DEF 14A of Metallus Inc., Mar 12, 2026

DEF 14A of Metallus Inc.

Filed Mar 12, 2026 · FY20250001193125-26-102544

Open on EDGAR

  1. Director nominees

    Director nominees

  2. Director nominees

    | Name | Age | Director since | Principal occupation | Independent | Current committee memberships | | | Other public company boards | | | | | | | Audit | Compensation | Nominating and Corporate Governance | | | Nicholas J. Chirekos | 67 | 2022 | Retired Managing Director, North America Head of Mining at J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. | ● | ● | | | 2 | | Randall H. Edwards | 67 | 2015 | Retired President and Chief Executive Officer, P2 Energy Services, LLC | ● | | ● | ● | 0 | | Randall A. Wotring | 69 | 2014 | Retired Chief Operating Officer, AECOM | ● | | ● | ● | 0 |

  3. Election of directors

    Election of directors The company currently has eleven members on its Board of Directors, divided into three classes for purposes of election, with three-year terms of office ending in successive years. The term of office of the Class III directors expires at the 2026 annual meeting. The Board of Directors has nominated each of Nicholas J. Chirekos, Randall H. Edwards and Randall A. Wotring for election as a director at the 2026 annual meeting of shareholders, to serve for a term of three years expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders or until his successor is duly elected and qualified (or until his earlier death, resignation or removal). Each of Messrs. Chirekos, Edwards and Wotring currently serves as a director and has agreed to continue serving if elected. If any of the nominees is unable to stand for election, the Board of Directors may designate a substitute. Shares represented by proxies may be voted for the substitute but will not be voted for more than three nominees. Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast. The three nominees receiving the greatest number of votes will be elected. Pursuant to the majority voting policy of the Board of Directors, as set forth in its Corporate Governance Guidelines, any director who receives a greater number of “withhold” votes than votes “for” his or her election in an uncontested election will submit his or her resignation to the Board of Directors promptly after the certification of the election results. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider and provide its recommendation to the Board of Directors regarding, and the Board of Directors will then consider and act upon, the tendered resignation in light of any factors they consider appropriate, including the director’s qualifications and contributions to the Board of Directors, as well as any reasons given by shareholders regarding why they withheld votes from the director. The Board of Directors is required to determine whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation within 90 days following the election and to promptly disclose its decision, as well as the reasons for rejecting any tendered resignation, if applicable. Holders of Metallus common shares are entitled to cast one vote for each share held on the record date for up to three nominees for director. A shareholder may not cumulate his or her shares in voting for director nominees. For example, a shareholder who owns 100 Metallus common shares may vote 100 shares for each of the three nominees. The shareholder may not, however, vote more than 100 shares for any one nominee, or vote for more than three nominees. Shares represented by proxy will be voted FOR these nominees unless specified otherwise in the voting instructions.

  4. Election of directors

    | | Your Board of Directors recommends a vote for these nominees. |

  5. Our knowledgeable Board of Directors

    Our knowledgeable Board of Directors Our directors and director nominees have diverse sets of skills, qualifications and experiences that enable them to effectively oversee the management of the company’s business affairs. Our directors represent the interests of Metallus’ stakeholders and help to drive strategic decisions for the company’s long-term success.

  6. Our knowledgeable Board of Directors

    | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Mary Ellen Baker | | ● | ● | | | ● | | ● | | ● | | | | Nicholas J. Chirekos | | ● | ● | | | | | ● | ● | | | ● | | Randall H. Edwards | ● | ● | | ● | ● | | | ● | ● | | ● | ● | | Kenneth V. Garcia | ● | ● | ● | ● | | ● | ● | ● | | | | | | Ellis A. Jones | | ● | ● | | ● | | | | ● | ● | ● | | | Melissa M. Miller | | ● | | | | | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | | Donald T. Misheff | ● | ● | ● | | | | | ● | ● | | | ● | | Jamy P. Rankin | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | | ● | | ● | | ● | ● | | Ronald A. Rice | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | | Michael S. Williams | ● | ● | | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | | Randall A. Wotring | | ● | ● | | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |

  7. Our knowledgeable Board of Directors

    Biographical information on each of the nominees and a description of his or her qualifications to serve as a director, as well as similar information about the other directors whose terms will continue following the annual meeting, are provided in the pages that follow. All information is as of February 27, 2026, unless otherwise indicated.

  8. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

  9. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | | Nicholas J. Chirekos | | | | Age: 67 Term: Expires in 2026; director since 2022 Committees: Audit Other public company boards: Mr. Chirekos has been a director of Peabody Energy Corporation since 2017 and a director of New Gold Inc. since 2019. Business experience: Mr. Chirekos served in various investment banking roles at J.P. Morgan (a global leader in financial services offering solutions to the world’s most important corporations, governments and institutions) from 1987 until his retirement in 2016. Most recently, he served as the managing director, North America head of mining and, prior to that, as the global head of mining and metals. Mr. Chirekos has more than 25 years of experience in investment banking and capital markets, with a focus on the mining industry. | | | | Randall H. Edwards | | | | Age: 67 Term: Expires in 2026; director since 2015 Committees: Compensation; Nominating and Corporate Governance Other public company boards: None Business experience: Mr. Edwards retired in April 2022 from his position as President and Chief Executive Officer of P2 Energy Services, LLC (formerly Premier Pipe, LLC) (a leader in the supply and management of engineered premium oil country tubular goods), a position which he had held since 2015. Previously, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Premier Pipe from 2014 to 2015. From 1999 to 2014, Mr. Edwards held various positions with NOV Grant Prideco (a leading supplier of oil field drill stem components), including President of NOV Grant Prideco from 2008 to 2014. He began his career at Wilson Supply, where he managed Wilson’s oil country tubular goods and its drill pipe product line. | | | | Randall A. Wotring | | | | Age: 69 Term: Expires in 2026; director since 2014 Committees: Compensation; Nominating and Corporate Governance (Chairperson) Other public company boards: None Business experience: Mr. Wotring retired from his position as Chief Operating Officer of AECOM (a premier, fully integrated infrastructure and support services firm and the largest engineering design firm in the world) in October 2020, a position he had held since July 2017. He previously served as President, Technical and Operational Services of AECOM from July 2016 until July 2017; as President, Management Services of AECOM from October 2014 until July 2016; and as Corporate Vice President and President of the Federal Services division of URS Corporation from 2004 until October 2014 when URS was acquired by AECOM. | |

  10. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | CEO or chairperson experience | Public company board experience | Financial expertise | Sales/ marketing | Relevant end market expertise | Technology/ cyber/ IT | Human resources/ compensation/ labor relations | Mergers and acquisitions | Global | Sustainability | Manufacturing operations | Metals industry experience | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

  11. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | Continuing directors | | | | Class I - Term expiring 2027 | | | | | Mary Ellen Baker | | | | Age: 67 Term: Expires in 2027; director since 2022 Committees: Audit Other public company boards: Ms. Baker has been a director of NCR Atleos Corporation since October 2023. Business experience: Ms. Baker retired in July 2022 from her position as Executive Vice President and Head of Business Services for Citizens Bank (one of the oldest and largest financial services firms in the United States, offering a broad range of retail and commercial banking products and services to more than five million individuals, small businesses, middle-market companies, large corporations and institutions), a position which she had held since June 2016. Previously, she was Executive Vice President of Enterprise Services at PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (one of the largest diversified financial services institutions in the United States). | | | | Jamy P. Rankin | | | | Age: 62 Term: Expires in 2027; director since 2023 Committees: Audit Other public company boards: Ms. Rankin was formerly a director of Motorcar Parts of America, Inc. Business experience: Ms. Rankin retired from her position as President and Chief Executive Officer of Ford Component Sales, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company and the sole arm of the Ford Motor Company authorized to sell genuine Ford components and assemblies to original equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket) in 2016. Previously, she held various leadership roles at Ford Motor Company, including as global director of strategy and vehicle personalization and executive director of dealer development. Prior to joining Ford in 2001, Ms. Rankin led marketing and sales organizations at Case New Holland and Navistar. | | | | Ronald A. Rice | | | | Age: 63 Term: Expires in 2027; director since 2015 Committees: Nominating and Corporate Governance Other public company boards: None Business experience: Mr. Rice retired in 2018 from his position as President and Chief Operating Officer of RPM International Inc. (a manufacturer of specialty coatings, sealants and building materials and provider of related services for industrial and consumer markets globally), a position he had held since 2008. Previously, Mr. Rice held a variety of increasingly responsible positions with RPM from 1995 to 2008. He began his career with The Wyatt Company, an actuarial consulting firm known today as Willis Towers Watson, in 1985. | |

  12. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | CEO or chairperson experience | Public company board experience | Financial expertise | Sales/ marketing | Relevant end market expertise | Technology/ cyber/ IT | Human resources/ compensation/ labor relations | Mergers and acquisitions | Global | Sustainability | Manufacturing operations | Metals industry experience | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

  13. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | | Michael S. Williams | | | | Age: 65 Term: Expires in 2027; director since 2021 Committees: None Other public company boards: None Business experience: Mr. Williams is the Chief Executive Officer of Metallus Inc., a position he has held since January 1, 2021. Prior to his current position, Mr. Williams was CEO of Bayou Steel Group (a U.S. producer of structural steel and merchant bar) from May 2019 to September 2019. Prior to joining Bayou Steel, Mr. Williams served as President Outokumpu Americas for Outokumpu Oyj (a global leader in the stainless steel industry) from 2015 to 2019. Before that, Mr. Williams held a number of leadership roles at US Steel Corporation (a Fortune 500 company and leading integrated steel producer) from 2006 to 2015, including Senior Vice President, North American Flat Rolled and, most recently, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning and Business Development. Earlier in his career, Mr. Williams served as Vice President of Commercial Products at Special Metals Corporation (a leader in the invention, production and supply of high-nickel alloys) and, prior to that, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ormet Corporation (a manufacturer of foil, sheet, billet and other aluminum products). | | | Class II - Term expiring in 2028 | | | | | Kenneth V. Garcia | | | | Age: 56 Term: Expires in 2028; director since 2021 Committees: Compensation (Chairperson) Other public company boards: None Business experience: Mr. Garcia is the Co-Founder & President of WarmHub, Inc. (a technology company that builds software development tools), a position he has held since October 2024. Mr. Garcia was previously an executive fellow with Q2 Software Inc. from November 2019 until September 2024. In this role, Mr. Garcia assisted the board of directors and executive leadership team of Q2 Software with long-term planning related to M&A, talent and its product roadmap. Previously, Mr. Garcia co-founded and served as president of PrecisionLender from May 2009 through October 2019, when PrecisionLender was acquired by Q2 Software. Earlier in his career, he was chief financial officer and general counsel with Ecovation, Inc. (a waste stream technology company using patented technologies). | |

  14. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | | Ellis A. Jones | | | | Age: 60 Term: Expires in 2028; director since 2021 Committees: Audit; Nominating and Corporate Governance Other public company boards: Mr. Jones was formerly a director of Arconic Corporation. Business experience: Mr. Jones retired in April 2023 from his position as vice president and chief sustainability officer with The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (a global manufacturer of tires and engineered products), a position he had held since October 2021. Prior to this role, he had served in various progressive leadership positions with Goodyear since 2003, including as vice president of global environmental, health, safety, sustainability and business continuity, senior director of global environmental, health, safety and sustainability, manufacturing director for its race tire division and finance director of its North American tire division. Mr. Jones also previously served as the finance director of office property and casualty insurance at Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. He began his career in various finance roles with Goodyear. | |

  15. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | CEO or chairperson experience | Public company board experience | Financial expertise | Sales/ marketing | Relevant end market expertise | Technology/ cyber/ IT | Human resources/ compensation/ labor relations | Mergers and acquisitions | Global | Sustainability | Manufacturing operations | Metals industry experience | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

  16. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | | Melissa M. Miller | | | | Age: 54 Term: Expires in 2028; director since 2024 Committees: Compensation Other public company boards: Ms. Miller has been a director of Compass Minerals, Inc. since 2022. Business experience: Ms. Miller is Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at Arconic Corporation (a manufacturer of aluminum sheet, plate, extrusions and architectural products), a position she has held since April 2020 when Arconic Corporation separated from Arconic, Inc. (now known as Howmet Aerospace). Prior to her current role, Ms. Miller served as Vice President, Human Resources, Global Rolled Products for Arconic, Inc. from October 2017 through March 2020. Ms. Miller joined Alcoa (the predecessor company to Arconic, Inc.) in 2005 and held multiple leadership roles with a broad spectrum of progressive human resources responsibilities, including HR strategy development and implementation, talent management, workforce planning, succession planning, employee engagement, HR technology and employee and labor relations. | |

  17. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | | Donald T. Misheff | | | | Age: 69 Term: Expires in 2028; director since 2014 Committees: Audit (Chairperson) Other public company boards: Mr. Misheff was formerly a director of Trinseo S.A. and a director and non-executive Chairman of the Board of FirstEnergy Corp. Business experience: Mr. Misheff was Managing Partner of the Northeast Ohio offices of Ernst & Young LLP (a public accounting firm), from 2003 until his retirement in 2011. He began his career at Ernst & Young in 1978 and has more than 30 years of experience in taxation and in performing, reviewing and overseeing financial statement audits for a wide range of public companies and advising those companies on financial and corporate governance issues. | |

  18. Nominees for election as Class III directors to serve a three-year term expiring at the 2029 annual meeting of shareholders

    | CEO or chairperson experience | Public company board experience | Financial expertise | Sales/ marketing | Relevant end market expertise | Technology/ cyber/ IT | Human resources/ compensation/ labor relations | Mergers and acquisitions | Global | Sustainability | Manufacturing operations | Metals industry experience | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

  19. Director compensation

    Director compensation Our non-employee director compensation program is intended to provide fair and competitive compensation and to align the interests of our non-employee directors with the interests of our shareholders. Key features of our non-employee director compensation program include the following:

  20. Director compensation

    | • | A significant portion of non-employee director compensation is delivered through equity awards. |

  21. Director compensation

    | • | We provide a competitive annual cash retainer and additional retainers for committee chairs, but no meeting fees. |

  22. Director compensation

    | • | Overall director compensation is subject to a limit. Pursuant to our Amended and Restated 2020 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan, the maximum aggregate value of compensation granted in any one calendar year to a non-employee director for his or her service as such may not exceed $500,000 (with equity awards valued for this purpose at grant date fair value for financial reporting purposes). |

  23. Director compensation

    | • | Our non-employee directors are subject to robust stock ownership guidelines (five times the annual cash retainer). |

  24. Director compensation

    | • | Directors are prohibited from pledging company stock or hedging the economic risk related to such stock ownership. Please see “Corporate governance – Anti-hedging policy” for additional information. |

  25. Director compensation

    Our non-employee director compensation program is reviewed periodically by the Compensation Committee and the Board to ensure that director compensation remains appropriate and competitive. In late 2024, the Compensation Committee asked Meridian (the independent compensation consultant engaged by the Compensation Committee) to conduct a competitive market analysis of the company’s director compensation program relative to the same peer group of companies used by the company for benchmarking executive pay. Meridian’s analysis concluded that the average annual total value of outside director compensation is slightly below median but the structure and design of the company’s director compensation program remains well-aligned with both peer practices and the broader market. Taking into account Meridian’s analysis and conclusions, the Compensation Committee recommended, and the Board approved, continuing the compensation program for non-employee directors with no changes for 2025. The compensation program under which non-employee directors were compensated for their services as directors during 2025 is summarized below.

  26. 2025 Director compensation table

    2025 Director compensation table The following table provides details of non-employee director compensation in 2025:

  27. 2025 Director compensation table

    | Name(1) | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash | Stock Awards(2) (3) | Total | | Mary Ellen Baker | $90,000 | $119,941 | $209,941 | | Nicholas J. Chirekos | $90,000 | $119,941 | $209,941 | | Randall H. Edwards | $90,000 | $119,941 | $209,941 | | Kenneth V. Garcia | $105,000 | $119,941 | $224,941 | | Ellis A. Jones | $90,000 | $119,941 | $209,941 | | Melissa M. Miller | $90,000 | $119,941 | $209,941 | | Donald T. Misheff | $110,000 | $119,941 | $229,941 | | Jamy P. Rankin | $90,000 | $119,941 | $209,941 | | Ronald A. Rice | $180,000 | $119,941 | $299,941 | | Randall A. Wotring | $105,000 | $119,941 | $224,941 |

  28. 2025 Director compensation table

    | (1) Michael S. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, is not included in this table as he was an employee of the company throughout 2025 and received no additional compensation for his services as a director. |

  29. 2025 Director compensation table

    | (2) The amount shown for each director is the grant date fair value of 9,305 restricted stock units awarded on May 7, 2025, as computed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification (“FASB ASC”) Topic 718. These awards have a one-year vesting period. |

  30. 2025 Director compensation table

    | (3) As of December 31, 2025, each director held 9,305 unvested restricted stock units, which are scheduled to vest on May 7, 2026. No director had any outstanding company stock options. |

  31. Pay for performance

    | • | 2025 annual performance award plan (“APA plan”) metrics: (i) adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“adjusted EBITDA”), (ii) adjusted operating cash flow and |

  32. Pay for performance

    | • | With solid adjusted EBITDA and strong operating cash flow and continued focus on safety and safety programs, 2025 APA plan delivers payout slightly above target: Demand improvement across most end markets and growth in our aerospace and defense shipments resulted in profitability driven primarily by higher volume and raw material spread, as well as better fixed cost leverage on higher melt utilization, offset by lower base selling prices. Nevertheless, Adjusted EBITDA fell short of expectations in 2025, while adjusted operating cash flow performance, benefiting from profitability and effective working capital management, exceeded the maximum. This performance resulted in a payout (on an unweighted basis) on the adjusted EBITDA metric of 60.0 percent of target and a payout (on an unweighted basis) of 200.0 percent of target on the adjusted operating cash flow metric. Overall performance on the safety metric was below target, as the company’s OSHA lost-time incident rate and OSHA recordable rate each failed to achieve the threshold performance objective while performance slightly exceeded the target for the PSIF action completion rate, resulting in a payout (on an unweighted basis) on the safety metric of 62.4 percent of target. As a result, the Compensation Committee approved a total payout of 102.5 percent of target for each NEO based on performance against the metrics established for the 2025 APA plan. |

  33. Pay for performance

    | • | Relative total shareholder return results in below target payout on 2023-2025 performance shares: NEOs earned a payout of 41.1 percent of the target number of performance shares granted for the 2023-2025 performance cycle, based on the company’s relative total shareholder return as compared to an identified peer group of steel companies for the one-, two- and three-year periods beginning January 1, 2023 and ended December 31, 2023, 2024 and 2025. Relative total shareholder return for the one-year period ended December 31, 2023 was achieved at the 57th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a payout of 114.3 percent, and relative total shareholder return for the two-year period ended December 31, 2024 was achieved at the 25th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a payout of 50.0 percent. For the three-year period ended December 31, 2025, relative total shareholder return was achieved at the 10th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in no payout. In determining the final payout for the 2023-2025 performance shares, the one-year period and two-year period were each weighted at 25 percent and the three-year period was weighted at 50 percent. |

  34. Changes in executive leadership in 2025

    | • | participation in the company’s Annual Performance Award plan, with a target award opportunity equal to 85% of base salary and a potential payout range from 0% to 200% of target based on actual results for each performance measure; |

  35. Changes in executive leadership in 2025

    | • | participation in the company’s long-term incentive plan, with a target annual grant opportunity (beginning in 2026) equal to $1,250,000 and expected awards comprised of 60% performance-based restricted stock units and 40% time-based restricted stock units; and |

  36. Changes in executive leadership in 2025

    | • | participation in the company’s Annual Performance Award plan, with a target award opportunity equal to 65% of base salary and a potential payout range from 0% to 200% of target based on actual results for each performance measure; |

  37. Changes in executive leadership in 2025

    | • | starting in 2026, participation in the company’s long-term incentive plan, with a target annual grant opportunity equal to $600,000 and expected awards comprised of 60% performance-based restricted stock units and 40% time-based restricted stock units; and |

  38. Executive compensation highlights

    | What we do | What we don’t do | | ✓ Pay for performance | x Provide excise tax gross-ups | | ✓ Establish target pay based on market norms | x Re-price stock options without shareholder approval | | ✓ Deliver total direct compensation primarily through variable pay | x Pay current dividends on any restricted stock units | | ✓ Set challenging short- and long-term incentive award goals | x Provide excessive perquisites | | ✓ Provide strong oversight and regular evaluation of compensation programs, taking into account shareholder feedback and market practices | x Reward executives without a link to performance or creation of shareholder value | | ✓ Maintain robust stock ownership requirements | x Provide uncapped award opportunities to executives | | ✓ Include double-trigger vesting in the event of a change in control | | | ✓ Adhere to an incentive compensation recoupment “clawback” policy | | | ✓ Maintain insider trading, anti-hedging and anti-pledging policies with respect to company stock | | | ✓ Offer market-competitive benefits | | | ✓ Consult with an independent advisor on pay | |

  39. Our compensation philosophy

    | ✓ | Rewards results linked to short- and long-term performance (pay-for-performance); |

  40. Role of the Compensation Committee: Deciding on compensation

    | • | market data provided by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant; and |

  41. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee The Compensation Committee retains the authority to approve and monitor all compensation and benefit programs (other than broad-based welfare benefit programs). The Committee engages the services of an independent compensation consultant to add rigor in the review process and to provide insight into market trends, as well as to help design potentially new elements of compensation. The consultant analyzes the company’s executive compensation structure and plan designs and assesses whether the compensation program is competitive and supports the goal of aligning the interests of NEOs with those of shareholders, as well as other company interests. The consultant also provides market data directly to the Compensation Committee for its use in determining compensation for NEOs and assessing board compensation. The Committee has retained Meridian as its independent compensation consultant. In 2025, Meridian’s primary areas of assistance were:

  42. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | gathering information related to current trends and practices in board of directors and executive compensation; |

  43. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | reviewing information developed by management for the Compensation Committee and providing its input to the Committee; |

  44. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | attending and participating in meetings with the Compensation Committee, as well as briefings with the Committee chairperson and management between regularly scheduled meetings; |

  45. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | advising the Committee with respect to compensation matters related to the company’s Chief Executive Officer; |

  46. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | advising the Committee with respect to CEO succession planning activities, including compensation matters related to the promotion of the incumbent Chief Financial Officer to Chief Operating Officer and the hiring of a new Chief Financial Officer; |

  47. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | assisting the CEO and human resources leadership in determining compensation recommendations for the NEOs (other than the CEO); |

  48. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | advising the Committee with respect to Board of Directors’ compensation; |

  49. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | reviewing with management and the Compensation Committee materials to be used in the company’s proxy statement; |

  50. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | reviewing and providing recommendations regarding the company’s benchmarking peer groups; and |

  51. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    | • | advising the Committee with respect to short-term and long-term incentive plan design, goal-setting and performance assessment. |

  52. Role of the compensation consultant: Advising the Compensation Committee

    While the consultant reports directly to the Compensation Committee, the Committee has authorized the consultant to interact with company management, as needed, on the Committee’s behalf. Meridian works with company management only under the direction of the Compensation Committee and does not provide any other advice or consulting services to the company. The Compensation Committee has the sole authority to approve the independent compensation consultant’s fees and terms of the engagement. Thus, the Committee annually reviews its relationship with its consultant – including services provided, quality of services and associated fees – to help ensure executive compensation consulting independence and effectiveness. The Committee also assesses the independence of the compensation consultant. As part of its annual evaluation of independence, the Committee considered information provided by Meridian, as well as information received from the company’s executive officers and directors regarding any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest with Meridian. Based on the Committee’s review, the Committee believes that the work performed by Meridian during 2025 did not raise a conflict of interest and there were no facts or circumstances that brought its independence into question.

  53. Analysis of 2025 compensation

    | • | Advice of an independent compensation consultant; and |

  54. Analysis of 2025 compensation

    | • | Market pay practices as reflected by a compensation peer group as well as external executive compensation data, studies and trends. |

  55. Peer groups

    Peer groups The Compensation Committee used the following peer group to benchmark pay for the company’s CEO, COO and CFO and guide its compensation decisions in 2025. This peer group, determined on the basis of a comprehensive review conducted by Meridian in the second half of 2024, consists of 19 steel and related-industry companies that are generally within an appropriate revenue and market capitalization range. As a result of this review, Worthington Enterprises and Enviri Corporation (formerly known as Harsco Corporation) were removed from the peer group and Ramaco Resources, Standex International, and Worthington Steel were added to the peer group. These changes are intended to enhance the viability of the peer group in terms of industry representation, similarity in business characteristics, and relative size. At the time Meridian conducted its review, Metallus was positioned near the compensation peer group median for revenues and market capitalization.

  56. Peer groups

    | 2025 Compensation Peer Group Companies | | | ATI Inc. | NN, Inc. | | Barnes Group Inc. | Olympic Steel, Inc. | | Carpenter Technology Corporation | Radius Recycling, Inc. | | Century Aluminum Corporation | Ramaco Resources, Inc. | | Columbus McKinnon Corporation | Ryerson Holding Corporation | | Enerpac Tool Group Corp. | Standex International Corporation | | Haynes International Inc. | SunCoke Energy, Inc. | | Kaiser Aluminum Corporation | TriMas Corporation | | L.B. Foster Company | Worthington Steel, Inc. | | Materion Corporation | |

  57. Peer groups

    Guidelines for CEO, COO and CFO salaries, annual incentives, long-term incentives and target total direct compensation are intended to target a reasonable range around the 50th percentile of compensation peer group data for those roles, with variability based on individual attributes and performance. With respect to the other NEOs, external general industry surveys of compensation practices for positions with similar levels of responsibilities remain the primary comparative information used for setting target compensation, with guidelines for salaries, annual incentives, long-term incentives and target total direct compensation for these NEOs intended to target a reasonable range around the 50th percentile of general industry data, with variability based on individual attributes and performance. We did not select the companies that comprise any of these survey groups, and the component companies’ identities were not a material factor in our compensation analysis. The company may provide target compensation above or below the 50th percentile for a particular position, based on factors such as the executive’s operating responsibilities, experience level, retention risk, tenure, internal equity and performance in the position. The company establishes compensation levels in this way for two reasons:

  58. Peer groups

    | • | first, this approach sets fair and reasonable pay levels needed to attract and retain qualified executives; and |

  59. Peer groups

    | • | second, it requires excellent individual performance and company performance for pay that is higher than that indicated in the compensation peer group or general industry data, as applicable, for comparable roles. |

  60. Peer groups

    In addition to the compensation peer group described above, the company also uses an identified peer group of steel companies to measure relative total shareholder return performance for the performance shares component of the long-term incentive program. This peer group of steel companies, which is not used for purposes of benchmarking compensation, was initially selected by the Compensation Committee based on recommendations from Meridian in 2020 and is focused more on our comparators for investor capital without concern for revenue size, which is a significant factor in selecting the compensation peer group as it influences pay levels. With the assistance of Meridian, the Compensation Committee reviews this peer group of steel companies on an annual basis for continued appropriateness prior to awarding performance shares for the next performance cycle. In 2025, Algoma Steel Group Inc. was added to this peer group and Haynes International, Inc. and Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. were removed due to being acquired. As such, for the 2025-2027 performance share cycle, the peer group of steel companies consisted of the following 15 companies:

  61. Peer groups

    | 2025-2027 Performance Shares Peer Group of Steel Companies | | | Algoma Steel Group Inc. | Olympic Steel, Inc. | | ATI Inc. | Radius Recycling, Inc. | | Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation | Reliance, Inc. | | Ascent Industries Co. | Ryerson Holding Corporation | | Carpenter Technology Corporation | Steel Dynamics, Inc. | | Commercial Metals Company | United States Steel Corporation | | Friedman Industries, Incorporated | Worthington Steel, Inc. | | Nucor Corporation | |

  62. Annual Incentive

    Annual Incentive The company’s annual incentive plan provides the NEOs the opportunity to earn rewards based on achieving corporate performance goals established in advance by the Compensation Committee. It is intended to focus the NEOs on specific performance goals in the current year. For the NEOs, the annual incentive is delivered through the Annual Performance Award (“APA”) plan. The Compensation Committee generally determines APA target award opportunity levels for the NEOs based on our compensation peer group for the CEO, COO and CFO and external surveys for positions with similar levels of responsibility for the remaining NEOs. Based on its review of peer group and/or market data, the Committee determined to increase the target annual incentive opportunity available to each of the NEOs (other than Mr. Zaranec), as set forth below.

  63. Annual Incentive

    | | 2025 target annual incentive opportunity as a percent of base salary | Percent increase (3) | | Michael S. Williams | 110% | +10% | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks(1) | 85% | +10% | | John M. Zaranec III(2) | 65% | N/A | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | 65% | +5% | | Kevin A. Raketich | 65% | +5% | | (1) The target annual incentive opportunity for Mr. Westbrooks was initially increased from 75 to 80 percent of base salary and later increased to 85 percent in connection with his promotion to President and Chief Operating Officer in June 2025. (2) The target annual incentive opportunity for Mr. Zaranec was established by the Committee at the time of his appointment as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. (3) As compared to the target annual incentive opportunity available to the NEO for 2024. | | |

  64. Annual Incentive

    | Actual awards earned under the APA can be higher or lower than the target opportunity based on the results for each performance measure and the extent to which the Committee may use discretion to adjust the final payout levels for the awards. Performance measures factor the award from zero to 200 percent. For 2025, the Committee determined to continue to utilize adjusted EBITDA, adjusted operating cash flow and safety as the primary performance measures under the APA plan, with a 50 percent weighting on adjusted EBITDA, a 30 percent weighting on adjusted operating cash flow and, for the NEOs, a 20 percent weighting on safety. | Linking pay to performance • The Compensation Committee established adjusted EBITDA as the primary performance measure under the annual incentive plan because it believes this adjusted non-GAAP measure is closely correlated with the creation of shareholder value. • Adjusted operating cash flow was established as a secondary performance measure to encourage a focus on working capital discipline and cash generation to drive profitable growth. • The inclusion of a safety metric reinforces our commitment to the health and safety of our people while the weighting of this metric at 20 percent of the target opportunity for the NEOs reinforces the strategic importance of, and accountability for, improving the company’s safety culture and performance. |

  65. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    2025 annual performance award decisions Payouts under the APA plan for 2025 were determined by the following factors:

  66. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    | • | earnings measured by adjusted EBITDA; |

  67. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    | • | adjusted operating cash flow; and |

  68. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    | • | safety. |

  69. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    The following charts show performance targets and actual performance levels for each of the metrics in the 2025 APA plan.

  70. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    | |

  71. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    | Dollars in millions. Payout percentage is expressed as the percent of target opportunity on a weighted basis. |

  72. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    With solid adjusted EBITDA and strong operating cash flow and continued focus on safety and safety programs, the 2025 APA plan delivered payouts slightly above target. Demand improvement across most end markets and growth in our aerospace and defense shipments resulted in profitability driven primarily by higher volume and raw material spread, as well as better fixed cost leverage on higher melt utilization, offset by lower base selling prices. Nevertheless, Adjusted EBITDA fell short of expectations in 2025, while adjusted operating cash flow performance, benefiting from profitability and effective working capital management, exceeded the maximum. This performance resulted in a payout (on an unweighted basis) on the adjusted EBITDA metric of 60.0 percent of target and a payout (on an unweighted basis) of 200.0 percent of target on the adjusted operating cash flow metric. Overall performance on the safety metric was below target, as the company’s OSHA lost-time incident rate and OSHA recordable rate each failed to achieve the threshold performance objective while performance slightly exceeded the target for the PSIF action completion rate, resulting in a payout (on an unweighted basis) on the safety metric of 62.4 percent of target. Considering these results, the Compensation Committee approved a total payout of 102.5 percent of target for each NEO based on performance against the metrics established for the 2025 APA plan. For the 2025 APA plan, the target performance objective for adjusted EBITDA was set above 2024 adjusted EBITDA results (as reported for external reporting purposes). The target performance objective for adjusted operating cash flow was set below the operating cash flow results delivered in 2024 (as reported for external reporting purposes), as the company expected higher working capital to support higher sales and production levels in 2025. The target performance objectives reflected expectations at the time these objectives were established in early 2025 for improving market demand driving higher volumes but with decreased base pricing. In light of these expectations, the Compensation Committee felt that the 2025 target performance objectives established for both the adjusted EBITDA measure and the adjusted operating cash flow measure would be challenging but attainable. With respect to the safety metric, the target performance objective for the OSHA recordable rate and for the OSHA lost time incident rate for 2025 were each set at the same level established as the target performance objective for 2024, which was significantly better than actual performance on this measure for 2024. The target performance objective for the PSIF action completion rate for 2025 was set above actual performance results achieved for the PSIF action completion rate for 2024. The Compensation Committee felt that achieving the targeted safety performance objectives for 2025 would be challenging but attainable, requiring the company to substantially improve performance in some areas while sustaining realized performance improvements in other areas. For the 2025 APA plan, the adjusted EBITDA metric was defined as EBITDA (as used for external financial reporting purposes) adjusted for APA plan purposes to exclude: mark-to-market remeasurement gains or losses; the effect of changes in tax law, accounting principles or other laws or provisions affecting reported results; and the effects of any recapitalization, restructuring, reorganization, merger, acquisition, divestiture, consolidation, spinoff, split-up, combination, liquidation, facility shutdown, dissolution, sale or disposition of assets, stock or debt refinancing, impairment, goodwill or other similar transaction. The adjusted operating cash flow metric was defined as net cash provided or used by operating activities (or operating cash flow) excluding changes in other current assets and other current liabilities, required pension contributions, cash provided or used by financing activity, taxes, interest and capital expenditures; changes in applicable accounting principles, tax laws or regulations; and the effects of any recapitalization, restructuring, reorganization, merger, acquisition, divestiture, consolidation, spinoff, split-up, combination, liquidation, facility shutdown, dissolution, sale or disposition of assets, stock or debt refinancing, impairment, goodwill or other similar transaction. As noted above, the target safety metric was defined as an OSHA recordable case rate of 1.50, an OSHA lost time case rate of 0.20, a PSIF action completion rate of 85 percent, and zero fatalities. The OSHA recordable case rate is a measure of injury frequency and is calculated as the total number of work-related injuries and illnesses that require medical treatment beyond first aid per 100 full-time employees during the calendar year. The OSHA lost time case rate is a measure of injury severity and is calculated as the total number of work-related injuries and illnesses that result in a lost workday beyond the initial date of the injury per 100 full-time employees during the calendar year. The PSIF action completion rate is a leading indicator that measures whether timely corrective actions have been taken to address near miss incidents which have the potential to result in a serious injury or fatality (a “PSIF”). In calculating the PSIF action completion rate, only corrective actions that are completed within a defined time window are considered “timely” and therefore credited towards the completion rate, meaning that no credit is received toward the completion rate for actions completed too early or too late.

  73. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    | | 2025 APA payouts | | | | Target opportunity as a percent of base salary | 2025 Award | | Michael S. Williams | 110% | $1,017,803 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks(1) | 85% | $490,395 | | John M. Zaranec III | 65% | $162,398 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | 65% | $271,536 | | Kevin A. Raketich | 65% | $237,750 |

  74. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    | (1) The 2025 APA award for Mr. Westbrooks is prorated at 80 percent target opportunity while he served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and 85 percent target opportunity beginning June 16, 2025, when he was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer. |

  75. 2025 annual performance award decisions

    The payout awarded to each of the eligible NEOs under the APA plan for 2025, as set forth in the above table, was calculated as 102.5 percent times the product of (x) the target opportunity percentage for such NEO and (y) the salary paid to such NEO during 2025. The Compensation Committee did not make any discretionary adjustments to the APA plan awards for any of the NEOs. For information about the APA opportunities awarded to each of the NEOs in 2025, see the “2025 Grants of plan-based awards table.”

  76. Long-term incentives

    Long-term incentives Consistent with prior years, two different types of long-term incentive grants were awarded to the NEOs serving in February 2025 as part of our annual compensation program:

  77. Long-term incentives

    | • | Performance shares, which are performance-based restricted stock units generally earned based on the company’s relative total shareholder return as compared to an identified peer group of steel companies, for the one-, two- and three-year periods beginning January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2025, 2026 and 2027, respectively, with any earned units payable in shares at the conclusion of the three-year performance period; and |

  78. Long-term incentives

    | • | Restricted stock units, which generally “cliff” vest at the end of a three-year period and have a value that changes based on changes in the company’s stock price. |

  79. Long-term incentives

    The Compensation Committee believes these grants, in total, provide a balanced emphasis on shareholder value creation and retention of executive management over the course of a full business cycle. These grants also serve to balance the short-term operating focus of the company and align executive management’s long-term financial interests with those of the company’s shareholders. The value of the entire long-term incentive grant is at risk and linked directly to the price of the company’s common stock. The size of the long-term incentive grants and the allocation of grant value among the long-term incentive grant types are based on a combination of market practice, internal equity considerations and the relative importance of the objectives underlying each of the grant types. For Mr. Williams, the Compensation Committee reviewed and the Board approved a 60/40 mix of performance shares and restricted stock units. For the other NEOs (with the exception of Mr. Zaranec who did not receive an annual grant of long-term incentives in 2025), the Compensation Committee approved a 50/50 mix of performance shares and restricted stock units to focus the NEOs on creation of long-term shareholder value, while addressing retention considerations.

  80. 2025 Long-term incentive decisions

    2025 Long-term incentive decisions

  81. 2025 Long-term incentive decisions

    | | Long-term incentives | | | | | | | | Target grant opportunity | Number of restricted stock units | Value of restricted stock units (1) | Number of performance shares | Value of performance shares (at target) (2) | Total value of award | | Michael S. Williams | $3,350,000 | 95,900 | $1,374,247 | 143,900 | $2,490,909 | $3,865,156 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks | $900,000 | 32,200 | $461,426 | 32,200 | $557,382 | $1,018,808 | | John M. Zaranec III (3) | $600,000 | 34,960 | $495,383 | 0 | $0 | $495,383 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | $690,000 | 24,700 | $353,951 | 24,700 | $427,557 | $781,508 | | Kevin A. Raketich | $690,000 | 24,700 | $353,951 | 24,700 | $427,557 | $781,508 |

  82. 2025 Long-term incentive decisions

    | (1) The value of restricted stock units as shown in this table is equal to the closing price of Metallus common shares on the date of grant multiplied by the number of restricted stock units granted. |

  83. 2025 Long-term incentive decisions

    | (2) The value of performance shares as shown in this table was determined using a lattice valuation model, the Monte Carlo Simulation, multiplied by the target number of performance shares granted, which was the probable outcome on the grant date. This is not the value considered by the Committee in determining the number of performance shares to be awarded. Additional information is provided below regarding the basis for determining the number of restricted stock units and target performance shares granted. |

  84. 2025 Long-term incentive decisions

    | (3) As noted below, in connection with the appointment of Mr. Zaranec as the company’s new Chief Financial Officer on June 16, 2025, he was awarded a sign-on equity grant of restricted stock units with a value of approximately $500,000. His target long-term incentive opportunity was set at $600,000 with eligibility for grants beginning in 2026. |

  85. 2025 Long-term incentive decisions

    The Compensation Committee generally determines target grant opportunity levels for the NEOs based on our compensation peer group for the CEO, COO and CFO and external surveys for positions with similar levels of responsibility for the remaining NEOs. Following a review of this peer group and/or market data, as applicable, in February 2025 the Committee increased Mr. Williams’ target long-term incentive opportunity from $3.25 million to $3.35 million; Mr. Westbrooks’ target long-term incentive opportunity from $675,000 to $900,000; Ms. Syrvalin’s target long-term incentive opportunity from $600,000 to $690,000; and Mr. Raketich’s target long-term incentive opportunity from $635,000 to $690,000. The target value for each grant is converted to a number of restricted stock units and a number of target performance shares based on a calculated average stock price over a defined period prior to the grant date. Consistent with prior years, the Compensation Committee used the average closing price over the five trading days immediately preceding the grant date in determining the number of restricted stock units and target performance shares to be granted in 2025. The Compensation Committee typically approves annual grants of long-term incentives at its first regularly scheduled meeting of each year, when the Committee determines all elements of the NEOs’ compensation for the year. Board and committee meetings are generally scheduled at least a year in advance. The company has not granted any stock options since 2020; accordingly, we do not have any formal policy that would require the Compensation Committee or the Board to grant (or to avoid granting) stock options at specified times. In any case, we do not schedule the grant of long-term incentive awards in anticipation of the disclosure of material nonpublic information, and we do not schedule the disclosure of material nonpublic information for the purpose of affecting the value of executive compensation. At the time Mr. Zaranec was hired as the company’s new Chief Financial Officer in June 2025, his target long-term incentive opportunity was set at $600,000 (with eligibility for annual grants beginning in 2026). In lieu of an annual long-term incentive grant in 2025, Mr. Zaranec was awarded a sign-on equity grant of time-based restricted stock units with a value of approximately $500,000. These time-based restricted stock units will generally vest ratably over a three-year period, beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date.

  86. Restricted stock units

    Restricted stock units Restricted stock units represent an interest in Metallus stock and are settled in shares generally after a three-year cliff vesting schedule (with the exception of the sign-on award of restricted stock units granted to Mr. Zaranec in connection with his appointment as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer which generally will vest ratably over a three-year period). Restricted stock units serve to both reward and retain executives, as the value of the shares is linked to the stock price when the shares vest. For information about time-based restricted stock units awarded to the NEOs in 2025, see the “2025 Grants of plan-based awards table.”

  87. Performance shares

    Performance shares Performance shares are how we generally refer to performance-based restricted stock units earned, in the case of the annual grant program, based on the company’s relative total shareholder return as compared to an identified peer group of steel companies. The overall vesting period is generally three years from January 1 of the first year in the performance cycle to December 31 in the third year of the performance cycle, with relative total shareholder return measured for the one-, two- and three-year periods beginning January 1 of the first year in the performance cycle and ending December 31 of the first, second and third years in the performance cycle, respectively, creating effectively a “nested” 1-year, 2-year and 3-year plan. Relative total shareholder return is calculated for each nested performance period by taking the beginning and ending price points based off of a 20-trading day average closing stock price as of December 31. A payout will be calculated based on performance for each of the three nested performance periods. For any payout to be earned for a nested performance period, relative total shareholder return must be achieved at least at the 25 th percentile of the identified peer group. If the 25 th percentile performance level is not attained, then no payout will be earned. The payout earned can range from 50 percent to 200 percent of the target number of performance shares granted, based upon actual performance for the performance period, as follows (with payout based on interpolation between levels above the threshold and provided that, regardless of the performance percentile achieved, if relative total shareholder return for the three-year performance period is negative, any resulting payout will be limited to 150 percent):

  88. Performance shares

    | Level | Performance (Percentile) | Payout (Percent of Target) | | Threshold | 25 th | 50% | | Target | 50 th | 100% | | Above Target | 75 th | 150% | | Maximum | 90 th | 200% |

  89. Performance shares

    For all performance cycles, the one- and two-year nested periods will each have a 25 percent weighting and the three-year nested period will have a 50 percent weighting when determining the number of performance shares earned at the conclusion of the three-year performance cycle. This design is intended to focus the executives on rapid and sustainable total shareholder return improvement, with additional emphasis on the long-term (three-year) performance period. 2025-2027 performance cycle. For this award, for the first performance period ended December 31, 2025, relative total shareholder return was achieved at approximately the 25th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a preliminary payout calculation of 50 percent of target for the first nested performance period in the 2025-2027 performance cycle. Any payout remains subject to vesting and certification by the Committee following the conclusion of the three-year performance period. For information about performance shares awarded to the NEOs in 2025, see the “2025 Grants of plan-based awards table.” 2024-2026 performance cycle. For this award, for the first performance period ended December 31, 2024, relative total shareholder return was achieved at approximately the 23rd percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a preliminary payout calculation of 0 percent of target for the first nested performance period in the 2024-2026 performance cycle. For the second performance period ended December 31, 2025, relative total shareholder return was achieved at the 0th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a preliminary payout calculation of 0 percent of target for the second nested performance period in the 2024-2026 performance cycle. Any payout remains subject to vesting and certification by the Committee following the conclusion of the three-year performance period. 2023-2025 performance cycle. For this award, for the first performance period ended December 31, 2023, relative total shareholder return was achieved at approximately the 57th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a preliminary payout calculation of 114.3 percent of target for the first nested performance period in the 2023-2025 performance cycle. For the second performance period ended December 31, 2024, relative total shareholder return was achieved at the 25th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a preliminary payout calculation of 50 percent of target for the second nested performance period in the 2023-2025 performance cycle. For the third and final performance period ended December 31, 2025, relative total shareholder return was achieved at the 10th percentile of the identified peer group, resulting in a preliminary payout calculation of 0 percent of target for the third nested performance period in the 2023-2025 performance cycle. With the payout for the first and second nested performance periods each weighted at 25 percent and the third and final performance period weighted at 50 percent, the Compensation Committee awarded a payout equal to 41.1 percent of target for the 2023-2025 performance cycle, resulting in the number of performance shares set forth in the table below being earned by participating NEOs for the 2023-2025 performance cycle.

  90. Performance shares

    | | 2023-2025 performance cycle(1) | | | | | | | Performance shares awarded at target | Grant date value of performance shares awarded at target(2) | Percent of performance shares earned(3) | Number of performance shares earned(4) | Value of performance shares earned at 12/31/2025(5) | | Michael S. Williams | 98,000 | $1,847,300 | 41.1% | 40,278 | $691,170 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks | 18,400 | $346,840 | 41.1% | 7,563 | $129,781 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | 16,300 | $307,255 | 41.1% | 6,700 | $114,972 | | Kevin A. Raketich | 17,300 | $326,105 | 41.1% | 7,111 | $122,025 |

  91. Performance shares

    | (1) Mr. Zaranec is not included in this table as he was not awarded performance shares for the 2023-2025 performance cycle. As noted previously, Mr. Zaranec was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the company effective June 16, 2025. |

  92. Performance shares

    | (2) This reflects the grant date value of performance shares awarded for the 2023-2025 performance cycle on March 1, 2023, at which date the closing price per share of Metallus common stock was $18.85. |

  93. Performance shares

    | (3) The percent of performance shares earned is expressed as a percentage of the target performance share award. |

  94. Performance shares

    | (4) Performance shares earned are payable in shares. |

  95. Performance shares

    | (5) The closing price per share of Metallus common stock on December 31, 2025, the last trading day of the 2023-2025 performance cycle, was $17.16. |

  96. Severance agreements

    Severance agreements In addition to retirement income programs described above, the company may provide termination-related payments to individual executives through severance agreements in the event of involuntary termination without cause, whether before or after a change in control. Severance agreements are provided based on competitive market practice and the company’s desire to ensure some level of income continuity should an executive’s employment be terminated without cause. The company believes providing for such income continuity results in greater management stability and less unwanted and disruptive management turnover. The level of severance benefits reflects the company’s perception of competitive market practice for the NEOs’ positions, based on assessments conducted by the Compensation Committee’s consultant. Severance pay was established as a multiple of base salary and annual incentive compensation. The Committee did not target specific dollar values. The amounts of potential payouts are outlined in the “Termination scenarios for NEOs” table below.

  97. Other compensation program features

    In determining whether an executive has met the applicable ownership targets, the company considers all shares owned by the executive plus restricted stock units still subject to forfeiture, but not shares that are subject to unexercised options or performance shares still subject to forfeiture. As of February 27, 2026, each of the NEOs (with the exception of Mr. Zaranec who joined the company in June 2025) had achieved the established guideline. Each NEO is required to retain shares (net of tax withholding) earned under the company’s long-term incentive plan until the ownership target is achieved.

  98. 2025 Summary compensation table

    2025 Summary compensation table The following table sets forth information concerning compensation for our NEOs for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, as applicable:

  99. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | Name and principal position | Year | Salary | Bonus | Stock awards(3) | Option awards | Non-equity incentive plan compensation(4) | Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings(5) | All other compensation(6) | Total | | Michael S. Williams | 2025 | $902,708 | $0 | $3,865,156 | $0 | $1,017,803 | $0 | $77,681 | $5,863,348 | | Chief Executive Officer | 2024 | $866,667 | $0 | $3,091,067 | $0 | $257,400 | $0 | $45,225 | $4,260,359 | | | 2023 | $827,708 | $0 | $5,275,245 | $0 | $827,708 | $0 | $43,195 | $6,973,856 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks | 2025 | $576,884 | $0 | $1,018,808 | $0 | $490,395 | $0 | $49,462 | $2,135,549 | | President and Chief | 2024 | $504,350 | $0 | $649,935 | $0 | $112,344 | $0 | $24,806 | $1,291,435 | | Operating Officer (1) | 2023 | $482,105 | $0 | $1,661,232 | $0 | $361,579 | $0 | $22,635 | $2,527,551 | | John M. Zaranec III | 2025 | $243,750 | $100,000 | $495,383 | $0 | $162,398 | $0 | $7,854 | $1,009,386 | | Executive Vice President and | | | | | | | | | | | Chief Financial Officer (2) | | | | | | | | | | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | 2025 | $407,558 | $0 | $781,508 | $0 | $271,536 | $0 | $47,676 | $1,508,278 | | Executive Vice President, | 2024 | $385,990 | $0 | $575,094 | $0 | $68,783 | $0 | $28,599 | $1,058,466 | | General Counsel and | 2023 | $356,125 | $0 | $1,573,074 | $0 | $213,675 | $0 | $24,089 | $2,166,963 | | Chief Human Resources Officer | | | | | | | | | | | Kevin A. Raketich | 2025 | $356,849 | $0 | $781,508 | $0 | $237,750 | $14,654 | $43,021 | $1,433,782 | | Executive Vice President and | 2024 | $342,792 | $0 | $610,545 | $0 | $61,086 | $25,211 | $24,255 | $1,063,889 | | Chief Commercial Officer | 2023 | $326,417 | $0 | $1,615,054 | $0 | $195,850 | $81,797 | $21,984 | $2,241,102 |

  100. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (1) In 2025, Mr. Westbrooks served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer until June 16, 2025, when he was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer. For additional information, please see “Executive summary” and “Analysis of 2025 compensation” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement. |

  101. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (2) Mr. Zaranec was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective June 16, 2025. The amount reported as salary for Mr. Zaranec includes all salary compensation paid in 2025. The amount reported in the “Bonus” column for Mr. Zaranec represents a sign-on bonus awarded to Mr. Zaranec when he joined the company in June 2025. For additional information, please see “Executive summary” and “Analysis of 2025 compensation” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement. |

  102. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (3) The amounts shown in this column represent, for 2025, the grant date fair value (calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718) of (a) restricted stock units and (b) performance shares (subject to being earned based upon achievement of the established performance objectives). The fair value of RSUs is equal to the closing price of Metallus common shares on the date of grant multiplied by the number of RSUs granted. The fair value of performance shares is determined using a lattice valuation model, the Monte Carlo Simulation. For additional information regarding the Monte Carlo Simulation, please refer to Note 2 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. |

  103. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | With respect to performance share awards, the amounts shown assume target achievement of the established performance objectives, which was the probable outcome on the grant date. Should performance equal or exceed the maximum goals for the 2025 performance shares, the grant date fair value for such awards would be as follows: Mr. Williams – $4,981,818; Mr. Westbrooks – $1,114,764; Ms. Syrvalin – $855,114 and Mr. Raketich – $855,114. Mr. Zaranec was not granted performance shares in 2025. |

  104. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | The restricted stock units granted to the NEOs (with the exception of Mr. Zaranec) will vest in full on March 7, 2028, and the restricted stock units granted to Mr. Zaranec will vest ratably over the three-year period ending on June 16, 2028, in each case generally provided the named executive officer remains continuously employed by the company through the applicable vesting date(s). |

  105. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | For more information about the operation of the performance shares awarded pursuant to the annual grant program in 2025 to the NEOs, see “Analysis of 2025 compensation – Long-term incentives – 2025 Long-term incentive decisions” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement. |

  106. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (4) The amounts shown in this column for 2025 represent cash payouts earned by the NEOs under the Annual Performance Award plan. For additional information, see “Analysis of 2025 compensation – Annual incentive – 2025 Annual performance award decisions” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement. |

  107. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (5) The amount shown in this column for 2025 represents the increase in the present value of benefits payable to Mr. Raketich under the company’s Supplemental Pension Plan (the “Supplemental Plan”) from December 31, 2024 to December 31, 2025. The Supplemental Plan was frozen with no additional benefit accruals after December 31, 2020. The amount was calculated using the same assumptions used in 2024 and included in the footnotes of the “2024 Pension benefits table,” except that the calculation as of December 31, 2025 utilized a discount rate of 5.56%, while a discount rate of 5.73% was used for the calculation as of December 31, 2024. The increase in the present value of $14,654 for Mr. Raketich is comprised of $10,669 due to the passage of time and an increase in present value of $3,985 from the use of the lower discount rate. Messrs. Westbrooks, Williams and Zaranec and Ms. Syrvalin are not eligible for company-paid pension benefits. For additional information, please see “Pension benefits” and “2025 Pension benefits table” in this proxy statement. None of the NEOs received any earnings under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan based on above-market or preferential rates. |

  108. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (6) The amounts shown in this column for 2025 are broken down in detail in the following table (a): |

  109. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | Name | Annual company contribution to SIP plan(b) | Annual company contribution to post-tax savings benefit(c) | Personal use of company’s country club memberships (d) | Life insurance(e) | Other(f) | | Michael S. Williams | $15,525 | $25,097 | $0 | $12,588 | $24,471 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks | $14,424 | $9,075 | $665 | $826 | $24,471 | | John M. Zaranec III | $7,594 | $0 | $0 | $260 | $0 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | $15,525 | $5,910 | $0 | $1,770 | $24,471 | | Kevin A. Raketich | $14,000 | $3,023 | $0 | $1,527 | $24,471 |

  110. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (a) The company does not provide tax gross-ups for executive benefits. |

  111. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (b) The “SIP plan” refers to the Savings and Investment Pension Plan, which is the company’s qualified defined contribution plan for salaried employees. |

  112. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (c) The “post-tax savings benefit” is the company’s non-tax qualified restoration benefit for salaried employees whose contributions and benefits in qualified retirement plans are limited by Section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code. |

  113. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (d) Amounts shown for personal use of country club memberships include pro-rated amounts of company-paid annual membership dues attributed to the personal use of country clubs by the NEO. There are no incremental costs to the company for other personal expenses associated with such personal use, as all such costs are borne by the executive. |

  114. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (e) The amounts shown represent imputed income for the cost of pre-tax term life insurance (which is provided by the company for all salaried employees equal to one time their annual salary) for the portion that exceeds the IRS pre-tax limit of $50,000. |

  115. 2025 Summary compensation table

    | (f) The amount shown for Messrs. Williams, Westbrooks and Raketich and Ms. Syrvalin reflects a one-time company 401(k) contribution made in March 2025 to all salaried employees as of December 31, 2024 in connection with the distribution of surplus assets upon termination of the salaried pension plan. |

  116. 2025 Grants of plan-based awards table

    2025 Grants of plan-based awards table The following table sets forth information concerning awards already paid or potentially payable to our NEOs with respect to the short-term and long-term incentive award opportunities granted in 2025:

  117. 2025 Grants of plan-based awards table

    | Name | Approval date | Grant date | Estimated possible payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards | | | Estimated future payouts under equity incentive plan awards | | | All other stock awards: number of shares of stock or units | Grant date fair value of stock and option awards(4) | | | | | Threshold | Target | Maximum | Threshold | Target | Maximum | | | | Michael S. Williams | 2/12/2025 | 2/12/2025 APA(1) | $0 | $1,001,000 | $2,002,000 | | | | | | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 RSUs(2) | | | | | | | 95,900 | $1,374,247 | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 PRSUs(3) | | | | 71,950 | 143,900 | 287,800 | | $2,490,909 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks | 5/19/2025 | 6/16/2025 APA(1) | $0 | $531,250 | $1,062,500 | | | | | | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 RSUs(2) | | | | | | | 32,200 | $461,426 | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 PRSUs(3) | | | | 16,100 | 32,200 | 64,400 | | $557,382 | | John M. Zaranec III | 5/19/2025 | 6/16/2025 APA(1) | $0 | $292,500 | $585,000 | | | | | | | | 5/19/2025 | 6/16/2025 RSUs(2) | | | | | | | 34,960 | $495,383 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | 2/12/2025 | 2/12/2025 APA(1) | $0 | $267,567 | $535,135 | | | | | | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 RSUs(2) | | | | | | | 24,700 | $353,951 | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 PRSUs(3) | | | | 12,350 | 24,700 | 49,400 | | $427,557 | | Kevin A. Raketich | 2/12/2025 | 2/12/2025 APA(1) | $0 | $233,825 | $467,651 | | | | | | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 RSUs(2) | | | | | | | 24,700 | $353,951 | | | 2/12/2025 | 3/7/2025 PRSUs(3) | | | | 12,350 | 24,700 | 49,400 | | $427,557 |

  118. 2025 Grants of plan-based awards table

    | (1) “APA” reflects the annual incentive opportunity available to each NEO under the Annual Performance Award plan at threshold, target and maximum performance levels for the 2025 performance period. With respect to Mr. Westbrooks, he was initially awarded on February 12, 2025 a target APA opportunity of $423,418 (with a maximum of $846,836). With his promotion to President and Chief Operating Officer in June 2025, his APA opportunity was increased to $531,250 at target and $1,062,500 at maximum, as set forth above. See “Analysis of 2025 compensation – Annual incentive” and “Analysis of 2025 compensation – 2025 Annual performance award decisions” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement for additional information. |

  119. 2025 Grants of plan-based awards table

    | (2) “RSUs” refers to restricted stock units granted to each NEO on the grant date indicated. Restricted stock units reported in this table for the NEOs (with the exception of Mr. Zaranec) will vest in full on March 7, 2028, and the restricted stock units reported in this table for Mr. Zaranec will vest ratably over the three-year period ending on June 16, 2028, in each case generally provided the executive maintains continuous employment with the company through the applicable vesting date(s). For additional information, see “Analysis of 2025 compensation – Long-term incentives” and “Analysis of 2025 Compensation – Long-term incentives – 2025 Long-term incentive decisions” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement. |

  120. 2025 Grants of plan-based awards table

    | (3) The “PRSUs” amounts reported in this table indicate threshold, target and maximum award opportunities for the performance shares granted to the NEOs (other than Mr. Zaranec) on March 7, 2025. For additional information, see “Analysis of 2025 Compensation – Long-term incentives” and “Analysis of 2025 Compensation – Long-term incentives – 2025 Long-term incentive decisions” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement. |

  121. 2025 Grants of plan-based awards table

    | (4) The amounts shown in this column reflect the fair value on the date of grant of RSUs and performance shares granted in 2025, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The fair value of RSUs is equal to the closing price of Metallus common shares on the date of grant multiplied by the number of RSUs granted. The fair value of performance shares is determined using a lattice valuation model, the Monte Carlo Simulation, multiplied by the target number of performance shares granted, which was the probable outcome on the grant date. For additional information regarding the Monte Carlo Simulation, please refer to Note 2 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. |

  122. 2025 Grants of plan-based awards table

    Grants made in 2025 are described more fully in the “Compensation discussion and analysis” section of this proxy statement. For more information concerning the amount of salary and incentive compensation in proportion to total compensation for the NEOs, see “Analysis of 2025 compensation — 2025 target pay mix” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement.

  123. Outstanding equity awards at 2025 year-end table

    Outstanding equity awards at 2025 year-end table The following table sets forth information concerning unexercised stock options and stock awards that have not yet vested for each of our NEOs as of December 31, 2025:

  124. Outstanding equity awards at 2025 year-end table

    | | Option awards(1) | | | | | Stock awards(2) | | | | | Name | Grant date | Number of securities underlying unexercised options (#) exercisable | Number of securities underlying unexercised options (#) unexercisable | Option exercise price ($/share) | Option expiration date | Number of shares or units of stock that have not vested | Market value of shares or units of stock that have not vested | Equity incentive plan awards: number of unearned shares, units or other rights that have not vested | Equity incentive plan awards: market or payout value of unearned shares, units or other rights that have not vested | | M. S. Williams | 3/1/2023 | | | | | 65,300 | $1,120,548 | | | | | 12/15/2023 | | | | | | | 40,000 | $686,400 | | | 3/1/2024 | | | | | 63,400 | $1,087,944 | 47,550 | $815,958 | | | 3/7/2025 | | | | | 95,900 | $1,645,644 | 143,900 | $2,469,324 | | K. R. Westbrooks | 9/24/2018 | 1,760 | 0 | $14.34 | 9/24/2028 | | | | | | | 3/1/2019 | 10,344 | 0 | $12.45 | 3/1/2029 | | | | | | | 3/2/2020 | 20,752 | 0 | $5.26 | 3/2/2030 | | | | | | | 3/1/2023 | | | | | 18,400 | $315,744 | | | | | 12/15/2023 | | | | | | | 20,000 | $343,200 | | | 3/1/2024 | | | | | 16,500 | $283,140 | 8,250 | $141,570 | | | 3/7/2025 | | | | | 32,200 | $552,552 | 32,200 | $552,552 | | J. M. Zaranec III | 6/16/2025 | | | | | 34,960 | $599,914 | | | | K. C. Syrvalin | 2/15/2017 | 4,452 | 0 | $17.46 | 2/15/2027 | | | | | | | 2/14/2018 | 4,640 | 0 | $16.57 | 2/14/2028 | | | | | | | 3/1/2019 | 5,840 | 0 | $12.45 | 3/1/2029 | | | | | | | 3/2/2020 | 3,670 | 0 | $5.26 | 3/2/2030 | | | | | | | 3/1/2023 | | | | | 16,300 | $279,708 | | | | | 12/15/2023 | | | | | | | 20,000 | $343,200 | | | 3/1/2024 | | | | | 14,600 | $250,536 | 7,300 | $125,268 | | | 3/7/2025 | | | | | 24,700 | $423,852 | 24,700 | $423,852 | | K. A. Raketich | 2/17/2016 | 8,200 | 0 | $7.46 | 2/17/2026 | | | | | | | 2/15/2017 | 7,800 | 0 | $17.46 | 2/15/2027 | | | | | | | 2/14/2018 | 8,400 | 0 | $16.57 | 2/14/2028 | | | | | | | 3/1/2019 | 10,600 | 0 | $12.45 | 3/1/2029 | | | | | | | 3/2/2020 | 26,500 | 0 | $5.26 | 3/2/2030 | | | | | | | 3/1/2023 | | | | | 17,300 | $296,868 | | | | | 12/15/2023 | | | | | | | 20,000 | $343,200 | | | 3/1/2024 | | | | | 15,500 | $265,980 | 7,750 | $132,990 | | | 3/7/2025 | | | | | 24,700 | $423,852 | 24,700 | $423,852 |

  125. Outstanding equity awards at 2025 year-end table

    | (1) All option awards reported in this table are nonqualified stock options that vested ratably 25 percent per year over the four-year period from the date of grant. There were no stock options granted after 2020. |

  126. Outstanding equity awards at 2025 year-end table

    | (2) Stock awards reported in this table include performance shares and restricted stock units. |

  127. Outstanding equity awards at 2025 year-end table

    Performance shares (reported under the Equity incentive plan awards columns) are performance-based restricted stock units awarded (a) pursuant to the annual grant program on March 1, 2024 and March 7, 2025 and (b) pursuant to the Transformation Incentive Grant program on December 15, 2023. Annual grant program performance shares may be earned based on the company’s relative total shareholder return as compared to an identified peer group of steel companies. The overall vesting period is generally three years from January 1 of the first year in the performance cycle to December 31 in the third year of the performance cycle, with relative total shareholder return measured for the one-, two- and three-year periods beginning January 1 of the first year in the performance cycle and ending December 31 of the first, second and third years in the performance cycle, respectively, creating effectively a “nested” 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year plan. Relative total shareholder return is calculated for each nested performance period by taking the beginning and ending price points based off of a 20-trading day average closing stock price as of December 31. To incentivize key leadership as we continue to implement the company’s ongoing, multi-year business transformation and growth strategies, on December 15, 2023, the Board of Directors, on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, implemented a Transformation Incentive Grant program. Pursuant to this program, certain key employees of the company (including each of the current NEOs, with the exception of Mr. Zaranec who joined the company in June 2025) may earn a special grant of performance-based restricted stock units that further align executive compensation with the investment interests of the company’s shareholders by motivating and rewarding management initiative and action to the extent they help create substantial additional shareholder value. The Transformation Incentive Grant performance shares may be earned depending on the degree to which the closing price performance of the company’s common shares satisfies up to seven specific average per share closing price goals (achieved if the goal price is met or exceeded by the 20-trading-day average closing price for each trading day in any 20-consecutive trading-day period) during a performance period running from December 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026. Performance against these average share price goals will be evaluated after the end of the performance period (or, if earlier, at the time of a change in control of the company, taking into account achievement as of that date, including deemed achievement based on the value of any consideration paid for a common share in the change in control, if applicable). Earned levels of Transformation Incentive Grant performance shares will then pay out in two equal installments in early 2027 and 2028, generally conditioned on continued employment with the company until the applicable vesting date, subject to certain alternative evaluation, vesting and payout terms for situations involving the awardee’s death or disability or termination of employment without cause. As of December 31, 2025, none of the average share price goals have been achieved. For the annual grant program performance shares awarded in 2024, a payout percentage will be calculated (determined under a Compensation Committee-approved matrix) based on the company’s relative total shareholder return as compared to the identified peer group of steel companies for the one-, two- and three-year nested periods beginning January 1, 2024 and ending December 31, 2024, 2025 and 2026, respectively, with the one- and two-year nested periods each having a 25 percent weighting and the three-year nested period having a 50 percent weighting when determining the final payout percentage and number of performance shares earned for the 2024–2026 performance cycle. Performance shares earned will be settled in shares following the conclusion of the three-year performance period on December 31, 2026, at such time as the Compensation Committee shall have determined the degree to which the performance metrics have been achieved and the resulting number of performance shares earned. For the annual grant program performance shares awarded in 2025, a payout percentage will be calculated (determined under a Compensation Committee-approved matrix) based on the company’s relative total shareholder return as compared to the identified peer group of steel companies for the one-, two- and three-year nested periods beginning January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2025, 2026 and 2027, respectively, with the one- and two-year nested periods each having a 25 percent weighting and the three-year nested period having a 50 percent weighting when determining the final payout percentage and number of performance shares earned for the 2025–2027 performance cycle. Performance shares earned will be settled in shares following the conclusion of the three-year performance period on December 31, 2027, at such time as the Compensation Committee shall have determined the degree to which the performance metrics have been achieved and the resulting number of performance shares earned. The number of shares reported for the performance shares granted to the NEOs on December 15, 2023 and March 1, 2024 reflects the number of shares that would be earned by each NEO assuming threshold performance is achieved under the established performance objectives, while the number of shares reported for the performance shares granted on March 7, 2025 reflects the number of shares that would be earned by each NEO assuming target performance is achieved under the established performance objective. The settlement for any performance shares earned will be in shares, unless otherwise determined by the Compensation Committee. Restricted stock units were granted to the NEOs (with the exception of Mr. Zaranec) on March 1, 2023, March 1, 2024 and March 7, 2025. Each of these grants of restricted stock units generally vests on the third anniversary of their respective grant dates, generally provided the executive maintains continuous employment with the company through the vesting dates. Mr. Zaranec was granted restricted stock units at the time he joined the company on June 16, 2025. These restricted stock units will generally vest ratably over the three-year period ending June 16, 2028, generally provided the executive maintains continuous employment with the company through the vesting dates. The market value of all awards reported in this table was determined based upon the closing price of Metallus’ common shares on December 31, 2025 of $17.16.

  128. 2025 Option exercises and stock vested table

    2025 Option exercises and stock vested table The following table sets forth information with respect to the exercise of stock options by and vesting of stock awards for our NEOs during 2025.

  129. 2025 Option exercises and stock vested table

    | | Option awards (1) | | Stock awards (2) | | | Name | Number of shares acquired on exercise | Value realized on exercise | Number of shares acquired on vesting | Value realized on vesting | | Michael S. Williams | 0 | $0 | 114,178 | $1,758,286 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks | 0 | $0 | 31,563 | $476,341 | | John M. Zaranec III | 0 | $0 | 0 | $0 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | 0 | $0 | 20,300 | $311,356 | | Kevin A. Raketich | 0 | $0 | 20,311 | $312,633 |

  130. 2025 Option exercises and stock vested table

    | (1) The value realized on the exercise of the options is the difference between exercise price and the fair market value of our common shares on the date of exercise. For this purpose, fair market value is determined by a real-time trading quote from the New York Stock Exchange at the time of exercise. |

  131. 2025 Option exercises and stock vested table

    | (2) The value realized on vesting for stock awards is calculated by multiplying the number of shares acquired on vesting by the fair market value of Metallus common shares on the vesting date. For purposes of this calculation, the fair market value of restricted stock units that vest is equal to the closing price of our common shares on the vesting date, and the fair market value of performance shares earned for the 2023-2025 performance cycle is equal to the closing price of our common shares on December 31, 2025, the last day of the performance period. |

  132. Pension benefits

    Pension benefits

  133. 2025 Pension benefits table

    2025 Pension benefits table The following table sets forth the number of years of credited service and actuarial value of the Supplemental Plan for our NEOs as of December 31, 2025:

  134. 2025 Pension benefits table

    | Name | Plan name | Number of years of credited service | Present value of accumulated benefit (1) | Payments during last fiscal year | | Michael S. Williams(2) | Supplemental Plan | N/A | $0 | $0 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks(2) | Supplemental Plan | N/A | $0 | $0 | | John M. Zaranec III(2) | Supplemental Plan | N/A | $0 | $0 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin(2) | Supplemental Plan | N/A | $0 | $0 | | Kevin A. Raketich | Supplemental Plan | 35.8 | $200,852 | $0 |

  135. 2025 Pension benefits table

    | (1) The “Present Value of Accumulated Benefit” is the present value as of December 31, 2025. Age 62 is the earliest age an unreduced benefit is payable from the plans. The assumptions used to determine the present value include a 5.56% discount rate and updated mortality statistics consistent with the 2021 Society of Actuaries revised mortality projection scale. Benefits for the applicable NEOs were determined assuming no probability of termination, retirement, death or disability before age 62. |

  136. 2025 Pension benefits table

    | (2) Because Messrs. Williams, Zaranec and Westbrooks and Ms. Syrvalin were hired after January 1, 2004, they do not accumulate any service under the Supplemental Plan. |

  137. 2025 Nonqualified deferred compensation table

    2025 Nonqualified deferred compensation table Through December 31, 2021, the company maintained a deferred compensation plan that allowed certain employees, including the NEOs, to elect to defer receipt of all or a portion of their salary, employee contributions and company matching contributions that would otherwise be paid out post-tax, and incentive compensation payable in cash, until a specified point in the future. Cash deferrals earn interest quarterly at a rate based on the prime rate plus one percent. Effective December 31, 2021, the deferred compensation plan was frozen, and no deferrals will be credited under the plan with respect to any compensation earned on or after January 1, 2022. The table below sets forth information regarding contributions, earnings and withdrawals during 2025 and the account balances as of December 31, 2025, for the NEOs under the company’s deferred compensation plan:

  138. 2025 Nonqualified deferred compensation table

    | Name | Executive contributions in 2025(1) | Company contributions in 2025(1) | Aggregate earnings in 2025(2) | Aggregate withdrawals/ distributions in 2025 | Aggregate balance at December 31, 2025(3) | | Michael S. Williams | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | | Kristopher R. Westbrooks | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | | John M. Zaranec III | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | | Kristine C. Syrvalin | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | | Kevin A. Raketich | $0 | $0 | $8,918 | $0 | $146,250 |

  139. 2025 Nonqualified deferred compensation table

    | (1) Effective December 31, 2021, the deferred compensation plan was frozen, and no deferrals will be credited under the plan with respect to any compensation earned on or after January 1, 2022. |

  140. 2025 Nonqualified deferred compensation table

    | (2) This amount includes interest earned from cash deferrals prior to the freezing of the plan on December 31, 2021. Earnings during this year and previous years were not above market or preferential; therefore, these amounts are not included in the 2025 Summary compensation table. |

  141. 2025 Nonqualified deferred compensation table

    | (3) The entire amount included in the aggregate balances column was reported as compensation in the summary compensation table for previous years (or would have been had the recipient been identified as a NEO for such years). |

  142. Potential payments upon termination or change in control

    Potential payments upon termination or change in control The company has entered into severance agreements with each of its NEOs that provide for compensation in the event of termination of employment under certain circumstances (the “Severance Agreements”). In addition, our NEOs are entitled to post-termination payments or benefits under award agreements entered into under the Amended and Restated 2014 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan, the Amended and Restated 2020 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan and, under certain circumstances, under our retirement and benefit plans. The following circumstances would trigger post-termination payments to our NEOs: change in control followed by certain events described below; involuntary termination without cause; retirement; permanent disability and death. For purposes of calculating the payments that would be due to each of our NEOs, the termination scenarios described below assume a December 31, 2025 termination date.

  143. Retirement

    Retirement “Retirement” means either: (1) retirement of the NEO prior to age 62, if the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors determines that such retirement is for the convenience of the company or (2) retirement of the NEO on or after age 62, and, in either case, when the NEO is eligible to retire under a retirement plan of the company (generally, at age 65, age 55 with at least 15 years of service or any age with at least 30 years of service). Effective for equity awards granted to the NEOs beginning in 2024, “retirement” means retirement of the NEO when he or she is at least age 62 with a combination of age plus years of continuous employment equal to at least 72 (provided that for the CEO, the required combination of age plus years of continuous employment is at least 70). In addition to retirement benefits shown in the “2025 Pension benefits table” (which are not shown in the following table of termination scenarios), NEOs who retire under the circumstances described above will be entitled to receive prorated payouts of performance shares and continued normal vesting of other unvested equity awards as if the officer had remained in the continuous employ of the company for the remainder of the vesting period; provided, however, that effective for performance shares granted beginning in 2025, if the CEO retires under the circumstances described above, any payout of performance shares to which he is entitled will not be prorated but rather will vest in accordance with the terms of the award as if he had remained in the continuous employ of the company for the remainder of the performance period. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any unvested performance shares awarded pursuant to the Transformation Incentive Grant program will be forfeited in the event of a retirement prior to the applicable vesting date.

  144. CEO pay ratio

    CEO pay ratio For 2025, the ratio of the annual total compensation of the CEO to the median of the annual total compensation of all of our employees and those of our consolidated subsidiaries (other than the CEO) (“Median Annual Compensation”), was approximately 54 to 1. We note that, due to our permitted use of reasonable estimates and assumptions in preparing this CEO pay ratio disclosure, the disclosure may involve a degree of imprecision, and thus this CEO pay ratio disclosure is a reasonable estimate calculated in a manner consistent with Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K using the data and assumptions described below. In this summary, we refer to the employee who received the Median Annual Compensation as the “Median Employee.” For purposes of this disclosure, the date used to identify the Median Employee was December 31, 2023 (the “Determination Date”). The Median Employee previously identified is no longer employed with the company as of December 31, 2025. In accordance with SEC guidance permitting reasonable estimates and adjustments, we excluded this individual and identified the next closest employee in our distribution as the Median Employee. For 2025, there have been no changes in our employee population or compensation arrangements that we believe would significantly impact our pay ratio disclosure. For purposes of calculating the CEO pay ratio, the CEO compensation for 2025 was determined to be $5,876,488, which consists of $5,863,348 (Mr. Williams’ compensation for his service as CEO, as reflected in the “Total” column of the 2025 Summary compensation table) plus company-paid health care benefit costs of $13,140. With respect to the Median Employee, the Median Annual Compensation was calculated using the same methodology the company uses to calculate compensation for the named executive officers as set forth in the 2025 Summary compensation table included in this proxy statement, and then adjusted to add the value of company-paid health care benefit costs. The Median Annual Compensation for the Median Employee for 2025 was determined to be $108,487. In terms of our selection of the Median Employee, on December 31, 2023, the company employed a total of 1,837 employees (including 1,826 employees based in the United States). The company determined the Median Employee as of December 31, 2023 by identifying total cash compensation for the period beginning on January 1, 2023 and ending on December 31, 2023 for employees who were employed by the company on that date. This group of employees included all full- and part-time employees but excluded our CEO and eleven (11) non-U.S. employees (consisting of employees in Mexico). This group of employees did not include any independent contractors or “leased” workers and did not exclude any employees of businesses acquired by us or combined with us. Further, we did not utilize any statistical sampling or cost-of-living adjustments for purposes of this CEO pay ratio disclosure. A portion of our employee workforce (full-time and part-time) identified above worked for less than the full fiscal year due to commencing employment after January 1, 2023. In determining the Median Employee, we annualized the total compensation for such individuals (but avoided creating full-time equivalencies) based on reasonable assumptions and estimates relating to our employee compensation program, including base salary, bonus payments, equity compensation and any imputed income.

  145. Pay versus performance

    Pay versus performance As required by Section 953(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K, we are providing the following information regarding certain executive pay and performance. The table below shows, for each applicable fiscal year, total compensation (“Summary Compensation Total” or “SCT Total”) as reported in the summary compensation table and “compensation actually paid” (or “CAP”) for our principal executive officer (“PEO”) and as an average of all of our other named executive officers for that year (“Non-PEO NEOs”). Both SCT Total pay and CAP are calculated in accordance with the requirements of Regulation S-K and may differ substantially from the manner in which the Compensation Committee makes decisions regarding executive pay. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for a discussion of the Compensation Committee’s decisions regarding the compensation of our named executive officers. The table below also shows (i) the company’s cumulative total shareholder return (or “TSR”), (ii) the TSR of the S&P 1500 Steel Sub-Industry Index, which we have used as our peer group for purposes of disclosure in the table below, (iii) the company’s net income for the applicable fiscal year, and (iv) the company’s performance with respect to a “company-selected measure” (or “CSM”) which in our assessment represents the single most important financial performance metric used to link compensation actually paid to our named executive officers for the most recently completed fiscal year to the company’s performance. We selected Adjusted EBITDA as the CSM required for disclosure in the table below.

  146. Pay versus performance

    | Pay versus Performance | | | | | | | | | | Year | Summary Compensation Table Total for PEO | Compensation Actually Paid to PEO (1) | Average Summary Compensation Table Total for Non-PEO NEOs | Average Compensation Actually Paid to non-PEO NEOs (2) | Value of Initial Fixed $100 Investment Based On: | | Net Income (4) | Company Selected Measure Adjusted EBITDA (5) | | | | | | | TSR (3) | 1500 sub-steel index TSR (3) | | | | 2025 | $5,863,348 | $5,584,295 | $1,739,141 | $1,764,830 | $367.45 | $320.74 | $(1,200,000) | $75,600,000 | | 2024 | $4,260,359 | $(3,575,855) | $1,137,930 | $(945,923) | $179.77 | $233.85 | $1,300,000 | $77,700,000 | | 2023 | $6,973,856 | $13,906,875 | $2,311,872 | $3,017,016 | $298.35 | $279.40 | $69,400,000 | $200,300,000 | | 2022 | $4,604,190 | $6,379,938 | $1,283,726 | $1,528,508 | $231.17 | $204.07 | $65,100,000 | $172,200,000 | | 2021 | $7,161,838 | $19,694,478 | $1,306,702 | $2,557,052 | $209.92 | $171.34 | $171,000,000 | $245,900,000 |

  147. Pay versus performance

    | (1) In accordance with the requirements of Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K, CAP is calculated by beginning with the SCT Total as reported in the Summary Compensation Table (the “SCT”) for the applicable fiscal year, then (a) subtracting the grant date fair value of awards reported in the Stock Awards column of the SCT for such year, (b) subtracting the grant date fair value of awards reported in the Option Awards column of the SCT for such year, (c) subtracting the aggregate change in the actuarial present value of the accumulated benefit under defined benefit plans reported in the Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings column of the SCT for such year, (d) adding the change in fair value of stock and option awards for the applicable fiscal year (as such changes are described below for 2025) and (e) adding the service cost and prior service cost for all defined benefit plans for the applicable fiscal year (as such costs are described below for 2025). |

  148. Pay versus performance

    | For purposes of determining CAP, fair value amounts for Stock Awards and Option Awards were calculated in a manner consistent with the fair value methodology used to account for share-based payments in our financial statements under GAAP, including the use of a lattice valuation model, the Monte Carlo simulation, to value performance shares. The service cost and prior service cost for defined benefit plans were calculated using the same methodology as used for our financial statements under GAAP. The individual serving as PEO during the years covered by the table did not participate in any defined benefit pension plan sponsored by the company. |

  149. Pay versus performance

    | For 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022 and 2021, Michael S. Williams is included in the table as PEO. |

  150. Pay versus performance

    | The following is a reconciliation of SCT Total and CAP for the PEO for 2025. Please note that, while similar adjustment information was provided in our 2025 proxy statement for 2024, in our 2024 proxy statement for 2023 and in our 2023 proxy statement for years 2021 and 2022, under applicable SEC guidance repeating such adjustment information is not required in this proxy statement because it is not material to our shareholders’ understanding of the information reported in the table above for 2025 or the relationships disclosures provided below. |

  151. Pay versus performance

    | PEO Summary: Reconciliation of SCT Total and CAP | | | | | | Year | SCT Total | Subtract Grant Date Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards as Disclosed in the SCT | Add Change in Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards(i) | CAP | | 2025 | $5,863,348 | $(3,865,156) | $3,586,103 | $5,584,295 |

  152. Pay versus performance

    | The total amount included in the table above as the grant date fair value of stock awards and option awards as disclosed in the SCT reflects the grant date fair value of stock awards as the company did not issue option awards in 2025. |

  153. Pay versus performance

    | (i) PEO Detail: Change in Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards | | | | | | | | | Year | Year-End Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Covered Fiscal Year that Remained Unvested at the End of that Fiscal Year | Vesting Date Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Covered Fiscal Year that Vested During that Fiscal Year | Increase or Decrease in Fair Value (from Prior Year End to Covered Year End) for Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Prior Years that Remained Unvested at the End of the Covered Fiscal Year | Increase or Decrease in Fair Value (from Prior Year End to Vesting Date) of Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Prior Years that Vested During the Covered Fiscal Year | Adjustments for Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Prior Years that Failed to Meet Vesting Conditions During the Covered Fiscal Year | Value of Dividends or other Earnings Paid or Accrued on Stock Awards During the Covered Fiscal Year and not Otherwise Reflected in CAP | Total Change in Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards Included in CAP | | 2025 | $3,804,144 | $0 | $(59,920) | $(158,121) | $0 | $0 | $3,586,103 |

  154. Pay versus performance

    | (2) CAP for the Non-PEO NEOs was calculated in the same manner as described in footnote 1 above for the PEO, except the amounts were averaged for each fiscal year. The Non-PEO NEOs whose average SCT Total and average CAP amounts are included in the table are: |

  155. Pay versus performance

    2025: Kristopher R. Westbrooks, John M. Zaranec III, Kristine C. Syrvalin and Kevin A. Raketich 2022, 2023 and 2024: Kristopher R. Westbrooks, Kristine C. Syrvalin and Kevin A. Raketich 2021: Kristopher R. Westbrooks, Kristine C. Syrvalin, Kevin A. Raketich, William P. Bryan and Thomas D. Moline

  156. Pay versus performance

    | The following is a reconciliation of average SCT Total and average CAP for the Non-PEO NEOs for 2025. Please note that, while similar adjustment information was provided in our 2025 proxy statement for 2024, in our 2024 proxy statement for 2023 and in our 2023 proxy statement for years 2021 and 2022, under applicable SEC guidance repeating such adjustment information is not required in this proxy statement because it is not material to our shareholders’ understanding of the information reported in the table above for 2025 or the relationships disclosures provided below. |

  157. Pay versus performance

    | Non-PEO NEOs Summary: Reconciliation of SCT Total and CAP | | | | | | | | Year | Average SCT Total | Subtract Average Grant Date Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards as Disclosed in the SCT | Subtract Average Change in Pension Value as Disclosed in the SCT | Add Average Change in Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards(i) | Add Average Service Cost and Prior Service Cost for Pension Plans | Average CAP | | 2025 | $1,739,141 | $(879,202) | $(4,187) | $909,078 | $0 | $1,764,830 |

  158. Pay versus performance

    | The total amount included in the table above as the grant date fair value of stock awards and option awards as disclosed in the SCT reflects the grant date fair value of stock awards as the company did not issue option awards in 2025. |

  159. Pay versus performance

    | (i) Non-PEO NEOs Detail: Average Change in Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards | | | | | | | | | Year | Year-End Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Covered Fiscal Year that Remained Unvested at the End of that Fiscal Year | Vesting Date Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Covered Fiscal Year that Vested During that Fiscal Year | Increase or Decrease in Fair Value (from Prior Year End to Covered Year End) for Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Prior Years that Remained Unvested at the End of the Covered Fiscal Year | Increase or Decrease in Fair Value (from Prior Year End to Vesting Date) of Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Prior Years that Vested During the Covered Fiscal Year | Adjustments for Stock Awards and Option Awards Granted in Prior Years that Failed to Meet Vesting Conditions During the Covered Fiscal Year | Value of Dividends or other Earnings Paid or Accrued on Stock Awards During the Covered Fiscal Year and not Otherwise Reflected in CAP | Total Change in Fair Value of Stock Awards and Option Awards Included in CAP | | 2025 | $921,191 | $0 | $10,832 | $(22,945) | $0 | $0 | $909,078 |

  160. Pay versus performance

    | (3) Our TSR represents the cumulative investment return of an initial fixed $100 investment in the company’s common stock on December 31, 2020, assuming reinvestment of all dividends. The company’s TSR as reflected in the table above may not be indicative of future performance. Peer group TSR represents the cumulative investment return of an initial fixed $100 investment in the S&P 1500 Steel Sub-Industry Index on December 31, 2020, assuming reinvestment of all dividends. |

  161. Pay versus performance

    | (4) Represents net income determined in accordance with GAAP and as reported in our Form 10-K for the applicable fiscal year. |

  162. Pay versus performance

    | (5) Represents our Adjusted EBITDA for the applicable fiscal year. We chose this measure of Adjusted EBITDA as the CSM for purposes of the table above because we determined that it was the most important financial performance measure (that is not otherwise required to be disclosed in the table) used to link compensation actually paid to our named executive officers for the most recently completed fiscal year to the company’s performance. Adjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP measure. For more information about how we calculate Adjusted EBITDA, please see “Analysis of 2025 compensation — Annual incentive — 2025 APA decisions” in the Compensation discussion and analysis section of this proxy statement, as well as Appendix A to this proxy statement. |

  163. Pay versus performance

    The following graph illustrates, for the period disclosed in the table above: (a) the relationship between (i) both CAP of the PEO and average CAP of the Non-PEO NEOs and (ii) the company’s TSR; and (b) the relationship between (i) the company’s TSR and (ii) the TSR of the peer group. The following graph illustrates, for the period disclosed in the table above, the relationship between (a) both CAP of the PEO and average CAP of the NEOs, and (b) the company’s net income. The following graph illustrates, for the period disclosed in the table above, the relationship between (a) both CAP of the PEO and average CAP of the Non-PEO NEOs, and (b) the CSM, Adjusted EBITDA. Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K also requires that we provide the following tabular list of at least three (and not more than seven) financial performance measures that we have determined are our most important financial performance measures used to link compensation actually paid to the named executive officers for the most recently completed fiscal year to the company’s performance. We have also included in the tabular list below one non-financial performance measure, safety, which we consider to be a critically important metric used in our pay-for-performance executive compensation program.

  164. Pay versus performance

    | Most Important Performance Measures | | Financial measures | | Adjusted EBITDA | | Adjusted operating cash flow | | Relative total shareholder return | | Absolute stock price appreciation | | Non-financial measures | | Safety |