NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Tables in millions, except per share amounts and as otherwise designated)

(Unaudited)

1 . Organization and Nature of Business

The Mosaic Company (" Mosaic ", and, with its consolidated subsidiaries, " we ", " us ", " our ", or the " Company ") produces and markets concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. We conduct our business through wholly and majority owned subsidiaries as well as businesses in which we own less than a majority or a noncontrolling interest, including consolidated variable interest entities and investments accounted for by the equity method.

We are organized into the following business segments:

Intersegment eliminations, unrealized mark-to-market gains/losses on derivatives, and debt expenses are included within Corporate, Eliminations and Other. See Note 14 of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this report for segment results.

2 . Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Statement Presentation and Basis of Consolidation

The accompanying unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Mosaic have been prepared on the accrual basis of accounting and in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (" SEC ") for interim financial reporting. As permitted under these rules, certain footnotes and other financial information that are normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (" GAAP ") can be condensed or omitted. The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this document reflect, in the opinion of our management, all adjustments (consisting of only normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim periods presented. The following notes should be read in conjunction with the accounting policies and other disclosures in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the " 10-K Report "). Sales, expenses, cash flows, assets and liabilities can and do vary during the year as a result of seasonality and other factors. Therefore, interim results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year.

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Mosaic, its majority owned subsidiaries, and certain variable interest entities in which Mosaic is the primary beneficiary. Certain investments in companies where we do not have control but have the ability to exercise significant influence are accounted for by the equity method.

Accounting Estimates

Preparation of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of net sales and expenses during the reporting periods. The most significant estimates made by management relate to the estimates of fair value of acquired assets and liabilities, the recoverability of non-current assets including goodwill, the useful lives and net realizable values of long-lived assets, environmental and reclamation liabilities including asset retirement obligations (" ARO "), the costs of our employee benefit obligations for pension plans and postretirement benefits, income tax related accounts, including the valuation allowance against deferred income tax assets, inventory valuation and accruals for pending legal and environmental matters. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

Structured Accounts Payable Arrangements

In Brazil, we finance some of our potash-based fertilizer and other raw material product purchases through third-party financing arrangements. These arrangements provide that the third-party intermediary advance the amount of the scheduled payment to the vendor, less an appropriate discount, at a scheduled payment date and Mosaic makes payment to the third-party intermediary at a later date, stipulated in accordance with the commercial terms negotiated. At June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , these structured accounts payable arrangement liabilities were $195.5 million and $481.7 million , respectively.

We have corrected the presentation of certain previously-reported balances related to the structured accounts payable arrangements in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The error resulted in an understatement of net cash provided by operating activities and a corresponding understatement of net cash used in financing activities of $93.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015 . We evaluated the effects of these errors in the previously issued consolidated financial statements for both the annual and interim periods of the prior years and concluded, based on the relevant quantitative and qualitative factors that the errors were not material, individually or in the aggregate, in relation to the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole.

3 . Recently Issued Accounting Guidance

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (" FASB ") issued guidance which requires debt issuance costs to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of the associated debt liability, consistent with the presentation of a debt discount. In August 2015, the FASB issued additional guidance which clarified that an entity may defer and present debt issuance costs related to a line-of-credit arrangement as an asset and subsequently amortize those costs ratably over the term of the arrangement, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on it. This guidance became effective for us beginning January 1, 2016 and has been implemented retroactively. Accordingly, we reclassified $22.9 million of deferred financing fees against outstanding long-term debt accounts within the December 31, 2015 balance sheet. Our deferred financing fees of $2.9 million related to our revolving credit facility will remain recorded as an asset.

In March 2016, the FASB issued guidance which simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including certain income tax consequences, classifications on the statement of cash flows, and accounting for forfeitures. The guidance is effective for us beginning January 1, 2017, and early application is permitted. We adopted this standard in the second quarter of 2016 with an effective date of January 1, 2016. The effect of this adoption was not significant to our consolidated balance sheet, statements of earnings or statements of cash flows.

Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted

In May 2014, the FASB issued guidance addressing how revenue is recognized from contracts with customers and related disclosures. This standard supersedes existing revenue recognition requirements and most industry-specific guidance. This standard was initially expected to be effective for us beginning January 1, 2017, and provides for either full retrospective adoption or a modified retrospective adoption by which the cumulative effect of the change is recognized in retained earnings at the date of initial application. In July 2015, the FASB approved the deferral of the effective date of this standard by one year, and allows for adoption either at January 1, 2017 or January 1, 2018. We intend to utilize the full retrospective adoption method and to elect the deferred adoption date of January 1, 2018. We are currently evaluating the requirements of this guidance, and have not yet determined the impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2016, the FASB issued guidance which addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments. This guidance is effective for us beginning January 1, 2018, and early adoption is not permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that this guidance will have on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued guidance which requires recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. This guidance is effective for us beginning January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. The provisions of this guidance are to be applied using a modified retrospective approach, which requires application of the guidance for all periods presented. We are currently evaluating the impact that this guidance will have on our consolidated financial statements.

4 . Other Financial Statement Data

The following provides add i tional information concerning selected balance sheet accounts:

^(a) Final price deferred is product that has shipped to customers, but the price has not yet been agreed upon. This has not been included in inventory as risk of loss has passed to our customers. Amounts in this account are based on inventory cost.

^(b) Included in restricted cash, as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , is $630 million that is committed to be placed in trust following the effectiveness of the consent decrees discussed under "EPA RCRA Initiative" in Note 9 of our Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, as financial assurance to support certain estimated future asset retirement obligations.

^(c) This amount was paid on July 1, 2016.

5 . Earnings Per Share

The numerator for basic and diluted earnings per share (" EPS ") is net earnings attributable to Mosaic. The denominator for basic EPS is the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period. The denominator for diluted EPS also includes the weighted average number of additional common shares that would have been outstanding if the dilutive potential common shares had been issued, unless the shares are anti-dilutive.

The following is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator for the basic and diluted EPS computations:

A total of 4.1 million and 3.1 million shares of Common Stock subject to issuance upon exercise of stock options for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 1.3 million shares for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 , respectively, have been excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the effect would have been anti-dilutive.

6 . Income Taxes

During the six months ended June 30, 2016 , gross unrecognized tax benefits decreased by $75.6 million to $23.0 million as a result of the resolution of audit activity. If recognized, approximately $7.0 million of the $23.0 million in unrecognized tax benefits would affect our effective tax rate and net earnings in future periods. 

We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as a component of our income tax provision. We had accrued interest and penalties totaling $1.5 million and $17.1 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , respectively, that were included in other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

For the three months ended June 30, 2016 , tax expense specific to the period included an expense of $4.8 million , which primarily related to distributions from certain non-U.S. subsidiaries. For the six months ended June 30, 2016, tax expense specific to the period included a benefit of $59.1 million , which includes a domestic benefit of $85.8 million related to the resolution of an Advanced Pricing Agreement, which is a tax treaty-based process, partially offset by a $20.5 million expense related to distributions from certain non-U.S. subsidiaries and $6.2 million of expense primarily related to changes in estimates from prior periods.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, our income tax rate was favorably impacted by the mix of earnings across the jurisdictions in which we operate and by a benefit associated with depletion when compared to the three and six months ended June 30, 2015. In addition, for the three months ended June 30, 2016, the benefit from income taxes was favorably impacted by approximately $14 million from the cumulative adjustment resulting from the change in our estimated annual tax rate.

For the three months ended June 30, 2015 , tax expense specific to the period included a benefit of $9.7 million . This benefit is primarily related to changes in estimates associated with an Advanced Pricing Agreement, which is a tax treaty-based process. For the six months ended June 30, 2015, tax expense specific to the period included a benefit of $38.0 million , which is primarily related to the resolution of certain state tax matters, resulting in a benefit of $18.4 million , and a reduction in the tax rate change for one of our equity method investments, resulting in a benefit of $7.5 million .

7 . Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

8 . Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by reporting unit, are as follows:

We review goodwill for impairment annually in October or at any time events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be fully recoverable, which is based on our accounting policy and GAAP. We continue to monitor events and circumstances in 2016 and we do not believe there has been a triggering event that would indicate it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment loss has been incurred, although declining selling prices and forecasted selling prices have likely reduced the excess fair value in certain reporting units.

9 . Contingencies

We have described below judicial and administrative proceedings to which we are subject.

We have contingent environmental liabilities that arise principally from three sources: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned facilities; and (iii) third-party Superfund or state equivalent sites. At facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors, the historical use and handling of regulated chemical substances, crop and animal nutrients and additives and by-product or process tailings have resulted in soil, surface water and/or groundwater contamination. Spills or other releases of regulated substances, subsidence from mining operations and other incidents arising out of operations, including accidents, have occurred previously at these facilities, and potentially could occur in the future, possibly requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup or result in monetary damage awards, fines, penalties, other liabilities, injunctions or other court or administrative rulings. In some instances, pursuant to consent orders or agreements with governmental agencies, we are undertaking certain remedial actions or investigations to determine whether remedial action may be required to address contamination. At other locations, we have entered into consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies to perform required remedial activities that will address identified site conditions. Taking into consideration established accruals of approximately $23.6 million and $25.6 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , respectively, expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures could be required in the future to remediate the contamination at known sites or at other current or former sites or as a result of other environmental, health and safety matters. Below is a discussion of the more significant environmental matters.

EPA RCRA Initiative . In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA ") Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced that it would be targeting facilities in mineral processing industries, including phosphoric acid producers, for a thorough review under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (" RCRA ") and related state

laws. Mining and processing of phosphate rock generates residual materials that must be managed both during the operation of a facility and upon a facility’s closure. Certain solid wastes generated by our phosphate operations may be subject to regulation under RCRA and related state laws. EPA rules exempt “extraction” and “beneficiation” wastes, as well as 20 specified “mineral processing” wastes, from the hazardous waste management requirements of RCRA. Accordingly, certain of the residual materials which our phosphate operations generate, as well as process wastewater from phosphoric acid production, are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes under RCRA. However, the generation and management of other solid wastes from phosphate operations may be subject to hazardous waste regulation if the waste is deemed to exhibit a “hazardous waste characteristic.” As part of its initiative, we understand that EPA has inspected all or nearly all facilities in the U.S. phosphoric acid production sector, including ours, to ensure compliance with applicable RCRA regulations and to address any “imminent and substantial endangerment” found by EPA under RCRA. In addition to EPA’s inspections, our phosphates concentrates facilities have entered into consent orders to perform analyses of existing environmental data, to perform further environmental sampling as may be necessary, and to assess whether the facilities pose a risk of harm to human health or the surrounding environment.

We received Notices of Violation (" NOVs ") from EPA related to the handling of hazardous waste at our Riverview (September 2005), New Wales (October 2005), Mulberry (June 2006), Green Bay (August 2006) and Bartow (September 2006) facilities in Florida. EPA issued similar NOVs to our competitors, including with respect to the Plant City facility acquired in our March 2014 acquisition of the Florida phosphate assets and assumption of certain liabilities (the " CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition ") of CF Industries, Inc. (" CF "), and referred the NOVs to the U.S. Department of Justice (" DOJ ") for further enforcement.

Following negotiations with the DOJ, EPA and state agencies, on September 30, 2015, we and our wholly owned subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, reached agreements with EPA, the DOJ, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (" FDEP ") and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (the " LDEQ ") on the terms of two consent decrees to resolve claims relating to our management of certain waste materials onsite at our Riverview, New Wales, Mulberry, Green Bay, South Pierce and Bartow fertilizer manufacturing facilities in Florida and our Faustina and Uncle Sam facilities in Louisiana. The consent decrees do not cover the Plant City, Florida phosphate concentrates facility that we acquired as part of the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition (the " Plant City Facility "). As discussed below, a separate consent decree was previously entered into with EPA and the FDEP with respect to RCRA compliance at Plant City.

The consent decree relating to our Louisiana facilities was entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on July 6, 2016, in substantially the form lodged on September 30, 2015.  Upon the entry by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida of the consent decree relating to our Florida facilities, both consent decrees (collectively, the “ 2015 Consent Decrees ”) will become effective.  Under the 2015 Consent Decrees we have agreed to the following:

on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We will also issue a $50 million letter of credit in 2017 to further support our financial assurance obligations under the Florida 2015 Consent Decree. In addition, we have agreed to guarantee the difference between the amounts held in each trust fund (including earnings) and the estimated closure and long-term care costs. Our actual Gypstack Closure Costs are generally expected to be paid by us in the normal course of our Phosphates business over a period that may not end until three decades or more after a Gypstack has been closed.

In light of the amount of restricted cash referenced above, together with our operating cash flows, liquidity and capital resources, we believe that we have sufficient liquidity and capital resources to be able to fund the capital expenditures, financial assurance requirements and civil penalties provided for in the 2015 Consent Decrees.

As part of the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition, we assumed certain ARO related to Gypstack Closure Costs at both the Plant City Facility and a closed Florida phosphate concentrates facility in Bartow, Florida (the “ Bonnie Facility ”) that we acquired. Associated with these assets are two related financial assurance arrangements for which we became responsible and that hold in trust the estimated Gypstack Closure Costs for these facilities, pursuant to federal or state law, which the government can draw against in the event we cannot perform such closure activities. One is a trust (the “ Plant City Trust ”) established to meet the requirements under a consent decree with EPA and the FDEP with respect to RCRA compliance at Plant City that also satisfies Florida financial assurance requirements at that site. The other is a trust fund (the “ Bonnie Facility Trust ”) established to meet the requirements under Florida financial assurance regulations (the “ Florida Financial Assurance Requirement ”) that apply to the Bonnie Facility. In the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition, we deposited $189.2 million into the Plant City Trust as a substitute for funds that CF had deposited into trust. Based on our updated closure cost estimates, an additional $7 million was added to the Plant City Trust in the fourth quarter of 2014 and an additional $1.7 million was deposited in the third quarter of 2015 to correspond to that site's then estimated Gypstack Closure Costs. In addition, in July 2014, the FDEP approved our funding of $14.5 million into the Bonnie Facility Trust, which substituted funds that CF had deposited into an escrow account. We deposited an additional $3 million in the Bonnie Facility Trust in the second quarter of 2015. Both financial assurance funding obligations require estimates of future expenditures that could be impacted by refinements in scope, technological developments, new information, cost inflation, changes in regulations, discount rates and the timing of activities. Under our current approach to satisfying applicable requirements, additional financial assurance would be required in the future if increases in cost estimates exceed the amounts held in the Plant City Trust or the Bonnie Facility Trust. We are also permitted to satisfy our financial assurance obligations with respect to the Bonnie and Plant City Facilities by means of alternative credit support, including surety bonds or letters of credit.

At June 30, 2016, the aggregate amount of AROs associated with the Plant City Facility and the Bonnie Facility included in our consolidated balance sheet was $92.0 million . The aggregate amount held in the Plant City Trust and the Bonnie Facility Trust exceeds the aggregate amount of AROs associated with the Plant City Facility and the Bonnie Facility because the amount required to be held in the Plant City Trust represents the aggregate undiscounted estimated amount to be paid by us in the normal course of our Phosphates business over a period that may not end until three decades or more after the Gypstack has been closed, while the AROs included in our Consolidated Balance Sheet reflect the discounted present value of those estimated amounts. As part of the acquisition, we also assumed ARO related to land reclamation.

EPA EPCRA Initiative . In July 2008, DOJ sent a letter to major U.S. phosphoric acid manufacturers, including us, stating that EPA’s ongoing investigation indicates apparent violations of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (" EPCRA ") at their phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities. Section 313 of EPCRA requires annual reports to be submitted with respect to the use or presence of certain toxic chemicals. DOJ and EPA also stated that they believe that a number of these facilities have violated Section 304 of EPCRA and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (" CERCLA ") by failing to provide required notifications relating to the release of hydrogen fluoride from the facilities. The letter did not identify any specific violations by us or assert a demand for penalties against us. We cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action over this matter, what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes of such a potential enforcement action might be.

Florida Sulfuric Acid Plants . On April 8, 2010, EPA Region 4 submitted an administrative subpoena to us under Section 114 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the " CAA ") regarding compliance of our Florida sulfuric acid plants with the “New Source Review” requirements of the CAA. The request received by Mosaic appears to be part of a broader EPA

national enforcement initiative focusing on sulfuric acid plants.  On June 16, 2010, EPA issued an NOV to CF (the “ CF NOV ”) with respect to "New Source Review" compliance at the Plant City Facility's sulfuric acid plants and the allegations in that NOV were not resolved before our 2014 acquisition of the Plant City Facility.  CF has agreed to indemnify us with respect to any penalty EPA may assess as a result of the allegations in that NOV. We are negotiating the terms of a settlement with EPA that would resolve both the violations alleged in the CF NOV, and violations which EPA may contend, but have not asserted, exist at the sulfuric acid plants at our other facilities in Florida.  Based on the current status of the negotiations, we expect that our commitments will include an agreement to reduce our sulfur dioxide emissions over the next five years to comply with a sulfur dioxide ambient air quality standard enacted by EPA in 2010. In the event we are unable to finalize agreement on the terms of the settlement, we cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at our Florida sulfuric acid plants other than the Plant City Facility or what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes might be with respect to such a potential enforcement action or with respect to the CF NOV.

Other Environmental Matters . Superfund and equivalent state statutes impose liability without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct on certain categories of persons who are considered to have contributed to the release of “hazardous substances” into the environment. Under Superfund, or its various state analogues, one party may, under certain circumstances, be required to bear more than its proportionate share of cleanup costs at a site where it has liability if payments cannot be obtained from other responsible parties. Currently, certain of our subsidiaries are involved or concluding involvement at several Superfund or equivalent state sites. Our remedial liability from these sites, alone or in the aggregate, currently is not expected to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites and the potentially responsible parties involved, this expectation could change.

