COMMERCIAL METALS Co

On October 30, 2020, plaintiff Pacific Steel Group ("PSG") filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District Court") alleging that CMC, CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. and CMC Steel US, LLC violated the federal and California state antitrust laws and California common law by entering into an exclusivity agreement for certain steel mill equipment manufactured by one of the Company’s equipment suppliers. On November 5, 2024, a jury returned a verdict in favor of PSG in the amount of $110.0 million, which the Northern District Court, in entering its judgment on the verdict, subsequently trebled as a matter of law. PSG will also be entitled to petition for and recover its attorneys' fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Company is confident it conducted its business appropriately and intends to vigorously pursue all reasonably available avenues to have the verdict and judgment overturned. On December 20, 2024, CMC, CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. and CMC Steel US, LLC filed a motion with the Northern District Court challenging the jury’s verdict and requesting a new trial. This motion remains pending. In the meantime, as a trial judgment in favor of PSG was rendered, it was determined that there was a probable and reasonably estimable loss, which was recorded as an expense within the condensed consolidated financial statements. In the six months ended February 28, 2025, the Company reported $354.7 million of litigation expense in the condensed consolidated statement of earnings (loss), which represents the Company's estimate based on its understanding of the PSG judgment, PSG's attorneys' fees and other related costs, including post-judgment interest. This amount was classified as a current liability in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of February 28, 2025 because the timing of the potential payment is uncertain. All other legal expenses for the three and six months ended February 28, 2025 and February 29, 2024 are reported within SG&A expenses. If the verdict and judgment are overturned either as a result of post-trial motions or through the appeals process, the expenses and related liability will be reversed in the same period the verdict and judgment are overturned. The Company's litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred. Although the Company is vigorously pursuing a reversal of the jury’s verdict and the judgment, the ultimate resolution is uncertain.

On March 13, 2022, PSG filed a second suit in the San Diego County Superior Court of California alleging that CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc., CMC Steel US, LLC, and CMC Rebar West (which later merged into CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc.) violated California state antitrust and unfair competition laws by bidding below their costs for rebar furnish-and-install projects in California to hamper PSG's ability to win jobs and to reduce PSG’s profitability. These allegations were initially brought in PSG's lawsuit in the Northern District Court but were dismissed without prejudice by the Northern District Court for lack of jurisdiction. This second lawsuit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Southern District Court”). There, PSG seeks, among other things, a jury trial on its claims in addition to injunctive relief, compensatory damages, fees and costs. Fact and expert discovery are complete. On November 12, 2024, CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc., CMC Steel US, LLC and CMC Rebar West filed a motion for summary judgment, and that motion is pending before the Southern District Court. As of the date of this Form 10-Q, no trial has been scheduled. The Company is confident it conducted its business appropriately, believes it has substantial defenses and intends to vigorously defend against PSG's claims. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable, and it cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. It is possible that an unfavorable resolution to this matter could have an adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

With respect to administrative or judicial proceedings arising under any federal, state or local provisions that have been enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment, the Company has determined that it will disclose any such proceeding to which a governmental authority is a party if it reasonably believes such proceeding could result in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of at least $1.0 million. The Company believes that this threshold is reasonably designed to result in disclosure of environmental proceedings that are material to the Company's business or financial condition. Applying this threshold, there were no environmental matters to disclose for this period.