic and Alcoa Corporation. If any of these representations, statements or undertakings is, or becomes, inaccurate or incomplete, or if Arconic or Alcoa breaches any of its representations or covenants contained in any of the Separation Transaction–related agreements and documents or in any documents relating to the IRS private letter ruling and/or the opinion of counsel, the IRS private letter ruling and/or the opinion of counsel may be invalid and the conclusions reached therein could be jeopardized.

Notwithstanding receipt of the IRS private letter ruling and the opinion of counsel, the IRS could determine that the Distribution and/or certain related transactions should be treated as taxable transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes if it determines that any of the representations, assumptions or undertakings upon which the IRS private letter ruling or the opinion of counsel was based are false or have been violated. In addition, the IRS private letter ruling does not address all of the issues that are relevant to determining whether the distribution, together with certain related transactions, qualifies as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and the opinion of counsel will represent the judgment of such counsel and will not be binding on the IRS or any court and the IRS or a court may disagree with the conclusions in the opinion of counsel. Accordingly, notwithstanding receipt by ParentCo of the IRS private letter ruling and the opinion of counsel, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not assert that the distribution and/or certain related transactions do not qualify for tax-free treatment for U.S. federal income tax purposes or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. In the event the IRS were to prevail with such challenge, Arconic, Alcoa Corporation and Arconic stockholders could be subject to significant U.S. federal income tax liability.

If the Distribution, together with certain related transactions, fails to qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code, in general, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, Arconic would recognize taxable gain as if it had sold the Alcoa common stock in a taxable sale for its fair market value and Arconic stockholders who receive Alcoa shares in the Distribution would be subject to tax as if they had received a taxable distribution equal to the fair market value of such shares.

Under the tax matters agreement that Arconic entered into with Alcoa, we may be required to indemnify Arconic against any additional taxes and related amounts resulting from (i) an acquisition of all or a portion of the equity securities or assets of Alcoa Corporation, whether by merger or otherwise (and regardless of whether Alcoa Corporation participated in or otherwise facilitated the acquisition), (ii) other actions or failures to act by Alcoa or (iii) any of Alcoa’s representations, covenants or undertakings contained in any of the Separation Transaction-related agreements and documents or in any documents relating to the IRS private letter ruling and/or the opinion of counsel being incorrect or violated. Any such indemnity obligations could be material. For a more detailed discussion, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Tax Matters Agreement.” In addition, Arconic, Alcoa, and their respective subsidiaries may incur certain tax costs in connection with the Separation Transaction, including non-U.S. tax costs resulting from Separation Transactions in non-U.S. jurisdictions, which may be material.

Certain contingent liabilities allocated to Alcoa Corporation following the Separation Transaction may mature, resulting in material adverse impacts to our business.

There are several significant areas where the liabilities of ParentCo may become our obligations. For example, under the Code and the related rules and regulations, each corporation that was a member of the ParentCo consolidated U.S. federal income tax return group during a taxable period or portion of a taxable period ending on or before the effective date of the Distribution is severally liable for the entire U.S. federal income tax liability of the ParentCo consolidated U.S. federal income tax return group for that taxable period. Consequently, if Arconic is unable to pay the consolidated U.S. federal income tax liability for a pre-Separation Transaction period, we could be required to pay the amount of such tax, which could be substantial and in excess of the amount allocated to us under the tax matters agreement. For a

44

Table of Contents

discussion of the tax matters agreement, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions, and Director Independence—Tax Matters Agreement.” Other provisions of federal law establish similar liability for other matters, including laws governing tax-qualified pension plans, as well as other contingent liabilities.

The transfer to us of certain contracts, permits and other assets and rights may still require the consents or approvals of, or provide other rights to, third parties and governmental authorities. If such consents or approvals are not obtained, we may not be entitled to the benefit of such contracts, permits and other assets and rights, which could increase our expenses or otherwise harm our business and financial performance.

The separation and distribution agreement provided that certain contracts, permits and other assets and rights are to be transferred from Arconic or its subsidiaries to Alcoa or its subsidiaries in connection with the Separation Transaction. The transfer of certain of these contracts, permits and other assets and rights may still require consents or approvals of third parties or governmental authorities or provide other rights to third parties. In addition, in some circumstances, we and Arconic are joint beneficiaries of contracts, and we and Arconic may need the consents of third parties in order to split or bifurcate the existing contracts or the relevant portion of the existing contracts to us or Arconic. Some parties may use consent requirements or other rights to seek to terminate contracts or obtain more favorable contractual terms from us. The termination or modification of these contracts or permits or the failure to timely complete the transfer or bifurcation of these contracts or permits could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Arconic owns 12,958,767 shares of our common stock. We have registered on a registration statement on Form S-1 such shares under the terms of a stockholder and registration rights agreement between us and Arconic. The sale of such shares in one or more offerings may cause our stock price to decline.