We believe that, pursuant to several indemnification agreements, our subsidiaries are entitled to at least partial, and in many instances complete, indemnification for the costs that may be expended by us or our subsidiaries to remedy environmental issues at certain facilities. These agreements address issues that resulted from activities occurring prior to our acquisition of facilities or businesses from parties including, but not limited to, ARCO (BP); Beatrice Fund for Environmental Liabilities; Conoco; Conserv; Estech, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kerr-McGee Inc.; PPG Industries, Inc.; The Williams Companies; CF; and certain other private parties. Our subsidiaries have already received and anticipate receiving amounts pursuant to the indemnification agreements for certain of their expenses incurred to date as well as future anticipated expenditures. We record potential indemnifications as an offset to the established accruals when they are realizable or realized.

MicroEssentials® Patent Lawsuit

On January 9, 2009, John Sanders and Specialty Fertilizer Products, LLC filed a complaint against Mosaic, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Cargill, Incorporated and Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the " Missouri District Court "). The complaint alleges that our production of MicroEssentials ^® SZ, one of several types of the MicroEssentials ^® value-added ammoniated phosphate crop nutrient products that we produce, infringes on a patent held by the plaintiffs since 2001 and which would expire in 2018. Plaintiffs have since asserted that other MicroEssentials ^® products also infringe the patent. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the alleged infringement and to recover an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees for past infringement. Our answer to the complaint responds that the plaintiffs’ patent is not infringed, is invalid and is unenforceable because the plaintiffs engaged in inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patent.

Through an order entered by the court on September 25, 2014, Cargill was dismissed as a defendant, and the two original plaintiffs were replaced by a single plaintiff, JLSMN LLC, an entity to whom the patents were transferred.

The Missouri District Court stayed the lawsuit pending an ex parte reexamination of plaintiff's current patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the " PTO "). That ex parte reexamination has now ended. On September 12, 2012, however, Shell Oil Company (" Shell ") filed an additional reexamination request which in part asserted that the claims as amended and added in connection with the ex parte reexamination are unpatentable. On October 4, 2012, the PTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate in which certain claims of the plaintiff's patent were cancelled, disclaimed and amended, and new claims were added. Following the PTO’s grant of Shell’s request for an inter parties reexamination, on December 11, 2012, the PTO issued an initial rejection of all of plaintiff's remaining patent claims. On September 12, 2013, the PTO reversed its initial rejection of the plaintiff's remaining patent claims and allowed them to stand. Shell appealed

the PTO’s decision, and on June 7, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the highest appellate authority within the PTO, issued a final decision holding that all claims initially allowed to the plaintiff by the PTO examiner should instead have been found invalid.  Although appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remains available to the plaintiff, the PTO decision, if sustained, would result in no remaining claims against us. Although no Federal Circuit appeal has yet been filed, such an appeal may occur, resulting in further delays. The stay in the Missouri District Court litigation is expected to remain in place during further PTO and any appellate proceedings.

We believe that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. At this stage of the proceedings, we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation, estimate the potential amount or range of loss or determine whether it will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

Brazil Tax Contingencies

Our Brazilian subsidiary is engaged in a number of judicial and administrative proceedings relating to various non-income tax matters. We estimate that our maximum potential liability with respect to these matters is approximately $95 million . Approximately $65 million of the maximum potential liability relates to a Brazilian federal value added tax, PIS and Cofins, tax credit cases for the period from 2004 to 2011; while the majority of the remaining amount relates to various other non-income tax cases such as value-added taxes. Based on Brazil legislation and the current status of similar tax cases involving unrelated taxpayers, we believe we have recorded adequate accruals, which are immaterial, for the probable liability with respect to these Brazilian judicial and administrative proceedings.

Other Claims

We also have certain other contingent liabilities with respect to judicial, administrative and arbitration proceedings and claims of third parties, including tax matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that any of these contingent liabilities will have a material adverse impact on our business or financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

10 . Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

We periodically enter into derivatives to mitigate our exposure to foreign currency risks and the effects of changing commodity prices. We record all derivatives on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value. The fair value of these instruments is determined by using quoted market prices, third party comparables, or internal estimates. We net our derivative asset and liability positions when we have a master netting arrangement in place. Changes in the fair value of the foreign currency and commodity derivatives are immediately recognized in earnings because we do not apply hedge accounting treatment to these instruments. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the gross asset position of our derivative instruments was $35.6 million and $6.8 million , respectively, and the gross liability position of our liability instruments was $18.0 million and $79.3 million , respectively.

  Unrealized gains and (losses) on foreign currency exchange contracts used to hedge cash flows related to the production of our products are included in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Unrealized gains and (losses) on commodities contracts are also recorded in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Unrealized gains or (losses) on foreign currency exchange contracts used to hedge cash flows that are not related to the production of our products are included in the foreign currency transaction gain/(loss) caption in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the following is the total absolute notional volume associated with our outstanding derivative instruments: