This annual report contains historical information, as well as forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and relate to future events, our future financial performance, or our expected future operations and actions. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expect," "plan," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "future," "intend," "could," "hope," "predict," "target," "potential," or "continue" or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are only our predictions based on current information and involve numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Our actual results or actions may differ materially from these forward-looking statements for many reasons, including the reasons described in this report. While it is impossible to identify all such factors, factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated by us include:

The cautionary statements referred to in this section also should be considered in connection with any subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements that may be issued by us or any persons acting on our behalf. We undertake no duty to update these forward-looking statements, even though our situation may change in the future. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee future results, events, levels of activity, performance, or achievements. We caution you not to put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this report. You should read this report and the documents that we reference in this report and have filed as exhibits, completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we currently expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

On June 13, 2013, we entered into an agreement with Steve Retterath, our largest member, to repurchase and retire all of the units owned by Mr. Retterath. We agreed to close on this repurchase on or before August 1, 2013. We agreed to repurchase and retire the 25,860 membership units owned by Mr. Retterath in exchange for $30 million, to be paid in two equal installments payable at closing and on July 1, 2014. The transaction failed to close by the scheduled dateAugust 1, 2013 due to objections by Mr. Retterath. The Company believes that it has a binding agreement with Mr. Retterath. On August 14, 2013, wethe Company filed a lawsuit against Mr. Retterath in Iowa state court to enforce the terms of the repurchase agreement. We areThe Company is asking the Iowa state court to require Mr. Retterath to complete the repurchase agreement pursuant to its terms.

Mr. Retterath contends he is not bound by the agreement.  Our position is that, as of the closing date, Mr. Retterath is no longer the equitable owner of any membership units in the Company. As a result, we have recorded a $30 million short-term liability related to the amount we agreed to pay Mr. Retterath to repurchase his membership units and wehave correspondingly reduced members' equity on our balance sheet. If we are ultimately unsuccessful in our lawsuit against Mr. Retterath, wethe Company will reevaluate the accounting considerations made during the period of time that the lawsuit is pending.

On the scheduled closing date for the repurchase agreement, Mr. Retterath sued the Company along with several directors, our former CEO, CFO, Plant Manager,COO, a former director and our outside legal counsel in Florida state court. DetailsThis lawsuit was subsequently removed to federal court in the State of bothFlorida and ultimately to federal court in the Company'sState of Iowa. The federal court in the State of Iowa dismissed the only federal claim in Mr. Retterath's lawsuit against the Company and remanded the case to Florida state court. We have a motion to dismiss this lawsuit pending in the Florida state court.

On February 18, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Iowa state court to rule that the repurchase agreement was valid and enforceable and ordering Mr. Retterath to perform his obligations pursuant to the repurchase agreement. Mr. Retterath along with his son and daughter-in-law filed motions for summary judgment asking the Iowa state court to rule that the repurchase agreement was invalid. The Iowa state court entered a ruling granting Homeland's motion for summary judgment and determined no membership vote was required as Mr. Retterath has contended. The Iowa state court also denied the summary judgment motions filed by Mr. Retterath and Mr. Retterath's lawsuit are provided below in the section entitled "PART I - Item 3. Legal Proceedings."his son and daughter-in-law.

On August 9, 2013, GS Cleantech Corporation ("GS Cleantech"), a subsidiary of Greenshift Corporation, filed a complaint in the United States District for the Northern District of Iowa against the Company. The Company is one of more than twenty ethanol manufacturers that were sued by GS Cleantech. The complaint alleges that Homeland'sthe Company's operation of a corn oil extraction process infringes patent rights claimed by GS Cleantech. GS Cleantech seeks royalties, damages and potentially triple damages associated with the alleged infringement, as well as attorney's fees. The complaint was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana due to a finding that the action involves questions of fact common to several other lawsuits which were joined in a multi-district litigation ("MDL"). The MDL Court developed two tracks of defendants in this litigation. The first track includes defendants which were originally sued by GS Cleantech in 2010 and a second track of defendants sued in 2013 which includes the Company. On October 23, 2014, the MDL Court granted summary judgment in favor of the first track defendants and found that the GS Cleantech patents which the Company is alleged to have infringed are invalid. Further, in a January 16, 2015 decision, the MDL Court ruled in favor of a stipulated motion for partial summary judgment finding that all of the GS Cleantech patents in the suit were invalid and, therefore, not infringed. GS Cleantech has said it will appeal this decision when the remaining claim in the suit has been decided. Regardless of when it may be appealed, the likelihood of GS Cleantech succeeding on appeal of the January 16, 2015 ruling is remote since it was based on several grounds for each allegedly infringed patent. If GS Cleantech successfully appeals the District Court’s findings of invalidity, damages awarded GS Cleantech may be $1 million or more.

The only remaining claim in the lawsuit alleges that GS Cleantech inequitably conducted itself before the United States Patent Office when obtaining the patents at issue. A trial in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on thatthe single issue of inequitable conduct was held in October 2015 and the Company is scheduled.currently awaiting the MDL Court's decision. If the defendants, including the Company, succeed in proving inequitable conduct, the patents at issue will be invalidated such that norendered unenforceable as will certain additional patents. No damages will be awarded to GS Cleantech for infringement andof an unenforceable patent can be awarded. Further, if the MDL Courtdefendants successfully prove inequitable conduct, they will be asked to determine whether GS Cleantech’s behavior makes this an "exceptional case". A finding that this is an exceptional case would allowask the Court to find the case exceptional and award to Homeland an amount equal to the defendants their attorneys' fees the Company has expended to date for defense in this case.fees. It is unknown whether GS Cleantech would appeal such a ruling.

The principal products that we produce are ethanol, distiller grains and corn oil. The table below shows the approximate percentage of our total revenue which is attributed to each of our primary products for each of our last three fiscal years.

Ethanol is ethyl alcohol, a fuel component made primarily from corn and various other grains. Ethanol is primarily used as: (i) an octane enhancer in fuels; (ii) an oxygenated fuel additive for the purpose of reducing ozone and carbon monoxide vehicle emissions; and (iii) a non-petroleum-based gasoline substitute. Ethanol produced in the United States is primarily used for blending with unleaded gasoline and other fuel products. Ethanol blended fuel is typically designated in the marketplace according to the percentage of the fuel that is ethanol, with the most common fuel blend being E10, which includes 10% ethanol. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has approved the use of gasoline blends that contain 15% ethanol, or E15, for use in all vehicles manufactured in model year 2001 and later. In addition, flexible fuel vehicles can use gasoline blends that contain up to 85% ethanol called E85.

 

Our ethanol plant uses corn as the feedstock in the ethanol production process. A corn-based ethanol plant is essentially a fermentation plant. Ground corn and water are mixed with enzymes and yeast to produce a substance called "beer," which contains approximately 15% alcohol, 11% solids and 74% water. The beer is boiled to separate the water, resulting in ethyl alcohol, which is then dehydrated to increase the alcohol content. This product is then mixed with a certified denaturant, such as gasoline, to make the product unfit for human consumption which allows it to be sold commercially.

The principal co-product of the ethanol production process is distiller grains, a high protein, high-energy animal feed supplement primarily marketed to the dairy and beef industry. We produce two forms of distiller grains: Modified/Wet Distiller Grains ("MWDG") and Distiller Dried Grains with Solubles ("DDGS"). MWDG is processed corn mash that has been dried to approximately 50% moisture. MWDG has a shelf life of approximately seven days and is often sold to markets near our ethanol

In October 2011, we commenced operating our corn oil extraction equipment. The corn oil extraction equipment we installed allows us to remove some of the corn oil contained in our distiller grains and sell the corn oil separately. The corn oil that we are capable of producing is not food grade corn-oil and it cannot be used for human consumption. The primary uses of the corn oil that we produce are for animal feed, industrial uses and biodiesel production.

The primary market for our ethanol is the domestic fuel blending market. However, in recent years the United States has experienced increased ethanol exports. This increase in ethanol exports follows a conscious effort by the United States ethanol industry to expand ethanol exports along with lower ethanol prices which encourage exports. TheseDuring our 2015 fiscal year, exports of ethanol export efforts are continuing and may lead to further increases inhave increased with Canada receiving the largest percentage of ethanol exports. The increase in ethanol exports along with lower ethanol imports contributed to improved operating marginsproduced in the United States and Brazil in second. India, the Philippines, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates have also been top destinations. However, ethanol export demand is more unpredictable than domestic demand and tends to fluctuate throughout the year as it is subject to monetary and political forces in other nations. An example of this, the recent imposition of a tax on imported ethanol by Brazil has created uncertainty as to the viability of that market for most of 2014 and has prevented excess ethanol suppliesproduced in the domestic market. DueUnited States and may require United States producers to our location, we do not anticipate a significant amountseek out other markets for their products. In addition, the strong U.S. Dollar may have negatively impacted ethanol exports from the United States during 2015.

In 2011, the European Union launched anti-dumpingantidumping and anti-subsidyantisubsidy investigations related to ethanol exports from the United States. In August 2012, the European Union concluded the anti-subsidyantisubsidy investigation and decided not to impose a tariff related to the anti-subsidyantisubsidy portion of the investigation due to the fact that the VEETC blenders credit had expired.investigation. However, the European Union decided to impose a tariff on ethanol imported from the United States based on the anti-dumpingantidumping portion of the investigation. While this tariff has negatively impacted ethanol exports to the European Union, other countries have increased their ethanol imports. Further, some ethanol exports to the European Union have continued despite the tariff due to the relatively lower price of ethanol produced in the United States in 2014.2015.

Ethanol is generally blended with gasoline before it is sold to the end consumer. Therefore, the primary purchasers of ethanol are fuel blending companies who mix the ethanol we produce with gasoline. As discussed below in the section entitled "Distribution of Principal Products," we have a third party marketer that sells all of our ethanol. Our ethanol marketer makes substantially all decisions regarding where our ethanol is sold.

Distiller grains are primarily used as animal feed. Distiller grains are typically fed to animals instead of other traditional animal feeds such as corn and soybean meal. Distiller grains exports have increased in recent years as distiller grains have become a more accepted animal feed. The primary export markets for distiller grains are China, Mexico, TurkeySouth Korea, Vietnam and Canada along with many Pacific Rim countries. However, demandCanada. Demand for distiller grains from China decreased during the second half of 2014 when China announced in June 2014 that it would stop issuing import permits for distiller grains from the United States due to the presence in some shipments of a genetically modified corn trait not approved for import. This announcement was followed in July 2014 by a new requirement by China of a certification by the United States governmentrequirement that distiller grains shipments to China arewere free of the genetically modified corn trait. OfficialsFurther, a new registration requirement for Chinese importers of distillers grains began on September 1, 2015. In addition, on January 12, 2016, the Chinese government announced that it will commence an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation related to distillers grains imported from the United StatesStates. This investigation was initiated in November 2015 by Chinese distillers grain producers. This investigation will likely lead to a decrease in distillers grains exports to China in the short-term and China were unable to agree on testing proceduresmay result in the imposition of tariffs by the Chinese in the long-term. This antidumping and countervailing duty investigation could significantly decrease demand and prices for distiller grains exported to China. Recently, China has lifted these requirements for distillerdistillers grains produced in the United States which has reopened the Chinese market to United States distiller grains. However, China could reimpose this restriction at any time which makes the Chinese distiller grains market uncertain.States. We anticipate that the majority of our distillers grains will continue to be sold in the domestic market due to our plant's location, however, global distiller grains demand has an impact on domestic prices.

The primary markets for corn oil are the industrial chemicals market, animal feeding market and the biodiesel production market. Domestic corn oil supplies have been increasing in recent years at a time when demand has been relatively stable which has resulted in decreasing corn oil prices. The market for corn oil is expected to continue to shift as changes in supply and demand of corn oil interact. Our corn oil is primarily marketed in the United States and we do not expect that significant exports of corn oil will occur in the near future.

We have hired third party marketers who are responsible for the distribution of all of the products we produce. Below is a description of the arrangements we have with our ethanol, distiller grains and corn oil marketers.

We have an ethanol marketing agreement with Renewable Products Marketing Group, Inc. ("RPMG"), a professional third party marketer, which is the sole marketer of our ethanol. RPMG also markets all of our corn oil. We are an equity owner of RPMG, LLC ("RPMG, LLC"), the parent company of RPMG, which allows us to realize favorable marketing fees and transparency in the sale of our ethanol and corn oil. Our ethanol marketing agreement provides we can sell our ethanol either through an index arrangement or at a fixed price agreed to between us and RPMG. The term of the ethanol marketing agreement is perpetual, until it is terminated. The primary reasons the ethanol marketing agreement would terminate are if we cease to be an owner of RPMG, LLC, if there is a breach of the ethanol marketing agreement which is not cured, or if we give advance notice to RPMG that we wish to terminate the ethanol marketing agreement. Notwithstanding our right to terminate the ethanol marketing agreement, we may be obligated to continue to market our ethanol through RPMG for a period of time after termination. Further, following termination, we would accept an assignment of certain railcar leases which RPMG has secured to service our ethanol sales. If our ethanol marketing agreement is terminated, it would trigger a redemption by RPMG, LLC of our ownership interest in RPMG, LLC.

CHS agreed to pay us 98% of the actual sale price received by CHS from its customers for DDGS sold and 96% of the actual sale price received by CHS for MWDG sold, subject to certain minimum and maximum fees per ton. CHS deducts the customary freight costs incurred by CHS in delivering the distiller grains to its customers from our portion of the distiller grains sale price.

In July 2011, we entered into a Corn Oil Marketing Agreement with RPMG. We have an exclusive marketing arrangement with RPMG where it will market all of the corn oil that we produce. We agreed to pay RPMG a commission based on each pound of corn oil that RPMG sells on our behalf. We also agreed to pay certain costs associated with RPMG marketing our corn oil. The initial term of the corn oil marketing agreement is for one year and the agreement automatically renews for additional one year terms unless written notice is given, either by us or RPMG, at least ninety days prior to the expiration of the current term of the agreement.

We did not introduce any new products or services during our 20142015 fiscal year.

The following table identifies the largest ethanol producers in the United States along with their production capacities.

The products that we produce are commodities. Since our products are commodities, there are typically no significant differences between the products we produce and the products of our competitors that would allow us to distinguish our products in the market. As a result, competition in the ethanol industry is primarily based on price and consistent quality.

We have experienced increased competition from oil companies that have purchased ethanol production facilities. These oil companies are required to blend a certain amount of ethanol each year. Therefore, the oil companies may be able to operate their ethanol production facilities at times when it is unprofitable for us to operate our ethanol plant. Further, some ethanol producers own multiple ethanol plants which may allow them to compete more effectively by providing them flexibility to run certain production facilities while they have other facilities shut down. Finally, some ethanol producers who own ethanol plants in geographically diverse areas of the United States may spread the risk they encounter related to feedstock prices due to localized corn shortages or poor growing conditions.

We anticipate increased competition from renewable fuels that do not use corn as the feedstock. Many of the current ethanol production incentives are designed to encourage the production of renewable fuels using raw materials other than corn. One type of ethanol production feedstock that is being explored is cellulose. Cellulose is the main component of plant cell walls and is the most common organic compound on earth. Cellulose is found in wood chips, corn stalks, rice straw, amongst other common plants. Cellulosic ethanol is ethanol produced from cellulose. There are several commercial scale cellulosic ethanol production facilities either in production or in the construction phase which may be completed during 2015.2016. If this technology can be profitably employed on a commercial scale, it could potentially lead to ethanol that is less expensive to produce than corn based ethanol, especially when corn prices are high. Cellulosic ethanol may also capture more government subsidies and assistance than corn based ethanol. This could decrease demand for our product or result in competitive disadvantages for our ethanol production process.

A number of automotive, industrial and power generation manufacturers are developing alternative clean power systems using fuel cells, plug-in hybrids, electric cars or clean burning gaseous fuels. Electric car technology has recently grown in popularity, especially in urban areas. While there are currently a limited number of vehicle recharging stations, making electric cars not feasible for all consumers, there has been increased focus on developing these recharging stations to make electric car technology more widely available in the future. Additional competition from these other sources of alternative energy, particularly in the automobile market, could reduce the demand for ethanol, which would negatively impact our profitability.

Competition among ethanol producers may continue to increase as gasoline demand decreases due to more fuel efficient vehicles being produced. If the concentration of ethanol used in most gasoline does not increase and gasoline demand is lower due to increased fuel efficiency by the vehicles operated in the United States, competition may increase among ethanol producers to supply the ethanol market.

Our ethanol plant competes with other ethanol producers in the production and sales of distiller grains. Distiller grains are primarily used as an animal feed which replaces corn and soybean meal. As a result, we believe that distiller grains prices are positively impacted by increases in corn and soybean prices. In addition, in recent years the United States ethanol industry has increased exports of distiller grains which management believes has positively impacted demand and prices for distiller grains in the United States. In the event these distiller grains exports decrease, it could lead to an oversupply of distiller grains in the United

We compete with many ethanol producers for the sale of corn oil. Many ethanol producers have installed the equipment necessary to separate corn oil from the distiller grains they produce which has increased competition for corn oil sales and has resulted in lower market corn oil prices.

The major raw material required to produce ethanol, distiller grains and corn oil at our plant is corn. The ethanol plant is currently operating at a rate in excess of its nameplate capacity. We anticipate that we will require approximately 4750 million bushels of corn per year to produce approximately 135146 million gallons of ethanol per year. We buy as much corn as possible from local grain elevators and farmers. Our commodities manager is responsible for purchasing corn for our operations, scheduling corn deliveries and establishing hedging positions to protect the price we pay for corn.

During 2014,2015, the United States harvested a record number of bushels of corn.another large corn crop, estimated to be the third largest corn crop on record. Further, due to the large corn crop which was harvested in the fall of 2013,2014, there was a significant carryover of corn from the prior havest.

The effectiveness of our risk management strategy is dependent on the cost of corn and our ability to sell sufficient ethanol to use all of the corn for which we have futures contracts. Our risk management activities may not be successful in reducing the risk caused by price fluctuation, which may leave us vulnerable to high corn prices.

We experience some seasonality of demand for our ethanol, distiller grains and corn oil. Since ethanol is predominantly blended with gasoline for use in automobiles, ethanol demand tends to shift in relation to gasoline demand. As a result, we experience some seasonality of demand for ethanol in the summer months related to increased driving and, as a result, increased gasoline demand. In addition, we experience some increased ethanol demand during holiday seasons related to increased gasoline demand. We also experience decreased distiller grains demand during the summer months due to natural depletion in the size of herds at cattle feed lots and when the animals are turned out to pasture or are slaughtered. Further, we expect some seasonality of demand for our corn oil since a major corn oil user is the biodiesel industry which typically reduces production during the winter months.

We primarily use our working capital for purchases of raw materials necessary to operate the ethanol plant, for payments on our credit facilities, for distributions to our members and for capital expenditures to maintain and upgrade the ethanol plant. Our primary sources of working capital are income from our operations as well as our revolving line of credit with our primary lender, Home Federal.Federal Savings Bank ("Home Federal"). For our 2015 fiscal year, we received a waiver from Home Federal of our capital expenditures covenant in order to complete a series of plant upgrade projects designed to make our plant more efficient

As discussed previously, we have exclusive marketing agreements with RPMG for sales of our ethanol and corn oil and with CHS for sales of our distiller grains. As a result, we rely on RPMG and CHS for the sale and distribution of all of our products. Any loss of RPMG or CHS as the marketing agent for our products could have a significant negative impact on our revenues. While we anticipate that we could secure other ethanol, distiller grains and corn oil marketers if necessary, any loss of our marketers could significantly impact our ability to operate the ethanol plant profitably.

We do not currently hold any patents, trademarks, franchises or concessions. We were granted a perpetual and royalty free license by ICM, Inc. ("ICM") to use certain ethanol production technology necessary to operate our ethanol plant. The cost of the license granted by ICM was included in the amount we paid to Fagen, Inc. to design and build our ethanol plant.

The ethanol industry is dependent on several economic incentives to produce ethanol, including federal tax incentives and ethanol use mandates. Onethe most significant federal ethanol supportof which is the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard (the "RFS"). The RFS requires that in each year, a certain amount of renewable fuels must be used in the United States. The RFS is a national program that does not require that any renewable fuels be used in any particular area or state, allowing refiners to use renewable fuel blends in those areas where it is most cost-effective. The RFS statutory volume requirement increases incrementally each year until the United States is required to use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. Starting in 2009, the RFS required that a portion of the RFS must be met by certain "advanced" renewable fuels. These advanced renewable fuels include ethanol that is not made from corn, such as cellulosic ethanol and biomass based biodiesel. The use of these advanced renewable fuels increases each year as a percentage of the total renewable fuels required to be used in the United States.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") has the authority to waive the RFS statutory volume requirement, in whole or in part, provided one of the following two conditions have been met: (1) there is inadequate domestic renewable fuel supply; or (2) implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region or the United States. Annually, the EPA passesis supposed to pass a rule that establishes the number of gallons of different types of renewable fuels that must be used in the United States which is called the renewable volume obligations.

The RFS statutory volume requirement for 2014 is approximately 18.15 billion gallons, of which corn based ethanol can be used to satisfy approximatelyis 14.4 billion gallons.gallons in 2014, 15 billion gallons in 2015 and 15 billion gallons in 2016. Previously, the EPA issued proposed renewable volume obligations pursuant to the RFS which were lower than these statutory requirements. On November 30, 2015, the EPA released its final renewable volume obligations for corn-based ethanol for 2014 through 2016. The final renewable volume obligations reduced the corn-based ethanol use requirements pursuant to the RFS below the statutory requirements. Pursuant to the final renewable volume obligation release, the RFS requirement for 2015 is approximately 20.5corn-based ethanol was 13.61 billion gallons of which corn basedfor 2014, 14.05 billion gallons for 2015 and 14.5 billion gallons for 2016. Many in the ethanol can be used to satisfy approximately 15 billion gallons. However, on November 15, 2013,industry believe that this significant departure from the EPA announced a proposal to significantly reducestatutory requirements for the RFS levels for 2014 to 15.21 billion gallons of which corn based ethanol could be used to satisfy only 13 billion gallons. This proposed rule would result in a lowering of the 2014 standard below the 2013 level of 13.8 billion gallons. The EPA also sought comment on several petitions it has received for partial waiver of the statutory volumes for 2014. The 60-day public comment period ended on January 28, 2014 and the rule was submittedis not supported by the EPA to the Office of Managementlaw and Budget for review on August 22, 2014. On November 21, 2014, the EPA announced that it would delay finalizing the rulewill have a significant negative impact on the 2014 RFS standards until after the end of 2014. The EPA indicated that it intends to take action on the 2014 standards in 2015 prior to or in conjunction with action on the 2015 standards. Ifethanol industry. Recently, a lawsuit was filed challenging the EPA's proposal becomes a final rule significantly reducing therenewable volume requirements under the RFS or if the RFS were to be otherwise reduced or eliminated by the exercise of the EPA waiver authority or by Congress, the market price and demand for ethanol could decrease which will negatively impact our financial performance. Current ethanol production capacity exceeds the EPA's proposed 2014 standard which can be satisfied by corn based ethanol.obligation release.

In February 2010, the EPA issued new regulations governing the RFS. These new regulations are called RFS2. The most controversial part of RFS2 involves what is commonly referred to as the lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the EPA adopted rules to determine which renewable fuels provided sufficient reductions in greenhouse gases, compared to conventional gasoline, to qualify under the RFS program. RFS2 establishes a tiered approach, where regular renewable fuels are required to accomplish a 20% greenhouse gas reduction compared to gasoline, advanced biofuels and biomass-based biodiesel must accomplish a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases, and cellulosic biofuels must accomplish a 60% reduction in greenhouse gases. Any fuels that fail to meet this standard cannot be used by fuel blenders to satisfy their obligations under the RFS program. The scientific method of calculating these greenhouse gas reductions has been a contentious issue. Many in the ethanol industry were concerned that corn based ethanol would not meet the 20% greenhouse gas reduction requirement based on certain parts of the environmental impact model that many in the ethanol industry believed was scientifically suspect. However, RFS2 as adopted

Most ethanol that is used in the United States is sold in a fuel blend called E10. E10 is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. E10 is approved for use in all standard vehicles. Estimates indicate that gasoline demand in the United States is approximately 134137 billion gallons per year. Assuming that all gasoline in the United States is blended at a rate of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, the maximum demand for ethanol is 13.413.7 billion gallons per year. This is commonly referred to as the "blend wall," which represents a theoretical limit where more ethanol cannot be blended into the national gasoline pool. This is a theoretical limit because it is believed that it would not be possible to blend ethanol into every gallon of gasoline that is being used in the United States and it discounts the use of higher percentage blends such as E15 or E85. These higher percentage blends may lead to additional ethanol demand if they become more widely available and accepted by the market.

Many in the ethanol industry believe that it will be impossible to meet the RFS requirement in future years without an increase in the percentage of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline for use in standard (non-flex fuel) vehicles. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA")EPA has approved the use of E15, gasoline which is blended at a rate of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline, in vehicles manufactured in the model year 2001 and later. However, there are still state hurdles that need to be addressed in some states before E15 will become more widely available. Many states still have regulatory issues that prevent the sale of E15. Sales of E15 may be limited because it is not approved for use in all vehicles, the EPA requires a label that management believes may discourage consumers from using E15, and retailers may choose not to sell E15 due to concerns regarding liability. In addition, different gasoline blendstocks may be required at certain times of the year in order to use E15 due to federal regulations related to fuel evaporative emissions which may limit E15 sales in these markets. As a result, the approval of E15 by the EPA has not had an immediate impact on ethanol demand in the United States.

In 2006, Iowa passed legislation promoting the use of renewable fuels in Iowa. One of the most significant provisions of the Iowa renewable fuels legislation is a renewable fuels standard encouraging 10% of the gasoline sold in Iowa to be renewable fuels by 2009 and increasing incrementally to 25% renewable fuels by 2019. This is expected to be achieved through the use of tax credits that are designed to encourage the further utilization of renewable fuels in Iowa. This legislation could increase local demand for ethanol and may increase the local price for ethanol. In 2011, the Iowa legislature increased the E85 tax credit to 18

The government's regulation of the environment changes constantly. We are subject to extensive air, water and other environmental regulations and we have been required to obtain a number of environmental permits to construct and operate the ethanol plant. It is possible that more stringent federal or state environmental rules or regulations could be adopted, which could increase our operating costs and expenses. It also is possible that federal or state environmental rules or regulations could be adopted that could have an adverse effect on the use of ethanol. Plant operations are governed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"). OSHA regulations may change such that the costs of operating the ethanol plant may increase. Any of these regulatory factors may result in higher costs or other adverse conditions effecting our operations, cash flows and financial performance.

In late 2009, California passed a Low Carbon Fuels Standard ("LCFS"). The California LCFS requires that renewable fuels used in California must accomplish certain reductions in greenhouse gases which is measured using a lifecycle analysis, similar to the RFS. On December 29, 2011, a federal district court in California ruled that the California LCFS was unconstitutional which halted implementation of the California LCFS. However, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") appealed this court ruling and on September 18, 2013, the federal appellate court reversed the federal district court finding the LCFS constitutional and remanding the case back to federal district court to determine whether the LCFS imposes a burden on interstate commerce that is excessive in light of the local benefits. On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the federal appellate court ruling. In addition, a state court in Californiaruling and CARB recently required that CARB take certain corrective actions regarding the approval ofre-adopted the LCFS regulations while allowing the LCFS regulations to remain in effect during this process. If federal and state challenges to the LCFS are ultimately unsuccessful, thewith some slight modifications. The LCFS could have a negative impact on demand for corn-based ethanol and result in decreased ethanol prices.prices affecting our ability to operate profitably.

In 2012, theThe European Union concluded an anti-dumpingantidumping investigation related to ethanol produced in the United States and exported to Europe. As a result of this investigation, the European Union has imposed a tariff on ethanol which is produced in the United States and exported to Europe. This tariff has resultedcould result in significantly decreased exports of ethanol to Europe which hascould negatively impactedimpact the market price of ethanol demand in the United States.

We are continually working to develop new methods of operating the ethanol plant more efficiently. We continue to conduct research and development activities in order to realize these efficiency improvements.

All of our operations are domiciled in the United States. All of the products we sold to our customers for our fiscal years 2015, 2014 2013, and 20122013 were produced in the United States and all of our long-lived assets are domiciled in the United States. We have engaged third-party professional marketers that decide where our products are marketed and we have limited control over the marketing decisions made by our marketers. Our marketers may decide to sell our products in countries other than the United States. Currently, a significant amount of distiller grains are exported to China, Mexico, CanadaSouth Korea, Vietnam and ChinaCanada and the United States ethanol

Changes and advances in ethanol production technology could require us to incur costs to update our plant or could otherwise hinder our ability to compete in the ethanol industry or operate profitably.  Advances and changes in the technology of ethanol production are expected to occur.  Such advances and changes may make the ethanol production technology installed in our plant less desirable or obsolete.  These advances could also allow our competitors to produce ethanol at a lower cost than us.  If we are unable to adopt or incorporate technological advances, our ethanol production methods and processes could be less efficient than our competitors, which could cause our plant to become uncompetitive or completely obsolete.  If our competitors develop, obtain or license technology that is superior to ours or that makes our technology obsolete, we may be required to incur significant costs to enhance or acquire new technology so that our ethanol production remains competitive.  Alternatively, we may be required to seek third-party licenses, which could also result in significant expenditures.  These third-party licenses may not

Our plant is located on an approximately 350 acre site in Chickasaw County, Iowa. The plant's address is 2779 Highway 24, Lawler, Iowa 52154. Construction of our plant was completed in April 2009. All of our operations are located at this site.

On August 1, 2013, Steve Retterath, the Company's largest investor and a former member of the Company's board of directors filed a lawsuit in the Florida Circuit Court located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The lawsuit was subsequently removed to federal court in Florida. In the lawsuit, Mr. Retterath sued the Company, Pat Boyle, Maurice Hyde, Christine Marchand, Mathew Driscoll, Leslie Hansen, and Chad Kuhlers, each members of the Company's board of directors, Walter Wendland, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, David Finke, the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Kevin Howes, the Company's Plant Manager.Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Retterath also sued James Boeding, a former director and the Company's outside legal counsel, Joseph Leo and the BrownWinick Law Firm. Mr. Retterath is claiming that certain actions taken by the Company violated fiduciary duties owed to him as a member or fraudulently induced him to take certain actions. Mr. Retterath is also claiming violations of state and federal securities laws and violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices statutes. Mr. Retterath claims an unspecified damage in excess of $30 million in monetary damages. The Florida court ruled in favor of the Company's motion to transfer the case to Iowa. Each of the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and Mr. Retterath filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the case. The Federal Court in Iowa ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the federal claims in this lawsuit. Further, the Federal Court declined jurisdiction to hear the other state law matters in the case and remanded the casethose claims back to Florida state court. Mr. Retterath has filed a motion seeking to have the Federal Court in Iowa reconsider its decision on hearing the state court matters.

On August 21, 2014, Jason Retterath and Annie Retterath, the son and daughter-in-law of Steve Retterath, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit to protect their interests as members of the Company. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the intervenor petition. The Federal Court in Iowa declined to consider the Company's motion to dismiss the intervention and instead remanded the intervenors’ case back to Florida state court.

On August 14, 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against Steve Retterath in the Iowa state court located in Polk County, Iowa. The purpose of the lawsuit is to enforce the terms of the repurchase agreement wethe Company executed with Mr. Retterath on June 13, 2013. The Company is asking the Iowa state court to require Mr. Retterath to perform his obligations under the Retterath Repurchase Agreementrepurchase agreement pursuant to its terms. Mr. Retterath removed the case to federal court in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in December 2013. The Company believed that this removal was improper and as a result the Company

On August 9, 2013, GS Cleantech Corporation ("GS Cleantech"), a subsidiary of Greenshift Corporation, filed a complaint in the United States District for the Northern District of Iowa against the Company. The Company is one of more than twenty ethanol manufacturers that were sued by GS Cleantech. The complaint alleges that the Company's operation of a corn oil extraction process infringes patent rights claimed by GS Cleantech. GS Cleantech seeks royalties, damages and potentially triple damages associated with the alleged infringement, as well as attorney's fees. The complaint was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana due to a finding that the action involves questions of fact common to several other lawsuits which were joined in a multi-district litigation ("MDL"). The MDL Court developed two tracks of defendants in this litigation. The first track includes defendants which were originally sued by GS Cleantech in 2010 and a second track of defendants sued in 2013 which includes the Company. On October 23, 2014, the MDL Court granted summary judgment in favor of the first track defendants and found that the GS Cleantech patents which the Company is alleged to have infringed are invalid. Further, in a January 16, 2015 decision, the MDL ruled in favor of a stipulated motion for partial summary judgment finding that all of the GS Cleantech patents in the suit were invalid and, therefore, not infringed.  GS Cleantech has said it will appeal this decision when the remaining claim in the suit has been decided.  Regardless of when it may be appealed, the likelihood of GS Cleantech succeeding on appeal of the January 16, 2015 ruling is remote since it was based on several grounds for each allegedly infringed patent. If GS Cleantech successfully appeals the District Court’s findings of invalidity, damages awarded GS Cleantech may be $1 million or more.

The only remaining claim in the lawsuit alleges that GS Cleantech inequitably conducted itself before the United States Patent Office when obtaining the patents at issue. A trial in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on thatthe single issue of inequitable conduct was held in October 2015 and the Company is anticipated but has not yet been scheduled.currently awaiting the MDL Court's decision. If the defendants, including the Company, succeed in proving inequitable conduct, the patents at issue will be invalidated such that norendered unenforceable as will certain additional patents. No damages will be awarded to GS Cleantech for infringement andof an unenforceable patent can be awarded. Further, if the Courtdefendants successfully prove inequitable conduct, they will be asked to determine whether GS Cleantech’s behavior makes this an "exceptional case". A finding that this is an

There is no established public trading market for our units. However, on February 5, 2008, we established the Unit Trading Bulletin Board, which is a private online matching service, in order to facilitate trading among our members. The Unit

The following table contains historical information by quarter for the past two years regarding the actual unit transactions that were completed by our unit-holders during the periods specified. Some of these transfers were made without consideration and as such no price information is included. We believe this most accurately represents the current trading value of our units. The information was compiled by reviewing the completed unit transfers that occurred on the Unit Trading Bulletin Board or through private transfers during the quarters indicated.

The following tables contain the bid and asked prices that were posted on the Unit Trading Bulletin Board and includes some transactions that were not completed. We believe the table above more accurately describes the trading value of our units as the bid and asked prices below include some offers that never resulted in completed transactions. The information was compiled by reviewing postings that were made on the Unit Trading Bulletin Board.

We used less cash for equipment and construction purchases during our 2014 fiscal year compared to our 2013 fiscal year because our only significant capital project during our 2014 fiscal year was installation of an additional hammer mill compared

On November 30, 2007, we entered into a Master Loan Agreement with Home Federal Savings Bank ("Home Federal") establishing a senior credit facility with Home Federal. In return, we executed a mortgage and a security agreement in favor of Home Federal creating a senior lien on substantially all of our assets. We currently have a $20 million term revolving loan with Home Federal.

Management anticipates that we will be in compliance with all of our debt covenants and financial ratios for at least the next 12 months.

Failure to comply with the loan covenants or to maintain the required financial ratios may cause acceleration of the outstanding principal balances on the loans and/or the imposition of fees, charges or penalties. Any acceleration of the debt financing or imposition of the fees, charges or penalties may restrict or limit our access to the capital resources necessary to continue plant operations.

Should we default on any of our obligations pursuant to the Home Federal loans, Home Federal may terminate its commitment to provide us funds and declare the entire unpaid principal balance of the loans, plus accrued interest, immediately due and payable. Events of default include the failure to make payments when due, our insolvency, any material adverse change in our financial condition or the breach of any of the covenants, representations or warranties we have made in the loan agreements.

Management uses estimates and assumptions in preparing our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.  These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, and the reported revenues and expenses.  Of the significant accounting policies described in the notes to our financial statements, we believe that the following are the most critical:

Revenue from the sale of the Company's products is recognized at the time title to the goods and all risks of ownership transfer to the customers. This generally occurs upon shipment, loading of the goods or when the customer picks up the goods. Interest income is recognized as earned. Shipping costs incurred by the Company in the sale of ethanol, distiller grains and corn oil are not specifically identifiable and as a result, revenue from the sale of ethanol, distiller grains and corn oil is recorded based on the net selling price reported to the Company from the marketer.

The Company evaluates its contracts to determine whether the contracts are derivative instruments. Certain contracts that literally meet the definition of a derivative may be exempted from derivative accounting as normal purchases or normal sales.

The Company enters into short-term cash, option and futures contracts as a means of securing purchases of corn, natural gas and sales of ethanol for the plant and managing exposure to changes in commodity and energy prices. All of the Company's derivatives are designated as non-hedge derivatives for accounting purposes, with changes in fair value recognized in net income. Although the contracts are economic hedges of specified risks, they are not designated as and accounted for as hedging instruments.

As part of its trading activity, the Company uses futures and option contracts through regulated commodity exchanges to manage its risk related to pricing of inventories. To reduce that risk, the Company generally takes positions using cash and futures contracts and options.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses related to derivative contracts related to corn and natural gas are included as a component of cost of goods sold and derivative contracts related to ethanol are included as a component of revenues in the accompanying financial statements. The fair values of contracts entered through commodity exchanges are presented on the accompanying balance sheet as derivative instruments.

We are exposed to the impact of market fluctuations associated with commodity prices as discussed below. We have no exposure to foreign currency risk as all of our business is conducted in U.S. Dollars and we had no amounts outstanding on variable interest debt as of December 31, 2014.2015. We use derivative financial instruments as part of an overall strategy to manage market risk. We use cash, futures and option contracts to hedge changes to the commodity prices of corn, natural gas and ethanol. We do not enter into these derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes, nor do we designate these contracts as hedges for accounting purposes.

We seek to minimize the risks from fluctuations in the prices of raw material inputs, such as corn and natural gas, and finished products, such as ethanol and distiller grains, through the use of hedging instruments. In practice, as markets move, we actively manage our risk and adjust hedging strategies as appropriate. Although we believe our hedge positions accomplish an economic hedge against our future purchases and sales, management has chosen not to use hedge accounting, which would match the gain or loss on our hedge positions to the specific commodity purchase being hedged. We are using fair value accounting for our hedge positions, which means as the current market price of our hedge positions changes, the realized or unrealized gains and