Any sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market or the perception that such sales might occur, in connection with an offering by Arconic or otherwise, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. Upon completion of an offering by Arconic of its shares, we will continue to have an aggregate of approximately 184 million shares of our common stock issued and outstanding. Shares will generally be freely tradeable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), except for shares owned by one of our “affiliates,” as that term is defined in Rule 405 under the Securities Act.

Following the Distribution, Arconic retained approximately 19.9% of outstanding shares of our common stock, and as of March 1, 2017, it owns approximately 7.0% of outstanding shares of our common stock. Pursuant to the IRS private letter ruling, Arconic is required to dispose of such shares of our common stock that it owns as soon as practicable and consistent with its reasons for retaining such shares, but in no event later than five years after the Distribution. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions, and Director Independence—Stockholder and Registration Rights Agreement.” We have registered on a registration statement on Form S-1 such shares under the terms of a stockholder and registration rights agreement between us and Arconic. Any disposition by Arconic, or any significant stockholder, of our common stock in the public market in one or more offerings, or the perception that such dispositions could occur, could adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock.

Anti-takeover provisions could enable our management to resist a takeover attempt by a third party and limit the power of our stockholders, which could decrease the trading price of our common stock.

Alcoa’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain, and Delaware law contains, provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids by making such practices or bids unacceptably expensive to the bidder and to encourage prospective acquirers to negotiate with Alcoa’s Board of Directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions include, among others:

45

Table of Contents

In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), which provides that, subject to limited exceptions, persons that acquire, or are affiliated with persons that acquire, more than 15% of the outstanding voting stock of a Delaware corporation may not engage in a business combination with that corporation, including by merger, consolidation or acquisitions of additional shares, for a three-year period following the date on which that person or any of its affiliates becomes the holder of more than 15% of the corporation’s outstanding voting stock.

We believe these provisions protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our Board of Directors and by providing our Board of Directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal. These provisions are not intended to make Alcoa immune from takeovers; however, these provisions will apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders and could delay or prevent an acquisition that our Board of Directors determines is not in the best interests of Alcoa and our stockholders. These provisions may also prevent or discourage attempts to remove and replace incumbent directors. These provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, and Delaware law, that have the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control of the Company could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares and could affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for Alcoa stock.

In addition, an acquisition or further issuance of our stock could trigger the application of Section 355(e) of the Code. Under the tax matters agreement, Alcoa is required to indemnify Arconic for the resulting tax, and this indemnity obligation might discourage, delay or prevent a change of control that our stockholders may consider favorable.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation designates the state courts within the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could discourage lawsuits against Alcoa and our directors and officers.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that unless the Board of Directors otherwise determines, a state court located within the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of Alcoa, any action asserting a claim for or based on a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director or officer of Alcoa to Alcoa or to Alcoa stockholders, any action asserting a claim against Alcoa or any current or former director or officer of Alcoa arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL or our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or bylaws, any action asserting a claim relating to or involving Alcoa governed by the internal affairs doctrine, or any action asserting an “internal corporate claim” as that term is defined in Section 115 of the DGCL. However, if a Delaware state court dismisses any such action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the action may be brought in the federal court for the District of Delaware. This exclusive forum provision may limit the ability of our stockholders to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholders find favorable for disputes with Alcoa or our directors or officers, which may discourage such lawsuits against Alcoa and our directors and officers. Alternatively, if a court were to find this exclusive forum provision inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings described above, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Your percentage of ownership in Alcoa may be diluted in the future.

In the future, your percentage ownership in Alcoa may be diluted because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital market transactions or otherwise, including any equity awards that we will grant to our directors, officers and

46

Table of Contents

employees. Our employees have stock-based awards that correspond to shares of our common stock as a result of conversion of their ParentCo stock-based awards. Our compensation committee has granted stock-based awards to our employees, and we anticipate that the committee will grant additional stock-based awards to our employees in the future. Such awards will have a dilutive effect on our earnings per share, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

We cannot guarantee the existence, timing, amount or payment of dividends on our common stock.

The existence, timing, declaration, amount and payment of future dividends to our stockholders falls within the discretion of our Board of Directors. The Board of Directors’ decisions regarding the payment of dividends will depend on many factors, such as our financial condition, earnings, capital requirements, debt service obligations, covenants associated with certain of our debt service obligations, industry practice, legal requirements, regulatory constraints and other factors that our Board of Directors deems relevant. For more information, see Item 5 “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.” Our ability to pay dividends will depend on our ongoing ability to generate cash from operations and on our access to the capital markets. We cannot guarantee that we will pay a dividend in the future or continue to pay any dividend if we commence paying dividends.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2.  Properties.

Alcoa Corporation’s principal executive office is located at 390 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022-4608. Alcoa Corporation’s corporate center is located at 201 Isabella Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212-5858.

Alcoa leases some of its facilities; however, it is the opinion of management that the leases do not materially affect the continued use of the properties or the properties’ values.

Alcoa believes that its facilities are suitable and adequate for its operations. Although no title examination of properties owned by Alcoa has been made for the purpose of this report, the Company knows of no material defects in title to any such properties. See Notes B and J to the financial statements for information on properties, plants and equipment.

Alcoa has active plants and holdings under the following segments and in the following geographic areas:

Bauxite—See the tables and related text in the Bauxite section on pages 6-14 of this report.

Alumina—See the table and related text in the Alumina section on pages 14-15 of this report.

Aluminum—See the table and related text in the Aluminum section on pages 16-17 of this report.

Cast Products—See the table and related text in the Cast Products section on pages 17-18 of this report.

Energy—See the table and related text in the Energy section on pages 18-21 of this report.

Rolled Products—See the text in the Rolled Products section on pages 21-22 of this report.

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings.

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

47

Table of Contents

Litigation

Italian Energy Matter

Before 2002, ParentCo purchased power in Italy in the regulated energy market and received a drawback of a portion of the price of power under a special tariff in an amount calculated in accordance with a published resolution of the Italian Energy Authority, Energy Authority Resolution n. 204/1999 (“204/1999”). In 2001, the Energy Authority published another resolution, which clarified that the drawback would be calculated in the same manner, and in the same amount, in either the regulated or unregulated market. At the beginning of 2002, ParentCo left the regulated energy market to purchase energy in the unregulated market. Subsequently, in 2004, the Energy Authority introduced regulation no. 148/2004 which set forth a different method for calculating the special tariff that would result in a different drawback for the regulated and unregulated markets. ParentCo challenged the new regulation in the Administrative Court of Milan and received a favorable judgment in 2006. Following this ruling, ParentCo continued to receive the power price drawback in accordance with the original calculation method, through 2009, when the European Commission declared all such special tariffs to be impermissible “state aid.” In 2010, the Energy Authority appealed the 2006 ruling to the Consiglio di Stato (final court of appeal). On December 2, 2011, the Consiglio di Stato ruled in favor of the Energy Authority and against ParentCo, thus presenting the opportunity for the energy regulators to seek reimbursement from ParentCo of an amount equal to the difference between the actual drawback amounts received over the relevant time period, and the drawback as it would have been calculated in accordance with regulation 148/2004. On February 23, 2012, ParentCo filed its appeal of the decision of the Consiglio di Stato (this appeal was subsequently withdrawn in March 2013). On March 26, 2012, ParentCo received a letter from the agency (Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Eletrico (CCSE)) responsible for making and collecting payments on behalf of the Energy Authority demanding payment in the amount of approximately $110 million (€85 million), including interest. By letter dated April 5, 2012, ParentCo informed CCSE that it disputes the payment demand of CCSE since (i) CCSE was not authorized by the Consiglio di Stato decisions to seek payment of any amount, (ii) the decision of the Consiglio di Stato has been appealed (see above), and (iii) in any event, no interest should be payable. On April 29, 2012, Law No. 44 of 2012 (“44/2012”) came into effect, changing the method to calculate the drawback. On February 21, 2013, ParentCo received a revised request letter from CCSE demanding ParentCo’s subsidiary, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. (Trasformazioni is now a subsidiary of Alcoa Corporation), make a payment in the amount of $97 million (€76 million), including interest, which reflects a revised calculation methodology by CCSE and represents the high end of the range of reasonably possible loss associated with this matter of $0 to $97 million (€76 million). ParentCo rejected that demand and formally challenged it through an appeal before the Administrative Court on April 5, 2013. The Administrative Court scheduled a hearing for December 19, 2013, which was subsequently postponed until April 17, 2014, and further postponed until June 19, 2014. On this date, the Administrative Court heard ParentCo’s oral argument, and on September 2, 2014, rendered its decision. The Administrative Court declared the payment request of CCSE and the Energy Authority to ParentCo to be unsubstantiated based on the 148/2004 resolution with respect to the January 19, 2007 through November 19, 2009 timeframe. On December 18, 2014, the CCSE and the Energy Authority appealed the Administrative Court’s September 2, 2014 decision; however, a date for the hearing has not been scheduled. ParentCo’s management modified its outlook with respect to a portion of the pending legal proceedings related to this matter. As such a charge of $37 million (€34 million) was recorded at the end of 2015 to establish a partial reserve for this matter. At this time, Alcoa Corporation is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome for this matter.

Environmental Matters

Alcoa 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 are discussed in Note R to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Contingencies and Commitments—Environmental Matters.”

