Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Aug. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 23 - Commitments and Contingencies The Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility is located adjacent to the Willamette River. The Company has entered into a Voluntary Clean-Up Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in which the Company agreed to conduct an investigation of whether, and to what extent, past or present operations at the Portland property may have released hazardous substances to the environment. The Company is also conducting groundwater remediation relating to a historical spill on the property which precedes its ownership. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified portions of the river bed of the Portland Harbor, including the portion fronting the Company’s manufacturing facility, as a federal “National Priority List” or “Superfund” site due to sediment contamination (the “Portland Harbor Site”). The Company and more than 140 other parties have received a “General Notice” of potential liability from the EPA relating to the Portland Harbor Site. The letter advised the Company that it may be liable for the costs of investigation and remediation (which liability may be joint and several with other potentially responsible parties) as well as for natural resource damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances to the site. At this time, ten private and public entities, including the Company (the “Lower Willamette Group” or “LWG”), have signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) of the Portland Harbor Site under EPA oversight, and several additional entities have not signed such consent, but are nevertheless contributing money to the effort. The EPA-mandated RI/FS is being conducted by the LWG and has cost over $90 million over an 11-year period. The Company has agreed to initially bear a percentage of the total costs incurred by the LWG in connection with the investigation. The Company’s aggregate expenditure has not been material over the 11-year period. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties. The investigation is expected to continue for at least two more years and additional costs are expected to be incurred. The Company cannot estimate the amount of such investigation costs at this time. Eighty-three parties, including the State of Oregon and the federal government, have entered into a non-judicial mediation process to try to allocate costs associated with the Portland Harbor site. Approximately 110 additional parties have signed tolling agreements related to such allocations. On April 23, 2009, the Company and the other AOC signatories filed suit against 69 other parties due to a possible limitations period for some such claims; Arkema Inc. et al v. A & C Foundry Products, Inc.et al, US District Court, District of Oregon, Case #3:09-cv-453-PK. All but 12 of these parties elected to sign tolling agreements and be dismissed without prejudice, and the case has now been stayed by the court, pending completion of the RI/FS. Although, as described below, the draft feasibility study has been submitted, the RI/FS will not be complete until the EPA approves it, which is not likely to occur until at least 2014. A draft of the remedial investigation study was submitted to the EPA on October 27, 2009. The draft feasibility study was submitted to the EPA on March 30, 2012. The draft feasibility study evaluates several alternative cleanup approaches. The approaches submitted would take from 2 to 28 years with costs ranging from $169 million to $1.8 billion for cleanup of the entire Portland Harbor Site, depending primarily on the selected remedial action levels. The draft feasibility study suggests costs ranging from $9 million to $163 million for cleanup of the area of the Willamette River adjacent to the Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility, depending primarily on the selected remedial action level. The draft feasibility study does not address responsibility for the costs of clean-up or allocate such costs among the potentially responsible parties, or define precise boundaries for the cleanup. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected cleanup will be determined after the issuance of the Record of Decision. Based on the investigation to date, the Company believes that it did not contribute in any material way to the damage of natural resources in the Portland Harbor Site and that the damage in the area of the Portland Harbor Site adjacent to its property precedes its ownership of the Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility. Because these environmental investigations are still underway, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the Company’s liability, if any, for the cost of any required remediation of the Portland Harbor Site or to estimate a range of potential loss. Based on the results of the pending investigations and future assessments of natural resource damages, the Company may be required to incur costs associated with additional phases of investigation or remedial action, and may be liable for damages to natural resources. In addition, the Company may be required to perform periodic maintenance dredging in order to continue to launch vessels from its launch ways in Portland, Oregon, on the Willamette River, and the river’s classification as a Superfund site could result in some limitations on future dredging and launch activities. Any of these matters could adversely affect the Company’s business and Consolidated Financial Statements, or the value of its Portland property. From time to time, Greenbrier is involved as a defendant in litigation in the ordinary course of business, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with certainty. The most significant litigation is as follows: Greenbrier’s customer, SEB Finans AB (SEB), has raised performance concerns related to a component that the Company installed on 372 railcar units with an aggregate sales value of approximately $20.0 million produced under a contract with SEB. On December 9, 2005, SEB filed a Statement of Claim in an arbitration proceeding in Stockholm, Sweden, against Greenbrier alleging that the railcars were defective and could not be used for their intended purpose. A settlement agreement was entered into effective February 28, 2007 pursuant to which the railcar units previously delivered were to be repaired and the remaining units completed and delivered to SEB. SEB has made multiple additional warranty claims, including claims with respect to railcars that have been repaired pursuant to the original settlement agreement. Greenbrier and SEB are continuing to negotiate the scope of needed repairs. Current estimates of potential costs of such repairs do not exceed amounts accrued. When the Company acquired the assets of the Freight Wagon Division of DaimlerChrysler in January 2000, it acquired a contract to build 201 freight cars for Okombi GmbH, a subsidiary of Rail Cargo Austria AG. Subsequently, Okombi made breach of warranty and late delivery claims against the Company which grew out of design and certification problems. All of these issues were settled as of March 2004. Additional allegations have been made, the most serious of which involve cracks to the structure of the freight cars. Okombi has been required to remove all 201 freight cars from service, and a formal claim has been made against the Company. Legal, technical and commercial evaluations are on-going to determine what obligations the Company might have, if any, to remedy the alleged defects, though resolution of such issues has not been reached due to delays by Okombi. Management intends to vigorously defend its position in each of the open foregoing cases. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, management believes that the resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company is involved as a defendant in other litigation initiated in the ordinary course of business. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, management believes that the resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with customary business practices in Europe, the Company has $2.3 million in bank and third party warranty guarantee facilities, all of which have been utilized as of August 31, 2012. To date no amounts have been drawn under these guarantee facilities. The Company sold 743 railcars during the third quarter of 2012 for which the Company has an obligation, up to a maximum amount of $4.2 million, to support the railcar portfolio meeting a target minimum rate of return. This obligation expires in March 2033. This $4.2 million, which is held in restricted cash, was recorded as a reduction in revenue on the sale of 600 new railcars and a reduction in gain on sale on the sale of the 143 used railcars with a credit to deferred revenue. At August 31, 2012, the Mexican joint venture had $45.6 million of third party debt outstanding, for which the Company has guaranteed approximately $37.8 million. In addition, the Company, along with its joint venture partner, has committed to contributing $10.0 million to fund the capital expenditures to expand production capacity, of which the Company will contribute 50%. These amounts will be contributed at various intervals from May 31, 2012 to October 31, 2013. As of August 31, 2012, the Company has contributed $1.4 million. As of August 31, 2012 the Company has outstanding letters of credit aggregating $5.6 million associated with facility leases and workers compensation insurance.

Note 23 - Commitments and Contingencies

The Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility is located adjacent to the Willamette River. The Company has entered into a Voluntary Clean-Up Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in which the Company agreed to conduct an investigation of whether, and to what extent, past or present operations at the Portland property may have released hazardous substances to the environment. The Company is also conducting groundwater remediation relating to a historical spill on the property which precedes its ownership.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified portions of the river bed of the Portland Harbor, including the portion fronting the Company’s manufacturing facility, as a federal “National Priority List” or “Superfund” site due to sediment contamination (the “Portland Harbor Site”). The Company and more than 140 other parties have received a “General Notice” of potential liability from the EPA relating to the Portland Harbor Site. The letter advised the Company that it may be liable for the costs of investigation and remediation (which liability may be joint and several with other potentially responsible parties) as well as for natural resource damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances to the site. At this time, ten private and public entities, including the Company (the “Lower Willamette Group” or “LWG”), have signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) of the Portland Harbor Site under EPA oversight, and several additional entities have not signed such consent, but are nevertheless contributing money to the effort. The EPA-mandated RI/FS is being conducted by the LWG and has cost over $90 million over an 11-year period. The Company has agreed to initially bear a percentage of the total costs incurred by the LWG in connection with the investigation. The Company’s aggregate expenditure has not been material over the 11-year period. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties. The investigation is expected to continue for at least two more years and additional costs are expected to be incurred. The Company cannot estimate the amount of such investigation costs at this time.

Eighty-three parties, including the State of Oregon and the federal government, have entered into a non-judicial mediation process to try to allocate costs associated with the Portland Harbor site. Approximately 110 additional parties have signed tolling agreements related to such allocations. On April 23, 2009, the Company and the other AOC signatories filed suit against 69 other parties due to a possible limitations period for some such claims; Arkema Inc. et al v. A & C Foundry Products, Inc.et al, US District Court, District of Oregon, Case #3:09-cv-453-PK. All but 12 of these parties elected to sign tolling agreements and be dismissed without prejudice, and the case has now been stayed by the court, pending completion of the RI/FS. Although, as described below, the draft feasibility study has been submitted, the RI/FS will not be complete until the EPA approves it, which is not likely to occur until at least 2014.

A draft of the remedial investigation study was submitted to the EPA on October 27, 2009. The draft feasibility study was submitted to the EPA on March 30, 2012. The draft feasibility study evaluates several alternative cleanup approaches. The approaches submitted would take from 2 to 28 years with costs ranging from $169 million to $1.8 billion for cleanup of the entire Portland Harbor Site, depending primarily on the selected remedial action levels. The draft feasibility study suggests costs ranging from $9 million to $163 million for cleanup of the area of the Willamette River adjacent to the Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility, depending primarily on the selected remedial action level.

The draft feasibility study does not address responsibility for the costs of clean-up or allocate such costs among the potentially responsible parties, or define precise boundaries for the cleanup. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected cleanup will be determined after the issuance of the Record of Decision. Based on the investigation to date, the Company believes that it did not contribute in any material way to the damage of natural resources in the Portland Harbor Site and that the damage in the area of the Portland Harbor Site adjacent to its property precedes its ownership of the Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility. Because these environmental investigations are still underway, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the Company’s liability, if any, for the cost of any required remediation of the Portland Harbor Site or to estimate a range of potential loss. Based on the results of the pending investigations and future assessments of natural resource damages, the Company may be required to incur costs associated with additional phases of investigation or remedial action, and may be liable for damages to natural resources. In addition, the Company may be required to perform periodic maintenance dredging in order to continue to launch vessels from its launch ways in Portland, Oregon, on the Willamette River, and the river’s classification as a Superfund site could result in some limitations on future dredging and launch activities. Any of these matters could adversely affect the Company’s business and Consolidated Financial Statements, or the value of its Portland property.

From time to time, Greenbrier is involved as a defendant in litigation in the ordinary course of business, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with certainty. The most significant litigation is as follows:

Greenbrier’s customer, SEB Finans AB (SEB), has raised performance concerns related to a component that the Company installed on 372 railcar units with an aggregate sales value of approximately $20.0 million produced under a contract with SEB. On December 9, 2005, SEB filed a Statement of Claim in an arbitration proceeding in Stockholm, Sweden, against Greenbrier alleging that the railcars were defective and could not be used for their intended purpose. A settlement agreement was entered into effective February 28, 2007 pursuant to which the railcar units previously delivered were to be repaired and the remaining units completed and delivered to SEB. SEB has made multiple additional warranty claims, including claims with respect to railcars that have been repaired pursuant to the original settlement agreement. Greenbrier and SEB are continuing to negotiate the scope of needed repairs. Current estimates of potential costs of such repairs do not exceed amounts accrued.

When the Company acquired the assets of the Freight Wagon Division of DaimlerChrysler in January 2000, it acquired a contract to build 201 freight cars for Okombi GmbH, a subsidiary of Rail Cargo Austria AG. Subsequently, Okombi made breach of warranty and late delivery claims against the Company which grew out of design and certification problems. All of these issues were settled as of March 2004. Additional allegations have been made, the most serious of which involve cracks to the structure of the freight cars. Okombi has been required to remove all 201 freight cars from service, and a formal claim has been made against the Company. Legal, technical and commercial evaluations are on-going to determine what obligations the Company might have, if any, to remedy the alleged defects, though resolution of such issues has not been reached due to delays by Okombi.

Management intends to vigorously defend its position in each of the open foregoing cases. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, management believes that the resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company is involved as a defendant in other litigation initiated in the ordinary course of business. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, management believes that the resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

In accordance with customary business practices in Europe, the Company has $2.3 million in bank and third party warranty guarantee facilities, all of which have been utilized as of August 31, 2012. To date no amounts have been drawn under these guarantee facilities.

The Company sold 743 railcars during the third quarter of 2012 for which the Company has an obligation, up to a maximum amount of $4.2 million, to support the railcar portfolio meeting a target minimum rate of return. This obligation expires in March 2033. This $4.2 million, which is held in restricted cash, was recorded as a reduction in revenue on the sale of 600 new railcars and a reduction in gain on sale on the sale of the 143 used railcars with a credit to deferred revenue.

At August 31, 2012, the Mexican joint venture had $45.6 million of third party debt outstanding, for which the Company has guaranteed approximately $37.8 million. In addition, the Company, along with its joint venture partner, has committed to contributing $10.0 million to fund the capital expenditures to expand production capacity, of which the Company will contribute 50%. These amounts will be contributed at various intervals from May 31, 2012 to October 31, 2013. As of August 31, 2012, the Company has contributed $1.4 million.

As of August 31, 2012 the Company has outstanding letters of credit aggregating $5.6 million associated with facility leases and workers compensation insurance.