10-Q

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

þ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended February 29, 2012

OR

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number 001-32327

The Mosaic Company

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware	20-1026454
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

3033 Campus Drive

Suite E490

Plymouth, Minnesota 55441

(800) 918-8270

(Address and zip code of principal executive offices and registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Not Applicable

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one): Large accelerated filer  x    Accelerated filer  ¨    Non-accelerated filer  ¨    Smaller reporting company  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock as of the latest practicable date: 296,701,710 shares of Common Stock and 128,759,772 shares of Class A Common Stock and 0 shares of Class B Common Stock as of March 26, 2012.

Table of Contents

PART I.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION
	Item 1.	Financial Statements	1
		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings	1
		Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	2
		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	3
		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity	4
		Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	5
	Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	25
	Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	40
	Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	42
PART II.	OTHER INFORMATION
	Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	43
	Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	44
	Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	44
	Item 6.	Exhibits	44
	Signatures		45
	Exhibit Index		E-1

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

(In millions, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

	Three months ended						Nine months ended
	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011
Net sales	$	2,189.5		$	2,214.3		$	8,287.3		$	7,077.4
Cost of goods sold		1,667.7			1,360.7			6,036.1			4,950.8
Gross margin		521.8			853.6			2,251.2			2,126.6
Selling, general and administrative expenses		91.3			83.6			293.0			261.0
Other operating (income) expense		16.8			(0.8	)		17.9			26.3
Operating earnings		413.7			770.8			1,940.3			1,839.3
Interest income (expense), net		4.1			(0.2	)		13.3			(12.8	)
Foreign currency transaction gain (loss)		(44.0	)		(31.7	)		5.4			(60.6	)
Gain on sale of equity investment		—			—			—			685.6
Other (expense)		(19.1	)		(16.1	)		(19.2	)		(17.0	)
Earnings from consolidated companies before income taxes		354.7			722.8			1,939.8			2,434.5
Provision for income taxes		87.0			175.9			522.8			566.8
Earnings from consolidated companies		267.7			546.9			1,417.0			1,867.7
Equity in net earnings (loss) of nonconsolidated companies		4.2			(4.3	)		6.9			0.6
Net earnings including noncontrolling interests		271.9			542.6			1,423.9			1,868.3
Less: Net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests		(1.4	)		0.5			1.0			2.9
Net earnings attributable to Mosaic	$	273.3		$	542.1		$	1,422.9		$	1,865.4
Basic net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic	$	0.64		$	1.21		$	3.24		$	4.18
Diluted net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic	$	0.64		$	1.21		$	3.24		$	4.17
Basic weighted average number of shares outstanding		425.4			446.3			438.5			445.8
Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding		426.7			447.7			439.8			447.3

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

1

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In millions, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

	February 29, 2012		May 31, 2011
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3,201.9	$	3,906.4
Receivables, net		656.3		926.0
Inventories		1,327.3		1,266.4
Deferred income taxes		150.0		277.8
Other current assets		594.9		308.3
Total current assets		5,930.4		6,684.9
Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $3,200.6 million and $2,975.8 million, respectively		7,379.5		6,635.9
Investments in nonconsolidated companies		438.4		434.3
Goodwill		1,874.2		1,829.8
Deferred income taxes		94.2		6.5
Other assets		220.0		195.5
Total assets	$	15,936.7	$	15,786.9
Liabilities and Equity
Current liabilities:
Short-term debt	$	81.6	$	23.6
Current maturities of long-term debt		1.1		48.0
Accounts payable		800.5		941.1
Accrued liabilities		657.9		843.6
Deferred income taxes		73.7		72.2
Total current liabilities		1,614.8		1,928.5
Long-term debt, less current maturities		1,010.6		761.3
Deferred income taxes		611.2		580.1
Other noncurrent liabilities		869.8		855.1
Equity:
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 15,000,000 shares authorized, none issued and outstanding as of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011		—		—
Class A common stock, $0.01 par value, 275,000,000 shares authorized, 170,759,772 shares issued and 128,759,772 shares outstanding as of February 29, 2012 and 57,768,374 issued and outstanding as of May 31, 2011		1.3		0.6
Class B common stock, $0.01 par value, 87,008,602 shares authorized, none issued and outstanding as of February 29, 2012, 200,000,000 shares authorized and 112,991,398 shares issued and outstanding as of May 31, 2011		—		1.1
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,000,000,000 shares authorized, 308,719,182 shares issued and 296,680,720 shares outstanding as of February 29, 2012, 287,851,416 shares issued and 275,812,954 shares outstanding as of May 31, 2011		3.0		2.8
Capital in excess of par value		1,455.0		2,596.3
Retained earnings		9,687.4		8,330.6
Accumulated other comprehensive income		664.2		710.2
Total Mosaic stockholders’ equity		11,810.9		11,641.6
Noncontrolling interests		19.4		20.3
Total equity		11,830.3		11,661.9
Total liabilities and equity	$	15,936.7	$	15,786.9

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

2

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

	Nine months ended
	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Net earnings including noncontrolling interests	$	1,423.9		$	1,868.3
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings including noncontrolling interests to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, depletion and amortization		368.4			324.5
Deferred income taxes		81.8			58.3
Equity in loss of nonconsolidated companies, net of dividends		2.7			2.6
Accretion expense for asset retirement obligations		21.2			24.0
Share-based compensation expense		20.1			18.7
Unrealized loss (gain) on derivatives		32.7			(23.6	)
Gain on sale of equity investment		—			(685.6	)
Other		7.8			2.5
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Receivables, net		239.4			(183.9	)
Inventories		(66.2	)		(129.5	)
Other current and noncurrent assets		(290.9	)		39.5
Accounts payable		(152.1	)		94.3
Accrued liabilities and income taxes		(215.2	)		97.9
Other noncurrent liabilities		2.9			(54.2	)
Net cash provided by operating activities		1,476.5			1,453.8
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Capital expenditures		(1,190.3	)		(897.3	)
Proceeds from sale of equity investment		—			1,030.0
Proceeds from sale of business		—			50.0
Restricted cash		2.3			(13.7	)
Investments in nonconsolidated companies		—			(385.3	)
Other		6.2			3.1
Net cash used in investing activities		(1,181.8	)		(213.2	)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
Payments of short-term debt		(89.7	)		(293.5	)
Proceeds from issuance of short-term debt		147.7			284.6
Payments of long-term debt		(542.7	)		(467.1	)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt		748.2			17.6
Payment of tender premium on debt		—			(16.1	)
Proceeds from stock options exercised		2.5			18.7
Repurchase of Class A common stock		(1,162.5	)		—
Cash dividends paid		(66.1	)		(67.0	)
Other		(6.5	)		7.2
Net cash used in financing activities		(969.1	)		(515.6	)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash		(30.1	)		104.1
Net change in cash and cash equivalents		(704.5	)		829.1
Cash and cash equivalents—beginning of period		3,906.4			2,523.0
Cash and cash equivalents—end of period	$	3,201.9		$	3,352.1
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information:
Cash paid during the period for:
Interest (net of amount capitalized of $46.2 million and $27.6 million as of February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011, respectively)	$	12.0		$	56.1
Income taxes (net of refunds)		455.4			434.5

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

3

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY

(In millions, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

				Mosaic Shareholders
	Shares			Dollars
	Common Stock			Common Stock			Capital in Excess of Par Value			Retained Earnings			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
Balance as of May 31, 2010		445.4		$	4.5		$	2,523.0		$	5,905.3		$	289.4		$	26.2		$	8,748.4
Net earnings including noncontrolling interest		—			—			—			2,514.6			—			(1.1	)		2,513.5
Foreign currency translation net of tax of $2.9 million		—			—			—			—			384.8			2.6			387.4
Net actuarial gain and prior service cost, net of tax expense of $21.7 million		—			—			—			—			36.0			—			36.0
Comprehensive income																	1.5			2,936.9
Stock option exercises		1.2			—			20.3			—			—			—			20.3
Amortization of share based compensation		—			—			21.1			—			—			—			21.1
Contributions from Cargill, Inc.		—			—			18.5			—			—			—			18.5
Dividends ($0.20 per share)		—			—			—			(89.3	)		—			—			(89.3	)
Dividends for noncontrolling interests		—			—			—			—			—			(4.8	)		(4.8	)
Acquisition of noncontrolling interest		—			—			—									(2.6	)		(2.6	)
Tax benefits related to share based compensation		—			—			13.4			—			—			—			13.4
Balance as of May 31, 2011		446.6			4.5			2,596.3			8,330.6			710.2			20.3			11,661.9
Net earnings including noncontrolling interest		—			—			—			1,422.9			—			1.0			1,423.9
Foreign currency translation, net of tax of $0		—			—			—			—			(56.9	)		(1.3	)		(58.2	)
Net actuarial gain and prior service cost, net of tax of $0		—			—			—			—			8.2			—			8.2
Comprehensive income		—			—			—			—			—			(0.3	)		1,373.9
Stock option exercises		0.1			—			2.5			—			—			—			2.5
Amortization of share based compensation		—			—			20.1			—			—			—			20.1
Repurchase of Class A common stock		(21.3	)		(0.2	)		(1,162.3	)		—			—			—			(1,162.5	)
Realized gain on interest rate swap		—			—			—			—			2.7			—			2.7
Dividends ($0.15 per share)		—			—			—			(66.1	)		—			—			(66.1	)
Dividends for noncontrolling interests		—			—			—			—			—			(0.6	)		(0.6	)
Tax shortfall related to share based compensation		—			—			(1.6	)		—			—			—			(1.6	)
Balance as of February 29, 2012		425.4		$	4.3		$	1,455.0		$	9,687.4		$	664.2		$	19.4		$	11,830.3

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

4

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

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 (before or after the Cargill Transaction, as defined below, “Mosaic”, and, with its consolidated subsidiaries, “we”, “us”, “our”, or the “Company”) is the parent company of the business that was formed through the business combination of IMC Global Inc. and the Cargill Crop Nutrition fertilizer businesses of Cargill, Incorporated and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Cargill”) on October 22, 2004. On May 25, 2011, we consummated the first in a series of transactions (collectively, the Cargill Transaction”) intended to result in the split-off and orderly distribution of Cargill’s then approximately 64% ownership in us through a series of public offerings. Further information regarding this transaction is included in Note 2 to our Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011 (the “10-K Report”) and Note 5 of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

We produce and market 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:

Our Phosphates business segment owns and operates mines and production facilities in Florida which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients, and processing plants in Louisiana which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients. In fiscal 2011, the Phosphates segment acquired a 35% economic interest in a joint venture that owns a phosphate rock mine (the “Miski Mayo Mine”) in Peru. Our Phosphates segment’s results also include our North American phosphate distribution activities and all of our international distribution activities as well as the results of Phosphate Chemicals Export Association, Inc. (“PhosChem”), a U.S. Webb-Pomerene Act association of phosphate producers that exports concentrated phosphate crop nutrient products around the world for us and PhosChem’s other member. Our share of PhosChem’s sales of dry phosphate crop nutrient products was approximately 81% for the nine months ended February 29, 2012.

Our Potash business segment owns and operates potash mines and production facilities in Canada and the U.S. which produce potash-based crop nutrients, animal feed ingredients and industrial products. Potash sales include domestic and international sales. We are a member of Canpotex, Limited (“Canpotex”), an export association of Canadian potash producers through which we sell our Canadian potash outside the U.S. and Canada.

Intersegment sales are eliminated within Corporate, Eliminations and Other. See Note 16 to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements 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 (“U.S. 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 fair presentation of our financial position as of February 29, 2012, and our results of

5

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

operations and cash flows for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011. The following notes should be read in conjunction with the accounting policies and other disclosures in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated by reference in our 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 and its majority owned subsidiaries, as well as the accounts of certain variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which we are 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 U.S. 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 more significant estimates made by management relate to the recoverability of non-current assets, the useful lives of long-lived assets, environmental and reclamation liabilities, 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, Canadian resource tax and royalties, inventory valuation and accruals for pending legal matters. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

3. Recently Issued Accounting Guidance

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements—a Consensus of the Emerging Issues Task Force,” that provides amendments to the criteria for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable arrangements. These amendments require companies to allocate revenue in arrangements involving multiple deliverables based on the estimated selling price of each deliverable, even though such deliverables are not sold separately either by the company itself or other vendors. This guidance eliminates the requirement that all undelivered elements must have objective and reliable evidence of fair value before a company can recognize the portion of the overall arrangement fee that is attributable to items that already have been delivered. This standard became effective for us on June 1, 2011, adoption of which did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820): Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements,” that requires entities to disclose separately significant transfers of assets and liabilities measured at fair value between Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy, transfers into and out of Level 3, and the reasons for those transfers. This ASU also amends the reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of Level 3 measurements to present information about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements on a gross basis. This standard became effective for Mosaic for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2010, except for the requirement to provide the Level 3 activity of purchases, sales, issuances and settlements on a gross basis, which became effective for us on June 1, 2011, adoption of which did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

6

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs” which is intended to create consistency between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The amendments include clarification on the application of certain existing fair value measurement guidance and expanded disclosures for fair value measurements that are estimated using significant unobservable (Level 3) inputs. This standard will be effective for our fiscal quarter beginning March 1, 2012. We are currently evaluating the requirements of this standard, but it is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income” which requires comprehensive income to be reported in either a single statement or in two consecutive statements reporting net income and other comprehensive income. The amendment does not change what items are reported in other comprehensive income. Additionally, in December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05” which indefinitely defers the requirement in ASU No. 2011-05 to present reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component in both the statement in which net income is presented and the statement in which other comprehensive income is presented. During the deferral period, the existing requirements in U.S. GAAP for the presentation of reclassification adjustments must continue to be followed. These standards will be effective for our fiscal quarter beginning June 1, 2012 with retrospective application required. As these standards impact presentation requirements only, the adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No.2011-08, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing for Goodwill Impairment” which permits an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in Topic 350. The amendments in this update are effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. We will adopt this guidance for our annual goodwill impairment test for fiscal 2013, which will be conducted in the second quarter. We do not expect this guidance to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities” which enhances current disclosures about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset on the statement of financial position or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset on the statement of financial position. Entities are required to provide both net and gross information for these assets and liabilities in order to facilitate comparability between financial statements prepared on the basis of U.S. GAAP and financial statements prepared on the basis of IFRS. This standard will be effective for our fiscal quarter beginning June 1, 2013 with retrospective application required. We are currently evaluating the requirements of this standard, but it is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

7

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

4. Other Financial Statement Data

The following provides additional information concerning selected balance sheet accounts:

(in millions)	February 29, 2012		May 31, 2011
Accrued liabilities
Non-income taxes	$	52.7	$	132.6
Payroll and employee benefits		116.8		116.3
Asset retirement obligations		79.5		90.6
Customer prepayments		78.1		243.2
Accrued income taxes		77.0		—
Other		253.8		260.9
	$	657.9	$	843.6
Other noncurrent liabilities
Asset retirement obligations	$	483.2	$	482.5
Accrued pension and postretirement benefits		98.9		117.1
Other		287.7		255.5
	$	869.8	$	855.1

5. Changes in Common Stock

On September 29, 2011, 20,700,000 shares of Class A Common Stock, Series A-4 were converted to Common Stock in connection with their sale in an underwritten public secondary offering by the Margaret A. Cargill Foundation established under the Acorn Trust dated January 30, 1995, as amended, and the Anne Ray Charitable Trust dated August 20, 1996, as amended (collectively, the “MAC Trusts”). The MAC Trusts acquired their shares in the May 25, 2011 transaction (the “Split-off”) in which Cargill split off its approximately 64% equity interest in us. In the quarter ended February 29, 2012, in accordance with our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, each such converted share of Class A Common Stock, Series A-4, was retired and cancelled and may not be reissued, and the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock was reduced by a corresponding amount.

On October 6, 2011, our stockholders approved the conversion of each share of Class B Common Stock, 112,991,398 shares in the aggregate, on a one-for-one basis into shares of the corresponding series of Class A Common Stock. In the quarter ended February 29, 2012, in accordance with our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, each such converted share of Class B Common Stock was retired and cancelled and may not be reissued, and the number of authorized shares of Class B Common Stock was reduced by a corresponding amount.

On November 17, 2011, we purchased an aggregate 21,300,000 shares of our Class A Common Stock, Series A-4 from the MAC Trusts. The purchase price was $54.58 per share, the closing price for the Company’s Common Stock on November 16, 2011, resulting in a total purchase price of approximately $1.2 billion. This repurchase completes the disposition of the 157,000,000 shares designated to be sold by Cargill and the MAC Trusts during the 15-month period following the Split-off.

All other shares (approximately 128.8 million shares in the aggregate) of our stock received by Cargill stockholders (the “Exchanging Cargill Stockholders”) in the Split-off and not sold in the underwritten public secondary offering that occurred on May 25, 2011 immediately following the Split-off are generally subject to

8

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

transfer restrictions and are to be released in three equal annual installments beginning on the two and one-half year anniversary of the Split-off. We would, at the request of the MAC Trusts or at our own election, register certain of our shares for sale in a secondary offering that could occur each year after the second anniversary of the Split-off, with the first such offering occurring not earlier than twelve months after certain other primary offerings.

Following 180 days after the four-and-one-half year anniversary of the Split-off, the MAC Trusts will have two rights to request that we file a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, pursuant to which the MAC Trusts could sell any remaining shares they received in the Split-off.

Our agreements with Cargill and the Exchanging Cargill Stockholders also contain additional provisions relating to private and market sales under specified conditions.

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

	Three months ended				Nine months ended
	February 29, 2012		February 28, 2011		February 29, 2012		February 28, 2011
Net earnings attributed to Mosaic	$	273.3	$	542.1	$	1,422.9	$	1,865.4
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding		425.4		446.3		438.5		445.8
Common stock issuable upon vesting of restricted stock awards		0.5		0.4		0.4		0.4
Common stock equivalents		0.7		1.0		0.8		1.1
Common stock issuable upon vesting of performance units		0.1		—		0.1		—
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding		426.7		447.7		439.8		447.3
Net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic—basic	$	0.64	$	1.21	$	3.24	$	4.18
Net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic—diluted	$	0.64	$	1.21	$	3.24	$	4.17

A total of 0.6 million shares of common stock subject to issuance upon exercise of stock options, restricted stock unit awards and performance units for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, respectively, and 0.2 million and 0.4 million shares of common stock for the three and nine months ended February 28, 2011, have been excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the effect would have been anti-dilutive.

7. Income Taxes

We record unrecognized tax benefits in accordance with applicable accounting standards. During the nine months ended February 29, 2012, unrecognized tax benefits increased by $178.0 million to $441.5 million. Of the increase, $71.9 million relates to prior year uncertain positions. If recognized, approximately $267.9 million of the unrecognized tax benefits would affect our effective tax rate in future periods.

9

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 $50.2 million and $50.9 million as of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, respectively, that were included in other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We operate in multiple tax jurisdictions, both within and outside the United States, and face audits from various tax authorities regarding transfer pricing, deductibility of certain expenses, and intercompany transactions, as well as other matters. With few exceptions, we are no longer subject to examination for tax years prior to 2001.

We are currently under audit by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for the fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and the Canadian Revenue Agency for the fiscal years 2001 to 2008.

Based on the information available as of February 29, 2012, we anticipate that the amount of uncertain tax positions will change in the next twelve months; however, the change cannot reasonably be estimated.

8. Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

	February 29, 2012		May 31, 2011
Raw materials	$	64.8	$	58.6
Work in process		306.3		284.3
Finished goods		882.3		852.9
Operating materials and supplies		73.9		70.6
	$	1,327.3	$	1,266.4

9. Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by reporting unit, for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 are as follows:

	Phosphates		Potash		Total
Balance as of May 31, 2011	$	534.7	$	1,295.1	$	1,829.8
Foreign currency translation		—		44.4		44.4
Balance as of February 29, 2012	$	534.7	$	1,339.5	$	1,874.2

We review goodwill for impairment annually or at any time events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be fully recoverable. Under our accounting policy, an annual review is performed in the second quarter of each year, or more frequently if indicators of potential impairment exist. We performed our annual review of goodwill in the second quarter and no impairment was identified.

10. Financing Arrangements

Refinance of Senior Notes

On October 24, 2011, we completed a $750 million public offering consisting of $450 million aggregate principal amount of 3.750% Senior Notes due 2021 and $300 million aggregate principal amount of 4.875% Senior Notes due 2041 (collectively, the “New Senior Notes”).

10

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

We received net proceeds from this offering of approximately $736 million. We used $505 million of the net proceeds from this offering to redeem the remaining $469.3 million aggregate principal amount of the 7-5/8% Senior Notes due December 2016 (the “7-5/8% Senior Notes”) of our subsidiary, MOS Holdings Inc., on December 1, 2011, and to pay the call premium and accrued but unpaid interest to the redemption date, and will use the remainder for general corporate purposes. We recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $20 million in this third fiscal quarter, primarily related to the call premium for the 7-5/8% Senior Notes.

The New Senior Notes are Mosaic’s senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with Mosaic’s existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness. The indenture governing the New Senior Notes contains restrictive covenants limiting debt secured by liens, sale and leaseback transactions and mergers, consolidations and sales of substantially all assets as well as events of default.

11. Variable Interest Entities

Mosaic is the primary beneficiary of and consolidates two variable interest entities (“VIE’s”) within our Phosphates segment: PhosChem and South Fort Meade Partnership, L.P. (“SFMP”). We determine whether we are the primary beneficiary of an entity subject to consolidation based on a qualitative assessment of the purpose and design of the VIE, the risks that the VIE were designed to create and pass along to other entities, the activities of the VIE that could be directed and which entity could direct them, and the expected relative impact of those activities on the economic performance of the VIE. We assess our VIE determination with respect to an entity on an ongoing basis. We have not identified any additional VIEs in which we hold a significant interest.

