MOSAIC CO - Quarter Report: 2011 August (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended August 31, 2011

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number 001-32327

The Mosaic Company

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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: 275,886,087 shares of Common Stock, 57,768,374 shares of Class A Common Stock and 112,991,398 shares of Class B Common Stock as of September 23, 2011.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

(In millions, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

1

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In millions, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

2

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

3

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY

(In millions, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

4

Table of Contents

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 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”).

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 74% for the three months ended August 31, 2011.

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 13 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 August 31, 2011, and our results of operations and cash flows for the three months ended August 31, 2011 and 2010. The following notes should be

5

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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, derivative financial instruments, 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 an impact on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

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 us 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 Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

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

6

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 would not expect it to have a material impact on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

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 or the U.S. GAAP requirement to report reclassification of items from other comprehensive income to net income. This standard will be effective for our fiscal quarter beginning June 1, 2012 with retrospective application required. As this standard impacts presentation requirements only, the adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the requirements of this standard.

4. 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:

A total of 0.6 million shares of common stock subject to issuance upon exercise of stock options, restricted stock awards and market-based units for the three months ended August 31, 2011 and 2010, have been excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the effect would have been anti-dilutive.

7

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

5. Income Taxes

We record unrecognized tax benefits in accordance with the applicable accounting standards. During the three months ended August 31, 2011 unrecognized tax benefits increased by $10.4 million.

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 $52.6 million and $50.9 million as of August 31, 2011 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 August 31, 2011, we anticipate that the amount of uncertain tax positions will change in the next twelve months; however, the change cannot reasonably be estimated.

6. Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

7. Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by reporting unit, for the three months ended August 31, 2011 are as follows:

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.

8. 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

8

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 $641.4 million and $606.2 million for the three months ended August 31, 2011 and 2010, 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 months ended August 31, 2011 and 2010.

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 guaranteed 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:

9. Contingencies

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

We have contingent environmental liabilities that arise principally from three sources: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned

9

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 $39.9 million and $41.7 million as of August 31, 2011 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. We have met several times with the DOJ and EPA to discuss potential resolutions to this matter. In addition to seeking various changes to our operations, the DOJ and EPA have expressed a desire to obtain

10

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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

11

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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. 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, which began in 1995, is now substantially completed, with only lower-yield reserves left to be mined. 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. We subsequently initiated site preparation activities to begin mining the Hardee County Extension.

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 allege 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 include 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

12

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 found that plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim but that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Corps failed to adequately conduct their CWA alternatives analysis. 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 is 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, including laying off approximately 60 employees and temporarily placing other employees in positions outside of our 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. Phase II is accessible from Phase I. Uplands-only mining does not require a federal permit, the Jacksonville District Court and the plaintiffs

13

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

had previously indicated that uplands mining is permissible and the Corps notified the Jacksonville District Court that it had no objection to our uplands-only mining contingency plan because no federal permit is required to mine uplands. Our mining plan contemplated that we would mine an estimated 2.4 million tonnes of phosphate rock from Phase II during a period ranging from approximately June 2011 into July 2012, generally using two draglines. A third dragline would have continued mining lower-quality remnants of reserves in Polk County, while a fourth dragline normally used for full production at the mine would have remained idle. Although this reduced operating rate and the inability to mine wetlands would have resulted in less production and less efficient mining than our mining plan allowed under the Hardee County Extension Permit, this transition would have allowed us to continue to produce phosphate rock and keep our workforce employed while we addressed the merits of the permit litigation.

On May 24, 2011, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include allegations that our mining of Phase II is a significant new fact that requires 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 is 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 day after the Eleventh Circuit’s order vacating the First Preliminary Injunction was effective, 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. In connection with the Second Preliminary Injunction, the Jacksonville District Court also stated that it would expedite its ruling on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims although the court has not yet rendered a decision on the merits.

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.

We have subsequently requested the Eleventh Circuit to enforce its April 8, 2011 order and vacate the Second Preliminary Injunction, appealed the Second Preliminary Injunction, and requested a stay (as to Phase II only) of the Second Preliminary Injunction from both the Jacksonville District Court and the Eleventh Circuit.

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 near-term 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 believe we will be 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 degree to which we are able to successfully mitigate the effects of the Second Preliminary Injunction in the longer-term remains uncertain. The increased use of purchased phosphate rock due to the Preliminary Injuction has increased costs and may further increase costs in future periods. Our historical production of concentrated phosphates from

14

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

the South Fort Meade mine’s phosphate rock production is estimated to be approximately 3.2 million tonnes per year. Accordingly, an extended loss of production from the South Fort Meade mine could also potentially adversely impact production at our phosphate concentrates plants and our sales volumes, lead to further layoffs of employees, and result in the indefinite closure of at least one of our phosphate concentrates plants. This could further significantly affect our future results of operations, reduce our future cash flows from operations, and, in the longer term, conceivably adversely affect our liquidity and capital resources.

We believe that the plaintiffs’ claims in this case are without merit and that the Second Preliminary Injunction is not supported by the facts or the law. We intend to vigorously defend the Corps’ issuance of the Hardee County Extension Permit and our right to engage in uplands-only mining without a federal permit, including seeking a stay of the Second Preliminary Injunction. However, if the plaintiffs were to prevail in this case, obtaining new or modified permits could significantly delay the mining of the Hardee County Extension and could result in more onerous mining conditions.

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 November 2012. We cannot predict the scope or actual timeline for this process, or what its outcome will be; however, although we do not currently expect its outcome 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. The public scoping period for the AEIS has been completed, but the Corps has not yet announced the scope of the AEIS.

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.

15

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 March 17, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Seventh Circuit”) agreed to hear the defendants’ interlocutory appeal. On September 23, 2011, 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. The time for plaintiffs to seek reconsideration or to appeal has not yet expired.

16

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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. We filed an answer to the complaint responding that MicroEssentials^® does not infringe the plaintiffs’ patent and that the plaintiffs’ patent is invalid. Following a hearing on March 17, 2010, at which the court construed plaintiffs’ patent in such a manner that our MicroEssentials^® products would not infringe the patent, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims with prejudice, subject to a right to appeal the dismissal.

Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). On April 20, 2011, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Missouri District Court had incorrectly construed plaintiffs’ patent in dismissing the lawsuit, vacated its judgment that our MicroEssentials^® products did not infringe the patent and remanded the lawsuit to the Missouri District Court. The Federal Circuit’s decision did not address our other defenses to the lawsuit, including that the plaintiffs’ patent is invalid. The Federal Circuit also held that the Missouri District Court properly allowed us to add a counterclaim of inequitable conduct.

Plaintiffs’ have moved to stay the lawsuit pending a reexamination of their patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We have opposed plaintiffs’ motion.

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. The agreement provides that PCS may elect to receive between 0.45 million and 1.3 million tonnes of potash per year. The agreement provides for a term through December 31, 2011 as well as certain renewal terms at the option of PCS, but only to the extent PCS has not received all of its available reserves under the agreement. To the extent we do not fully utilize 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 will be available to us for sales to any of our customers at then-current market prices.

Over the life of the Tolling Agreement, PCS has requested and received substantially more potash than has been mined from PCS’s reserves (the “Imbalance”). We have supplied the excess from our own reserves.

17

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Based on our calculations, the amount of potash we have mined for PCS from our reserves is now in excess of the amount we expect to mine from the remaining PCS reserves. As a result, we believe that we have no further obligation under the agreement to deliver potash to PCS from the Esterhazy mine.

In light of the Imbalance, and based on our then-current calculations, in May 2009, we notified PCS that we believed that approximately 1.5 million tonnes of potash remained to be delivered to PCS under the Tolling Agreement after April 2009 and, therefore, our obligation to supply potash to PCS would expire by the end of August 2010, and that we would cease delivery of product following that date. Our calculations assumed PCS would continue to take 1.1 million tonnes annually under the contract (which is the volume PCS elected to take for calendar 2009) and that our then-current mining plans and conditions would remain unchanged. We subsequently updated our calculations to reflect PCS’s refusal to take delivery in calendar 2009 of almost 0.9 million tonnes of potash that it ordered under the contract as a result of an alleged force majeure event (the “Force Majeure Tonnes”), as well as PCS’s election to take 0.9 million tonnes of potash under the contract in calendar 2010 and 2011 and other relevant factors.

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 (the “Queen’s Bench Court”) contesting our basis and timing for termination of deliveries under the Tolling Agreement and alleging damages based on our historical mining practices. In general terms, the lawsuit contests our basis and timing for termination of deliveries under the Tolling Agreement; asserts that PCS’ rights to potash under the contract will not expire until at least 2012, and potentially later at then-current delivery rates; alleges that our notice described in the prior paragraph is a threatened repudiation of the contract and would convert PCS’s reserves to our use; and asserts that the value of the potash at issue exceeds $1 billion. The lawsuit also alleges that we breached our contractual obligation to engage in good mining practices, resulting in saturated brine inflows in portions of our Esterhazy mine, which allegedly reduced the extraction ratio of potash from the mine. The lawsuit further claims that, if our Esterhazy mine were to flood, we could convert the mine to a solution mine and that, under such circumstances, we would be able to extract a greater portion of the reserves and that PCS would accordingly be entitled to additional potash under the Tolling Agreement. The lawsuit requests orders from the court declaring the amount of potash that PCS has a right to receive under the Tolling Agreement; that we deliver that amount of potash to PCS on a timely basis in accordance with the Tolling Agreement; restraining us from ceasing delivery of potash to PCS until a final order is issued by the court; and awarding damages to PCS for any conversion of PCS’s reserves and our alleged threatened repudiation of the contract, as well as costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and such further relief as the court may allow.

