Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 9.  Commitments and Contingencies

The company is involved in various routine litigation matters, including administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, governmental investigations, environmental matters, and commercial and construction contract disputes, none of which are expected to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

The company is involved, along with two other remaining steel manufacturing company defendants, in a class action antitrust complaint filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois in September 2008, originally against eight companies. The Complaint alleges a conspiracy on the part of the original defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States during a specified period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. All but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products.  The other Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period.  In addition, another similar complaint was filed in December 2010 purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee. All Complaints have been consolidated in the Chicago action and seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.

Following a period of discovery relating to class certification matters, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in May 2012, and on February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Following a three-day hearing on the pending motion during March and April of 2014, the Court took the motion under advisement. On September 9, 2015, the Court certified the class, limited, however, to the issue of the alleged conspiracy, and denied class certification on the issue of antitrust impact. There will be additional merits discovery, but the extent thereof is currently being discussed. In the meantime, the defendants have appealed the court’s class certification ruling on the conspiracy issue, and Plaintiff has cross-appealed on the impact issue. Steel Dynamics has also filed a motion for summary judgment, as has co-defendant SSAB.  Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, we cannot presently determine the ultimate outcome of this litigation. However, we have determined, based on the information available at this time, that there is not presently a “reasonable possibility” (as that term is defined in ASC 450-20-20), that the outcome of these legal proceedings would have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity