Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies The company is involved in various routine litigation matters, including administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, governmental investigations, environmental matters, and commercial and construction contract disputes, none of which are expected to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The company is involved, along with eight other steel manufacturing companies, in a class action antitrust complaint filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois in September 2008, which alleges a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States starting in 2005, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. All but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products between January 1, 2005, and the present. The other Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period. In addition, in December 2010, we and the other co-defendants were served with a substantially similar complaint in the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee, purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee. That case has been removed to the federal court in Chicago that is hearing the main complaint. All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. In January 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits, but this motion was denied in June 2009. Following a period of preliminary discovery relating to class certification matters, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification in May 2012, and on February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs  Motion for Class Certification, together with joint motions to e