_________________________________

_________________________________

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015

or

For the transition period from __________ to __________

Commission File No. 1-13696

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(513) 425-5000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

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, and (2) has been subject to filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes T 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 during the preceding 12 months.

Yes T 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.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company. Yes £ No T

There were 177,850,457 shares of common stock outstanding as of October 29, 2015 .

AK STEEL HOLDING CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

AK STEEL HOLDING CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(dollars in millions, except per share data)

The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , include the following amounts related to consolidated variable interest entities, prior to intercompany eliminations. See Note 12 for more information concerning variable interest entities.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

AK STEEL HOLDING CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY (DEFICIT)

(dollars in millions)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 1 - Basis of Presentation

In the opinion of the management of AK Steel Holding Corporation ("AK Holding") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation ("AK Steel", and together with AK Holding, the "Company"), the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, necessary to present fairly the financial position of the Company as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , the results of its operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , and its cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 . The results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year ending December 31, 2015 . These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 , included in the Company's Form 10‑K for the year ended December 31, 2014 .

NOTE 2 - Acquisition of Dearborn

On September 16, 2014 , the Company acquired Severstal Dearborn, LLC ("Dearborn") from Severstal Columbus Holdings, LLC ("Severstal"). The assets acquired from Severstal included the integrated steelmaking assets located in Dearborn, Michigan ("Dearborn Works"), the Mountain State Carbon, LLC ("Mountain State Carbon") cokemaking facility located in Follansbee, West Virginia, and interests in joint ventures that process flat-rolled steel products. The Company acquired Dearborn to increase scale and enhance its ability to serve customers, further its automotive strategy, strengthen its carbon steelmaking footprint and achieve additional operational flexibility. In addition, the Company acquired highly modernized and upgraded steelmaking equipment and facilities and the opportunity to achieve significant cost-based synergies. Immediately after the acquisition, Dearborn was merged with and into AK Steel. The final cash purchase price was $690.3 , net of cash acquired.

During the second quarter of 2015, the Company sold its 50.0% equity interest in Double Eagle Steel Coating Company ("Double Eagle") for $25.0 in cash. The sale resolved a dispute with the other equity interest holder over the fair market value of the Company's interest in Double Eagle, which the Company acquired through its purchase of Dearborn. In July 2015, the Company received $25.0 from DTE Electric Company ("DTE") to resolve a favorable administrative decision that concluded Dearborn Works had been overcharged for electricity for several years prior to the Company's acquisition of that facility. Both of these matters resolved disputes that existed at the time of the Company's acquisition of Dearborn. The purchase price allocation shown below reflects the updated estimates in value of these matters.  Neither the proceeds from AK Steel's sale of its equity interest in Double Eagle nor the proceeds from DTE had a material impact, individually or in the aggregate, on the Company's results of operations for 2015 or the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2014.

A summary of the final purchase price allocation for the fair value of the assets acquired and the obligations assumed at the date of the acquisition is presented below.

Assuming the acquisition had been completed at the beginning of 2014 , unaudited pro forma net sales and operating profit (loss) for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 were $5,945.0 and $(890.3) , respectively, including charges for fixed asset impairments of $1,005.1 recorded by Severstal prior to the acquisition. This selected unaudited pro forma consolidated financial data is included only for the purpose of illustration and does not necessarily indicate what the operating results would have been if the acquisition had been completed at the beginning of 2014 . Moreover, this information does not indicate what the Company's future operating results will be.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company incurred acquisition costs of $6.3 and $7.3 , respectively. Acquisition costs are primarily comprised of transaction fees and direct costs, including legal, finance, consulting and other professional fees. These costs are included in selling and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. In addition, the Company incurred $12.6 of costs in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 for committed bridge financing that the Company arranged in connection with the acquisition of Dearborn, but which was unused because of the Company's successful financing of the acquisition through debt and common stock offerings. As a result, these costs were expensed in the third quarter of 2014 and are included in other income (expense) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Subsequent to the acquisition, the Company incurred severance costs of $2.6 for certain employees of Dearborn, which are included in selling and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, and an income tax charge of $2.1 related to changes in the value of deferred tax assets resulting from the acquisition.

NOTE 3 - Inventories

NOTE 4 - Investments in Affiliates

The Company has investments in several businesses accounted for using the equity method of accounting. Cost of products sold includes $1.8 and $3.4 for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , respectively, and $5.4 and $8.5 for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , respectively, for the Company's share of income of equity investees other than Magnetation LLC ("Magnetation"). The Company's share of income (loss) related to Magnetation is included in other income (expense) and was $(2.2) for the three months ended September 30, 2014 , and $(16.3) and $(6.0) for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , respectively. The results of operations for the three months ended September 30, 2015 , do not include any losses of Magnetation as the basis in the Magnetation investment had been reduced to zero as of March 31, 2015 and AK Steel has no further investment commitments to Magnetation.

Summarized financial statement data for all investees is presented below. The financial results for acquired joint ventures are only included for the period since the acquisition and the financial results for Magnetation are only included through March 31, 2015, since it is unlikely that AK Steel will retain its equity interest as a result of Magnetation's bankruptcy.

Magnetation

As of March 31, 2015, the Company concluded that its 49.9% equity interest in Magnetation was fully impaired and therefore recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $256.3 for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. Key factors that affected the Company's conclusion that an other-than-temporary impairment had occurred as of March 31, 2015, included (i) the significant market decline in global iron ore pellet pricing during the first quarter of 2015 and resulting negative cash flow effects on Magnetation's results; (ii) a less favorable longer-term forecast of iron ore prices and resulting cash flow outlook for Magnetation; (iii) the likely loss of the Company's equity interest in Magnetation in the event of a bankruptcy filing; and (iv) Magnetation's existing capital structure and the inability of Magnetation to raise additional capital from third parties or the equity holders. Prior to March 31, 2015, the Company believed that the fair value of the Company's interest in Magnetation exceeded its carrying amount and that despite near-term temporary pressures on liquidity, long-term cash flow projections of Magnetation were sufficient to allow the Company to recover its investment in Magnetation. During the quarter ended March 31, 2015, the near-term liquidity issues faced by Magnetation intensified due to a combination of an approximately 20% decline in the daily IODEX index and substantially lower IODEX futures pricing toward the end of the quarter, a slower-than-expected ramp-up of operations of the pellet plant and resulting lower sales levels, payments due for construction overruns on the pellet and third concentrate plants, and higher-than-expected start-up and operating costs. Although Magnetation accomplished several actions in late 2014 and early 2015 to increase its liquidity, such liquidity enhancements and other cost reduction initiatives did not increase liquidity sufficiently in light of the significant market decline in iron ore pricing during the first quarter of 2015. Based on the outlook for iron ore prices at March 31, 2015, the Company concluded that prices could remain suppressed for the near future and that, if this outlook were accurate, it raised questions about the ability of Magnetation to operate profitably. In March 2015, Magnetation began discussions with certain debt holders in order to seek a solution to its liquidity issues. AK Steel also participated in those discussions but no acceptable restructuring was agreed upon. On May 5, 2015 , Magnetation and its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota. Magnetation's outstanding indebtedness is non-recourse to AK Steel. The Company is not required to make any additional capital contributions or other future investments in Magnetation and has not guaranteed any obligations of Magnetation. Because the Company considers it unlikely that it will retain its equity interest in Magnetation as a result of Magnetation's bankruptcy, it does not expect to record any further impact in its financial statements from its equity investment in Magnetation.

NOTE 5 - Income Taxes

Income taxes recorded through September 30, 2015 and 2014 , were estimated using the discrete method. Current year income taxes are based on the actual year-to-date pre-tax loss through September 30, 2015 , as well as the related change in the valuation allowance on deferred tax assets. The Company is unable to estimate the annual effective tax rate for 2015 with sufficient precision for purposes of the effective tax rate method, which requires consideration of a projection of full-year income and the expected change in the valuation allowance. The estimated annual effective tax rate method was not reliable due to its sensitivity to small changes to forecasted annual pre-tax earnings and the effect of the Company's valuation allowance, which create results with significant variations in the customary relationship between income tax expense and pre-tax income for the interim periods. As a result, the Company determined that the use of the discrete method is more appropriate than the annual effective tax rate method. The Company has estimated the change in valuation allowances required based on the year-to-date pre-tax loss and the change in value of the identified tax-planning strategy, which is determined based on year-to-date LIFO income. Included in income tax expense are non-cash charges of $10.1 and $154.8 , respectively, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 , for changes in the valuation allowance on the Company's deferred tax assets, compared to $6.4 and $45.5 , respectively, in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 . The Company incurred an income tax charge of $2.1 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 , related to changes in the value of deferred tax assets resulting from the Dearborn acquisition.

NOTE 6 - Long-term Debt and Other Financing

The Company's debt balances were as follows:

During the nine months ended September 30, 2015 , the Company was in compliance with all the terms and conditions of its debt agreements.

Credit Facility

The Company has a $1.5 billion asset-backed revolving credit facility (the "Credit Facility"), which expires in March 2019 and is guaranteed by AK Steel's parent company, AK Holding, and by two 100%-owned subsidiaries of AK Steel. The Credit Facility contains common restrictions, including limitations on, among other things, distributions and dividends, acquisitions and investments, indebtedness, liens and affiliate transactions. The Credit Facility requires the maintenance of a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio of one to one if availability under the Credit Facility is less than $150.0 . Availability is calculated as the lesser of the Credit Facility commitment or the Company's eligible collateral after advance rates, less, in either case, outstanding revolver borrowings and letters of credit. The Company's obligations under its Credit Facility are secured by its inventory and accounts receivable, and availability under the Credit Facility fluctuates monthly based on the varying levels of eligible collateral. The Credit Facility includes a separate "first-in, last-out", or "FILO" tranche, which allows the Company to maximize its eligible collateral at higher advance rates.

At September 30, 2015 , the Company's eligible collateral, after application of applicable advance rates, was $1,371.1 . As of September 30, 2015 , there were outstanding Credit Facility borrowings of $550.0 . Availability as of September 30, 2015 was further reduced by $73.3 of outstanding letters of credit, resulting in remaining availability of $747.8 .

Senior Unsecured Notes

During the nine months ended September 30, 2015 , the Company repurchased an aggregate principal amount of $15.0 of the 7.625% Senior Notes due October 2021 in private, unsolicited, open market transactions. These repurchases were completed at discounts to the senior unsecured notes' par value and the Company recognized gains on the repurchases of $4.3 and $4.7 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 , respectively. The Company may, from time to time, repurchase additional outstanding notes in the open market on an unsolicited basis, by tender offer, through privately negotiated transactions or otherwise.

NOTE 7 - Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

The Company provides noncontributory pension and various healthcare and life insurance benefits to most employees and retirees. The Company contributed $24.1 to the master pension trust during 2015 , which completes its required contributions for 2015 . No contributions to the master pension trust are required for 2016. Based on funding projections as of the beginning of 2015 , no contributions to the master pension trust are required for 2017, though future funding projections in 2017 and beyond could be affected by differences between expected and actual returns on plan assets, actuarial data and assumptions relating to plan participants, the interest rate used to measure the pension obligations and changes to regulatory funding requirements.

Net periodic benefit cost (income) for pension and other postretirement benefits was as follows:

NOTE 8 - Environmental and Legal Contingencies

Environmental Contingencies

AK Steel and its predecessors have been conducting steel manufacturing and related operations since 1900. Although the Company believes its operating practices have been consistent with prevailing industry standards during this time, hazardous materials may have been released in the past at one or more operating sites or third-party sites, including operating sites that the Company no longer owns. To the extent reasonably estimable, the Company has estimated potential remediation expenditures for those sites where future remediation efforts are probable based on identified conditions, regulatory requirements or contractual obligations arising from the sale of a business or facility. In the case of sites involving governmentally-required investigations, an estimate of potential remediation expenditures is typically made only after the investigation is complete and the nature and scope of the remediation is better understood. In general, the material components of these accruals include the costs associated with investigations, delineations, risk assessments, remedial work, governmental response and oversight costs, site monitoring, and preparation of reports to the appropriate environmental agencies. Liabilities recorded on the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for such estimated probable costs relating to environmental matters are presented below:

The ultimate costs to the Company with respect to each site cannot be predicted with certainty because of the evolving nature of the investigation and remediation process. Rather, to develop the estimates of the probable costs, the Company must make certain assumptions. The most significant of these assumptions relate to the nature and scope of the work that will be necessary to investigate and remediate a particular site and the cost of that work. Other significant assumptions include the cleanup technology that will be used, whether and to what extent any other parties will participate in paying the investigation and remediation costs, reimbursement of past response and future oversight costs by governmental agencies, and the reaction of the governing environmental agencies to the proposed work plans. Costs of future expenditures are not discounted to their present value. To the extent that the Company has been able to reasonably estimate its future liabilities, the Company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or losses exceeding the amounts accrued will be incurred in connection with the environmental matters discussed below that would, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, since amounts recognized in the

consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States exclude potential losses that are not probable or that may not be currently estimable, the ultimate costs of these environmental proceedings may be higher than those currently recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Except as expressly noted below, the Company does not currently anticipate any material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of its compliance with current environmental regulations. Moreover, because all domestic steel producers operate under the same set of federal environmental regulations, the Company does not believe that it is disadvantaged relative to its domestic competitors by the need to comply with these regulations. Some foreign competitors may benefit from less stringent environmental requirements in the countries in which they produce, resulting in lower compliance costs and providing those foreign competitors with a cost advantage on their products.

Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), which governs the treatment, handling and disposal of hazardous waste, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and authorized state environmental agencies may conduct inspections of RCRA-regulated facilities to identify areas where there have been releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the environment and may order the facilities to take corrective action to remediate such releases. AK Steel's major steelmaking facilities are subject to RCRA inspections by environmental regulators. While the Company cannot predict the future actions of these regulators, it is possible that they may identify conditions in future inspections of these facilities which they believe require corrective action.

Under authority conferred by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the EPA and state environmental authorities have conducted site investigations at certain of AK Steel's facilities and other third-party facilities, portions of which previously may have been used for disposal of materials that are currently subject to regulation. The results of these investigations are still pending, and AK Steel could be directed to expend funds for remedial activities at the former disposal areas. Because of the uncertain status of these investigations, however, the Company cannot reliably predict whether or when such expenditures might be required, their magnitude or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on July 27, 2001, AK Steel received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA requesting that AK Steel agree to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") and enter into an administrative order on consent pursuant to Section 122 of CERCLA regarding the former Hamilton Plant located in New Miami, Ohio. The Hamilton Plant ceased operations in 1990, and all of its former structures have been demolished and removed. Although AK Steel did not believe that a site-wide RI/FS was necessary or appropriate, in April 2002 it entered into a mutually agreed-upon administrative order on consent to perform such an investigation and study of the Hamilton Plant site. The site-wide investigation portion of the RI/FS has been submitted. A supplemental study was completed in 2014. AK Steel currently has accrued $0.7 for the remaining cost of the RI/FS. Until the RI/FS is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on September 30, 1998, AK Steel's predecessor, Armco Inc., received an order from the EPA under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring it to develop a plan for investigation of eight areas of Mansfield Works that allegedly could be sources of contamination. A site investigation began in November 2000 and is continuing. AK Steel cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to complete this site investigation. AK Steel currently has accrued approximately $1.1 for the projected cost of the study at Mansfield Works. Until the site investigation is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously noted, on September 26, 2012, the EPA issued an order under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring the Company to develop a plan for investigation of four areas at AK Steel's Ashland Works Coke Plant. A Sampling and Analysis Plan ("SAP") was submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2012, revised most recently on May 29, 2014 and approved by the EPA on June 27, 2014. Phase I of the SAP was completed and a report was submitted to EPA on December 23, 2014. AK Steel cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to complete the site investigation. AK Steel currently has accrued approximately $0.5 for the projected cost of the investigation. Until the site investigation is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on August 3, 2011, September 29, 2011, and June 28, 2012, the EPA issued Notice of Violations ("NOV") with respect to the coke plant at AK Steel's Middletown Works alleging violations of pushing and combustion stack limits. The Company is investigating these claims and is working with the EPA to attempt to resolve them. AK Steel believes it will reach a settlement in this matter, but it cannot be certain that a settlement will be reached and cannot reliably estimate at this time how

