sv1za
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 9, 2007
Registration
No. 333-137623
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2
to
Form S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware |
|
3334 |
|
94-3030279 |
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) |
|
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number) |
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number) |
|
|
|
27422 Portola Parkway, Suite 350
Foothill Ranch, California 92610-2831
(949) 614-1740
(Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of Registrants Principal Executive
Offices) |
|
John M. Donnan
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
27422 Portola Parkway, Suite 350
Foothill Ranch, California 92610-2831
(949) 614-1740
(Name, Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone
Number,
Including Area Code, of Agent for Service) |
With a copy to:
|
|
|
Troy B. Lewis
Mark T. Goglia
Jones Day
2727 North Harwood Street
Dallas, Texas 75201-1515
Telephone: (214) 220-3939
Facsimile: (214) 969-5100 |
|
Joseph A. Hall
Davis Polk & Wardwell
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
Facsimile: (212) 450-4800 |
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the
public: As soon as practicable on or after the effective
date of this Registration Statement.
If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be
offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to
Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act), check the following
box. o
If this form is filed to register additional securities for an
offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act,
please check the following box and list the Securities Act
registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Maximum |
|
|
Proposed Maximum |
|
|
Amount of |
Title of Each Class of |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Offering |
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
Registration |
Securities to be Registered |
|
|
to be Registered |
|
|
Price Per Share(1) |
|
|
Offering Price(1) |
|
|
Fee(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share
|
|
|
6,281,150 |
|
|
$56.28 |
|
|
$353,503,122 |
|
|
$32,317 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the amount of
the registration fee in accordance with Rule 457(c) of the
Securities Act based on the average of the high and low prices
of the Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on
December 29, 2006. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Of the $32,317 registration fee, $11,929 was previously paid in
connection with the original filing on September 27, 2006,
and $20,388 is paid herewith. |
|
The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on
such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective
date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this Registration Statement shall
thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a)
of the Securities Act or until this Registration Statement shall
become effective on such date as the Securities and Exchange
Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may
determine.
The
information in this prospectus is not complete and may be
changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is
effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these
securities and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these
securities in any state where the offer or sale is not
permitted.
|
|
|
|
PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS |
Subject to Completion |
January 9, 2007 |
5,461,870 Shares
Common Stock
This is an offering of common stock of Kaiser Aluminum
Corporation. All of the shares of common stock are being sold by
the selling stockholders named in this prospectus. We will not
receive any proceeds from the sale of the shares by the selling
stockholders.
Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the
symbol KALU. On January 8, 2007, the last
reported sales price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global
Market was $57.60 per share. Our common stock is subject to
certain transfer restrictions that potentially prohibit or void
transfers by any person or group that is, or as a result of such
a transfer would become, a 5% stockholder.
Investing in our common stock involves risks. Before buying
any shares you should carefully read the discussion of material
risks of investing in our common stock contained in Risk
Factors beginning on page 10 of this prospectus.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state
securities commission has approved or disapproved of these
securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or
complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal
offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per share | |
|
Total | |
| |
Public offering price
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Underwriting discounts and commissions
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Proceeds, before expenses, to the selling stockholders
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
The underwriters may also purchase up to an additional
819,280 shares of common stock from one of the selling
stockholders at the public offering price, less underwriting
discounts and commissions, within 30 days from the date of
this prospectus to cover over-allotments, if any. If the
underwriters exercise this option in full, the total
underwriting discounts and commissions will be
$ and
total proceeds, before expenses, to the selling stockholders
will be
$ .
Delivery of the shares of common stock will be made on or
about ,
2007.
The underwriters are offering the common stock as set forth
under Underwriting.
|
|
UBS Investment Bank |
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. |
|
|
Lehman Brothers |
Lazard Capital Markets |
The date of this prospectus
is ,
2007
You should rely only on the information contained in this
prospectus or to which we have referred you. We have not
authorized anyone to provide you with information that is
different. This document may be used only where it is legal to
sell our common stock. The information contained in this
prospectus is current only as of the date of this prospectus,
regardless of the time of delivery of this prospectus or any
sale of our common stock.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Kaiser Aluminum, Kaiser
Selecttm,
Kaiser Precision
Selecttm,
Kaiser Precision
Rodtm,
our logo and certain other names of our products are our
trademarks, trade names or service marks. Each trademark, trade
name or service mark of any other company appearing in this
prospectus belongs to its holder.
i
Prospectus summary
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in
this prospectus. This summary does not contain all of the
information that may be important to you. You should read this
entire prospectus carefully, including the risks discussed under
Risk factors and the financial statements and notes
thereto included elsewhere in this prospectus. In this
prospectus, all references to (1) Kaiser,
we, us, the company and
our refer to Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and its
subsidiaries unless the context otherwise requires or where
otherwise indicated; (2) the Union VEBA Trust
refers to the voluntary employees beneficiary association
trust, or VEBA, that provides benefits for certain eligible
retirees represented by certain unions and their spouses and
eligible dependents; (3) the Salaried Retiree VEBA
Trust refers to the VEBA that provides benefits for
certain other eligible retirees and their surviving spouses and
eligible dependents; and (4) the Asbestos PI Trust
refers to the Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.
OUR COMPANY
We are a leading independent fabricated aluminum products
manufacturing company with 2005 net sales of approximately
$1.1 billion. We were founded in 1946 and operate 11
production facilities in the United States and Canada. We
manufacture rolled, extruded, drawn and forged aluminum products
within three product categories consisting of aerospace and high
strength products (which we refer to as Aero/ HS products),
general engineering products and custom automotive and
industrial products.
We produced and shipped approximately 482 million pounds of
fabricated aluminum products in 2005, which comprised 86% of our
total net sales. Of our total fabricated product shipments in
2005, approximately 29% were Aero/ HS products, approximately
44% were general engineering products and the remaining
approximately 27% consisted of custom automotive and industrial
products. Of our total fabricated products net sales in 2005,
approximately 38% were Aero/ HS products, approximately 38% were
general engineering products and the remaining approximately 24%
consisted of custom automotive and industrial products.
In order to capitalize on the significant growth in demand for
high quality heat treat aluminum plate products in the market
for Aero/ HS products, we have begun a major expansion at our
Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington. We anticipate that
the Trentwood expansion will significantly increase our aluminum
plate production capacity and enable us to produce thicker gauge
aluminum plate. The $105 million expansion will be
completed in phases, with one new heat treat furnace currently
operating at full production, a second such furnace currently
operational and expected to reach full production no later than
early 2007 and a third such furnace becoming operational in
early 2008. A new heavy gauge stretcher, which will enable us to
produce thicker gauge aluminum plate, will also become
operational in early 2008.
We have long-standing relationships with our customers, which
include leading aerospace companies, automotive suppliers and
metal distributors. We strive to tightly integrate the
management of our fabricated products operations across multiple
production facilities, product lines and target markets in order
to maximize the efficiency of product flow to our customers. In
our served markets, we seek to be the supplier of choice by
pursuing
best-in-class
customer satisfaction and offering a product portfolio that is
unmatched in breadth and depth by our competitors.
The price we pay for primary aluminum, the principal raw
material for our fabricated aluminum products business, consists
of two components: the price quoted for primary aluminum ingot
on the London Metals Exchange, or the LME, and the
Midwest Transaction Premium, a premium to LME reflecting
domestic market dynamics as well as the cost of shipping and
warehousing. Because aluminum prices are volatile, we manage the
risk of fluctuations in the price of primary aluminum through a
combination of pricing policies, internal hedging and financial
derivatives. Our three principal pricing mechanisms are as
follows:
|
|
|
Spot
price. Some of our
customers pay a product price that incorporates the spot price
of primary aluminum in effect at the time of shipment to a
customer. This pricing mechanism typically allows us to pass
commodity price risk to the customer.
|
1
|
|
|
Index-based
price. Some of our
customers pay a product price that incorporates an index-based
price for primary aluminum such as Platts Midwest price
for primary aluminum. This pricing mechanism also typically
allows us to pass commodity price risk to the customer.
|
|
|
Fixed
price. Some of our
customers pay a fixed price. During 2003, 2004, 2005 and the
nine months ended September 30, 2006, approximately
97.6 million pounds (or approximately 26%),
119.0 million pounds (or approximately 26%),
155.0 million pounds (or approximately 32%) and
153.0 million pounds (or approximately 38%), respectively,
of our fabricated products were sold at a fixed price. We bear
commodity price risk on fixed-price contracts, which we normally
hedge though a combination of financial derivatives and
production from Anglesey Aluminium Limited, described below.
|
In addition to our core fabricated products operations, we have
a 49% ownership interest in Anglesey Aluminium Limited, an
aluminum smelter based in Holyhead, Wales. Anglesey has produced
in excess of 140,000 metric tons for each of the last three
fiscal years, of which 49% is available to us. We sell our
portion of Angleseys primary aluminum output to a single
third party at market prices. During 2005, sales of our portion
of Angleseys output represented 14% of our total net
sales. Because we also purchase primary aluminum for our
fabricated products at market prices, Angleseys production
acts as a natural hedge for our fabricated products operations.
Please see Risk factors The expiration of the power
agreement for Anglesey may adversely affect our cash flows and
affect our hedging programs for a discussion regarding the
potential closure of Anglesey, which could occur as soon as 2009.
OUR COMPETITIVE STRENGTHS
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable
us to enhance our position as one of the leaders in the
fabricated aluminum products industry:
|
|
|
Leading market positions in
value-added niche markets for fabricated
products. We have
repositioned our business to concentrate on products in which we
believe we have strong production capability, well- developed
technical expertise and high product quality. We believe that we
hold a leading market share position in niche markets that
represented approximately 85% of our 2005 net sales from
fabricated aluminum products. Our leading market position
extends throughout our broad product offering, including plate,
sheet, seamless extruded and drawn tube, rod, bar, extrusions
and forgings for use in a variety of value-added aerospace,
general engineering and custom automotive and industrial
applications.
|
|
|
|
Well-positioned growth
platform. We have
substantial organic growth opportunities in the production of
aluminum plate, extrusions and forgings. We are in the midst of
a $105 million expansion of our Trentwood facility that
will allow us to significantly increase production capacity and
enable us to produce thicker gauge aluminum plate. We also have
the ability to add presses and other manufacturing equipment at
several of our current facilities in order to increase extrusion
and forging capacity. Additionally, we believe our platform and
financial strength provide us with flexibility to create
additional stockholder value through selective acquisitions.
|
|
|
|
Supplier of
choice. We pursue
best-in-class
customer satisfaction through the consistent, on-time delivery
of high quality products on short lead times. We offer our
customers a portfolio of both highly engineered and industry
standard products that is unmatched in breadth and depth by most
of our competitors. Our continuous improvement culture is
grounded in our production system, the Kaiser Production System,
which involves an integrated utilization of application and
advanced process engineering and business improvement
methodologies such as lean enterprise, total productive
maintenance and six sigma. We believe that our broad product
portfolio of highly engineered products and the Kaiser
Production System, together with our established record of
product innovation, will allow us to remain the supplier of
choice for our customers and further enhance our competitive
position. |
|
|
Blue-chip customer base and
diverse end markets.
Our fabricated products customers include leading aerospace
companies, automotive suppliers and metal distributors, such as
A.M. Castle-Raytheon, Airbus Industrie, Boeing, Bombardier,
Eclipse Aviation, Reliance Steel & Aluminum and
|
2
|
|
|
Transtar-Lockheed Martin. We have long-term relationships with
our top customers, many of which we have served for decades. Our
customer base spans a variety of end markets, including
aerospace and defense, automotive, consumer durables, machinery
and equipment, and electrical. |
|
|
|
Financial strength. We have little debt and significant
liquidity as a result of our recent chapter 11 bankruptcy
reorganization. We also have net operating loss carry-forwards
and other significant tax attributes that may reduce our future
cash payments of U.S. income tax. We previously disclosed
our belief that these tax attributes could together offset in
the range of $550 to $900 million of otherwise taxable
income, and we currently anticipate that, upon completion of our
2006 income tax return analysis, the amount of our tax
attributes as of December 31, 2006 will likely be in the
upper half of that range. |
|
|
|
|
Strong and experienced management. The members of our
senior management team have, on average, 20 years of
industry work experience, particularly within the areas of
operations, technology, marketing and finance. Our management
team has repositioned our fabricated products business and led
us through our recent chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization,
creating a focused business with financial and competitive
strength. |
|
OUR STRATEGY
Our principal strategies to increase stockholder value are to:
|
|
|
Pursue organic
growth. We will
continue to utilize our manufacturing platform to increase
growth in areas where we are well-positioned such as aluminum
plate, forgings and extrusions. For instance, we anticipate that
the expansion of our Trentwood facility will enable us to
significantly increase our production capacity and enable us to
produce thicker gauge aluminum plate, allowing us to capitalize
on the significant growth in demand for high quality heat treat
aluminum plate products in the market for Aero/ HS products.
Further, our well-equipped extrusion and forging facilities
provide a platform to expand production as we take advantage of
opportunities and our strong customer relationships in the
aerospace and industrial end markets.
|
|
|
Continue to differentiate our
products and provide superior customer
support. As part of
our ongoing supplier of choice efforts, we will continue to
strive to achieve
best-in-class
customer satisfaction. We will also continue to offer a broad
portfolio of differentiated, superior-quality products with high
engineering content, tailored to the needs of our customers. For
instance, our unique
T-Form®
sheet provides aerospace customers with high formability as well
as requisite strength characteristics, enabling these customers
to substantially lower their production costs. Additionally, we
believe our Kaiser
Select®
Rod established a new industry benchmark for quality and
performance in automatic screw applications. By continually
striving for
best-in-class
customer satisfaction and offering a broad portfolio of
differentiated products, we believe we will be able to maintain
our premium product pricing, increase our sales to current
customers and gain new customers, thereby increasing our market
share. |
|
|
Continue to enhance our
operating
efficiencies. During
the last five years, we have significantly reduced our costs by
narrowing our product focus, strategically investing in our
production facilities and implementing the Kaiser Production
System. We will continue to implement additional measures to
enhance our operating efficiency and productivity, which we
believe will further decrease our production costs.
|
|
|
Maintain financial
strength. We intend
to employ debt judiciously in order to remain financially strong
throughout the business cycle and to maintain our flexibility to
capitalize on growth opportunities.
|
|
|
Enhance our product portfolio
and customer base through selective
acquisitions. We may
seek to grow through acquisitions and strategic partnerships. We
will selectively consider acquisition opportunities that we
believe will complement our product portfolio and add long-term
stockholder value.
|
3
REORGANIZATION
Between the first quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
Kaiser and 25 of our then-existing subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code. Pursuant to our plan of reorganization, we
emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006.
Our plan of reorganization allowed us to shed significant legacy
liabilities, including long-term indebtedness, pension
obligations, retiree medical obligations and liabilities
relating to asbestos and other personal injury claims. In
addition, prior to our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy, we sold all of our interests in bauxite mining
operations, alumina refineries and aluminum smelters, other than
our interest in Anglesey, in order to focus on our fabricated
aluminum products business, which we believe maintains a
stronger competitive position and presents greater opportunities
for growth.
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
The aluminum fabricated products market is broadly defined as
the markets for flat-rolled, extruded, drawn, forged and cast
aluminum products, which are used in a variety of end-use
applications. We participate in certain portions of the markets
for flat-rolled, extruded/drawn and forged products focusing on
highly engineered products for aerospace and high strength,
general engineering and custom automotive and industrial
applications. The portions of markets in which we participate
accounted for an estimated 20% of total North American shipments
of aluminum fabricated products in 2005.
We have chosen to focus on the manufacture of aluminum
fabricated products primarily for aerospace and high strength,
general engineering and custom automotive and industrial
applications.
|
|
|
Products sold for aerospace and
high strength applications represented 29% of our 2005
fabricated products shipments. We offer various aluminum
fabricated products to service aerospace and high strength
customers, including heat treat plate and sheet products, as
well as cold finish bars and seamless drawn tubes. Heat treated
products are distinguished from common alloy products by higher
strength, fracture toughness and other desired product
attributes.
|
|
|
Products sold for general
engineering applications represented 44% of our 2005 fabricated
products shipments. This market consists primarily of
transportation and industrial end customers who purchase a
variety of extruded, drawn and forged fabricated products
through large North American distributors.
|
|
|
|
Products sold for custom
automotive and industrial applications represented 27% of 2005
fabricated products shipments. These products include custom
extruded, drawn and forged aluminum products for a variety of
applications. While we are capable of producing forged products
for most end-use applications, we concentrate our efforts on
meeting demand for forged products, other than wheels, in the
automotive industry.
|
|
We have elected not to participate in certain end markets for
fabricated aluminum products, including beverage and food cans,
building and construction materials, and foil used for
packaging, which represented approximately 95% of the North
American flat-rolled products market and approximately 45% of
the North American extrusion market in 2005. We believe our
chosen end markets present better opportunities for sales growth
and premium pricing of differentiated products.
Aerospace and defense applications
We are a leading supplier of high quality sheet, plate, drawn
tube and bar products to the global aerospace and defense
industry. Our products for these end-use applications are heat
treat plate and sheet, as well as cold finish bar and seamless
drawn tube that are manufactured to demanding specifications.
The aerospace and defense markets consumption of
fabricated aluminum products is driven by overall levels of
industrial production, cyclical airframe build rates and defense
spending, as well as the potential availability of competing
materials such as composites. According to Airline
Monitors July 2006 forecast, the global build rate of
commercial aircraft over 50 seats is expected to rise at a
4.6% compound annual growth rate through 2025. Additionally,
demand growth is expected to increase for thick plate with
growth in monolithic construction of commercial and
other aircraft. In monolithic construction, aluminum plate is
heavily machined to form the desired part from a single
4
piece of metal (as opposed to creating parts using aluminum
sheet, extrusions or forgings that are affixed to one another
using rivets, bolts or welds). In addition to commercial
aviation demand, military applications for heat treat plate and
sheet include aircraft frames and skins and armor plating to
protect ground vehicles from explosive devices.
General engineering applications
General engineering products consist primarily of standard
catalog items sold to large metal distributors. These products
have a wide range of uses, many of which involve further
fabrication for numerous transportation and industrial end-use
applications where machining of plate, rod and bar is intensive.
Demand growth and cyclicality for general engineering products
tend to mirror broad economic patterns and industrial activity
in North America. Demand is also impacted by the destocking and
restocking of inventory in the full supply chain.
Custom automotive and industrial applications
We manufacture custom extruded/drawn and forged aluminum
products for many automotive and industrial end uses, including
consumer durables, electrical, machinery and equipment,
automobile, light truck, heavy truck and truck trailer
applications. Examples of the wide variety of custom products
that we supply to the automotive industry are extruded products
for anti-lock braking systems, drawn tube for drive shafts and
forgings for suspension control arms and drive train yokes.
Demand growth and cyclicality tend to mirror broad economic
patterns and industrial activity in North America, with specific
individual market segments such as automotive, heavy truck and
truck trailer applications tracking their respective build rates.
RISK FACTORS
Investing in our common stock involves risk. Before you invest
in our common stock, you should carefully consider the matters
discussed under the headings Risk factors and
Special note regarding forward-looking statements
and all other information contained in this prospectus.
OUR CORPORATE INFORMATION
We were incorporated in February 1987 under Delaware law. Our
principal executive offices are located at 27422 Portola
Parkway, Suite 350, Foothill Ranch, California 92610-2831,
and our telephone number at this address is (949) 614-1740.
Our website is www.kaiseraluminum.com. Information on, or
accessible through, our website is not a part of, and is not
incorporated into, this prospectus.
5
The offering
|
|
|
|
Common stock offered by the selling stockholders |
|
5,461,870 shares |
|
|
|
Common stock outstanding before and after the offering |
|
20,525,660 shares |
|
|
|
Over-allotment option |
|
The Union VEBA Trust has granted the underwriters a
30-day option to
purchase up to 819,280 additional shares of our common
stock to cover over-allotments. |
|
|
Nasdaq Global Market symbol |
|
KALU |
|
|
Use of proceeds |
|
We will receive no proceeds from the sale of common stock by the
selling stockholders. |
|
|
Transfer restrictions |
|
Our common stock is subject to certain transfer restrictions
that potentially prohibit or void transfers by any person or
group that is, or as a result of such transfer would become, a
5% stockholder. See Description of capital
stock Restrictions on Transfer of Common Stock. |
|
Risk factors |
|
You should carefully read and consider the information set forth
under Risk factors, together with all of the other
information set forth in this prospectus, before deciding to
invest in shares of our common stock. |
Unless we indicate otherwise, the number of shares of common
stock shown to be outstanding before and after the offering is
based on shares outstanding on December 31, 2006 and
excludes 1,696,562 shares of common stock reserved and
available for issuance under our equity incentive plan.
6
Summary consolidated financial and operating data
The following tables set forth our summary consolidated
financial and operating data as of the dates and for the periods
indicated below. The summary consolidated statement of income
data for the three years ended December 31, 2003, 2004 and
2005 are derived from our audited consolidated financial
statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
As a result of the effectiveness of our plan of reorganization
on July 6, 2006, we adopted fresh start reporting in
accordance with American Institute of Certified Professional
Accountants Statement of
Position 90-7,
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code, or
SOP 90-7, as of
July 1, 2006. Because
SOP 90-7 requires
us to restate our stockholders equity to our
reorganization value and to allocate such value to our assets
and liabilities based on their fair values, our financial
condition and results of operations after June 30, 2006
will not be comparable in some material respects to the
financial condition or results of operations reflected in our
historical financial statements at dates or for periods prior to
July 1, 2006. This makes it difficult to assess our future
prospects based on historical performance.
Our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy and the adoption
of fresh start reporting resulted in a new reporting entity for
accounting purposes. Although we emerged from chapter 11
bankruptcy on July 6, 2006, we adopted fresh start
reporting under the provisions of
SOP 90-7 effective
as of the beginning of business on July 1, 2006. As such,
it was assumed that our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy was completed instantaneously at the beginning of
business on July 1, 2006 such that all operating activities
during the three months ended September 30, 2006 are
reported as applying to the new reporting entity. We believe
that this is a reasonable presentation as there were no material
transactions between July 1, 2006 and July 6, 2006
other than plan of reorganization-related transactions.
The accompanying financial statements include our financial
statements for both before and after our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy. Financial information related to the
newly emerged entity is generally referred to throughout this
prospectus as successor information and financial
information related to the pre-emergence entity is generally
referred to as predecessor information. The
financial information of the successor entity is not comparable
to that of the predecessor given the effects of the plan of
reorganization, the adoption of fresh start reporting and other
factors.
The summary consolidated financial data as of and for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006 are derived from
our unaudited consolidated financial statements included
elsewhere in this prospectus. We have prepared our unaudited
consolidated financial statements on the same basis as our
audited consolidated financial statements (except as set forth
in Note 2 of our interim consolidated financial statements)
and have included all adjustments, consisting of normal and
recurring adjustments, that we consider necessary for a fair
presentation of our financial position and operating results for
the unaudited period. The summary consolidated financial and
operating data as of and for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 are not necessarily indicative of the
results that may be obtained for a full year.
With respect to the nine months ended September 30, 2006,
the successors operating data for the period from
July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006 have been
combined with the predecessors operating data for the
period from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and are
compared to the predecessors operating data for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005.
The information presented in the following tables should be read
in conjunction with Capitalization, Selected
historical consolidated financial data,
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations and the consolidated
financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in
this prospectus.
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
period | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
nine months | |
|
from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
year ended December 31, | |
|
ended | |
|
January 1, | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
| |
|
September 30, | |
|
2006 to | |
|
|
September 30, | |
Statements of income data: |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
(dollars in millions) |
|
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(restated)(1) | |
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
710.2 |
|
|
$ |
942.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,089.7 |
|
|
$ |
815.9 |
|
|
$ |
689.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
331.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
681.2 |
|
|
|
852.2 |
|
|
|
951.1 |
|
|
|
710.9 |
|
|
|
596.4 |
|
|
|
|
291.8 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
25.7 |
|
|
|
22.3 |
|
|
|
19.9 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
|
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
92.5 |
|
|
|
92.3 |
|
|
|
50.9 |
|
|
|
38.0 |
|
|
|
30.3 |
|
|
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
Other operating charges (credits), net
(2)
|
|
|
141.6 |
|
|
|
793.2 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
941.0 |
|
|
|
1,760.0 |
|
|
|
1,029.9 |
|
|
|
770.4 |
|
|
|
637.4 |
|
|
|
|
309.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(230.8 |
) |
|
|
(817.6 |
) |
|
|
59.8 |
|
|
|
45.5 |
|
|
|
52.4 |
|
|
|
|
21.7 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
expense(3)
|
|
|
(9.1 |
) |
|
|
(9.5 |
) |
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|
(0.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization
items(4)
|
|
|
(27.0 |
) |
|
|
(39.0 |
) |
|
|
(1,162.1 |
) |
|
|
(25.3 |
) |
|
|
3,093.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
(272.1 |
) |
|
|
(861.9 |
) |
|
|
(1,109.9 |
) |
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
3,145.9 |
|
|
|
|
22.6 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(2.8 |
) |
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(273.6 |
) |
|
|
(868.1 |
) |
|
|
(1,112.7 |
) |
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
|
3,139.7 |
|
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes,
including minority interests
|
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
(5.3 |
) |
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126.6 |
|
|
|
366.2 |
|
|
|
365.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
(5)
|
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
121.3 |
|
|
|
363.7 |
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(788.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
$ |
3,144.0 |
|
|
|
$ |
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months | |
|
|
|
|
ended | |
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Operating data (unaudited): |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Shipments (millions of pounds):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated products
|
|
|
372.3 |
|
|
|
458.6 |
|
|
|
481.9 |
|
|
|
365.2 |
|
|
|
399.7 |
|
|
Primary aluminum
|
|
|
158.7 |
|
|
|
156.6 |
|
|
|
155.6 |
|
|
|
115.7 |
|
|
|
117.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
531.0 |
|
|
|
615.2 |
|
|
|
637.5 |
|
|
|
480.9 |
|
|
|
516.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized third-party sales price (per pound):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated
products(6)
|
|
$ |
1.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.95 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
$ |
2.18 |
|
|
Primary
aluminum(7)
|
|
$ |
0.71 |
|
|
$ |
0.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.95 |
|
|
$ |
0.93 |
|
|
$ |
1.27 |
|
Capital expenditures, net of accounts payable (excluding
discontinued operations) (in millions)
|
|
$ |
8.9 |
|
|
$ |
7.6 |
|
|
$ |
31.0 |
|
|
$ |
20.4 |
|
|
$ |
39.7 |
|
(footnotes on following page)
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of | |
|
|
September 30, | |
Balance sheet data: |
|
2006 | |
| |
(dollars in millions) |
|
(unaudited) | |
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
52.7 |
|
Working
capital(8)
|
|
|
212.1 |
|
Total assets
|
|
|
621.1 |
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
Stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
345.9 |
|
|
|
(1) |
We restated our operating results for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. See Note 15 to our interim
consolidated financial statements for information regarding the
restatement. |
|
(2) |
Other operating charges (credits), net in 2003 and 2004
include certain significant charges associated with the
termination of certain pension and post-retirement medical
plans, a settlement in respect of a past labor matter and other
items. These items are detailed in Note 6 to our audited
consolidated financial statements and Note 10 to our
interim consolidated financial statements. |
|
(3) |
Excludes unrecorded contractual interest expense of
$95.0 million in each of 2003, 2004 and 2005,
$71.2 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 and $47.4 million for the period from January 1,
2006 to July 1, 2006. |
|
|
(4) |
Reorganization items for 2005 include an approximate
$1.1 billion charge as a result of the value of an
intercompany note treated as being for the benefit of certain
creditors. See Note 1 to our audited consolidated financial
statements. Reorganization items for the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 include a gain of
approximately $3.1 billion in connection with the
implementation of our plan of reorganization and fresh start
reporting. See Note 13 to our interim consolidated
financial statements. |
|
|
(5) |
Income (loss) from discontinued operations includes a
substantial impairment charge in 2003 and gains in 2004 and 2005
in connection with the sale of certain of our commodity-related
interests. See Note 3 to our audited consolidated financial
statements. |
|
(6) |
Average realized prices for our fabricated products business
unit are subject to fluctuations due to changes in product mix
as well as underlying primary aluminum prices and are not
necessarily indicative of changes in underlying
profitability. |
|
(7) |
Average realized prices for our primary aluminum business
unit exclude hedging revenues. |
|
(8) |
Working capital represents total current assets, including
cash, minus total current liabilities. |
9
Risk factors
An investment in our common stock involves various risks.
Before making an investment in our common stock, you should
carefully consider the following risks, as well as the other
information contained in this prospectus, including our
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto and
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations. The risks described
below are those which we believe are the material risks we face.
The occurrence of any of the events discussed below could
significantly and adversely affect our business, prospects,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As a
result, the trading price of our common stock could decline and
you may lose a part or all of your investment.
RISKS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS AND OUR INDUSTRY
We recently emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy, have
sustained losses in the past and may not be able to maintain
profitability.
Because we recently emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy and
have in the past sustained losses, we cannot assure you that we
will be able to maintain profitability in the future. We sought
protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in
February 2002. We emerged from bankruptcy as a reorganized
entity on July 6, 2006. Prior to and during this
reorganization, we incurred substantial net losses, including
net losses of $788.3 million, $746.8 million and
$753.7 million in the fiscal years ended December 31,
2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. If we cannot maintain
profitability, the value of your investment in Kaiser may
decline.
You may not be able to compare our historical financial
information to our future financial information, which will make
it more difficult to evaluate an investment in our company.
As a result of the effectiveness of our plan of reorganization
on July 6, 2006, we are operating our business under a new
capital structure. In addition, we adopted fresh start reporting
in accordance with
SOP 90-7 as of
July 1, 2006. Because
SOP 90-7 requires
us to account for our assets and liabilities at their fair
values as of the effectiveness of our plan of reorganization,
our financial condition and results of operations from and after
July 1, 2006 will not be comparable in some material
respects to the financial condition or results of operations
reflected in our historical financial statements at dates or for
periods prior to July 1, 2006. This may make it difficult
to assess our future prospects based on historical performance.
We operate in a highly competitive industry which could
adversely affect our profitability.
The fabricated products segment of the aluminum industry is
highly competitive. Competition in the sale of fabricated
aluminum products is based upon quality, availability, price and
service, including delivery performance. Many of our competitors
are substantially larger than we are and have greater financial
resources than we do, and may have other strategic advantages,
including more efficient technologies or lower raw material and
energy costs. Our facilities are primarily located in North
America. To the extent that our competitors have production
facilities located outside North America, they may be able to
produce similar products at a lower cost. We may not be able to
adequately reduce costs to compete with these products.
Increased competition could cause a reduction in our shipment
volumes and profitability or increase our expenditures, any one
of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.
We depend on a core group of significant customers.
In 2005 and for the nine months ended September 30, 2006,
our largest fabricated products customer, Reliance
Steel & Aluminum, accounted for approximately 11% and
19%, respectively, of our fabricated products net sales, and our
five largest customers accounted for approximately 33% and 42%,
respectively, of our fabricated products net sales. The increase
in the percentage of our net sales
10
Risk factors
to our largest fabricated products customer is the result of
Reliance acquiring one of our other top five customers in the
second quarter of 2006. Sales to Reliance and the other customer
(on a combined basis) accounted for approximately 19% of our net
sales in 2005 and for the nine months ended September 30,
2006. If our existing relationships with significant customers
materially deteriorate or are terminated and we are not
successful in replacing lost business, our financial position,
results of operations and cash flows could be materially and
adversely affected. The loss of Reliance as a customer could
have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations and cash flows. In addition, a significant
downturn in the business or financial condition of any of our
significant customers could materially and adversely affect our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Some of our current and former international customers,
particularly automobile manufacturers in Europe and Japan, were
reluctant to do business with us while we underwent
chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, presumably because of
their unfamiliarity with U.S. bankruptcy laws and the
uncertainty about the strength of our business. Although we
believe our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy should
mitigate such reluctance, we cannot assure you that this will be
the case.
Our industry is very sensitive to foreign economic,
regulatory and political factors that may adversely affect our
business.
We import primary aluminum from, and manufacture fabricated
products used in, foreign countries. We also own 49% of
Anglesey, which owns and operates an aluminum smelter in the
United Kingdom. We purchase alumina to supply to Anglesey and we
purchase aluminum from Anglesey for sale to a third party in the
United Kingdom. Factors in the politically and economically
diverse countries in which we operate or have customers or
suppliers, including inflation, fluctuations in currency and
interest rates, competitive factors, civil unrest and labor
problems, could affect our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. Our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows could also be adversely affected by:
|
|
|
acts of war or terrorism or the
threat of war or terrorism;
|
|
|
government regulation in the
countries in which we operate, service customers or purchase raw
materials;
|
|
|
the implementation of controls
on imports, exports or prices;
|
|
|
the adoption of new forms of
taxation;
|
|
|
the imposition of currency
restrictions;
|
|
|
the nationalization or
appropriation of rights or other assets; and
|
|
|
trade disputes involving
countries in which we operate, service customers or purchase raw
materials.
|
The aerospace industry is cyclical and downturns in the
aerospace industry, including downturns resulting from acts of
terrorism, could adversely affect our revenues and
profitability.
We derive a significant portion of our revenue from products
sold to the aerospace industry, which is highly cyclical and
tends to decline in response to overall declines in industrial
production. As a result, our business is affected by overall
levels of industrial production and fluctuations in the
aerospace industry. The commercial aerospace industry is
historically driven by the demand from commercial airlines for
new aircraft. Demand for commercial aircraft is influenced by
airline industry profitability, trends in airline passenger
traffic, by the state of the U.S. and world economies and
numerous other factors, including the effects of terrorism. The
military aerospace cycle is highly dependent on U.S. and foreign
government funding; however, it is also driven by the effects of
terrorism, a changing global political environment,
U.S. foreign policy, regulatory changes, the retirement of
older aircraft and
11
Risk factors
technological improvements to new aircraft engines that increase
reliability. The timing, duration and severity of cyclical
upturns and downturns cannot be predicted with certainty. A
future downturn or reduction in demand could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
In addition, because we and other suppliers are expanding
production capacity to alleviate the current supply shortage for
heat treat aluminum plate, heat treat plate prices may
eventually begin to decrease as production capacity increases.
Although we have implemented cost reduction and sales growth
initiatives to minimize the impact on our results of operations
as heat treat plate prices return to more typical historical
levels, these initiatives may not be adequate and our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely
affected.
A number of major airlines have also recently undergone or are
undergoing chapter 11 bankruptcy and continue to experience
financial strain from high fuel prices. Continued financial
instability in the industry may lead to reduced demand for new
aircraft that utilize our products, which could adversely affect
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
The aerospace industry suffered significantly in the wake of the
events of September 11, 2001, resulting in a sharp decrease
globally in new commercial aircraft deliveries and order
cancellations or deferrals by the major airlines. This decrease
reduced the demand for our Aero/ HS products. While there has
been a recovery since 2001, the threat of terrorism and fears of
future terrorist acts could negatively affect the aerospace
industry and our financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.
Our customers may reduce their demand for aluminum products
in favor of alternative materials.
Our fabricated aluminum products compete with products made from
other materials, such as steel and composites, for various
applications. For instance, the commercial aerospace industry
has used and continues to evaluate the further use of
alternative materials to aluminum, such as composites, in order
to reduce the weight and increase the fuel efficiency of
aircraft. The willingness of customers to accept substitutions
for aluminum or the ability of large customers to exert leverage
in the marketplace to reduce the pricing for fabricated aluminum
products could adversely affect the demand for our products,
particularly our Aero/ HS products, and thus adversely affect
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Downturns in the automotive industry could adversely affect
our net sales and profitability.
The demand for many of our general engineering and custom
products is dependent on the production of automobiles, light
trucks and heavy duty vehicles in North America. The automotive
industry is highly cyclical, as new vehicle demand is dependent
on consumer spending and is tied closely to the overall strength
of the North American economy. The North American automotive
industry is facing costly inventory corrections which could
adversely affect our net sales and profitability. Recent
production cuts announced by General Motors Corporation, Ford
Motor Company and DaimlerChrysler AG, as well as cutbacks in
heavy duty truck production, may adversely affect the demand for
our products. If the financial condition of these auto
manufacturers continues to be unsteady or if any of the three
seek restructuring or relief through bankruptcy proceedings, the
demand for our products may decline, adversely affecting our net
sales and profitability. Any decline in the demand for new
automobiles, particularly in the United States, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. Seasonality experienced by the
automotive industry in the third and fourth quarters of the
calendar year also affects our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
12
Risk factors
Because our products are often components of our
customers products, reductions in demand for our products
may be more severe than, and may occur prior to reductions in
demand for, our customers products.
Our products are often components of the end-products of our
customers. Customers purchasing our fabricated aluminum
products, such as those in the cyclical automotive and aerospace
industries, generally require significant lead time in the
production of their own products. Therefore, demand for our
products may increase prior to demand for our customers
products. Conversely, demand for our products may decrease as
our customers anticipate a downturn in their respective
businesses. As demand for our customers products begins to
soften, our customers typically reduce or eliminate their demand
for our products and meet the reduced demand for their products
using their own inventory without replenishing that inventory,
which results in a reduction in demand for our products that is
greater than the reduction in demand for their products. This
amplified reduction in demand for our products in the event of a
downswing in our customers respective businesses may
adversely affect our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
Our business is subject to unplanned business interruptions
which may adversely affect our performance.
The production of fabricated aluminum products is subject to
unplanned events such as explosions, fires, inclement weather,
natural disasters, accidents, transportation interruptions and
supply interruptions. Operational interruptions at one or more
of our production facilities, particularly interruptions at our
Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington where our production
of plate and sheet is concentrated, could cause substantial
losses in our production capacity. Furthermore, because
customers may be dependent on planned deliveries from us,
customers that have to reschedule their own production due to
our delivery delays may be able to pursue financial claims
against us, and we may incur costs to correct such problems in
addition to any liability resulting from such claims. Such
interruptions may also harm our reputation among actual and
potential customers, potentially resulting in a loss of
business. To the extent these losses are not covered by
insurance, our financial position, results of operations and
cash flows may be adversely affected by such events.
Covenants and events of default in our debt instruments could
limit our ability to undertake certain types of transactions and
adversely affect our liquidity.
Our revolving credit facility and term loan facility contain
negative and financial covenants and events of default that may
limit our financial flexibility and ability to undertake certain
types of transactions. For instance, we are subject to negative
covenants that restrict our activities, including restrictions
on creating liens, engaging in mergers, consolidations and sales
of assets, incurring additional indebtedness, providing
guaranties, engaging in different businesses, making loans and
investments, making certain dividends, debt and other restricted
payments, making certain prepayments of indebtedness, engaging
in certain transactions with affiliates and entering into
certain restrictive agreements. If we fail to satisfy the
covenants set forth in our revolving credit facility and term
loan facility or another event of default occurs under these
facilities, the maturity of the loans could be accelerated or,
in the case of the revolving credit facility, we could be
prohibited from borrowing for our working capital needs. If the
loans are accelerated and we do not have sufficient cash on hand
to pay all amounts due, we could be required to sell assets, to
refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness or to obtain
additional financing. Refinancing may not be possible and
additional financing may not be available on commercially
acceptable terms, or at all. If we cannot borrow under the
revolving credit facility to meet our working capital needs, we
would need to seek additional financing, if available, or
curtail our operations.
13
Risk factors
We depend on our subsidiaries for cash to meet our
obligations and pay any dividends.
We are a holding company. Our subsidiaries conduct all of our
operations and own substantially all of our assets.
Consequently, our cash flow and our ability to meet our
obligations or pay dividends to our stockholders depend upon the
cash flow of our subsidiaries and the payment of funds by our
subsidiaries to us in the form of dividends, tax sharing
payments or otherwise. Our subsidiaries ability to make
any payment will depend on their earnings, the terms of their
indebtedness (including the revolving credit facility and term
loan facility), tax considerations and legal restrictions.
We may not be able to successfully implement our productivity
and cost reduction initiatives.
We have undertaken and may continue to undertake productivity
and cost reduction initiatives to improve performance, including
deployment of company-wide business improvement methodologies,
such as the Kaiser Production System, which involves the
integrated utilization of application and advanced process
engineering and business improvement methodologies such as lean
enterprise, total productive maintenance and six sigma. We
cannot assure you that these initiatives will be completed or
beneficial to us or that any estimated cost saving from such
activities will be realized. Even if we are able to generate new
efficiencies successfully in the short to medium term, we may
not be able to continue to reduce cost and increase productivity
over the long term.
Our profitability could be adversely affected by increases in
the cost of raw materials.
The price of primary aluminum has historically been subject to
significant cyclical price fluctuations, and the timing of
changes in the market price of aluminum is largely
unpredictable. Although our pricing of fabricated aluminum
products is generally intended to pass the risk of price
fluctuations on to our customers, we may not be able to pass on
the entire cost of such increases to our customers or offset
fully the effects of higher costs for other raw materials, which
may cause our profitability to decline. There will also be a
potential time lag between increases in prices for raw materials
under our purchase contracts and the point when we can implement
a corresponding increase in price under our sales contracts with
our customers. As a result, we may be exposed to fluctuations in
raw materials prices, including aluminum, since, during the time
lag, we may have to bear the additional cost of the price
increase under our purchase contracts. If these events were to
occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Furthermore, we are party to arrangements based on fixed prices
that include the primary aluminum price component, so that we
bear the entire risk of rising aluminum prices, which may cause
our profitability to decline. In addition, an increase in raw
materials prices may cause some of our customers to substitute
other materials for our products, adversely affecting our
results of operations due to both a decrease in the sales of
fabricated aluminum products and a decrease in demand for the
primary aluminum produced at Anglesey.
We are responsible for selling alumina to Anglesey in proportion
to our ownership percentage at a predetermined price. Such
alumina currently is purchased under contracts that extend
through 2007 at prices that are tied to primary aluminum prices.
We will need to secure a new alumina contract for the period
after 2007. We cannot assure you that we will be able to secure
a source of alumina at comparable prices. If we are unable to do
so, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows
associated with our primary aluminum business segment may be
adversely affected.
The price volatility of energy costs may adversely affect our
profitability.
Our income and cash flows depend on the margin above fixed and
variable expenses (including energy costs) at which we are able
to sell our fabricated aluminum products. The volatility in
costs of fuel, principally natural gas, and other utility
services, principally electricity, used by our production
facilities affect operating costs. Fuel and utility prices have
been, and will continue to be, affected by factors outside our
control, such as supply and demand for fuel and utility services
in both local and
14
Risk factors
regional markets. The daily closing price of the front-month
futures contract for natural gas per million British thermal
units as reported on NYMEX ranged between $4.43 and $9.58 in
2003, between $4.57 and $8.75 in 2004, between $5.79 and $15.38
in 2005 and between $4.20 and $10.63 in the nine month period
ended September 30, 2006. Typically, electricity prices
fluctuate with natural gas prices which increases our exposure
to energy costs. Future increases in fuel and utility prices may
have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
Our hedging programs may limit the income and cash flows we
would otherwise expect to receive if our hedging program were
not in place.
From time to time in the ordinary course of business, we may
enter into hedging transactions to limit our exposure to price
risks relating to primary aluminum prices, energy prices and
foreign currency. To the extent that these hedging transactions
fix prices or exchange rates and the prices for primary aluminum
exceed the fixed or ceiling prices established by these hedging
transactions or energy costs or foreign exchange rates are below
the fixed prices, our income and cash flows will be lower than
they otherwise would have been.
The expiration of the power agreement for Anglesey may
adversely affect our cash flows and affect our hedging
programs.
The agreement under which Anglesey receives power expires in
September 2009, and the nuclear facility which supplies such
power is scheduled to cease operations shortly thereafter. As of
the date of this prospectus, Anglesey has not identified a
source from which to obtain sufficient power to sustain its
operations on reasonably acceptable terms thereafter, and we
cannot assure you that Anglesey will be able to do so. If, as a
result, Angleseys aluminum production is curtailed or its
costs are increased, our cash flows may be adversely affected.
In addition, any decrease in Angleseys production would
reduce or eliminate the natural hedge against rising
primary aluminum prices created by our participation in the
primary aluminum market and, accordingly, we may deem it
appropriate to increase our hedging activity to limit exposure
to such price risks, potentially adversely affecting our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
If Anglesey cannot obtain sufficient power, Angleseys
operations will likely be shut down. Given the potential for
future shutdown and related costs, dividends from Anglesey have
been suspended while Anglesey studies future cash requirements.
The shutdown process may involve significant costs to Anglesey
which would decrease or eliminate its ability to pay dividends.
The process of shutting down operations may involve transition
complications which may prevent Anglesey from operating at full
capacity until the expiration of the power contract. As a
result, our financial position, results of operations and cash
flows may be negatively affected even before the September 2009
expiration of the power contract.
Our ability to keep key management and other personnel in
place and our ability to attract management and other personnel
may affect our performance.
We depend on our senior executive officers and other key
personnel to run our business. The loss of any of these officers
or other key personnel could materially and adversely affect our
operations. Competition for qualified employees among companies
that rely heavily on engineering and technology is intense, and
the loss of qualified employees or an inability to attract,
retain and motivate additional highly skilled employees required
for the operation and expansion of our business could hinder our
ability to improve manufacturing operations, conduct research
activities successfully or develop marketable products.
15
Risk factors
Our production costs may increase and we may not sustain our
sales and earnings if we fail to maintain satisfactory labor
relations.
A significant number of our employees are represented by labor
unions under labor contracts with varying durations and
expiration dates. We may not be able to renegotiate our labor
contracts when they expire on satisfactory terms or at all. A
failure to do so may increase our costs or cause us to limit or
halt operations before a new agreement is reached. In addition,
our existing labor agreements may not prevent a strike or work
stoppage, and any work stoppage could have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.
Our business is regulated by a wide variety of health and
safety laws and regulations and compliance may be costly and may
adversely affect our results of operations.
Our operations are regulated by a wide variety of health and
safety laws and regulations. Compliance with these laws and
regulations may be costly and could have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations. In addition, these laws and
regulations are subject to change at any time, and we can give
you no assurance as to the effect that any such changes would
have on our operations or the amount that we would have to spend
to comply with such laws and regulations as so changed.
Environmental compliance, clean up and damage claims may
decrease our cash flow and adversely affect our results of
operations.
We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations
with respect to, among other things: air and water emissions and
discharges; the generation, storage, treatment, transportation
and disposal of solid and hazardous waste; and the release of
hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants and contaminants into
the environment. Compliance with these environmental laws is and
will continue to be costly.
Our operations, including our operations conducted prior to our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, have subjected, and
may in the future subject, us to fines or penalties for alleged
breaches of environmental laws and to obligations to perform
investigations or clean up of the environment. We may also be
subject to claims from governmental authorities or third parties
related to alleged injuries to the environment, human health or
natural resources, including claims with respect to waste
disposal sites, the clean up of sites currently or formerly used
by us or exposure of individuals to hazardous materials. Any
investigation, clean-up or other remediation costs, fines or
penalties, or costs to resolve third-party claims may be costly
and could have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.
We have accrued, and will accrue, for costs relating to the
above matters that are reasonably expected to be incurred based
on available information. However, it is possible that actual
costs may differ, perhaps significantly, from the amounts
expected or accrued, and such differences could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows. In addition, new laws or regulations or changes
to existing laws and regulations may occur, and we cannot assure
you as to the amount that we would have to spend to comply with
such new or amended laws and regulations or the effects that
they would have on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
Other legal proceedings or investigations or changes in the
laws and regulations to which we are subject may adversely
affect our results of operations.
In addition to the environmental matters described above, we may
from time to time be involved in, or be the subject of,
disputes, proceedings and investigations with respect to a
variety of matters, including matters related to health and
safety, personal injury, employees, taxes and contracts, as well
as other disputes and proceedings that arise in the ordinary
course of business. It could be costly to defend against these
claims or any investigations involving them, whether meritorious
or not, and legal
16
Risk factors
proceedings and investigations could divert managements
attention as well as operational resources, negatively affecting
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. It
could also be costly to make payments on account of any such
claims.
Additionally, as with the environmental laws and regulations to
which we are subject, the other laws and regulations which
govern our business are subject to change at any time, and we
cannot assure you as to the amount that we would have to spend
to comply with such laws and regulations as so changed or
otherwise as to the effect that any such changes would have on
our operations.
Product liability claims against us could result in
significant costs or negatively affect our reputation and could
adversely affect our results of operations.
We are sometimes exposed to warranty and product liability
claims. We cannot assure you that we will not experience
material product liability losses arising from such claims in
the future. We generally maintain insurance against many product
liability risks but we cannot assure you that our coverage will
be adequate for liabilities ultimately incurred. In addition, we
cannot assure you that insurance will continue to be available
to us on terms acceptable to us. A successful claim that exceeds
our available insurance coverage could have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.
Our Trentwood expansion project may not be completed as
scheduled.
We are currently in the process of a $105 million expansion
of production capacity and gauge capability at our Trentwood
facility. While the project is currently on schedule to be
completed in 2008, with substantially all costs being incurred
in 2006 and 2007, our ability to fully complete this project,
and the timing and costs of doing so, are subject to various
risks associated with all major construction projects, many of
which are beyond our control, including technical or mechanical
problems. If we are unable to fully complete this project or if
the actual costs for this project exceed our current
expectations, our financial position, results of operations and
cash flows would be adversely affected. In addition, we have
contracts currently in place expected to be fulfilled with
production from the expanded facility. If completion of the
expansion is significantly delayed or the expansion is not fully
completed, we may not be able to meet shipping deadlines on time
or at all, which would adversely affect our results of
operations, may lead to litigation and may damage our
relationships with these customers and our reputation generally.
We may not be able to successfully execute our strategy of
growth through acquisitions.
A component of our growth strategy is to acquire fabricated
products assets in order to complement our product portfolio.
Our ability to do so will be dependent upon a number of factors,
including our ability to identify acceptable acquisition
candidates, consummate acquisitions on favorable terms,
successfully integrate acquired assets, obtain financing to fund
acquisitions and support our growth and many other factors
beyond our control. Risks associated with acquisitions include
those relating to:
|
|
|
diversion of managements
time and attention from our existing business;
|
|
|
challenges in managing the
increased scope, geographic diversity and complexity of
operations;
|
|
|
difficulties in integrating the
financial, technological and management standards, processes,
procedures and controls of the acquired business with those of
our existing operations;
|
|
|
liability for known or unknown
environmental conditions or other contingent liabilities not
covered by indemnification or insurance;
|
|
|
greater than anticipated
expenditures required for compliance with environmental or other
regulatory standards or for investments to improve operating
results;
|
17
Risk factors
|
|
|
difficulties in achieving
anticipated operational improvements;
|
|
|
incurrence of additional
indebtedness to finance acquisitions or capital expenditures
relating to acquired assets; and
|
|
|
issuance of additional equity,
which could result in further dilution of the ownership
interests of existing stockholders.
|
We may not be successful in acquiring additional assets, and any
acquisitions that we do consummate may not produce the
anticipated benefits or may have adverse effects on our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We have reported one material weakness relating to hedge
accounting in our internal control over financial reporting,
which resulted in the restatement of our financial statements,
and one significant deficiency.
During the first quarter of 2006 as part of the reporting and
closing process relating to the preparation of our
December 31, 2005 financial statements, we concluded that
our controls and procedures were not effective as of
December 31, 2005 because a material weakness in internal
control over financial reporting existed relating to our
accounting for derivative financial instruments. A material
weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control
deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that
a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial
statements would not be prevented or detected. We concluded that
our procedures relating to hedging transactions were not
designed effectively and that our documentation did not comply
with certain accounting rules, thus requiring us to account for
our derivatives on a mark-to-market basis. While we are working
to modify our documentation and requalify certain derivative
transactions for treatment as hedges, and have engaged outside
experts to perform periodic reviews, we cannot assure you that
such improved controls will prevent any or all instances of
non-compliance. As a result of the material weakness, we
restated our financial statements for the quarters ended
March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and September 30,
2005 to reflect mark-to-market accounting. See
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations Controls and
Procedures for more information. Until we requalify our
derivatives for hedge accounting treatment, we will not consider
this matter to be fully remediated.
We also concluded that the appropriate post-emergence accounting
treatment for VEBA payments made in 2005 required presentation
of VEBA payments as a reduction of pre-petition retiree medical
obligations rather than as a period expense, as we had concluded
in prior quarters. Our prior treatment of VEBA payments was
identified as a significant deficiency in our internal control
over financial reporting at December 31, 2005. We corrected
this deficiency during the preparation of our December 31,
2005 financial statements and, accordingly, such deficiency did
not exist at the end of subsequent periods.
Although we believe we have or will address these issues with
the remedial measures that we have implemented or plan to
implement, the measures we have taken to date and any future
measures may not be effective, and we may not be able to
implement and maintain effective internal control over financial
reporting in the future. In addition, other deficiencies in our
internal controls may be discovered in the future.
Any failure to implement new or improved controls, or
difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us
to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result in material
misstatements in our financial statements. Any such failure also
could affect the ability of our management to certify that our
internal controls are effective when it provides an assessment
of our internal control over financial reporting, and could
affect the results of our independent registered public
accounting firms attestation report regarding our
managements assessment. Inferior internal
18
Risk factors
controls and further related restatements could also cause
investors to lose confidence in our reported financial
information, which could have a negative effect on the trading
price of our stock.
We will be exposed to risks relating to evaluations of
controls required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.
We are required to comply with Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by no later than December 31,
2007. We are in the process of evaluating our internal controls
systems to allow management to report on, and our independent
auditors to audit, our internal controls over financial
reporting. We will be performing the system and process
evaluation and testing (and any necessary remediation) required
to comply with the management certification and auditor
attestation requirements of Section 404. However, we cannot
be certain as to the timing of completion of our evaluation,
testing and remediation actions or the impact of the same on our
operations. Furthermore, upon completion of this process, we may
identify control deficiencies of varying degrees of severity
under applicable Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board rules and regulations
that remain unremediated. We will be required to report, among
other things, control deficiencies that constitute a
material weakness or changes in internal controls
that, or are reasonably likely to, materially affect internal
controls over financial reporting. A material
weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of
control deficiencies that results in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim
financial statements will not be prevented or detected. If we
fail to implement the requirements of Section 404 in a
timely manner, we might be subject to sanctions or investigation
by regulatory authorities such as the SEC or by Nasdaq.
Additionally, failure to comply with Section 404 or the
report by us of a material weakness may cause investors to lose
confidence in our financial statements and our stock price may
be adversely affected. If we fail to remedy any material
weakness, our financial statements may be inaccurate, we may not
have access to the capital markets, and our stock price may be
adversely affected.
We may not be able to adequately protect proprietary rights
to our technology.
Our success will depend in part upon our proprietary technology
and processes. Although we attempt to protect our intellectual
property through patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights,
confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements and other measures,
these measures may not be adequate to protect such intellectual
property, particularly in foreign countries where the laws may
offer significantly less intellectual property protection than
is offered by the laws of the United States. In addition, any
attempts to enforce our intellectual property rights, even if
successful, could result in costly and prolonged litigation,
divert managements attention and adversely affect income
and cash flows. Failure to adequately protect our intellectual
property may adversely affect our results of operations as our
competitors would be able to utilize such property without
having had to incur the costs of developing it, thus potentially
reducing our relative profitability. Furthermore, we may be
subject to claims that our technology infringes the intellectual
property rights of another. Even if without merit, those claims
could result in costly and prolonged litigation, divert
managements attention and adversely affect our income and
cash flows. In addition, we may be required to enter into
licensing agreements in order to continue using technology that
is important to our business. However, we may be unable to
obtain license agreements on acceptable terms, which could
negatively affect our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
We may not be able to utilize all of our net operating loss
carry-forwards.
We have net operating loss carry-forwards and other significant
tax attributes that we believe could offset otherwise taxable
income. We previously disclosed our belief that these tax
attributes could together offset in the range of $550 to
$900 million of otherwise taxable income, and we currently
anticipate that, upon completion of our 2006 income tax return
analysis, the amount of our tax attributes as of
December 31, 2006 will likely be in the upper half of that
range. The amount of net operating loss carry-forwards available
in any year to offset our net taxable income will be reduced or
eliminated if we experience a
19
Risk factors
change of ownership as defined in the Internal
Revenue Code. We have entered into a stock transfer restriction
agreement with the Union VEBA Trust, our largest stockholder,
and our certificate of incorporation prohibits and voids certain
transfers of our common stock in order to reduce the risk that a
change of ownership will jeopardize our net operating loss
carry-forwards. See Description of capital
stockRestrictions on Transfer of Common Stock.
Because U.S. tax law limits the time during which
carry-forwards may be applied against future taxes, we may not
be able to take full advantage of the carry-forwards for federal
income tax purposes. In addition, the tax laws pertaining to net
operating loss carry-forwards may be changed from time to time
such that the net operating loss carry-forwards may be reduced
or eliminated. If the net operating loss carry-forwards become
unavailable to us or are fully utilized, our future income will
not be shielded from federal income taxation, thereby reducing
funds otherwise available for general corporate purposes.
RISKS RELATING TO THE SECURITIES MARKETS AND OWNERSHIP OF OUR
COMMON STOCK
Our current common stock has a limited trading history and a
small public float which may limit development of a market for
our common stock and increase the likelihood of significant
volatility in the market for our common stock.
In order to reduce the risk that any change in our ownership
would jeopardize the preservation of our federal income tax
attributes, including net operating loss carry-forwards, for
purposes of Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue
Code, upon emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we entered
into a stock transfer restriction agreement with our largest
stockholder, the Union VEBA Trust, and amended and restated our
certificate of incorporation to include restrictions on
transfers involving 5% ownership. These transfer restrictions
could hinder development of an active market for our common
stock. In addition, the market price of our common stock may be
subject to significant fluctuations in response to numerous
factors, including variations in our annual or quarterly
financial results or those of our competitors, changes by
financial analysts in their estimates of our future earnings,
substantial amounts of our common stock being sold into the
public markets upon the expiration of share transfer
restrictions, which expire in July 2016, or upon the occurrence
of certain events relating to tax benefits available under
section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, conditions in the
economy in general or in the fabricated aluminum products
industry in particular or unfavorable publicity.
Our net sales, operating results and profitability may vary
from period to period, which may lead to volatility in the
trading price of our stock.
Our financial and operating results may be significantly below
the expectations of public market analysts and investors and the
price of our common stock may decline due to the following
factors:
|
|
|
volatility in the spot market
for primary aluminum and energy costs;
|
|
|
our annual accruals for variable
payment obligations to the Union VEBA Trust and Salaried Retiree
VEBA Trust (see Note 7 to our interim consolidated
financial statements);
|
|
|
non-cash charges including
last-in, first-out, or LIFO, inventory charges and impairments;
|
|
|
global economic conditions;
|
|
|
unanticipated interruptions of
our operations for any reason;
|
|
|
variations in the maintenance
needs for our facilities;
|
|
|
unanticipated changes in our
labor relations; and
|
|
|
cyclical aspects impacting
demand for our products.
|
Our annual variable payment obligation to the Union VEBA
Trust and Salaried Retiree VEBA Trust are linked with our
profitability, which means that not all of our earnings will be
available to our stockholders.
We are obligated to make annual payments to the Union VEBA Trust
and Salaried Retirees VEBA Trust calculated based on our
profitability and therefore not all of our earnings will be
available to
20
Risk factors
our stockholders. The aggregate amount of our annual payments to
these VEBAs is capped, however, at $20 million and is
subject to other limitations. As a result of these payment
obligations, our earnings and cash flows may be reduced.
A significant percentage of our stock is held by the Union
VEBA Trust which may exert significant influence over us.
The Union VEBA Trust currently owns 42.9% of our common stock.
After completion of this offering, the Union VEBA Trust will
hold 30.7% of our common stock, or 26.7% if the underwriters
exercise their over-allotment option in full. As a result, the
Union VEBA Trust will continue to have significant influence
over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the
composition of our board of directors. Further, to the extent
that the Union VEBA Trust and some or all of the other
substantial stockholders were to act in concert, they could
control any action taken by our stockholders. This concentration
of ownership could also facilitate or hinder proxy contests,
tender offers, open market purchase programs, mergers or other
purchases of our common stock that might otherwise give
stockholders the opportunity to realize a premium over the then
prevailing market price of our common stock or cause the market
price of our common stock to decline. We cannot assure you that
the interests of our major stockholders will not conflict with
our interests or the interests of our other investors.
The USW has director nomination rights through which it may
influence us, and USW interests may not align with our interests
or the interests of our other investors.
Pursuant to an agreement, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, or USW, has been
granted rights to nominate 40% of the candidates to be submitted
to our stockholders for election to our board of directors. As a
result, the directors nominated by the USW may have a
significant voice in the decisions of our board of directors.
We do not currently anticipate paying any dividends, and our
payment of dividends and stock repurchases are subject to
restriction.
We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our common
stock since we filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002. We
currently intend to retain all earnings for the operation and
expansion of our business and do not currently anticipate paying
any dividends on our common stock. The declaration and payment
of dividends, if any, in the future will be at the discretion of
the board of directors and will be dependent upon our results of
operations, financial condition, cash requirements, future
prospects and other factors. Accordingly, from time to time, the
board may declare dividends, though we can give you no assurance
in this regard. Moreover, our revolving credit facility and our
term loan facility restrict our ability to declare or pay
dividends or repurchase any shares of our common stock. In
addition, significant repurchases of our shares of common stock
may jeopardize the preservation of our federal income tax
attributes, including our net operating loss carry-forwards.
Our certificate of incorporation includes transfer
restrictions that may void transactions in our common stock
effected by 5% stockholders.
Our certificate of incorporation places restrictions on transfer
of our equity securities if either (1) the transferor holds
5% or more of the fair market value of all of our issued and
outstanding equity securities or (2) as a result of the
transfer, either any person would become such a 5% stockholder
or the percentage stock ownership of any such 5% stockholder
would be increased. These restrictions are subject to exceptions
described in Description of capital stock. Any
transfer that violates these restrictions will be unwound as
provided in our certificate of incorporation. Moreover, as
indicated below, these provisions may make our stock less
attractive to large institutional holders, and may also
discourage potential acquirers from attempting to take over our
company. As a result, these transfer
21
Risk factors
restrictions may have the effect of delaying or deterring a
change of control of our company and may limit the price that
investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of
our common stock.
Delaware law, our governing documents and the stock transfer
restriction agreement we entered into as part of our plan of
reorganization may impede or discourage a takeover, which could
adversely affect the value of our common stock.
Provisions of Delaware law, our certificate of incorporation and
the stock transfer restriction agreement with the Union VEBA
Trust may have the effect of discouraging a change of control of
our company or deterring tender offers for our common stock. We
are currently subject to anti-takeover provisions under Delaware
law. These anti-takeover provisions impose various impediments
to the ability of a third party to acquire control of us, even
if a change of control would be beneficial to our existing
stockholders. Additionally, provisions of our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws impose various procedural and other
requirements, which could make it more difficult for
stockholders to effect some corporate actions. For example, our
certificate of incorporation authorizes our board of directors
to determine the rights, preferences and privileges and
restrictions of unissued shares of preferred stock without any
vote or action by our stockholders. Thus, our board of directors
can authorize and issue shares of preferred stock with voting or
conversion rights that could adversely affect the voting or
other rights of holders of common stock. Our certificate of
incorporation also divides our board of directors into three
classes of directors who serve for staggered terms. A
significant effect of a classified board of directors may be to
deter hostile takeover attempts because an acquirer could
experience delays in replacing a majority of directors.
Moreover, stockholders are not permitted to call a special
meeting. As indicated above, our certificate of incorporation
prohibits certain transactions in our common stock involving 5%
stockholders or parties who would become 5% stockholders as a
result of the transaction. In addition, we are party to a stock
transfer restriction agreement with the Union VEBA Trust which
limits its ability to transfer our common stock. The general
effect of the transfer restrictions in the stock transfer
restriction agreement and our certificate of incorporation is to
ensure that a change in ownership of more than 45% of our
outstanding common stock cannot occur in any three-year period.
These rights and provisions may have the effect of delaying or
deterring a change of control of our company and may limit the
price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for
shares of our common stock. See Description of capital
stock.
22
Special note regarding forward-looking statements
This prospectus contains statements which constitute
forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These
statements appear throughout this prospectus, including in the
sections entitled Prospectus summary, Risk
factors, Managements discussion and analysis
of financial condition and results of operations, Recent
reorganization, Industry overview and
Business. These forward-looking statements can be
identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as
believes, expects, may,
estimates, will, should,
plans or anticipates, or the negative of
the foregoing or other variations thereon or comparable
terminology, or by discussions of strategy.
Potential investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking
statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve
significant risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may
vary from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of
various factors. These factors include:
|
|
|
the effectiveness of
managements strategies and decisions;
|
|
|
general economic and business
conditions, including cyclicality and other conditions in the
aerospace and other end markets we serve;
|
|
|
developments in technology;
|
|
|
new or modified statutory or
regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
changing prices and market
conditions; and
|
|
|
the other factors discussed
under Risk factors.
|
Potential investors are urged to consider these factors and the
other factors described under Risk factors carefully
in evaluating any forward-looking statements and are cautioned
not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.
The forward-looking statements included herein are made only as
of the date of this prospectus, and we undertake no obligation
to update any information contained in this prospectus or to
publicly release any revisions to any forward-looking statements
to reflect events or circumstances that occur, or that we become
aware of, after the date of this prospectus.
23
Use of proceeds
All of the shares of common stock offered in this prospectus are
being sold by the selling stockholders. We will not receive any
proceeds from the sale of shares by the selling stockholders.
Dividend policy
We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our common
stock since we filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002. We
currently intend to retain all earnings for the operation and
expansion of our business and do not currently anticipate paying
any dividends on our common stock. The declaration and payment
of dividends, if any, in the future will be at the discretion of
the board of directors and will be dependent upon our results of
operations, financial condition, cash requirements, future
prospects and other factors. Accordingly, from time to time, the
board may declare dividends, though we can give no assurance in
this regard.
In addition, our revolving credit facility and our term loan
facility restrict our ability to declare or pay, directly or
indirectly, dividends. Under these credit arrangements we may
pay cash dividends only if:
|
|
|
we are not in default or would
not be in default as a result of the dividend; and
|
|
|
the amount of the dividends,
together with the aggregate amount of all other dividend
payments made by us after July 6, 2006, is less than the
sum of (1) 50% of our net income for the period from
July 6, 2006 to the end of our most recently ended fiscal
quarter or if such net income is a deficit, less 100% of such
deficit, (2) up to 100% of the proceeds to us from the sale
or issuance of any of our equity securities remaining after
making any mandatory prepayment under the revolving credit
facility and term loan facility from the proceeds, provided that
the proceeds are not used to make any investments or other
dividend payments, and (3) $2.0 million.
|
We cannot assure you that we will ever pay dividends or, if we
do, as to the amount, frequency or form of any dividends.
Price range of common stock
Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the
symbol KALU. The following table sets forth the high
and low sales prices of our common stock for each quarterly
period since our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global
Market on July 7, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High | |
|
Low | |
| |
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third Quarter 2006 (from July 7, 2006)
|
|
$ |
51.00 |
|
|
$ |
36.50 |
|
Fourth Quarter 2006
|
|
$ |
63.00 |
|
|
$ |
43.00 |
|
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007 (through January 8, 2007)
|
|
$ |
58.99 |
|
|
$ |
57.18 |
|
|
On January 8, 2007, the last reported sale price for our
common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market was $57.60 per
share. As of December 31, 2006, there were approximately
497 common stockholders of record.
24
Capitalization
The following table sets forth our cash and cash equivalents and
our consolidated capitalization as of September 30, 2006.
You should read this table in conjunction with Selected
historical consolidated financial data,
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations and our consolidated
financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in
this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
(dollars in millions, except share and per share amounts) |
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
52.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Debt, including current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving credit facility
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Term loan facility
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 45,000,000 shares
authorized; 20,525,660 shares issued and
outstanding(1)
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
482.5 |
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
Common stock owned by the Union VEBA Trust subject to transfer
restrictions, at reorganization value, 6,291,945 shares at
September 30,
2006(2)
|
|
|
(151.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
345.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization
|
|
$ |
395.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Excludes 1,696,562 shares of common stock reserved and
available for issuance under our equity incentive plan. |
|
|
(2) |
See Note 7 to our interim consolidated financial
statements for a discussion of the treatment of the Union VEBA
Trusts shares that are subject to transfer
restrictions. |
25
Selected historical consolidated financial data
The following table sets forth selected historical consolidated
financial data for our company. The selected consolidated
statement of income data for the years ended December 31,
2001 and 2002, and the selected consolidated balance sheet data
as of December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003, are derived from
our audited consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003, which are not
included in this prospectus. The selected consolidated statement
of income data for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004
and 2005, and the selected consolidated balance sheet data as of
December 31, 2004 and 2005, are derived from our audited
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus.
As a result of the effectiveness of our plan of reorganization
on July 6, 2006, we adopted fresh start reporting in
accordance with
SOP 90-7 as of
July 1, 2006. Because
SOP 90-7 requires
us to restate our stockholders equity to our
reorganization value and to allocate such value to our assets
and liabilities based on their fair values, our financial
condition and results of operations after June 30, 2006
will not be comparable in some material respects to the
financial condition or results of operations reflected in our
historical financial statements at dates or for periods prior to
July 1, 2006. This makes it difficult to assess our future
prospects based on historical performance.
Our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy and the adoption
of fresh start reporting resulted in a new reporting entity for
accounting purposes. Although we emerged from chapter 11
bankruptcy on July 6, 2006, we adopted fresh start
reporting under the provisions of
SOP 90-7 effective
as of the beginning of business on July 1, 2006. As such,
it was assumed that our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy was completed instantaneously at the beginning of
business on July 1, 2006 such that all operating activities
during the three months ended September 30, 2006 are
reported as applying to the new reporting entity. We believe
that this is a reasonable presentation as there were no material
transactions between July 1, 2006 and July 6, 2006
other than plan of reorganization-related transactions.
The accompanying financial statements include our financial
statements for both before and after our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy. Financial information related to the
newly emerged entity is generally referred to throughout this
prospectus as successor information and financial
information related to the pre-emergence entity is generally
referred to as predecessor information. The
financial information of the successor entity is not comparable
to that of the predecessor given the effects of the plan of
reorganization, the adoption of fresh start reporting and other
factors.
The selected consolidated financial data as of and for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006 are
derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements
included elsewhere in this prospectus. We have prepared our
unaudited consolidated financial statements on the same basis as
our audited consolidated financial statements (except as set
forth in Note 2 of our interim consolidated financial
statements) and have included all adjustments, consisting of
normal and recurring adjustments, that we consider necessary for
a fair presentation of our financial position and operating
results for the unaudited periods. The selected consolidated
financial and operating data as of and for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 and 2006 are not necessarily
indicative of the results that may be obtained for a full year.
The following selected consolidated financial data should be
read in conjunction with Managements discussion and
analysis of financial condition and results of operations
and the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto
included elsewhere in this prospectus.
26
Selected historical consolidated financial data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
nine months | |
|
January 1, | |
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
year ended December 31, | |
|
ended | |
|
2006 | |
|
through | |
|
|
| |
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
September 30, | |
Statements of income data: |
|
2001(1) | |
|
2002 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
(dollars in millions, except share and per share data) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
(unaudited) | |
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
(restated)(2) | |
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
889.5 |
|
|
$ |
709.0 |
|
|
$ |
710.2 |
|
|
$ |
942.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,089.7 |
|
|
$ |
815.9 |
|
|
$ |
689.8 |
|
|
$ |
331.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
823.4 |
|
|
|
671.4 |
|
|
|
681.2 |
|
|
|
852.2 |
|
|
|
951.1 |
|
|
|
710.9 |
|
|
|
596.4 |
|
|
|
291.8 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
32.1 |
|
|
|
32.3 |
|
|
|
25.7 |
|
|
|
22.3 |
|
|
|
19.9 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
93.7 |
|
|
|
118.6 |
|
|
|
92.5 |
|
|
|
92.3 |
|
|
|
50.9 |
|
|
|
38.0 |
|
|
|
30.3 |
|
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
Other operating charges (credits),
net(3)
|
|
|
30.1 |
|
|
|
31.8 |
|
|
|
141.6 |
|
|
|
793.2 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
979.3 |
|
|
|
854.1 |
|
|
|
941.0 |
|
|
|
1,760.0 |
|
|
|
1,029.9 |
|
|
|
770.4 |
|
|
|
637.4 |
|
|
|
309.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(89.8 |
) |
|
|
(145.1 |
) |
|
|
(230.8 |
) |
|
|
(817.6 |
) |
|
|
59.8 |
|
|
|
45.5 |
|
|
|
52.4 |
|
|
|
21.7 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
expense(4)
|
|
|
(106.2 |
) |
|
|
(19.0 |
) |
|
|
(9.1 |
) |
|
|
(9.5 |
) |
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|
(0.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization
items(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33.3 |
) |
|
|
(27.0 |
) |
|
|
(39.0 |
) |
|
|
(1,162.1 |
) |
|
|
(25.3 |
) |
|
|
3,093.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(68.7 |
) |
|
|
(0.9 |
) |
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
(264.7 |
) |
|
|
(198.3 |
) |
|
|
(272.1 |
) |
|
|
(861.9 |
) |
|
|
(1,109.9 |
) |
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
3,145.9 |
|
|
|
22.6 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(523.4 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(2.8 |
) |
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
Minority interests
|
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(788.3 |
) |
|
|
(202.7 |
) |
|
|
(273.6 |
) |
|
|
(868.1 |
) |
|
|
(1,112.7 |
) |
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
|
3,139.7 |
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes,
including minority interests
|
|
|
165.3 |
|
|
|
(266.0 |
) |
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
(5.3 |
) |
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
163.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126.6 |
|
|
|
366.2 |
|
|
|
365.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations(6)
|
|
|
328.9 |
|
|
|
(266.0 |
) |
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
121.3 |
|
|
|
363.7 |
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(459.4 |
) |
|
$ |
(468.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(788.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
$ |
3,144.0 |
|
|
$ |
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share
basic(7):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(9.82 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.52 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.41 |
) |
|
$ |
(10.88 |
) |
|
$ |
(13.97 |
) |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
39.42 |
|
|
$ |
0.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
4.09 |
|
|
$ |
(3.30 |
) |
|
$ |
(6.42 |
) |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
|
$ |
4.57 |
|
|
$ |
4.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(5.73 |
) |
|
$ |
(5.82 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.83 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.36 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.46 |
) |
|
$ |
4.90 |
|
|
$ |
39.47 |
|
|
$ |
0.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per
sharediluted(7):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(9.82 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.52 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.41 |
) |
|
$ |
(10.88 |
) |
|
$ |
(13.97 |
) |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
39.42 |
|
|
$ |
0.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
4.09 |
|
|
$ |
(3.30 |
) |
|
$ |
(6.42 |
) |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
|
$ |
4.57 |
|
|
$ |
4.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(5.73 |
) |
|
$ |
(5.82 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.83 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.36 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.46 |
) |
|
$ |
4.90 |
|
|
$ |
39.47 |
|
|
$ |
0.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends per common share
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
80,235 |
|
|
|
80,578 |
|
|
|
80,175 |
|
|
|
79,815 |
|
|
|
79,675 |
|
|
|
79,676 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
20,002 |
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
80,235 |
|
|
|
80,578 |
|
|
|
80,175 |
|
|
|
79,815 |
|
|
|
79,675 |
|
|
|
79,676 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
20,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(footnotes on following page) |
27
Selected historical consolidated financial data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, | |
|
As of September 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Balance sheet data: |
|
2001 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
(dollars in millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
(restated)(2) | |
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
154.1 |
|
|
$ |
77.4 |
|
|
$ |
35.5 |
|
|
$ |
55.4 |
|
|
$ |
49.5 |
|
|
$ |
43.3 |
|
|
$ |
52.7 |
|
Working
capital(8)
|
|
|
(44.2 |
) |
|
|
183.0 |
|
|
|
104.9 |
|
|
|
73.0 |
|
|
|
119.7 |
|
|
|
85.6 |
|
|
|
212.1 |
|
Total assets
|
|
|
2,743.7 |
|
|
|
2,225.4 |
|
|
|
1,623.5 |
|
|
|
1,882.4 |
|
|
|
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
2,197.8 |
|
|
|
621.1 |
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
678.7 |
|
|
|
20.7 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
Stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(441.1 |
) |
|
|
(1,085.6 |
) |
|
|
(1,738.7 |
) |
|
|
(2,384.2 |
) |
|
|
(3,141.2 |
) |
|
|
(1,993.5 |
) |
|
|
345.9 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Statement of income data and balance sheet data for 2001
reflect our financial results and position prior to our filing
for chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2002. Such data
includes the impact of our concluding a valuation allowance was
required in respect of recorded tax attributes and from the
partial sale of one of our commodity-related interests. |
|
(2) |
We restated our operating results for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. See Note 15 to our interim
consolidated financial statements for information regarding the
restatement. |
|
(3) |
Other operating charges (credits), net in 2003 and 2004
include certain significant charges associated with the
termination of certain pension and post-retirement medical
plans, a settlement in respect of a past labor matter and other
items. These items are detailed in Note 6 to our audited
consolidated financial statements and Note 10 to our
interim consolidated financial statements. |
|
(4) |
Excludes unrecorded contractual interest expense of
$84.0 million in 2002, $95.0 million in each of 2003,
2004 and 2005, $71.2 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and $47.4 million for the period
from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006. |
|
|
(5) |
Reorganization items for 2005 include an approximate
$1.1 billion charge as a result of the value of an
intercompany note treated as being for the benefit of certain
creditors. See Note 1 to our audited consolidated financial
statements. Reorganization items for the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 include a gain of
approximately $3.1 billion in connection with the
implementation of our plan of reorganization and fresh start
reporting. See Note 13 to our interim consolidated
financial statements. |
|
|
(6) |
Income (loss) from discontinued operations includes the
operating results associated with commodity interests sold as
well as certain significant gains and losses associated with the
dispositions. See Note 3 to our audited consolidated
financial statements for information in respect of 2003, 2004
and 2005. |
|
(7) |
Earnings (loss) per share and share information prior to our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy may not be meaningful
because, pursuant to our plan of reorganization, on July 6,
2006, all outstanding equity interests were cancelled without
consideration. |
|
(8) |
Working capital represents total current assets, including
cash, minus total current liabilities. |
28
Managements discussion and analysis of financial condition
and results of operations
You should read the following discussion together with the
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included
elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion contains
forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The cautionary
statements made in this prospectus should be read as applying to
all related forward-looking statements wherever they appear in
this prospectus. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees
of future performance and involve significant risks and
uncertainties. Actual results may vary from those in
forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors,
including those we discuss under Risk factors and
elsewhere in this prospectus. You should read Risk
factors and Special note regarding forward-looking
statements.
In the discussion of operating results below, certain items
are referred to as non-run-rate items. For purposes of such
discussion, non-run-rate items are items that, while they may
recur from period to period, are (1) particularly material
to results, (2) affect costs as a result of external market
factors, and (3) may not recur in future periods if the
same level of underlying performance were to occur. Non-run-rate
items are part of our business and operating environment but are
worthy of being highlighted for benefit of the users of the
financial statements. Our intent is to allow users of the
financial statements to consider our results both in light of
and separately from fluctuations in underlying metal prices.
The following discussion gives effect to the restatement
discussed in Note 15 of our notes to interim consolidated
financial statements.
OVERVIEW
Our primary line of business is the production and sale of
fabricated aluminum products. In addition, we own a 49% interest
in Anglesey, an aluminum smelter. Historically, we operated in
all principal sectors of the aluminum industry including the
production and sale of bauxite, alumina and primary aluminum in
domestic and international markets. However, as a part of our
chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, we sold substantially all
of our commodities operations other than Anglesey. The balances
and results of operations in respect of the commodities
interests sold (including our interests in and related to
Queensland Alumina Limited, or QAL, sold in April 2005) are now
considered discontinued operations.
Changes in global, regional or country-specific economic
conditions can have a significant impact on overall demand for
aluminum-intensive fabricated products in the markets for our
Aero/HS, general engineering and custom automotive and
industrial products. These changes in demand can directly affect
our earnings by impacting the overall volume and mix of our
fabricated products sold.
Changes in primary aluminum prices also affect our primary
aluminum business unit and expected earnings under fixed price
fabricated products contracts. We manage the risk of
fluctuations in the price of primary aluminum through a
combination of pricing policies, internal hedging and financial
derivatives. Our operating results are also, albeit to a lesser
degree, sensitive to changes in prices for power and natural gas
and changes in certain foreign exchange rates. All of the
foregoing have been subject to significant price fluctuations
over recent years. For a discussion of the possible impacts of
our chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization on our sensitivity to
changes in market conditions, see Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risks
Sensitivity.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, the
average London Metal Exchange transaction price, or LME price,
per pound of primary aluminum was $0.83. During the nine months
ended
29
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
September 30, 2006, the average LME price per pound for
primary aluminum was approximately $1.14. At October 31,
2006, the LME price per pound was approximately $1.29.
Emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
During the past four years, we operated under chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code under the supervision of the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. We
emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006.
Pursuant to our plan of reorganization:
|
|
|
|
all of our material pre-petition
debt, pension and post-retirement medical obligations and
asbestos and other tort liabilities, along with other
pre-petition claims (which aggregated in our June 30, 2006
balance sheet to approximately $4.4 billion) were addressed
and resolved; and
|
|
|
|
all of the equity interests of
our pre-emergence stockholders were cancelled without
consideration and our post-emergence equity was issued and
delivered to a third party disbursing agent for distribution to
certain claimholders.
|
Please see Recent reorganization Corporate
Structure for a diagram of our simplified post-emergence
corporate structure.
Impacts of emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy on
future financial statements
All financial statement information as of June 30, 2006 and
for all prior periods relates to our company before emergence
from chapter 11 bankruptcy. Our financial statements for
the quarter ending September 30, 2006 are the first set of
financial statements that reflect financial information after
our emergence. As more fully discussed below, there will be a
number of differences between our financial statements before
and after emergence that will make comparisons of our future and
past financial information difficult to make.
As a result of our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we
have applied fresh start reporting to our opening July 1,
2006 consolidated balance sheet as required by generally
accepted accounting principles. As such, we have taken the
following steps:
|
|
|
We have adjusted our
stockholders equity to equal the reorganization value of
our company;
|
|
|
We have reset items such as
accumulated depreciation, accumulated deficit and accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) to zero; and
|
|
|
We have allocated the
reorganization value to our individual assets and liabilities
based on their estimated fair value. Such items as current
liabilities, accounts receivable, and cash reflect values
similar to those reported prior to emergence. Items such as
inventory, property, plant and equipment, long-term assets and
long-term liabilities have been significantly adjusted from
amounts previously reported. As more fully discussed in the
notes to our financial statements, these adjustments may
adversely affect our future results.
|
We also made post-emergence changes to our accounting policies
and procedures. In general, our accounting policies are the same
as or are similar to those we have historically used to prepare
our financial statements. In certain cases, however, we have
adopted different accounting policies or applied methodologies
differently to our post-emergence financial statement
information. For instance, we changed our accounting
methodologies with respect to inventory accounting. While we
will account for inventories on a LIFO basis after emergence, we
are applying LIFO differently than we did in the past.
Specifically, we will view each quarter on a standalone basis
for computing LIFO; whereas in the past we recorded LIFO amounts
with a view to the entire fiscal year which, with certain
exceptions, tended to result in LIFO charges being recorded in
the fourth quarter or second half of the year.
30
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Additionally, certain items such as earnings per share and
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123
(revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, which had few, if any,
implications while we were in chapter 11 bankruptcy will
have increased importance in our future financial statement
information.
Capital structure
After emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
On the July 6, 2006 effective date of our plan of
reorganization, pursuant to the plan, all equity interests held
by our stockholders immediately prior to the effective date were
cancelled without consideration, and we issued 20,000,000 new
shares of common stock to a third-party disbursing agent for
distribution in accordance with our plan of reorganization. Of
such 20,000,000 new shares, a total of 8,809,900 shares
were distributed to, and are currently held by, the Union VEBA
Trust. As of December 31, 2006, there were also outstanding
525,660 shares that were issued to our employees and
directors under our equity incentive plan on and after the
effective date of our plan of reorganization. As a result, the
Union VEBA Trust held approximately 42.9% of our outstanding
common stock as of December 31, 2006. See Recent
reorganization and Principal and selling
stockholders. There are restrictions on the transfer of
our common stock. In addition, under our revolving credit
facility and term loan facility, there are restrictions on our
purchase of common stock and limitations on our ability to pay
dividends. See Description of capital stock and
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Financing facilities After emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy for more detailed discussions
of these restrictions.
Prior to emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
Prior to the effective date of our plan of reorganization,
MAXXAM Inc. and one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries
collectively owned approximately 63% of our common stock, with
the remaining approximately 37% of our common stock being
publicly held. However, as discussed in Note 2 to our
interim consolidated financial statements, pursuant to our plan
of reorganization, all equity interests held by our stockholders
immediately prior to the effective date of our plan of
reorganization were cancelled without consideration upon our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy.
31
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Our main line of business is the production and sale of
fabricated aluminum products. In addition, we own a 49% interest
in Anglesey, which owns and operates an aluminum smelter in
Holyhead, Wales.
The table below provides selected operational and financial
information on a consolidated basis with respect to the fiscal
years ended December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006 (unaudited
in millions of dollars, except shipments and prices). The
following data should be read in conjunction with our
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto
contained elsewhere in this prospectus. Interim results are not
necessarily indicative of those for a full year.
Our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy and the adoption
of fresh start reporting resulted in a new reporting entity for
accounting purposes. Although we emerged from chapter 11
bankruptcy on July 6, 2006, we adopted fresh start
reporting under the provisions of SOP 90-7, effective as of
the beginning of business on July 1, 2006. As such, it was
assumed that our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy was
completed instantaneously at the beginning of business on
July 1, 2006 so that all operating activities during the
three months ended September 30, 2006 are reported as
applying to the new reporting entity. We believe that this is a
reasonable presentation as there were no material transactions
between July 1, 2006 and July 6, 2006 other than plan
of reorganization related transactions.
The selected operational and financial information after the
effective date of our plan of reorganization are those of the
successor and are not comparable to those of the predecessor.
However, for purposes of this discussion (in the table below),
the successors results for the period from July 1,
2006 through September 30, 2006 have been combined with the
predecessors results for the period from January 1,
2006 to July 1, 2006 and are compared to the
predecessors results for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Differences between periods due to
fresh start reporting are explained when material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Operating data (unaudited) |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Shipments (millions of pounds):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated products
|
|
|
372.3 |
|
|
|
458.6 |
|
|
|
481.9 |
|
|
|
365.2 |
|
|
|
399.7 |
|
|
Primary aluminum
|
|
|
158.7 |
|
|
|
156.6 |
|
|
|
155.6 |
|
|
|
115.7 |
|
|
|
117.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
531.0 |
|
|
|
615.2 |
|
|
|
637.5 |
|
|
|
480.9 |
|
|
|
516.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized third party sales price (per pound):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated
products(2)
|
|
$ |
1.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.95 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
$ |
2.18 |
|
|
Primary
aluminum(3)
|
|
$ |
0.71 |
|
|
$ |
0.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.95 |
|
|
$ |
0.93 |
|
|
$ |
1.27 |
|
(footnotes on following page) |
32
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Statements of income data: |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
(dollars in millions) | |
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
|
Net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated products
|
|
$ |
597.8 |
|
|
$ |
809.3 |
|
|
$ |
939.0 |
|
|
$ |
707.7 |
|
|
$ |
872.5 |
|
|
Primary aluminum
|
|
|
112.4 |
|
|
|
133.1 |
|
|
|
150.7 |
|
|
|
108.2 |
|
|
|
148.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
$ |
710.2 |
|
|
$ |
942.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,089.7 |
|
|
$ |
815.9 |
|
|
$ |
1,021.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment operating income
(loss)(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated
products(4)(5)
|
|
$ |
(21.2 |
) |
|
$ |
33.0 |
|
|
$ |
87.2 |
|
|
$ |
66.3 |
|
|
$ |
90.3 |
|
|
Primary
aluminum(6)
|
|
|
6.7 |
|
|
|
13.9 |
|
|
|
16.4 |
|
|
|
13.4 |
|
|
|
15.2 |
|
|
Corporate and other
|
|
|
(74.7 |
) |
|
|
(71.3 |
) |
|
|
(35.8 |
) |
|
|
(27.7 |
) |
|
|
(33.4 |
) |
|
Other operating credits (charges), net
(7)
|
|
|
(141.6 |
) |
|
|
(793.2 |
) |
|
|
(8.0 |
) |
|
|
(6.5 |
) |
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(230.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(817.6 |
) |
|
$ |
59.8 |
|
|
$ |
45.5 |
|
|
$ |
74.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization
items(8)
|
|
$ |
(27.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(39.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,162.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(25.3 |
) |
|
$ |
3,093.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
(9)
|
|
$ |
(514.7 |
) |
|
$ |
121.3 |
|
|
$ |
363.7 |
|
|
$ |
386.9 |
|
|
$ |
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement
obligation(10)
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(4.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.7 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
(loss)(1)
|
|
$ |
788.3 |
|
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
$ |
3,158.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures, net of accounts payable (excluding
discontinued operations)
|
|
$ |
8.9 |
|
|
$ |
7.6 |
|
|
$ |
31.0 |
|
|
$ |
20.4 |
|
|
$ |
39.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
We restated our operating results for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. See Note 15 to our interim
consolidated financial statements for information regarding the
restatement. |
|
(2) |
Average realized prices for our fabricated products business
unit are subject to fluctuations due to changes in product mix
as well as underlying primary aluminum prices and are not
necessarily indicative of changes in underlying
profitability. |
|
(3) |
Average realized prices for our primary aluminum business
unit exclude hedging revenues. |
|
|
(4) |
Operating results for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 include metal losses of $2.3 million. Operating
results for the nine months ended September 30, 2006
include a non-cash LIFO inventory charge of $18.4 million
and metal profits of approximately $13.9 million. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Includes non-cash mark-to-market losses of $1.5 million
in the nine months ended September 30, 2006. For further
discussion regarding mark-to-market matters, see Note 9 to
our interim consolidated financial statements. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Includes non-cash
mark-to-market gains
(losses) totaling $(4.5) million and $8.1 million in
the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006,
respectively. For further discussion regarding mark-to-market
matters, see Note 9 to our interim consolidated financial
statements. |
|
|
(7) |
Other operating credits (charges), net in 2003 and 2004
include certain significant charges associated with the
termination of certain pension and post-retirement medical
plans, a settlement in respect of a past labor matter and other
items. These items are detailed in Note 6 to our audited
consolidated financial statements. |
|
(8) |
Reorganization items for 2005 includes an approximate
$1.1 billion charge as a result of the value of an
intercompany note treated as being for the benefit of certain
creditors. See Note 1 to |
33
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
|
|
|
|
our audited consolidated financial statements. Reorganization
items for the period from January 1, 2006 to July 1,
2006 includes a gain of approximately $3.1 billion in
connection with the implementation of our plan of reorganization
and fresh start reporting. See Note 13 to our interim
consolidated financial statements. |
|
|
(9) |
Income (loss) from discontinued operations includes a
substantial impairment charge in 2003 and gains in 2004 and 2005
in connection with the sale of certain of our commodity-related
interests. See Note 3 to our audited consolidated financial
statements. |
|
|
(10) |
See Note 2 to our interim consolidated financial
statements for a discussion of the change in accounting for
conditional asset retirement obligations. |
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 COMPARED TO NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005
Summary
For the nine months ended September 30, 2006, we reported
net income of $3,158.3 million, compared to net income of
$390.7 million for the same period in 2005. Net income for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 includes a
non-cash gain of $3,113.1 million related to the
implementation of our plan of reorganization and the adoption of
fresh start reporting. Net income for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 includes $365.6 million related to
the gain on the sale of QAL and favorable QAL operating results
prior to the sale of our QAL-related interests on April 1,
2005. In addition, the nine months ended September 30, 2005
and 2006 include a number of non-run-rate items that are more
fully explained in the section below.
Net sales for the nine months ended September 30, 2006
totaled $1,021.2 million compared to $815.9 million
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005. As more fully
discussed below, the increase in net sales is primarily the
result of the increase in the market price for primary aluminum.
Increases in the market price for primary aluminum do not
necessarily directly translate to increased profitability
because (1) a substantial portion of the primary aluminum
price increases and decreases experienced by our fabricated
products business is passed on directly to customers and
(2) our hedging activities, while limiting our risk of
losses, also limit our ability to participate in price increases.
Fabricated aluminum products
For the nine month period ended September 30, 2006, net
sales of fabricated products increased by 23% to
$872.5 million as compared to the same period in 2005,
primarily due to a 12% increase in average realized prices and a
9% increase in shipments. The increase in the average realized
prices primarily reflects higher underlying primary aluminum
prices. The increase in volume in 2006 was led by aerospace and
defense-related shipments. Shipments improved for all broad
product lines in the nine months ended September 30, 2006.
Operating income for the nine months ended September 30,
2006 of $90.3 million was approximately $24 million
higher than the prior year period. Operating income for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 also included an
approximate $28 million favorable impact compared to the
prior year from higher shipments, stronger conversion prices
(representing the value added from the fabrication process) and
favorable scrap raw material costs. Higher energy prices had an
approximate $4 million adverse impact on the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 versus the nine months ended
September 30, 2005, but a majority of this impact was
offset by favorable cost performance. Major maintenance costs
during the nine months ended September 30, 2006 were
comparable to the same period in 2005. Depreciation and
amortization in the nine months ended September 30, 2006
was approximately $2.2 million lower than the prior year
period as a result of the adoption of fresh start reporting.
34
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Both the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
include non-run-rate items. These items, which are listed below,
had a combined approximate $6.0 million adverse impact on
the nine months ended September 30, 2006, which is
approximately $3.7 million worse than the comparable prior
year period:
|
|
|
Metal profits in the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 (before considering LIFO
implications) of approximately $13.9 million, which is
approximately $16.2 million better than the prior year
period.
|
|
|
A non-cash LIFO inventory charge
of $18.4 million in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006. There were no LIFO charges or benefits
in the comparable 2005 period.
|
|
|
|
Mark-to-market charges on energy
hedging in the nine months ended September 30, 2006 were
approximately $1.5 million. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2005, there were no mark-to-market charges or
gains.
|
|
Segment operating results for 2006 and 2005 include gains on
intercompany hedging activities with the primary aluminum
business unit totaling $31.5 million for the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 and $3.4 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005. These amounts eliminate in
consolidation. Operating results for our fabricated products
segment for the nine months ended September 30, 2005
exclude defined contribution savings plan charges of
approximately $5.4 million.
The first furnace added as a part of the $105 million
expansion project at our Trentwood facility has reached full
production. A second furnace that is a part of the Trentwood
expansion has begun production and is expected to ramp up to
full production no later than early 2007. The third furnace
expansion and the addition of the stretcher, which will enable
us to produce heavier gauge plate products, are both expected to
be on-line by early 2008. The additional production capacity
from the first two furnace expansions has provided the
opportunity for increased aerospace and defense-related
shipments beginning in the fourth quarter of 2006 and should
help offset the potential for lackluster automotive-related
shipments due to the current industry decline in automotive
sales.
Primary aluminum
During the nine months ended September 30, 2006,
third-party net sales of primary aluminum increased 37%,
compared to the same period in 2005. The increase was almost
entirely attributable to the increase in average realized
primary aluminum prices.
The following table sets forth (in millions of dollars) the
differences in the major components of operating results for our
primary aluminum segment between the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and the corresponding prior year period,
as well as the primary factors leading to such differences. Many
of the factors indicated are items that are subject to
significant fluctuation from period to period and are largely
impacted by items outside managements control.
35
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
|
|
2006 vs. 2005 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Operating | |
|
Better | |
|
|
Component |
|
income | |
|
(worse) | |
|
Factor |
|
Sales of production from Anglesey
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
Market price for primary aluminum |
Internal hedging with fabricated products segment
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
Eliminates in consolidation |
Derivative settlements
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
Impacted by positions and market prices |
Mark-to-market on derivative instruments
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Impacted by positions and market prices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The improvement in Anglesey-related results, as well as the
offsetting adverse internal hedging results, in the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 over the comparable 2005 period
was driven primarily by increases in primary aluminum market
prices. The primary aluminum market-driven improvement in
Anglesey-related operating results was offset by an approximate
15% contractual increase in Angleseys power costs
affecting the 2006 period, an increase of approximately
$1 million per quarter. Beginning in the second quarter of
2006, the Anglesey-related results were adversely affected
(versus 2005) by a 20% increase in contractual alumina costs
related to a new alumina purchase contract that runs through
2007. Power and alumina costs, in general, represent
approximately two-thirds of Angleseys costs, and as such,
future results will be adversely affected by these changes. The
nuclear plant that supplies power to Anglesey is currently
slated for decommissioning in late 2010. For Anglesey to be able
to operate past September 2009 when its current power contract
expires, Anglesey will have to secure a new or alternative power
contract at prices that make its operation viable. We cannot
assure you that Anglesey will be successful in this regard.
In addition, given the potential for future shutdown and related
costs, dividends from Anglesey have been suspended while
Anglesey studies future cash requirements. Dividends over the
past five years have fluctuated substantially depending on
various operational and market factors. During the last five
years and the nine months ended September 30, 2006, cash
dividends received were as follows (in millions of dollars):
2001 $2.8, 2002 $6.0, 2003
$4.3, 2004 $4.5, 2005 $9.0, and
2006 $11.7.
Corporate and other
Corporate operating expenses represent corporate general and
administrative expenses that are not allocated to our business
segments. Corporate operating expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 were approximately $5.7 million
higher than the comparable period in 2005. Incentive
compensation accruals were approximately $5.0 million
higher than the nine months ended September 30, 2005,
including a $2.2 million non-cash charge associated with
vested and non-vested stock grants. Additionally, we incurred
certain costs we considered largely non-run-rate, including
$1.8 million of preparation costs related to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, $0.7 million of higher
post-emergence tax service/preparation costs and
$1.1 million of costs associated with certain computer
upgrades. The remaining change in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 primarily reflects lower salary and
other costs related to the movement toward a post-emergence
structure.
36
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Once the activity with our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy, which will continue through early 2007, and
incremental Sarbanes-Oxley-related activities are complete, we
expect there will be a substantial decline in corporate and
other operating costs.
Corporate operating results for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005, discussed above, exclude defined
contribution savings plan charges of approximately
$0.5 million.
Discontinued operations
Operating results from discontinued operations for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 consist of a
$7.5 million payment from an insurer for certain residual
claims we had in respect of a 2000 incident at our Gramercy,
Louisiana alumina facility, which was sold in 2004, and a
$1.1 million surcharge refund related to certain energy
surcharges, which have been pending for a number of years,
offset, in part, by a $5.0 million charge resulting from an
agreement between us and the Bonneville Power Administration for
an electric power contract rejected in connection with our
chapter 11 bankruptcy. Operating results from discontinued
operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2005
include the $365.6 million gain resulting from the sale of
our interests in and related to QAL on April 1, 2005 and
the favorable QAL operating results prior to the sale of our
QAL-related interests.
Reorganization items
Reorganization items increased substantially in the nine months
ended September 30, 2006 as compared to the comparable
periods in 2005 as a result of the non-cash gain on the
implementation of our plan of reorganization and the application
of fresh start reporting of approximately $3,113.1 million
in the third quarter of 2006.
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2004
We reported a net loss of $753.7 million in 2005 compared
to a net loss of $746.8 million in 2004. Net sales in 2005
totaled $1,089.7 million compared to $942.4 million
in 2004.
Fabricated aluminum products
Net sales of fabricated products increased by 16% during 2005 as
compared to 2004 primarily due to a 10% increase in average
realized prices and a 6% increase in shipments. The increase in
the average realized prices reflected (in relatively equal
proportions) higher conversion prices and higher underlying
primary aluminum prices. The higher conversion prices were
primarily attributable to continued strength in fabricated
aluminum product markets, particularly for Aero/ HS products, as
well as a favorable mix in the type of Aero/ HS products in the
early part of 2005. Current period shipments were higher than
2004 shipments due primarily to the increased Aero/ HS product
demand.
Segment operating results (before other operating charges, net)
for 2005 improved over 2004 by approximately $54 million.
The improvement consisted of improved sales performance
(primarily due to factors cited above) of $64 million
offset by higher operating costs, particularly for natural gas.
Higher natural gas prices had a particularly significant impact
on the fourth quarter of 2005. As of March 2006, natural gas
prices had decreased somewhat but had not decreased to the price
level experienced during the first nine months of 2005. Lower
2005 charges for legacy pension and retiree medical-related
costs of $5 million were largely offset by other cost
increases versus 2004, including $6 million of higher
non-cash LIFO inventory charges, which were $9 million in
2005 versus $3.2 million in 2004. Segment operating results
for 2005 and 2004 included gains on intercompany hedging
activities with our primary aluminum business which totaled
$11.1 million and $8.6 million, respectively. These
amounts eliminate in consolidation.
37
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Segment operating results for 2005, discussed above, excluded
deferred contribution savings plan charges of approximately
$6.3 million.
Primary aluminum
Third-party net sales of primary aluminum in 2005 increased by
approximately 13% as compared to 2004. The increase was almost
entirely attributable to the increase in average realized
primary aluminum prices.
Segment operating results for 2005 included approximately
$32 million related to the sale of primary aluminum
resulting from our ownership interests in Anglesey offset by
(1) losses on intercompany hedging activities with our
fabricated products business (which eliminate in consolidation)
which totaled approximately $11.1 million, and
(2) approximately $4.1 million of non-cash charges
associated with the discontinuance of hedge accounting treatment
of derivative instruments as more fully discussed in
Notes 2, 12 and 16 to our audited consolidated financial
statements. Primary aluminum hedging transactions with third
parties were essentially neutral in 2005. In 2004, segment
operating results consisted of approximately $21 million
related to sales of primary aluminum resulting from our
ownership interests in Anglesey and approximately
$2 million of gains from third-party hedging activities,
offset by approximately $8.6 million of losses on
intercompany hedging activities with our fabricated products
business (which eliminate in consolidation). The improvement in
Anglesey-related results in 2005 versus 2004 resulted primarily
from the improvement in primary aluminum market prices discussed
above. The primary aluminum market price increases were offset
by an approximate 15% contractual increase in Angleseys
power costs during the fourth quarter of 2005 as well as an
increase in major maintenance costs incurred in 2005.
Corporate and other
In 2005, corporate operating expenses consisted of
$30 million of expenses related to ongoing operations and
$5 million related to retiree medical expenses. In 2004,
corporate operating expenses consisted of $21 million of
expenses related to ongoing operations and $50 million of
retiree medical expenses.
The increase in expenses related to ongoing operations in 2005
compared to 2004 was due to an increase in professional expenses
associated primarily with our initiatives to comply with
Sarbanes-Oxley by December 31, 2006, and chapter 11
bankruptcy emergence-related activity, relocation of our
corporate headquarters and transition costs. These increased
expenses were offset by the fact that key personnel ceased
receiving retention payments as of the end of the first quarter
of 2004 pursuant to our key employee retention program. The
decline in retiree-related expenses was primarily attributable
to the termination of our Inactive Pension Plan in 2004 and the
change in retiree medical payments.
Corporate operating results for 2005, discussed above, exclude
defined contribution savings plan charges of approximately
$0.5 million.
Reorganization items
Reorganization items consist primarily of income, expenses
(including professional fees) and losses that were realized or
incurred by us due to our chapter 11 bankruptcy
reorganization. Reorganization items increased substantially in
2005 over 2004 as a result of a non-cash charge of approximately
of $1,131.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2005. The
non-cash charge was recognized in connection with the
consummation of the plans of liquidation filed by certain of our
subsidiaries pursuant to which the value associated with an
intercompany note was assigned for the benefit of certain
third-party creditors. See Note 1 to our audited
consolidated financial statements for a more complete discussion.
38
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Discontinued operations
Discontinued operations in 2005 included the operating results
of our interests in and related to QAL for the first quarter of
2005 and the gain that resulted from the sale of such interests
on April 1, 2005. Discontinued operations in 2004 included
a full year of operating results attributable to our interests
in and related to QAL, as well as the operating results of the
commodity interests that were sold at various times during 2004.
Income from discontinued operations for 2005 increased
approximately $242 million over 2004. The primary factor
for the improved results was the larger gain on the sale of our
QAL interests (approximately $366 million) in 2005 compared
to the gains from the sale of our interests in and related to
Alumina Partners of Jamaica, or Alpart, and the sale of our Mead
facility (approximately $127 million) in 2004. The adverse
impacts in 2005 of a $42 million non-cash contract
rejection charge were largely offset by improved operating
results in 2005 associated with QAL of $12 million and the
avoidance of $33 million of net losses by other
commodity-related interests in 2004.
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2003
We reported a net loss of $746.8 million in 2004 compared
to a net loss of $788.3 million for 2003. Net sales in 2004
totaled $942.4 million compared to $710.2 million
in 2003.
Fabricated aluminum products
Net sales of fabricated products increased by 35% during 2004 as
compared to 2003 primarily due to a 23% increase in shipments
and a 9% increase in average realized prices. Shipments in 2004
were higher than 2003 shipments as a result of improved demand
for most of our fabricated aluminum products, especially
aluminum plate for the general engineering market as well as
extrusions and forgings for the automotive market. Demand for
our products in the Aero/ HS market was also markedly higher in
2004 than in 2003. The increase in the average realized price
reflected changes in the mix of products sold, stronger demand
and higher underlying metal prices. Extrusion prices were
thought to have recovered from the recessionary lows experienced
in 2002 and 2003 but were still below prices experienced during
peaks in the business cycle. Plate prices increased to near
peak-level pricing in response to strong near-term demand.
Segment operating results (before other operating charges, net)
for 2004 improved over 2003 primarily due to the increased
shipment and price levels noted above, improved market
conditions and improved cost performance offset, in part, by
modestly increased natural gas prices and a $12.1 million
non-cash LIFO inventory charge. Operating results for 2003
included increased energy costs, a $3.2 million non-cash
LIFO inventory charge, and higher pension-related expenses
offset, in part, by reductions in overhead and other operating
costs as a result of cost cutting initiatives. Segment operating
results for 2004 and 2003 included gains (losses) on
intercompany hedging activities with the primary aluminum
business unit totaling $8.6 million and
$(2.3) million. These amounts eliminate in consolidation.
Segment operating results for 2003, discussed above, exclude a
net gain of approximately $3.9 million from the sale of
equipment.
Primary aluminum
Third party net sales of primary aluminum increased 18% for 2004
as compared to the same period in 2003, primarily as a result of
a 20% increase in third-party average realized prices offset by
a 1% decrease in third-party shipments. The increases in the
average realized prices were primarily due to the increases in
primary aluminum market prices. Shipments in 2004 were better
than the prior year primarily due to the timing of shipments.
39
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Segment operating results (before other operating charges, net)
for 2004 improved over 2003 primarily due to the increases in
prices and shipments discussed above. Segment operating results
for 2004 and 2003 include gains (losses) on intercompany hedging
activities with the fabricated products business unit totaling
$(8.6) million and $2.3 million. These amounts
eliminate in consolidation.
Segment operating results for 2003, discussed above, exclude a
pre-filing date claim of approximately $3.2 million related
to a restructured transmission agreement and a net gain of
approximately $9.5 million from the sale of our Tacoma,
Washington smelter.
Corporate and other
In 2004, corporate operating costs consisted of
$21.2 million of expenses related to ongoing operations and
$50 million of retiree-related expenses. In 2003, corporate
operating costs consisted of expenses related to ongoing
operations of $39 million and $35 million of
retiree-related expenses. The decline in expenses related to
ongoing operations from 2003 to 2004 was primarily attributable
to lower salary ($1 million), retention ($4 million)
and incentive compensation ($2.5 million) costs as well as
lower accruals for pension-related costs primarily as a result
of the December 2003 termination by the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, or PBGC, of our salaried employees pension plan
($2.5 million). The increase in retiree-related expenses in
2004 from 2003 reflects managements decision to allocate
to the corporate segment the excess of post-retirement medical
costs related to the fabricated products business unit and
discontinued operations for the period May 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004 over the amount of such segments
allocated share of VEBA contributions offset, in part, by lower
pension-related accruals as a result of the December 2003
termination by the PBGC of our salaried employees pension plan.
Corporate operating results for 2004, discussed above, exclude:
(1) pension charges of $310.0 million related to
terminated pension plans whose responsibility was assumed by the
PBGC, (2) a settlement charge of $175.0 million
related to a settlement with the USW, and (3) settlement
charges of $312.5 million related to the termination of the
post-retirement medical benefit plans (all of which are included
in other operating charges, net). Corporate operating results
for 2003 exclude a pension charge of $121.2 million related
to the terminated salaried employees pension plan assumed by the
PBGC, a charge of $15.7 million related to a multi-site
environmental settlement and hearing loss claims of
$15.8 million (all of which are included in other operating
charges, net).
Discontinued operations
Discontinued operations include the operating results for
Alpart, an alumina smelter located in Gramercy, Louisiana and
associated interest in Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company, or
Gramercy/ KJBC, Volta Aluminum Company Limited, or Valco, QAL
and our Mead facility and gains from the sale of our interests
in and related to these interests (except for the gain on the
sale of our interests in and related to QAL which was sold in
April 2005). Results for discontinued operations for 2004
improved $636.0 million over 2003. Approximately
$460 million of such improvement resulted from three
nonrecurring items: (1) the approximate $126.6 million
gain on the sale of our interests in and related to Alpart and
the sale of our Mead facility; (2) the $368.0 million
of impairment charges in respect of our interests in and related
to commodities interests in 2003; and
(3) $33.0 million of Valco-related impairment charges
in 2004. The balance of the improvement primarily resulted from
approximately $132 million of improved operating results at
Alpart, Gramercy/ KJBC and QAL, a substantial majority of which
was related to the improvement in average realized alumina
prices.
40
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Our primary sources of liquidity are cash generated from
operating activities and borrowings under our revolving credit
facility. We believe that the cash and cash equivalents, cash
flows from operations and cash available under the revolving
credit facility will be sufficient to satisfy the anticipated
cash requirements associated with our existing operations for at
least the next 12 months. Our ability to generate
sufficient cash from our operating activities depends on our
future performance, which is subject to general economic,
political, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our
control. In addition, our future capital expenditures and other
cash requirements could be higher than we currently expect as a
result of various factors, including any expansion of our
business that we complete.
As a result of the filing of the chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings, claims against us for principal and accrued
interest on secured and unsecured indebtedness existing on the
respective filing dates of our company and each of our
subsidiaries were stayed while we continued business operations
as
debtors-in-possession,
subject to the control and supervision of the bankruptcy court.
These obligations were extinguished upon our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Operating activities
During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, fabricated
products operating activities provided $42 million of cash
compared to $67 million of cash for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005. Cash provided by fabricated products in
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 was primarily due
to improved operating results offset, in part, by increased
working capital cash requirements. The increase in 2006 working
capital cash requirements was primarily the result of the impact
of higher primary aluminum prices and increased demand for
fabricated aluminum products on inventories and accounts
receivable, which was only partially offset by increases in
accounts payable. Cash provided by fabricated products in the
nine months ended September 30, 2005 was primarily due to
improved operating results associated with improved demand for
fabricated aluminum products. Working capital change in the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 was modest. Fabricated
products cash flow excluded consideration of pension and retiree
cash payments made in respect of current and former employees of
the fabricated products facilities. Such amounts are part of the
legacy costs that we classify as a corporate cash
outflow.
Cash flows attributable to Anglesey provided $22 million
and $17 million in the nine months ended September 30,
2006 and 2005, respectively.
Corporate and other operating activities used $82 million
of cash in the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and
2005. Cash outflows for corporate and other operating activities
in the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005
included:
|
|
|
$12 million and
$18 million, respectively, for medical obligations and VEBA
funding for all former and current operating units;
|
|
|
$16 million and
$30 million, respectively, for reorganization costs; and
|
|
|
$30 million and
$20 million, respectively, for general and administrative
costs.
|
Cash outflows for corporate and other operating activities for
the nine months ended September 30, 2006 also included
$25 million of payments made pursuant to our plan of
reorganization.
In the nine months ended September 30, 2006, discontinued
operation activities provided $9 million of cash compared
to $13 million in the nine months ended September 30,
2005. Cash provided by discontinued operations in the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 consisted of, as discussed
above, the proceeds from an $8 million payment from an
insurer and a $1 million refund from
41
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
commodity interests energy vendors. Cash provided in the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 resulted from favorable
operating results of QAL offset, in part, by foreign tax
payments of $10 million.
In 2005, fabricated products operating activities provided
$88 million of cash, substantially all of which was
generated from operating results. Working capital changes were
modest. In 2004, fabricated products operating activities
provided approximately $35 million of cash,
$70 million of which was generated from operating results
offset by increases in working capital of approximately
$35 million. In 2003, fabricated products operating
activities provided approximately $30 million of cash,
substantially all of which was generated from operating results.
Working capital changes were modest. The increases in cash
provided by fabricated products operating results in 2005 and
2004 were primarily due to improving demand for fabricated
aluminum products. The increase in working capital in 2004
reflected the increase in demand as well as the significant
increase in primary aluminum prices. In 2003, cost-cutting
initiatives offset reduced product prices and shipments so that
cash provided by operations approximated that in 2002. The
foregoing analysis of fabricated products cash flow excludes
consideration of pension and retiree cash payments made in
respect of current and former employees of our fabricated
products segment. Such amounts are part of the
legacy costs that we internally categorize as a
corporate cash outflow.
Cash flows attributable to our interests in and related to our
primary aluminum business provided $20 million,
$14 million and $12 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003,
respectively. The increase in cash flows between 2005 and 2004
was primarily attributable to increases in primary aluminum
market prices. Higher primary aluminum prices in 2004 caused the
cash flows attributable to sales of primary aluminum production
from Anglesey to be approximately $2 million higher in 2004
than in 2003. The balance of the differences in cash flows
between 2004 and 2003 was primarily attributable to timing of
shipments, payments and receipts.
Corporate and other operating activities utilized
$108 million, $150 million and $100 million of
cash in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Cash outflows from
corporate and other operating activities in 2005, 2004 and 2003
included: (1) $37 million, $57 million and
$60 million, respectively, in respect of retiree medical
obligations and VEBA funding for former and current operating
units; (2) payments for reorganization costs of
$39 million, $35 million and $27 million,
respectively; and (3) payments in respect of general and
administrative costs totaling approximately $29 million,
$26 million and $27 million, respectively. Corporate
operating cash flow in 2003 included asbestos-related insurance
receipts of approximately $18 million. Cash outflows in
2004 also included $27 million to settle certain multi-site
environmental claims.
In 2005, discontinued operation activities provided
$17 million of cash. This compares with 2004 and 2003 when
discontinued operation activities provided $64 million and
used $29 million of cash, respectively. The decrease in
cash provided by discontinued operations in 2005 over 2004
resulted primarily from a decrease in favorable operating
results due to the sale of substantially all of our commodity
interests between the second half of 2004 and early 2005. The
remaining commodity interests were sold as of April 1,
2005. The increase in cash provided by discontinued operations
in 2004 over 2003 resulted from improved operating results due
primarily to the improvement in average realized alumina prices.
Investing activities
Total capital expenditures for our fabricated products business
were $38.7 million and $20.1 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. As
previously described, we currently expect total capital
expenditures for our fabricated products business in 2006 to be
in the $60 million to $70 million range. Total capital
expenditures for our fabricated products business are
42
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
also currently expected to be in the $60 million to
$70 million range for 2007. The higher level of capital
spending primarily reflects incremental investments,
particularly at our Trentwood facility. We initially announced a
$75 million expansion project of our Trentwood facility
and, in August 2006, announced a follow-on investment of an
additional $30 million. These investments are being made
primarily for new equipment and furnaces that will enable us to
supply heavy gauge, heat treat stretched plate to the aerospace
and general engineering markets and will provide incremental
capacity. Since the inception of the project during 2005,
approximately $45 million has been incurred as of
September 30, 2006. Besides the Trentwood facility
expansion, our remaining capital spending in 2006 was, and in
2007 will be, spread among all manufacturing locations. A
majority of the remaining capital spending is expected to reduce
operating costs, improve product quality or increase capacity.
However, we have not committed to any individual projects of
significant size, other than the Trentwood expansion, at this
time.
Total capital expenditures for fabricated products were
$30.6 million, $7.6 million, and $8.9 million in
2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The capital expenditures were
made primarily to improve production efficiency, reduce
operating costs and expand capacity at existing facilities.
Total capital expenditures for discontinued operations were
$3.5 million and $28.3 million in 2004 and 2003,
respectively (of which $1.0 million and $8.9 million,
respectively, were funded by the minority partners in certain
foreign joint ventures).
Our level of capital expenditures may be adjusted from time to
time depending on our business plans, price outlook for metal
and other products, our ability to maintain adequate liquidity
and other factors. If our sales growth continues and the
relevant market factors remain positive, we may increase our
capital spending in 2007 from the amounts described above, and
if our sales decline or the market factors do not remain
positive, our capital spending may be decreased from the amounts
described above.
Depending upon conditions in the capital markets and other
factors, we will from time to time consider the issuance of debt
or equity securities, or other possible capital markets
transactions, the proceeds of which could be used to refinance
current indebtedness or for other corporate purposes. Pursuant
to our growth strategy, we will also consider from time to time
acquisitions of, and investments in, assets or businesses that
complement our existing assets and businesses. Acquisition
transactions, if any, are expected to be financed through cash
on hand and from operations, bank borrowings, the issuance of
debt or equity securities or a combination of two or more of
those sources.
Financing facilities
After emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
On July 6, 2006, we entered into a $200.0 million
revolving credit facility with a group of lenders, of which up
to a maximum of $60.0 million may be utilized for letters
of credit. Under the revolving credit facility, we may borrow
(or obtain letters of credit) from time to time in an aggregate
amount equal to the lesser of $200.0 million and a
borrowing base comprised of eligible accounts receivable,
eligible inventory and certain eligible machinery, equipment and
real estate, reduced by certain reserves, all as specified in
the revolving credit facility. The revolving credit facility has
a five-year term and matures in July 2011, at which time all
principal amounts outstanding thereunder will be due and
payable. Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear
interest at a rate equal to either a base prime rate or LIBOR,
at our option, plus a specified variable percentage determined
by reference to the then remaining borrowing availability under
the revolving credit facility. The revolving credit facility
may, subject to certain conditions and the agreement of lenders
thereunder, be increased up to $275.0 million.
43
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Concurrently with the execution of the revolving credit
facility, we also entered into a term loan facility that
provides for a $50.0 million term loan and is guaranteed by
certain of our domestic operating subsidiaries. The term loan
facility was fully drawn on August 4, 2006. The term loan
facility has a five-year term and matures in July 2011, at which
time all principal amounts outstanding thereunder will be due
and payable. Borrowings under the term loan facility bear
interest at a rate equal to either a premium over a base prime
rate or LIBOR, at our option.
Amounts owed under each of the revolving credit facility and the
term loan facility may be accelerated upon the occurrence of
various events of default set forth in each agreement, including
the failure to make principal or interest payments when due, and
breaches of covenants, representations and warranties set forth
in each agreement.
The revolving credit facility is secured by a first priority
lien on substantially all of our assets and the assets of our
domestic operating subsidiaries that are also borrowers
thereunder. The term loan facility is secured by a second lien
on substantially all of our assets and the assets of our
domestic operating subsidiaries that are the borrowers or
guarantors thereof.
Both credit facilities place restrictions on our ability to,
among other things, incur debt, create liens, make investments,
pay dividends, repurchase our common stock, sell assets,
undertake transactions with affiliates and enter into unrelated
lines of business.
During July 2006, we borrowed and repaid $8.6 million under
the revolving credit facility. At October 31, 2006, there
were no borrowings outstanding under the revolving credit
facility, there was approximately $15.9 million outstanding
under letters of credit and there was $50.0 million
outstanding under the term loan facility.
Prior to emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
On February 11, 2005, we entered into a new financing
agreement with a group of lenders under which we were provided
with a replacement for the existing post-petition credit
facility and a commitment for a multi-year exit financing
arrangement upon our emergence from our chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings. The financing agreement was replaced by
our revolving credit facility and term loan on July 6,
2006, the effective date of our plan of reorganization.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
The following summarizes our significant contractual obligations
at September 30, 2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments due in | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Less than | |
|
2-3 | |
|
4-5 | |
|
More than | |
Contractual obligations |
|
Total | |
|
1 year | |
|
years | |
|
years | |
|
5 years | |
| |
Long-term debt
|
|
$ |
50.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
50.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Operating leases
|
|
|
7.4 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash contractual
obligations(1)
|
|
$ |
57.4 |
|
|
$ |
2.6 |
|
|
$ |
3.1 |
|
|
$ |
51.6 |
|
|
$ |
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Total contractual obligations exclude future annual variable
cash contributions to the VEBAs, which cannot be determined at
this time. See Off Balance Sheet and Other
Arrangements below for a summary of possible annual
variable cash contribution amounts at various levels of earnings
and cash expenditures. |
44
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
OFF BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS
As of September 30, 2006, outstanding letters of credit
under our revolving credit facility were approximately
$17.7 million, substantially all of which expire within
approximately twelve months. The letters of credit relate
primarily to insurance, environmental and other activities.
We have agreements to supply alumina to and purchase aluminum
from Anglesey. Both the alumina sales agreement and primary
aluminum purchase agreement are tied to primary aluminum prices.
The following employee benefit plans remain in effect:
|
|
|
|
A commitment to provide one or
more defined contribution 401(k) plans as a replacement for
three of four defined benefit pension plans for hourly
bargaining unit employees at four of our production facilities.
The defined benefit plans at these four production facilities
were terminated during the fourth quarter of 2006, effective as
of October 10, 2006, pursuant to a court ruling received in
July 2006. These replacement plans provide for an annual
contribution ranging from $800 to $2,400 per bargaining unit
employee, depending on the employees age. We also agreed
to make monthly contributions of one dollar per hour worked by
each bargaining unit employee to the appropriate multi-employer
pension plans sponsored by the USW and certain other unions at
each of these four facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
A defined contribution 401(k)
savings plan for hourly bargaining unit employees at all of our
other production facilities. Pursuant to the terms of the
defined contribution plan, we will be required to make annual
contributions to the Steelworkers Pension Trust on the basis of
one dollar per USW employee hour worked at two facilities.
We will also be required to make contributions to the defined
contribution savings plan for active USW employees at these
facilities that will range from $800 to $2,400 per employee
per year, depending on the employees age.
|
|
|
|
|
A defined benefit pension plan
for our salaried employees at our facility in London, Ontario
with annual contributions based on each salaried employees
age and years of service.
|
|
|
|
A defined contribution savings
plan for salaried and non-bargaining unit hourly employees
providing for a match of certain contributions made by employees
plus a contribution of between 2% and 10% of their salary
depending on their age and years of service.
|
|
|
|
A defined benefit pension plan
for one inactive operation with three remaining former employees
covered by that plan.
|
|
|
|
An annual variable cash
contribution to the VEBAs. The amount to be contributed to the
VEBAs will be 10% of the first $20.0 million of annual cash
flow (defined generally as earnings before interest expense,
provision for income taxes and depreciation and amortization
(EBITDA) less cash payments for, among other things,
interest, income taxes and capital expenditures (Cash
Payments)) plus 20% of annual cash flow, as defined, in
excess of $20.0 million. Such annual payments will not
exceed $20.0 million and will also be limited (with no
carryover to future years) to the extent that the payments would
cause our liquidity to be less than $50.0 million. Such
amounts will be determined on an annual basis and payable no
later than March 31 of the following year. However, we have
the ability to offset amounts that would otherwise be due to the
VEBAs with approximately $12.7 million of excess
contributions made to the VEBAs prior to the effective date of
our plan of reorganization.
|
45
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
|
|
|
The following table shows (in millions of dollars) the estimated
amount of variable VEBA payments that would occur at differing
levels of EBITDA and Cash Payments in respect of, among other
items, interest, income taxes and capital expenditures. The
table below does not consider the liquidity limitation, the
$12.7 million of advances available to us to offset VEBA
obligations as they become due and certain other factors that
could effect the amount of variable VEBA payments due and,
therefore, should be considered only for illustrative purposes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Payments | |
|
|
| |
EBITDA |
|
$25.0 | |
|
$50.0 | |
|
$75.0 | |
|
$100.0 | |
| |
$ 20.0
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
40.0
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60.0
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80.0
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
13.0 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
120.0
|
|
|
17.0 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
140.0
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
16.0 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
160.0
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
180.0
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
19.0 |
|
|
|
14.0 |
|
200.0
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
|
|
A short-term incentive plan for
management, payable in cash, which is based primarily on
earnings, adjusted for certain safety and performance factors.
Most of our locations have similar programs for both hourly and
salaried employees.
|
|
|
A stock based long-term
incentive plan for key managers. As more fully discussed in
Note 7 to our interim consolidated financial statements an
initial, emergence-related award was made under this program.
Additional awards are expected to be made in future years.
|
In connection with the sale of our interests in and related to
Gramercy/ KJBC, we agreed to indemnify the buyers for up to
$5 million of losses suffered by the buyers that result
from any failure of our representations and warranties to be
true. Upon the closing of the transaction, such amount was
recorded in long-term liabilities in the accompanying financial
statements. A claim for the full amount of the indemnity was
made initially. However, in October 2006, the claimant filed a
revised report to indicate that its claim was approximately
$2 million and separately filed for summary judgment in
respect to its claim. We continue to evaluate the claim and, as
such, have no basis nor enough information to revise the
accrual. The indemnity expired with respect to additional claims
in October 2006.
During the third quarter of 2005 and August 2006, we placed
orders for certain equipment and services intended to augment
our heat treat and aerospace capabilities at our Trentwood
facility. We expect to become obligated for costs related to
these orders of approximately $105 million, of which
approximately $45 million of such cost was incurred in 2005
and through the third quarter of 2006. The majority of the
balance will likely be incurred primarily over the remainder of
2007.
At September 30, 2006, there was approximately
$7.1 million of accrued, but unpaid professional fees that
have been approved for payment by the bankruptcy court.
Additionally, certain professionals had success fees
due upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Approximately $5.0 million of such amounts were recorded in
connection with our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
and the implementation of fresh start reporting and paid by us
after September 30, 2006.
46
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
Please see Note 2 to our interim consolidated financial
statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,
Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and
Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements
No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), SFAS No. 158,
was issued in September 2006. SFAS No. 158 requires a
company to recognize the overfunded or underfunded status of
single-employer defined benefit postretirement plan(s) as an
asset or liability in its statement of financial position and to
recognize changes in that funded status in comprehensive income
in the year in which the changes occur. Prior standards only
required the overfunded or underfunded status of a plan to be
disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. In addition,
SFAS No. 158 requires that a company disclose in the
notes to the financial statements additional information about
certain effects on net periodic benefit cost for the next fiscal
year that arise from delayed recognition of the gains or losses,
prior service costs or credits and transition assets or
obligations. We must adopt SFAS No. 158 in our 2006
annual financial statements. Given the application of fresh
start reporting in the third quarter of 2006, the funded status
of our defined benefit pension plans is fully reflected in our
September 30, 2006 balance sheet and therefore we expect
SFAS No. 158 to have no material impact on our balance
sheet reporting for these plans. However, we have not yet
completed our review of the possible impacts of
SFAS No. 158 in respect of the net assets or
obligations of the Salaried Retiree VEBA Trust and the Union
VEBA Trust and cannot, therefore, predict what, if any, impacts
adoption of SFAS No. 158 will have on the balance
sheet in regard to the VEBAs.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements, SFAS No. 157, was
issued in September 2006 to increase consistency and
comparability in fair value measurements and to expand related
disclosures. The new standard includes a definition of fair
value as well as a framework for measuring fair value. The
provisions of this standard apply to other accounting
pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements.
The standard is effective for fiscal periods beginning after
November 15, 2007 and should be applied prospectively,
except for certain financial instruments where it must be
applied retrospectively as a cumulative-effect adjustment to the
balance of opening retained earnings in the year of adoption. We
are still evaluating SFAS No. 157 but do not currently
anticipate that the adoption of this standard will have a
material impact on our financial statements.
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Guidance for
Quantifying Financial Statement Misstatements,
SAB No. 108, was issued by the SEC staff in September
2006. SAB No. 108 establishes a specific approach for
the quantification of financial statement errors based on the
effects of the error on each of our financial statements and the
related financial statement disclosures. The provisions of
SAB No. 108 are effective for our 2006 annual
financial statements. We do not anticipate that the adoption of
this bulletin will have a material impact on its financial
statements.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Successor
Critical accounting policies fall into two broad categories. The
first type of critical accounting policies includes those that
are relatively straightforward in their application, but which
can have a significant impact on the reported balances and
operating results, like revenue recognition policies and
inventory accounting methods. The first type of critical
accounting policies is outlined in Note 2 of our interim
consolidated financial statements and is not addressed below.
The second type of critical accounting policies includes those
that are both very important to the portrayal of our financial
condition and results and require managements most
difficult, subjective and/or complex judgments. Typically, the
circumstances that make these judgments difficult, subjective
and/or complex have to do with the need
47
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
to make estimates about the effect of matters that are
inherently uncertain. Our critical accounting policies after
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy will, in some cases,
be different from those before emergence, as many of the
significant judgments affecting the financial statements related
to matters or items directly a result of the chapter 11
bankruptcy or related to liabilities that were resolved pursuant
to our plan of reorganization. See the Notes to our interim
consolidated financial statements for discussion of possible
differences.
While we believe that all aspects of our financial statements
should be studied and understood in assessing our current and
expected future financial condition and results, we believe that
the accounting policies that warrant additional attention
include:
Application of fresh start reporting
Upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we applied
fresh start reporting to our consolidated financial statements
as required by
SOP 90-7. As such,
in July 2006, we adjusted stockholders equity to equal the
reorganization value of the entity at emergence. Additionally,
items such as accumulated depreciation, accumulated deficit and
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) were reset to
zero. We allocated the reorganization value to our individual
assets and liabilities based on their estimated fair value at
the emergence date based, in part, on information from a
third-party appraiser. Such items as current liabilities,
accounts receivable and cash reflected values similar to those
reported prior to emergence. Items such as inventory, property,
plant and equipment, long-term assets and long-term liabilities
were significantly adjusted from amounts previously reported.
Because fresh start reporting was adopted at emergence and
because of the significance of liabilities subject to compromise
that were relieved upon emergence, meaningful comparisons
between the historical financial statements and the financial
statements from and after emergence are difficult to make.
Our judgments and estimates with respect to commitments and
contingencies
Valuation of legal and other contingent claims is subject to a
great deal of judgment and substantial uncertainty. Under
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP,
companies are required to accrue for contingent matters in their
financial statements only if the amount of any potential loss is
both probable and the amount (or a range) of
possible loss is estimatable. In reaching a
determination of the probability of an adverse ruling in respect
of a matter, we typically consult outside experts. However, any
such judgments reached regarding probability are subject to
significant uncertainty. We may, in fact, obtain an adverse
ruling in a matter that we did not consider a
probable loss and which, therefore, was not accrued
for in our financial statements. Additionally, facts and
circumstances in respect of a matter can change causing key
assumptions that were used in previous assessments of a matter
to change. It is possible that amounts at risk in respect of one
matter may be traded off against amounts under
negotiations in a separate matter. Further, in estimating the
amount of any loss, in many instances a single estimation of the
loss may not be possible. Rather, we may only be able to
estimate a range for possible losses. In such event, GAAP
requires that a liability be established for at least the
minimum end of the range assuming that there is no other amount
which is more likely to occur.
Our judgments and estimates in respect of our employee
defined benefit plans
Defined benefit pension and post-retirement medical obligations
included in the consolidated financial statements at
June 30, 2006 and at prior dates are based on assumptions
that were subject to variation from year to year. Such
variations could have caused our estimate of such obligations to
vary significantly. Restructuring actions relating to our exit
from most of our commodities businesses (such as the indefinite
curtailment of the Mead smelter) also had a significant impact
on such amounts.
The most significant assumptions used in determining the
estimated year-end obligations were the assumed discount rate,
long-term rate of return, or LTRR, and the assumptions regarding
future
48
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
medical cost increases. Since recorded obligations represent the
present value of expected pension and post-retirement benefit
payments over the life of the plans, decreases in the discount
rate (used to compute the present value of the payments) would
cause the estimated obligations to increase. Conversely, an
increase in the discount rate would cause the estimated present
value of the obligations to decline. The LTRR on plan assets
reflects an assumption regarding what the amount of earnings
would be on existing plan assets (before considering any future
contributions to the plans). Increases in the assumed LTRR would
cause the projected value of plan assets available to satisfy
pension and post-retirement obligations to increase, yielding a
reduced net expense in respect of these obligations. A reduction
in the LTRR would reduce the amount of projected net assets
available to satisfy pension and post-retirement obligations
and, thus, cause the net expense in respect of these obligations
to increase. As the assumed rate of increase in medical costs
goes up, so does the net projected obligation. Conversely, if
the rate of increase was assumed to be smaller, the projected
obligation declines.
Our judgments and estimates in respect to environmental
commitments and contingencies
We are subject to a number of environmental laws and
regulations, to fines or penalties assessed for alleged breaches
of such laws and regulations and to claims and litigation based
upon such laws and regulations. Based on our evaluation of
environmental matters, we have established environmental
accruals, primarily related to potential solid waste disposal
and soil and groundwater remediation matters. These
environmental accruals represent our estimate of costs
reasonably expected to be incurred on a going concern basis in
the ordinary course of business based on presently enacted laws
and regulations, currently available facts, existing technology
and our assessment of the likely remediation action to be taken.
However, making estimates of possible environmental remediation
costs is subject to inherent uncertainties. As additional facts
are developed and definitive remediation plans and necessary
regulatory approvals for implementation of remediation are
established or alternative technologies are developed, changes
in these and other factors may result in actual costs exceeding
the current environmental accruals.
See Note 8 of our notes to interim consolidated financial
statements for additional information in respect of
environmental contingencies.
Our judgments and estimates in respect of conditional asset
retirement obligations
Companies are required to estimate incremental costs for special
handling, removal and disposal costs of materials that may or
will give rise to conditional asset retirement obligations and
then discount the expected costs back to the current year using
a credit adjusted risk free rate. Under current accounting
guidelines, liabilities and costs for conditional asset
retirement obligations must be recognized in a companys
financial statements even if it is unclear when or if the
conditional asset retirement obligations will be triggered. If
it is unclear when or if a conditional asset retirement
obligation will be triggered, companies are required to use
probability weighting for possible timing scenarios to determine
the probability weighted amounts that should be recognized in
our financial statements. We have evaluated our exposures to
conditional asset retirement obligations and determined that we
have conditional asset retirement obligations at several of our
facilities. The vast majority of such conditional asset
retirement obligations consist of incremental costs that would
be associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of
which is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within
walls, floors, ceilings or piping) at certain of the older
facilities if such facilities were to undergo major renovation
or be demolished. No plans currently exist for any such
renovation or demolition of such facilities and our current
assessment is that the most probable scenarios are that no such
conditional asset retirement obligation would be triggered for
20 or more years, if at all. Nonetheless, we have recorded an
estimated conditional asset retirement obligation liability of
approximately $2.7 million at December 31, 2005 and we
expect that this amount will increase substantially over time.
49
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
The estimation of conditional asset retirement obligations is
subject to a number of inherent uncertainties including:
|
|
|
the timing of when any such
conditional asset retirement obligation may be incurred;
|
|
|
the ability to accurately
identify all materials that may require special handling or
treatment;
|
|
|
the ability to reasonably
estimate the total incremental special handling and other costs;
|
|
|
the ability to assess the
relative probability of different scenarios which could give
rise to a conditional asset retirement obligation; and
|
|
|
|
other factors outside our
control including changes in regulations, costs and interest
rates.
|
|
Actual costs and the timing of such costs may vary significantly
from the estimates, judgments and probable scenarios we
considered, which could, in turn, have a material impact on our
future financial statements.
Recoverability of recorded asset values
Under GAAP, assets to be held and used are evaluated for
recoverability differently than assets to be sold or disposed
of. Assets to be held and used are evaluated based on their
expected undiscounted future net cash flows. So long as we
reasonably expect that such undiscounted future net cash flows
for each asset will exceed the recorded value of the asset being
evaluated, no impairment is required. However, if plans to sell
or dispose of an asset or group of assets meet a number of
specific criteria, then, under GAAP, such assets should be
considered held for sale/disposition and their recoverability
should be evaluated, based on expected consideration to be
received upon disposition. Sales or dispositions at a particular
time will be affected by, among other things, the existing
industry and general economic circumstances as well as our own
circumstances, including whether or not assets will (or must) be
sold on an accelerated or more extended timetable. Such
circumstances may cause the expected value in a sale or
disposition scenario to differ materially from the realizable
value over the normal operating life of assets, which would
likely be evaluated on long-term industry trends.
Income Tax Provisions in Interim Periods
In accordance with GAAP, financial statements for interim
periods are to include an income tax provision based on the
effective tax rate expected to be incurred in the current year.
Accordingly, estimates and judgments must be made for each
applicable taxable jurisdiction as to the amount of taxable
income that may be generated, the availability of deductions and
credits expected and the availability of net operating loss
carry-forwards or other tax attributes to offset taxable income.
Making such estimates and judgments is subject to inherent
uncertainties given the difficulty of predicting such factors as
future market conditions, customer requirements, the cost for
key inputs such as energy and primary aluminum, its overall
operating efficiency and many other items. For purposes of
preparing our September 30, 2006 interim consolidated
financial statements, we have considered our actual operating
results in the nine months ended September 30, 2006 as well
as our forecasts for the balance of the year. Based on this and
other available information, we do not expect to generate
U.S. taxable income for the full year. However, if, among
other things:
|
|
|
|
actual results for the balance
of 2006 vary from that in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and our forecasts due to one or more of
the factors cited above or elsewhere in this prospectus;
|
|
|
|
|
income is distributed
differently than expected among tax jurisdictions;
|
|
|
|
one or more material events or
transactions occur which were not contemplated; or
|
|
|
|
certain expected deductions,
credits or carryforwards are not available;
|
|
50
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
then, it is possible that the effective tax rate for 2006 could
vary materially from the assessments used to prepare the
September 30, 2006 interim consolidated financial
statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. Additionally,
following emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, our tax
provision will be affected by the impacts of our plan of
reorganization and by the application of fresh start reporting.
Predecessor
As indicated above, critical accounting policies are those that
are both very important to the portrayal of our financial
condition and results and require managements most
difficult, subjective and/or complex judgments. Typically, the
circumstances that make these judgments difficult, subjective
and/or complex have to do with the need to make estimates about
the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. Our
critical accounting policies after emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy will, in some cases, be different
from those before emergence. Many of the significant judgments
affecting our financial statements relate to matters related to
our chapter 11 bankruptcy or liabilities that were resolved
pursuant to our plan of reorganization.
While we believe all aspects of our financial statements should
be studied and understood in assessing our current and future
financial condition and results, we believe that the accounting
policies that warrant additional attention include:
Our judgments and estimates with respect to commitments and
contingencies
Valuation of legal and other contingent claims is subject to
judgment and substantial uncertainty. Under GAAP companies are
required to accrue for contingent matters in their financial
statements only if the amount of any potential loss is both
probable and the amount or range of possible loss is
estimatable. In reaching a determination of the
probability of an adverse rulings, we typically consult outside
experts. However, any judgments reached regarding probability
are subject to significant uncertainty. We may, in fact, obtain
an adverse ruling in a matter that we did not consider a
probable loss and which was not accrued for in our
financial statements. Additionally, facts and circumstances
causing key assumptions that were used in previous assessments
are subject to change. It is possible that amounts at risk in
one matter may be traded off against amounts
under negotiation in a separate matter. Further, in many
instances a single estimation of a loss may not be possible.
Rather, we may only be able to estimate a range for possible
losses. In such event, GAAP requires that a liability be
established for at least the minimum end of the range assuming
that there is no other amount which is more likely to occur.
Prior to our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we had
two potentially material contingent obligations that were
subject to significant uncertainty and variability in their
outcome: (1) the USW unfair labor practice claim and
(2) the net obligation in respect of personal
injury-related matters. See Business Legal
Proceedings.
As more fully discussed in Note 19 of our interim
consolidated financial statements, we accrued an amount in the
fourth quarter of 2004 for the USW unfair labor practice
matter. We did not accrue any amount prior to the fourth quarter
of 2004 because we did not consider the loss to be
probable. Our assessment had been that the possible
range of loss in this matter ranged from zero to
$250.0 million based on the proof of claims filed (and
other information provided) by the National Labor Relations
Board, or NLRB, and the USW in connection with our
chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. While we continued to
believe that the unfair labor practice charges were without
merit, during January 2004, we agreed to allow a claim in favor
of the USW in the amount of the $175.0 million as a
compromise and in return for the USW agreeing to substantially
reduce or eliminate certain benefit payments as more fully
discussed in Note 19 to our interim consolidated financial
statements. However, this settlement was not recorded at that
time because it was still subject to bankruptcy court approval.
The settlement was ultimately approved by the bankruptcy court in
51
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
February 2005 and, as a result of the contingency being removed
with respect to this item (which arose prior to the
December 31, 2004 balance sheet date), a
non-cash charge of
$175.0 million was reflected in our consolidated financial
statements at December 31, 2004.
Also, as more fully discussed in Note 19 to our interim
consolidated financial statements, we were one of many
defendants in personal injury claims by a large number of
persons who asserted that their injuries were caused by, among
other things, exposure to asbestos during, or as a result of,
their employment or association with us or by exposure to
products containing asbestos last produced or sold by us more
than 20 years ago. We have also previously disclosed that
certain other personal injury claims had been filed in respect
of alleged pre-filing date exposure to silica and coal tar pitch
volatiles. Due to the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings,
existing lawsuits in respect of all such personal injury claims
were stayed and new lawsuits could not be commenced against us.
Our June 30, 2006 balance sheet includes a liability for
estimated asbestos-related costs of $1,115 million, which
represented our estimate of the minimum end of a range of costs.
The upper end of our estimate of costs was approximately
$2,400 million and we were aware that certain constituents
had asserted that they believed that actual costs could exceed
the top end of our estimated range, by a potentially material
amount. No estimation of our liabilities in respect of such
matters occurred as a part of our plan of reorganization.
However, given that our plan of reorganization was implemented
in July 2006, all such obligations in respect of personal injury
claims have been resolved and will not have a continuing effect
on our financial condition after emergence.
Our June 30, 2006 balance sheet includes a long-term
receivable of $963.3 million for estimated insurance
recoveries in respect of personal injury claims. We believed
that, prior to the implementation of our plan of reorganization,
recovery of this amount was probable (if our plan of
reorganization was not approved) and additional amounts were
recoverable in the future if additional liability were
ultimately determined to exist. However, we could not provide
assurance that all such amounts would be collected. However, as
our plan of reorganization was implemented in July 2006, the
rights to the proceeds from these policies have been transferred
(along with the applicable liabilities) to certain personal
injury trusts set up as a part of our plan of reorganization and
we have no continuing interests in such policies.
Our judgments and estimates related to employee benefit
plans
Pension and post-retirement medical obligations included in the
consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2006 and at prior
dates were based on assumptions that were subject to variation
from year to year. Such variations can cause our estimate of
such obligations to vary significantly. Restructuring actions
relating to our exit from most of our commodities businesses
also had a significant impact on the amount of these obligations.
For pension obligations, the most significant assumptions used
in determining the estimated
year-end obligation are
the assumed discount rate and LTRR on pension assets. Since
recorded pension obligations represent the present value of
expected pension payments over the life of the plans, decreases
in the discount rate used to compute the present value of the
payments would cause the estimated obligations to increase.
Conversely, an increase in the discount rate would cause the
estimated present value of the obligations to decline. The LTRR
on pension assets reflects our assumption regarding what the
amount of earnings would be on existing plan assets before
considering any future contributions to the plans. Increases in
the assumed LTRR would cause the projected value of plan assets
available to satisfy pension obligations to increase, yielding a
reduced net pension obligation. A reduction in the LTRR would
reduce the amount of projected net assets available to satisfy
pension obligations and, thus, caused the net pension obligation
to increase.
For post-retirement obligations, the key assumptions used to
estimate the year-end
obligations were the discount rate and the assumptions regarding
future medical costs increases. The discount rate affected
52
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
the post-retirement obligations in a similar fashion to that
described above for pension obligations. As the assumed rate of
increase in medical costs went up, so did the net projected
obligation. Conversely, as the rate of increase was assumed to
be smaller, the projected obligation declined.
Since our largest pension plans and the post-retirement medical
plans were terminated in 2003 and 2004, the amount of
variability in respect of such plans was substantially reduced.
However, there were five remaining defined benefit pension plans
that were still ongoing pending the resolution of certain
litigation with the PBGC. We prevailed in the litigation against
the PBGC in August 2006. Accordingly, four of the five remaining
plans were terminated during the fourth quarter of 2006,
effective as of October 10, 2006, and were replaced by defined
contribution 401(k) plans and contributions to related
multi-employer pension plans maintained by the USW and certain
other unions.
Given that all of our significant benefit plans after the
emergence date are defined contribution plans or have limits on
the amounts to be paid, our future financial statements will not
be subject to the same volatility as our financial statements
prior to emergence and the termination of the plans.
Our judgments and estimates related to environmental
commitments and contingencies
We are subject to a number of environmental laws and
regulations, to fines or penalties that may be assessed for
alleged breaches of such laws and regulations and to clean-up
obligations and other claims and litigation based upon such laws
and regulations. We have in the past been and may in the future
be subject to a number of claims under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of
1986, or CERCLA.
Based on our evaluation of these and other environmental
matters, we have established environmental accruals, primarily
related to investigations and potential remediation of the soil,
groundwater and at our current operating facilities that may
have been adversely impacted by hazardous materials, including
polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. These environmental accruals
represent our estimate of costs reasonably expected to be
incurred on a going concern basis in the ordinary course of
business based on presently enacted laws and regulations,
currently available facts, existing technology and our
assessment of the likely remedial action to be taken. However,
making estimates of possible environmental costs is subject to
inherent uncertainties. As additional facts are developed and
definitive remediation plans and necessary regulatory approvals
for implementation of remediation are established or alternative
technologies are developed, actual costs may exceed the current
environmental accruals.
Our judgments and estimates related to conditional asset
retirement obligations
Companies are required to estimate incremental costs for special
handling, removal and disposal costs of materials that may or
will give rise to conditional asset retirement obligations and
then discount the expected costs back to the current year using
a credit adjusted risk free rate. Under current accounting
guidelines, liabilities and costs for conditional asset
retirement obligations must be recognized in a companys
financial statements even if it is unclear when or if the
conditional asset retirement obligations will be triggered. If
it is unclear when or if a conditional asset retirement
obligation will be triggered, companies are required to use
probability weighting for possible timing scenarios to determine
the probability weighted amounts that should be recognized in
our financial statements. We have evaluated our exposures to
conditional asset retirement obligations and determined that we
have conditional asset retirement obligations at several of our
facilities. The vast majority of such conditional asset
retirement obligations consist of incremental costs that would
be associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of
which is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within
walls, floors, ceilings or piping) at certain of the older
facilities if such facilities were to undergo major renovation
or be demolished. No plans currently exist for any such
renovation or demolition of
53
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
such facilities and our current assessment is that the most
probable scenarios are that no such conditional asset retirement
obligation would be triggered for 20 or more years, if at all.
Nonetheless, we recorded an estimated conditional asset
retirement obligation liability of approximately
$2.7 million at December 31, 2005 and we expect that
this amount will increase substantially over time.
The estimation of conditional asset retirement obligations is
subject to a number of inherent uncertainties including:
|
|
|
the timing of when any such
conditional asset retirement obligation may be incurred;
|
|
|
the ability to accurately
identify all materials that may require special handling or
treatment;
|
|
|
the ability to reasonably
estimate the total incremental special handling and other costs;
|
|
|
the ability to assess the
relative probability of different scenarios which could give
rise to a conditional asset retirement obligation; and
|
|
|
|
other factors outside our
control including changes in regulations, costs and interest
rates.
|
|
Actual costs and the timing of such costs may vary significantly
from the estimates, judgments and probable scenarios we
considered, which could, in turn, have a material impact on our
future financial statements.
Recoverability of recorded asset values
Under GAAP, assets to be held and used are evaluated for
recoverability differently than assets to be sold or disposed
of. Assets to be held and used are evaluated based on their
expected undiscounted future net cash flows. So long as we
reasonably expect that such undiscounted future net cash flows
for each asset will exceed the recorded value of the asset being
evaluated, no impairment is required. However, if plans to sell
or dispose of an asset or group of assets meet a number of
specific criteria, then, under GAAP, such assets should be
considered held for sale or disposition and their recoverability
should be evaluated, based on expected consideration to be
received upon disposition. Sales or dispositions at a particular
time will be affected by, among other things, the existing
industry and general economic circumstances as well as our own
circumstances, including whether or not assets will be sold on
an accelerated or extended timetable. Such circumstances may
cause the expected value in a sale or disposition scenario to
differ materially from the realizable value over the normal
operating life of an asset, which would likely be evaluated on
long-term industry trends.
Income tax provisions in interim periods
In accordance with GAAP, financial statements for interim
periods are to include an income tax provision based on the
effective tax rate expected to be incurred in the current year.
Accordingly, estimates and judgments must be made for each
applicable taxable jurisdiction as to the amount of taxable
income that may be generated, the availability of deductions and
credits expected and the availability of net operating loss
carry-forwards or other tax attributes to offset taxable income.
Making such estimates and judgments is subject to inherent
uncertainties given the difficulty of predicting such factors as
future market conditions, customer requirements, the cost for
key inputs such as energy and primary aluminum, its overall
operating efficiency and many other items.
Predecessor reporting while in reorganization
Consolidated financial statements and information for dates and
periods prior to July 1, 2006 were prepared on a
going concern basis in accordance with
SOP 90-7, and did
not include the impacts of our plan of reorganization including
adjustments relating to recorded asset amounts, the resolution
of liabilities subject to compromise or the cancellation of the
equity interests of our pre-emergence
54
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
stockholders. Adjustments related to our plan of reorganization
materially affected our consolidated financial statements
included in this prospectus.
In addition, during the course of the chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings, there were material impacts including:
|
|
|
|
Additional
pre-filing date claims
were identified through the proof of claim reconciliation
process and arose in connection with our actions in the
chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. For example, while we
considered rejection of the Bonneville Power Administration
contract to be in our best long-term interests, the rejection
resulted in an approximate $75.0 million claim by the
Bonneville Power Administration. In the quarter ended
June 30, 2006, an agreement with the Bonneville Power
Administration was approved by the bankruptcy court under which
the claim was settled for a
pre-petition claim of
$6.1 million. |
|
|
|
|
The amount of
pre-filing date claims
ultimately allowed by the bankruptcy court related to disputed
claims was materially different from the amount reflected in our
consolidated financial statements. |
|
|
|
|
Changes in our business plan
precipitated by the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings
resulted in significant charges associated with the disposition
of assets.
|
|
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Our operating results are sensitive to changes in the prices of
alumina, primary aluminum and fabricated aluminum products, and
also depend to a significant degree upon the volume and mix of
all products sold. As discussed more fully in Notes 3 and
13 to our consolidated financial statements, we have utilized
hedging transactions to lock in a specified price or range of
prices for certain products which we sell or consume in our
production process and to mitigate our exposure to changes in
foreign currency exchange rates.
Sensitivity
Primary Aluminum
Our share of primary aluminum production from Anglesey is
approximately 150 million pounds annually. Because we
purchase alumina for Anglesey at prices linked to primary
aluminum prices, only a portion of our net revenues associated
with Anglesey are exposed to price risk. We estimate the net
portion of our share of Anglesey production exposed to primary
aluminum price risk to be approximately 100 million pounds
annually (before considering income tax effects).
Our pricing of fabricated aluminum products is generally
intended to lock in a conversion margin (representing the value
added from the fabrication process) and to pass metal price risk
on to our customers. However, in certain instances, we enter
into firm price arrangements. In such instances, we have price
risk on our anticipated primary aluminum purchase for the
customers order. Total fabricated products shipments
during 2003, 2004 and 2005 for which we had price risk were (in
millions of pounds) 97.6, 119.0 and 155.0, respectively,
representing 26%, 26% and 32% of the total pounds of fabricated
products shipped in the applicable year. Total fabricated
products shipments during the nine month periods ended
September 30, 2005 and 2006 for which we had price risk
were (in millions of pounds) 109.6 and 153.0, respectively,
representing 29% and 38% of total fabricated products shipments
in the applicable period.
During the last three years, our net exposure to primary
aluminum price risk at Anglesey substantially offset or roughly
equaled the volume of fabricated products shipments with
underlying primary aluminum price risk. As such, we consider our
access to Anglesey production overall to be a
natural hedge against any fabricated products firm
metal-price risk. However, since the volume of fabricated
products shipped under firm prices may not match up on a
month-to-month basis
with expected
55
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
Anglesey-related primary aluminum shipments, we may use
third-party hedging instruments to eliminate any net remaining
primary aluminum price exposure existing at any time.
At September 30, 2006, our fabricated products business
held contracts for the delivery of fabricated aluminum products
that have the effect of creating price risk on anticipated
primary aluminum purchases for the fourth quarter of 2006 and
the period 2007 2010 totaling approximately (in millions
of pounds): 2006: 69, 2007: 116, 2008: 94, and
2009: 71 and 2010: 72.
Foreign currency
From time to time, we enter into forward exchange contracts to
hedge material cash commitments for foreign currencies. After
considering the completed sales of our commodities interests,
our primary foreign exchange exposure is the Anglesey-related
commitment that we fund in Great Britain Pound Sterling. We
estimate that, before consideration of any hedging activities, a
US $0.01 increase (decrease) in the value of the
Great Britain Pound Sterling results in an approximate
$0.5 million (decrease) increase in our annual
pre-tax operating
income.
Energy
We are exposed to energy price risk from fluctuating prices for
natural gas. We estimate that each $1.00 change in natural gas
prices (per thousand cubic feet) impacts our annual
pre-tax operating
results by approximately $4 million.
From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we enter
into hedging transactions with major suppliers of energy and
energy-related financial investments. As of October 1,
2006, we had fixed price contracts that would cap the average
price we would pay for natural gas so that, when combined with
price limits in the physical gas supply agreement, our exposure
to increases in natural gas prices has been substantially
limited for approximately 76% of the natural gas purchases for
October 2006 through December 2006, approximately 31% of our
natural gas purchases from January 2007 through March 2007 and
approximately 14% of our natural gas purchases from April 2007
through June 2007.
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed
to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our
reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange
Act, is processed, recorded, summarized and reported within the
time periods specified in the SECs rules and forms and
that such information is accumulated and communicated to
management, including the principal executive officer and
principal financial officer, to allow for timely decisions
regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the
disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that
any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and
operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the
desired control objectives, and management is required to apply
its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of
possible controls and procedures.
Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation
of our disclosure controls and procedures was performed as of
December 31, 2005 under the supervision of and with the
participation of our management, including the principal
executive officer and principal financial officer. Based on that
evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal
financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and
procedures were not effective for the reasons described below.
During the final reporting and closing process relating to our
first quarter of 2005, we evaluated the accounting treatment for
the VEBA payments and concluded that such payments should be
presented
56
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
as a period expense. As more fully discussed in Note 16 of
the notes to consolidated financial statements included
elsewhere in this prospectus, during our reporting and closing
process relating to the preparation of our December 31,
2005 financial statements and analyzing the appropriate
post-emergence
accounting treatment for the VEBA payments, we concluded that
the VEBA payments made in 2005 should have been presented as a
reduction of
pre-petition retiree
medical obligations rather than as a period expense. While the
incorrect accounting treatment employed relating to the VEBA
payments did indicate that a deficiency in our internal controls
over financial reporting existed at December 31, 2005, such
deficiency was fully remediated during the final reporting and
closing process in connection with the preparation of our
December 31, 2005 financial statements and, accordingly,
did not exist at the end of subsequent periods.
During the first quarter of 2006 as part of the final reporting
and closing process relating to the preparation of our
December 31, 2005 financial statements, we concluded that
our controls and procedures were not effective as of
December 31, 2005 because a material weakness in internal
control over financial reporting existed relating to our
accounting for derivative financial instruments under Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, Accounting
for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
(SFAS No. 133). Specifically, we lacked
sufficient technical expertise as to the application of SFAS
No. 133, and our procedures relating to hedging
transactions were not designed effectively such that each of the
complex documentation requirements for hedge accounting
treatment set forth in SFAS No. 133 were evaluated
appropriately. More specifically, our documentation did not
comply with SFAS No. 133 with respect to our methods
for testing and supporting that changes in the market value of
the hedging transactions would correlate with fluctuations in
the value of the forecasted transaction to which they relate. We
believed that the derivatives we were using would qualify for
the
short-cut
method whereby regular assessments of correlation would not be
required. However, we ultimately concluded that, while the terms
of the derivatives were essentially the same as the forecasted
transaction, they were not identical and, therefore, we should
have done certain mathematical computations to prove the ongoing
correlation of changes in value of the hedge and the forecasted
transaction.
We have concluded that, had we completed our documentation in
strict compliance with SFAS No. 133, the derivative
transactions would have qualified for hedge
(e.g. deferral) treatment. The rules provide that,
once de-designation has
occurred, we can modify our documentation and
re-designate the
derivative transactions as hedges and, if
appropriately documented,
re-qualify the
transactions for prospectively deferring changes in market
fluctuations after such corrections are made.
We are working to modify our documentation and to
re-qualify open and
post-2005 derivative transactions for treatment as hedges.
Specifically, we will, as a part of the
re-designation process,
modify the documentation in respect of all our derivative
transactions to require the long-form method of
testing and supporting correlation. We also intend to have
outside experts review our revised documentation once completed
and to use such experts to perform reviews of documentation in
respect of any new forms of documentation on future transactions
and to do periodic reviews to help reduce the risk that other
instances of
non-compliance with
SFAS No. 133 will occur. However, as
SFAS No. 133 is a complex document and different
interpretations are possible, absolute assurances cannot be
provided that such improved controls will prevent any/all
instances of
non-compliance.
As a result of the material weakness, we restated our financial
statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2005,
June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005. In light of
these restatements, our management, including our principal
executive officer and principal financial officer, determined
that this deficiency constituted a material weakness in our
internal control over financial reporting at December 31,
2005. Having identified the material weakness prior to the end
of the first quarter of 2006, we changed our accounting for
derivative instruments from hedge treatment to
mark-to-market
treatment in our financial statements for the first quarter of
2006 and subsequent periods in order to
57
Managements discussion and analysis of financial
condition and results of operations
comply with GAAP. While we believe this change in our accounting
for derivative instruments technically resolves the material
weakness from a GAAP perspective, we believe that hedge
accounting is more desirable than mark-to-market accounting
treatment and, accordingly, we will not, from our own
perspective, consider this matter to be fully remediated until
we complete all the steps outlined above and requalify our
derivatives for hedge accounting treatment under GAAP.
Changes in internal controls over financial reporting
We did not have any change in our internal controls over
financial reporting during the third quarter of 2006 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, our
internal controls over financial reporting.
We relocated our corporate headquarters from Houston, Texas to
Foothill Ranch, California. Staff transition occurred starting
in late 2004 and was ongoing primarily during the first half of
2005. A small core group of Houston corporate personnel were
retained throughout 2005 to supplement the Foothill Ranch staff
and handle certain of the remaining chapter 11
bankruptcy-related matters.
As previously announced, in January 2006, our Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer resigned. His decision to resign was
based on a personal relationship with another employee, which we
determined to be inappropriate. The resignation was in no way
related to our internal controls, financial statements,
financial performance or financial condition. We formed the
Office of the CFO and split the CFOs duties
between our Chief Executive Officer and two long-tenured
financial officers, the
VP-Treasurer and
VP-Controller. In
February 2006, a person with a significant corporate accounting
role resigned. This persons duties were split between the
VP-Controller and other
key managers in the corporate accounting group. We also used
certain former personnel to augment the corporate accounting
team. In May 2006, we hired a new CFO, and over recent
months, we have upgraded our corporate accounting and financial
staffs with respect to certain key roles.
The relocation and changes in personnel described above have
made the 2005 year-end
and 2006 accounting and reporting processes more difficult due
to the combined loss of the two individuals and reduced amounts
of institutional knowledge in the new corporate accounting group.
58
Recent reorganization
Between the first quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
Kaiser and 25 of our then existing subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code. While in chapter 11 bankruptcy, we
continued to manage our business in the ordinary course as
debtors-in-possession
subject to the control and administration of the bankruptcy
court.
We and 16 of our subsidiaries filed chapter 11 bankruptcy
in the first quarter of 2002 primarily because of our liquidity
and cash flow problems that arose in late 2001 and early 2002.
We were facing significant near-term debt maturities at a time
of unusually weak aluminum industry business conditions,
depressed aluminum prices and a broad economic slowdown that was
further exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001. In
addition, we had become increasingly burdened by asbestos
litigation and growing legacy obligations for retiree medical
and pension costs. The confluence of these factors created the
prospect of continuing operating losses and negative cash flows,
resulting in lower credit ratings and an inability to access the
capital markets.
In the first quarter of 2003, nine of our other subsidiaries
filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to protect the assets
held by those subsidiaries against possible statutory liens that
might have otherwise arisen and been enforced by the PBGC.
On December 20, 2005, the bankruptcy court entered an order
confirming two separate joint plans of liquidation for four of
our subsidiaries. On December 22, 2005, these plans of
liquidation became effective and all restricted cash and other
assets held on behalf of or by the subsidiaries, consisting
primarily of approximately $686.8 of net cash proceeds from the
sale of interests in and related to certain alumina refineries
in Australia and Jamaica, were transferred to a trustee for
subsequent distribution to holders of claims against the
subsidiaries in accordance with the terms of the plans of
liquidation. In connection with the plans of liquidation, these
four subsidiaries were dissolved and their corporate existence
was terminated.
On February 6, 2006, the bankruptcy court entered an order
confirming a plan of reorganization for us and our other
remaining subsidiaries that had filed chapter 11
bankruptcy. On May 11, 2006, the District Court for the
District of Delaware entered an order affirming the confirmation
order and adopting the bankruptcy courts findings of fact
and conclusions of law regarding confirmation of our plan of
reorganization. On July 6, 2006, our plan of reorganization
became effective and was substantially consummated, whereupon we
emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Pursuant to our plan of reorganization, on July 6, 2006,
the pre-petition ownership interests in Kaiser were cancelled
without consideration and approximately $4.4 billion of
pre-petition claims against us, including claims in respect of
debt, pension and post-retirement medical obligations and
asbestos and other tort liabilities, were resolved as follows:
|
|
|
Claims in Respect of Retiree
Medical Obligations.
Pursuant to settlements reached with representatives of hourly
and salaried retirees in early 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
- |
an aggregate of 11,439,900 shares of our common stock were
delivered to the Union VEBA Trust and entities that prior to
July 6, 2006 acquired from the Union VEBA Trust rights to
receive a portion of such shares; and |
|
|
- |
an aggregate of 1,940,100 shares of our common stock were
delivered to the Salaried Retiree VEBA Trust and entities that
prior to July 6, 2006 acquired from the Salaried Retiree
VEBA Trust rights to receive a portion of such shares. |
|
|
|
Priority Claims and Secured
Claims. All
pre-petition priority claims, pre-petition priority tax claims
and pre-petition secured claims were paid in full in cash.
|
59
Recent reorganization
|
|
|
Unsecured
Claims. With respect
to pre-petition unsecured claims (other than the personal injury
claims specified below):
|
|
|
|
|
- |
all pre-petition unsecured claims of the PBGC against our
Canadian subsidiaries were satisfied by the delivery of
2,160,000 shares of common stock and $2.5 million in
cash; and |
|
|
|
- |
all pre-petition general unsecured claims against us, other than
our Canadian subsidiaries, including claims of the PBGC and
holders of our public debt, were satisfied by the issuance of
4,460,000 shares of our common stock to a third-party
disbursing agent, with such shares to be delivered to the
holders of such claims in accordance with the terms of our plan
of reorganization (to the extent that such claims do not
constitute convenience claims that have been or will be
satisfied with cash payments). Of such 4,460,000 shares of
common stock, approximately 250,000 shares were being held
by the third-party disbursing agent as of December 31, 2006
as a reserve pending resolution of disputed claims. To the
extent a holder of a disputed claim is not entitled to shares
reserved in respect of such claim, such shares will be
distributed to holders of allowed claims. |
|
|
|
|
Personal Injury
Claims. Certain
trusts, the PI Trusts, were formed to receive distributions from
us, assume responsibility from us for present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, present and future silica
personal injury claims, present and future coal tar pitch
personal injury claims and present but not future noise-induced
hearing personal injury claims, and to make payments in respect
of such personal injury claims. We contributed to the
PI Trusts:
|
|
|
|
|
- |
the rights with respect to proceeds associated with personal
injury-related insurance recoveries reflected on our
consolidated financial statements at June 30, 2006 as a
receivable having a value of $963.3 million; |
|
|
- |
$13.0 million in cash (less approximately $0.3 million
advanced prior to July 6, 2006); |
|
|
- |
the stock of a subsidiary whose primary asset was approximately
145 acres of real estate located in Louisiana and the
rights as lessor under a lease agreement for such real property
that produces modest rental income; and |
|
|
- |
75% of a pre-petition general unsecured claim against one of our
subsidiaries in the amount of $1,106.0 million, entitling
the PI Trusts to a share of the 4,460,000 shares of common
stock distributed to unsecured claimholders. |
The PI Trusts assumed all liability and responsibility for
present and future asbestos personal injury claims, present and
future silica personal injury claims, present and future coal
tar pitch personal injury claims and present but not future
noise-induced hearing personal injury claims. As of July 6,
2006, injunctions were entered prohibiting any person from
pursuing any claims against us or any of our affiliates in
respect of such matters.
In general, the rights afforded under our plan of reorganization
and the treatment of claims under our plan of reorganization are
in complete satisfaction of and discharge all claims arising on
or before July 6, 2006. However, our plan of reorganization
does not limit any rights that the United States of America or
the individual states may have under environmental laws to seek
to enforce equitable remedies against us, though we may raise
any and all available defenses in any action to enforce such
equitable remedies. Further, with regard to certain non-owned
sites specified in the environmental settlement agreement
entered into in connection with our plan of reorganization as to
which we and the United States of America had not reached
settlement by the confirmation date, all our rights and defenses
and those of the United States of America are preserved and not
affected by our plan of reorganization. With respect to sites
owned by us after the confirmation date, specified categories of
claims of the United States of America and the individual states
party to the environmental settlement
60
Recent reorganization
agreement are not discharged, impaired or affected in any way by
our plan of reorganization, and we maintain any and all defenses
to any such claims except for any defense alleging such claims
were discharged under our plan of reorganization.
CORPORATE STRUCTURE
Pursuant to our plan of reorganization, in connection with our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we engaged in a
number of transactions in order to simplify our corporate
structure. The following diagram illustrates our corporate
structure as of December 31, 2006:
61
Industry overview
The aluminum fabricated products market is broadly defined as
the markets for flat-rolled, extruded, drawn, forged and cast
aluminum products, which are used in a variety of end-use
applications. We participate in certain portions of the markets
for flat-rolled, extruded/drawn and forged products focusing on
highly engineered products for aerospace and high strength,
general engineering and custom automotive and industrial
applications. The portions of markets in which we participate
accounted for approximately 20% of total North American
shipments of aluminum fabricated products in 2005.
END MARKETS
We have chosen to focus on the manufacture of aluminum
fabricated products primarily for aerospace and high strength,
general engineering and custom automotive and industrial
applications.
|
|
|
Products sold for aerospace and
high strength applications represented 29% of our 2005
fabricated products shipments. We offer various aluminum
fabricated products to service aerospace and high strength
customers, including heat treat plate and sheet products, as
well as cold finish bars and seamless drawn tubes. Heat treated
products are distinguished from common alloy products by higher
strength, fracture toughness and other desired product
attributes.
|
|
|
Products sold for general
engineering applications represented 44% of our 2005 fabricated
products shipments. This market consists primarily of
transportation and industrial end customers who purchase a
variety of extruded, drawn and forged fabricated products
through large North American distributors.
|
|
|
|
Products sold for custom
automotive and industrial applications represented 27% of 2005
fabricated products shipments. These products include custom
extruded, drawn and forged aluminum products for a variety of
applications. While we are capable of producing forged products
for most end-use applications, we concentrate our efforts on
meeting demand for forged products, other than wheels, in the
automotive industry.
|
|
We have elected not to participate in certain end markets for
fabricated aluminum products, including beverage and food cans,
building and construction materials, and foil used for
packaging, which represented approximately 95% of the North
American flat-rolled products market and approximately 45% of
the North American extrusion market in 2005. We believe our
chosen end markets present better opportunities for sales growth
and premium pricing of differentiated products.
North American Flat-Rolled & Extrusion Market
Size
Kaiser Served & Unserved Segments
Source: 2005 Aluminum Association, Kaiser estimates
62
Industry overview
Aerospace and defense applications
We are a leading supplier of high quality sheet, plate, drawn
tube and bar products to the global aerospace and defense
industry. Our products for these end-use applications are heat
treat plate and sheet, as well as cold finish bar and seamless
drawn tube that are manufactured to demanding specifications.
The aerospace and defense markets consumption of
fabricated aluminum products is driven by overall levels of
industrial production, cyclical airframe build rates and defense
spending, as well as the potential availability of competing
materials such as composites. According to Airline
Monitors July 2006 forecast, the global build rate of
commercial aircraft over 50 seats is expected to rise at a
4.6% compound annual growth rate through 2025. Additionally,
demand growth is expected to increase for thick plate with
growth in monolithic construction of commercial and
other aircraft. In monolithic construction, aluminum plate is
heavily machined to form the desired part from a single piece of
metal (as opposed to creating parts using aluminum sheet,
extrusions or forgings that are affixed to one another using
rivets, bolts or welds). In addition to commercial aviation
demand, military applications for heat treat plate and sheet
include aircraft frames and skins and armor plating to protect
ground vehicles from explosive devices.
|
|
|
Global Commercial Aircraft Build
> 50 Seats
|
|
U.S. Index of Industrial Production
Seasonally Adjusted |
Source: Airline Monitors July 2006 Forecast
Source: Federal Reserve
General engineering applications
General engineering products consist primarily of standard
catalog items sold to large metal distributors. These products
have a wide range of uses, many of which involve further
fabrication of these products for numerous transportation and
industrial end-use applications where machining of plate, rod
and bar is intensive. Demand growth and cyclicality for general
engineering products tend to mirror broad economic patterns and
industrial activity in North America. Demand is also impacted by
the destocking and restocking of inventory in the full supply
chain.
Custom automotive and industrial applications
We manufacture custom extruded/drawn and forged aluminum
products for many automotive and industrial end uses, including
consumer durables, electrical, machinery and equipment,
automobile, light truck, heavy truck and truck trailer
applications. Examples of the wide variety of custom
63
Industry overview
products that we supply to the automotive industry are extruded
products for anti-lock braking systems, drawn tube for drive
shafts and forgings for suspension control arms and drive train
yokes. For some custom products, we perform limited fabrication,
including sawing and cutting to length. Demand growth and
cyclicality tend to mirror broad economic patterns and
industrial activity in North America, with specific individual
market segments such as automotive, heavy truck and truck
trailer applications tracking their respective build rates.
PRODUCTS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Flat-Rolled Products
Aluminum rolled products are semi-fabricated plate, sheet and
foil that are further processed into finished goods, including
aluminum cans, automotive body panels, household foil, aircraft
body structures and skins and many other industrial products.
There are two main processes used in the fabrication of
flat-rolled products: (1) a continuous casting process in
which molten aluminum is cast directly into sheets; and
(2) a hot mill process in which heated ingots (large
rectangular slabs of aluminum) are repeatedly squeezed between
large rolls to elongate the ingot to reduce thickness. The
continuous casting process can produce sheet and foil, and the
hot mill process can produce plate, sheet and foil.
|
|
|
Plate (0.025 inch or
more) Plate is used in heavy duty aerospace, machinery and
transportation applications. Plate applications include
structural sections for rail cars and large ships, structural
components and skins of jumbo jets and spacecraft fuel tanks as
well as armor protection for military vehicles.
|
|
|
Sheet (0.006 to
0.0249 inch) Sheet is the most widely used form of
aluminum. Sheet applications include packaging (beverage cans
and closures), home appliances and cookware, automobile panels,
aircraft skins and building products such as siding, roofing and
awnings.
|
|
|
Foil (less than
0.006 inch) Foil is the thinnest of the flat-rolled
aluminum products. Foil applications include flexible packaging,
household foil and fin stock for air conditioning, industrial
and automotive applications.
|
We use the hot mill process to produce plate and sheet, but do
not produce foil products. Aluminum rolled products are
manufactured using a variety of alloy mixtures, a range of
tempers (hardness), gauges (thickness) and widths, and
various coatings and finishes. Additional steps can be taken to
achieve desired metallurgical, dimensional and/or performance
properties, including annealing, heat treating, stretching and
leveling.
Extruded and Drawn Products
The extrusion process converts cast billet (a cylindrical log of
aluminum) into semi-finished rods and bars, pipes and tubes, or
profiles for direct end use or further fabrication.
|
|
|
|
Rods and Bars Rods and
bars are used in aerospace and general machinery applications.
Examples include rivets, screws, bolts and machinery parts.
|
|
|
|
Pipes and Tubes Pipes and
tubes are used in aerospace, automotive, building and
construction and consumer durable applications. Examples include
automotive drive shafts, fluid circulation and control systems
for air conditioning, hydraulics and irrigation, and light poles.
|
|
|
Profiles (or
shapes) Profiles are used in automotive,
consumer durable and building and construction applications.
Examples include truck trailers, automobile bumpers, heat
distribution systems (heat sinks), doors, windows, commercial
building facades, ladders and scaffolds.
|
64
Industry overview
In the extrusion process, the billet is heated to an elevated
temperature to make the metal malleable and then pressed, or
extruded, through a die that gives the material a desired two
dimensional cross section. After the extrusions are straightened
and cut to specified lengths, there can be various processing
and finishing options. Finishing options include polishing,
painting, anodizing and powder coating. Some of our presses can
produce seamless tube, a product with higher structural
integrity than extruded tube with welded seams.
Additionally, extruded tubes and rods can be pulled through a
die, or drawn, to create tubes or rods of more precise
dimensions.
Forged Products
Forging is a manufacturing process in which metal is pressed,
pounded or squeezed under great pressure into high strength
parts known as forgings. Forged parts are heat treated before
final shipment to the customer. The end-use applications are
primarily in transportation, where high
strength-to-weight
ratios in products are valued. We focus our production of forged
products on certain types of automotive applications.
RAW MATERIALS
The rolling ingots used as the starting material for flat-rolled
products and the billets used for extrusions and forgings are
cast from primary aluminum (produced in aluminum smelters),
secondary aluminum (recycled from aluminum scrap such as used
beverage cans and other post-consumer aluminum, as well as
internally generated scrap from internal manufacturing
operations) or a combination thereof. Primary aluminum is
readily available and can generally be purchased at prices set
on the London Metal Exchange plus a premium that varies by
geographic region of delivery, form and alloy. Secondary
aluminum, or scrap, is also readily available and trades at a
discount to primary metal, depending mainly on its alloy and
form.
65
Business
COMPANY OVERVIEW
We are a leading independent fabricated aluminum products
manufacturing company with 2005 net sales of approximately
$1.1 billion. We were founded in 1946 and operate 11
production facilities in the United States and Canada. We
manufacture rolled, extruded, drawn and forged aluminum products
within three product categories consisting of aerospace and high
strength products (which we refer to as Aero/ HS products),
general engineering products and custom automotive and
industrial products.
We produced and shipped approximately 482 million pounds of
fabricated aluminum products in 2005, which comprised 86% of our
total net sales. Of our total fabricated product shipments in
2005, approximately 29% were Aero/ HS products, approximately
44% were general engineering products and the remaining
approximately 27% consisted of custom automotive and industrial
products. Of our total fabricated products net sales in 2005,
approximately 38% were Aero/ HS products, approximately 38% were
general engineering products and the remaining approximately 24%
consisted of custom automotive and industrial products.
In order to capitalize on the significant growth in demand for
high quality heat treat aluminum plate products in the market
for Aero/ HS products, we have begun a major expansion at our
Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington. We anticipate that
the Trentwood expansion will significantly increase our aluminum
plate production capacity and enable us to produce thicker gauge
aluminum plate. The $105 million expansion will be
completed in phases, with one new heat treat furnace currently
operating at full production, a second such furnace currently
operational and expected to reach full production no later than
early 2007 and a third such furnace becoming operational in
early 2008. A new heavy gauge stretcher, which will enable us to
produce thicker gauge aluminum plate, will also become
operational in early 2008.
We have long-standing relationships with our customers, which
include leading aerospace companies, automotive suppliers and
metal distributors. We strive to tightly integrate the
management of our fabricated products operations across multiple
production facilities, product lines and target markets in order
to maximize the efficiency of product flow to our customers. In
our served markets, we seek to be the supplier of choice by
pursuing
best-in-class
customer satisfaction and offering a product portfolio that is
unmatched in breadth and depth by our competitors.
In addition to our core fabricated products operations, we have
a 49% ownership interest in Anglesey Aluminium Limited, an
aluminum smelter based in Holyhead, Wales. Anglesey has produced
in excess of 140,000 metric tons for each of the last three
fiscal years, of which 49% is available to us. We sell our
portion of Angleseys primary aluminum output to a single
third party at market prices. During 2005, sales of our portion
of Angleseys output represented 14% of our total net
sales. Because we also purchase primary aluminum for our
fabricated products at market prices, Angleseys production
acts as a natural hedge for our fabricated products operations.
Please see Risk factors The expiration of the power
agreement for Anglesey may adversely affect our cash flows and
affect our hedging programs for a discussion regarding the
potential closure of Anglesey, which could occur as soon as 2009.
COMPETITIVE STRENGTHS
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable
us to enhance our position as one of the leaders in the
fabricated aluminum products industry:
|
|
|
Leading market positions in
value-added niche markets for fabricated
products. We have
repositioned our business to concentrate on products in which we
believe we have strong
|
66
Business
|
|
|
production capability, well-developed technical expertise and
high product quality. We believe that we hold a leading market
share position in niche markets that represented approximately
85% of our 2005 net sales from fabricated aluminum
products. Our leading market position extends throughout our
broad product offering, including plate, sheet, seamless
extruded and drawn tube, rod, bar, extrusions and forgings for
use in a variety of value-added aerospace, general engineering
and custom automotive and industrial applications. |
|
|
|
Well-positioned growth platform. We have substantial
organic growth opportunities in the production of aluminum
plate, extrusions and forgings. We are in the midst of a
$105 million expansion of our Trentwood facility that will
allow us to significantly increase production capacity and
enable us to produce thicker gauge aluminum plate. We also have
the ability to add presses and other manufacturing equipment at
several of our current facilities in order to increase extrusion
and forging capacity. Additionally, we believe our platform and
financial strength provide us with flexibility to create
additional stockholder value through selective acquisitions. |
|
|
|
Supplier of choice. We pursue
best-in-class
customer satisfaction through the consistent, on-time delivery
of high quality products on short lead times. We offer our
customers a portfolio of both highly engineered and industry
standard products that is unmatched in breadth and depth by most
of our competitors. Our continuous improvement culture is
grounded in our production system, the Kaiser Production System,
which involves an integrated utilization of application and
advanced process engineering and business improvement
methodologies such as lean enterprise, total productive
maintenance and six sigma. We believe that our broad product
portfolio of highly engineered products and the Kaiser
Production System, together with our established record of
product innovation, will allow us to remain the supplier of
choice for our customers and further enhance our competitive
position. |
|
|
Blue-chip customer base and diverse end markets. Our
fabricated products customers include leading aerospace
companies, automotive suppliers and metal distributors, such as
A.M. Castle-Raytheon, Airbus Industrie, Boeing, Bombardier,
Eclipse Aviation, Reliance Steel & Aluminum and
Transtar-Lockheed Martin. We have long-term relationships with
our top customers, many of which we have served for decades. Our
customer base spans a variety of end markets, including
aerospace and defense, automotive, consumer durables, machinery
and equipment, and electrical. |
|
|
|
Financial strength. We have little debt and significant
liquidity as a result of our recent chapter 11 bankruptcy
reorganization. We also have net operating loss carry-forwards
and other significant tax attributes that may reduce our future
cash payments of U.S. income tax. We previously disclosed
our belief that these tax attributes could together offset in
the range of $550 to $900 million of otherwise taxable
income, and we currently anticipate that, upon completion of our
2006 income tax return analysis, the amount of our tax
attributes as of December 31, 2006 will likely be in the
upper half of that range. |
|
|
|
|
Strong and experienced management. The members of our
senior management team have, on average, 20 years of
industry work experience, particularly within the areas of
operations, technology, marketing and finance. Our management
team has repositioned our fabricated products business and led
us through our recent chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization,
creating a focused business with financial and competitive
strength. |
|
STRATEGY
Our principal strategies to increase stockholder value are to:
|
|
|
Pursue organic
growth. We will
continue to utilize our manufacturing platform to increase
growth in areas where we are well-positioned such as aluminum
plate, forgings and extrusions. For
|
67
Business
|
|
|
instance, we anticipate that the expansion of our Trentwood
facility will enable us to significantly increase our production
capacity and enable us to produce thicker gauge aluminum plate,
allowing us to capitalize on the significant growth in demand
for high quality heat treat aluminum plate products in the
market for Aero/ HS products. Further, our well-equipped
extrusion and forging facilities provide a platform to expand
production as we take advantage of opportunities and our strong
customer relationships in the aerospace and industrial end
markets. |
|
|
Continue to differentiate our products and provide superior
customer support. As part of our ongoing supplier of choice
efforts, we will continue to strive to achieve
best-in-class
customer satisfaction. We will also continue to offer a broad
portfolio of differentiated, superior-quality products with high
engineering content, tailored to the needs of our customers. For
instance, our unique
T-Form®
sheet provides aerospace customers with high formability as well
as requisite strength characteristics, enabling these customers
to substantially lower their production costs. Additionally, we
believe our Kaiser
Select®
Rod established a new industry benchmark for quality and
performance in automatic screw applications. By continually
striving for
best-in-class
customer satisfaction and offering a broad portfolio of
differentiated products, we believe we will be able to maintain
our premium product pricing, increase our sales to current
customers and gain new customers, thereby increasing our market
share. |
|
|
Continue to enhance our operating efficiencies. During
the last five years, we have significantly reduced our costs by
narrowing our product focus, strategically investing in our
production facilities and implementing the Kaiser Production
System. We will continue to implement additional measures to
enhance our operating efficiency and productivity, which we
believe will further decrease our production costs. |
|
|
Maintain financial strength. We intend to employ debt
judiciously in order to remain financially strong throughout the
business cycle and to maintain our flexibility to capitalize on
growth opportunities. |
|
|
Enhance our product portfolio and customer base through
selective acquisitions. We may seek to grow through
acquisitions and strategic partnerships. We will selectively
consider acquisition opportunities that we believe will
complement our product portfolio and add long-term stockholder
value. |
FABRICATED PRODUCTS OPERATIONS
Products
We produced and shipped approximately 482 million pounds of
fabricated aluminum products in 2005, which comprised 86% of our
total net sales. Of our total fabricated product shipments in
2005, approximately 29% were Aero/ HS products, approximately
44% were general engineering products and the remaining
approximately 27% consisted of custom automotive and industrial
products. Of our total fabricated products net sales in 2005,
approximately 38% were Aero/ HS products, approximately 38% were
general engineering products and the remaining approximately 24%
consisted of custom automotive and industrial products.
Aerospace and High Strength Products. Our Aero/ HS
products consist of products that are used in applications that
demand high tensile strength, superior fatigue resistance
properties and exceptional durability even in harsh
environments. For instance, aerospace manufacturers use
high-strength alloys for a variety of structures that must
perform consistently under extreme variations in temperature and
altitude. Our Aero/ HS products are used for a wide variety of
end uses. We make aluminum plate and tube for aerospace
applications, and we manufacture a variety of specialized rod
and bar products that are incorporated in goods as diverse as
baseball bats and racecars.
68
Business
General Engineering Products. Our general engineering
products consist of 6000-series alloy rod, bar, tube, sheet,
plate and standard extrusions. 6000-series alloy is an
extrudable medium-strength alloy that is heat treatable and
extremely versatile. Our general engineering products have a
wide range of uses and applications, many of which involve
further fabrication of these products for numerous
transportation and other industrial end uses. For example, our
products are used in the specialized manufacturing process for
liquid crystal display screens, and we produce aluminum sheet
and plate that are used in the vacuum chambers in which
semiconductors are made. We also produce aluminum plate that is
used to further enhance military vehicle protection. Our rod and
bar products are manufactured into rivets, nails, screws, bolts
and parts of machinery and equipment.
Custom Automotive and Industrial Products. Our custom
products consist of extruded, drawn and forged aluminum products
for applications in many North American automotive and
industrial end uses, including consumer durables, electrical,
machinery and equipment, automobile, light truck, heavy truck
and truck trailer applications. We supply a wide variety of
automotive products, including extruded products for anti-lock
braking systems, drawn tube for drive shafts, and forgings for
suspension control arms and drive train yokes. A significant
portion of our other custom product sales in recent years has
been for water heater anodes, truck trailers and
electrical/electronic heat exchangers.
Fabricated products pricing
The price we pay for primary aluminum, the principal raw
material for our fabricated aluminum products business, consists
of two components: the price quoted for primary aluminum ingot
on the London Metals Exchange, or the LME, and the
Midwest Transaction Premium, a premium to LME reflecting
domestic market dynamics as well as the cost of shipping and
warehousing. Because aluminum prices are volatile, we manage the
risk of fluctuations in the price of primary aluminum through a
combination of pricing policies, internal hedging and financial
derivatives. Our three principal pricing mechanisms are as
follows:
|
|
|
Spot
price. Some of our
customers pay a product price that incorporates the spot price
of primary aluminum in effect at the time of shipment to a
customer. This pricing mechanism typically allows us to pass
commodity price risk to the customer.
|
|
|
Index-based
price. Some of our
customers pay a product price that incorporates an index-based
price for primary aluminum such as Platts Midwest price
for primary aluminum. This pricing mechanism also typically
allows us to pass commodity price risk to the customer.
|
|
|
Fixed
price. Some of our
customers pay a fixed price. During 2003, 2004, 2005 and the
nine months ended September 30, 2006, approximately
97.6 million pounds (or approximately 26%),
119.0 million pounds (or approximately 26%),
155.0 million pounds (or approximately 32%) and
153.0 million pounds (or approximately 38%), respectively,
of our fabricated products were sold at a fixed price. We bear
commodity price risk on fixed-price contracts, which we normally
hedge though a combination of financial derivatives and
production from Anglesey.
|
Sales, marketing and distribution
Sales are made directly to customers by our sales personnel
located in the United States, Canada and Europe, and by
independent sales agents in Asia, Mexico and the Middle East.
Our sales and marketing efforts are focused on the Aero/ HS,
general engineering and custom automotive and industrial product
markets.
Aerospace and High Strength Products. A majority of our
Aero/ HS products are sold to distributors with the remainder
sold directly to customers. Sales are made either under
contracts (with terms spanning from one year to several years)
or on an order-by-order basis. We serve this market with a
69
Business
North American sales force focused on Aero/ HS and general
engineering products and direct sales representatives in Western
Europe. Key competitive dynamics for Aero/ HS products include
the level of commercial aircraft construction spending (which in
turn is often subject to broader economic cycles) and defense
spending.
General Engineering Products. A substantial majority of
our general engineering products are sold to large distributors
in North America, with orders primarily consisting of standard
catalog items shipped with relatively short lead times. We
service this market with a North American sales force focused on
general engineering and Aero/ HS products. Key competitive
dynamics for general engineering products include product price,
product-line breadth, product quality, delivery performance and
customer service.
Custom Automotive and Industrial Products. Our custom
products are sold primarily to first tier automotive suppliers
and industrial end users. Sales contracts are typically medium
to long term in length. Almost all sales of custom products
occur through direct channels using a North American direct
sales force that works closely with our technical sales
organization. Key demand drivers for our automotive products
include the level of North American light vehicle manufacturing
and increased use of aluminum in vehicles in response to
increasingly strict governmental standards for fuel efficiency.
Demand for industrial products is directly linked to the
strength of the U.S. industrial economy.
Kaiser
Selecttm
In 2002, we launched our Kaiser
Selecttm
brand of products to further differentiate the quality of our
general engineering products from those of our competitors. We
are able to produce high-quality Kaiser
Selecttm
products due to our process and application engineering
expertise, research and development resources, equipment design
and the Kaiser Production System, which involves an integrated
utilization of application and advanced process engineering and
business improvement methodologies such as lean enterprise,
total productive maintenance and six sigma. We believe Kaiser
Selecttm
products are the highest quality products in the industry.
Customers
In 2005 and for the nine months ended September 30, 2006,
we had more than 550 and 525 fabricated products customers,
respectively. The largest and top five customers for fabricated
products accounted for approximately 11% and 33%, respectively,
of our net sales in 2005 and 19% and 42%, respectively, of our
net sales for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. The
increase in the percentage of our net sales to our largest
fabricated products is the result of our largest fabricated
products customer, Reliance Steel & Aluminum, acquiring
one of our other top five customers in the second quarter of
2006. Sales to Reliance and the other customer (on a combined
basis) accounted for approximately 19% of our net sales in 2005
and for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. The loss
of Reliance as a customer would have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations and cash flows. However, we believe
our relationship with Reliance is good and the risk of loss of
Reliance as a customer is remote.
Manufacturing processes
We utilize the following manufacturing processes to produce our
fabricated products:
Flat rolling. The traditional manufacturing process for
aluminum flat-rolled products uses ingot, a large rectangular
slab of aluminum, as the starter material. The ingot is
processed through a series of rolling operations, both hot and
cold. Finishing steps may include heat treatment, annealing,
coating, stretching, leveling or slitting to achieve the desired
metallurgical, dimensional and performance characteristics.
Aluminum flat-rolled products are manufactured using a variety
of alloy mixtures, a
70
Business
range of tempers (hardness), gauges (thickness) and widths, and
various coatings and finishes. Flat-rolled aluminum
semi-finished products are generally either sheet (under
0.25 inches in thickness) or plate (up to 15 inches in
thickness). The vast majority of the North American market for
aluminum flat-rolled products uses common alloy
material for construction and other applications and
beverage/food can sheet. However, these are products and markets
in which we have chosen not to participate. Rather, we have
focused our efforts on heat treat products. Heat
treat products are distinguished from common alloy products by
higher strength and other desired product attributes. The
primary end use of heat treat flat-rolled sheet and plate is for
aerospace and general engineering products.
Extrusion. The extrusion process typically starts with a
cast billet, which is an aluminum cylinder of varying length and
diameter. The first step in the process is to heat the billet to
an elevated temperature whereby the metal is malleable. The
billet is put into an extrusion press and pushed, or extruded,
through a die that gives the material the desired
two-dimensional cross section. The material is either quenched
as it leaves the press, or subjected to a post-extrusion heat
treatment cycle, to control the materials physical
properties. The extrusion is then straightened by stretching and
cut to length before being hardened in aging ovens. The largest
end uses of extruded products are in the construction, general
engineering and custom markets. Building and construction
products represents the single largest end-use market for
extrusions by a significant amount. However, we have chosen to
focus our efforts on general engineering and custom products
because we believe we have strong production capability,
well-developed technical expertise and high product quality with
respect to these products.
Drawing. Drawing is a fabrication operation pursuant to
which extruded tubes and rods are pulled through a die, or
drawn. The purpose of drawing is to reduce the diameter and wall
thickness while improving physical properties and dimensions.
Material may go through multiple drawing steps to achieve the
final dimensional specifications. The primary end use of drawn
products is for Aero/ HS products.
Forging. Forging is a manufacturing process in which
metal is pressed, pounded or squeezed under great pressure into
high-strength parts known as forgings. Forged parts are heat
treated before final shipment to the customer. The end-use
applications are primarily in transportation, where high
strength-to-weight
ratios in products are valued. We focus our production on
certain types of automotive applications.
Production facilities
A description of the manufacturing processes utilized and
products made at each of our 11 production facilities is shown
below:
|
|
|
|
|
Location |
|
Manufacturing process |
|
Products |
|
Chandler, Arizona
|
|
Drawing |
|
Aero/HS |
Greenwood, South Carolina
|
|
Forging |
|
Custom |
Jackson, Tennessee
|
|
Extrusion and drawing |
|
Aero/HS and general engineering |
London, Ontario
|
|
Extrusion |
|
Custom |
Los Angeles, California
|
|
Extrusion |
|
General engineering and custom |
Newark, Ohio
|
|
Extrusion and rolling |
|
Aero/HS and general engineering |
Richland, Washington
|
|
Extrusion |
|
Aero/HS and general engineering |
Richmond, Virginia
|
|
Extrusion and drawing |
|
General engineering and custom |
Sherman, Texas
|
|
Extrusion |
|
Custom |
Spokane, Washington
|
|
Rolling |
|
Aero/HS and general engineering |
Tulsa, Oklahoma
|
|
Extrusion |
|
General engineering |
71
Business
Many of our facilities employ the same basic manufacturing
processes and produce the same type of products. Over the past
several years, given the similar economic and other
characteristics at each location, we have made a significant
effort to more tightly integrate the management of our
fabricated products operations across multiple production
facilities, product lines and target markets in order to
maximize the efficiency of product flow to our customers. A
substantial portion of purchasing of primary aluminum for
fabrication is centralized in an effort to maximize price,
payment terms and other benefits. Because many customers
purchase a variety of our products that are produced at
different plants, we have also substantially integrated our
sales force. We believe that integration of our operations
allows us to capture efficiencies while allowing plant personnel
to remain highly focused on particular product lines.
Research and development
We operate three research and development centers. Our Rolling
and Heat Treat Center and our Metallurgical Analysis Center are
both located at our Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington.
The Rolling and Heat Treat Center has complete hot rolling, cold
rolling and heat treat capabilities to simulate, in small lots,
processing of flat-rolled products for process and product
development on an experimental scale. The Metallurgical Analysis
Center consists of a full metallographic laboratory and a
scanning electron microscope to support research development
programs as well as respond to plant technical service requests.
The third center, our Solidification and Casting Center, is
located in Newark, Ohio and has a short stroke experimental
caster with ingot cast rolling capabilities for the experimental
rolling mill and for extrusion billet used in plant extrusion
trials. Due to our research and development efforts, we have
been able to introduce products such as our unique
T-Form®
sheet which provides aerospace customers with high formability
as well as requisite strength characteristics, enabling these
customers to substantially lower their production costs.
Raw materials
We purchase substantially all of the primary aluminum and
recycled and scrap aluminum used to make our fabricated products
from third-party suppliers. In a majority of the cases, we
purchase primary aluminum ingot and recycled and scrap aluminum
in varying percentages depending on market factors such as price
and availability. Primary aluminum is typically based on the
Average Midwest Transaction Price, or Midwest Price, which has
typically ranged between $0.03 to $0.075 per pound above
the price traded on the LME depending on primary aluminum supply
and demand dynamics in North America. Recycled and scrap
aluminum are typically purchased at a modest discount to ingot
prices but can require additional processing. In addition to
producing fabricated aluminum products for sale to third
parties, certain of our production facilities provide one
another with billet, log or other intermediate materials in lieu
of purchasing such items from third-party suppliers. For
example, a substantial majority of the product from our
Richland, Washington facility is used as base input at our
Chandler, Arizona facility; our Sherman, Texas plant is
currently supplying billet and logs to our Tulsa, Oklahoma
facility; our Richmond, Virginia facility typically receives
some portion of its metal supply from our London, Ontario or
Newark, Ohio facilities, or both; and our Newark, Ohio facility
also supplies billet and log to our Jackson, Tennessee facility
and extruded forge stock to our Greenwood, South Carolina
facility.
PRIMARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
We own a 49% interest in Anglesey, which owns an aluminum
smelter at Holyhead, Wales. Rio Tinto Plc owns the remaining 51%
ownership interest in Anglesey and has
day-to-day operating
responsibility for Anglesey, although certain decisions require
the unanimous approval of both shareholders.
72
Business
Anglesey has produced in excess of 140,000 metric tons for each
of the last three fiscal years. We supply 49% of Angleseys
alumina requirements and purchase 49% of Angleseys
aluminum output, in each case based on a market-related pricing
formula. Anglesey produces billet, rolling ingot and sow for the
U.K. and European marketplace. We sell our share of
Angleseys output to a single third party at market prices.
The price received for sales of production from Anglesey
typically approximates the LME price. We also realize a premium
(historically between $0.05 and $0.12 per pound above the
LME price depending on the product) for sales of value-added
products such as billet and rolling ingot.
To meet our obligation to sell alumina to Anglesey in proportion
to our ownership percentage, we purchase alumina under contracts
that extend through 2007 at prices that are tied to market
prices for primary alumina. We will need to secure a new alumina
contract for the period after 2007. We can give no assurance
regarding our ability to secure a source of alumina on
comparable terms. If we are unable to do so, the results of our
primary aluminum operations may be affected.
Anglesey operates under a power agreement that provides
sufficient power to sustain its operations at full capacity
through September 2009. The nuclear facility which supplies
power to Anglesey is scheduled to cease operations shortly
thereafter. Angleseys ability to operate past September
2009 is dependent upon finding adequate power at an acceptable
purchase price. We can give no assurance that Anglesey will be
able to do so. If Anglesey cannot obtain sufficient power,
Angleseys operations will likely be shut down. Given the
potential for future shutdown and related costs, dividends from
Anglesey have been suspended while Anglesey studies future cash
requirements. The shutdown process may involve significant costs
to Anglesey which would decrease or eliminate its ability to pay
future dividends. The process of shutting down operations may
involve transition complications which may prevent Anglesey from
operating at full capacity until the expiration of the power
contract.
COMPETITION
The fabricated aluminum industry is highly competitive. We
concentrate our fabricating operations on selected products for
which we believe we have production capability, technical
expertise, high product quality, and geographic and other
competitive advantages. Competition in the sale of fabricated
aluminum products is driven by quality, availability, price and
service, including delivery performance. Our primary competition
in flat-rolled products is Alcoa, Inc. and Alcan Inc. In the
extrusion market, we compete with many regional participants as
well as larger firms with national reach such as Alcoa, Norsk
Hydro ASA and Indalex. Many of our competitors are substantially
larger, have greater financial resources, and may have other
strategic advantages, including more efficient technologies or
lower raw material and energy costs.
Our fabricated aluminum products facilities are located in North
America. To the extent our competitors have production
facilities located outside North America, they may be able to
produce similar products at a lower cost. We may not be able to
adequately reduce cost to compete with these products. Increased
competition could cause a reduction in our shipment volume and
profitability or increase our expenditures, any one of which
could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations.
In addition, our fabricated aluminum products compete with
products made from other materials, such as steel and
composites, for various applications, including aircraft
manufacturing. The willingness of customers to accept
substitutions for aluminum and the ability of large customers to
exert leverage in the marketplace to reduce the pricing for
fabricated aluminum products could adversely affect our results
of operations.
For the heat treat plate and sheet products, new competition is
limited by technological expertise that only a few companies
have developed through significant investment in research and
development.
73
Business
Further, use of plate and sheet in safety critical applications
make quality and product consistency critical factors. Suppliers
must pass rigorous qualification process to sell to airframe
manufacturers. Additionally, significant investment in
infrastructure and specialized equipment is required to supply
heat treat plate and sheet.
Barriers to entry are lower for extruded and forged products,
mostly due to the lower required investment in equipment.
However, the products that we produce are somewhat
differentiated from the majority of products sold by
competitors. We maintain a competitive advantage by using
application engineering and advanced process engineering to
distinguish our company and our products. Our metallurgical
expertise and controlled manufacturing processes enable superior
product consistency and are difficult for competitors to offer,
limiting their ability to effectively compete in many of our
product niches.
SEGMENT AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The information set forth in note 15 to our consolidated
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2005
regarding our operating segments and our geographical operating
areas is incorporated herein by reference.
EMPLOYEES
At September 30, 2006, we had approximately 2,400
employees, of which approximately 2,360 were employed in the
fabricated products operations and approximately 40 were
employed in our corporate offices in Foothill Ranch, California.
We consider our present relations with our employees to be good.
The table below shows each manufacturing location, the primary
union affiliation, if any, and the expiration date for the
current union contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Location |
|
Union |
|
Contract expiration date |
|
Chandler, Arizona
|
|
Non-union |
|
NA |
Greenwood, South Carolina
|
|
Non-union |
|
NA |
Jackson, Tennessee
|
|
Non-union |
|
NA |
London, Ontario
|
|
USW Canada |
|
February 2009 |
Los Angeles, California
|
|
Teamsters |
|
May 2009 |
Newark, Ohio
|
|
USW |
|
September 2010 |
Richland, Washington
|
|
Non-union |
|
NA |
Richmond, Virginia
|
|
USW/ IAM |
|
November 2010 |
Sherman, Texas
|
|
IAM |
|
December 2007 |
Spokane, Washington
|
|
USW |
|
September 2010 |
Tulsa, Oklahoma
|
|
USW |
|
November 2010 |
As part of our chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, we
entered into a settlement with the USW regarding, among other
things, pension and retiree medical obligations. Under the terms
of the settlement, we agreed to adopt a position of neutrality
regarding the unionization of any of our employees.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations
with respect to, among other things: air and water emissions and
discharges; the generation, storage, treatment, transportation
and disposal of solid and hazardous waste; and the release of
hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants and contaminants into
the environment. Compliance with these environmental laws is and
will continue to be costly.
74
Business
Our operations, including our operations conducted prior to our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, have subjected, and
may in the future subject, us to fines or penalties for alleged
breaches of environmental laws and to obligations to perform
investigations or clean up of the environment. We may also be
subject to claims from governmental authorities or third parties
related to alleged injuries to the environment, human health or
natural resources, including claims with respect to waste
disposal sites, the clean up of sites currently or formerly used
by us or exposure of individuals to hazardous materials. Any
investigation, clean-up or other remediation costs, fines or
penalties, or costs to resolve third-party claims may be costly
and could have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.
We have accrued, and will accrue, for costs relating to the
above matters that are reasonably expected to be incurred based
on available information. However, it is possible that actual
costs may differ, perhaps significantly, from the amounts
expected or accrued, and such differences could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows. In addition, new laws or regulations or changes
to existing laws and regulations may occur, and we cannot assure
you as to the amount that we would have to spend to comply with
such new or amended laws and regulations or the effects that
they would have on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Between the first quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
Kaiser and 25 of our then-existing subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code. Pursuant to our plan of reorganization, we
emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006.
Notwithstanding the effectiveness of our plan of reorganization,
the bankruptcy court continues to have jurisdiction to, among
other things, resolve disputed pre-petition claims against us,
resolve matters related to the assumption, assumption and
assignment, or rejection of executory contracts pursuant to our
plan of reorganization, and to resolve other matters that may
arise in connection with or related to our plan of
reorganization. Our plan of reorganization resolved all of our
material pre-petition liabilities.
We are working with regulatory authorities and performing
studies and remediation pursuant to several consent orders with
the State of Washington relating to the historical use of oils
containing PCBs at our Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington
prior to 1978. During April 2004, we were served with a subpoena
for documents and notified by Federal authorities that they are
investigating the alleged non-compliant release of waste water
containing PCBs at our Trentwood facility. This investigation is
ongoing. We believe we are currently in compliance in all
material respects with all applicable environmental laws and
requirements at the Trentwood facility. While we intend to
vigorously defend any claim or charges, if any should result, we
cannot assess what, if any, impact this matter may have on our
financial statements.
Various other lawsuits and claims are pending against us.
Because uncertainties are inherent in the final outcome of such
matters and it is presently impossible to determine the actual
costs that ultimately may be incurred, we do not know whether
that the resolution of such uncertainties and the incurrence of
such costs could have a negative impact on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
75
Management
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
The following table sets forth the names and ages of each of the
current executive officers and directors of our company and the
positions they held as of December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age |
|
Position(s) |
|
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
60 |
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board;
Director |
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
56 |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
John Barneson
|
|
55 |
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer |
John M. Donnan
|
|
45 |
|
Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel |
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
46 |
|
Vice President and Controller |
Daniel J. Rinkenberger
|
|
47 |
|
Vice President and Treasurer |
George Becker
|
|
78 |
|
Director |
Carl B. Frankel
|
|
72 |
|
Director |
Teresa A. Hopp
|
|
47 |
|
Director |
William F. Murdy
|
|
64 |
|
Director |
Alfred E. Osborne, Jr., Ph.D.
|
|
62 |
|
Director |
Georganne C. Proctor
|
|
50 |
|
Director |
Jack Quinn
|
|
55 |
|
Director |
Thomas M. Van Leeuwen
|
|
50 |
|
Director |
Brett E. Wilcox
|
|
53 |
|
Director |
Experience of executive officers
Set forth below are brief descriptions of the business
experience of each of our executive officers.
Jack A. Hockema has served as our President and Chief
Executive Officer and a director since October 2001, and as
Chairman of the Board since July 2006. He previously served as
Executive Vice President and President of the Kaiser Fabricated
Products division from January 2000 to October 2001, and
Executive Vice President of Kaiser from May 2000 to October
2001. He served as Vice President of Kaiser from May 1997 to May
2000. Mr. Hockema was President of Kaiser Engineered
Products from March 1997 to January 2000. He served as President
of Kaiser Extruded Products and Engineered Components from
September 1996 to March 1997. Mr. Hockema served as a
consultant to Kaiser and acting President of Kaiser Engineered
Components from September 1995 to September 1996.
Mr. Hockema was an employee of Kaiser from 1977 to 1982,
working at our Trentwood facility, and serving as plant manager
of our former Union City, California can plant and as operations
manager for Kaiser Extruded Products. In 1982, Mr. Hockema
left Kaiser to become Vice President and General Manager of Bohn
Extruded Products, a division of Gulf+Western, and later served
as Group Vice President of American Brass Specialty Products
until June 1992. From June 1992 to September 1996,
Mr. Hockema provided consulting and investment advisory
services to individuals and companies in the metals industry. He
holds a Master of Science degree in Industrial Management and a
Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering, both from
Purdue University.
Joseph P. Bellino has served as our Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer since May 2006. Prior to
joining Kaiser, Mr. Bellino was employed by Steel
Technologies Inc., a flat-rolled steel processor, where he
served as chief financial officer and treasurer for nine years
and was a member of the board of directors from 2002 to 2004.
From 1996 to 1997, Mr. Bellino was president of Beacon
Capital Advisors Company, a consulting firm specializing in
mergers and acquisitions, valuations and executive advisory
services. Prior to 1996, Mr. Bellino held senior executive
positions with a privately
76
Management
held holding company with investments in the manufacturing and
distribution industries for 15 years. Mr. Bellino
holds a Bachelor of Science degree in finance and a Master of
Business Administration degree, both from Ohio State University.
John Barneson has served as our Senior Vice President and
Chief Administrative Officer since August 2001. He previously
served as our Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
from December 1999 through August 2001. He served as Engineered
Products Vice President of Business Development and Planning
from September 1997 to December 1999. Mr. Barneson served
as Flat-Rolled Products Vice President of Business Development
and Planning from April 1996 to September 1997.
Mr. Barneson has been an employee of Kaiser since September
1975 and has held a number of staff and operation management
positions within the Flat-Rolled and Engineered Products
business units. He holds a Master of Science degree and a
Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from Oregon
State University.
John M. Donnan has served as our Vice President,
Secretary and General Counsel since January 2005.
Mr. Donnan joined the legal staff of Kaiser in 1993 and was
named Deputy General Counsel of Kaiser in 2000. Prior to joining
Kaiser, Mr. Donnan was an associate in the Houston, Texas
office of the law firm of Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White,
Williams & Martin. He holds a Juris Doctorate degree
from the University of Arkansas School of Law and Bachelor of
Business Administration degrees in finance and accounting from
Texas Tech University. He is a member of the Texas and
California bars.
Daniel D. Maddox has served as our Vice President and
Controller since September 1998. He served as our Controller,
Corporate Consolidation and Reporting from October 1997 through
September 1998. Mr. Maddox previously served as our
Assistant Corporate Controller from May 1997 to September 1997.
Mr. Maddox was with Arthur Andersen LLP from 1982 until
joining Kaiser in June 1996. He holds a Bachelor of Business
Administration degree from the University of Texas.
Daniel J. Rinkenberger has served as our Vice President
and Treasurer since January 2005. He previously served as our
Vice President of Economic Analysis and Planning from February
2002 through January 2005. He served as Vice President, Planning
and Business Development of Kaiser Fabricated Products division
from June 2000 through February 2002. Prior to that, he served
as Vice President, Finance and Business Planning of Kaiser
Flat-Rolled Products division from February 1998 to February
2000, and as our Assistant Treasurer from January 1995 through
February 1998. Before joining Kaiser, he held a series of
progressively responsible positions in the Treasury Department
at Pennzoil Corporation. He holds a Master of Business
Administration degree in Finance from the University of Chicago
and a Bachelor of Education degree from Illinois State
University. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst.
Experience of directors
Set forth below are brief descriptions of the business
experience of each of our independent directors.
George Becker has served as a director of Kaiser since
July 2006. Mr. Becker was with the United Steel Workers of
America for more than 40 years until his retirement in
2001, where he served two terms as President, two terms as
International Vice President and two terms as International Vice
President of Administration. Mr. Becker is currently
chairman of the labor advisory committee to the
United States Trade Representative and the Department of
Labor, appointed by President Bill Clinton and reappointed by
President George W. Bush. He is also a member of the
United StatesChina Economic & Security
Review Commission chartered by Congress to study and report on a
wide range of issues. Mr. Becker previously served as an
AFL-CIO vice president, chairing the AFL-CIO Executive
Councils key economic policy committee. During that time
Mr. Becker also served as an executive member of the
International Metalworkers Federation and Chairman of the World
Rubber Council of the International Federation of Chemical,
Energy, Mine and General Workers Unions.
77
Management
Carl B. Frankel has served as a director of Kaiser since
July 2006. Mr. Frankel currently serves as a
union-nominated member of LTV Steel Corporations board of
directors and as a member of the board of directors of Us TOO, a
prostate cancer support and advocacy organization. Previously,
Mr. Frankel was General Counsel to the USW from May 1997
until his retirement in September 2000. Prior to May 1997,
Mr. Frankel served as Assistant General Counsel and
Associate General Counsel of the USW for 29 years. From
1987 through 1999, Mr. Frankel served at the staff level of
the Collective Bargaining Forum, a government sponsored
tripartite committee consisting of government, union and
employer representatives designed to improve labor relations in
the United States. Mr. Frankel is also an elected
fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and a
published author of several articles. Mr. Frankel has
earned the Sustained Superior Performance Award from the NLRB,
and the Outstanding Performance Award from the NLRB.
Mr. Frankel earned a Bachelors degree and Juris
Doctorate from the University of Chicago.
Teresa A. Hopp has served as a director of Kaiser since
July 2006. Ms. Hopp currently serves as a board member and
audit committee chair for On Assignment, Inc., a provider of
skilled contract professionals to the life sciences and
healthcare industries, where she is responsible for oversight of
Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Prior to Ms. Hopps
retirement, she was the Chief Financial Officer for Western
Digital Corporation, a hard disk manufacturer, from January 2000
to October 2001 and its Vice President, Finance from September
1998 to December 1999. Prior to her employment with Western
Digital Corporation, Ms. Hopp was with Ernst &
Young LLP from 1981 where she served as an audit partner for
four years. During her tenure at Ernst & Young LLP, she
managed audit department resource planning and scheduling, and
served as internal education director and information systems
audit and security director. She graduated summa cum laude from
the California State University, Fullerton, with a
Bachelors degree in Business Administration.
William F. Murdy has served as a director of Kaiser since
July 2006. Mr. Murdy has been the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Comfort Systems USA, a commercial heating,
ventilation and air conditioning construction and service
company, since June 2000. Mr. Murdy previously served as
President and Chief Executive Officer of Club Quarters, and
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Landcare USA,
Inc. Mr. Murdy has also served as President and Chief
Executive Officer of General Investment & Development,
and as President and Managing General Partner with Morgan
Stanley Venture Capital, Inc. He previously served as Senior
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Pacific Resources,
Inc. Mr. Murdy currently serves on the board of directors
of Comfort Systems USA and UIL Holdings Corp. He holds a
Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from the
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, and a Masters
degree in Business Administration from the Harvard Business
School.
Alfred E. Osborne, Jr., Ph.D., has served as a
director of Kaiser since July 2006. Dr. Osborne has been
the Senior Associate Dean at the UCLA Anderson School of
Management since July 2003 and an Associate Professor of Global
Economics and Management since July 1978. From July 1987 to June
2003, Dr. Osborne served as the Director of the Harold and
Pauline Price Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at the UCLA
Anderson School of Management. He also served as Faculty
Director of The Head Start Johnson & Johnson Management
Fellows Program. Previously, he held various administrative
posts at UCLA, including terms as chairman of the Business
Economics faculty and Director of the MBA program.
Dr. Osborne currently serves on the board of directors of
K2, Inc., EMAK Worldwide, Inc., FPA New Income Fund Inc.,
FPA Capital Fund Inc. and FPA Crescent Fund, Inc. and
serves as a trustee of the WM Group of Funds. He holds a
Doctorate degree in Business Economics, a Masters degree
in Business Administration, a Master of Arts degree in Economics
and a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from
Stanford University.
Georganne C. Proctor has served as a director of Kaiser
since July 2006. Ms. Proctor is currently the Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TIAA-CREF, a
financial services company.
78
Management
Previously, Ms. Proctor was the Executive Vice
PresidentFinance for Golden West Financial Corp., the
second largest financial thrift in the United States and holding
company of World Savings Bank, from February 2003 to April 2005.
From July 1997 through September 2002, Ms. Proctor was
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Bechtel
Corporation and served as the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Bechtel Enterprises, one of its subsidiaries, from
June 1994 through June 1997. Ms. Proctor was a member of
the board of directors of Bechtel Corporation from April 1999 to
December 2002. She also served in several other financial
positions with the Bechtel Group from
1982-1991. From 1991
through 1994, Ms. Proctor was Director of Project and
Division Finance of Walt Disney Imagineering and Director of
Finance & Accounting for Buena Vista Home Video
International. Ms. Proctor currently serves on the board of
directors of Redwood Trust, Inc. She holds a Masters
degree in Business Administration from California State
University, Hayward, and a Bachelors degree in Business
Administration from the University of South Dakota.
Jack Quinn has served as a director of Kaiser since July
2006. Mr. Quinn has been the President of
Cassidy & Associates, a government relations firm,
since January 2005. Mr. Quinn assists clients to promote
policy and appropriations objectives in Washington, D.C.
with a focus on transportation, aviation, railroad, highway,
infrastructure, corporate and industry clients. From January
1993 to January 2005, Mr. Quinn served as a
United States Congressman for the state of New York.
While in Congress Mr. Quinn was Chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads. He
was also a senior member of the Transportation Subcommittees on
Aviation, Highways and Mass Transit. In addition, Mr. Quinn
was Chairman of the Executive Committee in the Congressional
Steel Caucus. Prior to his election to Congress, Congressman
Quinn served as supervisor of the town of Hamburg, New York.
Mr. Quinn currently serves as a trustee of the AFL-CIO
Housing Investment Trust. Mr. Quinn received a
Bachelors degree from Siena College in Loudonville,
New York, and a Masters degree from the State
University of New York, Buffalo. Mr. Quinn received
honorary Doctorate of Law degrees from Medaille College and
Siena College. Mr. Quinn is also a certified school
district superintendent through the New York State
Education Department.
Thomas M. Van Leeuwen has served as a director of Kaiser
since July 2006. Mr. Van Leeuwen served as a
DirectorSenior Equity Research Analyst for Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc. from March 2001 until his retirement in May
2002. Prior to that, Mr. Van Leeuwen served as a
DirectorSenior Equity Research Analyst for Credit Suisse
First Boston from May 1993 to November 2000. Prior to that time,
Mr. Van Leeuwen was First Vice President of Equity Research
with Lehman Brothers. Mr. Van Leeuwen held the position of
research analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc.,
and systems analyst with The Procter & Gamble Company.
Mr. Van Leeuwen holds a Masters degree in Business
Administration from the Harvard Business School and a Bachelor
of Science degree in Operations Research and Industrial
Engineering from Cornell University.
Brett E. Wilcox has served as a director of Kaiser since
July 2006. Mr. Wilcox has been an executive consultant for
a number of metals and energy companies since 2005. From 1986 to
2005, Mr. Wilcox served as Chief Executive Officer of
Golden Northwest Aluminum Company and its predecessors. Golden
Northwest Aluminum Company, together with its subsidiaries,
filed a petition for reorganization under the United States
Bankruptcy Code on December 22, 2003. Mr. Wilcox has
also served as Executive Director of Direct Services Industries,
Inc., a trade association of large aluminum and other
energy-intensive companies; an attorney with Preston,
Ellis & Gates in Seattle, Washington; Vice Chairman of
the Oregon Progress Board; a member of the Oregon
Governors Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Regional
Power System; a member of the Oregon Governors Task Forces
on structure and efficiency of state government, employee
benefits and compensation, and government performance and
accountability. Mr. Wilcox serves as a director of Oregon
Steel Mills, Inc. Mr. Wilcox received a Bachelors
degree from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs at Princeton University and a Juris
Doctorate from Stanford Law School.
79
Management
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Our board of directors currently has ten members, consisting of
Mr. Hockema, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and
nine independent directors, Messrs. Becker, Frankel, Murdy,
Osborne, Quinn, Van Leeuwen and Wilcox and Mmes. Hopp and
Proctor. Mr. Hockema serves as the Chairman of the Board,
and Dr. Osborne serves as the lead independent director.
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide for a
classified board of directors consisting of three classes. The
term of the initial Class I directors will expire at the
2007 annual meeting of the stockholders; the term of the initial
Class II directors will expire at the 2008 annual meeting
of the stockholders; and the term of the Class III
directors will expire at the 2009 annual meeting of the
stockholders. Beginning in 2007, at each annual meeting of
stockholders, successors to the class of directors whose terms
expire in that year will be elected to three-year terms and
until their respective successors are elected and qualified. The
following table sets forth the class of each director.
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
|
|
|
Class | |
| |
Alfred E. Osborne, Jr., Ph.D.
|
|
|
Class I |
|
Jack Quinn
|
|
|
Class I |
|
Thomas M. Van Leeuwen
|
|
|
Class I |
|
George Becker
|
|
|
Class II |
|
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
Class II |
|
Georganne C. Proctor
|
|
|
Class II |
|
Brett E. Wilcox
|
|
|
Class II |
|
Carl B. Frankel
|
|
|
Class III |
|
Teresa A. Hopp
|
|
|
Class III |
|
William F. Murdy
|
|
|
Class III |
|
DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Our board of directors was reconstituted upon our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy. Our corporate governance guidelines,
adopted upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy,
require that a majority of the members of our board of directors
satisfy the independence requirements set forth in the Nasdaq
Marketplace Rules and other applicable criteria of the National
Association of Securities Dealers, or NASD. We refer to these
requirements as the general independence criteria. Additionally,
our audit committee charter, compensation committee charter and
nominating and corporate governance committee charter, each
adopted upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy,
require that all respective committee members satisfy the
general independence criteria.
Based upon information requested from and provided by each
director concerning their background, employment and
affiliations, including family relationships, our board of
directors has determined that each of Messrs. Becker, Frankel,
Murdy, Osborne, Quinn, Van Leeuwen and Wilcox and Mmes. Hopp and
Proctor, representing nine of our ten directors, satisfy the
general independence criteria and are independent within the
meaning of such term under our corporate governance guidelines.
In making such determination, the board of directors considered
the relationships that each of the directors had with our
company and all other facts and circumstances the board of
directors deemed relevant in determining the independence of
each of the directors in accordance with the general
independence criteria, including the fees paid to such
individuals for attending meetings prior to our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy and their formal appointment as
directors.
Prior to our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we were
not listed on a national securities exchange and, consequently,
the members of our board of directors as constituted prior to
our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy were not subject
to independence requirements. However, our board of directors as
constituted prior to emergence determined that, of its six
members,
80
Management
Robert J. Cruikshank, Ezra G. Levin and
John D. Roach satisfied the independence requirements
standards set forth in both the Nasdaq Marketplace Rules and the
New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual and that
George T. Haymaker, Jr.,
Jack A. Hockema and Charles E. Hurwitz did
not meet such independence standards. Prior to our emergence,
Messrs. Cruikshank and Roach were members of our audit
committee, Messrs. Cruikshank, Roach and Levin were members of
our compensation policy committee and Mr. Cruikshank was
the sole member of our Section 162(m) compensation
committee. We did not have a nominating and corporate governance
committee prior to our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy.
DIRECTOR DESIGNATION AGREEMENT WITH THE USW
On July 6, 2006, we entered into a Director Designation
Agreement with the USW under which the USW has certain rights to
nominate individuals to serve on our board of directors and
committees until December 31, 2012. The USW has the right
to nominate, for submission to our stockholders for election at
each annual meeting, the minimum number of candidates necessary
to ensure that, assuming such candidates are included in the
slate of director candidates recommended by our board of
directors in our proxy statement relating to the annual meeting
and our stockholders elect each candidate so included, at least
40% of the members of our board of directors immediately
following such election are directors who were either designated
by the USW pursuant to our plan of reorganization or have been
nominated by the USW in accordance with the Director Designation
Agreement. The Director Designation Agreement contains
requirements as to the timeliness, form and substance of the
notice the USW must give to our nominating and corporate
governance committee in order to nominate such candidates. The
nominating and corporate governance committee will determine in
good faith whether each candidate properly submitted by the USW
satisfies the qualifications set forth in the Director
Designation Agreement. If our nominating and corporate
governance committee determines that such candidate satisfies
the qualifications, the committee will, unless otherwise
required by its fiduciary duties, recommend such candidate to
our board of directors for inclusion in the slate of directors
to be recommended by the board of directors in our proxy
statement. The board of directors will, unless otherwise
required by its fiduciary duties, accept the recommendation and
include the director candidate in the slate of directors the
board of directors recommends.
The Director Designation Agreement also provides that the USW
will have the right to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy
on the board of directors resulting from the death, resignation,
disqualification or removal of a director who was either
designated by the USW to serve on the board of directors
pursuant to our plan of reorganization or has been nominated by
the USW in accordance with the Director Designation Agreement.
The Director Designation Agreement further provides that, in the
event of newly created directorships resulting from an increase
in the number of our directors, the USW will have the right to
nominate the minimum number of individuals to fill such newly
created directorships necessary to ensure that at least 40% of
the members of the board of directors immediately following the
filling of the newly created directorships are directors who
were either designated by the USW pursuant to our plan of
reorganization or have been nominated by the USW in accordance
with the Director Designation Agreement. In each such case, the
USW, our nominating and corporate governance committee and the
board of directors will be required to follow the nomination and
approval procedures described above.
81
Management
A candidate nominated by the USW may not be an officer,
employee, director or member of the USW or any of its local or
affiliated organizations as of the date of his or her
designation as a candidate or election as a director. Each
candidate nominated by the USW must satisfy:
|
|
|
|
the general independence
criteria;
|
|
|
|
the qualifications to serve as a
director as set forth in any applicable corporate governance
guidelines adopted by the board of directors and policies
adopted by our nominating and corporate governance committee
establishing criteria to be utilized by it in assessing whether
a director candidate has appropriate skills and experience; and
|
|
|
any other qualifications to
serve as director imposed by applicable law.
|
Finally, the Director Designation Agreement provides that, so
long as our the board of directors maintains an audit committee,
executive committee or nominating and corporate governance
committee, each such committee will, unless otherwise required
by the fiduciary duties of the board of directors, include at
least one director who was either designated by the USW to serve
on the board of directors pursuant to our plan of reorganization
or has been nominated by the USW in accordance with the Director
Designation Agreement (provided at least one such director is
qualified to serve on such committee as determined in good faith
by the board of directors).
Current members of our board of directors that were designated
by the USW pursuant to our plan of reorganization are
Messrs. Becker, Frankel, Quinn and Wilcox.
COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Currently, we have four standing committees of the board of
directors: an executive committee; an audit committee; a
compensation committee; and a nominating and corporate
governance committee.
Executive committee
The executive committee of the board of directors manages our
business and affairs that require attention prior to the next
regular meeting of our board of directors. However, the
executive committee does not have the power to (1) approve
or adopt, or recommend to our stockholders, any action or matter
expressly required by law to be submitted to our stockholders
for approval, (2) adopt, amend or repeal any bylaw of our
company, or (3) take any other action reserved for action
by the board of directors pursuant to a resolution of the board
of directors or otherwise prohibited to be taken by the
executive committee by law or pursuant to our certificate of
incorporation or bylaws. The members of the executive committee
must include the Chairman of the Board and at least one of the
directors either designated by the USW pursuant to our plan of
reorganization or nominated by the USW in accordance with the
Director Designation Agreement (so long as at least one such
director is qualified to serve thereon). A majority of the
members of the executive committee must satisfy the general
independence criteria as determined by the board of directors
reasonably and in good faith. Our executive committee consists
of Messrs. Hockema, Becker and Wilcox and Ms. Hopp.
Mr. Hockema currently serves as the chair of the executive
committee.
Audit committee
The audit committee oversees our accounting and financial
reporting practices and processes and the audits of our
financial statements on behalf of the board of directors. The
audit committee is
82
Management
responsible for appointing, compensating, retaining and
overseeing the work of our independent auditors. Other duties
and responsibilities of the audit committee include:
|
|
|
establishing hiring policies for
employees or former employees of the independent auditors;
|
|
|
reviewing our systems of
internal accounting controls;
|
|
|
discussing risk management
policies;
|
|
|
|
approving related-party
transactions;
|
|
|
|
establishing procedures for
complaints regarding financial statements or accounting
policies; and
|
|
|
performing other duties
delegated to the audit committee by the board of directors from
time to time.
|
The members of the audit committee must include at least one of
the directors either designated by the USW pursuant to our plan
of reorganization or nominated by the USW in accordance with the
Director Designation Agreement (so long as at least one such
director is appropriately qualified). Each member of the audit
committee:
|
|
|
must satisfy the general
independence criteria;
|
|
|
|
may not, other than as a member
of the board of directors or a committee thereof, accept any
consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from us or our
subsidiaries (other than fixed amounts of compensation under a
retirement plan for prior service, provided such compensation is
not contingent on continued service);
|
|
|
|
may not be our affiliate;
|
|
|
must not have participated in
the preparation of our financial statements at any time during
the three years prior to July 6, 2006; and
|
|
|
must be able to read and
understand fundamental financial statements.
|
At least one member of the audit committee must have past
employment experience in finance or accounting, the requisite
professional certification in accounting or comparable
experience or background that results in financial
sophistication. Our audit committee consists of Mmes. Hopp and
Proctor and Messrs. Osborne, Van Leeuwen and Wilcox.
Ms. Hopp currently serves as the chair of the audit
committee.
Compensation committee
The compensation committee of the board of directors establishes
and administers our policies, programs and procedures for
compensating our senior management, including determining and
approving the compensation of our executive officers. Other
duties and responsibilities of the compensation committee
include:
|
|
|
|
administering plans adopted by
the board of directors that contemplate administration by the
compensation committee, including our 2006 Equity and
Performance Incentive Plan;
|
|
|
|
overseeing regulatory compliance
with respect to compensation matters;
|
|
|
reviewing director compensation;
and
|
|
|
performing other duties
delegated to the compensation committee by the board of
directors from time to time.
|
83
Management
Each member of the compensation committee must satisfy the
general independence criteria, as well as qualify as a
non-employee
director within the meaning of
Rule 16b-3 of the
Exchange Act. Our compensation committee is composed of
Messrs. Murdy and Quinn and Ms. Proctor.
Mr. Murdy currently serves as the chair of the compensation
committee.
Nominating and corporate governance committee
The nominating and corporate governance committee of the board
of directors identifies individuals qualified to become members
of our board of directors, recommends candidates to fill
vacancies and newly-created positions on our board of directors,
recommends director nominees for the election by stockholders at
the annual meetings of stockholders and develops and recommends
to the board of directors our corporate governance principles.
Other duties and responsibilities of the nominating and
corporate governance committee include:
|
|
|
evaluating stockholder
recommendations for director nominations;
|
|
|
assisting in succession planning;
|
|
|
considering possible conflicts
of interest of members of the board of directors and management
and making recommendations to prevent, minimize or eliminate
such conflicts of interests;
|
|
|
making recommendations to the
board of directors regarding the appropriate size of the board
of directors; and
|
|
|
performing other duties
delegated to the nominating and corporate governance committee
by the board of directors from time to time.
|
The members of the nominating and corporate governance committee
must include at least one of the directors either designated by
the USW pursuant to our plan of reorganization or nominated by
the USW in accordance with the Director Designation Agreement
(so long as at least one such director is appropriately
qualified). Each member of the nominating and governance
committee must satisfy the general independence criteria. Our
nominating and corporate governance committee consists of
Messrs. Osborne, Frankel, Murdy, Quinn and Van Leeuwen.
Dr. Osborne currently serves as the chair of the nominating
and corporate governance committee.
84
Management
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The following discussion of executive compensation contains
descriptions of various employee benefit plans and
employment-related agreements. These descriptions are qualified
in their entirety by reference to the full text or detailed
descriptions of the plans and agreements which are filed as
exhibits to our registration statement of which this prospectus
forms a part.
Compensation discussion and analysis
Introduction
This section provides (1) an overview of the compensation
committee of the board of directors, (2) a discussion of
the background and objectives of our compensation programs for
senior management, and (3) a discussion of all material
elements of the compensation of each of the executive officers
identified in the following table, whom we refer to as our named
executive officers:
|
|
|
Name |
|
Title |
|
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer (our principal executive
officer) |
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (our
principal financial officer) |
John Barneson
|
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer |
John M. Donnan
|
|
Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel |
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
Vice President and Controller (our principal accounting officer) |
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
Former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (our former
principal financial officer) |
The year ended December 31, 2006 was a transition year for
us. It was also a transition year for the board of directors and
our compensation programs. On July 6, 2006, we emerged from
chapter 11 bankruptcy, and a new board of directors
selected by our pre-emergence creditors was installed at that
time.
In contemplation of our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy, the individuals expected to serve on the
compensation committee at emergence began an extensive review of
all aspects of our executive compensation programs in early
2006. Based on their review and discussions with the other
individuals expected to serve on the board of directors at
emergence, a comprehensive compensation structure was approved
for implementation upon our emergence.
Overview of the compensation committee
As indicated above, the compensation committee of the board of
directors is comprised entirely of independent directors. The
compensation committees primary duties and
responsibilities are to establish and implement our compensation
policies and programs for senior management. The compensation
committee has the authority under its charter to engage the
services of outside advisors, experts and others to assist it
and has engaged an outside compensation consultant to advise it
on all matters related to compensation of our chief executive
officer and other members of senior management. We refer to the
outside compensation consultant engaged by the compensation
committee as our outside compensation consultant.
Our chief executive officer, other members of our management and
outside advisors may be invited to attend all or a portion of a
compensation committee meeting depending on the nature of the
agenda items. Neither our chief executive officer nor any other
member of management votes on items before the compensation
committee; however, the compensation committee and board of
directors solicit the views of the chief executive officer on
compensation matters, including as they relate to the
compensation of the other named executive officers and members
of senior management reporting to
85
Management
the chief executive officer, including the other named executive
officers. The compensation committee also works with our senior
management to determine the agenda for each meeting, and our
human resources department, with the assistance of our outside
advisors, prepares the meeting materials.
Objectives of our compensation program
The comprehensive compensation structure implemented upon our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy was developed based on
the following objectives:
|
|
|
|
Create alignment between senior
management and stockholders by rewarding senior management for
the achievement of strategic goals that successfully drive our
operations and enhance stockholder value;
|
|
|
|
|
Attract, motivate and retain
highly experienced executives vital to our short-term and
long-term success, profitability and growth;
|
|
|
|
|
Differentiate senior management
rewards based on actual performance; and
|
|
|
|
|
Provide targeted compensation
levels consistent with the 50th percentile of our
compensation peer group, which is discussed below, for base
salary, the 50th percentile for annual monetary incentives
at target-level performance and between the 50th and the
65th percentile for annualized economic equity grant value
of long-term incentives.
|
|
Design of our compensation program
The compensation program for senior management, including the
named executive officers, is intended to reinforce the
importance of performance and accountability at both the
individual and corporate levels. In addition to focusing on
pay for performance, our compensation program is
designed to:
|
|
|
|
Balance short-term and long-term
goals (approximately 50% of the chief executive officers
target total compensation is delivered through long-term
incentives, while approximately 40% of the target total
compensation for the other named executive officers is delivered
through long-term incentives);
|
|
|
|
|
Deliver a mix of fixed and
at-risk compensation (by design, approximately 70% of the chief
executive officers target total compensation and
approximately 60% of the target total compensation for the other
named executive officers is variable, i.e., at-risk,
annual and long-term incentive compensation) that is directly
related to stockholder value and our overall performance;
|
|
|
|
|
Provide guidelines for a
compensation program that is competitive with our compensation
peer group; and
|
|
|
|
|
Use equity-based awards, stock
ownership guidelines and annual incentives that are linked to
stockholder value and achievement of individual, business unit
and corporate performance.
|
|
Each element of compensation is reviewed individually and
considered collectively with the other elements of our
compensation program to ensure that it is consistent with the
goals and objectives of both that particular element of
compensation and our overall compensation program.
In designing the compensation program and in determining senior
management compensation, including the compensation of the named
executive officers, we also considered the following factors:
|
|
|
|
The external challenges to our
ability to attract and retain strong senior management;
|
|
|
|
|
Each individuals
contributions to our overall results;
|
|
|
|
|
Our operating and financial
performance compared with the targeted goals; and
|
|
|
|
|
Our size and complexity compared
with companies in our compensation peer group.
|
|
86
Management
We also use tally sheets that provide a summary of
the compensation history of our chief executive officer and
those members of senior management reporting to the chief
executive officer. These tally sheets include a historical
summary of base salary, annual bonus and long-term equity
awards. They also provide a review of wealth and retirement
accumulation as a result of employment with our company.
In developing the compensation structure that was effective upon
our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we reviewed the
compensation and benefit practices, as well as levels of pay, of
a compensation peer group of companies. The selection of an
appropriate peer group was an important part of the work
performed by the individuals expected to serve on the
compensation committee at emergence. Working closely with our
outside compensation consultant, the companies selected were
determined to: (1) be of a similar size; (2) have
positions of similar complexity and scope of responsibility; and
(3) compete with us for talent. The selected companies
include companies in similar industries, as well as companies in
different industries. While we will continue to review, evaluate
and update the compensation peer group, for the compensation
structure developed in 2006 in anticipation of our emergence
from chapter 11 bankruptcy the compensation peer group
consisted of 41 companies. As we developed the peer group, we
also determined that it was appropriate to design programs that
deliver total compensation between the 50th and 65th percentiles
of the compensation peer group. However, we also recognize that
we compete with much larger companies that aggressively recruit
for the best qualified talent in particularly critical functions
and that to attract and retain that talent, we may determine
that it is in the best interests of our company and stockholders
to provide packages that deviate from the targeted pay
objectives.
Background of our compensation programs
This section will focus on 2006 compensation and our
post-emergence compensation programs. It also addresses certain
aspects of our key employee retention program, which was
implemented in 2002 during our chapter 11 bankruptcy with
the support of our creditors and approval of the bankruptcy
court in order to meet the dual goals of (1) providing the
retention incentives necessary to retain certain key employees
who were expected to remain with us through our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy, assume the additional administrative
and operational burdens imposed on us during chapter 11
bankruptcy and take the actions necessary to improve our
operating performance and strategic positioning during the
chapter 11 bankruptcy and (2) addressing the financial
constraints and obligations to creditors faced by companies in
chapter 11 bankruptcy. We refer to the key employee
retention program as the Chapter 11 KERP. Among other
elements, the Chapter 11 KERP included:
|
|
|
|
a two-year retention plan (which
we refer to as our Chapter 11 Retention Plan) that provided
semi-annual retention payments to key employees through
March 31, 2004, with a significant portion of those
payments to certain senior employees, including
Messrs. Hockema and Barneson, being withheld and paid,
subject to certain conditions relating to continued employment,
in two installments the first on the date of
emergence and the second one year later, all as more fully
described below (see Chapter 11 Retention
Plan and footnote 8 under Summary
compensation table for 2006);
|
|
|
|
|
a long-term incentive plan
(which we refer to as our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive
Plan) designed to provide incentives for key employees to
achieve cost reductions in excess of $80 million annually,
with all awards earned being withheld and paid, subject to
certain conditions relating to continued employment, in two
installments the first on the date of emergence and
the second one year later, all as more fully described below
(see Long-term incentives and footnote 2
under Summary compensation table for 2006);
|
|
|
|
|
a severance plan (which we refer
to as our Severance Plan) and related agreements designed to
provide key employees with job security in an uncertain
environment, as more fully described below
|
|
87
Management
|
|
|
(see Employment contracts, termination of
employment arrangements and change in control agreements
and Employment-related agreements and certain
employee benefit plans Severance Plan); |
|
|
|
|
change-in-control severance
agreements (which we refer to as Change in Control Agreements)
intended to retain key employees through any potential merger or
acquisition transaction, as more fully described below (see
Employment contracts, termination of employment
arrangements and change in control agreements and
Employment-related agreements and certain employee
benefit plans Change in control severance
agreements); and
|
|
|
|
|
the continuance for key
employees of our then-existing nonqualified, unfunded
supplemental executive retirement plan (which we refer to as our
Old Restoration Plan) intended to restore benefits that would be
payable to participants in the Kaiser Aluminum Salaried
Employees Retirement Plan, a defined benefit pension plan
previously maintained by us for our salaried employees (which we
refer to as our Old Pension Plan), but for legal limitations on
benefit accruals and payments thereunder, as more fully
described below (see Retirement benefits and
Nonqualified deferred compensation for 2006).
|
|
Retention of our senior management was determined to be
important to our successful emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy. Implemented in 2002 with the support of creditors
and approval of the bankruptcy court, a discussion of certain
elements of the Chapter 11 KERP is relevant to any
discussion of (1) compensation received by our named
executive officers in 2006, (2) compensation accrued to our
named executive officers during our chapter 11 bankruptcy,
but payable in 2007, (3) the rights of our named executive
officers upon termination of employment, and (4) the
comprehensive compensation structure implemented upon our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy. This is particularly
true because, as indicated above, several elements of the
Chapter 11 KERP were designed to enhance retention of
key employees by conditioning payments on continued employment
and withholding payments until at and after our emergence.
Elements of compensation
Our compensation program currently consists of base salary,
annual cash incentives, long-term incentives, retirement
benefits and certain perquisites. In addition, we impose stock
ownership requirements on senior management and provide for
general severance and change-in-control protections for certain
members of senior management, including each of the named
executive officers. We have also entered into employment
agreements with Messrs. Hockema, Bellino and Maddox.
Base salary
We review base salaries for our chief executive officer and
those members of senior management reporting to the chief
executive officer and determine if a change is appropriate. In
reviewing base salaries, we consider several factors, including
level of responsibility, prior experience, a comparison to base
salaries paid for comparable positions in our compensation peer
group and the relationship among base salaries paid within our
company. Our intent is to fix base salaries at levels that we
believe are consistent with our program design objectives,
including the ability to attract, motivate and retain
individuals in a competitive environment.
During 2006, we did not increase the base salary of
Mr. Hockema or Mr. Donnan. Mr. Hockemas
base salary remained at the same level as 2005 as part of the
negotiation of his new employment agreement based on our
analysis of competitive market practice. Mr. Donnan was
promoted to his current position in 2005 and received a base
salary increase at that time. In April 2006, each of
Messrs. Barneson and Maddox received a base salary increase
so that his salary level would be better aligned with the
compensation structure that was being developed in contemplation
of our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective January 23, 2006,
did not receive a
88
Management
base salary increase in 2006. The base salary of
Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006, was negotiated
based on our analysis of competitive market practice information
provided by our outside compensation consultant. Base salaries
for our named executive officers in 2006 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of base | |
|
|
|
|
salary increase | |
|
|
Name |
|
for 2006 | |
|
2006 Base salary | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
730,000 |
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
350,000 |
|
John Barneson
|
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
$ |
280,000 |
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
260,000 |
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
|
$ |
225,000 |
|
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
270,000 |
|
Annual cash incentives
Our annual cash incentives link the compensation of participants
directly to the accomplishment of specific business goals, as
well as individual performance. Annual cash incentive
compensation is intended to focus and reward individuals based
on measures identified as having a positive impact on our annual
business results. Our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan, a
transition program based on historical programs using return on
net assets and core cash flows, was designed to (i) focus
attention on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization, or EBITDA, from the fabricated products business
unit in order to continue to tie compensation to returns on net
assets and core cash flows, with modifiers for achievement of
plan, individual performance and safety performance,
(ii) reward achievement of aggressive performance goals,
(iii) provide incentive opportunities consistent with those
provided by companies in the compensation peer group, and
(iv) link performance compensation to individual
performance as well as our ability to pay. Average performance
is not rewarded. When establishing our threshold performance
incentive targets, the compensation committee reviews and
discusses with both senior management and the full board of
directors our business plan and its key underlying assumptions,
expectations under then-existing and anticipated market
conditions and the opportunity to generate stockholder value and
then establishes the performance thresholds and targets for the
year.
During 2006, we made nominal adjustments to the annual cash
incentive targets for each of our named executive officers
(other than Mr. Bellino and Mr. Shiba) based on our
analysis of competitive market practice information provided by
our outside compensation consultant. The annual cash incentive
target of Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006, was
negotiated as part of his employment agreement and based on
competitive market practice at that time. Mr. Shiba, who
resigned effective January 23, 2006, did not participate in
the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan. The table below sets forth
the approximate payouts, stated as a percentage of base salary,
that can be earned by our named executive officers (other than
Mr. Shiba), under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan at
each performance level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
threshold | |
|
Threshold | |
|
Target | |
|
Maximum | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
34.25% |
|
|
|
68.50% |
|
|
|
205.50% |
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
25.00% |
|
|
|
50.00% |
|
|
|
150.00% |
|
John Barneson
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
22.50% |
|
|
|
45.00% |
|
|
|
135.00% |
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
22.50% |
|
|
|
45.00% |
|
|
|
135.00% |
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
16.67% |
|
|
|
33.33% |
|
|
|
100.00% |
|
89
Management
A monetary incentive target for each participant is established
for annual cash incentive compensation based on a percentage of
base salary (generally determined based on the 50th percentile
of our compensation peer group, internal compensation balance
and position responsibilities). The monetary incentive targets
are generally set at the beginning of each annual performance
period. For determining compensation under the 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan, EBITDA will be determined in March 2007 based on
our 2006 results subject to any adjustments approved by the
compensation committee. These adjustments may spread
extraordinary items over a period of years based upon the
recommendation of our chief executive officer and the approval
of the compensation committee. The resulting award multiple may
then be adjusted within a range of plus or minus 10 percent
based upon fabricated products safety performance.
Each participants base award is determined by multiplying
his or her monetary incentive target by the award multiple.
Based on the fabricated products EBITDA and safety performance,
as well as business unit and individual performance, a
participants monetary award can be modified, in the
aggregate, up to plus or minus 100 percent of the incentive
target or base award (as set forth in the table above for our
named executive officers), subject to an overall cap on the
aggregate award of three times target. A cash pool is
established based upon the award multiple multiplied by the sum
of individual monetary incentive targets for all plan
participants. Although individual monetary awards may be
adjusted up or down, the entire cash pool is paid to
participants. While 2006 results are not yet available, based on
our results through the third quarter, we currently estimate the
2006 award multiple to be between 1.5 to 2.5 of the target
percentage or base award.
Long-term incentives
Upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2006,
our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan adopted in 2002 as
part of the Chapter 11 KERP terminated and
Messrs. Hockema, Bellino, Barneson, Donnan and Maddox each
received an emergence grant of restricted stock
under our 2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (which we
refer to as our Equity Incentive Plan). We determined that the
emergence grants to senior management were appropriate since our
primary concerns upon emergence were to retain senior
management, including the named executive officers (other than
Mr. Shiba), and to immediately align the interests of
senior management with the interests of our stockholders. We
also wanted to recognize and reward the commitment and efforts
of members of senior management through the four and one-half
years we were in chapter 11 bankruptcy and their ability
during that period to both grow our fabricated products business
and complete a restructuring that allowed us to emerge with a
strong balance sheet and platform for future growth. We
accomplished our objectives by providing stock ownership of
approximately two percent of the outstanding common stock in the
aggregate to members of senior management.
The size of the emergence grants was developed based on
extensive data provided by our outside compensation consultant
on emergence grant practices at other companies emerging from
chapter 11 bankruptcy. Mr. Bellino, who joined us in
May 2006, did not receive an emergence grant but did
receive a grant of shares of restricted stock under the Equity
Incentive Plan based on an analysis of competitive market
practice for a normal annual grant and the terms of his
employment agreement. Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective
January 23, 2006, did not receive a grant of restricted
90
Management
stock under the Equity Incentive Plan. The table below
summarizes the grants made to our named executive officers
(other than Mr. Shiba) under the Equity Incentive Plan in
July 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of shares | |
|
outstanding | |
Name |
|
restricted stock | |
|
shares | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
185,000 |
|
|
|
.90% |
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
|
.07% |
|
John Barneson
|
|
|
48,000 |
|
|
|
.23% |
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
|
45,000 |
|
|
|
.22% |
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
|
11,334 |
|
|
|
.06% |
|
Recognizing that our business is cyclical and that the market
value of the common stock may fluctuate during business cycles,
we also intended the grants to provide an incentive for the
named executive officers and other members of senior management
to remain with us throughout business cycles. Through the
issuance of restricted stock with three-year cliff
vesting to our named executive officers and other members of
senior management, the recipients do not become unconditionally
entitled to receive any of those shares until July 6, 2009,
subject to certain exceptions related to the termination of
employment. Finally, while we view the emergence grants as a
one-time event, we will take the emergence grants into account
in the design of future programs and awards.
We have not yet determined the form of long-term incentive
compensation that we will use in 2007, the form of grants
(i.e., whether it will consist of restricted stock, stock
options, performance shares or other equity-based awards) or the
applicable performance thresholds. That work is ongoing and,
similar to the process we follow to establish annual cash
incentives, includes discussions between the compensation
committee and our outside compensation consultant with respect
to the design and terms of the grants, as well as discussions
between and among the compensation committee, senior management
and the full board of directors with respect to the design and
terms of the grants and our performance and compensation
objectives over the long-term period. For each of
Messrs. Hockema and Bellino, the target cash economic value
of his annual long-term award starting in 2007 was negotiated as
part of his employment agreement and based on competitive market
practice. As part of the negotiation of Mr. Hockemas
agreement, the target cash economic value of his annual
long-term incentive was reduced from approximately
$1.5 million to $1.2 million.
As indicated below, each of the named executive officers (other
than Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006) received
payments under our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan. The
Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan, which is described in
more detail below, terminated upon our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under the Chapter 11 Long-Term
Incentive Plan, key management employees, including
Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan, Maddox and Shiba, were
eligible to receive an annual cash award based on sustained cost
reductions above $80 million annually for the four and
one-half year period from 2002 through emergence. Awards accrued
on an annual basis during this period in a range between
approximately (16%) to 81% of target, with an average accrual of
approximately 55% of target over the four and one-half year
period. Because the Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan was
based on sustained cost reductions and continuation of
employment through emergence, no amounts were paid or payable to
the named executive officers until emergence. At emergence, each
of Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan and Maddox received
approximately one-half of his award, with the remaining portion
of the award payable in a lump sum on July 6, 2007 unless
his employment is terminated by us for cause or voluntarily
terminated by him prior to that date. Mr. Shiba, who
resigned effective January 23, 2006, received his total
award in early 2006 pursuant to the terms of a release entered
into between him and us in connection with his resignation.
91
Management
Stock ownership guidelines
Stock ownership guidelines were introduced upon our emergence
from chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2006, as part of our
comprehensive compensation structure, in order to further align
the interests of senior management, including the named
executive officers, with those of our stockholders. Under the
guidelines, members of our senior management are expected to
hold common stock having a value equal to a multiple of their
base salary as determined by their position. The guidelines
contemplate a multiple of five times base salary for
Mr. Hockema, and three times base salary for the other
named executive officers. Each member of senior management
covered by our stock ownership guidelines is expected to retain
at least 75 percent of the net shares resulting from equity
compensation awards until he or she achieves the applicable
ownership level contemplated by the stock ownership guidelines.
For purposes of these guidelines, stock ownership includes
shares over which the holder has direct or indirect ownership or
control, including restricted stock and restricted stock units,
but does not include unexercised stock options. The ownership
guidelines are expected to be met within five years. The
compensation committee reviews compliance with the guidelines on
an annual basis. Based on the grants of restricted stock in July
2006 and the reported closing price for our common stock on the
Nasdaq Global Market on December 29, 2006, each named
executive officer owns common stock above the applicable stock
ownership requirements under the stock ownership guidelines.
Retirement benefits
We no longer maintain a defined benefit pension plan or retiree
medical program that covers members of senior management.
Retirement benefits to our senior management, including the
named executive officers, are currently provided through two
principal plans: (1) the Kaiser Aluminum Savings and
Investment Plan,
a tax-qualified
profit-sharing and 401(k) plan (which we refer to as our Savings
Plan), and (2) a nonqualified, unfunded and unsecured
deferred compensation plan (which we refer to as our New
Restoration Plan) intended to restore benefits that would be
payable to participants in the Savings Plan but for the
limitations on benefit accruals and payments imposed by the
Internal Revenue Code. Each of these plans is discussed more
fully below. Although these plans provide reduced benefits to
members of senior management when compared to the benefits
available prior to and during our chapter 11 bankruptcy, we
believe that they support the objectives of our
post-emergence
comprehensive compensation structure, including the ability to
attract and retain senior and experienced mid- to late-career
executives for critical positions within our organization.
In April 2005, we implemented a new defined contribution
retirement program for salaried employees, to be effective as of
May 1, 2005. The program was intended to replace our Old
Pension Plan, which was terminated by the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, on December 17, 2003, but
with lower costs and risks to us and reduced benefits to the
participants. The new defined contribution retirement program
has three primary components, which are discussed more fully
below: (1) a company match of the employees pre-tax
deferrals under our Savings Plan; (2) a company
contribution to the employees account under our Savings
Plan; and (3) a company contribution to the employees
account under the New Restoration Plan. A decision with respect
to the implementation of the third component was deferred for
consideration by the post-emergence board of directors in the
context of the implementation of our post-emergence
comprehensive compensation structure. Our New Restoration Plan
was adopted upon emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The implementation of the New Restoration Plan included the
transfer, rather than distribution (as had been contemplated by
the Chapter 11 KERP), of the lump-sum equivalent of the
accrued benefits for the remaining participants under the Old
Restoration Plan into the New Restoration Plan. The table below
summarizes the balances that were transferred into the New
Restoration Plan from the Old Restoration Plan for
Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan and Maddox.
Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective January 23, 2006,
and Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006, did not
participate in the New Restoration Plan in 2006.
92
Management
|
|
|
|
|
Balance transferred |
|
|
to the New |
Name |
|
Restoration Plan |
|
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
$964,718 |
John Barneson
|
|
$887,366 |
John M. Donnan
|
|
$54,851 |
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
$41,416 |
Under the terms of the New Restoration Plan, these balances were
transferred to a rabbi trust where they remain
subject to the claims of our creditors and are otherwise
invested in funds designated by each individual from a menu of
possible investments.
Perquisites
During 2006, all of our named executive officers received a
vehicle allowance and all (except Messrs. Donnan and
Maddox) were reimbursed for admission to, and the dues for, a
club membership. Additionally, we reimbursed the legal fees and
expenses incurred by Mr. Hockema in connection with the
negotiation and consummation of his employment agreement and the
housing and other expenses incurred by Mr. Bellino in
connection with his relocation to California upon joining us.
Our use of perquisites as an element of compensation is limited
and is largely based on historical practices and policies of our
company. We do not view perquisites as a significant element of
our comprehensive compensation structure but do believe that
they can be used in conjunction with base salary to attract,
motivate and retain individuals in a competitive environment.
Chapter 11 Retention Plan
As part of the Chapter 11 KERP, we also adopted the
Chapter 11 Retention Plan, a retention plan with certain
key employees, including Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan
and Maddox, which continued through the first two years of our
restructuring. Although the Chapter 11 Retention Plan was
not extended beyond March 31, 2004, portions of the
payments to Messrs. Hockema and Barneson under the
Chapter 11 Retention Plan through that date were withheld
to further enhance the retention aspects of the Chapter 11
KERP. For Messrs. Hockema and Barneson, $730,000 and
$250,000, respectively, of accrued awards payable under the
Chapter 11 Retention Plan were withheld for subsequent
payment. One-half of the withheld amount was paid in a lump sum
in August 2006 following our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy. The remaining one-half is expected to be paid in a
lump sum on July 6, 2007, subject to the continued
employment of Messrs. Hockema and Barneson as more fully
discussed below.
Employment contracts, termination of employment arrangements
and change-in-control arrangements
As discussed more fully below, we have entered into employment
agreements with Messrs. Hockema, Bellino and Maddox. Our
decisions to enter into employment agreements and the terms of
those agreements were based on the facts and circumstances at
the time and an analysis of competitive market practice. With
respect to Messrs. Hockema and Bellino, we worked with our
outside compensation consultant and determined that employment
agreements and the negotiated terms of those agreements were
consistent with market practice. We also determined that
entering into an employment agreement with Mr. Hockema was
important to provide an economic incentive for Mr. Hockema
to delay his retirement until at least July 2011, improve our
ability to retain other key members of senior management and
provide assurance to our customers and other stakeholders of the
continuity of senior management for an extended period beyond
our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy. With respect to
Mr. Maddox, who lives in Houston, Texas where we were
formerly headquartered and who expressed his desire to remain in
Houston, we determined that it was important to provide an
incentive for Mr. Maddox to remain with our company through
at least
93
Management
March 2007 in order to help facilitate and complete the
transition of our accounting function to our current
headquarters in Foothill Ranch, California and the training of
his replacement. In each case, we determined that the agreements
and the terms of those agreements were in the best interests of
our company and stockholders.
Also, as discussed more fully below, we provide all named
executive officers with benefits related to certain terminations
of employment, including in connection with a change in control,
by us without cause and by the named executive officer with good
reason. These protections for all the named executive officers
(other than Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006 just
prior to our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy and,
accordingly, did not participate in the Chapter 11 KERP)
and other members of senior management were supported by our
creditors and approved by the bankruptcy court as part of the
Chapter 11 KERP. Importantly, these protections limit our
ability to downwardly adjust certain aspects of compensation,
including base salaries and target incentive compensation,
without triggering the ability of the affected named executive
officer to receive termination benefits. Mr. Hockemas
protection is now part of his employment agreement, replacing
the similar protection previously available to him under
Chapter 11 KERP agreements. Similarly,
Mr. Bellinos protection is part of his employment
agreement. We view these severance protection benefits as an
important component of the total compensation package for each
of our named executive officers. In our view, having these
protections helps to maintain the named executive officers
objectivity in decision-making and provides another vehicle to
align the interests of our named executive officer with the
interests of our stockholders.
Tax deductibility
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits the
deductibility of compensation in excess of $1 million paid
to our chief executive officer and our four other highest-paid
executive officers unless certain specific and detailed criteria
are satisfied. We believe that it is often desirable and in our
best interests to deduct compensation payable to our executive
officers. In this regard, we consider the anticipated tax
treatment to our company and our executive officers in the
review and establishment of compensation programs and payments.
While no assurance can be given that compensation will be fully
deductible under Section 162(m), we will continue to
evaluate steps that we can take to increase or otherwise
preserve deductibility. In the interim, we have determined that
we will not seek to limit compensation to that deductible under
Section 162(m), particularly in light of the substantial
net operating loss carry-forwards that we expect to be available
to us to offset taxable income.
94
Management
Summary compensation table for 2006
The table below sets forth information regarding 2006
compensation for our named executive officers:
(1) Jack A. Hockema, our President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board; (2) Joseph P.
Bellino, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (who joined us in May 2006); (3) each of John
Barneson, John M. Donnan and Daniel D. Maddox, our
three other most highly compensated executive officers (based on
total compensation for 2006); and (4) Kerry A. Shiba,
our former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (who
resigned effective January 23, 2006). As indicated below
and more fully explained in footnote 3, the table below does not
reflect earnings under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pension | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
value and | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonqualified | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-equity | |
|
deferred | |
|
|
|
|
Name and principal |
|
|
|
|
|
Stock | |
|
incentive plan | |
|
compensation | |
|
All other | |
|
|
position |
|
Year |
|
Salary |
|
awards(1) | |
|
compensation(2)(3) | |
|
earnings(4) | |
|
compensation | |
|
Total | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
2006 |
|
$730,000 |
|
$ |
1,301,167 |
|
|
$ |
1,649,440 |
(5) |
|
$ |
8,403 |
|
|
$ |
539,556 |
(6)(7)(8)(9) |
|
$ |
4,228,566 |
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
2006 |
|
$220,018 |
|
$ |
105,500 |
|
|
|
|
(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
39,119 |
(6)(7)(10) |
|
$ |
364,637 |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Barneson
|
|
2006 |
|
$278,750 |
|
$ |
337,600 |
|
|
$ |
346,938 |
(5) |
|
$ |
5,020 |
|
|
$ |
191,942 |
(6)(7)(8)(11) |
|
$ |
1,160,250 |
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
2006 |
|
$260,000 |
|
$ |
316,500 |
|
|
$ |
104,554 |
(5) |
|
$ |
(603 |
) |
|
$ |
41,897 |
(6)(7)(12) |
|
$ |
722,348 |
|
Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel D.
Maddox
|
|
2006 |
|
$222,917 |
|
$ |
318,863 |
|
|
$ |
114,043 |
(5) |
|
$ |
(256 |
) |
|
$ |
36,971 |
(6)(7)(13) |
|
$ |
692,538 |
|
Vice President and Controller |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
2006 |
|
$17,386 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
253,511 |
(5) |
|
$ |
884 |
|
|
$ |
433,646 |
(6)(14) |
|
$ |
705,427 |
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Reflects the value of restricted stock awards granted to our
named executive officers under our Equity Incentive Plan on
July 6, 2006 in connection with our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy based on the compensation cost of the
award with respect to our 2006 fiscal year computed in
accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
Share-Based Payment, which we refer to as
SFAS No. 123-R,
but excluding any impact of assumed forfeiture rates. The number
of shares of restricted stock received by our named executive
officers pursuant to such awards was as follows:
Mr. Hockema, 185,000; Mr. Bellino, 15,000;
Mr. Barneson, 48,000; Mr. Donnan, 45,000; and
Mr. Maddox, 11,334. The table reflects the expense
recognized for each named |
95
Management
|
|
|
|
executive officer (other than Messrs. Maddox and Shiba)
for the six-month portion of the three-year vesting period for
the restricted stock extending from our emergence date through
December 31, 2006, computed in accordance with SFAS
No. 123-R, but excluding any impact of assumed forfeiture
rates, based on (a) a per share value at emergence of
$42.20 and (b) the total number of shares of restricted
stock received by the named executive officer. The table
reflects the expense recognized for Mr. Maddox computed in
accordance with SFAS No. 123-R, but excluding any impact of
assumed forfeiture rates, based on (a) a per share value at
emergence of $42.20, (b) the total number of shares of
restricted stock received by him, (c) the assumptions that
his employment will terminate and that his shares of restricted
stock will vest on March 31, 2007, and (d) the six-
month portion of the assumed nine-month vesting period for his
restricted stock extending from our emergence date through
December 31, 2006. Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective
January 23, 2006, did not receive a restricted stock
award. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Reflects payments under our Chapter 11 Long-Term
Incentive Plan, pursuant to which key management employees
accrued cash awards based on our attainment of sustained cost
reductions above $80 million annually for the four and
one-half year period from 2002 through our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Does not reflect earnings under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive
Plan, pursuant to which key management employees earned cash
awards based on the financial and safety performance of our
fabricated products business unit, the performance of the
particular business unit to which the employee was assigned and
individual performance objectives, because earnings under our
2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan are not presently calculable.
Amounts earned by Messrs. Hockema, Bellino, Barneson,
Donnan and Maddox under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan are
expected to be determined in March 2007, at which time they will
be disclosed by us in a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed
with the SEC. As indicated above, although 2006 results are not
yet available, based on our results through the third quarter,
we currently estimate that the 2006 award multiple will be
between 1.5 and 2.5 of the target percentage or award and,
accordingly, that individual awards will be between 1.5 and
2.5 times an individuals incentive target percentage
or award, before taking into account any adjustments for
individual performance and applicable modifiers. Mr. Shiba,
who resigned effective January 23, 2006, did not
participate in our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Reflects the aggregate change in actuarial present value of
the named executive officers accumulated benefit under our
Old Pension Plan during 2006 calculated by (a) assuming
mortality according to the
RP-2000 Combined Health
Mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries and
(b) applying a discount rate of 5.50% per annum to
determine the actuarial present value of the accumulated benefit
at December 31, 2005 and a discount rate of 5.75% per annum
to determine the actuarial present value of the accumulated
benefit at December 31, 2006. Effective December 17,
2003, the PBGC terminated and effectively assumed responsibility
for making benefit payments in respect of our Old Pension Plan,
whereupon all benefit accruals under the Old Pension Plan ceased
and benefits available thereunder to certain salaried employees,
including Messrs. Hockema and Barneson, were significantly
reduced due to the limitations on benefits payable by the PBGC.
Above-market or preferential earnings are not available under
our New Restoration Plan, which is our only plan or arrangement
pursuant to which compensation may be deferred on a basis that
is not tax-qualified, or any of our other benefit plans. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Reflects amounts paid under our Chapter 11 Long-Term
Incentive Plan in 2006. For each of Messrs. Hockema,
Barneson, Donnan and Maddox, these amounts represent
approximately one-half of the total amounts accrued under our
Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan during the four and
one-half year period from 2002 through our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006; for
Mr. Shiba, the amount represents the total amount accrued.
The total amounts accrued under our Chapter 11 Long-Term
Incentive Plan during the four and one-half year period for
Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan and Maddox were as
follows: Mr. Hockema, $3,298,880; Mr. Barneson,
$693,876; Mr. Donnan, $208,575; and Mr. Maddox,
$227,228. |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
96
Management
|
|
|
|
Individual amounts accrued by year for Messrs. Hockema,
Barneson, Donnan and Maddox were as follows: Mr. Hockema,
$2,324,557 in 2002 and 2003, $918,818 in 2004, ($240,819) in
2005 and $296,324 in 2006; Mr. Barneson, $466,534 in 2002
and 2003, $214,391 in 2004, ($56,191) in 2005 and $69,142 in
2006; Mr. Donnan, $146,045 in 2002 and 2003, $55,129 in
2004, ($32,109) in 2005 and $39,510 in 2006; and
Mr. Maddox, $162,274 in 2002 and 2003, $61,255 in 2004,
($16,055) in 2005 and $19,755 in 2006. Annual awards during this
period were approximately 81% of target in 2002 and 2003; 61% of
target in 2004; (16%) of target in 2005; and 40% of target in
2006, with an average award of approximately 55% of target over
the four and one-half year period. For each of
Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan and Maddox, the 2006
payments under our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan were
made in August 2006 following our emergence and the remaining
portion of the total amount (subject to adjustment in accordance
with the terms of the Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan)
will be paid on July 6, 2007 unless he is terminated for
cause or voluntarily terminates his employment prior to that
date. For Mr. Shiba, pursuant to the terms of a release
entered into between him and us in connection with his
resignation, the total was paid in early 2006. Mr. Bellino,
who joined us in May 2006, did not participate in our
Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Includes contributions made by us under our Savings Plan, as
follows: Mr. Hockema, $22,883; Mr. Barneson, $24,225;
Mr. Donnan, $21,133; and Mr. Maddox, $20,240. We did not
make contributions under our Savings Plan to Mr. Shiba, who
resigned effective January 23, 2006, or Mr. Bellino,
who joined us in May 2006. |
|
|
|
(7) |
Includes contributions made by us under our New Restoration
Plan which is intended to restore the benefit of contributions
that we would have otherwise paid to participants under our
Savings Plan but for limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue
Code, as follows: Mr. Hockema, $105,037; Mr. Barneson,
$27,873; Mr. Donnan, $9,809; and Mr. Maddox, $5,579.
Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective January 23, 2006, and
Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006, did not participate
in our New Restoration Plan. |
|
|
|
(8) |
Includes amounts paid to Messrs. Hockema and Barneson
under our Chapter 11 Retention Plan in 2006 as follows:
Mr. Hockema, $365,000; and Mr. Barneson, $125,000. For each
of Messrs. Hockema and Barneson, these amounts represent
approximately one-half of the total retention payments withheld
from Messrs. Hockema and Barneson under the Chapter 11
Retention Plan. The total amounts withheld from
Messrs. Hockema and Barneson were as follows:
Mr. Hockema, $730,000; and Mr. Barneson, $250,000. The
2006 payments under our Chapter 11 Retention Plan were made
in August 2006 following our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy and the remaining portion of the total amount
withheld from each of Messrs. Hockema and Barneson will be
paid on July 6, 2007 unless he is terminated for cause or
voluntarily terminates his employment prior to that date. |
|
|
|
(9) |
Includes the cost to us of perquisites and other personal
benefits for Mr. Hockema as follows: club membership dues,
$6,875; legal fees and expenses incurred by Mr. Hockema in
connection with the negotiation and consummation of his
employment agreement with us, $25,191; and vehicle allowance,
$14,570. |
|
|
|
|
(10) |
Includes the cost to us of perquisites and other personal
benefits for Mr. Bellino as follows: club membership dues,
$3,040; housing and other expenses associated with his
relocation to California, $27,840; and vehicle allowance,
$8,239. |
|
|
|
(11) |
Includes the cost to us of perquisites and other personal
benefits for Mr. Barneson as follows: club membership dues,
$4,385; and vehicle allowance, $10,459. |
|
|
|
(12) |
Includes the cost to us of perquisites and other personal
benefits for Mr. Donnan as follows: vehicle allowance,
$10,955. |
|
|
|
(13) |
Includes the cost to us of perquisites and other benefits for
Mr. Maddox as follows: vehicle allowance, $11,152. |
|
|
|
(14) |
Includes $431,777 paid or accrued to Mr. Shiba pursuant
to the release entered into between him and us in connection
with his resignation (exclusive of amounts earned by him under
our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan (see Note 4
above) and amounts referred to in the next |
|
97
Management
|
|
|
sentence). Also includes the cost to us of perquisites and
other personal benefits for Mr. Shiba as follows: club
membership dues, $1,210; and vehicle allowance, $659. |
As reflected in the table above, the salary received by each of
our named executive officers as a percentage of their respective
total compensation during 2006 was as follows: Mr. Hockema,
17.3%; Mr. Bellino (who joined us in May 2006), 60.3%;
Mr. Barneson, 24.0%; Mr. Donnan, 36.0%;
Mr. Maddox, 32.2%; and Mr. Shiba (who resigned
effective January 23, 2006), 2.5%.
Grants of plan-based awards in 2006
The table below sets forth information regarding grants of
plan-based awards made to our named executive officers during
2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated future payouts under | |
|
All other stock | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
non-equity incentive plan awards(1) | |
|
awards: number | |
|
Grant date fair | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
of shares of | |
|
value of stock | |
|
|
|
|
Threshold | |
|
Target | |
|
Maximum | |
|
stock or units(2) | |
|
awards(3) | |
Name |
|
Grant date | |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
(#) | |
|
($) | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
250,025 |
|
|
$ |
500,050 |
|
|
$ |
1,500,150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/6/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185,000 |
|
|
$ |
7,807,000 |
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
87,500 |
|
|
$ |
175,000 |
|
|
$ |
525,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/6/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
$ |
633,000 |
|
John Barneson
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
63,000 |
|
|
$ |
126,000 |
|
|
$ |
378,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/6/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,000 |
|
|
$ |
2,025,600 |
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
58,500 |
|
|
$ |
117,000 |
|
|
$ |
351,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/6/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,899,000 |
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
37,500 |
|
|
$ |
75,000 |
|
|
$ |
225,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/6/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,334 |
|
|
$ |
478,295 |
|
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Reflects the threshold, target and maximum award amounts
under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan for our named executive
officers. No awards are available below the threshold
performance level. Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective
January 23, 2006, did not participate in our 2006
Short-Term Incentive Plan. Under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive
Plan, participants may receive a cash incentive award between
one-half and three times the participants target award
amount. As indicated above, although 2006 results are not yet
available, based on our results through the third quarter, we
currently estimate that the 2006 award multiple will be between
1.5 and 2.5 of the target percentage or award and, accordingly,
that individual awards will be between 1.5 and 2.5 times an
individuals incentive target percentage or award, before
taking into account any adjustments for individual performance
and applicable modifiers. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Reflects the number of shares of restricted stock received by
our named executive officers pursuant to awards granted under
our Equity Incentive Plan on July 6, 2006 in connection
with our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy. The
restrictions on all such shares will lapse on July 6, 2009
or earlier if the named executive officers employment
terminates as a result of death or disability, the named
executive officers employment is terminated by us without
cause, the named executive officers employment is
voluntarily terminated by him for good reason or if there is a
change in control or, in the case of Mr. Maddox, his
employment is terminated (other than by us for cause) upon the
conclusion of his employment agreement. Mr. Shiba, who
resigned effective January 23, 2006, did not receive a
restricted stock award. |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
98
Management
|
|
(3) |
The grant date fair value of the restricted stock awards
reflected in this table is computed in accordance with SFAS
No. 123-R, but excluding any impact of assumed forfeiture
rates, based on (a) a per share value at our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy of $42.20 and (b) the total number of
shares of restricted stock awarded. |
Employment-related agreements and certain employee benefit
plans
Employment agreement with Jack A. Hockema
On July 6, 2006, in connection with our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy, we entered into an employment
agreement with Jack A. Hockema, pursuant to which
Mr. Hockema continued his duties as our President and Chief
Executive Officer. Under the terms of his employment agreement,
Mr. Hockemas initial base salary is $730,000 and his
annual short-term incentive target under our 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan is equal to 68.5% of his base salary. The
short-term incentive is payable in cash, but is subject to both
our meeting the applicable underlying performance thresholds and
an annual cap of three times the target. If
Mr. Hockemas employment terminates other than on a
date which is the last day of a fiscal year, then his annual
short-term incentive target with respect to the fiscal year in
which his employment terminates will be prorated for the actual
number of days of employment during such fiscal year, and such
amount will be paid to Mr. Hockema or his estate unless his
employment was terminated by us for cause or was voluntarily
terminated by him without good reason. Under the employment
agreement, Mr. Hockema received a grant of 185,000 shares
of restricted stock on July 6, 2006 under our Equity
Incentive Plan; the restrictions on all such shares will lapse
on July 6, 2009 or earlier if his employment is terminated
as a result of his death, disability or retirement, his
employment is terminated by us without cause or his employment
is voluntarily terminated by him with good reason, or if there
is a change in control. Starting in 2007, he will be entitled to
receive annual equity awards (such as restricted stock, stock
options or performance shares) with a target cash economic value
of 165% of his base salary; the terms of all equity grants to
Mr. Hockema will be similar to the terms of equity grants
made to other senior executives at the time they are made,
except that the grants must provide for full vesting at
retirement and pro rata vesting upon any other termination of
his employment except termination by us for cause or voluntary
termination by him without good reason. The initial term of his
employment agreement is five years and it will be automatically
renewed and extended for one-year periods unless either party
provides notice one year prior to the end of the initial term or
any extension period. Mr. Hockema also participates in the
various benefit plans for salaried employees.
Under Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, following
any termination of his employment, we must pay or provide to
Mr. Hockema or his estate:
|
|
|
|
base salary earned through the
date of such termination;
|
|
|
|
|
except in the case of a
termination by us for cause or by him other than for good
reason, earned but unpaid incentive awards;
|
|
|
|
|
accrued but unpaid vacation;
|
|
|
|
|
benefits under our employment
benefit plans to the extent vested and not forfeited on the date
of such termination; and
|
|
|
|
|
benefit continuation and
conversion rights to the extent provided under our employment
benefit plans.
|
|
In addition, if Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated
as a result of his death or disability, all of his outstanding
equity awards will vest in accordance with their terms, subject
to the provisions described above, and all of his vested but
unexercised grants will remain exercisable through the second
anniversary of such termination. If Mr. Hockemas
employment is terminated by us for cause or is
99
Management
voluntarily terminated by him without good reason, all of his
unvested equity grants will be forfeited and all of his vested
but unexercised equity grants will be forfeited on the date that
is 90 days following such termination. If
Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him with good reason, in
addition to the payment of his accrued benefits as described
above, (1) we will make a lump-sum payment to
Mr. Hockema in an amount equal to two times the sum of his
base salary and annual short-term incentive target, (2) his
medical, dental, vision, life insurance and disability benefits,
which we refer to as welfare benefits, will continue for two
years commencing on the date of such termination, and
(3) all of his outstanding equity awards will vest in
accordance with their terms, subject to the provisions described
above, and all of his vested but unexercised grants will remain
exercisable through the second anniversary of such termination.
If there is a change in control of our company, all of
Mr. Hockemas equity awards outstanding as of the date
of such change in control will fully vest. If
Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him with good reason
within two years following a change in control, in addition to
the payments of his accrued benefits as described above,
(1) we will make a lump-sum payment to Mr. Hockema in
an amount equal to three times the sum of his base salary and
annual short-term incentive target, (2) his welfare
benefits will continue for three years commencing on the date of
such termination, and (3) all previously unvested equity
grants will become exercisable and vested but unexercisable
grants will remain exercisable through the second anniversary of
such termination. If any payments to Mr. Hockema would be
subject to federal excise tax by reason of being considered
contingent on a change in control, we must pay to
Mr. Hockema an additional amount such that, after
satisfaction of all tax obligations imposed on such payments,
Mr. Hockema retains an amount equal to such federal excise
tax.
Mr. Hockema will be subject to noncompetition,
nonsolicitation and confidentiality restrictions following his
termination of employment.
For quantitative disclosure regarding estimated payments and
other benefits that would have been received by Mr. Hockema
or his estate if his employment had terminated on
December 29, 2006, the last business day of 2006, under
various circumstances, see Potential payments
and benefits upon termination of employment.
Employment agreement with Joseph P. Bellino
On July 6, 2006, in connection with our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy, we entered into an employment
agreement with Joseph P. Bellino, pursuant to which
Mr. Bellino continued his duties as our Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer. The agreement supersedes
an employment agreement with Mr. Bellino that was entered
into when he joined us in May 2006. Under the terms of his
employment agreement, Mr. Bellinos initial base
salary is $350,000 and his annual short-term incentive target
under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan is equal to 50% of his
base salary. The short-term incentive is payable in cash, but is
subject to both our meeting the applicable underlying
performance thresholds and an annual cap of three times the
target. If Mr. Bellinos employment terminates other
than on a date which is the last day of a fiscal year, then his
annual short-term incentive target with respect to the fiscal
year in which his employment terminates will be prorated for the
actual number of days of employment during such fiscal year, and
such amount will be paid to Mr. Bellino or his estate
unless his employment was terminated by us for cause or was
voluntarily terminated by him without good reason. Under the
employment agreement, Mr. Bellino received an initial grant
of 15,000 shares of restricted stock on July 6, 2006 under
our Equity Incentive Plan; the restrictions on all such shares
will lapse on July 6, 2009 or earlier if his employment is
terminated as a result of his death, disability or retirement,
his employment is terminated by us without cause or his
employment is voluntarily terminated by him with good reason, or
if there is a change in control. Starting in 2007, he will be
entitled to receive annual equity awards (such as restricted
stock, stock
100
Management
options or performance shares) with a target cash economic value
of $450,000; the terms of all equity grants will be similar to
the terms of equity grants made to other senior executives at
the time they are made. The initial term of his employment
agreement is through May 15, 2009 and will be automatically
renewed and extended for one-year periods unless either party
provides notice one year prior to the end of the initial term or
any extension period. Mr. Bellino also participates in the
various benefit plans for salaried employees.
Under Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, following
any termination of his employment, we must pay or provide to
Mr. Bellino or his estate:
|
|
|
|
base salary earned through the
date of such termination;
|
|
|
|
|
except in the case of a
termination by us for cause or by him other than for good
reason, earned but unpaid incentive awards;
|
|
|
|
|
accrued but unpaid vacation;
|
|
|
|
|
benefits under our employment
benefit plans to the extent vested and not forfeited on the date
of such termination; and
|
|
|
|
|
benefit continuation and
conversion rights to the extent provided under our employment
benefit plans.
|
|
In addition, if Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated
as a result of his death or disability, all of his outstanding
equity awards will vest in accordance with their terms, subject
to the provisions described above, and all of his vested but
unexercised grants will remain exercisable through the second
anniversary of such termination. If Mr. Bellinos
employment is terminated by us for cause or is voluntarily
terminated by him without good reason, all of his unvested
equity grants will be forfeited and all of his vested but
unexercised equity grants will be forfeited on the date that is
90 days following such termination. If
Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him with good reason, in
addition to the payment of his accrued benefits as described
above, (1) we will make a lump-sum payment to
Mr. Bellino in an amount equal to two times the sum of his
base salary and annual short-term incentive target, (2) his
welfare benefits will continue for two years commencing on the
date of such termination, and (3) all of his outstanding
equity awards will vest in accordance with their terms, subject
to the provisions described above, and all of his vested but
unexercised grants will remain exercisable through the second
anniversary of such termination.
If there is a change in control of our company, all of
Mr. Bellinos equity awards outstanding as of the date
of such change in control will fully vest. If
Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him with good reason
within two years following a change in control, in addition to
the payments of his accrued benefits as described above,
(1) we will make a lump-sum payment to Mr. Bellino in
an amount equal to three times the sum of his base salary and
annual short-term incentive target, (2) his welfare
benefits will continue for three years commencing on the date of
such termination, and (3) all previously unvested equity
grants will become exercisable and vested but unexercisable
grants will remain exercisable through the second anniversary of
such termination. If any payments to Mr. Bellino would be
subject to federal excise tax by reason of being considered
contingent on a change in control, we must pay to
Mr. Bellino an additional amount such that, after
satisfaction of all tax obligations imposed on such payments,
Mr. Bellino retains an amount equal to such federal excise
tax.
Mr. Bellino will be subject to noncompetition,
nonsolicitation and confidentiality restrictions following his
termination of employment.
For quantitative disclosure regarding estimated payments and
other benefits that would have been received by Mr. Bellino
or his estate if his employment had terminated on
December 29, 2006, the last
101
Management
business day of 2006, under various circumstances, see
Potential payments and benefits upon
termination of employment.
Employment agreement with Daniel D. Maddox
On July 6, 2006, in connection with our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy, we entered into an employment
agreement with Daniel D. Maddox, pursuant to which
Mr. Maddox continued his duties as our Vice President and
Controller. Under the terms of his employment agreement,
Mr. Maddoxs initial base salary is $225,000 and his
annual short-term incentive target under our 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan is equal to $75,000, subject to being prorated
for partial years. The short-term incentive is payable in cash,
but is subject to our meeting the applicable underlying
performance thresholds. Under the employment agreement,
Mr. Maddox received an initial grant of 11,334 shares of
restricted stock on July 6, 2006 under our Equity Incentive
Plan; the terms of the restricted stock grant to Mr. Maddox
are similar to the terms of restricted stock grants made to
other senior executives on July 6, 2006. The term of his
employment agreement continues until the earlier of a mutually
agreed upon termination date and March 31, 2007. If
Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated (other than by
death or disability or by us for cause) upon the conclusion of
this agreement, he will receive benefits under his Change in
Control Agreement as if both a change in control had occurred
prior to his departure and he was terminating his employment for
good reason. In addition, if Mr. Maddoxs employment
is terminated (other than by us for cause) upon the conclusion
of this agreement, the restrictions on his 11,334 shares of
restricted stock will lapse. Mr. Maddox also participates
in the various retirement and benefit plans for salaried
employees.
For quantitative disclosure regarding payments and other
benefits that would have been received by Mr. Maddox or his
estate if his employment had terminated on December 29,
2006, the last business day of 2006, under various
circumstances, see Potential payments and benefits
upon termination of employment.
Severance Plan
Effective September 3, 2002, in connection with the
commencement of our chapter 11 bankruptcy and the
implementation of the Chapter 11 KERP, we adopted our
Severance Plan to provide selected executive officers, including
Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan, Maddox and Shiba, and
other key employees with appropriate protection in the event of
certain terminations of employment and entered into severance
agreements with plan participants. Mr. Hockemas
employment agreement discussed above replaces his participation
in the Severance Plan and supersedes his severance agreement.
Mr. Shibas resignation effective January 23,
2006 did not trigger rights under the Severance Plan or his
severance agreement. The Severance Plan and related severance
agreements terminate on July 6, 2007.
Our Severance Plan provides for payment of a severance benefit
and continuation of welfare benefits upon termination of
employment in certain circumstances. Participants are eligible
for the severance payment and continuation of welfare benefits
in the event the participants employment is terminated
without cause or the participant terminates his or her
employment with good reason. The severance payment and
continuation of welfare benefits are not available if:
|
|
|
|
the participant receives
severance compensation or welfare benefit continuation pursuant
to a Change in Control Agreement (described below);
|
|
|
|
|
the participants
employment is terminated other than by us without cause or by
the participant for good reason; or
|
|
|
|
|
the participant declines to
sign, or subsequently revokes, a designated form of release.
|
|
102
Management
In consideration for the severance payment and continuation of
welfare benefits, a participant will be subject to
noncompetition, nonsolicitation and confidentiality restrictions
following the participants termination of employment.
The severance payment payable under the Severance Plan to
Messrs. Barneson, Donnan and Maddox consists of a lump-sum
cash payment equal to two times (for Mr. Barneson) or one
time (for Messrs. Donnan and Maddox) their base salaries.
In addition, welfare benefits are continued for a period of two
years (for Mr. Barneson) or one year (for
Messrs. Donnan and Maddox) following termination of
employment.
For quantitative disclosure regarding estimated payments and
other benefits that would have been received by each of
Messrs. Barneson, Donnan and Maddox or his estate if his
employment had terminated on December 29, 2006, the last
business day of 2006, under various circumstances, see
Potential payments and benefits upon
termination of employment.
Change in control severance agreements
In 2002, in connection with the commencement of our
chapter 11 bankruptcy and the implementation of the
Chapter 11 KERP, we also entered into Change in Control
Agreements with certain key executives, including
Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan, Maddox and Shiba, in
order to provide them with appropriate protection in the event
of a termination of employment in connection with a change in
control or, except as otherwise provided, a significant
restructuring. Mr. Hockemas employment agreement
discussed above supersedes his Change in Control Agreement.
Mr. Shibas resignation effective January 23,
2006 did not trigger rights under his Change in Control
Agreement. The Change in Control Agreements terminate on the
second anniversary of a change in control.
The Change in Control Agreements provide for severance payments
and continuation of welfare benefits upon termination of
employment in certain circumstances. The participants are
eligible for severance benefits if their employment is
terminated by us without cause or by the participant with good
reason during a period that commences 90 days prior to the
change in control and ends on the second anniversary of the
change in control. Participants (including Messrs. Donnan
and Maddox but excluding Mr. Barneson) also are eligible
for severance benefits if their employment is terminated by us
due to a significant restructuring even when there has been no
change in control. These benefits are not available if:
|
|
|
|
the participant receives
severance compensation or welfare benefit continuation pursuant
to the Severance Plan or any other prior agreement;
|
|
|
|
|
the participants
employment is terminated other than by us without cause or by
the participant for good reason; or
|
|
|
|
|
the participant declines to
sign, or subsequently revokes, a designated form of release.
|
|
In consideration for the severance payment and continuation of
benefits, a participant will be subject to noncompetition,
nonsolicitation and confidentiality restrictions following his
or her termination of employment with us.
Upon a qualifying termination of employment, each of
Messrs. Barneson, Donnan and Maddox are entitled to receive
the following:
|
|
|
|
three times (for
Mr. Barneson) or two times (for Messrs. Donnan and
Maddox) the sum of his base pay and most recent short-term
incentive target;
|
|
|
|
|
a pro-rated portion of his
short-term incentive target for the year of termination; and
|
|
103
Management
|
|
|
a pro-rated portion of his
long-term incentive target in effect for the year of his
termination, provided that such target was achieved.
|
In addition, welfare benefits and perquisites are continued for
a period of three years (for Mr. Barneson) or two years
(for Messrs. Donnan and Maddox) after termination of
employment with us.
In general, if any payments would be subject to federal excise
tax or any similar state or local tax by reason of being
considered contingent on a change in control, the participant
will be entitled to receive an additional amount such that,
after satisfaction of all tax obligations imposed on such
payments, the participant retains an amount equal to the federal
excise tax or similar state or local tax imposed on such
payments. However, if no such federal excise tax or similar
state or local tax would apply if the aggregate payments were
reduced by 5%, then the aggregate payments to the participant
will be reduced by the amount necessary to avoid application of
such federal excise tax or similar state or local tax.
For quantitative disclosure regarding estimated payments and
other benefits that would have been received by each of
Messrs. Barneson, Donnan and Maddox or his estate if his
employment had terminated on December 29, 2006, the last
business day of 2006, under various circumstances, see
Potential payments and benefits upon
termination of employment.
Release with Kerry A. Shiba
Kerry A. Shiba resigned as our Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer effective January 23, 2006. In connection
with his resignation, we entered into a release with
Mr. Shiba. Pursuant to the terms of the release, in lieu of
all benefits to which Mr. Shiba might otherwise be entitled
and in consideration of his satisfaction of certain
post-termination obligations, Mr. Shiba received payments
of $687,157 in the aggregate, including payments of his earned
awards under our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan, his
earned short-term incentive award for 2005 and his accrued
unpaid vacation, payments of COBRA premiums for his medical and
dental coverage and payments in respect of certain perquisites.
The release also provides for a mutual release and subjects
Mr. Shiba to certain noncompetition, nondisclosure and
nonsolicitation obligations.
Equity Incentive Plan
On July 6, 2006, upon our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy and the implementation of our plan of reorganization,
our Equity Incentive Plan became effective. The Equity Incentive
Plan is an omnibus plan that facilitates the issuance of future
long-term incentive awards as part of our comprehensive
compensation structure and is administered by a committee of
non-employee directors of our board of directors, currently the
compensation committee.
Our officers and other key employees, as selected by the
compensation committee are eligible to participate in the Equity
Incentive Plan. As of December 31, 2006, approximately
40 officers and other key employees had been selected by
the compensation committee to receive awards under the Equity
Incentive Plan. Our non-employee directors also participate in
the Equity Incentive Plan.
Subject to certain adjustments that may be required from time to
time to prevent dilution or enlargement of the rights of
participants under the Equity Incentive Plan, a maximum of
2,222,222 shares of common stock may be issued under the
Equity Incentive Plan, of which 525,660 shares have been
issued to our directors, officers and key employees and were
outstanding as of December 31, 2006.
Our Equity Incentive Plan permits the granting of awards in the
form of options to purchase our common stock, stock appreciation
rights, shares of restricted stock, restricted stock units,
performance shares, performance units and other awards.
104
Management
The Equity Incentive Plan will expire on July 6, 2016. No
grants will be made under the Equity Incentive Plan after that
date, but all grants made on or prior to such date will continue
in effect thereafter subject to the terms thereof and of the
Equity Incentive Plan.
Our board of directors may, in its discretion, terminate the
Equity Incentive Plan at any time. The termination of the Equity
Incentive Plan would not affect the rights of participants or
their successors under any awards outstanding and not exercised
in full on the date of termination.
The compensation committee may at any time and from time to time
amend the Equity Incentive Plan in whole or in part. Any
amendment which must be approved by our stockholders in order to
comply with applicable law or the rules of the principal
securities exchange, association or quotation system on which
our common stock is then traded or quoted will not be effective
unless and until such approval has been obtained. The
compensation committee will not, without the further approval of
the stockholders, authorize the amendment of any outstanding
option or appreciation right to reduce the exercise price or
base price. Furthermore, no option will be cancelled and
replaced with awards having a lower exercise price without
further approval of the stockholders.
During 2006, we granted restricted stock awards to various
officers (including our named executive officers), key employees
and directors under our Equity Incentive Plan. Under these
awards, each participant received shares of our common stock
that are subject to certain transfer restrictions and risk of
forfeiture. Prior to the restrictions thereon lapsing, the
participant may not sell, transfer, pledge, assign or take any
similar action with respect to the shares of restricted stock
which the participant owns. Once the restrictions lapse with
respect to shares of restricted stock, the participant owning
such shares will hold freely-transferable shares, subject only
to any restrictions on transfer contained in our certificate of
incorporation, bylaws and insider trading policies, as well as
any applicable federal or state securities laws. Despite the
restrictions, each participant will have full voting rights and
will receive any dividends or other distributions, if any, with
respect to the shares of restricted stock which the participant
owns.
The restrictions on the restricted stock granted to our named
executive officers and non-employee directors will lapse on
July 6, 2009 and August 1, 2007, respectively.
However, the restrictions will lapse immediately upon a change
in control, upon the participants death or disability if
the participant was still employed by us or serving as one of
our directors at such time or, in the case of
Messrs. Hockema and Bellino, upon his retirement. Further,
the restrictions on the restricted stock granted to our
employees will lapse if the participants employment is
terminated by us without cause or by the participant for good
reason. If the participants employment or service as a
director should terminate for any reason other than those
described above, the participant will forfeit his or her
restricted stock award, unless the board of directors determines
all or any portion of the restricted stock grant held by the
participant will vest. In addition, under Mr. Maddoxs
employment agreement, the restrictions on his restricted stock
will lapse upon the termination of his employment (other than by
us for cause) at the conclusion of his employment agreement.
Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan
During 2002, in connection with the commencement of our
chapter 11 bankruptcy and the implementation of the
Chapter 11 KERP, we adopted our Chapter 11 Long-Term
Incentive Plan, pursuant to which key management employees,
including Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan, Maddox and
Shiba, became eligible to receive an annual cash award based on
our attainment of sustained cost reductions above
$80 million annually for the period 2002 through our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006.
Under the Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan, 15% of cost
reductions above the stipulated threshold were placed in a pool
to be shared by participants based on the percentage their
individual targets comprised of the aggregate target for all
participants. Annual awards during this period ranged between
approximately (16%) to 81% of target, with an average
105
Management
award of approximately 55% of target over the four and one-half
year period. In general, approximately one-half of the award
payable under the Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan was
paid to participants in August 2006 and the remaining portion of
the award will be paid to participants on July 6, 2007,
unless the participants employment is terminated by us for
cause or is voluntarily terminated by such participant (other
than at normal retirement) prior to that date. The July 6,
2007 payments are subject to adjustment up or down to the extent
that there are fewer participants at such time or there is a
change in the size of the cost reduction pool prior to such
time. Pursuant to the terms of a release entered into between
Mr. Shiba and us in connection with his resignation, all
amounts earned by Mr. Shiba under the Chapter 11
Long-Term Incentive Plan were paid to him in early 2006.
2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan
On July 6, 2006, upon our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy, our compensation committee approved our 2006
Short-Term Incentive Plan for key managers. Incentive awards
under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan are based upon:
|
|
|
|
the fabricated products business
units EBITDA;
|
|
|
|
|
the fabricated products business
units safety performance as measured by total case
incident rate;
|
|
|
|
|
performance of the particular
business to which a participant is assigned; and
|
|
|
|
|
individual performance
objectives.
|
|
Under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan, a participant may
receive an incentive award between zero to three times the
individuals target amount.
Under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan, in general, any
participant who voluntarily terminated his or her employment
(other than for good reason) or who was terminated by us for
cause prior to December 31, 2006 forfeited his or her
award. A participant will be entitled to a pro-rated award under
the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan if his or her employment
terminated during 2006 but prior to December 31, 2006 and
his or her employment was terminated as a result of death,
disability, normal retirement or full early retirement (position
elimination), was involuntarily terminated by us other than for
cause or was terminated by the participant for good reason. A
participant will be entitled to the full payment of his or her
award if his or her employment terminated on or after
December 31, 2006, unless such termination was by us for
cause, in which case he or she would forfeit the award.
Savings Plan
We sponsor a tax-qualified profit sharing and 401(k) plan, our
Savings Plan, in which eligible salaried employees may
participate. Pursuant to the Savings Plan, employees may elect
to reduce their current annual compensation up to the lesser of
75% or the statutorily prescribed limit of $15,500 in calendar
year 2007 (plus up to an additional $5,000 in the form of
catch-up contributions for participants near
retirement age), and have the amount of any reduction
contributed to the Savings Plan. Our Savings Plan is intended to
qualify under sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Internal Revenue
Code, so that contributions by us or our employees to the
Savings Plan and income earned on contributions are not taxable
to employees until withdrawn from the Savings Plan and so that
contributions will be deductible by us when made. We match 100%
of the amount an employee contributes to the Savings Plan,
subject to a 4% maximum based on the employees
compensation as defined in the Savings Plan.
106
Management
Employees are immediately vested 100% in our matching
contributions to our Savings Plan. We also make annual
fixed-rate contributions on behalf of our employees in the
following amounts:
|
|
|
|
For our employees who were
employed with us on or before January 1, 2004, we
contribute in a range from 2% to 10% of the employees
compensation, based upon the sum of the employees age and
years of continuous service as of January 1, 2004; and
|
|
|
|
|
For our employees who were first
employed with us after January 1, 2004, we contribute 2% of
the employees compensation.
|
|
An employee is required to be employed on the last day of the
year in order to receive the fixed-rate contribution. Employees
are vested 100% in our fixed-rate contributions to the Savings
Plan after five years of service. The total amount of elective,
matching and fixed-rate contributions in any year cannot exceed
the lesser of 100% of an employees compensation or $45,000
in 2007 (adjusted annually). We may amend or terminate these
matching and fixed-rate contributions at any time by an
appropriate amendment to our Savings Plan. The independent
trustee of the Savings Plan invests the assets of the Savings
Plan as directed by participants.
Chapter 11 Retention Plan
Effective September 3, 2002, in connection with the
commencement of our chapter 11 bankruptcy and the
implementation of the Chapter 11 KERP, we adopted the
Chapter 11 Retention Plan and entered into retention
agreements with selected key employees, including
Messrs. Hockema, Barneson, Donnan, Maddox and Shiba. In
general, awards payable under the Chapter 11 Retention Plan
vested, as applicable, on September 30, 2002,
March 31, 2003, September 30, 2003 and March 31,
2004. The Chapter 11 Retention Plan was not extended beyond
March 2004. Except with respect to payments of the withheld
amounts (as described below) to Messrs. Hockema and
Barneson, no payments were made after March 31, 2004 and no
further payments are payable under the Chapter 11 Retention
Plan.
For Messrs. Hockema and Barneson, $730,000 and $250,000,
respectively, of accrued awards payable under the
Chapter 11 Retention Plan were withheld for subsequent
payment. One-half of such withheld amount was paid in a lump sum
in August 2006 upon our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy and one-half is payable in a lump sum on July 6,
2007 unless the named executive officers employment is
terminated by us for cause or is voluntarily terminated by such
named executive officer prior to that date.
107
Management
Outstanding equity awards at December 31, 2006
The table below sets for the information regarding restricted
stock awards held by our named executive officers as of
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Awards | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Number of shares or units of | |
|
Market value of shares or units of | |
|
|
stock that have not vested(1) | |
|
stock that have not vested(2) | |
Name |
|
(#) | |
|
($) | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
185,000 |
|
|
$ |
10,356,300 |
|
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
$ |
839,700 |
|
|
John Barneson
|
|
|
48,000 |
|
|
$ |
2,687,040 |
|
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
|
45,000 |
|
|
$ |
2,519,100 |
|
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
|
11,334 |
|
|
$ |
634,477 |
|
|
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Reflects the number of shares of restricted stock received by
our named executive officers pursuant to awards granted under
our Equity Incentive Plan on July 6, 2006 in connection
with our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy. The
restrictions on all such shares will lapse on July 6, 2009
or earlier if the named executive officers employment
terminates as a result of death or disability (or, in the case
of Messrs. Hockema and Bellino, retirement), the named
executive officers employment is terminated by us without
cause, the named executive officers employment is
voluntarily terminated by him for good reason or if there is a
change in control or, in the case of Mr. Maddox, his employment
is terminated (other than by us for cause) upon the conclusion
of his employment agreement. Mr. Shiba, who resigned
effective January 23, 2006, did not receive a restricted
stock award. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Reflects the aggregate market value of the shares of
restricted stock determined based on a per share price of
$55.98, the reported closing price for our common stock on the
Nasdaq Global Market on December 29, 2006, which was the
last trading day of 2006. |
|
108
Management
Pension benefits as of December 31, 2006
The table below sets forth information regarding the present
value as of December 31, 2006 of the accumulated benefits
of our named executive officers (other than Mr. Bellino) under
our Old Pension Plan. As discussed further below, our Old
Pension Plan was terminated on December 17, 2003, at which
time the number of years of credited service for participants
was frozen. Mr. Bellino joined us in May 2006 and did not
participate in the Old Pension Plan prior to its termination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present value of | |
|
|
|
|
Number of years | |
|
accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
credited service | |
|
benefit(1) | |
Name |
|
Plan name | |
|
(#) | |
|
($) | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Salaried |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees Retirement Plan |
|
|
|
11.92 |
|
|
$ |
293,262 |
|
|
John Barneson
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Salaried |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees Retirement Plan |
|
|
|
28.83 |
|
|
$ |
269,372 |
|
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Salaried |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees Retirement Plan |
|
|
|
10.25 |
|
|
$ |
129,390 |
|
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Salaried |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees Retirement Plan |
|
|
|
7.58 |
|
|
$ |
94,867 |
|
|
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Salaried |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees Retirement Plan |
|
|
|
5.58 |
|
|
$ |
91,016 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Reflects the actuarial present value of the named executive
officers accumulated benefit under our Old Pension Plan at
December 31, 2006 determined (a) assuming mortality
according to the
RP-2000 Combined Health
Mortality Table published by the Society of Actuaries and
(b) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
The Old Pension Plan previously maintained by us was a
qualified, defined-benefit retirement plan for our salaried
employees who met certain eligibility requirements. Effective
December 17, 2003, the PBGC terminated and effectively
assumed responsibility for making benefit payments in respect of
the Old Pension Plan. As a result of the termination, all
benefit accruals under the Old Pension Plan were terminated and
benefits available to certain executive officers, including
Messrs. Hockema and Barneson, were significantly reduced
due to the limitation on benefits payable by the PBGC. Benefits
payable to participants will be reduced to a maximum of $34,742
annually for retirement at age 62, a lower amount for retirement
prior to age 62, and a higher amount for retirements after age
62, up to $43,977 at age 65, and participants will not accrue
additional benefits. In addition, the PBGC will not make
lump-sum payments to participants.
109
Management
Nonqualified deferred compensation for 2006
The table below sets forth, for each of our named executive
officers, information regarding his participation in our New
Restoration Plan during 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant | |
|
Aggregate | |
|
Aggregate | |
|
|
contributions | |
|
earnings in | |
|
balance at | |
Name |
|
in last FY(1) | |
|
last FY(2) | |
|
last FYE(3) | |
| |
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
$ |
105,037 |
|
|
$ |
26,051 |
|
|
$ |
1,095,806 |
|
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Barneson
|
|
$ |
27,873 |
|
|
$ |
19,102 |
|
|
$ |
934,341 |
|
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
$ |
9,809 |
|
|
$ |
7,359 |
|
|
$ |
72,018 |
|
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
$ |
5,579 |
|
|
$ |
1,144 |
|
|
$ |
48,140 |
|
|
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In each case, 100% of such amount is included in the
All Other Compensation column of the summary
compensation table above. See Summary Compensation
table for 2006. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Amounts included in this column do not include above-market
or preferential earnings (of which there were none) and,
accordingly, such amount is not included in the Change in
Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
Earnings column of the summary compensation table above.
See Summary Compensation table for 2006. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Includes amounts accrued under the Old Restoration Plan and
transferred to accounts under the New Restoration Plan upon its
adoption in connection with our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy, as follows: Mr. Hockema, $964,718;
Mr. Barneson, $887,366; Mr. Donnan, $54,851; and
Mr. Maddox, $41,416. Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective
January 23, 2006, did not participate in the New
Restoration Plan and, accordingly, the amount of benefits
accrued to him under the Old Restoration Plan was not
transferred to the New Restoration Plan. Mr. Bellino, who
joined us in May 2006, did not participate in the New
Restoration Plan in 2006. |
|
The New Restoration Plan is a plan we sponsor in which a select
group of our management and highly compensated employees may
participate. Eligibility to participate in our New Restoration
Plan is determined by the compensation committee, which
currently administers the New Restoration Plan. The purpose of
our New Restoration Plan is to restore the benefit of matching
and fixed-rate contributions that we would have otherwise paid
to participants under our Savings Plan but for the limitations
on benefit accruals and payments imposed by the Internal Revenue
Code. We maintain an account on behalf of each participant in
the New Restoration Plan and contributions to a
participants New Restoration Plan account to restore
benefits under the Savings Plan are made generally in the manner
described below:
|
|
|
If our matching contributions to
a participant under the Savings Plan are limited in any year, we
will make an annual contribution to that participants
account under the New Restoration Plan equal to the difference
between:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- |
the matching contributions that we could have made to that
participants account under the Savings Plan if the
Internal Revenue Code did not impose any limitations; and |
|
|
|
|
- |
the maximum contribution we could in fact make to that
participants account under the Savings Plan in light of
the limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. |
|
110
Management
|
|
|
|
A participant is required to be making elective contributions
under our Savings Plan on the first day of the year in order to
receive a matching contribution from us under our New
Restoration Plan for that year. However, matching contributions
under the New Restoration Plan are calculated as though the
participant elected to make the maximum permissible elective
contributions under the Savings Plan sufficient to receive the
maximum matching contribution from us under the Savings Plan,
without regard for the participants actual elective
contributions. Participants are immediately vested 100% in our
matching contributions to the New Restoration Plan. |
|
|
|
|
Annual fixed-rate contributions to the participants
account under the New Restoration Plan are made in an amount
equal to between 2% and 10% of the participants excess
compensation, as defined in Section 401(a)(17) of the
Internal Revenue Code. The actual fixed-rate contribution
percentage is determined based upon the sum of the
participants age and years of continuous service as of
January 1, 2004. If a participant is first employed with us
after January 1, 2004, the fixed-rate contribution
percentage is 2%. A participant is required to be employed on
the last day of the year in order to receive the fixed-rate
contribution. Further, to the extent that fixed-rate
contributions to a participant under our Savings Plan on
compensation that is not excess compensation, as defined in
Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(17), cannot be made
under the Savings Plan due to Internal Revenue Code limitations,
such fixed-rate contributions will be made to such
participants account under our New Restoration Plan.
Participants are vested 100% in our fixed-rate contributions to
our New Restoration Plan after five years of service or upon
retirement, death, disability or a change of control. |
|
A participant is entitled to distributions six months following
his or her termination of service, except that any participant
who is terminated for cause will forfeit the entire amount of
matching and fixed-rate contributions made by us to that
participants account under the New Restoration Plan.
The Restoration Plan was deemed effective as of May 1,
2005, the date on which the accrual of benefits under the Old
Restoration Plan was terminated. The lump-sum actuarial
equivalent amount of the benefit accrued to a participant under
the Old Restoration Plan has been transferred to such
participants account under the New Restoration Plan.
We may amend or terminate these matching and fixed-rate
contributions at any time by an appropriate amendment to our New
Restoration Plan. The value of each participants account
under our New Restoration Plan changes based upon the
performance of the funds designated by the participant from a
menu of various money market and investment funds.
111
Management
Potential payments and benefits upon termination of
employment
This section sets forth for each named executive officer (other
than Mr. Shiba) quantitative disclosure regarding estimated
payments and other benefits that would have been received by the
named executive officer or his estate if his employment had
terminated on December 29, 2006, the last business day of
2006, under the following circumstances:
|
|
|
|
voluntary termination by the
named executive officer;
|
|
|
|
|
termination by us for cause;
|
|
|
|
|
termination by us without cause
or by the named executive officer with good reason;
|
|
|
|
|
termination by us without cause
or by the named executive officer with good reason following a
change in control;
|
|
|
|
|
termination at normal retirement;
|
|
|
|
|
termination as a result of
disability; or
|
|
|
|
|
termination as a result of death.
|
|
Mr. Shiba, who resigned effective January 23, 2006,
was not serving as one of our executive officers at the end of
2006 and, in lieu of all benefits to which Mr. Shiba might
otherwise have been entitled and in consideration of his
satisfaction of certain post-termination obligations,
Mr. Shiba received payments in accordance with the terms of
the release entered into by him and us in connection with his
resignation. See Employment-related agreements and certain
employee benefit plans Release with Kerry A.
Shiba for a more detailed discussion of such payments.
112
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JACK A. HOCKEMA | |
| |
|
|
Circumstances of Termination | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
cause or by | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
the named | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cause or by | |
|
executive | |
|
|
|
|
Voluntary | |
|
|
|
the named | |
|
officer with | |
|
|
|
|
termination | |
|
|
|
executive | |
|
good reason | |
|
|
|
|
by named | |
|
Termination | |
|
officer with | |
|
following a | |
|
Normal | |
|
|
Payments and benefits |
|
executive officer | |
|
by us for cause | |
|
good reason | |
|
change in control | |
|
retirement | |
|
Disability | |
|
Death | |
| |
Payment of earned but unpaid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base
salary(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
incentive(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,649,440 |
|
|
$ |
1,649,440 |
|
|
$ |
1,649,440 |
|
|
$ |
1,649,440 |
|
|
$ |
1,649,440 |
|
|
Short-term
incentive(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
497,310 |
|
|
$ |
497,310 |
|
|
$ |
497,310 |
|
|
$ |
497,310 |
|
|
$ |
497,310 |
|
|
Retention
payment(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
365,000 |
|
|
$ |
365,000 |
|
|
$ |
365,000 |
|
|
$ |
365,000 |
|
|
$ |
365,000 |
|
|
Vacation(5)
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
Other benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lump-sum payment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,460,100 |
(6) |
|
$ |
3,690,150 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
29,880 |
(8) |
|
$ |
45,474 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
13,450 |
(9) |
|
$ |
18,212 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
710,856 |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
Life insurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11) |
|
|
|
(11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
50,000 |
(12) |
|
Perquisites and other personal benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax
gross-up(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,393,426 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of stock awards:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market value of stock vesting on
termination(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
10,356,300 |
|
|
$ |
10,356,300 |
|
|
$ |
10,356,300 |
|
|
$ |
10,356,300 |
|
|
$ |
10,356,300 |
|
Distribution of New Restoration Plan balance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of distribution
(15)
|
|
$ |
1,095,806 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,095,806 |
|
|
$ |
1,095,806 |
|
|
$ |
1,095,806 |
|
|
$ |
1, 095,806 |
|
|
$ |
1,095,806 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,151,960 |
|
|
$ |
56,154 |
|
|
$ |
16,523,440 |
|
|
$ |
22,167,272 |
|
|
$ |
14,020,010 |
|
|
$ |
14,730,866 |
|
|
$ |
14,070,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Assumes that there is no earned but unpaid base salary at the
time of termination. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Under our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan, we must
pay Mr. Hockema or his estate the remaining portion of the
total amount accrued by Mr. Hockema thereunder on July 6,
2007 unless he is terminated by us for cause or he voluntarily
terminates his employment (other than at normal retirement)
prior to that date. The $1,649,440 amount reflected in the table
is based on computations made in connection with the 2006
payments under the Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan and
assumes no decrease in the number of plan participants or
adjustment to the cost reduction pool prior to July 6,
2007. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan,
Mr. Hockemas target award for 2006 is $500,050, but
his award can range from a threshold of $250,000 to a maximum of
$1,500,150, or could be zero if the threshold performance is not
achieved. The exact amount of Mr. Hockemas award
under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan cannot be determined at
this time. Pursuant to |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
113
Management
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, we must pay
Mr. Hockema or his estate any earned but unpaid amounts
under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan unless he is terminated
by us for cause or he voluntarily terminates his employment
other than for good reason. Under Mr. Hockemas
employment agreement, if his employment had terminated during
2006 but prior to December 31, 2006 Mr. Hockemas
target award for 2006 under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan
would have been prorated for the actual number of days of
Mr. Hockemas employment in 2006 and Mr. Hockema
would have been entitled to payment of such amount, without any
increase or reduction that would normally be considered with his
award, unless his employment had been terminated by us for cause
or had been voluntarily terminated by him other than for good
reason; accordingly, assuming his employment had terminated on
December 29, 2006, the last business day of 2006, we would
have been obligated to pay Mr. Hockema $497,310 unless his
employment had been terminated by us for cause or had been
voluntarily terminated by him other than for good reason. Under
Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, if his employment
had terminated on December 31, 2006, the last day of our
2006 fiscal year, Mr. Hockema would have been entitled to
full payment of his award under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive
Plan unless his employment had been terminated by us for cause
or had been voluntarily terminated by him other than for good
reason. Solely for purposes of this note, we estimate that
Mr. Hockemas award under our 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan will be between $750,075 and $1,250,125 (with a
midpoint of $1,000,000), before taking into account any
adjustments for individual performance or applicable modifiers.
We believe this is a reasonable estimate of the potential range
of Mr. Hockemas award based on our results through
the third quarter of 2006. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Under our Chapter 11 Retention Plan, we must pay
Mr. Hockema or his estate $365,000 on July 6, 2007
unless his employment is terminated by us for cause or is
voluntarily terminated by him (other than at normal retirement)
prior to that date. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Assumes that Mr. Hockema used all of his 2006 vacation and
that he has four weeks of accrued vacation for 2007. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Under Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, if
Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must make a lump-sum payment to Mr. Hockema in an amount
equal to two times the sum of his base salary and target annual
bonus opportunity for the fiscal year in which such termination
occurs. |
|
|
|
(7) |
Under Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, if
Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason within
two years following a change in control, we must make a lump-sum
payment to Mr. Hockema in an amount equal to three times
the sum of his base salary and target annual bonus. |
|
|
|
(8) |
Under Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, if
Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must continue his medical and dental benefits for two years, or,
if such termination occurs within two years following a change
in control, three years, commencing on the date of such
termination. The table reflects the present value of such
medical and dental benefits at December 29, 2006 determined
(a) assuming family coverage in a point of service medical
plan and a basic dental plan, (b) based on current COBRA
coverage rates for 2007 and assuming a 9% increase in the cost
of medical coverage for 2008 as compared to 2007, an 8.5%
increase in the cost of medical coverage for 2009 as compared to
2008 and a 6% increase in the cost of dental coverage for 2008
as compared to 2007 and for 2009 as compared to 2008, (c)
assuming Mr. Hockema pays premiums for such coverage
throughout the applicable benefit continuation period in the
same manner as if he were an active employee, and
(d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(9) |
Under Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, if
Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must continue his disability benefits for two years, or, if such
termination occurs within two years following a change in
control, three years, commencing on the date of such
termination. The table reflects |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
114
Management
|
|
|
the present value of such disability benefits at
December 29, 2006 determined (a) based on our current
costs of providing such benefits and assuming such costs do not
increase during the applicable benefit continuation period,
(b) assuming we pay such costs throughout the applicable
benefit continuation period in the same manner as we currently
pay such costs, (c) assuming mortality according to the
RP-2000 Combined Health mortality table published by the Society
of Actuaries, and (d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per
annum. |
|
|
|
(10) |
Reflects the actuarial present value of
Mr. Hockemas disability benefits at December 29,
2006 determined (a) assuming full disability at December
29, 2006, (b) assuming mortality according to the RP-2000
Disabled Retiree mortality table published by the Society of
Actuaries, and (c) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per
annum. |
|
|
|
(11) |
Under Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, if
Mr. Hockemas employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must continue his life insurance benefits for two years, or, if
such termination occurs within two years following a change in
control, three years, commencing on the date of such
termination. Mr. Hockema has declined life insurance coverage
beyond the $50,000 death benefit payable by us upon his death
under our employment policies for salaried employees.
Accordingly, continuing Mr. Hockemas life insurance
benefits for the applicable benefit continuation period has no
cost to us except in the event of his death during such
period. |
|
|
|
(12) |
Reflects the life insurance benefit payable assuming
Mr. Hockemas death occurred on December 29, 2006
other than while traveling on company-related business. We
maintain a travel and accidental death policy for certain
employees, including Mr. Hockema, that would provide an
additional $1,000,000 death benefit payable to
Mr. Hockemas estate if his death had occurred during
company-related travel. |
|
|
|
(13) |
Under Mr. Hockemas employment agreement, if any
payments to Mr. Hockema would be subject to federal excise
tax by reason of being considered contingent on a change in
control, we must pay to Mr. Hockema an additional amount
such that, after satisfaction of all tax obligations imposed on
such payments, Mr. Hockema retains an amount equal to such
federal excise tax. The table reflects an estimate of the
additional amount that we would have been obligated to pay
Mr. Hockema if his employment had been terminated on
December 29, 2006 by us without cause or by him with good
reason following a change in control on such date. |
|
|
|
(14) |
Reflects the aggregate market value of the shares of
restricted stock for which restrictions would lapse early due to
Mr. Hockemas termination, determined based on a per
share price of $55.98, the reported closing price for our common
stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on December 29, 2006,
which was the last trading day of 2006. The restrictions on all
shares of restricted stock currently held by Mr. Hockema
will lapse on July 6, 2009 or earlier if his employment
terminates as a result of his death, disability or retirement,
his employment is terminated by us without cause or his
employment is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, or
if there is a change in control. |
|
|
|
(15) |
Under our New Restoration Plan, Mr. Hockema is entitled
to a distribution of his account balance six months following
his termination, except that he will forfeit the entire amount
of matching and fixed rate contributions made by us to his
account if he is terminated for cause. |
|
115
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSEPH P. BELLINO | |
| |
|
|
Circumstances of Termination | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
cause or by | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
the named | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cause or by | |
|
executive | |
|
|
|
|
Voluntary | |
|
|
|
the named | |
|
officer with | |
|
|
|
|
termination | |
|
|
|
executive | |
|
good reason | |
|
|
|
|
by named | |
|
Termination | |
|
officer with | |
|
following a | |
|
Normal | |
|
|
Payments and benefits |
|
executive officer | |
|
by us for cause | |
|
good reason | |
|
change in control | |
|
retirement | |
|
Disability | |
|
Death | |
| |
Payment of earned but unpaid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base
salary(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
incentive(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term
incentive(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
174,041 |
|
|
$ |
174,041 |
|
|
$ |
174,041 |
|
|
$ |
174,041 |
|
|
$ |
174,041 |
|
|
Retention
payment(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacation(5)
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
Other benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lump-sum payment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,050,000 |
(6) |
|
$ |
1,575,000 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
29,880 |
(8) |
|
$ |
45,474 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
14,996 |
(9) |
|
$ |
21,951 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,057,633 |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
Life insurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11) |
|
|
|
(11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
50,000 |
(12) |
|
Perquisites and other personal benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax
gross-up(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,024,403 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of stock awards:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market value of stock vesting on
termination(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
839,700 |
|
|
$ |
839,700 |
|
|
$ |
839,700 |
|
|
$ |
839,700 |
|
|
$ |
839,700 |
|
Distribution of New Restoration Plan balance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of
distribution(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
2,135,540 |
|
|
$ |
3,707,492 |
|
|
$ |
1,040,664 |
|
|
$ |
2,098,297 |
|
|
$ |
1,090,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Assumes that there is no earned but unpaid base salary at the
time of termination. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006, did not
participate in our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan,
Mr. Bellinos target award for 2006 is $175,000, but
his award can range from a threshold of $87,500 to a maximum of
$525,000, or could be zero if the threshold performance is not
achieved. The exact amount of Mr. Bellinos award
under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan cannot be determined at
this time. Pursuant to Mr. Bellinos employment
agreement, we must pay Mr. Bellino or his estate any earned
but unpaid amounts under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan
unless he is terminated by us for cause or he voluntarily
terminates his employment other than for good reason. Under
Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, if his employment
had terminated during 2006 but prior to December 31, 2006,
Mr. Bellinos target award for 2006 under our 2006
Short-Term Incentive Plan would have been prorated for the
actual number of days of Mr. Bellinos employment in
2006 and Mr. Bellino would have been entitled to payment of
such amount, without any increase or reduction that would
normally be considered with his award, unless his employment had
been terminated by us for cause or had been voluntarily
terminated by him |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
116
Management
|
|
|
|
other than for good reason; accordingly, assuming his
employment had terminated on December 29, 2006, the last
business day of 2006, we would have been obligated to pay
Mr. Bellino $174,041 unless his employment had been
terminated by us for cause or had been voluntarily terminated by
him other than for good reason. Under Mr. Bellinos
employment agreement, if his employment had terminated on
December 31, 2006, the last day of our 2006 fiscal year,
Mr. Bellino would have been entitled to full payment of his
award under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan unless his
employment had been terminated by us for cause or was
voluntarily terminated by him other than for good reason. Solely
for purposes of this note, we estimate that
Mr. Bellinos award under our 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan will be between $262,500 and $437,500 (with a
midpoint of $350,000), before taking into account any
adjustments for individual performance and applicable modifiers.
We believe this is a reasonable estimate of the potential range
of Mr. Bellinos award based on our results through
the third quarter of 2006. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006, did not
participate in our Chapter 11 Retention Plan. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Assumes that Mr. Bellino used all of his 2006 vacation
and that he has four weeks of accrued vacation for 2007. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Under Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, if
Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must make a lump-sum payment to Mr. Bellino in an amount
equal to two times the sum of his base salary and target annual
bonus opportunity for the fiscal year in which such termination
occurs. |
|
|
|
(7) |
Under Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, if
Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason within
two years following a change in control, we must make a lump-sum
payment to Mr. Bellino in an amount equal to three times
the sum of his base salary and target annual bonus. |
|
|
|
(8) |
Under Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, if
Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must continue his medical and dental benefits for two years, or,
if such termination occurs within two years following a change
in control, three years, commencing on the date of such
termination. The table reflects the present value of such
medical and dental benefits at December 29, 2006 determined
(a) assuming family coverage in a point of service medical
plan and a basic dental plan, (b) based on current COBRA
coverage rates for 2007 and assuming a 9% increase in the cost
of medical coverage for 2008 as compared to 2007, an 8.5%
increase in the cost of medical coverage for 2009 as compared to
2008 and a 6% increase in the cost of dental coverage for 2008
as compared to 2007 and for 2009 as compared to 2008, (c)
assuming Mr. Bellino pays premiums for such coverage
throughout the applicable benefit continuation period in the
same manner as if he were an active employee, and
(d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(9) |
Under Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, if
Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must continue his disability benefits for two years, or, if such
termination occurs within two years following a change in
control, three years, commencing on the date of such
termination. The table reflects the present value of such
disability benefits at December 29, 2006 determined
(a) based on our current costs of providing such benefits
and assuming such costs do not increase during the applicable
benefit continuation period, (b) assuming we pay such costs
throughout the applicable benefit continuation period in the
same manner as we currently pay such costs, (c) assuming
mortality according to the RP-2000 Combined Health mortality
table published by the Society of Actuaries, and
(d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(10) |
Reflects the present value of Mr. Bellinos
disability benefits at December 29, 2006 determined
(a) assuming full disability at December 29, 2006,
(b) assuming mortality according to the RP-2000 Disabled
Retiree mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries,
and (c) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
(footnotes continued on following page)
117
Management
|
|
|
(11) |
Under Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, if
Mr. Bellinos employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must continue his life insurance benefits for two years, or, if
such termination occurs within two years following a change in
control, three years, commencing on the date of such
termination. Mr. Bellino has declined life insurance coverage
beyond the $50,000 death benefit payable by us upon his death
under our employment policies for salaried employees.
Accordingly, continuing Mr. Bellinos life insurance
benefits for the applicable benefit continuation period has no
cost to us except in the event of his death during such
period. |
|
|
|
(12) |
Reflects the life insurance benefit payable assuming
Mr. Bellinos death occurred on December 29, 2006
other than while traveling on company-related business. We
maintain a travel and accidental death policy for certain
employees, including Mr. Bellino, that would provide an
additional $1,000,000 death benefit payable to
Mr. Bellinos estate if his death had occurred during
company- related travel. |
|
|
|
(13) |
Under Mr. Bellinos employment agreement, if any
payments to Mr. Bellino would be subject to federal excise
tax by reason of being considered contingent on a change in
control, we must pay to Mr. Bellino an additional amount
such that, after satisfaction of all tax obligations imposed on
such payments, Mr. Bellino retains an amount equal to such
federal excise tax. The table reflects an estimate of the
additional amount that we would have been obligated to pay
Mr. Bellino if his employment had been terminated on
December 29, 2006 by us without cause or by him with good
reason following a change in control on such date. |
|
|
|
(14) |
Reflects the aggregate market value of the shares of
restricted stock for which restrictions would lapse early due to
Mr. Bellinos termination, determined based on a per
share price of $55.98, the reported closing price for our common
stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on December 29, 2006,
which was the last trading day of 2006. The restrictions on all
shares of restricted stock currently held by Mr. Bellino
will lapse on July 6, 2009 or earlier if his employment
terminates as a result of his death, disability or retirement,
his employment is terminated by us without cause or his
employment is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, or
if there is a change in control. |
|
|
|
(15) |
Mr. Bellino, who joined us in May 2006, did not have a
balance in the New Restoration Plan on December 29,
2006. |
|
118
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOHN BARNESON | |
| |
|
|
Circumstances of Termination | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
cause or by | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
the named | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cause or by | |
|
executive | |
|
|
|
|
Voluntary | |
|
|
|
the named | |
|
officer with | |
|
|
|
|
termination | |
|
|
|
executive | |
|
good reason | |
|
|
|
|
by named | |
|
Termination | |
|
officer with | |
|
following a | |
|
Normal | |
|
|
Payments and benefits |
|
executive officer | |
|
by us for cause | |
|
good reason | |
|
change in control | |
|
retirement | |
|
Disability | |
|
Death | |
| |
Payment of earned but unpaid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base
salary(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
incentive(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
346,938 |
|
|
$ |
346,938 |
|
|
$ |
346,938 |
|
|
$ |
346,938 |
|
|
$ |
346,938 |
|
|
Short-term
incentive(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
250,619 |
|
|
$ |
125,310 |
|
|
$ |
250,619 |
|
|
$ |
250,619 |
|
|
$ |
250,619 |
|
|
Retention
payment(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
125,000 |
|
|
$ |
125,000 |
|
|
$ |
125,000 |
|
|
$ |
125,000 |
|
|
$ |
125,000 |
|
|
Vacation(5)
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
Other benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lump-sum payment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
560,000 |
(6) |
|
$ |
1,218,000 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
29,880 |
(8) |
|
$ |
45,474 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
11,997 |
(9) |
|
$ |
17,561 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
846,107 |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
Life insurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,029 |
(11) |
|
$ |
7,756 |
(11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
600,000 |
(12) |
|
Perquisites and other personal benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
44,532 |
(13) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax
gross-up(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,285,172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of stock awards:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market value of stock vesting on
termination(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,687,040 |
|
|
$ |
2,687,040 |
|
|
$ |
2,687,040 |
|
|
$ |
2,687,040 |
|
|
$ |
2,687,040 |
|
Distribution of New Restoration Plan balance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of distribution
(16)
|
|
$ |
934,341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
934,341 |
|
|
$ |
934,341 |
|
|
$ |
934,341 |
|
|
$ |
934,341 |
|
|
$ |
934,341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
961,264 |
|
|
$ |
26,923 |
|
|
$ |
4,977,767 |
|
|
$ |
6,864,047 |
|
|
$ |
4,370,861 |
|
|
$ |
5,216,968 |
|
|
$ |
4,970,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Assumes that there is no earned but unpaid base salary at the
time of termination. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Under our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan, we must
pay Mr. Barneson or his estate the remaining portion of the
total amount accrued by Mr. Barneson thereunder on
July 6, 2007 unless he is terminated by us for cause or he
voluntarily terminates his employment (other than at normal
retirement) prior to that date. The $346,938 amount reflected in
the table is based on computations made in connection with the
2006 payments under the Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan
and assumes no decrease in the number of plan participants or
adjustments to the cost reduction pool prior to July 6,
2007. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan,
Mr. Barnesons target award for 2006 is $126,000, but
his award can range from a threshold of $63,000 to a maximum of
$378,000, or could be zero if the threshold performance is not
achieved. The exact amount cannot be determined at this time.
Under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan, in general,
Mr. Barneson would have forfeited his award if he had
voluntarily terminated his employment other than for good reason
prior to December 31, 2006 or if he had been terminated by
us for cause. However, |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
119
Management
|
|
|
|
Mr. Barneson would have been entitled to a pro rata
award under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan if his employment
had terminated during 2006 but prior to December 31, 2006
and his employment had been terminated as a result of death,
disability, normal retirement or full early retirement (position
elimination), had been involuntarily terminated by us without
cause or had been voluntarily terminated by him for good reason.
Solely for purposes of this note, we estimate that
Mr. Barnesons award under our 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan will be between $189,000 and $315,000 (with a
midpoint of $252,000), before taking into account any
adjustments for individual performance or applicable modifiers.
We believe this is a reasonable estimate of the potential range
of Mr. Barnesons award based on our results through
third quarter of 2006. Accordingly, if Mr. Barnesons
employment had terminated on December 29, 2006, the last
business day of 2006, and his employment had been terminated as
a result of death, disability, normal retirement or full early
retirement (position elimination), had been involuntarily
terminated by us without cause or had been voluntarily
terminated by him for good reason, we would have been obligated
to pay Mr. Barneson $250,619 based on the midpoint of the
estimated range for his award. Under Mr. Barnesons
Change in Control Agreement, if his employment had been
terminated by us without cause or by him for good reason within
the period commencing 90 days prior to a change in control
and ending two years following a change in control and such
termination occurred during 2006 other than on December 31,
2006, Mr. Barnesons target award for 2006 under our
2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan would have been prorated for the
actual number of days of Mr. Barnesons employment in
2006 and Mr. Barneson would have been entitled to payment
of such amount; accordingly, assuming his employment had been so
terminated on December 29, 2006, we would have been
obligated to pay Mr. Barneson $125,310. If
Mr. Barnesons employment had been terminated (other
than by us for cause) on December 31, 2006, the last day of
our 2006 fiscal year, Mr. Barneson would have been entitled
to full payment of his award under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive
Plan. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Under our Chapter 11 Retention Plan, we must pay
Mr. Barneson or his estate $125,000 on July 6, 2007
unless his employment is terminated by us for cause or is
voluntarily terminated by him (other than at normal retirement)
prior to that date. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Assumes that Mr. Barneson used all of his 2006 vacation
and that he has five weeks of accrued vacation for 2007. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Under Mr. Barnesons Severance Agreement, if
Mr. Barnesons employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must make a lump-sum payment to Mr. Barneson in an amount
equal to two times his base salary. |
|
|
|
(7) |
Under Mr. Barnesons Change in Control Agreement,
if Mr. Barnesons employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason within the period beginning 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, Mr. Barneson is entitled to a lump-sum payment equal to
three times the sum of his base salary and most recent
short-term incentive target. |
|
|
|
(8) |
If Mr. Barnesons employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his medical and dental benefits for two
years under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination
occurs within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, for three years under his Change in Control Agreement,
commencing on the date of such termination. The table reflects
the present value of such medical and dental benefits at
December 29, 2006 determined (a) assuming family
coverage in a point of service medical plan and a basic dental
plan, (b) based on current COBRA coverage rates for 2007
and assuming a 9% increase in the cost of medical coverage for
2008 as compared to 2007, an 8.5% increase in the cost of
medical coverage for 2009 as compared to 2008 and a 6% increase
in the cost of dental coverage for |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
120
Management
|
|
|
|
2008 as compared to 2007 and for 2009 as compared to 2008,
(c) assuming Mr. Barneson pays premiums for such
coverage throughout the applicable benefit continuation period
in the same manner as if he were an active employee, and
(d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(9) |
If Mr. Barnesons employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his disability benefits for two years
under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination occurs
within the period commencing 90 days prior to a change in
control and ending two years following a change in control, for
three years under his Change in Control Agreement, commencing on
the date of such termination. The table reflects the present
value of such disability benefits at December 29, 2006
determined (a) based on our current costs of providing such
benefits and assuming such costs do not increase during the
applicable benefit continuation period, (b) assuming we pay
such costs throughout the applicable benefit continuation period
in the same manner as we currently pay such costs,
(c) assuming mortality according to the RP-2000 Combined
Health mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries,
and (d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
|
(10) |
Reflects the present value of Mr. Barnesons
disability benefits at December 29, 2006 determined
(a) assuming full disability at December 29, 2006,
(b) assuming mortality according to the RP-2000 Disabled
Retiree mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries,
and (c) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(11) |
If Mr. Barnesons employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his life insurance benefits for two
years under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination
occurs within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, for three years under his Change in Control Agreement,
commencing on the date of such termination. The table reflects
the present value of such life insurance benefits at
December 29, 2006 determined (a) assuming his current
election of the maximum available coverage, (b) based on
our current cost of providing such benefits and assuming such
costs do not increase during the applicable benefit continuation
period, (c) assuming we pay such costs throughout the
applicable benefit continuation period in the same manner as we
currently pay such costs, (d) assuming Mr. Barneson
pays premiums for such coverage throughout the applicable
benefit continuation period in the same manner as if he were an
active employee, (e) assuming mortality according to the
RP-2000 Combined Health mortality table published by the Society
of Actuaries, and (f) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per
annum. |
|
|
|
(12) |
Reflects the life insurance benefit payable assuming
Mr. Barnesons death occurred on December 29,
2006 other than while traveling on company-related business. We
maintain a travel and accidental death policy for certain
employees, including Mr. Barneson, that would provide an
additional $1,000,000 death benefit payable to
Mr. Barnesons estate if his death had occurred during
company-related travel. |
|
|
|
(13) |
Under Mr. Barnesons Change in Control Agreement,
if Mr. Barnesons employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, we must continue his perquisites for three years
commencing on the date of such termination. The table reflects
the estimated cost to us of continuing Mr. Barnesons
perquisites for such three-year period as follows: club
membership dues, $13,155; and vehicle allowance, $31,377. Such
amounts have been estimated by multiplying the cost of
Mr. Barnesons perquisites for 2006 by three. |
|
|
|
(14) |
Under Mr. Barnesons Change in Control Agreement,
in general, if any payments to Mr. Barneson would be
subject to federal excise tax or any similar state or local tax
by reason of being considered contingent on a change in control,
we must pay to Mr. Barneson an |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
121
Management
|
|
|
additional amount such that, after satisfaction of all tax
obligations imposed on such payments, Mr. Barneson retains
an amount equal to the federal excise tax or similar state or
local tax imposed on such payments. The table reflects an
estimate of such additional amount that we would have been
obligated to pay Mr. Barneson if his employment had been
terminated on December 29, 2006 by us without cause or by
him for good reason following a change in control on such
date. |
|
|
|
(15) |
Reflects the aggregate market value of the shares of
restricted stock for which restrictions would lapse early due to
Mr. Barnesons termination, determined based on a per
share price of $55.98, the reported closing price for our common
stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on December 29, 2006,
which was the last trading day of 2006. The restrictions on all
shares of restricted stock currently held by Mr. Barneson
will lapse on July 6, 2009 or earlier if his employment
terminates as a result of his death or disability, his
employment is terminated by us without cause or his employment
is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, or if there is
a change in control. |
|
|
|
(16) |
Under our New Restoration Plan, Mr. Barneson is entitled
to a distribution of his account balance six months following
his termination, except that he will forfeit the entire amount
of matching and fixed rate contributions made by us to his
account if he is terminated for cause. |
|
122
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOHN M. DONNAN | |
| |
|
|
Circumstances of Termination | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
cause or by | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
the named | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cause or by | |
|
executive | |
|
|
|
|
Voluntary | |
|
|
|
the named | |
|
officer with | |
|
|
|
|
termination | |
|
|
|
executive | |
|
good reason | |
|
|
|
|
by named | |
|
Termination | |
|
officer with | |
|
following a | |
|
Normal | |
|
|
Payments and benefits |
|
executive officer | |
|
by us for cause | |
|
good reason | |
|
change in control | |
|
retirement | |
|
Disability | |
|
Death | |
| |
Payment of earned but unpaid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base
salary(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
incentive(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
104,554 |
|
|
$ |
104,554 |
|
|
$ |
104,554 |
|
|
$ |
104,554 |
|
|
$ |
104,554 |
|
|
Short-term
incentive(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
232,717 |
|
|
$ |
116,359 |
|
|
$ |
232,717 |
|
|
$ |
232,717 |
|
|
$ |
232,717 |
|
|
Retention
payment(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacation(5)
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
Other benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lump-sum payment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
260,000 |
(6) |
|
$ |
754,000 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
14,727 |
(8) |
|
$ |
29,880 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,521 |
(9) |
|
$ |
5,222 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,461,148 |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
Life insurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
943 |
(11) |
|
$ |
1,898 |
(11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
600,000 |
(12) |
|
Perquisites and other personal benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
21,910 |
(13) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax
gross-up(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
969,722 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of stock awards:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market value of stock vesting on
termination(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,519,100 |
|
|
$ |
2,519,100 |
|
|
$ |
2,519,100 |
|
|
$ |
2,519,100 |
|
|
$ |
2,519,100 |
|
Distribution of New Restoration
Plan balance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of distribution
(16)
|
|
$ |
72,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
72,018 |
|
|
$ |
72,018 |
|
|
$ |
72,018 |
|
|
$ |
72,018 |
|
|
$ |
72,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
92,018 |
|
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
$ |
3,226,580 |
|
|
$ |
4,614,663 |
|
|
$ |
2,948,389 |
|
|
$ |
4,409,537 |
|
|
$ |
3,548,389 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Assumes that there is no earned but unpaid base salary at the
time of termination. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Under our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan, we must
pay Mr. Donnan or his estate the remaining portion of the
total amount accrued by Mr. Donnan thereunder on
July 6, 2007 unless he is terminated by us for cause or he
voluntarily terminates his employment (other than at normal
retirement) prior to that date. The $104,554 amount reflected in
the table is based on computations made in connection with the
2006 payments under the Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan
and assumes no decrease in the number of plan participants or
adjustments to the cost reduction pool prior to July 6,
2007. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan,
Mr. Donnans target award for 2006 is $117,000, but
his award can range from a threshold of $58,500 to a maximum of
$351,000, or could be zero if the threshold performance is not
achieved. The exact amount cannot be determined at this time.
Under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan, in general,
Mr. Donnan would have forfeited his award if he had
voluntarily terminated his employment other than for good reason
prior to December 31, 2006 or if he had been terminated by
us for cause. However, |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
123
Management
|
|
|
|
Mr. Donnan would have been entitled to a pro rata award
under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan if his employment
had terminated during 2006 but prior to December 31, 2006
and his employment had been terminated as a result of death,
disability, normal retirement or full early retirement (position
elimination), had been involuntarily terminated by us without
cause or had been voluntarily terminated by him for good reason.
Solely for purposes of this note, we estimate that
Mr. Donnans award under our 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan will be between $175,000 and $292,500 (with a
midpoint of $234,000), before taking into account any adjustment
for individual performance and applicable modifiers. We believe
this is a reasonable estimate of the potential range of
Mr. Donnans award based on results through the third
quarter of 2006. Accordingly, if Mr. Donnans
employment had terminated on December 29, 2006, the last
business day of 2006, and his employment had been terminated as
a result of death, disability, normal retirement or full early
retirement (position elimination), had been involuntarily
terminated by us without cause or had been voluntarily
terminated by him for good reason, we would have been obligated
to pay Mr. Donnan $232,717 based on the midpoint of the
estimated range for his award. Under Mr. Donnans
Change in Control Agreement, if his employment had been
terminated by us without cause or by him for good reason within
the period commencing 90 days prior to a change in control
and ending two years following a change in control and such
termination occurred during 2006 other than on December 31,
2006, Mr. Donnans target award for 2006 under our
2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan would have been prorated for the
actual number of days of Mr. Donnans employment in
2006 and Mr. Donnan would have been entitled to payment of
such amount; accordingly, assuming his employment had been so
terminated on December 29, 2006, we would have been
obligated to pay Mr. Donnan $116,359. If
Mr. Donnans employment had been terminated (other
than by us for cause) on December 31, 2006, the last day of
our 2006 fiscal year, Mr. Donnan would have been entitled
to full payment of his award under the 2006 Short-Term
Incentive Plan. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Mr. Donnan is not entitled to any further payments under
our Chapter 11 Retention Plan. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Assumes that Mr. Donnan used all of his 2006 vacation
and that he has four weeks of accrued vacation for 2007. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Under Mr. Donnans Severance Agreement, if
Mr. Donnans employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must make a lump-sum payment to Mr. Donnan in an amount
equal to his base salary. |
|
|
|
(7) |
Under Mr. Donnans Change in Control Agreement, if
Mr. Donnans employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason within
the period beginning 90 days prior to a change in control
and ending two years following a change in control,
Mr. Donnan is entitled to a lump-sum payment equal to two
times the sum of his base salary and most recent short-term
incentive target. |
|
|
|
(8) |
If Mr. Donnans employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his medical and dental benefits for one
year under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination
occurs within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, for two years under his Change in Control Agreement,
commencing on the date of such termination. The table reflects
the present value of such medical and dental benefits at
December 29, 2006 determined (a) assuming family
coverage in a point of service medical plan and a basic dental
plan, (b) based on current COBRA coverage rates for 2007
and assuming a 9% increase in the cost of medical coverage for
2008 as compared to 2007 and a 6% increase in the cost of dental
coverage for 2008 as compared to 2007, (c) assuming
Mr. Donnan pays premiums for such coverage throughout the
applicable benefit continuation period in the same manner as if
he were an active employee, and (d) applying a discount rate of
5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(9) |
If Mr. Donnans employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his disability benefits for one year
under his Severance |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
124
Management
|
|
|
Agreement, or, if such termination occurs within the period
commencing 90 days prior to a change in control and ending
two years following a change in control, for two years under his
Change in Control Agreement, commencing on the date of such
termination. The table reflects the present value of such
disability benefits at December 29, 2006 determined
(a) based on our current costs of providing such benefits
and assuming such costs do not increase during the applicable
benefit continuation period, (b) assuming we pay such costs
throughout the applicable benefit continuation period in the
same manner as we currently pay such costs, (c) assuming
mortality according to the RP-2000 Combined Health mortality
table published by the Society of Actuaries, and
(d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(10) |
Reflects the actuarial present value of
Mr. Donnans disability benefits at December 29,
2006 determined (a) assuming full disability at December
29, 2006, (b) assuming mortality according to the
RP-2000 Disabled
Retiree mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries,
and (c) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(11) |
If Mr. Donnans employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his life insurance benefits for one
year under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination
occurs within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, for two years under his Change in Control Agreement,
commencing on the date of such termination. The table reflects
the present value of such life insurance benefits at
December 29, 2006 determined (a) assuming his current
election of the maximum available coverage, (b) based on
our current costs of providing such benefits and assuming such
costs do not increase during the applicable benefit continuation
period, (c) assuming we pay such costs throughout the
applicable benefit continuation period in the same manner as we
currently pay such costs, (d) assuming Mr. Donnan pays
premiums for such coverage throughout the applicable benefit
continuation period in the same manner as if he were an active
employee, (e) assuming mortality according to the
RP-2000 Combined Health
mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries, and
(f) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(12) |
Reflects the life insurance benefit payable assuming
Mr. Donnans death occurred on December 29, 2006
other than while traveling on company-related business. We
maintain a travel and accidental death policy for certain
employees, including Mr. Donnan, that would provide an
additional $1,000,000 death benefit payable to
Mr. Donnans estate if his death had occurred during
company-related travel. |
|
|
|
(13) |
Under Mr. Donnans Change in Control Agreement, if
Mr. Donnans employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason within
the period commencing 90 days prior to a change in control
and ending two years following a change in control, we must
continue his perquisites for two years commencing on the date of
such termination. The table reflects the estimated cost to us of
continuing Mr. Donnans perquisites for such two-year
period as follows: vehicle allowance, $21,910. Such amount has
been estimated by multiplying the cost of Mr. Donnans
vehicle allowance for 2006 by two. |
|
|
|
(14) |
Under Mr. Donnans Change in Control Agreement, in
general, if any payments to Mr. Donnan would be subject to
federal excise tax or any similar state or local tax by reason
of being considered contingent on a change in control, we must
pay to Mr. Donnan an additional amount such that, after
satisfaction of all tax obligations imposed on such payments,
Mr. Donnan retains an amount equal to the federal excise
tax or similar state or local tax imposed on such payments. The
table reflects an estimate of such additional amount that we
would have been obligated to pay Mr. Donnan if his
employment had been terminated on December 29, 2006 by us
without cause or by him for good reason following a change in
control on such date. |
|
|
|
(15) |
Reflects the aggregate market value of the shares of
restricted stock for which restrictions would lapse early due to
Mr. Donnans termination, determined based on a per
share price of $55.98, the reported closing price for our common
stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
125
Management
|
|
|
|
December 29, 2006, which was the last trading day of
2006. The restrictions on all shares of restricted stock
currently held by Mr. Donnan will lapse on July 6,
2009 or earlier if his employment terminates as a result of his
death or disability, his employment is terminated by us without
cause or his employment is voluntarily terminated by him for
good reason, or if there is a change in control. |
|
|
|
(16) |
Under our New Restoration Plan, Mr. Donnan is entitled
to a distribution of his account balance six months following
his termination, except that he will forfeit the entire amount
of matching and fixed rate contributions made by us to his
account if he is terminated for cause. |
|
126
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANIEL D. MADDOX | |
| |
|
|
Circumstances of Termination | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cause or by | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination | |
|
the named | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by us without | |
|
executive | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cause or by | |
|
officer with | |
|
|
|
|
Voluntary | |
|
|
|
the named | |
|
good reason | |
|
|
|
|
termination | |
|
|
|
executive | |
|
following a | |
|
|
|
|
by named | |
|
Termination | |
|
officer with | |
|
change in | |
|
Normal | |
|
|
Payments and benefits | |
|
executive officer | |
|
by us for cause | |
|
good reason | |
|
control(1) | |
|
retirement | |
|
Disability | |
|
Death | |
| |
Payment of earned but unpaid: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base salary(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term incentive(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
114,043 |
|
|
$ |
114,043 |
|
|
$ |
114,043 |
|
|
$ |
114,043 |
|
|
$ |
114,043 |
|
Short-term incentive(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
149,178 |
|
|
$ |
74,589 |
|
|
$ |
149,178 |
|
|
$ |
149,178 |
|
|
$ |
149,178 |
|
Retention payment(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacation(6) |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
Other benefits: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lump-sum payment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
225,000 |
(7) |
|
$ |
600,000 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
14,727 |
(9) |
|
$ |
29,880 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,471 |
(10) |
|
$ |
5,167 |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,228,734 |
(11) |
|
|
|
|
Life insurance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,012 |
(12) |
|
$ |
2,036 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
600,000 |
(13) |
Perquisites and other personal benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
22,304 |
(14) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax gross-up |
(15) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(48,924) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of stock awards: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market value of stock vesting on termination(16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
634,477 |
|
|
$ |
634,477 |
|
|
$ |
634,477 |
|
|
$ |
634,477 |
|
|
$ |
634,477 |
|
Distribution of New Restoration Plan balance: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of distribution(17) |
|
$ |
48,140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
48,140 |
|
|
$ |
48,140 |
|
|
$ |
48,140 |
|
|
$ |
48,140 |
|
|
$ |
48,140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
65,448 |
|
|
$ |
17,308 |
|
|
$ |
1,206,356 |
|
|
$ |
1,499,020 |
|
|
$ |
963,146 |
|
|
$ |
2,191,880 |
|
|
$ |
1,563,146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Under Mr. Maddoxs employment agreement, which
continues until the earlier of a mutually agreed upon
termination date and March 31, 2007, if his employment is
terminated (other than by death or disability or by us for
cause) upon the conclusion thereof, he will receive benefits
under his Change in Control Agreement as if both a change in
control had occurred prior to his departure and he was
terminating his employment for good reason. In addition, if
Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated (other than by
us for cause) upon the conclusion of his employment agreement,
the restrictions on his shares of restricted stock will
lapse. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Assumes that there is no earned but unpaid base salary at the
time of termination. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Under our Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan, we must
pay Mr. Maddox or his estate the remaining portion of the
total amount accrued by Mr. Maddox thereunder on July 6,
2007 unless he is terminated by us for cause or he voluntarily
terminates his employment (other than at normal retirement)
prior to that date. The $114,043 amount reflected in the table
is based on computations made in connection with the 2006
Chapter 11 Long-Term Incentive Plan and assumes no decrease in
the number of plan participants or adjustments to the cost
reduction pool prior to July 6, 2007. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan,
Mr. Maddoxs target award for 2006 is $75,000, but his
award can range from a threshold of $37,500 to a maximum of
$225,000, or could be |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
127
Management
|
|
|
|
zero if the threshold performance is not achieved. The exact
amount cannot be determined at this time. Under the 2006
Short-Term Incentive Plan, in general, Mr. Maddox would
have forfeited his award if he had voluntarily terminated his
employment other than for good reason prior to December 31,
2006 or if he had been terminated by us for cause. However,
Mr. Maddox would have been entitled to a pro rata award
under the 2006 Short-term Incentive Plan if his employment had
been terminated as a result of death, disability, normal
retirement or full early retirement (position elimination), had
been involuntarily terminated by us without cause or had been
voluntarily terminated by him for good reason. Solely for
purposes of this note, we estimate that Mr. Maddoxs
award under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan will be between
$112,500 and $187,500 (with a midpoint of $150,000), before
taking into account any adjustment for individual performance
and applicable modifiers. We believe this is a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of Mr. Maddoxs award
based on results through the third quarter of 2006. Accordingly,
if Mr. Maddoxs employment had terminated on
December 29, 2006, the last business day of 2006, and his
employment had been terminated as a result of death, disability,
normal retirement or full early retirement (position
elimination), had been involuntarily terminated by us without
cause or had been voluntarily terminated by him with good
reason, we would have been obligated to pay Mr. Maddox
$149,178 based on the midpoint of the estimated range for award.
Under Mr. Maddoxs Change in Control Agreement, if his
employment had been terminated by us without cause or by him for
good reason within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control and such termination occurred during 2006 other than on
December 31, 2006, Mr. Maddoxs target award for
2006 under our 2006 Short-Term Incentive Plan would have been
prorated for the actual number of days of Mr. Maddoxs
employment in 2006 and Mr. Maddox would have been entitled
to payment of such amount; accordingly, assuming his employment
had been so terminated on December 29, 2006, we would have
been obligated to pay Mr. Maddox $74,589. If
Mr. Maddoxs employment had been terminated (other
than by us for cause) on December 31, 2006, the last day of
our 2006 fiscal year, Mr. Maddox would have been entitled to
full payment of his award under the 2006 Short-Term Incentive
Plan. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Mr. Maddox is not entitled to any further payments under
our Chapter 11 Retention Plan. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Assumes that Mr. Maddox used all of his 2006 vacation and
that he has four weeks of accrued vacation for 2007. |
|
|
|
(7) |
Under Mr. Maddoxs Severance Agreement, if
Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason, we
must make a lump-sum payment to Mr. Maddox in an amount
equal to his base salary. |
|
|
|
(8) |
Under Mr. Maddoxs Change in Control Agreement, if
Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason within
the period beginning 90 days prior to a change in control
and ending two years following a change in control, Mr. Maddox
is entitled to a lump-sum payment equal to two times the sum of
his base salary and most recent short-term incentive target. |
|
|
|
(9) |
If Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his medical and dental benefits for one
year under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination
occurs within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, for two years under his Change in Control Agreement,
commencing on the date of such termination. The table reflects
the present value of such medical and dental benefits at
December 29, 2006 determined (a) assuming family
coverage in a point of service medical plan and a basic dental
plan, (b) based on current COBRA coverage rates for 2007
and assuming a 9% increase in the cost of |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
128
Management
|
|
|
medical coverage for 2008 as compared to 2007 and a 6%
increase in the cost of dental coverage for 2008 as compared to
2007, (c) assuming Mr. Maddox pays premiums for such
coverage throughout the applicable benefit continuation period
in the same manner as if he were an active employee, and (d)
applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(10) |
If Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his disability benefits for one year
under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination occurs
within the period commencing 90 days prior to a change in
control and ending two years following a change in control, for
two years under his Change in Control Agreement, commencing on
the date of such termination. The table reflects the present
value of such disability benefits at December 29, 2006
determined (a) based on our current costs of providing such
benefits and assuming such costs do not increase during the
applicable benefit continuation period, (b) assuming we pay
such costs throughout the applicable benefit continuation period
in the same manner as we currently pay such costs,
(c) assuming mortality according to the
RP-2000 Combined Health
mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries, and
(d) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(11) |
Reflects the present value of Mr. Maddoxs
disability benefits at December 29, 2006 determined
(a) assuming full disability at December 29, 2006,
(b) assuming mortality according to the
RP-2000 Disabled
Retiree mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries,
and (c) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
(12) |
If Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated by us
without cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good
reason, we must continue his life insurance benefits for one
year under his Severance Agreement, or, if such termination
occurs within the period commencing 90 days prior to a
change in control and ending two years following a change in
control, for two years under his Change in Control Agreement,
commencing on the date of such termination. The table reflects
the present value of such life insurance benefits at
December 29, 2006 determined (a) assuming his current
election of the maximum available coverage, (b) based on
our current costs of providing such benefits and assuming such
costs do not increase during the applicable benefit continuation
period, (c) assuming we pay such costs throughout the
applicable benefit continuation period in the same manner as we
currently pay such costs, (d) assuming Mr. Maddox pays
premiums for such coverage throughout the applicable benefit
continuation period in the same manner as if he were an active
employee, (e) assuming mortality according to the
RP-2000 Combined Health
mortality table published by the Society of Actuaries, and
(f) applying a discount rate of 5.75% per annum. |
|
|
|
|
(13) |
Reflects the life insurance benefit payable assuming
Mr. Maddoxs death occurred on December 29, 2006
other than while traveling on company-related business. We
maintain a travel and accidental death policy for certain
employees, including Mr. Maddox, that would provide an
additional $1,000,000 death benefit payable to
Mr. Maddoxs estate if his death had occurred during
company-related travel. |
|
|
|
(14) |
Under Mr. Maddoxs Change in Control Agreement, if
Mr. Maddoxs employment is terminated by us without
cause or is voluntarily terminated by him for good reason within
the period commencing 90 days prior to a change in control
and ending two years following a change in control, we must
continue his perquisites for two years commencing on the date of
such termination. The table reflects the estimated cost to us of
continuing Mr. Maddoxs perquisites for such two-year
period as follows: vehicle allowance, $22,304. Such amount has
been estimated by multiplying the cost of Mr. Maddoxs
vehicle allowance for 2006 by two. |
|
|
|
(15) |
Under Mr. Maddoxs Change in Control Agreement, in
general, if any payments to Mr. Maddox would be subject to
federal excise tax or any similar state or local tax by reason
of being |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
129
Management
|
|
|
|
considered contingent on a change in control, we must pay to
Mr. Maddox an additional amount such that, after
satisfaction of all tax obligations imposed on such payments,
Mr. Maddox retains an amount equal to the federal excise
tax or similar state or local tax imposed on such payments.
However, if no such federal excise tax or similar state or local
tax would apply if the aggregate payments to Mr. Maddox were
reduced by 5%, then the aggregate payments to Mr. Maddox
will be reduced by the amount necessary to avoid application of
such federal excise tax or similar state or local tax. The table
reflects an estimate of the amount by which aggregate payments
to Mr. Maddox would have been reduced in accordance with
the terms of his Change in Control Agreement if his employment
had been terminated on December 29, 2006 by us without
cause or by him for good reason following a change in control on
such date. |
|
|
|
(16) |
Reflects the aggregate market value of the shares of
restricted stock for which restrictions would lapse early due to
Mr. Maddoxs termination, determined based on a per
share price of $55.98, the reported closing price for our common
stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on December 29, 2006,
which was the last trading day of 2006. The restrictions on all
shares of restricted stock currently held by Mr. Maddox
will lapse on July 6, 2009 or earlier if his employment
terminates as a result of his death or disability, his
employment is terminated by us without cause, his employment is
voluntarily terminated by him for good reason or his employment
is terminated (other than by us for cause) upon the conclusion
of his employment agreement, or if there is a change in
control. |
|
|
|
(17) |
Under our New Restoration Plan, Mr. Maddox is entitled
to a distribution of his account balance six months following
his termination, except that he will forfeit the entire amount
of matching and fixed rate contributions made by us to his
account if he is terminated for cause. |
|
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
2006 pre-emergence director compensation
The table below sets forth certain information concerning the
compensation earned in 2006 by our non-employee directors who
served in 2006 prior to our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy on July 6, 2006. Each of these directors
resigned effective immediately prior to our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
earned | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
or paid in | |
|
All other | |
|
|
Name |
|
cash | |
|
compensation(1) | |
|
Total | |
| |
Robert J. Cruikshank
|
|
$ |
44,500 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
44,500 |
|
George T. Haymaker Jr.
|
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
|
$ |
36,500 |
(2) |
|
$ |
61,500 |
|
Charles E. Hurwitz
|
|
$ |
35,500 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
35,500 |
|
Ezra G. Levin
|
|
$ |
49,000 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
49,000 |
|
John D. Roach
|
|
$ |
46,500 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
46,500 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Excludes perquisites and other personal benefits where the
aggregate amount of such compensation to the director is less
than $10,000. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Reflects the amount received by Mr. Haymaker for
services of non-executive chairman of the board pursuant to an
agreement among Mr. Haymaker, us and Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation. |
|
Prior to our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, each
non-employee director received an annual base fee for services
as a director. The base fee for 2006 was $50,000.
130
Management
The chair of each board committee (other than the audit
committee) was paid a fee of $3,000 per year for services as
chair. The fee paid to the chair of the audit committee was
$10,000 per year. All non-employee directors also generally
received a fee of $1,500 per day for board meetings attended in
person or by phone and $1,500 per day for committee meetings
held in person or by phone on a date a board meeting was not
also held. Non-employee directors who served as members of the
executive committee (other than Mr. Haymaker, who had a
separate agreement discussed below) were paid a fee of $6,000
per year for such services.
Non-employee directors were reimbursed for travel and other
disbursements relating to board and committee meetings, and
non-employee directors were provided accident insurance in
respect of company-related business travel. Subject to the
approval of the chairman of the board, directors also generally
could be paid ad hoc fees in the amount of $750 per one-half day
or $1,500 per day for company-related services other than
attending board and committee meetings that required travel in
excess of 100 miles.
Mr. Haymaker agreed to continue to serve as a director and
non-executive chairman of the boards of our company and Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation throughout our
chapter 11 bankruptcy pursuant to an agreement among him,
us and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation entered into
in 2004 and subsequently extended. Mr. Haymakers
annual base compensation under the agreement was $50,000 for
services as a director and $73,000 for services as non-executive
chairman of the boards of our company and Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation, inclusive of any board and committee fees
otherwise payable.
131
Management
2006 post-emergence director compensation
The table below sets forth certain information concerning
compensation of our non-employee directors who served in 2006
following our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy on
July 6, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees earned or | |
|
Stock | |
|
All other | |
|
|
Name |
|
paid in cash | |
|
awards(1) | |
|
compensation(2) | |
|
Total | |
| |
George Becker
|
|
$ |
33,000 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
750(4 |
) |
|
$ |
45,948 |
|
Carl B. Frankel
|
|
$ |
35,250 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
6,750(4 |
) |
|
$ |
54,198 |
|
Teresa A. Hopp
|
|
$ |
48,250 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
9,000(4 |
) |
|
$ |
69,448 |
|
William F. Murdy
|
|
$ |
42,500 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
13,500(4 |
) |
|
$ |
68,198 |
|
Alfred E. Osborne, Jr.
|
|
$ |
53,250 |
|
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
6,750(4 |
) |
|
$ |
72,198 |
|
Georganne C. Proctor
|
|
$ |
39,750 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
12,750(4 |
) |
|
$ |
64,698 |
|
Jack Quinn
|
|
$ |
38,250 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
12,000(4 |
) |
|
$ |
62,448 |
|
Thomas Van Leeuwen
|
|
$ |
38,250 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
8,250(4 |
) |
|
$ |
58,698 |
|
Brett E. Wilcox
|
|
$ |
38,250 |
(3) |
|
$ |
12,198 |
|
|
$ |
9,000(4 |
) |
|
$ |
59,448 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Reflects the value of restricted stock awards granted to
non-employee directors under our Equity Incentive Plan in
connection with our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
based on the compensation cost of the award with respect to our
2006 fiscal year computed in accordance with
SFAS No. 123-R.
Each non-employee director received 693 shares of restricted
stock pursuant to such grants on August 1, 2006 and as of
December 31, 2006 each non-employee director held all such
shares of restricted stock. The restrictions on all such shares
lapse on August 1, 2007 or earlier if the individual ceases
to be a non-employee director as a result of death or disability
or if there is a change in control. The table reflects the
expense recognized for each non-employee director for the
five-month portion of the one-year vesting period extending from
August 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, computed in
accordance with SFAS
No. 123-R, but
excluding any impact of assumed forfeiture rates, based on
(a) a per share value at emergence of $42.20 and
(b) the total number of shares of restricted stock received
by him or her. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Excludes perquisites and other personal benefits where the
aggregate amount of such compensation to the director is less
than $10,000. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Each non-employee director had the right to elect to receive
shares of our common stock in lieu of any or all of his or her
annual cash retainer, including retainers for serving as a
committee chair or lead outside director, which is included in
this column. In 2006: Mr. Becker elected to receive 346
shares of common stock in lieu of approximately $14,968 of his
annual retainer; Mr. Frankel elected to receive 520 shares
of common stock in lieu of approximately $22,495 of his annual
retainer; Ms. Hopp elected to receive 231 shares of common
stock in lieu of approximately $9,993 of her annual retainer;
Mr. Murdy elected to receive 404 shares of common stock in
lieu of approximately $17,477 of his annual retainer; and each
of Messrs. Quinn, Van Leeuwen and Wilcox and
Ms. Proctor elected to receive 693 shares of common stock
in lieu of approximately $29,979 of his or her annual retainer.
In each case, the number of shares received was determined based
on a per share price of $43.26, the average of the closing price
per share for our common stock reported by the Nasdaq Global
Market on each of the 10 consecutive trading days immediately
preceding August 1, 2006, the payment date of the annual
retainers. |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
132
Management
|
|
(4) |
Reflects fees paid by us for attendance at meetings of the
prospective directors and of the prospective members of the
various board committees held prior to our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006. |
We periodically review director compensation in relation to
other comparable companies and in light of other factors that
the compensation committee deems appropriate and discuss
director compensation with the full board of directors. Pursuant
to the director compensation policy developed in 2005 and
adopted on July 6, 2006 in connection with our emergence
from chapter 11 bankruptcy, each non-employee director
receives the following compensation:
|
|
|
|
an annual retainer of $30,000
per year;
|
|
|
|
|
an annual grant of restricted
stock having a value equal to $30,000;
|
|
|
|
|
a fee of $1,500 per day for each
meeting of the board of directors attended in person and $750
per day for each such meeting attended by phone; and
|
|
|
|
|
a fee of $1,500 per day for each
committee meeting of the board of directors attended in person
on a date other than a date on which a meeting of the board of
directors is held and $750 per day for each such meeting
attended by phone.
|
|
In addition, our lead independent director, currently
Dr. Osborne, receives an additional annual retainer of
$10,000, the chair of our audit committee, currently
Ms. Hopp, receives an additional annual retainer of
$10,000, the chair of our compensation committee, currently
Mr. Murdy, receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000
and the chair of our nominating and corporate governance
committee, currently Dr. Osborne, receives an additional
annual retainer of $5,000, with all such amounts payable at the
same time as the annual retainer. Each non-employee director may
elect to receive shares of common stock in lieu of any or all of
his or her annual retainer, including any additional annual
retainer for service as the lead independent director or the
chairman of a committee of the board of directors. We reimburse
all directors for reasonable and customary travel and other
disbursements relating to meetings of the board of directors and
committees thereof, and non-employee directors are provided
accident insurance with respect to company-related business
travel.
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER
PARTICIPATION
From January 1, 2006 to July 6, 2006, Robert J.
Cruikshank, Ezra G. Levin (Chairman) and John D. Roach were
members of our compensation policy committee, and
Mr. Cruikshank was the sole member of our Section 162(m)
compensation committee. On July 6, 2006, all of our
non-employee directors resigned and the compensation policy
committee and the Section 162(m) compensation committee of our
board of directors were dissolved. On the same date, new
directors were appointed to our board of directors and a new
compensation committee was formed with Messrs. Murdy (chairman)
and Quinn and Ms. Proctor as members. Messrs. Murdy and Quinn
and Ms. Proctor were the only members of the compensation
committee during the remainder of 2006. For additional
information, see Executive Officers and
DirectorsExperience of directors and
Committees of the Board of
DirectorsCompensation committee, respectively, above.
During 2006, no member of the compensation policy committee, the
Section 162(m) compensation committee or the compensation
committee of our board of directors was an officer or employee
of our company or any of our subsidiaries, or was formerly an
officer of our company or any of our subsidiaries, or had any
relationships requiring disclosure by us under Item 404 of
Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC.
133
Management
During 2006, none of our executive officers served as:
|
|
|
|
a member of the compensation
committee (or other board committee performing equivalent
functions) of another entity, one of whose executive officers
served on our compensation policy committee, our Section 162(m)
compensation committee or our compensation committee;
|
|
|
|
|
a director of another entity,
one of whose executive officers served on our compensation
policy committee, our Section 162(m) compensation committee or
our compensation committee; or
|
|
|
|
|
a member of the compensation
committee (or other board committee performing equivalent
functions) of another entity, one of whose executive officers
served as one of our directors.
|
|
134
Principal and selling stockholders
The following table sets forth the number and percentage of
outstanding shares of our common stock beneficially owned as of
December 31, 2006, by:
|
|
|
|
each named executive officer, as
well as Mr. Rinkenberger;
|
|
|
|
each of our directors;
|
|
|
all our directors and current
executive officers as a group;
|
|
|
each person known to us to
beneficially own 5% or more of our common stock; and
|
|
|
|
the selling stockholders.
|
|
Unless otherwise indicated by footnote, and subject to
applicable community property laws, the persons named in the
table have sole voting and investment power over the common
stock shown as beneficially owned by them. The percentage of
beneficial ownership is calculated on the basis of
20,525,660 shares of our common stock outstanding as of
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially | |
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially | |
|
|
Owned | |
|
|
|
Owned | |
|
|
Prior to Offering | |
|
|
|
After Offering | |
|
|
| |
|
Number of | |
|
| |
Name |
|
Number | |
|
% | |
|
Shares Offered | |
|
Number | |
|
% | |
| |
Directors and Executive
Officers(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack A. Hockema
|
|
|
185,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John Barneson
|
|
|
48,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Joseph P. Bellino
|
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John M. Donnan
|
|
|
45,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Daniel D. Maddox
|
|
|
11,334 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,334 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Daniel J. Rinkenberger
|
|
|
24,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kerry A. Shiba
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Becker
|
|
|
1,039 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,039 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Carl B. Frankel
|
|
|
1,213 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,213 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Teresa A. Hopp
|
|
|
924 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
924 |
|
|
|
* |
|
William F. Murdy
|
|
|
1,097 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,097 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Alfred E. Osborne, Jr., Ph.D.
|
|
|
693 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
693 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Georganne C. Proctor
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Jack Quinn
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Thomas M. Van Leeuwen
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Brett E. Wilcox
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
* |
|
All directors and current executive officers as a group
(15 persons)
|
|
|
338,844 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
338,844 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
% |
(footnotes on following page)
135
Principal and selling stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially | |
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially | |
|
|
Owned | |
|
|
|
Owned | |
|
|
Prior to Offering | |
|
|
|
After Offering | |
|
|
| |
|
Number of | |
|
| |
Name |
|
Number | |
|
% | |
|
Shares Offered | |
|
Number | |
|
% | |
| |
|
5% Stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union VEBA
Trust(3)
|
|
|
8,809,900 |
|
|
|
42.9 |
% |
|
|
2,517,955 |
|
|
|
6,291,945 |
|
|
|
30.7 |
% |
Jeffrey A.
Altman(4)
|
|
|
1,406,179 |
|
|
|
6.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,406,179 |
|
|
|
6.9 |
% |
Witmer Asset
Management(5)
|
|
|
1,071,216 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,071,216 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
% |
Charles H.
Witmer(5)
|
|
|
1,100,216 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,100,216 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
% |
Meryl B.
Witmer(5)
|
|
|
1,090,216 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,090,216 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
Selling Stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union VEBA
Trust(3)
|
|
|
8,809,900 |
|
|
|
42.9 |
% |
|
|
2,517,955 |
|
|
|
6,291,945 |
|
|
|
30.7 |
% |
Mason Capital Management, LLC
|
|
|
980,000 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
% |
|
|
980,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asbestos PI Trust
|
|
|
913,915 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
% |
|
|
913,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
% |
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ore Hill Hub
Fund Ltd.(6)
|
|
|
400,000 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
% |
|
|
400,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
|
|
|
298,266 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
% |
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
48,266 |
|
|
|
* |
|
King Street Acquisition Company,
L.L.C.(7)
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
% |
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Indicates less than 1% |
|
|
(1) |
The shares held by our executive officers were received under
our Equity Incentive Plan. Pursuant to the plan, these shares
are restricted and are subject to forfeiture until July 6,
2009 (subject to certain exceptions related to termination of
employment) and, consequently, may not be traded in the public
market until such date. |
|
|
(2) |
Each of our independent directors received 693 shares of
our common stock on August 1, 2006 under our Equity
Incentive Plan. Pursuant to the plan, these shares are
restricted and are subject to forfeiture until August 1,
2007 and, consequently, may not be traded in the public market
until such date. In addition, certain of our directors elected
to receive shares of our common stock in lieu of all or a
portion of their annual cash retainer, including
Messrs. Becker (346 shares), Frankel
(520 shares), Murdy (404 shares), Quinn
(693 shares), Van Leeuwen (693 shares) and Wilcox
(693 shares) and Mmes. Hopp (231 shares) and Proctor
(693 shares). |
|
|
(3) |
Shares beneficially owned by the Union VEBA Trust are as
reported on the Form 13G filed by the Union VEBA Trust on
July 24, 2006. Independent Fiduciary Services, Inc. in its
capacity as independent fiduciary for the Union VEBA Trust has
sole discretionary investment and voting power with respect to
8,809,900 shares. The number of shares offered and the
number and percentage of shares beneficially owned after the
offering by the Union VEBA Trust assume that the underwriters do
not exercise their option to purchase additional shares from the
Union VEBA Trust to cover any over allotment. If the
underwriters exercise their option to purchase up to the full
amount available, or 819,280 shares, the shares
beneficially owned by the Union VEBA Trust after the offering
and percentage ownership will be 5,472,665 and 26.7%,
respectively. The principal address of the Union VEBA Trust is
c/o National City Bank, as Trustee for Kaiser VEBA Trust,
20 Stanwix Street, Locator 46-25162, Pittsburgh, PA
15222. |
|
(footnotes continued on following page)
136
Principal and selling stockholders
|
|
|
(4) |
Shares beneficially owned by Jeffrey Altman are as reported
on the Form 13G filed by Owl Creek I, L.P. on
October 5, 2006. Of these shares, Owl Creek I, L.P. has
shared investment and voting power with respect to
55,096 shares directly owned by it; Owl Creek II, L.P. has
shared investment and voting power with respect to
472,960 shares directly owned by it; Owl Creek Advisors,
LLC has shared investment and voting power with respect to
528,056 shares directly owned by Owl Creek I, L.P. and Owl
Creek II, L.P.; Owl Creek Asset Management, L.P. has shared
investment and voting power with respect to 878,123 shares
directly owned by Owl Creek Overseas Fund, Ltd., Owl Creek
Overseas Fund II, Ltd. and Owl Creek Socially Responsible
Investment Fund, Ltd.; and Jeffrey Altman has shared investment
and voting power with respect to 1,406,179 shares directly
owned by Owl Creek I, L.P., Owl Creek II, L.P., Owl Creek
Overseas Fund, Ltd., Owl Creek Overseas Fund II, Ltd. and
Owl Creek Socially Responsible Investment Fund, Ltd. Jeffrey
Altman is the managing member of Owl Creek Advisors, LLC and the
managing member of the general partner of Owl Creek Asset
Management, L.P. and in that capacity directs their operations.
The principal address of Jeffrey Altman is 640 Fifth
Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10019. |
|
|
|
(5) |
Shares beneficially owned by Witmer Asset Management, Charles
Witmer and Meryl Witmer are as reported on the Form 13G
filed by Witmer Asset Management on September 28, 2006.
Witmer Asset Management has shared investment and voting power
with respect to 1,071,216 shares. Charles Witmer has sole
investment and voting power with respect to 10,000 shares
and has shared investment and voting power with respect to
1,090,216 shares. Meryl Witmer has shared investment and
voting power with respect to 1,090,216 shares. The
principal addresses of Witmer Asset Management, Charles Witmer
and Meryl Witmer are One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885
2nd Avenue, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10017. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Ore Hill Partners LLC, the investment advisor to Ore Hill Hub
Fund Ltd., has shared investment and voting power with
respect to these shares and, consequently, may be deemed to be a
beneficial owner of such shares. Ore Hill Partners LLC disclaims
such beneficial ownership. |
|
|
|
(7) |
Of the 200,000 shares held by King Street Acquisition
Company, L.L.C., or KSAC, 66,000 are held for the benefit of
King Street Capital L.P., or KSC L.P., and 134,000 are held for
the benefit of King Street Capital Ltd., or KSC Ltd. King Street
Advisors, L.L.C., or KSA, is the general partner of KSC L.P.,
and may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of the 66,000 shares
beneficially owned by KSC L.P. King Street Capital Management,
L.L.C., or KSCM, which has been delegated certain investment
advisory responsibilities by KSA on behalf of KSC L.P., and
which is also the investment manager of KSC Ltd., may be deemed
to be the beneficial owner of the 200,000 shares held by KSAC.
Brian J. Higgins and O. Francis Biondi, Jr., each of whom is a
management member of, and owner of a 50% interest in, each of
KSA and KSCM, may each be deemed to be the beneficial owner of
the 200,000 shares held by KSAC. |
|
137
Certain relationships and related transactions
For a description of the Director Designation Agreement with the
USW, see ManagementDirector Designation Agreement
with the USW.
For a description of the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement
with the trustee of the Union VEBA Trust, see Description
of capital stockRestrictions on Transfer of Common
StockStock Transfer Restriction Agreement.
For a description of the Registration Rights Agreement with, and
the registration rights granted to, the Union VEBA Trust, see
Shares eligible for future saleRegistration
Rights.
The registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part
was filed pursuant to a request made by the Union VEBA Trust
pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement. The Union VEBA
Trust is offering 2,517,955 shares of our common stock
pursuant to this offering, constituting the maximum number of
shares of our common stock that, as of the date of this
prospectus, it may include in this offering under the Stock
Transfer Restriction Agreement absent approval of our board of
directors. At the request of the Union VEBA Trust, pursuant to
the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement and our certificate of
incorporation, our board of directors has approved the sale by
the Union VEBA Trust of up to 819,280 additional shares of
our common stock pursuant to a 30-day option granted to the
underwriters to cover over-allotments, if any, in connection
with this offering. See Underwriting. In connection
with such approval, the Union VEBA Trust agreed that, for
purposes of determining whether any transfer of shares of common
stock by the Union VEBA Trust following this offering is
permissible under the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement, the
Union VEBA Trust will be deemed to have effected the transfer of
any such additional shares sold by it pursuant to such option at
the earliest possible date or dates the Union VEBA Trust would
have been permitted to effect such transfer under the Stock
Transfer Restriction Agreement absent such approval.
Our corporate governance guidelines, which were adopted by our
board of directors on July 6, 2006 in connection with our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, require that our
board of directors conduct an appropriate review of all
related-party transactions. The charter for the audit committee
of our board of directors, which was adopted by the board of
directors on the same day that our corporate governance
guidelines were adopted, requires that any related-party
transaction required to be disclosed under Item 404 of
Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC must be approved by our
audit committee. Neither the board of directors nor the audit
committee has adopted specific policies or procedures for review
or approval of related-party transactions.
The Director Designation Agreement, the Stock Transfer
Restriction Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement were
authorized, executed and delivered in accordance with our plan
of reorganization upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy
and, accordingly, our corporate governance guidelines and audit
committee charter, which were adopted upon emergence, were not
applicable. The approval of the sale in this offering of shares
of our common stock by the Union VEBA Trust beyond that number
of shares otherwise permitted under the Stock Transfer
Restriction Agreement and our certificate of incorporation was
granted by our full board of directors in accordance with the
express procedures set forth in our certificate of incorporation
after extensive review and analysis, and was not separately
reviewed and approved by the audit committee.
138
Description of capital stock
Our authorized capital stock consists of 45,000,000 shares
of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, and
5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value
$0.01 per share, the rights and preferences of which may be
established from time to time by our board of directors. As of
December 31, 2006, there were 20,525,660 outstanding shares
of common stock and 1,696,562 shares reserved and available
for issuance under our Equity Incentive Plan. There are no
outstanding shares of preferred stock. This offering will have
no effect on the number of shares of common stock or preferred
stock outstanding. The following description of our capital
stock is only a summary, does not purport to be complete and is
subject to and qualified by the full text of our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws, copies of which are filed as exhibits
to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a
part, and of the applicable provisions of Delaware law.
COMMON STOCK
Holders of our common stock are entitled to one vote for each
share on all matters voted upon by our stockholders, including
the election of directors, and do not have cumulative voting
rights. Our common stockholders are entitled to receive ratably
any dividends that may be declared by our board of directors out
of funds legally available for payment of dividends. While we
currently have no intention to pay regular dividends on our
common stock, we may pay such dividends from time to time. The
declaration and payment of dividends on our common stock, if
any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and
will be dependent upon our results of operations, financial
condition, cash requirements, future prospects and other factors
deemed relevant by the board of directors. In addition, our
financing arrangements place restrictions on our ability to pay
dividends. For a more complete description of these limitations,
see Dividend policy. Holders of our common stock are
entitled to share ratably in our net assets upon our dissolution
or liquidation after payment or provision for all liabilities
and any preferential liquidation rights of our preferred stock
then outstanding. Holders of our common stock do not have
preemptive rights to purchase shares of our stock. Holders of
our common stock do not have subscription, redemption or
conversion rights. The rights, preferences and privileges of
holders of our common stock will be subject to those of the
holders of any shares of our preferred stock we may issue in the
future.
BLANK CHECK PREFERRED STOCK
Our board of directors may, from time to time, authorize the
issuance of one or more classes or series of preferred stock
without stockholder approval. We have no current intention to
issue any shares of preferred stock.
Our certificate of incorporation permits us to issue up to
5,000,000 shares of preferred stock from time to time.
Subject to the provisions of our certificate of incorporation
and limitations prescribed by law, our board of directors is
authorized to issue preferred shares and to fix before issuance
the number of preferred shares to be issued and the designation,
relative powers, preferences, rights and qualifications,
limitations or restrictions of the preferred shares, terms of
redemption, conversion rights and liquidation preferences, in
each case without any action or vote by our stockholders.
The issuance of preferred stock may adversely affect the rights
of our common stockholders by, among other things:
|
|
|
restricting dividends on the
common stock;
|
|
|
diluting the voting power of the
common stock;
|
|
|
impairing the liquidation rights
of the common stock; or
|
|
|
delaying or preventing a change
in control without further action by the stockholders.
|
139
Description of capital stock
As a result of these or other factors, the issuance of preferred
stock could have an adverse effect on the market price of our
common stock.
RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER OF COMMON STOCK
Amended and restated certificate of incorporation
In order to reduce the risk that any change in our ownership
would jeopardize the preservation of our federal income tax
attributes, including net operating loss carry-forwards, for
purposes of Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue
Code, our certificate of incorporation, as amended and restated
upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, prohibits
certain transfers of our equity securities until the date,
referred to as the Restriction Release Date, that is the
earliest of:
|
|
|
July 6, 2016;
|
|
|
the repeal, amendment or
modification of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code in
such a way as to render us no longer subject to the restrictions
imposed by Section 382;
|
|
|
the beginning of a taxable year
in which none of the income tax benefits in existence on
July 6, 2006 are currently available or will be available;
|
|
|
the determination by the board
of directors that the restrictions will no longer apply;
|
|
|
a determination by the board of
directors or the Internal Revenue Service that we are ineligible
to use Section 382(l)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code
permitting full use of the income tax benefits existing on
July 6, 2006; and
|
|
|
an election by us for
Section 382(l)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code not to apply.
|
Generally, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation
prohibits a transfer of our equity securities if either:
|
|
|
the transferor is deemed a
5-percent shareholder of our company pursuant to the
Treasury Regulations, a 5% stockholder; or
|
|
|
as a result of such transfer,
either (1) any person or group of persons would become a 5%
stockholder, or (2) the percentage stock ownership of any
5% stockholder would be increased.
|
These transfers are referred to as 5% Transactions. The
restrictions on transfer will not apply, however, if:
|
|
|
the transferor or transferee
obtains the prior written approval of the board of directors;
|
|
|
in the case of a 5% Transaction
by any holder of equity securities (other than the Union VEBA
Trust), prior to such transaction, the board of directors
determines in good faith, upon request of the transferor or
transferee, that the proposed transfer is a 5% Transaction:
|
|
|
|
|
- |
which, together with any 5% Transactions consummated during the
previous three years, or since July 6, 2006, if shorter,
represent aggregate 5% Transactions involving transfers of less
than 45% of our equity securities issued and outstanding at the
time of transfer; and |
|
|
- |
which, together with any 5% Transactions consummated during the
previous three years, or since July 6, 2006, if shorter,
and all 5% Transactions that the Union VEBA Trust may consummate
without breach of the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement,
described below, during the three years following the time of
transfer, represent, during any period of three consecutive
years during the three years prior to the transfer, or since
July 6, 2006, if shorter, and the three years after the |
140
Description of capital stock
|
|
|
|
|
transfer, aggregate 5% Transactions involving transfers of less
than 45% of the equity securities issued and outstanding at the
time of transfer; or |
|
|
|
in the case of a 5% Transaction
by the Union VEBA Trust, such 5% Transaction does not result in
a breach of the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement, so long
as, contemporaneously with such 5% Transaction, the Union VEBA
Trust delivers to our board of directors a written notice
setting forth the number and type of equity securities involved
in, and the date of, such 5% Transaction.
|
Any approval or determination by the board of directors requires
the affirmative vote of a majority of the total number of
directors (assuming no vacancies). As a condition to granting
any such approval or in connection with making any such
determination, the board of directors may, in its discretion,
require (at the expense of the transferor and/or transferee) an
opinion of counsel selected by the transferor or the transferee,
which counsel must be reasonably acceptable to the board of
directors, that the consummation of the proposed transfer will
not result in the application of any limitation under
Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code on the use of the
tax benefits described above taking into account any and all
other transfers that have been consummated prior to receipt of
the request relating to the proposed transfer, any and all other
proposed transfers that have been approved by the board of
directors prior to receipt of the request relating to the
proposed transfer and any and all other proposed transfers for
which the requests relating thereto have been received prior to
receipt of the request relating to the proposed transfer.
Each certificate representing our equity securities issued prior
to the Restriction Release Date will contain a legend referring
to these restrictions on transfer and any purported transfer of
our equity securities in violation of such restrictions will be
null and void. The purported transferor will remain the owner of
such transferred securities and the purported transferee will be
required to turn over the transferred securities, together with
any distributions received by the purported transferee with
respect to the transferred securities after the purported
transfer, to an agent authorized to sell such securities, if it
can do so, in arms-length transactions that do not violate
such restrictions. If the purported transferee resold such
securities prior to receipt of our demand that they be so
surrendered, the purported transferee will generally be required
to transfer the proceeds from such distribution, together with
any distributions received by the purported transferee with
respect to the transferred securities after the purported
transfer, to the agent. Any amounts held by the agent will be
applied first to reimburse the agent for its expenses, then to
reimburse the transferee for any payments made by the purported
transferee to the transferor, and finally, if any amount
remains, to pay the purported transferor. Any resale by the
purported transferee will itself be subject to these
restrictions on transfer.
Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement
On July 6, 2006, in connection with our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy, we also entered into a Stock
Transfer Restriction Agreement with the trustee of the Union
VEBA Trust. This summary is qualified in its entirety by the
full text of the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement, a copy of
which is filed as an exhibit to the registration statement of
which this prospectus forms a part.
Pursuant to the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement, until the
Restriction Release Date, except as described below the trustee
of the Union VEBA Trust will be prohibited from transferring or
otherwise disposing of more than 15% of the total number of
shares of common stock issued pursuant to our plan of
reorganization to the Union VEBA Trust in any
12-month period without
the prior written approval of the board of directors in
accordance with our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation. Pursuant to the Stock Transfer Restriction
Agreement, the trustee of the Union VEBA Trust also expressly
acknowledged and agreed to comply with the restrictions on the
transfer of our securities contained in our certificate of
incorporation.
141
Description of capital stock
Simultaneously with the execution and delivery of the Stock
Transfer Restriction Agreement, we entered into a registration
rights agreement, or Registration Rights Agreement, with the
trustee of the Union VEBA Trust and transferees of the Union
VEBA Trust pursuant to the pre-effective date sales protocol
discussed below. The Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement
provides that, notwithstanding the general restriction on
transfer described above, the Union VEBA Trust may transfer a
larger percentage of its holdings through an underwritten
offering.
Prior to March 31, 2007, the Union VEBA Trust may request
in writing that we file a registration statement covering the
resale of shares of our common stock equal to a maximum of 30%
of the total number of shares of common stock received by the
Union VEBA Trust pursuant to the plan of reorganization in an
underwritten offering, as contemplated by the Registration
Rights Agreement, so long as:
|
|
|
the number of shares of common
stock to be sold is not more than 45% of the total number of
shares of common stock received by the Union VEBA Trust pursuant
to the plan of reorganization, less the number of shares
included in all other transfers previously effected by the Union
VEBA Trust during the preceding 36 months or since
July 6, 2006, if shorter; and
|
|
|
the shares of common stock to be
sold have a market value of not less than $60.0 million on
the date the request is made.
|
In the event that no underwritten offering has been effected
prior to, or is pending on, March 31, 2007, the Union VEBA
Trust may transfer, in an underwritten offering pursuant to a
shelf registration statement as contemplated by the
Registration Rights Agreement, a number of shares of our common
stock equal to 45% of the total number of shares of common stock
received by the Union VEBA Trust pursuant to the plan of
reorganization, less the number of shares included in all other
transfers previously effected by the Union VEBA Trust during the
preceding 36 months or since July 6, 2006, if shorter,
so long as:
|
|
|
no such underwritten offering
has been previously effected from a shelf registration statement;
|
|
|
the demand for such underwritten
offering is made by the Union VEBA Trust between March 31,
2007 and April 1, 2008; and
|
|
|
the shares of common stock to be
sold have a market value of not less than $60.0 million on
the date such request is made.
|
If, through an underwritten offering, the Union VEBA Trust
transfers a greater number of shares than the Union VEBA Trust
could transfer under the general restriction on transfer
described above, then, for purposes of determining whether any
future transfer of shares of common stock by the Union VEBA
Trust is permissible under the general restriction, the Union
VEBA Trust will be deemed to have effected the transfer of the
excess shares at the earliest possible date or dates the Union
VEBA Trust would have been permitted to effect such transfer
under the general restriction absent these exceptions. See
Certain relationships and related transactions.
The plan of reorganization stated that on its effective date,
11,439,900 shares of our common stock would be contributed
to the Union VEBA Trust. Prior to the effective date of the plan
of reorganization, in accordance with a sales protocol
established by order of the bankruptcy court, the Union VEBA
Trust sold interests entitling the purchasers thereof to receive
2,630,000 shares of common stock that otherwise would have
been issuable to the Union VEBA Trust on the effective date of
the plan of reorganization. Accordingly, on the effective date,
8,809,900 shares of common stock were issued to the Union
VEBA Trust. Pursuant to the terms of the sale protocol, unless
we otherwise agree or it is determined in a ruling by the
Internal Revenue Service that any such sale does not constitute
a sale of shares on or following the effective date of the plan
of reorganization for purposes of the applicable limitations of
Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, the shares
attributable to a
142
Description of capital stock
sale of all or part of the interest of the Union VEBA Trust will
be deemed to have been received by the Union VEBA Trust on the
effective date and sold on or after the effective date out of
the permitted sale allocation under the Stock Transfer
Restriction Agreement as if sold at the earliest possible date
or dates such sales would have been permitted thereunder for
purposes of determining the permissibility of future sales of
shares under the Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement. A request
for such a ruling has been filed with the Internal Revenue
Service.
ANTI-TAKEOVER EFFECTS OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF OUR
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS
Our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws, together with
our contractual arrangements with the USW and applicable
Delaware state law, may discourage or make more difficult the
acquisition of control of our company by means of a tender
offer, open market purchase, proxy fight or otherwise. These
provisions are intended to discourage, or may have the effect of
discouraging, certain types of coercive takeover practices and
inadequate takeover bids and are also intended to encourage a
person seeking to acquire control of our company to first
negotiate with us. We believe that these measures, many of which
are substantially similar to the anti-takeover related measures
in effect for numerous other publicly held companies, enhance
our potential ability to negotiate with the proponent of an
unsolicited proposal to acquire or restructure the company,
providing benefits that outweigh the disadvantages of
discouraging such proposals because, among other things, such
negotiation could improve the terms of such a proposal and
protect the stockholders from takeover bids that the board of
directors have determined to be inadequate. A description of
these provisions is set forth below.
Classified board of directors
Our certificate of incorporation divides our board of directors
into three classes of directors serving staggered three year
terms. The existence of a classified board will make it more
difficult for a third party to gain control of our board of
directors by preventing such third party from replacing a
majority of the directors at any given meeting of stockholders.
Removal of directors and filling vacancies in
directorships
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that
directors may be removed by the stockholders, with or without
cause, only at a meeting of stockholders and by the affirmative
vote of the holders of at least 67% of our stock generally
entitled to vote in the election of directors. Our certificate
of incorporation and bylaws provide that any vacancy on our
board of directors or newly created directorship may be filled
solely by the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors
then in office or by a sole remaining director, and that any
director so elected will hold office for the remainder of the
full term of the class of directors in which the vacancy
occurred or the new directorship was created and until such
directors successor has been elected and qualified. The
limitations on the removal of directors and the filling of
vacancies may deter a third party from seeking to remove
incumbent directors and simultaneously gaining control of our
board of directors by filling the vacancies created by such
removal with its own nominees.
Stockholder action and meetings of stockholders
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that special
meetings of the stockholders may only be called by our chairman
of the board, chief executive officer or president, or by the
secretary of the company within 10 calendar days after the
receipt of the written request of a majority of the total number
of directors (assuming no vacancies), and further provide that,
at any special meeting of stockholders, the only business that
may be considered or conducted is business that is specified in
the notice of such meeting or is otherwise properly brought
before the meeting by the presiding officer or
143
Description of capital stock
by or at the direction of a majority of the directors (assuming
no vacancies), effectively precluding the right of the
stockholders to raise any business at any special meeting. Our
certificate of incorporation also provides that the stockholders
may not act by written consent in lieu of a meeting.
Advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals
Our bylaws provide that a stockholder seeking to bring business
before an annual meeting of stockholders provide timely notice
in writing to the corporate secretary. To be timely, a
stockholders notice must be received not less than 60, nor
more than 90, calendar days prior to the first anniversary date
of the date on which we first mailed proxy materials for the
prior years annual meeting of stockholders, except that,
if there was no annual meeting in the prior year or if the
annual meeting is called for a date that is not within 30
calendar days before or after that anniversary, notice must be
so delivered not later than the close of business on the later
of the 90th calendar day prior to such annual meeting and
the 10th calendar day following the date on which public
disclosure of the date of the annual meeting is first made. Our
bylaws also specify requirements as to the form and substance of
notice. These provisions may make it more difficult for
stockholders to bring matters before an annual meeting of
stockholders.
Director nomination procedures
Nominations in accordance with our bylaws
Our bylaws provide that the nominations for election of
directors by the stockholders will be made either by or at the
direction of our board of directors or a committee thereof, or
by any stockholder entitled to vote for the election of
directors at the annual meeting at which such nomination is
made. The bylaws require that stockholders intending to nominate
candidates for election as directors provide timely notice in
writing. To be timely, a stockholders notice must be
delivered to or mailed and received at our principal executive
offices not less than 60, nor more than 90, calendar days prior
to the first anniversary of the date on which we first mailed
our proxy materials for the prior years annual meeting of
stockholders, except that, if there was no annual meeting during
the prior year or if the annual meeting is called for a date
that is not within 30 calendar days before or after that
anniversary, notice by stockholders to be timely must be
delivered not later than the close of business on the later of
the 90th calendar day prior to the annual meeting and the
10th calendar day following the day on which public
disclosure of the date of such meeting is first made. Our bylaws
also specify requirements as to the form and substance of
notice. These provisions of our bylaws make it more difficult
for stockholders to make nominations of directors.
Nominating and corporate governance committee
Our nominating and corporate governance committee is responsible
for recommending to the board of directors director nominee
candidates to be submitted to the stockholders for election at
each annual meeting of stockholders. In accordance with this
responsibility, the committee has adopted policies regarding the
consideration of candidates for a position on our board of
directors, including the procedures by which stockholders may
propose candidates directly to the committee for consideration.
Such policies provide an alternative to the rights granted to
the stockholders by law and pursuant to our bylaws. These
policies provide that a single stockholder or a group of
stockholders that has beneficially owned more than 5% of the
then outstanding common stock for at least one year as of the
date of recommendation of a director candidate will be eligible
to propose a director candidate to the nominating and corporate
governance committee for consideration and evaluation by notice
to such committee in accordance with such policies, including
timely notice. To be timely, a stockholders notice must be
received by the nominating and corporate governance committee
not less than 120, nor more than 150, calendar days prior to the
first anniversary of the date on which we first mailed proxy
materials for the prior years annual meeting of
stockholders, except that, if there was no annual
144
Description of capital stock
meeting in the prior year or if the annual meeting is called for
a date that is not within 30 calendar days before or after
that anniversary, notice must be received by the nominating and
corporate governance committee no later than the close of
business on the 10th calendar day following the date on
which public disclosure of the date of the annual meeting is
first made, unless such public disclosure specifies a different
date. The policies also provide that any such candidate must
(1) be independent in accordance with applicable
independence criteria, (2) may not, other than as a member
of our board of directors or a committee thereof, accept any
consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from us or our
subsidiaries (other than the fixed amounts of compensation under
a retirement plan for prior service, provided such compensation
is not contingent on continued service), and (3) may not be
an affiliated with us or any of our subsidiaries. Further, these
policies establish criteria to be used by such committee to
assess whether a candidate for a position on our board of
directors has appropriate skills and experience. In addition,
the USW will be able to nominate director candidates in
accordance with the Director Designation Agreement.
Director Designation Agreement with the USW
Upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we entered
into a Director Designation Agreement with the USW in order to
effectuate the rights of the USW to nominate individuals to
serve on our board of directors and specified committees
thereof. Please see Management Director Designation
Agreement with the USW for a discussion of the Director
Designation Agreement.
Authorized but unissued shares
Authorized but unissued shares of our common stock and preferred
stock under our certificate of incorporation will be available
for future issuance without stockholder approval, unless
otherwise required pursuant to the rules of any national
securities exchange or association on which our securities are
traded from time to time. These additional shares will give our
board of directors the flexibility to issue shares for a variety
of proper corporate purposes, including in connection with
future public offerings to raise additional capital or corporate
acquisitions, without incurring the time and expense of
soliciting a stockholder vote. The existence of authorized but
unissued shares of common stock and preferred stock could render
more difficult or discourage an attempt to obtain control of our
company by means of a proxy contest, tender offer, merger or
otherwise. In addition, any future issuance of shares of common
stock or preferred stock, whether or not in connection with an
anti-takeover measure, could have the effect of diluting the
earnings per share, book value per share and voting power of
shares held by our stockholders.
Supermajority vote requirements
Delaware law provides generally that the affirmative vote, as a
class, of the holders of a majority of each class of shares
entitled to vote on any matter will be required to amend a
corporations certificate of incorporation and that the
affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares
present in person or represented by proxy identified to vote on
any matter will be required to amend a corporations
bylaws, unless the corporations certificate of
incorporation or bylaws, as the case may be, require a vote by
the holders of a greater number of shares. Our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws require the affirmative vote of the
holders of at least 67% of the shares of our stock generally
entitled to vote in the election of directors in order to amend,
repeal or adopt any provision inconsistent with certain
provisions of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws, as the
case may be, relating to (1) the time and place of meetings
of the stockholders, (2) the calling of special meetings of
stockholders, (3) the conduct or consideration of business
at meetings of stockholders, (4) the filling of any
vacancies on the board of directors or newly created
directorships, (5) the removal of directors, (6) the
nomination and election of directors, (7) the ability of
the stockholders to act by written consent in lieu of a meeting,
or (8) the number and terms of directors.
145
Description of capital stock
DELAWARE ANTI-TAKEOVER LAW
Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
provides that, subject to exceptions specified therein, an
interested stockholder of a Delaware corporation
shall not engage in any business combination with
the corporation for a three-year period following the time that
such stockholder becomes an interested stockholder unless:
|
|
|
prior to such time, the board of
directors of the corporation approved either the business
combination or the transaction which resulted in the stockholder
becoming an interested stockholder;
|
|
|
upon consummation of the
transaction which resulted in the stockholder becoming an
interested stockholder, the interested stockholder
owned at least 85% of the voting stock of the corporation
outstanding at the time the transaction commenced (excluding
specified shares); or
|
|
|
on or subsequent to such time,
the business combination is approved by the board of directors
of the corporation and authorized at an annual or special
meeting of stockholders, and not by written consent, by the
affirmative vote of at least
662/3%
of the outstanding voting stock not owned by the interested
stockholder.
|
Under Section 203, the restrictions described above also do
not apply to specified business combinations proposed by an
interested stockholder following the announcement or
notification of one of the specified transactions involving the
corporation and a person who had not been an interested
stockholder during the previous three years or who became an
interested stockholder with the approval of a majority of the
corporations directors, if such transaction is approved or
not opposed by a majority of the directors who were directors
prior to any person becoming an interested stockholder during
the previous three years or were recommended for election or
elected to succeed such directors by a majority of such
directors.
Except as otherwise specified in Section 203, a
business combination is defined to include:
|
|
|
any merger or consolidation
involving the corporation and the interested stockholder;
|
|
|
any sale, transfer, pledge or
other disposition involving the interested stockholder of 10% or
more of the assets of the corporation;
|
|
|
subject to exceptions, any
transaction that results in the issuance or transfer by the
corporation of any stock of the corporation to the interested
stockholder;
|
|
|
subject to exceptions, any
transaction involving the corporation that has the effect of
increasing the proportionate share of the stock of any class or
series of the corporation beneficially owned by the interested
stockholder; and
|
|
|
the receipt by the interested
stockholder of the benefit of any loans, advances, guarantees,
pledges or other financial benefits provided by or through the
corporation.
|
Except as otherwise specified in Section 203, an
interested stockholder is defined to include:
|
|
|
any person that is the owner of
15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of the corporation,
or is an affiliate or associate of the corporation and was the
owner of 15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of the
corporation at any time within three years immediately prior to
the date of determination; and
|
|
|
the affiliates and associates of
any such person.
|
146
Description of capital stock
Under some circumstances, Section 203 makes it more
difficult for a person who is an interested stockholder to
effect various business combinations with us for a three-year
period. We have not elected to be exempt from the restrictions
imposed under Section 203.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Our certificate of incorporation limits the liability of our
directors to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, which
provides that a corporation may limit the personal liability of
its directors for monetary damages for breach of that
individuals fiduciary duties as a director except for
liability for any of the following: (1) a breach of the
directors duty of loyalty to the corporation or its
stockholders; (2) any act or omission not in good faith or
that involves intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of
the law; (3) certain unlawful payments of dividends or
unlawful stock repurchases or redemptions; or (4) any
transaction from which the director derived an improper personal
benefit. This limitation of liability does not apply to
liabilities arising under federal securities laws and does not
affect the availability of equitable remedies such as injunctive
relief or rescission.
Our certificate of incorporation provides that we are required
to indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent
permitted or required by Delaware law, although, except with
respect to certain actions, suits or proceedings to enforce
rights to indemnification, a director or officer will only be
indemnified with respect to any action, suit or proceeding such
person initiated to the extent such action, suit or proceeding
was authorized by the board of directors. Our certificate of
incorporation also requires us to advance expenses incurred by a
director or officer in connection with the defense of any
action, suit or proceeding arising out of that persons
status or service as director or officer of the company or as
director, officer, employee or agent of another enterprise, if
serving at our request. In addition, our certificate of
incorporation permits us to secure insurance to protect us and
any director, officer, employee or agent of the company or any
other corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other
enterprise against any expense, liability or loss.
In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements
with each of our directors and executive officers containing
provisions that obligate us to, among other things:
|
|
|
indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the director or officer to the fullest extent permitted
or required by Delaware law, except that, subject to certain
exceptions, the director or officer will be indemnified with
respect to a claim initiated by such director or officer against
us or any other director or officer of the company only if we
have joined in or consented to the initiation of such claim;
|
|
|
advance prior to the final
disposition of any indemnifiable claim any and all expenses
relating to, arising out of or resulting from any indemnifiable
claim paid or incurred by the director or officer or which the
director or officer determines is reasonably likely to be paid
or incurred by him or her; and
|
|
|
utilize commercially reasonable
efforts to cause to be maintained in effect policies of
directors and officers liability insurance providing
coverage that is at least substantially comparable in scope and
amount to that provided by our policies of directors and
officers liability insurance at the time the parties enter
into such indemnification agreement.
|
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Mellon
Investor Services LLC.
147
Shares eligible for future sale
Upon completion of this offering, based upon the number of our
shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2006,
there will be outstanding 20,525,660 shares of our common
stock, of which 600,000 shares will be deemed
restricted securities, as that term is defined under
Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities
Act. All of the shares sold in this offering will be freely
tradable without restriction under the Securities Act, except
for any shares of our common stock purchased by our
affiliates, as that term is defined in Rule 144
under the Securities Act.
Restricted securities may be sold in the United States public
market only if registered or if they qualify for an exemption
from registration under Rule 144 or 144(k) under the
Securities Act, which rules are described below.
Subject to the provisions of the
lock-up agreements, the
600,000 shares will be eligible for sale at various times
pursuant to Rules 144 or 144(k).
RULE 144
In general, under Rule 144 as currently in effect, a
person, or persons whose shares must be aggregated, who has
beneficially owned restricted shares of our common stock for at
least one year is entitled to sell within any three-month period
a number of shares that does not exceed the greater of the
following:
|
|
|
|
one percent of the number of
shares of common stock then outstanding, which will equal
approximately 205,257 shares immediately after this
offering; or
|
|
|
|
|
the average weekly trading
volume of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market during
the four calendar weeks preceding the date of filing of a notice
on Form 144 with respect to the sale, which equals
approximately 137,359 shares as of the date of this
prospectus.
|
|
Sales under Rule 144 are also generally subject to certain
manner of sale provisions and notice requirements and to the
availability of current public information about us.
RULE 144(K)
Under Rule 144(k), a person, or persons whose shares must
be aggregated, who is not deemed to have been one of our
affiliates at any time during the 90 days preceding a sale
and who has beneficially owned the shares proposed to be sold
for at least two years would be entitled to sell the shares
under Rule 144(k) without complying with the manner of
sale, public information, volume limitations or notice or public
information requirements of Rule 144.
LOCK-UP AGREEMENTS
For a description of the
lock-up agreements with
the underwriters that restrict sales of shares by us, the
selling stockholders, one other stockholder and our executive
officers and directors, see Underwriting No Sales of
Similar Securities.
REGISTRATION RIGHTS
Pursuant to the terms of a Registration Rights Agreement, we
have provided the Union VEBA Trust with registration rights,
including a demand registration right, a shelf registration
right and piggy-back registration rights, with
respect to our common stock. This registration has been effected
because the Union VEBA Trust exercised its demand registration
right. The other selling stockholders (except the Asbestos PI
Trust) are parties to the Registration Rights Agreement and are
participating in
148
Shares eligible for future sale
the registration pursuant to their respective rights under the
Registration Rights Agreement. Commencing April 1, 2007,
the Union VEBA Trust may demand that we prepare and file with
the SEC a shelf registration statement covering the
resale of certain securities held by the Union VEBA Trust. Our
obligations to effect a shelf or piggy-back registration are
subject to customary limitations. We are obligated to pay all
expenses incidental to such registration, excluding
underwriters discounts and commissions and certain legal
fees and expenses. This summary is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the full text of the Registration Rights Agreement,
a copy of which is filed as an exhibit to our registration
statement of which this prospectus forms a part. See
Certain relationships and related transactions.
149
U.S. federal tax consequences to
non-U.S. holders
of common stock
The following is a general discussion of the material
U.S. federal income and estate tax consequences to
non-U.S. Holders
with respect to the acquisition, ownership and disposition of
our common stock. In general, a
Non-U.S. Holder
is any holder of our common stock other than:
|
|
|
|
a citizen or resident of the
United States, including an alien individual who is a lawful
permanent resident of the United States or meets the
substantial presence test under
Section 7701(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code;
|
|
|
|
a corporation (or an entity
treated as a corporation) created or organized in or under the
laws of the United States, any state thereof, or the District of
Columbia;
|
|
|
an estate, the income of which
is subject to U.S. federal income tax regardless of its
source; or
|
|
|
a trust, if a U.S. court
can exercise primary supervision over the administration of the
trust and one or more U.S. persons can control all
substantial decisions of the trust, or certain other trusts that
have a valid election in effect to be treated as a
U.S. person pursuant to applicable Treasury Regulations.
|
This discussion is based on current provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code, Treasury Regulations, judicial opinions, published
positions of the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, and all other
applicable administrative and judicial authorities, all of which
are subject to change, possibly with retroactive effect. This
discussion does not address all aspects of U.S. federal
income and estate taxation or any aspects of state, local or
non-U.S. taxation,
nor does it consider any specific facts or circumstances that
may apply to particular
Non-U.S. Holders
that may be subject to special treatment under the
U.S. federal income tax laws including, but not limited to,
insurance companies, tax-exempt organizations, pass-through
entities, financial institutions, brokers, dealers in securities
and U.S. expatriates. If a partnership or other entity
treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax
purposes is a beneficial owner of our common stock, the
treatment of a partner in the partnership generally will depend
upon the status of the partner and the activities of the
partnership. This discussion assumes that the
Non-U.S. Holder
will hold our common stock as a capital asset, which generally
is property held for investment.
Prospective investors are urged to consult their tax advisors
regarding the U.S. federal, state, local and
non-U.S. income
and other tax considerations with respect to acquiring, holding
and disposing of shares of our common stock.
DIVIDENDS
In general, dividends paid to a
Non-U.S. Holder
(to the extent paid out of our current or accumulated earnings
and profits, as determined under U.S. federal income tax
principles) will be subject to U.S. withholding tax at a
rate equal to 30% of the gross amount of the dividend, or a
lower rate prescribed by an applicable income tax treaty, unless
the dividends are effectively connected with a trade or business
carried on by the
Non-U.S. Holder
within the United States. Under applicable Treasury Regulations,
a Non-U.S. Holder
will be required to satisfy certain certification requirements,
generally on IRS
Form W-8BEN,
directly or through an intermediary, in order to claim a reduced
rate of withholding under an applicable income tax treaty. If
tax is withheld in an amount in excess of the amount applicable
under an income tax treaty, a refund of the excess amount
generally may be obtained by filing an appropriate claim for
refund with the IRS.
150
U.S. federal tax consequences to
non-U.S. holders
of common stock
Dividends that are effectively connected with such a
U.S. trade or business generally will not be subject to
U.S. withholding tax if the
Non-U.S. Holder
files the required forms, including IRS
Form W-8ECI, or
any successor form, with the payor of the dividend, but instead
generally will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a
net income basis in the same manner as if the
Non-U.S. Holder
were a resident of the United States. A corporate
Non-U.S. Holder
that receives effectively connected dividends may be subject to
an additional branch profits tax at a rate of 30%, or a lower
rate prescribed by an applicable income tax treaty, on the
repatriation from the United States of its effectively
connected earnings and profits, subject to adjustments.
GAIN ON SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF COMMON STOCK
In general, a
Non-U.S. Holder
will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on any gain
realized upon the sale or other taxable disposition of the
Non-U.S. Holders
shares of common stock unless:
|
|
|
the gain is effectively
connected with a trade or business carried on by the
Non-U.S. Holder
within the United States (and, where an income tax treaty
applies, is attributable to a U.S. permanent establishment
of the
Non-U.S. Holder),
in which case the branch profits tax discussed above may also
apply if the
Non-U.S. Holder is
a corporation; |
|
|
the
Non-U.S. Holder is
an individual who holds shares of common stock as capital assets
and is present in the United States for 183 days or more in
the taxable year of disposition and certain other conditions are
met; or |
|
|
we are or have been a
U.S. real property holding corporation for
U.S. federal income tax purposes.
|
Because of the real property and manufacturing assets we own, we
may be a U.S. real property holding
corporation. Generally, a corporation is a U.S. real
property holding corporation if the fair market value of its
U.S. real property interests, as defined in the Internal
Revenue Code and applicable Treasury Regulations equals or
exceeds 50% of the aggregate fair market value of its worldwide
real property interests and its other assets used or held for
use in a trade or business. If we are, have been or become a
U.S. real property holding corporation in the future, since
our common stock is regularly traded on an established
securities market, a
Non-U.S. Holder
who (actually or constructively) holds or held (at anytime
during the shorter of the five-year period preceding the
disposition or the holders holding period) more than 5% of
our common stock would be subject to U.S. federal income
tax on a disposition of our common stock but other
Non-U.S. Holders
generally would not be. If our common stock becomes not so
traded, all
Non-U.S. Holders
would be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a
disposition of our common stock.
You should consult your own tax advisor regarding our possible
status as a U.S. real property holding
corporation and its possible consequences in your
particular circumstances.
INFORMATION REPORTING AND BACKUP WITHHOLDING
Generally, we must report annually to the IRS the amount of
dividends paid, the name and address of the recipient, and the
amount, if any, of tax withheld. A similar report is sent to the
recipient. These information reporting requirements apply even
if withholding was not required because the dividends were
effectively connected dividends or withholding was reduced by an
applicable income tax treaty. Under income tax treaties or other
agreements, the IRS may make its reports available to tax
authorities in the recipients country of residence.
Dividends paid to a
Non-U.S. Holder
that is not an exempt recipient generally will be subject to
backup withholding, currently at a rate of 28% of the gross
proceeds, unless a
Non-U.S. Holder
certifies on IRS
Form W-8BEN or
similar form as to its foreign status.
151
U.S. federal tax consequences to
non-U.S. holders
of common stock
Proceeds from the disposition of common stock by a
Non-U.S. Holder
effected by or through a U.S. office of a broker will be
subject to information reporting and backup withholding, unless
the
Non-U.S. Holder
certifies to the payor under penalties of perjury as to, among
other things, its address and foreign status or otherwise
establishes an exemption. Generally, U.S. information
reporting and backup withholding will not apply to a payment of
disposition proceeds if the transaction is effected outside the
United States by or through a
non-U.S. office.
However, if the broker is, for U.S. federal income tax
purposes, a U.S. person, a controlled foreign corporation,
a foreign person who derives 50% or more of its gross income for
specified periods from the conduct of a U.S. trade or
business, a U.S. branch of a foreign bank or insurance
company or a foreign partnership with various connections to the
United States, information reporting but not backup withholding
will apply unless:
|
|
|
the broker has documentary
evidence in its files that the holder is a
Non-U.S. Holder
and certain other conditions are met; or |
|
|
the holder otherwise establishes
an exemption.
|
Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Rather, the amount
of tax withheld is applied as a credit to the U.S. federal
income tax liability of persons subject to backup withholding.
If backup withholding results in an overpayment of
U.S. federal income tax, a refund may be obtained, provided
the required documents are timely filed with the IRS.
ESTATE TAX
Our common stock owned or treated as owned by an individual who
is not a citizen or resident of the United States (as
specifically defined for U.S. federal estate tax purposes)
at the time of death will be includible in the individuals
gross estate for U.S. federal estate tax purposes, unless
an applicable estate tax treaty provides otherwise.
152
Underwriting
The selling stockholders are offering the shares of our common
stock described in this prospectus through the underwriters
named below. UBS Securities LLC and Bear, Stearns & Co.
Inc. are the joint bookrunners of this offering and
representatives of the underwriters. We and the selling
stockholders have entered into an underwriting agreement with
the representatives. Subject to the terms and conditions of the
underwriting agreement, each of the underwriters has severally
agreed to purchase the number of shares of common stock listed
next to its name in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriters |
|
Number of shares | |
| |
UBS Securities LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Lehman Brothers Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Lazard Capital Markets LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,461,870 |
|
|
|
|
|
The underwriting agreement provides that the underwriters must
buy all of the shares if they buy any of them. However, the
underwriters are not required to take or pay for the shares
covered by the underwriters over-allotment option
described below.
Our common stock is offered subject to a number of conditions,
including:
|
|
|
receipt and acceptance of the
common stock by the underwriters; and
|
|
|
the underwriters right to
reject orders in whole or in part.
|
In connection with this offering, certain of the underwriters or
securities dealers may distribute prospectuses electronically.
OVER-ALLOTMENT OPTION
The Union VEBA Trust has granted the underwriters an option to
buy up to 819,280 additional shares of common stock. The
underwriters may exercise this option solely for the purpose of
covering over-allotments, if any, made in connection with this
offering. The underwriters have 30 days from the date of
this prospectus to exercise this option. If the underwriters
exercise this option, they will each purchase additional shares
approximately in proportion to the amounts specified in the
table above.
COMMISSIONS AND DISCOUNTS
Shares sold by the underwriters to the public will initially be
offered at the offering price set forth on the cover of this
prospectus. Any shares sold by the underwriters to securities
dealers may be sold at a discount of up to
$ per
share from the initial public offering price. Any of these
securities dealers may resell any shares purchased from the
underwriters to other brokers or dealers at a discount of up to
$ per
share from the initial public offering price. If all the shares
are not sold at the initial public offering price, the
representatives may change the offering price and the other
selling terms. Sales of shares made outside of the United States
may be made by affiliates of the underwriters. Upon execution of
the underwriting agreement, the underwriters will be obligated
to purchase the shares at the price and upon the terms stated in
the underwriting agreement, and, as a result, will thereafter
bear any risk associated with changing the offering price to the
public or other selling terms.
153
Underwriting
The following table shows the per share and total underwriting
discounts and commissions to be paid by the selling stockholders
to the underwriters, assuming both no exercise and full exercise
of the underwriters option to purchase up to an additional
819,280 shares:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No exercise | |
|
Full exercise | |
| |
Per share
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
We estimate that the total expenses of this offering payable by
us will be approximately $1,450,000. We have agreed to pay the
expenses associated with this offering, other than the
underwriting discounts and commissions.
NO SALES OF SIMILAR SECURITIES
We, our executive officers and directors, the selling
stockholders, and one other stockholder have entered into
lock-up agreements with
the underwriters. The lock-up agreements covering shares
beneficially owned by our executive officers, directors and
stockholders cover approximately 6,930,789 shares of
common stock that will be held by these stockholders upon
completion of this offering assuming no exercise of the
underwriters over-allotment option. Under these
agreements, subject to certain exceptions, we and each of these
persons may not, without the prior written approval of UBS
Securities LLC and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., offer,
sell, contract to sell or otherwise dispose of, directly or
indirectly, or hedge our common stock or securities convertible
into or exchangeable for our common stock. The parties subject
to these agreements will be subject to these restrictions for a
period of 180 days after the date of the underwriting
agreement, except that the agreement with respect to
11,334 shares will expire on March 31, 2007. These
periods may be extended for a limited period if we issue an
earnings release or material news or a material event relating
to us occurs or we announce that we will release earnings during
a specified period following the expiration of the agreement.
These restrictions will not apply to issuances of restricted
shares of common stock or employee stock options pursuant to the
Equity Incentive Plan. At any time and without public notice,
UBS Securities LLC and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. may, in
their sole discretion, release some or all of the securities
from these lock-up
agreements.
INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION
We and the selling stockholders have agreed to indemnify the
underwriters and their controlling persons against certain
liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act. If
we or the selling stockholders are unable to provide this
indemnification, we or they will contribute to payments the
underwriters and their controlling persons may be required to
make in respect of those liabilities.
NASDAQ GLOBAL MARKET QUOTATION
Our common stock is quoted on the Nasdaq Global Market under the
symbol KALU.
PRICE STABILIZATION, SHORT POSITIONS
In connection with this offering, the underwriters may engage in
activities that stabilize, maintain or otherwise affect the
price of our common stock, including:
|
|
|
stabilizing transactions;
|
|
|
short sales;
|
|
|
purchases to cover positions
created by short sales;
|
154
Underwriting
|
|
|
imposition of penalty bids;
|
|
|
syndicate covering transactions;
and
|
|
|
passive market making.
|
Stabilizing transactions consist of bids or purchases made for
the purpose of preventing or retarding a decline in the market
price of our common stock while this offering is in progress.
These transactions may also include making short sales of our
common stock, which involve the sale by the underwriters of a
greater number of shares of common stock than they are required
to purchase in this offering and purchasing shares of common
stock in the open market to cover positions created by short
sales. Short sales may be covered short sales, which
are short positions in an amount not greater than the
underwriters over-allotment option referred to above, or
may be naked short sales, which are short positions
in excess of that amount.
The underwriters may close out any covered short position either
by exercising their over-allotment option, in whole or in part,
or by purchasing shares in the open market. In making this
determination, the underwriters will consider, among other
things, the price of shares available for purchase in the open
market compared to the price at which they may purchase shares
through the over-allotment option.
Naked short sales are sales in excess of the over-allotment
option. The underwriters must close out any naked short position
by purchasing shares in the open market. A naked short position
is more likely to be created if the underwriters are concerned
that there may be downward pressure on the price of the common
stock in the open market that could adversely affect investors
who purchased in this offering.
The underwriters also may impose a penalty bid. This occurs when
a particular underwriter repays to the underwriters a portion of
the underwriting discount received by it because the
representatives have repurchased shares sold by or for the
account of that underwriter in stabilizing or short covering
transactions.
In connection with this offering, certain underwriters and
selling group members, if any, who are qualified market makers
on the Nasdaq Global Market may engage in passive market making
transactions in our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market in
accordance with Rule 103 of Regulation M under the
Exchange Act. In general, a passive market maker must display
its bid at a price not in excess of the highest independent bid
for such security; if all independent bids are lowered below the
passive market makers bid, however, such bid must then be
lowered when certain purchase limits are exceeded.
As a result of these activities, the price of our common stock
may be higher than the price that otherwise might exist in the
open market. If these activities are commenced, they may be
discontinued by the underwriters at any time. The underwriters
may carry out these transactions on the Nasdaq Global Market, in
the over-the-counter
market or otherwise.
AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER SERVICES
Lazard Freres & Co. LLC (Lazard Freres) referred
this transaction to Lazard Capital Markets LLC and will receive
a referral fee from Lazard Capital Markets LLC in connection
therewith. Lazard Freres has provided advisory services to us
and our affiliates and has received fees in connection
therewith, including a fee of $250,000 pursuant to an engagement
letter dated as of November 28, 2006. Certain of the other
underwriters or their affiliates have in the past provided
commercial banking, financial advisory, investment banking or
other services for us, one or more selling stockholders and
their respective affiliates, for which they received customary
fees. The underwriters and their affiliates may in the future
provide these types of services to us, the selling stockholders
and our respective affiliates.
155
Notice to investors
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA
With respect to each Member State of the European Economic Area
which has implemented Prospectus Directive 2003/71/ EC,
including any applicable implementing measures, from and
including the date on which the Prospectus Directive is
implemented in that Member State, the offering of our common
stock in this offering is only being made:
|
|
|
to legal entities which are
authorized or regulated to operate in the financial markets or,
if not so authorized or regulated, whose corporate purpose is
solely to invest in securities;
|
|
|
to any legal entity which has
two or more of (1) an average of at least 250 employees
during the last financial year; (2) a total balance sheet
of more than
43,000,000 and
(3) an annual net turnover of more than
50,000,000, as
shown in its last annual or consolidated accounts; or
|
|
|
in any other circumstances which
do not require the publication by the issuer of a prospectus
pursuant to Article 3 of the Prospectus Directive.
|
UNITED KINGDOM
Shares of our common stock may not be offered or sold and will
not be offered or sold to any persons in the United Kingdom
other than to persons whose ordinary activities involve them in
acquiring, holding, managing or disposing of investments (as
principal or as agent) for the purposes of their businesses and
in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) with respect to
anything done in relation to shares of our common stock in, from
or otherwise involving the United Kingdom. In addition, any
invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity
(within the meaning of Section 21 of the FSMA) in
connection with the issue or sale of shares of our common stock
in circumstances in which Section 21(1) of the FSMA does
not apply to us. Without limitation to the other restrictions
referred to herein, this prospectus is directed only at
(1) persons outside the United Kingdom; (2) persons
having professional experience in matters relating to
investments who fall within the definition of investment
professionals in Article 19(5) of the Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005;
or (3) high net worth bodies corporate, unincorporated
associations and partnerships and trustees of high value trusts
as described in Article 49(2) of the Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005. Without
limitation to the other restrictions referred to herein, any
investment or investment activity to which this prospectus
relates is available only to, and will be engaged in only with,
such persons, and persons within the United Kingdom who receive
this communication (other than persons who fall within
(2) or (3) above) should not rely or act upon this
communication.
SWITZERLAND
Shares of our common stock may be offered in Switzerland only on
the basis of a non-public offering. This prospectus does not
constitute an issuance prospectus according to articles 652a or
1156 of the Swiss Federal Code of Obligations or a listing
prospectus according to article 32 of the Listing Rules of the
Swiss exchange. The shares of our common stock may not be
offered or distributed on a professional basis in or from
Switzerland and neither this prospectus nor any other offering
material relating to shares of our common stock may be publicly
issued in connection with any such offer or distribution. The
shares have not been and will not be approved by any Swiss
regulatory authority. In particular, the shares are not and will
not be registered with or supervised by the Swiss Federal
Banking Commission, and investors may not claim protection under
the Swiss Investment Fund Act.
156
Legal matters
The validity of the shares of common stock offered by this
prospectus will be passed upon for our company by Jones Day,
Dallas, Texas. The underwriters have been represented by Davis
Polk & Wardwell, New York, New York.
Experts
The financial statements as of December 31, 2004 and 2005,
and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2005, included in this prospectus and the
related financial statement schedule included elsewhere in the
registration statement have been audited by Deloitte &
Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as
stated in their reports appearing herein and elsewhere in the
registration statement (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs (1) relating to
an emphasis of a matter concerning our bankruptcy proceedings,
(2) expressing substantial doubt about our ability to
continue as a going concern, and (3) relating to our
adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Interpretation No. 47, Accounting for
Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143, effective
December 31, 2005), and have been so included in reliance
upon the reports of such firm given upon their authority as
experts in accounting and auditing.
With respect to our historical consolidated financial
statements, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A. has
provided us with advice with respect to the state of the law
related to asbestos claims in order to assist us in estimating
these claims. With respect to our historical consolidated
financial statements, Heller Ehrman LLP has advised us with
respect to the law governing insurance for asbestos-related
costs. After July 6, 2006, the effective date of our plan
of reorganization, these estimates and related insurance were no
longer necessary, so we do not expect to require the services of
these experts for financial statements going forward.
Where you can find more information
We file reports and other information with the SEC. You may read
and, for a fee, copy any document that we file with the SEC at
the SEC Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330 for
further information on the operation of the Public Reference
Room. You may also obtain the documents that we file
electronically from the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov. Our
reports and other information that we have filed, or that we may
in the future file, with the SEC are not incorporated in and do
not constitute part of this prospectus.
We are currently subject to the information requirements of the
Exchange Act and in accordance therewith file annual, quarterly
and current reports, proxy statements and other information with
the SEC relating to our business, financial statements and other
matters. We make these filings available on our website at
http://www.kaiseraluminum.com. In addition, we will provide
copies of our filings free of charge to our stockholders upon
request.
157
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
Audited Financial Statements for the Year Ended
December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-2 |
|
|
|
|
F-4 |
|
|
|
|
F-5 |
|
|
|
|
F-6 |
|
|
|
|
F-7 |
|
|
|
|
F-8 |
|
|
|
|
F-63 |
|
|
|
|
F-65 |
|
Unaudited Financial Statements for the Three Months and Nine
Months Ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-69 |
|
|
|
|
F-70 |
|
|
|
|
F-72 |
|
|
|
|
F-73 |
|
|
|
|
F-74 |
|
As more fully described in the accompanying financial
statements, upon the Companys emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006, the Company
adopted fresh start accounting and modified certain of its
accounting policies. For accounting purposes, the adoption of
fresh start accounting results in a new reporting entity and the
financial statements of the entity before emergence are not
considered to be comparable to the financial statements of the
entity after emergence. As such, it may be more difficult to
assess the Companys future prospects based on the
historical financial statements and information presented
herein.
F-1
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
Report of independent registered public accounting firm
To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors of
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (Debtor-In-Possession and subsidiary
of MAXXAM Inc.) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005
and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income
(loss), stockholders equity (deficit) and
comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2005. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to
have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal
control over financial reporting. Our audit included
consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a
basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An
audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements, assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2005, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
As discussed in Note 1, the Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
(KACC), and certain of KACCs subsidiaries have
filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal
Bankruptcy Code. The accompanying consolidated financial
statements do not purport to reflect or provide for the
consequences of the bankruptcy proceedings. In particular, such
financial statements do not purport to show (a) as to
assets, their realizable value on a liquidation basis or their
availability to satisfy liabilities; (b) as to pre-petition
liabilities, the amounts that may be allowed for claims or
contingencies, or the status and priority thereof; (c) as
to stockholder accounts, the effect of any changes that may be
made in the capitalization of the Company; or (d) as to
operations, the effect of any changes that may be made in its
business.
As discussed in Note 2, in 2005, the Company adopted the
provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Interpretation No. 47, Accounting for
Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations an interpretation
of FASB Statement No. 143, effective
December 31, 2005.
F-2
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been
prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going
concern. As discussed in Notes 1 and 2, the action of
filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal
Bankruptcy Code, losses from operations and stockholders
capital deficiency raise substantial doubt about the
Companys ability to continue as a going concern.
Managements plans concerning these matters are also
discussed in Note 1. The financial statements do not
include adjustments that might result from the outcome of this
uncertainty.
/s/ DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
March 30, 2006
F-3
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of | |
|
|
dollars, except share | |
|
|
and per share | |
|
|
amounts) | |
Assets |
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
55.4 |
|
|
$ |
49.5 |
|
|
Receivables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful receivables of $6.9 and $2.9
|
|
|
97.4 |
|
|
|
94.6 |
|
|
|
Due from affiliate
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5.6 |
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
105.3 |
|
|
|
115.3 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
19.6 |
|
|
|
21.0 |
|
|
Discontinued operations current assets
|
|
|
30.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
321.9 |
|
|
|
287.3 |
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
16.7 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
214.6 |
|
|
|
223.4 |
|
Restricted proceeds from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
280.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Personal injury-related insurance recoveries receivable
|
|
|
967.0 |
|
|
|
965.5 |
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
|
38.7 |
|
Discontinued operations long-term assets
|
|
|
38.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,882.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity (Deficit) |
Liabilities not subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
51.8 |
|
|
$ |
51.4 |
|
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages, and related expenses
|
|
|
48.9 |
|
|
|
42.0 |
|
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
73.7 |
|
|
|
55.2 |
|
|
|
Payable to affiliate
|
|
|
14.7 |
|
|
|
14.8 |
|
|
|
Long-term debt current potion
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
Discontinued operations current liabilities
|
|
|
57.7 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
248.9 |
|
|
|
167.6 |
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
32.9 |
|
|
|
42.0 |
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
Discontinued operations liabilities (liabilities subject
to compromise)
|
|
|
26.4 |
|
|
|
68.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
311.0 |
|
|
|
279.3 |
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
3,954.9 |
|
|
|
4,400.1 |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity (deficit):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $.01, authorized
125,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 79,680,645 and
79,671,531 shares
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,917.5 |
) |
|
|
(3,671.2 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(2,384.2 |
) |
|
|
(3,141.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,882.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-4
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars, | |
|
|
except share and per share | |
|
|
amounts) | |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
710.2 |
|
|
$ |
942.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,089.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
681.2 |
|
|
|
852.2 |
|
|
|
951.1 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
25.7 |
|
|
|
22.3 |
|
|
|
19.9 |
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
92.5 |
|
|
|
92.3 |
|
|
|
50.9 |
|
|
Other operating charges, net
|
|
|
141.6 |
|
|
|
793.2 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
941.0 |
|
|
|
1,760.0 |
|
|
|
1,029.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(230.8 |
) |
|
|
(817.6 |
) |
|
|
59.8 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded contractual interest
expense of $95.0 in 2003, 2004 and 2005)
|
|
|
(9.1 |
) |
|
|
(9.5 |
) |
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
(27.0 |
) |
|
|
(39.0 |
) |
|
|
(1,162.1 |
) |
|
Other net
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
(272.1 |
) |
|
|
(861.9 |
) |
|
|
(1,109.9 |
) |
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(2.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(273.6 |
) |
|
|
(868.1 |
) |
|
|
(1,112.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes,
including minority interests
|
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
(5.3 |
) |
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
Gain from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126.6 |
|
|
|
366.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
121.3 |
|
|
|
363.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(788.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share Basic/ Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(3.41 |
) |
|
$ |
(10.88 |
) |
|
$ |
(13.97 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
(6.42 |
) |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
|
$ |
4.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(9.83 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.36 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.46 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (000):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic/ Diluted
|
|
|
80,175 |
|
|
|
79,815 |
|
|
|
79,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-5
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(DEFICIT) AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other | |
|
|
|
|
Common | |
|
Additional | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
comprehensive | |
|
|
|
|
stock | |
|
capital | |
|
deficit | |
|
income (loss) | |
|
Total | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars) | |
BALANCE, December 31, 2002
|
|
$ |
.8 |
|
|
$ |
539.9 |
|
|
$ |
(1,382.4 |
) |
|
$ |
(243.9 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,085.6 |
) |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(788.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(788.3 |
) |
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138.6 |
|
|
|
138.6 |
|
|
Unrealized net decrease in value of derivative instruments
arising during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
Reclassification adjustment for net realized gains on derivative
instruments included in net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(652.3 |
) |
|
Restricted stock cancellations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
Restricted stock accretion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, December 31, 2003
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
539.1 |
|
|
|
(2,170.7 |
) |
|
|
(107.9 |
) |
|
|
(1,738.7 |
) |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(746.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(746.8 |
) |
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97.9 |
|
|
|
97.9 |
|
|
Unrealized net decrease in value of derivative instruments
arising during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for net realized losses on
derivative instruments included in net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(644.4 |
) |
|
Restricted stock cancellations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, December 31, 2004
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
(2,917.5 |
) |
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
(2,384.2 |
) |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(753.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(753.7 |
) |
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.2 |
) |
|
|
(3.2 |
) |
|
Unrealized net decrease in value of derivative instruments
arising during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
Reclassification adjustment for net realized gains on derivative
instruments included in net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(757.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
.8 |
|
|
$ |
538.0 |
|
|
$ |
(3,671.2 |
) |
|
$ |
(8.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,141.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-6
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars) | |
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(788.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
Less net (loss) income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
121.3 |
|
|
|
363.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss from continuing operations, including loss from
cumulative effect of adopting change in accounting in 2005
|
|
|
(273.6 |
) |
|
|
(868.1 |
) |
|
|
(1,117.4 |
) |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss from continuing operations to
net cash used by continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash charges in reorganization items in 2005 and other
operating charges in 2004 and 2003
|
|
|
161.7 |
|
|
|
805.3 |
|
|
|
1,131.5 |
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization (including deferred financing
costs of $4.7, $5.8 and $4.4, respectively)
|
|
|
30.4 |
|
|
|
28.1 |
|
|
|
24.3 |
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
Gains sale of Tacoma facility in 2003; sales of real
estate in 2005
|
|
|
(14.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
Equity in (income) loss of unconsolidated affiliate, net of
distributions
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in trade and other receivables
|
|
|
(13.3 |
) |
|
|
(30.5 |
) |
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in inventories, excluding LIFO adjustments
and other non-cash operating items
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
(24.5 |
) |
|
|
(9.4 |
) |
|
|
Decrease (increase) in prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued interest
|
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
16.4 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
Increase (decrease) in other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
9.8 |
|
|
|
(18.6 |
) |
|
|
(15.0 |
) |
|
|
Increase in payable to affiliates
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
(Decrease) increase in accrued and deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
(4.3 |
) |
|
|
Net cash impact of changes in long-term assets and liabilities
|
|
|
27.1 |
|
|
|
(11.5 |
) |
|
|
(25.0 |
) |
|
|
Net cash (used) provided by discontinued operations
|
|
|
(29.5 |
) |
|
|
64.0 |
|
|
|
17.9 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
(.4 |
) |
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used) provided by operating activities
|
|
|
(86.9 |
) |
|
|
(38.0 |
) |
|
|
16.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
|
|
(7.6 |
) |
|
|
(31.0 |
) |
|
Net proceeds from dispositions: interests in office building
complex in 2003, real estate and equipment in 2004, primarily
Tacoma facility and real estate in 2005
|
|
|
83.0 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by discontinued operations;
primarily proceeds from sale of Alpart-related capital
expenditures in 2003 and commodity interests in 2004 and 2005
|
|
|
(25.0 |
) |
|
|
356.7 |
|
|
|
401.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by investing activities
|
|
|
49.1 |
|
|
|
351.4 |
|
|
|
371.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing costs, primarily DIP Facility related
|
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
(3.7 |
) |
|
Repayment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7 |
) |
|
Increase in restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
Net cash used by discontinued operations; primarily increase in
restricted cash and payment of Alpart CARIFA loan of $14.6 in
2004 and increase in restricted cash in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(291.1 |
) |
|
|
(387.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used by financing activities
|
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
|
|
(293.5 |
) |
|
|
(394.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents during the
year
|
|
|
(41.9 |
) |
|
|
19.9 |
|
|
|
(5.9 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
77.4 |
|
|
|
35.5 |
|
|
|
55.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$ |
35.5 |
|
|
$ |
55.4 |
|
|
$ |
49.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of class flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest of $.2, $.1, and $.6
|
|
$ |
4.0 |
|
|
$ |
3.8 |
|
|
$ |
.7 |
|
|
Less interest paid by discontinued operations, net of
capitalized interest of $.9 in 2003
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
(.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.8 |
|
|
$ |
2.9 |
|
|
$ |
.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$ |
46.1 |
|
|
$ |
10.7 |
|
|
$ |
22.3 |
|
|
Less income taxes paid by discontinued operations
|
|
|
(41.3 |
) |
|
|
(10.7 |
) |
|
|
(18.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4.8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-7
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
Notes to consolidated financial statements
(In millions of dollars, except prices and per share
amounts)
NOTE 1 REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
Background
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (Kaiser, KAC
or the Company), its wholly owned subsidiary, Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (KACC), and
24 of KACCs subsidiaries filed separate voluntary
petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware (the Court) for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the
Code); the Company, KACC and 15 of KACCs
subsidiaries (the Original Debtors) filed in the
first quarter of 2002 and nine additional KACC subsidiaries (the
Additional Debtors) filed in the first quarter of
2003. In December 2005, four of the KACC subsidiaries were
dissolved pursuant to two separate plans of liquidation as more
fully discussed below. The Company, KACC and the remaining 20
KACC subsidiaries continue to manage their businesses in the
ordinary course as
debtors-in-possession
subject to the control and administration of the Court. The
Original Debtors and Additional Debtors are collectively
referred to herein as the Debtors and the
Chapter 11 proceedings of these entities are collectively
referred to herein as the Cases and the Company,
KACC and the remaining 20 KACC subsidiaries are collectively
referred to herein as the Reorganizing Debtors. For
purposes of this Report, the term Filing Date means,
with respect to any particular Debtor, the date on which such
Debtor filed its Case. None of KACCs
non-U.S. joint
ventures were included in the Cases.
During the first quarter of 2002, the Original Debtors filed
separate voluntary petitions for reorganization. The
wholly-owned subsidiaries of KACC included in such filings were:
Kaiser Bellwood Corporation (Bellwood), Kaiser
Aluminium International, Inc. (KAII), Kaiser
Aluminum Technical Services, Inc. (KATSI), Kaiser
Alumina Australia Corporation (KAAC) (and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Kaiser Finance Corporation
(KFC)) and ten other entities with limited balances
or activities.
The Original Debtors found it necessary to file the Cases
primarily because of liquidity and cash flow problems of the
Company and its subsidiaries that arose in late 2001 and early
2002. The Company was facing significant near-term debt
maturities at a time of unusually weak aluminum industry
business conditions, depressed aluminum prices and a broad
economic slowdown that was further exacerbated by the events of
September 11, 2001. In addition, the Company had become
increasingly burdened by asbestos litigation and growing legacy
obligations for retiree medical and pension costs. The
confluence of these factors created the prospect of continuing
operating losses and negative cash flows, resulting in lower
credit ratings and an inability to access the capital markets.
On January 14, 2003, the Additional Debtors filed separate
voluntary petitions for reorganization. The wholly-owned
subsidiaries included in such filings were: Kaiser Bauxite
Company (KBC), Kaiser Jamaica Corporation
(KJC), Alpart Jamaica Inc. (AJI), Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical of Canada Limited
(KACOCL) and five other entities with limited
balances or activities. Ancillary proceedings in respect of
KACOCL and two Additional Debtors were also commenced in Canada
simultaneously with the January 14, 2003 filings.
The Cases filed by the Additional Debtors were commenced, among
other reasons, to protect the assets held by these Debtors
against possible statutory liens that might have arisen and been
enforced by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) primarily as a result of the Companys
failure to meet a $17.0 accelerated funding requirement to its
salaried employee retirement plan in January 2003
F-8
Notes to consolidated financial statements
(see Note 9 for additional information regarding the
accelerated funding requirement). The filing of the Cases by the
Additional Debtors had no impact on the Companys
day-to-day operations.
The outstanding principal of, and accrued interest on, all debt
of the Debtors became immediately due and payable upon
commencement of the Cases. However, the vast majority of the
claims in existence at the Filing Date (including claims for
principal and accrued interest and substantially all legal
proceedings) are stayed (deferred) during the pendency of
the Cases. In connection with the filing of the Debtors
Cases, the Court, upon motion by the Debtors, authorized the
Debtors to pay or otherwise honor certain unsecured pre-Filing
Date claims, including employee wages and benefits and customer
claims in the ordinary course of business, subject to certain
limitations and to continue using the Companys existing
cash management systems. The Reorganizing Debtors also have the
right to assume or reject executory contracts existing prior to
the Filing Date, subject to Court approval and certain other
limitations. In this context, assumption means that
the Reorganizing Debtors agree to perform their obligations and
cure certain existing defaults under an executory contract and
rejection means that the Reorganizing Debtors are
relieved from their obligations to perform further under an
executory contract and are subject only to a claim for damages
for the breach thereof. Any claim for damages resulting from the
rejection of a pre-Filing Date executory contract is treated as
a general unsecured claim in the Cases.
Case administration
Generally, pre-Filing Date claims, including certain contingent
or unliquidated claims, against the Debtors will fall into two
categories: secured and unsecured. Under the Code, a
creditors claim is treated as secured only to the extent
of the value of the collateral securing such claim, with the
balance of such claim being treated as unsecured. Unsecured and
partially secured claims do not accrue interest after the Filing
Date. A fully secured claim, however, does accrue interest after
the Filing Date until the amount due and owing to the secured
creditor, including interest accrued after the Filing Date, is
equal to the value of the collateral securing such claim. The
bar dates (established by the Court) by which holders of
pre-Filing Date claims against the Debtors (other than
asbestos-related personal injury claims) could file their claims
have passed. Any holder of a claim that was required to file
such claim by such bar date and did not do so may be barred from
asserting such claim against any of the Debtors and,
accordingly, may not be able to participate in any distribution
in any of the Cases on account of such claim. The Company has
not yet completed its analysis of all of the proofs of claim to
determine their validity. However, during the course of the
Cases, certain matters in respect of the claims have been
resolved. Material provisions in respect of claim settlements
are included in the accompanying financial statements and are
fully disclosed elsewhere herein. The bar dates do not apply to
asbestos-related personal injury claims, for which no bar date
has been set.
Two creditors committees, one representing the unsecured
creditors (the UCC) and the other representing the
asbestos claimants (the ACC), have been appointed as
official committees in the Cases and, in accordance with the
provisions of the Code, have the right to be heard on all
matters that come before the Court. In August 2003, the Court
approved the appointment of a committee of salaried retirees
(the 1114 Committee and, together with the UCC and
the ACC, the Committees) with whom the Debtors
negotiated necessary changes, including the modification or
termination, of certain retiree benefits (such as medical and
insurance) under Section 1114 of the Code. The Committees,
together with the Court-appointed legal representatives for
(a) potential future asbestos claimants (the Asbestos
Futures Representative) and (b) potential
future silica and coal tar pitch volatile claimants (the
Silica/CTPV Futures Representative and,
collectively with the Asbestos Futures Representative, the
Futures Representatives), have played and will
continue to play important roles in the Cases and in the
negotiation of the terms of any plan or plans of reorganization.
F-9
Notes to consolidated financial statements
The Debtors are required to bear certain costs and expenses for
the Committees and the Futures Representatives, including
those of their counsel and other advisors.
Commodity-related and inactive subsidiaries
As previously disclosed, the Company generated net cash proceeds
of approximately $686.8 from the sale of its interests in and
related to Queensland Alumina Limited (QAL) and
Alumina Partners of Jamaica (Alpart). The
Companys interests in and related to QAL were owned by
KAAC and KFC. The Companys interests in and related to
Alpart were owned by AJI and KJC. Throughout 2005, the proceeds
were being held in separate escrow accounts pending distribution
to the creditors of AJI, KJC, KAAC and KFC (collectively the
Liquidating Subsidiaries) pursuant to certain
liquidating plans.
During November 2004, the Liquidating Subsidiaries filed
separate joint plans of liquidation and related disclosure
statements with the Court. Such plans, together with the
disclosure statements and all amendments filed thereto, are
referred to as the Liquidating Plans. In general,
the Liquidating Plans provided for the vast majority of the net
sale proceeds to be distributed to the PBGC and the holders of
KACCs
97/8%
and
107/8% Senior
Notes (the Senior Notes) and claims with priority
status.
As previously disclosed in 2004, a group of holders (the
Sub Note Group) of KACCs
123/4% Senior
Subordinated Notes (the Sub Notes) formed an
unofficial committee to represent all holders of Sub Notes and
retained its own legal counsel. The Sub Note Group asserted
that the Sub Note holders claims against the subsidiary
guarantors (and in particular the Liquidating Subsidiaries) may
not, as a technical matter, be contractually subordinated to the
claims of the holders of the Senior Notes against the subsidiary
guarantors (including AJI, KJC, KAAC and KFC). A separate group
that holds both Sub Notes and Senior Notes made a similar
assertion, but also, maintained that a portion of the claims of
holders of Senior Notes against the subsidiary guarantors were
contractually senior to the claims of holders of Sub Notes
against the subsidiary guarantors. The effect of such positions,
if ultimately sustained, would be that the holders of Sub Notes
would be on a par with all or portion of the holders of the
Senior Notes in respect of proceeds from sales of the
Companys interests in and related to the Liquidating
Subsidiaries.
The Court ultimately approved the disclosure statements related
to the Liquidating Plans in February 2005. In April 2005, voting
results on the Liquidating Plans were filed with the Court by
the Debtors claims agent. Based on these results, the
Court determined that a sufficient volume of creditors (in
number and amount) had voted to accept the Liquidating Plans to
permit confirmation proceedings with respect to the Liquidating
Plans to go forward even though the filing by the claims agent
also indicated that holders of the Sub Notes, as a group, voted
not to accept the Liquidating Plans. Accordingly, the Court
conducted a series of evidentiary hearings to determine the
allocation of distributions among holders of the Senior Notes
and the Sub Notes. In connection with those proceedings, the
Court also determined that there could be an allocation to the
Parish of St. James, State of Louisiana, Solid Waste Revenue
Bonds (the Revenue Bonds) of up to $8.0 and ruled
against the position asserted by the separate group that holds
both Senior Notes and the Sub Notes.
On December 20, 2005, the Court confirmed the Liquidating
Plans (subject to certain modifications). Pursuant to the
Courts order, the Liquidating Subsidiaries were authorized
to make partial cash distributions to certain of their
creditors, while reserving sufficient amounts for future
distributions until the Court resolved the contractual
subordination dispute among the creditors of these subsidiaries
and for the payment of administrative and priority claims and
trust expenses. The Courts ruling did not resolve the
dispute between the holders of the Senior Notes and the holders
of the Sub Notes
F-10
Notes to consolidated financial statements
(more fully described below) regarding their respective
entitlement to certain of the proceeds from sale of interests by
the Liquidating Subsidiaries (the Senior Note-Sub Note
Dispute). However, as a result of the Courts
approval, all restricted cash or other assets held on behalf of
or by the Liquidating Subsidiaries were transferred to a trustee
in accordance with the terms of the Liquidating Plans. The
trustee was then authorized to make partial cash distributions
after setting aside sufficient reserves for amounts subject to
the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute (approximately $213.0) and for
the payment of administrative and priority claims and trust
expenses (approximately $40.0). After such reserves, the partial
distribution totaled approximately $430.0, of which, pursuant to
the Liquidating Plans, approximately $196.0 was paid to the PBGC
and $202.0 amount was paid to the indenture trustees for the
Senior Notes for subsequent distribution to the holders of the
Senior Notes. Of the remaining partial distribution,
approximately $21.0 was paid to KACC and $11.0 was paid to the
PBGC on behalf of KACC. Partial distributions were made in late
December 2005 and, in connection with the effectiveness of the
Liquidating Plans, the Liquidating Subsidiaries were deemed to
be dissolved and took the actions necessary to dissolve and
terminate their corporate existence.
On December 22, 2005, the Court issued a decision in
connection with the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute, finding in
favor of the Senior Notes. On January 10, 2006, the Court
held a hearing on a motion by the indenture trustee for the Sub
Notes to stay distribution of the amounts reserved under the
Liquidating Plans in respect of the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute
pending appeals in respect of the Courts December 22,
2005 decision that the Sub Notes were contractually subordinate
to the Senior Notes in regard to certain subsidiary guarantors
(particularly the Liquidating Subsidiaries) and that certain
parties were not due certain reimbursements. An agreement was
reached at the hearing and subsequently approved by Court order
dated March 7, 2006, authorizing the trustee to distribute
the amounts reserved to the indenture trustees for the Senior
Notes and further authorize the indenture trustees to make
distributions to holders of the Senior Notes while such appeals
proceed, in each case subject to the terms and conditions stated
in the order.
Based on the objections and pleadings filed by the Sub Note
Group and the group that holds Sub Notes and the Senior Notes
and the assumptions and estimates upon which the Liquidating
Plans are based, if the holders of Sub Notes were ultimately to
prevail on their appeal, the Liquidating Plans indicated that it
is possible that the holders of the Sub Notes could receive
between approximately $67.0 and approximately $215.0 depending
on whether the Sub Notes were determined to rank on par with a
portion or all of the Senior Notes. Conversely, if the holders
of the Senior Notes prevail on appeal, then the holders of the
Sub Notes will receive no distributions under Liquidating Plans.
The Company believes that the intent of the indentures in
respect of the Senior Notes and the Sub Notes was to subordinate
the claims of the Sub Note holders in respect of the subsidiary
guarantors (including the Liquidating Subsidiaries) and that the
Courts ruling on December 22, 2005, was correct. The
Company cannot predict, however, the ultimate resolution of the
matters raised by the Sub Note Group, or the other group,
on appeal, when any such resolution will occur, or what impact
any such resolution may have on the Company, the Cases or
distributions to affected note holders.
The distributions in respect of the Liquidating Plans also
settled substantially all amounts due between KACC and the
creditors of the Liquidating Subsidiaries pursuant to the
Intercompany Settlement Agreement (the Intercompany
Agreement) that went into affect in February 2005 other
than certain payments of alternative minimum tax paid by the
Company that it expects to recoup from the liquidating trust for
the KAAC and KFC joint plan of liquidation (the KAAC/ KFC
Plan) during the second half of 2006 in connection with a
2005 tax return (see Note 8). The Intercompany Agreement
also resolved substantially all pre- and post-petition
intercompany claims among the Debtors.
KBC is being dealt with in the KACC plan of reorganization as
more fully discussed below.
F-11
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Entities containing the fabricated products and certain other
operations
Under the Code, claims of individual creditors must generally be
satisfied from the assets of the entity against which that
creditor has a lawful claim. The claims against the entities
containing the Fabricated products and certain other operations
have to be resolved from the available assets of KACC, KACOCL,
and Bellwood, which generally include the fabricated products
plants and their working capital, the interests in and related
to Anglesey Aluminium Limited (Anglesey) and
proceeds received by such entities from the Liquidating
Subsidiaries under the Intercompany Agreement. Sixteen of the
Reorganizing Debtors have no material ongoing activities or
operations and have no material assets or liabilities other than
intercompany claims (which were resolved pursuant to the
Intercompany Agreement). The Company has previously disclosed
that it believed that it is likely that most of these entities
will ultimately be merged out of existence or dissolved in some
manner.
In June 2005, KAC, KACC, Bellwood and KACOCL and 17 of
KACCs subsidiaries (i.e., the Reorganizing Debtors) filed
a plan of reorganization and related disclosure statement with
the Court. Following an interim filing in August 2005, in
September 2005, the Reorganizing Debtors filed amended plans of
reorganization (as modified, the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan) and related amended disclosure statements (the
Kaiser Aluminum Amended Disclosure Statement) with
the Court. In December 2005, with the consent of creditors and
the Court, KBC was added to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan.
The Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan, in general (subject to the
further conditions precedent as outlined below), resolves
substantially all pre-Filing Date liabilities of the Remaining
Debtors under a single joint plan of reorganization. In summary,
the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan provides for the following
principal elements:
|
|
|
(a) All of the equity interests of
existing stockholders of the Company would be cancelled without
consideration. |
|
|
(b) All post-petition and secured
claims would either be assumed by the emerging entity or paid at
emergence (see Exit Cost discussion below). |
|
|
(c) Pursuant to agreements reached
with salaried and hourly retirees in early 2004, in
consideration for the agreed cancellation of the retiree medical
plan, as more fully discussed in Note 9, KACC is making
certain fixed monthly payments into Voluntary Employee
Beneficiary Associations (VEBAs) until emergence and
has agreed thereafter to make certain variable annual VEBA
contributions depending on the emerging entitys operating
results and financial liquidity. In addition, upon emergence the
VEBAs are entitled to receive a contribution of 66.9% of the new
common stock of the emerged entity. |
|
|
(d) The PBGC will receive a cash
payment of $2.5 and 10.8% of the new common stock of the emerged
entity in respect of its claims against KACOCL. In addition, as
described in (f) below, the PBGC will receive shares of new
common stock based on its direct claims against the Remaining
Debtors (other than KACOCL) and its participation, indirectly
through the KAAC/ KFC Plan in claims of KFC against KACC, which
the Company currently estimates will result in the PBGC
receiving an additional 5.4% of the new common stock of the
emerged entity (bringing the PBGCs total ownership
percentage of the new entity to approximately 16.2%). The $2.5
cash payment discussed above is in addition to the cash amounts
the Company has already paid the PBGC (see Note 9) and that
the PBGC has received and will receive from the Liquidating
Subsidiaries under the Liquidating Plans. |
F-12
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
(e) Pursuant to an agreement
reached in early 2005, all pending and future asbestos-related
personal injury claims, all pending and future silica and coal
tar pitch volatiles personal injury claims and all hearing loss
claims would be resolved through the formation of one or more
trusts to which all such claims would be directed by channeling
injunctions that would permanently remove all liability for such
claims from the Debtors. The trusts would be funded pursuant to
statutory requirements and agreements with representatives of
the affected parties, using (i) the Debtors insurance
assets, (ii) $13.0 in cash from KACC, (iii) 100% of
the equity in a KACC subsidiary whose sole asset will be a piece
of real property that produces modest rental income, and
(iv) the new common stock of the emerged entity to be
issued as per (f) below in respect of approximately $830.0
of intercompany claims of KFC against KACC that are to be
assigned to the trust, which the Company currently estimates
will entitle the trusts to receive approximately 6.4% of the new
common stock of the emerged entity. |
|
|
(f) Other pre-petition general
unsecured claims against the Remaining Debtors (other than
KACOCL) are entitled to receive approximately 22.3% of the new
common stock of the emerging entity in the proportion that their
allowed claim bears to the total amount of allowed claims.
Claims that are expected to be within this group include
(i) any claims of the Senior Notes, the Sub Notes and PBGC
(other than the PBGCs claim against KACOCL), (ii) the
approximate $830.0 of intercompany claims that will be assigned
to the personal injury trust(s) referred to in (e) above,
and (iii) all unsecured trade and other general unsecured
claims, including approximately $276.0 of intercompany claims of
KFC against KACC. However, holders of general unsecured claims
not exceeding a specified small amount will receive a cash
payment equal to approximately 2.9% of their agreed claim value
in lieu of new common stock. In accordance with the contractual
subordination provisions of the indenture governing the Sub
Notes and terms of the settlement between the holders of the
Senior Notes and the holders of the Revenue Bonds, the new
common stock or cash that would otherwise be distributed to the
holders of the Sub Notes in respect of their claims against the
Debtors would instead be distributed to holders of the Senior
Notes and the Revenue Bonds on a pro rata basis based on the
relative allowed amounts of their claims. |
The Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan was accepted by all classes of
creditors entitled to vote on it and the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan was confirmed by the Court on February 6, 2006. The
confirmation order remains subject to motions for review and
appeals filed by certain of KACCs insurers and must still
be adopted or affirmed by the United States District Court.
Other significant conditions to emergence include completion of
the Companys exit financing, listing of the new common
stock on the NASDAQ stock market and formation of certain trusts
for the benefit of different groups of torts claimants. As
provided in the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan, once the
Courts confirmation order is adopted or affirmed by the
United States District Court, even if the affirmation order is
appealed, the Company can proceed to emerge if the United States
District Court does not stay its order adopting or affirming the
confirmation order and the key constituents in the
Chapter 11 proceedings agree. Assuming the United States
District Court adopts or affirms the confirmation order, the
Company believes that it is possible that it will emerge before
May 11, 2006. No assurances can be given that the
Courts confirmation order will ultimately be adopted or
affirmed by the United States District Court or that the
transactions contemplated by the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan
will ultimately be consummated.
At emergence from Chapter 11, the Reorganizing Debtors will
have to pay or otherwise provide for a material amount of
claims. Such claims include accrued but unpaid professional
fees, priority pension, tax and environmental claims, secured
claims, and certain post-petition obligations (collectively,
Exit Costs). The Company currently estimates that
its Exit Costs will be in the range of $45.0 to $60.0.
F-13
Notes to consolidated financial statements
The Company currently expects to fund such Exit Costs using
existing cash resources and borrowing availability under an exit
financing facility that would replace the current Post-Petition
Credit Agreement (see Note 7). If funding from existing
cash resources and borrowing availability under an exit
financing facility are not sufficient to pay or otherwise
provide for all Exit Costs, the Company and KACC will not be
able to emerge from Chapter 11 unless and until sufficient
funding can be obtained. Management believes it will be able to
successfully resolve any issues that may arise in respect of an
exit financing facility or be able to negotiate a reasonable
alternative. However, no assurance can be given in this regard.
Financial statement presentation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been
prepared in accordance with American Institute of Certified
Professional Accountants (AICPA) Statement of
Position 90-7
(SOP 90-7),
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code, and on a going concern basis, which
contemplates the realization of assets and the liquidation of
liabilities in the ordinary course of business. However, as a
result of the Cases, such realization of assets and liquidation
of liabilities are subject to a significant number of
uncertainties.
Upon emergence from the Cases, the Company expects to apply
fresh start accounting to its consolidated financial
statements as required by
SOP 90-7. Fresh
start accounting is required if: (1) a debtors
liabilities are determined to be in excess of its assets and
(2) there will be a greater than 50% change in the equity
ownership of the entity. As previously disclosed, the Company
expects both such circumstances to apply. As such, upon
emergence, the Company will restate its balance sheet to equal
the reorganization value as determined in its plan(s) of
reorganization and approved by the Court. Additionally, items
such as accumulated depreciation, accumulated deficit and
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) will be reset to
zero. The Company will allocate the reorganization value to its
individual assets and liabilities based on their estimated fair
value at the emergence date. Typically such items as current
liabilities, accounts receivable, and cash will be reflected at
values similar to those reported prior to emergence. Items such
as inventory, property, plant and equipment, long-term assets
and long-term liabilities are more likely to be significantly
adjusted from amounts previously reported. Because fresh start
accounting will be adopted at emergence and because of the
significance of liabilities subject to compromise (that will be
relieved upon emergence), comparisons between the current
historical financial statements and the financial statements
upon emergence may be difficult to make.
Financial information
Under SOP 90-7
disclosures are required to distinguish the balance sheet,
income statement and cash flows amounts in the consolidated
financial statements between Debtors and non-Debtors. The vast
majority of financial information included in the consolidated
financial statements relates to Debtors. Condensed combined
financial information of the non-debtor subsidiaries included in
the consolidated financial statements is set forth below.
F-14
Notes to consolidated financial statements
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
December 31, 2004 and 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Current assets
|
|
$ |
2.1 |
|
|
$ |
2.3 |
|
Intercompany receivables (payables),
net(1)
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6.6 |
|
|
$ |
6.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities not subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
$ |
3.2 |
|
|
$ |
3.9 |
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
Stockholders equity
(deficit)(1)
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6.6 |
|
|
$ |
6.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Intercompany receivables (payables), net and
stockholders equity (deficit) amounts are eliminated
in consolidation. |
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS)
For the year ended December 31, 2003, 2004, and 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses
|
|
$ |
.7 |
|
|
$ |
.5 |
|
|
$ |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(.7 |
) |
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
All other income (expense), net
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.6 |
|
|
|
.4 |
|
Income tax and minority interests
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income of subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(.4 |
) |
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
Discontinued
operations(1)
|
|
|
(32.0 |
) |
|
|
(58.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(32.4 |
) |
|
$ |
(58.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In 2003 and 2004, the combined non-debtor subsidiary
financial information included amounts attributed to Volta
Aluminium Company Limited (Valco) and Alpart that
were sold in 2004 (see Note 3). Non-debtor subsidiary
activity in 2005 was nominal. |
F-15
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Condensed consolidating statements of cash flows
For the year ended December 31, 2003, 2004, and 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Net cash provided (used) by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(.2 |
) |
|
$ |
(.3 |
) |
|
Discontinued
operations(1)
|
|
|
27.3 |
|
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26.6 |
|
|
|
17.8 |
|
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued
operations(1)
|
|
|
(26.5 |
) |
|
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26.5 |
) |
|
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued
operations(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
(.3 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period
|
|
$ |
.1 |
|
|
$ |
.4 |
|
|
$ |
.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In 2003 and 2004, the combined non-debtor subsidiary
financial information included amounts attributed to Volta
Aluminium Company Limited (Valco) and Alpart that
were sold in 2004 (see Note 3). Non-debtor subsidiary
activity in 2005 was nominal. |
Classification of liabilities as liabilities not
subject to compromise versus liabilities subject to
compromise.
Liabilities not subject to compromise include:
(1) liabilities incurred after the Filing Date of the
Cases; (2) pre-Filing Date liabilities that the
Reorganizing Debtors expect to pay in full, including priority
tax and employee claims and certain environmental liabilities,
even though certain of these amounts may not be paid until a
plan of reorganization is approved; and (3) pre-Filing Date
liabilities that have been approved for payment by the Court and
that the Reorganizing Debtors expect to pay (in advance of a
plan of reorganization) over the next twelve-month period in the
ordinary course of business, including certain employee related
items (salaries, vacation and medical benefits), claims subject
to a currently existing collective bargaining agreement, and
certain postretirement medical and other costs associated with
retirees.
Liabilities subject to compromise refer to all other pre-Filing
Date liabilities of the Reorganizing Debtors. The amounts of the
various categories of liabilities that are subject to compromise
are set forth below. These amounts represent the Companys
estimates of known or probable pre-Filing Date claims that are
likely to be resolved in connection with the Cases. Such claims
remain subject to future adjustments. Further, it is expected
that pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan, substantially
all pre-Filing Date claims will be settled at less than 100% of
their face value and the equity interests of the Companys
stockholders will be cancelled without consideration.
F-16
Notes to consolidated financial statements
The amounts subject to compromise at December 31, 2004 and
2005 consisted of the following items:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Accrued postretirement medical obligation (Note 9)
|
|
$ |
1,042.1 |
|
|
$ |
1,017.0 |
|
Accrued asbestos and certain other personal injury liabilities
(Note 11)
|
|
|
1,115.0 |
|
|
|
1,115.0 |
|
Assigned intercompany claims for benefit of certain creditors
(see Reorganization Items below)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,131.5 |
|
Debt (Note 7)
|
|
|
847.6 |
|
|
|
847.6 |
|
Accrued pension benefits (Note 9)
|
|
|
625.7 |
|
|
|
626.2 |
|
Unfair labor practice settlement (Note 11)
|
|
|
175.0 |
|
|
|
175.0 |
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
29.8 |
|
|
|
29.8 |
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
47.5 |
|
|
|
44.7 |
|
Accrued environmental liabilities (Note 11)
|
|
|
30.6 |
|
|
|
30.7 |
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
41.6 |
|
|
|
37.2 |
|
Proceeds from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(654.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,954.9 |
|
|
$ |
4,400.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Other accrued liabilities include hearing loss claims of
$15.8 at December 31, 2004 and 2005 (see Note 11). |
|
(2) |
The above amounts exclude $26.4 at December 31, 2004 and
$68.5 at December 31, 2005 of liabilities subject to
compromise related to discontinued operations. The increase
between 2004 and 2005 primarily relates to a $42.1 claim
settlement in the fourth quarter of 2005 (see Note 3). The
balance of the amounts at December 31, 2004 and 2005 were
primarily accounts payable. |
The classification of liabilities not subject to
compromise versus liabilities subject to
compromise is based on currently available information and
analysis. As the Cases proceed and additional information and
analysis is completed or, as the Court rules on relevant
matters, the classification of amounts between these two
categories may change. The amount of any such changes could be
significant. Additionally, as the Company evaluates the proofs
of claim filed in the Cases, adjustments will be made for those
claims that the Company believes will probably be allowed by the
Court. The amount of such claims could be significant.
Reorganization items
Reorganization items under the Cases are expense or income items
that are incurred or realized by the Company because it is in
reorganization. These items include, but are not limited to,
professional fees and similar types of expenses incurred
directly related to the Cases, loss accruals or gains or losses
resulting from activities of the reorganization process, and
interest earned on cash accumulated by the
F-17
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Debtors because they are not paying their pre-Filing Date
liabilities. For the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004
and 2005, reorganization items were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Professional fees
|
|
$ |
27.5 |
|
|
$ |
39.0 |
|
|
$ |
35.2 |
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(.8 |
) |
|
|
(.8 |
) |
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
Assigned intercompany claims for benefit of certain creditors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,131.5 |
|
Other
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
27.0 |
|
|
$ |
39.0 |
|
|
$ |
1,162.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As discussed above, pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan
for purposes of determining distributions under the Kaiser
Aluminum Amendment Plan, the value associated with an
intercompany note payable by KACC to KFC of approximately
$1,131.5 will be treated as being for the benefit of certain
creditor constituents (see (e) and (f) above). Prior to the
implementation of the Liquidating Plans, the intercompany note
payable between KACC and KFC eliminated in consolidation.
However, since the Liquidating Plans were implemented in
December 2005, the value associated with the intercompany note
payable is now treated in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as a third-party obligation. As such, the
Company recorded a Reorganization charge associated with
implementation of the Liquidating Plans of $1,131.5 in the
fourth quarter of 2005 and an increase in Liabilities subject to
compromise.
|
|
NOTE 2 |
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
Going concern
The consolidated financial statements of the Company have been
prepared on a going concern basis which contemplates
the realization of assets and the liquidation of liabilities in
the ordinary course of business; however, as a result of the
commencement of the Cases, such realization of assets and
liquidation of liabilities are subject to a significant number
of uncertainties. Specifically, the consolidated financial
statements do not include all of the necessary adjustments to
present: (a) the realizable value of assets on a
liquidation basis or the availability of such assets to satisfy
liabilities, (b) the amount which will ultimately be paid
to settle liabilities and contingencies which may be allowed in
the Cases, or (c) the effect of any changes which may be
made in connection with the Reorganizing Debtors
capitalizations or operations as a result of the Kaiser Aluminum
Amended Plan. Because of the ongoing nature of the Cases, the
discussions and consolidated financial statements contained
herein are subject to material uncertainties.
Additionally, as discussed above (see Financial Statement
Presentation ), the Company believes that it would, upon
emergence, apply fresh start accounting to its consolidated
financial statements which would also adversely impact the
comparability of the December 31, 2005 financial statements
to the financial statements of the entity upon emergence.
Principles of consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the statements of
the Company and its majority owned subsidiaries. The Company is
a subsidiary of MAXXAM Inc. (MAXXAM) and conducts
its operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary, KACC.
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles requires the use of
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities,
F-18
Notes to consolidated financial statements
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities known to exist
as of the date the financial statements are published, and the
reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting
period. Uncertainties, with respect to such estimates and
assumptions, are inherent in the preparation of the
Companys consolidated financial statements; accordingly,
it is possible that the actual results could differ from these
estimates and assumptions, which could have a material effect on
the reported amounts of the Companys consolidated
financial position and results of operation.
Investments in 50%-or-less-owned entities are accounted for
primarily by the equity method. Intercompany balances and
transactions are eliminated.
Recognition of sales
Sales are recognized when title, ownership and risk of loss pass
to the buyer. A provision for estimated sales returns and
allowances from customers is made in the same period as the
related revenues are recognized, based on historical experience
or the specific identification of an event necessitating a
reserve.
Earnings per share
Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing the weighted
average number of common shares outstanding during the period,
including the weighted average impact of the shares of common
stock issued during the year from the date(s) of issuance.
However, earnings per share may not be meaningful, because as a
part of a plan of reorganization for the Company, it is likely
that the equity interests of the Companys existing
stockholders are expected to be cancelled without consideration
pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan.
Cash and cash equivalents
The Company considers only those short-term, highly liquid
investments with original maturities of 90 days or less
when purchased to be cash equivalents.
Inventories
Substantially all product inventories are stated at last-in,
first-out (LIFO) cost, not in excess of market
value. Other inventories, principally operating supplies and
repair and maintenance parts, are stated at the lower of average
cost or market. Inventory costs consist of material, labor, and
manufacturing overhead, including depreciation. Inventories,
after deducting inventories related to discontinued operations,
consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Fabricated products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finished products
|
|
$ |
23.3 |
|
|
$ |
34.7 |
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
42.2 |
|
|
|
43.1 |
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
|
27.9 |
|
|
|
26.3 |
|
|
Operating, repairs and maintenance parts
|
|
|
11.8 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105.2 |
|
|
|
115.2 |
|
Commodities Primary aluminum
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
105.3 |
|
|
$ |
115.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-19
Notes to consolidated financial statements
The above table excludes commodities inventories related to
discontinued operations of $113.7 in 2003 and $8.8 in 2004.
Inventories related to discontinued operations in 2004 were
reduced by a net charge of $1.2 to write down certain alumina
inventories to their estimated net realizable value as a result
of the Companys sale of its interests in and related to
Valco (Note 5).
Inventories were reduced by LIFO inventory charges of $3.2,
$12.1 and $9.3 during the years ended December 31, 2003,
2004 and 2005, respectively. These amounts exclude LIFO
inventory charges related to discontinued operations of $3.4 in
2003 and $1.6 in 2004.
Depreciation
Depreciation is computed principally by the straight-line method
at rates based on the estimated useful lives of the various
classes of assets. The principal estimated useful lives of land
improvements, buildings, and machinery and equipment are 8 to
25 years, 15 to 45 years, and 10 to 22 years,
respectively. As more fully discussed in Note 1, upon
emergence from the Cases, the Company expects to apply
fresh start accounting to its consolidated financial
statements as required by
SOP 90-7. As a
result, accumulated depreciation will be reset to zero. With the
allocation of the reorganization value to the individual assets
and liabilities, it is possible that future depreciation will
differ from historical depreciation.
Stock-based compensation
The Company applies the intrinsic value method to account for a
stock-based compensation plan whereby compensation cost is
recognized only to the extent that the quoted market price of
the stock at the measurement date exceeds the amount an employee
must pay to acquire the stock. No compensation cost has been
recognized for this plan as the exercise price of the stock
options granted in 2001 were at or above the market price. No
stock options have been granted since 2001. The pro forma
after-tax effect of the estimated fair value of the grants would
have increased the net loss in 2003 and 2004 by $.4 and $.3,
respectively and would have had no effect on the net loss in
2005. The pro forma after tax effect of the estimated fair value
of the grants would have resulted in no change in the
basic/diluted income (loss) per share for 2003, 2004, and 2005.
The fair value of the 2001 stock option grants were estimated
using a Black-Scholes option pricing model.
The pro forma effect of the estimated value of stock options may
not be meaningful, because as a part of a plan of reorganization
for the Company, it is likely the equity interests of the
holders of outstanding options are expected to be cancelled
without consideration pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan.
F-20
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Other income (expense)
Amounts included in Other income (expense) in 2003, 2004 and
2005, other than interest expense and reorganization items,
included the following pre-tax gains (losses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Gains on sale of real estate and miscellaneous equipment
associated with properties with no operations (Note 5)
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1.8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Settlement of outstanding obligations of former affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Asbestos and personal injury-related charges (Note 11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Adjustment to environmental liabilities (Note 11)
|
|
|
(7.5 |
) |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
All other, net
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(5.2 |
) |
|
$ |
4.2 |
|
|
$ |
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above table excludes pre-tax gains (losses), net related to
discontinued operations of $(1.3) in 2003, $1.0 in 2004, and
$(.1) in 2005.
Deferred financing costs
Costs incurred to obtain debt financing are deferred and
amortized over the estimated term of the related borrowing. Such
amortization is included in Interest expense. As a result of the
Cases, the unamortized portion of the deferred financing costs
related to the Debtors unsecured debt was expensed on the
Filing Date (see Note 1).
Goodwill
The Company reviews goodwill for impairment at least annually in
the fourth quarter of each year. As of December 31, 2005,
goodwill (related to the Fabricated products business unit) was
approximately $11.4. With the allocation of the reorganization
value to the individual assets and liabilities (see
Note 1), it is possible that the goodwill amount will
change.
Foreign currency
The Company uses the United States dollar as the functional
currency for its foreign operations.
Derivative financial instruments
Hedging transactions using derivative financial instruments are
primarily designed to mitigate KACCs exposure to changes
in prices for certain of the products which KACC sells and
consumes and, to a lesser extent, to mitigate KACCs
exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. KACC
does not utilize derivative financial instruments for trading or
other speculative purposes. KACCs derivative activities
are initiated within guidelines established by management and
approved by KACCs board of directors. Hedging transactions
are executed centrally on behalf of all of KACCs business
segments to minimize transaction costs, monitor consolidated net
exposures and allow for increased responsiveness to changes in
market factors.
The Company recognizes all derivative instruments as assets or
liabilities in the balance sheet and measures those instruments
at fair value by marking-to-market all of its
hedging positions at each period-end (see Note 12). Changes
in the market value of the Companys open hedging positions
F-21
Notes to consolidated financial statements
resulting from the mark-to-market process represent unrealized
gains or losses. Such unrealized gains or losses will fluctuate,
based on prevailing market prices at each subsequent balance
sheet date, until the transaction date occurs. These changes are
recorded as an increase or reduction in stockholders
equity through either other comprehensive income
(OCI) or net income, depending on the facts and
circumstances with respect to the hedge and its documentation.
If the derivative transaction qualifies for hedge
(deferral) treatment under Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities
(SFAS No. 133), the changes are
recorded initially in OCI. Such changes reverse out of OCI
(offset by any fluctuations in other open positions)
and are recorded in net income (included in Net sales or Cost of
products sold, as applicable) when the subsequent physical
transactions occur. To the extent that derivative transactions
do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the changes in
market value are recorded in net income. In order to qualify for
hedge accounting treatment, the derivative transaction must meet
criteria established by SFAS No. 133. Even if the
derivative transaction meets the SFAS No. 133
criteria, the Company must also comply with a number of highly
complex documentation requirements, which, if not met, result in
the derivative transaction being precluded from being treated as
a hedge (i.e., it must then be
marked-to-market)
unless and until such documentation is modified and determined
to be in accordance with SFAS No. 133. Additionally,
if the level of physical transactions ever falls below the net
exposure hedged, hedge accounting must be terminated
for such excess hedges. In such an instance, the
mark-to-market changes
on such excess hedges would be recorded in the income statement
rather than in OCI.
As more fully discussed in Note 16, in connection with the
Companys preparation of its December 31, 2005
financial statements, the Company concluded that its derivative
financial instruments did not meet certain specific derivative
criteria in SFAS No. 133 and, as such, the Company has
restated its prior quarter results and has marked all of its
derivatives to market in 2005. The change in accounting for
derivative contracts was related to the form of the
Companys documentation in respect of derivatives contracts
it enters into to reduce exposures to changes in prices for
primary aluminum and energy and in respect of foreign exchange
rates. The Company determined that its hedging documentation did
not meet the strict documentation standards established by
SFAS No. 133. More specifically, the Companys
documentation did not comply with the SFAS No. 133 was
in respect to the Companys methods for testing and
supporting that changes in the market value of the hedging
transactions would correlate with fluctuations in the value of
the forecasted transaction to which they relate. The Company had
documented that the derivatives it was using would qualify for
the short cut method whereby regular assessments of
correlation would not be required. However, it ultimately
concluded that, while the terms of the derivatives were
essentially the same as the forecasted transaction, they were
not identical and, therefore, the Company should have done
certain mathematical computations to prove the ongoing
correlation of changes in value of the hedge and the forecasted
transaction. As a result, under SFAS No. 133, the
Company de-designated its open derivative
transactions and reflected fluctuations in the market value of
such derivative transactions in its results each period rather
than deferring the effects until the forecasted transaction (to
which the hedges relate) occur. The effect on the first three
quarters of 2005 as a result of marking the derivatives to
market each quarter rather than deferring gains/losses was to
increase Cost of products sold and decrease Operating income by
$2.0, $1.5 and $1.0, respectively.
The rules provide that, once de-designation has occurred, the
Company can modify its documentation and re-designate the
derivative transactions as hedges and, if
appropriately documented, re-qualify the transactions for
prospectively deferring changes in market fluctuations after
such corrections are made. The Company is working to modify its
documentation and to re-qualify open and post 2005
F-22
Notes to consolidated financial statements
hedging transactions for treatment as hedges beginning in the
second quarter of 2006. However, no assurances can be provided
in this regard.
In general, material fluctuations in OCI and Stockholders
equity will occur in periods of price volatility, despite the
fact that the Companys cash flow and earnings will be
fixed to the extent hedged. This result is contrary
to the intent of the Companys hedging program, which is to
lock-in a price (or range of prices) for products
sold/used so that earnings and cash flows are subject to reduced
risk of volatility.
Fair value of financial instruments
Given the fact that the fair value of substantially all of the
Companys outstanding indebtedness will be determined as
part of the plan of reorganization, it is impracticable and
inappropriate to estimate the fair value of these financial
instruments at December 31, 2004 and 2005.
Asset retirement obligations
Effective December 31, 2005, the Company adopted FASB
Interpretation No. 47 (FIN 47),
Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations,
an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143
(SFAS No. 143) retroactive to the
beginning of 2005. Pursuant to SFAS No. 143 and
FIN 47, companies are required to estimate incremental
costs for special handling, removal and disposal costs of
materials that may or will give rise to conditional asset
retirement obligations (CAROs) and then discount the
expected costs back to the current year using a credit adjusted
risk free rate. Under the guidelines clarified in FIN 47,
liabilities and costs for CAROs must be recognized in a
companys financial statements even if it is unclear when
or if the CARO may/will be triggered. If it is unclear when or
if a CARO will be triggered, companies are required to use
probability weighting for possible timing scenarios to determine
the probability weighted amounts that should be recognized in
the companys financial statements. The Company has
evaluated FIN 47 and determined that it has CAROs at
several of its fabricated products facilities. The vast majority
of such CAROs consist of incremental costs that would be
associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of
which is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within
walls, floors, ceilings or piping) of certain of the older
plants if such plants were to undergo major renovation or be
demolished. No plans currently exist for any such renovation or
demolition of such facilities and the Companys current
assessment is that the most probable scenarios are that no such
CARO would be triggered for 20 or more years, if at all.
Nonetheless, consistent with the guidelines of FIN 47, the
retroactive application of FIN 47 resulted in the Company
recognizing the following in the fourth quarter of 2005:
(i) a charge of approximately $2.0 reflecting the
cumulative earnings impact of adopting FIN 47 (set out
separately on the statement of operations), (ii) an
increase in Property, plant and equipment of $.5 and
(iii) offsetting the amounts in (i) and (ii), an
increase in Long-term liabilities of approximately $2.5. In
addition, pursuant to FIN 47 there was an immaterial amount
of incremental depreciation provision recorded (in Depreciation
and amortization) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as a
result of the retroactive increase in Property, plant and
equipment (discussed in (ii) above) and there was an
incremental $.2 of non-cash charges (in Cost of products sold)
to reflect the accretion of the liability recognized at
January 1, 2005 (discussed in (iii) above) to the
estimated fair value of the CARO at December 31, 2005
($2.7). Had the cumulative effect of FIN 47 been
retrospectively applied, Long-term liabilities as of
December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004 would have been increased
by $2.2, $2.3 and $2.5, respectively, Loss from continuing
operations and Net loss for 2003 and 2004 each would have been
increased by $.2 and $.2, respectively, and the related Earnings
(loss) per share amounts for 2003 and 2004 would not have
changed.
F-23
Notes to consolidated financial statements
For purposes of the Companys fair value estimates it used
a credit adjusted risk free rate of 7.5%.
Also see Note 4 for a discussion of the recording of a CARO
at Anglesey.
New accounting pronouncements
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123
(revised 2004), Share-Based Payment
(SFAS No. 123-R) was issued in
December 2004 and replaces Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation and supersedes APB Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. In general
terms, SFAS No. 123-R eliminates the intrinsic value
method of accounting for employee stock options and requires a
company to measure the cost of employee services received in
exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the
grant-date fair value of the award. The cost of the award will
be recognized as an expense over the period that the employee
provides service for the award. The Company is required to adopt
SFAS No. 123-R on January 1, 2006. The adoption
of SFAS No. 123-R will have no material impact on the
existing Companys financial statements as all of the
Companys outstanding options are fully vested. However,
the adoption of SFAS No. 123-R could have a material
impact on the financial statements of the emerging entity
depending on the nature of any share based payments that may be
granted after the Company emergence from Chapter 11.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 151,
Inventory Costs, an Amendment of ARB No. 43,
Chapter 4 (SFAS No. 151) was issued
in November 2004 and is effective for fiscal years beginning
after June 15, 2005. SFAS No. 151 amends ARB
No. 43, Chapter 4 to clarify that abnormal costs, such
as idle facility expenses, freight, handling costs and spoilage,
be accounted as current period charges rather than as a portion
of inventory costs. The adoption of SFAS No. 151 is
not expected to have a material impact on the Companys
financial statements.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections
(SFAS No. 154) was issued in May 2005
and replaces Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20,
Accounting Changes (APB No. 20) and Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 3, Reporting
Changes in Interim Financial Statements.
SFAS No. 154 changes the requirements for the
accounting for and reporting of a change in an accounting
principle and carries forward without changing the guidance
contained in APB No. 20 for reporting the correction of an
error in previously issued financial statements. In general
terms, SFAS No. 154 requires the retrospective
application to prior periods financial statements of a
change in an accounting principle. This contrasts with APB
No. 20 which required that a change in an accounting
principle be recognized in the period the change was adopted by
including in net income the cumulative effect of adopting the
new accounting principle. SFAS No. 154 is effective
for all financial statements beginning January 1, 2006 and
applies to all accounting changes and corrections of errors made
after such effective dates. The adoption of
SFAS No. 154 is not currently expected to have a
material impact on the Companys financial statements.
Reclassifications
Certain prior years amounts in the consolidated financial
statements have been reclassified to conform to the 2005
presentations. The reclassifications had no impact on prior
years reported net losses.
NOTE 3 DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
As part of the Companys plan to divest certain of its
commodity assets, as more fully discussed in Notes 1
and 5, the Company completed the sale of its interests in
and related to Alpart, KACCs
F-24
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Gramercy, Louisiana alumina refinery (Gramercy),
Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company (KJBC), Valco, and
the Mead facility and certain related property (the Mead
Facility) in 2004 and the sale of its interests in and
related to QAL in 2005. All of the foregoing commodity assets
are collectively referred to as the Commodity
Interests. In accordance with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 144, Accounting for the
Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets
(SFAS No. 144), the assets,
liabilities, operating results and gains from sale of the
Commodity Interests have been reported as discontinued
operations in the accompanying financial statements.
Under SFAS No. 144, only those assets, liabilities and
operating results that are being sold/discontinued are treated
as discontinued operations. In the case of the sale
of Gramercy/ KJBC and the Mead Facility, the buyers did not
assume such items as accrued workers compensation, pension or
postretirement benefit obligations in respect of the former
employees of these facilities. As discussed more fully in
Note 1, the Company expects that retained obligations will
generally be resolved pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan. As such, the balances related to such obligations are
still included in the consolidated financial statements. Because
the Company owned a 65% interest in Alpart, Alparts
balances and results of operations were fully consolidated into
the Companys consolidated financial statements.
Accordingly, the amounts reflected below for Alpart include the
35% interest in Alpart owned by Hydro Aluminium as
(Hydro) Hydros share of the net investment in
Alpart is reflected as a minority interest.
The balances and operating results associated with the
Companys interests in and related to Alpart, Gramercy/
KJBC and QAL were previously included in the Bauxite and alumina
business segment and the balances and operating results
associated with the Companys interests in and related to
Valco and the Mead Facility were previously included in the
Primary aluminum business segment. The Company has also reported
as discontinued operations the portion of the commodity
marketing external hedging activities that were attributable to
the Companys Commodity Interests.
The carrying amounts of the assets and liabilities in respect of
the Companys interest in and related to the sold Commodity
Interests as of December 31, 2004 and 2005 are included in
the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2005. Income statement information in
respect of the Companys interest in and related to the
sold Commodity Interests for the years ended December 31,
2003, 2004 and 2005 included in income (loss) from discontinued
operations was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 |
|
2004 |
|
2005 |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Primary | |
|
|
|
|
|
Primary | |
|
|
|
|
|
Primary | |
|
|
|
|
Alumina | |
|
Aluminum | |
|
|
|
Alumina | |
|
Aluminum | |
|
|
|
Alumina | |
|
Aluminum | |
|
|
|
|
Interests | |
|
Interests | |
|
Total | |
|
Interests | |
|
Interests | |
|
Total | |
|
Interests | |
|
Interests | |
|
Total | |
| |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
637.9 |
|
|
$ |
26.8 |
|
|
$ |
664.7 |
|
|
$ |
546.0 |
|
|
$ |
.2 |
|
|
$ |
546.2 |
|
|
$ |
42.9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
42.9 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(450.1 |
) |
|
|
(58.2 |
) |
|
|
(508.3 |
) |
|
|
53.6 |
|
|
|
(59.8 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(20.7 |
) |
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
(20.0 |
) |
Gain on sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103.2 |
|
|
|
23.4 |
|
|
|
126.6 |
|
|
|
366.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366.2 |
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and minority interests
|
|
|
(453.7 |
) |
|
|
(57.5 |
) |
|
|
(511.2 |
) |
|
|
158.2 |
|
|
|
(35.7 |
) |
|
|
122.5 |
|
|
|
363.4 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
364.1 |
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(459.9 |
) |
|
|
(54.8 |
) |
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
142.7 |
|
|
|
(21.4 |
) |
|
|
121.3 |
|
|
|
363.0 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
363.7 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Alumina interests for the year ended December 31, 2003
include Gramercy/ KJBC impairment charges of $368.0 (see
Note 5). |
|
(2) |
Primary aluminum interests for the year ended
December 31, 2004 includes impairment charges of $33.0
(ValcoNotes 2 and 5). |
Footnote continues on following page
F-25
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
(3) |
Alumina interests for the year ended December 31, 2005
includes a KBC bauxite supply agreement rejection charge of
$42.1 (see below). |
As previously disclosed during the fourth quarter of 2005, the
UCC negotiated a settlement with a third party that had asserted
an approximate $67.0 claim for damages against KBC for rejection
of a bauxite supply agreement. Pursuant to the settlement, among
other things, the Company agreed to (a) allow the third
party an unsecured pre-petition claim in the amount of $42.1,
(b) substantively consolidate KBC with certain of the other
debtors solely for the purpose of treating that claim, and any
other pre-petition claim of KBC, under the Kaiser Aluminum
Amended Plan and (c) modify the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan to implement the settlement. In consideration of the
settlement, the third party, among other things, agreed to not
object to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan. The settlement was
approved by the Court in January 2006 and the Company recorded a
charge of $42.1 in the fourth quarter of 2005 in Discontinued
operations and reflected an increase in Discontinued operations
liabilities subject to compromise by the same amount.
In connection with its investment in QAL, KACC had entered into
several financial commitments consisting of long-term agreements
for the purchase and tolling of bauxite into alumina in
Australia by QAL. Under the agreements, KACC was unconditionally
obligated to pay its proportional share (20%) of debt, operating
costs, and certain other costs of QAL.
KACCs share of payments, including operating costs and
certain other expenses under the agreements, generally ranged
between $70.0-$100.0 in 2003 and 2004. The Companys
interests in and related to QAL was sold as of April 1,
2005 (see Note 5). In connection with the QAL sale,
KACCs obligations in respect of its share of QALs
debt were assumed by the buyer.
Contributions to foreign pension plans included in discontinued
operations in 2003 were approximately $9.0. Contributions to
foreign pension plans included in discontinued operations were
approximately $12.0 during 2004, including approximately $10.0
of end of service payments in respect of Valco employees.
During March 2006, the Company received a $7.5 payment from an
insurer in settlement of certain residual claims the Company had
in respect of the 2000 incident at its Gramercy, Louisiana
alumina refinery (which was sold in 2004). This amount is
expected to be included in Discontinued operations income during
the first quarter of 2006.
NOTE 4INVESTMENT IN AND ADVANCES TO UNCONSOLIDATED
AFFILIATE
Summary financial information is provided below for Anglesey, a
49.0% owned unconsolidated aluminum investment, which owns an
aluminum smelter at Holyhead, Wales. The agreement under which
Anglesey receives power expires in September 2009 and the
nuclear facility which supplies such power is scheduled to cease
operations shortly thereafter. No assurance can be given that
Anglesey will be able to obtain sufficient power to sustain its
operations on reasonably acceptable terms thereafter. The
Company is responsible for selling Anglesey alumina in respect
of its ownership percentage. Such alumina is purchased under a
long-term contract with the former Alpart facility at prices
that are tied to primary aluminum prices.
F-26
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Summary of financial position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Current assets
|
|
$ |
50.7 |
|
|
$ |
69.9 |
|
Non-current assets (primarily property, plant, and equipment,
net)
|
|
|
36.3 |
|
|
|
52.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
87.0 |
|
|
$ |
122.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
$ |
15.6 |
|
|
$ |
36.1 |
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
21.6 |
|
|
|
50.1 |
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
49.8 |
|
|
|
36.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
87.0 |
|
|
$ |
122.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
205.5 |
|
|
$ |
249.2 |
|
|
$ |
266.2 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(196.5 |
) |
|
|
(223.1 |
) |
|
|
(243.9 |
) |
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(2.6 |
) |
|
|
(7.4 |
) |
|
|
(6.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
6.4 |
|
|
$ |
18.7 |
|
|
$ |
15.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companys equity in income
|
|
$ |
3.3 |
|
|
$ |
8.2 |
|
|
$ |
4.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends received
|
|
$ |
4.3 |
|
|
$ |
4.5 |
|
|
$ |
9.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys equity in income differs from the summary net
income due to equity method accounting adjustments and applying
US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
At year-end 2005, Anglesey recorded a CARO liability of
approximately $15.0 in its financial statements. The treatment
applied by Anglesey was not consistent with the principles of
SFAS No. 143 or FIN 47. Accordingly, the Company
adjusted Angleseys recording of the CARO to comply with US
GAAP treatment. The Company determined that application of US
GAAP would have resulted in (a) a non-cash cumulative
adjustment of $2.7 reducing the Companys investment
retroactive to the beginning of 2005 and (b) a decrease in
the Companys share of Angleseys earnings totaling
approximately $.1 for 2005 (representing additional
depreciation, accretion and foreign exchange charges). Had US
GAAP principles been applied to prior years, the pro forma
effects would have been as follows: (a) the Companys
investment in Anglesey as of December 31, 2002, 2003 and
2004 would have been reduced by $.7, $.8 and $.8, respectively,
in respect of the additional CARO liability, and (b) the
Companys share of Angleseys earnings for 2003 and
2004 each would have been decreased by $.8 (in respect of the
incremental depreciation, accretion and foreign exchange).
However, had these affects been retroactively applied, the
related Earnings (loss) per share amounts for 2003 and 2004
would not have changed.
For purposes of the Companys fair value estimates, it used
a credit adjusted risk free rate of 7.5%.
At December 31, 2004 and 2005, KACCs net receivables
from Anglesey were $8.0 and none, respectively.
The Companys equity in income before income taxes of
Anglesey is treated as a reduction (increase) in Cost of
products sold. The Company and Anglesey have interrelated
operations. KACC provided
F-27
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Anglesey with management services during 2003 and 2004.
Significant activities with Anglesey include the acquisition and
processing of alumina into primary aluminum. Purchases from
Anglesey were $100.0, $120.9 and $150.4, in the years ended
December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. Sales to
Anglesey were $32.9, $23.7, and $35.1, in the years ended
December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively.
NOTE 5PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT
The major classes of property, plant, and equipment, after
deducting property, plant and equipment, net related to
discontinued operations, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Land and improvements
|
|
$ |
8.2 |
|
|
$ |
7.7 |
|
Buildings
|
|
|
63.8 |
|
|
|
62.4 |
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
459.8 |
|
|
|
460.4 |
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
25.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
537.9 |
|
|
|
555.5 |
|
Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(323.3 |
) |
|
|
(332.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net
|
|
$ |
214.6 |
|
|
$ |
223.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the period from 2003 to 2005, the Company completed
several dispositions which are discussed below:
2003-
|
|
|
In January 2003, the Court
approved the sale of the Tacoma facility to the Port of Tacoma
(the Port). Gross proceeds from the sale, before
considering approximately $4.0 of proceeds being held in escrow
pending the resolution of certain environmental and other
issues, were approximately $12.1. The Port also agreed to assume
the on-site
environmental remediation obligations. The sale closed in
February 2003. The sale resulted in a pre-tax gain of
approximately $9.5 (which amount was reflected in Other
operating charges (benefits), netsee Note 6). The
operating results of the Tacoma facility for 2004, 2003 and 2002
have not been reported as discontinued operations in the
accompanying Statements of Consolidated Income (Loss) because
such amounts were not material. |
|
|
KACC had a long-term liability,
net of estimated subleases income, on an office complex in
Oakland, California, in which KACC had not maintained offices
for a number of years, but for which it was responsible for
lease payments as master tenant through 2008 under a
sale-and-leaseback agreement. The Company also held an
investment in certain notes issued by the owners of the building
(which were included in Other assets). In October 2002, the
Company entered into a contract to sell its interests and
obligations in the office complex. As the contract amount was
less than the assets net carrying value (included in Other
assets), the Company recorded a non-cash impairment charge in
2002 of approximately $20.0 (which amount was reflected in Other
operating charges (benefits), netsee Note 6). The
sale was approved by the Court in February 2003 and closed in
March 2003. Net cash proceeds were approximately $61.1.
|
|
|
In July 2003, with Court
approval, the Company sold certain equipment at the Spokane,
Washington facility that was no longer required as a part of
past product rationalizations. Proceeds from the sale were
approximately $7.0, resulting in a net gain of approximately
$5.0 after considering sale related costs. The gain on the sale
of this equipment has been netted against
|
F-28
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
additional impairment charges of approximately $1.1 associated
with equipment to be abandoned or otherwise disposed of
primarily as a result of product rationalizations (which amounts
were reflected in Other operating charges (benefits),
netsee Note 6). The equipment that was sold in July
2003 had been previously impaired to a zero basis. The
impairment was based on information available at that time and
the expectation that proceeds from the eventual sale of the
equipment would be fully offset by sale related costs to be
borne by the Company. |
2004-
|
|
|
On July 1, 2004, with Court
approval, the Company completed the sale of its interests in and
related to Alpart for a base purchase price of $295.0 plus
certain adjustments of approximately $20.0. The transaction
resulted in a gross sales price of approximately $315.0, subject
to certain post-closing adjustments, and a pre-tax gain of
approximately $101.6. Offsetting the cash proceeds were
approximately $14.5 of payments made by KACC to fund the
prepayment of KACCs share of the Alpart-related debt (see
Note 7) and $3.3 of transaction-related costs. The balance
of the proceeds were held in escrow primarily for the benefit of
certain creditors as provided in the AJC and KJC joint plan of
liquidation (the AJC/ KJC Plan). In accordance with
SFAS No. 144, balances and results of operations
related to the Companys interests and related to Alpart
have been reported as discontinued operations in the
accompanying financial statements (see Note 3). A net
benefit of approximately $1.6 was recorded in December 2004 in
respect of the Alpart-related purchase price adjustments. Such
amounts were collected during the second quarter of 2005.
|
|
|
In May 2004, the Company entered
into an agreement to sell its interests in and related to the
Gramercy facility and KJBC. The sale closed on October 1,
2004 with Court approval. Net proceeds from the sale were
approximately $23.0, subject to various closing and post closing
adjustments. Such adjustments were insignificant. The
transaction was completed at an amount approximating its
remaining book value (after impairment charges). A substantial
portion of the proceeds were used to satisfy transaction related
costs and obligations. As previously reported, the Company had
determined that the fair values of its interests in and related
to Gramercy/ KJBC was below the carrying values of the assets
because all offers that had been received for such assets were
substantially below the carrying values of the assets.
Accordingly, in the fourth quarter of 2003, KACC adjusted the
carrying value of its interests in and related to Gramercy/ KJBC
to the estimated fair value, which resulted in a non-cash
impairment charge of approximately $368.0 (which amount was
reflected in discontinued operations see Note 3). In
accordance with SFAS No. 144, the Companys
interests in and related to the Gramercy facility and KJBC have
been reported as discontinued operations in the accompanying
financial statements (see Note 3).
|
|
|
During 2003, the Company and
Valco participated in extensive negotiations with the Government
of Ghana (GoG) and the Volta River Authority
(VRA) regarding Valcos power situation and
other matters. Such negotiations did not result in a resolution
of such matters. However, as an outgrowth of such negotiations,
the Company and the GoG entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in December 2003 pursuant to
which KACC would sell its 90% interest in and related to Valco
to the GoG. The Company collected $5.0 pursuant to the MOU.
However, a new financial agreement was reached in May 2004 and
the MOU was amended. Under the revised financial terms, the
Company was to retain the $5.0 already paid by the GoG and $13.0
more was to be paid by the GoG as full and final consideration
for the transaction at closing. The Company also agreed to fund
certain end of service benefits of Valco employees (estimated to
be approximately $9.8) which the GoG was to assume under the
original MOU. The agreement was approved by the Court on
September 29, 2004. The sale closed on October 29,
2004. As the revised purchase price under the amended MOU was
well below the Companys recorded value for
|
F-29
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
Valco, the Company recorded a non-cash impairment charge of
$31.8 in its first quarter 2004 financial statements to reduce
the carrying value of its interests in and related to Valco at
March 31, 2004 to the amount of the expected proceeds
(which amount was reflected in discontinued operations see
Note 3). As a result, at closing there was no material gain
or loss on disposition. In accordance with
SFAS No. 144, balances and results of operations
related to the Companys interests in and related to Valco
have been reported as discontinued operations in the
accompanying financial statements (see Note 3). |
|
|
In June 2004, with Court approval, the Company completed the
sale of the Mead Facility for approximately $7.4 plus assumption
of certain site-related liabilities. The sale resulted in net
proceeds of approximately $6.2 and a pre-tax gain of
approximately $23.4. The pre-tax gain includes the impact from
the sale of certain non-operating land in the first quarter of
2004 that was adjacent to the Mead Facility. The pre-tax gain on
the sale of this property had been deferred pending the
finalization of the sale of the Mead Facility and transfer of
the site-related liabilities. Proceeds from the sale of the Mead
Facility totaling $4.0 were held in escrow as Restricted
proceeds from sale of commodity interests until the value of the
secured claim of the holders of the 7.6% solid waste disposal
revenue bonds was determined by the Court (see Note 7). In
accordance with SFAS No. 144, the assets, liabilities
and operating results of the Mead Facility have been reported as
discontinued operations in the accompanying financial statements
(see Note 3). |
|
|
In the ordinary course of business, KACC sold non-operating real
estate and certain miscellaneous equipment for total proceeds of
approximately $1.9. These transactions resulted in pre-tax gains
of $1.8 (included in Other income (expense) see
Note 2). |
2005-
|
|
|
In April 2005, the Company
completed the sale of its interests in and related to QAL. Net
cash proceeds from the sale total approximately $401.4. The
buyer also assumed KACCs obligations in respect of
approximately $60.0 of QAL debt (see Note 4). In connection
with the completion of the sale, the Company also paid a
termination fee of $11.0. After considering transaction costs
(including the termination fee and a $7.7 deferred charge
associated with a
back-up bid fee), the
transaction resulted in a gain, net of estimated income tax of
$7.9, of approximately $366.2. As described in Note 1, a
substantial majority of the proceeds from the sale of the
Companys interests in and related to QAL were held in
escrow for the benefit of KAACs creditors until the KAAC/
KFC Plan was confirmed by the Court (see Note 1) and became
effective. In accordance with SFAS No. 144, balances
and results of operations related to the Companys
interests in and related to QAL have been reported as
discontinued operations in the accompanying financial statements
(see Note 3). |
F-30
Notes to consolidated financial statements
NOTE 6OTHER OPERATING CHARGES, NET
The income (loss) impact associated with other operating
charges, net, after deducting other operating charges, net
related to discontinued operations, for 2003, 2004 and 2005, was
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Charges associated with 2004 portion of deferred contribution
plans implemented in 2005 (Note 9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(6.3 |
) |
|
Corporate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.5 |
) |
Pension charge related to terminated pension plans
Corporate (Note 9)
|
|
|
(121.2 |
) |
|
|
(310.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Charge related to settlement with United Steelworkers of America
unfair labor practice allegationsCorporate (Note 11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(175.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Settlement charge related to termination of Post-retirement
medical benefits plansCorporate (Note 9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(312.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Restructured transmission service agreementPrimary
Aluminum (Note 14)
|
|
|
(3.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental multi-site settlementCorporate (Note 11)
|
|
|
(15.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing loss claimsCorporate (Note 11)
|
|
|
(15.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of Tacoma facilityPrimary Aluminum
(Note 5)
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of equipment, netFabricated Products
(Note 5)
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(141.6 |
) |
|
$ |
(793.2 |
) |
|
$ |
(8.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above table excludes other operating charges, net related to
discontinued operations of $(369.4) in 2003 and $95.2 in 2004.
F-31
Notes to consolidated financial statements
NOTE 7 LONG-TERM DEBT
Long-term debt, after deducting debt related to discontinued
operations, consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Secured:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Petition Credit Agreement
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
7.6% Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Bonds due 2027
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other borrowings (fixed rate)
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Unsecured or Undersecured:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97/8% Senior
Notes due 2002, net
|
|
|
172.8 |
|
|
|
172.8 |
|
|
107/8% Senior
Notes due 2006, net
|
|
|
225.0 |
|
|
|
225.0 |
|
|
123/4% Senior
Subordinated Notes due 2003
|
|
|
400.0 |
|
|
|
400.0 |
|
|
7.6% Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Bonds due 2027
|
|
|
17.4 |
|
|
|
17.4 |
|
|
Other borrowings (fixed and variable rates)
|
|
|
32.4 |
|
|
|
32.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
851.6 |
|
|
|
849.9 |
|
Less Current portion
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
Pre-Filing Date claims included in subject to compromise (i.e.
unsecured debt) (Note 1)
|
|
|
(847.6 |
) |
|
|
(847.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
$ |
2.8 |
|
|
$ |
1.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On February 11, 2005, the Company and KACC entered into a
new financing agreement with a group of lenders under which the
Company was provided with a replacement for the existing
post-petition credit facility and a commitment for a multi-year
exit financing arrangement upon the Debtors emergence from
the Chapter 11 proceedings. The new financing agreement:
|
|
|
Replaced the existing
post-petition credit facility with a new
$200.0 post-petition credit facility (the
DIP Facility) and
|
|
|
Included a commitment, upon the
Debtors emergence from the Chapter 11 proceedings,
for exit financing in the form of a $200.0 revolving credit
facility (the Revolving Credit Facility) and a
fully-drawn term loan (the Term Loan) of up to
$50.0 (collectively referred to as Exit
Financing).
|
On February 1, 2006, the Court approved an amendment to the
DIP Facility to extend its expiration date through the earlier
of May 11, 2006, the effective date of a plan of
reorganization or voluntary termination by the Company. In
addition, the Court approved an extension of the cancellation
date of the lenders commitment for the Exit Financing to
May 11, 2006. Under the DIP Facility, which provides for a
secured, revolving line of credit, the Company, KACC and certain
subsidiaries of KACC are able to borrow amounts by means of
revolving credit advances and to have issued letters of credit
(up to $60.0) in an aggregate amount equal to the lesser of
$200.0 or a borrowing base comprised of eligible accounts
receivable, eligible inventory and certain eligible machinery,
equipment and real estate, reduced by certain reserves, as
defined in the DIP Facility agreement. This amount available
under the DIP Facility will be reduced by $20.0 if net borrowing
availability falls below $40.0. Interest on any outstanding
borrowings will bear a spread over either a base rate or LIBOR,
at KACCs option.
The DIP Facility is currently expected to expire on May 11,
2006. As discussed in Note 1, the Company believes that it
is possible that it will emerge before May 11, 2006.
However, if the
F-32
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Company does not emerge from the Cases prior to May 11,
2006, it will be necessary for the Company to extend the
expiration date of the DIP Facility or make alternative
financing arrangements. The Company has begun discussions with
the agent bank that represents the DIP Facility lenders
regarding the likely need for a short-term extension of the DIP
Facility. While the Company believes that, if necessary, it
would be successful in negotiating an extension of the DIP
Facility or adequate alternative financing arrangements, no
assurances can be given in this regard.
The DIP Facility is secured by substantially all of the assets
of the Company, KACC and KACCs domestic subsidiaries and
is guaranteed by KACC and all of KACCs remaining material
domestic subsidiaries.
Amounts owed under the DIP Facility may be accelerated under
various circumstances more fully described in the DIP Facility
agreement, including, but not limited to, the failure to make
principal or interest payments due under the DIP Facility,
breaches of certain covenants, representations and warranties
set forth in the DIP Facility agreement, and certain events
having a material adverse effect on the business, assets,
operations or condition of the Company taken as a whole.
The DIP Facility places restrictions on the Companys,
KACCs and KACCs subsidiaries ability to, among
other things, incur debt, create liens, make investments, pay
dividends, sell assets, undertake transactions with affiliates,
and enter into unrelated lines of business.
The principal terms of the committed Revolving Credit Facility
would be essentially the same as or more favorable than the DIP
Facility, except that, among other things, the Revolving Credit
Facility would close and be available upon the Debtors
emergence from the Chapter 11 proceedings and would be
expected to mature five years from the date of emergence. The
Term Loan commitment would be expected to close upon the
Debtors emergence from the Chapter 11 proceedings and
would be expected to mature on May 11, 2010. The agent bank
representing the Exit Financing lenders is the same as the agent
bank for the DIP Facility lenders and the Company has begun
parallel discussions with the agent bank regarding the extension
of the expiration date for the Exit Financing commitment in the
event the Company does not emerge from the Cases prior to
May 11, 2006.
The DIP Facility replaced a post-petition credit facility (the
Replaced Facility) that the Company and KACC entered
into on February 12, 2002. The Replaced Facility was
amended a number of times during its term as a result of, among
other things, reorganization transactions, including disposition
of the Companys Commodity Interests.
At December 31, 2005, there were no outstanding borrowings
under the DIP Facility. There were approximately $17.8 of
outstanding letters of credit under the DIP Facility and there
were no outstanding letters of credit that remained outstanding
under the Replaced Facility. The Company had (during the first
quarter of 2005) deposited cash of $13.3 as collateral for
the Replaced Facility letters of credit and deposited
approximately $1.7 of collateral with the Replaced Facility
lenders until certain other banking arrangements are terminated.
As of December 31, 2005, all of the $13.3 collateral
for the Replacement Facility letters of credit and $.2 of
the collateral for other certain bonding arrangements had been
refunded to the Company.
7.6% Solid waste disposal revenue bonds
The 7.6% solid waste disposal revenue bonds (the Solid
Waste Bonds) were secured by certain (but not all) of the
facilities and equipment at the Mead Facility which was sold in
June 2004 (see Note 5). The Company believes that the value
of the collateral that secured the Solid Waste Bonds was in the
$1.0 range and, as a result, has reclassified $18.0 of
the Solid Waste Bonds balance to Liabilities subject to
compromise (see Note 1). However, in connection with the
sale of the Mead Facility,
F-33
Notes to consolidated financial statements
$4.0 of the proceeds were placed in escrow for the benefit
of the holders of the Solid Waste Bonds until the value of the
secured claim of the bondholders is determined by the Court. The
value of the secured claim was ultimately agreed to be
approximately $1.6. As such, the amount of the Solid Waste Bonds
considered in Liabilities subject to compromise has been reduced
to $17.4. During the second quarter of 2005, the Court approved
distribution of the escrowed amounts to the bondholders and the
Company. As such, during the second quarter of 2005, the Company
received $2.4 from escrow and the bondholders received the
balance of $1.6. As the Solid Waste Bonds were not a part of the
Mead Facility sale transaction, they were not reported as
discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Balance
Sheets. During the second quarter of 2005, the Company also
reversed (in Reorganization items) approximately $2.7 of
post-Filing Date interest that was accrued in respect of the
Solid Waste Bonds before the value of the collateral was able to
be estimated.
83/4%
Alpart CARIFA loans
In December 1991, Alpart entered into a loan agreement with the
Caribbean Basin Projects Financing Authority
(CARIFA). Alparts obligations under the loan
agreement were secured by two letters of credit aggregating
$23.5. KACC was a party to one of the two letters of credit in
the amount of $15.3 in respect of its 65% ownership interest in
Alpart. Alpart also agreed to indemnify bondholders of CARIFA
for certain tax payments that could result from events, as
defined, that adversely affect the tax treatment of the interest
income on the bonds.
Pursuant to the CARIFA loan agreement, the Alpart CARIFA
financing was repaid in connection with the sale of the
Companys interests in and related to Alpart, which were
sold on July 1, 2004 (see Note 5). Upon such payment,
the Companys letter of credit obligation under the DIP
Facility securing the loans was cancelled.
97/8% Notes,
107/8% notes
and
123/4% notes
The obligations of KACC with respect to its Senior Notes and its
Sub Notes are guaranteed, jointly and severally, by certain
subsidiaries of KACC.
Debt covenants and restrictions
The indentures governing the Senior Notes and the Sub Notes
(collectively, the Indentures) restrict, among other
things, KACCs ability to incur debt, undertake
transactions with affiliates, and pay dividends. Further, the
Indentures provide that KACC must offer to purchase the Senior
Notes and the Sub Notes upon the occurrence of a Change of
Control (as defined therein).
NOTE 8 INCOME TAXES
Income (loss) before income taxes and minority interests by
geographic area (excluding discontinued operations and
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle) is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Domestic
|
|
$ |
(286.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(886.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,130.7 |
) |
Foreign
|
|
|
14.6 |
|
|
|
24.2 |
|
|
|
20.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(272.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(861.9 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,109.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-34
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Income taxes are classified as either domestic or foreign, based
on whether payment is made or due to the United States or a
foreign country. Certain income classified as foreign is also
subject to domestic income taxes.
The (provision) benefit for income taxes on income (loss)
before income taxes and minority interests (excluding
discontinued operations and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle) consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal | |
|
Foreign | |
|
State | |
|
Total | |
| |
2003 Current
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1.3 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1.3 |
) |
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1.5 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 Current
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(6.4 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(6.4 |
) |
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(6.2 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 Current
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(3.8 |
) |
|
$ |
.5 |
|
|
$ |
(3.3 |
) |
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(3.3 |
) |
|
$ |
.5 |
|
|
$ |
(2.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reconciliation between the (provision) benefit for income
taxes and the amount computed by applying the federal statutory
income tax rate to income (loss) before income taxes and
minority interests (excluding discontinued operations and
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle) is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Amount of federal income tax benefit based on the statutory rate
|
|
$ |
95.2 |
|
|
$ |
301.7 |
|
|
$ |
388.5 |
|
Increase in valuation allowances
|
|
|
(98.1 |
) |
|
|
(304.7 |
) |
|
|
(379.8 |
) |
Percentage depletion
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign taxes
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(6.3 |
) |
|
|
3.9 |
|
Other
|
|
|
(3.5 |
) |
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
(15.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$ |
(1.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(6.2 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-35
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Deferred income taxes
Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary
differences between the carrying amounts of assets and
liabilities for financial reporting purposes and amounts used
for income tax purposes. The components of the Companys
net deferred income tax assets (liabilities) are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Deferred income tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement benefits other than pensions
|
|
$ |
396.0 |
|
|
$ |
398.9 |
|
|
Loss and credit carryforwards
|
|
|
411.3 |
|
|
|
348.0 |
|
|
Pension benefits
|
|
|
243.6 |
|
|
|
170.5 |
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
153.7 |
|
|
|
168.3 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
75.0 |
|
|
|
39.0 |
|
|
Assigned intercompany claim for benefit of certain creditors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
443.9 |
|
|
Valuation allowances
|
|
|
(1,221.3 |
) |
|
|
(1,527.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax assets net
|
|
|
58.3 |
|
|
|
41.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plan, and equipment
|
|
|
(39.0 |
) |
|
|
(41.3 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
(22.0 |
) |
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
(61.0 |
) |
|
|
(43.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred income tax assets
(liabilities)(1)
|
|
$ |
(2.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
These deferred income tax liabilities are included in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2004 and
2005, respectively, in the caption entitled Long-term
liabilities. |
In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets,
management considers whether it is more likely than
not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets
will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax
assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income
during the periods in which those temporary differences become
deductible. Management considers taxable income in carryback
years, the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, tax
planning strategies and projected future taxable income in
making this assessment. As of December 31, 2005, due to
uncertainties surrounding the realization of the Companys
deferred tax assets including the cumulative federal and state
net operating losses sustained during the prior years, the
Company has a valuation allowance of $1,547.2 against its
deferred tax assets. When recognized, the tax benefits relating
to any reversal of the valuation allowance will primarily be
accounted for as a reduction of income tax expense.
Tax attributes
At December 31, 2005, the Company had certain tax
attributes available to offset regular federal income tax
requirements, subject to certain limitations, including net
operating loss and general business credit carryforwards of
$768.0 and $.6, respectively, which expire periodically through
2024 and 2011, respectively, and alternative minimum tax
(AMT) credit carryforwards of $31.0, which have an
indefinite life.
A substantial portion of the Companys attributes would
likely be used to offset any gains that may result from the
cancellation of indebtedness as a part of the Companys
reorganization. Any tax attributes not utilized by the Company
prior to emergence from Chapter 11 may be subject to certain
F-36
Notes to consolidated financial statements
limitations as to their utilization post-emergence. Pursuant to
the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan, the number of shares of common
stock that certain major stockholders of the emerging entity,
including the Union VEBA, may sell will be limited for several
years after emergence in order to preserve the net operating
loss carryforwards available to the Company.
Other
In March 2003, the Company paid approximately $22.0 in
settlement of certain foreign tax matters in respect of a number
of prior periods.
In connection with the sale of the Companys interests in
and related to QAL, the Company made payments totaling
approximately $8.5 for alternative minimum tax (AMT)
in the United States. Such payments were made in the fourth
quarter of 2005. The Company believes that such amounts paid in
respect of the sale of interests should, in accordance with the
Intercompany Agreement, be reimbursed to the Company from the
funds held by the Liquidating Trustee. However, at this point,
as this has yet to be agreed, the Company has not recorded a
receivable for this amount. The Company expects to resolve this
matter in the latter part of 2006 in connection with the filing
of its 2005 Federal income tax return.
No U.S. federal or state liability has been recorded for
the undistributed earnings of the Companys Canadian
subsidiaries at December 31, 2005. These undistributed
earnings are considered to be indefinitely reinvested.
Accordingly, no provision for U.S. federal and state income
taxes or foreign withholding taxes has been provided on such
undistributed earnings. Determination of the potential amount of
unrecognized deferred U.S. income tax liability and foreign
withholding taxes is not practicable because of the complexities
associated with its hypothetical calculation.
NOTE 9 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT AND INCENTIVE PLANS
Historical pension and other postretirement benefit plans
The Company and its subsidiaries have historically provided
(a) postretirement health care and life insurance benefits
to eligible retired employees and their dependents and
(b) pension benefit payments to retirement plans.
Substantially all employees became eligible for health care and
life insurance benefits if they reached retirement age while
still working for the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company
did not fund the liability for these benefits, which were
expected to be paid out of cash generated by operations. The
Company reserved the right, subject to applicable collective
bargaining agreements, to amend or terminate these benefits.
Retirement plans were generally non-contributory for salaried
and hourly employees and generally provided for benefits based
on formulas which considered such items as length of service and
earnings during years of service.
Reorganization efforts affecting pension and post-retirement
medical obligations
The Company has stated since the inception of its
Chapter 11 proceedings that legacy items that included its
pension and post-retirement benefit plans would have to be
addressed before the Company could successfully reorganize. The
Company previously disclosed that it did not intend to make any
pension contributions in respect of its domestic pension plans
during the pendency of the Cases as it believed that virtually
all amounts were pre-Filing Date obligations. The Company did
not make required accelerated funding payments to its salaried
employee retirement plan. As a result, during 2003, the Company
engaged in lengthy negotiations with the PBGC, the 1114
Committee and the appropriate union representatives for the
hourly employees subject to collective bargaining agreements
regarding its plans to significantly modify or terminate these
benefits.
F-37
Notes to consolidated financial statements
In January 2004, the Company filed motions with the Court to
terminate or substantially modify postretirement medical
obligations for both salaried and certain hourly employees and
for the distressed termination of substantially all domestic
hourly pension plans. The Company subsequently concluded
agreements with the 1114 Committee and union representatives
that represent the vast majority of the Companys hourly
employees. The agreements provide for the termination of
existing salaried and hourly postretirement medical benefit
plans, and the termination of existing hourly pension plans.
Under the agreements, salaried and hourly retirees would be
provided an opportunity for continued medical coverage through
COBRA or a VEBA and active salaried and hourly employees would
be provided with an opportunity to participate in one or more
replacement pension plans and/or defined contribution plans. The
agreements with the 1114 Committee and certain of the unions
have been approved by the Court, but were subject to certain
conditions, including Court approval of the Intercompany
Agreement in a form acceptable to the Debtors and the UCC (see
Note 1). The ongoing financial impacts of the new and
continuing pension plans and the VEBA are discussed below in
Cash Flow.
On June 1, 2004, the Court entered an order, subject to
certain conditions including final Court approval for the
Intercompany Agreement, authorizing the Company to implement
termination of its post-retirement medical plans as of
May 31, 2004 and the Companys plan to make advance
payments to one or more VEBAs. As previously disclosed, pending
the resolution of all contingencies in respect of the
termination of the existing post-retirement medical benefit
plan, during the period June 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004 the Company continued to accrue costs
based on the existing plan and has treated the VEBA contribution
as a reduction of its liability under the plan. However, since
the Intercompany Agreement was approved in February 2005 and all
other contingencies had already been met, the Company determined
that the existing post-retirement medical plan should be treated
as terminated as of December 31, 2004. This resulted in the
Company recognizing a non-cash charge in 2004 of approximately
$312.5 (reflected in Other operating charges, net
Note 6).
The PBGC has assumed responsibility for the three largest of the
Companys pension plans, which represented the vast
majority of the Companys net pension obligation including
the Companys Salaried Employees Retirement Plan (in
December 2003), the Inactive Pension Plan (in July 2004) and the
Kaiser Aluminum Pension Plan (in September 2004). The Salaried
Employees Retirement Plan, the Inactive Pension Plan and the
Kaiser Aluminum Pension Plan are hereinafter collectively
referred to as the Terminated Plans. The PBGCs
assumption of the Terminated Plans resulted in the Company
recognizing non-cash pension charges of approximately $121.2 in
the fourth quarter of 2003, approximately $155.5 in the third
quarter of 2004 and approximately $154.5 in the fourth quarter
of 2004. The fourth quarter 2003 and third quarter 2004 charges
were determined by the Company based on assumptions that are
consistent with the GAAP criteria for valuing ongoing plans. The
Company believed this represented a reasonable interim
estimation methodology as there were reasonable arguments that
could have been made that could have resulted in the final
allowed claim amounts being either more or less than that
reflected in the financial statements. The fourth quarter 2004
charge was based on the final agreement with the PBGC which was
approved by the Court in January 2005. Pursuant to the agreement
with the PBGC, the Company and the PBGC agreed, among other
things, that: (a) the Company will continue to sponsor the
Companys remaining pension plans (which primarily are in
respect of hourly employees at Fabricated products facilities)
and made approximately $5.0 of minimum funding contributions for
these plans in March 2005; (b) the PBGC would have an
allowed post-petition administrative claim of $14.0, which is
expected to be paid upon the consummation of a plan of
reorganization for the Company or the consummation of the KAAC/
KFC plan, whichever comes first; and (c) the PBGC will have
allowed pre-petition unsecured claims in respect of the
Terminated Plans in the amount of $616.0, which will be resolved
under the Kaiser
F-38
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Aluminum Amended Plan, pursuant to which the PBGCs cash
recovery from proceeds of the Companys sale of its
interests in and related to Alpart and QAL will be limited to
32% of the net proceeds distributable to holders of the
Companys Senior Notes, Sub Notes and the PBGC.
However, certain contingencies have arisen in respect of the
settlement with the PBGC. See Note 11 Contingencies
Regarding Settlement with the PBGC.
Financial Data
Assumptions
The following recaps the key assumptions used and the amounts
reflected in the Companys financial statements with
respect to the Companys pension plans and other
postretirement benefit plans. In accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, impacts of the changes in the
Companys pension and other postretirement benefit plans
discussed above have been reflected in such information.
The Company uses a December 31 measurement date for all of
its plans.
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine benefit
obligations as of December 31 and net periodic benefit cost
for the years ended December 31 are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefits | |
|
Medical/Life benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Benefit obligations assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
5.75 |
% |
|
|
5.50 |
% |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
5.75 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
3.00 |
% |
|
|
3.00 |
% |
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
5.75 |
% |
|
|
5.75 |
% |
|
|
6.75 |
% |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
9.00 |
% |
|
|
8.50 |
% |
|
|
8.50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
3.00 |
% |
|
|
3.00 |
% |
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
As more fully discussed above, all of the Companys
postretirement medical benefit plans have been terminated as a
part of the Companys reorganization efforts. As such, the
Companys obligations with respect to the existing plans
are fixed.
Benefit obligations and funded status
The following table presents the benefit obligations and funded
status of the Companys pension and other postretirement
benefit plans as of December 31, 2004 and 2005, and the
corresponding amounts that are included in the Companys
Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table excludes the
pension plan balances and amounts related to Alpart, KJBC and
Valco, which operations were sold and the obligations assumed by
the buyers (see Note 3). The Companys pension plan
obligations
F-39
Notes to consolidated financial statements
related to the Gramercy facility were a part of the Terminated
Plans and are excluded from the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefits | |
|
Medical/Life benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Change in Benefit Obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at beginning of year
|
|
$ |
644.7 |
|
|
$ |
27.2 |
|
|
$ |
1,014.0 |
|
|
$ |
1,042.0 |
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
28.6 |
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
58.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtailments, settlements and amendments
|
|
|
(609.6 |
) |
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
(37.0 |
) |
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
19.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(3.3 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
(57.0 |
) |
|
|
(25.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at end of year
|
|
|
27.2 |
|
|
|
32.1 |
|
|
|
1,042.0 |
|
|
|
1,017.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Plan Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMV of plan assets at beginning of year
|
|
|
364.1 |
|
|
|
14.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual return on assets
|
|
|
(13.0 |
) |
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
57.0 |
|
|
|
25.0 |
|
|
Assets for which contributions transferred to the PBGC
|
|
|
(336.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(3.3 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
(57.0 |
) |
|
|
(25.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMV of plan assets at end of year
|
|
|
14.2 |
|
|
|
21.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation in excess of plan assets
|
|
|
13.0 |
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
1,042.0 |
|
|
|
1,017.0 |
|
|
Unrecognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
(6.6 |
) |
|
|
(9.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized prior service costs
|
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment required to recognize minimum liability
|
|
|
6.8 |
|
|
|
8.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated net liability to PBGC in respect of Terminated Plans
|
|
|
630.0 |
|
|
|
619.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible asset and other
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit liability
|
|
$ |
644.0 |
|
|
$ |
628.9 |
|
|
$ |
1,042.0 |
|
|
$ |
1,107.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As discussed more fully in Note 1, the amount of net
liability to the PBGC in respect of the Terminated Plans and in
respect of the terminated post-retirement benefit plan are
expected to be resolved pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan.
The accumulated benefit obligation for all defined benefit
pension plans (other than the Terminated Plans and those plans
that are part of discontinued operations) was $26.6 and $31.4 at
December 31, 2004 and 2005, respectively.
The projected benefit obligation, aggregate accumulated benefit
obligation and fair value of plan assets for continuing pension
plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan
assets were $27.2, $26.5 and $14.2, respectively, as of
December 31, 2004 and $32.1, $31.4 and $21.5, respectively,
as of December 31, 2005.
F-40
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Components of net periodic benefit cost
The following table presents the components of net periodic
benefit cost for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004
and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefits | |
|
Medical/Life benefits |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
Service cost
|
|
$ |
10.2 |
|
|
$ |
4.7 |
|
|
$ |
1.2 |
|
|
$ |
7.1 |
|
|
$ |
7.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
60.7 |
|
|
|
30.8 |
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
51.3 |
|
|
|
58.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(38.6 |
) |
|
|
(22.9 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
(22.5 |
) |
|
|
(21.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net (gain) loss
|
|
|
16.1 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
.4 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
24.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
52.0 |
|
|
|
20.2 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
45.6 |
|
|
|
68.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Less discontinued operations reported separately
|
|
|
(15.3 |
) |
|
|
(7.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.9 |
) |
|
|
(10.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defined benefit plans
|
|
|
36.7 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
33.7 |
|
|
|
58.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
401K (pension)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
36.7 |
|
|
$ |
12.4 |
|
|
$ |
9.0 |
|
|
$ |
33.7 |
|
|
$ |
58.6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above table excludes pension plan curtailment and settlement
costs of $122.9, and $142.4 in 2003 and 2004, respectively and
pension plan curtailment and settlement credits of $.7 in 2005.
The above table also excludes a post-retirement medical plan
termination charge of approximately $312.5 in 2004.
The periodic pension costs associated with the Terminated Plans
were $46.1 and $16.9 for the years ended December 31, 2003
and 2004, respectively. The amount of 2003 and 2004 periodic
pension costs related to continuing operations that related to
the Fabricated products segment was $16.6 and $8.3,
respectively, and the balances related to the Corporate segment.
The amount of 2003 and 2004 net periodic medical benefit
costs related to continuing operations that related to the
Fabricated products segment was $16.2 and $25.2, respectively,
with the remaining amounts being related to the Corporate
segment.
Additional information
The increase (decrease) in the minimum liability included in
other comprehensive income was $(138.6), $(97.9), and $3.2 for
the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005,
respectively.
Description of defined contribution plans
The Company, in March 2005, announced the implementation of the
new salaried and hourly defined contribution savings plans. The
salaried plan is being implemented retroactive to
January 1, 2004 and the hourly plan is being implemented
retroactive to May 31, 2004.
Pursuant to the terms of the new defined contribution savings
plan, KACC will be required to make annual contributions into
the Steelworkers Pension Trust on the basis of one dollar per
United Steelworkers of America (USWA) employee hour
worked at two facilities. KACC will also be required to make
contributions to a defined contribution savings plan for active
USWA employees that will range from eight hundred dollars to
twenty-four hundred dollars per employee per year, depending on
the employees age. Similar defined contribution savings
plans have been established for non-USWA hourly employees
subject to collective bargaining agreements. The Company
currently estimates that contributions to all such plans will
range from $3.0 to $6.0 per year.
F-41
Notes to consolidated financial statements
In September 2005, the Company and the USWA amended a prior
agreement to provide, among other things, for the Company to
contribute per employee amounts to the Steelworkers
Pension Trust totaling approximately $.9. The amended agreement
was approved by the Court and such amount was recorded in the
fourth quarter of 2005.
The new defined contribution savings plan for salaried employees
provides for a match of certain contributions made by such
employees plus a contribution of between 2% and 10% of their
salary depending on their age and years of service.
The Company recorded charges in respect of these plans
(including the retroactive implementation) of $14.0 for the year
ended December 31, 2005. Of such total amount,
approximately $6.3 is included in Cost of products sold (related
to the Fabricated products segment) and $.9 is included in
Selling, administrative, research and development and general
expense (SG&A) (which amount is split between
the Corporate segment of $.4 and the Fabricated products segment
of $.5). The amount ($6.8) related to the retroactive
implementation (i.e., the 2004 portion) of the plans is
reflected in Other operating charges, net (see Note 6).
Plan assets
As discussed above, the PBGC assumed responsibility for the
Companys Terminated Plans in December 2003 and the third
quarter of 2004. Upon termination, the assets and administration
were transferred to the PBGC. All pension assets for the
domestic plans that the Company continues to sponsor are held in
Kaiser Aluminum Pension Master Trust (the Master
Trust) solely for the benefit of the pension plans
participants and beneficiaries. Historically, the
weighted-average asset allocation of these plans, by asset
category, consisted primarily of equity securities of
approximately 70% and others of 30% at December 31, 2004
and 2005. However, the Company currently anticipates that after
emergence from Chapter 11 proceedings the investment
guidelines will be revised to reflect a more conservative
investment strategy with a higher portion of the Master Trusts
assets being invested in fixed income funds/securities. The
pension plan assets are managed by a trustee.
Cash flow
Domestic Plans. As previously discussed, during the first
three years of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company did
not make any further significant contributions to any of its
domestic pension plans. However, as discussed above in
connection with the PBGC settlement agreement, which was
approved by the Court in January 2005, the Company paid
approximately $5.0 in March 2005 and approximately $1.0 in July
2005 in respect of minimum funding contributions for retained
pension plans, and paid $11.0 in respect of post-petition
administrative claims of the PBGC when the KAAC/KFC Plan became
effective in December 2005. An additional $3.0 could become
payable as an administrative claim depending on the outcome of
certain legal proceedings (see Note 11). Any other payments
to the PBGC are expected to be limited to recoveries under the
Liquidating Plans and the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan.
The amount related to the retroactive implementation of the
defined contribution savings plans (see above) was paid in July
2005.
As a replacement for the Companys previous postretirement
benefit plans, the Company agreed to contribute certain amounts
to one or more VEBAs. Such contributions are to include:
|
|
|
An amount not to exceed $36.0
and payable on emergence from the Chapter 11 proceedings so
long as the Companys liquidity (i.e. cash plus borrowing
availability) is at least $50.0 after considering such payments.
|
F-42
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
To the extent that less than the full $36.0 is paid and the
Companys interests in Anglesey are subsequently sold, a
portion of such sales proceeds, in certain circumstances, will
be used to pay the shortfall. |
|
|
|
On an annual basis, 10% of the
first $20.0 of annual cash flow, as defined, plus 20% of annual
cash flow, as defined, in excess of $20.0. Such annual payments
shall not exceed $20.0 and will also be limited (with no
carryover to future years) to the extent that the payments do
not cause the Companys liquidity to be less than $50.0.
|
|
|
Advances of $3.1 in June 2004
and $1.9 per month thereafter until the Company emerges
from the Cases. Any advances made pursuant to such agreement
will constitute a credit toward the $36.0 maximum contribution
due upon emergence.
|
In October 2004, the Company entered into an amendment to the
USWA agreement to satisfy certain technical requirements for the
follow-on hourly pension plans discussed above. The Company also
agreed to pay an additional $1.0 to the VEBA in excess of the
originally agreed to $36.0 contribution described above, which
amount was paid in March 2005. Under the terms of the amended
agreement, the Company is required to continue to make the
monthly VEBA contributions as long as it remains in
Chapter 11, even if the sum of such monthly payments
exceeds the $37.0 maximum amount discussed above. Any monthly
amounts paid during the Chapter 11 process in excess of the
$37.0 limit will offset future variable contribution
requirements post emergence. The amended agreement was approved
by the Court in February 2005. VEBA-related payments through
December 31, 2005 totaled approximately $38.3.
As a part of the September 2005 agreement with the USWA
discussed above, which was approved by the Court in October
2005, KACC has also agreed to provide advances of up to $8.5 to
the VEBA for hourly employees during the first two years after
emergence from the Cases, if requested by the VEBA for hourly
employees and subject to certain specified conditions. Any such
advances would accrue interest at a market rate and would first
reduce any required annual variable contributions. Any advanced
amounts in excess of required variable contributions would, at
KACCs option, be repayable to KACC in cash, shares of new
common stock of the emerging entity or a combination thereof.
Total charges associated with the VEBAs during the year ended
December 31, 2005 were $23.8 which amounts are reflected in
the accompanying financial statements as a reduction in
Liabilities subject to compromise (see Note 16 regarding
the accounting treatment of the VEBA charges).
Foreign Plans. Contributions to foreign pension plans
(excluding those that are considered part of discontinued
operations see Note 3) were nominal.
Significant charges in 2003 and 2004
In 2003 and 2004, in connection with the Companys
termination of its Terminated Plans (as discussed above), the
Company recorded non-cash charges of $121.2 and $310.0,
respectively, which amounts have been included in Other
operating charges, net (see Note 6). The charges recorded
in the fourth quarter of 2003 and third quarter of 2004 had no
material impact on the pension liability associated with the
plans since the Company had previously recorded a minimum
pension liability, as also required by GAAP, which amount was
offset by charges to Stockholders equity.
In 2004, in connection with the termination of the
Companys post-retirement medical plans (as discussed
above), the Company recorded a $312.5 non-cash charge, which
amount has been included in Other operating charges, net (see
Note 6).
F-43
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Postemployment Benefits. The Company has historically
provided certain benefits to former or inactive employees after
employment but before retirement. However, as a part of the
agreements more fully discussed above, such benefits were
discontinued in mid-2004.
Restricted Common Stock. The Company has a restricted
stock plan, which was one of its stock incentive compensation
plans, for its officers and other employees. Pursuant to the
plan, approximately 1,181,000 restricted shares of the
Companys Common Stock were outstanding as of
January 31, 2002. During 2002 through 2005, approximately
1,122,000 of the unvested restricted shares were cancelled or
voluntarily forfeited. As of December 31, 2005, there were
no restricted shares outstanding.
Incentive Plans. The Company has an unfunded incentive
compensation program, which provides incentive compensation
based on performance against annual plans and over rolling
three-year periods. In addition, the Company has a
nonqualified stock option plan and KACC has a
defined contribution plan for salaried employees which provides
for matching contributions by the Company at the discretion of
the board of directors. Given the challenging business
environment encountered during 2003, 2004 and 2005 and the
disappointing results of operations for all years, only modest
incentive payments were made and no matching contribution were
awarded in respect of either year. The Companys expense
for all of these plans was $6.1, $1.7 and $3.5 for the years
ended December 31, 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively.
Up to 8,000,000 shares of the Companys Common Stock
were initially reserved for issuance under its stock incentive
compensation plans. At December 31, 2005,
4,864,889 shares of Common Stock remained available for
issuance under those plans. Stock options granted pursuant to
the Companys nonqualified stock option program are to be
granted at or above the prevailing market price, generally vest
at a rate of 20-33% per year, and have a five or ten year
term. Information concerning nonqualified stock option plan
activity is shown below. The weighted average price per share
for each year is shown parenthetically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Outstanding at beginning of year ($5.63, $3.34 and $3.14,
respectively)
|
|
|
1,454,861 |
|
|
|
850,140 |
|
|
|
810,040 |
|
Expired or forfeited ($8.86, $7.25 and $2.49, respectively)
|
|
|
(604,721 |
) |
|
|
(40,100 |
) |
|
|
(318,920 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at end of year ($3.34, $3.14 and $3.57, respectively)
|
|
|
850,140 |
|
|
|
810,040 |
|
|
|
491,120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at end of year ($3.34, $3.04 and $3.41, respectively)
|
|
|
645,659 |
|
|
|
781,856 |
|
|
|
462,936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable at December 31, 2005 had exercisable
prices ranging from $1.72 to $10.06 and a weighted average
remaining contractual life of 5.6 years. Given that the
average sales price of the Companys Common Stock is
currently in the $.03 per share range, the Company believes
it is unlikely any of the stock options will be exercised.
Further, the equity interests of the holders of outstanding
options are expected to be cancelled without consideration
pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan.
NOTE 10 MINORITY INTERESTS
KACC has four series of $100 par value Cumulative
Convertible Preference Stock ($100 Preference Stock)
outstanding with annual dividend requirements of between
41/8%
and
43/4%.
KACC has the option to redeem the $100 Preference Stock at par
value plus accrued dividends. KACC does not intend to issue any
additional shares of the $100 Preference Stock. By its terms,
the $100 Preference Stock can be exchanged for per share cash
amounts between $69-$80. The Company records the $100
F-44
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Preference Stock at their exchange amounts for financial
statement presentation and includes such amounts in minority
interests. At December 31, 2004 and 2005, outstanding
shares of $100 Preference Stock were 8,669. In accordance with
the Code and DIP Facility, KACC is not permitted to repurchase
or redeem any of its stock. Further, the equity interests of the
holders of the $100 Preference Stock are expected to be
cancelled without consideration pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum
Amended Plan.
NOTE 11 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Impact of reorganization proceedings
During the pendency of the Cases, substantially all pending
litigation, except certain environmental claims and litigation,
against the Debtors is stayed. Generally, claims against a
Reorganizing Debtor arising from actions or omissions prior to
its Filing Date are expected to be settled pursuant to the
Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan.
Commitments
KACC has a variety of financial commitments, including purchase
agreements, tolling arrangements, forward foreign exchange and
forward sales contracts (see Note 12), letters of credit,
and guarantees. A significant portion of these commitments
relate to the Companys interests in and related to QAL,
which were sold in April 2005 (see Note 3). KACC also has
agreements to supply alumina to and to purchase aluminum from
Anglesey. During the third quarter of 2005, the Company placed
orders for certain equipment, furnaces and/or services intended
to augment the Companys heat treat and aerospace
capabilities at the Spokane, Washington facility in respect of
which the Company expects to become obligated for costs likely
to total in the range of 75.0. Approximately $17.0 of such costs
were incurred in 2005. The balance will likely be incurred in
2006 and 2007, with the majority of such costs being incurred in
2006.
Minimum rental commitments under operating leases at
December 31, 2005, are as follows: years ending
December 31, 2006 $2.6; 2007 $1.7; 2008
$1.4; 2009 $1.3; 2010 $.3; thereafter $.1.
Pursuant to the Code, the Debtors may elect to reject or assume
unexpired pre-petition leases. Rental expenses, after excluding
rental expenses of discontinued operations, were $8.6, $3.1 and
$3.6, for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005,
respectively. Rental expenses of discontinued operations were
$6.6 and $4.9 for the years ended December 31, 2003 and
2004, respectively.
Environmental contingencies
The Company and KACC are subject to a number of environmental
laws and regulations, to fines or penalties assessed for alleged
breaches of the environmental laws, and to claims and litigation
based upon such laws and regulations. KACC currently is subject
to a number of claims under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986
(CERCLA), and, along with certain other entities,
has been named as a potentially responsible party for remedial
costs at certain third-party sites listed on the National
Priorities List under CERCLA.
Based on the Companys evaluation of these and other
environmental matters, the Company has established environmental
accruals, primarily related to potential solid waste disposal
and soil and groundwater remediation matters. During the year
ended December 31, 2003, KACC recorded charges of $23.2 to
increase its environmental accrual. The following table presents
the changes in such
F-45
Notes to consolidated financial statements
accruals, which are primarily included in Long-term liabilities,
for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Balance at beginning of period
|
|
$ |
59.1 |
|
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
$ |
58.3 |
|
Additional accruals
|
|
|
25.6 |
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
|
.5 |
|
Less expenditures
|
|
|
(2.2 |
) |
|
|
(32.6 |
) |
|
|
(12.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of
period(1)
|
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
$ |
58.3 |
|
|
$ |
46.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As of December 31, 2004 and 2005, $30.6 and $30.7,
respectively, of the environmental accrual was included in
Liabilities subject to compromise (see Note 1) and the
balance was included in Long-term liabilities. |
These environmental accruals represent the Companys
estimate of costs (in nominal dollars without discounting)
reasonably expected to be incurred based on presently enacted
laws and regulations, currently available facts, existing
technology, and the Companys assessment of the likely
remediation action to be taken. In the ordinary course, the
Company expects that these remediation actions will be taken
over the next several years and estimates that annual
expenditures to be charged to these environmental accruals will
be approximately $14.5 in 2006, $.2 to $3.8 per year for
the years 2007 through 2010 and an aggregate of approximately
$25.5 thereafter. Approximately $20.2 of the $25.5 environmental
liabilities expected to be settled after 2010 relates to
non-owned property sites has been included in the after 2010
balance because such amounts are expected to be settled solely
pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan.
Approximately $20.2 of the amount provided in 2003 relates to
the previously disclosed multi-site settlement agreement with
various federal and state governmental regulatory authorities
and other parties in respect of KACCs environmental
exposure at a number of non-owned sites. Under this agreement,
among other things, KACC agreed to claims at such sites totaling
$25.6 ($20.2 greater than amounts that had previously been
accrued for these sites) and, in return, the governmental
regulatory authorities have agreed that such claims would be
treated as pre-Filing Date unsecured claims (i.e. liabilities
subject to compromise). The Company recorded the portion of the
$20.2 accrual that relates to locations with operations ($15.7)
in Other operating charges, net (see Note 6). The remainder
of the accrual ($4.5), which relates to locations that have not
operated for a number of years was recorded in Other income
(expense) (see Note 2).
During 2003 and 2004, the Company also provided additional
accruals totaling approximately $3.0 and $1.4, respectively,
associated with certain KACC-owned properties with no current
operations (recorded in Other income (expense) see
Note 2). The additional 2003 accruals resulted primarily
from additional cost estimation efforts undertaken by the
Company in connection with its reorganization efforts. The 2004
accrual resulted from facts and circumstances determined in the
ordinary course of business. Both the 2003 and 2004 accruals
were recorded as liabilities not subject to compromise as they
relate to properties owned by the Company.
The Company has previously disclosed that it is possible that
its assessment of environmental accruals could increase because
it may be in the interests of all stakeholders to agree to
increased amounts to, among other things, achieve a claim
treatment that is favorable and to expedite the reorganization
process. The September 2003 multi-site settlement is one example
of such a situation.
In June, 2004, the Company reported that it was close to
entering settlement agreements with various parties pursuant to
which a substantial portion of the unresolved environmental
claims could be settled
F-46
Notes to consolidated financial statements
for approximately $25.0-$30.0. In September 2004, agreements
with the affected parties were reached and Court approval for
such agreements was received. During October 2004, the Company
paid approximately $27.3 to completely settle these liabilities.
The amounts paid approximated the amount of liabilities recorded
and did not result in any material net gain or loss.
As additional facts are developed and definitive remediation
plans and necessary regulatory approvals for implementation of
remediation are established or alternative technologies are
developed, changes in these and other factors may result in
actual costs exceeding the current environmental accruals. The
Company believes that it is reasonably possible that costs
associated with these environmental matters may exceed current
accruals by amounts that could range, in the aggregate, up to an
estimated $20.0 (a majority of which are estimated to relate to
owned sites that are likely not subject to compromise). As the
resolution of these matters is subject to further regulatory
review and approval, no specific assurance can be given as to
when the factors upon which a substantial portion of this
estimate is based can be expected to be resolved. However, the
Company is currently working to resolve certain of these matters.
The Company believes that KACC has insurance coverage available
to recover certain incurred and future environmental costs.
However, no amounts have been accrued in the financial
statements with respect to such potential recoveries.
Other environmental matters
During April 2004, KACC was served with a subpoena for documents
and has been notified by Federal authorities that they are
investigating certain environmental compliance issues with
respect to KACCs Trentwood facility in the State of
Washington. KACC is undertaking its own internal investigation
of the matter through specially retained counsel to ensure that
it has all relevant facts regarding Trentwoods compliance
with applicable environmental laws. KACC believes it is in
compliance with all applicable environmental law and
requirements at the Trentwood facility and intends to defend any
claims or charges, if any should result, vigorously. The Company
cannot assess what, if any, impact this matter may have on the
Companys or KACCs financial statements.
Asbestos and certain other personal injury claims
KACC has been one of many defendants in a number of lawsuits,
some of which involve claims of multiple persons, in which the
plaintiffs allege that certain of their injuries were caused by,
among other things, exposure to asbestos or exposure to products
containing asbestos produced or sold by KACC or as a result of,
employment or association with KACC. The lawsuits generally
relate to products KACC has not sold for more than
20 years. As of the initial Filing Date, approximately
112,000 asbestos-related claims were pending. The Company has
also previously disclosed that certain other personal injury
claims had been filed in respect of alleged pre-Filing Date
exposure to silica and coal tar pitch volatiles (approximately
3,900 claims and 300 claims, respectively).
Due to the Cases, holders of asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch
volatile claims are stayed from continuing to prosecute pending
litigation and from commencing new lawsuits against the
Reorganizing Debtors. As a result, the Company has not made any
payments in respect of any of these types of claims during the
Cases. Despite the Cases, the Company continues to pursue
insurance collections in respect of asbestos-related amounts
paid prior to its Filing Date and, as described below, to
negotiate insurance settlements and prosecute certain actions to
clarify policy interpretations in respect of such coverage.
F-47
Notes to consolidated financial statements
The following tables present historical information regarding
KACCs asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch
volatiles-related balances and cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Liability
|
|
$ |
1,115.0 |
|
|
$ |
1,115.0 |
|
Receivable(1)
|
|
|
967.0 |
|
|
|
965.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
148.0 |
|
|
$ |
149.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Inception | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
to date | |
| |
Payments made, including related legal costs
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(355.7 |
) |
Insurance
recoveries(2)
|
|
|
18.6 |
|
|
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
267.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
18.6 |
|
|
$ |
2.7 |
|
|
$ |
1.5 |
|
|
$ |
(88.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The asbestos-related receivable was determined on the same
basis as the asbestos-related cost accrual. However, no
assurances can be given that KACC will be able to project
similar recovery percentages for future asbestos-related claims
or that the amounts related to future asbestos-related claims
will not exceed KACCs aggregate insurance coverage.
Amounts are stated in nominal dollars and not discounted to
present value as the Company cannot currently project the actual
timing of payments or insurance recoveries particularly in light
of the expected treatment of such items in any plan of
reorganization that is ultimately filed. The Company believes
that, as of December 31, 2005, it had received all
insurance recoveries that it is likely to collect in respect of
asbestos-related costs paid. See Note 1. |
|
(2) |
Excludes certain amounts paid by insurers into a separate
escrow account (in respect of future settlements) more fully
discussed below. |
As previously disclosed, at the Filing Date, the Company had
accrued approximately $610.1 (included in Liabilities Subject to
Compromise) in respect of asbestos and other similar personal
injury claims. As disclosed, such amount represented the
Companys estimate for current claims and claims expected
to be filed over a 10 year period (the longest period KACC
believed it could then reasonably estimate) based on, among
other things existing claims, assumptions about the amounts of
asbestos-related payments, the status of ongoing litigation and
settlement initiatives, and the advice of Wharton Levin
Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A., with respect to the current
state of the law related to asbestos claims. The Company also
disclosed that there were inherent limitations to such estimates
and that the Companys actual liabilities in respect of
such claims could significantly exceed the amounts accrued; that
at some point during the reorganization process, the Company
expected that an estimation of KACCs entire
asbestos-related liability would occur; and that until such
process was complete or KACC had more information, KACC was
unlikely to be able to adjust its accruals.
Over the last year-plus period, the Company has engaged in
periodic negotiations with the representatives of the asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch claimants and the Companys
insurers as part of its reorganization efforts. As more fully
discussed in Note 1, these efforts resulted in an agreed
term sheet in early 2005 between the Company and other key
constituents as to the treatment for such claims in any plan(s)
of reorganization the Company files. While a formal estimation
process has not been completed, now that the Company can
reasonably predict the path forward for resolution of these
claims and based on the information resulting from the
negotiations process, the Company
F-48
Notes to consolidated financial statements
believes it has sufficient information to project a range of
likely costs. The Company now estimates that its total liability
for asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch volatile personal injury
claims is expected to be between approximately $1,100.0 and
$2,400.0. However, the Company does not anticipate that other
constituents will necessarily agree with this range and the
Company anticipates that, as a part of any estimation process
that may occur in the Cases, other constituents are expected to
disagree with the Companys estimated range of costs. In
particular, the Company is aware that certain informal
assertions have been made by representatives for the asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatiles claimants that the actual
liability may exceed, perhaps significantly, the top end of the
Companys expected range. While the Company cannot
reasonably predict what the ultimate amount of such claims will
be determined to be, the Company believes that the minimum end
of the range is both probable and reasonably estimatable.
Accordingly, in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an
approximate $500.0 charge in 2004 to increase its accrued
liability at December 31, 2004 to the $1,115.0 minimum end
of the expected range (included in Liabilities subject to
Compromise see Note 1). Future adjustments to such
accruals are possible as the reorganization and/or estimation
process proceeds and it is possible that such adjustments will
be material.
As previously disclosed, KACC believes that it has insurance
coverage available to recover a substantial portion of its
asbestos-related costs and had accrued for expected recoveries
totaling approximately $463.1 as of September 30, 2004,
after considering the approximately $54.4 of asbestos-related
insurance receipts received from the Filing Date through
September 30, 2004. As previously disclosed, the Company
reached this conclusion after considering its prior
insurance-related recoveries in respect of asbestos-related
claims, existing insurance policies, and the advice of Heller
Ehrman LLP with respect to applicable insurance coverage law
relating to the terms and conditions of those policies.
As a part of the negotiation process described above, the
Company has continued its efforts with insurers to make clear
the amount of insurance coverage expected to be available in
respect of asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch personal injury
claims. The Company has settled asbestos-related coverage
matters with certain of its insurance carriers. However, other
carriers have not yet agreed to settlements and disputes with
carriers exist. During 2000, KACC filed suit in
San Francisco Superior Court against a group of its
insurers, which suit was thereafter split into two related
actions. Additional insurers were added to the litigation in
2000 and 2002. During October 2001, June 2003, February 2004 and
April 2004, the court ruled favorably on a number of policy
interpretation issues. Additionally, one of the favorable
October 2001 rulings was affirmed in February 2002 by an
intermediate appellate court in response to a petition from the
insurers. The litigation is continuing. Certain insurers have
filed motions for review and appeals to object to certain
aspects of the confirmation order in respect of the Kaiser
Aluminum Amended Plan, including with regard to whether the
rights to proceeds of certain of the insurance policies may be
transferred upon emergence to the applicable personal injury
trust(s) contemplated by the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan as
part of the resolution of the outstanding tort claims. It is
expected that the United States District Court will decide this
matter as a part of the plan affirmation process. While the
Company believes that the applicable law supports the transfer
of such rights to proceeds to the Applicable Personal Injury
Trust(s), no assurances can be provided on how the Court will
ultimately rule on this or other aspects of the Kaiser Aluminum
Amended Plan.
The timing and amount of future insurance recoveries continues
to be dependent on the resolution of any disputes regarding
coverage under the applicable insurance policies thru the
process of negotiations or further litigation. However, the
Company believes that substantial recoveries from the insurance
carriers are probable. The Company estimates that at
December 31, 2005 its remaining solvent insurance coverage
was in the range of $1,400.0-$1,500.0. Further, assuming that
actual asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch volatile costs were
to be the $1,115.0 amount now accrued (as discussed
F-49
Notes to consolidated financial statements
above) the Company believes that it would be able to recover
from insurers amounts totaling approximately $965.5, and,
accordingly the Company recorded in 2004 an approximate $500.0
increase in its personal injury-related insurance receivable.
The foregoing estimates are based on, among other things,
negotiations, the results of the litigation efforts discussed
above and the advice of Heller Ehrman LLP with respect to
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of those policies. While the Company considers the
approximate $965.5 amount to be probable (based on the factors
cited above) it is possible that facts and circumstances could
change and, if such a change were to occur, that a material
adjustment to the amount recorded could occur. Additionally, it
should be noted that, if through the estimation process or
negotiation, it was determined that a significantly higher
amount of costs were expected to be paid in respect of asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile claims: (a) any amounts
in excess of $1,400.0-$1,500.0 would likely not be offset by any
expected incremental insurance recoveries and (b) it is
presently uncertain to what extent additional insurance
recoveries would be determined under GAAP to be probable in
respect of expected costs between the $1,100.0 amount accrued at
December 31, 2005 and total amount of estimated solvent
insurance coverage available. Further, it is possible that, in
order to provide certainty in respect of tort-related insurance
recoveries, the Company and the insurers may enter into further
settlement agreements establishing payment obligations of
insurers to the trusts discussed in Note 1. Settlement
amounts may be different from the face amount of the policies,
which are stated in nominal terms, and may be affected by, among
other things, the present value of possible cash receipts versus
the potential obligation of the insurers to pay over time which
could impact the amount of receivables recorded.
Since the start of the Cases, KACC has entered into settlement
agreements with several of the insurers whose asbestos-related
obligations are primarily in respect of future asbestos claims.
These settlement agreements were approved by the Court. In
accordance with the Court approval, the insurers have paid
certain amounts, pursuant to the terms of that approved escrow
agreements, into funds (the Escrow Funds) in which
KACC has no interest, but which amounts will be available for
the ultimate settlement of KACCs asbestos-related claims.
Because the Escrow Funds are under the control of the escrow
agents, who will make distributions only pursuant to a Court
order, the Escrow Funds are not included in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2005. In
addition, since neither the Company nor KACC received any
economic benefit or suffered any economic detriment and have not
been relieved of any asbestos-related obligation as a result of
the receipt of the escrow funds, neither the asbestos-related
receivable nor the asbestos-related liability have been adjusted
as a result of these transactions.
During the latter half of 2005, the Company entered into certain
conditional settlement agreements with insurers under which the
insurers agreed (in aggregate) to pay approximately $375.0 in
respect of substantially all coverage under certain policies
having a combined face value of approximately $459.0. The
settlements, which were approved by the Court, have several
conditions, including a legislative contingency and are only
payable to the trust(s) being set up under the Kaiser Aluminum
Amended Plan upon emergence (more fully discussed in
Note 1). One set of insurers paid approximately $137.0 into
a separate escrow account in November 2005. If the Company does
not emerge, the agreement is null and void and the funds (along
with any interest that has accumulated) will be returned to the
insurers. As of December 31, 2005, the insurers had paid
$152.0 into the Escrow Funds, a substantial portion of which
related to the conditional settlements. It is possible that
settlements with additional insurers will occur. However, no
assurance can be given that such settlements will occur.
During March 2006, the Company reached a conditional settlement
agreement with another group of insurers under which the
insurers would pay approximately $67.0 in respect of certain
policies having
F-50
Notes to consolidated financial statements
a combined face value of approximately $80.0. The conditional
settlement, which has similar terms and conditions to the other
conditional settlement agreement discussed above, must still be
approved by the Court. Negotiations with other insurers continue.
The Company has not provided any accounting recognition for the
conditional agreements in the accompanying financial statements
given: (1) the conditional nature of the settlements;
(2) the fact that, if the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan does
not become effective, the Companys interests with respect
to the insurance policies covered by the agreements are not
impaired in any way; and (3) the Company believes that
collection of the approximate $965.5 amount of Personal
injury-related insurance recovery receivable is probable even if
the conditional agreements are ultimately approved. No
assurances can be given as to whether the conditional agreements
will become final or as to what amounts will ultimately be
collected in respect of the insurance policies covered by the
conditional settlement or any other insurance policies.
Hearing loss claims
During February 2004, the Company reached a settlement in
principle in respect of 400 claims, which alleged that certain
individuals who were employees of the Company, principally at a
facility previously owned and operated by KACC in Louisiana,
suffered hearing loss in connection with their employment. Under
the terms of the settlement, which is still subject to Court
approval the claimants will be allowed claims totaling $15.8. As
such, the Company recorded a $15.8 charge (in Other operating
charges, net see Note 6) in 2003 and a corresponding
obligation (included in Liabilities subject to compromise
see Note 1). However, no cash payments by the Company are
required in respect of these amounts. Rather the settlement
agreement contemplates that, at emergence, these claims will be
transferred to a separate trust along with certain rights
against certain insurance policies of the Company and that such
insurance policies will be the sole source of recourse to the
claimants. While the Company believes that the insurance
policies are of value, no amounts have been reflected in the
Companys financial statements at December 31, 2005 in
respect of such policies as the Company could not with the level
of certainty necessary determine the amount of recoveries that
were probable.
During the Cases, the Company has received approximately 3,200
additional proofs of claim alleging pre-petition injury due to
noise induced hearing loss. It is not known at this time how
many, if any, of such claims have merit or at what level such
claims might qualify within the parameters established by the
above-referenced settlement in principle for the 400 claims.
Accordingly, the Company cannot presently determine the impact
or value of these claims. However, under the plan of
reorganization all such claims will be transferred, along with
certain rights against certain insurance policies, to a separate
trust and resolved in that manner rather than being settled
prior to the Companys emergence from the Cases.
Labor matters
In connection with the USWA strike and subsequent lock-out by
KACC, which was settled in September 2000, certain allegations
of unfair labor practices (ULPs) were filed with the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by the USWA.
As previously disclosed, KACC responded to all such allegations
and believed that they were without merit. Twenty-two of
twenty-four allegations of ULPs previously brought against KACC
by the USWA have been dismissed. A trial before an
administrative law judge for the two remaining allegations
concluded in September 2001. In May 2002, the administrative law
judge ruled against KACC in respect of the two remaining ULP
allegations and recommended that the NLRB award back wages, plus
interest, less any earnings of the workers during
F-51
Notes to consolidated financial statements
the period of the lockout. The administrative law judges
ruling did not contain any specific amount of proposed award and
was not self-executing.
In January 2004, as part of its settlement with the USWA with
respect to pension and retiree medical benefits, KACC and the
USWA agreed to settle their case pending before the NLRB,
subject to approval of the NLRB General Counsel and the Court
and ratification by union members. Under the terms of the
agreement, solely for the purposes of determining distributions
in connection with the reorganization, an unsecured pre-petition
claim in the amount of $175.0 will be allowed. Also, as
part of the agreement, the Company agreed to adopt a position of
neutrality regarding the unionization of any employees of the
reorganized company.
The settlement was ratified by the union members in February
2004, amended in October 2004, and ultimately approved by the
Court in February 2005. Until February 2005, the settlement was
also contingent on the Courts approval of the Intercompany
Agreement. However, such contingency was removed when the Court
approved the Intercompany Agreement in February 2005. Since all
material contingencies in respect of this settlement have been
resolved and, since the ULP claim existed as of the
December 31, 2004 balance sheet date, the Company recorded
a $175.0 non-cash charge in the fourth quarter of 2004
(reflected in Other operating charges, net Note 6).
Labor agreement
The Company previously disclosed that the labor agreement
covering the USWA workers at KACCs Spokane, Washington
rolling mill and Newark, Ohio extrusion and rod rolling facility
were set to expire in September 2005 and that KACC and
representatives of the USWA had begun discussions regarding a
new labor agreement. During June 2005, KACC and representatives
of the USWA reached an agreement in respect of the labor
agreements for such locations and the union members subsequently
ratified the agreement. Additionally, new labor agreements were
reached with USWA members at the Richmond, Virginia, and Tulsa,
Oklahoma extrusion facilities. The new agreements at all of
these locations commenced on July 1, 2005 and run through
various expiration dates in 2010. The agreements provide for the
following at each plant: a ratification-signing bonus; typical
industry-level annual wage increases; an opportunity to share in
plant profitability; and a continuation of benefits modeled
along the lines of the settlement between the parties approved
by the Court in February 2005. The approximately $.9 of
ratification signing bonuses were expensed in the second quarter
of 2005 since that is when ratification occurred (included in
Cost of products sold).
Contingencies regarding settlement with the PBGC
As more fully described in Note 8, in response to the
January 2004 Debtors motion to terminate or substantially
modify substantially all of the Debtors defined benefit
pension plans, the Court ruled that the Company had met the
factual requirements for distress termination as to all of the
plans at issue. The PBGC appealed the Courts ruling.
However, as more fully discussed in Note 9, during the
pendency of the PBGCs appeal, the Company and the PBGC
reached a settlement under which the PBGC agreed to assume the
Terminated Plans. The Court approved this settlement in January
2005. The Company believed that, subject to the Kaiser Aluminum
Amended Plan and the Liquidating Plans complying with the terms
of the PBGC settlement, all issues in respect of such matters
were resolved. However, despite the settlement with the PBGC,
the intermediate appellate court proceeded to consider the
PBGCs earlier appeal and issued a ruling dated
March 31, 2005 affirming the Courts rulings regarding
distress termination of all such plans. If the current appellate
ruling became final, it is possible that the remaining defined
benefit plans would be assumed by the PBGC. Since the Company
and the PBGC became aware of the intermediate appellate court
ruling, the Company and the PBGC
F-52
Notes to consolidated financial statements
have conducted additional discussions. In July 2005, the Company
and the PBGC reached an agreement, which was approved by the
Court in September 2005, under which the PBGC agreement
previously approved by the Court was amended to permit the PBGC
to further appeal the intermediate appellate court ruling. Under
the terms of the amended PBGC agreement, if the PBGC were to
prevail in the further appeal, all aspects of the previously
approved PBGC agreement would remain the same. Accordingly, in
essence, if the PBGCs further appeal were to prevail, the
Company does not believe there would be any material adverse
consequences. On the other hand, under the amended agreement, if
the intermediate appellate court ruling is upheld on further
appeal, the PBGC is required to: (a) approve the distress
termination of the remaining defined benefit pension plans; and
(b) reduce the amount of the administrative claim to
$11.0 (from $14.0). Under the amended agreement, both
the Company and the PBGC agreed to take up no further appeals.
Pending a final resolution of this matter, the Companys
settlement with the PBGC remains in full force and effect. Upon
consummation of the Liquidating Plans, the $11.0 minimum
was paid to the PBGC. The remaining $3.0 that would be
payable if the PBGC were to be paid the maximum amount of the
administrative claim was accrued at December 31, 2005 in
Accrued salaries, wages, and related expenses. The Company
continues to believe that any outcome would not be less
favorable (from a cash perspective) than the terms of the PBGC
settlement or the amended PBGC agreement. However, if the
remaining defined benefit pension plans were to be terminated,
it would likely result in a non-cash charge of
approximately $6.0-$7.0.
The indenture trustee for the Sub Notes appealed the
Courts order approving the settlement with the PBGC. In
March 2006, the first level appellate court affirmed the
Courts approval of the settlement with the PBGC.
Other contingencies
The Company or KACC is involved in various other claims,
lawsuits, and other proceedings relating to a wide variety of
matters related to past or present operations. While
uncertainties are inherent in the final outcome of such matters,
and it is presently impossible to determine the actual costs
that ultimately may be incurred, management currently believes
that the resolution of such uncertainties and the incurrence of
such costs should not have a material adverse effect on the
Companys consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or liquidity.
NOTE 12 DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND
RELATED HEDGING PROGRAMS
In conducting its business, KACC has historically used various
instruments, including forward contracts and options, to manage
the risks arising from fluctuations in aluminum prices, energy
prices and exchange rates. KACC has historically entered into
hedging transactions from time to time to limit its exposure
resulting from (1) its anticipated sales primary aluminum
and fabricated aluminum products, net of expected purchase costs
for items that fluctuate with aluminum prices, (2) the
energy price risk from fluctuating prices for natural gas used
in its production process, and (3) foreign currency
requirements with respect to its cash commitments with foreign
subsidiaries and affiliates. As KACCs hedging activities
are generally designed to lock-in a specified price or range of
prices, gains or losses on the derivative contracts utilized in
the hedging activities (except the impact of those contracts
discussed below which have been marked to market) generally
offset at least a portion of any losses or gains, respectively,
on the transactions being hedged.
KACCs share of primary aluminum production from Anglesey
is approximately 150,000,000 pounds annually. Because KACC
purchases alumina for Anglesey at prices linked to primary
aluminum prices, only a portion of the Companys net
revenues associated with Anglesey are exposed to price risk. The
F-53
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Company estimates the net portion of its share of Anglesey
production exposed to primary aluminum price risk to be
approximately 100,000,000 pounds annually.
As stated above, the Companys pricing of fabricated
aluminum products is generally intended to lock-in a conversion
margin (representing the value added from the fabrication
process(es)) and to pass metal price risk on to its customers.
However, in certain instances the Company does enter into firm
price arrangements. In such instances, the Company does have
price risk on its anticipated primary aluminum purchase in
respect of the customers order. Total fabricated products
shipments during 2003, 2004 and 2005 that contained fixed price
terms were (in millions of pounds) 97.6, 119.0, and 155.0
respectively.
During the last three years the volume of fabricated products
shipments with underlying primary aluminum price risk
substantially offset or roughly equaled the Companys net
exposure to primary aluminum price risk at Anglesey. As such,
the Company considers its access to Anglesey production overall
to be a natural hedge against any fabricated
products firm metal-price risk. However, since the volume of
fabricated products shipped under firm prices may not match up
on a month-to-month
basis with expected Anglesey-related primary aluminum shipments,
the Company may use third party hedging instruments to eliminate
any net remaining primary aluminum price exposure existing at
any time.
At December 31, 2005, the fabricated products business held
contracts for the delivery of fabricated aluminum products that
have the effect of creating price risk on anticipated purchases
of primary aluminum for the period 2006-2009 totaling
approximately (in millions of pounds): 2006: 123.0, 2007: 79.0,
2008: 56.0, and 2009: 44.0.
The following table summarizes KACCs material derivative
positions at December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
amount of | |
|
Carrying/ | |
|
|
|
|
contracts | |
|
market | |
Commodity |
|
Period | |
|
(mmlbs) | |
|
value | |
| |
Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option sale contracts
|
|
|
1/06 through 12/11 |
|
|
|
84.7 |
|
|
$ |
1.5 |
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
1/06 through 12/06 |
|
|
|
15.7 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
amount of | |
|
Carrying/ | |
|
|
|
|
contracts | |
|
market | |
Foreign currency |
|
Period | |
|
(mm GBP) | |
|
value | |
| |
Pounds Sterling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option sale contracts
|
|
|
1/06 through 12/07 |
|
|
|
84.0 |
|
|
$ |
3.2 |
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
1/06 through 12/07 |
|
|
|
84.0 |
|
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
The above table excludes certain aluminum option sales contracts
whose positions were liquidated prior to their settlement date
during the year ended December 31, 2005. A net loss
associated with these liquidated positions was deferred and is
being recognized over the period during which the underlying
transactions to which the hedges related are expected to occur.
As of December 31, 2005, the remaining unamortized net loss
was approximately $2.1.
Hedging activities during 2005 (all of which were attributable
to continuing operations) resulted in a net loss of
approximately $.1 for the year ended 2005. Hedging
activities during the years ended December 31, 2003 and
2004 resulted in net losses of approximately $1.7
and $2.5, respectively.
F-54
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Hedging activities in 2003 and 2004 were deemed to be fully
attributable to the Companys commodity-related operations
and are reported in Discontinued operations.
As more fully discussed in Notes 2 and 16, in
connection with the Companys preparation of its
December 31, 2005 financial statements, the Company
concluded that its derivative financial instruments did not
qualify for hedge accounting treatment. The net impact of the
change was a non-cash charge (in Cost of products sold) of
approximately $4.1 (which would have otherwise been classified
as a reduction of OCI if the transactions had qualified for
hedge accounting treatment).
NOTE 13KEY EMPLOYEE RETENTION PROGRAM
In June 2002, the Company adopted a key employee retention
program (the KERP), which was approved by the Court
in September 2002. The KERP is a comprehensive program that is
designed to provide financial incentives sufficient to retain
certain key employees during the Cases. The KERP includes six
key elements: a retention plan, a severance plan, a change in
control plan, a completion incentive plan, the continuation for
certain participants of an existing supplemental employee
retirement plan (SERP) and a long-term incentive
plan. Under the KERP, retention payments commenced in September
2002 and were paid every six months through March 31, 2004,
except that 50% of the amounts payable to certain senior
officers were withheld until the Debtors emerge from the Cases
or as otherwise agreed pursuant to the KERP. During 2003 and
2004, the Company recorded charges of $6.1 and $1.5,
respectively (included in Selling, administrative, research and
development, and general), related to the retention plan of the
KERP. The severance and change in control plans, which are
similar to the provisions of previous arrangements that existed
for certain key employees, generally provide for severance
payments of between six months and three years of salary and
certain benefits, depending on the facts and circumstances and
the level of employee involved. The completion incentive plan
generally provided for payments that reduced over time to
certain senior officers depending on the elapsed time until the
Debtors emerged from the Cases. The completion incentive lapsed
with no payments due. The SERP generally provides additional
non-qualified pension benefits for certain active employees at
the time that the KERP was approved, who would suffer a loss of
benefits based on Internal Revenue Code limitations, so long as
such employees are not subsequently terminated for cause or
voluntarily terminate their employment prior to reaching their
retirement age. The long-term incentive plan generally provides
for incentive awards to key employees based on an annual cost
reduction target. Payment of such long-term incentive awards
generally will be made: (a) 50% when the Debtors emerge
from the Cases and (b) 50% one year from the date the
Debtors emerge from the Cases. At December 31, 2005,
approximately $8.2 was accrued in respect of the KERP long-term
incentive.
NOTE 14PACIFIC NORTHWEST POWER MATTERS
During October 2000, KACC signed an electric power contract with
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) under
which the BPA, starting October 1, 2001, was to provide
KACCs operations in the State of Washington with
approximately 290 megawatts of power through September
2006. The contract provided KACC with sufficient power to fully
operate KACCs Trentwood facility, as well as approximately
40% of the combined capacity of KACCs Mead and Tacoma
aluminum smelting operations which had been curtailed since the
last half of 2000.
As a part of the reorganization process, the Company concluded
that it was in its best interest to reject the BPA contract as
permitted by the Code. As such, with the authorization of the
Court, the Company rejected the BPA contract on
September 30, 2002. The contract rejection gives rise to a
pre-petition claim (see Note 1). The BPA has filed a proof
of claim for approximately $75.0 in connection
F-55
Notes to consolidated financial statements
with the Cases in respect of the contract rejection. The Company
has previously disclosed that the amount of the BPA claim would
ultimately be determined either through a negotiated settlement,
litigation or a computation of prevailing power prices over the
contract period and that, as the amount of the BPAs claim
in respect of the contract rejection had not been determined, no
provision had been made for the claim in the Companys
prior period financial statements. In October 2005, the Debtors
asked the Court to reduce the claim to $1.1 as the
take-or-pay contract price has consistently been below average
market prices. The $1.1 amount represents only certain
pre-petition invoices and such amount is (and has been) fully
accrued. Whatever the ultimate amount of the BPA claim, it is
expected to be settled pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan. Accordingly, any payments that may be required as a result
of the rejection of the BPA contract are expected to only be
made pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan upon the
Companys emergence from the Cases.
NOTE 15SEGMENT AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
INFORMATION
The Companys primary line of business is the production of
fabricated aluminum products. In addition, the Company owns a
49% interest in Anglesey, which owns an aluminum smelter in
Holyhead, Wales. Historically, the Company, through its wholly
owned subsidiary, KACC, operated in all principal sectors of the
aluminum industry including the production and sale of bauxite,
alumina and primary aluminum in domestic and international
markets. However, as previously disclosed, as a part of the
Companys reorganization efforts, the Company has completed
the sale of substantially all of its commodities operations
(including the Companys interests in and related to QAL
which were sold in April 2005). The balances and results in
respect of such operations are now considered discontinued
operations (see Note 3 and 5). The amounts remaining
in Primary aluminum relate primarily to the Companys
interests in and related to Anglesey and the Companys
primary aluminum hedging-related activities.
The Companys operations are organized and managed by
product type. The Companys operations, after the
discontinued operations reclassification, include two operating
segments of the aluminum industry and the corporate segment. The
aluminum industry segments include: Fabricated products and
Primary aluminum. The Fabricated products group sells
value-added products such as heat treat aluminum sheet and
plate, extrusions and forgings which are used in a wide range of
industrial applications, including for automotive, aerospace and
general engineering end-use applications. The Primary aluminum
business unit produces commodity grade products as well as
value-added products such as ingot and billet, for which the
Company receives a premium over normal commodity market prices
and conducts hedging activities in respect of KACCs
exposure to primary aluminum price risk. The accounting policies
of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2.
Business unit results are evaluated internally by management
before any allocation of corporate overhead and without any
charge for income taxes, interest expense or Other operating
charges, net.
The Company changed its segment presentation in 2004 to
eliminate the Eliminations segment as the primary
purpose for such segment was to eliminate intercompany profit on
sales by the Primary aluminum and Bauxite and alumina business
units, substantially all of which are now considered
Discontinued operations. Eliminations not representing
Discontinued operations are now included in segment results.
Given the significance of the Companys exposure to primary
aluminum prices and alumina prices (which typically are linked
to primary aluminum prices on a lagged basis) in prior years,
the commodity marketing activities were considered a separate
business unit. In the accompanying financial statements, the
Company has reclassified to discontinued operations all of the
primary aluminum hedging results in respect of the
commodity-related interests that have been sold (including
F-56
Notes to consolidated financial statements
the Companys interests in and related to QAL which were
sold in April 2005) and that are also treated as discontinued
operations. As stated above, remaining primary aluminum hedging
activities related to the Companys interests in Anglesey
and any firm price fabricated product shipments are considered
part of the Primary aluminum business unit.
Financial information by operating segment, excluding
discontinued operations, at December 31, 2003, 2004 and
2005 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Net Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
597.8 |
|
|
$ |
809.3 |
|
|
$ |
939.0 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
112.4 |
|
|
|
133.1 |
|
|
|
150.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
710.2 |
|
|
$ |
942.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,089.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income (loss) of unconsolidated affiliate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
$ |
3.3 |
|
|
$ |
8.5 |
|
|
$ |
4.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income
(Loss):(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated
Products(2)
|
|
$ |
(21.2 |
) |
|
$ |
33.0 |
|
|
$ |
87.2 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
6.7 |
|
|
|
13.9 |
|
|
|
16.4 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
(74.7 |
) |
|
|
(71.3 |
) |
|
|
(35.8 |
) |
|
Other Operating Charges Net (Note 6)
|
|
|
(141.6 |
) |
|
|
(793.2 |
) |
|
|
(8.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(230.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(817.6 |
) |
|
$ |
59.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In 2004 and 2005, the Company chose to reallocate for segment
purposes the amount of post-retirement medical costs charged to
the business units so that the Corporate segment began to incur
the excess of the total expenses over the amount of VEBA
contributions allocable to the Fabricated products business unit
and Discontinued operations. |
|
(2) |
Operating results for 2003, 2004 and 2005 include LIFO
inventory charges of $3.2, $12.1 and $9.3, respectively. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Depreciation and
amortization:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
22.8 |
|
|
$ |
21.8 |
|
|
$ |
19.6 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
25.7 |
|
|
$ |
22.3 |
|
|
$ |
19.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
expenditures:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
8.9 |
|
|
$ |
7.6 |
|
|
$ |
30.6 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
8.9 |
|
|
$ |
7.6 |
|
|
$ |
31.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Depreciation and amortization expense excludes depreciation
and amortization expense of discontinued operations of $47.5 in
2003 and $13.1 in 2004. |
|
(2) |
Capital expenditures exclude capital expenditures of
discontinued operations of $28.3 in 2003 and $3.5 in 2004. |
F-57
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
$ |
16.7 |
|
|
$ |
12.6 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
16.7 |
|
|
$ |
12.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
430.0 |
|
|
$ |
403.8 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
95.5 |
|
|
|
62.3 |
|
|
Corporate and Other, including restricted proceeds from the sale
of commodity interests in 2004 of $280.8
|
|
|
1,287.4 |
|
|
|
1,072.8 |
|
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
|
69.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,882.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Income taxes
paid:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$ |
.1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4.8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Income taxes paid excludes income tax paid by discontinued
operations of $41.3 in 2003, $10.7 in 2004 and $18.9 in 2005. |
Geographical information for net sales, based on country of
origin, and long-lived assets follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Net sales to unaffiliated customers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$ |
525.6 |
|
|
$ |
705.7 |
|
|
$ |
836.1 |
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
72.2 |
|
|
|
103.6 |
|
|
|
102.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
597.8 |
|
|
|
809.3 |
|
|
|
939.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
108.6 |
|
|
|
133.1 |
|
|
|
148.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112.4 |
|
|
|
133.1 |
|
|
|
150.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
710.2 |
|
|
$ |
942.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,089.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-58
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Long-lived
assets:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$ |
193.4 |
|
|
$ |
204.0 |
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
17.8 |
|
|
|
17.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
211.2 |
|
|
|
221.6 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
16.7 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
231.3 |
|
|
$ |
236.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Long-lived assets include Property, plant, and equipment, net
and Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates.
Prepared on a going-concern basis see Note 2. |
|
(2) |
Long-lived assets excludes long-lived assets of discontinued
operations of $38.9 in 2004. |
The aggregate foreign currency gain included in determining net
income was immaterial for the years ended December 31,
2003, 2004 and 2005. Sales to the Companys largest
fabricated products customer accounted for sales of
approximately 9%, 10%, and 11% of total revenue in 2003, 2004
and 2005. Subsequent to December 31, 2005, this customer
entered into an agreement to acquire one of the Companys
other fabricated products customers. The acquisition is expected
to be completed in the second quarter of 2006. Sales to the
combined customers accounted for approximately 15%, 18% and 19%
of total revenues in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The loss of the
combined customers would have a material adverse effect on the
Company taken as a whole. However, in the Companys
opinion, the relationship between the customer and the Company
is good and the risk of loss of the customer is remote. Export
sales were less than 10% of total revenue during the years ended
December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
NOTE 16 RESTATED 2005 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA
(UNAUDITED)
During March 2006, the Company determined that its previously
issued financial statements for the quarters ended
March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and September 30,
2005 should be restated for two items: (1) VEBA-related
payments made during the first nine months of 2005 should have
been recorded as a reduction of the pre-petition retiree medical
obligations rather than as a current operating expense as was
done in the Companys Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q and
(2) as more fully discussed in Note 2, the Company
determined that its derivative financial instrument transactions
did not qualify for hedge (deferral) treatment as the
transactions had been accounted for in the Companys
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q. The
effect of the restatement related to the VEBA payments is to
decrease operating expenses by $6.7, $5.7 and $5.7 in the first,
second and third quarters of 2005, respectively with an
offsetting decrease in Liabilities subject to compromise at
March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and September 30,
2005. The net effect of the restatement related to the
derivative transactions was to increase operating expenses by
$2.0, $1.5 and $1.0 in the first, second and third quarters of
2005, respectively, with an offsetting increase in OCI at
March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and September 30,
2005, respectively. There is no net impact on the Companys
cash flows as a result of either restatement.
F-59
Notes to consolidated financial statements
The following tables show the full income statement affects of
the restatements on each quarter in 2005 as well as the changes
in balance sheet and cash flow statement line items.
Statements of consolidated income (loss) unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Mar. 31, | |
|
Mar. 31, | |
|
Jun. 30, | |
|
Jun. 30, | |
|
Sept. 30 | |
|
Sept. 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
281.4 |
|
|
$ |
281.4 |
|
|
$ |
262.9 |
|
|
$ |
262.9 |
|
|
$ |
271.6 |
|
|
$ |
271.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
242.2 |
|
|
|
243.0 |
|
|
|
234.2 |
|
|
|
234.4 |
|
|
|
233.7 |
|
|
|
233.5 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
Selling, administration, research and development, and general
|
|
|
17.7 |
|
|
|
12.2 |
|
|
|
17.0 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
17.7 |
|
|
|
13.2 |
|
|
Other operating charges, net
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
271.0 |
|
|
|
266.3 |
|
|
|
256.4 |
|
|
|
252.2 |
|
|
|
256.6 |
|
|
|
251.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
10.4 |
|
|
|
15.1 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
19.7 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded interest expense)
|
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
(7.8 |
) |
|
|
(7.8 |
) |
|
|
(9.3 |
) |
|
|
(9.3 |
) |
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
Other net
|
|
|
(.4 |
) |
|
|
(.4 |
) |
|
|
(.6 |
) |
|
|
(.6 |
) |
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
(4.5 |
) |
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
|
5.3 |
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
(2.2 |
) |
|
|
(2.2 |
) |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(2.3 |
) |
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
(6.7 |
) |
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
8.6 |
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
368.3 |
|
|
|
368.3 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
3.6 |
|
|
$ |
8.3 |
|
|
$ |
361.6 |
|
|
$ |
365.8 |
|
|
$ |
11.9 |
|
|
$ |
16.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic/ Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(.03 |
) |
|
$ |
.03 |
|
|
$ |
(.08 |
) |
|
$ |
(.03 |
) |
|
$ |
.05 |
|
|
$ |
.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
.13 |
|
|
$ |
.13 |
|
|
$ |
4.62 |
|
|
$ |
4.62 |
|
|
$ |
.10 |
|
|
$ |
.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
.04 |
|
|
$ |
.10 |
|
|
$ |
4.54 |
|
|
$ |
4.59 |
|
|
$ |
.15 |
|
|
$ |
.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (000):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic/ Diluted
|
|
|
79,681 |
|
|
|
79,681 |
|
|
|
79,674 |
|
|
|
79,674 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(footnotes on page following next)
F-60
Notes to consolidated financial statements
Consolidated balance sheetsunaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Mar. 31, | |
|
Mar. 31, | |
|
Jun. 30, | |
|
Jun. 30, | |
|
Sept. 30 | |
|
Sept. 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
$ |
3,952.9 |
|
|
$ |
3,946.2 |
|
|
$ |
3,950.4 |
|
|
$ |
3,938.0 |
|
|
$ |
3,949.8 |
|
|
$ |
3,931.7 |
|
Stockholders equity (deficit):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,913.9 |
) |
|
|
(2,909.2 |
) |
|
|
(2,552.3 |
) |
|
|
(2,543.4 |
) |
|
|
(2,540.4 |
) |
|
|
(2,526.8 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(7.6 |
) |
|
|
(5.6 |
) |
|
|
(9.0 |
) |
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
(10.0 |
) |
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(2,382.7 |
) |
|
|
(2,376.0 |
) |
|
|
(2,022.5 |
) |
|
|
(2,010.1 |
) |
|
|
(2,011.6 |
) |
|
|
(1,993.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
$ |
1,570.2 |
|
|
$ |
1,570.2 |
|
|
$ |
1,927.9 |
|
|
$ |
1,927.9 |
|
|
$ |
1,938.2 |
|
|
$ |
1,938.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statements of consolidated cash flows unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
As | |
|
|
|
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
previously | |
|
As | |
|
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
reported(1) | |
|
restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Mar. 31, | |
|
Mar. 31, | |
|
Jun. 30, | |
|
Jun. 30, | |
|
Sept. 30 | |
|
Sept. 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
3.6 |
|
|
$ |
8.3 |
|
|
$ |
365.2 |
|
|
$ |
374.1 |
|
|
$ |
377.1 |
|
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
Less net income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
378.9 |
|
|
|
378.9 |
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) from continuing operations, including from
cumulative effect of adopting change in accounting in 2005
|
|
|
(7.0 |
) |
|
|
(2.3 |
) |
|
|
(13.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.8 |
) |
|
|
(9.8 |
) |
|
|
3.8 |
|
(Decrease) increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
.5 |
|
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
Increase (decrease) in other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
(3.4 |
) |
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
|
|
(11.8 |
) |
Net cash impact of changes in long-term assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
(8.0 |
) |
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
|
(12.6 |
) |
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
(14.9 |
) |
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities
|
|
$ |
(8.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(8.3 |
) |
|
$ |
11.3 |
|
|
$ |
11.3 |
|
|
$ |
15.1 |
|
|
$ |
15.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(footnotes on following page)
F-61
Notes to consolidated financial statements
|
|
(1) |
The As previously reported amounts shown above
include the effect of the adoption of FIN 47 on
December 31, 2005 retroactive to the beginning of the year
as discussed in Notes 2 and 4. Such retroactive application
is required by GAAP and is not considered a
restatement. The retroactive impact of the adoption
of FIN 47 was a charge of $4.7 in the first quarter of 2005
in respect of the cumulative effect upon adoption and immaterial
adjustments to cost of products sold in each quarter of 2005. |
F-62
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter ended | |
|
|
| |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
|
|
(restated)(1) | |
|
(restated)(1) | |
|
(restated)(1) | |
|
December 31, | |
| |
|
|
(In millions of dollars, except share amounts) | |
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
281.4 |
|
|
$ |
262.9 |
|
|
$ |
271.6 |
|
|
$ |
273.8 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
15.1 |
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
19.7 |
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
|
8.6 |
|
|
|
(1,121.2 |
) (2) |
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
368.3 |
(3) |
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
(23.2 |
) |
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
8.3 |
|
|
|
365.8 |
|
|
|
16.6 |
|
|
|
(1,144.4 |
) |
|
Basic/diluted earnings (loss) per
share(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
.03 |
|
|
|
(.03 |
) |
|
|
.11 |
|
|
|
(14.07 |
) |
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
.13 |
|
|
|
4.62 |
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
(.29 |
) |
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
(.06 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
4.59 |
|
|
|
.21 |
|
|
|
(14.36 |
) |
|
Common stock market
price:(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
.12 |
|
|
|
.09 |
|
|
|
.07 |
|
|
|
.05 |
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
.05 |
|
|
|
.06 |
|
|
|
.01 |
|
|
|
.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter ended | |
|
|
| |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
210.2 |
|
|
$ |
230.1 |
|
|
$ |
244.4 |
|
|
$ |
257.7 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(10.3 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
|
|
(160.5 |
) |
|
|
(624.4 |
) |
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(22.6 |
) |
|
|
(14.8 |
) |
|
|
(173.2 |
)(4) |
|
|
(657.5 |
)(5) |
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(41.4 |
) |
|
|
39.0 |
|
|
|
103.7 |
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(64.0 |
) |
|
|
24.2 |
|
|
|
(69.5 |
) |
|
|
(637.5 |
) |
|
Basic/diluted earnings (loss) per
share(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(.28 |
) |
|
|
(.19 |
) |
|
|
(2.17 |
) |
|
|
(8.25 |
) |
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(.52 |
) |
|
|
.49 |
|
|
|
1.30 |
|
|
|
.25 |
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(.80 |
) |
|
|
.30 |
|
|
|
(.87 |
) |
|
|
(8.00 |
) |
|
Common stock market
price:(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
.15 |
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
.08 |
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
.08 |
|
|
|
.02 |
|
|
|
.03 |
|
|
|
.04 |
|
|
|
(1) |
As more fully discussed in Note 16 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, the Company has restated its
financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2005;
June 30, 2005; and September 30, 2005, to reflect a
different treatment for cash payments to the VEBAs and change in
accounting for derivative financial instruments. |
(footnotes continued on following page)
F-63
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
|
|
(2) |
Includes a non-cash reorganization charge of $1,131.5 related
to assignment (for the purposes of determining distribution
under the KAAC/ KFC Plan) of the value of an intercompany claim
to certain third-party creditors (see Note 1 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements). |
|
(3) |
Includes a gain of approximately $366.2 in respect of the
sale of the Companys interests in and related to QAL. |
|
(4) |
Includes a non-cash pension charge of $155.5 (see Note 6
of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). |
|
(5) |
Includes a non-cash pension charge of $154.5, a non-cash
charge related to termination of post-retirement medical
benefits plan of $312.5 and a related non-cash charge of $175.0
related to a settlement with the United Steel Workers of America
(see Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements). |
|
(6) |
Earnings (loss) per share and market price may not be
meaningful because the equity interests of the Companys
existing stockholders are expected to be cancelled without
consideration pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan. |
F-64
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL DATA
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEETS(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2001 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars) | |
Assets |
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
154.1 |
|
|
$ |
77.4 |
|
|
$ |
35.5 |
|
|
$ |
55.4 |
|
|
$ |
49.5 |
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
66.8 |
|
|
|
62.5 |
|
|
|
80.5 |
|
|
|
111.0 |
|
|
|
101.5 |
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
138.3 |
|
|
|
103.8 |
|
|
|
92.5 |
|
|
|
105.3 |
|
|
|
115.3 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
20.6 |
|
|
|
27.0 |
|
|
|
23.8 |
|
|
|
19.6 |
|
|
|
21.0 |
|
|
Discontinued operations current assets
|
|
|
379.4 |
|
|
|
245.9 |
|
|
|
193.7 |
|
|
|
30.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
759.2 |
|
|
|
516.6 |
|
|
|
426.0 |
|
|
|
321.9 |
|
|
|
287.3 |
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
18.9 |
|
|
|
15.2 |
|
|
|
13.1 |
|
|
|
16.7 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
294.4 |
|
|
|
255.3 |
|
|
|
230.1 |
|
|
|
214.6 |
|
|
|
223.4 |
|
Restricted proceeds from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
280.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Personal injury-related insurance recoveries receivable
|
|
|
501.2 |
|
|
|
484.0 |
|
|
|
465.4 |
|
|
|
967.0 |
|
|
|
965.5 |
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
149.9 |
|
|
|
126.3 |
|
|
|
43.7 |
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
|
38.7 |
|
Discontinued operations long-term assets
|
|
|
1,008.7 |
|
|
|
816.6 |
|
|
|
433.8 |
|
|
|
38.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
2,743.7 |
|
|
$ |
2,225.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,623.5 |
|
|
$ |
1,882.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
Liabilities not subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accruals
|
|
$ |
274.4 |
|
|
$ |
93.7 |
|
|
$ |
98.4 |
|
|
$ |
175.3 |
|
|
$ |
149.6 |
|
|
|
Accrued postretirement medical benefit obligation current
portion
|
|
|
62.0 |
|
|
|
60.2 |
|
|
|
32.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payable to affiliate
|
|
|
10.9 |
|
|
|
11.2 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
14.7 |
|
|
|
14.8 |
|
|
|
Long-term debt current portion
|
|
|
173.5 |
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
Discontinued operations current liabilities
|
|
|
282.6 |
|
|
|
167.6 |
|
|
|
177.5 |
|
|
|
57.7 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
803.4 |
|
|
|
333.6 |
|
|
|
321.1 |
|
|
|
248.9 |
|
|
|
167.6 |
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
808.8 |
|
|
|
55.7 |
|
|
|
59.4 |
|
|
|
32.9 |
|
|
|
42.0 |
|
|
Accrued postretirement medical benefit obligation
|
|
|
642.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
678.7 |
|
|
|
20.7 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
F-65
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2001 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars) | |
|
Discontinued operations liabilities, including liabilities
subject to compromise and minority interests
|
|
|
251.0 |
|
|
|
226.4 |
|
|
|
208.7 |
|
|
|
26.4 |
|
|
|
68.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,184.1 |
|
|
|
636.4 |
|
|
|
591.4 |
|
|
|
311.0 |
|
|
|
279.3 |
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,673.9 |
|
|
|
2,770.1 |
|
|
|
3,954.9 |
|
|
|
4,400.1 |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
.7 |
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
539.1 |
|
|
|
539.9 |
|
|
|
539.1 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(913.7 |
) |
|
|
(1,382.4 |
) |
|
|
(2,170.7 |
) |
|
|
(2,917.5 |
) |
|
|
(3,671.2 |
) |
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(67.3 |
) |
|
|
(243.9 |
) |
|
|
(107.9 |
) |
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
(441.1 |
) |
|
|
(1,085.6 |
) |
|
|
(1,738.7 |
) |
|
|
(2,384.2 |
) |
|
|
(3,141.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
2,743.7 |
|
|
$ |
2,225.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,623.5 |
|
|
$ |
1,882.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Prepared on a going concern basis. See
Notes 1 and 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for a discussion of the possible impact of the Cases. Also, as
more fully discussed in Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, the Company expects that, upon emergence
from the Cases, fresh start accounting would be applied which
would adversely affect comparability of the December 31,
2005 balance sheet to the balance sheet of the entity upon
emergence. |
|
(2) |
The Selected Consolidated Financial Data should be read in
conjunction with Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. The
consolidated financial data has been derived from the audited
consolidated financial statements. |
F-66
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL DATA
UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME
(LOSS)(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2001 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars, except share | |
|
|
amounts) | |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
889.5 |
|
|
$ |
709.0 |
|
|
$ |
710.2 |
|
|
$ |
942.4 |
|
|
$ |
1,089.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
823.4 |
|
|
|
671.4 |
|
|
|
681.2 |
|
|
|
852.2 |
|
|
|
951.1 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
32.1 |
|
|
|
32.3 |
|
|
|
25.7 |
|
|
|
22.3 |
|
|
|
19.9 |
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
93.7 |
|
|
|
118.6 |
|
|
|
92.5 |
|
|
|
92.3 |
|
|
|
50.9 |
|
|
Other operating charges, net
|
|
|
30.1 |
|
|
|
31.8 |
|
|
|
141.6 |
|
|
|
793.2 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
979.3 |
|
|
|
854.1 |
|
|
|
941.0 |
|
|
|
1,760.0 |
|
|
|
1,029.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(89.8 |
) |
|
|
(145.1 |
) |
|
|
(230.8 |
) |
|
|
(817.6 |
) |
|
|
59.8 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded contractual interest
expense of $84.0 in 2002 and $95.0 in 2003, 2004 and 2005,
respectively)
|
|
|
(106.2 |
) |
|
|
(19.0 |
) |
|
|
(9.1 |
) |
|
|
(9.5 |
) |
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33.3 |
) |
|
|
(27.0 |
) |
|
|
(39.0 |
) |
|
|
(1,162.1 |
) |
|
Other net
|
|
|
(68.7 |
) |
|
|
(.9 |
) |
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
(264.7 |
) |
|
|
(198.3 |
) |
|
|
(272.1 |
) |
|
|
(861.9 |
) |
|
|
(1,109.9 |
) |
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(523.4 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(2.8 |
) |
Minority interests
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(788.3 |
) |
|
|
(202.7 |
) |
|
|
(273.6 |
) |
|
|
(868.1 |
) |
|
|
(1,112.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and
minority interests
|
|
|
165.3 |
|
|
|
(266.0 |
) |
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
(5.3 |
) |
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
|
Gain from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
163.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126.6 |
|
|
|
366.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
328.9 |
|
|
|
(266.0 |
) |
|
|
(514.7 |
) |
|
|
121.3 |
|
|
|
363.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(459.4 |
) |
|
$ |
(468.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(788.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share Basic/ Diluted:
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(9.82 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.52 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.41 |
) |
|
$ |
(10.88 |
) |
|
$ |
(13.97 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
4.09 |
|
|
$ |
(3.30 |
) |
|
$ |
(6.42 |
) |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
|
$ |
4.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(5.73 |
) |
|
$ |
(5.82 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.83 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.36 |
) |
|
$ |
(9.46 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-67
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2001 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars, except share | |
|
|
amounts) | |
Dividends per common share
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (000):
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
80,235 |
|
|
|
80,578 |
|
|
|
80,175 |
|
|
|
79,815 |
|
|
|
79,675 |
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
80,235 |
|
|
|
80,578 |
|
|
|
80,175 |
|
|
|
79,815 |
|
|
|
79,675 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Prepared on a going concern basis. See
Notes 1 and 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for a discussion of the possible impact of the Cases. |
|
(2) |
The Selected Consolidated Financial Data should be read in
conjunction with Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. The
consolidated financial data has been derived from the audited
consolidated financial statements. |
|
(3) |
Earnings (loss) per share and share information may not be
meaningful because, pursuant to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan, the equity interests of the Companys existing
stockholders are expected to be cancelled without
consideration. |
F-68
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
|
Item 1. |
Financial statements |
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
(In millions of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
49.5 |
|
|
|
$ |
52.7 |
|
|
Receivables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful receivables of $2.9 and $2.0
|
|
|
94.6 |
|
|
|
|
109.3 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
115.3 |
|
|
|
|
181.3 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
21.0 |
|
|
|
|
27.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
287.3 |
|
|
|
|
377.9 |
|
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
|
13.3 |
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
223.4 |
|
|
|
|
148.4 |
|
|
Personal injury-related insurance recoveries receivable
|
|
|
965.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets including goodwill of $11.4 at
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
|
9.6 |
|
|
Net assets in respect of VEBAs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.9 |
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
38.7 |
|
|
|
|
39.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
621.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities not subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
51.4 |
|
|
|
$ |
61.7 |
|
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages, and related expenses
|
|
|
42.0 |
|
|
|
|
33.6 |
|
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
55.2 |
|
|
|
|
50.9 |
|
|
|
Payable to affiliate
|
|
|
14.8 |
|
|
|
|
19.5 |
|
|
|
Long-term debt current portion
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations current liabilities
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
167.6 |
|
|
|
|
165.8 |
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
42.0 |
|
|
|
|
59.4 |
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
Discontinued operations liabilities (liabilities subject
to compromise)
|
|
|
68.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
279.3 |
|
|
|
|
275.2 |
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
4,400.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $.01, authorized 45,000,000 shares;
issued and outstanding shares 20,525,660 at September 30,
2006
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
|
482.5 |
|
|
Retained earnings (deficit)
|
|
|
(3,671.2 |
) |
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
Common stock owned by Union VEBA subject to transfer
restrictions, at reorganization value, 6,291,945 shares at
September 30, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss)
|
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
(3,141.2 |
) |
|
|
|
345.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,538.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
621.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-69
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME
(Unaudited)
(In millions of dollars except share
and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
three months | |
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(restated | |
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
271.6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
331.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
233.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
291.8 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
13.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
Other operating charges (credits), net
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
251.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
309.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
19.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21.7 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded contractual interest
expense of $23.7 for the three months ended September 30,
2005)
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
3,108.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other net
|
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
|
|
3,108.1 |
|
|
|
|
22.6 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
8.6 |
|
|
|
3,108.1 |
|
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
Income from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
16.6 |
|
|
$ |
3,108.1 |
|
|
|
$ |
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
.11 |
|
|
$ |
39.02 |
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
.10 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
$ |
.21 |
|
|
$ |
39.02 |
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Diluted (same as basic for Predecessor):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding (000):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
|
20,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
|
20,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-70
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME
(Unaudited)
(In millions of dollars except share
and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(restated) | |
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$ |
815.9 |
|
|
$ |
689.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
331.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
710.9 |
|
|
|
596.4 |
|
|
|
|
291.8 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
|
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
38.0 |
|
|
|
30.3 |
|
|
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
Other operating charges (credits), net
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
770.4 |
|
|
|
637.4 |
|
|
|
|
309.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
45.5 |
|
|
|
52.4 |
|
|
|
|
21.7 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded contractual interest
expense of $71.2 for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 and $47.4 for the period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006)
|
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|
(.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
(25.3 |
) |
|
|
3,093.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other net
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
3,145.9 |
|
|
|
|
22.6 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
|
3,139.7 |
|
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain from sale of commodity interests, net of income taxes of
$8.5 in 2005
|
|
|
365.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
$ |
3,144.0 |
|
|
|
$ |
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
.11 |
|
|
$ |
39.42 |
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
4.85 |
|
|
$ |
.05 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
$ |
4.90 |
|
|
$ |
39.47 |
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Diluted (same as basic for Predecessor):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
.72 |
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding (000):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
79,676 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
|
20,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
79,676 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
|
20,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-71
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY AND
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
For the nine months ended September 30, 2005
(Restated)
(Predecessor)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
owned by | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union VEBA | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained | |
|
subject to | |
|
other | |
|
|
|
|
Common | |
|
Additional | |
|
earnings | |
|
transfer | |
|
comprehensive | |
|
|
|
|
stock | |
|
capital | |
|
(deficit) | |
|
restrictions | |
|
income (loss) | |
|
Total | |
| |
BALANCE, December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
.8 |
|
|
$ |
538.0 |
|
|
$ |
(2,917.5 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(5.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,384.2 |
) |
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
390.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
390.7 |
|
Unrealized net increase in value of derivative instruments
arising during the period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
(.2 |
) |
Reclassification adjustment for net realized losses on
derivative instruments included in net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
390.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, September 30, 2005
|
|
$ |
.8 |
|
|
$ |
538.0 |
|
|
$ |
(2,526.8 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(5.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,993.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the nine months ended September 30, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
owned by | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union VEBA | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained | |
|
subject to | |
|
other | |
|
|
|
|
Common | |
|
Additional | |
|
earnings | |
|
transfer | |
|
comprehensive | |
|
|
|
|
stock | |
|
capital | |
|
(deficit) | |
|
restrictions | |
|
income (loss) | |
|
Total | |
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
(in millions of dollars) | |
BALANCE, December 31, 2005 Predecessor
|
|
$ |
.8 |
|
|
$ |
538.0 |
|
|
$ |
(3,671.2 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(8.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,141.2 |
) |
Net income (same as Comprehensive income) Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, June 30, 2006 Predecessor
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
(3,635.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
|
|
(3,105.3 |
) |
Cancellation of Predecessor common stock
|
|
|
(.8 |
) |
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of Successor common stock (20,000,000 shares) to
creditors
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
480.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
480.4 |
|
Common stock owned by Union VEBA subject to transfer
restrictions, at reorganization value, 6,291,945 shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1 |
) |
Plan and fresh start adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(538.8 |
) |
|
|
3,635.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.8 |
|
|
|
3,105.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, July 1, 2006
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
480.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
329.3 |
|
|
Net income (same as Comprehensive income)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
Issuance of 4,273 shares of common stock to directors in
lieu of annual retainer fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
Amortization of unearned equity compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, September 30, 2006
|
|
$ |
.2 |
|
|
$ |
482.5 |
|
|
$ |
14.3 |
|
|
$ |
(151.1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
345.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-72
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(In millions of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
$ |
3,144.0 |
|
|
|
$ |
14.3 |
|
|
Less net income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income from continuing operations
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
3,139.7 |
|
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) from continuing
operations to net cash provided (used) by operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization (including deferred financing
costs of $3.5, $.9 and $.1, respectively)
|
|
|
18.5 |
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
Non-cash equity compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
Gain on discharge of pre-petition obligations and fresh start
adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,113.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments pursuant to plan of reorganization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of real estate
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in (income) loss of unconsolidated affiliate, net of
distributions
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
(10.1 |
) |
|
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
|
|
Decrease (increase) in trade and other receivables
|
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
|
|
(18.3 |
) |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
(Increase) decrease in inventories
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
(7.8 |
) |
|
|
|
(9.3 |
) |
|
|
Decrease (increase) in prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
(14.5 |
) |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued interest
|
|
|
(10.2 |
) |
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
7.4 |
|
|
|
(Decrease) increase in other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(11.8 |
) |
|
|
5.7 |
|
|
|
|
(8.7 |
) |
|
|
(Decrease) increase in payable to affiliate
|
|
|
(2.7 |
) |
|
|
18.2 |
|
|
|
|
(13.6 |
) |
|
|
Increase (decrease) in accrued and deferred income taxes
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
Net cash impact of changes in long-term assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(14.9 |
) |
|
|
(8.0 |
) |
|
|
|
(6.9 |
) |
|
|
Net cash provided by discontinued operations
|
|
|
13.4 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities
|
|
|
15.1 |
|
|
|
(11.7 |
) |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures, net of accounts payable of $1.6 in both
the period from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and
the period from July 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006
|
|
|
(20.4 |
) |
|
|
(28.1 |
) |
|
|
|
(11.6 |
) |
|
Net proceeds from sale of real estate
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by discontinued operations; primarily proceeds
from sale of QAL in 2005
|
|
|
401.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used) provided by investing activities
|
|
|
381.9 |
|
|
|
(27.1 |
) |
|
|
|
(11.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings under Term Loan Facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
Financing costs
|
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
|
(.6 |
) |
|
Repayment of debt
|
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in restricted cash
|
|
|
(1.7 |
) |
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used by discontinued operations; primarily increase in
restricted cash
|
|
|
(402.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities
|
|
|
(409.1 |
) |
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
|
49.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents during the
period
|
|
|
(12.1 |
) |
|
|
(37.5 |
) |
|
|
|
40.7 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
55.4 |
|
|
|
49.5 |
|
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$ |
43.3 |
|
|
$ |
12.0 |
|
|
|
$ |
52.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest of $.2, $1.0 and $.6
|
|
$ |
.7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$ |
19.5 |
|
|
$ |
1.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
.4 |
|
|
Less income taxes paid by discontinued operations
|
|
|
(16.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.6 |
|
|
$ |
1.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.
F-73
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiary companies
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
(In millions of dollars, except prices and per share
amounts)
(Unaudited)
|
|
1. |
EMERGENCE FROM REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS |
Summary. As more fully discussed in Note 13, during
the past four years, Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
(Kaiser, KAC or the
Company), its wholly owned subsidiary, Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (KACC), and
24 of KACCs subsidiaries operated under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) under
the supervision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware (the Bankruptcy Court).
As also outlined in Note 13, Kaiser, KACC and their debtor
subsidiaries which included all of the Companys core
fabricated products facilities and a 49% interest in Anglesey
Aluminium Limited (Anglesey), which owns a smelter
in the United Kingdom, emerged from Chapter 11 on
July 6, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the
Effective Date) pursuant to Kaisers Second
Amended Plan of Reorganization (the Plan). Four
subsidiaries not related to the fabricated products operations
were liquidated in December 2005. Pursuant to the Plan, all
material pre-petition debt, pension and post-retirement medical
obligations and asbestos and other tort liabilities, along with
other pre-petition claims (which in total aggregated to
approximately $4.4 billion in the June 30, 2006
consolidated financial statements) were addressed and resolved.
Pursuant to the Plan, the equity interests of all of
Kaisers pre-emergence stockholders were cancelled without
consideration. The equity of the newly emerged Kaiser was issued
and delivered to a third-party disbursing agent for distribution
to claimholders pursuant to the Plan.
Impacts on the opening balance sheet after emergence. As
a result of the Companys emergence from Chapter 11,
the Company applied fresh start accounting to its
opening July 2006 consolidated financial statements as required
by American Institute of Certified Professional Accountants
(AICPA) Statement of
Position 90-7
(SOP 90-7),
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code. As such, the Company adjusted its
stockholders equity to equal the reorganization value at
the Effective Date. Items such as accumulated depreciation,
accumulated deficit and accumulated other comprehensive income
(loss) were reset to zero. The Company allocated the
reorganization value to its individual assets and liabilities
based on their estimated fair value. Items such as current
liabilities, accounts receivable, and cash reflected values
similar to those reported prior to emergence. Items such as
inventory, property, plant and equipment, long-term assets and
long-term liabilities were significantly adjusted from amounts
previously reported. Because fresh start accounting was adopted
at emergence and because of the significance of liabilities
subject to compromise that were relieved upon emergence,
comparisons between the historical financial statements and the
financial statements from and after emergence are difficult to
make.
F-74
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
The following balance sheet shows the impacts of the Plan and
the adoption of fresh start accounting on the opening balance
sheet of the new reporting entity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted | |
|
|
|
|
Plan | |
|
Fresh start | |
|
balance | |
|
|
Historical | |
|
adjustments(a) | |
|
adjustments(b) | |
|
sheet | |
| |
Assets |
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
37.3 |
|
|
$ |
(25.3 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
12.0 |
|
|
Receivables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful receivables
|
|
|
114.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
114.8 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.7 |
|
Inventories
|
|
|
123.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48.9 |
|
|
|
172.0 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
34.0 |
|
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
314.2 |
|
|
|
(25.6 |
) |
|
|
49.6 |
|
|
|
338.2 |
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
22.7 |
|
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
|
(11.3 |
) |
|
|
11.1 |
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
242.7 |
|
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
|
|
(98.9 |
) |
|
|
139.7 |
|
Personal injury-related insurance recoveries receivable
|
|
|
963.3 |
|
|
|
(963.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
(11.7 |
) |
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
12.3 |
|
Net assets in respect of VEBAs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.2 |
(c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.2 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
43.6 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
(.8 |
) |
|
|
44.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,597.9 |
|
|
$ |
(969.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(48.8 |
) |
|
$ |
579.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
Liabilities not subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
56.1 |
|
|
$ |
(.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.8 |
) |
|
$ |
53.8 |
|
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages, and related expenses
|
|
|
37.0 |
|
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
33.6 |
|
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
61.0 |
|
|
|
(1.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
59.2 |
|
|
|
Payable to affiliate
|
|
|
33.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.0 |
|
|
|
Long-term debt current portion
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations current liabilities
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
190.8 |
|
|
|
(8.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
181.1 |
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
49.0 |
|
|
|
17.5 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
69.0 |
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations liabilities (liabilities subject
to compromise)
|
|
|
73.5 |
|
|
|
(73.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
314.5 |
|
|
|
(65.8 |
) |
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
250.1 |
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
4,388.0 |
|
|
|
(4,388.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
.7 |
|
|
|
(.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.2 |
(d) |
|
|
(.8 |
) |
|
|
.2 |
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
480.2 |
(d) |
|
|
(538.0 |
) |
|
|
480.2 |
|
|
Common stock owned by Union VEBA subject to transfer restrictions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1 |
)(c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1 |
) |
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(3,635.3 |
) |
|
|
3,155.5 |
(e) |
|
|
479.8 |
(f) |
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(3,105.3 |
) |
|
|
3,484.8 |
|
|
|
(50.2 |
) |
|
|
329.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,597.9 |
|
|
$ |
(969.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(48.8 |
) |
|
$ |
579.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(footnotes on following page)
F-75
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
|
|
(a) |
Reflects impacts on the Effective Date of implementing the
Plan, including the settlement of liabilities subject to
compromise and related payments, distributions of cash and new
shares of common stock and the cancellation of predecessor
common stock (see Note 13). Includes the reclassification
of approximately $21.0 from Liabilities subject to compromise to
Long-term liabilities in respect of certain pension and benefit
plans retained by the Company pending the outcome of the
litigation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) as more fully discussed in Note 8. |
|
(b) |
Reflects the adjustments to reflect fresh start
accounting. These include the write up of Inventories (see
Note 2) and Property, plant and equipment to their
appraised values and the elimination of Accumulated deficit and
Additional paid in capital. The fresh start adjustments for
intangible assets and stockholders equity are based on a
third party appraisal report. |
|
|
In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), the reorganization value is allocated to
individual assets and liabilities by first allocating value to
current assets, current liabilities, monetary and similar long
term items for which specific market values are determinable.
The remainder is allocated to long term assets such as property,
plant and equipment, equity investments, identified intangibles
and unidentified intangibles (e.g. goodwill). To the extent that
there is insufficient value to allocate to long term assets
after first allocating to the current, monetary and similar
items, such shortfall is first used to reduce unidentified
intangibles to zero and then to proportionately reduce the
amount allocated to property, plant and equipment, equity
investments and identified intangibles based on the initial
(pre-reorganization value allocation) assessed fair value. In
allocating the reorganization value, the Company determined that
the value of the long term assets exceeded the amount of
reorganization value available to be allocated to such items by
approximately $187.2. Such excess value was allocated to
Property, plant and equipment, Investment in unconsolidated
affiliate and Identified intangibles in the following amounts
based on initial fair value assessments determined by a third
party appraisal: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appraised value | |
|
Allocation of | |
|
Opening balance | |
|
|
based on third | |
|
reorganization | |
|
sheet amount at | |
|
|
party appraisal | |
|
value shortfall | |
|
July 1, 2006 | |
| |
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
$ |
299.8 |
|
|
$ |
(160.1 |
) |
|
$ |
139.7 |
|
Investment in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
24.0 |
|
|
|
(12.9 |
) |
|
|
11.1 |
|
Identified intangibles
|
|
|
26.5 |
|
|
|
(14.2 |
) |
|
|
12.3 |
|
|
|
(c) |
As more fully discussed in Note 7, after discussions
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
concluded that, while the Companys only obligations in
respect of two voluntary employee beneficiary associations (the
VEBAs) is an annual variable contribution obligation
based primarily on earnings and capital spending, the Company
should account for the VEBAs as defined benefit postretirement
plans with a cap. Note 8 provides information regarding the
opening balance sheet amounts in respect of the VEBAs and key
assumptions used to derive such amounts. |
|
|
(d) |
Reflects the issuance of new common stock to pre-petition
creditors. |
|
|
(e) |
Reflects gain extinguishment of obligations from
implementation of the Plan. |
|
(f) |
Reflects fresh start loss of $47.4 and elimination of
retained deficit. |
F-76
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
The Companys emergence from Chapter 11 and adoption
of fresh start accounting resulted in a new reporting entity for
accounting purposes. Although the Company emerged from
Chapter 11 on July 6, 2006, the Company adopted fresh
start accounting under the provisions of
SOP 90-7 effective
as of the beginning of business on July 1, 2006. As such,
it was assumed that the emergence was completed instantaneously
at the beginning of business on July 1, 2006 such that all
operating activities during the three months ended
September 30, 2006 are reported as applying to the new
reporting entity. The Company believes that this is a reasonable
presentation as there were no material non-Plan-related
transactions between July 1, 2006 and July 6, 2006.
The Predecessor Statement of Consolidated Cash Flows for the
period January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 includes
plan-related payments of $25.3 made between July 1, 2006
and July 6, 2006.
The accompanying financial statements include the financial
statements of Kaiser both before and after emergence. Financial
information related to the newly emerged Kaiser is generally
referred to throughout this Report as Successor
information. Information of Kaiser before emergence is generally
referred to as Predecessor information. The
financial information of the Successor entity is not comparable
to that of the Predecessor given the impacts of the Plan,
implementation of fresh start reporting and other factors.
The Notes to Interim Consolidated Financial Statements are
grouped into two categories: (1) those primarily affecting
the Successor entity (Notes 2 through 11) and (2)
those primarily affecting the Predecessor entity (Notes 12
through 19).
SUCCESSOR
|
|
2. |
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
This Report should be read in conjunction with the
Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005.
This is the first public report under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 reflecting Successor financial information and, as
discussed in Note 1, reflects the terms of the Plan and
certain related actions and the application of fresh start
reporting. In accordance with GAAP, while the Predecessor
financial information will continue to be presented, Predecessor
and Successor financial statement information for 2006 is
reported separately and not combined.
As stated in Note 1, due to the implementation of the Plan,
the application of fresh start accounting and due to changes in
accounting policies and procedures, the financial statements of
the Successor are not comparable to those of the Predecessor.
Additionally, results for interim periods are not necessarily
indicative of anticipated results for the entire year.
Principles of Consolidation and Basis of Presentation.
The consolidated financial statements include the statements of
the Company and its majority owned subsidiaries.
In connection with the Plan, Kaiser also restructured and
simplified its corporate structure. The result of the simplified
corporate structure is summarized as follows:
|
|
|
the Company directly owns 100%
of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Kaiser
Aluminum Investments Company, a newly formed Delaware
corporation (KAIC), which is intended to function as
an intermediate holding company.
|
F-77
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
KAIC owns 49% of the ownership
interests of Anglesey Aluminium Limited (Anglesey)
and 100% of the ownership interests of each of:
|
|
|
|
|
- |
Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC, a newly formed
Delaware limited liability company (KAFP), which
holds the assets and liabilities associated with the
Companys fabricated products business unit (excluding
those assets and liabilities associated with the London, Ontario
facility); |
|
|
- |
Kaiser Aluminum Canada Limited, a newly formed Ontario
corporation (KACL), which holds the assets and
liabilities of the London, Ontario operations and certain former
KACC Canadian subsidiaries that were largely inactive; |
|
|
- |
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, LLC, a newly
formed Delaware limited liability company (KACC,
LLC), which, as a successor by merger, holds the remaining
non-operating assets and liabilities of KACC not assumed by KAFP; |
|
|
- |
Kaiser Aluminium International, Inc., Trochus Insurance Co.,
Ltd., and Kaiser Bauxite Company |
The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial
statements have been prepared in accordance with GAAP for
interim financial information and the rules and regulations of
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, these
financial statements do not include all of the disclosures
required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the
opinion of management, the unaudited interim consolidated
financial statements furnished herein include all adjustments,
all of which are of normal recurring nature unless otherwise
noted, necessary for a fair statement of the results for the
interim periods presented.
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP
requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the
reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities known to exist as of the date
the financial statements are published, and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.
Uncertainties, with respect to such estimates and assumptions,
are inherent in the preparation of the Companys
consolidated financial statements; accordingly, it is possible
that the actual results could differ from these estimates and
assumptions, which could have a material effect on the reported
amounts of the Companys consolidated financial position
and results of operation.
Investments in 50%-or-less-owned entities are accounted for
primarily by the equity method. Intercompany balances and
transactions are eliminated.
Recognition of Sales. Sales are recognized when title,
ownership and risk of loss pass to the buyer and collectibility
is reasonably assured. A provision for estimated sales returns
from and allowances to customers is made in the same period as
the related revenues are recognized, based on historical
experience or the specific identification of an event
necessitating a reserve.
Earnings per Share. Basic earnings per share is computed
by dividing earnings by the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the period. The shares owned by a VEBA
for the benefit of certain union retirees, their surviving
spouses and eligible dependents (the Union VEBA)
that are subject to transfer restrictions, while being treated
similar to treasury stock (i.e. as a reduction) in
Stockholders equity, are included in the computation of
basic shares outstanding as such shares were irrevocably issued
and are subject to full dividend and voting rights.
Diluted earnings per share are computed by dividing earnings by
the weighted average number of diluted common shares outstanding
during the period. The weighted average number of diluted shares
includes the dilutive effect of the non-vested stock granted
during the period from the dates of grant
F-78
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
(see Note 7). The impact of the non-vested shares on the
number of dilutive common shares is calculated by reducing the
total number of non-vested shares (521,387) by the theoretical
number of shares that could be repurchased under the assumption
that the hypothetical proceeds of such non-vested shares are the
amount of unrecognized compensation expense together with any
related income tax benefits (495,016). Based on the foregoing, a
total 26,371 shares of common stock have been added to the
diluted earnings per share computation.
Stock-Based Employee Compensation. The Company accounts
for stock-based employee compensation plans at fair value. The
Company measures the cost of employee services received in
exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the
grant-date fair value of the award. The cost of the award is
recognized as an expense over the period that the employee
provides service for the award. During the period from
July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006, $2.3 of
compensation cost was recognized in connection with vested and
non-vested stock issued to executive officers, other key
employees and directors during the period (see Note 7). The
Company has elected to amortize compensation expense for equity
awards with grading vesting using the straight line method.
Other Income (Expense). Other income (expense), other
than interest expense and reorganization items, for the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2005 included a loss of
approximately $.7 from the sale of certain non-operating
properties and an adjustment of approximately $.2 to increase
the environmental liabilities. Other income (expense), other
than interest expense and reorganization items, included an
adjustment of approximately $1.2 in the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006, to decrease the
environmental liabilities for an amount that was no longer
required because the related non-operating property had been
sold.
Income Taxes. In accordance with
SOP 90-7, the
Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109 (FIN 48) at emergence. In
accordance with FIN 48, the Company uses a more
likely than not threshold for recognition of tax
attributes that are subject to uncertainties and measures any
reserves in respect of such expected benefits based on their
probability as prescribed by FIN 48. The Company does not
consider this a change from the practice of the Predecessor. The
adoption of FIN 48 did not have a material impact on the
Companys financial statements.
Cash and Cash Equivalents. The Company considers only
those short-term, highly liquid investments with original
maturities of 90 days or less when purchased to be cash
equivalents.
Inventories. Substantially all product inventories are
stated at last-in,
first-out (LIFO) cost, not in excess of market
value. Replacement cost is not in excess of LIFO cost. Other
inventories, principally operating supplies and repair and
maintenance parts, are stated at the lower of average cost or
market. Inventory costs consist of material, labor and
manufacturing overhead, including depreciation. Abnormal costs,
such as idle facility expenses, freight, handling costs and
spoilage, are accounted for as current period charges.
F-79
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Fabricated products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finished products
|
|
$ |
34.7 |
|
|
$ |
57.4 |
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
43.1 |
|
|
|
59.2 |
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
|
26.3 |
|
|
|
52.1 |
|
|
Operating supplies and repairs and maintenance parts
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115.2 |
|
|
|
181.1 |
|
Commodities Primary aluminum
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
115.3 |
|
|
$ |
181.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As stated above, the Company accounts for substantially all of
its product inventories on a LIFO basis. All Predecessor LIFO
layers were eliminated in fresh start accounting. The Company
applies LIFO differently than the Predecessor did in that it
views each quarter on a standalone basis for computing LIFO;
whereas the Predecessor recorded LIFO amounts with a view to the
entire fiscal year which, with certain exceptions, tended to
result in LIFO charges being recorded in the fourth quarter or
the second half of the year. There were no LIFO benefits or
charges in the three or nine months ended September 30,
2005. The Company recorded a non-cash LIFO charge of
approximately $21.7 at June 30, 2006 and a non-cash LIFO
benefit of approximately $3.3 at September 30, 2006. These
amounts are primarily a result of changes in metal prices.
Pursuant to fresh start accounting, in the Companys
opening July 2006 balance sheet, all inventory amounts were
stated at fair market value. Raw materials and Operating
supplies and repairs and maintenance parts were recorded at
published market prices including any location premiums.
Finished products and Work in progress (WIP) were
recorded at selling price less cost to sell, cost to complete
and a reasonable apportionment of the profit margin associated
with the selling and conversion efforts. As reported in
Note 1, this resulted in increased inventories by
approximately $48.9.
Given the recent strength in demand for many types of fabricated
aluminum products and primary aluminum, the Company has a larger
volume of raw materials, WIP and finished goods than is its
historical average, and the price for such goods, given the
application of fresh start accounting, is higher than long term
historical averages. As such, with the inevitable ebb and flow
of business cycles, non-cash LIFO charges will result when
inventory levels drop and/or margins compress. Such adjustments
could be material to results in future periods.
Depreciation. Depreciation is computed principally using
the straight-line method at rates based on the estimated useful
lives of the various classes of assets. The principal estimated
useful lives, which were determined based on a third party
appraisal, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful life | |
| |
Land improvements
|
|
|
3-7 |
|
Buildings
|
|
|
15-35 |
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
2-22 |
|
As more fully discussed in Note 1, upon emergence from
reorganization, the Company applied fresh start accounting to
its consolidated financial statements as required by
SOP 90-7. As a
result,
F-80
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
accumulated depreciation was reset to zero. The new lives
assigned to the individual assets and the application of fresh
start accounting (see Notes 1 and 4) will cause future
depreciation to be different than historical depreciation of the
Predecessor.
Deferred Financing Costs. Costs incurred to obtain debt
financing are deferred and amortized over the estimated term of
the related borrowing. Such amortization is included in Interest
expense.
Intangible Assets. Pursuant to fresh start accounting,
the Company allocated the reorganization value to its assets and
liabilities, including intangible assets, based on a third party
appraisal. The appraisal indicated that certain intangible
assets existed. The values assigned as part of the allocation of
the reorganization value, the balance at September 30,
2006, and useful lives assigned to each type of identified
intangible asset is set forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
|
|
2006 | |
|
2006 | |
|
Useful life | |
| |
Customer relationships
|
|
$ |
8.1 |
|
|
$ |
6.3 |
|
|
|
15-18 |
|
Trade name
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
Indefinite |
|
Patents
|
|
|
.5 |
|
|
|
.4 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12.3 |
|
|
$ |
9.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets were reduced proportionately during the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 by approximately $2.7 in
respect of the resolution of certain pre-emergence income tax
attributes recognized during the three months ended
September 30, 2006.
The Company reviews intangibles for impairment at least annually
in the fourth quarter of each year or more frequently if events
or changes in circumstances indicate that the asset might be
impaired.
Foreign Currency. The Company uses the United States
dollar as the functional currency for its foreign operations.
Derivative Financial Instruments. Hedging transactions
using derivative financial instruments are primarily designed to
mitigate the Companys exposure to changes in prices for
certain of the products which the Company sells and consumes
and, to a lesser extent, to mitigate the Companys exposure
to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. The Company does
not utilize derivative financial instruments for trading or
other speculative purposes. The Companys derivative
activities are initiated within guidelines established by
management and approved by the Companys board of
directors. Hedging transactions are executed centrally on behalf
of all of the Companys business segments to minimize
transaction costs, monitor consolidated net exposures and allow
for increased responsiveness to changes in market factors.
The Company recognizes all derivative instruments as assets or
liabilities in its balance sheet and measures those instruments
at fair value by
marking-to-market
all of its hedging positions at each period-end (see
Note 9). Changes in the market value of the Companys
open hedging positions resulting from the
mark-to-market process
represent unrealized gains or losses. Such unrealized gains or
losses will fluctuate, based on prevailing market prices at each
subsequent balance sheet date, until the settlement date occurs.
These changes are recorded as an increase or reduction in
stockholders equity through either other comprehensive
income (OCI) or net income, depending on the facts
and circumstances with respect to the transaction and its
documentation. If the derivative transaction qualifies for hedge
(deferral) treatment under Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities
(SFAS No. 133), the changes are
recorded initially in OCI. Such changes reverse out of OCI
(offset by any fluctuations in other open
F-81
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
positions) and are recorded in net income (included in Net sales
or Cost of products sold, as applicable) when the subsequent
settlement transactions occur. If derivative transactions do not
qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the changes in market
value are recorded in net income. To qualify for hedge
accounting treatment, the derivative transaction must meet
criteria established by SFAS No. 133. Even if the
derivative transaction meets the SFAS No. 133
criteria, the Company must also comply with a number of complex
documentation requirements, which, if not met, result in the
derivative transaction being precluded from being treated as a
hedge (i.e., it must then be
marked-to-market with
period to period changes in market value being recorded in
quarterly results) unless and until such documentation is
modified and determined to be in accordance with
SFAS No. 133. Additionally, if the level of physical
transactions falls below the net exposure hedged,
hedge accounting must be terminated for such
excess hedges and the
mark-to-market changes
on such excess hedges would be recorded in the income statement
rather than in OCI.
As more fully discussed in Note 15, in connection with the
Companys preparation of its December 31, 2005
financial statements, the Company concluded that its derivative
financial instruments did not meet certain specific
documentation criteria in SFAS No. 133. Accordingly,
the Company restated its prior results for the quarters ended
March 31, June 30 and September 2005 and marked all of
its derivatives to market in 2005. The change in accounting for
derivative contracts was related to the form of the
Companys documentation. The Company determined that its
hedging documentation did not meet the strict documentation
standards established by SFAS No. 133. More
specifically, the Companys documentation did not comply
with SFAS No. 133 in respect to the Companys
methods for testing and supporting that changes in the market
value of the hedging transactions would correlate with
fluctuations in the value of the forecasted transaction to which
they relate. The Company had documented that the derivatives it
was using would qualify for the short cut method
whereby regular assessments of correlation would not be
required. However, it ultimately concluded that, while the terms
of the derivatives were essentially the same as the forecasted
transaction, they were not identical and, therefore, the Company
should have done certain mathematical computations to prove the
ongoing correlation of changes in value of the hedge and the
forecasted transaction. As a result, under
SFAS No. 133, the Company de-designated
its open derivative transactions and reflected fluctuations in
the market value of such derivative transactions in its results
each period rather than deferring the effects until the
forecasted transactions (to which the hedges relate) occur. The
effect on the first three quarters of 2005 of marking the
derivatives to market rather than deferring gains/losses was to
increase Cost of products sold and decrease Operating income by
$2.0, $1.5 and $1.0, respectively.
The rules provide that, once de-designation has occurred, the
Company can modify its documentation and re-designate the
derivative transactions as hedges and, if
appropriately documented, re-qualify the transactions for
prospectively deferring changes in market fluctuations after
such corrections are made. The Company is working to modify its
documentation and to re-qualify open and post 2005 hedging
transactions for treatment as hedges. However, no assurances can
be provided in this regard.
In general, when hedge (deferral) accounting is being
applied, material fluctuations in OCI and Stockholders
equity will occur in periods of price volatility, despite the
fact that the Companys cash flow and earnings will be
fixed to the extent hedged. This result is contrary
to the intent of the Companys hedging program, which is to
lock-in a price (or range of prices) for products
sold/used so that earnings and cash flows are subject to a
reduced risk of volatility.
Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations. Effective
December 31, 2005, the Company adopted FASB Interpretation
No. 47 (FIN 47), Accounting for
Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of
FASB Statement No. 143 (SFAS No. 143)
retroactive to the beginning of 2005.
F-82
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Pursuant to SFAS No. 143 and FIN 47, companies
are required to estimate incremental costs for special handling,
removal and disposal costs of materials that may or will give
rise to conditional asset retirement obligations
(CAROs) and then discount the expected costs back to
the current year using a credit adjusted risk free rate. Under
the guidelines clarified in FIN 47, liabilities and costs
for CAROs must be recognized in a companys financial
statements even if it is unclear when or if the CARO may/will be
triggered. If it is unclear when or if a CARO will be triggered,
companies are required to use probability weighting for possible
timing scenarios to determine the probability weighted amounts
that should be recognized in the companys financial
statements. The Company evaluated FIN 47 and determined
that it has CAROs at several of its fabricated products
facilities. The vast majority of such CAROs consist of
incremental costs that would be associated with the removal and
disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully
contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, ceilings or
piping) of certain of the older plants if such plants were to
undergo major renovation or be demolished. No plans currently
exist for any such renovation or demolition of such facilities
and the Companys current assessment is that the most
probable scenarios are that no such CARO would be triggered for
20 or more years, if at all. Nonetheless, the retroactive
application of FIN 47 resulted in the Company recognizing
retroactive to the beginning of 2005, the following in the
fourth quarter of 2005: (i) a charge of approximately $2.0
reflecting the cumulative earnings impact of adopting
FIN 47, (ii) an increase in Property, plant and
equipment of $.5 and (iii) offsetting the amounts in
(i) and (ii), an increase in Long term liabilities of
approximately $2.5. In addition, pursuant to FIN 47 there
was an immaterial amount of incremental depreciation expense
recorded (in Depreciation and amortization) for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as a result of the retroactive increase
in Property, plant and equipment (discussed in (ii) above)
and there was an incremental $.2 of non-cash charges (in Cost of
products sold) to reflect the accretion of the liability
recognized at January 1, 2005 (discussed in
(iii) above) to the estimated fair value of the CARO of
$2.7 at December 31, 2005.
Anglesey, a 49% owned unconsolidated aluminum investment, also
recorded a CARO liability of approximately $15.0 in its
financial statements at December 31, 2005. The treatment
applied by Anglesey was not consistent with the principles of
SFAS No. 143 or FIN 47. Accordingly, the Company
adjusted Angleseys recording of the CARO to comply with US
GAAP treatment. The Company determined that application of US
GAAP would have resulted in (a) a non-cash cumulative
adjustment of $2.7 reducing the Companys investment
retroactive to the beginning of 2005 and (b) a decrease in
the Companys share of Angleseys earnings totaling
approximately $.1 for 2005 (representing additional
depreciation, accretion and foreign exchange charges).
See Notes 2 and 4 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005 for additional information
regarding the CAROs.
The Companys estimates and judgments that affect the
probability weighted estimated future contingent cost amounts
did not change during the first nine months of 2006. The
following amounts have been reflected in the Companys
results for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2005 and 2006: (i) an immaterial incremental amount of
depreciation expense and (ii) an immaterial amount of
incremental accretion of the estimated liability for the three
months and incremental accretion of the estimated liability of
$.1 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 (included
in Cost of products sold).
New Accounting Pronouncements. Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers Accounting
for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an
amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)
(SFAS No. 158) was issued in September
2006. SFAS No. 158 requires a company to recognize the
overfunded or underfunded status of a single-
F-83
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
employer defined benefit postretirement plan(s) as an asset or
liability in its statement of financial position and to
recognize changes in that funded status in comprehensive income
in the year in which the changes occur. Prior standards only
required the overfunded or underfunded status of a plan to be
disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. In addition,
SFAS No. 158 requires that a company disclose in the
notes to the financial statements additional information about
certain effects on net periodic benefit cost for the next fiscal
year that arise from delayed recognition of the gains or losses,
prior service costs or credits, and transition asset or
obligation. The Company must adopt SFAS No. 158 in its
year-end 2006 financial statements. Given the application of
fresh start reporting in the third quarter of 2006, the funded
status of the Companys defined benefit pension plans is
fully reflected in the Companys September 30, 2006
balance sheet and therefore the Company expects
SFAS No. 158 to have no material impact on the
Companys balance sheet reporting for these plans. However,
the Company has not yet completed its review of the possible
impacts of SFAS No. 158 in respect of a VEBA that
provides benefits for certain eligible retirees of the Company
and their surviving spouses and eligible dependents (the
Salaried VEBA) and the Union VEBA net assets or
obligations and cannot, therefore, predict what, if any, impacts
adoption of SFAS No. 158 will have on the balance
sheet in regard to the VEBAs.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS No. 157) was issued in September
2006 to increase consistency and comparability in fair value
measurements and to expand their disclosures. The new standard
includes a definition of fair value as well as a framework for
measuring fair value. The provisions of this standard apply to
other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair
value measurements. The standard is effective for fiscal periods
beginning after November 15, 2007 and should be applied
prospectively, except for certain financial instruments where it
must be applied retrospectively as a cumulative-effect
adjustment to the balance of opening retained earnings in the
year of adoption. The Company is still evaluating
SFAS No. 157 but does not currently anticipate that
the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on its
financial statements.
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Guidance for
Quantifying Financial Statement Misstatements
(SAB No. 108) was issued by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff in
September 2006. SAB 108 establishes a specific approach for
the quantification of financial statement errors based on the
effects of the error on each of the Companys financial
statements and the related financial statement disclosures. The
provisions of SAB 108 are effective for the Companys
December 31, 2006 annual financial statements. The Company
does not anticipate that the adoption of this bulletin will have
a material impact on its financial statements.
Significant accounting policies of the Predecessor are discussed
in Note 12.
|
|
3. |
INVESTMENT IN AND ADVANCES TO UNCONSOLIDATED AFFILIATE |
See Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in
the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005 for summary financial
information for Anglesey, which owns an aluminum smelter at
Holyhead, Wales. The Companys equity in income before
income taxes of Anglesey is treated as a reduction (increase) in
Cost of products sold. The income tax effects of the
Companys equity in income are included in the
Companys income tax provision.
The nuclear plant that supplies power to Anglesey is currently
slated for decommissioning in late 2010. For Anglesey to be able
to operate past September 2009 when its current power contract
expires, Anglesey will have to secure a new or alternative power
contract at prices that make its operation viable. No assurances
can be provided that Anglesey will be successful in this regard.
In addition, given the potential for future shutdown and related
costs, the Company expects that dividends from
F-84
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Anglesey may be suspended or curtailed either temporarily or
permanently while Anglesey studies future cash requirements.
Dividends over the past five years have fluctuated substantially
depending on various operational and market factors. During the
last five years and the nine months ended September 30,
2006, cash dividends received were as follows: 2001
$2.8, 2002 $6.0, 2003 $4.3,
2004 $4.5, 2005 $9.0, and
2006 $11.7.
The Company and Anglesey have interrelated operations. The
Company is responsible for selling Anglesey alumina in respect
of its ownership percentage. Such alumina is purchased at prices
that are tied to primary aluminum prices under a contract that
expires in 2007. The Company is responsible for purchasing from
Anglesey primary aluminum in respect to its ownership percentage
at prices tied to primary aluminum prices.
Purchases from and sales to Anglesey were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
three months | |
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
ended | |
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Purchases
|
|
$ |
94.8 |
|
|
$ |
82.4 |
|
|
$ |
30.3 |
|
|
$ |
50.1 |
|
Sales
|
|
|
27.7 |
|
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
8.6 |
|
There were no receivables due from Anglesey at either
September 30, 2006 or December 31, 2005.
As a result of fresh start accounting, the Company decreased its
investment in Anglesey at the Effective Date by $11.6 (see
Note 1). The $11.6 difference between the Companys
share of Anglesey equity and the investment amount reflected in
the Companys balance sheet is being amortized (included in
Cost of products sold) over the period from July 2006 to
September 2009, the end of the current power contract. The
noncash amortization was approximately $.9 for the three months
ended September 30, 2006.
|
|
4. |
PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT |
The major classes of property, plant, and equipment are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Land and improvements
|
|
$ |
7.7 |
|
|
$ |
12.8 |
|
Buildings
|
|
|
62.4 |
|
|
|
15.7 |
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
460.4 |
|
|
|
73.0 |
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
25.0 |
|
|
|
49.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
555.5 |
|
|
|
151.2 |
|
Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(332.1 |
) |
|
|
(2.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net
|
|
$ |
223.4 |
|
|
$ |
148.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to fresh start accounting, as more fully discussed in
Note 1, the Company adjusted its Property, plant and
equipment to its fair value as adjusted for the allocation of
the reorganization value and reset Accumulated depreciation to
zero. The fair value of most of the Companys Property,
plant and equipment was based on an independent appraisal. The
balance was based on managements estimates. As reported in
Note 1, this resulted in a net decrease in Property, plant
and equipment of
F-85
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
$103.0. The amount of depreciation to be recognized by the
Company will be lower than the amount historically recognized by
the Predecessor.
Approximately $39.5 of the Construction in progress at
September 30, 2006, relates to the Companys Spokane,
Washington facility (see Commitments Note 8).
|
|
5. |
SECURED DEBT AND CREDIT FACILITIES |
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Revolving Credit Facility
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Term Loan Facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other borrowings (fixed rate)
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
Less Current portion
|
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
$ |
1.2 |
|
|
$ |
50.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the Effective Date, the Company and certain subsidiaries of
the Company entered into a new Senior Secured Revolving Credit
Agreement with a group of lenders providing for a $200.0
revolving credit facility (the Revolving Credit
Facility), of which up to a maximum of $60.0 may be
utilized for letters of credit. Under the Revolving Credit
Facility, the Company is able to borrow (or obtain letters of
credit) from time to time in an aggregate amount equal to the
lesser of $200.0 and a borrowing base comprised of eligible
accounts receivable, eligible inventory and certain eligible
machinery, equipment and real estate, reduced by certain
reserves, all as specified in the Revolving Credit Facility. The
Revolving Credit Facility has a five-year term and matures in
July 2011, at which time all principal amounts outstanding
thereunder will be due and payable. Borrowings under the
Revolving Credit Facility bear interest at a rate equal to
either a base prime rate or LIBOR, at the Companys option,
plus a specified variable percentage determined by reference to
the then remaining borrowing availability under the Revolving
Credit Facility. The Revolving Credit Facility may, subject to
certain conditions and the agreement of lenders thereunder, be
increased up to $275.0 at the request of the Company.
Concurrent with the execution of the Revolving Credit Facility,
the Company also entered into a Term Loan and Guaranty Agreement
with a group of lenders (the Term
Loan Facility). The Term Loan Facility provides
for a $50.0 term loan and is guaranteed by the Company and
certain of its domestic operating subsidiaries. The Term
Loan Facility was fully drawn on August 4, 2006. The
Term Loan Facility has a five-year term and matures in July
2011, at which time all principal amounts outstanding thereunder
will be due and payable. Borrowings under the Term
Loan Facility bear interest at a rate equal to either a
premium over a base prime rate or LIBOR, at the Companys
option.
Amounts owed under each of the Revolving Credit Facility and the
Term Loan Facility may be accelerated upon the occurrence
of various events of default set forth in each such agreement,
including, without limitation, the failure to make principal or
interest payments when due, and breaches of covenants,
representations and warranties.
The Revolving Credit Facility is secured by a first priority
lien on substantially all of the assets of the Company and
certain of its domestic operating subsidiaries that are also
borrowers thereunder. The
F-86
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Term Loan Facility is secured by a second lien on
substantially all of the assets of the Company and the
Companys domestic operating subsidiaries that are the
borrowers or guarantors thereof.
Both credit facilities place restrictions on the ability of the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries to, among other things,
incur debt, create liens, make investments, pay dividends, sell
assets, undertake transactions with affiliates and enter into
unrelated lines of business.
During July 2006, the Company borrowed and repaid $8.6 under the
Revolving Credit Facility. At September 30, 2006, there
were no borrowings outstanding under the Revolving Credit
Facility, there were approximately $17.7 of outstanding letters
of credit and there was $50.0 outstanding under the Term
Loan Facility.
The debt and credit facilities of the Predecessor are discussed
in Note 16.
Tax Provisions. Tax provisions for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006 consist of:
Three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
three months | |
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
|
|
| |
Domestic
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.7 |
|
Foreign
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1.4 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
8.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
Domestic
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(.8 |
) |
|
|
$ |
2.7 |
|
Foreign
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
|
5.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6.0 |
|
|
$ |
6.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
8.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign taxes primarily represent Canadian income taxes and
United Kingdom income taxes in respect of the Companys
ownership interest in Anglesey.
The provision (benefit) for income tax is based on an assumed
effective rate for each applicable period.
Results of operations for discontinued operations are net of an
income tax provision (benefit) of $(.7) and $12.0 for the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2005, respectively.
F-87
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 and
2006, as a result of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the
Company did not recognize any U.S. income tax benefit for
the losses incurred from its domestic operations (including
temporary differences) or any U.S. income tax benefit for
foreign income taxes. Instead, the increases in federal and
state deferred tax assets as a result of additional net
operating losses and foreign tax credits generated in 2005 and
2006 were fully offset by increases in valuation allowances.
Tax Attributes. The Company is in the process of
calculating the additional deductions, cancellation of
indebtedness incomes and other impacts of the Plan and ongoing
operations on an entity-by-entity basis to determine the tax
attributes available. Based on preliminary estimates, the
Company believes that it will have net operating loss
carryforwards in the
$500-$800 range that
will be available to reduce future cash payments for income
taxes in the United States (other than alternative minimum
tax AMT) and that additional deductions for
amounts capitalized into the tax basis of inventories (totaling
an estimated $55-$100)
will become available (likely over the next two or three years).
Given the complexity of the entity-by-entity analysis, unique
tax regulations regarding Chapter 11 proceedings and other
uncertainties, these estimates remain subject to revision and
such revisions could be significant.
While the Company will have substantial tax attributes available
to offset the impact of future income taxes, for a year or more
after the emergence, the Company did not meet the more
likely than not criteria for recognition of such
attributes at the Effective Date primarily because the Company
does not have sufficient history of paying taxes. As such, the
Company recorded a full valuation allowance against the amount
of tax attributes available and no deferred tax asset was
recognized. The benefit associated with any future recognition
of tax attributes will be first utilized to reduce intangible
assets with any excess being recorded as an adjustment to
Stockholders equity rather than as a reduction of income
tax expense. Therefore, despite the existence of such tax
attributes, the Company expects to record a full statutory tax
provision in future periods and, therefore, the benefit of any
tax attributes realized will only affect future balance sheets
and statements of cash flows. If the Company ultimately
determines that it meets the more likely than not
recognition criteria, the amount of net operating loss
carryforwards would be recorded on the balance sheet and would
reduce the amount of intangible assets recognized in fresh start
accounting, until such assets are exhausted and any excess
remaining would be recorded as an adjustment to
stockholders equity.
Pursuant to the Plan, to preserve the net operating loss
carryforwards that may be available to the Company after
emergence, on the Effective Date, the Companys certificate
of incorporation was amended and restated to, among other
things, include certain restrictions on the transfer of Common
Stock and the Company and the Union VEBA, the Companys
largest stockholder, entered into a stock transfer restriction
agreement.
As more fully discussed in Note 17, it is possible that the
Company may recoup from the trustee for the liquidating trust
for Kaiser Aluminum Australia Corporation (KAAC) and
Kaiser Finance Corporation (KFC) joint plan of
liquidation (the KAAC/KFC Plan) all or some portion
of approximately $6.9 of U.S. AMT payments made during
2005. Such recovery is not reflected in the Companys
financial statements as of September 30, 2006.
In connection with fresh start accounting, the Company
recognized deferred tax liabilities of approximately $4.6. Such
liabilities primarily relate to an excess of financial statement
basis over the U.S. tax basis that is not expected to
turn-around in the
20-year U.S. net
operating loss (NOL) carry-forward period.
F-88
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Other. The Company and its subsidiaries file income tax
returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and various
states and foreign jurisdictions. Certain past years are still
subject to examination by taxing authorities. The last year
examined by major jurisdiction is as follows:
U.S. Federal1996; Canada1997; State and
localgenerally 1996. However, use of NOLs in future
periods could trigger review of attributes and other tax matters
in years that are not otherwise subject to examination.
In accordance with the requirements of
SOP 90-7, the
Company adopted the provisions of FIN 48 on July 1,
2006. The Company was not required to recognize any liability
for unrecognized tax benefits as a result of the implementation
of FIN 48. From July 1, 2006 to September 30,
2006, the Company did not recognize any additional liabilities
for unrecognized tax benefits.
The Company recognizes interest accrued for unrecognized tax
benefits in interest expense and penalties in the income tax
provision. During the three months ended September 30,
2006, the Company recognized approximately $.5 in interest and
penalties. The Company had approximately $4.0 and $4.5 accrued
at July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006, respectively,
for interest and penalties.
Income tax matters of the Predecessor are discussed in
Note 17.
|
|
7. |
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT AND INCENTIVE PLANS |
Emergence related compensation.
On the Effective Date:
|
|
|
The Company issued
515,150 shares of non-vested Common Stock to executive
officers and other key employees. Of the 515,150 shares
issued, 480,904 shares are subject to a three year cliff
vesting requirement that lapses on July 6, 2009. The
remainder vest ratably over a three year period. The fair value
of the shares issued, after assuming a 5% forfeiture rate of
$20.7 is being amortized to expense over a three year period on
a roughly ratable basis.
|
|
|
The Companys board of
directors terminated the Companys supplemental employee
retirement plan (the SERP more fully described in
Note 18) and funded payments totaling approximately $2.3.
Such amounts had been fully accrued by the Predecessor and were
included in the Companys opening balance sheet. The SERP
has been replaced by a non-qualified defined contribution plan
(the Restoration Plan) and will restore certain
benefits for key employees who would otherwise suffer a loss of
benefits under the Companys defined contribution plan as a
result of the limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
|
|
|
The Company paid $.5 in July
2006 to certain officers in respect of deferred retention
payments previously accrued by the Predecessor. During August
2006, the Company paid $5.1 in respect of the pre-emergence long
term incentive plan (LTI). Another $3.4 of LTI
payments is due in July 2007 and approximately $.5 was
determined to have been resolved pursuant to the Plan. The LTI
amounts had been fully accrued by the Predecessor.
|
|
|
|
Certain employment agreements
between the Company and members of management became effective.
Additionally, other members of management continue to retain
certain pre-emergence contractual arrangements. In particular,
the terms of the severance and change in control agreements
implemented as a part of the key employee retention program (the
KERP) survive after the Effective Date for a period
of one year and for a period ending two years following a change
in control, respectively, in each case unless superseded by
another agreement (see Note 18).
|
|
F-89
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Incentive plans and certain other plans.
Incentive plans for management and key employees include the
following:
|
|
|
A short term incentive plan for
management payable in cash and which is based primarily on
earnings, adjusted for certain safety and performance factors.
Most of the Companys locations also have similar programs
for both hourly and salaried employees.
|
|
|
A stock based long term
incentive plan for key managers. As more fully discussed in
Emergence Related Compensation above, an initial,
emergence-related award was made under this plan. Additional
awards are expected to be made in future years.
|
In early August 2006, the Company granted approximately 6,237
non-vested shares of Common Stock to its non-employee directors.
The shares vest in August 2007. The number of shares issued was
based on the approximate $43.00 per share average closing
price between July 18, 2006 and July 31, 2006. The
fair value of the non-vested stock grant ($.3), based on the
fair value of the shares at date of issuance, is being amortized
to earnings on a ratable basis over the vesting period. An
additional approximate 4,273 shares of vested Common Stock
were issued to non-employee directors electing to receive shares
of Common Stock in lieu of all or a portion of their annual
retainer fee. The fair value of the shares ($.2), based on the
fair value of the shares at date of issuance, was recognized in
earnings in the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as a
period expense.
Pension and similar plans.
Pensions and similar plans include:
|
|
|
A commitment to provide one or
more defined contribution plan(s) as a replacement for the five
defined benefit pension plans for hourly bargaining unit
employees at four of the Companys production facilities
and one inactive operation (the Hourly DB Plans).
The Hourly DB Plans at the four production facilities will, as
more fully discussed in Note 8, likely be terminated during
the fourth quarter of 2006, effective as of October 10,
2006 pursuant to a court ruling received in July 2006. It is
anticipated that the replacement defined contribution plans for
the production facilities will provide for an annual
contribution of one dollar per hour worked by bargaining unit
employee and, in certain instances, will provide for certain
matching of contributions.
|
|
|
A defined contribution savings
plan for hourly bargaining unit employees (the Hourly
DC Plan) at all of the Companys other
production facilities (not covered by the Hourly DB Plans).
Pursuant to the terms of Hourly DC Plan, the Company will be
required to make annual contributions to the Steelworkers
Pension Trust on the basis of one dollar per United Steelworkers
(USW) employee hour worked at two facilities. The
Company will also be required to make contributions to a defined
contribution savings plan for active USW employees that will
range from eight hundred dollars to twenty-four hundred dollars
per employee per year, depending on the employees age.
Similar defined contribution savings plans have been established
for non-USW hourly employees subject to collective bargaining
agreements. The Company currently estimates that contributions
to all such plans will range from $3.0 to
$6.0 per year.
|
|
|
A defined contribution savings
plan for salaried and non-bargaining unit hourly employees (the
Salaried DC Plan) providing for a match of certain
contributions made by employees plus a contribution of between
2% and 10% of their salary depending on their age and years of
service.
|
F-90
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Postretirement medical obligations.
As a part of the Companys reorganization efforts, the
Predecessors postretirement medical plan was terminated in
2004. Participants were given the option of COBRA coverage or
participation in the applicable (Union or Salaried) VEBA. All
past and future bargaining unit employees are covered by the
Union VEBA. The Salaried VEBA covers all other retirees
including employees who retired prior to the 2004 termination of
the prior plan or who retire with the required age and service
requirements so long as their employment commenced prior to
February 2002. The benefits being paid by the VEBAs are at the
sole discretion of the respective VEBA trustees and are outside
the Companys control.
During the course of the reorganization process, $49.7 of
contributions were made to the VEBAs, of which $12.7 is
available to reduce post emergence payments that may become due
pursuant to an annual variable cash requirement discussed below.
At emergence the Salaried VEBA received rights to
1,940,100 shares of the Companys newly issued Common
Stock. However, prior to the Companys emergence, the
Salaried VEBA sold its rights to approximately
940,200 shares and received net proceeds of approximately
$31. The remaining approximately 999,900 shares of the
Companys Common Stock held by the Salaried VEBA at
July 1, 2006 are unrestricted. At emergence, the Union VEBA
received rights to 11,439,900 shares of the Companys
newly issued Common Stock. However, prior the Companys
emergence, the Union VEBA sold its rights to approximately
2,630,000 shares and received net proceeds of approximately
$81. The Union VEBA is subject to an agreement that limits its
ability to sell or otherwise transfer more than approximately
2,518,000 shares of the Companys Common Stock owned
at July 1, 2006 during the two years following the
emergence date.
Going forward, the Companys only obligation to the VEBAs
is an annual variable cash contribution. The amount to be
contributed to the VEBAs will be 10% of the first $20.0 of
annual cash flow (as defined; in general terms, the principal
elements of cash flow are earnings before interest expense,
provision for income taxes and depreciation and amortization
less cash payments for, among other things, interest, income
taxes and capital expenditures), plus 20% of annual cash flow,
as defined, in excess of $20.0. Such annual payments will not
exceed $20.0 and will also be limited (with no carryover to
future years) to the extent that the payments would cause the
Companys liquidity to be less than $50.0. Such amounts
will be determined on an annual basis and payable no later than
March 31st of the following year. However, the Company has
the ability to offset amounts that would otherwise be due to the
VEBAs with approximately $12.7 of excess contributions made to
the VEBAs prior to the Effective Date.
For accounting purposes, after discussions with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Company has concluded that the
postretirement medical benefits to be paid by the VEBAs and the
Companys related annual variable contribution obligations
should be treated as defined benefit post-retirement plan with
the current VEBA assets and future variable contributions
described above, and earnings thereon, operate as a cap on the
benefits to be paid. As such, while the Companys only
obligation to the VEBAs is to pay the annual variable
contribution amount, the Company must account for net periodic
postretirement benefit costs in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No 106, Employers
Accounting for Postretirement Benefits other than Pensions
(SFAS No. 106) and record any
difference between the assets of each VEBA and its accumulated
postretirement benefit obligation (APBO) in the
Companys financial statements. Such information will have
to be obtained from the Salaried VEBA and Union VEBA on a
periodic basis. In general, as more fully described below, given
the significance of the assets currently and expected to be
available to the VEBAs in the future and the current level of
benefits, the cap does not impact the computation of the APBO.
However, should the benefit formulas being used by the VEBAs
increase and/or if the
F-91
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
assets were to substantially decrease, it is possible that
existing assets may be insufficient alone to fund such benefits
and that the benefits to be paid in future periods could be
reduced to the amount of annual variable contributions
reasonably expected to be paid by the Company in those years.
Any such limitations would also have to consider any remaining
amount of excess pre-emergence VEBA contributions made.
Key assumptions made in computing the net obligation of each
VEBA and in total include:
With respect to VEBA assets:
|
|
|
The 6,291,945 shares of the
Companys Common Stock held by the Union VEBA that are not
currently transferable, have been excluded from assets used to
compute the net asset or liability of the Union VEBA, and will
continue to be excluded until the restrictions lapse. Such
shares are being accounted for similar to treasury
stock in the interim.
|
|
|
The unrestricted shares of stock
held by each VEBA have been valued at the fresh-start date at
the fair value of $43.68 per share.
|
|
|
The Company has assumed that
each VEBA will achieve a long term rate of return of
approximately 5.5% on its assets. The long-term rate of return
assumption is based on the Companys expectation of the
investment strategies to be utilized by the VEBAs trustees.
|
|
|
The annual variable payment
obligation has been treated as a funding/contribution policy and
not counted as a VEBA asset.
|
With respect to VEBA obligations:
|
|
|
The APBO for each VEBA has been
computed based on the level of benefits being provided by each
VEBA at July 1, 2006.
|
|
|
The present value has been
computed using a discount rate of return of 6.25%
|
|
|
Since the Salaried VEBA is
currently paying a fixed annual amount to its constituents, no
future cost trend rate increase has been assumed in computing
the APBO for the Salaried VEBA.
|
|
|
For the Union VEBA, which is
currently paying certain prescription drug benefits, an initial
cost trend rate of 12% has been assumed and the trend rate is
assumed to decline to 5% by 2013. The trend rate used by the
Company is based on information provided by the Union VEBA.
|
The following recaps the net assets of each VEBA as of
July 1, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union VEBA | |
|
Salaried VEBA | |
|
Total | |
| |
APBO
|
|
$ |
(211.2 |
) |
|
$ |
(50.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(262.0 |
) |
Plan Assets
|
|
|
213.3 |
|
|
|
81.9 |
|
|
|
295.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net asset
|
|
$ |
2.1 |
|
|
$ |
31.1 |
|
|
$ |
33.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys results of operations will include the
following impacts associated with the VEBAs: (a) charges
for service rendered by employees; (b) a charge for
accretion of interest; (c) a benefit for the return on plan
assets; and (d) amortization of net gains or losses on
assets, prior service costs associated with plan amendments and
actuarial differences. The VEBA-related amounts included in the
results of operations are shown in the tables below.
Future payments of annual variable contributions will first be
applied to reduce any individual VEBA obligations recorded in
the Companys balance sheet at that time. Any remaining
amount of annual variable contributions in excess of recorded
obligations will be recorded as a VEBA asset in the
F-92
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
balance sheet. No accounting recognition has been accorded to
the $12.7 of excess pre-emergence VEBA contributions at this
time.
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost and Cash Flow and
Charges. The following tables present the components of net
periodic pension benefits cost for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2005 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
three months | |
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
|
|
| |
VEBA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
.3 |
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3 |
|
Defined benefit pension plans (including service costs of $.3,
$ and $.2)
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
Defined contributions plans
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
Retroactive impact of 401(k) adoption included in other
operating charges
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.4 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
VEBA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
.3 |
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3 |
|
Defined benefit pension plans (including service costs of $.8,
$.6 and $.2)
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
|
.2 |
|
Defined contributions plans
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
Retroactive impact of 401(k) adoption included in other
operating charges
|
|
|
5.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12.2 |
|
|
$ |
4.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005 for key assumptions with
respect to the Companys pension plans and post-retirement
benefit plans.
F-93
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
The following tables present the allocation of these charges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
three months | |
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
|
|
| |
Fabricated products segment
|
|
$ |
2.1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
1.8 |
|
Corporate segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4 |
|
Other operating charges (Note 10)
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.4 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
Fabricated products segment
|
|
$ |
6.1 |
|
|
$ |
4.5 |
|
|
|
$ |
1.8 |
|
Corporate segment
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.4 |
|
|
|
|
.4 |
|
Other operating charges (Note 10)
|
|
|
5.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12.2 |
|
|
$ |
4.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For all periods presented, substantially all of the Fabricated
products segments related charges are in Cost of products
sold with the balance being in Selling, administrative, research
and development and general expense.
The amount related to the retroactive implementation of the
Salaried DC Plan was paid in July 2005. In September 2005, the
Company and the USW amended a prior agreement to provide, among
other things, for the Company to contribute per employee amounts
to the Steelworkers Pension Trust totaling approximately
$.9. The amended agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court
and such amount was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2005.
The Successor also paid benefits applicable to the Predecessor
(see Emergence Related Compensation above).
Employee benefit and incentive plans of the Predecessor are
discussed in Note 18.
|
|
8. |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Commitments. The Company and its subsidiaries have a
variety of financial commitments, including purchase agreements,
forward foreign exchange and forward sales contracts (see
Note 9), letters of credit and guarantees. They also have
agreements to supply alumina to and to purchase aluminum from
Anglesey (see Note 3). During the third quarter of 2005 and
August 2006, orders were placed for certain equipment and/or
services intended to augment the heat treat and aerospace
capabilities at the Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington in
respect of which the Company expects to become obligated for
costs likely to total in the range of $105.0. Approximately
$45.0 of such costs was incurred in 2005 and through the first
nine months of 2006. The balance is expected to be incurred
F-94
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
primarily over the remainder of 2006 and 2007, with the majority
of the remaining costs being incurred in 2007.
Minimum rental commitments under operating leases at
December 31, 2005, are as follows: years ending
December 31, 2006 $2.6; 2007 $1.7; 2008
$1.4; 2009 $1.3; 2010 $.3; thereafter $.1.
Rental expenses, after excluding rental expenses of discontinued
operations, were $8.6, $3.1 and $3.6 for the years ended
December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. Rental
expenses of discontinued operations were $6.6 and $4.9 for the
years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Environmental Contingencies. The Company and its
subsidiaries are subject to a number of environmental laws and
regulations, to fines or penalties assessed for alleged breaches
of the environmental laws, and to claims and litigation based
upon such laws and regulations.
A substantial portion of the Companys obligations,
primarily in respect of non-owned locations, were resolved by
the Chapter 11 proceedings. Based on the Companys
evaluation of remaining environmental matters, the Company has
environmental accruals totaling approximately $9.2 at
September 30, 2006. Such amounts are primarily related to
potential solid waste disposal and soil and groundwater
remediation matters. These environmental accruals represent the
Companys estimate of costs reasonably expected to be
incurred based on presently enacted laws and regulations,
currently available facts, existing technology, and the
Companys assessment of the likely remediation action to be
taken. In the ordinary course, the Company expects that these
remediation actions will be taken over the next several years
and estimates that expenditures to be charged to these
environmental accruals will be approximately $4.0 during the
fourth quarter of 2006, in the range of $1.0 to $4.0 per
year for the years 2007 through 2010 and an aggregate of
approximately $6.0 thereafter.
As additional facts are developed and definitive remediation
plans and necessary regulatory approvals for implementation of
remediation are established or alternative technologies are
developed, changes in these and other factors may result in
actual costs exceeding the current environmental accruals. The
Company believes that it is reasonably possible that costs
associated with these environmental matters may exceed current
accruals by amounts that could range, in the aggregate, up to an
estimated $15.0. As the resolution of these matters is subject
to further regulatory review and approval, no specific assurance
can be given as to when the factors upon which a substantial
portion of this estimate is based can be expected to be
resolved. However, the Company is currently working to resolve
certain of these matters.
Other Environmental Matters. The Company is working with
regulatory authorities and performing studies and remediation
pursuant to several consent orders with the State of Washington
relating to the historical use of oils containing PCBs at our
Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington before 1978. During
April 2004, the Company was served with a subpoena for documents
and has been notified by Federal authorities that they are
investigating certain environmental compliance issues with
respect to the Companys Trentwood facility in Spokane,
Washington. This investigation is ongoing. The Company undertook
its own internal investigation of the matter through specially
retained counsel to ensure that it has all relevant facts
regarding Trentwoods compliance with applicable
environmental laws. The Company believes it is currently in
compliance in all material respects with all applicable
environmental law and requirements at the facility. The Company
intends to defend any claims or charges, if any which may
result, vigorously. The Company cannot, however, assess what, if
any, impact this matter may have on the Companys financial
statements.
Contingencies Regarding Settlement with the PBGC. As more
fully described in Note 18, in response to the January 2004
Debtors motion to terminate or substantially modify
substantially all of the Debtors defined benefit pension
plans, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the Company had met the
F-95
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
factual requirements for distress termination as to all of the
plans at issue. The PBGC appealed the Bankruptcy Courts
ruling. However, as more fully discussed in Note 18, while
PBGCs appeal was pending, the Company and the PBGC reached
a settlement under which the PBGC agreed to assume the
Terminated Plans (as defined in Note 18). The Bankruptcy
Court approved this settlement in January 2005. The Company
believed that, subject to the Plan and the Liquidating Plans
complying with the terms of the PBGC settlement, all issues in
respect of such matters were resolved. However, despite the
settlement with the PBGC, the intermediate appellate court
proceeded to consider the PBGCs earlier appeal and issued
a ruling dated March 31, 2005 affirming the Bankruptcy
Courts rulings regarding distress termination of all such
plans. In July 2005, the Company and the PBGC reached an
agreement, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court in
September 2005, under which the PBGC agreement previously
approved by the Bankruptcy Court was amended to permit the PBGC
to further appeal the intermediate appellate court ruling. Under
the terms of the amended PBGC agreement, if the PBGC were to
prevail in the further appeal, all aspects of the previously
approved PBGC agreement would remain the same. On the other
hand, under the amended agreement, if the intermediate appellate
court ruling was upheld on further appeal, the PBGC would be
required to: (a) approve the distress termination of the
remaining defined benefit pension plans; and (b) reduce the
amount of the administrative claim to $11.0 (from $14.0). Under
the amended agreement, both the Company and the PBGC agreed to
take up no further appeals. Pending a final resolution of this
matter, the Companys settlement with the PBGC remained in
full force and effect. Upon consummation of the two separate
plans of liquidation (collectively, the Liquidating
Plans) in December 2005, the $11.0 minimum was paid to the
PBGC.
In July 2006, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the intermediate appellate courts ruling
upholding the Bankruptcy Courts finding that the factual
requirements for distress termination of all defined benefit
plans had been met. Accordingly, four of the five remaining
plans likely will be terminated during the fourth quarter of
2006, effective as of October 10, 2006 and replaced by
defined contribution plans similar to the Hourly DB Plans
described in Note 7. As a result of the July 2006 ruling,
the $3.0 of previously recorded administrative claim included in
the Companys opening balance sheet was credited to Other
operating charges (credits), net in July 2006 (see
Note 10). The expected termination of the plans is expected
to have an immaterial impact on the Companys operating
results as the plan obligations were adjusted to fair value in
fresh start accounting.
The indenture trustee for KACCs senior subordinated notes
appealed the Bankruptcy Courts order approving the
settlement with the PBGC. In March 2006, the first level
appellate court affirmed the Bankruptcy Courts approval of
the settlement with the PBGC.
Other Contingencies. The Company and its subsidiaries are
involved in various other claims, lawsuits, and other
proceedings relating to a wide variety of matters related to
past or present operations. While uncertainties are inherent in
the final outcome of such matters, and it is presently
impossible to determine the actual costs that ultimately may be
incurred, management currently believes that the resolution of
such uncertainties and the incurrence of such costs should not
have a material adverse effect on the Companys
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity.
Commitment and contingencies of the Predecessor are discussed in
Note 19.
F-96
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
|
|
9. |
DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED HEDGING PROGRAMS
(AFFECTING BOTH THE SUCCESSOR AND PREDECESSOR) |
In conducting its business, the Company uses various
instruments, including forward contracts and options, to manage
the risks arising from fluctuations in aluminum prices, energy
prices and exchange rates. The Company has historically entered
into derivative transactions from time to time to limit its
exposure resulting from (1) its anticipated sales of
primary aluminum and fabricated aluminum products, net of
expected purchase costs for items that fluctuate with aluminum
prices, (2) the energy price risk from fluctuating prices
for natural gas used in its production process, and
(3) foreign currency requirements with respect to its cash
commitments with foreign subsidiaries and affiliates. As the
Companys hedging activities are generally designed to
lock-in a specified price or range of prices, realized gains or
losses on the derivative contracts utilized in the hedging
activities (excluding the impact of
mark-to-market
fluctuations on those contracts discussed below) generally
offset at least a portion of any losses or gains, respectively,
on the transactions being hedged.
The Companys share of primary aluminum production from
Anglesey is approximately 150,000,000 pounds annually. Because
the Company purchases alumina for Anglesey at prices linked to
primary aluminum prices, only a portion of the Companys
net revenues associated with Anglesey are exposed to price risk.
The Company estimates the net portion of its share of Anglesey
production exposed to primary aluminum price risk to be
approximately 100,000,000 pounds annually (before considering
income tax effects).
As stated above, the Companys pricing of fabricated
aluminum products is generally intended to
lock-in a conversion
margin (representing the value added from the fabrication
process(es)), and to pass metal price risk on to its customers.
However, in certain instances the Company does enter into firm
price arrangements. In such instances, the Company does have
price risk on its anticipated primary aluminum purchase in
respect of the customers order. Total fabricated products
shipments during the nine months ended September 30, 2005,
the period from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and
the period from July 1, 2006 through September 30,
2006 that contained fixed price terms were (in millions of
pounds) 109.6, 103.9 and 49.1, respectively.
During the last three years the volume of fabricated products
shipments with underlying primary aluminum price risk were at
least as much as the Companys net exposure to primary
aluminum price risk at Anglesey. As such, the Company considers
its access to Anglesey production overall to be a
natural hedge against any fabricated products firm
metal-price risk. However, since the volume of fabricated
products shipped under firm prices may not match up on a
month-to-month basis
with expected Anglesey-related primary aluminum shipments, the
Company may use third party hedging instruments to eliminate any
net remaining primary aluminum price exposure existing at any
time.
At September 30, 2006, the fabricated products business
held contracts for the delivery of fabricated aluminum products
that have the effect of creating price risk on anticipated
purchases of primary aluminum during the last quarter of 2006
and for the period 2007 2010 totaling approximately (in
millions of pounds): 2006: 69.0, 2007: 116.0, 2008: 94.0, 2009:
71.0 and 2010: 72.0.
F-97
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
The following table summarizes the Companys material
derivative positions at September 30, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
amount of | |
|
Carrying/ | |
|
|
|
|
contracts | |
|
market | |
Commodity |
|
Period | |
|
(mmlbs) | |
|
value | |
| |
Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option sale contracts
|
|
|
1/11 through 12/11 |
|
|
|
48.9 |
|
|
$ |
3.7 |
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
10/06 through 12/07 |
|
|
|
50.5 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
|
Fixed priced sales contracts
|
|
|
1/07 through 12/09 |
|
|
|
44.1 |
|
|
|
(.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
amount of | |
|
Carrying/ | |
|
|
|
|
contracts | |
|
market | |
Foreign currency |
|
Period | |
|
(mm) | |
|
value | |
| |
Pounds Sterling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option sales contracts
|
|
|
10/06 through 12/07 |
|
|
|
52.5 |
|
|
$ |
.1 |
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
10/06 through 12/07 |
|
|
|
52.5 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
Euro Dollars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
10/06 through 1/08 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
amount of | |
|
Carrying/ | |
|
|
|
|
contracts | |
|
market | |
Energy |
|
Period | |
|
(mmbtu) | |
|
value | |
| |
Natural gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed priced purchase
contracts(a)
|
|
|
10/06 through 3/08 |
|
|
|
1,390,000 |
|
|
$ |
(2.6 |
) |
|
|
(a) |
When the hedges in place as of September 30, 2006 are
combined with price limits in the Companys physical supply
agreement, the Companys exposure to increases in natural
gas prices has been substantially limited for approximately 76%
of the natural gas purchases for October 2006 through December
2006 and approximately 31% of the natural gas purchases for
January 2007 through March 2007 and 14% of natural gas purchases
for April 2007 through June 2007. |
As more fully discussed in Notes 2 and 15, the Company
currently reflects changes in the market value of its derivative
instruments in Net income (rather than deferring such
gains/losses to the date of the underlying transactions to which
the related hedges occur). Included in Net income for the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2005 were realized
losses of $.5 and $1.8 and unrealized losses of $1.0 and $4.5,
respectively. Included in Net income for the period from
July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006 and the nine
months ended September 30, 2006, were realized losses of
$3.1 and $.1 respectively, and unrealized gains(losses) of $(.6)
and $5.5, respectively.
|
|
10. |
OTHER OPERATING CHARGES (CREDITS), NET |
Other operating charges (credits), net for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2005, included charges totaling
$.3 and $5.9, respectively, associated with the 2004 portion of
the Companys defined contribution plans, which were
implemented in March 2005 (see Note 7 Fabricated
products business unit; $.2 for the three months and $5.4 for
the nine months and Corporate: $.1 for the three months and $.5
for the nine months). Other operating charges (credits), net for
the nine months ended September 30, 2005, also included a
charge totaling $.6 related to
F-98
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
termination of the Houston, Texas administrative office lease in
connection with the combination of the Corporate headquarters
into the existing Fabricated products headquarters. Other
operating charges (credits), net for the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 include the settlement
of a pre-petition claim of $.9 (Fabricated products business
unit). Other operating charges (credits), net include an
adjustment of approximately $3.0 in the period from July 1,
2006 to September 30, 2006 to decrease long-term
liabilities in respect of the resolution of a
pre-emergence contingency related to a PBGC matter
that was pending at the opening balance sheet date (see
Note 8 Corporate).
|
|
11. |
SEGMENT AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA INFORMATION |
The Companys primary line of business is the production of
fabricated aluminum products. In addition, the Company owns a
49% interest in Anglesey, which owns an aluminum smelter in
Holyhead, Wales. Historically, the Company, through its wholly
owned subsidiary, KACC, operated in all principal sectors of the
aluminum industry including the production and sale of bauxite,
alumina and primary aluminum in domestic and international
markets. However, as previously disclosed, as a part of the
Companys reorganization efforts, the Company sold
substantially all of its commodities operations. The balances
and results in respect of such operations are considered
discontinued operations (see Note 14). The amounts
remaining in Primary aluminum relate primarily to the
Companys interests in and related to Anglesey and the
Companys primary aluminum hedging-related activities.
The Companys continuing operations are organized and
managed by product type and include two operating segments of
the aluminum industry and the corporate segment. The two
aluminum industry segments are: Fabricated products and Primary
aluminum. The Fabricated products business unit sells
value-added products such as heat treat aluminum sheet and
plate, extrusions and forgings which are used in a wide range of
industrial applications, including for automotive, aerospace and
general engineering end-use applications. The Primary aluminum
business unit produces commodity grade products as well as
value-added products such as ingot and billet, for which the
Company receives a premium over normal commodity market prices
and conducts hedging activities in respect of the Companys
exposure to primary aluminum price risk. The accounting policies
of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2.
Business unit results are evaluated internally by management
before any allocation of corporate overhead and without any
charge for income taxes, interest expense or Other operating
charges (credits), net. See Note 15 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005 for further information
regarding segments.
F-99
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Financial information by operating segment, excluding
discontinued operations, for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and 2006, is as follows:
Three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
three months | |
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
|
|
| |
Net Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
235.9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
281.6 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
35.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Net Sales
|
|
$ |
271.6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
331.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated
Products(1)
|
|
$ |
25.7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
29.1 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
(10.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13.1 |
) |
|
Other Operating Charges (Credits), Net Note 10
|
|
|
(.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Income
|
|
$ |
19.7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
21.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
4.9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.7 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4.9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
paid:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
.2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-100
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
Net Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
707.7 |
|
|
$ |
590.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
281.6 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
108.2 |
|
|
|
98.9 |
|
|
|
|
49.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Net Sales
|
|
$ |
815.9 |
|
|
$ |
689.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
331.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated
Products(1)
|
|
$ |
66.3 |
|
|
$ |
61.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
29.1 |
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
13.4 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
|
2.8 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
(27.7 |
) |
|
|
(20.3 |
) |
|
|
|
(13.1 |
) |
|
Other Operating Charges (Credits), Net Note 10
|
|
|
(6.5 |
) |
|
|
(.9 |
) |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Income
|
|
$ |
45.5 |
|
|
$ |
52.4 |
|
|
|
$ |
21.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$ |
14.8 |
|
|
$ |
9.7 |
|
|
|
$ |
2.7 |
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
15.0 |
|
|
$ |
9.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
2.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
paid:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.6 |
|
|
$ |
1.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Operating results for the period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006 include a LIFO inventory charge of $21.7.
Operating results for the period from July 1, 2006 through
September 30, 2006 include a LIFO inventory benefit of
$3.3. |
|
(2) |
Income taxes paid exclude foreign income tax paid by
discontinued operations of $6.5 and $16.9, respectively, for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2005. |
PREDECESSOR
|
|
12. |
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of
the Predecessor were prepared on a going concern
basis in accordance with
SOP 90-7, and do
not include the impacts of the Plan including adjustments
relating to recorded asset amounts, the resolution of
liabilities subject to compromise, or the cancellation of the
interests of the Companys pre-emergence stockholders.
In most instances, but not all, the accounting policies of the
Predecessor were the same or similar to those of the Successor.
Where accounting policies differed or the Predecessor applied
methodologies differently to its financial statement information
than that which is used in preparing and presenting Successor
financial statement information, discussion has been added to
this Report in the appropriate
F-101
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
section of the Successor notes. For a recap of the
Predecessors significant accounting policies, see
Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the
Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005.
|
|
13. |
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS |
Background. Kaiser, KACC, and 24 of KACCs
subsidiaries filed separate voluntary petitions in the
Bankruptcy Court for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
Code; the Company, KACC and 15 of KACCs subsidiaries (the
Original Debtors) filed in the first quarter of 2002
and nine additional KACC subsidiaries (the Additional
Debtors) filed in the first quarter of 2003. The Company,
KACC and the KACC subsidiaries continued to manage their
businesses in the ordinary course as
debtors-in-possession
subject to the control and administration of the Bankruptcy
Court. The Original Debtors and the Additional Debtors are
collectively referred to herein as the Debtors. For
purposes of this Report the term Filing Date means
with respect to any Debtor, the date on which such Debtor filed
its Chapter 11 proceeding.
The Original Debtors found it necessary to file the
Chapter 11 proceedings primarily because of liquidity and
cash flow problems of the Company and its subsidiaries that
arose in late 2001 and early 2002. The Company was facing
significant near-term debt maturities at a time of unusually
weak aluminum industry business conditions, depressed aluminum
prices and a broad economic slowdown that was further
exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001. In
addition, the Company had become increasingly burdened by
asbestos litigation and growing legacy obligations for retiree
medical and pension costs. The confluence of these factors
created the prospect of continuing operating losses and negative
cash flows, resulting in lower credit ratings and an inability
to access the capital markets. The Chapter 11 proceedings
filed by the Additional Debtors were commenced, among other
reasons, to protect the assets held by these Debtors against
possible statutory liens that might have arisen and been
enforced by the PBGC.
Reorganizing Debtors; Entities Containing the Fabricated
Products and Certain Other Operations. On February 6,
2006, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the
Confirmation Order) confirming the Plan, On
May 11, 2006, the District Court for the District of
Delaware entered an order affirming the Confirmation Order and
adopting the Bankruptcy Courts findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding confirmation of the Plan. On
July 6, 2006, the Plan became effective and was
substantially consummated, whereupon the Company emerged from
Chapter 11.
Pursuant to the Plan, on the Effective Date, the pre-emergence
ownership interests in the Company were cancelled without
consideration and all material pre-petition claims against the
Company, KACC and their remaining debtor subsidiaries, including
claims in respect of debt, pension and post-retirement medical
obligations, and asbestos and other tort liabilities (totaling
approximately $4.4 billion in the June 30, 2006
consolidated financial statements), were resolved as follows:
|
|
|
|
(a) |
Claims in Respect of Retiree Medical Obligations. Pursuant to
settlements reached with representatives of hourly and salaried
retirees: |
|
|
|
|
|
an aggregate of
11,439,900 shares of the Companys Common Stock were
delivered to the Hourly VEBA trust and entities that prior to
the Effective Date acquired from the Union VEBA rights to
receive a portion of such shares (see Note 7); and
|
|
|
|
an aggregate of
1,940,100 shares of Common Stock were delivered to the
Salaried Retiree VEBA trust and entities that prior to the
Effective Date acquired from the Salaried Retiree VEBA rights to
receive a portion of such shares (see Note 7).
|
F-102
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Priority Claims and Secured Claims. All pre-petition priority
claims, pre-petition priority tax claims and pre-petition
secured claims were paid in full in cash. |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
Unsecured Claims. With respect to pre-petition unsecured claims
(other than the personal injury claims specified below): |
|
|
|
|
|
all pre-petition unsecured
claims of the PBGC against the Companys Canadian debtor
affiliates were satisfied by the delivery of
2,160,000 shares of Common Stock and $2.5 in cash; and
|
|
|
|
all pre-petition general
unsecured claims against the Company, KACC and their remaining
debtor subsidiaries, other than Canadian debtor subsidiaries,
including claims of the PBGC and holders of public debt, were
satisfied by the issuance of 4,460,000 shares of Common
Stock to a third-party disbursing agent, with such shares to be
delivered to the holders of such claims in accordance with the
terms of the Plan (to the extent that such claims do not
constitute convenience claims that have been or will be
satisfied with cash payments). Of such 4,460,000 shares of
Common Stock, approximately 331,000 shares were being
initially held by the third-party disbursing agent as a reserve
pending resolution of disputed claims; to the extent a holder of
a disputed claim is not entitled to shares reserved in respect
of such claim, such shares will be distributed to holders of
allowed claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) Personal
Injury Claims. Certain trusts (the PI Trusts) were
formed to receive distributions from the Company, assume
responsibility from the Company for personal injury liabilities
(including those resulting from alleged pre-petition exposures
to asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch volatiles and
noise-induced hearing loss), and to make payments in respect of
such personal injury claims. The Company contributed to the PI
Trusts: |
|
|
|
|
|
the rights with respect to
proceeds associated with personal injury-related insurance
recoveries that were reflected on the Companys financial
statements at June 30, 2006 as a receivable having a value
of $963.3 (see Note 19);
|
|
|
|
$13.0 in cash, less
approximately $.3 advanced prior to the Effective Date, which
was paid on the Effective Date;
|
|
|
|
the stock of a subsidiary whose
primary assets was approximately 145 acres of real estate
located in Louisiana and the rights as lessor under a lease
agreement for such real property that produces modest rental
income; and
|
|
|
|
75% of a pre-petition general
unsecured claim against KACC in the amount of $1.1 billion
entitling certain of the PI Trusts to a share of the
4,460,000 shares of Common Stock distributed to unsecured
claimholders.
|
The PI Trusts assumed all liability and responsibility for the
past, pending and future personal injury claims resulting from
alleged pre-petition exposures to asbestos, silica and coal tar
pitch volatile, and pending noise induced hearing loss personal
injury claims. As of the Effective Date, injunctions were
entered prohibiting any person from pursuing any claims against
the Company or any of its affiliates in respect of such matters.
Cash payments on the Effective Date for priority and secured
claims, payments to the PI Trusts, bank and professional fees
totaled approximately $29.0 and were funded using existing cash
resources.
Liquidating Debtors. As previously disclosed in prior
periods, the Company generated net cash proceeds of
approximately $686.8 from the sale of its interests in and
related to Queensland Alumina Limited (QAL) and
Alumina Partners of Jamaica (Alpart). The
Companys interests in and related
F-103
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
to QAL and Alpart were owned by certain subsidiaries of KACC
(the Liquidating Subsidiaries) that were subsidiary
guarantors of the KACCs senior and senior subordinated
notes. Throughout 2005, the proceeds were held in separate
escrow accounts pending distribution to the creditors of the
Liquidating Subsidiaries.
On December 20, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
confirming the Liquidating Plans for the Liquidating
Subsidiaries. On December 22, 2005, the Liquidating Plans
became effective and all restricted cash and other assets held
on behalf of or by the Liquidating Subsidiaries, consisting
primarily of approximately $686.8 of net cash proceeds from the
sale of interests in and related to QAL and Alpart, were
transferred to a trustee for subsequent distribution to holders
of claims against the Liquidating Subsidiaries in accordance
with the terms of the Liquidating Plans. In connection with the
Liquidating Plans, the Liquidating Subsidiaries were dissolved
and their corporate existence was terminated.
When the Liquidating Plans became effective, substantially all
amounts were to be paid to (or received by) KACC from/to the
creditors of the Liquidating Subsidiaries pursuant to the
Intercompany Settlement Agreement (the Intercompany
Agreement), other than certain payments of alternative
minimum tax paid by the Company. The Company expects to receive
any amounts ultimately determined to be due from the KAAC/KFC
Plan during the latter part of 2006 in connection with the
completion of its 2005 tax return (see Note 6). The
Intercompany Agreement also resolved substantially all pre- and
post-petition intercompany claims among the Debtors.
The effectiveness of the Liquidating Plans and the dissolution
of the Liquidating Subsidiaries did not resolve a dispute
between the holders of KACCs senior notes and the holders
of KACCs senior subordinated notes regarding their
respective entitlement to certain of the proceeds from the sales
by the Liquidating Subsidiaries of interests in QAL and Alpart
(the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute). On
December 22, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision
in connection with the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute, finding (in
favor of the senior notes) that the senior subordinated notes
were contractually subordinate to the senior notes in regard to
certain subsidiary guarantors (particularly the Liquidating
Subsidiaries) and that certain parties were not due certain
reimbursements. The Bankruptcy Courts ruling has been
appealed. The Company cannot predict, however, the ultimate
resolution of the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute on appeal, when
any such resolution will occur, or what impact any such outcome
will have on distributions to affected note holders under the
Liquidating Plans. However, given the Companys now
completed emergence from the Chapter 11, the Company does
not have any continuing liability in respect of the Senior
Note-Sub Note Dispute.
Classification of Liabilities as Liabilities Not
Subject to Compromise Versus Liabilities Subject to
Compromise. Liabilities not subject to compromise
include the following:
|
|
|
(1) liabilities incurred after the date each entity filed
for reorganization (i.e., its Filing Date); |
|
|
(2) pre-Filing Date liabilities that were expected to be
paid in full, including priority tax and employee claims and
certain environmental liabilities; and |
|
|
(3) pre-Filing Date liabilities that were approved for
payment by the Bankruptcy Court and that were expected to be
paid (in advance of a plan of reorganization) over the next
twelve-month period in the ordinary course of business,
including certain employee related items (salaries, vacation and
medical benefits), claims subject to a currently existing
collective bargaining agreements, and certain postretirement
medical and other costs associated with retirees. |
Liabilities subject to compromise refer to all other pre-Filing
Date liabilities of the Debtors.
F-104
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
The amounts subject to compromise at December 31, 2005 and
June 30, 2006 consisted of the following items:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
2005(1) | |
|
2006(1) | |
| |
Accrued postretirement medical obligation (Note 18)
|
|
$ |
1,017.0 |
|
|
$ |
1,005.6 |
|
Accrued asbestos and certain other personal injury liabilities
(Note 19)
|
|
|
1,115.0 |
|
|
|
1,115.0 |
|
Assigned intercompany claims for benefit of certain creditors
|
|
|
1,131.5 |
|
|
|
1,131.5 |
|
Debt (Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005)
|
|
|
847.6 |
|
|
|
847.6 |
|
Accrued pension benefits (Note 18)
|
|
|
626.2 |
|
|
|
625.5 |
|
Unfair labor practice settlement (Note 19)
|
|
|
175.0 |
|
|
|
175.0 |
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
29.8 |
|
|
|
31.6 |
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
44.7 |
|
|
|
44.7 |
|
Accrued environmental liabilities (Note 19)
|
|
|
30.7 |
|
|
|
29.4 |
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
37.2 |
|
|
|
36.7 |
|
Proceeds from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
(654.6 |
) |
|
|
(654.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,400.1 |
|
|
$ |
4,388.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The above amounts exclude $68.5 at December 31, 2005 and
$73.5 at June 30, 2006 of liabilities subject to compromise
related to discontinued operations. Approximately $42.1 of the
excluded amounts at December 31, 2005 and June 30,
2006 relate to a claim settled in the fourth quarter of 2005
(see Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005). The balance of the amounts
at December 31, 2005 and June 30, 2006 were primarily
accounts payable. |
Reorganization Items. Reorganization items are expense or
income items that were incurred or realized by the Company
because it was in reorganization. These items include, but are
not limited to, professional fees and similar types of expenses
incurred directly related to the reorganization proceedings,
loss accruals or gains or losses resulting from activities of
the reorganization process, and interest earned on cash
accumulated by the Debtors because they were not paying their
pre-Filing Date liabilities. For the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and 2006, reorganization items were as
follows:
Three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
three months | |
|
|
|
|
ended | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Gain on Plan implementation and fresh start
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(3,113.1 |
) |
Professional fees
|
|
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
8.2 |
|
|
$ |
(3,108.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-105
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Gain on Plan implementation and fresh start
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(3,113.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,113.1 |
) |
Professional fees
|
|
|
29.2 |
|
|
|
21.2 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(2.6 |
) |
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
25.3 |
|
|
$ |
(3,093.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,108.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At June 30, 2006, approximately $15.0 of professional fees
were accrued (included in Other accrued liabilities) pending
Bankruptcy Court approval to pay such amounts. Approximately
$7.9 of the professional fees had been paid as of
September 30, 2006. It is anticipated that legal and
certain other costs related to the Companys emergence from
Chapter 11 will continue for a period of time after the
Effective Date and such costs, when incurred, will be included
in Selling, administrative, research and development, and
general expenses. Additionally, certain professionals were
contractually due certain success fees due upon the
Companys emergence from Chapter 11 and Bankruptcy
Court approval. Approximately $5.0 of such amounts were borne by
the Company and were recorded in connection with emergence and
fresh start accounting.
Financial Information.
SOP 90-7 requires
separate disclosure of Debtors and non-Debtors amounts.
Substantially all of the financial information at
December 31, 2005 and June 30, 2006 and for the
periods then ended included in the consolidated financial
statements relates to the Debtors. As a result, condensed
combined balance sheet information of the non-Debtor
subsidiaries included in the consolidated financial statements
as of December 31, 2005 and June 30, 2006 and
condensed combined income statement and cash flows information
of the non-Debtor subsidiaries for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2005 and 2006 is not presented because such
amounts were not significant.
|
|
14. |
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS |
As part of the Companys plan to divest certain of its
commodity assets, as more fully discussed in Note 13, the
Company sold its interests in and related to Alpart, KACCs
Gramercy, Louisiana alumina refinery (Gramercy),
Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company (KJBC), Volta
Aluminium Company Limited (Valco), and KACCs
Mead, Washington aluminum smelter and certain related property
(the Mead Facility) in 2004 and, as discussed below,
sold its interests in and related to QAL in April 2005. All of
the foregoing commodity assets are collectively referred to as
the Commodity Interests. In accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144,
Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived
Assets (SFAS No. 144), the assets,
liabilities, operating results and gains from sale of the
Commodity Interests have been reported as discontinued
operations in the accompanying financial statements.
On April 1, 2005, the Company sold its interests in and
related to QAL for net cash proceeds totaling approximately
$401.4. The buyer also assumed KACCs obligations for
approximately $60.0 of QAL debt (see Note 3 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005) and KACCs obligation to
pay its proportionate share (20%) of debt, operating expenses
and certain other costs of QAL. In connection with the sale, the
Company also paid a termination fee of $11.0. After considering
transaction costs (including the
F-106
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
termination fee and a $7.7 deferred charge associated with a
back-up bid fee), the
transaction resulted in a gain, net of estimated income tax of
$7.9, of approximately $366.2. As described in Note 13, a
substantial majority of the proceeds from the sale of the
Companys interests in and related to QAL were held in
escrow for the benefit of the creditors under the liquidating
trust for the KAAC/ KFC Plan until the KAAC/ KFC Plan was
confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and became effective in
December 2005.
Under SFAS No. 144, only those assets, liabilities and
operating results that are being sold or discontinued are
treated as discontinued operations. In the case of
the sale of Gramercy and the Mead Facility, the buyers did not
assume such items as accrued workers compensation, pension or
postretirement benefit obligations in respect of the former
employees of these facilities. As discussed more fully in
Note 13, these retained obligations were resolved in the
context of the Plan.
The carrying amounts of the liabilities in respect of the
Companys interest in and related to the sold Commodity
Interests as of December 31, 2005 and September 30,
2006 are included in the accompanying Consolidated Balance
Sheets for the periods ended December 31, 2005 and
September 30, 2006. Income statement information in respect
of the Companys interest in and related to the sold
Commodity Interests for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and 2006 included in income from
discontinued operations was as follows:
Three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
three months | |
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
|
|
| |
Net Sales
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sales of commodity assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
7.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
nine months | |
|
period from | |
|
|
July 1, 2006 | |
|
|
ended | |
|
January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
through | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
to July 1, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
2006 | |
| |
|
|
| |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
42.9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
21.4 |
|
|
|
(3.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sales of commodity assets
|
|
|
365.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
398.9 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the second quarter of 2006, the Company recorded a $5.0
charge as a result of an agreement between the Company and the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) related to a
rejected electric
F-107
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
power contract (see Note 19). This amount is included in
Discontinued operations for the six months ended June 30,
2006.
During the first quarter of 2006, the Company received a $7.5
payment from an insurer in settlement of certain residual claims
the Company had in respect of a 2000 incident at its Gramercy,
Louisiana alumina refinery (which was sold in 2004). This amount
is included in Discontinued operations for the nine months ended
September 30, 2006.
Activity during the three month and nine months ended
September 30, 2005 consisted almost exclusively of the
Companys interests in and related to QAL, which was sold
on April 1, 2005, and related hedging activity.
|
|
15. |
RESTATED 2005 QUARTERLY DATA |
During March 2006, the Company determined that its previously
issued financial statements for the quarters ended
March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and September 30,
2005 should be restated for two items: (1) VEBA-related
payments made during the first nine months of 2005 should have
been recorded as a reduction of the pre-petition retiree medical
obligations rather than as a current operating expense and
(2) as more fully discussed in Note 2, the Company
determined that its derivative financial instrument transactions
did not qualify for hedge (deferral) treatment and should
have been
marked-to-market in
operating results. The effect of the restatement related to the
VEBA payments was to decrease operating expenses by $6.7, $5.7
and $5.7 in the first, second and third quarters of 2005,
respectively with an offsetting decrease in Liabilities subject
to compromise at March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and
September 30, 2005. The net effect of the restatement
related to the derivative transactions was to increase operating
expenses by $2.0, $1.5 and $1.0 in the first, second and third
quarters of 2005, respectively, with an offsetting increase in
OCI at March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and
September 30, 2005, respectively. There was no net impact
on the Companys cash flows as a result of either
restatement.
F-108
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
The following tables show the full income statement affects of
the restatements on the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2005, as well as the changes in balance sheet
and cash flow statement line items as of and for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005.
Statements of consolidated income unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months | |
|
Nine months | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
As previously | |
|
|
|
As previously | |
|
|
|
|
reported(1) | |
|
As restated | |
|
reported(1) | |
|
As restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Net sales
|
|
$ |
271.6 |
|
|
$ |
271.6 |
|
|
$ |
815.9 |
|
|
$ |
815.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
233.7 |
|
|
|
233.5 |
|
|
|
710.0 |
|
|
|
710.9 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
Selling, administration, research and development, and general
|
|
|
17.7 |
|
|
|
13.2 |
|
|
|
52.4 |
|
|
|
38.0 |
|
|
Other operating charges, net
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
256.6 |
|
|
|
251.9 |
|
|
|
783.9 |
|
|
|
770.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
19.7 |
|
|
|
32.0 |
|
|
|
45.5 |
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded interest expense)
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
(25.3 |
) |
|
|
(25.3 |
) |
|
Other net
|
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
(.5 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
5.3 |
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
14.5 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
8.6 |
|
|
|
(5.0 |
) |
|
|
8.5 |
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
11.9 |
|
|
$ |
16.6 |
|
|
$ |
377.2 |
|
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share Basic/ Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
.05 |
|
|
$ |
.11 |
|
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
$ |
.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
.10 |
|
|
$ |
.10 |
|
|
$ |
4.85 |
|
|
$ |
4.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(.06 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
.15 |
|
|
$ |
.21 |
|
|
$ |
4.73 |
|
|
$ |
4.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (000):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic/ Diluted
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
79,672 |
|
|
|
79,676 |
|
|
|
79,676 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-109
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Consolidated balance sheets unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As previously | |
|
|
|
|
reported(1) | |
|
As restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
$ |
3,949.8 |
|
|
$ |
3,931.7 |
|
Stockholders equity (deficit):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,540.4 |
) |
|
|
(2,526.8 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(10.0 |
) |
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(2,011.6 |
) |
|
|
(1,993.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
$ |
1,938.2 |
|
|
$ |
1,938.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statements of consolidated cash flows unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As previously | |
|
|
|
|
reported(1) | |
|
As restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
377.1 |
|
|
$ |
390.7 |
|
|
Less net income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
386.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) from continuing operations, including from
cumulative effect of adopting change in accounting in 2005
|
|
|
(9.8 |
) |
|
|
3.8 |
|
(Decrease) increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
Increase in other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
|
|
(11.8 |
) |
Net cash impact of changes in long-term assets and liabilities
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
(14.9 |
) |
Net cash used by operating activities
|
|
$ |
15.1 |
|
|
$ |
15.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The As previously reported amounts shown above
include the effect of the adoption of FIN 47 on
December 31, 2005 retroactive to the beginning of the year
as discussed in Note 2. Such retroactive application is
required by GAAP and is not considered a
restatement. The retroactive impact of the adoption
of FIN 47 was a charge of $4.7 in the first quarter of 2005
in respect of the cumulative effect upon adoption. |
See Note 16 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005 for additional information
regarding the restated 2005 quarterly data.
|
|
16. |
DEBT AND CREDIT FACILITIES |
On February 1, 2006, and again on May 11, 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court approved amendments to the Companys
Secured Super-Priority Debtor-In-Possession Revolving Credit and
Guaranty Agreement (the DIP Facility) extending its
expiration date ultimately to the earlier of the Companys
emergence from Chapter 11 or August 31, 2006. The DIP
Facility terminated on the Effective Date.
F-110
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Under the DIP Facility, which provided for a secured, revolving
line of credit, the Company, KACC and certain subsidiaries of
KACC were able to borrow amounts by means of revolving credit
advances and to have issued letters of credit (up to $60.0) in
an aggregate amount equal to the lesser of $200.0 or a borrowing
base comprised of eligible accounts receivable, eligible
inventory and certain eligible machinery, equipment and real
estate, reduced by certain reserves, as defined in the DIP
Facility agreement. At June 30, 2006, there were no
outstanding borrowings under the DIP Facility and there were
outstanding letters of credit of approximately $17.7 (which on
the Effective Date were converted to outstanding letters of
credit under the Revolving Credit Facility).
The DIP Facility, which was implemented during the first quarter
of 2005, replaced a post-petition credit facility (the
Replaced Facility) that the Company and KACC entered
into on February 12, 2002. The Replaced Facility was
amended a number of times during its term as a result of, among
other things, reorganization transactions, including disposition
of the Companys Commodity Interests.
During the first quarter of 2005, the Company deposited cash of
$13.3 as collateral for the Replaced Facility letters of credit
and deposited approximately $1.7 of collateral with the Replaced
Facility lenders until certain other banking arrangements were
terminated. As of June 30, 2006, all of the collateral for
the Replacement Facility letters of credit and the collateral
for other certain banking arrangements (of which $1.5 was
received during 2006) had been refunded to the Company.
The income tax provision for continuing operations for the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2005 relates primarily
to foreign income taxes. For the six months ended June 30,
2006, the income tax provision for continuing operations
includes a foreign income tax provision of approximately $7.0.
The six months ended June 30, 2006 include an approximate
$1.0 benefit associated with a U.S. income tax refund.
While the Company considered the July 2006 emergence from
Chapter 11 for purposes of estimating impacts on the
effective tax rate, the Companys provisions for income
taxes as of June 30, 2006 did not include any direct
impacts from the Companys emergence from Chapter 11.
Such impact will be reflected in periods following emergence as
more fully discussed in Note 6.
As more fully discussed in Note 8 of Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005, in April 2006, the Company,
the PBGC and the VEBAs entered into an agreed order that was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court and that established a specific
protocol and set certain limits for pre-emergence transfers of
claims and rights to shares of Common Stock by the PBGC and
VEBAs in order to preserve the Companys net operating loss
carryforwards.
See Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in
the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005 for additional information
regarding Deferred Tax Assets and Valuation Allowances. In
connection with the sale of the Companys interests in and
related to QAL, the Company made payments totaling approximately
$8.5 for AMT in the United States (approximately $8.0 of Federal
AMT and approximately $.5 of state AMT). Such payments were made
in the fourth quarter of 2005. Upon completion of the
Companys 2005 Federal income tax return, the Company
determined that approximately $1.0 of AMT was overpaid and was
refundable. The Company applied for the refund in the 2005
Federal income tax return filed in September 2006 and received
the refund in October 2006. The Company believes that remainder
of the Federal AMT amounts paid in respect of the sale of
interests should, in accordance with the Intercompany Agreement,
be reimbursed to the Company from the funds held by the
liquidating trustee for the KAAC/ KFC Plan. However, at this
point, as this has yet to be agreed, the Company has not recorded
F-111
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
a receivable for the amount. The Company is still analyzing the
amount of state AMT that may be recoverable from the liquidating
trustee for the KAAC/ KFC Plan. The Company expects to resolve
the matter in late 2006 or early 2007.
|
|
18. |
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT AND INCENTIVE PLANS |
The Company and its subsidiaries historically provided
(a) post-retirement health care and life insurance benefits
to eligible retired employees and their dependents and
(b) pension benefit payments to retirement plans.
Substantially all employees became eligible for health care and
life insurance benefits if they reached retirement age while
still working for the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company
did not fund the liability for these benefits, which were
expected to be paid out of cash generated by operations. The
Company reserved the right, subject to applicable collective
bargaining agreements, to amend or terminate these benefits.
Retirement plans were generally non-contributory for salaried
and hourly employees and generally provided for benefits based
on formulas which considered such items as length of service and
earnings during years of service.
In January 2004, the Company filed motions with the Bankruptcy
Court to terminate or substantially modify post-retirement
medical obligations for both salaried and certain hourly
employees and for the distressed termination of substantially
all domestic hourly pension plans. The Company subsequently
concluded agreements with a committee appointed in the
Companys reorganization proceedings (see Note 1 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companys
Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005) that represented salaried
employees and union representatives that represented the vast
majority of the Companys hourly employees. The agreements
provided for the termination of existing salaried and hourly
post-retirement medical benefit plans, and the termination of
existing hourly pension plans. Under the agreements, salaried
and hourly retirees were provided an opportunity for continued
medical coverage through COBRA or the VEBAs and active salaried
and hourly employees were provided with an opportunity to
participate in one or more replacement pension plans and/or
defined contribution plans. The agreements were approved by the
Bankruptcy Court, but were subject to certain conditions,
including Bankruptcy Court approval of the Intercompany
Agreement in a form acceptable to the Debtors and the official
committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Companys
reorganization proceedings (see Note 1 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005).
On June 1, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order,
subject to certain conditions including final Bankruptcy Court
approval of the Intercompany Agreement, authorizing the Company
to terminate its post-retirement medical plans as of
May 31, 2004 and to make advance payments to the VEBAs. As
previously disclosed, pending the resolution of all
contingencies in respect of the termination of the existing
post-retirement medical benefit plan, during the period
June 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, the Company
continued to accrue costs based on the existing plan and treated
the VEBA contributions as a reduction of its liability under the
plan. However, because the Intercompany Agreement was approved
in February 2005 and all other contingencies had already been
met, the Company determined that the existing post-retirement
medical plan should be treated as terminated as of
December 31, 2004.
The PBGC assumed responsibility for the Companys three
largest pension plans, which represented the vast majority of
the Companys net pension obligation including the
Companys Salaried Employees Retirement Plan (in December
2003), the Inactive Pension Plan (in July 2004) and the Kaiser
Aluminum Pension Plan (in September 2004). The Salaried
Employees Retirement Plan, the Inactive Pension Plan and the
Kaiser Aluminum Pension Plan are hereinafter collectively
referred to as
F-112
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
the Terminated Plans. Pursuant to the agreement with
the PBGC, the Company and the PBGC agreed, among other things,
that: (a) the Company would continue to sponsor the
Companys remaining pension plans (which primarily are in
respect of hourly employees at four Fabricated products
facilities) and paid approximately $5.0 minimum funding
contribution for these plans in March 2005; (b) the PBGC
would have an allowed post-petition administrative claim of
$14.0, which was expected to be paid upon the consummation of a
plan of reorganization for the Company or the consummation of
the KAAC/KFC Plan, whichever came first; and (c) the PBGC
would have allowed pre-petition unsecured claims in respect of
the Terminated Plans in the amount of $616.0, which would be
resolved in the Companys plan or plans of reorganization
provided that the PBGCs cash recovery from proceeds of the
Companys sale of its interests in and related to Alpart
and QAL was limited to 32% of the net proceeds distributable to
holders of the Companys senior notes, senior subordinated
notes and the PBGC. However, certain contingencies arose in
respect of the settlement with the PBGC which were ultimately
resolved in the Companys favor. See Note 8
Contingencies Regarding Settlement with the PBGC.
Cash flow and charges
Domestic Plans. During the first three years of the
Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company did not make any
further significant contributions to any of its domestic pension
plans. However, as discussed above in connection with the PBGC
settlement agreement, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court
in January 2005, the Company paid approximately $5.0 in March
2005 and approximately $1.0 in July 2005 in respect of minimum
funding contributions for retained pension plans and paid $11.0
in respect of post-petition administrative claims of the PBGC
when the KAAC/KFC Plan became effective in December 2005. An
additional $3.0 was pending the resolution of the ongoing
litigation with the PBGC (see Note 8). Any other payments
to the PBGC were limited to recoveries under the Liquidating
Plans and the Plan.
Prior to the Effective Date, the Company agreed to make the
following contributions to the VEBAs:
|
|
|
a) an amount not to exceed $36.0 and payable on emergence
from the Chapter 11 proceedings so long as the
Companys liquidity (i.e. cash plus borrowing availability)
was at least $50.0 after considering such payments; and |
|
|
b) advances of $3.1 in June 2004 and $1.9 per month
thereafter until the Company emerged from the Chapter 11
proceedings. Any advances made pursuant to such agreement
constitute a credit toward the $36.0 maximum contribution due
upon emergence. |
In October 2004, the Company entered into an amendment to the
USW agreement (see Note 19) to pay an additional $1.0 to
the VEBAs in excess of the originally agreed $36.0 contribution
described above, which amount was paid in March 2005. Under the
terms of the amended agreement, the Company was required to
continue to make the monthly VEBA contributions as long as it
remained in Chapter 11, even if the sum of such monthly
payments exceeded the $37.0 maximum amount discussed above. The
monthly amounts paid during the Chapter 11 process in
excess of the $37.0 limit will offset future variable
contribution requirements after emergence. The amended agreement
was approved by the Bankruptcy Court in February 2005.
VEBA-related payments prior to the Effective Date totaled
approximately $49.7. As a result, $12.7 was available to the
Company to offset future VEBA contributions of the Successor
(see Note 7).
Total charges associated with the VEBAs for the year ended
December 31, 2005 and in 2006 prior to the effective date
were $23.8 and $11.4, respectively. These amounts were reflected
as a reduction of Liabilities subject to compromise.
F-113
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Key Employee Retention Plan. Under the KERP, approved by
the Bankruptcy Court in September 2002, financial incentives
were provided to retain certain key employees during the
Chapter 11 proceedings. The KERP included six key elements:
a retention plan, a severance plan, a change in control plan, a
completion incentive plan, the continuation for certain
participants of an existing SERP and a long-term incentive plan.
Under the KERP:
|
|
|
Pursuant to the retention plan,
retention payments were paid between September 2002 and
March 31, 2004, except that 50% of the amounts payable to
certain senior officers were withheld until the Companys
emergence from Chapter 11 proceedings or as otherwise
agreed pursuant to the KERP (see Note 7).
|
|
|
The severance and change in
control plans generally provided for severance payments of
between nine months and three years of salary and certain
benefits, depending on the facts and circumstances and the level
of employee involved (see Note 7).
|
|
|
The completion incentive plan
lapsed without any amounts being due.
|
|
|
The SERP generally provided
additional non-qualified pension benefits for certain active
employees at the time that the KERP was approved, who would
suffer a loss of benefits based on Internal Revenue Code
limitations, so long as such employees were not subsequently
terminated for cause or voluntarily terminated their employment
prior to reaching their retirement age.
|
|
|
The long-term incentive plan
generally provided for incentive awards to key employees based
on an annual cost reduction target. Payment of such long-term
incentive awards generally will be made: (a) 50% upon
emergence and (b) 50% one year from the date the Debtors
emerged from the Chapter 11 proceedings. At
September 30, 2006, approximately $3.4 was accrued in
respect of the KERP long-term incentive plan.
|
Foreign Plans. Contributions to foreign pension plans
(excluding those that are considered part of discontinued
operations see Note 14) were nominal.
|
|
19. |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Impact of Reorganization Proceedings. During the
Chapter 11 proceedings, substantially all pending
litigation, except certain environmental claims and litigation,
against the Debtors was stayed. Generally, claims against a
Debtor arising from actions or omissions prior to its Filing
Date were resolved pursuant to the Plan.
Environmental Contingencies. The Company and KACC were
subject to a number of environmental laws and regulations, to
fines or penalties assessed for alleged breaches of the
environmental laws, and to claims and litigation based upon such
laws and regulations. KACC was also subject to a number of
claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986
(CERCLA), and, along with certain other entities,
was named as a potentially responsible party for remedial costs
at certain third-party sites listed on the National Priorities
List under CERCLA.
Based on the Companys evaluation of these and other
environmental matters, the Company established an environmental
accrual, primarily related to potential solid waste disposal and
soil and ground water remediation matters, at June 30, 2006
of approximately $29.4. The accrual, which was included in
Liabilities subject to compromise (Note 13), related
primarily to non-owned locations and was resolved as part of the
Plan.
F-114
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
Asbestos and Certain Other Personal Injury Claims. KACC
was one of many defendants in a number of lawsuits, some of
which involved claims of multiple persons, in which the
plaintiffs allege that certain of their injuries were caused by,
among other things, exposure to asbestos or exposure to products
containing asbestos produced or sold by KACC or as a result of
employment or association with KACC. The lawsuits generally
related to products KACC had not sold for more than
20 years. As of the initial Filing Date, approximately
112,000 asbestos-related claims were pending. The Company also
previously disclosed that certain other personal injury claims
had been filed in respect of alleged pre-Filing Date exposure to
silica and coal tar pitch volatiles (approximately 3,900 claims
and 300 claims, respectively).
Due to the reorganization proceedings, holders of asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile claims were stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing
new lawsuits against the Debtors. As a result, the Company did
not make any asbestos payments (or other payments) during the
pendency of the reorganization proceedings. However, the Company
continued to pursue insurance collections in respect of
asbestos-related amounts paid prior to its Filing Date and, as
described below, to negotiate insurance settlements and
prosecute certain actions to clarify policy interpretations in
respect of such coverage.
The following tables present historical information as of
December 31, 2005 and June 30, 2006 regarding
KACCs asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch
volatiles-related balances and cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
| |
Liability
|
|
$ |
1,115.0 |
|
|
$ |
1,115.0 |
|
Receivable(1)
|
|
|
965.5 |
|
|
|
963.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
149.5 |
|
|
$ |
151.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The asbestos-related receivable was determined on the same
basis as the asbestos-related cost accrual. Amounts are stated
in nominal dollars and not discounted to present value as the
Company could not reasonably project the actual timing of
payments or insurance recoveries particularly in light of the
Plan. The Company believes that, as of June 30, 2006, it
had received all insurance recoveries that it was likely to
collect in respect of asbestos-related costs paid (see
Note 13). |
While a formal estimation process was never completed, the
Company believed it had obtained sufficient information to
project a range of likely asbestos and other tort-related costs.
The Company estimated that its total liability for asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile personal injury claims was
expected to be between approximately $1,100.0 and $2,400.0.
However, as previously disclosed, the Company did not think that
other constituents would necessarily agree with this cost range.
In particular, the Company was aware that certain informal
assertions made by representatives for the asbestos, silica and
coal tar pitch volatiles claimants suggested that the actual
liability might exceed, perhaps significantly, the top end of
the Companys expected range. While the Company could not
reasonably predict what the ultimate amount of such claims might
be determined to be, the Company believed that the minimum end
of the range was both probable and reasonably estimatable.
Accordingly, the Company reflected an accrued liability of
$1,115.0 for the minimum end of the expected range. All of such
amounts (which were included in Liabilities subject to
compromise) were resolved as a part of the Plan (see
Notes 1 and 13).
As previously disclosed, KACC believed it had insurance coverage
available that would recover a substantial portion of its
asbestos-related costs. However, the timing and amount of future
insurance
F-115
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
recoveries were dependent on the resolution of disputes
regarding coverage under certain of the applicable insurance
policies through the process of negotiations or further
litigation. The Company previously stated that it believed that
substantial recoveries from the insurance carriers were probable
and had estimated the amount of remaining solvent insurance
coverage (before considering the contingent settlement
agreements discussed below) to be in the range of $1,400.0
$1,500.0. Further, the Company previously disclosed that,
assuming that actual asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch
volatile costs were to be the $1,115.0 amount accrued (as
discussed above) the Company believed that it would be able to
recover from insurers amounts totaling approximately $965.0,
which amount was reflected as Personal injury-related
insurance recoveries receivable (reduced to $963.3 at
June 30, 2006 due to certain subsequent recoveries).
Throughout the reorganization process, the Company continued its
efforts with insurers to make clear the amount of insurance
coverage expected to be available in respect of asbestos, silica
and coal tar pitch personal injury claims. Part of such efforts
focused on certain litigation in San Francisco Superior
Court. The Companys efforts in this regard were also
intended to provide certainty as to the amounts available to the
PI Trusts and to resolve certain appeals by insurers to the
confirmation order in respect of the Plan.
Since the latter half of 2005, the Company entered into
conditional settlement agreements with insurers (all of which
were approved by the Bankruptcy Court) under which the insurers
agreed (in aggregate) to pay approximately $1,246.0 in respect
of substantially all coverage under certain policies having a
combined face value of approximately $1,460.0. Many of the
agreements provided for multi-year payouts and for some of the
settlement amounts to be accessed, claims would have to be made
against the PI Trusts that would aggregate well in excess of the
approximate $1,115.0 liability amount reflected by the Company
at June 30, 2006. One set of insurers paid approximately
$137.0 into a separate escrow account in November 2005. As of
June 30, 2006, the insurers had paid $250.0 into the escrow
accounts, a substantial portion of which related to the
conditional settlements. There are no remaining policies that
are expected to yield any material amounts for the benefit of
the Company or the PI Trusts.
The Company did not provide any accounting recognition for the
conditional settlement agreements in the June 30, 2006
financial statements given: (1) the conditional nature of
the settlements; (2) the fact that, if the Plan did not
become effective as of June 30, 2006, the Companys
interests with respect to the insurance policies covered by the
agreements were not impaired in any way; and (3) the
Company believed that collection of the approximate $963.3
amount of Personal injury-related insurance recovery receivable
was probable even if the conditional agreements were ultimately
approved. The Company also did not give any accounting
recognition to the amounts paid into escrow as KACC had no
interest in such amounts, but which amounts were available for
the ultimate settlement of KACCs asbestos-related claims.
Because the escrow accounts were under the control of the escrow
agents, the escrow accounts were not included in the
consolidated financial statements at June 30, 2006. In
addition, since neither the Company nor KACC received any
economic benefit or suffered any economic detriment and were not
relieved of any asbestos-related obligation as a result of the
receipt of the escrow funds, neither the asbestos-related
receivable nor the asbestos-related liability was adjusted as a
result of these transactions.
Hearing Loss Claims. During February 2004, the Company
reached a settlement in principle in respect of 400 claims,
which alleged that certain individuals who were employees of the
Company, principally at a facility previously owned and operated
by KACC in Louisiana, suffered hearing loss in connection with
their employment. Under the terms of the settlement, the
claimants were allowed claims totaling up to $15.8 (included in
Liabilities subject to compromise, Other accrued
liabilities
F-116
Notes to interim consolidated financial statements
see Note 13). At emergence, these claims were transferred
to the PI Trusts along with certain rights against certain
insurance policies of the Company. While the Company believed
that the insurance policies were of value, no amounts were
reflected in the Companys financial statements in respect
of such policies as the Company could not with the level of
certainty necessary determine the amount of recoveries that were
probable.
During the Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company received
approximately 3,200 additional proofs of claim alleging
pre-petition injury due to noise induced hearing loss. It is not
known at this time how many, if any, of such claims have merit
or at what level such claims might qualify within the parameters
established by the above-referenced settlement in principle for
the 400 claims. However, under the Plan all such claims were
transferred, along with certain rights against certain insurance
policies, to the PI Trusts and resolved in that manner rather
than being settled prior to the Companys emergence from
the Chapter 11 proceedings.
Labor Matters. In January 2004, as part of its settlement
with the USW with respect to pension and retiree medical
benefits, KACC and the USW agreed to settle a case pending
before the National Labor Relations Board in respect of certain
unfair labor practice (ULP) claims made by the USW
in connection with a 1998 USW strike and subsequent lock-out by
KACC. Under the terms of the agreement, solely for the purposes
of determining distributions in connection with the
reorganization, an unsecured pre-petition claim in the amount of
$175.0 was allowed. Also, as part of the agreement, the Company
agreed to adopt a position of neutrality regarding the
unionization of any employees of the Company. The settlement was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court in February 2005. The Company
recorded a $175.0 non-cash charge in the fourth quarter of 2004
associated with the ULP settlement. The Companys
obligations in respect of the ULP claim were resolved on the
Effective Date.
Pacific Northwest Power Matters. As a part of the
reorganization process, the Company rejected a contract with the
BPA that provided power to fully operate the Trentwood facility,
as well as approximately 40% of the combined capacity of
KACCs former Mead and Tacoma aluminum smelting operations,
which had been curtailed since the last half of 2000. The BPA
filed a proof of claim for approximately $75.0 in connection
with the contract rejection. The Company had previously
disclosed that the amount of the BPA claim would ultimately be
determined either through a negotiated settlement or litigation.
In June 2006, the Bankruptcy Court approved an agreement between
the Company and the BPA which resolved the claim by granting the
BPA an unsecured pre-petition claim totaling approximately $6.1
(i.e., $5.0 in addition to $1.1 of previously accrued
pre-petition accounts payable). The Company has reflected a
non-cash charge for the incremental $5.0 amount in the
accompanying financial statements (in Discontinued
operations see Note 14). This claim was resolved as a
part of the Plan and will have no impact on the Successor.
F-117
Part II
Information not required in prospectus
ITEM 13. OTHER EXPENSES OF
ISSUANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
The following table sets forth the costs and expenses to be paid
by us in connection with the sale of the shares of common stock
being registered hereby. All amounts are estimates except for
the Securities and Exchange Commission registration fee and the
NASD filing fee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities and Exchange Commission registration fee
|
|
$ |
32,317 |
|
NASD filing fee
|
|
|
35,851 |
|
Accounting fees and expenses
|
|
|
180,000 |
|
Legal fees and expenses
|
|
|
750,000 |
|
Printing and engraving expenses
|
|
|
425,000 |
|
Transfer agent and registrar fees and expenses
|
|
|
5,250 |
|
Miscellaneous expenses
|
|
|
21,582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,450,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
ITEM 14. INDEMNIFICATION OF
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
The certificate of incorporation of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
(the Company) limits the liability of the
Companys directors to the fullest extent permitted by the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
DGCL). The DCGL provides that a corporation may
limit the personal liability of its directors for monetary
damages for breach of that individuals fiduciary duties as
a director except for liability for any of the following:
(a) a breach of the directors duty of loyalty to the
corporation or its stockholders; (b) any act or omission
not in good faith or that involves intentional misconduct or a
knowing violation of the law; (c) certain unlawful payments
of dividends or unlawful stock repurchases or redemptions; or
(d) any transaction from which the director derived an
improper personal benefit. This limitation of liability does not
apply to liabilities arising under federal securities laws and
does not affect the availability of equitable remedies such as
injunctive relief or rescission.
Section 145 of the DGCL generally provides that a
corporation may indemnify directors and officers, as well as
other employees and individuals, against attorneys fees
and other judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement
actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection
with any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or
proceeding in which such person was or is a party or is
threatened to be made a party by reason of such person being or
having been a director, officer, employee or agent of the
corporation. The DCGL provides that Section 145 is not
exclusive of other rights to which those seeking indemnification
may be entitled under any bylaw, agreement, vote of stockholders
or disinterested directors, or otherwise.
The Companys certificate of incorporation provides that
the Company is required to indemnify its directors and officers
to the fullest extent permitted or required by the DGCL,
although, except with respect to certain actions, suits or
proceedings to enforce rights to indemnification, a director or
officer will only be indemnified with respect to any action,
suit or proceeding such person initiated to the extent such
action, suit or proceeding was authorized by the Companys
board of directors. The Companys certificate of
incorporation also requires the Company to advance expenses
incurred by a director or officer in connection with the defense
of any action, suit or proceeding arising out of that
persons status or service as director or officer of the
Company or as director, officer, employee or agent of another
enterprise, if serving at the Companys request. In
addition, the Companys certificate of incorporation
permits the Company to secure insurance to protect itself and
any director, officer,
II-1
Part II
employee or agent of the Company or any other corporation,
partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise against
any expense, liability or loss.
In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification
agreements with each of its directors and executive officers
containing provisions that obligate the Company to, among other
things:
|
|
|
indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the director or officer to the fullest extent permitted
or required by Delaware law, except that, subject to certain
exceptions, the director or officer will be indemnified with
respect to a claim initiated by such director or officer against
the Company or any other director or officer of the Company only
if the Company has joined in or consented to the initiation of
such claim;
|
|
|
advance prior to the final
disposition of any indemnifiable claim any and all expenses
relating to, arising out of or resulting from any indemnifiable
claim paid or incurred by the director or officer or which the
director or officer determines is reasonably likely to be paid
or incurred by him or her; and
|
|
|
utilize commercially reasonable
efforts to cause to be maintained in effect policies of
directors and officers liability insurance providing
coverage that is at least substantially comparable in scope and
amount to that provided by the Companys policies of
directors and officers liability insurance at the
time the parties enter into such indemnification agreement.
|
The indemnification provisions in our certificate of
incorporation and the Indemnification Agreements entered into
with our directors and officers may be sufficiently broad to
permit indemnification of our directors and officers for
liabilities arising under the Securities Act.
We are covered by liability insurance policies which indemnify
our and our subsidiaries directors and officers against
loss arising from claims by reason of their legal liability for
acts as such directors, officers, or trustees, subject to
limitations and conditions as set forth in the policies.
The foregoing discussion of our certificate of incorporation and
Delaware law is not intended to be exhaustive and is qualified
in its entirety by such certificate of incorporation or law.
ITEM 15. RECENT SALES OF
UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
In accordance with our plan of reorganization, we issued
20.0 million shares of our common stock on July 6,
2006 to individuals and entities identified, either individually
or categorically, in our plan of reorganization in exchange for
resolution of the claims described in our plan of
reorganization. Section 1145(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code
exempts the offer and sale of securities under a plan of
reorganization from registration under the Securities Act and
state securities laws.
ITEM 16. EXHIBITS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a) Exhibits.
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
1 |
.1 |
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement.* |
|
2 |
.1 |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 17, 2004, among Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (KACC),
Kaiser Bauxite Company (KBC), Gramercy Alumina LLC
and St. Ann Bauxite Limited (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.1 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
October 1, 2004, filed by Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
(KAC)). |
|
2 |
.2 |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 29, 2004, between
KACC and the Government of the Republic of Ghana (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of October 29, 2004, filed by KAC). |
II-2
Part II
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
2 |
.3 |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 28, 2004, among
KACC, Kaiser Alumina Australia Corporation (KAAC)
and Alumina & Bauxite Company Ltd. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.5 to the Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, filed by
KAC). |
|
2 |
.4 |
|
Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for Alpart Jamaica Inc.
(AJI) and Kaiser Jamaica Corporation
(KJC), dated February 25, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.5 |
|
Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for
AJI and KJC, dated April 7, 2005 (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.2 to the Report Form 8-K dated
December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.6 |
|
Second Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for AJI and KJC, dated November 22, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.3 to the Report
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.7 |
|
Third Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for AJI and KJC, dated December 19, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.4 to the Report
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.8 |
|
Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for KAAC and Kaiser
Finance Corporation (KFC), dated February 25,
2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to the
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2004, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.9 |
|
Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for
KAAC and KFC, dated April 7, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.6 to the Report on Form 8-K
dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.10 |
|
Second Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for KAAC and KFC, dated November 22, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.7 to the Report on
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.11 |
|
Third Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for KAAC and KFC, dated December 19, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.8 to the Report on
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.12 |
|
Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for KAC, KACC and
Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, dated as of
September 7, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 99.2 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
September 8, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.13 |
|
Modifications to the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates Pursuant to
Stipulation and Agreed Order between Insurers, Debtors,
Committee and Future Representatives (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.2 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.14 |
|
Modification to the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, dated as
of November 22, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.3 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.15 |
|
Third Modification to the Second Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization for KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor
Affiliates, dated as of December 16, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.4 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.16 |
|
Order Confirming the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
of KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.5 to the Report on
Form 8-K, dated as of February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.17 |
|
Order Affirming the Confirmation Order of the Second Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization of KAC, KACC and Certain of Their
Debtor Affiliates, as modified (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.6 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
II-3
Part II
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
2 |
.18 |
|
Special Procedures for Distributions on Account of NLRB Claim,
as agreed by the National Labor Relations Board, the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
(formerly known as the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC) (the USW) and the Company pursuant to Section
7.8e of the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of KAC,
KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, as modified
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.7 to the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
3 |
.1 |
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of KAC
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
3 |
.2 |
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of KAC (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.2 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
5 |
.1 |
|
Opinion of Jones Day.* |
|
10 |
.1 |
|
Senior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of
July 6, 2006, among KAC, Kaiser Aluminum Investments
Company, Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC
(KAFP), Kaiser Aluminium International, Inc.,
certain financial institutions from time to time party thereto,
as lenders, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., The CIT Group/
Business Credit, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
administrative agent (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.2 |
|
Term Loan and Guaranty Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
among KAFP, KAC and certain indirect subsidiaries of the Company
listed as Guarantors thereto, certain financial
institutions from time to time party thereto, as lenders,
J.P.Morgan Securities Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
administrative agent, and Wilmington Trust Company, as
collateral agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2
to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.3 |
|
Description of Compensation of Directors (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.4 |
|
Description of 2006 Short Term Incentive Plan for Key Managers
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Report on
Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.5 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between KAC
and Jack A. Hockema (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.5 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.6 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between KAC
and Joseph P. Bellino (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.6 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.7 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between KAC
and Daniel D. Maddox (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.7 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.8 |
|
Form of Director Indemnification Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.9 |
|
Form of Officer Indemnification Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.10 |
|
Form of Director and Officer Indemnification Agreement
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Report
on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.11 |
|
2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration Statement No. 333-135613),
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.12 |
|
Form of Executive Officer Restricted Stock Award (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Report on
Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
II-4
Part II
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
10 |
.13 |
|
Form of Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Award
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the Report
on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.14 |
|
Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products Restoration Plan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Report
on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.15 |
|
Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement, dated as of July 6,
2006, between KAC and National City Bank, in its capacity as the
trustee for the trust that provides benefits for certain
eligible retirees of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation represented by the USW, the International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America and its Local 1186, the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Chemical
Workers Union Council of the United Food & Commercial
Workers, and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and their surviving
spouses and eligible dependents (the Union VEBA
Trust) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to
the Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.16 |
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
among KAC, the Union VEBA Trust and the other parties thereto
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.17 |
|
Director Designation Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
between KAC and the USW (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4.3 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.18 |
|
Key Employee Retention Plan (effective September 3, 2002)
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to the Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.19 |
|
Form of Retention Agreement for the KACC Key Employee Retention
Plan (effective September 3, 2002) for Jack A. Hockema
and John Barneson (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.27 to the Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2002, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.20 |
|
Severance Plan (effective September 3, 2002) (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.30 to the Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.21 |
|
Form of Severance Agreement for the Severance Plan (effective
September 3, 2002) for John Barneson, John M. Donnan
and Daniel D. Maddox (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.31 to the Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2002, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.22 |
|
Form of Change in Control Severance Agreement for John Barneson
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to the Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.23 |
|
Form of Change in Control Severance Agreement for John M.
Donnan and Daniel D. Maddox (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.33 to the Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2002, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.24 |
|
Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.25 |
|
Settlement and Release Agreement dated October 5, 2004 by
and among the Debtors (as defined therein) and the
Creditors Committee (as defined therein) (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, filed by
KAC). |
|
10 |
.26 |
|
Amendment, dated as of January 27, 2005, to Settlement and
Release Agreement dated as of October 5, 2004, by and among
the Debtors (as defined therein) and the Creditors
Committee (as defined therein) (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.23 to the Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2004, filed by KAC). |
II-5
Part II
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
10 |
.27 |
|
Settlement Agreement dated October 14, 2004, between KACC
and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.28 |
|
Release between KACC and Kerry A. Shiba (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of March 14, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
21 |
.1 |
|
List of Subsidiaries of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation. |
|
23 |
.1 |
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.* |
|
23 |
.2 |
|
Consent of Jones Day (included in Exhibit 5.1). |
|
23 |
.3 |
|
Consent of Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A.* |
|
23 |
.4 |
|
Consent of Heller Ehrman LLP.* |
|
24 |
.1 |
|
Power of Attorney. |
* Filed herewith.
Previously filed.
(b) Financial Statement Schedule.
II-6
Part II
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Kaiser Aluminum
Corporation:
We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Kaiser
Aluminum Corporation (Debtor-in-Possession and subsidiary of
MAXXAM Inc.) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and
2004, and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2005, and have issued our report thereon dated
March 30, 2006 (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs (i) relating to
emphasis of a matter concerning the Companys bankruptcy
proceedings, (ii) expressing substantial doubt about the
Companys ability to continue as a going concern, and
(iii) relating to the Companys adoption of Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation
No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement
Obligations an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 143, effective December 31, 2005); such
consolidated financial statements and report are included
elsewhere in this 10-K. Our audits also included the
consolidated financial statement schedule of the Company listed
in Item 15. This consolidated financial statement schedule
is the responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule,
when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material
respects, the information set forth therein.
|
|
|
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |
Costa Mesa, California
March 30, 2006
II-7
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
Schedule ICondensed financial information
Condensed balance sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of | |
|
|
dollars, except share | |
|
|
amounts) | |
ASSETS |
Investment in KACC
|
|
$ |
(192.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(944.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(192.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(944.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY (DEFICIT) |
Current liabilities
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Intercompany note payable to KACC, including accrued interest
(Note 3)
|
|
|
2,191.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity (deficit):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $.01, authorized
125,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 79,680,645 and
79,671,531 shares
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
538.0 |
|
|
|
2,735.2 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,917.5 |
) |
|
|
(3,671.2 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(5.5 |
) |
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
(2,384.2 |
) |
|
|
(944.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(192.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(944.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to condensed financial statements are an
integral part of these statements.
II-8
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
Condensed statements of income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars) | |
Equity in income (loss) of KACC
|
|
$ |
(788.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.6 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.5 |
) |
Administrative and general expense
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
(.2 |
) |
Interest expense on intercompany note (excluding unrecorded
contractual interest expense of $153.6 in 2003 and 2004, and
$25.6 in 2005 respectively Note 3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(788.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to condensed financial statements are an
integral part of these statements.
II-9
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
Condensed statements of cash flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
| |
|
|
(in millions of dollars) | |
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(788.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(746.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(753.7 |
) |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash used for
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in loss of KACC
|
|
|
788.1 |
|
|
|
746.6 |
|
|
|
753.5 |
|
|
Accrued interest on intercompany note payable to KACC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used by operating activities
|
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
(.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in KACC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used by investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating cost advances from KACC
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents during the
year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to condensed financial statements are an
integral part of these statements.
II-10
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
Notes to condensed financial statements
|
|
1. |
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS |
Background
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (Kaiser, KAC
or the Company), its wholly owned subsidiary, Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (KACC), and
24 of KACCs subsidiaries filed separate voluntary
petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware (the Court) for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the
Code); the Company, KACC and 15 of KACCs
subsidiaries (the Original Debtors) filed in the
first quarter of 2002 and nine additional KACC subsidiaries (the
Additional Debtors) filed in the first quarter of
2003. In December 2005, four of the KACC subsidiaries were
dissolved pursuant to two separate plans of liquidation as more
fully discussed below. The Company, KACC and the remaining 20
KACC subsidiaries continue to manage their businesses in the
ordinary course as
debtors-in-possession
subject to the control and administration of the Court. The
Original Debtors and Additional Debtors are collectively
referred to herein as the Debtors and the
Chapter 11 proceedings of these entities are collectively
referred to herein as the Cases and the Company,
KACC and the remaining 20 KACC subsidiaries are collectively
referred to herein as the Reorganizing Debtors. For
purposes of this Report, the term Filing Date means,
with respect to any particular Debtor, the date on which such
Debtor filed its Case. None of KACCs
non-U.S. joint
ventures were included in the Cases.
During the first quarter of 2002, the Original Debtors filed
separate voluntary petitions for reorganization. The wholly
owned subsidiaries of KACC included in such filings were: Kaiser
Bellwood Corporation (Bellwood), Kaiser Aluminium
International, Inc. (KAII), Kaiser Aluminum
Technical Services, Inc. (KATSI), Kaiser Alumina
Australia Corporation (KAAC) (and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Kaiser Finance Corporation (KFC)) and
ten other entities with limited balances or activities.
The Original Debtors found it necessary to file the Cases
primarily because of liquidity and cash flow problems of the
Company and its subsidiaries that arose in late 2001 and early
2002. The Company was facing significant near-term debt
maturities at a time of unusually weak aluminum industry
business conditions, depressed aluminum prices and a broad
economic slowdown that was further exacerbated by the events of
September 11, 2001. In addition, the Company had become
increasingly burdened by asbestos litigation and growing legacy
obligations for retiree medical and pension costs. The
confluence of these factors created the prospect of continuing
operating losses and negative cash flows, resulting in lower
credit ratings and an inability to access the capital markets.
On January 14, 2003, the Additional Debtors filed separate
voluntary petitions for reorganization. The wholly owned
subsidiaries included in such filings were: Kaiser Bauxite
Company (KBC), Kaiser Jamaica Corporation
(KJC), Alpart Jamaica Inc. (AJI), Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical of Canada Limited
(KACOCL) and five other entities with limited
balances or activities. Ancillary proceedings in respect of
KACOCL and two Additional Debtors were also commenced in Canada
simultaneously with the January 14, 2003 filings.
The Cases filed by the Additional Debtors were commenced, among
other reasons, to protect the assets held by these Debtors
against possible statutory liens that might have arisen and been
enforced by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) primarily as a result of the Companys
failure to meet a $17.0 accelerated funding requirement to its
salaried employee retirement plan in January 2003
II-11
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
(see Note 9 for additional information regarding the
accelerated funding requirement). The filing of the Cases by the
Additional Debtors had no impact on the Companys
day-to-day operations.
The outstanding principal of, and accrued interest on, all debt
of the Debtors became immediately due and payable upon
commencement of the Cases. However, the vast majority of the
claims in existence at the Filing Date (including claims for
principal and accrued interest and substantially all legal
proceedings) are stayed (deferred) during the pendency of
the Cases. In connection with the filing of the Debtors
Cases, the Court, upon motion by the Debtors, authorized the
Debtors to pay or otherwise honor certain unsecured pre-Filing
Date claims, including employee wages and benefits and customer
claims in the ordinary course of business, subject to certain
limitations and to continue using the Companys existing
cash management systems. The Reorganizing Debtors also have the
right to assume or reject executory contracts existing prior to
the Filing Date, subject to Court approval and certain other
limitations. In this context, assumption means that
the Reorganizing Debtors agree to perform their obligations and
cure certain existing defaults under an executory contract and
rejection means that the Reorganizing Debtors are
relieved from their obligations to perform further under an
executory contract and are subject only to a claim for damages
for the breach thereof. Any claim for damages resulting from the
rejection of a pre-Filing Date executory contract is treated as
a general unsecured claim in the Cases.
Case Administration
Generally, pre-Filing Date claims, including certain contingent
or unliquidated claims, against the Debtors will fall into two
categories: secured and unsecured. Under the Code, a
creditors claim is treated as secured only to the extent
of the value of the collateral securing such claim, with the
balance of such claim being treated as unsecured. Unsecured and
partially secured claims do not accrue interest after the Filing
Date. A fully secured claim, however, does accrue interest after
the Filing Date until the amount due and owing to the secured
creditor, including interest accrued after the Filing Date, is
equal to the value of the collateral securing such claim. The
bar dates (established by the Court) by which holders of
pre-Filing Date claims against the Debtors (other than
asbestos-related personal injury claims) could file their claims
have passed. Any holder of a claim that was required to file
such claim by such bar date and did not do so may be barred from
asserting such claim against any of the Debtors and,
accordingly, may not be able to participate in any distribution
in any of the Cases on account of such claim. The Company has
not yet completed its analysis of all of the proofs of claim to
determine their validity. However, during the course of the
Cases, certain matters in respect of the claims have been
resolved. Material provisions in respect of claim settlements
are included in the accompanying financial statements and are
fully disclosed elsewhere herein. The bar dates do not apply to
asbestos-related personal injury claims, for which no bar date
has been set.
Two creditors committees, one representing the unsecured
creditors (the UCC) and the other representing the
asbestos claimants (the ACC), have been appointed as
official committees in the Cases and, in accordance with the
provisions of the Code, have the right to be heard on all
matters that come before the Court. In August 2003, the Court
approved the appointment of a committee of salaried retirees
(the 1114 Committee and, together with the UCC and
the ACC, the Committees) with whom the Debtors
negotiated necessary changes, including the modification or
termination, of certain retiree benefits (such as medical and
insurance) under Section 1114 of the Code. The Committees,
together with the Court-appointed legal representatives for
(a) potential future asbestos claimants (the Asbestos
Futures Representative) and (b) potential
future silica and coal tar pitch volatile claimants (the
Silica/ CTPV Futures Representative and,
collectively with the Asbestos Futures Representative, the
Futures Representatives), have played and will
continue to play
II-12
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
important roles in the Cases and in the negotiation of the terms
of any plan or plans of reorganization. The Debtors are required
to bear certain costs and expenses for the Committees and the
Futures Representatives, including those of their counsel
and other advisors.
Commodity-related and Inactive Subsidiaries
As previously disclosed, the Company generated net cash proceeds
of approximately $686.8 from the sale of the Companys
interests in and related to Queensland Alumina Limited
(QAL) and Alumina Partners of Jamaica
(Alpart). The Companys interests in and
related to QAL were owned by KAAC and KFC. The Companys
interests in and related to Alpart were owned by AJI and KJC.
Throughout 2005, the proceeds were being held in separate escrow
accounts pending distribution to the creditors of AJI, KJC, KAAC
and KFC (collectively the Liquidating Subsidiaries)
pursuant to certain liquidating plans.
During November 2004, the Liquidating Subsidiaries filed
separate joint plans of liquidation and related disclosure
statements with the Court. Such plans, together with the
disclosure statements and all amendments filed thereto, are
referred to as the Liquidating Plans. In general,
the Liquidating Plans provided for the vast majority of the net
sale proceeds to be distributed to the PBGC and the holders of
KACCs 97/8% and 107/8% Senior Notes (the Senior
Notes) and claims with priority status.
As previously disclosed in 2004, a group of holders (the
Sub Note Group) of KACCs
123/4%
Senior Subordinated Notes (the Sub Notes) formed an
unofficial committee to represent all holders of Sub Notes and
retained its own legal counsel. The Sub Note Group asserted
that the Sub Note holders claims against the subsidiary
guarantors (and in particular the Liquidating Subsidiaries) may
not, as a technical matter, be contractually subordinated to the
claims of the holders of the Senior Notes against the subsidiary
guarantors (including AJI, KJC, KAAC and KFC). A separate group
that holds both the Sub Notes and Senior Notes made a similar
assertion, but also, maintained that a portion of the claims of
the holders of Senior Notes against the subsidiary guarantors
were contractually senior to the claims of holders of Sub Notes
against the subsidiary guarantors. The effect of such positions,
if ultimately sustained, would be that the holders of Sub Notes
would be on a par with all or portion of the holders of the
Senior Notes in respect of proceeds from sales of the
Companys interests in and related to the Liquidating
Subsidiaries.
The Court ultimately approved the disclosure statements related
to the Liquidating Plans in February 2005. In April 2005, voting
results on the Liquidating Plans were filed with the Court by
the Debtors claims agent. Based on these results, the
Court determined that a sufficient volume of creditors (in
number and amount) had voted to accept the Liquidating Plans to
permit confirmation proceedings with respect to the Liquidating
Plans to go forward even though the filing by the claims agent
also indicated that holders of the Sub Notes, as a group, voted
not to accept the Liquidating Plans. Accordingly, the Court
conducted a series of evidentiary hearings to determine the
allocation of distributions among holders of the Senior Notes
and the Sub Notes. In connection with those proceedings, the
Court also determined that there could be an allocation to the
Parish of St. James, State of Louisiana, Solid Waste Revenue
Bonds (the Revenue Bonds) of up to $8.0 and ruled
against the position asserted by the separate group that holds
both Senior Notes and the Sub Notes.
On December 20, 2005, the Court confirmed the Liquidating
Plans (subject to certain modifications). Pursuant to the
Courts order, the Liquidating Subsidiaries were authorized
to make partial cash distributions to certain of their
creditors, while reserving sufficient amounts for future
distributions until the Court resolved the contractual
subordinated dispute among the creditors of these subsidiaries
II-13
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
and for the payment of administrative and priority claims and
trust expenses. The Courts ruling did not resolve the
dispute between the holders of the Senior Notes and the holders
of the Sub Notes (more fully described below) regarding their
respective entitlement to certain of the proceeds from sale of
interests by the Liquidating Subsidiaries (the Senior
Note-Sub Note Dispute). However, as a result of the
Courts approval, all restricted cash or other assets held
on behalf of or by the Liquidating Subsidiaries were transferred
to a trustee in accordance with the terms of the Liquidating
Plans. The trustee was then authorized to make partial cash
distributions after setting aside sufficient reserves for
amounts subject to the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute
(approximately $213.0) and for the payment of administrative and
priority claims and trust expenses (approximately $40.0). After
such reserves, the partial distribution totaled approximately
$430.0, of which, pursuant to the Liquidating Plans,
approximately $196.0 was paid to the PBGC and $202.0 amount was
paid to the indenture trustees for the Senior Notes for
subsequent distribution to the holders of the Senior Notes. Of
the remaining partial distribution, approximately $21.0 was paid
to KACC and $11.0 was paid to the PBGC on behalf of KACC.
Partial distributions were made in late December 2005 and, in
connection with the effectiveness of the Liquidating Plans, the
Liquidating Subsidiaries were deemed to be dissolved and took
the actions necessary to dissolve and terminate their corporate
existence.
On December 22, 2005, the Court issued a decision in
connection with the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute, finding
in favor of the Senior Notes. On January 10, 2006, the
Court held a hearing on a motion by the indenture trustee for
the Sub Notes to stay distribution of the amounts reserved under
the Liquidating Plans in respect of the Senior Note-Sub
Note Dispute pending appeals in respect of the Courts
December 22, 2005 decision that the Sub Notes were
contractually subordinate to the Senior Notes in regard to
certain subsidiary guarantors (particularly the Liquidating
Subsidiaries) and that certain parties were not due certain
reimbursements. An agreement was reached at the hearing and
subsequently approved by Court order dated March 7, 2006,
authorizing the trustee to distribute the amounts reserved to
the indenture trustees for the Senior Notes and further
authorize the indenture trustees to make distributions to
holders of the Senior Notes while such appeals proceed, in each
case subject to the terms and conditions stated in the order.
Based on the objections and pleadings filed by the Sub
Note Group and the group that holds Sub Notes and
KACCs
97/8%
Senior Notes and the assumptions and estimates upon which the
Liquidating Plans are based, if the holders of Sub Notes were
ultimately to prevail on their appeal, the Liquidating Plans
indicated that it is possible that the holders of the Sub Notes
could receive between approximately $67.0 and approximately
$215.0 depending on whether the Sub Notes were determined to
rank on par with a portion or all of the Senior Notes.
Conversely, if the holders of the Senior Notes prevail on
appeal, then the holders of the Sub Notes will receive no
distributions under Liquidating Plans. The Company believes that
the intent of the indentures in respect of the Senior Notes and
the Sub Notes was to subordinate the claims of the Sub Note
holders in respect of the subsidiary guarantors (including the
Liquidating Subsidiaries) and that the Courts ruling on
December 22, 2005 was correct. The Company cannot predict,
however, the ultimate resolution of the matters raised by the
Sub Note Group, or the other group, on appeal, when any
such resolution will occur, or what any such resolution may have
on the Company, the Cases or distribution to affected
noteholders.
The distributions in respect of the Liquidating Plans also
settled substantially all amounts due between KACC and the
creditors of the Liquidating Subsidiaries pursuant to the
Intercompany Settlement Agreement (the Intercompany
Agreement) that went into affect in February 2005 other
than certain payments of alternative minimum tax paid by the
Company that it expects to recoup from the liquidating trust for
the KAAC and KFC joint plan of liquidation (the KAAC/ KFC
Plan) during the second half of 2006 in connection with a
2005 tax return (see Note 8 of Kaisers Consolidated
II-14
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
Financial Statements). The Intercompany Agreement also resolved
substantially all pre-and post-petition intercompany claims
among the Debtors.
KBC is being dealt with in the KACC plan of reorganization as
more fully discussed below.
Entities Containing the Fabricated Products and Certain Other
Operations
Under the Code, claims of individual creditors must generally be
satisfied from the assets of the entity against which that
creditor has a lawful claim. The claims against the entities
containing the Fabricated products and certain other operations
will have to be resolved from the available assets of KACC,
KACOCL, and Bellwood, which generally include the fabricated
products plants and their working capital, the interests in and
related to Anglesey Aluminium Limited (Anglesey) and
proceeds to be received by such entities from the Liquidating
Subsidiaries under the Intercompany Agreement. Sixteen of the
Reorganizing Debtors have no material ongoing activities or
operations and have no material assets or liabilities other than
intercompany claims (which were resolved pursuant to the
Intercompany Agreement). The Company has previously disclosed
that it believed that it is likely that most of these entities
will ultimately be merged out of existence or dissolved in some
manner.
In June 2005, KAC, KACC, Bellwood, KACOCL and 17 of KACCs
subsidiaries (i.e., the Reorganizing Debtors) filed a plan of
reorganization and related disclosure statement with the Court.
Following an interim filing in August 2005, in September 2005,
the Reorganizing Debtors filed amended plans of reorganization
(as modified, the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan) and
related amended disclosure statements (the Kaiser Aluminum
Amended Disclosure Statement) with the Court. In December
2005, with the consent of creditors and the Court, KBC was added
to the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan.
The Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan, in general (subject to the
further conditions precedent as outlined below), resolves
substantially all pre-Filing Date liabilities of the Remaining
Debtors under a single joint plan of reorganization. In summary,
the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan provides for the following
principal elements:
|
|
|
(a) All of the equity interests of existing stockholders of
the Company would be cancelled without consideration. |
|
|
(b) All post-petition and secured claims would either be
assumed by the emerging entity or paid at emergence (see
Exit Cost discussion below). |
|
|
(c) Pursuant to agreements reached with salaried and hourly
retirees in early 2004, in consideration for the agreed
cancellation of the retiree medical plan, as more fully
discussed in Note 8, KACC is making certain fixed monthly
payments into Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations
(VEBAs) until emergence and has agreed thereafter to
make certain variable annual VEBA contributions depending on the
emerging entitys operating results and financial
liquidity. In addition, upon emergence the VEBAs are entitled to
receive a contribution of 66.9% of the new common stock of the
emerged entity. |
|
|
(d) The PBGC will receive a cash payment of $2.5 and 10.8%
of the new common stock of the emerged entity in respect of its
claims against KACOCL. In addition, as described in
(f) below, the PBGC will receive shares of new common stock
based on its direct claims against the Remaining Debtors (other
than KACOCL) and its participation, indirectly through the KAAC/
KFC Plan in claims of KFC against KACC, which the Company
currently estimates will result in the PBGC receiving an
additional 5.4% of the new common stock of the emerged |
II-15
Part II
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only) |
entity (bringing the PBGCs total ownership percentage of
the new entity to approximately 16.2%). The $2.5 cash payment
discussed above is in addition to the cash amounts the Company
has already paid to the PBGC (see Note 9 of Notes to
Kaisers Consolidated Financial Statements) and that the
PBGC has received and will receive from the Liquidating
Subsidiaries under the Liquidating Plans.
|
|
|
(e) Pursuant to an agreement reached in early 2005, all
pending and future asbestos-related personal injury claims, all
pending and future silica and coal tar pitch volatiles personal
injury claims and all hearing loss claims would be resolved
through the formation of one or more trusts to which all such
claims would be directed by channeling injunctions that would
permanently remove all liability for such claims from the
Debtors. The trusts would be funded pursuant to statutory
requirements and agreements with representatives of the affected
parties, using (i) the Debtors insurance assets,
(ii) $13.0 in cash from KACC, (iii) 100% of the equity
in a KACC subsidiary whose sole asset will be a piece of real
property that produces modest rental income, and (iv) the
new common stock of the emerged entity to be issued as per
(f) below in respect of approximately $830.0 of
intercompany claims of KFC against KACC that are to be assigned
to the trust, which the Company currently estimates will entitle
the trusts to receive approximately 6.4% of the new common stock
of the emerged entity. |
|
|
(f) Other pre-petition general unsecured claims against the
Remaining Debtors (other than KACOCL) are entitled to receive
approximately 22.3% of the new common stock of the emerging
entity in the proportion that their allowed claim bears to the
total amount of allowed claims. Claims that are expected to be
within this group include (i) any claims of the Senior
Notes, the Sub Notes and PBGC (other than the PBGCs claim
against KACOCL), (ii) the approximate $830.0 of
intercompany claims that will be assigned to the personal injury
trust(s) referred to in (e) above, and (iii) all
unsecured trade and other general unsecured claims, including
approximately $276.0 of intercompany claims of KFC against KACC.
However, holders of general unsecured claims not exceeding a
specified small amount will receive a cash payment equal to
approximately 2.9% of their agreed claim value in lieu of new
common stock. In accordance with the contractual subordination
provisions of the indenture governing the Sub Notes and terms of
the settlement between the holders of the Senior Notes and the
holders of the Revenue Bonds, the new common stock or cash that
would otherwise be distributed to the holders of the Sub Notes
in respect of their claims against the Debtors would instead be
distributed to holders of the Senior Notes and the Revenue Bonds
on a pro rata basis based on the relative allowed amounts of
their claims. |
The Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan was accepted by all classes of
creditors entitled to vote on it and the Kaiser Aluminum Amended
Plan was confirmed by the Court on February 6, 2006. The
confirmation order remains subject to motions for review and
appeals filed by certain of KACCs insurers and must still
be affirmed by the United States District Court Other
significant conditions to emergence include completion of the
Companys exit financing, listing of the new common stock
on the NASDAQ stock market and formation of certain trusts for
the benefit of different groups of torts claimants. As provided
in Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan, once the Courts
confirmation order is adopted or affirmed by the United States
District Court, even if the affirmation order is appealed, the
Company can proceed to emerge if the United States District
Court does not stay its order adopting or affirming the
confirmation order and the key constituents in the
Chapter 11 proceedings agree. Assuming the United States
District Court adopts or affirms the confirmation order, the
Company believes that it is possible that it will emerge before
May 11, 2006. No assurances can be given that the
Courts
II-16
Part II
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (parent company only)
confirmation order will ultimately be adopted or affirmed by the
United States District Court or that the transactions
contemplated by the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan will ultimately
be consummated.
At emergence from Chapter 11, the Reorganizing Debtors will
have to pay or otherwise provide for a material amount of
claims. Such claims include accrued but unpaid professional
fees, priority pension, tax and environmental claims, secured
claims, and certain post-petition obligations (collectively,
Exit Costs). The Company currently estimates that
its Exit Costs will be in the range of $45.0 to $60.0. The
Company currently expects to fund such Exit Costs using existing
cash resources and borrowing availability under an exit
financing facility that would replace the current Post-Petition
Credit Agreement (see Note 7 of Notes to Kaisers
Consolidated Financial Statements). If funding from existing
cash resources and borrowing availability under an exit
financing facility are not sufficient to pay or otherwise
provide for all Exit Costs, the Company and KACC will not be
able to emerge from Chapter 11 unless and until sufficient
funding can be obtained. Management believes it will be able to
successfully resolve any issues that may arise in respect of an
exit financing facility or be able to negotiate a reasonable
alternative. However, no assurance can be given in this regard.
The Company is a holding company and conducts its operations
through its wholly owned subsidiary, KACC, which is reported
herein using the equity method of accounting. The accompanying
parent company condensed financial statements of the Company
should be read in conjunction with Kaisers 2005
Consolidated Financial Statements.
The accompanying parent company condensed financial statements
have been prepared on a going concern basis which
contemplates the realization of assets and the liquidation of
liabilities in the ordinary course of business; however, as a
result of the commencement of the Cases, such realization of
assets and liquidation of liabilities are subject to a
significant number of uncertainties. Specifically, the condensed
financial statements do not present: (a) the realizable
value of assets on a liquidation basis or the availability of
such assets to satisfy liability, (b) the amount which will
ultimately be paid to settle liabilities and contingencies which
may be allowed in the Cases, or (c) the effect of any
changes which may be made in connection with the Debtors
capitalizations or operations as a result of a plan of
reorganization. Because of the ongoing nature of the Cases, the
parent company condensed financial statements are subject to
material uncertainties.
|
|
3. |
INTERCOMPANY NOTE PAYABLE |
The Intercompany Note to KACC, as amended, provided for a fixed
interest rate of
65/8%
and was to mature on December 21, 2020. However, since the
Intercompany Note was unsecured, the accrual of interest was
discontinued on the Filing Date. The payment of the Intercompany
Note and accrued interest which were liabilities subject to
compromise, were resolved in connection with the Cases. Under
the terms of the Intercompany Agreement (see Note 1),
intercompany amounts due from the Company to KACC at
February 28, 2005 of $2,197.2, including the Intercompany
Note and accrued interest of $2,191.7, were released. The
release has been reflected as a credit to Additional Capital for
the year ended December 31, 2005.
The obligations of KACC in respect of the credit facilities
under the DIP Facility are guaranteed by the Company and certain
significant subsidiaries of KACC. See Note 7 of Notes to
Kaisers Consolidated Financial Statements.
II-17
Part II
ITEM 17. UNDERTAKINGS
Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the
Securities Act of 1933 may be permitted to directors, officers
and controlling persons of the registrant pursuant to the
foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the registrant has been
advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange
Commission such indemnification is against public policy as
expressed in the Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the
event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities
(other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred
or paid by a director, officer or controlling person of the
registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or
proceeding) is asserted by such director, officer or controlling
person in connection with the securities being registered, the
registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter
has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of
appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such
indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in
the Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such
issue.
The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes that:
|
|
|
(1) for purposes of determining any
liability under the Securities Act of 1933, the information
omitted from the form of prospectus filed as part of this
registration statement in reliance upon Rule 430A and
contained in a form of prospectus filed by the registrant
pursuant to Rule 424(b)(1) or (4) or 497(h) under the
Securities Act shall be deemed to be part of this registration
statement as of the time it was declared effective; and |
|
|
(2) for the purpose of determining
any liability under the Securities Act of 1933, each
post-effective amendment that contains a form of prospectus
shall be deemed to be a new registration statement relating to
the securities offered therein, and the offering of such
securities at the time shall be deemed to be the initial bona
fide offering thereof. |
II-18
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the
registrant has duly caused this registration statement to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized, in the City of Foothill Ranch, State of California,
on January 9, 2007.
|
|
|
KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack A. Hockema |
|
Chief Executive Officer |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this
registration statement has been signed by the following persons
in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
/s/ Jack A. Hockema
Jack
A. Hockema |
|
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
/s/ Joseph P. Bellino
Joseph
P. Bellino |
|
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer) |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
/s/ Daniel D. Maddox
Daniel
D. Maddox |
|
Vice President and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
George
Becker |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
Carl
B. Frankel |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
Teresa
A. Hopp |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
William
F. Murdy |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
Alfred
E. Osborne, Jr., Ph.D. |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
Georganne
C. Proctor |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
Jack
Quinn |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
II-19
Signatures
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
*
Thomas
M. Van Leeuwen |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
|
*
Brett
E. Wilcox |
|
Director |
|
January 9, 2007 |
* The undersigned, by signing his name hereto, signs and
executes this Registration Statement pursuant to the Powers of
Attorney executed by the above-named officers and directors as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack A. Hockema |
|
Attorney-in-Fact |
II-20
Exhibit index
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
1 |
.1 |
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement.* |
|
2 |
.1 |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 17, 2004, among Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (KACC),
Kaiser Bauxite Company (KBC), Gramercy Alumina LLC
and St. Ann Bauxite Limited (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.1 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
October 1, 2004, filed by Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
(KAC)). |
|
2 |
.2 |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 29, 2004, between
KACC and the Government of the Republic of Ghana (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of October 29, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.3 |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 28, 2004, among
KACC, Kaiser Alumina Australia Corporation (KAAC)
and Alumina & Bauxite Company Ltd. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.5 to the Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, filed by
KAC). |
|
2 |
.4 |
|
Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for Alpart Jamaica Inc.
(AJI) and Kaiser Jamaica Corporation
(KJC), dated February 25, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.5 |
|
Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for
AJI and KJC, dated April 7, 2005 (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.2 to the Report Form 8-K dated
December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.6 |
|
Second Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for AJI and KJC, dated November 22, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.3 to the Report
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.7 |
|
Third Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for AJI and KJC, dated December 19, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.4 to the Report
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.8 |
|
Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for KAAC and Kaiser
Finance Corporation (KFC), dated February 25,
2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to the
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2004, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.9 |
|
Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for
KAAC and KFC, dated April 7, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.6 to the Report on Form 8-K
dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.10 |
|
Second Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for KAAC and KFC, dated November 22, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.7 to the Report on
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.11 |
|
Third Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for KAAC and KFC, dated December 19, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.8 to the Report on
Form 8-K dated December 19, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.12 |
|
Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for KAC, KACC and
Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, dated as of
September 7, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 99.2 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
September 8, 2005, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.13 |
|
Modifications to the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates Pursuant to
Stipulation and Agreed Order between Insurers, Debtors,
Committee and Future Representatives (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.2 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.14 |
|
Modification to the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, dated as
of November 22, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.3 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
Exhibit index
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
2 |
.15 |
|
Third Modification to the Second Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization for KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor
Affiliates, dated as of December 16, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.4 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.16 |
|
Order Confirming the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
of KAC, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.5 to the Report on
Form 8-K, dated as of February 1, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.17 |
|
Order Affirming the Confirmation Order of the Second Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization of KAC, KACC and Certain of Their
Debtor Affiliates, as modified (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.6 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
2 |
.18 |
|
Special Procedures for Distributions on Account of NLRB Claim,
as agreed by the National Labor Relations Board, the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
(formerly known as the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC) (the USW) and the Company pursuant to Section
7.8e of the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of KAC,
KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, as modified
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.7 to the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
3 |
.1 |
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of KAC
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
3 |
.2 |
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of KAC (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.2 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
5 |
.1 |
|
Opinion of Jones Day.* |
|
10 |
.1 |
|
Senior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of
July 6, 2006, among KAC, Kaiser Aluminum Investments
Company, Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC
(KAFP), Kaiser Aluminium International, Inc.,
certain financial institutions from time to time party thereto,
as lenders, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., The CIT Group/
Business Credit, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
administrative agent (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.2 |
|
Term Loan and Guaranty Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
among KAFP, KAC and certain indirect subsidiaries of the Company
listed as Guarantors thereto, certain financial
institutions from time to time party thereto, as lenders,
J.P.Morgan Securities Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
administrative agent, and Wilmington Trust Company, as
collateral agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2
to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.3 |
|
Description of Compensation of Directors (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.4 |
|
Description of 2006 Short Term Incentive Plan for Key Managers
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Report on
Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.5 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between KAC
and Jack A. Hockema (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.5 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.6 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between KAC
and Joseph P. Bellino (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.6 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.7 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between KAC
and Daniel D. Maddox (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.7 to the Report on Form 8-K, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
Exhibit index
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
10 |
.8 |
|
Form of Director Indemnification Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.9 |
|
Form of Officer Indemnification Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.10 |
|
Form of Director and Officer Indemnification Agreement
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Report
on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.11 |
|
2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration Statement No. 333-135613),
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.12 |
|
Form of Executive Officer Restricted Stock Award (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Report on
Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.13 |
|
Form of Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Award
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the Report
on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.14 |
|
Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products Restoration Plan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Report
on Form 8-K, dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.15 |
|
Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement, dated as of July 6,
2006, between KAC and National City Bank, in its capacity as the
trustee for the trust that provides benefits for certain
eligible retirees of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation represented by the USW, the International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America and its Local 1186, the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Chemical
Workers Union Council of the United Food & Commercial
Workers, and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and their surviving
spouses and eligible dependents (the Union VEBA
Trust) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to
the Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.16 |
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
among KAC, the Union VEBA Trust and the other parties thereto
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated as of
July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.17 |
|
Director Designation Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
between KAC and the USW (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4.3 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A,
dated as of July 6, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.18 |
|
Key Employee Retention Plan (effective September 3, 2002)
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to the Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.19 |
|
Form of Retention Agreement for the KACC Key Employee Retention
Plan (effective September 3, 2002) for Jack A. Hockema and
John Barneson (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27
to the Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.20 |
|
Severance Plan (effective September 3, 2002) (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.30 to the Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.21 |
|
Form of Severance Agreement for the Severance Plan (effective
September 3, 2002) for John Barneson, John M. Donnan
and Daniel D. Maddox (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.31 to the Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2002, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.22 |
|
Form of Change in Control Severance Agreement for John Barneson
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to the Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.23 |
|
Form of Change in Control Severance Agreement for John M.
Donnan and Daniel D. Maddox (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.33 to the Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2002, filed by KAC). |
Exhibit index
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit title |
|
|
10 |
.24 |
|
Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.25 |
|
Settlement and Release Agreement dated October 5, 2004 by
and among the Debtors (as defined therein) and the
Creditors Committee (as defined therein) (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, filed by
KAC). |
|
10 |
.26 |
|
Amendment, dated as of January 27, 2005, to Settlement and
Release Agreement dated as of October 5, 2004, by and among
the Debtors (as defined therein) and the Creditors
Committee (as defined therein) (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.23 to the Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.27 |
|
Settlement Agreement dated October 14, 2004, between KACC
and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2004, filed by KAC). |
|
10 |
.28 |
|
Release between KACC and Kerry A. Shiba (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Report on Form 8-K,
dated as of March 14, 2006, filed by KAC). |
|
21 |
.1 |
|
List of Subsidiaries of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation. |
|
23 |
.1 |
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.* |
|
23 |
.2 |
|
Consent of Jones Day (included in Exhibit 5.1). |
|
23 |
.3 |
|
Consent of Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A.* |
|
23 |
.4 |
|
Consent of Heller Ehrman LLP.* |
|
24 |
.1 |
|
Power of Attorney. |
* Filed herewith.
Previously filed.