PhosChem is an export association of United States phosphate producers that markets our phosphate products internationally. We, along with the other member, are, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, contractually obligated to reimburse PhosChem for our respective pro rata share of any operating expenses or other liabilities. PhosChem had net sales of $528.1 million and $1.8 billion for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, respectively, and net sales of $454.5 million and $1.6 billion for the three and nine months ended February 28, 2011, respectively which are included in our consolidated net sales. PhosChem currently funds its operations through ongoing sales.

We determined that, because we are PhosChem’s exclusive export agent for the marketing, solicitation of orders and freighting of dry phosphatic materials, we have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact PhosChem’s economic performance. Because Mosaic accounts for the majority of sales volume marketed through PhosChem, we have the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits that could be significant to PhosChem.

SFMP owns the mineable acres at our South Fort Meade phosphate mine. We have a long-term mineral lease with SFMP which, in general, expires on the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2025, or (ii) the date that we have completed mining and reclamation obligations associated with the leased property. In addition to lease payments, we pay SFMP a royalty on each tonne mined and shipped from the areas that we lease. SFMP had no external sales for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011.

We determined that, because we control the day-to-day mining decisions and are responsible for obtaining mining permits, we have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact SFMP’s economic performance. Because of our rental and royalty payments to the partnership, we have the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to SFMP.

11

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

No additional financial or other support has been provided to these VIE’s beyond what was previously contractually required during any periods presented. The carrying amounts and classification of assets and liabilities included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these consolidated entities are as follows:

	February 29, 2012		May 31, 2011
Current assets	$	107.7	$	230.0
Non current assets		49.5		50.7
Total assets	$	157.2	$	280.7
Current liabilities	$	41.0	$	63.0
Total liabilities	$	41.0	$	63.0

12. 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 appropriate 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 $30.8 million and $41.7 million as of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, 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 phosphates generate 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. The 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 RCRA regulation. 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, EPA has inspected all or nearly all facilities in the U.S. phosphoric acid

12

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

production sector to ensure compliance with applicable RCRA regulations and to address any “imminent and substantial endangerment” found by the EPA under RCRA. We have provided the EPA with substantial amounts of information regarding the process water recycling practices and the hazardous waste handling practices at our phosphate production facilities in Florida and Louisiana, and the EPA has inspected all of our currently operating processing facilities in the U.S. In addition to the EPA’s inspections, our Riverview, Bartow and Green Bay, Florida facilities and our Uncle Sam and Faustina, Louisiana 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 are finalizing similar orders for our New Wales and South Pierce, Florida facilities.

We have received Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) from the EPA related to the handling of hazardous waste at our Riverview (September 2005), New Wales (October 2005), Mulberry (June 2006) and Bartow (September 2006) facilities in Florida. The EPA has issued similar NOVs to our competitors and has referred the NOVs to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for further enforcement. We currently are engaged in discussions with the DOJ and EPA. We believe we have substantial defenses to most of the allegations in the NOVs, including but not limited to previous EPA regulatory interpretations and inspection reports finding that the process water handling practices in question comply with the requirements of the exemption for extraction and beneficiation wastes. In addition to seeking various changes to our operations, the DOJ and EPA have expressed a desire to obtain financial assurances for the closure of phosphogypsum management systems which may be significantly more stringent than current requirements in Florida or Louisiana. We intend to evaluate various alternatives and continue discussions to determine if a negotiated resolution can be reached. If it cannot, we intend to vigorously defend these matters in any enforcement actions that may be pursued. As part of a comprehensive settlement, or should we fail in our defense in any enforcement actions, we could incur substantial capital and operating expenses to modify our facilities and operating practices relating to the handling of process water, we could be required to post significant amounts of cash or other collateral for financial assurance purposes and we could also be required to pay significant civil penalties.

We have established accruals to address the estimated cost of implementing the related consent orders at our Florida and Louisiana facilities and the minimum estimated amount that will be incurred in connection with the NOVs discussed above. We cannot at this stage of the discussions predict whether the costs incurred as a result of the EPA’s RCRA initiative, the consent orders, or the NOVs will have a material effect on our business or financial condition.

EPA EPCRA Initiative. In July 2008, the DOJ sent a letter to major U.S. phosphoric acid manufacturers, including us, stating that the 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 the 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, the 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

13

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

part of a broader EPA national enforcement initiative focusing on sulfuric acid plants. We cannot predict at this time whether the 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.

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 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. Potential indemnification is not considered in our established accruals.

Phosphate Mine Permitting in Florida

Denial of the permits sought at any of our mines, issuance of the permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, or substantial delays in issuing the permits, legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits may create challenges for us to mine the phosphate rock required to operate our Florida and Louisiana phosphate plants at desired levels or increase our costs in the future.

The Altman Extension of the Four Corners Mine. The Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) issued a federal wetlands permit under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) for mining the Altman Extension (the “Altman Extension”) of our Four Corners phosphate rock mine in central Florida in May 2008. The Sierra Club, Inc. (the “Sierra Club”), Manasota-88, Inc. (“Manasota-88”), Gulf Restoration Network, Inc., People for Protecting Peace River, Inc. (“People for Protecting Peace River”) and the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. sued the Corps in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (the “Jacksonville District Court”), seeking to vacate our permit to mine the Altman Extension. Mining on the Altman Extension has commenced and is continuing. In September 2010, the Jacksonville District Court deferred action on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, pending the result of our appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Eleventh Circuit”) of the Jacksonville District Court’s First Preliminary Injunction in the litigation described below under “The Hardee County Extension of the South Fort Meade Mine,” stating the Jacksonville District Court’s view that the issues in the two cases are related. No action has subsequently been taken by the Jacksonville District Court on the motions for summary judgment. We believe that the permit was issued in accordance with all applicable requirements and that it will ultimately be upheld.

The Hardee County Extension of the South Fort Meade Mine. The mining reserves of our South Fort Meade phosphate rock mine in central Florida straddle the county line between Polk and Hardee Counties. Mining in the Polk County portion of the South Fort Meade mine began in 1995 and is now substantially completed. In 2003,

14

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

we began the permitting process to extend mining into Hardee County (the “Hardee County Extension”) and, by March 2009, had obtained all of the significant permits necessary for mining in the Hardee County Extension from several governmental agencies, other than a federal wetlands permit from the Corps under the CWA (the “Hardee County Extension Permit”). Ongoing delays in receiving the Hardee County Extension Permit impacted the scheduled progression of mining activities for the Hardee County Extension. As a result, we began to idle a portion of our mining equipment at the mine in the latter part of fiscal 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Corps issued the Hardee County Extension Permit.

On June 30, 2010, the Sierra Club, People for Protecting Peace River and Manasota-88 filed a lawsuit against the Corps in the Jacksonville District Court, contesting the Corps’ issuance of the Hardee County Extension Permit, alleging that the Corps’ actions in issuing the permit violated the substantive and procedural requirements of the CWA, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Endangered Species Act (the “ESA”), and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”). Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the permit improperly authorized the destruction of certain wetlands and streams that are associated with the headwaters of certain creeks and rivers that ultimately drain into the Charlotte Harbor, Florida, estuary and that mining for phosphate has an adverse impact on the local environment. Specific violations of NEPA and CWA asserted by plaintiffs included the Corps’ alleged (i) failure to find that an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) was required; (ii) failure to conduct an adequate analysis under the CWA of alternatives; (iii) refusal to hold a public hearing; and (iv) failure to fully consider the cumulative effects of our South Fort Meade mine. Relief sought in the complaint included: (i) a declaration that the Corps violated its statutory and regulatory duties under the CWA, NEPA, ESA and APA; (ii) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); (iii) preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring the Corps to rescind the permit; and (iv) enjoining the Corps from reissuing the permit until the Corps has complied with its statutory and regulatory duties under the CWA, NEPA, ESA and APA.

On July 1, 2010, the Jacksonville District Court issued a TRO prohibiting the Corps and us from conducting activities in jurisdictional waters of the United States in reliance on the Hardee County Extension Permit. The TRO remained in effect through July 30, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, the Jacksonville District Court entered a preliminary injunction (the “First Preliminary Injunction”) enjoining disturbance of jurisdictional waters of the United States in reliance on the Hardee County Extension Permit. The Jacksonville District Court also ordered a remand of the Hardee County Extension Permit to the Corps to adequately conduct an alternatives analysis, and further stated a public hearing should be conducted in conjunction with the remand. The order provided that the First Preliminary Injunction was effective until the requisite alternatives analysis was accomplished and a permit was reissued by the Corps, or, alternatively, the case was decided in our favor.

Without the Hardee County Extension Permit, mining at the South Fort Meade mine could not continue without adverse consequences. Three draglines that extract phosphate rock had already exhausted available reserves in Polk County before the Jacksonville District Court issued the TRO and had been idled awaiting access to the new reserves in Hardee County. Accordingly, we indefinitely closed the South Fort Meade mine.

On August 2, 2010, we appealed the Jacksonville District Court’s order to the Eleventh Circuit.

On October 27, 2010, we reached a partial settlement (the “Partial Settlement”) with the plaintiffs. The Partial Settlement allowed mining to proceed on approximately 200 acres (“Phase I”) out of the 10,586 acre Hardee County Extension. In connection with the Partial Settlement, we agreed not to mine approximately 40 acres of the Hardee County Extension, including preservation of 14.3 acres of wetlands through a conservation easement. The Jacksonville District Court approved the Partial Settlement on November 3, 2010, and we

15

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

commenced mining Phase I in December 2010. We completed the mining of approximately 1.35 million tonnes of phosphate rock from Phase I in June 2011 or an average of approximately 225,000 tonnes per month.

On April 11, 2011, four days after hearing oral arguments on the matter, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the First Preliminary Injunction and set aside the District Court’s remand of the permit to the Corps. In vacating the First Preliminary Injunction, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Jacksonville District Court for a decision on the merits to determine, after a review of the full administrative record, whether the Corps came to a rational permit decision to be analyzed through the deferential lens mandated by the APA. The Eleventh Circuit also directed the Jacksonville District Court to stay the effectiveness of the permit for 90 days to permit the District Court to make a decision on the merits based on this deferential standard.

On April 19, 2011, we notified the Jacksonville District Court that we planned to conduct uplands-only mining (i.e., non-wetlands) in an area (“Phase II”) at our South Fort Meade mine.

On May 24, 2011, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include allegations that our mining of Phase II was a significant new fact that required the Corps to make a supplemental environmental study or assessment in connection with the Hardee County Extension Permit and that our ability to conduct uplands-only mining in Phase II was a fact that should have been considered by the Corps in initially granting the Hardee County Extension Permit.

On June 6, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against our mining of Phase II and, on July 8, 2011, the Jacksonville District Court entered another preliminary injunction (the “Second Preliminary Injunction”) that prevents all mining activities in the Hardee County Extension, including uplands-only mining in Phase II. The Jacksonville District Court found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim and that the Corps failed to adequately conduct its CWA alternatives analysis.

Following the Second Preliminary Injunction, we stopped mining in the Hardee County Extension. Two draglines are currently engaged in minimal phosphate rock extraction from lower-yield reserves in the Polk County portion of the South Fort Meade mine.

In fiscal 2011, the shutdown of the South Fort Meade mine resulted in costs to suspend operations and idle plant costs, and lower phosphate rock mining production levels also adversely affected gross margin. Because of our successful execution of mitigation measures, the indefinite closure of the South Fort Meade mine did not significantly impact our sales volumes in fiscal 2011. In addition to mining Phase I, our mitigation activities have included drawing down existing phosphate rock and finished product inventories; sourcing rock from our investment in the Miski Mayo Mine; purchasing phosphate rock from third parties where reasonable; and maximizing production at our other phosphate mines.

For fiscal 2012, we have been able to continue to support planned finished phosphate production levels through a continuation of our mitigation activities, including additional rock sourced from our Florida mines, additional spot purchases from the Miski Mayo Mine and incremental third party purchases. The increased use of purchased phosphate rock due to the Second Preliminary Injunction has increased costs.

On February 21, 2012, we announced that we had entered into a settlement agreement (the “Hardee County Settlement Agreement”) with the plaintiffs that resolved the court proceedings regarding the Hardee County Extension Permit in their entirety and allows mining at the South Fort Meade mine to proceed. Proceedings affected by the Hardee County Settlement Agreement included (i) a ruling by the Jacksonville District Court on

16

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and (ii) rulings by the Eleventh Circuit on our appeal of the Second Preliminary Injunction, and our request to stay (as to Phase II only) the Second Preliminary Injunction.

The Hardee County Settlement Agreement required the plaintiffs to dismiss their challenge to the Hardee County Extension Permit in exchange for certain commitments by us, including:

• Preservation of approximately 130 acres of land otherwise eligible for mining.

• Donation of the Peaceful Horse Ranch in DeSoto County to the State of Florida or, alternatively, a not-for-profit organization for permanent conservation. In December, we acquired Peaceful Horse Ranch, which comprises an estimated 4,171 acres located in DeSoto County at the convergence of Horse Creek and the Peace River. The property is located immediately adjacent to existing conservation lands as well as the water intake for the Peace River Manasota Water Supply Authority. We purchased the property for approximately $10 million. Peaceful Horse Ranch is on the State of Florida’s list of priority projects for its Florida Forever land conservation program. Upon conveyance, we have also agreed to provide up to $2 million for startup and recurring expenses to operate the ranch. Its conservation will expand wildlife corridors and preserve vital habitats and floodplain, while protecting a vital water resource from approaching development.

• Certain mitigation, monitoring and site enhancements.

• Additional efforts to obtain permanent conservation easements along the Peace River.

On March 21, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the Jacksonville District Court for approval, and on March 28, 2012, the Jacksonville District Court granted final approval of the Hardee County Settlement Agreement. The settlement resulted in a pre-tax charge in the third quarter of approximately $13 million.

Central Florida Phosphate District Area-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. On August 24, 2010, we received official confirmation from the Corps that it plans to conduct an area-wide EIS (“AEIS”) for the central Florida phosphate district. The Corps’ current schedule calls for it to issue the AEIS in December 2012. We cannot predict the scope or actual timeline for this process, or what its outcome will be; however, the Corps’ announced schedule has begun to slip, and, although we do not currently expect the outcome of the AEIS to materially influence the conditions of future federal wetlands permits for our mining in central Florida, a protracted timeline for this process could delay our future permitting efforts.

Potash Antitrust Litigation

On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the “September 11, 2008 Cases”) were filed in the United States District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the “Minn-Chem Case”) and the Northern District of Illinois (the “Gage’s Fertilizer Case”), on October 2, 2008 another complaint (the “October 2, 2008 Case”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10, 2008 and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together, the “November 2008 Cases” and collectively with the September 11, 2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the “Direct Purchaser Cases”) were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage’s Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout the United States. On November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the cases in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint against the defendants, and on December 2, 2008 the Minn-Chem Case was consolidated with the Gage’s Fertilizer Case. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases. The amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed and Seed, Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all

17

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

persons who purchased potash in the United States directly from the defendants during the period July 1, 2003 through the date of the amended consolidated complaint (“Class Period”). The amended consolidated complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages, arising from defendants’ alleged combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Gordon Tillman (the “Tillman Case”); Feyh Farm Co. and William H. Coaker Jr. (the “Feyh Farm Case”); and Kevin Gillespie (the “Gillespie Case;” the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the “Indirect Purchaser Cases;” and the Direct Purchaser Cases together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively referred to as the “Potash Antitrust Cases”). The defendants in the Indirect Purchaser Cases are generally the same as those in the Direct Purchaser Cases. On November 13, 2008, the initial plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action complaint. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases. The factual allegations in the amended consolidated complaint are substantially identical to those summarized above with respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases. The amended consolidated complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who indirectly purchased potash products for end use during the Class Period in the United States, any of 20 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as “Indirect Purchaser States,” any of 22 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as “Consumer Fraud States”, and/or 48 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated complaint as “Unjust Enrichment States.” The plaintiffs generally sought injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages for violations of the antitrust laws of the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law, arising from defendants’ alleged continuing agreement, understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair competition laws of the Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer protection and unfair competition laws of the Consumer Fraud States, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits, for unjust enrichment under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment States, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or full consideration where permitted by applicable state law. The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2009, we and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases. On November 3, 2009, the court granted our motions to dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a) for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa, claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law. The court denied our and the other defendants’ other motions to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state a claim for relief under that section. The court, however, stated that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases present a difficult question under the pleading standards enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal. On January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of (i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a plausible cause of

18

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

action where it alleges parallel market behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive activity involving foreign markets, engaged in ‘conduct involving import trade or import commerce’ under applicable law. On September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Seventh Circuit”) vacated the district court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims. On December 2, 2011, the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and subsequently has held an en banc rehearing.

We believe that the allegations in the Potash Antitrust Cases are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. At this stage of the proceedings, we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation or determine whether it will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

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. 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 invalid and we have counterclaimed that the plaintiffs have engaged in inequitable conduct.

The Missouri District Court has stayed the lawsuit pending a reexamination of plaintiffs’ patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

We believe that the plaintiffs’ 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 or determine whether it will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

Esterhazy Potash Mine Tolling Agreement Dispute

Under an agreement (the “Tolling Agreement”) with Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (“PCS”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership (“Mosaic Esterhazy”), has mined and refined PCS’ potash reserves at our Esterhazy mine for a fee plus a pro rata share of operating and capital costs for approximately forty years. Under the agreement, we have delivered to PCS up to approximately 1.1 million tonnes of potash per year. The agreement provided for a term through December 31, 2011 as well as certain renewal terms at the option of PCS, but only to the extent PCS had not received all of its available reserves under the agreement. To the extent we have not fully utilized the capacity to satisfy our obligations under the agreement, the productive capacity at our Esterhazy mine otherwise used to satisfy our obligations under the Tolling Agreement has been and continues to be available to us for sales to any of our customers at then-current market prices.

As previously reported, we and PCS disputed, among other matters, when PCS would have received all of its available reserves under the Tolling Agreement and the resulting expiration of the Tolling Agreement, and, on or about May 27, 2009, PCS filed a lawsuit (the “Tolling Agreement Dispute”) against Mosaic Esterhazy in the Queen’s Bench Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. On December 7, 2011, we and PCS settled, among other matters, the Tolling Agreement Dispute. Under the settlement, the Tolling Agreement expires at December 31, 2012. We supplied PCS with potash on existing terms under the Tolling Agreement at the existing

19

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

rate through the end of calendar 2011, and agreed to supply approximately 1.1 million additional tonnes of potash to PCS on existing terms for calendar 2012. We also granted PCS the right, which it has exercised, to take delivery of approximately 0.1 million of the 1.1 million tonnes through the first quarter of calendar 2013. In addition, effective December 31, 2012, we will receive credit for 1.3 million metric tonnes of capacity at our Esterhazy mine for purposes of calculating our relative share of annual sales of potash to international customers by Canpotex Limited, capacity which is currently allocated to PCS. Expiration of our obligation to ship under the Tolling Agreement will have a material positive effect on the volume of potash available to us to sell to customers at then-current market prices and could have a material positive effect on our results of operations and liquidity.

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.

13. Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

We are exposed to the impact of fluctuations in the relative value of currencies, the impact of fluctuations in the purchase prices of natural gas and ammonia consumed in operations and changes in freight costs as well as changes in the market value of our financial instruments. We periodically enter into derivatives in order to mitigate our foreign currency risks and the effects of changing commodity and freight prices, but not for speculative purposes.

As of February 29, 2012, the following is the total absolute notional volume associated with our outstanding derivative instruments:

(in millions of Units) Derivative Instrument	Derivative Category	Unit of Measure	February 29, 2012
Foreign currency derivatives	Foreign currency	US Dollars		1,311.9
Natural gas derivatives	Commodity	MMbtu		18.4
Ocean freight contracts	Freight	Tonnes		2.2

We do not apply hedge accounting treatments to our foreign currency exchange contracts, commodities contracts, and freight contracts. 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 and certain forward freight agreements are also recorded in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Unrealized gain or (loss) 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 loss line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Below is a table that shows the unrealized gains and (losses) on derivative instruments related to foreign currency exchange contracts, commodities contracts, and freight:

		Three months ended						Nine months ended
Derivative Instrument	Location	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011
Foreign currency derivatives	Cost of goods sold	$	14.4		$	7.5		$	1.1		$	11.9
Foreign currency derivatives	Foreign currency transaction gain (loss)		8.6			7.1			(3.8	)		11.3
Commodity derivatives	Cost of goods sold		(16.5	)		(1.0	)		(27.3	)		1.6
Freight derivatives	Cost of goods sold		2.2			3.4			(2.7	)		(1.2	)

20

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

The gross fair market value of all derivative instruments and their location in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets are shown by those in an asset or liability position and are further categorized by foreign currency, commodity, and freight derivatives.

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Derivative Instrument	Location	February 29, 2012		Location	February 29, 2012
Foreign currency derivatives	Other current assets	$	21.3	Accrued liabilities	$	(8.5	)
Commodity derivatives	Other current assets		5.2	Accrued liabilities		(22.8	)
Commodity derivatives	Other assets		—	Other noncurrent liabilities		(10.1	)
Freight derivatives	Other current assets		2.0	Accrued liabilities		(2.2	)
Total		$	28.5		$	(43.6	)
	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Derivative Instrument	Location	May 31, 2011		Location	May 31, 2011
Foreign currency derivatives	Other current assets	$	19.1	Accrued liabilities	$	(4.3	)
Commodity derivatives	Other current assets		0.9	Accrued liabilities		(5.1	)
Commodity derivatives	Other assets		0.6	Other noncurrent liabilities		(1.5	)
Freight derivatives	Other current assets		3.5	Accrued liabilities		(0.9	)
Total		$	24.1		$	(11.8	)

For additional disclosures about fair value measurement of derivative instruments, see Note 14 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Credit-Risk-Related Contingent Features

Certain of our derivative instruments contain provisions that may require us to post collateral. These provisions also state that if our debt were to be rated below investment grade, certain counterparties to the derivative instruments could request full collateralization on derivative instruments in net liability positions. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position on February 29, 2012, was $37.9 million. We have no cash collateral posted in association with these contracts. If the credit-risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements were triggered on February 29, 2012, we would be required to post $31.7 million of collateral assets, which are either cash or U.S. Treasury instruments, to the counterparties.

Counterparty Credit Risk

We enter into foreign exchange and certain commodity derivatives, primarily with a diversified group of highly rated counterparties. We continually monitor our positions and the credit ratings of the counterparties involved and limit the amount of credit exposure to any one party. While we may be exposed to potential losses due to the credit risk of non-performance by these counterparties, material losses are not anticipated. We closely monitor the credit risk associated with our counterparties and customers and to date have not experienced material losses.

21

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

14. Fair Value Measurements

We determine the fair market values of our derivative contracts and certain other assets and liabilities based on the fair value hierarchy, described below, which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. There are three levels within the fair value hierarchy that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1: Values based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2: Values based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, or model-based valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market.

Level 3: Values generated from model-based techniques that use significant assumptions not observable in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect our own estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of option pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar techniques.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The following table presents assets and liabilities included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets that are recognized at fair value on a recurring basis, and indicates the fair value hierarchy utilized to determine such fair value.

	February 29, 2012
	Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Assets
Foreign currency derivatives	$	21.3	$	1.3	$	20.0	$	—
Commodity derivatives		5.2		0.1		5.1		—
Freight derivatives		2.0		—		—		2.0
Total assets at fair value	$	28.5	$	1.4	$	25.1	$	2.0
Liabilities
Foreign currency derivatives	$	8.5	$	3.2	$	5.3	$	—
Commodity derivatives		32.9		—		32.9		—
Freight derivatives		2.2		—		—		2.2
Total liabilities at fair value	$	43.6	$	3.2	$	38.2	$	2.2

We did not significantly change our valuation techniques from prior periods.

22

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Financial Instruments

The carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our financial instruments are as follows:

	February 29, 2012				May 31, 2011
	Carrying Amount		Fair Value		Carrying Amount		Fair Value
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3,201.9	$	3,201.9	$	3,906.4	$	3,906.4
Receivables, net		656.3		656.3		926.0		926.0
Short-term debt		81.6		81.6		23.6		23.6
Accounts payable		800.5		800.5		941.1		941.1
Long-term debt, including current maturities		1,011.7		1,099.5		809.3		881.5

For cash and cash equivalents, receivables, net, accounts payable and short-term debt, the carrying amount approximates fair value because of the short-term maturity of those instruments. The fair value of long-term debt is estimated using a present value method based on current interest rates for similar instruments with equivalent credit quality, as well as market prices for our publicly traded debt instruments.

15. Related Party Transactions

We enter into transactions and agreements with certain of our non-consolidated companies from time to time. As of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, the net amount due from our non-consolidated companies totaled $103.4 million and $145.7 million, respectively. The Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings included the following transactions with our non-consolidated companies:

	Three months ended				Nine months ended
	February 29, 2012		February 28, 2011		February 29, 2012		February 28, 2011
Transactions with non-consolidated companies included in net sales	$	210.0	$	275.6	$	962.2	$	664.4
Transactions with non-consolidated companies included in cost of goods sold		112.3		118.8		384.6		366.5

23

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

16. Business Segments

The reportable segments are determined by management based upon factors such as products and services, production processes, technologies, market dynamics, and for which segment financial information is available for our chief operating decision maker. For a description of our business segments see Note 1 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. We evaluate performance based on the operating earnings of the respective business segments, which includes certain allocations of corporate selling, general and administrative expenses. The segment results may not represent the actual results that would be expected if they were independent, stand-alone businesses. Corporate, Eliminations and Other primarily represents activities associated with our nitrogen distribution business, unallocated corporate office activities and eliminations. All intersegment transactions are eliminated within Corporate, Eliminations and Other. Segment information was as follows:

	Phosphates		Potash		Corporate, Eliminations and Other			Total
Three months ended February 29, 2012
Net sales to external customers	$	1,651.7	$	536.5	$	1.3		$	2,189.5
Intersegment net sales		—		16.7		(16.7	)		—
Net sales		1,651.7		553.2		(15.4	)		2,189.5
Gross margin		259.4		269.8		(7.4	)		521.8
Operating earnings		190.2		233.9		(10.4	)		413.7
Capital expenditures		100.4		293.7		17.7			411.8
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense		66.8		58.3		2.8			127.9
Three months ended February 28, 2011
Net sales to external customers	$	1,458.0	$	753.4	$	2.9		$	2,214.3
Intersegment net sales		—		4.3		(4.3	)		—
Net sales		1,458.0		757.7		(1.4	)		2,214.3
Gross margin		454.2		411.6		(12.2	)		853.6
Operating earnings		371.8		413.9		(14.9	)		770.8
Capital expenditures		76.7		212.8		22.1			311.6
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense		62.6		49.1		2.4			114.1
Nine months ended February 29, 2012
Net sales to external customers	$	6,050.4	$	2,233.2	$	3.7		$	8,287.3
Intersegment net sales		—		31.5		(31.5	)		—
Net sales		6,050.4		2,264.7		(27.8	)		8,287.3
Gross margin		1,144.7		1,107.8		(1.3	)		2,251.2
Operating earnings		955.0		993.7		(8.4	)		1,940.3
Capital expenditures		279.8		868.1		42.4			1,190.3
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense		195.5		165.0		7.9			368.4
Nine months ended February 28, 2011
Net sales to external customers	$	5,013.0	$	2,052.9	$	11.5		$	7,077.4
Intersegment net sales		—		25.7		(25.7	)		—
Net sales		5,013.0		2,078.6		(14.2	)		7,077.4
Gross margin		1,175.4		953.5		(2.3	)		2,126.6
Operating earnings		952.1		883.3		3.9			1,839.3
Capital expenditures		198.4		670.9		28.0			897.3
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense		182.2		133.8		8.5			324.5

24

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations should be read in conjunction with the material under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Mosaic Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011 (the “10-K Report”) and the material under Item 1 of Part I of this report.

Throughout the discussion below, we measure units of production, sales and raw materials in metric tonnes, which are the equivalent of 2,205 pounds, unless we specifically state we mean long ton(s) which are the equivalent of 2,240 pounds. In the following tables, there are certain percentages that are not considered to be meaningful and are represented by “NM.”

Results of Operations

The following table shows the results of operations for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011:

	Three months ended						2012-2011						Nine months ended						2012-2011
(in millions, except per share data)	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent			February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent
Net sales	$	2,189.5		$	2,214.3		$	(24.8	)		(1	%)	$	8,287.3		$	7,077.4		$	1,209.9			17	%
Cost of goods sold		1,667.7			1,360.7			307.0			23	%		6,036.1			4,950.8			1,085.3			22	%
Gross margin		521.8			853.6			(331.8	)		(39	%)		2,251.2			2,126.6			124.6			6	%
Gross margin percentage		23.8	%		38.5	%								27.2	%		30.0	%
Selling, general and administrative expenses		91.3			83.6			7.7			9	%		293.0			261.0			32.0			12	%
Other operating (income) expense		16.8			(0.8	)		17.6			NM			17.9			26.3			(8.4	)		(32	%)
Operating earnings		413.7			770.8			(357.1	)		(46	%)		1,940.3			1,839.3			101.0			5	%
Interest income (expense), net		4.1			(0.2	)		4.3			NM			13.3			(12.8	)		26.1			NM
Foreign currency transaction gain (loss)		(44.0	)		(31.7	)		(12.3	)		39	%		5.4			(60.6	)		66.0			(109	%)
Gain on sale of equity investment		—			—			—			NM			—			685.6			(685.6	)		(100	%)
Other (expense)		(19.1	)		(16.1	)		(3.0	)		19	%		(19.2	)		(17.0	)		(2.2	)		13	%
Earnings from consolidated companies before income taxes		354.7			722.8			(368.1	)		(51	%)		1,939.8			2,434.5			(494.7	)		(20	%)
Provision for income taxes		87.0			175.9			(88.9	)		(51	%)		522.8			566.8			(44.0	)		(8	%)
Earnings from consolidated companies		267.7			546.9			(279.2	)		(51	%)		1,417.0			1,867.7			(450.7	)		(24	%)
Equity in net earnings (loss) of nonconsolidated companies		4.2			(4.3	)		8.5			NM			6.9			0.6			6.3			NM
Net earnings including noncontrolling interests		271.9			542.6			(270.7	)		(50	%)		1,423.9			1,868.3			(444.4	)		(24	%)
Less: Net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests		(1.4	)		0.5			(1.9	)		NM			1.0			2.9			(1.9	)		(66	%)
Net earnings attributable to Mosaic	$	273.3		$	542.1		$	(268.8	)		(50	%)	$	1,422.9		$	1,865.4		$	(442.5	)		(24	%)
Diluted net earnings attributable to Mosaic per share	$	0.64		$	1.21		$	(0.57	)		(47	%)	$	3.24		$	4.17		$	(0.93	)		(22	%)
Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding		426.7			447.7									439.8			447.3

25

Overview of Consolidated Results for the three months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011

Net sales were $2.2 billion for the quarters ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011. Net earnings attributable to Mosaic for the three months ended February 29, 2012 were $273.3 million, or $0.64 per diluted share, compared to $542.1 million, or $1.21 per diluted share, for the same period a year ago. The more significant factors affecting our results of operations and financial condition are listed below. Certain of these factors are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Net earnings in the third quarter of fiscal 2012 were lower primarily as a result of lower potash volumes and higher phosphate raw material costs. Our sales volumes for phosphates were higher than the same period in the prior year due to a market recalibration in the current fiscal quarter which resulted in a significant drop in market prices compared to the second quarter of fiscal 2012. Potash selling prices remained firm in the third fiscal quarter and were higher compared to the same period in the prior year. Potash sales volumes were lower than the same period in the prior year due to high pipeline inventories and cautious customer purchasing behavior in the current year. As a result, Mosaic announced curtailments of up to 20% in planned potash production from February through May 2012. During the quarter we also announced a plan to reduce finished phosphate production by up to 250,000 tonnes to help manage inventory levels. Even though we reduced production in the short-term, we believe that long-term crop nutrient market demand fundamentals remain strong due to the positive global outlook for agriculture.

Higher raw material costs more than offset the earnings benefit from the increase in sales volumes for our phosphates products. The higher prices for our key purchased raw materials for concentrated phosphates, primarily sulfur and ammonia, resulted from higher global demand for these raw materials in the current year compared to the year-ago quarter. In addition, because of the preliminary injunction relating to the extension of our South Fort Meade, Florida, phosphate rock mine into Hardee County as discussed in Note 12 to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, we have increased our use of phosphate rock purchased from third parties in our production of crop nutrients, resulting in increased raw material costs. The percentage of phosphate rock purchased from our Miski Mayo joint venture used in finished product production in our North American operations increased from 6% in the third quarter of fiscal 2011 to 7% in the current fiscal quarter. The percentage of purchased rock from third parties used in phosphate finished product production in our North American operations increased from 8% in the third quarter of fiscal 2011 to 9% in the third quarter of fiscal 2012.

Other Highlights

During the three months ended February 29, 2012:

• We maintained a strong financial position with cash and cash equivalents of $3.2 billion as of February 29, 2012.

• We recorded a foreign currency transaction loss of $44.0 million for the three months ended February 29, 2012 compared with a loss of $31.7 million for the same period a year ago.

• On February 21, 2012, we announced that we had entered into a settlement that resolved in their entirety the pending court proceedings over the federal wetlands permit for the extension of our South Fort Meade, Florida, phosphate rock mine into Hardee County and allows mining at the South Fort Meade mine to proceed. The settlement resulted in a pre-tax charge of approximately $13 million included in other operating expenses. We received final court approval of the settlement on March 28, 2012.

• On December 7, 2011, we reached a settlement with PCS that will end our obligation to supply potash to PCS from our Esterhazy mine under the Tolling Agreement at the end of calendar 2012. Under the Tolling Agreement, we have been delivering to PCS up to approximately 1.1 million tonnes of potash per year. In addition, effective December 31, 2012, we will receive credit for 1.3 million tonnes of capacity at our Esterhazy mine for purposes of calculating our relative share of annual sales of potash to international customers by Canpotex Limited.

26

• On December 1, 2011, we redeemed the remaining $469.3 million aggregate principal amount of the 7-5/8% Senior Notes due 2016 of our subsidiary MOS Holdings Inc. We recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $20 million in other expense, primarily related to the call premium.

• We continued the expansion of capacity in our Potash segment, in line with our views of the long-term fundamentals of that business. In the third quarter of fiscal 2012, we had capital expenditures of approximately $185 million related to these projects. At our Esterhazy K2 mine, we have completed our above-ground mill expansion and completion of the below ground expansion activities is anticipated before the end of fiscal 2012. Capacity came on line in the third quarter of fiscal 2012, with full capacity of an estimated 770,000 tonnes expected to be reached in early fiscal 2013.

During the three months ended February 28, 2011:

• We redeemed the remaining $455.4 million aggregate principal amount of our 7-3/8% senior notes due December 2014 on January 13, 2011. We recorded a pre-tax charge in other expense of approximately $19.0 million in the third fiscal quarter of 2011, primarily related to the call premium and the write-off of unamortized fees.

Overview of Consolidated Results for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011

Net earnings attributable to Mosaic for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 were $1.4 billion or $3.24 per diluted share, compared to $1.9 billion or $4.17 per diluted share, for the same period a year ago. Results for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 reflected strengthening of phosphate and potash sales prices in the first six months of fiscal 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year. However, the average selling price of phosphates began to decline in the third quarter of fiscal 2012 as discussed above. Sales volumes for phosphates and potash were slightly lower for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 than the same period in the prior year. Benefits from the increase in selling prices and volumes were offset by higher phosphate raw material costs resulting from higher global demand and tighter supply for these materials in the current year. Certain of these factors are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Other noteworthy matters during the nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 included:

• We generated $1.5 billion in cash flows from operations for the nine months ended February 29, 2012. The positive cash flow was primarily driven by net earnings.

• On September 23, 2011, Standard and Poor’s included us in the S&P 500 index and on September 29, 2011, we completed an underwritten secondary public offering by the MAC Trusts of 20.7 million shares of our Common Stock that the MAC Trusts acquired in the Cargill Transaction.

• On October 24, 2011, we completed a $750 million public offering consisting of $450 million aggregate principal amount of 3.750% Senior Notes due 2021 and $300 million aggregate principal amount of 4.875% Senior Notes due 2041.

• On November 17, 2011, we purchased an aggregate 21.3 million shares of our Class A Common Stock, Series A-4 from the MAC Trusts. The purchase price was $54.58 per share, the closing price for our Common Stock on November 16, 2011, resulting in a total purchase price of $1.2 billion.

• In the second quarter of our prior fiscal year, we completed the sale of our interest in Fosfertil S.A. to Vale, which resulted in a pre-tax gain of $685.6 million ($569.4 million after tax). The tax impact of this transaction was $116.2 million and is included in our provision for income taxes for the nine months ended February 28, 2011.

• In the first quarter of fiscal 2011, we acquired a 35% economic interest in a joint venture, with subsidiaries of Vale and Mitsui & Co., Ltd., that owns the Miski Mayo Mine in the Bayovar region of Peru for $385 million. Phosphate rock production started at the Miski Mayo Mine and shipments began that same quarter.

27

• We continue to focus on operational efficiencies in Phosphates and Potash through disciplined operational improvements. Due to these efficiencies, during the current fiscal year, we have been able to increase production at our Phosphates mines other than South Fort Meade which has decreased the impact of the preliminary injunctions that have resulted in that mine operating at lower operating rates. During the third quarter, we achieved a monthly production record at our Wingate phosphate mine.

Phosphates Net Sales and Gross Margin

The following table summarizes the Phosphates segment’s net sales, gross margin, sales volume, selling prices and raw material prices:

	Three months ended						2012-2011						Nine months ended						2012-2011
(in millions, except price per tonne or unit)	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent			February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent
Net sales:
North America	$	603.4		$	508.2		$	95.2			19	%	$	1,881.1		$	1,547.3		$	333.8			22	%
International		1,048.3			949.8			98.5			10	%		4,169.3			3,465.7			703.6			20	%
Total		1,651.7			1,458.0			193.7			13	%		6,050.4			5,013.0			1,037.4			21	%
Cost of goods sold		1,392.3			1,003.8			388.5			39	%		4,905.7			3,837.6			1,068.1			28	%
Gross margin	$	259.4		$	454.2		$	(194.8	)		(43	%)	$	1,144.7		$	1,175.4		$	(30.7	)		(3	%)
Gross margin as a percent of net sales		16	%		31	%								19	%		23	%
Sales volume (in thousands of metric tonnes)
Crop Nutrients(a):
North America		931			719			212			29	%		2,687			2,544			143			6	%
International		857			807			50			6	%		2,851			3,154			(303	)		(10	%)
Crop Nutrient Blends		489			511			(22	)		(4	%)		2,104			2,078			26			1	%
Feed Phosphates		169			162			7			4	%		468			433			35			8	%
Other(b)		145			172			(27	)		(16	%)		836			898			(62	)		(7	%)
Total Phosphates Segment Tonnes(a)		2,591			2,371			220			9	%		8,946			9,107			(161	)		(2	%)
Average selling price per tonne:
DAP (FOB plant)	$	536		$	543		$	(7	)		(1	%)	$	577		$	468		$	109			23	%
Crop Nutrient Blends (FOB destination)		588			503			85			17	%		586			452			134			30	%
Average cost per unit:
Ammonia (metric tonne)	$	589		$	406		$	183			45	%	$	573		$	383		$	190			50	%
Sulfur (long ton)		228			166			62			37	%		232			150			82			55	%

(a) Excludes tonnes sold by PhosChem for its other member.

(b) Other volumes are primarily single superphosphate (“SSP”), potash and nitrogen products sold outside of North America.

Three months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011

The Phosphates segment’s net sales increased to $1.7 billion for the three months ended February 29, 2012, compared to $1.5 billion in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. Higher sales volumes resulted in increased sales of approximately $150 million. Lower average domestic sales prices were offset by higher International average sales prices resulting in additional net sales of approximately $10 million.

28

Our average DAP selling price was $536 per tonne for the three months ended February 29, 2012, a decrease of $7 per tonne from the prior year due to recalibration in domestic prices early in the quarter. The selling price of crop nutrient blends (“Blends”) for the three months ended February 29, 2012 increased 17% compared to the same period in the prior year, due to an increase in the prices of materials used to produce Blends, primarily potash and nitrogen.

The Phosphates segment’s sales volumes were higher, with 2.6 million tonnes for the three months ended February 29, 2012 compared to 2.4 million tonnes for the same period in the prior year. The increase was primarily due to a recalibration of the average domestic selling price.

We consolidate the financial results of PhosChem. Included in our results for the three months ended February 29, 2012 is PhosChem net sales and cost of goods sold for its other member of $125 million, compared with $97 million for the third quarter in fiscal 2011.

Gross margin for the Phosphates segment of $259.4 million decreased from $454.2 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. Higher costs of approximately $280 million had an unfavorable impact on gross margin. This was partially offset by higher sales volumes, which had a favorable impact on gross margin of $70 million. The increase in costs was primarily due to increased raw material costs in our North American operations, which includes sulfur, ammonia and purchased rock, of approximately $140 million, and higher raw material costs of $85 million used in the production of our international products, including Blends. Other factors affecting gross margin and costs are discussed below. As a result of these factors, gross margin as a percentage of net sales decreased to 16% for the three months ended February 29, 2012 compared to 31% in the same period a year ago.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2012, higher sulfur and ammonia prices unfavorably impacted cost of goods sold for North American operations by approximately $110 million compared with prior year results. The average consumed price for sulfur for our North American operations increased to $228 per long ton for the three months ended February 29, 2012, from $166 in the same period a year ago. The average consumed price for ammonia for our North American operations increased to $589 per tonne in the third quarter of fiscal 2012 from $406 in the same period a year ago. The increase in the market prices of these raw materials was due to the factors discussed in the Overview. The increase in ammonia costs was also impacted by approximately $10 million related to the temporary shutdown of our Faustina ammonia plant as a result of an outage that occurred in April 2011, partially offset by insurance proceeds related to the outage of approximately $29 million of which $8 million is included in cost of goods sold and $21 million is included in other operating (income) expense.

Costs were also impacted by net unrealized mark-to-market derivative losses of $3.7 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2012, primarily on commodity derivatives, compared to gains of $3.0 million for the same period a year ago, primarily on natural gas derivatives.

The Phosphates segment’s North American production of crop nutrient dry concentrates and animal feed ingredients was 2.0 million tonnes for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 and 2011. Our North American phosphate rock production was 2.9 million tonnes during the third quarter of fiscal 2012, compared with 3.4 million tonnes in the same quarter of fiscal 2011. The decreased phosphate rock production in fiscal 2012 was primarily due to South Fort Meade operating at a lower rate in the third quarter of fiscal 2012 than the same period in the prior year primarily because of a partial settlement of the South Fort Meade permit litigation that allowed us to engage in limited mining in the fiscal 2011 quarter.

Nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011

The Phosphates segment’s net sales increased to $6.1 billion for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 compared to $5.0 billion in the same period a year ago. The increase was primarily due to an increase in sales prices that resulted in an increase in net sales of approximately $940 million, partially offset by a decrease in sales volumes that resulted in a decrease in net sales of approximately $20 million.

29

Our average DAP selling price was $577 per tonne for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, an increase of $109 per tonne or 23% compared with the same period a year ago due to the factors discussed in the Overview. The increase in the selling price of Blends was 30% compared to the same period a year ago due to the factors discussed in the three-month discussion above.

The Phosphates segment’s sales volumes decreased to 8.9 million tonnes for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared to 9.1 million tonnes in the same period a year ago primarily due to lower export sales.

PhosChem net sales and cost of goods sold from sales for its other member were $489 million for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared with $370 million for the same period a year ago.

Gross margin for the Phosphates segment decreased to $1.1 billion for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 compared to $1.2 billion for the nine months ended February 28, 2011. Gross margin in the current year was unfavorably impacted by higher costs of approximately $950 million offset by higher average sales prices, which resulted in a favorable impact on gross margin of $940 million. The higher costs were primarily due to higher raw material costs used in the production of our international products, including Blends, of approximately $445 million and higher raw material costs in our North American operations, which include sulfur, ammonia and purchased rock, of approximately $430 million. Other factors affecting gross margin and costs are discussed below. As a result of these factors, gross margin as a percentage of net sales was 19% for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared to 23% in the same period a year ago.

For the nine months ended February 29, 2012, higher sulfur and ammonia prices unfavorably impacted cost of goods sold by approximately $370 million compared with prior year results. The average consumed price for sulfur increased to $232 per long ton for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 from $150 in the same period a year ago. The average consumed price for ammonia increased to $573 per tonne for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 from $383 in the same period a year ago. The increase in the market prices of these raw materials was due to the factors discussed in the Overview. The increase in ammonia costs was also impacted by approximately $60 million due to the temporary shutdown of our Faustina ammonia plant as a result of an outage, partially offset by insurance proceeds related to the outage of approximately $49 million of which $8 million is included in cost of goods sold and $41 million is included in other operating (income) expense.

Costs were unfavorably impacted by net unrealized mark-to-market derivative losses of $8.2 million for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared with gains of $1.0 million for the same period a year ago, primarily on natural gas derivatives.

The Phosphates segment’s North American production of crop nutrient dry concentrates and animal feed ingredients was 6.2 million tonnes for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 compared with 6.3 million tonnes for the nine months ended February 28, 2011. Our North American phosphate rock production was 8.4 million tonnes for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared with 8.2 million tonnes in the same period a year ago. The increased phosphate rock production in fiscal 2012 was primarily due to increased production at our Four Corners, Wingate and Hookers Prairie mines. The South Fort Meade mine was producing on a limited basis in the first three quarters of both fiscal 2012 and 2011 due to the preliminary injunctions relating to the extension of the mine into Hardee County as discussed in Note 12 of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

30

Potash Net Sales and Gross Margin

The following table summarizes the Potash segment’s net sales, gross margin, sales volume and selling price:

	Three months ended						2012-2011						Nine months ended						2012-2011
(in millions, except price per tonne or unit)	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent			February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent
Net sales:
North America	$	299.1		$	461.4		$	(162.3	)		(35	%)	$	1,189.8		$	1,344.3		$	(154.5	)		(11	%)
International		254.1			296.3			(42.2	)		(14	%)		1,074.9			734.3			340.6			46	%
Total		553.2			757.7			(204.5	)		(27	%)		2,264.7			2,078.6			186.1			9	%
Cost of goods sold		283.4			346.1			(62.7	)		(18	%)		1,156.9			1,125.1			31.8			3	%
Gross margin	$	269.8		$	411.6		$	(141.8	)		(34	%)	$	1,107.8		$	953.5		$	154.3			16	%
Gross margin as a percent of net sales		49	%		54	%								49	%		46	%
Sales volume (in thousands of metric tonnes)
Crop Nutrients(a):
North America		291			757			(466	)		(62	%)		1,429			2,344			(915	)		(39	%)
International		618			944			(326	)		(35	%)		2,715			2,531			184			7	%
Total		909			1,701			(792	)		(47	%)		4,144			4,875			(731	)		(15	%)
Non-agricultural		182			162			20			12	%		527			468			59			13	%
Total		1,091			1,863			(772	)		(41	%)		4,671			5,343			(672	)		(13	%)
Average selling price per tonne (FOB plant):
MOP—North America(b)	$	531		$	394		$	137			35	%	$	527		$	366		$	161			44	%
MOP—International		411			316			95			30	%		400			292			108			37	%
MOP Average		453			358			95			27	%		445			340			105			31	%

(a) Excludes tonnes related to a third-party tolling arrangement.

(b) This price excludes industrial and feed sales.

Three months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011

The Potash segment’s net sales decreased to $553.2 million for the three months ended February 29, 2012, compared to $757.7 million in the same period a year ago. Lower sales volumes resulted in a decrease in net sales of approximately $290 million partially offset by higher average sales prices which resulted in additional net sales of approximately $100 million.

The Potash segment’s sales volumes decreased to 1.1 million tonnes for the three months ended February 29, 2012, compared to 1.9 million tonnes in the same period a year ago, primarily driven by the factors described in the Overview.

Our average muriate of potash (“MOP”) selling price was $453 per tonne in the third quarter of fiscal 2012, compared to $358 per tonne in the same period a year ago. MOP selling prices, both domestic and international, increased due to the factors discussed in the Overview. Although both domestic and international selling prices have increased compared to the same period a year ago, the international MOP selling prices continue to be below domestic market prices.

31

Gross margin for the Potash segment decreased to $269.8 million for the three months ended February 29, 2012 from $411.6 million for the same period last year. Gross margin was unfavorably impacted by approximately $190 million due to lower sales volumes partially offset by a favorable impact of approximately $100 million due to the increased selling prices. Other factors affecting gross margin and costs are further discussed below. As a result of these factors, gross margin as a percentage of net sales decreased to 49% for the three months ended February 29, 2012, compared to 54% for the same period a year ago.

We incurred $64.6 million in Canadian resource taxes and royalties for the three months ended February 29, 2012 compared with $55.3 million in the same period a year ago. The increase in these taxes and royalties was due primarily to a decrease from the prior year in the deduction for capital expenditures related to our expansion projects.

Costs were impacted by net unrealized mark-to-market derivative gains of $3.8 million for the three months ended February 29, 2012, primarily on foreign currency derivatives compared with gains of $6.9 million for the same period a year ago.

We incurred $59.0 million in expenses related to managing and mitigating the brine inflows at our Esterhazy mine during the third quarter of fiscal 2012 compared to $42.0 million in the same period a year ago. The rate of brine inflows at our Esterhazy mine varies over time within historical ranges. Although the inflow rate remains within the historical range that we have successfully managed since 1985, results for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 include higher costs associated with the introduction of advanced technologies beginning in the second quarter, including horizontal drilling techniques. We plan to continue to enhance our understanding, management and mitigation of recent inflow patterns and disposal of brine that is removed from the mine. As a result, planned brine management costs will remain high but for the fourth quarter will decline from third quarter fiscal 2012 levels.

For the three months ended February 29, 2012, potash production was 1.8 million tonnes compared to 2.0 million tonnes in the same period a year ago.

Nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011

The Potash segment’s net sales increased to $2.3 billion for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared with $2.1 billion in the same period in the prior year, primarily due to an increase in sales prices that resulted in an increase in net sales of approximately $510 million, partially offset by a decrease in sales volumes that resulted in a decrease in net sales of approximately $320 million.

The Potash segment’s sales volumes decreased to 4.7 million tonnes for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 compared to 5.3 million tonnes in the same period a year ago, primarily driven by the factors described in the Overview.

Our average MOP selling price was $445 per tonne for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, an increase of $105 per tonne compared with the same period a year ago as potash selling prices have increased due to the factors described in the Overview.

Gross margin for the Potash segment increased to $1.1 billion for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 from $1.0 billion for the same period last year. Gross margin was favorably impacted by approximately $510 million due to an increase in sales prices, partially offset by a decrease in sales volumes which unfavorably impacted gross margin by $210 million. Other factors affecting gross margin and costs are further discussed below. Gross margin as a percentage of net sales was 49% for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared to 46% for the same period a year ago.

We incurred $227.4 million in Canadian resource taxes and royalties for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared with $186.5 million in the same period a year ago. The increase in these taxes and royalties was due primarily to the increase in sales from the same period in the prior year and a decrease in the deduction for capital expenditures related to our expansion projects.

32

Costs were unfavorably impacted by net unrealized mark-to-market derivative losses, primarily on natural gas derivatives, of $20.7 million for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared with gains, primarily on foreign currency derivatives, of $11.1 million for the same period a year ago.

We incurred $142.5 million in expenses related to managing and mitigating the brine inflows at our Esterhazy mine for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared to $111.2 million in the same period a year ago. Expenses for brine inflow reflected the factors discussed in the three-month discussion above.

For the nine months ended February 29, 2012, potash production was 5.5 million tonnes compared to 5.2 million tonnes for the same period in the prior year. We increased our production rates in the first quarter of fiscal 2011 continuing through the second quarter of fiscal 2012 to meet the increasing demand. Historically, we perform planned major maintenance at our operating plants in the first half of the fiscal year. The duration of these planned outages was shortened in the current fiscal year compared to the prior year which also contributed to the increase in production. In the third quarter of fiscal 2012 we decreased production due to lower demand as discussed in the Overview.

Other Income Statement Items

	Three months ended						2012-2011
(in millions)	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent
Selling, general and administrative expenses	$	91.3		$	83.6		$	7.7			9	%
Other operating (income) expenses		16.8			(0.8	)		17.6			NM
Interest (expense)		—			(4.8	)		4.8			(100	%)
Interest income		4.1			4.6			(0.5	)		(11	%)
Interest income (expense), net		4.1			(0.2	)		4.3			NM
Foreign currency transaction (loss)		(44.0	)		(31.7	)		(12.3	)		39	%
Other (expense)		(19.1	)		(16.1	)		(3.0	)		19	%
Provision for income taxes		87.0			175.9			(88.9	)		(51	%)
Equity in net earnings (loss) of nonconsolidated companies		4.2			(4.3	)		8.5			(198	%)
	Nine months ended						2012-2011
(in millions)	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			Change			Percent
Selling, general and administrative expenses	$	293.0		$	261.0		$	32.0			12	%
Other operating expenses		17.9			26.3			(8.4	)		(32	%)
Interest (expense)		—			(27.6	)		27.6			(100	%)
Interest income		13.3			14.8			(1.5	)		(10	%)
Interest income (expense), net		13.3			(12.8	)		26.1			NM
Foreign currency transaction gain (loss)		5.4			(60.6	)		66.0			(109	%)
Gain on sale of equity investment		—			685.6			(685.6	)		(100	%)
Other (expense)		(19.2	)		(17.0	)		(2.2	)		(13	%)
Provision for income taxes		522.8			566.8			(44.0	)		8	%
Equity in net earnings of nonconsolidated companies		6.9			0.6			6.3			NM

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

For the nine months ended February 29, 2012, selling general and administrative expenses were $293.0 million compared to $261.0 million for the nine months ended February 28, 2011. The increase in expense is primarily related to an increase in salaries and benefits of approximately $15.0 million and an increase in costs of approximately $12.0 million associated with our operational improvement initiatives, primarily related to information technology enhancements.

33

Other Operating (Income) Expense

For the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, we had other operating expense of $16.8 million and $17.9 million, respectively, compared with income of $0.8 million and expenses of $26.3 million, respectively, for the same periods in the prior year. The expense for the three months ended February 29, 2012 includes approximately $13million in costs related to the settlement of court proceedings related to the South Fort Meade mine, approximately $8 million in costs related to asset retirement obligations for closed facilities and approximately $6 million for asset write-offs in our Phosphate business, and $7 million in charitable contributions to the Mosaic Foundation. These costs were partially offset by approximately $21 million in insurance proceeds related to an outage at our Faustina ammonia plant. Other operating (income) expense for the same quarter of the prior fiscal year included approximately $40 million from insurance recoveries primarily in our Potash business. These insurance recoveries were partially offset by approximately $11 million of expenses related to the Cargill Transaction and costs related to closed facilities in our Phosphates business.

Other operating expense for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 included approximately $41 million related to insurance proceeds received related to the Faustina ammonia plant partially offset by approximately $8 million of expenses related to the Cargill Transaction and the costs noted in the three month discussion above. Other operating expenses for the same period of the prior year included approximately $30 million related to costs for closed facilities in our Phosphates business.

Interest Income (Expense), net

For the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, we had net interest income of $4.1 million and $13.3 million, respectively, compared to net interest expense of $0.2 million and $12.8 million in the same periods in the prior year. Interest expense was lower this year due to a higher amount of capitalized interest primarily related to capital expenditures for our Potash expansion projects compared to the same periods in the prior year.

Foreign Currency Transaction Gain (Loss)

For the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, we recorded a foreign currency transaction loss of $44.0 million and a gain of $5.4 million, respectively, compared with losses of $31.7 million and $60.6 million, respectively, for the same periods in the prior year. For the three months ended February 29, 2012, the loss was mainly the result of the effect of the weakening of the U.S. dollar relative to the Canadian dollar on significant U.S. dollar denominated intercompany receivables and cash held by our Canadian affiliates. For the nine months ended February 29, 2012, the gain was mainly the result of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to the Canadian dollar on significant U.S. dollar denominated intercompany receivables and cash held by our Canadian affiliates, partially offset by the effect of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to the Brazilian Real on significant U.S. dollar denominated payables.

For the three and nine months ended February 28, 2011, the losses were mainly the result of the effect of the weakening of the U.S. dollar relative to the Canadian dollar on significant U.S. dollar denominated intercompany receivables and cash held by our Canadian affiliates.

Other Income (Expense)

For the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, we recorded a charge of approximately $20 million for the call premium related to the redemption of the remaining $469.3 million aggregate principal amount of our 7-5/8% Senior Notes due December 2016.

For the three months ended February 28, 2011, we recorded a charge of approximately $19 million for the call premium and write-off of unamortized fees related to the redemption of the remaining $455.4 million aggregate principal amount of our 7-3/8% Senior Notes due December 2014.

34

Gain on Sale of Equity Investment

For the nine months ended February 28, 2011, we recorded a $685.6 million pre-tax gain on the sale of our equity method investment in Fosfertil. The tax impact on this transaction was $116.2 million which was included in our provision for income taxes as of February 28, 2011.

Provision for Income Taxes

Three months ended	Effective Tax Rate			Provision for Income Taxes
February 29, 2012		24.5	%	$	87.0
February 28, 2011		24.3	%		175.9
Nine months ended	Effective Tax Rate			Provision for Income Taxes
February 29, 2012		27.0	%	$	522.8
February 28, 2011		23.3	%		566.8

Income tax expense was $87.0 million and $522.8 million and effective tax rates were 24.5% and 27.0% for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, respectively. For the three and nine months ended February 28, 2011, we had income tax expense of $175.9 million and $566.8 million and effective tax rates of 24.3% and 23.3%, respectively. Our income tax rate is impacted by the mix of earnings across the jurisdictions in which we operate and by a benefit associated with depletion.

For the nine months ended February 28, 2011, tax expense specific to the period included a $116.2 million expense related to the gain on the sale of our interest in Fosfertil, which resulted in a lower effective tax rate for the period.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP. In preparing the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, we are required to make various judgments, estimates and assumptions that could have a significant impact on the results reported in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. We base these estimates on historical experience and other assumptions believed to be reasonable by management under the circumstances. Changes in these estimates could have a material effect on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Our significant accounting policies, including our significant accounting estimates, are summarized in Note 2 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. A more detailed description of our significant accounting policies is included in Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Form 10-K Report. Further information regarding our critical accounting estimates is included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis in our Form 10-K Report.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of February 29, 2012, we had $3.2 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Funds generated by operating activities, available cash and cash equivalents, and our credit facilities continue to be our most significant sources of liquidity. On November 17, 2011, we purchased an aggregate of 21.3 million shares of our Class A Common Stock, Series A-4 (the “Shares”) from the MAC Trusts. The purchase price was $54.58 per share, the closing price for our Common Stock on November 16, 2011, resulting in a purchase price of approximately $1.2 billion for the Shares. The repurchase was funded with available cash. This repurchase completed the required disposition of 157 million shares designated to be sold by Cargill and the MAC Trusts during the 15-month period following the Split-off.

35

On October 24, 2011, we completed the $750 million public offering of the New Senior Notes. On December 1, 2011, we redeemed the remaining $469.3 million aggregate principal amount of the 7-5/8% Senior Notes. The redemption was funded from a portion of the proceeds from the New Senior Notes offering. For additional information concerning these transactions, see Note 10 of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

We believe funds generated from the expected results of operations and available cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to finance expansion plans and strategic initiatives for the remainder of fiscal 2012. There can be no assurance, however, that we will continue to generate cash flows at or above current levels. In addition, we have a $750 million credit facility of which $730 million was available for working capital needs and investment opportunities as of February 29, 2012.

The following table represents a comparison of the net cash provided by operating activities, net cash (used in) provided by investing activities, and net cash used in financing activities for the nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011:

	Nine months ended						2012 - 2011
(in millions)	February 29, 2012			February 28, 2011			$ Change			% Change
Cash Flow
Net cash provided by operating activities	$	1,476.5		$	1,453.8		$	22.7			2	%
Net cash used in investing activities		(1,181.8	)		(213.2	)		(968.6	)		454	%
Net cash used in financing activities		(969.1	)		(515.6	)		(453.5	)		88	%

Approximately $2.0 billion of cash and cash equivalents are held by non-U.S. subsidiaries as of February 29, 2012. There are no significant restrictions that would preclude us from bringing these funds back to the U.S. However, we currently have no intention of remitting certain undistributed earnings of non-U.S. subsidiaries and, accordingly, no deferred tax liability has been established relative to these earnings. In addition, the majority of these funds are not subject to significant foreign currency cash flow impacts as the bulk of these funds are held in U.S. dollar denominated investments. Information about the investment of our cash and cash equivalents is included in Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 10-K Report.

Operating Activities

Net cash flow generated from operating activities has provided us with a significant source of liquidity. During the nine months ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011, net cash provided by operating activities was $1.5 billion. During the nine months ended February 29, 2012, operating cash flows were primarily generated from net earnings combined with reductions in accounts receivable and offset by reductions in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. The decrease in accounts receivable is due to lower sales volumes in Potash in the third quarter of fiscal 2012. The decrease in accounts payable is primarily due to the timing of payments. The decrease in accrued liabilities is primarily due to a decrease in customer prepayments, accrued incentives and other non-income taxes.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $1.2 billion for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, compared to net cash used by investing activities of $213.2 million in the same period in fiscal 2011. The increase in cash used in investing activities is primarily due to $1.0 billion in proceeds from the sale of our investment in Fosfertil, partially offset by our investment in the Miski Mayo Mine of $385 million in the prior year and an increase in capital expenditures primarily related to expansion projects in our Potash segment in the current year. Capital expenditures were $1.2 billion for the first nine months of fiscal 2012, of which $659.3 million related to our Potash expansion projects.

36

Financing Activities

Net cash used in financing activities for the nine months ended February 29, 2012, was $969.1 million, compared to $515.6 million for the same period in fiscal 2011. The increase from the prior year is primarily due to approximately $1.2 billion of cash used to repurchase the Shares from the MAC Trusts and $505 million of cash used to redeem the 7-5/8% Senior Notes due 2016, partially offset by net proceeds of $736 million received from the public offering of the New Senior Notes completed in the second quarter of fiscal 2012.

Debt Instruments, Guarantees and Related Covenants

See Note 10 of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as well as Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 10-K Report for additional information relating to our financing arrangements.

Financial Assurance Requirements

In addition to various operational and environmental regulations related to our Phosphates segment, we are subject to financial assurance requirements. In various jurisdictions in which we operate, particularly Florida and Louisiana, we are required to pass a financial strength test or provide credit support, typically in the form of surety bonds or letters of credit. Further information regarding financial assurance requirements is included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition in our Form 10-K Report and under “EPA RCRA Initiative” in Note 12 to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this report.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations

Information regarding off-balance sheet arrangements and obligations is included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition in our 10-K Report.

Contingencies

Information regarding contingencies is hereby incorporated by reference to Note 12 to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Information

All statements, other than statements of historical fact, appearing in this report constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include, among other things, statements about our expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies for the future, statements concerning our future operations, financial condition and prospects, statements regarding our expectations for capital expenditures, statements concerning our level of indebtedness and other information, and any statements of assumptions regarding any of the foregoing. In particular, forward-looking statements may include words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “potential,” “predict,” “project” or “should.”

These statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from expectations as of the date of this filing.

Factors that could cause reported results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the following:

• business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry where we or our customers operate, including price and demand volatility resulting from periodic imbalances of supply and demand;

• changes in farmers’ application rates for crop nutrients;

• changes in the operation of world phosphate or potash markets, including continuing consolidation in the crop nutrient industry, particularly if we do not participate in the consolidation;

37

• pressure on prices realized by us for our products;

• the expansion or contraction of production capacity or selling efforts by competitors or new entrants in the industries in which we operate;

• build-up of inventories in the distribution channels for our products that can adversely affect our sales volumes and selling prices;

• seasonality in our business that results in the need to carry significant amounts of inventory and seasonal peaks in working capital requirements, and may result in excess inventory or product shortages;

• changes in the costs, or constraints on supplies, of raw materials or energy used in manufacturing our products, or in the costs or availability of transportation for our products;

• rapid drops in the prices for our products and the raw materials we use to produce them that can require us to write down our inventories to the lower of cost or market;

• the effects on our customers of holding high cost inventories of crop nutrients in periods of rapidly declining market prices for crop nutrients;

• the lag in realizing the benefit of falling market prices for the raw materials we use to produce our products that can occur while we consume raw materials that we purchased or committed to purchase in the past at higher prices;

• customer expectations about future trends in the selling prices and availability of our products and in farmer economics;

• disruptions to existing transportation or terminaling facilities;

• shortages of railcars, barges and ships for carrying our products and raw materials;

• the effects of and change in trade, monetary, environmental, tax and fiscal policies, laws and regulations;

• foreign exchange rates and fluctuations in those rates;

• tax regulations, currency exchange controls and other restrictions that may affect our ability to optimize the use of our liquidity;

• other risks associated with our international operations;

• adverse weather conditions affecting our operations, including the impact of potential hurricanes or excess rainfall;

• further developments in judicial or administrative proceedings;

• difficulties or delays in receiving, challenges to, increased costs of obtaining or satisfying conditions of, or revocation or withdrawal of, required governmental and regulatory approvals including permitting activities;

• changes in the environmental and other governmental regulation that applies to our operations, including the possibility of further federal or state legislation or regulatory action affecting greenhouse gas emissions or of restrictions, liabilities related to elevated levels of naturally-occurring radiation that arise from disturbing the ground in the course of mining activities or possible efforts to reduce the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf of Mexico;

38

• the potential costs and effects of implementation of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s numeric water quality standards for the discharge of nitrogen and/or phosphorus into Florida lakes and streams;

• the financial resources of our competitors, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities in other countries;

• the possibility of defaults by our customers on trade credit that we extend to them or on indebtedness that they incur to purchase our products and that we guarantee;

• any significant reduction in customers’ liquidity or access to credit that they need to purchase our products;

• rates of return on, and the investment risks associated with, our cash balances;

• the effectiveness of our risk management strategy;

• the effectiveness of the processes we put in place to manage our significant strategic priorities, including the expansion of our Potash business;

• actual costs of various items differing from management’s current estimates, including, among others, asset retirement, environmental remediation, reclamation or other environmental obligations, or Canadian resource taxes and royalties;

• the costs and effects of legal proceedings and regulatory matters affecting us including environmental and administrative proceedings;

• the success of our efforts to attract and retain highly qualified and motivated employees;

• strikes, labor stoppages or slowdowns by our work force or increased costs resulting from unsuccessful labor contract negotiations;

• accidents involving our operations, including brine inflows at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan potash mine as well as potential inflows at our other shaft mines, and potential fires, explosions, seismic events or releases of hazardous or volatile chemicals;

• terrorism or other malicious intentional acts;

• other disruptions of operations at any of our key production and distribution facilities, particularly when they are operating at high operating rates;

• changes in antitrust and competition laws or their enforcement;

• actions by the holders of controlling equity interests in businesses in which we hold a noncontrolling interest;

• the adequacy of our property, business interruption and casualty insurance policies to cover potential hazards and risks incident to our business, and our willingness and ability to maintain current levels of insurance coverage as a result of market conditions, our loss experience and other factors;

• restrictions on our ability to execute certain actions and potential liabilities imposed on us by the agreements relating to the Cargill Transaction; and

• other risk factors reported from time to time in our Securities and Exchange Commission reports.

Material uncertainties and other factors known to us are discussed in Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” of our Form 10-K Report.

We base our forward-looking statements on information currently available to us, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements, whether as a result of changes in underlying factors, new information, future events or other developments.

39

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

We are exposed to the impact of fluctuations in the relative value of currencies, fluctuations in the purchase price of natural gas, ammonia and sulfur consumed in operations, and changes in freight costs as well as changes in the market value of our financial instruments. We periodically enter into derivatives in order to mitigate our foreign currency risks and the effects of changing commodity prices and freight prices, but not for speculative purposes. See Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 10-K Report and Note 13 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this report.

Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

As of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, the aggregate fair values of our Canadian, Brazilian, and Indian foreign currency exchange contracts were $13.1 million and $14.2 million, respectively. The table below provides information about our significant foreign exchange derivatives.

	As of February 29, 2012									As of May 31, 2011
	Expected Maturity Date									Expected Maturity Date
(in millions US$)	FY 2012			FY 2013			Fair Value			FY 2012		Fair Value
Foreign Currency Exchange Forwards
Canadian Dollar
Notional—short USD	$	365.9		$	533.9		$	17.3		$	523.6	$	14.6
Weighted Average Rate—Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar		1.0113			1.0114						1.0011
Foreign Currency Exchange Non-Deliverable Forwards
Brazilian Real
Notional (million US$)—long	$	111.9					$	(1.8	)	$	212.5	$	1.2
Weighted Average Rate—Brazilian real to U.S. dollar		1.7554									1.5918
Notional (million US$)—short	$	(59.6	)	$	(45.1	)				$	49.2
Weighted Average Rate—Brazilian real to U.S. dollar		1.7265			1.8052						1.7022
Indian Rupee
Notional (million US$)—long	$	27.0		$	104.8		$	(2.5	)	$	46.0	$	(1.1	)
Weighted Average Rate—Indian rupee to U.S. dollar		52.1079			51.7541						46.2261
Foreign Currency Exchange Futures Brazilian Real
Notional (million US$)—long	$	30.5					$	0.1		$	130.0	$	(0.5	)
Weighted Average Rate—Brazilian real to U.S. dollar		1.7389									1.6058
Notional (million US$)—short	$	(17.3	)							$	80.0
Weighted Average Rate—Brazilian real to U.S. dollar		1.7079									1.6113
Total Fair Value							$	13.1				$	14.2

Further information regarding foreign currency exchange rates and derivatives is included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our 10-K Report and Note 13 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this report.

40

Commodities

As of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, the fair value of our natural gas commodities contracts were ($30.2) million and ($4.9) million, respectively.

The table below provides information about our natural gas derivatives which are used to manage the risk related to significant price changes in natural gas.

	As of February 29, 2012									As of May 31, 2011
	Expected Maturity Date									Expected Maturity Date
(in millions)	FY 2012		FY 2013		FY 2014		Fair Value			FY 2012		FY 2013		FY 2014		Fair Value
Natural Gas Swaps
Notional (million MMBtu)—long		3.8		8.1		6.6	$	(30.2	)		9.3		6.6		6.6	$	(4.9	)
Weighted Average Rate (US$/MMBtu)	$	4.24	$	4.38	$	4.55				$	4.65	$	4.50	$	4.63
Total Fair Value							$	(30.2	)							$	(4.9	)

Further information regarding commodities and derivatives is included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our Form 10-K Report and Note 13 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this report.

41

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and (ii) accumulated and communicated to management, including our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures. Our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q. Our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer have concluded, based on such evaluations, that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective for the purpose for which they were designed as of the end of such period.

(b) Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, have evaluated any change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the three months ended February 29, 2012 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. Our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, did not identify any such change during the three months ended February 29, 2012.

42

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We have included information about legal and environmental proceedings in Note 12 to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. This information is incorporated herein by reference.

We are also subject to the following legal and environmental proceedings in addition to those described in Note 12 of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements:

• EPA Clean Air Act Initiative. In August 2008, we attended a meeting with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) at which we reiterated our responses to an August 2006 request from EPA under Section 114 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the “CAA”) for information and copies of records relating to compliance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for hydrogen fluoride at our Riverview, New Wales, Bartow, South Pierce and Green Bay facilities in Florida. We have settled this matter for $245,000, subject to court approval.

• Water Quality Regulations for Nutrient Discharges in Florida. On December 7, 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, against the EPA challenging a rule adopted by the EPA that set numeric water quality standards (the “NNC Rule”) for the discharge of nitrogen and/or phosphorus into Florida lakes and streams. Our lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division (the “Tallahassee District Court”), for consolidation with a number of lawsuits brought by other parties challenging the NNC Rule. The NNC Rule set criteria for such discharges that would require drastic reductions in the levels of nutrients allowed in Florida lakes and streams, and would require us and others to significantly limit discharges of these nutrients in Florida beginning in March 2012. Our lawsuit asserted, among other matters, that the criteria set by EPA did not comport with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Administrative Procedure Act, and sought a declaration that the NNC Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law, and vacating the NNC Rule and remanding it for further rulemaking proceedings consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its implementing regulations.

In February 2012, the Tallahassee District Court invalidated the NNC Rule in part and upheld it in part, and remanded the invalid parts of the rule to the EPA for reconsideration and reproposal. In March 2012, the Tallahassee District Court ordered that the effective date of the parts of the NNC Rule that the court had upheld be postponed until July 2012. At the present time, we do not intend to appeal the Tallahassee District Court’s February 2012 ruling and do not know whether any of the other parties will appeal.

The NNC Rule includes regulatory relief mechanisms, as well as a provision for site-specific alternative criteria which, if approved by the EPA, allow for deviations from the water quality standard that is otherwise applicable under the NNC Rule. We intend to explore the use of site-specific alternative criteria, where appropriate; however, we cannot presently predict whether we will be able to obtain approval of site-specific alternative criteria or the extent to which such approved criteria would moderate the impacts of the NNC Rule on us.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the “FDEP”) has recently proposed state rules that, if adopted, could supplant many of the requirements of the NNC Rule and mitigate some of the potential adverse effects of the NNC Rule. The FDEP rule proposal has been challenged in a state administrative proceeding by certain nongovernmental organizations, and we cannot predict when or whether it will be upheld; if it is upheld whether it will be approved in whole or in part by the EPA, its final terms or when or the extent to which it will affect us.

Subject to further developments in the FDEP rulemaking, the EPA’s reconsideration of the remanded portion of its rule and the FDEP rule (if the FDEP rule is upheld by the state administrative proceeding) and further litigation developments, we expect that compliance with the requirements of the NNC Rule could adversely affect our Florida Phosphate operations, require significant capital expenditures and substantially increase our annual operating expenses.

43

ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Pursuant to our employee stock plans relating to the grant of employee stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock unit awards, and other equity-based awards, we have granted and may in the future grant employee stock options to purchase shares of our common stock for which the purchase price may be paid by means of delivery to us by the optionee of shares of our common stock that are already owned by the optionee (at a value equal to market value on the date of the option exercise). During the periods covered by this report, no options to purchase shares of our common stock were exercised for which the purchase price was so paid.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Item 104 of Regulation S-K is included in Exhibit 95 to this report.

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS

Reference is made to the Exhibit Index on page E-1 hereof.

44

Signatures

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

THE MOSAIC COMPANY
by:	/s/    ANTHONY T. BRAUSEN
	Anthony T. Brausen
	Senior Vice President – Finance and Chief
	Accounting Officer (on behalf of the registrant and as principal accounting officer)

March 29, 2012

45

Exhibit Index

Exhibit No	Description	Incorporated Herein by Reference to	Filed with Electronic Submission
31.1	Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a).			X
31.2	Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a).			X
32.1	Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.			X
32.2	Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.			X
95	Mine Safety Disclosures			X
101	Interactive Data Files			X

E-1

EX-31.1

Exhibit 31.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a)

I, James T. Prokopanko, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Mosaic Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 29, 2012

/s/    James T. Prokopanko

James T. Prokopanko

Chief Executive Officer and President

The Mosaic Company

EX-31.2

Exhibit 31.2

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a)

I, Lawrence W. Stranghoener, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Mosaic Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 29, 2012

/s/     Lawrence W. Stranghoener

Lawrence W. Stranghoener

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The Mosaic Company

EX-32.1

Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)

and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, James T. Prokopanko, the Chief Executive Officer and President of The Mosaic Company, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2012 of The Mosaic Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Mosaic Company.

March 29, 2012

/s/     James T. Prokopanko

James T. Prokopanko

Chief Executive Officer and President

The Mosaic Company

EX-32.2

Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)

and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, Lawrence W. Stranghoener, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Mosaic Company, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2012 of The Mosaic Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Mosaic Company.

March 29, 2012

/s/    Lawrence W. Stranghoener

Lawrence W. Stranghoener

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The Mosaic Company

EX-95

Exhibit 95

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

The following table shows, for each of our U.S. mines that is subject to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“MSHA”), the information required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Item 104 of Regulation S-K. Section references are to sections of MSHA.

	Potash Mine		Florida Phosphate Rock Mines
Three Months Ended February 29, 2012	Carlsbad, New Mexico		Four Corners		Hookers Prairie		Hopewell		South Fort Meade		Wingate
Section 104 citations for violations of mandatory health or safety standards that could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a mine safety or health hazard (#)		4		2		—		—		6		1
Section 104(b) orders (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Section 104(d) citations and orders (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Section 110(b)(2) violations (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Section 107(a) orders (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Proposed assessments under MSHA ($) whole dollars		—	$	8,377		—		—	$	7,488		—
Mining-related fatalities (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Section 104(e) notice		No		No		No		No		No		No
Notice of the potential for a pattern of violations under Section 104(e)		No		No		No		No		No		No
Legal actions before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“FMSHRC”) initiated (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Legal actions before the FMSHRC resolved (#)		1		2		—		—		—		—
Legal actions pending before the FMSHRC, end of period:
Contests of citations and orders referenced in Subpart B of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)		—		—		—		—		—		1
Contests of proposed penalties referenced in Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)		2		3		1		—		2		1
Complaints for compensation referenced in Subpart D of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Complaints of discharge, discrimination or interference referenced in Subpart E of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Applications for temporary relief referenced in Subpart F of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Appeals of judges’ decisions or orders referenced in Subpart H of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Total pending legal actions (#)		2		3		1		—		2		2

XML

Income Taxes (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011
Unrecognized Tax Benefits [Abstract]
Change in unrecognized tax benefit	$ 178.0
Unrecognized Tax Benefits	441.5
Unrecognized Tax Benefits, Increases Resulting from Prior Period Tax Positions	71.9
Unrecognized Tax Benefits that Would Impact Effective Tax Rate	267.9
Interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits - Accrued	$ 50.2	$ 50.9

XML

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Details 4) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012
Derivative Credit Risk Related Contingent Features [Abstract]
Derivative Credit Risk Related Contingent Features Existence And Nature	Certain of our derivative instruments contain provisions that may require us to post collateral. These provisions also state that if our debt were to be rated below investment grade, certain counterparties to the derivative instruments could request full collateralization on derivative instruments in net liability positions.
The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position	$ 37.9
Required collateral assets to be posted if the credit-risk contingent features of these underlying agreements were triggered.	$ 31.7

XML

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Details 2) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011
Foreign currency [Member] | Cost of goods sold [Member]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Income Net [Abstract]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Net Earnings	$ 14.4	$ 7.5	$ 1.1	$ 11.9
Foreign currency [Member] | Foreign currency transaction gain (loss) [Member]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Income Net [Abstract]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Net Earnings	8.6	7.1	(3.8)	11.3
Commodity [Member] | Cost of goods sold [Member]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Income Net [Abstract]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Net Earnings	(16.5)	(1.0)	(27.3)	1.6
Freight Contracts [Member] | Cost of goods sold [Member]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Income Net [Abstract]
Derivative Instruments Gain Loss Recognized In Net Earnings	$ 2.2	$ 3.4	$ (2.7)	$ (1.2)

XML

Related Party Transactions (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Related Party Transactions [Abstract]

Schedule of related party transactions

TheCondensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings included the following transactions with our non-consolidated companies:

			Three months ended				Nine months ended
			February 29,		February 28,		February 29,		February 28,
			2012		2011		2012		2011
Transactions with non-consolidated companies
	included in net sales	$	210.0	$	275.6	$	962.2	$	664.4
Transactions with non-consolidated companies
	included in cost of goods sold		112.3		118.8		384.6		366.5

XML

Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Significant Accounting Policies Disclosure [Abstract]

Basis of Consolidation

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 (“U.S. 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 fair presentation of our financial position as of February 29, 2012, and our results of operations and cash flows for the nine months endedFebruary 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011. The following notes should be read in conjunction with the accounting policies and other disclosures in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated by reference in our10-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 and its majority owned subsidiaries, as well as the accounts of certain variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which we are 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

Accounting Estimates

Preparation of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with U.S. 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 more significant estimates made by management relate to the recoverability of non-current assets, the useful lives of long-lived assets, environmental and reclamation liabilities, 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, Canadian resource tax and royalties, inventory valuation and accruals for pending legal matters. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

Interest and Penalties on Taxes

We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as a component of our income tax provision.

Goodwill

We review goodwill for impairment annually or at any time events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be fully recoverable. Under our accounting policy, an annual review is performed in the second quarter of each year, or more frequently if indicators of potential impairment exist.

Fair Value

We determine the fair market values of our derivative contracts and certain other assets and liabilities based on the fair value hierarchy, described below, which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. There are three levels within the fair value hierarchy that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1: Values based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2: Values based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, or model-based valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market.

Level 3: Values generated from model-based techniques that use significant assumptions not observable in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect our own estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of option pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar techniques.

Business Segments

The reportable segments are determined by management based upon factors such as products and services, production processes, technologies, market dynamics, and for which segment financial information is available for our chief operating decision maker.

We evaluate performance based on the operating earnings of the respective business segments, which includes certain allocations of corporate selling, general and administrative expenses.

All intersegment transactions are eliminated within Corporate, Eliminations and Other.

XML

Fair Value Measurements (Details 2) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011	Feb. 28, 2011	May 31, 2010
Fair Value Measurements [Abstract]
Cash and cash equivalents, carrying value	$ 3,201.9	$ 3,906.4	$ 3,352.1	$ 2,523.0
Cash and cash equivalents, fair value	3,201.9	3,906.4
Accounts receivable, carrying amount	656.3	926.0
Accounts receivable, fair value	656.3	926.0
Accounts payable trade, carrying amount	800.5	941.1
Accounts payable trade, fair value	800.5	941.1
Short-term debt, carrying amount	81.6	23.6
Short-term debt, fair value	81.6	23.6
Long-term debt including current portion, carrying amount	1,011.7	809.3
Long-term debt including current portion, fair value	$ 1,099.5	$ 881.5

XML

Financing Arrangements (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011
Debt Instrument [Line Items]
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt	$ 748.2	$ 17.6
Payments Of Debt Extinguishment Costs Including Interest And Principal	505.0
Extinguishment Of Debt [Line Items]
Redemption date of senior notes due December 2016	Dec. 01, 2011
Amount to be redeemed	469.3
Early redemption charge	20.0
Total Senior Notes due 2021 and 2041 [Member]
Debt Instrument [Line Items]
Debt Instrument, Face Amount	750.0
Debt Instrument, Offering Date	2011-10-24
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt	736.0
Notes Payable Due 2021 [Member]
Debt Instrument [Line Items]
Debt Instrument, Face Amount	450.0
Stated interest rate on senior notes	3.75%
Notes Payable Due 2041 [Member]
Debt Instrument [Line Items]
Debt Instrument, Face Amount	$ 300.0
Stated interest rate on senior notes	4.875%
Senior Notes due 2016 [Member]
Debt Instrument [Line Items]
Stated interest rate on senior notes	7.625%

XML

Changes in Common Stock (Details) (USD $) In Millions, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended		1 Months Ended
	Nov. 17, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	Sep. 29, 2011 Conversion Class A To Common [Member]	Oct. 06, 2011 Conversion Class B To Class A [Member]
Class of Stock Disclosures [Abstract]
Stock Repurchased During Period, Shares	21,300,000
Common Stock, Redemption Price Per Share	$ 54.58
Common Stock, Redemption Date	Nov. 16, 2011
Repurchase of Class A common stock		$ 1,162.5	$ 0
Shares Designated To Be Sold		157,000,000
Shares Received By Exchanging Cargill Stockholders		128,800,000
Stockholders' Equity Note [Abstract]
Former percentage ownership by Cargill and certain of its subsidiaries		64.00%
Conversion of Stock [Line Items]
Conversion of Stock, Type of Stock Converted				Class A Common Stock, Series A-4	Class B Common Stock
Conversion of Stock, Shares Converted				20,700,000	112,991,398

XML

Business Segments (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011
Segment Reporting Information [Line Items]
Net sales to external customers	$ 2,189.5	$ 2,214.3	$ 8,287.3	$ 7,077.4
Intersegment net sales	0	0	0	0
Net sales	2,189.5	2,214.3	8,287.3	7,077.4
Gross margin	521.8	853.6	2,251.2	2,126.6
Operating earnings (loss)	413.7	770.8	1,940.3	1,839.3
Capital expenditures	411.8	311.6	1,190.3	897.3
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	127.9	114.1	368.4	324.5
Phosphates Segment [Member]
Segment Reporting Information [Line Items]
Net sales to external customers	1,651.7	1,458.0	6,050.4	5,013.0
Intersegment net sales	0	0	0	0
Net sales	1,651.7	1,458.0	6,050.4	5,013.0
Gross margin	259.4	454.2	1,144.7	1,175.4
Operating earnings (loss)	190.2	371.8	955.0	952.1
Capital expenditures	100.4	76.7	279.8	198.4
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	66.8	62.6	195.5	182.2
Potash Segment [Member]
Segment Reporting Information [Line Items]
Net sales to external customers	536.5	753.4	2,233.2	2,052.9
Intersegment net sales	16.7	4.3	31.5	25.7
Net sales	553.2	757.7	2,264.7	2,078.6
Gross margin	269.8	411.6	1,107.8	953.5
Operating earnings (loss)	233.9	413.9	993.7	883.3
Capital expenditures	293.7	212.8	868.1	670.9
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	58.3	49.1	165.0	133.8
Corporate Eliminations And Other Segment [Member]
Segment Reporting Information [Line Items]
Net sales to external customers	1.3	2.9	3.7	11.5
Intersegment net sales	(16.7)	(4.3)	(31.5)	(25.7)
Net sales	(15.4)	(1.4)	(27.8)	(14.2)
Gross margin	(7.4)	(12.2)	(1.3)	(2.3)
Operating earnings (loss)	(10.4)	(14.9)	(8.4)	3.9
Capital expenditures	17.7	22.1	42.4	28.0
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	$ 2.8	$ 2.4	$ 7.9	$ 8.5

XML

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Details 3) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Assets [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative assets	$ 28.5	$ 24.1
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Liabilities [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative liabilities	(43.6)	(11.8)
Foreign currency [Member] | Other Current Assets [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Assets [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative assets	21.3	19.1
Foreign currency [Member] | Accrued liabilities [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Liabilities [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative liabilities	(8.5)	(4.3)
Commodity [Member] | Other Current Assets [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Assets [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative assets	5.2	0.9
Commodity [Member] | Other assets [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Assets [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative assets	0	0.6
Commodity [Member] | Accrued liabilities [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Liabilities [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative liabilities	(22.8)	(5.1)
Commodity [Member] | Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Liabilities [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative liabilities	(10.1)	(1.5)
Freight Contracts [Member] | Other Current Assets [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Assets [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative assets	2.0	3.5
Freight Contracts [Member] | Accrued liabilities [Member]
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Liabilities [Abstract]
Total fair value of derivative liabilities	$ (2.2)	$ (0.9)

XML

Organization and Nature of Business

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Organization And Nature Of Business [Abstract]

Organization and Nature of Business

1. Organization and Nature of Business

The Mosaic Company (before or after the Cargill Transaction, as defined below, “Mosaic”, and, with its consolidated subsidiaries,“we”, “us”, “our”, or the “Company”) is the parent company of the business that was formed through the business combination of IMC Global Inc. and the Cargill Crop Nutrition fertilizer businesses of Cargill, Incorporated and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Cargill”) on October 22, 2004. On May 25, 2011, we consummated the first in a series of transactions (collectively, the Cargill Transaction”) intended to result in the split-off and orderly distribution of Cargill's then approximately 64% ownership in us through a series of public offerings. Further information regarding this transaction is included in Note ##D<10KFNCargill> to our Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011(the “10-K Report”) and Note 5 of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

We produce and market 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:

Our Phosphates business segment owns and operates mines and production facilities in Florida which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients, and processing plants in Louisiana which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients. In fiscal 2011, the Phosphates segment acquired a 35% economic interest in a joint venture that owns a phosphate rock mine (the “Miski Mayo Mine”) in Peru. Our Phosphates segment's resultsalso include our North American phosphate distribution activities and all of our international distribution activities as well as the results of Phosphate Chemicals Export Association, Inc. (“PhosChem”), a U.S. Webb-Pomerene Act association of phosphate producers that exports concentrated phosphate crop nutrient products around the world for us and PhosChem's other member. Our share of PhosChem's sales of dry phosphate crop nutrient products was approximately 81% for the nine months ended February 29, 2012.

Our Potash business segment owns and operates potash mines and production facilities in Canada and the U.S. which produce potash-based crop nutrients, animal feed ingredients and industrial products. Potash sales include domestic and international sales. We are a member of Canpotex, Limited (“Canpotex”), an export association of Canadian potash producers through which we sell our Canadian potash outside the U.S. and Canada.

Intersegment sales are eliminated within Corporate, Eliminations and Other. See Note 16 to ourCondensed Consolidated Financial Statements for segment results.

XML

Variable Interest Entities (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	May 31, 2011
The carrying amounts and classification of assets and liabilities included in our Consolidated Balance Sheets for these consolidated entities are as follows:
Current Assets	$ 5,930.4		$ 5,930.4		$ 6,684.9
Current Liabilities	1,614.8		1,614.8		1,928.5
Net sales to external customers of VIEs	2,189.5	2,214.3	8,287.3	7,077.4
Variable Interest Entity Primary Beneficiary [Member]
The carrying amounts and classification of assets and liabilities included in our Consolidated Balance Sheets for these consolidated entities are as follows:
Current Assets	107.7		107.7		230.0
Non Current Assets	49.5		49.5		50.7
Total Assets	157.2		157.2		280.7
Current Liabilities	41.0		41.0		63.0
Total Liabilities	41.0		41.0		63.0
Variable Interest Entity Phos Chem [Member]
The carrying amounts and classification of assets and liabilities included in our Consolidated Balance Sheets for these consolidated entities are as follows:
Net sales to external customers of VIEs	$ 528.1	$ 454.5	$ 1,800.0	$ 1,600.0

XML

Goodwill (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Goodwill [Abstract]

Schedule of Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by reporting unit, for thenine months endedFebruary 29, 2012 are as follows:

	Phosphates		Potash		Total
Balance as of May 31, 2011	$	534.7	$	1,295.1	$	1,829.8
Foreign currency translation		-		44.4		44.4
Balance as of February 29, 2012	$	534.7	$	1,339.5	$	1,874.2

XML

Inventories (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Inventories [Abstract]

Schedule of inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

		February 29,		May 31,
		2012		2011
Raw materials	$	64.8	$	58.6
Work in process		306.3		284.3
Finished goods		882.3		852.9
Operating materials and supplies		73.9		70.6
	$	1,327.3	$	1,266.4

XML

Contingencies (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified			9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012 Hardee County Settlement Agreement [Member]
Applicability Impact And Conclusion Of Environmental Loss Contingencies [Abstract]
Accrual For Environmental Loss Contingencies	$ 30.8	$ 41.7
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Gain (Loss) Related to Litigation Settlement			$ 13.0

XML

Variable Interest Entities (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Variable Interest Entities [Abstract]

Schedule of variable interest entities

The carrying amounts and classification of assets and liabilities included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these consolidated entities are as follows:

		February 29,		May 31,
		2012		2011
Current assets	$	107.7	$	230.0
Non current assets		49.5		50.7
Total assets	$	157.2	$	280.7
Current liabilities	$	41.0	$	63.0
Total liabilities	$	41.0	$	63.0

XML

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Accounting For Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities [Abstract]

Schedule Of Derivative Instruments Notional Amounts

As of February 29, 2012, the following is the total absolute notional volume associated with our outstanding derivative instruments:

(in millions of Units)			February 29,
Derivative Instrument	Derivative Category	Unit of Measure	2012
Foreign currency derivatives	Foreign currency	US Dollars	1,311.9
Natural gas derivatives	Commodity	MMbtu	18.4
Ocean freight contracts	Freight	Tonnes	2.2

Schedule of unrealized gains (losses) on derivative instruments related to foreign currency exchange contracts, commodities contracts and freight and their location in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings

Below is a table that shows the unrealized gains and (losses) on derivative instruments related to foreign currency exchange contracts, commodities contracts, and freight:

		Three months ended					Nine months ended
			February 29,		February 28,		February 29,		February 28,
Derivative Instrument	Location		2012		2011		2012		2011
Foreign currency derivatives	Cost of goods sold	$	14.4	$	7.5	$	1.1	$	11.9
Foreign currency derivatives	Foreign currency transaction gain (loss)		8.6		7.1		(3.8)		11.3
Commodity derivatives	Cost of goods sold		(16.5)		(1.0)		(27.3)		1.6
Freight derivatives	Cost of goods sold		2.2		3.4		(2.7)		(1.2)

Schedule of gross fair market value of all derivative instruments and their location in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings

The gross fair market value of all derivative instruments and their location in ourCondensed Consolidated Balance Sheets are shown by those in an asset or liability position and are further categorized by foreign currency, commodity, and freight derivatives.

		Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
				February 29,			February 29,
Derivative Instrument		Location		2012	Location		2012
Foreign currency derivatives		Other current assets	$	21.3	Accrued liabilities	$	(8.5)
Commodity derivatives		Other current assets		5.2	Accrued liabilities		(22.8)
Commodity derivatives		Other assets		-	Other noncurrent liabilities		(10.1)
Freight derivatives		Other current assets		2.0	Accrued liabilities		(2.2)
	Total		$	28.5		$	(43.6)
		Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
				May 31,			May 31,
Derivative Instrument		Location		2011	Location		2011
Foreign currency derivatives		Other current assets	$	19.1	Accrued liabilities	$	(4.3)
Commodity derivatives		Other current assets		0.9	Accrued liabilities		(5.1)
Commodity derivatives		Other assets		0.6	Other noncurrent liabilities		(1.5)
Freight derivatives		Other current assets		3.5	Accrued liabilities		(0.9)
	Total		$	24.1		$	(11.8)

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Shareholders Equity (Unaudited) (Parentheticals) (USD $) In Millions, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011
Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Equity Parenthetical [Abstract]
Foreign currency translation adjustment, tax	$ 0	$ 2.9
Net actuarial (loss) gain tax	$ 0	$ 21.7
Dividends per share	$ 0.15	$ 0.20

XML

Fair Value Measurements (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Fair Value Measurements [Abstract]

Schedule of assets and liabilities included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets that are recognized at fair value on a recurring basis, and indicates the fair value heirarchy utilized to determine such fair value

The following table presents assets and liabilities included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets that are recognized at fair value on a recurring basis, and indicates the fair value hierarchy utilized to determine such fair value.

			February 29, 2012
			Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Assets
Foreign currency derivatives		$	21.3	$	1.3	$	20.0	$	-
Commodity derivatives			5.2		0.1		5.1		-
Freight derivatives			2.0		-		-		2.0
	Total assets at fair value	$	28.5	$	1.4	$	25.1	$	2.0
Liabilities
Foreign currency derivatives		$	8.5	$	3.2	$	5.3	$	-
Commodity derivatives			32.9		-		32.9		-
Freight derivatives			2.2		-		-		2.2
	Total liabilities at fair value	$	43.6	$	3.2	$	38.2	$	2.2

Schedule of carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our financial instruments

The carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our financial instruments are as follows:

		February 29, 2012				May 31, 2011
		Carrying		Fair		Carrying		Fair
		Amount		Value		Amount		Value
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3,201.9	$	3,201.9	$	3,906.4	$	3,906.4
Receivables, net		656.3		656.3		926.0		926.0
Short-term debt		81.6		81.6		23.6		23.6
Accounts payable		800.5		800.5		941.1		941.1
Long-term debt, including current maturities		1,011.7		1,099.5		809.3		881.5

XML

Inventories (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011
Inventories [Abstract]
Raw materials	$ 64.8	$ 58.6
Work in process	306.3	284.3
Finished goods	882.3	852.9
Operating materials and supplies	73.9	70.6
Total Inventory	$ 1,327.3	$ 1,266.4

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Earnings (Unaudited)
Net sales	$ 2,189.5	$ 2,214.3	$ 8,287.3	$ 7,077.4
Cost of goods sold	1,667.7	1,360.7	6,036.1	4,950.8
Gross margin	521.8	853.6	2,251.2	2,126.6
Selling, general and administrative expenses	91.3	83.6	293.0	261.0
Other operating expenses (income)	16.8	(0.8)	17.9	26.3
Operating earnings	413.7	770.8	1,940.3	1,839.3
Interest income (expense), net	4.1	(0.2)	13.3	(12.8)
Foreign currency transaction gain (loss)	(44.0)	(31.7)	5.4	(60.6)
Gain on sale of equity investment	0	0	0	685.6
Other income (expense)	(19.1)	(16.1)	(19.2)	(17.0)
Earnings from consolidated companies before income taxes	354.7	722.8	1,939.8	2,434.5
Provision for income taxes	87.0	175.9	522.8	566.8
Earnings from consolidated companies	267.7	546.9	1,417.0	1,867.7
Equity in net earnings (loss) of nonconsolidated companies	4.2	(4.3)	6.9	0.6
Net earnings including noncontrolling interests	271.9	542.6	1,423.9	1,868.3
Less: Net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontolling interests	(1.4)	0.5	1.0	2.9
Net earnings attributable to Mosaic	$ 273.3	$ 542.1	$ 1,422.9	$ 1,865.4
Basic net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic	$ 0.64	$ 1.21	$ 3.24	$ 4.18
Diluted net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic	$ 0.64	$ 1.21	$ 3.24	$ 4.17
Basic weighted average number of shares outstanding	425.4	446.3	438.5	445.8
Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding	426.7	447.7	439.8	447.3

XML

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012
Foreign currency [Member]
Derivative Instrument
Foreign currency derivatives	$ 1,311.9
Commodity [Member]
Derivative Instrument
Natural gas derivatives (MMbtu)	18,400,000
Freight Contracts [Member]
Derivative Instrument
Ocean freight contracts (Tonnes)	2,200,000

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited) (Parentheticals) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011
Statements Of Cash Flows Unaudited Parentheticals [Abstract]
Capitalized Interest	$ 46.2	$ 27.6

XML

Organization and Nature of Business (Details)	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012
Organization And Nature Of Business [Abstract]
Our percentage share of PhosChem's dry crop nutrient products	81.00%
Former percentage ownership by Cargill and certain of its subsidiaries	64.00%
Economic interest percentage in Miski Mayo mine joint venture in the Bayovar region of Peru	35.00%

XML

Fair Value Measurements

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Fair Value Measurements [Abstract]

Fair Value Measurements

14. Fair Value Measurements

We determine the fair market values of our derivative contracts and certain other assets and liabilities based on the fair value hierarchy, described below, which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. There are three levels within the fair value hierarchy that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1: Values based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2: Values based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, or model-based valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market.

Level 3: Values generated from model-based techniques that use significant assumptions not observable in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect our own estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of option pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar techniques.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The following table presents assets and liabilities included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets that are recognized at fair value on a recurring basis, and indicates the fair value hierarchy utilized to determine such fair value.

			February 29, 2012
			Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Assets
Foreign currency derivatives		$	21.3	$	1.3	$	20.0	$	-
Commodity derivatives			5.2		0.1		5.1		-
Freight derivatives			2.0		-		-		2.0
	Total assets at fair value	$	28.5	$	1.4	$	25.1	$	2.0
Liabilities
Foreign currency derivatives		$	8.5	$	3.2	$	5.3	$	-
Commodity derivatives			32.9		-		32.9		-
Freight derivatives			2.2		-		-		2.2
	Total liabilities at fair value	$	43.6	$	3.2	$	38.2	$	2.2

We did not significantly change our valuation techniques from prior periods.

Financial Instruments

The carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our financial instruments are as follows:

		February 29, 2012				May 31, 2011
		Carrying		Fair		Carrying		Fair
		Amount		Value		Amount		Value
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3,201.9	$	3,201.9	$	3,906.4	$	3,906.4
Receivables, net		656.3		656.3		926.0		926.0
Short-term debt		81.6		81.6		23.6		23.6
Accounts payable		800.5		800.5		941.1		941.1
Long-term debt, including current maturities		1,011.7		1,099.5		809.3		881.5

For cash and cash equivalents, receivables, net, accounts payable and short-term debt, the carrying amount approximates fair value because of the short-term maturity of those instruments. The fair value of long-term debt is estimated using a present value method based on current interest rates for similar instruments with equivalent credit quality, as well as market prices for our publicly traded debt instruments.

XML

Other Financial Statement Data (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011
Accrued liabilities
Non-income taxes	$ 52.7	$ 132.6
Payroll and employee benefits	116.8	116.3
Asset retirement obligations	79.5	90.6
Customer prepayments	78.1	243.2
Accrued income taxes	77.0	0
Other	253.8	260.9
Total accrued liabilities, current	657.9	843.6
Other noncurrent liabilities
Asset retirement obligations	483.2	482.5
Accrued pension and postretirement benefits	98.9	117.1
Other	287.7	255.5
Total other noncurrent liabilities	$ 869.8	$ 855.1

XML

Business Segments

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Business Segments [Abstract]

Business Segments

16. Business Segments

The reportable segments are determined by management based upon factors such as products and services, production processes, technologies, market dynamics, and for which segment financial information is available for our chief operating decision maker. For a description of our business segments see Note 1 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. We evaluate performance based on the operating earnings of the respective business segments, which includes certain allocations of corporate selling, general and administrative expenses. The segment results may not represent the actual results that would be expected if they were independent, stand-alone businesses. Corporate, Eliminations and Other primarily represents activities associated with our nitrogen distribution business, unallocated corporate office activities and eliminations. All intersegment transactions are eliminated within Corporate, Eliminations and Other. Segment information was as follows:

			Phosphates		Potash		Corporate, Eliminations and Other		Total
Three months ended February 29, 2012
Net sales to external customers		$	1,651.7	$	536.5	$	1.3	$	2,189.5
Intersegment net sales			-		16.7		(16.7)		-
Net sales			1,651.7		553.2		(15.4)		2,189.5
Gross margin			259.4		269.8		(7.4)		521.8
Operating earnings			190.2		233.9		(10.4)		413.7
Capital expenditures			100.4		293.7		17.7		411.8
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		66.8		58.3		2.8		127.9
Three months ended February 28, 2011
Net sales to external customers		$	1,458.0	$	753.4	$	2.9	$	2,214.3
Intersegment net sales			-		4.3		(4.3)		-
Net sales			1,458.0		757.7		(1.4)		2,214.3
Gross margin			454.2		411.6		(12.2)		853.6
Operating earnings			371.8		413.9		(14.9)		770.8
Capital expenditures			76.7		212.8		22.1		311.6
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		62.6		49.1		2.4		114.1
Nine months ended February 29, 2012
Net sales to external customers		$	6,050.4	$	2,233.2	$	3.7	$	8,287.3
Intersegment net sales			-		31.5		(31.5)		-
Net sales			6,050.4		2,264.7		(27.8)		8,287.3
Gross margin			1,144.7		1,107.8		(1.3)		2,251.2
Operating earnings			955.0		993.7		(8.4)		1,940.3
Capital expenditures			279.8		868.1		42.4		1,190.3
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		195.5		165.0		7.9		368.4
Nine months ended February 28, 2011
Net sales to external customers		$	5,013.0	$	2,052.9	$	11.5	$	7,077.4
Intersegment net sales			-		25.7		(25.7)		-
Net sales			5,013.0		2,078.6		(14.2)		7,077.4
Gross margin			1,175.4		953.5		(2.3)		2,126.6
Operating earnings			952.1		883.3		3.9		1,839.3
Capital expenditures			198.4		670.9		28.0		897.3
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		182.2		133.8		8.5		324.5

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Shareholders Equity (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, except Share data	Total	Common Stock [Member]	Capital in Excess of Par Value [Member]	Retained Earnings [Member]	Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) [Member]	Noncontrolling Interests [Member]
Beginning balance at May. 31, 2010	$ 8,748.4	$ 4.5	$ 2,523.0	$ 5,905.3	$ 289.4	$ 26.2
Common stock shares outstanding, beginning balance at May. 31, 2010		445,400,000
Net earnings including noncontrolling interests	2,513.5			2,514.6		(1.1)
Foreign currency translation adjustment, net of tax	387.4				384.8	2.6
Net actuarial (loss) gain and prior service cost, net of tax	36.0				36.0
Comprehensive income	2,936.9					1.5
Stock option exercises	20.3		20.3
Stock option exercises, shares		1,200,000
Amortization of share based compensation	21.1		21.1
Contributions from Cargill, Inc.	18.5		18.5
Dividends	(89.3)			(89.3)
Dividends for noncontrolling interests	(4.8)					(4.8)
Acquisition of noncontrolling interest	(2.6)					(2.6)
Tax benefits (shortfall) related to share based compensation	13.4		13.4
Ending balance at May. 31, 2011	11,661.9	4.5	2,596.3	8,330.6	710.2	20.3
Common stock shares outstanding, ending balance at May. 31, 2011		446,600,000
Net earnings including noncontrolling interests	1,423.9			1,422.9		1.0
Foreign currency translation adjustment, net of tax	(58.2)				(56.9)	(1.3)
Net actuarial (loss) gain and prior service cost, net of tax	8.2				8.2
Comprehensive income	1,373.9					(0.3)
Stock option exercises	2.5		2.5
Stock option exercises, shares		100,000
Amortization of share based compensation	20.1		20.1
Repurchase of Class A common stock	(1,162.5)	(0.2)	(1,162.3)
Repurchase of Class A Common Stock, Shares		(21,300,000)
Realized gain on interest rate swap	2.7				2.7
Dividends	(66.1)			(66.1)
Dividends for noncontrolling interests	(0.6)					(0.6)
Tax benefits (shortfall) related to share based compensation	(1.6)		(1.6)
Ending balance at Feb. 29, 2012	$ 11,830.3	$ 4.3	$ 1,455.0	$ 9,687.4	$ 664.2	$ 19.4
Common stock shares outstanding, ending balance at Feb. 29, 2012		425,400,000

XML

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 3,201.9	$ 3,906.4
Receivables, net	656.3	926.0
Inventories	1,327.3	1,266.4
Deferred income taxes	150.0	277.8
Other current assets	594.9	308.3
Total current assets	5,930.4	6,684.9
Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation	7,379.5	6,635.9
Investments in nonconsolidated companies	438.4	434.3
Goodwill	1,874.2	1,829.8
Deferred income taxes	94.2	6.5
Other assets	220.0	195.5
Total assets	15,936.7	15,786.9
Current liabilities:
Short-term debt	81.6	23.6
Current maturities of long-term debt	1.1	48.0
Accounts payable	800.5	941.1
Accrued liabilities	657.9	843.6
Deferred income taxes	73.7	72.2
Total current liabilities	1,614.8	1,928.5
Long-term debt, less current maturities	1,010.6	761.3
Deferred income taxes	611.2	580.1
Other noncurrent liabilities	869.8	855.1
Stockholders' equity:
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 15.0 million shares authorized, none issued and outstanding as of November 30, 2011 and May 31, 2011
Equity [Table]
Capital in excess of par value	1,455.0	2,596.3
Retained earnings	9,687.4	8,330.6
Accumulated other comprehensive income	664.2	710.2
Total Mosaic stockholders equity	11,810.9	11,641.6
Noncontrolling interests	19.4	20.3
Total equity	11,830.3	11,661.9
Total liabilities and equity	15,936.7	15,786.9
Class A common stock [Member]
Equity [Table]
Common stock, $0.01 par value	1.3	0.6
Class B common stock [Member]
Equity [Table]
Common stock, $0.01 par value	0	1.1
Common Stock [Member]
Equity [Table]
Common stock, $0.01 par value	$ 3.0	$ 2.8

XML

Goodwill

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Goodwill [Abstract]

Goodwill

9. Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by reporting unit, for thenine months endedFebruary 29, 2012 are as follows:

	Phosphates		Potash		Total
Balance as of May 31, 2011	$	534.7	$	1,295.1	$	1,829.8
Foreign currency translation		-		44.4		44.4
Balance as of February 29, 2012	$	534.7	$	1,339.5	$	1,874.2

We review goodwill for impairment annually or at any time events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be fully recoverable. Under our accounting policy, an annual review is performed in the second quarter of each year, or more frequently if indicators of potential impairment exist.We performed our annual review of goodwill in the second quarter and no impairment was identified.

XML

Document and Entity Information	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Mar. 26, 2012
Document And Entity Information [Abstract]
Entity registrant name	MOSAIC CO
Document type	10-Q
Entity central index key	0001285785
Amendment flag	false
Entity current reporting status	Yes
Entity voluntary filers	No
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2012
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q3
Document period end date	Feb. 29, 2012
Current fiscal year end date	--05-31
Entity filer category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity well known seasoned issuer	Yes
Entity common stock shares outstanding		425,461,482

XML

Financing Arrangements

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Debt Instruments [Abstract]

Financing Arrangements

10. Financing Arrangements

Refinance of Senior Notes

On October 24, 2011, we completed a $750million public offering consisting of $450 million aggregate principal amount of 3.750% Senior Notes due 2021 and $300 million aggregate principal amount of 4.875% Senior Notes due 2041 (collectively, the “New Senior Notes”).

We received net proceeds from this offering of approximately $736 million. We used $505 million of the net proceeds from this offering to redeem the remaining $469.3 million aggregate principal amount of the 7-5/8% Senior Notes due December 2016 (the “7-5/8% Senior Notes”) of our subsidiary, MOS Holdings Inc., on December 1, 2011, and to pay the call premium and accrued but unpaid interest to the redemption date, and will use the remainder for general corporate purposes. We recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $20 million in this third fiscal quarter, primarily related to the call premium for the 7-5/8% Senior Notes.

The New Senior Notes are Mosaic's senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with Mosaic's existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness. The indenture governing the New Senior Notes contains restrictive covenants limiting debt secured by liens, sale and leaseback transactions and mergers, consolidations and sales of substantially all assets as well as events of default.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (Parentheticals) (USD $) In Millions, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012	May 31, 2011
Statement Of Financial Position Parenthetical [Line Items]
Accumulated depreciation	$ 3,200.6	$ 2,975.8
Preferred stock, par value	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Preferred stock, authorized	15,000,000	15,000,000
Preferred stock, issued	0	0
Preferred stock, outstanding	0	0
Class A common stock [Member]
Statement Of Financial Position Parenthetical [Line Items]
Common stock, par value	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Common stock, authorized	275,000,000	275,000,000
Common stock, issued	170,759,772	57,768,374
Common stock, outstanding	128,759,772	57,768,374
Class B common stock [Member]
Statement Of Financial Position Parenthetical [Line Items]
Common stock, par value	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Common stock, authorized	87,008,602	200,000,000
Common stock, issued	0	112,991,398
Common stock, outstanding	0	112,991,398
Common Stock [Member]
Statement Of Financial Position Parenthetical [Line Items]
Common stock, par value	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Common stock, authorized	1,000,000,000	1,000,000,000
Common stock, issued	308,719,182	287,851,416
Common stock, outstanding	296,680,720	275,812,954

XML

Other Financial Statement Data

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Other Financial Statement Data [Abstract]

Other Financial Statement Data [Text Block]

4. Other Financial Statement Data

The following provides additional information concerning selected balance sheet accounts:

			February 29,		May 31,
(in millions)			2012		2011
Accrued liabilities
	Non-income taxes	$	52.7	$	132.6
	Payroll and employee benefits		116.8		116.3
	Asset retirement obligations		79.5		90.6
	Customer prepayments		78.1		243.2
	Accrued income taxes		77.0		-
	Other		253.8		260.9
		$	657.9	$	843.6
Other noncurrent liabilities
	Asset retirement obligations	$	483.2	$	482.5
	Accrued pension and postretirement benefits		98.9		117.1
	Other		287.7		255.5
		$	869.8	$	855.1

XML

Recently Issued Accounting Guidance

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Recently Issued Accounting Guidance [Abstract]

Recently Issued Accounting Guidance

3. Recently Issued Accounting Guidance

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements—a Consensus of the Emerging Issues Task Force,” that provides amendments to the criteria for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable arrangements. These amendments require companies to allocate revenue in arrangements involving multiple deliverables based on the estimated selling price of each deliverable, even though such deliverables are not sold separately either by the company itself or other vendors. This guidance eliminates the requirement that all undelivered elements must have objective and reliable evidence of fair value before a company can recognize the portion of the overall arrangement fee that is attributable to items that already have been delivered. This standard became effective for us on June 1, 2011, adoption of which did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements,” that requires entities to disclose separately significant transfers of assets and liabilities measured at fair value between Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy, transfers into and out of Level 3, and the reasons for those transfers. This ASU also amends the reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of Level 3 measurements to present information about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements on a gross basis. This standard became effective for Mosaic for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2010, except for the requirement to provide the Level 3 activity of purchases, sales, issuances and settlements on a gross basis, which became effective for us on June 1, 2011, adoption of which did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs” which is intended to create consistency between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The amendments include clarification on the application of certain existing fair value measurement guidance and expanded disclosures for fair value measurements that are estimated using significant unobservable (Level 3) inputs. This standard will be effective for our fiscal quarter beginning March 1, 2012. We are currently evaluating the requirements of this standard, but it is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income” which requires comprehensive income to be reported in either a single statement or in two consecutive statements reporting net income and other comprehensive income. The amendment does not change what items are reported in other comprehensive income. Additionally, in December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05” which indefinitely defers the requirement in ASU No. 2011-05 to present reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component in both the statement in which net income is presented and the statement in which other comprehensive income is presented. During the deferral period, the existing requirements in U.S. GAAP for the presentation of reclassification adjustments must continue to be followed. These standards will be effective for our fiscal quarter beginning June 1, 2012 with retrospective application required. As these standards impact presentation requirements only, the adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No.2011-08, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing for Goodwill Impairment” which permits an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in Topic 350. The amendments in this update are effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. We will adopt this guidance for our annual goodwill impairment test for fiscal 2013, which will be conducted in the second quarter. We do not expect this guidance to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities” which enhances current disclosures about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset on the statement of financial position or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset on the statement of financial position. Entities are required to provide both net and gross information for these assets and liabilities in order to facilitate comparability between financial statements prepared on the basis of U.S. GAAP and financial statements prepared on the basis of IFRS. This standard will be effective for our fiscal quarter beginning June 1, 2013 with retrospective application required. We are currently evaluating the requirements of this standard, but it is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

XML

Related Party Transactions

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Related Party Transactions [Abstract]

Related Party Transactions

15. Related Party Transactions

We enter into transactions and agreements with certain of our non-consolidated companies from time to time. As of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, the net amount due from our non-consolidated companies totaled $103.4million and $145.7 million, respectively. TheCondensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings included the following transactions with our non-consolidated companies:

			Three months ended				Nine months ended
			February 29,		February 28,		February 29,		February 28,
			2012		2011		2012		2011
Transactions with non-consolidated companies
	included in net sales	$	210.0	$	275.6	$	962.2	$	664.4
Transactions with non-consolidated companies
	included in cost of goods sold		112.3		118.8		384.6		366.5

XML

Variable Interest Entities

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Variable Interest Entities [Abstract]

Schedule of variable interest entities

11. Variable Interest Entities

Mosaic is the primary beneficiary of and consolidates two variable interest entities (“VIE's”) within our Phosphates segment: PhosChem and South Fort Meade Partnership, L.P. (“SFMP”). We determine whether we are the primary beneficiary of an entity subject to consolidation based on a qualitative assessment of the purpose and design of the VIE, the risks that the VIE were designed to create and pass along to other entities, the activities of the VIE that could be directed and which entity could direct them, and the expected relative impact of those activities on the economic performance of the VIE. We assess our VIE determination with respect to an entity on an ongoing basis. We have not identified any additional VIEs in which we hold a significant interest.

PhosChem is an export association of United States phosphate producers that markets our phosphate products internationally. We, along with the other member, are, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, contractually obligated to reimburse PhosChem for our respective pro rata share of any operating expenses or other liabilities. PhosChem had net sales of $528.1million and $1.8 billion for the three and nine months endedFebruary 29, 2012, respectively, and net sales of $454.5 million and $1.6 billion for the three and nine months endedFebruary 28, 2011, respectivelywhich are included in our consolidated net sales. PhosChem currently funds its operations through ongoing sales.

We determined that, because we are PhosChem's exclusive export agent for the marketing, solicitation of orders and freighting of dry phosphatic materials, we have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact PhosChem's economic performance. Because Mosaic accounts for the majority of sales volume marketed through PhosChem, we have the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits that could be significant to PhosChem.

SFMP owns the mineable acres at our South Fort Meade phosphate mine. We have a long-term mineral lease with SFMP which, in general, expires on the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2025, or (ii) the date that we have completed mining and reclamation obligations associated with the leased property. In addition to lease payments, we pay SFMP a royalty on each tonne mined and shipped from the areas that we lease. SFMP had no external salesfor the three and nine months endedFebruary 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011.

We determined that, because we control the day-to-day mining decisions and are responsible for obtaining mining permits, we have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact SFMP's economic performance. Because of our rental and royalty payments to the partnership, we have the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to SFMP.

No additional financial or other support has been provided to these VIE's beyond what was previously contractually required during any periods presented. The carrying amounts and classification of assets and liabilities included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these consolidated entities are as follows:

		February 29,		May 31,
		2012		2011
Current assets	$	107.7	$	230.0
Non current assets		49.5		50.7
Total assets	$	157.2	$	280.7
Current liabilities	$	41.0	$	63.0
Total liabilities	$	41.0	$	63.0

XML

Income Taxes

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Income Taxes [Abstract]

Income Taxes

7. Income Taxes

We record unrecognized tax benefits in accordance with applicable accounting standards. During the nine months endedFebruary 29, 2012, unrecognized tax benefits increased by $178.0million to $441.5 million. Of the increase, $71.9 million relates to prior year uncertain positions. If recognized, approximately $267.9 million of the unrecognizedtax benefits would affect our effective tax rate 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 $50.2million and $50.9million as of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, respectively, that were included in other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We operate in multiple tax jurisdictions, both within and outside the United States, and face audits from various tax authorities regarding transfer pricing, deductibility of certain expenses, and intercompany transactions, as well as other matters. With few exceptions, we are no longer subject to examination for tax years prior to 2001.

We are currently under audit by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for the fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and the Canadian Revenue Agency for the fiscal years 2001 to 2008.

Based on the information available as of February 29, 2012, we anticipate that the amount of uncertain tax positions will change in the next twelve months; however, the change cannot reasonably be estimated.

XML

Changes in Common Stock

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Stockholders' Equity Note [Abstract]

Changes in Common Stock

5. Changes in Common Stock

On September 29, 2011, 20,700,000shares of Class A Common Stock, Series A-4 were converted to Common Stock in connection with their sale in an underwritten public secondary offering by the Margaret A. Cargill Foundation established under the Acorn Trust dated January 30, 1995, as amended, and the Anne Ray Charitable Trust dated August 20, 1996, as amended (collectively, the "MAC Trusts"). The MAC Trusts acquired their shares in the May 25, 2011 transaction (the “Split-off”) in which Cargill split off its approximately 64% equity interest in us. In the quarter ended February 29, 2012, in accordance with our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, each such converted share of Class A Common Stock, Series A-4, was retired and cancelled and may not be reissued, and the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock was reduced by a corresponding amount.

On October 6, 2011, our stockholders approved the conversion of each share of Class B Common Stock, 112,991,398 shares in the aggregate, on a one-for-one basis into shares of the corresponding series of Class A Common Stock. In the quarter ended February 29, 2012, in accordance with our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, each such converted share of Class B Common Stock was retired and cancelled and may not be reissued, and the number of authorized shares of Class B Common Stock was reduced by a corresponding amount.

On November 17, 2011, we purchased an aggregate 21,300,000shares of our Class A Common Stock, Series A-4 from the MAC Trusts. The purchase price was $54.58 per share, the closing price for the Company's Common Stock on November 16, 2011, resulting in a total purchase price of approximately $1.2 billion. This repurchase completes the disposition of the 157,000,000 shares designated to be sold by Cargill and the MAC Trusts during the 15-month period following the Split-off.

All other shares (approximately 128.8 million shares in the aggregate) of our stock received by Cargill stockholders (the “Exchanging Cargill Stockholders”) in the Split-off and not sold in the underwritten public secondary offering that occurred on May 25, 2011 immediately following the Split-off are generally subject to transfer restrictions and are to be released in three equal annual installments beginning on the two and one-half year anniversary of the Split-off. We would, at the request of the MAC Trusts or at our own election, register certain of our shares for sale in a secondary offering that could occur each year after the second anniversary of the Split-off, with the first such offering occurring not earlier than twelve months after certain other primary offerings.

Following 180 days after the four-and-one-half year anniversary of the Split-off, the MAC Trusts will have two rights to request that we file a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, pursuant to which the MAC Trusts could sell any remaining shares they received in the Split-off.

Our agreements with Cargill and the Exchanging Cargill Stockholders also contain additional provisions relating to private and market sales under specified conditions.

XML

Earnings Per Share

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Earnings Per Share [Abstract]

Schedule of earnings per share

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

		Three months ended				Nine months ended
		February 29,		February 28,		February 29,		February 28,
		2012		2011		2012		2011
Net earnings attributed to Mosaic	$	273.3	$	542.1	$	1,422.9	$	1,865.4
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding		425.4		446.3		438.5		445.8
Common stock issuable upon vesting of restricted stock awards		0.5		0.4		0.4		0.4
Common stock equivalents		0.7		1.0		0.8		1.1
Common stock issuable upon vesting of performance units		0.1		-		0.1		-
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding		426.7		447.7		439.8		447.3
Net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic- basic	$	0.64	$	1.21	$	3.24	$	4.18
Net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic- diluted	$	0.64	$	1.21	$	3.24	$	4.17

A total of 0.6 million shares of common stock subject to issuance upon exercise of stock options, restricted stock unit awards and performance units for the three and nine months endedFebruary 29, 2012, respectively, and0.2 million and 0.4 million shares of common stock for the three and nine months endedFebruary 28, 2011, have been excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the effect would have been anti-dilutive.

XML

Inventories

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Inventories [Abstract]

Schedule of inventories

8. Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

		February 29,		May 31,
		2012		2011
Raw materials	$	64.8	$	58.6
Work in process		306.3		284.3
Finished goods		882.3		852.9
Operating materials and supplies		73.9		70.6
	$	1,327.3	$	1,266.4

XML

Business Segments (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Business Segments [Abstract]

Schedule of segment reporting by segment

Segment information was as follows:

			Phosphates		Potash		Corporate, Eliminations and Other		Total
Three months ended February 29, 2012
Net sales to external customers		$	1,651.7	$	536.5	$	1.3	$	2,189.5
Intersegment net sales			-		16.7		(16.7)		-
Net sales			1,651.7		553.2		(15.4)		2,189.5
Gross margin			259.4		269.8		(7.4)		521.8
Operating earnings			190.2		233.9		(10.4)		413.7
Capital expenditures			100.4		293.7		17.7		411.8
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		66.8		58.3		2.8		127.9
Three months ended February 28, 2011
Net sales to external customers		$	1,458.0	$	753.4	$	2.9	$	2,214.3
Intersegment net sales			-		4.3		(4.3)		-
Net sales			1,458.0		757.7		(1.4)		2,214.3
Gross margin			454.2		411.6		(12.2)		853.6
Operating earnings			371.8		413.9		(14.9)		770.8
Capital expenditures			76.7		212.8		22.1		311.6
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		62.6		49.1		2.4		114.1
Nine months ended February 29, 2012
Net sales to external customers		$	6,050.4	$	2,233.2	$	3.7	$	8,287.3
Intersegment net sales			-		31.5		(31.5)		-
Net sales			6,050.4		2,264.7		(27.8)		8,287.3
Gross margin			1,144.7		1,107.8		(1.3)		2,251.2
Operating earnings			955.0		993.7		(8.4)		1,940.3
Capital expenditures			279.8		868.1		42.4		1,190.3
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		195.5		165.0		7.9		368.4
Nine months ended February 28, 2011
Net sales to external customers		$	5,013.0	$	2,052.9	$	11.5	$	7,077.4
Intersegment net sales			-		25.7		(25.7)		-
Net sales			5,013.0		2,078.6		(14.2)		7,077.4
Gross margin			1,175.4		953.5		(2.3)		2,126.6
Operating earnings			952.1		883.3		3.9		1,839.3
Capital expenditures			198.4		670.9		28.0		897.3
Depreciation, depletion and
	amortization expense		182.2		133.8		8.5		324.5

XML

Related Party Transactions (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended			3 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	May 31, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012 Nonconsolidated companies [Member]	Feb. 28, 2011 Nonconsolidated companies [Member]
Related Party Transaction [Line Items]
Transactions included in net sales	$ 962.2	$ 664.4		$ 210.0	$ 275.6
Transactions included in cost of goods sold	384.6	366.5		112.3	118.8
Related Party Transactions Paragraph Details [Abstract]
Net amount due from our nonconsolidated companies	$ 103.4		$ 145.7

XML

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Accounting For Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities [Abstract]

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

13. Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

We are exposed to the impact of fluctuations in the relative value of currencies, the impact of fluctuations in the purchase prices of natural gas and ammonia consumed in operations and changes in freight costs as well as changes in the market value of our financial instruments. We periodically enter into derivatives in order to mitigate our foreign currency risks and the effects of changing commodity and freight prices, but not for speculative purposes.

As of February 29, 2012, the following is the total absolute notional volume associated with our outstanding derivative instruments:

(in millions of Units)			February 29,
Derivative Instrument	Derivative Category	Unit of Measure	2012
Foreign currency derivatives	Foreign currency	US Dollars	1,311.9
Natural gas derivatives	Commodity	MMbtu	18.4
Ocean freight contracts	Freight	Tonnes	2.2

We do not apply hedge accounting treatments to our foreign currency exchange contracts, commodities contracts, and freight contracts. 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 and certain forward freight agreements are also recorded in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Unrealized gain or (loss) 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 loss line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Below is a table that shows the unrealized gains and (losses) on derivative instruments related to foreign currency exchange contracts, commodities contracts, and freight:

		Three months ended					Nine months ended
			February 29,		February 28,		February 29,		February 28,
Derivative Instrument	Location		2012		2011		2012		2011
Foreign currency derivatives	Cost of goods sold	$	14.4	$	7.5	$	1.1	$	11.9
Foreign currency derivatives	Foreign currency transaction gain (loss)		8.6		7.1		(3.8)		11.3
Commodity derivatives	Cost of goods sold		(16.5)		(1.0)		(27.3)		1.6
Freight derivatives	Cost of goods sold		2.2		3.4		(2.7)		(1.2)

The gross fair market value of all derivative instruments and their location in ourCondensed Consolidated Balance Sheets are shown by those in an asset or liability position and are further categorized by foreign currency, commodity, and freight derivatives.

		Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
				February 29,			February 29,
Derivative Instrument		Location		2012	Location		2012
Foreign currency derivatives		Other current assets	$	21.3	Accrued liabilities	$	(8.5)
Commodity derivatives		Other current assets		5.2	Accrued liabilities		(22.8)
Commodity derivatives		Other assets		-	Other noncurrent liabilities		(10.1)
Freight derivatives		Other current assets		2.0	Accrued liabilities		(2.2)
	Total		$	28.5		$	(43.6)
		Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
				May 31,			May 31,
Derivative Instrument		Location		2011	Location		2011
Foreign currency derivatives		Other current assets	$	19.1	Accrued liabilities	$	(4.3)
Commodity derivatives		Other current assets		0.9	Accrued liabilities		(5.1)
Commodity derivatives		Other assets		0.6	Other noncurrent liabilities		(1.5)
Freight derivatives		Other current assets		3.5	Accrued liabilities		(0.9)
	Total		$	24.1		$	(11.8)

For additional disclosures about fair value measurement of derivative instruments, see Note 14 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Credit-Risk-Related Contingent Features

Certain of our derivative instruments contain provisions that may require us to post collateral. These provisions also state that if our debt were to be rated below investment grade, certain counterparties to the derivative instruments could request full collateralization on derivative instruments in net liability positions. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position on February 29, 2012, was $37.9 million. We havenocash collateral posted in association with these contracts. If the credit-risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements were triggered on February 29, 2012, we would be required to post $31.7million of collateral assets, which are either cash or U.S. Treasury instruments, to the counterparties.

Counterparty Credit Risk

We enter into foreign exchange and certain commodity derivatives, primarily with a diversified group of highly rated counterparties. We continually monitor our positions and the credit ratings of the counterparties involved and limit the amount of credit exposure to any one party. While we may be exposed to potential losses due to the credit risk of non-performance by these counterparties, material losses are not anticipated. We closely monitor the credit risk associated with our counterparties and customers and to date have not experienced material losses.

XML

Other Financial Statement Data (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Other Financial Statement Data [Abstract]

Other Financial Statement Data [Table Text Block]

The following provides additional information concerning selected balance sheet accounts:

			February 29,		May 31,
(in millions)			2012		2011
Accrued liabilities
	Non-income taxes	$	52.7	$	132.6
	Payroll and employee benefits		116.8		116.3
	Asset retirement obligations		79.5		90.6
	Customer prepayments		78.1		243.2
	Accrued income taxes		77.0		-
	Other		253.8		260.9
		$	657.9	$	843.6
Other noncurrent liabilities
	Asset retirement obligations	$	483.2	$	482.5
	Accrued pension and postretirement benefits		98.9		117.1
	Other		287.7		255.5
		$	869.8	$	855.1

XML

Fair Value Measurements (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	Feb. 29, 2012
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	$ 28.5
Derivative liabilities at fair value	43.6
Foreign currency [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	21.3
Derivative liabilities at fair value	8.5
Commodity [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	5.2
Derivative liabilities at fair value	32.9
Freight Contracts [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	2.0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	2.2
Level 1 [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	1.4
Derivative liabilities at fair value	3.2
Level 1 [Member] | Foreign currency [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	1.3
Derivative liabilities at fair value	3.2
Level 1 [Member] | Commodity [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	0.1
Derivative liabilities at fair value	0
Level 1 [Member] | Freight Contracts [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	0
Level 2 [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	25.1
Derivative liabilities at fair value	38.2
Level 2 [Member] | Foreign currency [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	20.0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	5.3
Level 2 [Member] | Commodity [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	5.1
Derivative liabilities at fair value	32.9
Level 2 [Member] | Freight Contracts [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	0
Level 3 [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	2.0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	2.2
Level 3 [Member] | Foreign currency [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	0
Level 3 [Member] | Commodity [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	0
Level 3 [Member] | Freight Contracts [Member]
Fair Value Assets And Liabilities Measured On Recurring Basis [Abstract]
Derivative assets at fair value	2.0
Derivative liabilities at fair value	$ 2.2

XML

Goodwill (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012
Goodwill [Line Items]
Balance	$ 1,829.8
Foreign currency translation	44.4
Balance	1,874.2
Phosphates Segment [Member]
Goodwill [Line Items]
Balance	534.7
Foreign currency translation	0
Balance	534.7
Potash Segment [Member]
Goodwill [Line Items]
Balance	1,295.1
Foreign currency translation	44.4
Balance	$ 1,339.5

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Net earnings including noncontrolling interests	$ 1,423.9	$ 1,868.3
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	368.4	324.5
Deferred income taxes	81.8	58.3
Equity in net loss (earnings) of nonconsolidated companies, net of dividends	2.7	2.6
Accretion expense for asset retirement obligations	21.2	24.0
Share-based compensation expense	20.1	18.7
Unrealized loss (gain) on derivatives	32.7	(23.6)
Gain on sale of equity investment	0	(685.6)
Other	7.8	2.5
Receivables, net	239.4	(183.9)
Inventories, net	(66.2)	(129.5)
Other current and noncurrent assets	(290.9)	39.5
Accounts payable	(152.1)	94.3
Accrued liabilities and income taxes	(215.2)	97.9
Other noncurrent liabilities	2.9	(54.2)
Net cash provided by operating activities	1,476.5	1,453.8
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Capital expenditures	(1,190.3)	(897.3)
Proceeds from sale of equity method investment	0	1,030.0
Proceeds from sale of business	0	50.0
Restricted cash	2.3	(13.7)
Investments in nonconsolidated companies	0	(385.3)
Other	6.2	3.1
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities	(1,181.8)	(213.2)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Payments of short-term debt	(89.7)	(293.5)
Proceeds from issuance of short-term debt	147.7	284.6
Payments of long-term debt	(542.7)	(467.1)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt	748.2	17.6
Payment of tender premium on debt	0	(16.1)
Proceeds from stock options exercised	2.5	18.7
Repurchase of Class A common stock	(1,162.5)	0
Cash dividends paid	(66.1)	(67.0)
Other	(6.5)	7.2
Net cash used in financing activities	(969.1)	(515.6)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash	(30.1)	104.1
Net change in cash and cash equivalents	(704.5)	829.1
Cash and cash equivalents - beginning of period	3,906.4	2,523.0
Cash and cash equivalents - end of period	3,201.9	3,352.1
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information:
Interest (net of amount capitalized)	12.0	56.1
Income taxes (net of refunds)	$ 455.4	$ 434.5

XML

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

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 (“U.S. 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 fair presentation of our financial position as of February 29, 2012, and our results of operations and cash flows for the nine months endedFebruary 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011. The following notes should be read in conjunction with the accounting policies and other disclosures in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated by reference in our10-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 and its majority owned subsidiaries, as well as the accounts of certain variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which we are 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 U.S. 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 more significant estimates made by management relate to the recoverability of non-current assets, the useful lives of long-lived assets, environmental and reclamation liabilities, 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, Canadian resource tax and royalties, inventory valuation and accruals for pending legal matters. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

XML

Earnings Per Share (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Earnings Per Share [Abstract]

Schedule of earnings per share

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

		Three months ended				Nine months ended
		February 29,		February 28,		February 29,		February 28,
		2012		2011		2012		2011
Net earnings attributed to Mosaic	$	273.3	$	542.1	$	1,422.9	$	1,865.4
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding		425.4		446.3		438.5		445.8
Common stock issuable upon vesting of restricted stock awards		0.5		0.4		0.4		0.4
Common stock equivalents		0.7		1.0		0.8		1.1
Common stock issuable upon vesting of performance units		0.1		-		0.1		-
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding		426.7		447.7		439.8		447.3
Net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic- basic	$	0.64	$	1.21	$	3.24	$	4.18
Net earnings per share attributable to Mosaic- diluted	$	0.64	$	1.21	$	3.24	$	4.17

XML

Earnings Per Share (Details) (USD $) In Millions, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 28, 2011
Earnings Per Share Reconciliation [Abstract]
Net earnings attributable to Mosaic	$ 273.3	$ 542.1	$ 1,422.9	$ 1,865.4
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding	425.4	446.3	438.5	445.8
Common stock issuable upon vesting of restricted stock awards	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4
Common stock equivalents	0.7	1.0	0.8	1.1
Common stock issuable upon vesting of performance units	0.1	0	0.1	0
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding	426.7	447.7	439.8	447.3
Net Earnings per share attributable to Mosaic- basic	$ 0.64	$ 1.21	$ 3.24	$ 4.18
Net Earnings per share attributable to Mosaic- diluted	$ 0.64	$ 1.21	$ 3.24	$ 4.17
Earnings Per Share Additional Disclosure [Abstract]
Shares subject to issuance upon exercise of stock options, restricted stock unit awards and performance units	0.6	0.2	0.6	0.4

XML

Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Feb. 29, 2012

Contingencies [Abstract]

Contingencies

12. 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 appropriate 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 $30.8 million and $41.7 million as of February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011, 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 phosphates generate 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. The 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 RCRA regulation. 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, EPA has inspected all or nearly all facilities in the U.S. phosphoric acid production sector to ensure compliance with applicable RCRA regulations and to address any “imminent and substantial endangerment” found by the EPA under RCRA. We have provided the EPA with substantial amounts of information regarding the process water recycling practices and the hazardous waste handling practices at our phosphate production facilities in Florida and Louisiana, and the EPA has inspected all of our currently operating processing facilities in the U.S. In addition to the EPA's inspections, our Riverview, Bartow and Green Bay, Florida facilities and our Uncle Sam and Faustina, Louisiana 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 are finalizing similar orders for our New Wales and South Pierce, Florida facilities.

We have received Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) from the EPA related to the handling of hazardous waste at our Riverview (September 2005), New Wales (October 2005), Mulberry (June 2006) and Bartow (September 2006) facilities in Florida. The EPA has issued similar NOVs to our competitors and has referred the NOVs to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for further enforcement. We currently are engaged in discussions with the DOJ and EPA. We believe we have substantial defenses to most of the allegations in the NOVs, including but not limited to previous EPA regulatory interpretations and inspection reports finding that the process water handling practices in question comply with the requirements of the exemption for extraction and beneficiation wastes. In addition to seeking various changes to our operations, the DOJ and EPA have expressed a desire to obtain financial assurances for the closure of phosphogypsum management systems which may be significantly more stringent than current requirements in Florida or Louisiana. We intend to evaluate various alternatives and continue discussions to determine if a negotiated resolution can be reached. If it cannot, we intend to vigorously defend these matters in any enforcement actions that may be pursued. As part of a comprehensive settlement, or should we fail in our defense in any enforcement actions, we could incur substantial capital and operating expenses to modify our facilities and operating practices relating to the handling of process water, we could be required to post significant amounts of cash or other collateral for financial assurance purposes and we could also be required to pay significant civil penalties.

We have established accruals to address the estimated cost of implementing the related consent orders at our Florida and Louisiana facilities and the minimum estimated amount that will be incurred in connection with the NOVs discussed above. We cannot at this stage of the discussions predict whether the costs incurred as a result of the EPA's RCRA initiative, the consent orders, or the NOVs will have a material effect on our business or financial condition.

EPA EPCRA Initiative. In July 2008, the DOJ sent a letter to major U.S. phosphoric acid manufacturers, including us, stating that the 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 the 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, the 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. We cannot predict at this time whether the 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.

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 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. Potential indemnification is not considered in our established accruals.

Phosphate Mine Permitting in Florida

Denial of the permits sought at any of our mines, issuance of the permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, or substantial delays in issuing the permits, legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits may create challenges for us to mine the phosphate rock required to operate our Florida and Louisiana phosphate plants at desired levels or increase our costs in the future.

The Altman Extension of the Four Corners Mine. The Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) issued a federal wetlands permit under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) for mining the Altman Extension (the “Altman Extension”) of our Four Corners phosphate rock mine in central Florida in May 2008. The Sierra Club, Inc. (the “Sierra Club”), Manasota-88, Inc. (“Manasota-88”), Gulf Restoration Network, Inc., People for Protecting Peace River, Inc. (“People for Protecting Peace River”) and the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. sued the Corps in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (the “Jacksonville District Court”), seeking to vacate our permit to mine the Altman Extension. Mining on the Altman Extension has commenced and is continuing. In September 2010, the Jacksonville District Court deferred action on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment, pending the result of our appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Eleventh Circuit”) of the Jacksonville District Court's First Preliminary Injunction in the litigation described below under “The Hardee County Extension of the South Fort Meade Mine,” stating the Jacksonville District Court's view that the issues in the two cases are related. No action has subsequently been taken by the Jacksonville District Court on the motions for summary judgment. We believe that the permit was issued in accordance with all applicable requirements and that it will ultimately be upheld.

The Hardee County Extension of the South Fort Meade Mine. The mining reserves of our South Fort Meade phosphate rock mine in central Florida straddle the county line between Polk and Hardee Counties. Mining in the Polk County portion of the South Fort Meade mine began in 1995and is now substantially completed. In 2003, we began the permitting process to extend mining into Hardee County (the “Hardee County Extension”) and, by March 2009, had obtained all of the significant permits necessary for mining in the Hardee County Extension from several governmental agencies, other than a federal wetlands permit from the Corps under the CWA (the “Hardee County Extension Permit”). Ongoing delays in receiving the Hardee County Extension Permit impacted the scheduled progression of mining activities for the Hardee County Extension. As a result, we began to idle a portion of our mining equipment at the mine in the latter part of fiscal 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Corps issued the Hardee County Extension Permit.

On June 30, 2010, the Sierra Club, People for Protecting Peace River and Manasota-88 filed a lawsuit against the Corps in the Jacksonville District Court, contesting the Corps' issuance of the Hardee County Extension Permit, alleging that the Corps' actions in issuing the permit violated the substantive and procedural requirements of the CWA, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Endangered Species Act (the “ESA”), and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”). Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the permit improperly authorized the destruction of certain wetlands and streams that are associated with the headwaters of certain creeks and rivers that ultimately drain into the Charlotte Harbor, Florida, estuary and that mining for phosphate has an adverse impact on the local environment. Specific violations of NEPA and CWA asserted by plaintiffs included the Corps' alleged (i) failure to find that an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) was required; (ii) failure to conduct an adequate analysis under the CWA of alternatives; (iii) refusal to hold a public hearing; and (iv) failure to fully consider the cumulative effects of our South Fort Meade mine. Relief sought in the complaint included: (i) a declaration that the Corps violated its statutory and regulatory duties under the CWA, NEPA, ESA and APA; (ii) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); (iii) preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring the Corps to rescind the permit; and (iv) enjoining the Corps from reissuing the permit until the Corps has complied with its statutory and regulatory duties under the CWA, NEPA, ESA and APA.

On July 1, 2010, the Jacksonville District Court issued a TRO prohibiting the Corps and us from conducting activities in jurisdictional waters of the United States in reliance on the Hardee County Extension Permit. The TRO remained in effect through July 30, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, the Jacksonville District Court entered a preliminary injunction (the “First Preliminary Injunction”) enjoining disturbance of jurisdictional waters of the United States in reliance on the Hardee County Extension Permit. The Jacksonville District Court also ordered a remand of the Hardee County Extension Permit to the Corps to adequately conduct an alternatives analysis, and further stated a public hearing should be conducted in conjunction with the remand. The order provided that the First Preliminary Injunction was effective until the requisite alternatives analysis was accomplished and a permit was reissued by the Corps, or, alternatively, the case was decided in our favor.

Without the Hardee County Extension Permit, mining at the South Fort Meade mine could not continue without adverse consequences. Three draglines that extract phosphate rock had already exhausted available reserves in Polk County before the Jacksonville District Court issued the TRO and had been idled awaiting access to the new reserves in Hardee County. Accordingly, we indefinitely closed the South Fort Meade mine.

On August 2, 2010, we appealed the Jacksonville District Court's order to the Eleventh Circuit.

On October 27, 2010, we reached a partial settlement (the “Partial Settlement”) with the plaintiffs. The Partial Settlement allowed mining to proceed on approximately 200 acres (“Phase I”) out of the 10,586 acre Hardee County Extension. In connection with the Partial Settlement, we agreed not to mine approximately 40 acres of the Hardee County Extension, including preservation of 14.3 acres of wetlands through a conservation easement. The Jacksonville District Court approved the Partial Settlement on November 3, 2010, and we commenced mining Phase I in December 2010. We completed the mining of approximately 1.35 million tonnes of phosphate rock from Phase I in June 2011 or an average of approximately 225,000 tonnes per month.

On April 11, 2011, four days after hearing oral arguments on the matter, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the First Preliminary Injunction and set aside the District Court's remand of the permit to the Corps. In vacating the First Preliminary Injunction, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Jacksonville District Court for a decision on the merits to determine, after a review of the full administrative record, whether the Corps came to a rational permit decision to be analyzed through the deferential lens mandated by the APA. The Eleventh Circuit also directed the Jacksonville District Court to stay the effectiveness of the permit for 90 days to permit the District Court to make a decision on the merits based on this deferential standard.

On April 19, 2011, we notified the Jacksonville District Court that we planned to conduct uplands-only mining (i.e., non-wetlands) in an area (“Phase II”) at our South Fort Meade mine.

On May 24, 2011, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include allegations that our mining of Phase II was a significant new fact that required the Corps to make a supplemental environmental study or assessment in connection with the Hardee County Extension Permit and that our ability to conduct uplands-only mining in Phase II was a fact that should have been considered by the Corps in initially granting the Hardee County Extension Permit.

On June 6, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against our mining of Phase II and, on July 8, 2011, the Jacksonville District Court entered another preliminary injunction (the “Second Preliminary Injunction”) that prevents all mining activities in the Hardee County Extension, including uplands-only mining in Phase II. The Jacksonville District Court found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim and that the Corps failed to adequately conduct its CWA alternatives analysis.

Following the Second Preliminary Injunction, we stopped mining in the Hardee County Extension. Two draglines are currently engaged in minimal phosphate rock extraction from lower-yield reserves in the Polk County portion of the South Fort Meade mine.

In fiscal 2011, the shutdown of the South Fort Meade mine resulted in costs to suspend operations and idle plant costs, and lower phosphate rock mining production levels also adversely affected gross margin. Because of our successful execution of mitigation measures, the indefinite closure of the South Fort Meade mine did not significantly impact our sales volumes in fiscal 2011. In addition to mining Phase I, our mitigation activities have included drawing down existing phosphate rock and finished product inventories; sourcing rock from our investment in the Miski Mayo Mine; purchasing phosphate rock from third parties where reasonable; and maximizing production at our other phosphate mines.

For fiscal 2012, we have been able to continue to support planned finished phosphate production levels through a continuation of our mitigation activities, including additional rock sourced from our Florida mines, additional spot purchases from the Miski Mayo Mine and incremental third party purchases. The increased use of purchased phosphate rock due to the Second Preliminary Injunction has increased costs.

On February 21, 2012, we announced that we had entered into a settlement agreement (the “Hardee County Settlement Agreement”) with the plaintiffs that resolves the court proceedings regarding the Hardee County Extension Permit in their entirety and allows mining at the South Fort Meade mine to proceed. Proceedings affected by the Hardee County Settlement Agreement included (i) a ruling by the Jacksonville District Court on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and (ii) rulings by the Eleventh Circuit on our appeal of the Second Preliminary Injunction, and our request to stay (as to Phase II only) the Second Preliminary Injunction.

The Hardee County Settlement Agreement required the plaintiffs to dismiss their challenge to the Hardee County Extension Permit in exchange for certain commitments by us, including:

• Preservation of approximately 130 acres of land otherwise eligible for mining.
• Donation of the Peaceful Horse Ranch in DeSoto County to the State of Florida or, alternatively, a not-for-profit organization for permanent conservation. In December, we acquired at auction Peaceful Horse Ranch, which comprises an estimated 4,171 acres located in DeSoto County at the convergence of Horse Creek and the Peace River. The property is located immediately adjacent to existing conservation lands as well as the water intake for the Peace River Manasota Water Supply Authority. We purchased the property for approximately $10 million. Peaceful Horse Ranch is on the State of Florida's list of priority projects for its Florida Forever land conservation program. Upon conveyance, we have also agreed to provide up to $2 million for startup and recurring expenses to operate the ranch. Its conservation will expand wildlife corridors and preserve vital habitats and floodplain, while protecting a vital water resource from approaching development.
• Certain mitigation, monitoring and site enhancements.
• Additional efforts to obtain permanent conservation easements along the Peace River.

On March 21, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the Jacksonville District Court for approval, and on March 28, 2012, the Jacksonville District Court granted final approval, of the Hardee County Settlement Agreement. The settlement resulted in a pre-tax charge in the third quarter of approximately $13 million.

Central Florida Phosphate District Area-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. On August 24, 2010, we received official confirmation from the Corps that it plans to conduct an area-wide EIS (“AEIS”) for the central Florida phosphate district. The Corps' current schedule calls for it to issue the AEIS in December 2012. We cannot predict the scope or actual timeline for this process, or what its outcome will be; however, the Corps' announced schedule has begun to slip, and, although we do not currently expect the outcome of the AEIS to materially influence the conditions of future federal wetlands permits for our mining in central Florida, a protracted timeline for this process could delay our future permitting efforts.

Potash Antitrust Litigation

On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the “September 11, 2008 Cases”) were filed in the United States District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the “Minn-Chem Case”) and the Northern District of Illinois (the “Gage's Fertilizer Case”), on October 2, 2008 another complaint (the “October 2, 2008 Case”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10, 2008 and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together, the “November 2008 Cases” and collectively with the September 11, 2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the “Direct Purchaser Cases”) were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout the United States. On November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the cases in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint against the defendants, and on December 2, 2008 the Minn-Chem Case was consolidated with the Gage's Fertilizer Case. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases. The amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed and Seed, Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who purchased potash in the United States directly from the defendants during the period July 1, 2003 through the date of the amended consolidated complaint (“Class Period”). The amended consolidated complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Gordon Tillman (the “Tillman Case”); Feyh Farm Co. and William H. Coaker Jr. (the “Feyh Farm Case”); and Kevin Gillespie (the “Gillespie Case;” the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the “Indirect Purchaser Cases;” and the Direct Purchaser Cases together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively referred to as the “Potash Antitrust Cases”). The defendants in the Indirect Purchaser Cases are generally the same as those in the Direct Purchaser Cases. On November 13, 2008, the initial plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action complaint. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases. The factual allegations in the amended consolidated complaint are substantially identical to those summarized above with respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases. The amended consolidated complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who indirectly purchased potash products for end use during the Class Period in the United States, any of 20 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as “Indirect Purchaser States,” any of 22 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as “Consumer Fraud States”, and/or 48 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated complaint as “Unjust Enrichment States.” The plaintiffs generally sought injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages for violations of the antitrust laws of the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law, arising from defendants' alleged continuing agreement, understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair competition laws of the Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer protection and unfair competition laws of the Consumer Fraud States, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits, for unjust enrichment under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment States, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or full consideration where permitted by applicable state law. The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2009, we and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases. On November 3, 2009, the court granted our motions to dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a) for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa, claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law. The court denied our and the other defendants' other motions to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state a claim for relief under that section. The court, however, stated that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases present a difficult question under the pleading standards enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal. On January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of (i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving import trade or import commerce' under applicable law. On September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Seventh Circuit”) vacated the district court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims. On December 2, 2011, the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and subsequently has held an en banc rehearing.

We believe that the allegations in the Potash Antitrust Cases are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. At this stage of the proceedings, we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation or determine whether it will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

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. 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 invalid and we have counterclaimed that the plaintiffs have engaged in inequitable conduct.

The Missouri District Court has stayed the lawsuit pending a reexamination of plaintiffs' patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

We believe that the plaintiffs' 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 or determine whether it will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

Esterhazy Potash Mine Tolling Agreement Dispute

Under an agreement (the “Tolling Agreement”) with Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (“PCS”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership (“Mosaic Esterhazy”), has mined and refined PCS' potash reserves at our Esterhazy mine for a fee plus a pro rata share of operating and capital costs for approximately forty years. Under the agreement, we have delivered to PCS up to approximately 1.1 million tonnes of potash per year. The agreement provided for a term through December 31, 2011 as well as certain renewal terms at the option of PCS, but only to the extent PCS had not received all of its available reserves under the agreement. To the extent we have not fully utilized the capacity to satisfy our obligations under the agreement, the productive capacity at our Esterhazy mine otherwise used to satisfy our obligations under the Tolling Agreement has been and continues to be available to us for sales to any of our customers at then-current market prices.

As previously reported, we and PCS disputed, among other matters, when PCS would have received all of its available reserves under the Tolling Agreement and the resulting expiration of the Tolling Agreement, and, on or about May 27, 2009, PCS filed a lawsuit (the “Tolling Agreement Dispute”) against Mosaic Esterhazy in the Queen's Bench Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. On December 7, 2011, we and PCS settled, among other matters, the Tolling Agreement Dispute. Under the settlement, the Tolling Agreement expires at December 31, 2012. We supplied PCS with potash on existing terms under the Tolling Agreement at the existing rate through the end of calendar 2011, and agreed to supply approximately 1.1 million additional tonnes of potash to PCS on existing terms for calendar 2012. We also granted PCS the right, which it has exercised, to take delivery of approximately 0.1 million of the 1.1 million tonnes through the first quarter of calendar 2013. In addition, effective December 31, 2012, we will receive credit for 1.3 million metric tonnes of capacity at our Esterhazy mine for purposes of calculating our relative share of annual sales of potash to international customers by Canpotex Limited, capacity which is currently allocated to PCS. Expiration of our obligation to ship under the Tolling Agreement will have a material positive effect on the volume of potash available to us to sell to customers at then-current market prices and could have a material positive effect on our results of operations and liquidity.

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.