AUTOLIV INC - Quarter Report: 2017 March (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017

Commission File No.: 001-12933

AUTOLIV, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

+46 8 587 20 600

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) 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 Web site, 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 whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Emerging Growth Company     ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

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

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: As of April 24, 2017, there were 88,325,126 shares of common stock of Autoliv, Inc., par value $1.00 per share, outstanding.  

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains statements that are not historical facts but rather forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements include those that address activities, events or developments that Autoliv, Inc. (“Autoliv,” the “Company” or “we”) or its management believes or anticipates may occur in the future. All forward-looking statements, including without limitation, management’s examination of historical operating trends and data as well as estimates of future sales, operating margin, cash flow, effective tax rate or other future operating performance or financial results are based upon our current expectations, various assumptions and/or data available from third parties. Our expectations and assumptions are expressed in good faith and we believe there is a reasonable basis for them. However, there can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will materialize or prove to be correct as forward-looking statements are inherently subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual future results, performance or achievements to differ materially from the future results, performance or achievements expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “estimates,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “projects,” “plans,” “intends,” “believes,” “may,” “likely,” “might,” “would,” “should,” “could,” or the negative of these terms and other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain such words.

Because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, the outcome could differ materially from those set out in the forward-looking statements for a variety of reasons, including without limitation: changes in light vehicle production; fluctuation in vehicle production schedules for which the Company is a supplier; changes in general industry and market conditions or regional growth or decline; changes in and the successful execution of our capacity alignment, restructuring and cost reduction initiatives and the market reaction thereto; loss of business from increased competition; higher raw material, fuel and energy costs; changes in consumer and customer preferences for end products; customer losses; changes in regulatory conditions; customer bankruptcies; consolidations, restructuring or divestiture of customer brands; unfavorable fluctuations in currencies or interest rates among the various jurisdictions in which we operate; component shortages; market acceptance of our new products; costs or difficulties related to the integration of any new or acquired businesses and technologies; continued uncertainty in pricing negotiations with customers; successful integration of acquisitions and operations of joint ventures; our ability to be awarded new business; product liability, warranty and recall claims and investigations and other litigation and customer reactions thereto (including the resolution of the Toyota Recall (defined below)); higher expenses for our pension and other postretirement benefits including higher funding requirements for our pension plans; work stoppages or other labor issues; possible adverse results of pending or future litigation or infringement claims; our ability to protect our intellectual property rights; negative impacts of antitrust investigations or other governmental investigations and associated litigation relating to the conduct of our business; tax assessments by governmental authorities and changes in our effective tax rate; dependence on key personnel; legislative or regulatory changes impacting or limiting our business; political conditions; dependence on and relationships with customers and suppliers; and other risks and uncertainties identified in Item 1A “Risk Factors” in our Form 10-K and Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on February 23, 2017.

For any forward-looking statements contained in this or any other document, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and we assume no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements in light of new information or future events, except as required by law.

2

3

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF NET INCOME (UNAUDITED)

(Dollars in millions, except per share data)

See “Notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.”

4

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (UNAUDITED)

(Dollars in millions)

See “Notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.”

5

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in millions)

See “Notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.”

6

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)

(Dollars in millions)

See “Notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.”

7

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unless otherwise noted, all amounts are presented in millions of dollars, except for per share amounts)

March 31, 2017

1 Basis of Presentation

The accompanying interim unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all the information and footnotes required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the prior year audited financial statements and all adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included in the financial statements. All such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. The result for the interim period is not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future period or for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017.

The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2016 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date, but does not include all the information and footnotes required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements.

Statements in this report that are not of historical fact are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could affect the actual results of the Company. A description of the important factors that could cause Autoliv's actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained in this report may be found in this report and Autoliv's other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements, footnotes and definitions thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, filed with the SEC on February 23, 2017.

2 Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In March 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2017-07, Compensation-Retirement Benefits (Topic 715) - Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost, which requires the service cost component to be reported in the same line item or items as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by the pertinent employees during the period. The other components of net benefit cost are required to be presented in the consolidated statements of net income separately from the service cost component and outside operating income. The amendments in ASU 2017-07 are effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of an annual period for which financial statements (interim or annual) have not been issued or made available for issuance. The amendments in ASU 2017-07 should be applied retrospectively for the presentation of the service cost component and the other components of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the consolidated statements of net income. At the expected adoption as of January 1, 2018, the Company estimates that approximately $5-7 million of the net benefit cost will be reclassified from Operating Income to Other non-operating items, net in the consolidated statements of net income.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350) – Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment, which simplifies how an entity is required to test goodwill for impairment by eliminating step 2 from the goodwill impairment test, which measures a goodwill impairment loss by comparing the implied fair value of a reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount. Instead, entities should perform annual or interim goodwill impairment tests by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount and recognize an impairment charge for the excess of carrying amount over the fair value of the respective reporting unit. The amendments in ASU 2017-04 are effective for public business entities for annual or interim goodwill impairment tests in annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted for interim or annual goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The Company early adopted ASU 2017-04 effective January 1, 2017. As this standard is prospective in nature, the impact to our financial statements by not performing step 2 to measure the amount of any potential goodwill impairment will depend on various factors. However, the elimination of step 2 will reduce the complexity and cost of the subsequent measurement of goodwill.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805) – Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which provides a screen to determine when an integrated set of assets and activities is not a business. The screen requires that when substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets, the set is not a business. The amendments in ASU 2017-01 are effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those periods. ASU 2017-01 should be applied prospectively. Early adoption is allowed. The Company early adopted ASU 2017-01 effective January 1, 2017 for new transactions that have not been reported in financial statements that have been issued or made available for issuance. As this standard is prospective in nature, the impact to our financial statements will depend on the nature of our future acquisitions.