In June 2009, we filed a statement of defense against PCS’s claims as well as a counterclaim against PCS. In our statement of defense, we generally denied the alleged bases for PCS’s claims and asserted, among other defenses, that PCS’s lawsuit did not state a cause of action; that any claim for alleged poor mining practices was based on acts or omissions prior to 1986 and was time-barred; that provisions of the Tolling Agreement limit our liability to PCS to loss, damage or injury to the PCS reserves resulting from bad faith, willful misconduct or gross negligence; and that provisions of the Tolling Agreement limit our liability for performance or non-performance under the contract to approximately $10.0 million. We also noted that saturated brine inflows are a known risk in Saskatchewan potash mines and that each potash shaft mine in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, including all five PCS potash shaft mines, has a history of inflows. Finally, our statement of defense requested a declaration by the court that based on our then-current mine plans and assuming a delivery rate of approximately 1.1 million tonnes of product per year, PCS’s entitlement to potash would terminate by the end of August 2010.

In addition, as noted above, PCS refused to take delivery of the Force Majeure Tonnes, following its April 2009 notice to us that it was no longer prepared to accept further shipments of product under the Tolling

18

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Agreement because of the global financial and credit crisis, stating that PCS no longer had the ability to physically receive, ship or store additional potash, and asserting that its inability to receive delivery of additional product was a force majeure event. We counterclaimed against PCS alleging that it breached the Tolling Agreement by failing to take delivery of potash that it ordered under the contract based on the alleged force majeure event. Our counterclaim seeks damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment interest, costs and such further relief as the court deems just.

In January 2010, PCS amended its statement of claim to, among other things, allege that Mosaic failed to make proper or adequate disclosure to PCS regarding our mining practices, the purpose and effect of which is to conceal from PCS the existence of claims PCS may have had in respect of our alleged failure to discharge properly its obligations under the Tolling Agreement.

In addition, in February 2010, almost a year after initiating the alleged event of force majeure, PCS notified us that it was lifting its prior notice of force majeure but noted that it only intended to take a pro rata share of its nominated volume for calendar 2010. In March 2010, the court denied our motion to bar and strike, as not a proper subject for declaratory relief and as time-barred, PCS’s claim for alleged losses arising from saturated brine inflows in portions of our Esterhazy mine dating back to 1985 and 1986, on the basis that these determinations should be made by the trial judge based upon the evidentiary record established at trial, currently scheduled to begin in January 2012.

On May 2, 2011, we notified PCS that we had satisfied our obligation to produce potash under the Tolling Agreement. On June 30, 2011, the Queen’s Bench Court ordered us to continue to supply potash under the terms of the Tolling Agreement until trial begins. We have appealed the court’s order. In the event that PCS does not prevail after trial on the merits of its underlying claim, PCS has agreed to pay monetary damages to us for the losses we suffer as a result of the court’s order.

We believe that PCS’s allegations are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. While we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation at this stage of the proceedings, irrespective of its outcome, we believe that expiration of our obligation to ship under the Tolling Agreement will have a material positive effect on the volume of potash that we can produce for resale at then-current market prices, may result in an increase in our share of the sales of Canpotex (which are generally based on the operational capacities of the members) and could have a material positive effect on our results of operations, liquidity and capital resources.

Other Claims

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

10. Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

We 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, 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.

19

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

As of August 31, 2011, the following is the total absolute notional volume associated with our outstanding derivative instruments:

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:

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.

20

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

For additional disclosures about fair value measurement of derivative instruments, see Note 11 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 August 31, 2011, was $14.8 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 August 31, 2011, we would be required to post $11.7 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.

11. 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.

21

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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.

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:

For cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, 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.

12. Related Party Transactions

We enter into transactions and agreements with certain of our non-consolidated companies from time to time. As of August 31, 2011 and May 31, 2011, the net amount due from our non-consolidated companies totaled $176.1 million and $145.7 million, respectively. The Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings included the following transactions with our non-consolidated companies:

22

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

13. 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: