On October 30, 2020, plaintiff Pacific Steel Group ("PSG") filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District Court") alleging that CMC, CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. and CMC Steel US, LLC violated the federal and California state antitrust laws and California common law by entering into an exclusivity agreement for certain steel mill equipment manufactured by one of our equipment suppliers. On November 5, 2024, a jury returned a verdict in favor of PSG in the amount of $110.0 million, which the Northern District Court, in entering its judgment on the verdict, subsequently trebled as a matter of law. PSG is also entitled to petition for and recover its attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest. On December 20, 2024, CMC, CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. and CMC Steel US, LLC filed a motion with the Northern District Court challenging the jury’s verdict and requesting a new trial. On September 29, 2025, the Northern District Court denied this post-trial motion, upholding the jury’s verdict. We are confident we conducted our business appropriately and intend to vigorously pursue all reasonably available avenues to have the verdict and judgment overturned. On October 24, 2025, the Company filed its notice of appeal. As a trial judgment in favor of PSG was rendered, it was determined that there was a probable and reasonably estimable loss, which was recorded as an expense within the condensed consolidated financial statements. In the nine months ended May 31, 2025, we reported $358.5 million, of litigation expense in the condensed consolidated statement of loss, which represents the Company's estimates based on its understanding of the PSG judgment, PSG's attorneys' fees and other related costs, including post-judgment interest. In the nine months ended May 31, 2026 we reported $11.6 million of litigation expense in the condensed consolidated statement of earnings, which primarily represents the Company's estimate of post-judgment interest on the PSG judgment. These amounts were classified as current liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets because the timing of the potential payment is uncertain. All other legal expenses for the three and nine months ended May 31, 2026 and 2025 are reported within SG&A expenses. If the verdict and judgment are overturned through the appeals process, the expenses and related liability will be reversed in the same period the verdict and judgment are overturned. Our litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred. Although we are vigorously pursuing a reversal of the jury’s verdict and the judgment, the ultimate resolution is uncertain. Unless the verdict and judgment are overturned or the judgment is significantly reduced, the cash payments incurred in connection with the litigation could have a significant impact on our liquidity. On March 13, 2022, PSG filed a second suit in the San Diego County Superior Court of California alleging that CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc., CMC Steel US, LLC, and CMC Rebar West (which later merged into CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc.) violated California state antitrust and unfair competition laws by bidding below their costs for rebar furnish-and-install projects in California in order to hamper PSG's ability to win jobs and reduce PSG’s profitability. These allegations were initially brought in PSG's lawsuit in the Northern District Court, but were dismissed without prejudice by the Northern District Court for lack of jurisdiction. This second lawsuit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. There, PSG seeks, among other things, a jury trial on its claims in addition to injunctive relief, compensatory damages of approximately $29 million for alleged lost profits, part of which is subject to automatic trebling pursuant to applicable law, plus pre-judgment interest, fees and costs. Fact and expert discovery are substantially complete. On November 12, 2024, CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc., CMC Steel US, LLC and CMC Rebar West filed a motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently denied on September 29, 2025. This ruling does not represent a determination on the merits of the case. As of the date of this Form 10-Q, no trial has been scheduled. We are confident we conducted our business appropriately, believe we have substantial defenses and intend to vigorously defend against PSG's claims. We have not recorded any liability for this matter as we do not believe a loss is probable, and cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. It is possible that an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. With respect to administrative or judicial proceedings arising under any federal, state or local provisions that have been enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment, the Company has determined that it will disclose any such proceeding to which a governmental authority is a party if it reasonably believes such proceeding could result in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of at least $1.0 million. The Company believes that this threshold is reasonably designed to result in disclosure of environmental proceedings that are material to the Company's business or financial condition. Applying this threshold, there were no environmental matters to disclose for this period.