8

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) – Restricted Cash, which requires that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents, and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. Therefore, amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. The amendments in ASU 2016-18 are effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. The amendments in ASU 2016-18 should be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. The Company early adopted ASU 2016-18 effective January 1, 2017. The adoption of ASU 2016-18 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements for any period presented.

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740) – Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory, which requires an entity to recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory when the transfer occurs. Current GAAP prohibits the recognition of current and deferred income taxes for an intra-entity asset transfer until the asset has been sold to an outside party. Consequently, the amendments in this ASU 2016-16 eliminate the exception for an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory. Two common examples of assets included in the scope of ASU 2016-16 are intellectual property and property, plant, and equipment. The amendments in ASU 2016-16 are effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of an annual reporting period for which financial statements (interim or annual) have not been issued or made available for issuance. The amendments in ASU 2016-16 should be applied on a modified retrospective basis through a cumulative-effect adjustment directly to retained earnings as of the beginning of the period of adoption. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of our pending adoption of ASU 2016-16 on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) – Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which provides guidance on reducing the diversity in practice on eight cash flow classification issues and how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The amendments in ASU 2016-15 are effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the annual period that includes that interim period. The amendments in ASU 2016-15 should be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. The Company early adopted ASU 2016-15 effective January 1, 2017. The adoption of ASU 2016-15 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements for any period presented.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which requires measurement and recognition of expected credit losses for financial assets held and requires enhanced disclosures regarding significant estimates and judgments used in estimating credit losses. ASU 2016-13 is effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is permitted for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of our pending adoption of ASU 2016-13 on our consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718), which simplifies the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. For public business entities, the amendments in ASU 2016-09 are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Amendments related to the timing of when excess tax benefits are recognized, minimum statutory withholding requirements, forfeitures, and intrinsic value should be applied using a modified retrospective transition method by means of a cumulative-effect adjustment to equity as of the beginning of the period in which the guidance is adopted. Amendments related to the presentation of employee taxes paid on the statement of cash flows when an employer withholds shares to meet the minimum statutory withholding requirement should be applied retrospectively. Amendments requiring recognition of excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies in the income statement and the practical expedient for estimating expected term should be applied prospectively. An entity may elect to apply the amendments related to the presentation of excess tax benefits on the statement of cash flows using either a prospective transition method or a retrospective transition method. The Company adopted ASU 2016-09 effective January 1, 2017 and has elected to recognize forfeitures as they occur. The adoption of ASU 2016-09 did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements for any period presented.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. ASU 2016-02 affects any entity that enters into a lease, with some specified scope exceptions. For public business entities, the amendments in ASU 2016-02 are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early application is permitted for all entities. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting ASU 2016-02 on its consolidated financial statements, which will require right of use assets and lease liabilities to be recorded in the consolidated balance sheet for finance and operating leases.

9

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, Inventory (Topic 330), which requires an entity to measure inventory at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Net realizable value is the estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal, and transportation. Subsequent measurement is unchanged for inventory measured using LIFO or the retail inventory method. For public business entities, ASU 2015-11 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and should be applied prospectively. The adoption of ASU 2015-11 did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements for any periods presented.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which outlines a single, comprehensive model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance issued by the FASB, including industry specific guidance. In 2016 the FASB issued accounting standard updates to address implementation issues and to clarify guidance on identifying performance obligations, licenses and determining if a company is a principal or an agent. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the Company expects to be receive in exchange for those goods or services. In addition, ASU 2014-09 requires certain additional disclosure around the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. The Company intends to adopt ASU 2014-09 in the annual period beginning January 1, 2018. The standard permits the use of either the retrospective or modified retrospective (cumulative effect) transition method. The Company intends to apply the modified retrospective transition method. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this standard on its operations, consolidated financial statements and footnote disclosures. The Company’s implementation process has included the identification of a dedicated lead project manager as well as a cross-functional project steering committee responsible for assessing the impact that the new standard will have on the Company’s accounting, financial statement presentation and disclosure for contracts with customers. The implementation team is finalizing its assessment phase of the project. This phase of the project has included the identification of the key revenue streams and the comparison of historical accounting policies and practices to the requirements of the new standard by revenue stream. The assessment has resulted in the identification of potential accounting differences that may arise from the application of the new standard. The implementation team has also made substantial progress in the contract review phase of the project which includes identifying the population of contracts for a deeper analysis of the potential accounting impacts due to the new standard for individual contracts. The implementation team has also begun the process of identifying changes to business processes, systems and controls to support recognition, presentation and disclosure under the new standard. The Company anticipates that the adoption of ASU 2014-09 will primarily impact the timing of revenue recognition for certain production parts contracts and will result in some changes to revenue related disclosures and financial statement presentation. For certain contracts, the production parts are highly customized products with no alternative use and the Company has an enforceable right to payment (with a reasonable margin) for performance completed to date. As a result, for these contracts, the Company will recognize revenue over time as the parts are being produced against firm orders received from the customer. Consistent with current treatment, shipping and handling costs associated with outbound shipments, after control of the product has transferred to a customer, will be accounted for as a fulfillment cost and included in cost of sales. In addition, certain payments made to customers in connection with future contracts may be deferred and amortized over future periods. The Company is continuing to assess the impact of the new standard.

