MOSAIC CO - Quarter Report: 2013 February (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended February 28, 2013

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: 296,994,693 shares of Common Stock and 128,759,772 shares of Class A Common Stock and 0 shares of Class B Common Stock as of March 23, 2013.

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 STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

2

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In millions, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

3

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

4

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

5

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 (“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.

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. Additionally, the Phosphates segment has 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 93% for the nine months ended February 28, 2013.

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 14 to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this report 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 a fair statement of the results for the interim periods presented. The following notes should be read in conjunction with the accounting policies and other disclosures in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated by reference in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2012. 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.

6

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Mosaic and its majority owned subsidiaries, as well as the accounts of certain variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which we are the primary beneficiary. Certain investments in companies where we do not have control but have the ability to exercise significant influence are accounted for by the equity method.

Accounting Estimates

Preparation of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of net sales and expenses during the reporting periods. The more significant estimates made by management relate to the recoverability of non-current assets, the useful lives of long-lived assets, environmental and reclamation liabilities, the costs of our employee benefit obligations for pension plans and postretirement benefits, income tax-related accounts, including the valuation allowance against deferred income tax assets, Canadian resource taxes 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 June 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income” which requires comprehensive income to be reported in either a single statement or in two consecutive statements reporting net income and other comprehensive income. The amendment does not change what items are reported in other comprehensive income. Additionally, in December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05” which indefinitely defers the requirement in ASU No. 2011-05 to present reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component in both the statement in which net income is presented and the statement in which other comprehensive income is presented. During the deferral period, the existing requirements in U.S. GAAP for the presentation of reclassification adjustments must continue to be followed. These standards became effective for our fiscal quarter beginning June 1, 2012, and did not have an impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, “Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing for Goodwill Impairment” which permits an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in Topic 350. We adopted this guidance for our annual goodwill impairment test for fiscal year 2013, which was conducted in the second quarter. The adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on our results of operations or financial position.

Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities” which enhances current disclosures about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset on the statement of financial position or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset on the statement of financial position.

7

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Entities are required to provide both net and gross information for these assets and liabilities in order to facilitate comparability between financial statements prepared on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those prepared on the basis of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). In January 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-01, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Clarifying the Scope of Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities” to limit the scope of the new balance sheet offsetting disclosures to derivatives, repurchase agreements, and securities lending transactions to the extent that they are offset in the financial statements or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. These standards will be effective for us beginning June 1, 2013 with retrospective application required. We are currently evaluating the requirements of these standards, but they are not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-02, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income” which requires entities to disclose additional information about changes in and significant items reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income. This guidance is effective for us beginning June 1, 2013. We do not believe the adoption of this standard will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

4. Other Financial Statement Data

The following provides additional information concerning selected balance sheet accounts:

8

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

5. 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 0.4 million and 0.9 million shares of common stock subject to issuance upon exercise of stock options for the three and nine months ended February 28, 2013, respectively, and 0.6 million shares for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012 have been excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the effect would have been anti-dilutive.

6. Income Taxes

We record unrecognized tax benefits in accordance with applicable accounting standards. During the nine months ended February 28, 2013, gross unrecognized tax benefits decreased by $180.9 million to $296.0 million. We recorded a gross decrease of $187.7 million associated with our non-U.S. subsidiaries due to the resolution of certain tax matters, of which $179.3 million impacted our effective tax rate. The decrease was partially offset by a net increase in unrecognized tax benefits associated with the current and prior fiscal years. If recognized, approximately $105.2 million of the $296.0 million in unrecognized tax benefits would affect our effective tax rate in future periods.

We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as a component of our income tax provision. We had accrued interest and penalties totaling $51.8 million and $52.0 million as of February 28, 2013 and May 31, 2012, 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.

During the second quarter of fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service concluded its audit for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. We are currently under audit by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 and the Canadian Revenue Agency for the fiscal years 2001 to 2011.

9

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Based upon the information available as of February 28, 2013, we anticipate that the amount of uncertain tax positions will change in the next twelve months; however, the change cannot reasonably be estimated.

7. Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

8. Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by reporting unit, for the nine months ended February 28, 2013 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. We performed our annual review of goodwill in the second quarter and no impairment was identified.

9. Variable Interest Entities

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

PhosChem is an export association of United States phosphate producers that markets our phosphate products internationally. We, along with the other member, are, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, contractually obligated to reimburse PhosChem for our respective pro rata share of any operating expenses or other liabilities. PhosChem had net sales of $367.7 million and $878.4 million for the three and nine months ended February 28, 2013, respectively, and net sales of $528.1 million and $1.8 billion for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2012, respectively, which are included in our consolidated net sales. PhosChem currently funds its operations through ongoing sales.

