Sales Commitments – At June 30, 2015, the Company had sales contracts with its major customers to sell certain quantities of ethanol and co-products. The Company had fixed-price sales contracts to sell $2,653,000 of ethanol and indexed-price contracts to sell 180,395,000 gallons of ethanol. The Company had fixed-price sales contracts to sell $2,020,000 of co-products and indexed-price sales contracts to sell 61,000 tons of co-products. These sales contracts are scheduled to be completed throughout 2015.

Purchase Commitments – At June 30, 2015, the Company had fixed-price purchase contracts with its suppliers to purchase $3,735,000 of ethanol and indexed-price contracts to purchase 29,552,000 gallons of ethanol. These contracts are scheduled to be satisfied throughout the remainder of 2015. 

Litigation – General – The Company is subject to various claims and contingencies in the ordinary course of its business, including those related to litigation, business transactions, employee-related matters, and others. When the Company is aware of a claim or potential claim, it assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. If it is probable that a loss will result and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company will record a liability for the loss. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the claim if the likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably possible and the amount involved could be material. While there can be no assurances, the Company does not expect that any of its pending legal proceedings will have a material financial impact on the Company’s operating results.

On May 24, 2013, GS CleanTech Corporation (“GS CleanTech”), filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division (Case No.: 2:13-CV-01042-JAM-AC), naming Pacific Ethanol, Inc. as a defendant. On August 29, 2013, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and made part of the pre-existing multi-district litigation involving GS CleanTech and multiple defendants. The suit alleged infringement of a patent assigned to GS CleanTech by virtue of certain corn oil separation technology in use at one or more of the ethanol production facilities in which the Company has an interest, including Pacific Ethanol Stockton LLC (“PE Stockton”), located in Stockton, California. The complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Company, prohibiting future infringement on the patent owned by GS CleanTech and damages in an unspecified amount adequate to compensate GS CleanTech for the alleged patent infringement, but in any event no less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the patent, plus attorneys’ fees. The Company answered the complaint, counterclaimed that the patent claims at issue, as well as the claims in several related patents, are invalid and unenforceable and that the Company is not infringing. Pacific Ethanol, Inc. does not itself use any corn oil separation technology and may seek a dismissal on those grounds.

On March 17 and March 18, 2014, GS CleanTech filed suit naming as defendants two Company subsidiaries: PE Stockton and Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley, LLC (“PE Magic Valley”). The claims were similar to those filed against Pacific Ethanol, Inc. in May 2013. These two cases were transferred to the multi-district litigation division in United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where the case against Pacific Ethanol, Inc. was pending. Although PE Stockton and PE Magic Valley do separate and market corn oil, Pacific Ethanol, Inc., PE Stockton and PE Magic Valley strongly disagree that either of the subsidiaries use corn oil separation technology that infringes the patent owned by GS CleanTech. In a January 16, 2015 decision, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of a stipulated motion for partial summary judgment for Pacific Ethanol, Inc., PE Stockton and PE Magic Valley finding that all of the GS Cleantech patents in the suit were invalid and, therefore, not infringed. GS Cleantech has said it will appeal this decision when the remaining claim in the suit has been decided. The only remaining claim alleges that GS Cleantech inequitably conducted itself before the United States Patent Office when obtaining the patents at issue. A trial in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on that single issue is expected later in 2015. If the Defendants, including Pacific Ethanol, Inc., PE Stockton and PE Magic Valley, succeed in proving inequitable conduct, then the Court will be asked to determine whether GS Cleantech’s behavior makes this an “exceptional case”. A finding that this is an exceptional case would allow the Court to award to Pacific Ethanol, Inc., PE Stockton and PE Magic Valley the attorneys’ fees expended to date for defense in this case. It is unknown whether GS Cleantech would appeal such a ruling. The Company did not record a provision for these matters as of June 30, 2015 as Company management intends to vigorously defend these allegations and believes a material adverse ruling against Pacific Ethanol, Inc., PE Stockton and/or PE Magic Valley is not probable. The Company believes that any liability Pacific Ethanol, Inc., PE Stockton and/or PE Magic Valley may incur would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or its results of operations.