3 Business Combinations

Autoliv-Nissin Brake Systems

On March 31, 2016, the Company acquired a 51% interest in the entities that formed Autoliv-Nissin Brake Systems (ANBS) for $262.5 million in cash. ANBS designs, manufactures and sells products in the brake control and actuation systems business. Nissin Kogyo retained a 49% interest in the entities that formed ANBS. The Company has management and operational control of ANBS and has consolidated the results of operation and balance sheet from ANBS from the date of the acquisition forward. The transaction was accounted for as a business combination (for further information, see the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on February 23, 2017).

Total ANBS acquisition related costs were approximately $0.1 million for the first quarter ended March 31, 2017 and approximately $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. These costs were reflected in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Net Income.

The acquisition date fair value of the consideration transferred for the Company’s 51% interest in the entities that formed ANBS was $262.5 million in a cash transaction.

10

The following table summarizes the finalized fair values of identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of March 31, 2016:

Amounts recognized as of acquisition date March 31, 2016 (in millions)

Acquired Intangibles primarily consist of the fair value of customer contracts of $50.7 million and certain technology of $61.4 million. The customer contracts will be amortized straight-line over 7 years and the technology will be amortized straight-line over 10 years.

The recognized goodwill of $234.7 million reflects expected synergies from combining Autoliv's global reach and customer base with Nissin Kogyo's world leading expertise (including workforce) and technology in brake control and actuation systems. A significant portion of the goodwill is deductible for tax purposes.

4 Fair Value Measurement

Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis

The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, other current liabilities and short-term debt approximate their fair value because of the short term maturity of these instruments.

The fair value of the contingent consideration relating to the M/A-COM acquisition is re-measured on a recurring basis (for further information, see the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, filed with the SEC on February 23, 2017). The Company has adjusted the fair value of the earn-out liability to $14 million as of March 31, 2017 based on actual revenue levels as well as changes in the estimated probability of different revenue scenarios for the remaining contractual earn-out period. An income of $13 million has been recognized within other income (expense), net in the Consolidated Statement of Net Income for the three months period ended March 31, 2017 due to the decrease in the contingent consideration liability. The reduced earn-out liability was largely offset by the impairment charge for a customer contract related to the M/A-COM acquisition as discussed below.

The Company uses derivative financial instruments, “derivatives”, as part of its debt management to mitigate the market risk that occurs from its exposure to changes in interest and foreign exchange rates. The Company does not enter into derivatives for trading or other speculative purposes. The Company’s use of derivatives is in accordance with the strategies contained in the Company’s overall financial risk policy. The derivatives outstanding at March 31, 2017 were foreign exchange swaps and forward contracts. All swaps principally match the terms and maturity of the underlying debt and no swaps have a maturity beyond six months. The forward contracts are designated as cash flow hedges of certain external purchases. All derivatives are recognized in the consolidated financial statements at fair value. Certain derivatives are from time to time designated either as fair value hedges or cash flow hedges in line with the hedge accounting criteria. For certain other derivatives, hedge accounting is not applied either because non-hedge accounting treatment creates the same accounting result or the hedge does not meet the hedge accounting requirements, although entered into applying the same rationale concerning mitigating market risk that occurs from changes in interest and foreign exchange rates.

11

When a hedge is classified as a fair value hedge, the change in the fair value of the hedge is recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Net Income along with the off-setting change in the fair value of the hedged item. When a hedge is classified as a cash flow hedge, any change in the fair value of the hedge is initially recorded in equity as a component of Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) and reclassified into the Consolidated Statements of Net Income when the hedge transaction affects net earnings. The Company uses the forward rate with respect to the measurement of changes in fair value of cash flow hedges when revaluing foreign exchange forward contracts. There were no material reclassifications from OCI to the Consolidated Statements of Net Income during the first three months of 2017. Any ineffectiveness in the first three months of 2017 was not material.

The Company’s derivatives are all classified as Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy and there have been no transfers between the levels during this or comparable periods (for further information, see Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016).

The tables below present information about the Company’s financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. The carrying value is the same as the fair value as these instruments are recognized in the consolidated financial statements at fair value. Although the Company is party to close-out netting agreements (ISDA agreements) with all derivative counterparties, the fair values in the tables below and in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2017 and in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2016, have been presented on a gross basis. The amounts subject to netting agreements that the Company chose not to offset are presented below. According to the close-out netting agreements, transaction amounts payable to a counterparty on the same date and in the same currency can be netted.

12

Derivatives designated as hedging instruments

The derivatives designated as hedging instruments outstanding at March 31, 2017 and at December 31, 2016 were foreign exchange forward contracts, classified as cash flow hedges.

For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, the cumulative gains and losses recognized in OCI on the cash flow hedges were a loss of $1.0 million (net of taxes) and $1.0 million (net of taxes), respectively.

For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, the gains and losses reclassified from OCI and recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Net Income were a gain of $1.5 million (net of taxes) and $0.3 million (net of taxes), respectively. Any ineffectiveness in the first three months of 2017 and 2016 were not material.

The estimated net amount of the existing gains or losses at March 31, 2017 that is expected to be reclassified from OCI into the Consolidated Statements of Net Income within the next twelve months is a gain of $5.8 million (net of taxes).

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments relate to economic hedges and are marked to market with all amounts recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Net Income. The derivatives not designated as hedging instruments outstanding at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 were foreign exchange swaps.

For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, the gains and losses recognized in other non-operating items, net were a loss of $1.4 million and a gain of $0.8 million, respectively, for derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments.  

For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, the gains and losses recognized as interest expense were immaterial.

13

Fair Value of Debt

The fair value of long-term debt is determined either from quoted market prices as provided by participants in the secondary market or for long-term debt without quoted market prices, estimated using a discounted cash flow method based on the Company’s current borrowing rates for similar types of financing. The fair value and carrying value of debt is summarized in the table below. The Company has determined that each of these fair value measurements of debt reside within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis

In addition to assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, the Company also has assets and liabilities in its balance sheet that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. Assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis include long-lived assets, including equity method investments.

The Company has determined that the fair value measurements included in each of these assets and liabilities rely primarily on Company-specific inputs and the Company’s assumptions about the use of the assets and settlements of liabilities, as observable inputs are not available. The Company has determined that each of these fair value measurements reside within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. To determine the fair value of long-lived assets, the Company utilizes the projected cash flows expected to be generated by the long-lived assets, then discounts the future cash flows over the expected life of the long-lived assets.

At the end of the first quarter the Company received new indications from an OEM customer of our M/A-COM products resulting in an impairment trigger of the customer intangible asset as well as a renewed assessment of the earn-out liability. For the three months period ended March 31, 2017, the Company recognized an impairment charge to amortization of intangibles in the Consolidated Statement of Net Income for a customer contract of $12 million related to the M/A-COM acquisition (for further information, see the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, filed with the SEC on February 23, 2017). The remaining fair value of $3 million related to this customer contract will be amortized straight-line over the remaining 9 months in 2017. The impairment charge was largely offset by the reduced earn-out liability discussed above and the net impact was a gain of $1 million in the first quarter of 2017.

5 Income Taxes

The effective tax rate in the first quarter of 2017 was 26.9% compared to 29.9% in the same quarter of 2016. Discrete tax items, net in the first quarter of 2017 had a favorable impact of 0.3%. In the first quarter of 2016, discrete tax items, net had an unfavorable impact of 1.7%. 

For the three month period ended March 31, 2017, the tax rate has been favorably impacted by the mix of earnings in various jurisdictions compared to the same period in the prior year.

The Company files income tax returns in the United States federal jurisdiction, and various states and non-U.S. jurisdictions. At any given time, the Company is undergoing tax audits in several tax jurisdictions covering multiple years. The Company is no longer subject to income tax examination by the U.S. federal income tax authorities for years prior to 2014. With few exceptions, the Company is no longer subject to income tax examination by U.S. state or local tax authorities or by non-U.S. tax authorities for years before 2009.

As of March 31, 2017, the Company is not aware of any proposed income tax adjustments resulting from tax examinations that would have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. The conclusion of such audits could result in additional increases or decreases to unrecognized tax benefits in some future period or periods.

14

During the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a net increase of $1.6 million to income tax reserves for unrecognized tax benefits based on tax positions related to the current year, including accruing additional interest related to unrecognized tax benefits of prior years. During the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a $0.4 million adjustment to income tax reserves for unrecognized tax benefits of prior years due to the lapse of the applicable statute of limitations. Of the total unrecognized tax benefits of $31.9 million recorded at March 31, 2017, $7.7 million is classified as current tax payable and $24.2 million is classified as non-current tax payable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

6 Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (principally FIFO) and net realizable value. The components of inventories were as follows:

7 Goodwill

The change of the goodwill amount in the first quarter of 2017 was a result of the finalization of the purchase price allocation for the ANBS acquisition (see Note 3).

8 Restructuring

Restructuring provisions are made on a case-by-case basis and primarily include severance costs incurred in connection with headcount reductions and plant consolidations. The Company expects to finance restructuring programs over the next several years through cash generated from its ongoing operations or through cash available under existing credit facilities. The Company does not expect that the execution of these activities will have a material adverse impact on its liquidity position. The majority of restructuring activities relate to the Passive Safety segment. The changes in the employee-related reserves have been charged against Other income (expense), net in the Consolidated Statements of Net Income.

Three months ended March 31, 2017

The employee-related restructuring provisions and cash payments for the three months ended March 31, 2017 mainly related to headcount reductions in high-cost countries in Europe and Asia. The table below summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the restructuring reserves from December 31, 2016 to March 31, 2017.

15

Three months ended March 31, 2016

The employee-related restructuring provisions and cash payments for the three months ended March 31, 2016 mainly related to headcount reductions in high-cost countries in Europe and Asia. The table below summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the restructuring reserves from December 31, 2015 to March 31, 2016.

9 Product-Related Liabilities

The Company has reserves for product risks. Such reserves are related to product performance issues including recall, product liability and warranty issues. For further explanation, see Note 12 Contingent Liabilities below.