long it will take to reach a settlement or what all of its terms might be. AK Steel will vigorously contest any claims which cannot be resolved through a settlement. Until it has reached a settlement with the EPA or the claims that are the subject of the NOVs are otherwise resolved, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, associated with any potentially required operational changes at the battery or the timeframe over which any potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on July 15, 2009, AK Steel and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("PADEP") entered into a Consent Order and Agreement (the "Consent Order") to resolve an alleged unpermitted discharge of wastewater from the closed Hillside Landfill at the former Ambridge Works. Under the terms of the Consent Order, AK Steel paid a penalty and also agreed to implement various corrective actions, including an investigation of the area where activities were conducted regarding the landfill, submission of a plan to collect and treat surface waters and seep discharges, and upon approval from PADEP, implementation of that plan. The Company has accrued approximately $2.8 for the remedial work required under the approved plan and Consent Order. AK Steel has submitted a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit application to move to the next phase of the work. The Company currently estimates that the remaining work will be completed in 2018, but that estimated timeframe is subject to the potential for delays.

As previously reported, on June 29, 2000, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of the EPA against AK Steel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. C-1-00530, for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and RCRA at the Middletown Works. Subsequently, the State of Ohio, the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council intervened. On May 15, 2006, a Consent Decree in Partial Resolution of Pending Claims (the "Consent Decree") was entered by the court. Under the Consent Decree, the Company paid a civil penalty and performed a supplemental environmental project to remove ozone-depleting refrigerants from certain equipment. The Company further agreed to undertake a comprehensive RCRA facility investigation at its Middletown Works and, as appropriate, complete a corrective measures study. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the Company also was required to implement certain RCRA corrective action interim measures to address polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") in sediments and soils relating to Dicks Creek and certain other specified surface waters, adjacent floodplain areas and other previously identified geographic areas. The Company has completed the remedial activity at Dicks Creek, but continues to work on the RCRA facility investigation and certain interim measures. The Company has accrued approximately $16.1 for the cost of known work required under the Consent Decree for the RCRA facility investigation and remaining interim measures.

As previously reported, on October 17, 2012, the EPA issued an NOV and Notice of Intent to File a Civil Administrative Complaint to AK Steel's Mansfield Works alleging violations of RCRA primarily relating to the Company's management of electric arc furnace dust at the facility. The Company is investigating these claims and is working with the EPA to attempt to resolve them. The NOV proposed a civil penalty of approximately $0.3 . However, on March 23, 2015, the EPA reduced its penalty demand to $0.1 . AK Steel believes it will reach a settlement in this matter, but it cannot be certain that a settlement will be reached and cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to reach a settlement or what all of its terms might be. AK Steel will vigorously contest any claims which cannot be resolved through a settlement.

As previously reported, on May 12, 2014, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") issued to Dearborn Works (then a part of Dearborn) an Air Permit to Install No. 182-05C (the "PTI") to increase the emission limits for the blast furnace and other emission sources. The PTI was issued as a correction to a prior permit to install based on information that was not available during the prior permitting process. On July 10, 2014, the South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Association ("SDEIA"), Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, Original United Citizens of Southwest Detroit and the Sierra Club filed a Claim of Appeal of the PTI in the State of Michigan Wayne County Circuit, Case No. 14-008887-AA. Appellants and the MDEQ stipulated to the intervention of Dearborn (now AK Steel) in this action as an additional appellee. The appellants allege multiple deficiencies with the permit and the permitting process. On October 9, 2014, the appellants filed a Motion for Peremptory Reversal of the MDEQ's decision to issue the PTI. AK Steel believes that the MDEQ issued this permit properly in compliance with applicable law and will vigorously contest this appeal. On October 17, 2014, AK Steel filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of SDEIA. Additionally, on December 15, 2014, AK Steel filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The hearing on all three motions occurred on February 12, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, all three motions were denied. On March 18, 2015, AK Steel filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the decision of the Circuit Court denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On August 27, 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals granted AK Steel's application for leave to appeal. Until the appeal is resolved, AK Steel cannot determine what the ultimate permit limits will be. Until the permit limits are determined and final, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, which it will incur in the event that the permit limits are changed as a result of the appeal. Nor can it determine if such costs will be material or the timeframe over which any potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on August 21, 2014, the SDEIA filed a Complaint under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act ("MEPA") in the State of Michigan, Wayne County Circuit Case No. 14-010875-CE. The plaintiffs allege that the air emissions

from the Dearborn Works are impacting the air, water and other natural resources, as well as the public trust in such resources. The plaintiffs are requesting, among other requested relief, that the court assess the limitations in the PTI to determine their sufficiency. On October 15, 2014, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings until a final order is issued in Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 14-008887-AA (discussed above). Upon resumption, AK Steel will vigorously contest these claims. Until the claims that are the subject of this Complaint are resolved, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, associated with the claims or the timeframe over which any potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, between 2008 and 2014, MDEQ and the EPA issued multiple NOVs to Dearborn Works covering a wide range of alleged environmental violations, mostly regarding the Clean Air Act. AK Steel reached a settlement with the United States Department of Justice and MDEQ resolving the alleged violations contained in the NOVs. The Consent Decree was approved by the United States District Court on August 13, 2015. Requirements include civil penalty payments and a Supplemental Environmental Project totaling approximately $1.7 , which amounts have already been paid by the Company. Other requirements involve the implementation of an environmental management system, as well as operational and maintenance requirements for the electrostatic precipitator.

As previously reported, on April 9, 2014, SDEIA sent a Notice of Intent to Sue under the Clean Air Act to Dearborn with respect to Dearborn Works. On June 18, 2014, SDEIA filed a complaint under the citizen enforcement action provisions of the Clean Air Act against Dearborn in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:14-cv-12387-GER-PJK. The complaint alleges violations nearly identical to those alleged in the NOVs arising under the Clean Air Act that were issued to Dearborn Works by MDEQ and the EPA between 2008 and 2013 and are the subject of ongoing settlement negotiations. On August 27, 2015, the Court entered a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice, which concludes the matter in its entirety.

As previously reported, on April 27, 2000, MDEQ issued a RCRA Corrective Action Order No. 111-04-00-07E to Rouge Steel Company and Ford Motor Company for the property that includes the Dearborn Works. The Corrective Action Order has been amended five times. Dearborn became a party to the Corrective Action Order via an amendment dated January 24, 2004, as a result of becoming the successor-in-interest to Rouge Steel Company for certain matters. AK Steel is the successor to Dearborn by virtue of its recent acquisition of Dearborn. The Corrective Action Order requires the site-wide investigation and where appropriate, remediation, of the facility. The site investigation and remediation is ongoing. AK Steel cannot reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to complete this site investigation and remediation. To date, Ford Motor Company has incurred most of the costs of the investigation and remediation due to its prior ownership of the steelmaking operations at Dearborn Works. Until the site investigation is completed, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the additional costs to it, if any, associated with any potentially required remediation of the site or the timeframe during which these potential costs would be incurred.

As previously reported, on August 29, 2013, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") issued to Mountain State Carbon a renewal NPDES permit for wastewater discharge from the facility to the Ohio River. The new NPDES permit included numerous new, and more stringent, effluent limitations. On October 7, 2013, Mountain State Carbon appealed the permit to the Environmental Quality Board, Appeal No. 13-25-EQB. AK Steel believes it has the potential to reach a settlement in this matter, but it cannot be certain that a settlement will be reached or reliably estimate at this time how long it will take to reach a settlement or the terms of such a settlement. AK Steel will vigorously contest any claims which cannot be resolved through a settlement. Until it has reached a settlement with WVDEP or the issues that are the subject of the appeal are otherwise resolved, AK Steel cannot determine what the ultimate permit limits will be. Until the permit limits are determined and final, AK Steel cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, which it will incur in the event that the permit limits are changed as a result of the appeal. Nor can it determine if such costs will be material or the timeframe over which any potential costs would be incurred.

In addition to the foregoing matters, AK Steel is or may be involved in proceedings with various regulatory authorities that may require AK Steel to pay fines, comply with more rigorous standards or other requirements or incur capital and operating expenses for environmental compliance. The Company believes that the ultimate disposition of the proceedings will not have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Contingencies

As previously reported, since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory

damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants.

Information on asbestos cases pending at September 30, 2015 , is presented below:

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be determined through written interrogatories or other discovery after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Set forth below is a chart showing the number of new claims filed (accounted for as described above), the number of pending claims disposed of (i.e., settled or otherwise dismissed), and the approximate net amount of dollars paid on behalf of AK Steel in settlement of asbestos-related claims in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 .

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present knowledge, and the factors set forth above, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

As previously reported, in September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several companies filed purported class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine steel manufacturers, including AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236. On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in March 2012 it was transferred to the

Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the United States. In March 2014, AK Holding reached an agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted against AK Holding, subject to certain court approvals set forth below. Pursuant to that settlement, AK Holding agreed to pay $5.8 to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for a complete release of all claims from the members of that class. AK Holding continues to believe that the claims asserted against it lack any merit, but it elected to enter into the settlement in order to avoid the ongoing expense of defending itself in this protracted and expensive antitrust litigation. Notice of the proposed settlement was provided to members of the settlement class. After receipt of such notice, several class members elected to opt out of the class settlement. Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court entered an order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing all of the direct plaintiffs' claims against the Company with prejudice as to the settlement class. The Company recorded a charge during the first quarter of 2014 in the amount of the tentative settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and paid that amount into an escrow account, which has now been disbursed in accordance with the order approving the settlement. At this stage, the Company does not have adequate information available to determine that a loss is probable or to reliably or accurately estimate its potential loss, if any, with respect to the remaining indirect purchaser plaintiff class members and any direct purchaser class members that have opted out of the class (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Remaining Plaintiff Class Members"). Because the Company has been unable to determine that a potential loss in this case with respect to the Remaining Plaintiff Class Members is probable or estimable, it has not recorded an accrual related to this matter for them. In the event that the Company's assumptions used to evaluate whether a loss in this matter is either probable or estimable with respect to the Remaining Plaintiff Class Members prove to be incorrect or change in future periods, the Company may be required to record a charge for their claims at a later date.

As previously reported, on January 20, 2010, ArcelorMittal France and ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine (collectively "ArcelorMittal") filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 10-050-SLR against AK Steel, Dearborn, and Wheeling-Nisshin Inc., who is indemnified by Dearborn in this action. AK Steel is the successor to Dearborn by virtue of its recent acquisition of Dearborn. By virtue of its responsibility as a successor-in-interest to Dearborn and an indemnitor of Wheeling-Nisshin Inc, AK Steel now has complete responsibility for the defense of this action. The three named defendants thus are collectively referred to hereafter as "AK Steel," though the precise claims against each separate defendant may vary. The complaint alleges that AK Steel is infringing the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805 (the "Patent") in making pre-coated cold-rolled boron steel sheet and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified compensatory damages. AK Steel filed an answer in which it denied ArcelorMittal's claims and raised various affirmative defenses. AK Steel also filed counterclaims against ArcelorMittal for a declaratory judgment that AK Steel is not infringing the Patent and that the Patent is invalid. Subsequently, the trial court bifurcated the issues of liability and damages. The case proceeded with a trial to a jury on the issue of liability during the week of January 15, 2011. The jury returned a verdict that AK Steel did not infringe the Patent and that the Patent was invalid. Judgment subsequently was entered in favor of AK Steel. ArcelorMittal filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On November 30, 2012, the court of appeals issued a decision reversing certain findings related to claim construction and the validity of the Patent and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On January 30, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed a motion for rehearing with the court of appeals. On March 20, 2013, the court of appeals denied ArcelorMittal's motion for rehearing. The case then was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On April 16, 2013, pursuant to a petition previously filed by ArcelorMittal and ArcelorMittal USA LLC, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") reissued the Patent as U.S. Reissue Patent RE44,153 (the "Reissued Patent"). Also on April 16, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed a second action against the defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case Nos. 1:13-cv-00685 and 1:13-cv-00686 (collectively the "Second Action"). The complaint filed in the Second Action alleges that AK Steel is infringing the claims of the Reissued Patent and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified compensatory damages. On April 23, 2013, AK Steel filed a motion to dismiss key elements of the complaint filed in the Second Action. In addition, the parties briefed related non-infringement and claims construction issues in the original action. On October 25, 2013, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of AK Steel, confirming that AK Steel's product does not infringe the original Patent or the Reissued Patent. The court further ruled that ArcelorMittal's Reissued Patent was invalid due to ArcelorMittal's deliberate violation of a statutory prohibition on broadening a patent through reissue more than two years after the original Patent was granted and that the original Patent had been surrendered when the Reissued Patent was issued and thus is no longer in effect. Final Judgment was entered on October 31, 2013. On November 6, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed a motion to clarify or, in the alternative, to alter or amend the October 31, 2013 judgment. The defendants opposed the motion. On December 5, 2013, the court issued a memorandum and order denying the motion and entering final judgment in favor of defendants, including AK Steel, and against ArcelorMittal, specifically ruling that all claims of ArcelorMittal's Reissued Patent are invalid as violative of 35 U.S.C. §251(d). On December 30, 2013, ArcelorMittal filed notices of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal has been fully briefed and the court of appeals held a hearing on November 4, 2014. On May 12,

2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit ruled that 23 of the 25 claims of the Reissued Patent were improperly broadened and therefore invalid. However, the Federal Court found that the district court erred in invalidating the remaining two claims and remanded the case for further proceedings before the district court. Following the remand, ArcelorMittal filed a motion in the trial court for leave to amend the Second Action to assert additional patent infringement claims based on another, related patent that the PTO issued on June 10, 2014, No. RE44,940 (Second Reissue Patent). It also filed a motion to dismiss the original action on the grounds that it is now moot in light of the Court of Appeals' last ruling. AK Steel has opposed both of those motions. In addition, AK Steel has filed separate motions for summary judgment in the original action on the grounds of non-infringement and invalidity. A hearing on all motions was held on October 27, 2015, and the parties are awaiting a decision on those motions. AK Steel intends to continue to contest this matter vigorously. At this time, the Company has not made a determination that a loss is probable and it does not have adequate information to reliably or accurately estimate its potential loss in the event that ArcelorMittal were to prevail in its appeal in this dispute. Because the Company has been unable to determine that the potential loss in this case is probable or estimable, it has not recorded an accrual related to this matter. In the event that the Company's assumptions used to evaluate whether a loss in this matter is either probable or estimable prove to be incorrect or change in future periods, the Company may be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome.

As previously reported, on June 13, 2013, Cliffs Sales Company ("Cliffs") filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Civil Action No. 1:13 cv 1308, against Dearborn pertaining to Dearborn Works. Cliffs claims that Dearborn breached a May 21, 2008, Agreement for Sale of Reclaimed Iron Units, as amended (the "Iron Unit Agreement"). Cliffs claims that Dearborn breached the Iron Unit Agreement by failing to purchase the required amount of pellets, chips and fines as allegedly required. Dearborn filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and asserting several affirmative defenses. In January of 2014, the presiding judge ordered a stay of the proceedings until Cliffs and Dearborn completed an arbitration of a separate dispute. That arbitration is now concluded and it is anticipated that the stay of the litigation will be lifted. Discovery is expected to re-commence in the near future. AK Steel, as successor-in-interest to Dearborn, intends to contest this matter vigorously. At this time, AK Steel has not made a determination that a loss is probable and it does not have adequate information to reliably or accurately estimate its potential loss in the event that Cliffs were to prevail in this lawsuit. Because AK Steel has been unable to determine that a loss is probable or estimable, it has not recorded an accrual related to this matter. In the event that AK Steel's assumptions used to evaluate whether a loss in this matter is either probable or estimable prove to be incorrect or change in future periods, AK Steel may be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome.

Trade Cases

On September 18, 2013, AK Steel, along with another domestic producer and the United Steelworkers (collectively, the "Petitioners"), filed trade cases against imports of grain-oriented electrical steel ("GOES") from seven countries. Anti-dumping ("AD") petitions were filed against China, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Poland, Russia and South Korea and a countervailing duty ("CVD") petition was filed against China charging that unfairly traded imports of GOES from those seven countries are causing material injury to the domestic industry. The United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") initiated the cases on October 24, 2013. On November 19, 2013, the International Trade Commission ("ITC") made a preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that GOES imports caused or threaten to cause material injury. On May 5, 2014, the DOC issued preliminary determinations that imports of GOES from China, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Poland, Russia and South Korea are being dumped in the United States. On July 17, 2014, the DOC issued final dumping determinations with respect to imports of GOES from Germany, Japan and Poland, affirming the preliminary dumping margins for these three countries. As a result of the preliminary dumping determinations on China, the Czech Republic, Russia and South Korea, and final dumping determinations on Germany, Japan and Poland, importers were required to post cash deposits with U.S. Customs and Border Protection on imports of GOES from these seven countries (in addition to any deposits required by the preliminary affirmative CVD determinations). The DOC also reached affirmative preliminary critical circumstances findings with respect to Poland and Russia. In separate decisions issued on August 27, 2014 and October 23, 2014, the ITC issued its final determination with respect to imports of GOES from China, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Poland, Russia and South Korea. In each of these decisions, the ITC determined in a 5-1 vote that the United States steel industry is neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of those imports. These two ITC decisions nullify the DOC's preliminary assessment of dumping duties on GOES imports from each of the countries against which the trade petition was filed, as well as a CVD determination with respect to China.  On September 16, 2014, the Petitioners filed an appeal of the ITC's August 27, 2014, decision to the Court of International Trade (the "CIT"), and on November 13, 2014, the Petitioners filed an appeal of the ITC's October 23, 2014, decision to the CIT. Those two appeals have been consolidated into a single appeal at the CIT, and AK Steel expects a decision in the appeal in approximately one year from the date of the commencement of the appeal.

On June 3, 2015, AK Steel, along with five other domestic producers, filed AD and CVD petitions against imports of corrosion-resistant steel ("CORE") from China, India, Italy, South Korea and Taiwan. The petitions allege that unfairly traded imports of CORE from those five countries are causing material injury to the domestic industry. The DOC initiated its investigations on June 24, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the ITC made a unanimous preliminary determination of injury to the domestic industry caused by imports of CORE from all five countries. On October 30, 2015, the DOC made a preliminary determination that "critical circumstances" existed with respect to certain foreign producers of CORE. A critical circumstances determination is made if the DOC determines that foreign producers significantly increased their shipments of products into the U.S. market before the DOC's preliminary determination of AD and CVD duties. As a result of this critical circumstances determination, the DOC can impose countervailing duties retroactively beginning from August 4, 2015, which is 90 days prior to its preliminary determination on CVD duties, on imports from China, Italy and South Korea. In the event the DOC makes an affirmative preliminary determination on AD duties, such duties may also be imposed retroactively beginning 90 days prior to such preliminary determination . On November 2, 2015 , the DOC preliminarily determined that imports of CORE from China, India, Italy and South Korea are benefiting from unfair government subsidies and should be subject to CVD duties. As a result of these preliminary CVD determinations, importers are required to post cash deposits with the U.S. government on imports of CORE from these countries as follows:

With respect to Taiwan, the DOC found that countervailable government subsidies were not in excess of the de minimus level of one percent.

Preliminary AD determinations by the DOC are expected on or about December 21, 2015 . Estimated AD duties resulting from those preliminary determinations by the DOC are generally added to the estimated CVD duties. AK Steel and the other petitioners have alleged AD duties ranging from 120.20% to 71.09% . All preliminary duties remain in effect until final determinations are issued. The entire investigation is expected to take approximately one year, with final determinations of whether there have been dumping, subsidization and injury likely occurring by the second quarter of 2016 .

On July 28, 2015, AK Steel, along with four other domestic producers, filed AD petitions against imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, China, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea and the United Kingdom, as well as CVD petitions against imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Korea. The petitions allege that unfairly traded imports of cold-rolled steel from those eight countries are causing material injury to the domestic industry. The DOC initiated its investigations on August 17, 2015. On September 10, 2015, the ITC made a unanimous preliminary determination of injury to the domestic industry caused by imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The ITC also determined that imports of cold-roll steel from the Netherlands were "negligible" (i.e., less than 3% of total imports of cold-rolled steel during the preceding twelve-month period), and terminated the investigation as to the Netherlands. In addition, in October 2015, AK Steel and the other petitioners filed "critical circumstances" allegations against certain foreign producers of cold-rolled steel asserting that those foreign producers significantly increased their shipments of products into the U.S. market before the DOC's preliminary determination of AD and CVD duties. In the event the DOC determines that "critical circumstances" exist and makes affirmative preliminary determinations on CVD or AD duties, such duties may also be imposed retroactively beginning 90 days prior to such preliminary determinations. As a result of the ITC's affirmative preliminary determination as to injury, the DOC will continue its investigations as to the remaining countries, with its preliminary CVD determinations expected on or about December 15, 2015 and its preliminary AD determinations expected in the first quarter of 2016 . Affirmative preliminary determinations by the DOC will result in the imposition of preliminary duties, at which point covered importers would be required to post cash deposits to the U.S. government covering those duties beginning as of the date of the DOC's preliminary determinations. Those preliminary duties would remain in effect until final determinations are issued. The entire investigation is expected to take approximately one year, with final determinations of whether there have been dumping, subsidization, and injury likely occurring by the third quarter of 2016 .

On August 11, 2015, AK Steel, along with five other domestic producers, filed AD petitions against imports of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Turkey and the United Kingdom, as well as CVD petitions against imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil, South Korea and Turkey. The petitions allege that unfairly traded imports of hot- rolled steel from those seven countries are causing material injury to the domestic industry. The DOC initiated its investigations on September 1, 2015. On September 24, 2015, the ITC made a unanimous preliminary determination of injury to the domestic

industry caused by imports of hot-rolled steel from all seven countries. In addition, in October 2015, AK Steel and the other petitioners filed "critical circumstances" allegations against certain foreign producers of hot-rolled steel asserting that those foreign producers significantly increased their shipments of products into the U.S. market before the DOC's preliminary determination of AD and CVD duties. In the event the DOC determines that "critical circumstances" exist and makes affirmative preliminary determinations on CVD or AD duties, such duties may also be imposed retroactively beginning 90 days prior to such preliminary determinations. As a result of the ITC's affirmative preliminary determination as to injury, the DOC will continue its investigations, with its preliminary CVD determinations expected on or about January 8, 2016 and its preliminary AD determinations expected in the first quarter of 2016 . Affirmative preliminary determinations by the DOC will result in the imposition of preliminary duties, at which point covered importers would be required to post cash deposits to the U.S. government covering those duties beginning as of the date of the DOC's preliminary determinations. Those preliminary duties would remain in effect until final determinations are issued. The entire investigation is expected to take approximately one year, with final determinations of whether there have been dumping, subsidization, and injury likely occurring by the third quarter of 2016 .

Other Contingencies

In addition to the matters discussed above, there are various pending and potential claims against AK Steel and its subsidiaries involving product liability, commercial, employee benefits and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Because of the considerable uncertainties which exist with respect to any claim, it is difficult to reliably or accurately estimate what would be the amount of a loss in the event that a claimant(s) were to prevail. In the event that material assumptions or factual understandings relied upon by the Company to evaluate its exposure with respect to these contingencies prove to be inaccurate or otherwise change in the future, the Company may be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome. To the extent, however, that the Company has been able to reasonably evaluate its potential future liabilities with respect to all of these contingencies, including those described more specifically above, it is the Company's opinion, unless otherwise noted, that the ultimate liability resulting from these contingencies, individually and in the aggregate, should not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 9 - Share-based Compensation

AK Holding's Stock Incentive Plan permits the granting of nonqualified stock option, restricted stock, performance share and restricted stock unit awards to Directors, officers and other employees of the Company. The following table summarizes information about share-based compensation expense, which the Company has estimated will be $8.6 for 2015 :

The Company granted stock options on 906,700 shares during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 , with a weighted-average fair value of $2.36 per share of stock option. There have been 2,733 options exercised in 2015 .

The Company granted restricted stock awards of 886,060 shares during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 , at a weighted-average fair value of $4.06 per share. The total intrinsic value of restricted stock awards that vested (i.e., restrictions lapsed) during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was $2.9 .

The Company granted performance share awards of 890,700 shares during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 , with a weighted-average fair value of $3.09 per share.

NOTE 10 - Comprehensive Income (Loss)

The details of other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, are as follows:

NOTE 11 - Earnings per Share

Earnings per share are calculated using the "two-class" method. Under the "two-class" method, undistributed earnings are allocated to both common shares and participating securities. The sum of distributed earnings to common stockholders and undistributed earnings allocated to common stockholders is divided by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. The restricted stock granted by AK Holding is entitled to non-forfeitable dividends, if declared, and meets the criteria of a participating security.