NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) have been prepared pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information and the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for Form 10-Q, including Article 10 of Regulation S-X. The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP. Certain information and note disclosures normally included in annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC. In the opinion of management, all normal, recurring adjustments considered necessary for a fair statement have been included. Management suggests that these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2015 . The results for the three months ended November 30, 2015 and 2014 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for the entire fiscal year.

Segment Reporting

Prior to the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company's internal organizational and reporting structure supported three operating and reportable segments: the Metals Recycling Business ("MRB"), the Auto Parts Business ("APB") and the Steel Manufacturing Business ("SMB"). In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, in accordance with its plan announced in April 2015, the Company combined and integrated its auto parts and metals recycling businesses into a single operating platform. The change in the Company's internal organizational and reporting structure resulted in the formation of a new operating and reportable segment, the Auto and Metals Recycling ("AMR") business, replacing the former MRB and APB segments. The Company began reporting on this new segment in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 as reflected in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2015 . The segment data for the comparable period presented herein has been recast to conform to the current period presentation for all activities of AMR. Recasting this historical information did not have an impact on the Company's consolidated financial performance for any of the periods presented.

Accounting Changes

In April 2014, an accounting standard update was issued that amends the requirements for reporting discontinued operations, which may include a component of an entity or a group of components of an entity. The amendments limit discontinued operations reporting to disposals of components of an entity that represent strategic shifts that have, or will have, a major effect on an entity's operations and financial results. The amendments require expanded disclosure about the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of discontinued operations. Further, the amendments require an entity to disclose the pretax profit or loss of an individually significant component that is being disposed of that does not qualify for discontinued operations reporting. The Company adopted the new requirement in the first quarter of fiscal 2016 with no impact to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. The standard is to be applied prospectively to all disposals or classifications as held for sale of components that occur beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2016, and interim periods within that fiscal year, and all businesses that, on acquisition, are classified as held for sale that occur beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2016, and interim periods within that fiscal year.

In November 2015, an accounting standard update was issued that requires deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. To simplify the presentation of the Company's deferred tax liabilities and assets, along with valuation allowances against deferred tax assets, the Company early-adopted the new requirement as of the beginning of the first quarter of fiscal 2016 and is applying the amendments prospectively. Adoption of the new requirement impacted the classification of the Company's deferred tax liabilities and assets reported in its Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of November 30, 2015, and had no impact on its consolidated results of operations and cash flows. The comparative period balance sheet has not been retrospectively adjusted.

Discontinued Operations

The results of discontinued operations are presented separately, net of tax, from the results of ongoing operations for all periods presented. The expenses included in the results of discontinued operations are the direct operating expenses incurred by the disposed components that may be reasonably segregated from the costs of the ongoing operations of the Company. See Note 10 - Discontinued Operations for further detail.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents include short-term securities that are not restricted by third parties and have an original maturity date of 90 days or less. Included in accounts payable are book overdrafts representing outstanding checks in excess of funds on deposit of $7 million and $11 million as of November 30, 2015 and August 31, 2015 , respectively.

Other Assets

The Company’s other assets, exclusive of prepaid expenses, consist primarily of receivables from insurers, notes and other contractual receivables, and assets held for sale. Other assets are reported within either prepaid expenses and other current assets or other assets in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets based on their expected use either during or beyond the current operating cycle of one year from the reporting date.

As of November 30, 2015 and August 31, 2015 , the Company reported $2 million of assets held for sale within prepaid expenses and other current assets in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company determined fair value using Level 3 inputs under the fair value hierarchy consisting of information provided by brokers and other external sources along with management's own assumptions.

Concentration of Credit Risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to significant concentration of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, notes and other contractual receivables and derivative financial instruments. The majority of cash and cash equivalents are maintained with two major financial institutions (Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.). Balances with these institutions exceeded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured amount of $250,000 as of November 30, 2015 . Concentration of credit risk with respect to accounts receivable is limited because a large number of geographically diverse customers make up the Company’s customer base. The Company controls credit risk through credit approvals, credit limits, credit insurance, letters of credit or other collateral, cash deposits and monitoring procedures. The Company is exposed to a residual credit risk with respect to open letters of credit by virtue of the possibility of the failure of a bank providing a letter of credit. The Company had $19 million and $33 million of open letters of credit relating to accounts receivable as of November 30, 2015 and August 31, 2015 , respectively. The counterparties to the Company's derivative financial instruments are major financial institutions.

Financial Instruments

The Company’s financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, debt and derivative contracts. The Company uses the market approach to value its financial assets and liabilities, determined using available market information. The net carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. For long-term debt, which is primarily at variable interest rates, fair value is estimated using observable inputs (Level 2) and approximates its carrying value. Derivative contracts are reported at fair value. See Note 11 - Derivative Financial Instruments for further detail.

Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is measured using inputs from the three levels of the fair value hierarchy. Classification within the hierarchy is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The three levels are described as follows:

When developing the fair value measurements, the Company uses quoted market prices whenever available or seeks to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when quoted market prices are not available.

Restructuring Charges

Restructuring charges consist of severance, contract termination and other restructuring-related costs. A liability for severance costs is typically recognized when the plan of termination has been communicated to the affected employees and is measured at its fair value at the communication date. Contract termination costs consist primarily of costs that will continue to be incurred under operating leases for their remaining terms without economic benefit to the Company. A liability for contract termination costs is recognized at the date the Company ceases using the rights conveyed by the lease contract and is measured at its fair value, which is determined based on the remaining contractual lease rentals reduced by estimated sublease rentals. A liability for other restructuring-related costs is measured at its fair value in the period in which the liability is incurred. Restructuring charges that directly involve a discontinued operation are included in the results of discontinued operations in all periods presented. See Note 7 - Restructuring Charges and Other Exit-Related Costs for further detail.

Note 2 - Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, an accounting standard update was issued that clarifies the principles for recognizing revenue. The guidance is applicable to all contracts with customers regardless of industry-specific or transaction-specific fact patterns. Further, the guidance requires improved disclosures to help users of financial statements better understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue that is recognized. An accounting standard update issued in August 2015 deferred the effective date for applying the guidance in the original standard by one year, which is now effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2019, including interim periods within that fiscal year. Upon becoming effective, the Company will apply the amendments in the updated standard either retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented, or retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the guidance recognized at the date of initial application. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In April 2015, an accounting standard update was issued that amends the requirements for presenting debt issuance costs. The guidance requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the debt liability, consistent with the presentation of a debt discount. This is not applicable to debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements, as specified in a related accounting standard update issued in August 2015. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2017, including interim periods within that fiscal year, and is to be applied retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position.

In April 2015, an accounting standard update was issued that clarifies the accounting for cloud computing arrangements that include software licenses. The guidance requires that a cloud computing arrangement that includes a software license be accounted for in the same manner as the acquisition of other software licenses. If the cloud computing arrangement does not include a software license, then it should be accounted for as a service contract. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2017, including interim periods within that fiscal year. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In July 2015, an accounting standard update was issued that requires an entity to measure certain types of inventory, including inventory that is measured using the first-in, first out (FIFO) or average cost method, at the lower of cost and net realizable value. The current accounting standard requires an entity to measure inventory at the lower of cost or market, whereby market could be replacement cost, net realizable value, or net realizable value less an approximately normal profit margin. The amendments do not apply to inventory that is measured using the last-in, first-out (LIFO) or retail inventory method. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2017, including interim periods within that fiscal year. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In September 2015, an accounting standard update was issued that eliminates the requirement to retrospectively adjust provisional amounts recognized in a business acquisition recorded in previous reporting periods. The amendments, instead, require that the acquirer recognize adjustments to provisional amounts that are identified during the one-year measurement period in the reporting period in which the adjustment amount is determined. The acquirer is required to also record, in the same period's financial statements, the effect on earnings of changes in depreciation, amortization, or other income effects, if any, as a result of the change to the provisional amounts, calculated as if the accounting had been completed at the acquisition date. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2017, including interim periods within that fiscal year. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Note 3 - Inventories

Inventories consisted of the following (in thousands):

Note 4 - Goodwill

The Company tests the goodwill in each of its reporting units annually on July 1 and upon the occurrence of certain triggering events or substantive changes in circumstances that indicate that the fair value of goodwill may be impaired. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company changed its internal organizational and reporting structure to combine the auto and metals recycling businesses, which resulted in the formation of a new operating and reportable segment, AMR, replacing our MRB and APB operating segments. This change led to the identification of components within AMR based on the disaggregation of financial information regularly reviewed by segment management by geographic area. Components with similar economic characteristics were aggregated into reporting units and goodwill was reassigned to the affected reporting units using the relative fair value approach as of the date of the reassessment, July 1, 2015. Beginning on that date, the Company's goodwill is carried by two regionally-defined reporting units, one consisting of a single component with $168 million of allocated goodwill, and the other consisting of two components with similar economic characteristics aggregated into a reporting unit with $9 million of allocated goodwill. During the first quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company evaluated the impact of the weaker market conditions, including the decrease in commodity selling prices and volumes and the resulting impact on the reporting units' operating margins, among other factors, on the key inputs to measuring each reporting unit's fair value and did not identify a triggering event requiring an interim impairment test of goodwill allocated to either reporting unit. However, for the reporting unit with $9 million of allocated goodwill, a sustained trend of underlying operating results at levels comparable to the first quarter of fiscal 2016 could significantly impact the impairment analysis and trigger an interim impairment test which may result in future goodwill impairment charges. Additionally, a further weakening in market conditions, including lower commodity prices and volumes which could impact operating margins and result in a sustained trend of lower than projected financial performance at both regionally-defined reporting units carrying goodwill, a decline in the Company’s share price from current levels for a sustained period of time, or an increase in the market-based weighted average cost of capital, among other factors, could significantly impact the impairment analysis and may result in future goodwill impairment charges that, if incurred, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The gross changes in the carrying amount of goodwill by reportable segment for the three months ended November 30, 2015 were as follows (in thousands):

Accumulated goodwill impairment charges were $462 million as of November 30, 2015 and August 31, 2015 .

Note 5 - Short-Term Borrowings

The Company has an unsecured, uncommitted $25 million credit line with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. that expires on April 1, 2016 . Interest rates are set by the bank at the time of borrowing. The Company had no borrowings outstanding under this credit line as of November 30, 2015 and August 31, 2015 . The credit agreement contains various representations and warranties, events of default and financial and other covenants, including covenants regarding maintenance of a minimum fixed charge ratio and a maximum leverage ratio.

Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies

The Company evaluates the adequacy of its environmental liabilities on a quarterly basis. Adjustments to the liabilities are made when additional information becomes available that affects the estimated costs to study or remediate any environmental issues or expenditures are made for which liabilities were established.

Changes in the Company’s environmental liabilities for the three months ended November 30, 2015 were as follows (in thousands):

Auto and Metals Recycling (“AMR”)

As of November 30, 2015 , AMR had environmental liabilities of $46 million for the potential remediation of locations where it has conducted business and has environmental liabilities from historical or recent activities.

 

Portland Harbor

In December 2000, the Company was notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) that it is one of the potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) that own or operate or formerly owned or operated sites which are part of or adjacent to the Portland Harbor Superfund site (the “Site”). The precise nature and extent of any cleanup of the Site, the parties to be involved, the process to be followed for any cleanup and the allocation of the costs for any cleanup among responsible parties have not yet been determined, but the process of identifying additional PRPs and beginning allocation of costs is underway. It is unclear to what extent the Company will be liable for environmental costs or natural resource damage claims or third party contribution or damage claims with respect to the Site. While the Company participated in certain preliminary Site study efforts, it is not party to the consent order entered into by the EPA with certain other PRPs, referred to as the “Lower Willamette Group” (“LWG”), for a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”).

During fiscal 2007, the Company and certain other parties agreed to an interim settlement with the LWG under which the Company made a cash contribution to the LWG RI/FS. The Company has also joined with more than 80 other PRPs, including the LWG, in a voluntary process to establish an allocation of costs at the Site. These parties have selected an allocation team and have entered into an allocation process design agreement. The LWG has also commenced federal court litigation, which has been stayed, seeking to bring additional parties into the allocation process.

In January 2008, the Natural Resource Damages Trustee Council (“Trustees”) for Portland Harbor invited the Company and other PRPs to participate in funding and implementing the Natural Resource Injury Assessment for the Site. Following meetings among the Trustees and the PRPs, a funding and participation agreement was negotiated under which the participating PRPs agreed to fund the first phase of the natural resource damage assessment. The Company joined in that Phase I agreement and paid a portion of those costs. The Company did not participate in funding the second phase of the natural resource damage assessment.

On March 30, 2012, the LWG submitted to the EPA and made available on its website a draft feasibility study (“draft FS”) for the Site based on approximately ten years of work and $100 million in costs classified by the LWG as investigation-related. However, the EPA largely rejected this draft FS, and took over the drafting process. The EPA provided their revised draft FS to the LWG and other key stakeholders in sections, with the final section being made available in August 2015. The revised draft FS identifies five possible remedial alternatives which range in estimated cost from approximately $550 million to $1.19 billion (net present value) for the least costly alternative to approximately $1.71 billion to $3.67 billion (net present value) for the most costly and estimates a range of four to eighteen years to implement the remedial work, depending on the selected alternative. The Company and other stakeholders have identified a number of concerns regarding the EPA's cost estimates, scheduling assumptions and conclusions regarding the effectiveness of remediation technologies.

The revised draft FS does not determine who is responsible for remediation costs, define the precise cleanup boundaries or select remedies. While the revised draft FS is an important step in the EPA’s development of a proposed plan for addressing the Site, a final decision on the nature and extent of the required remediation will occur only after the EPA has prepared a proposed plan for public review and issued a record of decision (“ROD”). In November 2015, EPA Region 10 presented its preferred alternative

remedy to the National Remedy Review Board ("NRRB"), a peer review group that has been established to review proposed Superfund cleanup decisions for consistency with the Superfund statute, regulations, and guidance. EPA Region 10’s preferred alternative presented to the NRRB is a modified version of one of the alternatives (Alternative E) in the revised draft FS, and EPA Region 10 estimates that its preferred alternative would take seven years to implement, with an estimated cost of $1.4 billion (net present value). The Company and other stakeholders believe that this preferred alternative raises the same concerns regarding EPA’s cost estimates, scheduling assumptions, and remedy feasibility and effectiveness as identified with the revised draft FS. The NRRB’s comments and EPA Region 10’s response are pending. EPA Region 10 has stated that it expects to release a Proposed Cleanup Plan for public review and comment in the Spring of 2016 and to issue its final ROD selecting a remedy for the Site in late 2016. As EPA Region 10’s preferred alternative is subject to NRRB review and comment and then to public review and comment, it is uncertain whether the preferred alternative presented by Region 10 in November 2015 will be the selected remedy or whether the EPA will be able to maintain its proposed schedule for issuing the ROD.

The next phase in the process following the ROD is the remedial design. The remedial design phase is an engineering phase during which additional technical information and data will be collected, identified and incorporated into technical drawings and specifications developed for the subsequent remedial action. The EPA will be seeking a new coalition of PRPs to perform the remedial design activities. Remediation activities are not expected to commence for a number of years and responsibility for implementing and funding the EPA’s selected remedy will be determined in a separate allocation process. While an allocation process is currently underway, the EPA's revised draft FS and its approach to the proposed alternative remedies have raised questions and uncertainty as to how that allocation process will proceed.

Because there has not been a determination of the total cost of the investigations, the remediation that will be required, the amount of natural resource damages or how the costs of the ongoing investigations and any remedy and natural resource damages will be allocated among the PRPs, the Company believes it is not possible to reasonably estimate the amount or range of costs which it is likely to or which it is reasonably possible that it will incur in connection with the Site, although such costs could be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity. Among the facts currently being developed are detailed information on the history of ownership of and the nature of the uses of and activities and operations performed on each property within the Site, which are factors that will play a substantial role in determining the allocation of investigation and remedy costs among the PRPs. The Company has insurance policies that it believes will provide reimbursement for costs it incurs for defense, remediation and mitigation for natural resource damages claims in connection with the Site, although there is no assurance that those policies will cover all of the costs which the Company may incur. The Company previously recorded a liability for its estimated share of the costs of the investigation of $1 million .

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is separately providing oversight of voluntary investigations by the Company involving the Company’s sites adjacent to the Portland Harbor which are focused on controlling any current “uplands” releases of contaminants into the Willamette River. No liabilities have been established in connection with these investigations because the extent of contamination (if any) and the Company’s responsibility for the contamination (if any) has not yet been determined.

Other AMR Sites

As of November 30, 2015 , the Company had environmental liabilities related to various AMR sites other than Portland Harbor of $45 million . The liabilities relate to the potential future remediation of soil contamination, groundwater contamination and storm water runoff issues and were not individually material at any site.

Steel Manufacturing Business (“SMB”)

SMB’s electric arc furnace generates dust (“EAF dust”) that is classified as hazardous waste by the EPA because of its zinc and lead content. As a result, the Company captures the EAF dust and ships it in specialized rail cars to a firm that applies a treatment that allows the EAF dust to be delisted as hazardous waste.

SMB has an operating permit issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which governs certain air quality standards. The permit is based on an annual production capacity of 950 thousand tons. The permit was first issued in 1998 and has since been renewed through February 1, 2018 .

 

SMB had no environmental liabilities as of November 30, 2015 .

Other than the Portland Harbor Superfund site, which is discussed above, management currently believes that adequate provision has been made for the potential impact of these issues and that the ultimate outcomes will not have a material adverse effect on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company as a whole. Historically, the amounts the Company has ultimately paid for such remediation activities have not been material in any given period.

In addition, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Management believes that adequate provisions have been made for these contingencies. The Company does not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

Note 7 - Restructuring Charges and Other Exit-Related Costs

The Company has implemented a number of restructuring initiatives designed to reduce operating expenses and improve profitability and to achieve further integration and synergistic cost efficiencies in its operating platform. The restructuring charges incurred by the Company during the periods presented pertain to three separate plans: the plans announced in the first quarter of fiscal 2014 (the “Q1’14 Plan”), the Q1’15 Plan and the Q2'15 Plan.

The Q1'14 Plan was designed to reduce the Company's annual operating expenses through headcount reductions, productivity improvements, procurement savings and other operational efficiencies.

The Q1'15 Plan included additional productivity initiatives to improve profitability through a combination of revenue drivers and cost reduction initiatives.

At the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company commenced additional restructuring and exit-related initiatives by undertaking strategic actions consisting of idling underutilized assets at AMR and initiating the closure of seven auto parts stores to align the Company's business to the prevalent market conditions. The Company expanded these initiatives in April 2015, and also announced the integration of the MRB and APB Businesses into the combined AMR platform, in order to achieve operational synergies and reduce the Company's annual operating expenses, primarily selling, general and administrative expenses, through headcount reductions, reducing organizational layers, consolidating shared service functions and other non-headcount measures. Additional cost savings and productivity benefits were identified in November 2015. Collectively, these initiatives are referred to as the Q2'15 Plan.

The Company incurred restructuring charges of $2 million and $1 million during the three months ended November 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The remaining charges relating to these initiatives are expected to be substantially incurred by the end of fiscal 2017. The significant majority of the restructuring charges require the Company to make cash payments.

In addition to the restructuring charges recorded related to these initiatives, the Company also incurred in fiscal 2015 other exit-related costs consisting of asset impairments and accelerated depreciation due to shortened useful lives in connection with site closures. The Company did not incur other exit-related costs during the three months ended November 30, 2015 and 2014.

Restructuring charges were comprised of the following (in thousands):

The following illustrates the reconciliation of the restructuring liability by major type of costs for the three months ended November 30, 2015 (in thousands):

Due to the immateriality of the activity and liability balances for each of the Q1'14 Plan and Q1'15 Plan, the reconciliation of the restructuring liability for these plans is provided in aggregate.

Restructuring charges and other exit-related costs by reportable segment and discontinued operations were as follows (in thousands):

The Company does not allocate restructuring charges and other exit-related costs to the segments’ operating results because management does not include this information in its measurement of the performance of the operating segments.

Note 8 - Changes in Equity

 

Changes in equity were comprised of the following (in thousands):

Reclassifications from accumulated other comprehensive loss, both individually and in the aggregate, were immaterial to the impacted captions in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.