1.  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Myers Industries, Inc. and all wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”), and have been prepared without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations, although the Company believes that the disclosures are adequate to make the information not misleading. These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

In the opinion of the Company, the accompanying financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly the financial position as of March 31, 2016, and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations that will occur for the year ending December 31, 2016.

Accounting Standards Adopted

In September 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-16, Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments in relation to business combinations. Under existing standards, the measurement-period adjustments are calculated as if they were known at the acquisition date, and are recognized by revising information in prior periods. Under the new standard, measurement-period adjustments continue to be calculated as if they were known at the acquisition date, but are recognized in the reporting period in which they are determined, with no revisions to prior periods relating to the business combination. In addition to the current disclosure requirement explaining the nature and amount of the measurement-period adjustments, additional disclosures will be required to explain the impact on current period income statement line items of adjustments that would have been recognized in prior periods if such period information had been revised. ASU 2015-16 is effective for annual reporting periods, including interim reporting periods within those periods, beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. Adoption of ASU 2015-16 in the first quarter of 2016 did not have an impact on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Interest - Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-03) - Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, which requires unamortized debt issuance costs to be presented as a reduction of the corresponding debt liability rather than a separate asset. The Company adopted ASU 2015-03 retrospectively in the first quarter of 2016. As a result of the retrospective adoption, the Company reclassified unamortized debt issuance costs of $1,051 and $1,125 as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, from other non-current assets to a reduction of long-term debt in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position (Unaudited). Adoption of ASU 2015-03 did not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows.

Accounting Standards Not Yet Adopted

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation - Stock Compensation - Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which involves several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. Under the new standard, income tax benefits and deficiencies are to be recognized as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement and the tax effects of exercised or vested awards should be treated as discrete items in the reporting period in which they occur. An entity should also recognize excess tax benefits regardless of whether the benefit reduces taxes payable in the current period. Excess tax benefits should be classified along with other income tax cash flows as an operating activity. In regards to forfeitures, the entity may make an entity-wide accounting policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest or account for forfeitures when they occur. This ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016 including interim periods within that reporting period, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this standard will have on its financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). Under ASU 2016-02, an entity will be required to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities on its balance sheet and disclose key information about leasing arrangements. ASU 2016-02 offers specific accounting guidance for a lessee, a lessor and sale and leaseback transactions. Lessees and lessors are required to disclose qualitative and quantitative information about leasing arrangements to enable a user of the financial statements to assess the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The new standard is effective for the Company beginning January 1, 2019 and requires a modified retrospective approach. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this standard will have on its financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties About an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. The new standard provides guidance on determining when and how to disclose going concern uncertainties in the financial statements. Under ASU 2014-15, management will be required to perform interim and annual assessments of the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year of the date the financial statements are issued. ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods thereafter, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s financial statement disclosures.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, to clarify the principles used to recognize revenue for all entities. Under ASU 2014-09, a company will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. Under the original issuance, the new standard would have been effective beginning January 1, 2017. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14 which delays the standard effective date by one year. In accordance with this delay, the new standard will be effective for the Company beginning January 1, 2018. Early adoption is permitted, but not before the original effective date of the standard. Companies can transition to the new standard either retrospectively or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this guidance will have on its consolidated financial statements as well as the method by which the Company will adopt the new standard.

Translation of Foreign Currencies

All asset and liability accounts of consolidated foreign subsidiaries are translated at the current exchange rate as of the end of the accounting period and income statement items are translated monthly at an average currency exchange rate for the period. The resulting translation adjustment is recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) as a separate component of shareholders' equity.

Fair Value Measurement

The Company follows guidance included in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, for its financial assets and liabilities, as required. The guidance established a common definition for fair value to be applied under U.S. GAAP requiring the use of fair value, established a framework for measuring fair value, and expanded disclosure requirements about such fair value measurements. The guidance did not require any new fair value measurements, but rather applied to all other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements. Under ASC 820, the hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value is divided into three levels:

The Company has financial instruments, including cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses. The fair value of these financial instruments approximate carrying value due to the nature and relative short maturity of these assets and liabilities.

