RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

Current ABE South Dakota debt financing agreements contain restrictive covenants. Our failure to comply with applicable debt financing covenants and agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The terms of our existing debt financing agreements contain, and any future debt financing agreements we enter into may contain, financial, maintenance, organizational, operational or other restrictive covenants. If ABE South Dakota is unable to comply with these covenants or service its debt, we may be forced to reduce or delay planned capital expenditures, sell assets, restructure our indebtedness or submit to foreclosure proceedings, any of which could result in a material adverse effect upon our business, results of operations and financial condition

Our financial performance is highly dependent on commodity prices, which are subject to significant volatility, uncertainty, and supply disruptions, so our results may be materially adversely affected.

Our results of operations and financial condition are significantly affected by the cost and supply of corn and natural gas, and by the selling price for ethanol, distillers’ grains, corn oil and gasoline, which are commodities. Changes in the price and supply of these commodities are subject to and determined by market forces over which we have no control.

Our revenues exclusively depend on the market prices for ethanol, distillers’ grains and corn oil. These prices can be volatile due to a number of factors, including overall supply and demand, the price of corn, the price of and demand for gasoline, the level of government support and the availability and price of competing products.

Certain members beneficially own a large percentage of our units, which may allow them to collectively control substantially all matters requiring member approval and, certain of our principal members, including Hawkeye Energy Holdings, LLC and Clean Energy Capital, LLC (f/k/a Ethanol Capital Management, LLC) (“CEC”), have been granted other special voting rights.

In August 2009, we and each of our then current directors, South Dakota Wheat Growers Association, CEC and Hawkeye executed a Voting Agreement (the “Voting Agreement”). The Voting Agreement, among other things, requires the parties to (a) nominate for election to the board two designees of Hawkeye, two designees of CEC and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, (b) recommend to the members the election of each of these designees, (c) vote (or act by written consent) all units (or other voting equity securities) of the Company

12

Table of Contents

they beneficially own, hold of record or otherwise control at any time, in person or by proxy, to elect each of the designees to the board, (d) not take any action that would result in (and take any action necessary to prevent) the removal of any of the designees from the board or the increase in the size of the board to more than nine members without the consent of the Hawkeye, CEC and Chief Executive Officer, and (e) not grant a proxy with respect to any units that is inconsistent with the parties’ obligations under the Voting Agreement. The Company has also granted Hawkeye board observation rights under the Voting Agreement. At December 1, 2015, the parties to the Voting Agreement held in the aggregate approximately 51% of the outstanding units of the Company.

As a result of the Voting Agreement, Hawkeye and CEC have the ability to significantly influence the outcome of any actions taken by our board of directors. In addition, given the large ownership of these two entities, they can significantly influence other actions, such as amendments to our operating agreement, mergers, going private transactions, and other extraordinary transactions, and any decisions concerning the terms of any of these transactions. The ownership and voting positions of these members may have the effect of delaying, deterring, or preventing a change in control or a change in the composition of our board of directors. These members may also use their contractual rights, including access to management, and their large ownership position to address their own interests, which may be different from those of our other members.

We are required to sell substantially all of our ethanol to NGL Energy Partners LP (“NGL, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage and reduce profitability.

The Company’s operating subsidiary, ABE South Dakota, has ethanol marketing agreements with NGL Energy Partners, LP (“NGL”), a diversified energy business. These ethanol marketing agreements require that we sell to NGL all of the denatured fuel-grade ethanol produced at the South Dakota plants. These ethanol marketing agreements expire on June 30, 2016.

ABE South Dakota depends on NGL to market ABE’s ethanol and manage the logistics of ABE South Dakota’s rail cars to ensure ABE South Dakota is able to continue producing ethanol without exceeding its storage capacity, which would result in unplanned slowdowns or shut downs. Any failure or default by NGL in its obligations to ABE South Dakota may negatively affect our profitability.

We depend upon NGL to market the ethanol we produce, and we sublease from NGL a majority of the ethanol rail cars we use to transport our ethanol to customers. If we are unable to renew these agreements with NGL, our liquidity and profitability could be adversely affected, if we are unable to find similar pricing and payment terms from other marketers.

We depend on others for sales of our products, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage and reduce profitability.

We currently have agreements with a third-party marketing firm, NGL, to market all of the ethanol we produce from our facilities. We contract with third parties to market the sale of most of the distillers’ grains produced at our South Dakota plants, and corn oil produced at the Aberdeen plant. If the ethanol or co-product marketers breach their contracts or do not have the ability, for financial or other reasons, to market all of the ethanol we produce or to market the co-products produced at the South Dakota plants, we may not have any readily available alternative means to sell our products. Our lack of a sales force and reliance on third parties to sell and market most of our products may place us at a competitive disadvantage. Our failure to sell all of our ethanol and co-products may result in lower revenues and reduced profitability.

We are exposed to credit risk resulting from non-payment by significant customers.

We have a concentration of credit risk because our ABE South Dakota subsidiary generally sells all of its ethanol to a single customer. Although we typically receive payments within twenty days from the date of sale

13

Table of Contents

for our ethanol and distillers’ grains, we continually monitor this credit risk exposure. In addition, we may prepay for or make deposits on undelivered inventories. Our credit risk concentrations for inventory advances are primarily with a few major suppliers of petroleum products and agricultural inputs. The inability of a third party to pay our accounts receivable or to deliver us inventory for advance payments we made may cause us to experience losses and may adversely impact our liquidity and our ability to make our payments when due. As of September 30, 2015, the total receivable balance at ABE South Dakota was $4.0 million, of which 97% was due from three customers.

Our profitability depends on the spread between ethanol and corn prices, which can vary significantly.

Gross profit on gallons produced at our facilities, which accounts for the substantial majority of our operating income, principally depends on the spread between ethanol and corn prices.

The price of corn is influenced by weather conditions (including droughts or excess rainfall) and other factors affecting crop yields, farmer planting decisions and general economic, market and regulatory factors, including government policies and subsidies with respect to agriculture and international trade, and global and local supply and demand. Conversely, ethanol prices are primarily influenced by market demand and can fluctuate widely depending on industry-wide ethanol inventory levels.

Volatility in oil and gas prices may materially affect ethanol pricing and demand and make it difficult to manage profit margins.

Ethanol has historically traded at a discount to gasoline; however with the recent volatility in oil and gas prices, ethanol prices have also fluctuated. When ethanol trades at a discount to gasoline it encourages discretionary blending, thereby increasing the demand for ethanol beyond required blending rates. Conversely, when ethanol trades at a premium to gasoline, there is a disincentive for discretionary blending and ethanol demand is negatively impacted. Consequently, ethanol pricing and demand may also be volatile, which makes it difficult to manage profit margins and which could result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The market for natural gas is subject to market conditions that create uncertainty in the price and availability of the natural gas that we use in our manufacturing process.

Natural gas costs represented approximately 5.9% of our cost of goods sold in the year ended September 30, 2015. We rely upon third parties for our supply of natural gas that we consume to produce ethanol. The prices for and availability of natural gas are subject to volatile market conditions. These market conditions often are affected by factors beyond our control such as higher prices resulting from colder than average weather conditions, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and the expansion of hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. over the past several years, which has expanded domestic supplies, and overall economic conditions. Significant disruptions in the supply of natural gas could impair our ability to produce ethanol. Furthermore, increases in natural gas prices or changes in our natural gas costs relative to natural gas costs paid by competitors may adversely affect our results of operations and financial position. Natural gas prices over the period from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2015, based on the New York Mercantile Exchange or NYMEX, daily futures data, have ranged from a low of $2.44 per million British Thermal Units, or mmbtu, on April 27, 2015 to a high of $6.49 per mmbtu on February 24, 2014. At September 30, 2015, the NYMEX price of natural gas was $3.00 per mmbtu.

We may engage in hedging transactions and other risk mitigation strategies that could harm our results.

We are exposed to a variety of market risks, including the effects of changes in commodity prices. Hedging activities can result in losses when a position is purchased in a declining market or a position is sold in a rising market. We cannot ensure that we will not experience hedging losses in the future. Hedging arrangements also expose us to the risk of financial loss in situations where the other party to the hedging contract defaults on its

14

Table of Contents

contract or, in the case of exchange-traded contracts, where there is a change in the expected differential between the underlying price in the hedging agreement and the actual prices paid or received by us. In addition, failure to have adequate capital to use various hedging strategies, may expose us to substantial risk of loss, or result in a loss for our company. Currently, we do not engage in the use of derivative contracts; however we may in the future.

Our lack of business diversification could result in adverse operating results if our revenues from our primary products decrease.

Our business consists of the production and sale of ethanol, distillers’ grains, and corn oil. We do not have any other lines of business or other potential sources of revenue. Our lack of business diversification could cause us to shut down operations and be unable to meet financial obligations if we are unable to generate positive cash flows from the production and sale of ethanol and co-products because we do not currently expect to have any other lines of business or alternative revenue sources.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations.

Our operating results have fluctuated in the past and may fluctuate significantly in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful, and our past results do not necessarily indicate our future performance.

We are dependent on certain key personnel, and the loss of any of these persons may prevent us from implementing our business plan in an effective and timely manner.

Our success depends largely upon the continued services of our chief executive officer and other key personnel. Any loss or interruption of the services of one of these key personnel could result in our inability to manage our operations effectively or pursue our business strategy.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR UNITS

We have placed significant restrictions on transferability of the units, no public trading market exists for our units and there is no assurance that unit holders will receive future cash distributions.

Our units are subject to substantial transfer restrictions pursuant to our operating agreement. As a result, investors may not be able to liquidate their investments in the units and, therefore, may be required to assume the risks of investments in us for an indefinite period of time, which may be the life of our Company.

Further, although our units are now listed on an internet-based matching platform, there is currently no established public trading market for our units, and we do not anticipate an active trading market will develop. In order for the Company to maintain its partnership tax status, unit holders may not trade the units on an established securities market or readily trade the units on a secondary market (or the substantial equivalent thereof).

To help ensure that a secondary market does not develop, our operating agreement prohibits transfers without the approval of our board of directors. The board of directors will not approve transfers unless they fall within “safe harbors” contained in the publicly traded partnership rules under the tax code, which include, without limitation, the following:

15

Table of Contents

Distributions are payable at the sole discretion of our board of directors, subject to the provisions of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, our operating agreement and the requirements of our creditors. We cannot ensure that we will make cash distributions in the future. Our board may elect to retain future profits to provide operational financing for the plants, debt retirement and possible plant expansion, the construction or acquisition of additional plants or other company opportunities. This means that members may receive little or no return on their investment and be unable to liquidate their investment due to transfer restrictions and lack of a public trading market.

Our members have limited voting rights.

Members cannot exercise control over our daily business affairs. Subject to the provisions in our operating agreement, our board of directors may modify our business plans without the members’ consent.

In addition to the election of directors, the disposition of substantially all of our assets through merger, exchange or otherwise, except for dissolution of our Company or a transfer of our assets to a wholly owned subsidiary, requires the affirmative vote of a majority of our membership voting interests.

Our members may only propose amendments to the Operating Agreement if they hold more than 1% of the units outstanding. Members may demand a member meeting only if they represent a majority of the membership voting interests.

Amendments to our operating agreement (other than amendments that would modify the limited liability of a member or alter a member’s economic interest, which requires a two-thirds vote of the membership interests adversely affected) require the affirmative vote of a majority of the membership voting interests represented at a meeting.

RISKS RELATED TO THE ETHANOL INDUSTRY

If demand does not sufficiently increase and production capacity and imported ethanol increase, industry overcapacity could develop.

According to the RFA, domestic ethanol production capacity has increased dramatically from 1.7 billion gallons per year in January 1999 to 14.8 billion gallons per year as of November 2015. In addition to this increase in production capacity, excess ethanol production capacity also may result from decreases in the demand for ethanol or increased imported supply, which could result from a number of factors, including but not limited to, regulatory developments, reduced exports and reduced gasoline consumption in the U.S. Reduced gasoline consumption could occur as a result of increased prices for gasoline or crude oil, which could cause businesses and consumers to reduce driving or acquire vehicles with more favorable gasoline mileage, or as a result of technological advances, such as the commercialization of engines utilizing hydrogen fuel-cells, which could supplant gasoline-powered engines. There are a number of governmental initiatives designed to reduce gasoline consumption, including tax credits for hybrid vehicles and consumer education programs. In August 2012, the Federal government issued regulations to increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. These new standards will cover cars and light trucks for Model Years 2017-2025, requiring performance equivalent to 54.5 mpg in 2025. These standards are likely to reduce the overall demand for gasoline, and therefore ethanol.

Any increase in the supply of distillers’ grains, without corresponding increases in demand, could lead to lower prices or an inability to sell our distillers’ grains. A decline in the price of distillers’ grains, or the distillers’ grains market generally, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

16

Table of Contents

Volatility in gasoline selling price and production cost may reduce our gross margins.

Ethanol is used both as a fuel additive to reduce vehicle emissions and as an octane enhancer to improve the octane rating of the gasoline with which it is blended. Therefore, the supply and demand for gasoline affects the price of ethanol, and our business and future results of operations may be materially adversely affected if gasoline demand or price decreases.

The price of distillers’ grains is affected by the price of other commodity products; decreases in the price of these commodities could decrease the price of distillers’ grains.

Distillers’ grains compete with other protein-based animal feed products. The price of distillers’ grains may decrease when the price of competing feed products decrease. The prices of competing animal feed products are based in part on the prices of the commodities from which they are derived. Downward pressure on commodity prices, such as corn and soybean meal, will generally cause the price of competing animal feed products to decline, resulting in downward pressure on the price of distillers’ grains. Because the price of distillers’ grains is not tied to production costs, decreases in the price of distillers’ grains will result in us generating less revenue and lower profit margins.

Growth in the sale and distribution of ethanol depends on the changes in and expansion of related infrastructure, which may not occur on a timely basis, if at all, and our operations could be adversely affected by infrastructure disruptions.

Ethanol is currently blended with gasoline to meet regulatory standards as a clean air additive, an octane enhancer, a fuel extender and a gasoline alternative. In 2014, the United States consumed 13.32 billion gallons of ethanol representing 9.7% of the 136.8 billion gallons of finished motor gasoline consumed, according to the U.S Energy Information Administration (“EIA”). Ethanol plants in the United States produced 14.3 billion gallons in 2014, approximately one billion gallons more than were produced in 2013. The demand for ethanol is affected by what is commonly referred to as the “blending wall”, which is a regulatory cap on the amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline. The blend wall affects the demand for ethanol, and as industry production capacity reaches the blend wall, the supply of ethanol in the market may surpass the demand. Assuming current gasoline usage in the U.S. at 136.8 billion gallons per year and a blend rate of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, the current blend wall is approximately 13.7 billion gallons of ethanol per year. In order to expand demand for ethanol, higher percentage blends must be used in standard vehicles.

To drive growth in ethanol usage, Growth Energy requested a waiver from the EPA to increase the allowable amount of ethanol blended into gasoline from the current 10% level to a 15% level. A final decision, announced on October 13, 2010, allows for E15 usage in 2007 and newer vehicles, and was updated on January 21, 2011 to include 2001 to 2006 vehicles. Although regulatory issues remain in many states, E15 is now available in limited locations in 16 states.

Additional infrastructure will be required to handle the additional 5% of blending including:

Without infrastructure investments by unrelated parties, the demand for ethanol may not increase, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

17

Table of Contents

Corn-based ethanol may compete with cellulose-based ethanol in the future, which could make it more difficult for us to produce ethanol on a cost-effective basis.

A current focus in ethanol production research is the development of an efficient method of producing ethanol from cellulose-based biomass, such as agricultural waste, forest residue, and municipal solid waste and energy crops. This focus is driven by governmental mandates including the Renewable Fuels Standard, as most recently amended (“RFS2”), and the fact that cellulose-based biomass would create opportunities to produce ethanol in areas that are unable to grow corn. Furthermore, ethanol produced from cellulose based biomass is generally considered to emit less carbon emission than ethanol produced from corn. If an efficient method of producing ethanol from cellulose-based biomass is developed and commercialized on a large scale, we may not be able to compete effectively. There is a commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant currently operational and others are currently under construction. We currently do not believe it will be cost-effective to convert our existing plants into cellulose-based biomass facilities. If we are unable to produce ethanol as cost effectively as cellulose-based producers, our ability to generate revenue and operate profitably will be negatively affected.

Competition from new or advanced technology may lessen the demand for ethanol and negatively affect our profitability.

Alternative fuels, gasoline oxygenates and ethanol production methods are continually under development. A number of automotive, industrial and power generation manufacturers are developing more efficient engines, hybrid engines and alternative clean power systems using fuel cells or clean burning gaseous fuels. Vehicle manufacturers are working to develop vehicles that are more fuel efficient and have reduced emissions using conventional gasoline. Vehicle manufacturers have developed and continue to work to improve hybrid technology, which powers vehicles by engines that utilize both electric and conventional gasoline fuel sources. In the future, the emerging fuel cell industry will offer a technological option to address increasing worldwide energy costs, the long-term availability of petroleum reserves and environmental concerns. Fuel cells have emerged as a potential alternative to certain existing power sources because of their higher efficiency, reduced noise and lower emissions. Fuel cell industry participants are currently targeting the transportation, stationary power and portable power markets in order to decrease fuel costs, lessen dependence on crude oil and reduce harmful emissions. If the fuel cell and hydrogen industries continue to expand and gain broad acceptance, and hydrogen becomes readily available to consumers for motor vehicle use, we may not be able to compete effectively. This additional competition could reduce the demand for ethanol, which would negatively impact our profitability and reduce the value of our units.

Competition in the ethanol industry could limit our growth and harm our operating results.

The market for ethanol and other biofuels is highly competitive. Our current and prospective competitors include many large companies that have substantially greater market presence, geographic diversity, name recognition and financial, marketing and other resources than we do. We compete directly or indirectly with large companies, such as Abengoa Bioenergy Corp.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill, Inc.; Flint Hills Resources, LLC; Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc.; POET, LLC and Valero Energy Corporation and with other companies that are seeking to develop large-scale ethanol plants and alliances. Pressure from our competitors could require us to reduce our prices or increase our spending for marketing, which would erode our margins and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Imported ethanol may be a less expensive alternative to domestic ethanol, which would cause us to lose market share and reduce the value of your investment.

Brazil is currently the world’s second largest producer and exporter of ethanol. In Brazil, ethanol is produced primarily from sugarcane, which can be less costly to produce than U.S. corn-based ethanol. Now that import tariffs have been removed, a significant barrier to entry into the U.S. ethanol market has been eliminated. Competition from ethanol imported from Brazil or other Caribbean or Central American countries may affect our ability to sell our ethanol profitably.

18

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO ETHANOL PRODUCTION

Operational difficulties at our plants could negatively affect our sales volumes and could cause us to incur substantial losses.

Our operations are subject to unscheduled downtime and operational hazards inherent to our industry, such as equipment failures, utility outages, fires, explosions, abnormal pressures, blowouts, pipeline ruptures, transportation disruptions and accidents and natural disasters. We may have difficulty managing the process maintenance required to maintain our nameplate production capacities. If our ethanol plants do not produce ethanol and distillers’ grains at the levels we expect, our business, results of operations, and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

Improperly trained employees may not follow procedures, resulting in damage to certain parts of the ethanol production facility, which could negatively affect operating results if our plants do not produce ethanol and its by-products as anticipated.

The production of ethanol and distillers’ grains demands continuous supervision and judgments regarding mixture rates, temperature and pressure adjustments. Errors of judgment due to lack of training or improper manufacturer instructions could send chemicals into sensitive areas of production, which may reduce or halt ethanol or distillers’ grains production at our facilities.

Rail traffic congestion may affect our ability to return our tanker rail cars to our plants on a timely basis, and could require us to reduce or cease production in the event we exceed our ethanol storage capacity.

There have been periodic significant increases in rail traffic congestion throughout the United States primarily due to the increase in cargo trains carrying shale oil. From time to time, this congestion has and may continue to affect our ability to have our tanker rail cars return to the Aberdeen and Huron plants on a timely basis. Delays in returning rail cars to our plants may affect our ability to operate our plants at full capacity due to ethanol storage capacity constraints. In response to the rail congestion issues we constructed an additional one million gallons of denatured ethanol storage at our Aberdeen, South Dakota plant. The additional storage became operational in January 2015 and increased the total denatured ethanol storage at the Aberdeen plant to approximately two million gallons.

We may have difficulty obtaining enough corn to operate the plants profitably.

There may not be an adequate supply of corn produced in the areas surrounding our plants to satisfy our requirements. Even if there is an adequate supply of corn and we make arrangements to purchase it, we could encounter difficulties finalizing the sales transaction and managing the delivery of the corn, including difficulties caused by inclement weather. If we do not obtain corn in the quantities we plan to use, we may not be able to operate our plants at full capacity. If the price of corn in our local markets is higher due to lack of supply, drought, or other reasons, our profitability may suffer and we may incur significant losses from operations. As a result, our ability to make a profit may decline.

RISKS RELATED TO REGULATION AND GOVERNMENTAL ACTION

We are exposed to additional regulatory risk that may prevent the sale of our products to customers located in certain states or require us to change the way we operate.

Legislative acts by the State of California and the Environmental Protection Agency (i.e. RFS2) require cleaner emissions and reduced carbon footprints including effects caused by indirect land use. These acts, when implemented, may prohibit the sale of our products to certain customers, which may materially adversely impact our results from operations, or may require us to procure feedstock and market our products in a fashion that negatively impacts our financial performance.

19

Table of Contents

The use and demand for ethanol and its supply are impacted by federal and state legislation and regulation, most significantly the Renewable Fuels Standard, and any changes in legislation or regulation could cause the demand for ethanol to decline or its supply to increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, and the ability to operate at a profit.

Various federal and state laws, regulations and programs affect the demand for ethanol as a fuel or fuel additive. Tariffs generally apply to the import of ethanol from other countries. These laws, regulations and programs are constantly changing. Federal and state legislators and environmental regulators could adopt or modify laws, regulations or programs that could adversely affect the use of ethanol.

On November 30, 2015, the EPA announced final RVO requirements for the RFS for calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016. Although the new RVO requirements set are above the proposed reductions, they are below the original requirements set by the RFS. Opponents of ethanol such as large oil companies will likely continue their efforts to repeal or reduce the RFS through lawsuits or lobbying of Congress. Successful reduction or repeal of the blending requirements of the RFS could result in a significant decrease in ethanol demand.

Current ethanol production capacity is approximately 14.8 billion gallons according to the RFA. Reduction of blending requirements could reduce the demand for and price of ethanol. If demand for ethanol decreases, it could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The U.S. Department of Transportation will require the tanker cars we use to transport ethanol to be replaced or retrofitted to meet new rail safety standards.

We use tanker rail cars to transport the majority of the ethanol produced at our facilities. We currently have 294 tanker cars under lease. The tanker cars used by our company and the rest of the ethanol industry are DOT-111 tanker cars; these are the same type of tanker cars used by the oil industry to transport crude oil.

In response to various incidents on the rail system involving the transportation of crude oil products, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) has issued new safety regulations surrounding the transportation of highly flammable liquids, which includes not only crude oil products, but ethanol. The DOT originally proposed a three-year timetable for replacing or modifying current DOT-111 railcars used in ethanol service. However, the ethanol industry argued that it should be afforded more time because corn-based fuel shipped by rail poses less of a risk to public safety than crude oil. The DOT’s final rule gave the ethanol industry until May 1, 2023 to replace or retrofit current DOT-111 cars. Although the extended timetable was a positive outcome for the ethanol industry, the new requirements could result in a shortage of compliant tanker cars. This could have an adverse impact on our operations, because we may be faced with drastically increased lease costs or be forced to retrofit the tanker cars we have under lease, which could have an adverse impact on our business both in the cost of the retrofits as well as potential disruption to our production as a result of cars being out of service while they are retrofitted.

Imported ethanol could undermine the ethanol industry in the U.S.

Imported ethanol is no longer subject to any tariffs since December 31, 2011. Since production costs for ethanol in many countries may be less from time to time than what they are in the U.S., the duty-free import of ethanol may negatively affect the demand for domestic ethanol and the price at which we sell our ethanol.

Regulations governing the production and sale of animal feeds, including distillers’ grains, may change our operating procedures and increase our operating costs, and could affect the export markets for distillers’ grains.

In 2011, President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”), which is intended to strengthen the food safety system in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) will

20

Table of Contents

administer the law, which will require food producers, including distillers’ grains producers, to document, implement and monitor preventative contamination controls in the food production process. On March 26, 2014, FDA published a Federal Register notice inviting comments on issues related to the FSMA amendments. On September 17, 2015, the FDA published final rules under the FSMA, and is expected to issue the “Sanitary Transportation of Food and Feed” rule by March 31, 2016. Implementation of the final regulations may change our operating procedures for the production, handling and sale of distillers’ grains, and may increase our operating and compliance costs.

Actions by the Chinese government may limit the sale of distillers’ grains to China.

China is currently the largest export market for U.S. dry distillers’ grains. China imported 4.37 million metric tons in 2014, or approximately one half of all distillers’ grains exported. In late 2013, the Chinese government signaled its intent to regulate the quality of food imports into China. To achieve this goal, the China AQSIQ (General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine) agency indicated that it would require U.S. food producers to register and comply with Chinese food preparation guidelines, and the U.S. government to monitor the production of food products in the U.S. that are exported to China, in a manner similar to the system proposed under the FSMA.

In November 2013, Chinese authorities rejected corn shipments to China because the cargoes included MIR162, a variety of genetically engineered, insect-resistant corn that had been approved in the United States and a number of other countries but not in China. In June 2014, quarantine authorities in China stopped issuing permits for the import of dried distillers’ grains from the United States due to the presence of MIR162 in shipments.

In late December 2014, Chinese officials lifted the ban on MIR162, thereby re-opening the market for distiller’s grains exports to China. Once the ban had been lifted, China resumed imports of distiller’s grains; year-to-date October 2015, China had imported nearly 5.8 million metric tons of distiller’s grains, surpassing the tons imported by China for the full year in 2014.

If China were to reinstate the ban on MIR162, it could decrease demand for distillers’ grains and decrease distillers’ grain prices in the United States’ domestic market by decreasing worldwide demand.

Various studies have criticized ethanol, and could lead to the reduction or repeal of government regulations such as the RFS that promote the use and domestic production of ethanol.

Although many trade groups, academics and governmental agencies have supported ethanol as a fuel additive that promotes a cleaner environment, others have criticized ethanol production as consuming considerably more energy and emitting more greenhouse gases than other biofuels. Other studies have suggested that corn-based ethanol is less efficient than ethanol produced from switch grass or wheat grain and that ethanol’s demand on corn has resulted in higher food prices and shortages. If these views gain widespread acceptance, support for existing measures promoting use and domestic production of corn-based ethanol could decline, leading to reduction or repeal of these measures.

We may be adversely affected by environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and liabilities.

We are subject to extensive air, water and other environmental regulations, including those relating to the discharge of materials into the air, water and ground; the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials; and the health and safety of our employees. In addition, the plants we operate or manage need to maintain a number of environmental permits. Each ethanol plant we operate or manage is subject to environmental regulation by the State of South Dakota and by the EPA. These laws, regulations and permits

21

Table of Contents

can often require expensive pollution control equipment or operational changes to limit actual or potential impacts on the environment. A violation of these laws and regulations or permit conditions can result in substantial fines, natural resource damages, criminal sanctions, permit revocations or facility shutdowns, liability for the costs of investigation or remediation and for damages to natural resources. Our operating subsidiary may also be subject to related claims by private parties alleging property damage and personal injury due to exposure to hazardous or other materials from those plants, and ABE may have exposures to such claims arising from its management services.

Environmental issues, such as contamination and compliance with applicable environmental standards, could arise at any time during operation of an ethanol plant. If this occurs, our operating subsidiary could be required to spend significant resources to remedy the issues and may limit operation of the ethanol plant. Our operating subsidiary may be liable for the investigation and cleanup of environmental contamination that might exist or could occur at each of the properties that they own or operate where they handle hazardous substances. If these substances have been or are disposed of or released at sites that undergo investigation or remediation by regulatory agencies, our operating subsidiary may be responsible under the CERCLA (otherwise known as the “Superfund Act”) or other environmental laws for all or part of the costs of investigation and remediation, and for damages to natural resources. Our operating subsidiary may also be subject to related claims by private parties, including our employees and property owners or residents near their plant, alleging property damage and personal injury due to exposure to hazardous or other materials at or from those plants. Additionally, employees, property owners or residents near our ethanol plants could object to the air emissions or water discharges from our ethanol plants. Ethanol production has been known to produce an unpleasant odor. Environmental and public nuisance claims or toxic tort claims could be brought against us as a result of this odor or their other releases to the air or water. Some of these matters may require us to expend significant resources for investigation, cleanup, installation of control technologies or other compliance-related items, or other costs.

Additionally, the hazards and risks associated with producing and transporting our products (such as fires, natural disasters, explosions, abnormal pressures and blowouts) may also result in personal injury claims by third parties or damage to property owned by us or by third parties. We could sustain losses for uninsurable or uninsured events, or in amounts in excess of existing insurance coverage. Events that result in significant personal injury to third parties or damage to property owned by us or third parties or other losses that are not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We also cannot ensure that our operating subsidiary will be able to comply with all necessary permits to continue to operate its ethanol plants. Failure to comply with all applicable permits and licenses could subject our operating subsidiary to future claims or increase costs and materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, environmental laws and regulations, both at the federal and state level, are subject to change and these changes can be made retroactively. Consequently, even if our operating subsidiary obtains the required permits, it may be required to invest or spend considerable resources to comply with future environmental regulations, such as regulation of greenhouse gasses, or new or modified interpretations of those regulations, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Present and future environmental laws and regulations (and interpretations thereof) applicable to the operations of our operating subsidiary, more vigorous enforcement policies and discovery of currently unknown conditions may require substantial expenditures that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our employees are exposed to the physical hazards of heights, rotating, motorized mechanical and mobile machinery, and equipment and chemicals. Despite procedures, training, physical and engineered barriers and preventative measures, we may still be exposed to liabilities of Occupational Safety and Health Administration fines and incur potential punitive damages as a result of employee injuries that fall outside the workman’s compensation program and insurable losses.

22

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO TAX ISSUES

Income allocations assigned to unit holder units may result in taxable income in excess of cash distributions, which means unit holders may have to pay income tax on their investment with personal funds.

Unit holders will be required to pay tax on their allocated shares of our taxable income. It is likely that a unit holder will receive allocations of taxable income in certain years that result in a tax liability that is in excess of any cash distributions we may make to the unit holder. Among other things, this result might occur due to accounting methodology, lending covenants that restrict our ability to pay cash distributions, or our decision to retain the cash generated by the business to fund our operating activities and obligations. In the event unit holders have used prior tax losses to offset non-ABE taxable income, the use of these losses may result in future tax liability.

IRS classification of the company as a corporation rather than as a partnership would result in higher taxation and reduced profits.

We are a Delaware limited liability company that has elected to be taxed as a partnership for federal and state income tax purposes, with income, gain, loss, deduction and credit passed through to the holders of the units. However, if for any reason the IRS successfully determines that we should be taxed as a corporation rather than as a partnership, we would be taxed on our net income at rates of up to 35% for federal income tax purposes, and all items of our income, gain, loss, deduction and credit would be reflected only on our tax returns and would not be passed through to the holders of the units. If we were to be taxed as a corporation for any reason, distributions we make to investors will be treated as ordinary dividend income to the extent of our earnings and profits, and the payment of dividends would not be deductible by us, thus resulting in double taxation of our earnings and profits. If we pay taxes as a corporation, we will have less cash to distribute to our unit holders. Treatment of our company as a corporation for tax purposes could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We might elect to convert our entity status from a limited liability company to a corporation, which would increase our tax burden.

Although we have no current plans to convert to a corporation, our company might elect in the future to convert to a corporation. If we convert to a corporation, no profits will be allocable to unit holders, there will be no tax liability to our unit holders unless we pay a dividend and our company, as a result, would not make tax distributions to our unit holders with respect to these allocable profits. Conversion to a corporation would require an approval by member vote pursuant to our operating agreement. If we elect to be organized as a corporation, we will be subject to Subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code. We would be taxed on our net income at rates of up to 35% for federal income tax purposes, and all items of our income, gain, loss, deduction and credit would be reflected only on our tax returns and would not be passed through to the unit holders. Distributions, if made to investors, would be treated as ordinary dividend income to the extent of our earnings and profits, and the payment of dividends would not be deductible by us, resulting in double taxation of our earnings and profits. If we pay taxes as a corporation, we will also have less cash to distribute to our unit holders. Treatment of our company as a corporation for tax purposes could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The IRS may classify your investment as a passive activity, resulting in the inability of unit holders to deduct losses associated with their investment.

It is likely that an investor’s interest in us will be treated as a “passive activity” for tax purposes. If an investor is an individual, estate, trust or a closely held corporation, and if the investor’s interest is deemed to be a “passive activity,” then the investor’s allocated share of any loss we incur will be deductible only against income or gains the investor has earned from other passive activities. Passive activity losses that are disallowed in any taxable year are suspended and may be carried forward and used as an offset against passive activity income in future years. These rules could restrict a unit holder’s ability to currently deduct any of our losses that are passed through to such unit holder.

23

Table of Contents

An IRS audit could result in adjustments to our allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction, causing additional tax liability to unit holders.

The IRS may audit our income tax returns and may challenge positions taken for tax purposes and allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction to investors. If the IRS were successful in challenging our allocations in a manner that reduces loss or increases income allocable to unit holders, our unit holders may have additional tax liabilities. In addition, such an audit could lead to separate audits of a unit holder’s tax returns, especially if adjustments are required, which could result in adjustments on unit holders’ tax returns. Any of these events could result in additional tax liabilities, penalties and interest to unit holders, and the cost of filing amended tax returns.