10

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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

SFMP owns the mineable acres at our South Fort Meade phosphate mine. We have a long-term mineral lease with SFMP which, in general, expires on the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2025, or (ii) the date that we have completed mining and reclamation obligations associated with the leased property. In addition to lease payments, we pay SFMP a royalty on each tonne mined and shipped from the areas that we lease. SFMP had no external sales for the three and nine months ended February 28, 2013 and February 29, 2012.

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

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

10. Contingencies

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

We have contingent environmental liabilities that arise principally from three sources: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned facilities; and (iii) third-party Superfund or state equivalent sites. At facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors, the historical use and handling of regulated chemical substances, crop and animal nutrients and additives and by-product or process tailings have resulted in soil, surface water and/or groundwater contamination. Spills or other releases of regulated substances, subsidence from mining operations and other incidents arising out of operations, including accidents, have occurred previously at these facilities, and potentially could occur in the future, possibly requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup or result in monetary damage awards, fines, penalties, other liabilities, injunctions or other court or administrative rulings. In some instances, pursuant to consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies, we are undertaking certain remedial actions or investigations to determine whether remedial action may be required to address contamination. At other locations, we have entered into consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies to perform required remedial activities that will address identified site conditions. Taking into consideration established accruals of approximately $25.6 million and $27.3 million as of February 28, 2013

11

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

and May 31, 2012, 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, we understand that 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 phosphate concentrates 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 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), Green Bay (August 2006) and Bartow (September 2006) facilities in Florida. The EPA has issued similar NOVs to our competitors and 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 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 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.

We are negotiating the terms of a possible settlement with the EPA, the DOJ, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (collectively, the “Government”) and the final terms are not yet agreed upon or approved. If a settlement can be achieved, in all likelihood our commitments would be multi-faceted with key elements including, in general and among other elements, the following:

12

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

In light of our strong operating cash flows, liquidity and capital resources, we believe that we have sufficient liquidity and capital resources to be able to fund such capital expenditures, financial assurance requirements and civil penalties as part of a settlement. If a settlement cannot be agreed upon, we cannot predict the outcome of any litigation or estimate the potential amount or range of loss; however, we would face potential exposure to material costs should we fail in the defense of an enforcement action.

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.

13

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Currently, certain of our subsidiaries are involved or concluding involvement at several Superfund or equivalent

state sites. Our remedial liability from these sites, alone or in the aggregate, currently is not expected to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites and the potentially responsible parties involved, this expectation could change.

We believe that, pursuant to several indemnification agreements, our subsidiaries are entitled to at least partial, and in many instances complete, indemnification for the costs that may be expended by us or our subsidiaries to remedy environmental issues at certain facilities. These agreements address issues that resulted from activities occurring prior to our acquisition of facilities or businesses from parties including, but not limited to, ARCO (BP); Beatrice Fund for Environmental Liabilities; Conoco; Conserv; Estech, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kerr-McGee Inc.; PPG Industries, Inc.; The Williams Companies and certain other private parties. Our subsidiaries have already received and anticipate receiving amounts pursuant to the indemnification agreements for certain of their expenses incurred to date as well as future anticipated expenditures. Potential indemnification is not considered in our established accruals.

Phosphate Mine Permitting in Florida

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

The Altman Extension of the Four Corners Mine. The Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) issued a federal wetlands permit under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) for mining the Altman Extension (the “Altman Extension”) of our Four Corners phosphate rock mine in central Florida in May 2008. The Sierra Club, Inc. (the “Sierra Club”), Manasota-88, Inc. (“Manasota-88”), Gulf Restoration Network, Inc., People for Protecting Peace River, Inc. (“People for Protecting Peace River”) and the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. sued the Corps in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (the “Jacksonville District Court”), seeking to vacate our permit to mine the Altman Extension (the “Altman Extension Permit Litigation”). Mining on the Altman Extension commenced and approximately 600 acres of the Altman Extension were mined and/or disturbed. The remaining approximately 1,200 acres of the Altman extension of our Four Corners mine are not currently in our near term mining plan. In a June 26, 2012 order, the Jacksonville District Court declared the parties’ pending motions for summary judgment moot and requested rebriefing by all parties. The plaintiffs have filed a new motion for summary judgment, and we and the Corps have filed our respective responses and cross-motions for summary judgment. We believe that the permit was issued in accordance with all applicable requirements and that it will ultimately be upheld.