The fair value of debt under the Company’s Loan Agreement approximates carrying value due to the floating rates and relative short maturity (less than 90 days) of the revolving borrowings under this agreement. The fair value of the Company’s fixed rate senior unsecured notes was estimated using market observable inputs for the Company’s comparable peers with public debt, including quoted prices in active markets and interest rate measurements which are considered level 2 inputs. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the aggregate fair value of the Company's $100.0 million fixed rate senior unsecured notes was estimated at $105.8 million and $102.1 million, respectively.

Revenue Recognition

The Company recognizes revenues from the sale of products, net of estimated returns, at the point of passage of title and risk of loss, which is generally at time of shipment, and collectability of the fixed or determinable sales price is reasonably assured.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) are as follows:

Cash

The Company considers all highly liquid instruments purchased with a maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are stated at cost, which approximates market value. The Company maintains operating cash and reserves for replacement balances in financial institutions which, from time to time, may exceed federally insured limits. The Company periodically assesses the financial condition of these institutions and believes that the risk of loss is minimal.

2.  Impairment Charges

During the first quarter of 2016, the Company reviewed its long-lived assets, intangible assets and goodwill at Plasticos Novel do Nordeste S.A. (”Novel”), a reporting unit within the Material Handling Segment, for impairment. The testing for impairment was performed as a result of the presence of impairment indictors resulting from the communication of a reduction in capital spending in the near-term from a significant customer in March 2016, which resulted in a significant reduction in Novel’s forecasted revenue and income.

The Company first conducted a review for impairment of indefinite-lived intangibles and other long-lived assets related to Novel, including amortizable intangible assets and fixed assets which indicated that the carrying amounts of such assets may not be recoverable and required an assessment of fair value of the assets for purposes of measuring an impairment charge. The estimated fair value of indefinite-lived intangibles was determined using a relief from royalty payments income approach method and the other long-lived assets was determined, in part, using an analysis of projected cash flows, a market approach and a cost approach. These valuation methods use Level 3 inputs under the fair value hierarchy discussed in Note 1.

To test for potential impairment for goodwill, the Company performed an interim impairment test as of March 31, 2016. The step one goodwill impairment test was performed using a discounted cash flow (”DCF”) valuation model. The significant assumptions in the DCF model are the annual revenue growth rate, the annual operating income margin and the discount rate used to determine the present value of the cash flow projections. The discount rate was based on the estimated weighted average cost of capital as of the testing date for market participants in the industry in which the Novel reporting unit operates. Based on the estimated fair value generated by the DCF model, the Novel reporting unit’s fair value did not exceed its carrying value as of March 31, 2016 and therefore a step two analysis is required to be performed. The decline in fair value of the reporting unit resulted primarily from lower projected operating results and cash flows than those utilized from the 2015 annual impairment test, directly related to the triggering event outlined above. A preliminary step two analysis has been completed to allocate estimated fair value to assets and liabilities in order to estimate an implied value of goodwill.

As a result of these impairment reviews, the Company concluded that the goodwill, intangibles and other long-lived assets related to Novel were impaired as of March 2016 and recorded an estimated non-cash impairment charge of $8.5 million, which was reported in impairment charges in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited). Due to the length of time necessary to measure the impairment of intangible and other long-lived assets, the impairment analysis is not complete and is subject to change. The Company expects to finalize this fair value analysis in the second quarter and any revision to the estimated impairment charge will be recorded at that time.

3.  Discontinued Operations

During the second quarter of 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the commencement of the sale process to divest its Lawn and Garden business to allow it to focus resources on its core growth platforms. The Lawn and Garden business served the North American horticulture market with plastic products such as seedling trays, nursery products, hanging baskets, custom print containers as well as decorative resin planters. The business was sold February 17, 2015 to an entity controlled by Wingate Partners V, L.P., a private equity firm, for $110.0 million, subject to a working capital adjustment. The sale of the Lawn & Garden business included manufacturing facilities and offices located in Twinsburg, Ohio; Middlefield, Ohio; Elyria, Ohio; Sparks, Nevada; Sebring, Florida; Brantford, Ontario; and Burlington, Ontario. The terms of the agreement include a $90.0 million cash payment, promissory notes totaling $20.0 million that mature in August 2020 with a 6% interest rate and approximately $8.6 million placed in escrow that is due to be settled by August 2016. The fair market value of the notes at February 17, 2015 was $17.8 million and is included in notes receivable in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position (Unaudited), in which the carrying value represents the fair value at date of sale plus accretion as of March 31, 2016. The fair value of the notes receivable was calculated using level 2 inputs as defined in Note 1. A disagreement between the parties over the calculation of the final working capital adjustment was resolved by arbitration on March 9, 2016. As a result of the final ruling, the Company recorded an additional gain of $0.6 million, net of tax, in the fourth quarter of 2015. The final working capital adjustment resulted in a cash payment to the buyer of approximately $4.0 million in the first quarter of 2016. A gain on sale of $3.8 million, net of tax, was included in income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Summarized selected financial information for the Lawn and Garden business for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 are presented in the following table:

4.  Inventories

Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market for last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) inventory and lower of cost or net realizable value for first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) inventory. Approximately 40 percent of our inventories are valued using the LIFO method of determining cost. All other inventories are valued at the FIFO method of determining cost. An actual valuation of inventory under the LIFO method can be made only at the end of each year based on the inventory levels and costs at that time. Accordingly, interim LIFO calculations must necessarily be based on management’s estimates of expected year-end inventory levels and costs. Because these are subject to many factors beyond management’s control, estimated interim results, which were immaterial, are subject to change in the final year-end LIFO inventory valuation and therefore, no adjustment was recorded as of March 31, 2016.

5.  Other Accrued Expenses

The balance in other accrued expenses is comprised of the following:

6.  Goodwill and Intangible Assets

The change in goodwill for the three months ended March 31, 2016 was as follows:

Intangible assets other than goodwill primarily consist of trade names, customer relationships, patents and technology assets established in connection with acquisitions. These intangible assets, other than certain trade names, are amortized over their estimated useful lives. The Company has indefinite-lived trade names which had a carrying value of $10.8 million and $10.9 million at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

See Note 2 for discussion of goodwill, trade name and other long-lived asset impairment charges in the first quarter of 2016.

7.  Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share

Net income (loss) per common share, as shown on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited), is determined on the basis of the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the periods as follows:

There were 2,136,840 stock-based awards excluded from the computation of net loss per common share for the three months ended March 31, 2016 due to the Company's net loss for the period. Options to purchase 400,866 shares of common stock that were outstanding for the three months ended March 31, 2015 were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share as the exercise prices of these options were greater than the average market price of common shares, and were therefore anti-dilutive.

8.  Stock Compensation

The Company’s Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Stock Plan (the “2008 Plan”) authorizes the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors to issue up to 4,000,000 shares of various types of stock-based awards including stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units and stock appreciation rights to key employees and directors. Options granted and outstanding vest over the requisite service period and expire ten years from the date of grant.

Stock compensation expense reduced income before taxes approximately $1.3 million and $1.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. These expenses are included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited). Total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock-based compensation arrangements at March 31, 2016 was approximately $3.7 million which will be recognized over the next three years, as such compensation is earned.

Stock Options

The fair value of options granted is estimated using a binomial lattice option pricing model based on assumptions set forth in the following table. The Company uses historical data to estimate employee exercise and departure behavior. The risk free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant and through the contractual term. The dividend yield rate is based on the Company’s historical dividend yield. The expected volatility is derived from historical volatility of the Company’s shares and those of similar companies measured against the market as a whole. The suboptimal exercise factor is based on historical and estimated option exercise behavior.

The following table provides a summary of stock option activity for the three months ended March 31, 2016:

The intrinsic value of a stock option is the amount by which the market value of the underlying stock exceeds the exercise price of the option. The intrinsic value of stock options exercised during the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 was less than $0.1 million and $0.5 million, respectively.

Restricted Stock Units

The following table provides a summary of restricted stock unit activity for the three months ended March 31, 2016:

Restricted stock units are rights to receive shares of common stock, subject to forfeiture and other restrictions, which vest over a two or three year period. Restricted stock units are considered to be non-vested shares under the accounting guidance for share-based payment and are not reflected as issued and outstanding shares until the restrictions lapse. At that time, shares are released to the grantee and the Company records the issuance of the shares. Restricted stock units are valued based on the market price of the underlying shares on the grant date. Compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period. At March 31, 2016, restricted stock units had vesting periods through March 2019.

Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units

In March 2016, the Company granted 91,700 performance-based restricted stock units. The fair value of these awards is calculated using the market price of the underlying common stock on the date of grant. In determining fair value, the Company does not take into account performance-based vesting requirements. For these awards, the performance-based vesting requirements determines the number of shares that ultimately vest, which can vary from 0% to 200% of target depending on the level of achievement of established performance criteria. Compensation expense is recognized over the requisite service period subject to adjustment based on the probable number of shares expected to vest under the performance condition.

9.  Contingencies

The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits and a party to various other legal proceedings, in the ordinary course of business, some of which are covered in whole or in part by insurance.

New Idria Mercury Mine

Effective October 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) added the New Idria Mercury Mine site located near Hollister, California to the Superfund National Priorities List because of alleged contaminants discharged to California waterways. The New Idria Quicksilver Mining Company, founded in 1936, and later renamed the New Idria Mining & Chemical Company (“NIMCC”) owned and/or operated the New Idria Mine through 1976. In 1981 NIMCC, after another name change, was merged into Buckhorn Metal Products Inc. which was subsequently acquired by Myers Industries in 1987. The EPA contends that past mining operations have resulted in mercury contamination and acid mine drainage at the mine site, in the San Carlos Creek, Silver Creek and a portion of Panoche Creek, and that other downstream locations may also be impacted.

In September 2015, a subsidiary of the Company, Buckhorn, Inc. (“Buckhorn”) received a notice letter and related documents from EPA (the “Notice Letter”) formally informing Buckhorn that it considers it to be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site. As a result of this Notice Letter, Buckhorn and the Company are engaged in negotiations with EPA with respect to a draft Administrative Order proposed by EPA for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the site to determine the extent of remediation necessary and the screening of alternatives. The Company recognized expense of $1.9 million, on an undiscounted basis, in 2011 related to performing a RI/FS. As part of the Notice Letter, EPA also made a claim for approximately $1.6 million in past costs for actions it claims it has taken in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site since 1993. These costs include approximately $0.5 million for an interim removal project at the New Idria Mercury Mine site completed by the EPA in November 2011. It is expected this removal action will be part of the final remediation strategy for the site. The Company currently expects to challenge EPA's past cost claims. The Company reserved an additional $1.3 million in the third quarter of 2015 related to the EPA claim. Total payments of approximately $1.3 million have been made since 2011 and charged against the reserve classified in Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position (Unaudited), which brings the total accrued balance related to this matter to $1.9 million at March 31, 2016. As negotiations with the EPA proceed with respect to the RI/FS, it is possible that adjustments to the aforementioned reserves will be necessary to reflect new information. Estimates of the Company’s liability are based on current facts, laws, regulations and technology. Estimates of the Company’s environmental liabilities are further subject to uncertainties regarding the negotiations with EPA, the nature and extent of site contamination, the range of remediation alternatives available, evolving remediation standards, imprecise engineering evaluation and cost estimates, the extent of remedial actions that may be required, the number and financial condition of other PRPs that may be named as well as the extent of their responsibility for the remediation, and the availability of insurance coverage for these expenses. At this time, we have not accrued for remediation costs in connection with this site as we are unable to estimate the liability, given the circumstances referred to above, including the fact the final remediation strategy has not yet been determined.

Guadelupe River Watershed

A number of parties, including the Company and its subsidiary, Buckhorn, were alleged by trustee agencies of the United States and the State of California, as a successor to NIMCC to be responsible for natural resource damages due to environmental contamination of areas in and around the Guadalupe River Watershed region in Santa Clara County, California (“County”). In 2005, Buckhorn and the Company, without admitting liability or chain of ownership of NIMCC, negotiated an agreement with the County, as well as with other third parties identified, to resolve the natural resource damages claim. The agreement settles claims against the Company in exchange for cash payment equal to one-half of the cost to implement a certain environmentally beneficial project at and near the impacted location. At the time of the agreement, the Company recognized expense of $0.8 million representing its share of the initial estimated project costs, of which $0.3 million has been paid to date resulting in a remaining accrual of $0.5 million as of March 31, 2016. The project has not yet been implemented though significant work on design and planning has been performed. The Company was notified in April 2016 by the County that the originally estimated cost of $1.6 million to implement the project may no longer be appropriate and has provided a preliminary revised estimate of between $3.3 million and $4.4 million. The Company has requested additional information from the County to evaluate the revised estimate and determine whether there are any alternatives to the current project design and proposed construction methods, all of which remain subject to regulatory approval. At this point in time, the Company does not have sufficient information to confirm a reliable estimate of additional costs, if any, for this matter as discussed above. It is reasonably possible that we could incur additional costs in excess of the amount accrued at March 31, 2016. However, such additional costs, if any, cannot be currently estimated. In addition, the Company may have defenses or claims against the County that could reduce or offset its obligation for reimbursement of some of these potential additional costs. With the assistance of environmental consultants, the Company will closely monitor this matter and will continue to assess its reserves as additional information becomes available. After many delays, field work on the project is expected to commence in late 2017 to be completed in 2018.

Other

Buckhorn and Schoeller Arca Systems, Inc. (“SAS”) were plaintiffs in a patent infringement lawsuit against Orbis Corp. and Orbis Material Handling, Inc. (“Orbis”) for alleged breach by Orbis of an exclusive patent license agreement from SAS to Buckhorn. SAS is an affiliate of Schoeller Arca Systems Services B.V. (“SASS B.V.”), a Dutch company. SAS manufactures and sells plastic returnable packaging systems for material handling. In the course of the litigation, it was discovered that SAS had given a patent license agreement to a predecessor of Orbis that pre-dated the one that SAS sold to Buckhorn. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of Orbis, and the court awarded attorney fees and costs to Orbis in the amount of $3.1 million, plus interest and costs.

In May 2014, Orbis made demand to SAS that SAS pay the judgment in full, and subsequently in July 2014, Orbis made the same demand to Buckhorn. Buckhorn believed it was not responsible for any of the judgment because it was not a party to the Orbis license. Despite this belief, the Company recorded expense of $3.0 million during the third quarter of 2014 for the entire amount of the unpaid judgement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment against Buckhorn on July 2, 2015, and found that Buckhorn was not liable to Orbis for any portion of the judgment entered in favor of Orbis. Accordingly, Myers reversed the accrual of $3.0 million during the second quarter of 2015, which was reflected as a reduction of general and administrative expenses. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Orbis' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. All opportunities for Orbis to appeal have expired. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has now released Buckhorn’s appellate bond. Buckhorn is also pursuing legal action against SAS and SASS B.V. for fraudulently selling an exclusive patent license they could not sell and related claims. That case is now pending in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 12, 2016, SAS and SASS B.V. filed their answer and counterclaim to the complaint in the New York Court, seeking to recover from Buckhorn $1.5 million plus additional interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. Buckhorn believes it has sound defenses to this claim (which represents the amount SAS paid to Orbis in settlement of its claim for attorneys’ fees in Ohio litigation). The New York litigation is in its early stages and no discovery has commenced. In August 2014, SASS B.V. informed Buckhorn that SAS may not have the financial ability to pay any judgment against it and provided financial statements to Buckhorn indicating SAS was in financial distress while SASS B.V. was financially stable. Given the uncertainty of SAS’s financial status, it is not known at this time what the likelihood of recovering from SAS (or SASS B.V.) would be in the event that there is a favorable outcome for Buckhorn in the New York court.

When management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can reasonably be estimated, we record the amount of the estimated loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range, and no point within the range is more probable of occurrence than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters will be assessed and the estimates will be revised, if necessary.

Based on current available information, management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or overall trends in our results of operations. However, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the financial position and results of operations of the period in which the ruling occurs, or in future periods.

10.  Long-Term Debt and Loan Agreements

Long-term debt consisted of the following:

On December 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”). The Loan Agreement provided for a $200 million senior revolving credit facility expiring on December 13, 2018, which replaced the then existing $180 million facility. In addition, on May 30, 2014, the Company entered into a First Amendment to the Loan Agreement (the “Loan Amendment”). The Loan Amendment increased the senior revolving credit facility from $200 million to $300 million through December 2018 and provided for an additional subsidiary of the Company as a borrower and as a guarantor of the credit facility. Amounts borrowed under the agreement are secured by pledges of stock of certain of our foreign and domestic subsidiaries.

Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, the Company may borrow up to $300.0 million, reduced for letters of credit issued. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had $175.7 million available under the Loan Agreement. The Company had $4.3 million of letters of credit issued related to insurance and other financing contracts in the ordinary course of business at March 31, 2016. Borrowings under the Loan Agreement bear interest at the LIBOR rate, prime rate, federal funds effective rate, the Canadian deposit offered rate, or the eurocurrency reference rate depending on the type of loan requested by the Company, in each case plus the applicable margin as set forth in the Loan Agreement. The average interest rate on borrowings under our loan agreements were 4.50% for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 4.54% for the three months ended March 31, 2015, which includes a quarterly facility fee on the used and unused portion.

Long-term debt of $218.5 million at March 31, 2016 includes $1.5 million of unamortized deferred financing costs, which is accounted for as a debt valuation account. Amounts outstanding at March 31, 2016 under the Loan Agreement and note purchase agreement mature in 2018 and 2021 to 2026, respectively.

11.  Retirement Plans

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have pension and profit sharing plans covering substantially all of their employees. The Company’s frozen defined benefit pension plan (“The Pension Agreement between Akro-Mils and United Steelworkers of America Local No. 1761-02”) provides benefits primarily based upon a fixed amount for each year of service as of the date the plan was frozen.

Net periodic pension cost are as follows:

The Company does not expect to make a contribution to the plan in 2016.

12.  Income Taxes

The Company recognized $2.4 million of tax expense on a pre-tax loss of $0.9 million. The 2016 effective income tax rate was different than the Company’s statutory rate and the prior year rate primarily due to losses in jurisdictions where the tax benefits are not currently recognized, including the impairment charges in Brazil.

The total amount of gross unrecognized tax benefit that would reduce the Company's effective tax rates at March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, was $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively. Accrued interest expense included within accrued income taxes in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position (Unaudited) was less than $0.1 million at both March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. The March 31, 2016 balance of unrecognized tax benefits includes approximately $0.2 million of unrecognized tax benefits for which it is reasonably possible that they will be recognized within the next twelve months.

The Company and its subsidiaries file U.S. Federal, state and local, and non-U.S. income tax returns. As of March 31, 2016, the Company is no longer subject to U.S. Federal examination by tax authorities for tax years before 2012. The Company is subject to state and local examinations for tax years of 2011 through 2015. In addition, the Company is subject to non-U.S. income tax examinations for tax years of 2010 through 2015.

13.  Industry Segments

Using the criteria of ASC 280, Segment Reporting, the Company manages its business under two operating segments, Material Handling and Distribution, consistent with the manner in which our Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”) evaluates performance and makes resource allocation decisions. The CODM evaluates performance primarily based on net sales and operating income. None of the reportable segments include operating segments that have been aggregated.  These segments contain individual business components that have been combined on the basis of common management, customers, products, production processes and other economic characteristics. The Company accounts for intersegment sales and transfers at cost plus a specified mark-up.

The Material Handling Segment manufactures a broad selection of plastic reusable containers, pallets, small parts bins, bulk shipping containers, storage and organization products and rotationally-molded plastic tanks for water, fuel and waste handling. This segment conducts its primary operations in the United States, but also operates in Brazil and Canada. Markets served encompass various niches of industrial manufacturing, food processing, retail/wholesale products distribution, agriculture, automotive, recreational vehicles, marine vehicles, healthcare, appliance, bakery, electronics, textiles, consumer, and others. Products are sold both directly to end-users and through distributors.

The Distribution Segment is engaged in the distribution of equipment, tools, and supplies used for tire servicing and automotive undervehicle repair and the manufacture of tire repair and retreading products. The product line includes categories such as tire valves and accessories, tire changing and balancing equipment, lifts and alignment equipment, service equipment and tools, and tire repair/retread supplies. The Distribution Segment operates domestically through sales offices, and four regional distribution centers in the United States and in foreign countries through export sales. In addition, the Distribution Segment operates directly in certain foreign markets, principally Central America, through foreign branch operations. Markets served include retail and truck tire dealers, commercial auto and truck fleets, auto dealers, general service and repair centers, tire retreaders, and government agencies.

Summarized segment detail for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 are presented in the following table:

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Myers Industries, Inc. and all wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”), and have been prepared without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations, although the Company believes that the disclosures are adequate to make the information not misleading. These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

In the opinion of the Company, the accompanying financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly the financial position as of March 31, 2016, and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations that will occur for the year ending December 31, 2016.

Accounting Standards Adopted

In September 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-16, Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments in relation to business combinations. Under existing standards, the measurement-period adjustments are calculated as if they were known at the acquisition date, and are recognized by revising information in prior periods. Under the new standard, measurement-period adjustments continue to be calculated as if they were known at the acquisition date, but are recognized in the reporting period in which they are determined, with no revisions to prior periods relating to the business combination. In addition to the current disclosure requirement explaining the nature and amount of the measurement-period adjustments, additional disclosures will be required to explain the impact on current period income statement line items of adjustments that would have been recognized in prior periods if such period information had been revised. ASU 2015-16 is effective for annual reporting periods, including interim reporting periods within those periods, beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. Adoption of ASU 2015-16 in the first quarter of 2016 did not have an impact on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Interest - Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-03) - Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, which requires unamortized debt issuance costs to be presented as a reduction of the corresponding debt liability rather than a separate asset. The Company adopted ASU 2015-03 retrospectively in the first quarter of 2016. As a result of the retrospective adoption, the Company reclassified unamortized debt issuance costs of $1,051 and $1,125 as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, from other non-current assets to a reduction of long-term debt in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position (Unaudited). Adoption of ASU 2015-03 did not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows.

Accounting Standards Not Yet Adopted

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation - Stock Compensation - Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which involves several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. Under the new standard, income tax benefits and deficiencies are to be recognized as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement and the tax effects of exercised or vested awards should be treated as discrete items in the reporting period in which they occur. An entity should also recognize excess tax benefits regardless of whether the benefit reduces taxes payable in the current period. Excess tax benefits should be classified along with other income tax cash flows as an operating activity. In regards to forfeitures, the entity may make an entity-wide accounting policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest or account for forfeitures when they occur. This ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016 including interim periods within that reporting period, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this standard will have on its financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). Under ASU 2016-02, an entity will be required to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities on its balance sheet and disclose key information about leasing arrangements. ASU 2016-02 offers specific accounting guidance for a lessee, a lessor and sale and leaseback transactions. Lessees and lessors are required to disclose qualitative and quantitative information about leasing arrangements to enable a user of the financial statements to assess the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The new standard is effective for the Company beginning January 1, 2019 and requires a modified retrospective approach. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this standard will have on its financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties About an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. The new standard provides guidance on determining when and how to disclose going concern uncertainties in the financial statements. Under ASU 2014-15, management will be required to perform interim and annual assessments of the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year of the date the financial statements are issued. ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods thereafter, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s financial statement disclosures.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, to clarify the principles used to recognize revenue for all entities. Under ASU 2014-09, a company will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. Under the original issuance, the new standard would have been effective beginning January 1, 2017. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14 which delays the standard effective date by one year. In accordance with this delay, the new standard will be effective for the Company beginning January 1, 2018. Early adoption is permitted, but not before the original effective date of the standard. Companies can transition to the new standard either retrospectively or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this guidance will have on its consolidated financial statements as well as the method by which the Company will adopt the new standard.

Translation of Foreign Currencies

All asset and liability accounts of consolidated foreign subsidiaries are translated at the current exchange rate as of the end of the accounting period and income statement items are translated monthly at an average currency exchange rate for the period. The resulting translation adjustment is recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) as a separate component of shareholders' equity.

Fair Value Measurement

The Company follows guidance included in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, for its financial assets and liabilities, as required. The guidance established a common definition for fair value to be applied under U.S. GAAP requiring the use of fair value, established a framework for measuring fair value, and expanded disclosure requirements about such fair value measurements. The guidance did not require any new fair value measurements, but rather applied to all other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements. Under ASC 820, the hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value is divided into three levels:

The Company has financial instruments, including cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses. The fair value of these financial instruments approximate carrying value due to the nature and relative short maturity of these assets and liabilities.

The fair value of debt under the Company’s Loan Agreement approximates carrying value due to the floating rates and relative short maturity (less than 90 days) of the revolving borrowings under this agreement. The fair value of the Company’s fixed rate senior unsecured notes was estimated using market observable inputs for the Company’s comparable peers with public debt, including quoted prices in active markets and interest rate measurements which are considered level 2 inputs. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the aggregate fair value of the Company's $100.0 million fixed rate senior unsecured notes was estimated at $105.8 million and $102.1 million, respectively.

Revenue Recognition

The Company recognizes revenues from the sale of products, net of estimated returns, at the point of passage of title and risk of loss, which is generally at time of shipment, and collectability of the fixed or determinable sales price is reasonably assured.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) are as follows:

Cash

The Company considers all highly liquid instruments purchased with a maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are stated at cost, which approximates market value. The Company maintains operating cash and reserves for replacement balances in financial institutions which, from time to time, may exceed federally insured limits. The Company periodically assesses the financial condition of these institutions and believes that the risk of loss is minimal.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) are as follows:

Summarized selected financial information for the Lawn and Garden business for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 are presented in the following table:

The balance in other accrued expenses is comprised of the following:

The change in goodwill for the three months ended March 31, 2016 was as follows:

Net income (loss) per common share, as shown on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited), is determined on the basis of the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the periods as follows:

The expected volatility is derived from historical volatility of the Company’s shares and those of similar companies measured against the market as a whole. The suboptimal exercise factor is based on historical and estimated option exercise behavior.

The following table provides a summary of stock option activity for the three months ended March 31, 2016:

The following table provides a summary of restricted stock unit activity for the three months ended March 31, 2016:

Long-term debt consisted of the following:

Net periodic pension cost are as follows:

Summarized segment detail for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 are presented in the following table: