Contingencies and Commitments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract]
Contingencies and Commitments	Environmental Contingencies We believe our current environmental liabilities do not have, and are not likely to have, a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. However, there can be no assurance that future requirements or conditions at currently or formerly owned or operated properties will not result in liabilities which may have a material adverse effect. In July 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) began an initiative to perform an oversight inspection of all Secondary Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) facilities which deal with casting furnaces, including Hawesville. Partial inspections were also conducted at collocated Primary MACT facilities which deal with potlines, including Hawesville. In April 2008, the EPA sent CAKY requests under the Clean Air Act for copies of certain records dating back to 2000. In November 2009, the EPA sent CAKY a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) alleging 12 violations relating to the Clean Air Act including, among other things, violations of the MACT emissions standards and the prevention of significant deterioration program for unpermitted major modifications. The number of alleged violations has now been reduced to two. The matter remains under investigation and we remain in discussions with the EPA to resolve the remaining alleged violations and expect that any fines or other settlement that may result from these discussions would be immaterial. We expect to resolve the matter in 2011. Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. (“CAWV”) continues to perform remedial measures at Ravenswood pursuant to an order issued by the EPA in 1994 (the “3008(h) Order”). CAWV also conducted a RCRA facility investigation (“RFI”) under the 3008(h) Order evaluating other areas at Ravenswood that may have contamination requiring remediation. The RFI has been approved by appropriate agencies. CAWV has completed interim remediation measures at two sites identified in the RFI, and we believe no further remediation will be required. A Corrective Measures Study, which will formally document the conclusion of these activities, is being completed with the EPA. EPA approval of the Corrective Measures Study is anticipated in 2011. We currently believe a significant portion of the contamination on the two sites identified in the RFI is attributable to the operations of third parties and is their financial responsibility. Prior to our purchase of Hawesville, the EPA issued a final Record of Decision (“ROD”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”). By agreement, Southwire Company (“Southwire”), the former owner and operator is to perform all obligations under the ROD. CAKY has agreed to operate and maintain the ground water treatment system required under the ROD on behalf of Southwire, and Southwire will reimburse CAKY for any expense that exceeds $400 annually. We are a party to an EPA Administrative Order on Consent (the “Order”) pursuant to which other past and present owners of an alumina refining facility at St. Croix, Virgin Islands have agreed to carry out a Hydrocarbon Recovery Plan to remove and manage hydrocarbons floating on groundwater underlying the facility. Pursuant to the Hydrocarbon Recovery Plan, recovered hydrocarbons and groundwater are delivered to the adjacent petroleum refinery where they are received and managed. In connection with the sale of the facility by Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”), to one of our affiliates, Virgin Islands Alumina Corporation (“Vialco”), in 1989, Lockheed, Vialco and Century entered into the Lockheed-Vialco Asset Purchase Agreement. The indemnity provisions contained in the Lockheed-Vialco Asset Purchase Agreement allocate responsibility for certain environmental matters. Lockheed has tendered indemnity and defense of the above matter to Vialco. We have likewise tendered indemnity to Lockheed. Management does not believe Vialco’s liability under the Order or its indemnity to Lockheed will require material payments. Through June 30, 2011, we have expended approximately $840 on the Hydrocarbon Recovery Plan. We expect the future potential payments under this indemnification to comply with the Order will be approximately $500, which may be offset in part by sales of recoverable hydrocarbons. In May 2005, we and Vialco were among several defendants listed in a lawsuit filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (“DPNR”), in his capacity as Trustee for Natural Resources of the United States Virgin Islands. The complaint alleges damages to natural resources caused by alleged releases from the alumina refinery facility at St. Croix and the adjacent petroleum refinery. The primary cause of action is pursuant to the natural resource damage provisions of CERCLA, but various ancillary Territorial law causes of action were included as well. We and Lockheed have each tendered indemnity and defense of the case to the other pursuant to the terms of the Lockheed-Vialco Asset Purchase Agreement. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorney fees. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. As of June 30, 2011, no trial date has been set for the remaining claims. In December 2006, Vialco and the two succeeding owners of the alumina facility were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by the Commissioner of the DPNR. The complaint alleges the defendants failed to take certain actions specified in a Coastal Zone management permit issued to Vialco in October 1994, and alleges violations of territorial water pollution control laws during the various defendants’ periods of ownership. The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary penalties for the alleged violations. Vialco filed its answer to the complaint asserting factual and affirmative defenses. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. In May 2009, St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P. (“SCRG”) filed a third-party complaint for contribution and other relief against several third-party defendants, including Vialco, relating to a lawsuit filed against SCRG seeking recovery of response costs relating to the aforementioned DPNR CERCLA matter. In January 2010, the court granted a motion by DPNR to assert claims directly against certain third-party defendants, including Century and Vialco. On February 3, 2011, the court granted a motion by Century, dismissing Century from the case. Vialco, however, remains a defendant in this case. On March 4, 2011, the court granted the remaining defendants’, including Vialco’s, motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. On April 15, 2011, the SCRG court denied a motion filed by the plaintiff asking the court to reconsider its previously granted summary judgment order and a notice of appeal was filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on May 11, 2011. The appeal is set for hearing in May 2012. In December 2010, we were among several defendants listed in a lawsuit filed by approximately 2,300 plaintiffs who either worked, resided or owned property in the area downwind from the alumina refinery facility at St. Croix. The plaintiffs allege damages caused by the presence of red mud and other particulates coming from the alumina facility. The plaintiffs in both suits seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorney fees as well as certain injunctive relief. We have tendered indemnity and defense to St. Croix Alumina LLC and Alcoa Alumina & Chemical LLC under the terms of an acquisition agreement relating to the facility. Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement between Vialco and the purchaser of the alumina refinery facility in 1995, the purchaser assumed responsibility for all costs and other liabilities associated with the bauxite waste disposal facilities, including pre-closure and post-closure liabilities. At this time, it is not practicable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions or to estimate a range of possible damage awards for any of the Vialco lawsuits. In July 2006, we were named as a defendant, together with certain affiliates of Alcan Inc., in a lawsuit brought by Alcoa Inc. seeking to determine responsibility for certain environmental indemnity obligations related to the sale of a cast aluminum plate manufacturing facility located in Vernon, California, which we purchased from Alcoa Inc. in December 1998, and sold to Alcan Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC in July 1999. The complaint also seeks costs and attorney fees. At this time, it is not practicable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions or to estimate a range of possible damage awards. It is our policy to accrue for costs associated with environmental assessments and remedial efforts when it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred and the costs can be reasonably estimated. The aggregate environmental-related accrued liabilities were $891 and $753 at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. All accrued amounts have been recorded without giving effect to any possible future recoveries. With respect to costs for ongoing environmental compliance, including maintenance and monitoring, such costs are expensed as incurred. Because of the issues and uncertainties described above, and our inability to predict the requirements of future environmental laws, there can be no assurance that future capital expenditures and costs for environmental compliance will not have a material adverse effect on our future financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Based upon all available information, management does not believe that the outcome of these environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Legal Contingencies We have pending against us or may be subject to various lawsuits, claims and proceedings related primarily to employment, commercial, environmental, shareholder, safety and health matters. Although it is not presently possible to determine the outcome of these matters, management believes their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. In evaluating whether to accrue for costs associated with legal contingencies, it is our policy to take into consideration factors such as the facts and circumstances asserted, our historical experience with contingencies of a similar nature, the likelihood of our prevailing and the severity of any potential loss. For some matters, no accrual is established because we have assessed our risk of loss to be remote. Where the risk of loss is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated, we record an accrual, either on an individual basis or with respect to a group of matters involving similar claims, based on the factors set forth above. We also determine estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when we have assessed that a loss is reasonably possible. Based on current knowledge, management has ascertained estimates for losses that are reasonably possible and management does not believe that any reasonably possible outcomes in excess of our accruals, if any, would be material. We reevaluate and update our assessments and accruals as matters progress over time. On April 27, 2010, the purported stockholder class actions consolidated as Century Aluminum Company Securities Litigation were dismissed without prejudice by the court for failure to state a claim. On May 28, 2010 and June 24, 2010 plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which, like the previous complaints, alleged that we improperly accounted for cash flows associated with the termination of certain forward financial sales contracts which accounting allegedly resulted in artificial inflation of our stock price and investor losses. Plaintiffs are seeking rescission of our February 2009 common stock offering, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest thereon, costs and expenses and attorneys’ fees. A hearing was held in September 2010 to hear our motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 3, 2011, the class actions were dismissed with prejudice and judgment was entered in our favor. On March 10, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the order and judgment entered by the court on March 3, 2011. Ravenswood Retiree Medical Benefits changes Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. amended its postretirement medical benefit plan, effective January 1, 2010, for all current and former CAWV salaried employees, their dependents and all bargaining unit employees who retired before June 1, 2006, and their dependents. The principal changes to the plan as a result of this amendment were that, upon attainment of age 65, all CAWV provided retiree medical benefits ceased for retirees and dependents. In addition, bargaining unit retirees under age 65 and qualified dependents under age 65 were covered by the salary retiree medical plan which required out-of pocket payments for premiums, co-pays and deductibles by participants. In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“USWA”), the USWA’s local union, and four CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV’s rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits as described above. Later in November 2009, the USWA and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the foregoing. These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent us from implementing the foregoing changes while these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by the court. The USWA has appealed the decision and proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Based upon our analysis of the court’s ruling during the third quarter of 2010, in accordance with ASC 715-60, “Compensation – Retirement Plans – Defined Benefit Plans – Other Postretirement”, the amendment to the CAWV postretirement medical plan benefits was recorded as a negative plan amendment in the third quarter of 2010. We intend to continue to vigorously pursue our case in the foregoing actions. Power Commitments Big Rivers Agreement In July 2009, CAKY, Big Rivers and E.ON entered into an agreement to provide long-term cost-based power to CAKY (the “Big Rivers Agreement”).The term of the Big Rivers Agreement is through 2023 and provides adequate power for Hawesville’s full production capacity requirements (approximately 482 MW) with pricing based on the provider’s cost of production. The Big Rivers Agreement is take-or-pay for Hawesville’s energy requirements at full production. Under the terms of the Big Rivers agreement, any power not required by Hawesville would be available for sale and we would receive credits for actual power sales up to our cost for that power. On March 1, 2011, Big Rivers filed a proposed rate increase with the Kentucky Public Service Commission. We are opposing the increase proposed by Big Rivers to the Kentucky Public Service Commission and expect that a ruling will be made in the third quarter of 2011. Mt. Holly power agreement The South Carolina Public Service Authority (“Santee Cooper”) agreed in September 2010 to amend the Mt. Holly power contract to, among other things, provide that power delivered through 2015 will be priced at rates fixed under currently published schedules, subject to adjustments to cover Santee Cooper’s fuel costs. In addition, the amended agreement would allow Mt. Holly to terminate the power contract early, in whole or in part, without penalty, if the LME goes below certain negotiated levels. Appalachian Power Company (“APCo”) rate filing APCo supplies all of Ravenswood’s power requirements under an agreement at prices set forth in published tariffs, which are subject to change. Under the special rate contract, Ravenswood may be excused from, or may defer the payment of, the increase in the tariff rate if aluminum prices as quoted on the LME fall below pre-determined levels. In September 2009, the PSC attributed approximately $16,000 of unrecovered fuel costs to Ravenswood. This amount will be factored into the special rate provision. In June 2011, the PSC agreed to extend the special rate contract terms through June 2012. We are in discussions with APCo to provide for a long-term special rate arrangement that establishes the LME-based cap on the tariff rates. Other Commitments and Contingencies E.ON contingent obligation We have a contingent obligation to E.ON for the aggregate E.ON payments made under the Big Rivers Agreement in excess of the agreed upon base amount of $81,500. The aggregate excess payments, plus accrued interest totaled $13,256 and $13,091 at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Interest accrues on this obligation at 10.94% per annum from January 1, 2011. Our obligation to make repayments is contingent upon certain operating criteria and the LME price of primary aluminum. When the conditions for repayment are met, and for so long as those conditions continue to be met, we will be obligated to make up to 72 monthly payments of principal and interest. See Note 8 Debt for additional information about the E.ON contingent obligation. Labor Commitments Approximately 75% of our U.S. based work force is represented by the USWA. CAKY’s Hawesville plant employees represented by the USWA are under a collective bargaining agreement which expires on March 31, 2015. The agreement covers approximately 525 hourly workers at the Hawesville plant. In April 2010, Nordural Grundartangi ehf entered into a new labor agreement with the five labor unions representing approximately 84% of Grundartangi’s work force. The wage terms of the labor agreement expired on January 1, 2011 and we are currently involved in negotiations with the labor unions regarding the wage terms. The facility has continued to operate normally during these negotiations. The labor agreement in its entirety expires on December 31, 2014. CAWV’s Ravenswood plant employees represented by the USWA are under a labor agreement that expired on August 31, 2010. Negotiations for a new labor agreement are ongoing. Other Commitments The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the related Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act were enacted in March 2010. The Health Care Acts extend health care coverage to many uninsured individuals and expand coverage to those already insured. The Health Care Acts contain provisions which could impact our retiree medical benefits in future periods. However, the extent of that impact, if any, cannot be determined until regulations are promulgated under the Health Care Acts and additional interpretations of the Health Care Acts become available. We are continuing to assess the potential impacts that this legislation may have on our future results of operations, cash flows and financial position related to our health care benefits and other postemployment benefit (“OPEB”) obligations. Among other things, the Health Care Acts will eliminate the tax deductibility of the Medicare Part D subsidy for companies that provide qualifying prescription drug coverage to retirees effective for years beginning after December 31, 2012.

We believe our current environmental liabilities do not have, and are not likely to have, a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. However, there can be no assurance that future requirements or conditions at currently or formerly owned or operated properties will not result in liabilities which may have a material adverse effect.

In July 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) began an initiative to perform an oversight inspection of all Secondary Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) facilities which deal with casting furnaces, including Hawesville. Partial inspections were also conducted at collocated Primary MACT facilities which deal with potlines, including Hawesville. In April 2008, the EPA sent CAKY requests under the Clean Air Act for copies of certain records dating back to 2000. In November 2009, the EPA sent CAKY a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) alleging 12 violations relating to the Clean Air Act including, among other things, violations of the MACT emissions standards and the prevention of significant deterioration program for unpermitted major modifications. The number of alleged violations has now been reduced to two. The matter remains under investigation and we remain in discussions with the EPA to resolve the remaining alleged violations and expect that any fines or other settlement that may result from these discussions would be immaterial. We expect to resolve the matter in 2011.

Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. (“CAWV”) continues to perform remedial measures at Ravenswood pursuant to an order issued by the EPA in 1994 (the “3008(h) Order”). CAWV also conducted a RCRA facility investigation (“RFI”) under the 3008(h) Order evaluating other areas at Ravenswood that may have contamination requiring remediation. The RFI has been approved by appropriate agencies. CAWV has completed interim remediation measures at two sites identified in the RFI, and we believe no further remediation will be required. A Corrective Measures Study, which will formally document the conclusion of these activities, is being completed with the EPA. EPA approval of the Corrective Measures Study is anticipated in 2011. We currently believe a significant portion of the contamination on the two sites identified in the RFI is attributable to the operations of third parties and is their financial responsibility.

Prior to our purchase of Hawesville, the EPA issued a final Record of Decision (“ROD”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”). By agreement, Southwire Company (“Southwire”), the former owner and operator is to perform all obligations under the ROD. CAKY has agreed to operate and maintain the ground water treatment system required under the ROD on behalf of Southwire, and Southwire will reimburse CAKY for any expense that exceeds $400 annually.

We are a party to an EPA Administrative Order on Consent (the “Order”) pursuant to which other past and present owners of an alumina refining facility at St. Croix, Virgin Islands have agreed to carry out a Hydrocarbon Recovery Plan to remove and manage hydrocarbons floating on groundwater underlying the facility. Pursuant to the Hydrocarbon Recovery Plan, recovered hydrocarbons and groundwater are delivered to the adjacent petroleum refinery where they are received and managed. In connection with the sale of the facility by Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”), to one of our affiliates, Virgin Islands Alumina Corporation (“Vialco”), in 1989, Lockheed, Vialco and Century entered into the Lockheed-Vialco Asset Purchase Agreement. The indemnity provisions contained in the Lockheed-Vialco Asset Purchase Agreement allocate responsibility for certain environmental matters. Lockheed has tendered indemnity and defense of the above matter to Vialco. We have likewise tendered indemnity to Lockheed. Management does not believe Vialco’s liability under the Order or its indemnity to Lockheed will require material payments. Through June 30, 2011, we have expended approximately $840 on the Hydrocarbon Recovery Plan. We expect the future potential payments under this indemnification to comply with the Order will be approximately $500, which may be offset in part by sales of recoverable hydrocarbons.

In May 2005, we and Vialco were among several defendants listed in a lawsuit filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (“DPNR”), in his capacity as Trustee for Natural Resources of the United States Virgin Islands. The complaint alleges damages to natural resources caused by alleged releases from the alumina refinery facility at St. Croix and the adjacent petroleum refinery. The primary cause of action is pursuant to the natural resource damage provisions of CERCLA, but various ancillary Territorial law causes of action were included as well. We and Lockheed have each tendered indemnity and defense of the case to the other pursuant to the terms of the Lockheed-Vialco Asset Purchase Agreement. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorney fees. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. As of June 30, 2011, no trial date has been set for the remaining claims.

In December 2006, Vialco and the two succeeding owners of the alumina facility were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by the Commissioner of the DPNR. The complaint alleges the defendants failed to take certain actions specified in a Coastal Zone management permit issued to Vialco in October 1994, and alleges violations of territorial water pollution control laws during the various defendants’ periods of ownership. The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary penalties for the alleged violations. Vialco filed its answer to the complaint asserting factual and affirmative defenses. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process.

In May 2009, St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P. (“SCRG”) filed a third-party complaint for contribution and other relief against several third-party defendants, including Vialco, relating to a lawsuit filed against SCRG seeking recovery of response costs relating to the aforementioned DPNR CERCLA matter. In January 2010, the court granted a motion by DPNR to assert claims directly against certain third-party defendants, including Century and Vialco. On February 3, 2011, the court granted a motion by Century, dismissing Century from the case. Vialco, however, remains a defendant in this case. On March 4, 2011, the court granted the remaining defendants’, including Vialco’s, motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. On April 15, 2011, the SCRG court denied a motion filed by the plaintiff asking the court to reconsider its previously granted summary judgment order and a notice of appeal was filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on May 11, 2011. The appeal is set for hearing in May 2012.

In December 2010, we were among several defendants listed in a lawsuit filed by approximately 2,300 plaintiffs who either worked, resided or owned property in the area downwind from the alumina refinery facility at St. Croix. The plaintiffs allege damages caused by the presence of red mud and other particulates coming from the alumina facility. The plaintiffs in both suits seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorney fees as well as certain injunctive relief. We have tendered indemnity and defense to St. Croix Alumina LLC and Alcoa Alumina & Chemical LLC under the terms of an acquisition agreement relating to the facility.

Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement between Vialco and the purchaser of the alumina refinery facility in 1995, the purchaser assumed responsibility for all costs and other liabilities associated with the bauxite waste disposal facilities, including pre-closure and post-closure liabilities. At this time, it is not practicable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions or to estimate a range of possible damage awards for any of the Vialco lawsuits.

In July 2006, we were named as a defendant, together with certain affiliates of Alcan Inc., in a lawsuit brought by Alcoa Inc. seeking to determine responsibility for certain environmental indemnity obligations related to the sale of a cast aluminum plate manufacturing facility located in Vernon, California, which we purchased from Alcoa Inc. in December 1998, and sold to Alcan Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC in July 1999. The complaint also seeks costs and attorney fees. At this time, it is not practicable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions or to estimate a range of possible damage awards.

It is our policy to accrue for costs associated with environmental assessments and remedial efforts when it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred and the costs can be reasonably estimated. The aggregate environmental-related accrued liabilities were $891 and $753 at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. All accrued amounts have been recorded without giving effect to any possible future recoveries. With respect to costs for ongoing environmental compliance, including maintenance and monitoring, such costs are expensed as incurred.

Because of the issues and uncertainties described above, and our inability to predict the requirements of future environmental laws, there can be no assurance that future capital expenditures and costs for environmental compliance will not have a material adverse effect on our future financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Based upon all available information, management does not believe that the outcome of these environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

We have pending against us or may be subject to various lawsuits, claims and proceedings related primarily to employment, commercial, environmental, shareholder, safety and health matters. Although it is not presently possible to determine the outcome of these matters, management believes their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

In evaluating whether to accrue for costs associated with legal contingencies, it is our policy to take into consideration factors such as the facts and circumstances asserted, our historical experience with contingencies of a similar nature, the likelihood of our prevailing and the severity of any potential loss. For some matters, no accrual is established because we have assessed our risk of loss to be remote. Where the risk of loss is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated, we record an accrual, either on an individual basis or with respect to a group of matters involving similar claims, based on the factors set forth above.

We also determine estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when we have assessed that a loss is reasonably possible. Based on current knowledge, management has ascertained estimates for losses that are reasonably possible and management does not believe that any reasonably possible outcomes in excess of our accruals, if any, would be material. We reevaluate and update our assessments and accruals as matters progress over time.

On April 27, 2010, the purported stockholder class actions consolidated as Century Aluminum Company Securities Litigation were dismissed without prejudice by the court for failure to state a claim. On May 28, 2010 and June 24, 2010 plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which, like the previous complaints, alleged that we improperly accounted for cash flows associated with the termination of certain forward financial sales contracts which accounting allegedly resulted in artificial inflation of our stock price and investor losses. Plaintiffs are seeking rescission of our February 2009 common stock offering, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest thereon, costs and expenses and attorneys’ fees. A hearing was held in September 2010 to hear our motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 3, 2011, the class actions were dismissed with prejudice and judgment was entered in our favor. On March 10, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the order and judgment entered by the court on March 3, 2011.

The principal changes to the plan as a result of this amendment were that, upon attainment of age 65, all CAWV provided retiree medical benefits ceased for retirees and dependents. In addition, bargaining unit retirees under age 65 and qualified dependents under age 65 were covered by the salary retiree medical plan which required out-of pocket payments for premiums, co-pays and deductibles by participants.

In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“USWA”), the USWA’s local union, and four CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV’s rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits as described above. Later in November 2009, the USWA and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the foregoing. These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent us from implementing the foregoing changes while these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by the court. The USWA has appealed the decision and proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Based upon our analysis of the court’s ruling during the third quarter of 2010, in accordance with ASC 715-60, “Compensation – Retirement Plans – Defined Benefit Plans – Other Postretirement”, the amendment to the CAWV postretirement medical plan benefits was recorded as a negative plan amendment in the third quarter of 2010. We intend to continue to vigorously pursue our case in the foregoing actions.

In July 2009, CAKY, Big Rivers and E.ON entered into an agreement to provide long-term cost-based power to CAKY (the “Big Rivers Agreement”).The term of the Big Rivers Agreement is through 2023 and provides adequate power for Hawesville’s full production capacity requirements (approximately 482 MW) with pricing based on the provider’s cost of production. The Big Rivers Agreement is take-or-pay for Hawesville’s energy requirements at full production. Under the terms of the Big Rivers agreement, any power not required by Hawesville would be available for sale and we would receive credits for actual power sales up to our cost for that power. On March 1, 2011, Big Rivers filed a proposed rate increase with the Kentucky Public Service Commission. We are opposing the increase proposed by Big Rivers to the Kentucky Public Service Commission and expect that a ruling will be made in the third quarter of 2011.

The South Carolina Public Service Authority (“Santee Cooper”) agreed in September 2010 to amend the Mt. Holly power contract to, among other things, provide that power delivered through 2015 will be priced at rates fixed under currently published schedules, subject to adjustments to cover Santee Cooper’s fuel costs. In addition, the amended agreement would allow Mt. Holly to terminate the power contract early, in whole or in part, without penalty, if the LME goes below certain negotiated levels.

APCo supplies all of Ravenswood’s power requirements under an agreement at prices set forth in published tariffs, which are subject to change. Under the special rate contract, Ravenswood may be excused from, or may defer the payment of, the increase in the tariff rate if aluminum prices as quoted on the LME fall below pre-determined levels. In September 2009, the PSC attributed approximately $16,000 of unrecovered fuel costs to Ravenswood. This amount will be factored into the special rate provision. In June 2011, the PSC agreed to extend the special rate contract terms through June 2012. We are in discussions with APCo to provide for a long-term special rate arrangement that establishes the LME-based cap on the tariff rates.

We have a contingent obligation to E.ON for the aggregate E.ON payments made under the Big Rivers Agreement in excess of the agreed upon base amount of $81,500. The aggregate excess payments, plus accrued interest totaled $13,256 and $13,091 at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Interest accrues on this obligation at 10.94% per annum from January 1, 2011. Our obligation to make repayments is contingent upon certain operating criteria and the LME price of primary aluminum. When the conditions for repayment are met, and for so long as those conditions continue to be met, we will be obligated to make up to 72 monthly payments of principal and interest. See Note 8 Debt for additional information about the E.ON contingent obligation.

Approximately 75% of our U.S. based work force is represented by the USWA. CAKY’s Hawesville plant employees represented by the USWA are under a collective bargaining agreement which expires on March 31, 2015. The agreement covers approximately 525 hourly workers at the Hawesville plant.

In April 2010, Nordural Grundartangi ehf entered into a new labor agreement with the five labor unions representing approximately 84% of Grundartangi’s work force. The wage terms of the labor agreement expired on January 1, 2011 and we are currently involved in negotiations with the labor unions regarding the wage terms. The facility has continued to operate normally during these negotiations. The labor agreement in its entirety expires on December 31, 2014.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the related Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act were enacted in March 2010. The Health Care Acts extend health care coverage to many uninsured individuals and expand coverage to those already insured. The Health Care Acts contain provisions which could impact our retiree medical benefits in future periods. However, the extent of that impact, if any, cannot be determined until regulations are promulgated under the Health Care Acts and additional interpretations of the Health Care Acts become available. We are continuing to assess the potential impacts that this legislation may have on our future results of operations, cash flows and financial position related to our health care benefits and other postemployment benefit (“OPEB”) obligations. Among other things, the Health Care Acts will eliminate the tax deductibility of the Medicare Part D subsidy for companies that provide qualifying prescription drug coverage to retirees effective for years beginning after December 31, 2012.