Item 2.  Properties.

Alcoa’s principal office is located at 390 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022-4608. Alcoa’s corporate center is located at 201 Isabella Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212-5858. The Alcoa Technical Center for research and development is located at 100 Technical Drive, Alcoa Center, Pennsylvania 15069.

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 A and H 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:

ALUMINA

Bauxite : See the table and related text in the Bauxite Interests section on pages 5-6 of this report.

Alumina : See the table and related text in the Alumina Refining Facilities and Capacity section on pages 7-8 of this report.

PRIMARY METALS

See the table and related text in the Primary Aluminum Facilities and Capacity section on pages 9-11 of this report.

FLAT-ROLLED PRODUCTS

See the table and related text in the Flat-Rolled Products Facilities section on page 12 of this report.

ENGINEERED PRODUCTS AND SOLUTIONS

See the table and related text in the Engineered Products and Solutions Facilities section on pages 13-14 of this report.

CORPORATE

See the table and related text in the Corporate Facilities section on page 15 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, including some that it has asserted against others. While the amounts claimed may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot now be determined because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. It is possible that results of operations or liquidity in a particular period could be materially affected by certain contingencies. Management believes, however, that the disposition of matters that are pending or asserted will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the company.

29

Table of Contents

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.

As previously reported, since 1989, Alcoa has been conducting investigations and studies of the Grasse River, adjacent to Alcoa’s Massena, New York plant site, under order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued under Section 106 of CERCLA. Sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). In early 2002, Alcoa submitted a revised Analysis of Alternatives Report to EPA. This Report identified potential remedial actions related to PCB contamination of the river, including additional remedial alternatives that may be required by EPA. It also reflected certain recent studies and investigations on the river, including pilot tests of sediment capping techniques and other remediation technologies. The range of costs associated with the remedial alternatives evaluated in the 2002 Report was between $2 million and $525 million. Alcoa believes that rational, scientific analysis supports a remedy involving the containment of sediments in place via natural or man-made processes. Because the selection of the $2 million alternative (natural recovery) was considered remote, the company adjusted the reserve for the Grasse River in 2002 to $30 million representing the low end of the range of possible alternatives, as no single alternative within that range could be identified as more probable than the others. In June 2003, based on then recent river observations, EPA requested that Alcoa gather additional field data to assess the potential for sediment erosion from winter river ice formation and breakup so that it could be factored into the range of remedial alternatives being considered. The results of these additional studies, submitted in a report to EPA in April 2004, suggest that this phenomenon has the potential to occur approximately every 10 years and may impact sediments in certain portions of the river under all remedial scenarios. Those evaluations were submitted to EPA along with a proposal to perform additional pilot remedial studies in the river. In May 2004, EPA approved Alcoa’s proposed Remedial Options Pilot Study (ROPS) that includes sediment removal and capping, the installation of an ice control structure, and significant monitoring. At the same time, Alcoa adjusted the reserve for the river to include the $35 million estimated cost of the ROPS, in addition to the $30 million previously reserved. Most of the construction work for the ROPS was completed in 2005 with monitoring through 2008. The reserves for the Grasse River were re-evaluated in the fourth quarter of 2006 and an adjustment of $4 million was made. This adjustment covered commitments made to the EPA for additional investigation work for the ongoing monitoring program, including that associated with the ROPS program; to prepare a revised Analysis of Alternatives Report, and for an interim measure that involves, annually, the mechanical ice breaking of the river to prevent the formation of ice jams until a permanent remedy is selected. EPA has since eliminated the ice breaking requirement. The findings from the ROPS program and from these additional investigations were incorporated into a revised Analysis of Alternatives Report that was submitted to EPA in 2008. This update incorporated new information obtained from the ROPS regarding the feasibility and costs associated with various capping and dredging alternatives and incorporated various options for ice control. EPA will use this information to develop a remedy for the river. Alcoa adjusted the reserve in the fourth quarter of 2008 by an additional $40 million for increases associated with updated cost for a proposed remedy incorporating ice control and for settlement of potential resource damages. The EPA’s ultimate selection of a remedy could result in additional liability. Alcoa may be required to record a subsequent reserve adjustment at the time the EPA’s Record of Decision is issued, which is expected in late 2010 or later.

As previously reported, representatives of various U.S. federal and state agencies and a Native American tribe, acting in their capacities as trustees for natural resources (Trustees), have asserted that Alcoa and Reynolds Metals Company (Reynolds) may be liable for loss or damage to such resources under federal and state law based on Alcoa’s and Reynolds’ operations at their Massena, New York and St. Lawrence, New York facilities. While formal proceedings have not been instituted, the company continues to actively investigate these claims. Pursuant to an agreement entered into with the Trustees in 1991, Alcoa and Reynolds had been working cooperatively with General Motors Corporation, who is facing similar claims by the Trustees, to assess potential injuries to natural resources in the region. With the bankruptcy of General Motors in 2009, Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) took over General Motors’ liability in

30

Table of Contents

this matter. In September 2009, MLC notified Alcoa and the Trustees that it would no longer participate in the cooperative process. Alcoa and the Trustees have agreed to continue to work together cooperatively without MLC to resolve Alcoa’s and Reynolds’ natural resources damages liability in this matter. The company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As previously reported, in September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on the island of St. Croix. The wind and rain associated with the hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into neighboring residential areas. Various cleanup and remediation efforts were undertaken by or on behalf of SCA. A Notice of Violation was issued by the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government, and has been contested by the company. A civil suit was commenced in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands by certain residents of St. Croix in February 1999 seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal injuries and property damages associated with “bauxite or red dust” from the SCA facility. The suit, which has been removed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the “Court”), names SCA, Alcoa Inc., and Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000, was accorded class action treatment. The class is defined to include persons in various defined neighborhoods who “suffered damages and/or injuries as a result of exposure during and after Hurricane Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane Georges.” All of the defendants have denied liability, and discovery and other pretrial proceedings have been underway since 1999. In October 2003, the defendants received plaintiffs’ expert reports. These reports also claim that the material blown during Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and contained crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances. The reports further claim, among other things, that the population of the six subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of 3,730 people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the fault of the defendants, and hence will be able to show entitlement to lifetime medical monitoring as well as other compensatory and punitive relief. These opinions have been contested by the defendants’ expert reports, that state, among other things, that plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime medical monitoring. In August 2005, Alcoa and SCA moved to decertify the plaintiff class, and in March 2006, the assigned magistrate judge issued a recommendation that class certification be maintained for liability issues only, and that the class be decertified after liability issues have been resolved. This recommendation has been adopted by the assigned district judge. Alcoa and SCA have turned over this matter to their insurance carriers who are providing a defense. Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss. On June 3, 2008, the Court granted defendants’ joint motion to decertify the class of plaintiffs, and simultaneously granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a new class. Under the new certification order, there is no class as to the personal injury, property damage, or punitive damages claims. (The named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims for medical monitoring during the course of the briefing of the certification motions.) The Court did certify a new class as to the claim of on-going nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently present at the facility. The Court expressly denied certification of a class as to any claims for remediation or clean up of any area outside the facility (including plaintiffs’ property). The new class may seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages. Named plaintiffs, however, may continue to prosecute their claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages. On May 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs’ sole remaining claim, which sought injunctive relief. On May 22, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the named plaintiffs’ claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages. On August 28, 2009, the Court dismissed the named plaintiffs’ claims for personal injury and punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect to their property damage claims. On September 25, 2009, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief. As of October 29, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s summary judgment order dismissing the claim for injunctive relief. On November 24, 2009, Alcoa and SCA filed a motion to dismiss that appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

On January 14, 2010, Alcoa was served with a complaint involving approximately 2,900 individual persons claimed 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 property 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. The complaint names as defendants the

31

Table of Contents

same entities as were sued in the February 1999 action earlier described and have added as a defendant the current owner of the alumina facility property. On February 12, 2010, Alcoa and SCA removed the case to the federal court for the District of the Virgin Islands. The company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As previously reported, on September 26, 2003, EPA Region VI filed an Administrative Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing against the Wichita Falls, Texas facility of Howmet Corporation (Howmet) for violations of hazardous waste regulations relating to shipments of used potassium hydroxide to a fertilizer manufacturer from 1997 until 2000. The Complaint proposes a penalty of $265,128. In addition, EPA ordered Howmet to cease sending used potassium hydroxide to fertilizer manufacturers or employing used potassium hydroxide in any use constituting disposal and to certify compliance with hazardous waste regulations within 30 days. On October 22, 2003, EPA Region II issued an almost identical Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing against Howmet’s Dover, New Jersey facility, seeking $180,021 in penalties. Howmet filed its Answers to EPA Region VI’s and EPA Region II’s Complaints. Howmet’s Answers denied the substance of EPA’s Complaints, requested that no penalties be imposed and requested Hearings on both the hazardous waste allegations and the Compliance Orders. On April 25, 2005, the administrative Court granted EPA’s motions for partial accelerated decision with respect to both cases, finding that Howmet violated the cited regulatory provisions alleged in the Complaints and moved the case to the penalty phase. The Court rejected Howmet’s interlocutory appeal of this decision on May 16, 2005. On September 2, 2005, EPA and Howmet stipulated to a penalty amount of $309,091 for the consolidated matters should the finding of liability be upheld and Howmet appealed the administrative Court’s decision to the Environmental Appeals Board on September 28, 2005. On May 24, 2007, the Environmental Appeals Board upheld the administrative Court’s liability finding against Howmet and assessed the parties’ stipulated penalty of $309,091. On July 23, 2007, Howmet appealed the Environmental Appeals Board decision to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 23, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Howmet’s appeal and ordered Howmet to pay the EPA a penalty of $309,091. Howmet appealed the United States District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on November 23, 2009.

As previously reported, in May 2005 , Alcoa World Alumina LLC (AWA) and SCA were among the defendants listed in a lawsuit brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Dean Plaskett, in his capacity as Trustee for Natural Resources of the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. The complaint seeks damages for alleged injuries to natural resources caused by alleged releases from an alumina refinery facility in St. Croix that was owned by SCA from 1995 to 2002. Also listed in the lawsuit are previous and subsequent owners of the alumina refinery and the owners of an adjacent oil refinery. Claims are brought under CERCLA, U.S. Virgin Islands law, and common law. The plaintiff has not specified in the complaint the amount it seeks in damages. The defendants filed motions to dismiss in 2005. In October 2007, in an effort to resolve the liability of St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P. (SCRG) in the lawsuit, as well as any other CERCLA liability SCRG may have with respect to the facility, DPNR filed a new lawsuit against SCRG seeking the recovery of response costs under CERCLA, and the plaintiff and SCRG filed a joint Agreement and Consent Decree. The remaining defendants each filed objections to the Agreement and Consent Decree, and on October 22, 2008, the court denied entry of the Agreement and Consent Decree. On October 31, 2008, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss that were filed by all defendants in 2005. The court dismissed two counts from the complaint (common law trespass and V.I. Water Pollution Control Act), but denied the motions with regard to the other six counts (CERCLA, V.I. Oil Spill Prevention and Pollution Control Act, and common law strict liability, negligence, negligence per se and nuisance). The court also ruled that the Virgin Islands Government was the proper plaintiff for the territorial law claims and required re-filing of the complaint by the proper parties, which was done on November 18, 2008. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to amend their complaint further, were granted leave by the court to do so, and filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2009. AWA and SCA filed an answer, counterclaim and cross-claim against SCRG in response to the amended complaint on August 17, 2009. In response to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the other former owners of the alumina refinery filed answers, counterclaims, and cross-claims against SCRG and certain agencies of the Virgin Islands Government. Each defendant except SCRG filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the CERCLA cause of action on statute of limitations grounds during July 2009. Following a four-month discovery period, plaintiff Commissioner responded to the motions for summary judgment on December 31, 2009.

32

Table of Contents

Defendants filed their reply briefs on January 29, 2010. At this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As noted above, in October 2007, DPNR filed a CERCLA cost recovery suit against SCRG. After the court denied entry of the Agreement and Consent Decree in October 2008, the cost recovery case lay dormant until May 2009, when SCRG filed a third-party complaint for contribution and other relief against several third-party defendants, including AWA and SCA. SCRG filed an amended third-party complaint on August 31, 2009, and served it on third-party defendants in mid-September 2009. AWA and SCA filed their answer to the amended third-party complaint on October 30, 2009. On January 8, 2010, DPNR filed a motion to assert claims directly against certain third-party defendants, including AWA and SCA. On January 29, 2010, the court granted plaintiff’s motion. Responsive pleadings are due on February 19, 2010. Fact discovery in the case is just beginning. The case is set for trial in March 2011. At this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As previously reported, 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 Inc., 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. If allowed to proceed as a class action, plaintiff seeks to compel additional remediation to be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken by them voluntarily, seeks an injunction against further emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in consultation with an independent expert, and seeks money damages on behalf of all class members. A hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification was held on April 24-26, 2007. On May 23, 2007, the court issued its ruling which granted the motion in part and 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. On September 13, 2007, the plaintiff filed his claim against the original defendants, which the court had authorized in May. On June 16, 2008, Alcoa filed its Statement of Defense. On July 15, 2009, plaintiff filed an Answer to Alcoa’s Statement of Defense. On October 9, 2009, Alcoa filed a Motion for Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiff’s Answer. On October 16, 2009, Alcoa filed a Motion to Strike with respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiff’s Answer. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing date for Alcoa’s two motions. At this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As previously reported, in January 2006, in Musgrave v. Alcoa, et al, Warrick Circuit Court, County of Warrick, Indiana; 87-C01-0601-CT-0006, Alcoa Inc. and a subsidiary were sued by an individual, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, claiming harm from alleged exposure to waste that had been disposed in designated pits at the Squaw Creek Mine in the 1970s. During February 2007, class allegations were dropped and the matter now proceeds as an individual claim. On December 2, 2009, the court set trial for October 4, 2010.

Also as previously reported, in October 2006, in Barnett, et al. v. Alcoa and Alcoa Fuels, Inc., Warrick Circuit Court, County of Warrick, Indiana; 87C01-0601-PL-499, forty-one plaintiffs sued Alcoa Inc. and a subsidiary, asserting claims similar to the Musgrave matter, discussed above. In November 2007, Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiary filed motions to dismiss both the Musgrave and Barnett cases. In October 2008, the Warrick County Circuit Court granted Alcoa’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. The parties have each requested that the court certify an interlocutory appeal from the court’s rulings and the court indicated that it will grant the parties’ request. Plaintiffs also filed a “second amended complaint” in response to the court’s orders granting Alcoa’s motions to dismiss. The trial court is likely to stay any further proceedings regarding the second amended

33

Table of Contents

complaint while the parties pursue an interlocutory appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. On December 2, 2009, the court set a trial date in two individual claims, Kirk and Hedrick, for November 1 and November 10, 2010, respectively. Discovery in these cases has commenced. The company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

In 1996, Alcoa acquired the Fusina smelter and rolling operations and the Portovesme smelter, both of which are owned by Alcoa’s subsidiary, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l., from Alumix, an entity owned by the Italian Government. Alcoa also acquired the extrusion plants located in Feltre and Bolzano. At the time of the acquisition, Alumix indemnified Alcoa 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., Fusina site (Venice), was also sued by the Italian Minister of Environment and Minister of Public Works 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 (which is still pending) and filed suit against Alumix, among others, seeking indemnification for these liabilities under the provisions of the acquisition agreement. Similar issues also existed with respect to the Bolzano and Feltre plants, based on orders issued by local authorities in 2006. All the orders have been challenged in front of the Administrative Regional Courts, and all trials are still pending. However, in Bolzano the Municipality withdrew the order, and the Tribunal suspended the order in Feltre. Most, if not all, of these matters occurred during the ownership of Alumix, the governmental entity that sold the Italian plants to Alcoa. The Court has appointed an expert to assess the causes of the pollution. In June 2008, the parties (Alcoa and Ligestra, the successor to Alumix) signed a preliminary agreement by which they have committed to pursue a settlement and asked for a suspension of the technical assessment during the negotiations. The Court accepted the request, and postponed the technical assessment, reserving its ability to fix the deadline depending on the development of negotiations. Alcoa 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 Alcoa committed to clean up the site. In December 2009, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Ligestra S.r.l. reached an agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina (negotiations continue related to Portovesme). The settlement would also allow Alcoa to settle the case for the environmental damages pending before the Civil Court of Venice. The agreement outlines an allocation of payments to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages and the scope and costs for a proposed soil remediation project, which is expected to be formally presented to the MOE in 2010. The agreement is contingent upon final acceptance of the remediation project by the MOE. Alcoa believes that it has made adequate reserves for these matters.

As previously reported, in December 2006, SCA was sued by the Commissioner of DPNR, U.S. Virgin Islands, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. The plaintiff alleges violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act and a construction permit issued thereunder. The complaint seeks a civil fine of $10,000 under the Coastal Zone Management Act, civil penalties of $10,000 per day for alleged intentional and knowing violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act, exemplary damages, costs, interest and attorney’s fees, and “other such amounts as may be just and proper.” SCA responded to the complaint on February 2, 2007 by filing an answer and motion to disqualify DPNR’s private attorney. The parties fully briefed the motion and are awaiting a decision from the court. At this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As previously reported, in December 2006, SCA, along with unaffiliated prior and subsequent owners, were sued by the Commissioner of the DPNR, U.S. Virgin Islands, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. This second suit alleges violations by the defendants of certain permits and environmental statutes said to apply to the facility. The complaint seeks the completion of certain actions regarding the facility, a civil fine from each defendant of $10,000 under the Coastal Zone Management Act, civil penalties of $50,000 per day for each alleged violation of the Water Pollution Control Act, $10,000 per day for alleged intentional and knowing violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act, exemplary damages, costs, interest and attorney’s fees, and “other such amounts as may be just and proper.” SCA responded to the complaint on February 2, 2007 by filing an answer and motion to disqualify DPNR’s private attorney. The parties fully briefed the motion and are awaiting a decision from the court. In October 2007,

34

Table of Contents

plaintiff and defendant SCRG entered into a settlement agreement resolving claims against SCRG. Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal with the court, and the court entered an order dismissing SCRG on November 2, 2007. SCA objected to the dismissal and requested that the court withdraw its order, and the parties have briefed SCA’s objection and request. A decision from the court is pending. On November 10, 2007, SCA filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims in the case. The parties completed briefing of the motion in January 2008. A decision from the court is pending. At this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As previously reported, on December 8, 2008, Alcoa of Australia Limited (AofA) received a notice of prosecution in connection with a dust event that allegedly occurred on May 14, 2006 near AofA’s Wagerup alumina refinery’s residue storage areas. The prosecution was purported to be undertaken pursuant to section 49(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Western Australia) (the “Act”) which provides that a person who, with criminal negligence, causes or allows pollution to be caused, commits an offense. The maximum potential penalty under the original charge was $1,000,000 (AUD). On July 23, 2009, AofA entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charge of causing pollution with criminal negligence. Subsequently, on November 24, 2009, the government amended the charge to remove the allegations of criminal negligence and instead now alleges that Alcoa has “allowed pollution to be caused” in violation of section 49(3) of the Act. The maximum potential penalty under the amended charge is $500,000 (AUD). Alcoa has maintained its plea of “not guilty” to the amended charge, and the trial in this matter is scheduled to commence on August 16, 2010. This litigation is in its preliminary stages and the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome.

In December 2009, Alcoa Alumínio S.A. (Alumínio) received information that a lawsuit had been filed by the public prosecutors of the State of Para in Brazil. The suit apparently names the company and the State of Para, which, through its Environmental Agency, had issued the operating license for the company’s new bauxite mine in Juruti. The claims in the suit appear to call into question the validity of the Juruti licensing process and operating license. Alumínio has not received a copy of the subpoena and, therefore, has not had access to the full details of the suit, but it is believed that the public prosecutors seek suspension of the operating license issued by the State of Para Environmental Agency, costs to remedy alleged damage and monetary fines. The company believes that in all respects it is in compliance with all terms of its license and the law, but is communicating with the responsible officials and stakeholders to assess exposure related to the matter. This proceeding is in its preliminary stage and the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Other Matters

As previously reported, along with various asbestos manufacturers and distributors, Alcoa and its subsidiaries as premises owners are defendants in several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury predominantly as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various company facilities. In addition, an Alcoa subsidiary company has been named, along with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern complaint where the company’s involvement is not evident. Since 1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed. To date, the subsidiary has been dismissed from almost every case that was actually placed in line for trial. Alcoa, its 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. Alcoa believes that between its reserves and insurance it is adequately covered 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 financial condition of the company.

As previously reported, in July 2006, the European Commission (EC) announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether an extension of the regulated electricity tariff granted by Italy to some energy-intensive industries complies with European Union (EU) state aid rules. The Italian power tariff extended the tariff that was in force until December 31, 2005 through November 19, 2009 (Alcoa incurred higher power costs of $23 million pretax at its smelters in Italy between the tariff end date and December 31, 2009). The extension was originally through 2010, but the date was changed by legislation adopted by the Italian Parliament effective on August 15, 2009. Prior to expiration

35

Table of Contents

of the tariff in 2005, Alcoa had been operating in Italy for more than 10 years under a power supply structure approved by the EC in 1996. That measure provided a competitive power supply to the primary aluminum industry and was not considered state aid from the Italian Government. The EC’s announcement expressed concerns about whether Italy’s extension of the tariff beyond 2005 was compatible with EU legislation and potentially distorted competition in the European market of primary aluminum, where energy is an important part of the production costs.

On November 19, 2009, the EC announced a decision in this matter stating that the extension of the tariff by Italy constituted unlawful state aid, in part, and, therefore, the Italian Government is to recover a portion of the benefit Alcoa received since January 2006 (including interest). The amount of this recovery will be based on a calculation that is being prepared by the Italian Government. Pending notification from the Italian Government, Alcoa estimates that a payment in the range of $300 million to $500 million will be required during 2010. Alcoa is preparing to appeal this decision to the General Court of the EU and will pursue all substantive and procedural legal steps available to it to annul the EC’s decision, including seeking injunctive relief to suspend the effectiveness of the decision. After discussions with legal counsel and reviewing the bases on which the EC decided, including the different considerations cited in the EC decision regarding Alcoa’s two smelters in Italy, Alcoa recorded a charge of $250 million, including $20 million to write-off a receivable from the Italian Government for amounts due under the now expired tariff structure.

Separately, as previously reported, on November 29, 2006, Alcoa filed an appeal before the European Court of First Instance seeking the annulment of the EC’s decision to open an investigation alleging that such decision did not follow the applicable procedural rules. On March 25, 2009, the European Court of First Instance denied Alcoa’s appeal. On June 4, 2009, Alcoa appealed the March 25, 2009 ruling; however, no decision on that appeal is expected until 2011 or later.

As previously reported, in November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys’ fees. Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs’ claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs’ jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of September 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009. No schedule was set for handing down a decision. Alcoa believes that it presented substantial evidence in support of its defenses at trial. However, at this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict the outcome. Alcoa estimates that, in the event of an unfavorable outcome, the maximum exposure would be an additional postretirement benefit liability of approximately $300 million and approximately $40 million of expense (includes an interest cost component) annually, on average, for the next 11 years.

As previously reported, on January 25, 2007, the EC announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether the regulated electricity tariffs granted by Spain comply with EU state aid rules. Alcoa has been operating in Spain for more than nine years under a power supply structure approved by the Spanish Government in 1986, an equivalent tariff having been granted in 1983. The investigation is limited to the year 2005 and is focused both on the energy-intensive consumers and the distribution companies. The investigation provided 30 days to any interested party to submit

36

Table of Contents

observations and comments to the EC. With respect to the energy-intensive consumers, the EC opened the investigation on the assumption that prices paid under the tariff in 2005 were lower than the pool price mechanism, therefore being, in principle, artificially below market conditions. Alcoa submitted comments in which the company provided evidence that prices paid by energy-intensive consumers were in line with the market, in addition to various legal arguments defending the legality of the Spanish tariff system. It is Alcoa’s understanding that the Spanish tariff system for electricity is in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, and therefore no state aid is present in the tariff system. Alcoa believes that the total potential impact from an unfavorable decision would be approximately $12 million (€8 million) pre-tax. While Alcoa believes that any additional cost would only be assessed for the year 2005, it is possible that the EC could extend its investigation to later years. A decision by the EC is expected in 2010. If the EC’s investigation concludes that the regulated electricity tariffs for industries are unlawful, Alcoa will have an opportunity to challenge the decision in the EU courts.

As previously reported, on February 27, 2008, Alcoa Inc. received notice that Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) had filed suit against Alcoa Inc. and Alcoa World Alumina LLC (collectively, “Alcoa”), and others, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “Court”), Civil Action number 08-299, styled Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. v. Alcoa Inc., Alcoa World Alumina LLC, William Rice, and Victor Phillip Dahdaleh. The complaint alleges that certain Alcoa entities and their agents, including Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, have engaged in a conspiracy over a period of 15 years to defraud Alba. The complaint further alleges that Alcoa and its employees or agents (1) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba in order to force Alba to purchase alumina at excessively high prices, (2) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba and issued threats in order to pressure Alba to enter into an agreement by which Alcoa would purchase an equity interest in Alba, and (3) assigned portions of existing supply contracts between Alcoa and Alba for the sole purpose of facilitating alleged bribes and unlawful commissions. The complaint alleges that Alcoa and the other defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed fraud. Alba’s complaint seeks compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages, rescission of the 2005 alumina supply contract, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Alba seeks treble damages with respect to its RICO claims.

On February 26, 2008, Alcoa Inc. had advised the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) that it had recently became aware of these claims, had already begun an internal investigation, and intended to cooperate fully in any investigation that the DOJ or the SEC may commence. On March 17, 2008, the DOJ notified Alcoa that it had opened a formal investigation and Alcoa has been cooperating with the government.

In response to a motion filed by the DOJ on March 27, 2008, the Court ordered the suit filed by Alba to be administratively closed and that all discovery be stayed to allow the DOJ to fully conduct an investigation without the interference and distraction of ongoing civil litigation. The Court further ordered that the case will be reopened at the close of the DOJ’s investigation. The company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As previously reported, on July 21, 2008, the Teamsters Local #500 Severance Fund and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed a shareholder derivative suit in the civil division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against certain officers and directors of Alcoa claiming breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and other violations. This derivative action stems from the previously disclosed civil litigation brought by Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) against Alcoa, Alcoa World Alumina LLC, Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, and others, and the subsequent investigation of Alcoa by the DOJ and the SEC with respect to Alba’s claims. This derivative action claims that the defendants caused or failed to prevent the matters alleged in the Alba lawsuit. The Alba suit and the corresponding investigation are more fully described above. The director defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 21, 2008. On September 3, 2009, a hearing was held on Alcoa’s motion and, on October 12, 2009, the court issued its order denying Alcoa’s motion to dismiss but finding that a derivative action during the conduct of the DOJ investigation and pendency of the underlying complaint by Alba would be contrary to the interest of shareholders and, therefore, stayed the case until further order of the court. This derivative action is in its preliminary stages and the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

37

Table of Contents

As previously reported, on March 6, 2009, the Philadelphia Gas Works Retirement Fund filed a shareholder derivative suit in the civil division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. This action was brought against certain officers and directors of Alcoa claiming breach of fiduciary duty and other violations and is based on the allegations made in the previously disclosed civil litigation brought by Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) against Alcoa, Alcoa World Alumina LLC, Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, and others, and the subsequent investigation of Alcoa by the DOJ and the SEC with respect to Alba’s claims. This derivative action claims that the defendants caused or failed to prevent the conduct alleged in the Alba lawsuit. The Alba suit and the corresponding investigation are more fully described above. On August 7, 2009, the director and officer defendants filed an unopposed motion to coordinate the case with the Teamsters Local #500 suit, described immediately above, in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. The Allegheny County court issued its order consolidating the case on September 18, 2009. This derivative action is in its preliminary stages and the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

As a result of electricity supply issues at Alcoa’s Rockdale, Texas smelter, on July 29, 2008 Alcoa filed a lawsuit in the 20 ^th Judicial District Court of Milam County, Texas, against Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant) and certain of its affiliates and parents. The lawsuit seeks remedies, including actual damages, for improper actions alleged in the lawsuit to have been caused by the defendants, including the electricity supply problems that led to smelter curtailment, excess costs charged to Alcoa to install certain environmental control upgrades at the power plant, excess costs charged to Alcoa due to improperly conducting mining operations at the Three Oaks Mine and alleging that the defendants had refused to permit Alcoa to exercise its audit rights regarding power plant and mining operations. Alcoa has amended its complaint several times and on October 22, 2009 filed its Third Amended Petition, naming as defendants Luminant and eleven affiliated entities. In answer to Alcoa’s Third Amended Petition, on October 30, 2009, the Luminant defendants filed their Amended Answer and Counterclaim, including counterclaims against Alcoa. Those counterclaims seek remedies that include actual damages for alleged non-payment of shared costs for the upgrade at the power plant and for mining operations. Trial in the case is now scheduled for May 2010. The company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Item 4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

No matters were submitted to a vote of the company’s security holders during the fourth quarter of 2009.

Item 4A.  Executive Officers of the Registrant.

The names, ages, positions and areas of responsibility of the executive officers of the company as of February 18, 2010 are listed below.

William F. Christopher , 55, Executive Vice President – Alcoa and Group President, Engineered Products and Solutions. In January 2003, Mr. Christopher assumed responsibility for Alcoa’s global automotive market and since September 2002, has been Group President for Alcoa’s Aerospace and Commercial Transportation Group. He also led the customer and marketing initiatives for growth for the company until January 2006. In 2001, he assumed responsibility for the global deployment of the Alcoa Business System and the company’s customer and quality initiatives. Mr. Christopher was elected a Vice President of Alcoa in 1999 and Executive Vice President in 2001. He was President of Alcoa Forged Products from 1996 to 2001.

Nicholas J. DeRoma , 63, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer. Mr. DeRoma was elected to his current position effective August 3, 2009 upon joining Alcoa. He was Chief Legal Officer of Nortel Networks Corporation based in Canada from 2000 until his retirement in September 2005. Before joining Nortel in 1997, he was employed by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) from 1972 to 1997, holding a series of increasingly challenging assignments in Europe, Asia and North America, including serving as Assistant General Counsel of IBM from 1993 to 1995 and as General Counsel of IBM North America, IBM’s largest business unit, from 1995 to 1997.

38

Table of Contents

Klaus Kleinfeld , 52, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Kleinfeld was elected to Alcoa’s Board of Directors in November 2003 and was elected President and Chief Executive Officer of Alcoa on May 8, 2008. He was President and Chief Operating Officer of Alcoa from October 1, 2007 to May 8, 2008. Mr. Kleinfeld was President and Chief Executive Officer of Siemens AG from January 2005 to June 2007. He served as Deputy Chairman of the Managing Board and Executive Vice President of Siemens AG from 2004 to January 2005. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of Siemens Corporation, the U.S. arm of Siemens AG, from 2002 to 2004, and was Chief Operating Officer of Siemens Corporation from January to December 2001. Prior to his U.S. assignment, Mr. Kleinfeld was Executive Vice President and a member of the Executive Board of the Siemens AG Medical Engineering Group in Germany from January to December 2000.

Charles D. McLane , Jr. , 56, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. McLane was elected an Alcoa Executive Vice President in September 2007 and was elected Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Alcoa in January 2007. He was elected Vice President and Corporate Controller in October 2002. He joined Alcoa in May 2000 as director of investor relations, following Alcoa’s merger with Reynolds Metals Company. He became Assistant Treasurer of Reynolds in 1999 and Assistant Controller of that company in 1995.

Bernt Reitan , 61, Executive Vice President – Alcoa and Group President, Global Primary Products. Mr. Reitan was named Group President, Global Primary Products in October 2004 and was elected an Alcoa Executive Vice President in November 2004. He was named Group President, Alcoa Primary Products in January 2004. He was elected Vice President of Primary Metals in 2003. He was named President of Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals and was elected a Vice President of Alcoa in July 2001. He joined Alcoa in 2000 as general manager of Alcoa World Alumina in Europe. Before joining Alcoa, Mr. Reitan held a series of positions with Elkem in Norway over a twenty-year period, serving as Senior Vice President of Materials and Technology and managing director of Elkem Aluminium ANS from 1988 to June 2000.

J. Michael Schell , 62, Executive Vice President – Business Development. Mr. Schell was elected Executive Vice President – Business Development and Law effective May 8, 2008 when he joined Alcoa and Chief Compliance Officer of Alcoa effective July 18, 2008. He has been Executive Vice President – Business Development of Alcoa since August 3, 2009. He was Vice Chairman of Global Banking of Citigroup Inc. from mid-2005 until he joined Alcoa. He was a mergers and acquisitions lawyer with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP from 1979 to mid-2005, being elected a partner of that firm in 1984. He was an attorney with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft from 1976 to 1979.

Tony R. Thene , 49, Vice President and Controller. Mr. Thene was elected to his current position effective January 18, 2008. He joined Alcoa in 1989 and served in a series of financial management positions from that time to his most recent appointment. He was director of investor relations of Alcoa from January 2006 to January 2008. He served as chief financial officer of Alcoa’s Global Mill Products from November 2004 to January 2006. He became vice president, finance, of Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals in 2002 and was manager of Alcoa’s corporate financial analysis and planning group in 2001. He served as division controller for the Alcoa Forging business from 1998 to 2001.

Helmut Wieser , 56, Executive Vice President – Alcoa and Group President, Global Rolled Products, Hard Alloy Extrusions & Asia. Mr. Wieser was elected an Alcoa Executive Vice President in November 2005 and was named Group President, Global Rolled Products, Hard Alloy Extrusions and Asia at that time. Mr. Wieser was named Group President, Mill Products Europe/North America in October 2004 and was elected a Vice President of Alcoa in November 2004. He joined Alcoa in October 2000 as Vice President of Operations in Europe and in 2004 he became President of Alcoa’s flat rolled products business in Europe. Before joining Alcoa, Mr. Wieser worked for Austria Metall Group, where he was an executive member of the board and chief operating officer from 1997 to 2000.

The company’s executive officers are elected or appointed to serve until the next annual meeting of the Board of Directors (held in conjunction with the annual meeting of shareholders) except in the case of earlier death, retirement, resignation or removal.

39

Table of Contents