Environmental and Legal Contingencies

Environmental Contingencies

AK Steel and its predecessors have been conducting steel manufacturing and related operations since 1900. Although the Company believes its operating practices have been consistent with prevailing industry standards during this time, hazardous materials may have been released in the past at one or more operating sites or third-party sites, including operating sites that the Company no longer owns. To the extent reasonably estimable, the Company has estimated potential remediation expenditures for those sites where future remediation efforts are probable based on identified conditions, regulatory requirements or contractual obligations arising from the sale of a business or facility. In general, the material components of these accruals include the costs associated with investigations, delineations, risk assessments, remedial work, governmental response and oversight costs, site monitoring, and preparation of reports to the appropriate environmental agencies. Liabilities recorded on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets for such estimated probable costs relating to environmental matters are presented below:



	September 30, 2012		December 31, 2011
Accrued liabilities	$	20.0	$	22.2
Other non-current liabilities	28.3		30.3

The ultimate costs to the Company with respect to each site cannot be predicted with certainty because of the evolving nature of the investigation and remediation process. Rather, to develop the estimates of the probable costs, the Company must make certain assumptions. The most significant of these assumptions relate to the nature and scope of the work that will be necessary to investigate and remediate a particular site and the cost of that work. Other significant assumptions include the cleanup technology that will be used, whether and to what extent any other parties will participate in paying the investigation and remediation costs, reimbursement of past response and future oversight costs by governmental agencies, and the reaction of the governing environmental agencies to the proposed work plans. Costs of future expenditures are not discounted to their present value. To the extent that the Company has been able to reasonably estimate its future liabilities, the Company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or losses exceeding the amounts accrued will be incurred in connection with the environmental matters discussed below that would, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, since amounts recognized in the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States exclude potential losses that are not probable or that may not be currently estimable, the ultimate costs of these environmental proceedings may be higher than those currently recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Except as expressly noted below, the Company does not currently anticipate any material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of its compliance with current environmental regulations. Moreover, because all domestic steel producers operate under the same set of federal environmental regulations, the Company does not believe that it is disadvantaged relative to its domestic competitors by the need to comply with these regulations. Some foreign competitors may benefit from less stringent environmental requirements in the countries in which they produce, resulting in lower compliance costs and providing those foreign competitors with a cost advantage on their products.

Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), which governs the treatment, handling and disposal of hazardous waste, the EPA and authorized state environmental agencies may conduct inspections of RCRA-regulated facilities to identify areas where there have been releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the environment and may order the facilities to take corrective action to remediate such releases. AK Steel’s major steelmaking facilities are subject to RCRA inspections by environmental regulators. While the Company cannot predict the future actions of these regulators, it is possible that they may identify conditions in future inspections of these facilities which they believe require corrective action.

Under authority conferred by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the EPA and state environmental authorities have conducted site investigations at certain of AK Steel’s facilities and other third-party facilities, portions of which previously may have been used for disposal of materials that are currently subject to regulation. The results of these investigations are still pending, and AK Steel could be directed to expend funds for remedial activities at the former disposal areas. Because of the uncertain status of these investigations, however, the Company cannot reliably predict whether or when such expenditures might be required, their magnitude or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on July 27, 2001, AK Steel received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA requesting that AK Steel agree to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) and enter into an administrative order on consent pursuant to Section 122 of CERCLA regarding the former Hamilton Plant located in New Miami, Ohio. The Hamilton Plant ceased operations in 1990, and all of its former structures have been demolished and removed. Although AK Steel did not believe that a site-wide RI/FS was necessary or appropriate, in April 2002, it entered into a mutually agreed-upon administrative order on consent to perform such an investigation and study of the Hamilton Plant site. The site-wide investigation portion of the RI/FS has been submitted. The study portion is projected to be completed in 2013 pending approval of the investigation results. AK Steel currently has accrued $0.7 for the remaining cost of the RI/FS. Until the RI/FS is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on September 30, 1998, AK Steel’s predecessor, Armco Inc., received an order from the EPA under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring it to develop a plan for investigation of eight areas of Mansfield Works that allegedly could be sources of contamination. A site investigation began in November 2000 and is continuing. AK Steel cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to complete this site investigation. AK Steel currently has accrued approximately $1.1 for the projected cost of the study at Mansfield Works. Until the site investigation is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on July 23, 2007, and on December 9, 2008, the EPA issued Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) with respect to the coke plant at AK Steel’s Ashland Works (the “Ashland Coke Plant”) alleging violations of pushing and combustion stack limits. Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the EPA issued an NOV associated with self-reported deviations from 2008 through 2010. In 2007, the Company began investigating the pushing and combustion stack claims and working with the EPA to attempt to resolve them through the negotiation of a Consent Decree that assumed the Ashland Coke Plant would continue to operate. On June 21, 2011, however, the Company permanently ceased production at the Ashland Coke Plant. The Company will continue to negotiate a Consent Decree with the EPA in an attempt to resolve all of these NOVs, but as a consequence of the shutdown, the nature of the negotiations with the EPA has changed. The Company anticipates that the focus now will be on the civil penalty associated with the alleged violations. AK Steel believes it will reach a settlement in this matter, but it cannot be certain that a settlement will be reached and cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to reach a settlement or what all of its terms might be. AK Steel will vigorously contest any claims which cannot be resolved through a settlement.

On September 26, 2012, the EPA issued an order under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring the Company to develop a plan for investigation of four areas at AK Steel’s Ashland Works Coke Plant. A site investigation plan is currently being developed. AK Steel cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to complete this site investigation. AK Steel currently has accrued approximately $0.4 for the projected cost of the study. Until the site investigation is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on August 3, 2011, September 29, 2011, and June 28, 2012, the EPA issued NOVs with respect to the coke plant at AK Steel’s Middletown Works alleging violations of pushing and combustion stack limits. The Company is investigating these claims and is working with the EPA to attempt to resolve them. AK Steel believes it will reach a settlement in this matter, but it cannot be certain that a settlement will be reached and cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to reach a settlement or what all of its terms might be. AK Steel will vigorously contest any claims which cannot be resolved through a settlement. Until it has reached a settlement with the EPA or the claims that are the subject of the NOVs are otherwise resolved, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, associated with any potentially required operational changes at the batteries or the timeframe over which any potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, AK Steel has been negotiating with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) to resolve an alleged unpermitted discharge of wastewater from the closed Hillside Landfill at the former Ambridge Works. AK Steel has reached a settlement in this matter and on July 15, 2009, the parties entered into a Consent Order and Agreement (the “Consent Order”) to memorialize that settlement. Under the terms of the Consent Order, AK Steel paid a penalty and also agreed to implement various corrective actions, including an investigation of the area where activities were conducted regarding the landfill, submission of a plan to collect and treat surface waters and seep discharges, and upon approval from PADEP, implementation of that plan. The Company has accrued $2.2 for the current phase of remedial work required under the Consent Order. Additional work will need to be performed after this phase, but the design plan for that work has not yet been developed or approved. Until that design plan is approved, the Company cannot reliably determine the actual cost of the remaining work required under the Consent Decree. The Company currently estimates that the remaining work will be completed in 2014, but that estimated timeframe is subject to the potential for delays, such as due to work plan approval and/or permitting delays.

In addition to the foregoing matters, AK Steel is or may be involved in proceedings with various regulatory authorities that may require AK Steel to pay fines, comply with more rigorous standards or other requirements or incur capital and operating expenses for environmental compliance. The Company believes that the ultimate disposition of the proceedings will not have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Contingencies

In addition to the environmental matters discussed above and the items addressed below, there are various claims pending against AK Steel and its subsidiaries involving product liability, commercial, employee benefits and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Unless otherwise noted and to the extent that the Company has been able to reasonably estimate its future liabilities, it is the Company’s opinion that the ultimate liability resulting from all of these claims, individually and in the aggregate, should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As previously reported, on June 29, 2000, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of the EPA against AK Steel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Court”), Case No. C-1-00530, for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and RCRA at the Middletown Works. Subsequently, the State of Ohio, the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council intervened. On May 15, 2006, a Consent Decree in Partial Resolution of Pending Claims (the “Consent Decree”) was entered by the Court. Under the Consent Decree, the Company paid a civil penalty and performed a supplemental environmental project to remove ozone-depleting refrigerants from certain equipment. The Company further agreed to undertake a comprehensive RCRA facility investigation at its Middletown Works and, as appropriate, complete a corrective measures study. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the Company also is in the process of implementing certain RCRA corrective action interim measures to address polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments and soils relating to Dicks Creek and certain other specified surface waters, adjacent floodplain areas, and other previously identified geographic areas. The Company has completed the remedial activity at Dicks Creek that was planned for 2010, but additional work remains to be performed. The Company was required to obtain new or modified permits for the work to be performed in 2011, including a modification of the existing pre-construction notification from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“ACE”) under Nationwide Permit (“NWP”) 38 for the remedial work to be performed in the floodplain at Dicks Creek. The Company timely submitted the NWP 38 application on March 7, 2011. ACE, however, did not issue the required permit to begin the planned floodplain work in 2011. On May 8, 2012, ACE issued the NWP 38 and the phase originally planned for 2011 subsequently was initiated by the Company. Additional work will need to be performed after this 2012 phase. The design plan for that additional work, currently planned for 2013, has been unconditionally approved. The Company currently has accrued $15.2 for the cost of known remedial work required under the Consent Decree, which includes the floodplain work planned for 2012 and 2013.

As previously reported, since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants.

Information on asbestos cases pending at December 31, 2011 is presented below:



		December 31, 2011
Cases with specific dollar claims for damages:
Claims of less than $0.2		102
Claims of $0.2 to $5.0		6
Claims of $5.0 to $15.0		2
Claims of $15.0 to $20.0		2
Total claims with specific dollar claims for damages (a)		112
Cases without a specific dollar claim for damages		290
Total asbestos cases pending		402


(a)	Involve a total of 2,471 plaintiffs and 15,805 defendants

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be determined through written interrogatories or other discovery after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK Steel’s experience to date that only a small percentage of asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Set forth below is a chart showing the number of new claims filed (accounted for as described above), the number of pending claims disposed of (i.e., settled or otherwise dismissed), and the approximate net amount of dollars paid on behalf of AK Steel in settlement of asbestos-related claims in 2011 and 2010.



	Year Ended December 31,
	2011		2010
New Claims Filed	31		122
Pending Claims Disposed Of	44		179
Total Amount Paid in Settlements	$	0.7	$	0.8

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present knowledge, and the factors set forth above, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

As previously reported, on October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class members. The plaintiff and the other purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation previously reported and now resolved (the class action litigation filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on previous releases of claims they had executed in favor of the Company. There were a total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the prior litigation and the potential additional distributions to them at issue in the litigation total approximately $3.0, plus potential interest. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on March 22, 2010. On August 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. On January 24, 2011, that motion was granted. On March 15, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. After being fully briefed, that motion was granted on June 27, 2011. On October 12, 2011, the court issued an opinion addressing the issue of pre-judgment interest in which it held that pre-judgment interest should be calculated using the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1961(a). On December 12, 2011, the Court entered a Final Judgment in an amount slightly in excess of $3.0, which includes pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate through that date. That amount has not been accrued. The defendants have filed an appeal from that Final Judgment. The appeal has been briefed and oral argument was held on October 10, 2012. Defendants intend to continue to contest this matter vigorously.

As previously reported, on October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:05-cv-681 (the “Patrick Litigation”). The complaint alleges that the defendants incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits due to be paid to the plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan. On December 19, 2005, the defendants filed their answer to the complaint. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the applicable plan language had been properly interpreted. On September 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment be granted and that the defendants’ motion be denied. The defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the Magistrate’s recommendation and granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted by the Court on October 27, 2008. The case has proceeded since then with respect to discovery on the issue of damages. In November 2011 the plaintiffs submitted an expert report in which their expert contends that the total damages, excluding interest, for the class could total as much as $28.9. The defendants believe that the damage calculation in the plaintiffs’ expert report is incorrect and intend to contest that calculation. On February 22, 2012, defendants filed a motion to decertify the class with respect to the issue of damages or, in the alternative, require individualized proof of damages. That motion was denied September 25, 2012. Defendants also filed a motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert report, which also was denied September 5, 2012. Trial previously was scheduled to commence on September 17, 2012, but has been rescheduled to begin January 14, 2013. On May 27, 2009, a case asserting a similar claim was filed against AK Steel by Margaret Lipker in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050 (the “Lipker Litigation”). The Complaint in the Lipker Litigation alleged that AK Steel incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms. Lipker’s surviving spouse benefits due to be paid under the applicable pension plan (which was a different plan from that at issue in the Patrick Litigation). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On February 23, 2010, the Court in the Lipker Litigation granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and found that Ms. Lipker is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit of approximately four hundred sixty-three dollars per month. AK Steel appealed that February 23, 2010, decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 11, 2010, Case No. 10-5298. The issues in the appeal have been fully briefed by the parties. In addition, counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Patrick Litigation filed an amicus curiae brief on July 20, 2010, on the ground that the decision in the Lipker Litigation could impact the merits of the issues in the Patrick Litigation. The amicus curiae brief requested the Court of Appeals to affirm the district court’s decision in the Lipker Litigation on the issue of plan interpretation and liability. Oral argument in the appeal of the Lipker Litigation occurred on October 5, 2011, but no decision by the Court of Appeals has been issued yet.

As previously reported, in September and October 2008, several companies filed purported class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010 another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On March 26, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and on March 28, 2012, granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue of the Tennessee case to the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs in that case filed a petition to file an interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants have opposed that petition and the parties are awaiting the court's decision on whether to grant that petition. The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have conspired to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the United States. On January 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of the claims set forth in the Complaints. On June 12, 2009, the court issued an Order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Discovery has commenced. On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. A briefing schedule on the motion for class certification has not yet been set. In addition, no trial date has been set. AK Holding intends to contest this matter vigorously.

As previously reported, on January 28, 2009, the City of Monroe, Ohio (“Monroe”) filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Middletown Coke Company, LLC and SunCoke Energy, Inc., Case No. 1-09-CV-63. The complaint purported to be filed pursuant to Section 304(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(3), and sought injunctive relief, civil penalties, attorney fees, and other relief to prevent the construction of a new cokemaking facility on property adjacent to the Company’s Middletown Works. The coke produced by the facility would be used by the Middletown Works. The Complaint alleged that the new facility will be a stationary source of air pollution without a permit issued under the New Source Review program of the CAA, including its Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review requirements. On February 27, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the action pending final resolution of appeals (the “First ERAC Appeal”) to the Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission (“ERAC”) by Monroe and others of a Permit to Install the cokemaking facility issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA”), Case Nos. 096256, 096265 and 096268-096285, consolidated. In March 2009, AK Steel became a party to both the pending federal action and the First ERAC Appeal for the purpose of supporting the issuance of the Permit to Install and opposing the efforts by Monroe and others to prevent construction of the facility. On August 20, 2009, the Court in the federal action granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2009, Monroe filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the order dismissing the federal action. On April 20, 2010, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, vacated the District Court’s order, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings, including dismissal of the litigation as moot. On February 9, 2010, the OEPA issued a final air Permit to Install for the new facility under the New Source Review program of the CAA, including its Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review requirements (the “NSR Permit”). In February and March 2010, Monroe and other interested parties filed Notices of Appeal to the ERAC of the Permit to Install issued under the New Source Review program (the “Second ERAC Appeal”), Case Nos. 096432-096438. AK Steel intervened in the Second ERAC Appeal. On July 8, 2010, Monroe filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the Second ERAC Appeal. AK Steel filed a response opposing the motion for partial summary judgment on August 26, 2010. On August 12, 2010, Monroe filed a motion for a stay of the NSR Permit. Defendants’ response to that motion was filed on October 22, 2010. On November 17, 2010, ERAC issued a ruling denying both Monroe’s motion for partial summary judgment and its motion for a stay. On June 30, 2010, the First ERAC Appeal was dismissed as moot. On July 9, 2010, Monroe filed a motion for expedited clarification in the First ERAC Appeal asking the ERAC to specify that the initial Permit to Install issued by OEPA would not be reinstated if the NSR Permit is vacated. On July 28, 2010, ERAC denied Monroe’s motion for expedited clarification. On July 29 and 30, 2010, Monroe and other interested parties filed Notices of Appeal in the State of Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 10-AP-000721-24 (“Tenth District Appeal”) from the ERAC decision denying Monroe’s motion for expedited clarification. On April 7, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in which it dismissed the Tenth District Appeal. The parties to the Second ERAC Appeal have executed a settlement agreement in principle, however, which resolves all claims between and among the parties and filed it with the ERAC. The terms of that agreement will not have a material impact on the Company or the production of coke for Middletown Works at the new cokemaking facility. On July 3, 2012, ERAC issued a Final Order dismissing the Second ERAC Appeal with prejudice. All pending actions other than the Second ERAC Appeal described in this paragraph already have been dismissed. Thus, all of the matters described in this paragraph have been resolved.

As previously reported, on June 1, 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) initiated antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of imports of grain-oriented electrical steel (“GOES”) from Russia and the United States. China initiated the investigations based on a petition filed by two Chinese steelmakers. These two steelmakers allege that AK Steel and Allegheny Technologies Inc. of the United States and Novolipetsk Steel of Russia exported GOES to China at less than fair value, and that the production of GOES in the United States has been subsidized by the government. On December 9, 2009, MOFCOM issued its preliminary determination that GOES producers in the United States and Russia had been dumping in the China market and that GOES producers in the United States had received subsidies from the United States government. The Chinese authorities imposed provisional additional duties on future imports of GOES from Russia and/or the United States to China. The duties do not apply to past imports. On or about April 10, 2010, MOFCOM issued a final determination of dumping and subsidizing against GOES producers in the United States and Russia. On September 16, 2010, the United States Trade Representative (the “USTR”) filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) against China for violating the WTO’s rules in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties against imports of GOES from the United States. On February 11, 2011, the USTR announced that the United States requested that the WTO establish a dispute settlement panel in this case. On May 10, 2011, the WTO composed the panel (the “Panel”) to decide this case. After conducting several rounds of hearings, on June 15, 2012, the Panel issued its final decision in the case. In its decision, the Panel concluded that China had no legal basis to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of grain-oriented electrical steel from the United States. On July 20, 2012, China filed an appeal of the Panel's decision to the WTO Appellate Body. On October 18, 2012, the Appellate Body affirmed the decisions of the Panel. There are no further appeals available to China and it will be expected to comply with the WTO decision within a reasonable period of time. The tariffs may remain in effect during this time period. If China does not take appropriate steps to come into compliance with the WTO decision within the reasonable period of time, the United States may ask the WTO for permission to impose trade sanctions against China. AK Steel intends to fully support the USTR in this matter.

As previously reported, on August 26, 2009, Consolidation Coal Company (“Consolidation”) filed an action against AK Steel and Neville Coke LLC (“Neville”) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Case No. GD-09-14830. The complaint alleges that Consolidation and Neville entered into a contract whereby Consolidation would supply metallurgical coal for use by Neville in its coke making operations. Consolidation asserts that Neville breached the alleged contract when it refused to purchase coal from Consolidation. The complaint also alleges that AK Steel tortiously interfered with the purported contractual and business relationship between Consolidation and Neville. Consolidation seeks monetary damages from AK Steel in an amount in excess of $30.0 and monetary damages from Neville in an amount in excess of $20.0. AK Steel tentatively has agreed to indemnify and defend Neville in this action pursuant to the terms of a contractual agreement between AK Steel and Neville. AK Steel is still investigating the facts underlying this matter, however, and has reserved its right to change its position should facts establish that it does not have an obligation to indemnify or defend Neville. On October 20, 2009, AK Steel filed preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint on behalf of itself and Neville, seeking to dismiss the action. In response to the preliminary objections, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 12, 2009, adding an additional count under the theory of promissory estoppel. On December 2, 2009, AK Steel and Neville filed preliminary objections to plaintiff’s amended complaint, again seeking to dismiss the action. The court overruled the preliminary objections, and on March 18, 2010, AK Steel and Neville filed their answers to the complaint. Discovery has commenced, but no trial date has yet been set. On February 28, 2012, AK Steel and Neville filed separate motions for summary judgment and the plaintiffs filed oppositions to both motions. On June 11, 2012, the court denied both motions for summary judgment. No trial date has been set. AK Steel intends to contest this matter vigorously.

As previously reported, on December 31, 2009, Heritage Coal Company LLC, Patriot Coal Corporation, and Pine Ridge Coal Company (collectively, “Heritage Coal”) filed a third-party complaint against AK Steel in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, naming AK Steel as a third-party defendant in 108 separate personal injury actions. Those actions were consolidated for discovery and pretrial proceedings under Civil Action No. 09-C-212. The various plaintiffs in the underlying actions sought damages allegedly caused by groundwater contamination arising out of certain coal mining operations in West Virginia. In its third-party complaint, Heritage Coal seeks a determination of its potential rights of contribution against AK Steel pursuant to a January 20, 1984 Asset Purchase Agreement between Heritage Coal’s predecessor-in-interest, Peabody Coal Company, as buyer, and AK Steel’s predecessor-in-interest, Armco Inc., as seller, for the sale of certain coal real estate and leasehold interests located in West Virginia, which Heritage alleges included property now the subject of the underlying civil actions. On March 28, 2010, AK Steel entered into a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and Heritage Coal. The payments made by AK Steel pursuant to this settlement will not be material to the Company’s future financial results. The parties are in the process of documenting and obtaining formal court approval of the settlement, which is expected to be completed in the near future. The settlement will resolve all of the claims raised by Heritage Coal in the third-party complaint and will also release AK Steel from any claims by the plaintiffs in the underlying actions.

As previously reported, on April 7, 2011, Ruth Abrams filed a shareholder derivative action against AK Holding, each of the current members of its Board of Directors, and the five officers identified in the AK Holding 2010 Proxy Statement (the “2010 Proxy”) as Named Executive Officers. The action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:11-cv-00297-LPS. The complaint alleges that the director defendants and executive defendants breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and care, that the director defendants committed waste, and that the executive defendants were unjustly enriched. More specifically, it alleges that the 2010 Proxy contained false or misleading statements concerning compliance by AK Holding with Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and the tax deductibility of certain executive compensation paid to the Named Executive Officers. The Complaint seeks an injunction requiring correction of the allegedly false statements and preventing future awards under certain benefit plans to the five Named Executive Officers. It also seeks an equitable accounting, disgorgement in favor of AK Holding for certain alleged losses, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on July 1, 2011. However, prior to completion of the briefing on defendants’ motions, Abrams filed an Amended Complaint on September 2, 2011 adding a derivative claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and adding and deleting certain allegations as to why plaintiff contends certain executive compensation plans did not comply with Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and the relevant Treasury Regulations. On November 11, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Briefing on those motions is completed. On August 21, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. On September 4, 2012, Abrams filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a new direct claim for coercion and adding and deleting certain factual allegations. On October 2, 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. Briefing on those motions is not yet completed. The defendants intend to continue to contest this matter vigorously. Discovery has not commenced and no trial date has been set.

Zanesville Works Retiree Healthcare Benefits Litigation

As previously reported, on December 15, 2011, four former members of the Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, now the United Autoworkers Union, filed a purported class action against AK Steel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1-11CV00877 (the “Zanesville Retiree Action”), alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits. The named plaintiffs in the Zanesville Retiree Action sought, among other things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK Steel with its union. The proposed class the plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all individuals who worked at AK Steel’s Zanesville Works under collective bargaining agreements negotiated between the union and AK Steel, or a predecessor of AK Steel, and who retired from such employment between 1960 and May 20, 2006 and whose negotiated health and related benefits have been or may be improperly modified, amended or terminated by AK Steel. The proposed class also includes the spouses, surviving spouses and/or eligible dependents of those retirees. On December 15, 2011, plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2012 changes to retiree healthcare for members of the purported class from taking effect. Because of timing issues, the proposed changes were implemented in January 2012. By mutual agreement of the parties, however, AK Steel has agreed effective February 1, 2012 and continuing through at least July 31, 2012 to re-institute the contribution rates in effect in 2011 for all Zanesville retirees who retired between February 1, 1984 and May 19, 2006. As a result of that interim agreement, the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was dismissed without prejudice as moot on December 23, 2011.

In the third quarter of 2012, the Company reached a tentative settlement agreement (“Class Settlement”) with the retirees who initiated the litigation. The participants in the Class Settlement consist generally of all retirees, as well as their spouses, surviving spouses and/or eligible dependents, of those retirees in the proposed class as set forth above (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Class Members”). Pursuant to the Class Settlement, AK Steel will provide company-paid health and life insurance to Class Members through December 31, 2015, at the premium rates that were in effect in 2010. The Company also will make combined lump sum payments totaling $10.6 to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust (the “VEBA Trust)” and to plaintiffs' counsel. More specifically, AK Steel will make three cash contributions to the VEBA Trust as follows: $3.1 on July 1, 2013; $3.1 on July 1, 2014; and $3.1 on July 1, 2015. The balance of the $10.6 will be paid to plaintiff's attorneys to cover plaintiffs' obligations with respect to attorneys' fees. Effective January 1, 2016, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the Class Members under the Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will have no further liability for any claims incurred by Class Members after December 31, 2015, relating to their OPEB obligations. The VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund all such future OPEB obligations to the Class Members. Trustees of the VEBA will determine the scope of the benefits to be provided to the Class Members.

The Class Settlement is subject to final approval by the Court. In connection with the settlement, on September 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for an Order Conditionally Certifying Classes, and the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Proposed Class Notice. On September 18, 2012, the Court held a hearing on these motions and issued orders granting both motions on September 19, 2012. Notice of the settlement was sent to all Class Members on September 28, 2012. The Class Members will be given the opportunity to object to the settlement in writing and at a hearing conducted by the Court to determine whether to approve the settlement. The deadline for filing objections to the settlement is November 12, 2012. A fairness hearing with respect to the settlement has been scheduled for December 21, 2012. The Court will decide after that hearing whether or not to grant final approval of the settlement.

If the Court does grant final approval of the settlement, a judgment (“Judgment”) approving the settlement will be entered. The Judgment may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. If such an appeal is still pending at the time a payment is due from AK Steel to the VEBA Trust under the terms of a settlement, the payment will not occur until the Judgment approving the settlement is final and not subject to further appeals or judicial review. If the Judgment is not approved on appeal, the Zanesville Retiree Action would return to the trial court and the parties would continue to litigate whether the Company has a right to reduce OPEB benefits provided to any Class Members as to whom the settlement no longer applies.

Once the settlement is final and no longer subject to appeal, the Company's only remaining liability with respect to the OPEB obligations to the Class Members will be to provide existing company-paid health and life insurance to Class Members through December 31, 2015, and to contribute the payments due to the VEBA Trust under the settlements. The Company will have no other liability or responsibility with respect to OPEB obligations to the Class Members. Based on current valuation assumptions, the Company's total OPEB liability (prior to any funding of the VEBA Trust) is projected to increase by approximately $3.0, and there would be a one-time charge of approximately $3.8 for legal fees and the reversal of previous amortization of the prior plan amendment. The remaining portion of the plan amendment would be amortized over approximately two years.