Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Income Tax Litigation The Company files income tax returns in the U.S., Canada, U.K., and in various state, provincial and local jurisdictions which are routinely examined by tax authorities in these jurisdictions. The statute of limitations related to the U.S. consolidated federal income tax returns is closed for years prior to August 31, 1983 and for the years ended May 31, 1997, 1998 and 1999. The impact of any U.S. federal changes for these years on state income taxes remains subject to examination for a period up to five years after formal notification to the states. The Company generally remains subject to income tax in various states for prior periods ranging from three to eleven years depending on jurisdiction. In the Company's major non-U.S. jurisdictions, tax years are typically subject to examination for three to six years. On December 27, 1989, a predecessor of the Company and certain of the predecessor's affiliates each filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code (the "1989 Bankruptcy Cases") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (the "Florida Bankruptcy Court"). The Company emerged from bankruptcy on March 17, 1995 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization dated as of December 9, 1994, as modified on March 1, 1995 (as so modified the "Consensual Plan"). Although the Consensual Plan was confirmed and became effective, the Florida Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction over, among other things, the resolution of disputed prepetition claims against the Company and other matters that may arise in connection with or related to the Consensual Plan, including claims related to federal income taxes. In connection with the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") filed a proof of claim in the Florida Bankruptcy Court (the "Proof of Claim") for a substantial amount of taxes, interest and penalties with respect to fiscal years ended August 31, 1983 through May 31, 1994. The Company filed an adversary proceeding in the Florida Bankruptcy Court disputing the Proof of Claim (the "Adversary Proceeding") and various issues have been litigated in the Florida Bankruptcy Court. An opinion was issued by the Florida Bankruptcy Court in June 2010 with respect to two of the disputed issues. The Florida Bankruptcy Court instructed both parties to submit a final order addressing all issues that have been litigated for the tax years 1983 through 1995 in the Adversary Proceeding by late August 2010. At the request of both parties, the Florida Bankruptcy Court granted an extension of time of 90 days from the initial submission date to submit the final order. Additional extensions of time to submit the proposed final order were granted in November 2010, February 2011, May 2011, September 2011, January 2013, May 2013 and December 2013. The amounts initially asserted by the Proof of Claim do not reflect the subsequent resolution of certain issues by agreement between the parties. The Company believes that any exposure with respect to those issues in the Proof of Claim is limited to interest and possible penalties and the amount of tax ultimately assessed can be offset by tax reductions in years after 1995. With respect to the tax years ended May 31, 2000 through December 31, 2008, the IRS has completed its audits of the Company's federal income tax returns for these years. The IRS issued 30-Day Letters to the Company in June 2010 and July 2012, proposing changes to tax for these tax years. The Company believes its tax filing positions have substantial merit and filed a formal protest with the IRS within the prescribed 30-day time limit for those issues which have not been previously settled or conceded. The IRS filed a rebuttal to the Company's formal protest and the case was assigned to the Appeals Division of the IRS. The Appeals Division convened a hearing on March 8, 2011 and heard arguments from both parties as to issues not settled or conceded for the 2000 through 2008 audit periods. In September 2014, the IRS Appeals Division returned these tax periods to the IRS Examination Division to be placed into suspense pending the resolution of the tax periods that are at issue in the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases. The disputed issues in these audit periods are similar to the issues remaining in the Proof of Claim. On July 15, 2015, the Debtors filed the Bankruptcy Petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code ("the 2015 Bankruptcy Cases") in the Court. On September 23, 2015, the Florida Bankruptcy Court issued an order transferring the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases and the Adversary Proceedings from the jurisdiction of the Florida Bankruptcy Court to the Court overseeing the 2015 Bankruptcy Cases. In connection with the 2015 Bankruptcy Cases, the Company intends to seek a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding federal tax issues, including, to the extent possible, issues relating to the Proof of Claim asserted in the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases and the Adversary Proceeding. With respect to the 2009 through 2013 tax years, the IRS is conducting an audit of the Company's federal income tax returns for those years. Since the examination is ongoing, any resulting tax deficiency or overpayment cannot be estimated at this time. During 2015, the statute of limitations for assessing additional income tax deficiencies will expire for certain tax years in several state tax jurisdictions. The expiration of the statute of limitations for these years is expected to have an immaterial impact on the total uncertain income tax positions and net income. It is reasonably possible that the amount of unrecognized tax benefits will change in the next twelve months. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had $33.0 million of accruals for unrecognized tax benefits on the matters subject to disposition. The Company has not recorded interest on its uncertain tax positions since the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions on July 15, 2015. Unrecorded interest related to these tax positions for the period from July 15, 2015 through September 30, 2015 was $1.9 million. Due to the uncertainty related to the potential outcome of these matters, any possible changes in unrecognized tax benefits cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company believes that all of its current and prior tax filing positions have substantial merit and intends to vigorously defend any tax claims asserted. The Company believes that it has sufficient accruals to address any claims, including interest and penalties, and does not believe that any potential difference between the final settlements and the amounts accrued will have a material effect on the Company's financial position, but such potential difference could be material to results of operations in a future reporting period. Environmental Matters The Company is subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment, both with respect to the construction and operation of its plants, mines and other facilities and with respect to remediating environmental conditions that may exist at its own and other properties. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. The Company accrues for environmental expenses resulting from existing conditions that relate to past operations when the costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Walter Coke, Inc. Walter Coke, Inc. ("Walter Coke") entered into a decree order in 1989 (the "1989 Order") relative to a Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA") compliance program mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). A RCRA Facility Investigation ("RFI") Work Plan was prepared that proposed investigative tasks to assess the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke facility. In 2004, the EPA re-directed Walter Coke's RFI efforts toward completion of the Environmental Indicator ("EI") determinations for the Current Human Exposures, which were approved and finalized for Walter Coke's Birmingham facility in 2005. In 2008, as a follow-up to the EI determination, the EPA requested that Walter Coke perform additional soil sampling and testing in the neighborhoods surrounding its facility. The results of this sampling and testing were submitted to the EPA for review in 2009. In conjunction with the plan, Walter Coke agreed to remediate portions of 23 properties based on the 2009 sampling and that process was completed in 2012. In 2011, the EPA notified Walter Coke in the form of a General Notice Letter that it proposed that the offsite remediation project ("35th Avenue Superfund Site") be classified and managed as a Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), allowing other Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs") to potentially be held responsible. Under CERCLA authority, the EPA proceeded directly with the offsite sampling work and deferred any further enforcement actions or decisions. In March 2013, the EPA released the North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment showing the air quality around Company facilities to be acceptable. In August 2013, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ("ATSDR") released a report concerning past, present and future exposures to residential soils in North Birmingham and concluded that there is no public health hazard. In September 2013, the EPA sent an "Offer to Conduct Work" letter to Walter Coke and four other PRPs notifying them that the EPA had completed sampling at 1,100 residential properties and that 400 properties exceeded Regional Removal Management Levels ("RMLs") and offered the PRPs an opportunity to cleanup 50 Phase I properties. The Company has notified the EPA that it has declined the Offer to Conduct Work. In July 2014, the Jefferson County Department of Health ("JCDH") said that there are no apparent health risks to individuals living in North Birmingham. In August 2014, the EPA sent an "Offer to Conduct Work" letter to Walter Coke and five other PRPs and offered the PRPs an opportunity to cleanup 30 Phase II properties. The Company notified the EPA that it declined the Offer to Conduct Work. In September 2014, the EPA proposed to add the 35th Avenue Superfund Site to the National Priorities List ("NPL"). The EPA has accepted and is reviewing comments to the proposed listing. In April 2015, ATSDR released an evaluation of air exposures to communities adjacent to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site and concluded that current exposures are unlikely to result in harmful effects in individuals and that the current estimated cumulative cancer risks are within the EPA's target risk range. In response to an informal EPA request, on June 30, 2015, the Company corresponded with the EPA declining to negotiate a potential consent order concerning the performance of future work and the EPA’s past costs. The Company understands that the EPA made a similar request to the other identified PRPs. In connection with that request, the EPA informally indicated that, as of April 2015, it had incurred approximately $17.0 million in costs at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site. The Company has not been provided any documentation for or otherwise independently verified that claim. The EPA also indicated that it will continue expending additional monies at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site if no PRP agrees to assume the work. The EPA has thus far not responded to various technical showings that the Company has made indicating that the conditions at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site appear to be inconsistent with the Company’s operations and that they are more likely the result of other industrial and/or non-industrial sources. For this and other reasons, the Company continues to believe that it has meritorious defenses to any claim for response costs that the EPA or a third party may assert. The Company also notes that if it were found liable, numerous issues would require determination in order to ascertain the extent of such liability, including without limitation the relative contributions of other PRPs thus far identified and possible PRPs not thus far named by the EPA. A RCRA Section 3008(h) Administrative Order on Consent with the effective date of September 24, 2012 was signed by Walter Coke and the EPA (the "2012 Order") . The 2012 Order declared that all of the approved investigation tasks of the RFI Work Plans required by the 1989 Order had been completed by Walter Coke and that the 1989 Order was terminated and is no longer in effect. The objectives of the 2012 Order are to perform Corrective Measure Studies, implement remedies if necessary, and implement and maintain institutional controls if required at the Walter Coke facility. The Company has incurred costs to investigate the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke facility and to define remediation actions to address this environmental liability in accordance with the agreements reached with the EPA under the RFI and the residential soil sampling conducted by Walter Coke in the neighborhoods surrounding its facility. At September 30, 2015, the Company had an amount accrued that is probable and can be reasonably estimated for the costs to be incurred to identify and define remediation actions, as well as to perform certain remedial tasks which can be quantified. As of September 30, 2015, the amount of this accrual was not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional future costs to remediate environmental liabilities at the Walter Coke facility, the amount of such additional costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Although no assurances can be given that the Company will not be required in the future to make material expenditures relating to the Walter Coke site or other sites, management does not believe at this time that the cleanup costs, if any, associated with these sites will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements, but such cleanup costs could be material to the Company's results of operations in a future reporting period. Securities Class Actions and Shareholder Derivative Actions On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter Energy's former CEO; Walter Scheller, Walter Energy's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter Energy's Canadian and U.K. operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011. These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014. Defendants' filed their opposition on October 28, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Reply was filed on January 30, 2015. On May 14, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification without prejudice. All other deadlines have been stayed by the Court. On June 12, 2015, the court issued a stipulated order dismissing, without prejudice, all claims brought against Walter Energy. On July 15, 2015, the remaining parties in the securities class action executed a settlement agreement which resolves all claims for $25.0 million. The settlement payment will be funded by the Company's Directors and Officers liability insurance policy. On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and the settlement is subject to court approval. On February 7, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama (Israni v. Clark et al.). On February 10, 2012, a second shareholder derivative suit was filed in the same court (Himmel v. Scheller et al.), and on February 16, 2012 a third derivative suit was filed (Walters v. Scheller et al.). All three complaints named as defendants the Company's then current Board of Directors, Keith Calder and Neil Winkelmann. The Company was named as a nominal defendant in each complaint. The three complaints allege similar claims to those alleged in the Rush complaint. The complaints variously assert state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duties for alleged failures to maintain internal controls and to properly manage the Company, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and abuse of control. The three derivative actions seek among other things, recovery for the Company for damages that the Company suffered as a result of alleged wrongful conduct. On April 11, 2012, the Court consolidated these shareholder derivative suits. Walter Energy thereafter entered into a stipulation with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative suit, pursuant to which all proceedings in the derivative action were stayed pending the filing of the consolidated amended complaint in the class action. On September 19, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. This action had been stayed pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in the putative securities class action, and is now stayed in accordance with the automatic stay provisions of section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. On March 1, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Makohin v. Clark, et al.). On September 27, 2012, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court (Sinerius v. Beatty, et al.). Both complaints name as defendants the Company's then current Board of Directors and Keith Calder. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in each complaint. These complaints, like the state court derivative claims, allege similar facts to those alleged in the Rush complaint. The Makohin complaint asserts state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment, while the Sinerius complaint asserts these same claims as well as claims for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. Both actions seek, among other things, recovery for the Company for damages that the Company suffered as a result of alleged wrongful conduct and restitution from defendants of all profits, benefits and other compensation that they wrongfully obtained. Like the state court derivative action, both of these cases have been stayed pending resolution of summary judgment motions in the putative securities class action. Both cases were dismissed without prejudice by court order dated September 17, 2015. Miscellaneous Litigation Wolverine Mine In connection with the idling of the Wolverine Mine in April 2014, approximately 302 unionized employees represented by the United Steelworkers of America, Local 1-424 ("USW Local 1-424") were laid off. There were also a number of non-union staff employees whose jobs were affected by the idling. If the Company does not recall the affected unionized employees to work prior to April 15, 2016, then the Company would be required to pay contractual severance of two weeks’ pay per year of service, to a maximum of ten weeks, for each unionized employee pursuant to USW Local 1-424, and additional sums that would be payable pursuant to local labour laws to both unionized and non-union employees. The Company has estimated the additional severance costs of up to CAD $12.0 million, subject to various defenses the Company believes that it has to the amount of individual severance claims. The Company continues to evaluate operating strategies to achieve value from the Wolverine reserves, which could impact the potential future severance payments. For example, if the Company recalls employees to work within 24 months of their date of layoff, no severance payments would be owed. The Company has not accrued any of this potential severance liability because the ultimate outcome is uncertain. The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of their businesses. The Company records costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future results of operations cannot be predicted with certainty as any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the final outcome of such other litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. Effect of Automatic Stay The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on July 15, 2015 (the "Petition Date") in the Bankruptcy Court. Each of the Debtors continues to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically enjoined, or stayed, among other things, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or the filing of other actions against or on behalf of the Debtors or their property to recover on, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the Petition Date or to exercise control over property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates, unless and until the Bankruptcy Court modifies or lifts the automatic stay as to any such claim. Notwithstanding the general application of the automatic stay described above, governmental authorities may determine to continue actions brought under their police and regulatory powers. Thus, the automatic stay may have no effect on certain matters described above. The Debtors have notified their respective local counsel to file notices of the bankruptcy filings and suggestions of stay in the applicable matters for which they represent one or more of the Debtors. Without limitation, the Company’s counsel in the shareholder derivative actions pending in the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which are described above, filed a notice of bankruptcy and suggestion of stay, as those matters are property of the Company’s bankruptcy estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. Commitments and Contingencies—Other In the opinion of management, accruals associated with contingencies incurred in the normal course of business are sufficient. Resolution of existing known contingencies is not expected to significantly affect the Company's financial position and results of operations.

Income Tax Litigation

The Company files income tax returns in the U.S., Canada, U.K., and in various state, provincial and local jurisdictions which are routinely examined by tax authorities in these jurisdictions. The statute of limitations related to the U.S. consolidated federal income tax returns is closed for years prior to August 31, 1983 and for the years ended May 31, 1997, 1998 and 1999. The impact of any U.S. federal changes for these years on state income taxes remains subject to examination for a period up to five years after formal notification to the states. The Company generally remains subject to income tax in various states for prior periods ranging from three to eleven years depending on jurisdiction. In the Company's major non-U.S. jurisdictions, tax years are typically subject to examination for three to six years.

On December 27, 1989, a predecessor of the Company and certain of the predecessor's affiliates each filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code (the "1989 Bankruptcy Cases") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (the "Florida Bankruptcy Court"). The Company emerged from bankruptcy on March 17, 1995 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization dated as of December 9, 1994, as modified on March 1, 1995 (as so modified the "Consensual Plan"). Although the Consensual Plan was confirmed and became effective, the Florida Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction over, among other things, the resolution of disputed prepetition claims against the Company and other matters that may arise in connection with or related to the Consensual Plan, including claims related to federal income taxes.

In connection with the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") filed a proof of claim in the Florida Bankruptcy Court (the "Proof of Claim") for a substantial amount of taxes, interest and penalties with respect to fiscal years ended August 31, 1983 through May 31, 1994. The Company filed an adversary proceeding in the Florida Bankruptcy Court disputing the Proof of Claim (the "Adversary Proceeding") and various issues have been litigated in the Florida Bankruptcy Court. An opinion was issued by the Florida Bankruptcy Court in June 2010 with respect to two of the disputed issues. The Florida Bankruptcy Court instructed both parties to submit a final order addressing all issues that have been litigated for the tax years 1983 through 1995 in the Adversary Proceeding by late August 2010. At the request of both parties, the Florida Bankruptcy Court granted an extension of time of 90 days from the initial submission date to submit the final order. Additional extensions of time to submit the proposed final order were granted in November 2010, February 2011, May 2011, September 2011, January 2013, May 2013 and December 2013.

The amounts initially asserted by the Proof of Claim do not reflect the subsequent resolution of certain issues by agreement between the parties. The Company believes that any exposure with respect to those issues in the Proof of Claim is limited to interest and possible penalties and the amount of tax ultimately assessed can be offset by tax reductions in years after 1995.

With respect to the tax years ended May 31, 2000 through December 31, 2008, the IRS has completed its audits of the Company's federal income tax returns for these years. The IRS issued 30-Day Letters to the Company in June 2010 and July 2012, proposing changes to tax for these tax years. The Company believes its tax filing positions have substantial merit and filed a formal protest with the IRS within the prescribed 30-day time limit for those issues which have not been previously settled or conceded. The IRS filed a rebuttal to the Company's formal protest and the case was assigned to the Appeals Division of the IRS. The Appeals Division convened a hearing on March 8, 2011 and heard arguments from both parties as to issues not settled or conceded for the 2000 through 2008 audit periods. In September 2014, the IRS Appeals Division returned these tax periods to the IRS Examination Division to be placed into suspense pending the resolution of the tax periods that are at issue in the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases. The disputed issues in these audit periods are similar to the issues remaining in the Proof of Claim.

On July 15, 2015, the Debtors filed the Bankruptcy Petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code ("the 2015 Bankruptcy Cases") in the Court. On September 23, 2015, the Florida Bankruptcy Court issued an order transferring the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases and the Adversary Proceedings from the jurisdiction of the Florida Bankruptcy Court to the Court overseeing the 2015 Bankruptcy Cases. In connection with the 2015 Bankruptcy Cases, the Company intends to seek a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding federal tax issues, including, to the extent possible, issues relating to the Proof of Claim asserted in the 1989 Bankruptcy Cases and the Adversary Proceeding.

With respect to the 2009 through 2013 tax years, the IRS is conducting an audit of the Company's federal income tax returns for those years. Since the examination is ongoing, any resulting tax deficiency or overpayment cannot be estimated at this time. During 2015, the statute of limitations for assessing additional income tax deficiencies will expire for certain tax years in several state tax jurisdictions. The expiration of the statute of limitations for these years is expected to have an immaterial impact on the total uncertain income tax positions and net income.

It is reasonably possible that the amount of unrecognized tax benefits will change in the next twelve months. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had $33.0 million of accruals for unrecognized tax benefits on the matters subject to disposition. The Company has not recorded interest on its uncertain tax positions since the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions on July 15, 2015. Unrecorded interest related to these tax positions for the period from July 15, 2015 through September 30, 2015 was $1.9 million. Due to the uncertainty related to the potential outcome of these matters, any possible changes in unrecognized tax benefits cannot be reasonably estimated.

The Company believes that all of its current and prior tax filing positions have substantial merit and intends to vigorously defend any tax claims asserted. The Company believes that it has sufficient accruals to address any claims, including interest and penalties, and does not believe that any potential difference between the final settlements and the amounts accrued will have a material effect on the Company's financial position, but such potential difference could be material to results of operations in a future reporting period.

Environmental Matters

The Company is subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment, both with respect to the construction and operation of its plants, mines and other facilities and with respect to remediating environmental conditions that may exist at its own and other properties.

The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. The Company accrues for environmental expenses resulting from existing conditions that relate to past operations when the costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated.

Walter Coke, Inc.

Walter Coke, Inc. ("Walter Coke") entered into a decree order in 1989 (the "1989 Order") relative to a Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA") compliance program mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). A RCRA Facility Investigation ("RFI") Work Plan was prepared that proposed investigative tasks to assess the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke facility. In 2004, the EPA re-directed Walter Coke's RFI efforts toward completion of the Environmental Indicator ("EI") determinations for the Current Human Exposures, which were approved and finalized for Walter Coke's Birmingham facility in 2005. In 2008, as a follow-up to the EI determination, the EPA requested that Walter Coke perform additional soil sampling and testing in the neighborhoods surrounding its facility. The results of this sampling and testing were submitted to the EPA for review in 2009. In conjunction with the plan, Walter Coke agreed to remediate portions of 23 properties based on the 2009 sampling and that process was completed in 2012.

In 2011, the EPA notified Walter Coke in the form of a General Notice Letter that it proposed that the offsite remediation project ("35th Avenue Superfund Site") be classified and managed as a Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), allowing other Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs") to potentially be held responsible. Under CERCLA authority, the EPA proceeded directly with the offsite sampling work and deferred any further enforcement actions or decisions. In March 2013, the EPA released the North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment showing the air quality around Company facilities to be acceptable. In August 2013, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ("ATSDR") released a report concerning past, present and future exposures to residential soils in North Birmingham and concluded that there is no public health hazard. In September 2013, the EPA sent an "Offer to Conduct Work" letter to Walter Coke and four other PRPs notifying them that the EPA had completed sampling at 1,100 residential properties and that 400 properties exceeded Regional Removal Management Levels ("RMLs") and offered the PRPs an opportunity to cleanup 50 Phase I properties. The Company has notified the EPA that it has declined the Offer to Conduct Work. In July 2014, the Jefferson County Department of Health ("JCDH") said that there are no apparent health risks to individuals living in North Birmingham. In August 2014, the EPA sent an "Offer to Conduct Work" letter to Walter Coke and five other PRPs and offered the PRPs an opportunity to cleanup 30 Phase II properties. The Company notified the EPA that it declined the Offer to Conduct Work. In September 2014, the EPA proposed to add the 35th Avenue Superfund Site to the National Priorities List ("NPL"). The EPA has accepted and is reviewing comments to the proposed listing. In April 2015, ATSDR released an evaluation of air exposures to communities adjacent to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site and concluded that current exposures are unlikely to result in harmful effects in individuals and that the current estimated cumulative cancer risks are within the EPA's target risk range.

In response to an informal EPA request, on June 30, 2015, the Company corresponded with the EPA declining to negotiate a potential consent order concerning the performance of future work and the EPA’s past costs. The Company understands that the EPA made a similar request to the other identified PRPs. In connection with that request, the EPA informally indicated that, as of April 2015, it had incurred approximately $17.0 million in costs at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site. The Company has not been provided any documentation for or otherwise independently verified that claim. The EPA also indicated that it will continue expending additional monies at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site if no PRP agrees to assume the work. The EPA has thus far not responded to various technical showings that the Company has made indicating that the conditions at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site appear to be inconsistent with the Company’s operations and that they are more likely the result of other industrial and/or non-industrial sources. For this and other reasons, the Company continues to believe that it has meritorious defenses to any claim for response costs that the EPA or a third party may assert. The Company also notes that if it were found liable, numerous issues would require determination in order to ascertain the extent of such liability, including without limitation the relative contributions of other PRPs thus far identified and possible PRPs not thus far named by the EPA.

A RCRA Section 3008(h) Administrative Order on Consent with the effective date of September 24, 2012 was signed by Walter Coke and the EPA (the "2012 Order") . The 2012 Order declared that all of the approved investigation tasks of the RFI Work Plans required by the 1989 Order had been completed by Walter Coke and that the 1989 Order was terminated and is no longer in effect. The objectives of the 2012 Order are to perform Corrective Measure Studies, implement remedies if necessary, and implement and maintain institutional controls if required at the Walter Coke facility.

The Company has incurred costs to investigate the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke facility and to define remediation actions to address this environmental liability in accordance with the agreements reached with the EPA under the RFI and the residential soil sampling conducted by Walter Coke in the neighborhoods surrounding its facility. At September 30, 2015, the Company had an amount accrued that is probable and can be reasonably estimated for the costs to be incurred to identify and define remediation actions, as well as to perform certain remedial tasks which can be quantified. As of September 30, 2015, the amount of this accrual was not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional future costs to remediate environmental liabilities at the Walter Coke facility, the amount of such additional costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Although no assurances can be given that the Company will not be required in the future to make material expenditures relating to the Walter Coke site or other sites, management does not believe at this time that the cleanup costs, if any, associated with these sites will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements, but such cleanup costs could be material to the Company's results of operations in a future reporting period.

Securities Class Actions and Shareholder Derivative Actions

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter Energy's former CEO; Walter Scheller, Walter Energy's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter Energy's Canadian and U.K. operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014. Defendants' filed their opposition on October 28, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Reply was filed on January 30, 2015. On May 14, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification without prejudice. All other deadlines have been stayed by the Court.

On June 12, 2015, the court issued a stipulated order dismissing, without prejudice, all claims brought against Walter Energy.

On July 15, 2015, the remaining parties in the securities class action executed a settlement agreement which resolves all claims for $25.0 million. The settlement payment will be funded by the Company's Directors and Officers liability insurance policy. On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and the settlement is subject to court approval.

On February 7, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama (Israni v. Clark et al.). On February 10, 2012, a second shareholder derivative suit was filed in the same court (Himmel v. Scheller et al.), and on February 16, 2012 a third derivative suit was filed (Walters v. Scheller et al.). All three complaints named as defendants the Company's then current Board of Directors, Keith Calder and Neil Winkelmann. The Company was named as a nominal defendant in each complaint. The three complaints allege similar claims to those alleged in the Rush complaint. The complaints variously assert state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duties for alleged failures to maintain internal controls and to properly manage the Company, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and abuse of control. The three derivative actions seek among other things, recovery for the Company for damages that the Company suffered as a result of alleged wrongful conduct. On April 11, 2012, the Court consolidated these shareholder derivative suits. Walter Energy thereafter entered into a stipulation with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative suit, pursuant to which all proceedings in the derivative action were stayed pending the filing of the consolidated amended complaint in the class action. On September 19, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. This action had been stayed pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in the putative securities class action, and is now stayed in accordance with the automatic stay provisions of section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On March 1, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Makohin v. Clark, et al.). On September 27, 2012, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court (Sinerius v. Beatty, et al.). Both complaints name as defendants the Company's then current Board of Directors and Keith Calder. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in each complaint. These complaints, like the state court derivative claims, allege similar facts to those alleged in the Rush complaint. The Makohin complaint asserts state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment, while the Sinerius complaint asserts these same claims as well as claims for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. Both actions seek, among other things, recovery for the Company for damages that the Company suffered as a result of alleged wrongful conduct and restitution from defendants of all profits, benefits and other compensation that they wrongfully obtained. Like the state court derivative action, both of these cases have been stayed pending resolution of summary judgment motions in the putative securities class action. Both cases were dismissed without prejudice by court order dated September 17, 2015.

Miscellaneous Litigation

Wolverine Mine

In connection with the idling of the Wolverine Mine in April 2014, approximately 302 unionized employees represented by the United Steelworkers of America, Local 1-424 ("USW Local 1-424") were laid off. There were also a number of non-union staff employees whose jobs were affected by the idling. If the Company does not recall the affected unionized employees to work prior to April 15, 2016, then the Company would be required to pay contractual severance of two weeks’ pay per year of service, to a maximum of ten weeks, for each unionized employee pursuant to USW Local 1-424, and additional sums that would be payable pursuant to local labour laws to both unionized and non-union employees. The Company has estimated the additional severance costs of up to CAD $12.0 million, subject to various defenses the Company believes that it has to the amount of individual severance claims. The Company continues to evaluate operating strategies to achieve value from the Wolverine reserves, which could impact the potential future severance payments. For example, if the Company recalls employees to work within 24 months of their date of layoff, no severance payments would be owed. The Company has not accrued any of this potential severance liability because the ultimate outcome is uncertain.

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of their businesses. The Company records costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future results of operations cannot be predicted with certainty as any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the final outcome of such other litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Effect of Automatic Stay

The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on July 15, 2015 (the "Petition Date") in the Bankruptcy Court. Each of the Debtors continues to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically enjoined, or stayed, among other things, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or the filing of other actions against or on behalf of the Debtors or their property to recover on, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the Petition Date or to exercise control over property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates, unless and until the Bankruptcy Court modifies or lifts the automatic stay as to any such claim. Notwithstanding the general application of the automatic stay described above, governmental authorities may determine to continue actions brought under their police and regulatory powers. Thus, the automatic stay may have no effect on certain matters described above.

The Debtors have notified their respective local counsel to file notices of the bankruptcy filings and suggestions of stay in the applicable matters for which they represent one or more of the Debtors. Without limitation, the Company’s counsel in the shareholder derivative actions pending in the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which are described above, filed a notice of bankruptcy and suggestion of stay, as those matters are property of the Company’s bankruptcy estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Commitments and Contingencies—Other

In the opinion of management, accruals associated with contingencies incurred in the normal course of business are sufficient. Resolution of existing known contingencies is not expected to significantly affect the Company's financial position and results of operations.