Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Aug. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 22 - Commitments and Contingencies The Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility is located adjacent to the Willamette River. In December 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified portions of the Willamette River bed known as 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. Ten private and public entities, including the Company (the Lower Willamette Group or LWG), 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 nevertheless contributed money to the effort. The EPA-mandated RI/FS was produced by the LWG and cost over $110 million during a 17-year period. The Company bore a percentage of the total costs incurred by the LWG in connection with the investigation. The Company’s aggregate expenditure during the 17-year period was not material. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties. The LWG requested in August 2017 that the AOC be terminated since the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the Portland Harbor Site on January 6, 2017. Separate from the process described above which focused on the type of remediation to be performed at the Portland Harbor Site and the schedule for such remediation, 83 parties, including the State of Oregon and the federal government, entered into a non-judicial mediation process to try to allocate costs associated with remediation of the Portland Harbor site. Approximately 110 additional parties 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, U.S. 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 been stayed by the court. The allocation process is continuing in parallel with the process to define the remediation steps. The EPA’s January 6, 2017 ROD identifies a clean-up remedy that the EPA estimates will take 13 years of active remediation, followed by 30 years of monitoring with an estimated undiscounted cost of $1.7 billion. The EPA typically expects its cost estimates to be accurate within a range of -30% to +50%, but this ROD states that changes in costs are likely to occur as a result of new data it wants to collect over a 2-year period prior to final remedy design. The ROD identifies 13 Sediment Decision Units. One of the units, RM9W, includes the nearshore area of the river sediments offshore of the Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility as well as upstream and downstream of the facility. It also includes a portion of the Company’s riverbank. The ROD does not break down total remediation costs by Sediment Decision Unit. On January 30, 2017 the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Nation sued 33 parties including the Company as well as the United States and the State of Oregon for costs it incurred in assessing alleged natural resource damages to the Columbia River from contaminants deposited in Portland Harbor. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Air Liquide America Corp., et al., United States Court for the District of Oregon Case No. 3i17-CV-00164-SB. The Company, along with many of the other defendants, has moved to dismiss the case. That motion is pending. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages the Plaintiff will seek. The ROD does not address responsibility for the costs of clean-up, nor does it allocate such costs among the potentially responsible parties. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected cleanup remedy will be determined at an unspecified later date. Based on the investigation to date, the Company believes that it did not contribute in any material way to contamination in the river sediments or 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, including the collection of new pre-remedial design sampling data by EPA, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the Company’s liability, if any, for the cost of any required remediation or restoration 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. The Company has entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 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 into the environment. The Company has also signed an Order on Consent with the DEQ to finalize the investigation of potential onsite sources of contamination that may have a release pathway to the Willamette River. Interim precautionary measures are also required in the order and the Company is discussing with the DEQ potential remedial actions which may be required. The Company’s aggregate expenditure has not been material, however the Company could incur significant expenses for remediation. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties. From time to time, Greenbrier is involved as a defendant in litigation in the ordinary course of business, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted with certainty. In the quarter ended November 30, 2016, the Company received an adverse judgment of approximately $15 million on one matter related to commercial litigation in a foreign jurisdiction. The judgment was reversed on appeal and the case was remanded to the trial court. In June 2017 the court issued a new judgment against the Company of approximately $10 million. The judgment has been affirmed on appeal. The Company is evaluating its options with respect to such litigation and related matters. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, the Company believes that the resolution of pending litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. As of August 31, 2017, the Company had outstanding letters of credit aggregating $77.6 million associated with performance guarantees, facility leases and workers compensation insurance. The Company made $0.6 million in cash contributions to GBW, an unconsolidated 50/50 joint venture, for the year ended August 31, 2017 which represented a reinvestment of a distribution received from GBW during the year. The Company is likely to make additional capital contributions or loans to GBW in the future. As of August 31, 2017, the Company had a $36.5 million note receivable balance from GBW which is included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in Accounts receivable, net. As of August 31, 2017, the Company had a $10.0 million note receivable from Amsted-Maxion Cruzeiro, an unconsolidated Brazilian castings and components manufacturer, which is included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in Accounts receivable, net. In the future, the Company may make loans to or provide guarantees for Amsted-Maxion Cruzeiro or Greenbrier-Maxion, an unconsolidated Brazilian railcar manufacturer.

Note 22 - Commitments and Contingencies

The Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility is located adjacent to the Willamette River. In December 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified portions of the Willamette River bed known as 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. Ten private and public entities, including the Company (the Lower Willamette Group or LWG), 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 nevertheless contributed money to the effort. The EPA-mandated RI/FS was produced by the LWG and cost over $110 million during a 17-year period. The Company bore a percentage of the total costs incurred by the LWG in connection with the investigation. The Company’s aggregate expenditure during the 17-year period was not material. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties. The LWG requested in August 2017 that the AOC be terminated since the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the Portland Harbor Site on January 6, 2017.

Separate from the process described above which focused on the type of remediation to be performed at the Portland Harbor Site and the schedule for such remediation, 83 parties, including the State of Oregon and the federal government, entered into a non-judicial mediation process to try to allocate costs associated with remediation of the Portland Harbor site. Approximately 110 additional parties 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, U.S. 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 been stayed by the court. The allocation process is continuing in parallel with the process to define the remediation steps.

The EPA’s January 6, 2017 ROD identifies a clean-up remedy that the EPA estimates will take 13 years of active remediation, followed by 30 years of monitoring with an estimated undiscounted cost of $1.7 billion. The EPA typically expects its cost estimates to be accurate within a range of -30% to +50%, but this ROD states that changes in costs are likely to occur as a result of new data it wants to collect over a 2-year period prior to final remedy design. The ROD identifies 13 Sediment Decision Units. One of the units, RM9W, includes the nearshore area of the river sediments offshore of the Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility as well as upstream and downstream of the facility. It also includes a portion of the Company’s riverbank. The ROD does not break down total remediation costs by Sediment Decision Unit.

On January 30, 2017 the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Nation sued 33 parties including the Company as well as the United States and the State of Oregon for costs it incurred in assessing alleged natural resource damages to the Columbia River from contaminants deposited in Portland Harbor. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Air Liquide America Corp., et al., United States Court for the District of Oregon Case No. 3i17-CV-00164-SB. The Company, along with many of the other defendants, has moved to dismiss the case. That motion is pending. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages the Plaintiff will seek.

The ROD does not address responsibility for the costs of clean-up, nor does it allocate such costs among the potentially responsible parties. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected cleanup remedy will be determined at an unspecified later date. Based on the investigation to date, the Company believes that it did not contribute in any material way to contamination in the river sediments or 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, including the collection of new pre-remedial design sampling data by EPA, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the Company’s liability, if any, for the cost of any required remediation or restoration 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.

The Company has entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 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 into the environment. The Company has also signed an Order on Consent with the DEQ to finalize the investigation of potential onsite sources of contamination that may have a release pathway to the Willamette River. Interim precautionary measures are also required in the order and the Company is discussing with the DEQ potential remedial actions which may be required. The Company’s aggregate expenditure has not been material, however the Company could incur significant expenses for remediation. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties.

From time to time, Greenbrier is involved as a defendant in litigation in the ordinary course of business, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted with certainty. In the quarter ended November 30, 2016, the Company received an adverse judgment of approximately $15 million on one matter related to commercial litigation in a foreign jurisdiction. The judgment was reversed on appeal and the case was remanded to the trial court. In June 2017 the court issued a new judgment against the Company of approximately $10 million. The judgment has been affirmed on appeal. The Company is evaluating its options with respect to such litigation and related matters. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, the Company believes that the resolution of pending litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

As of August 31, 2017, the Company had outstanding letters of credit aggregating $77.6 million associated with performance guarantees, facility leases and workers compensation insurance.

The Company made $0.6 million in cash contributions to GBW, an unconsolidated 50/50 joint venture, for the year ended August 31, 2017 which represented a reinvestment of a distribution received from GBW during the year. The Company is likely to make additional capital contributions or loans to GBW in the future. As of August 31, 2017, the Company had a $36.5 million note receivable balance from GBW which is included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in Accounts receivable, net.

As of August 31, 2017, the Company had a $10.0 million note receivable from Amsted-Maxion Cruzeiro, an unconsolidated Brazilian castings and components manufacturer, which is included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in Accounts receivable, net. In the future, the Company may make loans to or provide guarantees for Amsted-Maxion Cruzeiro or Greenbrier-Maxion, an unconsolidated Brazilian railcar manufacturer.