The table below summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product-related liabilities. The provisions and cash paid for the three months ended March 31, 2017 mainly related to recall issues and the provisions and cash paid for the three months ended March 31, 2016 mainly related to warranty related issues. The increase in the reserve balance compared to prior year is mainly due to 2016 recall related issues, whereof a majority of which is covered by insurance.

10 Retirement Plans

The Company has contributory and non-contributory defined benefit pension plans covering employees at most operations in the U.S. and in certain other countries. The main plan is the U.S. plan for which the benefits are based on an average of the employee’s earnings in the years preceding retirement and on credited service. Certain supplemental funded and unfunded plan arrangements also provide retirement benefits to specified groups of participants.

The Company has frozen participation in the U.S. pension plans to include only those employees hired as of December 31, 2003. The U.K. defined benefit plan is the most significant individual non-U.S. pension plan and the Company has frozen participation to include only those employees hired as of April 30, 2003.

The Net Periodic Benefit Costs related to Other Post-retirement Benefits were not significant to the condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company for the three month periods ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016 and are not included in the table below.

The components of total Net Periodic Benefit Cost associated with the Company’s defined benefit retirement plans are as follows:

16

11 Controlling and Non-Controlling Interest

12 Contingent Liabilities

Legal Proceedings

Various claims, lawsuits and proceedings are pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, covering a range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities with respect to commercial, product liability and other matters. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of any litigation cannot be assured. After discussions with counsel, and with the exception of losses resulting from the antitrust proceedings described below, it is the opinion of management that the various legal proceedings and investigations to which the Company currently is a party will not have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position of Autoliv, but the Company cannot provide assurance that Autoliv will not experience material litigation, product liability or other losses in the future.

In October 2014, one of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries received a notice of deficiency from the state tax authorities from the state of São Paulo, Brazil which, primarily, alleged violations of ICMS (VAT) payments and improper warehousing documentation. The aggregate assessment for all alleged violations was R$72.5 million (approximately $23 million), inclusive of fines, penalties and interest. The Company believes the full amount assessed is baseless and that it has reasonable legal and factual defenses to the assessment and, consequently, plans to defend its interests vigorously. However, the Company believes that a loss is probable with respect to at least a portion of the assessed amount and has accrued an amount in 2015 that was not material to the Company’s results of operations. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter.

In March 2015, the Company was informed of an investigation being conducted in Turkey by the Directorate of Kocaeli Customs Custody, Smuggling and Enquiry into the Company’s import and customs payment structure and the associated import taxes and fees for the period of 2006–2012. The Company cannot predict the duration, scope or ultimate outcome of this investigation and is unable to estimate the financial impact it may have, or predict the reporting periods in which any such financial impacts may be recorded. Consequently, the Company has made no provision for any expenses as of March 31, 2017 with respect to this investigation.

ANTITRUST MATTERS

Authorities in several jurisdictions are currently conducting broad, and in some cases, long-running investigations of suspected anti-competitive behavior among parts suppliers in the global automotive vehicle industry. These investigations include, but are not limited to, segments in which the Company operates. In addition to concluded and pending matters, authorities of other countries with significant light vehicle manufacturing or sales may initiate similar investigations. It is the Company’s policy to cooperate with governmental investigations.

17

On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission (“EC”), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of a Company subsidiary in Germany to gather information for an investigation of anti-competitive behavior among suppliers of occupant safety systems. The investigation is still pending and the Company remains unable to estimate the financial impact such investigation will have or predict the reporting periods in which such financial impact may be recorded and has consequently not recorded a provision for loss as of March 31, 2017. However, management has concluded that it is probable that the Company’s operating results and cash flows will be materially adversely impacted for the reporting periods in which the EC investigation is resolved or becomes estimable.

In August 2014, the Competition Commission of South Africa (the “CCSA”) contacted the Company regarding an investigation into the Company’s sales of occupant safety systems in South Africa. The Company is cooperating with the CCSA. The Company believes that a loss with respect to this investigation is probable and has accrued amounts in 2016 that were not material to the Company’s results of operations to resolve this matter. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of the CCSA investigation.

On July 6, 2015, the Company learned that the General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“CADE”) in Brazil had initiated an investigation of an alleged cartel involving sales in Brazil of seatbelts, airbags, and steering wheels by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary and the Brazilian subsidiary of a competitor. In November 2016, the Company and the CADE entered into a settlement agreement with respect to this matter for an amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations. Settlement amounts were accrued for this matter during the periods ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, and payment of the accrued amounts was made during the period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company is also subject to civil litigation alleging anti-competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes - direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and, as of the filing of the last class action in June 2015, truck and equipment dealers - who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts.

In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to approximately $35.5 million because of opt-outs; in December 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer class settlement; and in June 2016, the MDL court granted final approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the objections of several individual class members, some of whom have appealed the MDL court’s approval of the Company’s end-payor settlement and several other defendants’ settlements that were approved at the same time. This appeal will delay the finality of the Company’s settlement with the end-payor class. In addition, several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) have opted-out of the pending end-payor class settlements, including the Company’s settlement. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities.

In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the venue for the MDL, against the Company and the other settling defendants in the end-payor class settlement. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter.

In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability, reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers’ global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser class settlement described above. The total amount of these additional settlements was $81 million. Autoliv expensed during the first quarter of 2015 approximately $77 million as a result of these additional settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued in 2014.

In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the truck and equipment dealers class for an amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations. In November 2016, the MDL court granted final approval of the settlement and on February 3, 2017, the MDL court entered a final judgment dismissing the case against the Company.

18

The remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen’s Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. In February 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in three of the four class actions to settle on a nationwide class basis for an amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations. The settlement is subject to court approvals following notice to the class members. Once approved, this national settlement will include the claims of the putative members of the fourth class action. The Company accrued amounts for the period ended December 31, 2016 in connection with these claims.

PRODUCT WARRANTY, RECALLS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Autoliv is exposed to various claims for damages and compensation if products fail to perform as expected. Such claims can be made, and result in costs and other losses to the Company, even where the product is eventually found to have functioned properly. Where a product (actually or allegedly) fails to perform as expected, the Company faces warranty and recall claims. Where such (actual or alleged) failure results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury and/or property damage, the Company may also face product-liability claims. There can be no assurance that the Company will not experience material warranty, recall or product (or other) liability claims or losses in the future, or that the Company will not incur significant costs to defend against such claims. The Company may be required to participate in a recall involving its products. Each vehicle manufacturer has its own practices regarding product recalls and other product liability actions relating to its suppliers. As suppliers become more integrally involved in the vehicle design process and assume more of the vehicle assembly functions, vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking to their suppliers for contribution when faced with recalls and product liability claims. Government safety regulators may also play a role in warranty and recall practices. A warranty, recall or product-liability claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Vehicle manufacturers are also increasingly requiring their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the costs of repair and replacement of such products under new vehicle warranties. A vehicle manufacturer may attempt to hold the Company responsible for some, or all, of the repair or replacement costs of products when the product supplied did not perform as represented by us or expected by the customer. Accordingly, the future costs of warranty claims by the customers may be material. However, the Company believes its established reserves are adequate. Autoliv’s warranty reserves are based upon the Company’s best estimates of amounts necessary to settle future and existing claims. The Company regularly evaluates the adequacy of these reserves, and adjusts them when appropriate. However, the final amounts actually due related to these matters could differ materially from the Company’s recorded estimates.

In addition, as vehicle manufacturers increasingly use global platforms and procedures, quality performance evaluations are also conducted on a global basis. Any one or more quality, warranty or other recall issue(s) (including those affecting few units and/or having a small financial impact) may cause a vehicle manufacturer to implement measures such as a temporary or prolonged suspension of new orders, which may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company carries insurance for potential recall and product liability claims at coverage levels based on our prior claims experience. Autoliv cannot assure that the level of coverage will be sufficient to cover every possible claim that can arise in our businesses, now or in the future, or that such coverage always will be available should we, now or in the future, wish to extend, increase or otherwise adjust our insurance.

On June 29, 2016, the Company announced that it is cooperating with Toyota Motor Corp. in its recall of approximately 1.4 million vehicles equipped with a certain model of the Company’s side curtain airbag (the “Toyota Recall”). Toyota has informed the Company that there have been eight reported incidents where a side curtain airbag has partially inflated without a deployment signal from the airbag control unit. The incidents have all occurred in parked, unoccupied vehicles and no personal injuries have been reported. The root cause analysis of the issue is ongoing.  However, at this point in time the Company believes that a compromised manufacturing process at a sub-supplier may be a contributing factor and, as no incidents have been reported in vehicles produced by other OEMs with the same inflator produced during the same period as those recalled by Toyota, that vehicle-specific characteristics may also contribute to the issue. The sub-supplier’s manufacturing process was changed in January 2012, and the vehicles now recalled by Toyota represent more than half of all inflators of the relevant type manufactured before the sub-supplier process was changed.

19

As previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss with respect to this issue is reasonably possible. If the Company is obligated to indemnify Toyota for the costs associated with the Toyota Recall, the Company expects that its insurance will generally cover such costs and liabilities and estimates that the Company’s loss, net of expected insurance recoveries, would be less than $20 million.  However, the ultimate costs of the Toyota Recall could be materially different. The main variables affecting the ultimate cost for the Company are: the determination of proportionate responsibility (if any) among Toyota, the Company, and any relevant sub-suppliers; the ultimate number of vehicles repaired; the cost of repair per vehicle; and the actual recoveries from sub-suppliers and insurers. The Company’s insurance policies generally include coverage of the costs of a recall, although costs related to replacement parts are generally not covered.

In its products, the Company utilizes technologies which may be subject to intellectual property rights of third parties. While the Company does seek to procure the necessary rights to utilize intellectual property rights associated with its products, it may fail to do so. Where the Company so fails, the Company may be exposed to material claims from the owners of such rights. Where the Company has sold products which infringe upon such rights, its customers may be entitled to be indemnified by the Company for the claims they suffer as a result thereof. Such claims could be material.

The table in Note 9 Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product related liabilities for the three month periods ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016.

13 Stock Incentive Plan

During 2016, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved a new long-term equity incentive (LTI) program to more closely reflect market practice and align pay delivery with our financial performance. The first grants under the new LTI program, where performance shares (PSs) replaced stock options (SOs) were made on February 15, 2016 and May 9, 2016 pursuant to which certain employees received 50% of their LTI grant value in the form of PSs and 50% in the form of restricted stock units (RSUs). The February 19, 2017 LTI grant also consisted of 50% PSs and 50% RSUs.

The grantee may earn 0%-200% of the target number of PSs based on the Company’s achievement of specified targets for the Company’s compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for sales and the Company’s CAGR in earnings per share relative to an established benchmark growth rate. Each performance target is weighted 50% and results are measured at the end of the three-year performance period. Each PS represents a promise to transfer a share of the Company’s common stock to the employee following completion of the performance period, provided that the performance goals mentioned above are met and provided, further, that the grantee remains employed through the performance period, subject to certain limited exceptions. The RSUs granted on February 15, 2016 and May 9, 2016 vest in three approximately equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date, and the RSUs granted on February 19, 2017 will vest in one installment on the third anniversary of the grant date, in each case subject to the grantee’s continued employment with the Company on each vesting date, subject to acceleration of vesting in certain circumstances. The RSUs and PSs granted in 2017 entitle the grantee to receive dividend equivalents in the form of additional RSUs and PSs subject to the same vesting conditions as the underlying RSUs and PSs, respectively.

The fair value of the RSUs and PSs granted under the LTI program are calculated as the grant date fair value of the shares expected to be issued. For the grants made during 2017, the fair value of a PS and a RSU is calculated by using the closing stock price at grant date. For the grants made during 2016 and earlier, the fair value of a RSU and a PS was estimated using the Black Scholes valuation model. The grant date fair value for the RSUs at February 19, 2017 was $7.9 million. This cost will be amortized straight line over the vesting period. The grant date fair value of the PSs at February 19, 2017 was $7.9 million. For PSs, the grant date fair value of the number of awards expected to vest is based on the Company’s best estimate of ultimate performance against the respective targets and is recognized as compensation cost on a straight-line basis over the requisite vesting period of the awards. The Company assesses the expected achievement levels at the end of each quarter. As of March 31, 2017, the Company believes it is probable that the performance conditions will be met and has accrued for the compensation expense accordingly. The cumulative effect of the change in estimate is recognized in the period of change as an adjustment to compensation expense.

14 Earnings per share

The Company calculates basic earnings per share (EPS) by dividing net income attributable to controlling interest by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period (net of treasury shares). The diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if common stock were issued for awards under the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan.

For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, approximately 0.2 million shares and 0.2 million shares, respectively, of common stock were not included in the computation of the diluted EPS, however these could potentially impact EPS in the future.

20

During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, approximately 95 thousand and 76 thousand shares of common stock, respectively, from the treasury stock have been utilized by the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan.

The computation of basic and diluted EPS were as follows:

15 Segment Information

The Company has two segments, Passive Safety and Electronics. Passive Safety includes the Company’s airbag and seatbelt products and related expertise, while Electronics combines all of the Company’s electronics resources and expertise in restraint control and sensing, brake systems and active safety.

21

16 Subsequent Events

On April 18, 2017, the formation of the joint venture, named Zenuity, between Autoliv and Volvo Cars was completed. Autoliv made a total investment of around 1.1 billion SEK into the joint venture, the large majority of which was an initial cash contribution, but also included capital in-kind contribution of intellectual property, personnel and fixed assets. Volvo Cars contributed intellectual property, personnel and fixed assets into the joint venture. Headquartered in Gothenburg, Sweden with additional operations in Munich, Germany, and Detroit, USA, the workforce of close to 300 people includes employees transferred on the date of closing from each of Autoliv and Volvo Cars, respectively. The joint venture’s workforce is expected to grow to over 600 employees in the medium term. Zenuity is a new entrant in the growing global market for autonomous driving software systems. Autoliv is the exclusive supplier and distribution channel for all Zenuity’s products sold to third parties. Volvo Cars can source such products directly from the joint venture. Autoliv and Volvo Cars equally own 50% each of the shares in Zenuity AB and neither party has control. The Company will account for its 50% ownership in Zenuity AB as an equity method investment.

There were no other reportable events subsequent to March 31, 2017.

22

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying Notes thereto included elsewhere herein and with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on February 23, 2017. Unless otherwise noted, all dollar amounts are in millions.

Autoliv, Inc. (“Autoliv” or the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Stockholm, Sweden. It was created in 1997 from the merger of Autoliv AB (“AAB”) and the automotive safety products business of Morton International, Inc. The Company functions as a holding corporation and owns two principal subsidiaries, AAB and Autoliv ASP, Inc.

Autoliv is a leading developer, manufacturer and supplier of automotive safety systems to the automotive industry with a broad range of product offerings, including passive safety systems and active safety systems. Passive safety systems are primarily meant to improve vehicle safety. Passive safety products include modules and components for passenger and driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems, seatbelts, steering wheels, whiplash protection systems and child seats, and components for such systems. Active safety systems are designed to assist the driver and ultimately to avoid any crashes by intervening before a collision can occur. Active safety products include automotive radars, night vision systems, cameras with driver assist systems, positioning systems, passive safety electronics, active seatbelts and brake control systems.

Autoliv’s filings with the SEC, including this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, annual reports on Form 10-K, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and all of our other reports and statements, and amendments thereto, are available free of charge on our corporate website at www.autoliv.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC (i.e. generally the same day as the filing).

Shares of Autoliv common stock trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “ALV”. Swedish Depository Receipts representing shares of Autoliv common stock (“SDRs”) trade on NASDAQ Stockholm under the symbol “ALIV SDB”, and options in SDRs trade on the same exchange under the name “Autoliv SDB”. Options in Autoliv shares trade on NASDAQ OMX PHLX and NYSE Amex Options under the symbol “ALV”. Our fiscal year ends on December 31.

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

Autoliv’s first quarter developed slightly better than expected, with organic sales growth (non-U.S. GAAP measure, see reconciliation table below) and adjusted operating margin (non-U.S. GAAP measure, see reconciliation table below) both exceeding the Company’s expectations at the beginning of the quarter.

In Passive Safety, the Company’s share of order intake continued at a high level, further strengthening Autoliv’s future market share and growth expectations. The Passive Safety industry situation is unchanged from last year and Autoliv continues to focus on flawless execution on its high order intake.  The Company is continuing its engineering efforts but is gradually shifting to a production focus as it prepares to execute on the historically high order intake. Despite the short term strain on the Company in preparing for these deliveries, Passive Safety reached double digit operating margin in the quarter.

In Electronics, Autoliv won active safety orders with three OEMs in the quarter, taking the order total for the past twelve months to eight orders with five different OEMs. In addition, Autoliv is the main supplier of active safety products to the new Mercedes S-class and the Company announced in February a European premium OEM order win with Volvo Cars. This order means that Autoliv will supply active safety products, including radar and vision algorithms.

Autoliv continues to invest in competence and capacity for the future. The Company has now recruited 982 of the 1,000 engineers it intended to recruit between July 2016 and June 2017. About half of these engineers are in Passive Safety and half in Electronics.

In April, Autoliv announced the start of operations for Zenuity, the Company’s joint venture with Volvo Cars and platform for developing software for autonomous driving and driver assistance. Zenuity has already received considerable interest from several OEMs. The Zenuity initiative is part of the journey towards autonomous driving, which requires the fusion of a multitude of technologies and competences, which in turn requires a multitude of co-operations, alliances and other partnerships.

23

Light vehicle production grew by almost 6% in the quarter, with growth in all main regions. However, the Company currently see some uncertainties relating to light vehicle production growth, including high inventory levels and slower sales momentum, especially in North America and China. Autoliv continues to monitor the situation closely and is prepared to take any necessary actions in response to the shifts in light vehicle production. With quality remaining Autoliv’s first priority, it continues to deliver on its growth and margin opportunities while staying focused on saving more lives and creating value for the Company’s shareholders.

Non-U.S. GAAP financial measures

Some of the following discussions refer to non-U.S. GAAP financial measures: see "Organic sales", "Operating working capital", "Net debt" and “Leverage ratio”. Management believes that these non-U.S. GAAP financial measures provide supplemental information to investors regarding the performance of the Company’s business and assist investors in analyzing trends in the Company's business. Additional descriptions regarding management’s use of these financial measures are included below. Investors should consider these non-U.S. GAAP financial measures in addition to, rather than as substitutes for, financial reporting measures prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. These historical non-U.S. GAAP financial measures have been identified as applicable in each section of this report with a tabular presentation reconciling them to the most directly comparable U.S. GAAP financial measures. It should be noted that these measures, as defined, may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies.

24

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Overview

The following table shows some of the key ratios management uses internally to analyze the Company's current and future financial performance and core operations as well as to identify trends in the Company’s financial conditions and results of operations. We have provided this information to investors to assist in meaningful comparisons of past and present operating results and to assist in highlighting the results of ongoing core operations. These ratios are more fully explained below and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

KEY RATIOS

(Dollars in millions, except per share data)

THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2017 COMPARED WITH THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2016

Market overview

Light Vehicle Production Development

Change vs. same quarter last year

25

Consolidated Sales

The Company has substantial operations outside the U.S. and at the present time approximately 74% of its sales are denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. This makes the Company and its performance in regions outside the U.S. sensitive to changes in U.S. dollar exchange rates when translated. The measure “Organic sales” presents the increase or decrease in the Company’s overall U.S. dollar net sales on a comparative basis, allowing separate discussion of the impacts by segment, of acquisitions/divestitures and exchange rate fluctuations and our ongoing core operations and results. The tabular reconciliations below presents the change in “Organic sales” reconciled to the change in the total net sales as can be derived from our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

The following table shows the Company’s consolidated net sales by segment and other for the first quarter 2017 and 2016, respectively:

Consolidated net sales increased by 7.3% compared to the same quarter of 2016 with an organic growth (non-U.S. GAAP measure, see reconciliation table below) of 4.4%, negative currency translation of around 2% and impact from acquisitions of 5%. Key drivers for the organic growth were Europe, Japan and India.

Passive Safety Sales

Consolidated Passive Safety segment sales increased by 2.6% to $2,040 million. Excluding negative currency translation effects, the organic sales growth (Non-U.S. GAAP measure, see reconciliation table below) was 4.7%.

Airbag sales had solid growth from frontal airbags in Japan (Mitsubishi and Toyota) and India (Hyundai/Kia and Suzuki). Growth in steering wheels contributed about 1.0pp to the total organic sales growth (Non-U.S. GAAP measure), and was mainly driven by increases in Europe (Mercedes and Renault) and Japan (Mitsubishi and Toyota).

Seatbelt sales growth came mainly from Europe (especially with Volkswagen and Volvo) and North America (Volkswagen and Hyundai/Kia).

Inflator replacement sales affected the segment’s organic sales growth (Non-U.S. GAAP measure) negatively by less than 0.5pp.

26

Electronics Sales