48

Table of Contents

The Separation and Distribution Agreement (see Note A) includes provisions for the assignment or allocation of environmental liabilities between Alcoa Corporation and Arconic, including certain remediation obligations associated with environmental matters. In general, the respective parties will be responsible for the environmental matters associated with their operations, and with the properties and other assets assigned to each. Additionally, the Separation and Distribution Agreement lists environmental matters with a shared responsibility between the two companies with an allocation of responsibility and the lead party responsible for management of each matter. For matters assigned to Alcoa Corporation under the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Alcoa Corporation has agreed to indemnify Arconic in whole or in part for environmental liabilities arising from operations prior to the Separation Date. The following discussion provides details regarding the current status of certain matters related to current or former Alcoa Corporation sites. With the exception of the Fusina, Italy matter, Alcoa Corporation assumed full responsibility of the matters described below.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the Canadian Province of Québec, filed a Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class Representative against Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitée, Societe Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitée and Canadian British Aluminum in the Superior Court of Québec in the District of Baie Comeau. Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all past, present and future owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau’s St. Georges neighborhood. He alleges that defendants, as the present and past owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or “PAHs,” that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St. Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the property of the putative class and causing health concerns for those who inhabit that neighborhood. Plaintiff originally moved to certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation to be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken by them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in consultation with an independent expert, and sought money damages on behalf of all class members. In May 2007, the court authorized a class action suit to include only people who suffered property damage or personal injury damages caused by the emission of PAHs from the smelter. In September 2007, plaintiffs filed the claim against the original defendants, which the court had authorized in May. ParentCo filed its Statement of Defense and plaintiffs filed an Answer to that Statement. ParentCo also filed a Motion for Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiffs’ Answer and a Motion to Strike with respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiffs’ Answer. In late 2010, the court denied these motions. The Soderberg smelting process that plaintiffs allege to be the source of emissions of concern has ceased operations and has been dismantled. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking appointment of an expert to advise the court on matters of sampling of homes and standards for interior home remediation. ParentCo opposed the motion. After a March 25, 2016 hearing on the motion, the court granted, in a ruling dated April 8, 2016, the motion and directed the parties to confer on potential experts and protocols for sampling of residences. The court has identified a sampling expert. The parties are advising the expert on their respective views on the appropriate protocol for sampling. Further proceedings in the case will await the independent expert’s report. At this stage of the proceeding, we are unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

In October 2006, in Barnett, et al. v. Alcoa and Alcoa Fuels, Inc., Warrick Circuit Court, County of Warrick, Indiana; 87-C01-0601-PL-499, forty-one plaintiffs sued ParentCo and one of its subsidiary, asserting claims similar to those asserted in Musgrave v. Alcoa, et al., Warrick Circuit Court, County of Warrick, Indiana; 87-C01-0601-CT-006. In November 2007, ParentCo and its subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss the Barnett cases. In October 2008, the Warrick County Circuit Court granted ParentCo’s motions to dismiss, dismissing all claims arising out of alleged occupational exposure to wastes at the Squaw Creek Mine, but in November 2008, the trial court clarified its ruling, indicating that the order does not dispose of plaintiffs’ personal injury claims based upon alleged “recreational” or non-occupational exposure. Plaintiffs also filed a “second amended complaint” in response to the court’s orders granting ParentCo’s motion to dismiss. On July 7, 2010, the court granted the parties’ joint motions for a general continuance of trial settings. Discovery in this matter remains stayed. On January 24, 2017 the court set a hearing for March 23, 2017, under local rules concerning non-prosecution of cases. Since that time, the parties have agreed to file a motion to dismiss the remaining claims.

49

Table of Contents

In 1996, ParentCo acquired the Fusina, Italy smelter and rolling operations and the Portovesme, Italy smelter (both of which are owned by Alcoa’s subsidiary, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l.) from Alumix, an entity owned by the Italian Government. ParentCo also acquired the extrusion plants located in Feltre and Bolzano, Italy. At the time of the acquisition, Alumix indemnified ParentCo for pre-existing environmental contamination at the sites. In 2004, the Italian Ministry of Environment (MOE) issued orders to Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Alumix for the development of a clean-up plan related to soil contamination in excess of allowable limits under legislative decree and to institute emergency actions and pay natural resource damages. On April 5, 2006, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l.’s Fusina site was also sued by the MOE and Minister of Public Works (MOPW) in the Civil Court of Venice for an alleged liability for environmental damages, in parallel with the orders already issued by the MOE. Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. appealed the orders, defended the civil case for environmental damages and filed suit against Alumix, as discussed below. Similar issues also existed with respect to the Bolzano and Feltre plants, based on orders issued by local authorities in 2006. Most, if not all, of the underlying activities occurred during the ownership of Alumix, the governmental entity that sold the Italian plants to ParentCo.

As noted above, in response to the 2006 civil suit by the MOE and MOPW, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. filed suit against Alumix claiming indemnification under the original acquisition agreement, but brought that suit in the Court of Rome due to jurisdictional rules. In June 2008, the parties (ParentCo and subsequently Ligestra S.r.l. (Ligestra), the successor to Alumix) signed a preliminary agreement by which they have committed to pursue a settlement. The Court of Rome accepted the request, and postponed the Court’s expert technical assessment, reserving its ability to fix the deadline depending on the development of negotiations. ParentCo and Ligestra agreed to a settlement in December 2008 with respect to the Feltre site. Ligestra paid the sum of 1.08 million Euros and ParentCo committed to clean up the site. Further postponements were granted by the Court of Rome, and the next hearing is fixed for December 20, 2016. In the meantime, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Ligestra reached a preliminary agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina, allocating 80% and 20% of the remediation costs to Ligestra and ParentCo, respectively. In January 2014, a final agreement with Ligestra was signed, and on February 5, 2014, ParentCo signed a final agreement with the MOE and MOPW settling all environmental issues at the Fusina site. As set out in the agreement between ParentCo and Ligestra, the parties will share the remediation costs and environmental damages claimed by the MOE and MOPW. The remediation project filed by ParentCo and Ligestra has been approved by the MOE. See Note R to the Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Fusina and Portovesme, Italy.” To provide time for settlement with Ligestra, the MOE and ParentCo jointly requested and the Civil Court of Venice has granted a series of postponements of hearings in the Venice trial, assuming that the case will be closed. Following the settlement, the parties caused the Court to dismiss the proceedings. The proceedings were, however, restarted in April 2015 by the MOE and MOPW because the Ministers had not ratified the settlement of February 5, 2014. In April 2016, the settlement was ratified by the Ministers and the court case has been finally dismissed.

ParentCo and Ligestra have signed a similar agreement relating to the Portovesme site. However, that agreement is contingent upon final acceptance of the proposed soil remediation project for Portovesme that was rejected by the MOE in the fourth quarter of 2013. ParentCo submitted a revised proposal in May 2014 and a further revised proposal in February 2015, in agreement with Ligestra. The MOE issued a Ministerial Decree approving the final project in October 2015. Work on the soil remediation project will commence in 2016 and is expected to be completed in 2019. After further discussions with the MOE regarding the groundwater remediation project, Alcoa Corporation and Ligestra are now working to find a common remedial solution. While the issuance of the decree for the soil remediation project has provided reasonable certainty regarding liability for the soil remediation, with respect to the groundwater remediation project we are unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss beyond what is described in Note R to the Consolidated Financial Statements for several reasons. First, certain costs relating to the groundwater remediation are not yet fixed. In connection with any proposed groundwater remediation plan for Portovesme, we understand that the MOE has substantial discretion in defining what must be managed under Italian law, as well as the extent and duration of that remediation program. As a result, the scope and cost of the final groundwater remediation plan remain uncertain for Portovesme; we and Ligestra are still negotiating a final settlement for groundwater remediation at Portovesme, for an allocation of the cost based on the new remediation project approved by the MOE. In addition, once a groundwater remediation project is submitted, should a final settlement with Ligestra not be reached, we should be held responsible only for ParentCo’s share of pollution.

50

Table of Contents

However, the area is impacted by many sources of pollution, as well as historical pollution. Consequently, the allocation of liabilities would need a very complex technical evaluation by the authorities that has not yet been performed.

On November 30, 2010, Alcoa World Alumina Brasil Ltda. (“AWAB”) received notice of a lawsuit that had been filed by the public prosecutors of the State of Pará in Brazil in November 2009. The suit names AWAB, a subsidiary of Alcoa, and the State of Pará, which, through its Environmental Agency, had issued the operating license for ParentCo’s new bauxite mine in Juruti. The suit concerns the impact of the project on the region’s water system and alleges that certain conditions of the original installation license were not met by AWAB. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction suspending the operating license and ordering payment of compensation. On April 14, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs’ request. AWAB presented its defense in March 2011, on grounds that it was in compliance with the terms and conditions of its operating license, which included plans to mitigate the impact of the project on the region’s water system. In April 2011, the State of Pará defended itself in the case asserting that the operating license contains the necessary plans to mitigate such impact, that the State monitors the performance of AWAB’s obligations arising out of such license, that the licensing process is valid and legal, and that the suit is meritless. Our position is that any impact from the project had been fully repaired when the suit was filed. We believe that Jará Lake has not been affected by any project activity and any evidence of pollution from the project would be unreliable. Following the preliminary injunction request, the plaintiffs took no further action until October 2014, when in response to the court’s request and as required by statute, they restated the original allegations in the lawsuit. We are not certain whether or when the action will proceed. Given that this proceeding is in its preliminary stage and the current uncertainty in this case, we are unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Other Matters

St. Croix Proceedings

Abednego and Abraham cases. On January 14, 2010, ParentCo 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 ParentCo 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.

On March 1, 2012, ParentCo 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.

ParentCo 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 ParentCo 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. As of June 10, 2016, approximately 100 separate complaints had been filed in Superior Court, which alleged claims by about 400 individuals. On June 1, 2016, counsel representing plaintiffs filed a motion seeking additional time to file new complaints. The court has not ruled on that request. No further proceedings have been scheduled, and we are unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Glencore Contractual Indemnity Claim. On June 5, 2015, Alcoa World Alumina LLC (“AWA”) and St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (“SCA”) filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to resolve a dispute between ParentCo and Glencore Ltd. (“Glencore”) with respect to claimed obligations under

51

Table of Contents

a 1995 asset purchase agreement between ParentCo and Glencore. The dispute arose from Glencore’s demand that ParentCo indemnify it for liabilities it may have to pay to Lockheed Martin (“Lockheed”) related to the St. Croix alumina refinery. Lockheed had earlier filed suit against Glencore in federal court in New York seeking indemnity for liabilities it had incurred and would incur to the U.S. Virgin Islands to remediate certain properties at the refinery property and claimed that Glencore was required by an earlier, 1989 purchase agreement to indemnify it. Glencore had demanded that ParentCo indemnify and defend it in the Lockheed case and threatened to claim against ParentCo in the New York action despite exclusive jurisdiction for resolution of disputes under the 1995 purchase agreement being in Delaware. After Glencore conceded that it was not seeking to add ParentCo to the New York action, AWA and SCA dismissed their complaint in the Chancery Court case and on August 6, 2015 filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Delaware Superior Court. AWA and SCA filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 16, 2015. Glencore answered AWA’s and SCA’s complaint and asserted counterclaims on August 27, 2015, and on October 2, 2015 filed its own motion for judgment on the pleadings. Argument on the parties’ motions was held by the court on December 7, 2015, and by order dated February 8, 2016, the court granted ParentCo’s motion and denied Glencore’s motion, resulting in ParentCo not being liable to indemnify Glencore for the Lockheed action. The decision also leaves for pretrial discovery and possible summary judgment or trial Glencore’s claims for costs and fees it incurred in defending and settling an earlier Superfund action brought against Glencore by the Government of the Virgin Islands. On February 17, 2016, Glencore filed notice of its application for interlocutory appeal of the February 8 ruling. AWA and SCA filed an opposition to that application on February 29, 2016. On March 10, 2016, the court denied Glencore’s motion for interlocutory appeal and on the same day entered judgment on claims other than Glencore’s claims for costs and fees it incurred in defending and settling the earlier Superfund action brought against Glencore by the Government of the Virgin Islands. On March 29, 2016, Glencore filed a withdrawal of its notice of interlocutory appeal and on April 6, 2016, Glencore filed an appeal of the court’s March 10, 2016 judgment to the Delaware Supreme Court, which set the appeal for argument for November 2, 2016. On November 4, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Delaware Superior Court granting our motion. Remaining in the case were Glencore’s claims for costs and fees it incurred related to the previously described Superfund action. On March 7, 2017, Alcoa and Glencore agreed to settle these claims and expect to ask the court to dismiss the case prior to the court’s March 21, 2017 scheduled conference. The amount of the settlement is not material.

Some of our subsidiaries as premises owners are defendants in active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various facilities. A former affiliate of a subsidiary has been named, along with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern complaint where our involvement is not evident. Since 1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed. To date, the former affiliate has been dismissed from almost every case that was actually placed in line for trial. Our subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying locations. We have significant insurance coverage and believes that its 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 Alcoa Corporation.

Yadkin

On August 2, 2013, the State of North Carolina, by and through its agency, the North Carolina Department of Administration, filed a lawsuit against Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (“APGI”) in Superior Court, Wake County, North Carolina (Docket No. 13-CVS-10477). The lawsuit asserts ownership of certain submerged lands and hydropower generating structures situated at ParentCo’s Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (the “Yadkin Project”), including the submerged riverbed of the Yadkin River throughout the Yadkin Project and a portion of the hydroelectric dams that APGI owns and operates pursuant to a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The suit seeks declaratory relief regarding North Carolina’s alleged ownership interests in the riverbed and the dams and further declaration that APGI has no right, license or permission from North Carolina to operate the Yadkin Project. By notice filed on September 3, 2013, APGI removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Docket No. Civil Action No. 5: 13-cv-633). By motion filed September 3, 2013, the Yadkin Riverkeeper sought permission to intervene in the case. On September 25, 2013, APGI filed its answer in the case and also filed its

52

Table of Contents

opposition to the motion to intervene by the Yadkin Riverkeeper. The Court denied the State’s Motion to Remand and initially permitted the Riverkeeper to intervene although the Riverkeeper has now voluntarily withdrawn as an intervening party and will participate as amicus.

On July 21, 2014, the parties each filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 20, 2014, the Court denied APGI’s motion for summary judgment and denied in part and granted in part the State of North Carolina’s motions for summary judgment. The Court held that under North Carolina law, the burden of proof as to title to property is shifted to a private party opposing a state claim of property ownership. The court conducted a trial on navigability on April 21-22, 2015, and, after ruling orally from the bench on April 22, 2015, on May 5, 2015, entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to Navigability, ruling in APGI’s favor that the state “failed to meet its burden to prove that the Relevant Segment, as stipulated by the parties, was navigable for commerce at statehood.” Subsequently, APGI filed a motion for summary judgment as to title; the state filed opposition papers. On September 28, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment in APGI’s favor and found that the evidence demonstrates that APGI holds title to the riverbed. The Court further directed judgment to be entered in APGI’s favor and closed the case. The court heard argument on October 27, 2016, but has yet to render a decision. On February 2, 2017, APGI completed the sale of its Yadkin Project to a subsidiary of Cube Hydro. On February, 2, 2017, APGI asked the court to substitute the buyer as the real party in interest in the case as APGI had transferred all of its interest in the disputed property to the buyer as of that date. The State of North Carolina opposed that substitution on February 9, 2017. The court had not ruled on APGI’s request.

On October 19, 2015, a subsidiary of Alcoa, Alúmina Española S.A., received a request by the Court of Vivero, Spain to provide the names of the “manager,” as well as those of the “environmental managers,” of the San Ciprián alumina refinery from 2009 to the present date. Upon reviewing the documents filed with the Court, ParentCo learned for the first time that the request is the result of a criminal proceeding that began in 2010 after the filing of a claim by two San Ciprián neighbors alleging that the plant’s activities had adverse effects on vegetation, crops and human health. In 2011 and 2012, some neighbors claimed individually in the criminal court for caustic spill damages to vehicles, and the judge decided to administer all issues in the court proceeding (865/2011). Currently, that court proceeding is in its first phase (preliminary investigation phase) led by the judge. The purpose of that investigation is to determine whether there has been a criminal offense for actions against natural resources and the environment. The Spanish public prosecutor is also involved in the case, having requested technical reports. To date, only “Alcoa-Alúmina Española S.A.” has been identified as a potential defendant and no Alcoa representative has yet been required to appear before the judge. Monetary sanctions for an offense in the form of a fine could range from 30 to 5,000 euros per day, for a maximum period of three years. The environmental experts appointed by the public prosecutor have submitted their report to the court, and while favorable to the Company, the court has not rendered a ruling in that respect.

Tax

Between 2000 and 2002, Alcoa Alumínio (“Alumínio”) sold approximately 2,000 metric tons of metal per month from its Poços de Caldas facility, located in the State of Minas Gerais (the “State”), to Alfio, a customer also located in the State. Sales in the State were exempted from value-added tax (“VAT”) requirements. Alfio subsequently sold metal to customers outside of the State, but did not pay the required VAT on those transactions. In July 2002, Alumínio received an assessment from State auditors on the theory that Alumínio should be jointly and severally liable with Alfio for the unpaid VAT. In June 2003, the administrative tribunal found Alumínio liable, and Alumínio filed a judicial case in the State in February 2004 contesting the finding. In May 2005, the Court of First Instance found Alumínio solely liable, and a panel of a State appeals court confirmed this finding in April 2006. Alumínio filed a special appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice (“STJ”) in Brasilia (the federal capital of Brazil) later in 2006. In 2011, the STJ (through one of its judges) reversed the judgment of the lower courts, finding that Alumínio should neither be solely nor jointly and severally liable with Alfio for the VAT, which ruling was then appealed by the State. In August 2012, the STJ agreed to have the case reheard before a five-judge panel. On February 21, 2017, the lead judge of the STJ issued a ruling confirming that Alumínio should be held liable in this matter. Alumínio is in the process of filing an appeal to have its case reheard before the five-judge panel as originally agreed to by the STJ in August 2012. At December 31, 2016, the assessment totaled $43 million (R$142 million), including penalties and interest. While Alcoa believes it has meritorious defenses, we are unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome for this matter.

53

Table of Contents

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 ParentCo. An appeal of this assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court by the ParentCo was denied in October 2013. In December 2013, ParentCo filed an appeal of the assessment in Spain’s National Court.

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, ParentCo filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court, which was denied in January 2015. ParentCo filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s National Court in March 2015.

At December 31, 2016, the combined assessments, including interest, total $258 million (€246 million). On January 16, 2017, Spain’s National Court issued a decision in favor of the Company related to the assessment received in September 2010. On March 6, 2017, the Company was notified that Spain’s tax authorities did not file an appeal, for which the deadline has passed. As a result, the assessment related to the 2003 through 2005 tax years is null and void. Spain’s National Court has not yet rendered a decision related to the assessment received in July 2013 for the 2006 through 2009 tax years. The amount of this assessment on a standalone basis, including interest, was $136 million (€130 million) as of December 31, 2016.

The Company believes it has meritorious arguments to support its tax position and intends to vigorously litigate the remaining assessment through Spain’s court system. However, in the event the Company is unsuccessful, a portion of the remaining assessment may be offset with existing net operating losses available to the Spanish consolidated tax group, which would be shared between the Company and Arconic as provided for in the Tax Matters Agreement related to the Separation Transaction. Additionally, it is possible that the Company may receive similar assessments for tax years subsequent to 2009. Despite the favorable decision received on the first assessment, at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome for this matter.

Alumina Limited Litigation

On May 27, 2016, ParentCo filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a declaratory judgment on an expedited basis to forestall what the complaint alleges are continuing threats by Alumina Limited and certain related parties to attempt to interfere with the Separation Transaction and distribution. Alumina Limited claimed that it has certain consent and other rights under certain agreements governing AWAC in connection with the Separation Transaction and distribution.

On September 1, 2016, ParentCo, Alumina Limited, Alcoa Corporation and certain of their respective subsidiaries entered into a settlement and release agreement (the “settlement agreement”) providing for a full settlement and release by each party of claims arising from or relating to the Delaware litigation. The settlement agreement also provides for certain changes to the governance and financial policies of the AWAC joint venture effective upon the completion of the Separation Transaction, as well as certain additional changes to their AWAC agreements that become effective only in the event of a change in control of Alumina Limited or Alcoa Corporation. The settlement agreement is not expected to have a material effect, adverse or otherwise, on the future operating results of Alcoa Corporation.

Other Contingencies

In connection with ParentCo’s sale in 2001 of Reynolds Metals Company’s (“Reynolds,” a subsidiary of Alcoa Corporation), alumina refinery in Gregory, Texas, Reynolds assigned an Energy Services Agreement (“ESA”) with Gregory Power Partners (“Gregory Power”) for purchase of steam and electricity by the refinery. On January 11, 2016, Sherwin Alumina Company, LLC (“Sherwin”), the current owner of the refinery, and one of its affiliate entities, filed bankruptcy petitions in Corpus Christi, Texas for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On January 26, 2016, Gregory Power delivered notice to Reynolds that Sherwin’s bankruptcy filing constitutes a breach of the ESA; on January 29, 2016, Reynolds responded that the filing does not constitute a breach. Sherwin informed the

54

Table of Contents

bankruptcy court that it intends to cease operations because it is not able to continue its bauxite supply agreement, and, thereafter, Gregory Power filed a complaint in the bankruptcy case against Reynolds alleging breach of the ESA. This matter is neither estimable nor probable; therefore, at this time, we are unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome.

On October 4, 2016, the state of Texas filed suit against Sherwin in the bankruptcy proceeding seeking to hold Sherwin responsible for remediation of alleged environmental conditions at the facility. On October 11, 2016, Sherwin filed a similar suit against Reynolds in the case. On November 10, 2016, Reynolds filed motions to dismiss the Gregory Power complaint and to withdraw the case from bankruptcy court. On November 23, 2016, the bankruptcy court approved Sherwin’s plans for cessation of its operations. On February 16, 2017, Sherwin filed a bankruptcy Chapter 11 Plan and on February 17, 2017 the court approved that plan. As provided in the plan, Sherwin, including certain affiliated companies, and Reynolds are negotiating a settlement to allocate among them ownership of and responsibility for certain areas of the refinery. A definitive agreement is anticipated prior to April 30, 2017 and would resolve outstanding claims made by Sherwin against Reynolds.

In addition to the matters discussed above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against Alcoa Corporation, including those pertaining to environmental, product liability, safety and health, and tax matters. While the amounts claimed in these other matters may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot now 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 financial position of the Company.

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures.

The information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Item 104 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.104) is included in Exhibit 95 of this report, which is incorporated herein by reference.

55

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5.  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Shares of the Company’s common stock are listed on the NYSE and trade under the symbol “AA” in “regular-way” trading, which began on November 1, 2016 immediately following the Separation Transaction. The Company’s high and low trading stock prices for the reporting periods since that time are shown below.

Alcoa Corporation did not pay dividends in 2016. Dividends on Alcoa Corporation common stock are subject to authorization by the Company’s Board of Directors. The payment and amount of dividends, if any, depends upon matters deemed relevant by the Company’s Board of Directors, such as our results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, future prospects, any limitations imposed by law, credit agreements or senior securities, and other factors deemed relevant and appropriate. Our senior secured revolving credit facility and the indenture governing our senior unsecured notes restrict our ability to pay dividends in certain circumstances. For more information, see Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources – Financing Activities.”

As of March 1, 2017, there were approximately 11,459 holders of record of shares of the Company’s common stock. Because many of Alcoa Corporation’s shares are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, the Company is unable to estimate the total number of stockholders represented by these recordholders.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph compares Alcoa Corporation’s cumulative two-month total shareholder return with (1) the Standard & Poor’s 500^® Index and (2) the Standard & Poor’s 500^® Metals & Mining Index. Such information shall not be deemed to be “filed.”

56

Table of Contents

The graph above tracks the performance of an initial investment of $100 in Alcoa Corporation’s common stock and each of the Standard & Poor’s 500^® Index and the Standard & Poor’s 500^® Metals & Mining Index, including the reinvestment of any dividends, from November 1, 2016 (beginning of “regular way” trading) through December 31, 2016.

Copyright^© 2017 Standard & Poor’s, a division of S&P Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Research Data Group, Inc. (www.researchdatagroup.com/S&P.htm)

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

On March 14, 2016, Alcoa Corporation issued 1,000 shares of its common stock to ParentCo pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. We did not register the issuance of the issued shares under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended because such issuance did not constitute a public offering.

57

Table of Contents

(dollars in millions, except per-share amounts and realized prices; shipments in thousands of metric tons [kmt])