Central Florida Phosphate District Area-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. In fiscal year 2011, the Corps notified us that it planned to conduct an area-wide environmental impact statement (“AEIS”) for the central Florida phosphate district. On June 1, 2012, the Corps published notice of availability of the draft AEIS in the Federal Register and announced that it would accept public comment on the draft AEIS through July 31, 2012. We, along with other members of the public, submitted comments for the Corps to consider as it completes the final AEIS. The Corps’ revised schedule calls for it to issue the AEIS in April 2013. This AEIS is expected to include information on environmental impacts upon which the Corps would rely in its consideration of our pending federal wetlands permits for our future Ona and DeSoto mines and an extension of our Wingate mine. We cannot predict the scope or actual timeline for this process, or what its outcome will be. Although we do not currently expect the outcome of the AEIS to materially influence the conditions of future federal wetlands permits for our mining in central Florida, a protracted timeline for this process could delay our future permitting efforts.

14

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 (the “Northern Illinois District Court”) 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 alleged, 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 sought 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 sought costs of suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Gordon Tillman (the “Tillman Case”); Feyh Farm Co. and William H. Coaker Jr. (the “Feyh Farm Case”); and Kevin Gillespie (the “Gillespie Case;” the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the “Indirect Purchaser Cases;” and the Direct Purchaser Cases together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively referred to as the “Potash Antitrust Cases”). The defendants in the Indirect Purchaser Cases were 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 were 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

15

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 sought costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2009, we and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases. On November 3, 2009, the court granted our motions to dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a) for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa, claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law. The court denied our and the other defendants’ other motions to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state a claim for relief under that section. The court, however, stated that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases present a difficult question under the pleading standards enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal. On January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of (i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive activity involving foreign markets, engaged in ‘conduct involving import trade or import commerce’ under applicable law. On September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Seventh Circuit”) vacated the district court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims. On December 2, 2011, the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and on June 27, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of the Northern Illinois District Court to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of the case, but the Seventh Circuit’s decision allowed pretrial discovery to proceed in this matter, and the Northern Illinois District Court scheduled trial to begin February 10, 2014. We sought U.S. Supreme Court review of the Seventh Circuit’s decision.

On January 30, 2013, we entered into agreements to settle the Potash Antitrust Cases for an aggregate of $43.8 million. Potential class members have until May 22, 2013 to opt out of the settlement. We chose to settle the Potash Antitrust Cases to avoid the significant costs, burden and distraction of protracted litigation and we did not admit any wrongdoing. Following preliminary approval by the Northern Illinois District Court on January 30, 2013, we funded the settlement subject to final court approval. The majority of the settlement was recorded in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013.

MicroEssentials^® Patent Lawsuit

On January 9, 2009, John Sanders and Specialty Fertilizer Products, LLC filed a complaint against Mosaic, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Cargill, Incorporated and Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “Missouri District Court”). The complaint alleges that our production of MicroEssentials^® SZ, one of several types of the MicroEssentials^® value-added ammoniated phosphate crop nutrient products that we produce, infringes on a patent held by the plaintiffs since 2001. Plaintiffs have since asserted that other MicroEssentials^® products also infringe the patent. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the alleged infringement and to recover an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees for past infringement. Our answer to the complaint responds that the plaintiffs’ patent is invalid and we have counterclaimed that the plaintiffs have engaged in inequitable conduct.

16

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

The Missouri District Court stayed the lawsuit pending an ex parte reexamination of plaintiffs’ patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”). On September 12, 2012, Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) filed an inter parties reexamination request which in part asserted that the claims as amended and added in connection with the ex parte reexamination are unpatentable. On October 4, 2012, the PTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate in which certain claims of the plaintiffs’ patent were cancelled, disclaimed and amended, and new claims were added. Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the Missouri District Court requesting that the stay of the lawsuit be lifted, and we have opposed that motion. On November 28, 2012, the PTO granted Shell’s request for an inter parties reexamination. On December 11, 2012, as part of that reexamination, the PTO issued an initial rejection of all of plaintiffs’ remaining patent claims. Final rejection by the PTO or further amendment by the plaintiffs of all or part of the remaining patent claims as part of the reexamination could limit the claims the plaintiffs can assert against us or their remedies against us.

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, estimate the potential amount or range of loss or determine whether it will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or 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.

11. 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, ammonia and sulfur consumed in operations and changes in freight costs. We periodically enter into derivatives in order to mitigate our foreign currency risks and the effects of changing commodity and freight prices, but not for speculative purposes.

As of February 28, 2013 and May 31, 2012, the following is the total absolute notional volume associated with our outstanding derivative instruments:

17

Table of Contents

THE MOSAIC COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

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 gain (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.