NL INDUSTRIES INC - Annual Report: 2007 (Form 10-K)
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
|
|
Washington,
D.C. 20549
|
|
FORM
10-K
|
|
X
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE
ACT
OF 1934 - For the fiscal year ended December
31, 2007
|
|
Commission
file number 1-640
|
|
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC.
|
|
(Exact
name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
New
Jersey
|
13-5267260
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of
incorporation
or organization)
|
(IRS
Employer
Identification
No.)
|
5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1700, Dallas,
Texas
|
75240-2697
|
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrant's
telephone number, including area
code: (972) 233-1700
|
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
Title of each class
|
Name
of each exchange on
which
registered
|
Common
stock
|
New
York Stock Exchange
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None.
Indicate
by check mark:
If
the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the
Securities Act. Yes No
X
If
the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section
15(d) of the Act. Yes No
X
Whether
the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and
(2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
days. Yes X No
If
disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not
contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by
reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Yes
No
X
Whether
the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company (as defined in Rule 12b-2
of the Act). Large accelerated filer
Accelerated filer X Non-accelerated
filer
Smaller reporting company
Whether
the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes
No
X
The
aggregate market value of the 7.2 million shares of voting stock held by
nonaffiliates of NL Industries, Inc. as of June 30, 2007 (the last business day
of the Registrant's most recently-completed second fiscal quarter) approximated
$72 million.
As
of February 29, 2008, 48,592,034 shares of the Registrant's common stock were
outstanding.
Documents incorporated by
reference
The
information required by Part III is incorporated by reference from the
Registrant's definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Commission pursuant
to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year
covered by this report.
PART
I
|
ITEM
1. BUSINESS
|
The
Company
NL
Industries, Inc. was organized as a New Jersey corporation in
1891. Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange, or the
NYSE, under the symbol NL. References to “NL Industries,” “NL,” the
“Company,” the “Registrant,” “we,” “our,” “us” and similar terms mean NL
Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, unless the context
otherwise requires.
Our
principal executive offices are located at Three Lincoln Center, 5430 LBJ
Freeway, Suite 1700, Dallas, TX 75240. Our telephone number is (972)
233-1700. We maintain a website at www.nl-ind.com.
Business
Summary
We are
primarily a holding company. We operate in the component products
industry through our majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. (NYSE:
CIX). We operate in the chemicals industry through our
non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. CompX (NYSE: CIX)
and Kronos (NYSE: KRO), each file periodic reports with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Organization
We are
majority-owned by Valhi, Inc. (NYSE: VHI). At December 31,
2007, Valhi owned approximately 83% of our outstanding common
stock. A subsidiary of Contran Corporation owned approximately 93% of
Valhi’s outstanding common stock at December 31, 2007. Substantially
all of Contran's outstanding voting stock is held by trusts established for the
benefit of certain children and grandchildren of Harold C. Simmons (for which
Mr. Simmons is the sole trustee) or is held directly by Mr. Simmons or other
persons or companies related to Mr. Simmons. Consequently, Mr.
Simmons may be deemed to control Contran, Valhi, Kronos and us.
Forward-looking
Statements
This
Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended.
Statements in this Annual Report that are not historical facts are
forward-looking in nature and represent management’s beliefs and assumptions
based on currently available information. In some cases, you can
identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as "believes,"
"intends," "may," "should," "could," "anticipates," "expects" or comparable
terminology, or by discussions of strategies or trends. Although we
believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are
reasonable, we do not know if these expectations will be
correct. Such statements by their nature involve substantial risks
and uncertainties that could significantly impact expected results. Actual
future results could differ materially from those predicted. The
factors that could cause actual future results to differ materially from those
described herein are the risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report
and those described from time to time in our other filings with the SEC include,
but are not limited to, the following:
·
|
Future
supply and demand for our products,
|
·
|
The
extent of the dependence of certain of our businesses on certain market
sectors,
|
·
|
The
cyclicality of our businesses (such as Kronos’ TiO2
operations),
|
·
|
Customer
inventory levels (such as the extent to which Kronos’ customers may, from
time to time, accelerate purchases of TiO2 in
advance of anticipated price increases or defer purchases of TiO2 in
advance of anticipated price
decreases),
|
·
|
Changes
in raw material and other operating costs (such as energy and steel
costs),
|
·
|
The
possibility of labor disruptions,
|
·
|
General
global economic and political conditions (such as changes in the level of
gross domestic product in various regions of the world and the impact of
such changes on demand for, among other things, TiO2 and
component products),
|
·
|
Possible
disruption of our business or increases in the cost of doing business
resulting from terrorist activities or global
conflicts,
|
·
|
Competitive
products and substitute products, including increased competition from
low-cost manufacturing sources (such as
China),
|
·
|
Customer
and competitor strategies,
|
·
|
Potential
consolidation of our competitors,
|
·
|
The
impact of pricing and production
decisions,
|
·
|
Competitive
technology positions,
|
·
|
The
introduction of trade barriers,
|
·
|
Service
industry employment levels,
|
·
|
Fluctuations
in currency exchange rates (such as changes in the exchange rate between
the U.S. dollar and each of the euro, the Norwegian kroner, the New Taiwan
dollar and the Canadian dollar),
|
·
|
Operating
interruptions (including, but not limited to, labor disputes, leaks,
natural disasters, fires, explosions, unscheduled or unplanned downtime
and transportation interruptions),
|
·
|
The
timing and amounts of insurance
recoveries,
|
·
|
Our
ability to renew or refinance credit
facilities,
|
·
|
The
ultimate outcome of income tax audits, tax settlement initiatives or other
tax matters,
|
·
|
Potential
difficulties in integrating completed or future
acquisitions,
|
·
|
Decisions
to sell operating assets other than in the ordinary course of
business,
|
·
|
The
extent to which our subsidiaries were to become unable to pay us
dividends,
|
·
|
Uncertainties
associated with new product
development,
|
·
|
Our
ultimate ability to utilize income tax attributes, the benefits of which
have been recognized under the more-likely-than-not recognition criteria
(such as Kronos’ ability to utilize its German net operating loss
carryforwards),
|
·
|
Environmental
matters (such as those requiring compliance with emission and discharge
standards for existing and new facilities as well as adjustments to
environmental remediation at sites related to our former
operations),
|
·
|
Government
laws and regulations and possible changes therein (such as changes in
government regulations which might impose various obligations on present
and former manufacturers of lead pigment and lead-based paint, including
us, with respect to asserted health concerns associated with the use of
such products),
|
·
|
The
ultimate resolution of pending litigation (such as our lead pigment
litigation and litigation surrounding environmental matters),
and
|
·
|
Possible
future litigation.
|
Should
one or more of these risks materialize or if the consequences of such a
development worsen, or should the underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual
results could differ materially from those currently forecasted or
expected. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise
any forward-looking statement whether as a result of changes in information,
future events or otherwise.
Operations
and equity investment
Information
regarding our operations and the companies conducting such operations is set
forth below. Geographic financial information is included in Note 3
to the Consolidated Financial Statements, which is incorporated herein by
reference.
Component
Products
CompX
International Inc. - 86%
owned
at December 31, 2007
|
CompX
is a leading manufacturer of security products, precision ball bearing
slides and ergonomic computer support systems used in the office
furniture, transportation, postal, tool storage, marine appliance and a
variety of other industries. CompX is also a leading
manufacturer of stainless steel exhaust systems, gauges and throttle
controls for the performance boat industry. CompX has
production facilities in North America and Asia.
|
Chemicals
Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. – 36%
owned
at December 31, 2007
|
Kronos
is a leading global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide
pigments ("TiO2"),
which are used for imparting whiteness, brightness and opacity to a
diverse range of customer applications and end-use markets, including
coatings, plastics, paper and other industrial and consumer
"quality-of-life" products. Kronos has production facilities in Europe and
North America. Sales of TiO2
represented about 90% of Kronos’ total sales in 2007, with sales of
other products that are complementary to Kronos’ TiO2
business comprising the
remainder.
|
COMPONENT
PRODUCTS - COMPX INTERNATIONAL INC.
Industry Overview
- Through our majority-owned subsidiary, CompX, we manufacture components
that are sold to a variety of industries including office furniture,
recreational transportation (including performance boats), mailboxes, tool
boxes, appliances, banking equipment, vending equipment, computers and related
equipment. Approximately 32% of CompX’s total sales are to the office
furniture manufacturing industry, which decreased from 36% in 2006 and 43% in
2005. The decrease in the percentage of sales to the office furniture
industry is partially the result of our strategy to diversify our sales in order
to strengthen our customer base. We believe that our emphasis on new
product development and sales of our products to additional markets has resulted
in our potential for higher rates of earnings growth and diversification of
risk.
Manufacturing,
Operations and Products – CompX’s Security Products business, with a
manufacturing facility in South Carolina and a facility in Illinois shared with
the Marine Components business, manufactures locking mechanisms and other
security products for sale to the postal, transportation, office furniture,
banking, vending, and other industries. We believe that CompX is a
North American market leader in the manufacture and sale of cabinet locks and
other locking mechanisms. CompX’s security products are used in a
variety of applications including ignition systems, mailboxes, vending and
gaming machines, parking meters, electrical circuit panels, storage
compartments, office furniture and medical cabinet security. These
products include:
·
|
disc
tumbler locks which provide moderate security and generally represent the
lowest cost lock to produce;
|
·
|
pin
tumbler locking mechanisms which are more costly to produce and are used
in applications requiring higher levels of security, including CompX’s
KeSet high
security system, which allows the user to change the keying on a single
lock 64 times without removing the lock from its enclosure;
and
|
·
|
innovative
eLock electronic locks which provide stand-alone security and audit trail
capability for drug storage and other valuables through the use of a
proximity card, magnetic stripe, or keypad
credentials.
|
A
substantial portion of CompX’s Security Products’ sales consist of products with
specialized adaptations to individual manufacturer’s specifications, some of
which are listed above. CompX also has a standardized product line
suitable for many customers which is offered through a North American
distribution network with its STOCK LOCKS distribution
program to lock distributors and to smaller original equipment manufacturers
(“OEMs”).
CompX’s
Furniture Components business, with manufacturing facilities in Canada, Michigan
and Taiwan, manufactures a complete line of precision ball bearing slides and
ergonomic computer support systems for use in applications such as
computer-related equipment, tool storage cabinets, imaging equipment, file
cabinets, desk drawers, automated teller machines, appliances and other
applications. These products include:
·
|
the
patented Integrated
Slide Lock which allows a file cabinet manufacturer to reduce the
possibility of multiple drawers being opened at the same
time;
|
·
|
the
patented adjustable Ball
Lock which reduces the risk of heavily-filled drawers, such as auto
mechanic tool boxes, from opening while in
movement;
|
·
|
the
Self-Closing
Slide, which is designed to assist in closing a drawer and is used
in applications such as bottom-mount
freezers;
|
·
|
articulating
computer keyboard support arms (designed to attach to desks in the
workplace and home office environments to alleviate possible strains and
stress and maximize usable workspace), along with the patented LeverLock keyboard arm,
which is designed to make ergonomic adjustments to the keyboard arm
easier;
|
·
|
CPU
storage devices which minimize adverse effects of dust and moisture;
and
|
·
|
complementary
accessories, such as ergonomic wrist rest aids, mouse pad supports and
flat screen computer monitor support
arms.
|
CompX’s
Marine Components business, with a manufacturing facility in Wisconsin and a
facility in Illinois shared with the Security Products business, manufactures
and distributes marine instruments, hardware and accessories for performance
boats. CompX’s specialty marine component products are high
performance components designed to operate within precise tolerances in the
highly corrosive marine environment. These products
include:
·
|
original
equipment and aftermarket stainless steel exhaust headers, exhaust pipes,
mufflers, other exhaust components and billet accessories;
and
|
·
|
high
performance gauges and related components such as GPS speedometers,
throttles, controls, tachometers and
panels.
|
CompX
operated six manufacturing facilities at December 31, 2007 including one
facility in Grayslake, Illinois that houses operations relating to Security
Products and Marine Components. For additional information, see also
“Item 2 – Properties”, including information regarding leased and
distribution-only facilities.
Security Products
|
Furniture Components
|
Marine Components
|
||
Mauldin,
SC
Grayslake,
IL
|
Kitchener,
Ontario
Byron
Center, MI
Taipei,
Taiwan
|
Neenah,
WI
Grayslake,
IL
|
Raw
Materials - CompX’s
primary raw materials are:
·
|
zinc
(used in the Security Products business for the manufacture of locking
mechanisms);
|
·
|
coiled
steel (used in the Furniture Components business for the manufacture of
precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support
systems);
|
·
|
stainless
steel (used in the Marine Components business for the manufacture of
exhaust headers and pipes and other components);
and
|
·
|
plastic
resins (primarily used in the Furniture Components business for injection
molded plastics in the manufacture of ergonomic computer support
systems).
|
These raw
materials are purchased from several suppliers and are readily available from
numerous sources.
CompX
occasionally enters into raw material arrangements to mitigate the short-term
impact of future increases in raw material costs. While these
arrangements do not necessarily commit us to a minimum volume of purchases, they
generally provide for stated unit prices based upon achievement of specified
purchase volumes. We utilize purchase arrangements to stabilize our
raw material prices provided we meet the specified minimum monthly purchase
quantities. Raw materials purchased outside of these arrangements are sometimes
subject to unanticipated and sudden price increases. Due to the competitive
nature of the markets served by our products, it is often difficult to recover
all increases in raw material costs through increased product selling prices or
raw material surcharges. Consequently, overall operating margins can
be affected by raw material cost pressures. Steel and zinc prices are
cyclical, reflecting overall economic trends and specific developments in
consuming industries and are currently at historically high levels.
Patents and
Trademarks – CompX holds a number of
patents relating to component products, certain of which are believed to be
important to its continuing business activity. Patents generally have
a term of 20 years, and CompX’s patents have remaining terms ranging from less
than one year to 15 years at December 31, 2007. CompX’s major
trademarks and brand names include:
Furniture
Components
|
Security
Products
|
Marine
Components
|
||
CompX
Precision Slides®
|
CompX
Security Products®
|
Custom
Marine®
|
||
CompX
Waterloo®
|
National
Cabinet Lock®
|
Livorsi
Marine®
|
||
CompX
ErgonomX®
|
Fort
Lock®
|
CMI
Industrial Mufflers™
|
||
CompX
DurISLide®
|
Timberline®
|
Custom
Marine Stainless
|
||
Dynaslide®
|
Chicago
Lock®
|
Exhaust™
|
||
Waterloo
Furniture
|
STOCK
LOCKS®
|
The
#1 Choice in
|
||
Components
Limited®
|
KeSet®
|
Performance
Boating®
|
||
TuBar®
|
Mega
Rim™
|
|||
ACE
II®
|
Race
Rim™
|
|||
CompX
Marine™
|
Sales, marketing
and distribution -
CompX sells components directly to large OEM customers through
factory-based sales and marketing professionals and engineers working in concert
with field salespeople and independent manufacturers' representatives. CompX
selects manufacturers' representatives based on special skills in certain
markets or relationships with current or potential customers.
A
significant portion of CompX’s sales are also made through
distributors. CompX has a significant market share of cabinet lock
sales as a result of the locksmith distribution channel. CompX
supports distributor sales with a line of standardized products used by the
largest segments of the marketplace. These products are packaged and
merchandised for easy availability and handling by distributors and end
users. Due to CompX’s success with the STOCK LOCKS inventory program
within the Security Products business, similar programs have been implemented
for distributor sales of ergonomic computer support systems within the Furniture
Components business.
In 2007,
our ten largest customers accounted for approximately 31% of our total sales;
however, no one customer accounted for sales of 10% or more in
2007. Of the 31%, 13% was related to Security Products and 18% was
related to Furniture Components. Overall, our customer base is
diverse and the loss of a single customer would not have a material adverse
effect on our operations.
Competition
- CompX operates in highly competitive markets, and competes primarily on
the basis of product design, including ergonomic and aesthetic factors, product
quality and durability, price, on-time delivery, service and technical
support. CompX focuses efforts on the middle- and high-end segments
of the market, where product design, quality, durability and service are valued
by the customer.
CompX’s
Marine Components business competes with small domestic manufacturers and is
minimally affected by foreign competitors. The Security Products and
Furniture Components businesses compete against a number of domestic and foreign
manufacturers. Suppliers, particularly Asian-based furniture
component suppliers, have put intense price pressure on our
products. In some cases, we have lost sales to these lower-cost
manufacturers. We have responded by
·
|
shifting
the manufacture of some products to our lower-cost
facilities;
|
·
|
working
to reduce costs and gain operational efficiencies through workforce
reductions and lean process improvements in all of our facilities;
and
|
·
|
working
with our customers to be their value-added supplier of choice by offering
customer support services which Asian-based suppliers are generally unable
to provide.
|
International
Operations - CompX
has substantial operations and assets located outside the United States,
principally Furniture Component operations in Canada and Taiwan. The
majority of our 2007 non-U.S. sales are to customers located in
Canada. These operations are subject to, among other things, currency
exchange rate fluctuations. Our results of operations have in the
past been both favorably and unfavorably affected by fluctuations in currency
exchange rates. Political and economic uncertainties in certain of
the countries in which we operate may expose us to risk of loss. We
do not believe that there is currently any likelihood of material loss through
political or economic instability, seizure, nationalization or similar
events. We cannot predict, however, whether events of this type in
the future could have a material effect on our operations. See Item 7
- "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations" and Item 7A – "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk."
Regulatory and
Environmental Matters - CompX’s operations are subject to federal, state,
local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the use, storage, handling,
generation, transportation, treatment, emission, discharge, disposal,
remediation of and exposure to hazardous and non-hazardous substances, materials
and wastes ("Environmental Laws"). CompX’s operations are also
subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to
worker health and safety. We believe that CompX is in substantial
compliance with all such laws and regulations. To date, the costs of
maintaining compliance with such laws and regulations have not significantly
impacted our results. We currently do not anticipate any significant
costs or expenses relating to such matters; however, it is possible future laws
and regulations may require us to incur significant additional
expenditures.
Employees - As of December 31, 2007,
CompX employed the
following number of people:
United
States
|
636 | |||
Canada(1)
|
259 | |||
Taiwan
|
134 | |||
Total
|
1,029 |
(1)
Approximately 75% of the Canadian employees are represented by a labor
union covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expires in January 2009
which provides for annual wage increases from 1% to 2.5% over the term of the
contract. We believe our labor relations are good.
CHEMICALS
- KRONOS WORLDWIDE, INC.
Business
Overview -
Kronos is a leading global producer and marketer of value-added titanium
dioxide pigments. Kronos, along with its distributors and agents,
sells and provides technical services for its products to over 4,000 customers
in approximately 100 countries with the majority of sales in Europe and North
America. We believe that Kronos has developed considerable expertise
and efficiency in the manufacture, sale, shipment and service of its products in
domestic and international markets.
TiO2 is an
inorganic pigment used to impart whiteness, brightness and opacity for products
such as coatings, plastics, paper, fibers, food, ceramics and
cosmetics. TiO2 is
considered a “quality-of-life” product with demand and growth affected by gross
domestic product and overall economic conditions in markets in various parts of
the world. TiO2 derives
its value from its whitening properties and hiding power (opacity), which is the
ability to cover or mask other materials effectively and
efficiently. TiO2 is the
largest commercially-used whitening pigment because it has a high refractive
rating giving it more hiding power than any other commercially-produced white
pigment. In addition, TiO2 has
excellent resistance to interaction with other chemicals, good thermal stability
and resistance to ultraviolet degradation. Kronos ships TiO2 to
customers in either a powder or slurry form via rail, truck or ocean
carrier. Kronos, including its predecessors, has produced and
marketed TiO2 in North
America and Europe for over 80 years.
We
believe that Kronos is the second-largest producer of TiO2 in Europe
with an estimated 19% share of European TiO2 sales
volume. Approximately one-half of Kronos’ 2007 sales volumes was
attributable to markets in Europe. Kronos has an estimated 15% share
of North American TiO2 sales
volume. Per capita utilization of TiO2 in the
United States and Western Europe far exceeds that of other areas in the
world. We expect these markets to continue to be the largest
consumers of TiO2 for the
foreseeable future. It is probable that significant markets for
TiO2
could emerge in Eastern Europe or the Far East as the economies in these regions
develop to the point that quality-of-life products, including TiO2,
experience greater demand. In addition, China has developed into a
significant market and as its economy continues to develop, it is probable that
quality-of-life products, including TiO2, will
experience greater demand in that country.
Sales of
TiO2
were about 90% of Kronos’ net sales in 2007. The remaining 10% of net
sales is made up of other product lines that are complementary to TiO2. These
other products are described as follows:
·
|
Kronos
owns and operates an ilmenite mine in Norway pursuant to a governmental
concession with an unlimited term, and Kronos is currently excavating a
second mine located near the first mine. Ilmenite is a raw
material used directly as a feedstock by some sulfate-process TiO2
plants, including all of Kronos’ European sulfate-process
plants. Kronos also sells ilmenite ore to third-parties, some
of which are its competitors. The mines have estimated
aggregate reserves that are expected to last for at least another 60
years.
|
·
|
Kronos
manufactures and sells iron-based chemicals that are co-products and
processed co-products of the TiO2
pigment production process. These co-product chemicals are
marketed through Kronos’ Ecochem division and are used primarily as
treatment and conditioning agents for industrial effluents and municipal
wastewater as well as in the manufacture of iron pigments, cement and
agricultural products.
|
·
|
Kronos
manufactures and sells titanium oxychloride and titanyl sulfate which are
side-stream products from the production of TiO2. Titanium
oxychloride is used in specialty applications in the formulation of
pearlescent pigments and in the production of electroceramic capacitors
for cell phones and other electronic devices. Titanyl sulfate
products are used primarily in pearlescent
pigments.
|
Manufacturing and
operation - Kronos currently produces over 40 different TiO2 grades
under the KronosTM
trademark which provide a variety of performance properties to meet customers’
specific requirements. Kronos’ major customers include domestic and
international paint, plastics and paper manufacturers.
Extenders,
such as kaolin clays, calcium carbonate and polymeric opacifiers, are used in a
number of the same end-use markets as white pigments. However, the opacity in
these products is not able to duplicate the performance characteristics of
TiO2,
and so we believe these products are not effective substitutes for TiO2.
Kronos
produces TiO2
in two crystalline forms: rutile and anatase. Rutile TiO2 is
manufactured using both a chloride production process and a sulfate production
process, whereas anatase TiO2 is only
produced using a sulfate production process. Chloride process rutile
is preferred for the majority of customer applications. From a
technical standpoint, chloride process rutile has a bluer undertone and higher
durability than sulfate process rutile. Although many end-use
applications can use either form, chloride process rutile is the preferred form
for use in coatings and plastics, the two largest end-use
markets. Sulfate process anatase represents a much smaller percentage
of annual global TiO2 production
and is preferred for use in selected paper, ceramics, rubber tires, man-made
fibers, food and cosmetics.
Chloride production
process -
Approximately three-fourths of Kronos’ current production capacity is based on
the chloride process. The chloride process is a continuous process in
which chlorine is used to extract rutile TiO2. The
chloride process typically has lower manufacturing costs than the sulfate
process due to newer technology, higher yield, less waste, lower energy
requirements and lower labor costs. The chloride process produces
less waste than the sulfate process because much of the chlorine is recycled and
feedstock bearing higher titanium content is used.
Sulfate production process -
The sulfate process is a batch chemical process that uses sulfuric acid to
extract both rutile and anatase TiO2.
Once an
intermediate TiO2 pigment
has been produced by either the chloride or sulfate process, it is “finished”
into products with specific performance characteristics for particular end-use
applications through proprietary processes involving various chemical surface
treatments and intensive micronizing (milling). Due to environmental
factors and customer considerations, the proportion of TiO2 industry
sales represented by chloride process pigments has increased relative to sulfate
process pigments and, in 2007, chloride process production facilities
represented approximately 60% of industry capacity.
Kronos
produced 512,000 metric tons of TiO2 in 2007,
down slightly from the 516,000 metric tons produced in 2006. Such
production amounts include Kronos’ 50% interest in the TiO2
manufacturing joint-venture discussed below. Kronos’ average
production capacity utilization rates were near-full capacity in 2005, 2006 and
2007. Kronos’ production capacity has increased by approximately 30%
over the past ten years due to debottlenecking programs, with only moderate
capital expenditures. We believe that Kronos’ annual attainable
production capacity for 2008 is approximately 532,000 metric tons, with some
slight additional capacity available in 2009 through its continued
debottlenecking efforts.
Raw materials
- The primary raw materials used in chloride process TiO2 are
titanium-containing feedstock (natural rutile ore or purchased slag), chlorine
and coke. Chlorine and coke are available from a number of
suppliers. Titanium-containing feedstock suitable for use in the
chloride process is available from a limited but increasing number of suppliers
principally in Australia, South Africa, Canada, India and the United
States. Kronos purchases chloride process grade slag from Rio Tinto
Iron and Titanium under a long-term supply contract that expires at the end of
2011. Kronos purchases natural rutile ore primarily from Iluka
Resources, Limited under a long-term supply contract that expires at the end of
2009. Kronos expects to be successful in obtaining long-term
extensions to these and other existing supply contracts prior to their
expiration. We expect the raw materials purchased under these
contracts to meet Kronos’ chloride process feedstock requirements over the next
several years.
The
primary raw materials used in sulfate process TiO2 are
titanium-containing feedstock (primarily ilmenite from our Norwegian mine or
purchased slag) and sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is available from a
number of suppliers. Titanium-containing feedstock suitable for use
in the sulfate process is available from a limited number of suppliers
principally in Norway, Canada, Australia, India and South Africa. As
one of the few vertically- integrated producers of sulfate process TiO2, Kronos
owns and operates a rock ilmenite mine in Norway, which provided all of the
feedstock for its European sulfate process TiO2 plants in
2007. We expect that ilmenite production from the mine will meet
Kronos’ European sulfate process feedstock requirements for the foreseeable
future. For Kronos’ Canadian sulfate process plant, Kronos also
purchases sulfate grade slag primarily from Q.I.T. Fer et Titane Inc. (also a
subsidiary of Rio Tinto Iron and Titanium) under a long-term supply contract
that expires at the end of 2009 and Tinfos Titan and Iron KS under a supply
contract that expires in 2010. We expect that the raw materials
purchased under these contracts will meet Kronos’ sulfate process feedstock
requirements over the next few years.
Many of
Kronos’ raw material contracts contain fixed quantities it is required to
purchase, although these contracts allow for an upward or downward adjustment in
the quantity purchased. Kronos is not required to purchase feedstock
in excess of amounts that it would reasonably consume in any given
year. The pricing under these agreements is generally negotiated
annually.
The following table summarizes raw
materials Kronos purchased or mined in 2007.
Production Process/Raw
Material
|
Raw
Materials Procured or Mined
|
|||
(In
thousands of metric tons)
|
||||
Chloride
process plants:
|
||||
Purchased
slag or natural rutile ore
|
470
|
|
||
Sulfate
process plants:
|
||||
Raw
ilmenite ore mined & used internally
|
311
|
|||
Purchased
slag
|
25
|
TiO2 manufacturing
joint venture -
Kronos holds a 50% interest in a manufacturing joint venture with
Huntsman Holding LLC. The joint venture owns and operates a chloride
process TiO2 facility
located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Kronos shares production from the
plant equally with Huntsman pursuant to separate offtake
agreements.
A
supervisory committee directs the business and affairs of the joint venture,
including production and output decisions. This committee is composed
of four members, two of whom Kronos appoints and two of whom Huntsman
appoints. Two general managers manage the operations of the joint
venture acting under the direction of the supervisory
committee. Kronos appoints one general manager and Huntsman appoints
the other.
Kronos is
required to purchase one-half of the TiO2 produced
by the joint venture. The joint venture is not consolidated in
Kronos’ financial statements because Kronos does not control
it. Kronos accounts for its interest in the joint venture by the
equity method. The joint venture operates on a break-even basis, and
therefore Kronos does not have any equity in earnings of the joint
venture. Kronos shares all costs and capital expenditures of the
joint venture equally with Huntsman with the exception of raw material and
packaging costs for the pigment grades produced. Kronos’ share of the
net costs is reported as cost of sales as the related TiO2 is
sold.
Competition -
The TiO2 industry
is highly competitive. Kronos’ principal competitors are E.I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co.; Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. (a subsidiary of
National Titanium Dioxide Company Ltd. (Cristal)); Tronox Incorporated; Huntsman
Corporation; and Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd. These competitors have
estimated individual shares of the worldwide TiO2 production
capacity ranging from 4% (for Ishihara) to 22% (for DuPont), and an estimated
aggregate share of the worldwide TiO2 production
volume in excess of 60%. DuPont has about one-half of the total North
American TiO2 production
capacity and is Kronos’ principal North American competitor.
Kronos
competes primarily on the basis of price, product quality, technical service and
the availability of high performance pigment grades. Although certain
TiO2
grades are considered specialty pigments, the majority of Kronos’ grades and
substantially all of Kronos’ production are considered commodity pigments with
price generally being the most significant competitive factor. We
believe that Kronos is the leading seller of TiO2 in several
countries, including Germany, with an estimated 12% share of worldwide TiO2 sales
volume in 2007. Overall, Kronos is the world’s fifth-largest producer
of TiO2.
Worldwide
capacity additions in the TiO2 market
resulting from construction of greenfield plants require significant capital
expenditures and substantial lead time (typically three to five years in our
experience). We are not aware of any TiO2 plants
currently under construction. DuPont has announced its intention to
build a TiO2
facility in China, but it is not clear when construction will begin and
it is not likely that any production from such facility would be available until
2011, at the earliest.
We expect
that industry capacity will increase as Kronos and its competitors continue to
debottleneck existing facilities. We expect that the average annual
increase in industry capacity from announced debottlenecking projects will be
less than the average annual demand growth for TiO2 during the
next three to five years. However, we cannot assure you that future
increases in the TiO2 industry
production capacity and future average annual demand growth rates for TiO2 will
conform to Kronos’ expectations. If actual developments differ from
our expectations, Kronos’ and the TiO2 industry's
performances could be unfavorably affected.
Research and
development – Kronos’
research and development activities are directed primarily on improving the
chloride and sulfate production processes, improving product quality and
strengthening Kronos’ competitive position by developing new pigment
applications. Kronos primarily conducts research and development
activities at its Leverkusen, Germany facility. Kronos’ expenditures
for research and development and certain technical support programs were
approximately $9 million in 2005, $11 million in 2006 and $12 million in
2007.
Kronos
continually seeks to improve the quality of its grades and has been successful
at developing new grades for existing and new applications to meet the needs of
customers and increase product life cycle. Since 2002, Kronos has
added 14 new grades for plastics, coatings, fibers and paper laminate
applications.
Patents and
trademarks - We
believe that Kronos’ patents held for products and production processes are
important to us and Kronos’ continuing business activities. Kronos
seeks patent protection for technical developments, principally in the United
States, Canada and Europe, and from time to time enters into licensing
arrangements with third parties. Kronos’ existing patents generally
have terms of 20 years from the date of filing, and have remaining terms ranging
from 2 to 19 years. Kronos seeks to protect its intellectual property
rights, including its patent rights, and from time to time Kronos engages in
disputes relating to the protection and use of intellectual property relating to
its products.
Kronos’
trademarks, including KronosTM,
are protected by registration in the United States and elsewhere with respect to
those products Kronos manufactures and sells. Kronos also relies on
unpatented proprietary know-how, continuing technological innovation and other
trade secrets to develop and maintain competitive position. Kronos’
proprietary chloride production process is an important part of its technology,
and Kronos’ business could be harmed if it failed to maintain confidentiality of
trade secrets used in this technology.
Customer base and
seasonality - Kronos sells to a diverse customer base, and no single
customer made up more than 10% of sales for 2007. Kronos’ largest ten
customers accounted for approximately 27% of sales in 2007.
Neither
Kronos’ business as a whole, nor any of its principal product groups is seasonal
to any significant extent. However, TiO2 sales are
generally higher in the first half of the year. This is due in part
to the increase in paint production in the spring to meet demand during the
spring and summer painting season.
Employees
- As of
December 31, 2007, Kronos employed approximately 2,400 persons (excluding
employees of the Louisiana joint venture), with 50 employees in the United
States, 410 employees in Canada and 1,940 employees in Europe.
Kronos’
hourly employees in production facilities worldwide, including the TiO2 joint
venture, are represented by a variety of labor unions under labor agreements
with various expiration dates. Kronos’ European Union (“EU”)
employees are covered by master collective bargaining agreements in the
chemicals industry that are renewed annually. Kronos’ Canadian union
employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expires in June
2010.
Regulatory and
environmental matters – Kronos’ operations are governed by various
environmental laws and regulations. Certain of Kronos’ operations
are, or have been, engaged in the handling, manufacture or use of substances or
compounds that may be considered toxic or hazardous within the meaning of
applicable environmental laws and regulations. As with other
companies engaged in similar businesses, certain past and current operations and
products of Kronos have the potential to cause environmental or other
damage. Kronos has implemented and continues to implement various
policies and programs in an effort to minimize these risks. Kronos’
policy is to maintain compliance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations at all of its facilities and to strive to improve our environmental
performance. It is possible that future developments, such as
stricter requirements in environmental laws and enforcement policies, could
adversely affect Kronos’ production, handling, use, storage, transportation,
sale or disposal of such substances and could adversely effect Kronos’
consolidated financial position and results of operations or
liquidity.
Kronos’
U.S. manufacturing operations are governed by federal environmental and worker
health and safety laws and regulations. These primarily consist of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (“CERCLA”), as well as the state counterparts of these
statutes. We believe the TiO2 plant
owned by the joint venture and a TiO2 slurry
facility Kronos owns in Lake Charles, Louisiana are in substantial compliance
with applicable requirements of these laws or compliance orders issued
thereunder. These are Kronos’ only U.S. manufacturing
facilities.
While the
laws regulating operations of industrial facilities in Europe vary from country
to country, a common regulatory framework is provided by the
EU. Germany and Belgium are members of the EU and follow its
initiatives. Norway is not a member but generally patterns its
environmental regulatory actions after the EU. We believe that Kronos
has obtained all required permits and is in substantial compliance with
applicable environmental requirements for its European and Canadian
facilities.
At
Kronos’ sulfate plant facilities in Germany, Kronos recycles weak sulfuric acid
either through contracts with third parties or at its own
facilities. At Kronos’ Norwegian plant, Kronos ships spent acid to a
third party location where it is treated and disposed. At its German
locations, Kronos has a contract with a third party to treat certain
sulfate-process effluents. This contract may be terminated by either
party after giving three or four years advance notice, depending on the
contract.
From time
to time, Kronos’ facilities may be subject to environmental regulatory
enforcement under U.S. and foreign statutes. Typically Kronos
establishes compliance programs to resolve these
matters. Occasionally, Kronos may pay penalties. To date
such penalties have not involved amounts having a material adverse effect on
Kronos’ consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We believe that all of Kronos’ facilities are in
substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws.
Kronos’
capital expenditures in 2007 related to ongoing environmental compliance,
protection and improvement programs were $5.6 million, and are currently
expected to be approximately $7 million in 2008.
OTHER
In addition to our 86% ownership of
CompX and our 36% ownership of Kronos at December 31, 2007, we also own 100% of
EWI Re. Inc., an insurance brokerage and risk management services
company. We also hold certain marketable securities and other
investments. See Notes 4 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Regulatory and
environmental matters –
We have discussed regulatory and environmental matters in the respective
business sections contained elsewhere herein and in Item 3 - "Legal
Proceedings." In addition, the information included in Note 19 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements under the captions "Lead pigment litigation"
and "Environmental matters and litigation" is incorporated herein by
reference.
Insurance
– We maintain insurance for our businesses and operations, with customary
levels of coverage, deductibles and limits. See also Item 3 – “Legal
Proceedings – Insurance coverage claims” and Note 17 to our Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Business Strategy
– We
routinely compare our liquidity requirements and alternative uses of capital
against the estimated future cash flows we expect to receive from our
subsidiaries and affiliates. As a result of this process, we have in
the past and may in the future seek to raise additional capital, incur debt,
repurchase indebtedness in the market or otherwise, modify our dividend
policies, consider the sale of our interests in our subsidiaries, affiliates,
business units, marketable securities or other assets, or take a combination of
these and other steps, to increase liquidity, reduce indebtedness and fund
future activities. Such activities have in the past and may in the
future involve related companies. From time to time, we also evaluate
the restructuring of ownership interests among our respective subsidiaries and
related companies.
We and other entities that may be
deemed to be controlled by or that are affiliated with Mr. Harold C. Simmons
routinely evaluate acquisitions of interests in, or combinations with,
companies, including related companies, perceived by management to be
undervalued in the marketplace. These companies may or may not be
engaged in businesses related to our current businesses. In some
instances, we have actively managed the businesses acquired with a focus on
maximizing return-on-investment through cost reductions, capital expenditures,
improved operating efficiencies, selective marketing to address market niches,
disposition of marginal operations, use of leverage and redeployment of capital
to more productive assets. In other instances, we have disposed of
the acquired interest in a company prior to gaining control. We
intend to consider such activities in the future and may, in connection with
such activities, consider issuing additional equity securities and increasing
our indebtedness.
Available
information – Our fiscal year ends December 31. We furnish our
shareholders with annual reports containing audited financial
statements. In addition, we file annual, quarterly and current
reports, proxy and information statements and other information with the
SEC. Our consolidated subsidiary (CompX) and our significant equity
method investee (Kronos) also file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy
and information statements and other information with the SEC. We
also make our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q,
current reports on Form 8-K and amendments thereto, available free of charge
through our website at www.nl-ind.com as
soon as reasonably practicable after they have been filed with the
SEC. We also provide to anyone, without charge, copies of such
documents upon written request. Such requests should be directed to
the attention of the Corporate Secretary at our address on the cover page of
this Form 10-K.
Additional
information, including our Audit Committee charter, our Code of Business Conduct
and Ethics and our Corporate Governance Guidelines can be found on our
website. Information contained on our website is not part of this
Annual Report.
The
general public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s
Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The
public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by
calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. We are an electronic filer. The
SEC maintains an Internet website at www.sec.gov that
contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information
regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, including
us.
ITEM
1A. RISK FACTORS
Listed below are certain risk factors
associated with us and our businesses. In addition to the potential
effect of these risk factors discussed below, any risk factor which could result
in reduced earnings or operating losses, or reduced liquidity, could in turn
adversely affect our ability to service our liabilities or pay dividends on our
common stock or adversely affect the quoted market prices for our
securities.
We
could incur significant costs related to legal and environmental
matters.
We
formerly manufactured lead pigments for use in paint. We and others
have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused
by the use of lead-based paints. These lawsuits seek recovery under a
variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product
design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market
share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier
negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions
generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint
abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints,
including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for
medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational
programs. As with all legal proceedings, the outcome is
uncertain. Any liability we might incur in the future could be
material. See also Item 3 - “Legal Proceedings – Lead pigment
litigation.”
Certain
properties and facilities used in our former operations are the subject of
litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under various
environmental laws. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, personal
injury or property damages and/or damages for injury to natural
resources. Some of these proceedings involve claims for substantial
amounts. Environmental obligations are difficult to assess and
estimate for numerous reasons, and we may incur costs for environmental
remediation in the future in excess of amounts currently estimated. Any
liability we might incur in the future could be material. See also
Item 3 - “Legal Proceedings – Environmental matters and
litigation.”
Our assets consist primarily of
investments in our operating subsidiaries and affiliates, and we are dependent
upon distributions from our subsidiaries and affiliates.
A
majority of our cash flows are generated by our operating subsidiaries, and our
ability to service liabilities and to pay dividends on our common stock depends
to a large extent upon the cash dividends or other distributions we receive from
our subsidiaries and affiliates. Our subsidiaries and affiliates are
separate and distinct legal entities and they have no obligation, contingent or
otherwise, to pay such cash dividends or other distributions to
us. In addition, the payment of dividends or other distributions from
our subsidiaries could be subject to restrictions on or taxation of dividends or
repatriation of earnings under applicable law, monetary transfer restrictions,
foreign currency exchange regulations in jurisdictions in which our subsidiaries
operate, any other restrictions imposed by current or future agreements to which
our subsidiaries may be a party, including debt instruments. Events
beyond our control, including changes in general business and economic
conditions, could adversely impact the ability of our subsidiaries to pay
dividends or make other distributions to us. If our subsidiaries were
to become unable to make sufficient cash dividends or other distributions to us,
our ability to service our liabilities and to pay dividends on our common stock
could be adversely affected. In addition, a significant portion of
our assets consist of ownership interests in our subsidiaries and
affiliates. If we were required to liquidate any of such securities
in order to generate funds to satisfy our liabilities, we may be required to
sell such securities at a time or times at which we would not be able to realize
what we believe to be the actual value of such assets.
Many of the markets in which we
operate are mature and highly competitive resulting in pricing pressure and the
need to continuously reduce costs.
Many of
the markets CompX and Kronos serve are highly competitive, with a number of
competitors offering similar products. CompX focuses efforts on the
middle and high-end segment of the market where we feel that we can compete due
to the importance of product design, quality and durability to the
customer. However, our ability to effectively compete is impacted by
a number of factors. The occurrence of any of these factors could
result in reduced earnings or operating losses.
·
|
Competitors
may be able to drive down prices for our products because their costs are
lower than our costs, especially those located in
Asia.
|
·
|
Competitors'
financial, technological and other resources may be greater than our
resources, which may enable them to more effectively withstand changes in
market conditions.
|
·
|
Competitors
may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or emerging
technologies and changes in customer
requirements.
|
·
|
Consolidation
of our competitors or customers in any of the markets in which we compete
may result in reduced demand for our
products.
|
·
|
New
competitors could emerge by modifying their existing production facilities
to manufacture products that compete with our
products.
|
·
|
Our
ability to sustain a cost structure that enables us to be
cost-competitive.
|
·
|
Our
ability to adjust costs relative to our
pricing.
|
·
|
Customers
may no longer value product design, quality or durability over lower
cost.
|
Demand
for, and prices of, certain of Kronos’ products are cyclical and may experience
prolonged depressed market conditions for its products, which may result in
reduced earnings or operating losses.
A
significant portion of our net income is attributable to sales of TiO2 by
Kronos. Approximately 90% of Kronos’ revenues are attributable to
sales of TiO2. Pricing
within the global TiO2 industry
over the long term is cyclical, and changes in economic conditions, especially
in Western industrialized nations, can significantly impact our earnings and
operating cash flows. This may result in reduced earnings or
operating losses.
Historically,
the markets for many of Kronos’ products have experienced alternating periods of
increasing and decreasing demand. Relative changes in the selling
prices for Kronos’ products are one of the main factors that affect the level of
its profitability. In periods of increasing demand, Kronos’ selling
prices and profit margins generally will tend to increase, while in periods of
decreasing demand Kronos’ selling prices and profit margins generally tend to
decrease. Future growth in demand for TiO2 may not be
sufficient to alleviate any future conditions of excess industry capacity, and
such conditions may not be sustained or may be further aggravated by anticipated
or unanticipated capacity additions or other events.
The
demand for TiO2 during a
given year is also subject to seasonal fluctuations. TiO2 sales are
generally higher in the first half of the year. This is due in part
to the increase in paint production in the spring to meet demand during the
spring and summer painting season.
Higher
costs or limited availability of our raw materials may decrease our
liquidity.
Certain
of the raw materials used in CompX’s products are commodities that are subject
to significant fluctuations in price in response to world wide supply and
demand. Coiled steel is the major raw material used in the
manufacture of precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support
systems. Plastic resins for injection molded plastics are also an
integral material for ergonomic computer support systems. Zinc is a
principal raw material used in the manufacture of security
products. Stainless steel tubing is the major raw material used in
the manufacture of marine exhaust systems. These raw materials are
purchased from several suppliers and are generally readily available from
numerous sources. We occasionally enter into raw material supply
arrangements to mitigate the short-term impact of future increases in raw
material costs. Materials purchased outside of these arrangements are
sometimes subject to unanticipated and sudden price increases. Should
our vendors not be able to meet their contractual obligations or should we be
otherwise unable to obtain necessary raw materials, we may incur higher costs
for raw materials or may be required to reduce production levels, either of
which may decrease our liquidity as we may be unable to offset the higher costs
with increased selling prices for our products.
Our development of new component
products and innovative features for our current component products is critical
to sustaining and growing our sales.
Historically,
CompX’s ability to provide value-added custom engineered component products that
address requirements of technology and space utilization has been a key element
of its success. The introduction of new products and features
requires the coordination of the design, manufacturing and marketing of such
products with potential customers. The ability to implement such
coordination may be affected by factors beyond CompX’s control. While
we will continue to emphasize the introduction of innovative new products that
target customer-specific opportunities, we cannot assure you that any new
products CompX introduces will achieve the same degree of success that it has
achieved with its existing products. Introduction of new products
typically requires us to increase production volume on a timely basis while
maintaining product quality. Manufacturers often encounter
difficulties in increasing production volumes, including delays, quality control
problems and shortages of qualified personnel. As CompX attempts to
introduce new products in the future, we cannot assure you that CompX will be
able to increase production volume without encountering these or other problems,
which might negatively impact our financial condition or results of
operations.
Recent
and future acquisitions could subject us to a number of operational
risks.
A key
component of CompX’s strategy is to grow and diversify its business through
acquisitions. Our ability to successfully execute this component of
our strategy entails a number of risks, including:
·
|
the
identification of suitable growth
opportunities;
|
·
|
an
inaccurate assessment of acquired
liabilities;
|
·
|
the
entry into markets in which we may have limited or no
experience;
|
·
|
the
diversion of management’s attention from our core
businesses;
|
·
|
the
potential loss of key employees or customers of the acquired
businesses;
|
·
|
difficulties
in realizing projected efficiencies, synergies and cost savings;
and
|
·
|
an
increase in our indebtedness and a limitation in our ability to access
additional capital when needed.
|
Kronos’
leverage may impair our financial condition or limit our ability to operate our
businesses.
As of
December 31, 2007, Kronos had consolidated debt of approximately $606 million,
substantially all of which relates to Senior Secured Notes of its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Kronos International, Inc. Kronos’ level of debt could
have important consequences to its stockholders (including us) and creditors,
including:
·
|
making
it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with respect to our
liabilities;
|
·
|
increasing
our vulnerability to adverse general economic and industry
conditions;
|
·
|
limiting
our ability to obtain additional financing to fund future working capital,
capital expenditures, dividends on our common stock, acquisitions or
general corporate requirements;
|
·
|
limiting
our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business
and the industry in which we operate;
and
|
·
|
placing
us at a competitive disadvantage relative to other less leveraged
competitors.
|
In addition to Kronos’ indebtedness,
Kronos is party to various lease and other agreements pursuant to which it is
committed to pay approximately $315 million in 2008. Kronos’ ability
to make payments on and refinance its debt, and to fund planned capital
expenditures, depends on Kronos’ future ability to generate cash
flow. To some extent, this is subject to general economic, financial,
competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our
control. In addition, Kronos’ ability to borrow funds under its
subsidiaries’ credit facilities in the future will in some instances depend in
part on these subsidiaries’ ability to maintain specified financial ratios and
satisfy certain financial covenants contained in the applicable credit
agreement.
Kronos’
business may not generate cash flows from operating activities sufficient to
enable Kronos to pay its debts when they become due and to fund its other
liquidity needs. As a result, Kronos may need to refinance all or a
portion of its debt before maturity. Kronos may not be able to
refinance any of its debt in a timely manner on favorable terms, if at
all. Any inability to generate sufficient cash flows or to refinance
Kronos’ debt on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition.
ITEM
1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM
2.
|
PROPERTIES
|
Our
principal executive offices are located in an office building located at 5430
LBJ Freeway, Dallas, Texas, 75240-2697. The principal properties used
in the operations of our subsidiaries and affiliates, including certain risks
and uncertainties related thereto, are described in the applicable business
sections of Item 1 – “Business.” We believe that our facilities are
generally adequate and suitable for our respective uses.
ITEM 3. LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
We are involved in various legal
proceedings. In addition to information that is included below, we
have included certain of the information called for by this Item in Note 19
to our Consolidated Financial Statements, and we are incorporating that
information here by reference.
Lead
pigment litigation
Our
former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint. We, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for
use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the “former pigment manufacturers”)
and the Lead Industries Association (“LIA”), which discontinued business
operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings
seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental
expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based
paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school
districts, and certain others have been asserted as class
actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories,
including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent
failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of
action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation,
violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and
similar claims.
The
plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants
responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the
use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution
and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and
costs for educational programs. A number of cases are inactive or
have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in
various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or
summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs. In addition, various other cases are pending (in which we
are not a defendant) seeking recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead
pigment and lead-based paint. Although we are not a defendant in
these cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that might
be filed against us in the future.
We believe that these actions are
without merit, and we intend to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing
and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. We have
never settled any of these cases, nor have any final adverse judgments against
us been entered. However, see the discussion below in The State of Rhode Island
case. See also Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
We have
not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint
litigation cases, including the Rhode Island case. Liability that may
result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. In addition, new
cases may continue to be filed against us. We cannot assure you that
we will not incur liability in the future in respect of any of the pending or
possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and
jury rulings. The resolution of any of these cases could result in
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse
impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such
liability is recognized, and a material adverse impact on our consolidated
financial condition and liquidity.
In September 1999, an amended complaint
was filed in Thomas v. Lead
Industries Association, et al. (Circuit Court, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Case
No. 99-CV-6411) adding as defendants the former pigment manufacturers to a suit
originally filed against plaintiff's landlords. Plaintiff’s, a minor,
alleged injuries purportedly caused by lead on the surfaces of premises in homes
in which he resided. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive
damages. The case was tried in October 2007, and in November 2007 the
jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. In January 2008,
the judge denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The time for
appeal has not yet expired.
In
October 1999, we were served with a complaint in State of Rhode Island v. Lead
Industries Association, et al. (Superior Court of Rhode Island, No.
99-5226). The State sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as reimbursement for public and private building abatement expenses and funding
of a public education campaign and health screening programs. A 2002
trial on the sole question of whether lead pigment in paint on Rhode Island
buildings is a public nuisance resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable
to reach a verdict on the question, with the jury reportedly deadlocked 4-2 in
defendants' favor. In 2005, the trial court dismissed the conspiracy
claim with prejudice, and the State dismissed its Unfair Trade Practices Act
claim without prejudice. A second trial commenced
against us and three other defendants on November 1, 2005 on the State’s
remaining claims of public nuisance, indemnity and unjust
enrichment. Following the State’s presentation of its case, the trial
court dismissed the State’s claims of indemnity and unjust
enrichment. In February 2006, the jury found that we and two other
defendants substantially contributed to the creation of a public nuisance as a
result of the collective presence of lead pigments in paints and coatings on
buildings in Rhode Island. The jury also found that we and the two
other defendants should be ordered to abate the public
nuisance. Following the trial, the trial court dismissed the State’s
claim for punitive damages. In March 2007, the final judgment and
order was entered, and defendants filed an appeal. In April 2007, the
State cross-appealed the issue of exclusion of past and punitive damages, as
well as the dismissal of one of the defendants. Oral argument on the
appeal has been scheduled for May 2008. While the appeal is pending,
the trial court continues to move forward on the abatement
process. In September 2007, the State submitted its plan of abatement
and defendants’ filed a response in December 2007. In December 2007,
the Judge named two special masters to assist the judge in determining the scope
of any abatement remedy.
In October 1999, we were served with a
complaint in Smith, et al. v.
Lead Industries Association, et al. (Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, Case No. 24-C-99-004490). Plaintiffs, seven minors from
four families, each seek compensatory damages of $5 million and punitive damages
of $10 million for alleged injuries due to lead-based
paint. Plaintiffs allege that the former pigment manufacturers and
other companies alleged to have manufactured paint and/or gasoline additives,
the LIA and the National Paint and Coatings Association are jointly and
severally liable. We have denied liability. In February
2006, the trial court issued orders dismissing the Smith family’s case and
severing and staying the cases of the three other families. In March
2006, the plaintiffs appealed. In August 2007, the Special Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeal. In December 2007, the Maryland Court of
Appeals accepted review.
In April
2000, we were served with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic
Richfield Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, Case No. CV788657) brought against the former pigment
manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. The County of
Santa Clara seeks to represent a class of California governmental entities
(other than the state and its agencies) to recover compensatory damages for
funds the plaintiffs have expended or will in the future expend for medical
treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to, or
potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and punitive
damages. Solano, Alameda, San Francisco, Monterey and San Mateo
counties, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego, the
Oakland and San Francisco unified school districts and housing authorities and
the Oakland Redevelopment Agency have joined the case as
plaintiffs. In February 2003, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was granted in July 2003. In March 2006, the
appellate court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ trespass claim, Unfair
Competition Law claim and public nuisance claim for government-owned properties,
but reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ public nuisance claim for residential
housing properties, plaintiffs’ negligence and strict liability claims for
government-owned buildings and plaintiffs’ fraud claim. In January
2007, plaintiffs amended the complaint to drop all of the claims except for the
public nuisance claim. In April 2007, the trial court ruled that the
contingency fee arrangement between plaintiffs and their counsel was illegal,
and in May 2007, plaintiffs appealed the ruling. The proceedings have
been stayed pending resolution of this appeal.
In June 2000, a complaint was filed in
Illinois state court, Lewis,
et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al. (Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Case
No. 00CH09800). Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes, one
consisting of minors between the ages of six months and six years who resided in
housing in Illinois built before 1978, and another consisting of individuals
between the ages of six and twenty years who lived in Illinois housing built
before 1978 when they were between the ages of six months and six years and who
had blood lead levels of 10 micrograms/deciliter or more. The
complaint seeks damages jointly and severally from the former pigment
manufacturers and the LIA to establish a medical screening fund for the first
class to determine blood lead levels, a medical monitoring fund for the second
class to detect the onset of latent diseases, and a fund for a public education
campaign. In March 2002, the court dismissed all
claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and in June 2003 the appellate court
affirmed the dismissal of five of the six counts of plaintiffs, but reversed the
dismissal of the conspiracy count. In May 2004, defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ conspiracy count, which was granted
in February 2005. In February 2006, the court of appeals reversed the
trial court’s dismissal of the case and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The case is now proceeding in the trial
court.
In
February 2001, we were served with a complaint in Barker, et al. v. The
Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Mississippi, Civil Action No. 2000-587, and formerly known as Borden, et al. vs. The
Sherwin-Williams Company, et al.). The complaint seeks joint
and several liability for compensatory and punitive damages from more than 40
manufacturers and retailers of lead pigment and/or paint, including us, on
behalf of 18 adult residents of Mississippi who were allegedly exposed to lead
during their employment in construction and repair activities. The
claims of all but one of the plaintiffs have been dismissed without prejudice
with respect to us.
In May
2001, we were served with a complaint in City of Milwaukee v. NL Industries,
Inc. and Mautz Paint (Circuit Court, Civil Division, Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin, Case No. 01CV003066). Plaintiff sought compensatory and
equitable relief for lead hazards in Milwaukee homes, restitution for amounts it
has spent to abate lead and punitive damages. The case was tried in
May and June 2007, and in June 2007, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
NL. In December 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.
In
November 2003, we were served with a complaint in Lauren Brown v. NL Industries, Inc.,
et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law
Division, Case No. 03L 012425). The complaint seeks damages against
us and two local property owners on behalf of a minor for injuries alleged to be
due to exposure to lead paint contained in the minor’s residence. We
have denied all allegations of liability. The case is proceeding in
the trial court.
In January 2006, we were served with a
complaint in Hess, et al. v.
NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Missouri Circuit Court 22nd
Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City, Cause No. 052-11799). Plaintiffs
are two minor children who allege injuries purportedly caused by lead on the
surfaces of the home in which they resided. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages. We denied all allegations of
liability. The case is proceeding in the trial court.
In December 2006 and January 2007, we
were served with ten complaints by various cities in the State of
Ohio. Of these, eight were dismissed by the plaintiffs without
prejudice, one was dismissed by the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss and
no appeal was taken, and one remains pending: Columbus City, Ohio v.
Sherwin-Williams Company et al. (Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County,
Ohio, Case No. 06CVH-12-16480). The City of Columbus seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, detection and abatement in residences,
schools, hospitals and public and private buildings within the City which are
accessible to children and damages for funding of a public education campaign
and health screening programs. Plaintiff seeks judgments of joint and
several liability against the former pigment manufacturers and the
LIA. We intend to deny liability and to defend against all of the
claims vigorously.
In
January and February 2007, we were served with several complaints, the majority
of which were filed in Circuit Court in Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin. In some cases, complaints have been filed elsewhere in
Wisconsin. The plaintiff(s) are minor children who allege injuries
purportedly caused by lead on the surfaces of the homes in which they
reside. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages. The defendants in these cases include us, American Cyanamid
Company, Armstrong Containers, Inc., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,
Millennium Holdings, LLC, Atlanta Richfield Company, The Sherwin-Williams
Company, Conagra Foods, Inc. and the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family
Services. In some cases, additional lead paint manufacturers and/or
property owners are also defendants. We have denied all liability in
those cases in which we have been required to answer, and we intend to deny all
liability in other cases. Of these cases, nine have been dismissed
without prejudice, and 21 remain pending. Seven of the remaining
cases have been removed to Federal court. These cases are proceeding
at the trial court level.
In
January 2007, we were served with a complaint in Smith et al. v. 2328 University
Avenue Corp. et al. (Supreme Court, State of New York, Case No.
13470/02). Plaintiffs, two minors and their mother, allege
negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty and seek compensatory and
punitive damages for injuries purportedly caused by lead paint on the surfaces
of the apartment in which they resided. In March 2007, we filed a
motion to dismiss the claims, which was denied in October 2007. In
November 2007, we filed a notice of appeal.
In May
2007, we were served with a complaint in State of Ohio, ex rel. Marc Dann
Attorney General v. Sherwin-Williams Company et al (U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case No.
2:08-cv-079). The State seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
detection and abatement in residences, schools, hospitals and public and private
buildings within the State accessible to children and damages for funding of a
public education campaign and health screening programs. Plaintiff
seeks judgments of joint and several liability against the former pigment
manufacturers and the LIA. In January 2008, the case was removed to
Federal court, and in February, we filed a motion to dismiss the
claims.
In
October 2007, we were served with a complaint in Jones v. Joaquin Coe et al.
(Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, Case No.
ESX-L-9900-06). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for
injuries purportedly caused by lead paint on the surfaces of the apartments in
which he resided as a minor. Other defendants include three former
owners of the apartment building at issue in this case. In December
2007, NL denied all liability. The matter is proceeding in the trial
court.
In
addition to the foregoing litigation, various legislation and administrative
regulations have, from time to time, been proposed that seek to (a) impose
various obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigment and
lead-based paint with respect to asserted health concerns associated with the
use of such products and (b) effectively overturn court decisions in which we
and other pigment manufacturers have been successful. Examples of
such proposed legislation include bills which would permit civil liability for
damages on the basis of market share, rather than requiring plaintiffs to prove
that the defendant’s product caused the alleged damage, and bills which would
revive actions barred by the statute of limitations. While no
legislation or regulations have been enacted to date that are expected to have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity, the imposition of market share liability or other
legislation could have such an effect.
Environmental
matters and litigation
Our
operations are governed by various environmental laws and
regulations. Certain of our businesses are and have been engaged in
the handling, manufacture or use of substances or compounds that may be
considered toxic or hazardous within the meaning of applicable environmental
laws and regulations. As with other companies engaged in similar
businesses, certain of our past and current operations and products have the
potential to cause environmental or other damage. We have implemented
and continue to implement various policies and programs in an effort to minimize
these risks. Our policy is to maintain compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations at all of our plants and to strive to improve
environmental performance. From time to time, we may be subject to
environmental regulatory enforcement under U.S. and foreign statutes, the
resolution of which typically involves the establishment of compliance
programs. It is possible that future developments, such as stricter
requirements of environmental laws and enforcement policies, could adversely
affect our production, handling, use, storage, transportation, sale or disposal
of such substances. We believe that all of our facilities are in
substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws.
Certain
properties and facilities used in our former operations, including divested
primary and secondary lead smelters and former mining locations, are the subject
of civil litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under
federal and state environmental laws. Additionally, in connection
with past operating practices, we are currently involved as a defendant,
potentially responsible party (“PRP”) or both, pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“CERCLA”), and similar state laws
in various governmental and private actions associated with waste disposal
sites, mining locations, and facilities we or our predecessors currently or
previously owned, operated or were used by us or our subsidiaries, or their
predecessors, certain of which are on the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s (“EPA”) Superfund National Priorities List or similar state
lists. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal
injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural
resources. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for
substantial amounts. Although we may be jointly and severally liable
for these costs, in most cases we are only one of a number of PRPs who may also
be jointly and severally liable. In addition, we are a party to a
number of personal injury lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions alleging
claims related to environmental conditions alleged to have resulted from our
operations.
Environmental
obligations are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons
including:
·
|
complexity
and differing interpretations of governmental
regulations;
|
·
|
number
of PRPs and their ability or willingness to fund such allocation of
costs;
|
·
|
financial
capabilities of the PRPs and the allocation of costs among
them;
|
·
|
solvency
of other PRPs;
|
·
|
multiplicity
of possible solutions; and
|
·
|
number
of years of investigatory, remedial and monitoring activity
required.
|
In
addition, the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under
environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes regarding site
cleanup costs or allocation of costs among PRPs, solvency of other PRPs, the
results of future testing and analysis undertaken with respect to certain sites
or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of
hazardous substances at other sites, could cause our expenditures to exceed our
current estimates. Because we may be jointly and severally liable for
the total remediation cost at certain sites, the amount for which we are
ultimately liable may exceed our accruals due to, among other things, the
reallocation of costs among PRPs or the insolvency of one or more
PRPs. We cannot assure you that actual costs will not exceed accrued
amounts or the upper end of the range for sites for which estimates have been
made, and we cannot assure you that costs will not be incurred for sites where
no estimates presently can be made. Further, additional environmental
matters may arise in the future. If we were to incur any future
liability, this could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.
We record
liabilities related to environmental remediation obligations when estimated
future expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable. We adjust
our environmental accruals as further information becomes available to us or as
circumstances change. We generally do not discount estimated future
expenditures to their present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the
pay out. We recognize recoveries of remediation costs from other
parties, if any, as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. At
December 31, 2007, we have not recognized any receivables for
recoveries.
We do not
know and cannot estimate the exact time frame over which we will make payments
for our accrued environmental costs. The timing of payments depends
upon a number of factors including the timing of the actual remediation process;
which in turn depends on factors outside of our control. At each
balance sheet date, we estimate the amount of our accrued environmental costs
which we expect to pay within the next twelve months, and we classify this
estimate as a current liability. We classify the remaining accrued
environmental costs as a noncurrent liability.
On a
quarterly basis, we evaluate the potential range of our liability at sites where
we have been named as a PRP or defendant, including sites for which our
wholly-owned environmental management subsidiary, NL Environmental Management
Services, Inc. (“EMS”) has contractually assumed our obligations. See
Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. At December 31,
2007, we had accrued approximately $50 million for those environmental matters
which we believe are reasonably estimable. We believe that it is not
possible to estimate the range of costs for certain sites. The upper
end of the range of reasonably possible costs to us for sites for which we
believe it is possible to estimate costs is approximately $71 million, including
the amount currently accrued. We have not discounted these estimates
to present value.
At
December 31, 2007, there are approximately 20 sites for which we are not
currently able to estimate a range of costs. For these sites,
generally the investigation is in the early stages, and we are unable to
determine whether or not we actually had any association with the site, the
nature of our responsibility, if any, for the contamination at the site and the
extent of contamination at the site. The timing and availability of
information on these sites is dependent on events outside of our control, such
as when the party alleging liability provides information to us. At
certain of these previously inactive sites, we have received general and special
notices of liability from the EPA alleging that we, along with other PRPs, are
liable for past and future costs of remediating environmental contamination
allegedly caused by former operations conducted at the sites. These
notifications may assert that we, along with other PRPs, are liable for past
clean-up costs that could be material to us if we are ultimately found
liable.
In
December 2003, we were served with a complaint in The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma et al.
v. ASARCO Incorporated et al. (United States District Court, Northern
District of Oklahoma, Case No. 03-CII-846H(J)). The complaint alleges
public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, strict
liability, deceit by false representation and asserts claims under CERCLA and
RCRA against us and six other mining companies with respect to former operations
in the Tar Creek mining district in Oklahoma. The complaint seeks
class action status for former and current owners, and possessors of real
property located within the Quapaw Reservation. Among other things,
the complaint seeks actual and punitive damages from defendants. We
have moved to dismiss the complaint and have denied all of plaintiffs’
allegations. In June 2004, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for
unjust enrichment and fraud as well as one of the RCRA claims. In
February 2006, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that
plaintiffs waived their sovereign immunity to defendants’ counter claim for
contribution and indemnity. In April 2007, plaintiffs amended the
complaint to add certain claims against the United States, to add an additional
defendant, to remove certain bankrupt defendants, and to conform the complaint
to recent developments in the governing law. In June 2007, plaintiffs
amended the complaint to drop the class allegations. In December
2007, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Tribe’s medical
monitoring claims.
In
February 2004, we were served in Evans v. ASARCO (United
States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, Case No. 04-CV-94EA(M)), a
purported class action on behalf of two classes of persons living in the town of
Quapaw, Oklahoma: (1) a medical monitoring class of persons who have lived in
the area since 1994, and (2) a property owner class of residential, commercial
and government property owners. Four individuals are named as
plaintiffs, together with the mayor of the town of Quapaw, Oklahoma, and the
School Board of Quapaw, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege causes of action
in nuisance and seek a medical monitoring program, a relocation program,
property damages and punitive damages. We answered the complaint and
denied all of plaintiffs’ allegations. The trial court subsequently
stayed all proceedings in this case pending the outcome of a class certification
decision in another case that had been pending in the same U.S. District Court,
a case from which we have been dismissed with prejudice.
In
January 2006, we were served in Brown et al. v. NL Industries, Inc.
et al. (Circuit Court Wayne County, Michigan, Case No. 06-602096
CZ). Plaintiffs, property owners and other past or present residents
of the Krainz Woods Neighborhood of Wayne County, Michigan, allege causes of
action in negligence, nuisance, trespass and under the Michigan Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act with respect to a lead smelting
facility formerly operated by us and another defendant. Plaintiffs
seek property damages, personal injury damages, loss of income and medical
expense and medical monitoring costs. In February 2006, we filed a
petition to remove the case to federal court. In May 2007, we moved
to dismiss several plaintiffs who failed to respond to discovery
requests. In August 2007, the case was remanded to state
court.
In June
2006, we and several other PRPs received a Unilateral Administrative Order from
the EPA regarding a formerly-owned mine and milling facility located in Park
Hills, Missouri. The Doe Run Company is the current owner of the
site, and its predecessor purchased the site from us in approximately
1936. Doe Run is also named in the Order. In August 2006,
Doe Run ceased to negotiate with us regarding an appropriate allocation of costs
for the remediation. In 2007, the parties engaged in mediation
regarding an appropriate allocation of costs for the remediation and in January
2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle on allocation calling for
the preparation of a definitive agreement. If such an agreement is
not reached, we intend to pursue Doe Run for its share of the costs associated
with complying with the Order.
In June
2006, we were served with a complaint in Donnelly and Donnelly v. NL
Industries, Inc. (State of New York Supreme Court, County of Rensselaer,
Cause No. 218149). The plaintiffs, a man who claims to have worked near
one of our former sites in New York, and his wife allege that he suffered
injuries (which are not described in the complaint) as a result of exposure to
harmful levels of toxic substances as a result of our conduct. Plaintiffs
claim damages for negligence, product liability and derivative losses on the
part of the wife. In July 2006, we removed this case to Federal
Court. In August 2006, we answered the complaint and denied all of
the plaintiffs’ allegations. Discovery is proceeding. No
trial date has been set.
In July
2006, we were served with a complaint in Norampac Industries, Inc. v. NL
Industries, Inc. (United States District Court, Western District of New
York, Case No. 06-CV-0479). In February 2008, the parties settled the
matter and filed a stipulation with the court dismissing the case.
In
October 2006, we entered into a consent decree in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas, in which we agreed to perform remedial design
and remedial actions in OU-6, Waco Subsite, of the Cherokee County Superfund
Site. We conducted milling activities on the portion of the site
which we have agreed to remediate. We are also sharing responsibility
with other PRPs as well as EPA for remediating a tributary that drains the
portions of the site in which the PRPs operated. We will also
reimburse EPA for a portion of its past and future response costs related to the
site.
Other
litigation
In
addition to the litigation described above, we and our affiliates are also
involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent
(or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental
to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance
coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material
insurance coverage for environmental claims.
We
currently believe that the disposition of all claims and disputes, individually
or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the
accruals already provided.
Insurance
coverage claims
We are
involved in various legal proceedings with certain of our former insurance
carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers’ obligations to us
under insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and asbestos
lawsuits. In addition to information that is included below, we have
included certain of the information called for by this Item in Note 19 to our
Consolidated Financial Statements, and we are incorporating that information
here by reference.
The issue
of whether insurance coverage for defense costs or indemnity or both will be
found to exist for our lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a
variety of factors, and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will
be available. We have not considered any potential insurance recoveries
for lead pigment or asbestos litigation matters in determining related
accruals.
We have agreements with two former
insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of
our past and future lead pigment litigation defense costs. We are not able
to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for past
defense costs incurred by us, because of certain issues that arise regarding
which past defense costs qualify for reimbursement. See Note 19 to
our Consolidated Financial Statements. While we continue to seek
additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be successful in
obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. We have not
considered any additional potential insurance recoveries in determining accruals
for lead pigment or asbestos litigation matters. Any additional insurance
recoveries would be recognized when the receipt is probable and the amount is
determinable.
We have
settled insurance coverage claims concerning environmental claims with certain
of our principal former carriers. We do not expect further material
settlements relating to environmental remediation coverage.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION
OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
No matters were submitted to a vote of
security holders during the quarter ended December 31, 2007.
PART
II
ITEM 5. MARKET
FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
Our
common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol:
NL). As of February 29, 2008, there were approximately 3,650 holders
of record of our common stock. The following table sets forth the
high and low closing per share sales prices for our common stock for the periods
indicated, according to Bloomberg, and cash dividends paid during such
periods. On February 29, 2008 the closing price of our common stock
according to Bloomberg was $10.86.
High
|
Low
|
Cash
dividends
paid
|
||||||||||
Year
ended December 31, 2006
|
||||||||||||
First
Quarter
|
$ | 14.60 | $ | 10.34 | $ | .125 | ||||||
Second
Quarter
|
15.00 | 9.54 | .125 | |||||||||
Third
Quarter
|
11.09 | 9.18 | .125 | |||||||||
Fourth
Quarter
|
11.76 | 9.92 | .125 | |||||||||
Year
ended December 31, 2007
|
||||||||||||
First
Quarter
|
$ | 12.09 | $ | 10.02 | $ | .125 | ||||||
Second
Quarter
|
13.52 | 10.02 | .125 | |||||||||
Third
Quarter
|
13.05 | 9.49 | .125 | |||||||||
Fourth
Quarter
|
12.33 | 9.34 | .125 | |||||||||
January
1, 2008 through February 29, 2008
|
$ | 11.63 | $ | 8.65 | .125 |
__________________________
In
February 2008, our Board of Directors declared a first quarter 2008 cash
dividend of $.125 per share to shareholders of record as of March 11, 2008 to be
paid on March 27, 2008. However, the declaration and payment of
future dividends, and the amount thereof, is discretionary and is dependent upon
our results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements for
businesses, contractual restrictions and other factors deemed relevant by our
Board of Directors. The amount and timing of past dividends is not
necessarily indicative of the amount or timing of any future dividends which
might be paid. There are currently no contractual restrictions on the
amount of dividends which we may pay.
Performance
Graph - Set forth below is a
line graph comparing the yearly change in our cumulative total stockholder
return on our common stock against the cumulative total return of the S&P
500 Composite Stock Price Index and the S&P 500 Industrial Conglomerates
Index for the period from December 31, 2002 through December 31,
2007. The graph shows the value at December 31 of each year assuming
an original investment of $100 at December 31, 2002 and the reinvestment of
dividends.
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NL
common stock
|
$ | 100 | $ | 107 | $ | 213 | $ | 144 | $ | 111 | $ | 128 | ||||||||||||
S&P
500 Composite Stock Price Index
|
100 | 129 | 143 | 150 | 173 | 183 | ||||||||||||||||||
S&P
500 Industrial Conglomerates Index
|
100 | 135 | 161 | 155 | 168 | 176 |
The
information contained in the performance graph shall not be deemed “soliciting
material” or “filed” with the SEC, or subject to the liabilities of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act, except to the extent we specifically request
that the material be treated as soliciting material or specifically incorporate
this performance graph by reference into a document filed under the Securities
Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
Equity
compensation plan information
We have
an equity compensation plan, which was approved by our shareholders, providing
for the discretionary grant to our employees and directors of, among other
things, options to purchase our common stock and stock awards. As of
December 31, 2007, there were 96,850 options outstanding to purchase shares of
our common stock, and approximately 4,085,800 shares were available for future
grant or issuance. We do not have any equity compensation plans that
were not approved by our shareholders. See Note 14 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
ITEM
6. SELECTED FINANCIAL
DATA
|
The
following selected financial data should be read in conjunction with our
Consolidated Financial Statements and Item 7 - "Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations."
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||||||||
(In
millions, except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS DATA:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Component
products
|
$ | 173.9 | $ | 182.6 | $ | 186.4 | $ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | ||||||||||
Chemicals
(1)
|
1,008.2 | 559.1 | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
$ | 1,182.1 | $ | 741.7 | $ | 186.4 | $ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | |||||||||||
Income
from operations:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Component
products
|
$ | 9.0 | $ | 16.2 | $ | 19.3 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | ||||||||||
Chemicals
(1)
|
138.8 | 66.7 | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
$ | 147.8 | $ | 82.9 | $ | 19.3 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | |||||||||||
Equity
in earnings(losses) of Kronos (1)
|
$ | - | $ | 9.1 | $ | 25.7 | $ | 29.3 | $ | (23.9 | ) | |||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$ | (18.3 | ) | $ | 159.1 | $ | 33.3 | $ | 26.1 | $ | (1.7 | ) | ||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
(2.9 | ) | 3.5 | (.3 | ) | - | - | |||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | (21.2 | ) | $ | 162.6 | $ | 33.0 | $ | 26.1 | $ | (1.7 | ) | ||||||||
DILUTED
EARNINGS PER SHARE DATA:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$ | (.38 | ) | $ | 3.29 | $ | .68 | $ | .54 | $ | (.04 | ) | ||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
(.06 | ) | .07 | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | (.44 | ) | $ | 3.36 | $ | .68 | $ | .54 | $ | (.04 | ) | ||||||||
Dividends
per share (2)
|
$ | .80 | $ | .80 | $ | 1.00 | $ | .50 | $ | .50 | ||||||||||
Weighted
average common shares outstanding
|
47,795 | 48,419 | 48,587 | 48,584 | 48,590 | |||||||||||||||
BALANCE
SHEET DATA (at year end):
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 1,475.1 | $ | 552.5 | $ | 485.6 | $ | 529.3 | $ | 524.8 | ||||||||||
Long-term
debt, including current maturities (3)
|
382.5 | .1 | 1.4 | - | 50.0 | |||||||||||||||
Stockholders'
equity
|
128.5 | 234.2 | 220.3 | 248.5 | 246.5 | |||||||||||||||
STATEMENT
OF CASH FLOW DATA:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
cash provided (used) by:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Operating
activities
|
$ | 114.9 | $ | 92.7 | $ | (5.3 | ) | $ | 29.0 | $ | (2.8 | ) | ||||||||
Investing
activities
|
(27.4 | ) | 34.5 | 18.5 | (25.2 | ) | 17.5 | |||||||||||||
Financing
activities
|
(73.6 | ) | (28.7 | ) | (35.8 | ) | (27.7 | ) | (27.3 | ) |
(1)
|
We
ceased to consolidate the Kronos chemicals segment effective July 1, 2004,
at which time we commenced to account for our interest in Kronos by the
equity method.
|
(2)
|
Excludes
the distribution of shares of Kronos common stock at December 8,
2003. Amounts paid in 2003, 2005 (last three quarters), 2006
and 2007 were cash dividends, while amounts paid in 2004 and the first
quarter of 2005 were in the form of shares of Kronos common
stock.
|
(3)
|
Long-term
debt in 2007 represents a promissory note payable to an
affiliate. See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
Business
Overview
We are primarily a holding
company. We operate in the component products industry through our
majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. We also own a
non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. Both CompX (NYSE:
CIX) and Kronos (NYSE: KRO) file periodic reports with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
CompX is a leading manufacturer of
security products, precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support
systems used in the office furniture, transportation, postal, tool storage, home
appliance and a variety of other industries. CompX is also a leading
manufacturer of stainless steel exhaust systems, gauges and throttle controls
for the performance boat industry.
We account for our 36% non-controlling
interest in Kronos by the equity method. Kronos is a leading global
producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide
pigments. TiO2 is used
for a variety of manufacturing applications including plastics, paints, paper
and other industrial products.
Net
Income Overview
We had
a net loss of $1.7 million, or $.04 per diluted share, in 2007
compared to net income of $26.1 million, or $.54 per diluted share, in 2006 and
net income $33.0 million, or $.68 per diluted share, in 2005.
The
decrease in our diluted earnings per share from 2006 to 2007 is due primarily to
the net effects of:
·
|
lower
equity in earnings from Kronos in
2007;
|
·
|
lower
insurance recoveries in 2007;
|
·
|
higher
legal defense costs in 2007;
|
·
|
higher
securities transaction gains in 2007;
and
|
·
|
lower
component products income from operations in
2007.
|
The decrease in our diluted earnings
per share from 2005 to 2006 is due primarily to the net effects of:
·
|
certain securities
transactions gains in 2005;
|
·
|
higher
environmental and legal defense costs in
2006;
|
·
|
higher
equity in earnings of Kronos in 2006;
and
|
·
|
higher
component products income from operations in
2006.
|
Our net
loss in 2007 includes:
·
|
a
charge included in our equity in earnings of Kronos of $.43 per diluted
share related to a reduction in Kronos’ net deferred income tax asset
resulting from a change in German income tax rates as discussed
below;
|
·
|
a
charge included in our equity in earnings of Kronos of $.04 per diluted
share related to an adjustment of certain income tax attributes of Kronos
in Germany;
|
·
|
income
of $.30 per diluted share from a gain on sale of TIMET common
stock;
|
·
|
income
of $.08 per diluted share related to certain insurance recoveries we
received; and
|
·
|
income
of $.03 per diluted share due to a net reduction in our reserve for
uncertain tax positions.
|
Our
income from continuing operations in 2006 includes:
·
|
a
charge included in our equity in earnings of Kronos of $.07 per diluted
share related to Kronos’ redemption of its 8.875% Senior Secured
Notes;
|
·
|
income
included in our equity in earnings of Kronos of $.16 per diluted share
related to Kronos’ aggregate income tax benefit associated with the net
effects of the withdrawal of certain income tax assessments previously
made by the Belgian and Norwegian tax authorities, the resolution of
certain income tax issues related to German and Belgian operations and the
enactment of a reduction in the Canadian federal income tax rate;
and
|
·
|
income
of $.10 per diluted share related to certain insurance recoveries we
received.
|
Our
income from continuing operations in 2005 includes
·
|
income
related to our sale of Kronos common stock in market transactions of $.17
per diluted share;
|
·
|
income
from Kronos’ second quarter sale of its passive interest in a Norwegian
smelting operation of $.03 per diluted
share;
|
·
|
a
net non-cash income tax expense of $.03 per diluted share related to the
aggregate effects of developments with respect to certain non-U.S. income
tax audits of Kronos (principally in Germany, Belgium and Canada);
and
|
·
|
a
net non-cash income tax expense of $.02 per diluted share related to the
aggregate effects of developments with respect to certain U.S. income tax
audits of NL and a change in CompX’s permanent reinvestment conclusion
regarding certain non-U.S.
subsidiaries.
|
Outlook
for 2008
We
currently expect our net income in 2008 to be comparable to 2007 due to the net
effects of:
·
|
slightly
higher income from operations in 2008 as a result of lower legal costs and
improved component products
results;
|
·
|
higher
equity in earnings from Kronos as the unfavorable effect of lower income
from operations for Kronos in 2008 is expected to be more than offset by
the unfavorable effect of the reduction in German income taxes rates in
2007; and
|
·
|
lower
securities transaction gains in
2008.
|
Critical
accounting policies and estimates
The
accompanying "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations" is based upon our Consolidated Financial Statements,
which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP"). The preparation of
these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and
the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the reported
period. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including
those related to the recoverability of long-lived assets, pension and other
postretirement benefit obligations and the underlying actuarial assumptions
related thereto, the realization of deferred income tax assets and accruals for
litigation, income tax and other contingencies. We base our estimates
on historical experience and on various other assumptions we believe to be
reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for
making judgments about the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and
expenses. Actual results may differ significantly from
previously-estimated amounts under different assumptions or
conditions.
The
following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and
estimates used in the preparation of our Consolidated Financial
Statements:
·
|
Investments - We own
investments in certain companies that we account for as marketable
securities carried at fair value or that we account for under the equity
method. For all such investments, we record an impairment
charge when we believe that an investment has experienced a decline in
fair value below its cost basis (for marketable securities) or below its
carrying value (for equity method investees) that is other than
temporary. Future adverse changes in market conditions or poor
operating results of underlying investments could result in losses or an
inability to recover the carrying value of the investments that may not be
reflected in an investment's current carrying value, thereby possibly
requiring an impairment charge in the
future.
|
At
December 31, 2007, the carrying value (which equals fair value) of substantially
all of our marketable securities equaled or exceeded the cost basis of each of
such investments. With respect to our investment in Valhi, the $75.1
million carrying value exceeded its $23.2 million cost basis by about 223%, and
the $38.3 million carrying value of our investment in TIMET exceeded its $11.4
million cost basis by about 236%. At December 31, 2007, the $17.45
per share quoted market price of our investment in Kronos (our only equity
method investee) exceeded its per share net carrying value by about 208%.
·
|
Long-lived assets - We
account for our long-lived assets, in accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment
or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. We assess property and
equipment for impairment when circumstances indicate an impairment may
exist. Our determination is based upon, among other things, our
estimates of the amount of future net cash flows to be generated by the
long-lived asset and our estimates of the current fair value of the
asset. During 2007, CompX consolidated certain of its
operations and as a result no longer utilizes one of its owned
manufacturing facilities. In November of 2007, this facility
and related assets met the criteria for “assets held for sale” and we
concluded that the carrying amount of the assets exceeded estimated fair
value less costs to sell such assets, which resulted in a loss of $600,000
during the fourth quarter of 2007. See Note 22 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements. No other impairment
indicators were present during
2007.
|
·
|
Goodwill - In
accordance with SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and other Intangible
Assets, we review goodwill for impairment at least on an annual
basis. We also review goodwill for impairment when
circumstances indicate an impairment may exist. No goodwill
impairments were deemed to exist as a result of our annual impairment
review completed during the third quarter of 2007, as the estimated fair
value of each CompX reporting unit exceeded the net carrying value of the
respective reporting unit and the estimated fair value of EWI exceeded its
net carrying value. See Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. The estimated fair values of CompX’s three
reporting units are determined based on discounted cash flow
projections. Significant judgment is required in estimating
cash flows. Considerable management judgment is necessary to
evaluate the impact of operating changes and to estimate future cash
flows. Assumptions used in our impairment evaluations, such as
forecasted growth rates and cost of capital, are consistent with our
internal projections and operating
plans.
|
·
|
Benefit plans - We
maintain various defined benefit pension plans and postretirement benefits
other than pensions (“OPEB”). The amounts recognized as defined
benefit pension and OPEB expenses, and the reported amounts of prepaid and
accrued pension and OPEB costs, are actuarially determined based on
several assumptions, including discount rates, expected rates of return on
plan assets and expected health care trend rates. Variances
from these actuarially assumed rates will result in increases or
decreases, as applicable, in the recognized pension and OPEB obligations,
pension and OPEB expenses and funding requirements. These
assumptions are more fully described below under “Defined Benefit Pension
Plans” and “OPEB Plans.”
|
·
|
Income taxes - Deferred
taxes are recognized for future tax effects of temporary differences
between financial and income tax reporting in accordance with the
recognition criteria of SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes. We record a reserve for uncertain tax positions in
accordance with Financial Accounting Standards
Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertain Tax
Positions for tax positions where we believe that it is
more-likely-than-not our position will not prevail with the applicable tax
authorities. While
we have considered future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible
tax planning strategies in assessing the need for a valuation allowance,
it is possible that in the future we may change our estimate of the amount
of the deferred income tax assets that would more-likely-than-not be
realized in the future resulting in an adjustment to the deferred income
tax asset valuation allowance that would either increase or decrease, as
applicable, reported net income in the period such change in estimate was
made.
|
In
addition, we make an evaluation at the end of each reporting period as to
whether or not some or all of the undistributed earnings of our foreign
subsidiaries are permanently reinvested (as that term is defined by
GAAP). While we may have concluded in the past that some of such
undistributed earnings are permanently reinvested, facts and circumstances can
change in the future, and it is possible that a change in facts and
circumstances, such as a change in the expectation regarding the capital needs
of our foreign subsidiaries, could result in a conclusion that some or all of
such undistributed earnings are no longer permanently reinvested. In
such an event, we would be required to recognize a deferred income tax liability
in an amount equal to the estimated incremental U.S. income tax and withholding
tax liability that would be generated if all of such previously-considered
permanently reinvested undistributed earnings were distributed to the
U.S. In this regard, during 2005 CompX determined that certain of the
undistributed earnings of its non-U.S. operations could no longer be considered
permanently reinvested, and in accordance with GAAP CompX recognized an
aggregate $9.0 million provision for deferred income taxes on such undistributed
earnings of its foreign subsidiaries. See Note 15 to our Consolidated
Financial Statements.
·
|
Accruals - We record
accruals for environmental, legal and other contingencies and commitments
when estimated future expenditures associated with such contingencies
become probable, and the amounts can be reasonably
estimated. However, new information may become available, or
circumstances (such as applicable laws and regulations) may change,
thereby resulting in an increase or decrease in the amount required to be
accrued for such matters (and therefore a decrease or increase in reported
net income in the period of such
change).
|
Income
from operations is impacted by certain of these significant judgments and
estimates, as summarized below:
·
|
Chemicals
– allowance for doubtful accounts, reserves for obsolete or unmarketable
inventories, impairment of equity method investees; goodwill and other
long-lived assets, defined benefit pension and OPEB plans and loss
accruals; and
|
·
|
Component
products – reserves for obsolete or unmarketable inventories, impairment
of long-lived assets and loss
accruals.
|
In
addition, general corporate and other items are impacted by the significant
judgments and estimates for impairment of marketable securities and equity
method investments, defined benefit pension and OPEB plans, deferred income tax
asset valuation allowances and loss accruals.
Income
from operations
The following table shows the
components of our income from operations.
Year ended December 31,
|
% Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2005-06 | 2006-07 | ||||||||||||||||
(Dollars
in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
CompX
|
$ | 19.3 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | 6 | % | (25 | )% | ||||||||||
Insurance
recoveries
|
3.0 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 157 | % | (27 | )% | |||||||||||||
Corporate
expense and other, net
|
(19.7 | ) | (24.3 | ) | (31.3 | ) | 23 | % | 29 | % | ||||||||||
Income
(loss) from operations
|
$ | 2.6 | $ | 3.9 | $ | (10.3 | ) | 50 | % | (364 | )% |
CompX
International Inc.
Year ended December 31,
|
% Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2005-06 | 2006-07 | ||||||||||||||||
(Dollars
in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 186.3 | $ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | 2 | % | (7 | )% | ||||||||||
Cost
of goods sold
|
142.6 | 143.6 | 132.5 | 1 | % | (8 | )% | |||||||||||||
Gross
margin
|
43.7 | 46.5 | 45.2 | 6 | % | (3 | )% | |||||||||||||
Operating
costs and expenses
|
24.4 | 26.0 | 29.8 | 7 | % | 15 | % | |||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
$ | 19.3 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | 6 | % | (25 | )% | ||||||||||
Percentage
of net sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Cost
of goods sold
|
77 | % | 76 | % | 75 | % | ||||||||||||||
Gross
margin
|
23 | % | 24 | % | 25 | % | ||||||||||||||
Operating
costs and expenses
|
13 | % | 14 | % | 16 | % | ||||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
10 | % | 11 | % | 9 | % |
Net
Sales – Net
sales decreased in 2007 as compared to 2006 principally due to lower sales of
certain products to the office furniture market where Asian competitors have
established selling prices at a level below which we consider would return a
minimal margin as well as to lower order rates from many of our customers due to
unfavorable economic conditions, offset in part by the effect of sales price
increases for certain products to mitigate the effect of higher raw material
costs.
Our net
sales were higher in 2006 as compared to 2005 principally due to new sales
volumes generated from the August 2005 and April 2006 acquisitions of two marine
component businesses, which increased sales by $11.3 million in
2006. Other factors contributing to the increase in sales include
sales volume increases in security products resulting from improved demand and
the favorable effects of currency exchange rates on furniture component sales,
offset in part by sales volume decreases for certain furniture components
products due to competition from lower-priced Asian manufacturers.
Costs of
Goods Sold and Gross Margin - Cost of goods sold as
a percentage of net sales decreased from 2006 to 2007, and gross margin
percentage increased from the prior year. During 2007, we experienced
the favorable effects of an improved product mix and improvements in our
operating efficiency through cost reductions partially offset by the unfavorable
effect of relative changes in foreign currency exchange rates, lower sales to
the office furniture industry due to competition from lower-priced Asian
manufacturers and lower order rates from many of our customers due to
unfavorable economic conditions.
Cost of
goods sold decreased as a percentage of net sales in 2006 compared to 2005, and
as a result gross margin increased over the same period. The
resulting improvement in gross margin is primarily due to an improved product
mix, with a decline in lower-margin furniture components sales and an increase
in sales of higher margin security and marine component products, as well as a
continued focus on reducing costs, offset in part by higher raw material costs
and the unfavorable effect of changes in currency exchange rates.
Income from
operations – Our component products
income from operations for 2007 decreased $5.1 million, or 25% compared to 2006
and operating margins decreased to 9% in 2007 from 11% for 2006. As
compared to 2006, in 2007 we improved our product mix through our emphasis on
selling higher margin products and continued our focus on improving our
operating efficiency by reducing costs. However, these improvements
were more than offset by the unfavorable effects of $2.7 million in costs
associated with the move of three of our northern Illinois facilities into one
newly completed facility, a $2.4 million unfavorable effect of relative changes
in foreign currency exchange rates, lower sales to the office furniture industry
due to competition from lower-priced Asian manufacturers and lower order rates
from many of our customers due to unfavorable economic
conditions. The $2.7 million facility consolidation costs include
abnormal manufacturing costs such as physical move costs, equipment
installation, redundant labor and recruiting fees, and fixed asset write-downs
of $765,000. Approximately $600,000 of the write-down relates to the
classification of our vacated River Grove facility as an “asset held for
sale.” See Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Our
component products income from operations for 2006 increased $1.2 million, or 6%
compared to 2005 and operating margins increased to 11% in 2006 from 10% in
2005. Our operating income increased from 2005 to 2006 primarily due
to a more favorable product mix, the impact of two marine component products
acquisitions, and our ongoing focus on reducing costs partially offset by the
negative impact of changes in currency exchange rates and higher raw material
costs.
Currency - CompX has substantial
operations and assets located outside the United States (in Canada and
Taiwan). The majority of sales generated from CompX’s non-U.S.
operations are denominated in the U.S. dollar with the remainder denominated in
other currencies, principally the Canadian dollar and the New Taiwan
dollar. Most raw materials, labor and other production costs for our
non-U.S. operations are denominated primarily in local
currencies. Consequently, the translated U.S. dollar values of our
non-U.S. sales and operating results are subject to currency exchange rate
fluctuations which may favorably or unfavorably impact reported earnings and may
affect comparability of period-to-period operating results.
CompX’s
net sales were positively impacted while income from operations was negatively
impacted by currency exchange rates in the following amounts as compared to the
currency exchange rates in effect during the prior year.
Increase
(decrease) –
Year ended December
31,
|
||||||||
2005 vs. 2006
|
2006 vs. 2007
|
|||||||
Impact
on:
|
(In
thousands)
|
|||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 1,138 | $ | 886 | ||||
Income
from operations
|
(1,132 | ) | (2,384 | ) |
The
positive impact on sales relates to sales denominated in non-U.S. dollar
currencies translating into higher U.S. dollar sales due to a strengthening of
the local currency in relation to the U.S. dollar. The negative
impact on income from operations results from the U.S. dollar denominated sales
of non-U.S. operations converting into lower local currency amounts due to the
weakening of the U.S. dollar. This negatively impacts margin as it
results in less local currency generated from sales to cover the costs of
non-U.S. operations which are denominated in local currency.
General
– CompX’s
profitability primarily depends on its ability to utilize production capacity
effectively, which is affected by, among other things, the demand for its
products and the ability to control manufacturing costs, primarily comprising
labor costs and raw materials such as zinc, copper, coiled steel, stainless
steel and plastic resins. Raw material costs represent approximately
49% of our total cost of goods sold. During 2005, 2006 and 2007,
worldwide raw material costs increased significantly. We occasionally
enter into raw material supply arrangements to mitigate the short-term impact of
future increases in raw material costs. While these arrangements do
not necessarily commit us to a minimum volume of purchases, they generally
provide for stated unit prices based upon the achievement of specified volume
purchase levels. This allows us to stabilize raw material purchase
prices to a certain extent, provided the specified minimum monthly purchase
quantities are met. We enter into such arrangements for zinc, coiled
steel and plastic resins. We anticipate further significant changes
in the cost of these materials, from their current levels for the next
year. Materials
purchased on the spot market are sometimes subject to unanticipated and sudden
price increases. Due to the competitive nature of the markets served
by our products, it is often difficult to recover increases in raw material
costs through increased product selling prices or raw material
surcharges. Consequently, overall operating margins may be affected
by raw material cost pressures.
Outlook –
Demand is slowing across most of CompX’s product lines as customers react to the
condition of the overall economy. Asian-sourced competitive pricing
pressures are expected to continue to be a challenge for us as Asian
manufacturers, particularly those located in China, gain share in certain
markets. We believe the impact of this environment will be mitigated
through our ongoing initiatives to expand both new products and new market
opportunities. Our strategy in responding to the competitive pricing
pressure has included reducing production costs through product reengineering,
improving manufacturing processes through lean manufacturing techniques and
moving production to lower-cost facilities, including to our own Asian-based
manufacturing facilities. In addition, we continue to develop sources
for lower cost components for certain product lines to strengthen our ability to
meet competitive pricing when practical. We also emphasize and focus
on opportunities where we can provide value-added customer support services that
Asian-based manufacturers are generally unable to provide. As a
result of pursuing this strategy, we will forego certain sales in favor of
developing new products and new market opportunities where we believe the
combination of our cost control initiatives and value-added approach will
produce better results for our shareholders. We also expect raw
material cost volatility to continue during 2008, which we may not be able to
fully recover through price increases or surcharges due to the competitive
nature of the markets we serve.
Kronos
Worldwide, Inc.
Years ended December 31,
|
% Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2005-06 | 2006-07 | ||||||||||||||||
(Dollars
in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 1,196.7 | $ | 1,279.4 | $ | 1,310.3 | 7 | % | 2 | % | ||||||||||
Cost
of sales
|
869.2 | 968.9 | 1,058.9 | 11 | % | 9 | % | |||||||||||||
Gross
margin
|
$ | 327.5 | $ | 310.5 | $ | 251.4 | ||||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
$ | 176.0 | $ | 143.2 | $ | 84.9 | (19 | %) | (41 | %) | ||||||||||
Other
general corporate, net
|
7.6 | 3.6 | 2.5 | |||||||||||||||||
Loss
on prepayment of debt
|
- | (22.3 | ) | - | ||||||||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
(44.7 | ) | (43.2 | ) | (39.4 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Income
before income taxes
|
138.9 | 81.3 | 48.0 | |||||||||||||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
67.4 | (.7 | ) | 114.7 | ||||||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 71.5 | $ | 82.0 | $ | (66.7 | ) | |||||||||||||
Percentage
of net sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Cost
of sales
|
73 | % | 76 | % | 81 | % | ||||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
14 | % | 11 | % | 6 | % | ||||||||||||||
Equity
in earnings (losses) of Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
$ | 25.7 | $ | 29.3 | $ | (23.9 | ) | |||||||||||||
TiO2
operating statistics:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Sales
volumes*
|
478 | 511 | 519 | 7 | % | 1 | % | |||||||||||||
Production
volumes*
|
492 | 516 | 512 | 5 | % | (1 | %) | |||||||||||||
Change
in Ti02
net sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Ti02
product pricing
|
- | (4 | %) | |||||||||||||||||
Ti02
sales volume
|
7 | % | 1 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Ti02
product mix
|
- | - | ||||||||||||||||||
Changes
in currency exchange rates
|
- | 5 | % | |||||||||||||||||
Total
|
7 | % | 2 | % |
*
Thousands of metric tons
Net Sales
– Kronos’ net sales increased 2% or $30.9 million in 2007 compared to 2006,
primarily due to favorable foreign currency exchange rates and a 1% increase in
sales volumes offset somewhat by a 4% decrease in average TiO2 selling
prices. Kronos estimates the favorable effect of changes in currency
exchange rates increased net sales in 2007 by approximately $65 million, or 5%,
compared to 2006. Kronos’ sales volumes increased 1% in 2007
primarily due to higher sales volumes in European and export markets, which were
somewhat offset by lower sales volumes in North America. TiO2 sales
volumes in 2007 were a new record for Kronos.
Kronos’
net sales increased 7% or $82.7 million in 2006 compared to 2005 primarily due
to a 7% increase in TiO2 sales
volumes. Kronos estimates the favorable effect of changes in currency
exchange rates increased net sales by approximately $2 million, or less than 1%,
compared to the same period in 2005. Kronos’ sales volumes for 2006
were a new record for Kronos. The 7% increase in sales volumes in
2006 is primarily due to higher sales volumes in the United States, Europe and
in export markets, which were somewhat offset by lower sales volumes in
Canada. Sales volumes in Canada were negatively impacted by a
decrease in demand for TiO2 used in
paper products.
Cost of
sales – Kronos’
cost of sales increased 9% or $90 million in 2007 compared to 2006 due to higher
sales volumes, lower production volumes, and to the effects of changes in
currency exchange rates. Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales
increased to 81% in the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to 76% in the
same period of 2006 primarily due to the net effects of lower average selling
prices, lower utility costs, higher other manufacturing costs (including
maintenance) and slightly lower production volumes. TiO2 production
volumes decreased 1% in 2007 compared to 2006, which unfavorably impacted
Kronos’ income from operations comparisons. Operating rates were near
full capacity in both periods.
Kronos’
cost of sales increased $99.7 million or 11% in 2006 compared to 2005 primarily
due to the impact of increased sales volumes, a 15% increase in utility costs
(primarily energy costs), a 4% increase in raw material costs and to currency
fluctuations (primarily the Canadian dollar). The cost of sales as a
percentage of net sales increased to 76% for 2006 compared to 73% for 2005
primarily due to increases in raw material and other operating costs (including
energy costs).
The
negative impact of the increase in other operating costs and raw materials was
somewhat offset by the 5% increase in production volumes. TiO2 production
volumes in 2006 were also a new record for Kronos for the fifth consecutive
year. Operating rates were at full capacity in 2006 and near full
capacity in 2005. Kronos’ higher production volumes for 2006 were
aided by enhancing its processes and continued debottlenecking.
Income from
operations –
Kronos’ income from operations in 2007 declined by 41% to $84.9 million
compared to 2006; the income from operations as a percentage of net sales
decreased to 6% in 2007 from 11% for 2006. The decline in income from
operations is driven by the decline in gross margin, which decreased to 19% in
2007 compared to 24% in 2006. While Kronos’ sales volumes were higher
in 2007, gross margin decreased primarily because of lower average TiO2 selling
prices, lower production volumes and higher manufacturing costs, which more than
offset the impact of higher sales volumes. Changes in currency rates
have also negatively affected Kronos’ gross margin. Kronos estimates
the negative effect of changes in foreign currency exchange rates decreased
income from operations by approximately $4 million when comparing 2007 to
2006.
As a
percentage of net sales, selling, general and administrative expenses were
consistent at approximately 12% for both 2006 and 2007.
Kronos’ income from operations for 2006
declined by 19% to $143.2 million compared to 2005. As a percentage
of net sales, income from operations declined to 11% for 2006 from 14% in
2005. The decline in income from operations is driven by the decline
in gross margin, which fell to 24% in 2006 compared to 27% in
2005. While Kronos’ sales volumes were higher in 2006, gross margin
decreased as Kronos was not able to achieve pricing levels to offset the
negative impact of increased operating costs (primarily energy costs and raw
materials). Changes in currency rates have also negatively affected
Kronos’ gross margin. Kronos estimates the negative effect of changes
in foreign currency exchange rates decreased income from operations by
approximately $20 million.
As a
percentage of net sales, selling, general and administrative expenses were
relatively consistent at 12% for 2006 and 13% for 2005.
Other
non-operating income (expense) – In 2006, Kronos
issued euro 400 million principal amount of 6.5% Senior Secured Notes, and used
the proceeds to redeem its euro 375 million principal amount of 8.875% Senior
Secured Notes. As a result of prepayment of the 8.875% Senior Secured
Notes, Kronos recognized a $22.3 million pre-tax interest charge ($14.5 million
net of income tax benefit.)
Currency -
Kronos has substantial operations and assets located outside the United
States (primarily in Germany, Belgium, Norway and Canada). The
majority of sales generated from non-U.S. operations are denominated in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar, principally the euro, other major
European currencies and the Canadian dollar. A portion of sales
generated from non-U.S. operations are denominated in the U.S.
dollar. Certain raw materials, primarily titanium-containing
feedstocks, are purchased in U.S. dollars, while labor and other production
costs are denominated primarily in local currencies. Consequently,
the translated U.S. dollar value of foreign sales and operating results are
subject to currency exchange rate fluctuations, which may favorably or adversely
impact reported earnings and may affect the comparability of period-to-period
operating results. Overall, fluctuations in foreign currency exchange
rates had the following effects on Kronos’ net sales and income from operations
for the periods indicated.
Year
ended
December
31, 2006
vs. 2005
|
Year
ended
December
31, 2007
vs. 2006
|
|||||||
Increase (decrease), in
millions
|
||||||||
Impact
on:
|
||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 2 | $ | 65 | ||||
Income
from operations
|
(20 | ) | (4 | ) |
Interest
expense –
Kronos’ interest expense decreased $3.8 million from $43.2 million for 2006 to
$39.4 million for 2007 due to the issuance of the 6.5% Senior Secured Notes
during 2006, which was partially offset by unfavorable changes in currency
exchange rates in 2007 compared to 2006.
Interest
expense decreased $1.5 million from $44.7 million for 2005 to $43.2 million for
2006 due to the redemption of the 8.875% Senior Secured Notes, which was
partially offset by unfavorable changes in currency exchange rates in 2006
compared to 2005.
Kronos
has a significant amount of indebtedness denominated in the euro, primarily its
6.5% Senior Secured Notes. The interest expense Kronos recognizes
will vary with fluctuations in the euro exchange rate.
Income taxes –
Kronos’ provision for income taxes was $114.7 million in 2007 compared to
a benefit of $.7 million for 2006.
2007
includes:
·
|
a
non-cash charge of $90.8 million relating to a decrease in Kronos’ net
deferred income tax asset in Germany resulting from the reduction in
income tax rates;
|
·
|
a
non-cash charge of $8.7 million related to the adjustment of certain
German income tax attributes; and
|
·
|
a
non-cash income tax benefit of $2.0 million resulting from a net reduction
in Kronos’ reserve for uncertain tax
positions.
|
2006
includes:
·
|
an
income tax benefit of $21.7 million resulting from a favorable resolution
of certain income tax audits in Germany that resulted in an increase in
the amount of Kronos’ German trade tax net operating loss
carryforward;
|
·
|
an
income tax benefit of $10.7 million resulting from the reduction in
Kronos’ income tax contingency reserves related to favorable developments
with income tax audits in Belgium, Norway and
Germany;
|
·
|
an
income tax benefit of $1.4 million related to the favorable resolution of
certain income tax audit issues in Germany and Belgium;
and
|
·
|
a
$1.1 million benefit resulting from the enactment of a reduction in
Canadian income tax rates.
|
2005
includes:
·
|
an
income tax benefit of $11.5 million for the aggregate effect of favorable
developments with respect to income tax audits in Belgium and Canada;
and
|
·
|
a
charge of $17.5 million for the unfavorable effect related to the loss of
certain of Kronos’ German income tax
attributes.
|
Other
- On
September 22, 2005, the chloride-process TiO2 facility
operated by Kronos’ 50%-owned joint venture, Louisiana Pigment Company (“LPC”),
temporarily halted production due to Hurricane Rita. Although there
was minimal storm damage to core processing facilities, a variety of factors,
including loss of utilities, limited access and availability of employees and
raw materials, prevented the resumption of partial operations until October 9,
2005 and full operations until late 2005. The majority of LPC’s
property damage and unabsorbed fixed costs for periods in which normal
production levels were not achieved were covered by insurance, and Kronos’s lost
profits (subject to applicable deductibles) resulting from its share of the lost
production at LPC were also covered by insurance. Both Kronos and LPC
filed claims with their insurers and Kronos recognized a $1.8 million gain
related to its business interruption claim in the fourth quarter of
2006.
Outlook –
Kronos currently expects that income from operations will be lower in 2008
compared to 2007 as the favorable effects of anticipated modest improvements in
sales volume, production volume and average TiO2 selling
prices are expected to be more than offset by higher production costs,
particularly raw material and energy costs, as well as higher freight costs and
unfavorable currency effects. Kronos’ expectations as to the future
of the TiO2 industry
are based upon a number of factors beyond its control, including worldwide
growth of gross domestic product, competition in the marketplace, unexpected or
earlier than expected capacity additions and technological
advances. If actual developments differ from expectations, Kronos’
results of operations could be unfavorably affected.
Despite
Kronos’ expectation of lower income from operations in 2008, Kronos currently
expects to report net income in 2008 as compared to reporting a net loss in
2007, as the unfavorable effect of lower income from operations in 2008 is
expected to be more than offset by the unfavorable effect of the reduction in
German income taxes rates in 2007.
Kronos’
efforts to debottleneck its production facilities to meet long-term demand
continue to prove successful. Such debottlenecking efforts included,
among other things, the addition of finishing capacity in the German chloride
process facility and equipment upgrades and enhancements in several locations to
allow for reduced downtime for maintenance activities. Production
capacity has increased by approximately 30% over the past ten years due to
debottlenecking programs, with only moderate capital
expenditures. Kronos believes that its annual attainable production
capacity for 2008 is approximately 532,000 metric tons, with some slight
additional capacity expected to be available in 2009 through continued
debottlenecking efforts.
General
corporate and other items
Interest and
dividend income –
Interest and dividend income fluctuates in part based upon the amount of
funds invested and yields thereon. Interest and dividend income in
2007 decreased $362,000 from 2006 and decreased $610,000 in 2006 from 2005 due
primarily to lower levels of funds available for investment. We
expect that interest income will be lower in 2008 than 2007 due to lower average
levels of funds available for investment.
Securities
transactions - In
October 2007 we sold 800,000 shares of TIMET common stock to Valhi for $26.8
million. The transaction was approved by the independent members of
our board of directors. We recognized a $22.7 million pre-tax
security transaction gain in the fourth quarter of 2007 related to the
sale. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Net
securities transaction gains in 2005 relate principally to our sales of shares
of Kronos common stock in market transactions. See Note 2 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Insurance
recoveries –
Insurance recoveries in 2005, 2006 and 2007 relate to amounts we received from
certain of our former insurance carriers, and relate principally to the recovery
of prior lead pigment litigation defense costs incurred by us. We have
agreements with two former insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers
reimburse us for a portion of our past and future lead pigment litigation
defense costs, and the insurance recoveries in 2006 and 2007 include amounts we
received from these carriers. We are not able to determine how much we
will ultimately recover from these carriers for past defense costs we incurred
because of certain issues that arise regarding which past defense costs qualify
for reimbursement. Insurance recoveries in 2005 and 2006 also include
amounts we received for prior legal defense and indemnity coverage for certain
of our environmental expenditures. We do not expect to receive any further
material insurance settlements relating to environmental remediation
matters.
While we
continue to seek additional insurance recoveries for lead pigment and asbestos
litigation matters, we do not know if we will be successful in obtaining
reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. We have not
considered any additional potential insurance recoveries in determining accruals
for lead pigment litigation matters. Any additional insurance recoveries
would be recognized when the receipt is probable and the amount is
determinable. See Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Corporate
expenses –
Corporate expenses were $31.3 million in 2007, $7.1 million, or 29%,
higher than in 2006 primarily due to higher litigation and related
expense. Corporate expenses were $24.2 million in 2006, $4.4 million,
or 22%, higher than in 2005 primarily due to higher litigation and related
expenses and to higher environmental remediation expenses. We expect
that net general corporate expenses in 2008 will be lower than in 2007,
primarily due to lower expected litigation and related expenses.
Obligations for environmental
remediation costs are difficult to assess and estimate, and it is possible that
actual costs for environmental remediation will exceed accrued amounts or that
costs will be incurred in the future for sites in which we cannot currently
estimate our liability. If these events were to occur in 2008, our
corporate expenses would be higher than we currently estimate. See
Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
We have certain real property,
including some subject to environmental remediation, which could be sold in the
future for a profit. See Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Interest
expense -
Substantially all of our interest expense in 2005, 2006 and 2007 relates
to CompX. Interest expense increased $541,000 in 2007 due to the
$52.6 million promissory note entered into by CompX upon the repurchase and/or
cancellation of 2.7 million shares of its Class A common stock in October
2007. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. Interest expense declined $117,000 in 2006 compared to
2005 due primarily to lower average levels of outstanding debt.
Provision for
income taxes - We
recognized an income tax benefit of $8.3 million in 2007 compared to a provision
of $8.9 million and $14.7 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively. In
accordance with GAAP, we recognize deferred income taxes on our undistributed
equity in earnings of Kronos. We do not recognize, and we are not
required to pay, income taxes to the extent we receive dividends from
Kronos. Because we and Kronos are part of the same U.S. federal
income tax group, dividends we receive from Kronos are nontaxable to
us. Therefore, our effective income tax rate will generally be lower
than the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate.
See Note
15 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for a tabular reconciliation of our
statutory tax expense to our actual tax expense. Some of the more
significant items impacting this reconciliation are summarized
below.
Our
income tax benefit in 2007 includes a $1.3 million benefit related to a net
reduction in our reserve for uncertain tax positions primarily due to a third
quarter recognition of unrecognized tax benefits because of statue of limitation
expirations.
Our
income tax expense in 2006 includes a $142,000 benefit resulting from the
enactment of a reduction in Canadian income tax rates.
Our
income tax expense in 2005 includes an income tax benefit of $7.4 million
related to the favorable effect of developments with respect to certain of our
income tax items and a provision for income taxes of $9.0 million related to a
change in CompX’s permanent reinvestment conclusion regarding certain of its
non-U.S. subsidiaries.
Minority
interest –
Minority interest in earnings decreased $844,000 from $3.5 million in 2006 to
$2.6 million in 2007 primarily due to our increased ownership percentage in
CompX that resulted from CompX’s repurchase and/or cancellation of its shares
from TIMET. See Note 2. Minority interest in earnings
increased $3.1 million from $352,000 in 2005 to $3.5 million in 2006 due to
higher earnings of CompX in 2006. See Note 13 to our Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Discontinued
operations - See
Note 22 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Related party
transactions – We are a party to certain transactions with related
parties. See Notes 2 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. It is our policy to engage in transactions with related
parties on terms, in our opinion, no less favorable to us than we could obtain
from unrelated parties.
Recent accounting
pronouncements -
See Note 21 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Assumptions
on defined benefit pension plans and OPEB plans
Defined benefit
pension plans - We maintain various defined benefit pension plans in the
U.S. and the U.K., and Kronos maintains various defined benefit pension plans in
Europe, Canada and the U.S. See Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
We
account for our defined benefit pension plans in accordance with SFAS No. 87,
Employer’s Accounting for
Pensions, as amended. Under SFAS No. 87, defined benefit
pension plan expense and prepaid and accrued pension costs are each recognized
based on certain actuarial assumptions, principally the assumed discount rate,
the assumed long-term rate of return on plan assets and the assumed increase in
future compensation levels.
In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 158, Employers’ Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans. SFAS No. 158 requires
us to recognize an asset or liability for the over or under funded status of
each of our individual defined benefit pension plans on our Consolidated Balance
Sheets. This standard does not change the existing recognition and
measurement requirements that determine the amount of periodic benefit cost we
recognize in net income. We adopted the asset and liability
recognition and disclosure requirements of this standard effective December 31,
2006 on a prospective basis, in which we recognized through other comprehensive
income all of our prior unrecognized gains and losses and prior service costs or
credits, net of tax, as of December 31, 2006.
Prior to
December 31, 2007, we used a September 30 measurement date. Effective
December 31, 2007, we now use a December 31 measurement date, concurrent with
our adoption of the measurement date requirements of SFAS No. 158 effective
December 31, 2007. See Note 16 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
We
recognized consolidated defined benefit pension plan income of $700,000 in 2005,
$2.2 million in 2006 and $2.5 million in 2007. The amount of funding
requirements for these defined benefit pension plans is generally based upon
applicable regulations (such as ERISA in the U.S.), and will generally differ
from pension expense recognized under SFAS No. 87 for financial reporting
purposes. Contributions made to all of our plans aggregated $700,000
in 2005, $1.3 million in 2006 and $900,000 in 2007.
The discount rates we use for
determining defined benefit pension expense and the related pension obligations
are based on an approach of cash flow matching to a portfolio of high quality
corporate bonds in the applicable country where the defined benefit pension
benefits are being paid. In addition, we receive advice about
appropriate discount rates from our third-party actuaries, who may in some cases
utilize proprietary cash flow matching models. The discount rates are
adjusted as of each measurement date to reflect then-current interest rates on
such long-term bond portfolios. Such discount rates are used to
determine the actuarial present value of the pension obligations as of the
measurement date, and such discount rates are also used to determine the
interest component of defined benefit pension expense for the following
year.
At
December 31, 2007, approximately 82% of the projected benefit obligations
related to our plans in the U.S, with the remainder related to a plan in the
United Kingdom associated with a former disposed business unit. We
use different discount rate assumptions in determining our defined benefit
pension plan obligations and expense for the plans we maintain in the United
States and the U.K. as the interest rate environment differs from country to
country.
We used
the following discount rates for our defined benefit pension plans:
Discount
rates used for:
|
||||||||||||
Obligations
at
December
31, 2005 and expense in 2006
|
Obligations
at
December
31, 2006
and
expense in 2007
|
Obligations
at
December
31, 2007 and expense in 2008
|
||||||||||
U.S.
|
5.5 | % | 5.8 | % | 6.1 | % | ||||||
United
Kingdom
|
5.0 | % | 5.0 | % | 5.8 | % |
The assumed long-term rate of return on plan assets represents the estimated average rate of earnings on the funds invested or to be invested from the plans’ assets provided to fund the benefit payments inherent in the projected benefit obligations. Unlike the discount rate, which is adjusted each year based on changes in current long-term interest rates, the assumed long-term rate of return on plan assets will not necessarily change based upon the actual, short-term performance of the plan assets in any given year. Defined benefit pension income (expense) each year is based upon the assumed long-term rate of return on plan assets for each plan and the actual fair value of the plan assets as of the beginning of the year. Differences between the expected return on plan assets for a given year and the actual return are deferred and amortized over future periods based either upon the expected average remaining service life of the active plan participants (for plans for which benefits are still being earned by active employees) or the average remaining life expectancy of the inactive participants (for plans in which benefits are not still being earned by active employees).
At
December 31, 2007, approximately 87% of the plan assets related to plan assets
for our plans in the U.S., with the remainder related to the
U.K. plan. We use different long-term rates of return on
plan asset assumptions for our U.S. and U.K. defined benefit pension plan
expense because the respective plan assets are invested in a different mix of
investments and the long-term rates of return for different investments differ
from country to country.
In
determining the expected long-term rate of return on plan asset assumptions, we
consider the long-term asset mix (e.g. equity vs. fixed income) for the assets
for each of our plans and the expected long-term rates of return for such asset
components. In addition, we receive advice about appropriate
long-term rates of return from our third-party actuaries. At December
31, 2006 and 2007, substantially all of the assets attributable to U.S. plans
were invested in the Combined Master Retirement Trust (“CMRT”), a collective
investment trust sponsored by Contran to permit the collective investment by
certain master trusts which fund certain employee benefits plans sponsored by
Contran and certain of its affiliates.
The
CMRT’s long-term investment objective is to provide a rate of return exceeding a
composite of broad market equity and fixed income indices (including the S&P
500 and certain Russell indices) utilizing both third-party investment managers
as well as investments directed by Mr. Harold Simmons. Mr. Simmons is
the sole trustee of the CMRT. The trustee of the CMRT, along with the
CMRT's investment committee, of which Mr. Simmons is a member, actively manages
the investments of the CMRT. The trustee and investment committee
periodically change the asset mix of the CMRT based upon, among other things,
advice they receive from third-party advisors and their expectations as to what
asset mix will generate the greatest overall return. For the years
ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the assumed long-term rate of return for
plan assets invested in the CMRT was 10%. In determining the
appropriateness of the rate of return assumption, we considered, among other
things, the historical rates of return for the CMRT, the current and projected
asset mix of the CMRT and the investment objectives of the CMRT's
managers. During the 20-year history of the CMRT from its inception
in 1987 through December 31, 2007, the average annual rate of return has been
approximately 14% (including a 17% return for 2006 and an 11% return in
2007).
The CMRT
weighted-average asset allocation by asset category was as follows:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
U.S.
equity securities
|
86 | % | 90 | % | ||||
International
equity securities
|
7 | 8 | ||||||
Real
estate, fixed income, cash and other
|
7 | 2 | ||||||
Total
|
100 | % | 100 | % |
We
regularly review our actual asset allocation for each of our plans, and will
periodically rebalance the investments in each plan to more accurately reflect
the targeted allocation when considered appropriate.
Our assumed long-term rates of return
on plan assets for 2005, 2006 and 2007 were as follows:
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
U.S.
|
10.0 | % | 10.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||
United
Kingdom
|
6.5 | % | 6.5 | % | 6.5 | % |
We currently expect to utilize the same
long-term rate of return on plan asset assumptions in 2008 as we used in 2007
for purposes of determining the 2008 defined benefit pension plan income
(expense).
To the extent that a plan’s particular
pension benefit formula calculates the pension benefit in whole or in part based
upon future compensation levels, the projected benefit obligations and the
pension expense would be based in part upon expected increases in future
compensation levels. However, we have no active employees participating in our
defined benefit pension plans. Such plans are closed to additional
participants and assumptions regarding future compensation levels are not
applicable for our plans.
In addition to the actuarial
assumptions discussed above, because we maintain a defined benefit pension plan
in the U.K., the amount of recognized defined benefit pension expense and the
amount of prepaid and accrued pension costs will vary based upon relative
changes in foreign currency exchange rates.
A
reduction in the assumed discount rate generally results in an actuarial loss,
as the actuarially-determined present value of estimated future benefit payments
will increase. Conversely, an increase in the assumed discount rate
generally results in an actuarial gain. In addition, an actual return on
plan assets for a given year that is greater than the assumed return on plan
assets results in an actuarial gain, while an actual return on plan assets that
is less than the assumed return results in an actuarial loss. Other actual
outcomes that differ from previous assumptions, such as individuals living
longer or shorter than assumed in mortality tables which are also used to
determine the actuarially-determined present value of estimated future benefit
payments, changes in such mortality table themselves or plan amendments, will
also result in actuarial losses or gains. Accordingly, under GAAP we do
not recognize all of such actuarial gains and losses in earnings currently;
instead these amounts are deferred and amortized into income in the future as
part of net periodic defined benefit pension cost. However, upon
adoption of SFAS No. 158 effective December 31, 2006, these amounts are
recognized in other comprehensive income. See Note 16 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, any actuarial
gains generated in future periods would reduce the negative amortization effect
of any cumulative unrecognized actuarial losses, while any actuarial losses
generated in future periods would reduce the favorable amortization effect of
any cumulative unrecognized actuarial gains.
During
2007, all of our defined benefit pension plans generated a combined net
actuarial gain of approximately $1.7 million. This actuarial gain
resulted primarily from the general overall increase in the assumed discount
rates and the actual return on plan assets in excess of the assumed
return.
Based on the actuarial assumptions
described above and our current expectation for what actual average foreign
currency exchange rates will be during 2008, we expect that our defined benefit
pension income will approximate $3 million in 2008. In comparison, we
expect to be required to make approximately $700,000 of contributions to such
plans during 2008.
As noted above, defined benefit pension
expense and the amounts recognized as accrued pension costs are based upon the
actuarial assumptions discussed above. We believe that all of the
actuarial assumptions used are reasonable and appropriate. If we had
lowered the assumed discount rate by 25 basis points for all of our plans as of
December 31, 2007, our aggregate projected benefit obligations would have
increased by approximately $1.0 million at that date. Such a change
would not materially impact our defined benefit pension income for
2008. Similarly, if we lowered the assumed long-term rate of return
on plan assets by 25 basis points for all of our plans, our defined benefit
pension income would be expected to decrease by approximately $140,000 during
2008.
OPEB plans
- We
currently provide certain health care and life insurance benefits for eligible
retired employees. See Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. We account for such OPEB costs under SFAS No. 106, Employers Accounting for
Postretirement Benefits other than Pensions, as amended. Under
SFAS No. 106, OPEB expense and accrued OPEB costs are based on certain actuarial
assumptions, principally the assumed discount rate and the assumed rate of
increases in future health care costs.
In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 158, Employers’ Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans. SFAS No. 158 requires us
to recognize an asset or liability for the over or under funded status of each
of our individual defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans on
our Consolidated Balance Sheets. This standard does not change the
existing recognition and measurement requirements that determine the amount of
periodic benefit cost we recognize in net income. We adopted the
asset and liability recognition and disclosure requirements of this standard
effective December 31, 2006 on a prospective basis, in which we recognized
through other comprehensive income all of our prior unrecognized gains and
losses and prior service costs or credits, net of tax, as of December 31,
2006.
We
recognized consolidated OPEB expense of $558,000 in 2005, $622,000 in 2006 and
$629,000 in 2007. Similar to defined benefit pension benefits, the
amount of funding will differ from the expense recognized for financial
reporting purposes, and contributions to the plans to cover benefit payments
aggregated $2.2 million in 2005, $1.9 million in 2006 and $1.5 million in
2007. Substantially all of our accrued OPEB cost relates to benefits
being paid to current retirees and their dependents, and no OPEB benefits are
being earned by current employees. As a result, the amount recognized
for OPEB expense for financial reporting purposes has been, and is expected to
continue to be, significantly less than the amount of OPEB benefit payments made
each year. Accordingly, the amount of accrued OPEB expense is
expected to decline gradually.
The assumed discount rates we utilize
for determining OPEB expense and the related accrued OPEB obligations are
generally based on the same discount rates we utilize for our defined benefit
pension plans.
In
estimating the health care cost trend rate, we consider our actual health care
cost experience, future benefit structures, industry trends and advice from our
third-party actuaries. In certain cases, we have the right to pass on
to retirees all or a portion of increases in health care
costs. During each of the past three years, we have assumed that the
relative increase in health care costs will generally trend downward over the
next several years, reflecting, among other things, assumed increases in
efficiency in the health care system and industry-wide and plan-design cost
containment initiatives. For example, at December 31, 2007 the
expected rate of increase in future health care costs ranges from 8.5% in 2008,
declining to 5.5% in 2014 and thereafter.
Based on the actuarial assumptions
described above and our current expectation for what actual average foreign
currency exchange rates will be during 2008, we expect that our consolidated
OPEB expense will approximate $500,000 in 2008. In comparison, we
expect to be required to make approximately $1.4 million of contributions to
such plans during 2008.
We believe that all of the actuarial
assumptions used are reasonable and appropriate. If we had lowered
the assumed discount rate by 25 basis points for all of our OPEB plans as of
December 31, 2007, our aggregate projected benefit obligations would have
increased by approximately $200,000 at that date, and our OPEB expense would be
expected to decrease by less than $50,000 during 2008. Similarly, if
the assumed future health care cost trend rate had been increased by 100 basis
points, our accumulated OPEB obligations would have increased by approximately
$600,000 at December 31, 2007, and OPEB expense would have increased by less
than $50,000 in 2007.
Foreign
operations
CompX -
CompX has substantial operations and assets located outside the United
States, principally furniture component product operations in Canada and
Taiwan. At December 31, 2007, CompX had substantial net assets
denominated in the Canadian dollar and the New Taiwan dollar.
Kronos -
Kronos has substantial operations located outside the United States
(principally Europe and Canada) for which the functional currency is not the
U.S. dollar. As a result, the reported amount of our net investment
in Kronos will fluctuate based upon changes in currency exchange
rates. At December 31, 2007, Kronos had substantial net assets
denominated in the euro, Canadian dollar, Norwegian kroner and British pound
sterling.
LIQUIDITY
AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Consolidated
cash flows
Operating
activities
Trends in cash flows from operating
activities, excluding the impact of significant asset dispositions and relative
changes in assets and liabilities, are generally similar to trends in our income
from operations.
Cash
flows from operating activities decreased from $29.0 million provided by
operating activities in 2006 to $2.8 million used in operating activities in
2007. This $31.8 million decrease is due primarily to the net effects
of:
·
|
higher
cash paid for income taxes in 2007 of $23.3 million due in part to income
tax payments we made related to the capital gain generated from Valhi’s
distribution of TIMET common stock in March 2007 (as discussed in Note 4
to the Consolidated Financial Statements) and the U.S. income taxes
related to a higher amount of dividends CompX received from its non-U.S.
subsidiaries in 2007;
|
·
|
higher
cash paid for legal expenses in 2007 of $8.5
million;
|
·
|
lower
cash received for insurance recoveries in 2007 of $2.0 million;
and
|
·
|
lower
cash paid for environmental liabilities in 2007 of $3.4
million.
|
Cash
flows from operating activities increased from $5.3 million used in operating
activities in 2005 to $29.0 million of cash provided by operating activities in
2006. This $34.3 million increase is primarily due to:
·
|
lower
cash paid for income taxes in 2006 of $36.1 due in part to a $21 million
tax payment we made in 2005 to settle a previously-reported income tax
audit in the U.S. and to relative changes in the timing of estimated tax
payments; and
|
·
|
lower
cash paid for environmental remediation expenditures of $8.6
million.
|
We do not
have complete access to CompX’s cash flows in part because we do not own 100% of
CompX. A detail of our consolidated cash flows from operating
activities is presented in the table below. Intercompany dividends
have been eliminated.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Cash
provided by (used in) operating
activities:
|
||||||||||||
CompX
|
$ | 20.0 | $ | 27.4 | $ | 11.9 | ||||||
NL
Parent and wholly-owned subsidiaries
|
(20.1 | ) | 6.9 | (9.3 | ) | |||||||
Eliminations
|
(5.2 | ) | (5.3 | ) | (5.4 | ) | ||||||
Total
|
$ | (5.3 | ) | $ | 29.0 | $ | (2.8 | ) |
Relative
changes in working capital can have a significant effect on cash flows from
operating activities. Our average days’-sales-outstanding (“DSO”) at
December 31, 2007 was 44 days compared to 41 days at December 31,
2006. The increase is primarily due to the timing of collections on
the higher accounts receivable balance as of December 31, 2007. For
comparative purposes, our average DSO was relatively flat at 41 days for
December 31, 2006 and 40 days at December 31, 2005. Our average
number of days-in-inventory (“DII”) was 63 days at December 31, 2007 and 57 days
at December 31, 2006. The increase in DII is primarily due to the
higher cost of commodity raw material during 2007. For comparative
purposes our average DII was 57 days at December 31, 2006 and 59 days at
December 31, 2005. The decrease is primarily due to reductions in raw
materials during 2006 as we utilized the higher than normal balance in ending
inventory at the end of 2005 that was acquired during 2005 as part of our
efforts to mitigate the impact of volatility in raw material
prices.
Investing
activities
Net cash
provided by investing activities totaled $17.5 million in 2007 compared to net
cash used of $25.2 million in 2006 and net cash provided of $18.5 million in
2005. Capital expenditures, substantially all of which relate to
CompX, were $10.7 million in 2005, $12.1 million in 2006 and $14.0 million in
2007 and primarily emphasized improving CompX’s manufacturing facilities and
investing in manufacturing equipment which utilizes new technologies and
increases automation of the manufacturing process to provide for increased
productivity and efficiency. During 2007, CompX constructed a new
facility and consolidated three of its northern Illinois facilities into one
facility at a cost of approximately $9.6 million. Also during
2007:
·
|
We
sold 800,000 shares of TIMET common stock to Valhi at a cash price of
$33.50 per share, or an aggregate of $26.8
million;
|
·
|
We
had additional net proceeds from sales of other marketable securities of
$4.2 million; and
|
·
|
CompX
purchased approximately 179,100 shares of its common stock in market
transactions for $3.3 million; and
|
During
2006:
·
|
CompX
acquired a marine component products company for $9.8 million, net of cash
acquired; and
|
·
|
we
purchased 147,500 shares of CompX common stock in market transactions for
$2.3 million.
|
During
2005:
·
|
we
sold shares of Kronos common stock in market transactions for $19.2
million;
|
·
|
CompX
received a net $18.1 million from the sale of its Thomas Regout European
operations (which had approximately $4.0 million of cash at the date of
disposal);
|
·
|
we
acquired CompX common stock in market transactions for $3.6
million;
|
·
|
we
collected $10 million on a loan to an affiliate;
and
|
·
|
CompX
acquired a marine components products company for an aggregate of $7.3
million.
|
In
addition, during 2007 CompX repurchased or cancelled a net 2.7 million shares of
its Class A common stock held by TIMET, an affiliate, for $19.50 per share, or
aggregate consideration of $52.6 million, which was paid in the form of a
consolidated promissory note. See Notes 2 and 17 to our Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Financing
activities
We paid
cash dividends of $24.3 million in 2007 and 2006 compared to $36.4 million in
2005. During 2005, we paid our first regular quarterly dividend of
$.25 per share in the form of shares of Kronos common stock, while we paid cash
dividends in the second, third and fourth quarters. In 2006, we
reduced our regular quarterly dividend to $.125 per share.
Other
financing cash flows over the past three years consisted principally
of:
·
|
CompX
paid cash dividends to minority interests in the amount of $2.3 million in
2005 and 2006 and $1.9 million in
2007;
|
·
|
CompX
prepaid $1.6 million of indebtedness during 2006 assumed in its August
2005 business acquisition and repaid $2.6 million on its note payable to
TIMET in 2007;
|
·
|
we
received proceeds from the exercise of options to purchase CompX common
stock of $.6 million in 2005, $.3 million in 2006 and $1.4 million in
2007; and
|
·
|
we
received proceeds from the exercise of options to purchase NL common stock
of $2.5 million in 2005 and $.1 million in
2006.
|
Provisions
contained in certain of CompX’s and Kronos’ credit agreements could result in
the acceleration of the applicable indebtedness prior to its stated maturity for
reasons other than defaults from failing to comply with typical financial
covenants. For example, certain credit agreements allow the lender to
accelerate the maturity of the indebtedness upon a change of control (as
defined) of the borrower. In addition, certain credit agreements
could result in the acceleration of all or a portion of the indebtedness
following a sale of assets outside the ordinary course of business.
Liquidity
Our
primary source of liquidity on an ongoing basis is our cash flow from operating
activities, including the dividends Kronos pays to us. We generally
use these amounts to (i) fund capital expenditures, (ii) pay ongoing
environmental remediation and legal expenses and (iii) provide for the payment
of dividends.
At
December 31, 2007, there were no amounts outstanding under CompX’s $50 million
revolving credit facility that matures in January 2009. See Note 12
to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In
October 2007, CompX repurchased and/or cancelled a net 2.7 million shares of its
Class A common stock from TIMET for aggregate consideration of $52.6 million,
which we paid in the form of a promissory note. See Note 12 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
At December 31, 2007, we had an
aggregate of $51.9 million of restricted and unrestricted cash, cash equivalents
and debt securities. A detail by entity is presented in the table
below.
CompX
|
$ | 18.4 | ||
NL
Parent and wholly-owned subsidiaries
|
33.5 | |||
Total
|
$ | 51.9 |
We
routinely compare our liquidity requirements and alternative uses of capital
against the estimated future cash flows we expect to receive from our
subsidiaries and affiliates. As a result of this process, we have in
the past and may in the future seek to raise additional capital, incur debt,
repurchase indebtedness in the market or otherwise, modify our dividend
policies, consider the sale of our interests in our subsidiaries, affiliates,
business units, marketable securities or other assets, or take a combination of
these and other steps, to increase liquidity, reduce indebtedness and fund
future activities. Such activities have in the past and may in the
future involve related companies.
We periodically evaluate acquisitions
of interests in or combinations with companies (including related companies)
perceived by management to be undervalued in the marketplace. These
companies may or may not be engaged in businesses related to our current
businesses. We intend to consider such acquisition activities in the
future and, in connection with this activity, may consider issuing additional
equity securities and increasing indebtedness. From time to time, we
also evaluate the restructuring of ownership interests among our respective
subsidiaries and related companies.
Based
upon our expectations of our operating performance, and the anticipated demands
on our cash resources we expect to have sufficient liquidity to meet our
short-term obligations (defined as the twelve-month period ending December 31,
2008) and our long-term obligations (defined as the five-year period ending
December 31, 2012, our time period for long-term budgeting). If
actual developments differ from our expectations, our liquidity could be
adversely affected.
Capital
Expenditures
We
currently expect that our aggregate capital expenditures for CompX in 2008 will
be approximately $12.6 million. Capital expenditures will include
improvements in production efficiency including replacement of equipment that is
being retired. We expect that our 2008 capital expenditures will be
financed primarily by cash flows from operating activities or existing cash
resources and credit facilities. Kronos intends to spend
approximately $64 million for major improvements and upgrades to existing
facilities during 2008, including approximately $7 million in the area of
environmental protection and compliance.
Dividends
Because
our operations are conducted primarily through subsidiaries and affiliates, our
long-term ability to meet parent company-level corporate obligations is largely
dependent on the receipt of dividends or other distributions from our
subsidiaries and affiliates. Kronos currently pays a regular
quarterly cash dividend of $.25 per share. At that rate, and based on
the 17.5 million shares of Kronos we hold at December 31, 2007, we would receive
annual dividends from Kronos of $17.5 million. CompX currently pays a
regular quarterly dividend of $.125 per share. At that rate, and
based on the 10.7 million shares of CompX we held at December 31, 2007, we would
receive annual dividends from CompX of $5.4 million. In addition,
both Valhi and TIMET pay regular quarterly dividends of $.10 per share and $.075
per share, respectively. At those rates, and based on the 4.7 million
shares of Valhi and 1.4 million shares of TIMET we held at December 31, 2007, we
would receive annual dividends from Valhi and TIMET of $1.9 million and
$435,000, respectively. Our ability to service our liabilities and
pay dividends on common stock could be adversely affected if our subsidiaries
and affiliates were to become unable to make sufficient cash dividends or other
distributions. In addition, a significant portion of our assets
consist of ownership interests in our subsidiaries and affiliates. If
we were required to liquidate securities in order to generate funds to satisfy
our liabilities, we may be required to sell such securities on the open market
and may not be able to realize the book value of the assets.
Investments
in our Subsidiaries and Affiliates and other Acquisitions
We have
in the past, and may in the future, purchase the securities of our subsidiaries
and affiliates or third-parties in market or privately-negotiated
transactions. We base our purchase decisions on a variety of factors,
including an analysis of the optimal use of our capital, taking into account the
market value of the securities and the relative value of expected returns on
alternative investments. In connection with these activities, we may
consider issuing additional equity securities or increasing our
indebtedness. We may also evaluate the restructuring of ownership
interests of our businesses among our subsidiaries and related
companies.
Summary
of debt and other contractual commitments
As more
fully described in the notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements, we are
party to various debt, lease and other agreements which contractually and
unconditionally commit us to pay certain amounts in the future. See
Notes 12 and 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. The
following table summarizes our contractual commitments as of December 31, 2007
by the type and date of payment.
Payment due date
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Contractual commitment
|
2008
|
2009/2010 | 2011/2012 |
2013
and
After
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Note
payable to affiliate
|
$ | .3 | $ | 2.0 | $ | 2.0 | $ | 45.7 | $ | 50.0 | ||||||||||
Interest
payable to affiliate
|
3.0 | 5.8 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 19.0 | |||||||||||||||
Estimated
tax obligations
|
.1 | - | - | - | .1 | |||||||||||||||
Operating
leases
|
.4 | .5 | .2 | - | 1.1 | |||||||||||||||
Purchase
obligations
|
16.2 | - | - | - | 16.2 | |||||||||||||||
Fixed
asset acquisitions
|
3.6 | - | - | - | 3.6 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 23.6 | $ | 8.3 | $ | 7.7 | $ | 50.4 | $ | 90.0 |
The
timing and amount shown for our commitments related to notes payable, operating
leases and fixed asset acquisitions are based upon the contractual payment
amount and the contractual payment date for such commitments. The
timing and amount shown for raw material and other purchase obligations, which
consist of all open purchase orders and contractual obligations (primarily
commitments to purchase raw materials) is also based on the contractual payment
amount and the contractual payment date for such commitments. Fixed
asset acquisitions include firm purchase commitments for capital
projects.
The above
table does not reflect any amounts that we might pay to fund our defined benefit
pension and OPEB plans, as the timing and amount of any such future fundings are
unknown and dependent on, among other things, the future performance of defined
benefit pension plan assets, interest rate assumptions and actual future retiree
medical costs. Such defined benefit pension plans and OPEB plans are
discussed above in greater detail.
The above
table also does not reflect any amounts that we might pay to settle any of our
uncertain tax positions, as the timing and amount of any such future settlements
are unknown and dependent on, among other things, the timing of tax
audits. See Notes 15 and 21 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Commitments
and contingencies
In August
2007, CompX’s board of directors authorized the repurchase of up to 500,000
shares of its Class A common stock in open market transactions, including block
purchases, or in privately-negotiated transactions at unspecified prices and
over an unspecified period of time. This authorization is in addition
to the 467,000 shares of Class A common stock that remained available for
repurchase under prior authorizations of CompX’s board of
directors. During 2007, CompX purchased approximately 179,100 shares
of its Class A common stock in market transactions for an aggregate of $3.3
million cash. CompX cancelled these treasury shares and allocated
their cost to common stock at par value and additional paid-in
capital. At December 31, 2007 approximately 804,400 shares were
available for purchase under these repurchase authorizations.
We are subject to certain commitments
and contingencies, as more fully described in Note 19 to our Consolidated
Financial Statements or in Part I, Item 3 of this report. In addition
to those legal proceedings described in Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements, various legislation and administrative regulations have, from time
to time, been proposed that seek to (i) impose various obligations on present
and former manufacturers of lead pigment and lead-based paint (including us)
with respect to asserted health concerns associated with the use of such
products and (ii) effectively overturn court decisions in which we and other
pigment manufacturers have been successful. Examples of such proposed
legislation include bills which would permit civil liability for damages on the
basis of market share, rather than requiring plaintiffs to prove that the
defendant's product caused the alleged damage, and bills which would revive
actions barred by the statute of limitations. While no legislation or
regulations have been enacted to date that are expected to have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity, enactment of such legislation could have such an
effect.
Off
balance sheet financing arrangements
Other
than operating lease commitments disclosed in Note 19 to our Consolidated
Financial Statements, we are not party to any material off-balance sheet
financing arrangements.
ITEM
7A. QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
General - We are exposed to market
risk from changes in foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates and equity
security prices. We periodically use currency forward contracts or
interest rate swaps to manage a portion of these market risks. We
have not entered into these contracts for trading or speculative purposes in the
past, nor do we currently anticipate entering into such contracts for trading or
speculative purposes in the future. Otherwise, we generally do not
enter into forward or option contracts to manage such market risks, nor do we
enter into any contract or other type of derivative instrument for trading or
speculative purposes. Other than the contracts discussed below, we
were not a party to any forward or derivative option contract related to foreign
exchange rates, interest rates or equity security prices at December 31, 2006
and 2007. See Notes 1 and 20 to our Consolidated Financial Statements
for a discussion of the assumptions we used to estimate the fair value of the
financial instruments to which we are a party at December 31, 2006 and
2007.
Interest
rates - We are
exposed to market risk from changes in interest rates, primarily related to our
indebtedness.
At
December 31, 2006 and 2007, no amounts were outstanding under CompX’s secured
Revolving Bank Credit Agreement. In conjunction with CompX’s
repurchase and/or cancellation of a net 2.7 million shares of its class A common
stock during the fourth quarter of 2007, CompX issued a promissory note for
$52.6 million. See Notes 12 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. At December 31, 2007, there was $50.0 million outstanding
on the promissory note which bears interest at LIBOR plus 1%, and the fair value
of such indebtedness approximates its carrying value. The interest
rate is reset quarterly based on the three month LIBOR.
Foreign currency
exchange rates -
We are exposed to market risk arising from changes in currency exchange
rates as a result of manufacturing and selling our products outside the United
States (principally Canada and Taiwan). A portion of sales generated
from our non-U.S. operations are denominated in currencies other than the U.S.
dollar, principally the Canadian dollar and the New Taiwan dollar. In
addition, a portion of our sales generated from our non-U.S. operations are
denominated in the U.S. dollar. Most raw materials, labor and other
production costs for such non-U.S. operations are denominated primarily in local
currencies. Consequently, the translated U.S. dollar value of our
non-U.S. sales and operating results are subject to currency exchange rate
fluctuations which may favorably or unfavorably impact reported earnings and may
affect comparability of period-to-period operating results.
Certain
of our sales generated by CompX’s non-U.S. operations are denominated in U.S.
dollars. To manage a portion of the related currency exchange rate
market risk associated with receivables or future sales, CompX periodically
enters into short-term forward currency exchange contracts. At each
balance sheet date, any outstanding forward currency contracts are
marked-to-market with any resulting gain or loss recognized in income currently
unless the contract is designated as a hedge upon which the mark-to-market
adjustment is recorded in other comprehensive income. CompX had no
forward currency contracts outstanding at December 31, 2006 or
2007.
Marketable equity
and debt security prices
- We are exposed to market risk due to changes in prices of the
marketable securities which we own. The fair value of equity
securities at December 31, 2006 and 2007 was $122.3 million and $113.4 million,
respectively. The potential change in the aggregate fair value of
these investments, assuming a 10% change in prices, would be $12.3 million at
December 31, 2006 and $11.3 million at December 31, 2007. The fair
value of marketable debt securities at December 31, 2006 was $10.0 million and
was $5.9 million at December 31, 2007. The potential change in the
aggregate fair value of these investments assuming a 10% change in prices would
be $1 million at December 31, 2006 and $590,000 at December 31,
2007.
Other - We believe there may be a
certain amount of incompleteness in the sensitivity analyses presented
above. For example, the hypothetical effect of changes in interest
rates discussed above ignores the potential effect on other variables which
affect our results of operations and cash flows, such as demand for our
products, sales volumes, selling prices and operating
expenses. Contrary to the above assumptions, changes in interest
rates rarely result in simultaneous parallel shifts along the yield
curve. Accordingly, the amounts presented above are not necessarily
an accurate reflection of the potential losses we would incur assuming the
hypothetical changes in market prices were actually to occur.
The above discussion and estimated
sensitivity analysis amounts include forward-looking statements of market risk
which assume hypothetical changes in market prices. Actual future
market conditions will likely differ materially from such
assumptions. Accordingly, such forward-looking statements should not
be considered to be projections of future events, gains or losses.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The information called for by this Item
is contained in a separate section of this Annual Report. See "Index
of Financial Statements and Schedules" (page F-1).
ITEM 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE
|
None.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of disclosure controls and
procedures
We
maintain a system of disclosure controls and procedures. The term
"disclosure controls and procedures," as defined by Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e),
means controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information
required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit to the SEC under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), is recorded,
processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the
SEC's rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include,
without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information
we are required to disclose in the reports we file or submit to the SEC under
the Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our
principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, or persons
performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions to be
made regarding required disclosure. Each of Harold C. Simmons, our
Chief Executive Officer, and Gregory M. Swalwell, our Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer, have evaluated the design and effectiveness of our
disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2007. Based
upon their evaluation, these executive officers have concluded that our
disclosure controls and procedures are effective as of December 31,
2007.
Internal
control over financial reporting
We also
maintain internal control over financial reporting. The term
“internal control over financial reporting,” as defined by Exchange Act Rule
13a-15(f) means a process designed by, or under the supervision of, our
principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing
similar functions, and effected by the board of directors, management and other
personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with GAAP, and includes those policies and procedures
that:
·
|
pertain
to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and
fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our
assets,
|
·
|
provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and that
receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with
authorizations of management and directors,
and
|
·
|
provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of an
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of assets that could have a
material effect on our Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
Section
404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to report on internal control
over financial reporting in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007. Our independent registered public accounting firm
is also required to audit our internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007.
As
permitted by the SEC, our assessment of internal control over financial
reporting excludes (i) internal control over financial reporting of equity
method investees and (ii) internal control over the preparation of our financial
statement schedules required by Article 12 of Regulation
S-X. However, our assessment of internal control over financial
reporting with respect to equity method investees did include controls over the
recording of amounts related to our investment that are recorded in the
consolidated financial statements, including controls over the selection of
accounting methods for our investments, the recognition of equity method
earnings and losses and the determination, valuation and recording of our
investment account balances.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There has
been no change to our internal control over financial reporting during the
quarter ended December 31, 2007 that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
Management’s
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our
management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal
control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Our evaluation of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting is based upon the criteria established
in Internal Control –
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
of the Treadway Commission (commonly referred to as the “COSO”
framework). Based on our evaluation under that framework, we have
concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of
December 31, 2007.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the
independent registered public accounting firm that has audited our consolidated
financial statements included in this Annual Report, has audited the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December
31, 2007, as stated in their report which is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Certifications
Our chief executive officer
is required to annually file a certification with the New York Stock Exchange
(“NYSE”), certifying our compliance with the corporate governance listing
standards of the NYSE. During 2007, our chief executive officer filed
such annual certification with the NYSE. The 2007 certification was
unqualified.
Our chief
executive officer and chief financial officer are also required to, among other
things, quarterly file certifications with the SEC regarding the quality of our
public disclosures, as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. We have filed the certifications for the quarter ended December
31, 2007 as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to this Annual Report on Form
10-K.
ITEM 9B. OTHER
INFORMATION
Not applicable.
PART
III
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS,
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.
The information required by this Item
is incorporated by reference to our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed with
the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the fiscal
year covered by this report (the "NL Proxy Statement").
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION.
The information required by this Item
is incorporated by reference to the NL Proxy Statement.
ITEM 12. SECURITY
OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER
MATTERS.
The information required by this Item
is incorporated by reference to the NL Proxy Statement.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE.
The information required by this Item
is incorporated by reference to the NL Proxy Statement. See also Note
17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES.
The
Information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the NL Proxy
Statement.
PART
IV
ITEM
15. EXHIBITS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a)
and (c)
|
Financial
Statements and Schedules
|
The
Registrant
The
consolidated financial statements and schedules of the Registrant listed on the
accompanying Index of Financial Statements and Schedules (see page F-1) are
filed as part of this Annual Report.
50%-or-less persons
|
The
consolidated financial statements of Kronos (36%-owned at December 31,
2007) are incorporated by reference in Exhibit 99.1 of this Annual Report
pursuant to Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X. Management’s Report on
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting of Kronos is not included as
part of Exhibit 99.1. The Registrant is not required to provide
any other consolidated financial statements pursuant to Rule 3-09 of
Regulation S-X.
|
|
(b)
|
Exhibits
|
We have
included as exhibits the items listed in the Exhibit Index. We will
furnish a copy of any of the exhibits listed below upon payment of $4.00 per
exhibit to cover the costs to us of furnishing the exhibits. Pursuant
to Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, any instrument defining the rights of
holders of long-term debt issues and other agreements related to indebtedness
which do not exceed 10% of consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2007
will be furnished to the Commission upon request.
We will
also furnish, without charge, a copy of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics,
as adopted by the board of directors on February 19, 2004, upon
request. Such requests should be directed to the attention of our
Corporate Secretary at our corporate offices located at 5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite
1700, Dallas, Texas 75240.
Item
No. Exhibit
Index
2.1
|
Form
of Distribution Agreement between NL Industries, Inc. and Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. – incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. Registration Statement on Form 10 (File No.
001-31763).
|
3.1
|
Certificate
of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation dated June 28,
1990 - incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1 to the Registrant’s
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for the annual meeting held on June 28,
1990.
|
3.2
|
Amended
and Restated Bylaws of NL Industries, Inc. as of December 11, 2007 –
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Registrant’s Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 17, 2007.
|
4.1
|
Indenture
governing the 6.5% Senior Secured Notes due 2013,
dated
|
as
of April 11, 2006, between Kronos International, Inc. and
The
|
|
Bank
of New York, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the
Current Report on Form 8-K of Kronos International, Inc. (File No.
333-100047) that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 11, 2006).
|
10.1
|
Lease
Contract dated June 21, 1952, between Farbenfabriken Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft and Titangesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung (German
language version and English translation thereof) - incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31,
1985.
|
10.2
|
Formation
Agreement dated as of October 18, 1993 among Tioxide Americas Inc., Kronos
Louisiana, Inc. and Louisiana Pigment Company, L.P. - incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1993.
|
10.3
|
Joint
Venture Agreement dated as of October 18, 1993 between Tioxide Americas
Inc. and Kronos Louisiana, Inc. - incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.3 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 1993.
|
10.4
|
Kronos
Offtake Agreement dated as of October 18, 1993 between Kronos Louisiana,
Inc. and Louisiana Pigment Company, L.P. - incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1993.
|
10.5
|
Amendment
No. 1 to Kronos Offtake Agreement dated as of December 20, 1995 between
Kronos Louisiana, Inc. and Louisiana Pigment Company, L.P. - incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31,
1995.
|
10.6
|
Tioxide
Americas Offtake Agreement dated as of October 18, 1993 between Tioxide
Americas Inc. and Louisiana Pigment Company, L.P. - incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1993.
|
10.7
|
Amendment
No. 1 to Tioxide Americas Offtake Agreement dated as of December 20, 1995
between Tioxide Americas Inc. and Louisiana Pigment Company, L.P. -
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to the Registrant’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1995.
|
10.8
|
TCI/KCI
Output Purchase Agreement dated as of October 18, 1993 between Tioxide
Canada Inc. and Kronos Canada, Inc. - incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.6 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 1993.
|
10.9
|
TAI/KLA
Output Purchase Agreement dated as of October 18, 1993 between Tioxide
Americas Inc. and Kronos Louisiana, Inc. - incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.7 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1993.
|
10.10
|
Parents’
Undertaking dated as of October 18, 1993 between ICI American Holdings
Inc. and Kronos, Inc. - incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the
Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 1993.
|
10.11
|
Allocation
Agreement dated as of October 18, 1993 between Tioxide Americas Inc., ICI
American Holdings, Inc., Kronos, Inc. and Kronos Louisiana, Inc. -
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Registrant’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1993.
|
10.12
|
Form
of Director’s Indemnity Agreement between NL and the independent members
of the Board of Directors of NL - incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.20 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1987.
|
10.13*
|
NL
Industries, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan - incorporated by reference
to Appendix A to the Registrant’s Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for the
annual meeting of shareholders held on May 6,
1998.
|
10.14*
|
Form
of Kronos Worldwide, Inc. 2003 Long-Term Incentive Plan – incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Kronos Worldwide, Inc. Registration
Statement on Form 10 (File No.
001-31763).
|
10.15
|
Insurance
Sharing Agreement, effective January 1, 1990, by and between the
Registrant, NL Insurance, Ltd. (an indirect subsidiary of Tremont
Corporation) and Baroid Corporation - incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.20 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1991.
|
10.16
|
Amended
Tax Agreement among NL Industries, Inc., Valhi, Inc. and Contran
Corporation effective November 30, 2004 – incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as of November
30, 2004.
|
10.17
|
Intercorporate
Services Agreement by and between Contran Corporation and the Registrant
effective as of January 1, 2004 – incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004.
|
10.18
|
Intercorporate
Services Agreement by and between Contran Corporation and Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. – incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2004.
|
10.19
|
Intercorporate
Services Agreement between CompX International Inc. and Contran
Corporation effective as of January 1, 2004 – incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the CompX International Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31,
2004.
|
10.20
|
Form
of Tax Agreement between Valhi, Inc. and Kronos Worldwide, Inc –
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
Registration Statement on Form 10 (File No.
001-31763).
|
10.21
|
Insurance
sharing agreement dated October 30, 2003 by and among CompX International
Inc., Contran Corporation, Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., Kronos
Worldwide, Inc., Titanium Metals Corp., Valhi, Inc. and the Registrant –
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.48 to the Registrant’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003.
|
10.22
|
First
Amendment Agreement, dated September 3, 2004, Relating to a Facility
Agreement dated June 25, 2002 among Kronos Titan GmbH, Kronos Europe
S.A./N.V., Kronos Titan AS and Titania A/S, as borrowers, Kronos Titan
GmbH, Kronos Europe S.A./N.V. and Kronos Norge AS, as guarantors, Kronos
Denmark ApS, as security provider, with Deutsche Bank Luxembourg S.A.,
acting as agent – incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-1 of Kronos Worldwide, Inc. (File No.
333-119639).
|
10.23*
|
CompX
International Inc. 1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan – incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the CompX International Inc. Registration
Statement on Form S-1 (File No.
1-13905).
|
10.24
|
Second
Amendment Agreement Relating to a Facility Agreement dated June 25, 2002
executed as of June 14, 2005 by and among Deutsche Bank AG, as mandated
lead arranger, Deutsche Bank Luxembourg S.A. as agent, the participating
lenders, Kronos Titan GmbH, Kronos Europe S.A./N.V, Kronos Titan AS,
Kronos Norge AS, Titania AS and Kronos Denmark ApS – incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Kronos International, Inc.s’ Form 8-K dated
June 14, 2005. Certain schedules, exhibits, annexes and similar
attachments to this Exhibit have not been filed; upon request, the
Reporting Persons will furnish supplementally to the Commission a copy of
any omitted exhibit, annex or
attachment.
|
10.25
|
$50,000,000
Credit Agreement between CompX International Inc. and Wachovia Bank,
National Association, as Agent and various lending institutions dated
December 23, 2005 – incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 of CompX
International Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (File
No. 1-13905). Certain exhibits, annexes and similar attachments
to this Exhibit have not been filed; upon request, CompX International
Inc. will furnish supplementally to the SEC a copy of any omitted exhibit,
annex, or attachment.
|
10.26
|
Stock
Purchase Agreement dated October 11, 2007 between the Registrant and
Valhi, Inc, - incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 of CompX
International Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (File
No. 1-13905).
|
10.27
|
First
Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of October 16, 2007 among CompX
International Inc., CompX Security Products, Inc., CompX Precision Slides
Inc., CompX Marine Inc., Custom Marine Inc., Livorsi Marine Inc., Wachovia
Bank, National Association for itself and as administrative agent for
Compass Bank and Comerica Bank - incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.12 of CompX International Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007 (File No. 1-13905).
|
10.28
|
Stock
Purchase Agreement dated October 16, 2007 between CompX International,
Inc. and TIMET Finance Management Company – incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.6 of CompX International Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (File No.
1-13905).
|
10.29
|
Form
of Subordination Agreement among CompX International Inc., TIMET Finance
Management Company, CompX Security Products, Inc., CompX Precision Sildes
Inc., CompX Marine Inc., Custom Marine Inc., Livorsi Marine Inc., Wachovia
Bank, National Association as administrative agent for itself, Compass
Bank and Comerica Bank – incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 of
CompX International Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007
(File No. 1-13905).
|
10.30
|
Subordinated
Term Loan Promissory Note dated October 26, 2007 executed by CompX
International Inc. and payable to the order of TIMET Finance Management
Company – incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 of CompX International
Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (File No.
1-13905).
|
21.1
|
Subsidiaries
of the Registrant.
|
23.1
|
Consent
of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP with respect to NL’s consolidated financial
statements.
|
23.2
|
Consent
of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP with respect to Kronos’ consolidated
financial statements.
|
31.1
|
Certification
|
31.2
|
Certification
|
32.1
|
Certification
|
99.1
|
Consolidated
financial statements of Kronos Worldwide, Inc. – incorporated by reference
to Kronos’ Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 1-31763) for the year
ended December 31, 2007.
|
*
|
Management
contract, compensatory plan or
arrangement.
|
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
NL
Industries, Inc.
|
(Registrant)
|
By:/s/ Harold C.
Simmons
|
Harold
C. Simmons
|
March
12, 2008
|
(Chairman
of the Board and
Chief
Executive Officer)
|
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been
signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the
capacities and on the dates indicated:
/s/ Steven L.
Watson
|
|
Harold
C. Simmons, March 12, 2008
|
Steven
L. Watson, March 12, 2008
|
(Chairman
of the Board and Chief
|
(Director)
|
Executive
Officer)
|
|
/s/ Thomas P.
Stafford
|
/s/ Glenn R.
Simmons
|
Thomas
P. Stafford, March 12, 2008
|
Glenn
R. Simmons, March 12, 2008
|
(Director)
|
(Director)
|
/s/ C. H. Moore, Jr.
|
/s/ Gregory M.
Swalwell
|
C.
H. Moore, Jr., March 12, 2008
|
Gregory
M. Swalwell, March 12, 2008
|
(Director)
|
(Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial
Officer)
|
/s/ Terry N.
Worrell
|
/s/ Tim C.
Hafer
|
Terry
N. Worrell, March 12, 2008
|
Tim
C. Hafer, March 12, 2008
|
(Director)
|
(Vice
President and Controller, Principal Accounting
Officer)
|
NL
Industries, Inc.
Annual
Report on Form 10-K
Items
8, 15(a) and 15(c)
Index
of Financial Statements and Schedules
Financial
Statements
|
Page
|
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
F-2
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheets - December 31, 2006 and 2007
|
F-4
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations -
Years ended December 31, 2005,
2006 and 2007
|
F-6
|
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income -
Years ended December 31, 2005,
2006 and 2007
|
F-7
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity -
Years ended December 31, 2005,
2006 and 2007
|
F-8
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows -
Years ended December 31, 2005,
2006 and 2007
|
F-9
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
F-12
|
Financial Statement Schedule
|
|
Schedule I – Condensed Financial Information of Registrant
|
S-1
|
Schedules II,
III and IV are omitted because they are not applicable
or the required amounts are either not material or are presented in the
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the
Stockholders and Board of Directors of NL Industries, Inc.:
In our
opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related
consolidated statements of operations, of comprehensive income, of changes in
stockholders’ equity and of cash flows present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of NL Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries at December
31, 2006 and 2007 and the results of their operations and their cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement
schedule listed in the accompanying index presents fairly, in all material
respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the
related consolidated financial statements. Also in our opinion, the
Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on criteria established in
Internal Control - Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible
for these financial statements and financial statement schedule, for maintaining
effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting under Item
9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial
statements, on the financial statement schedule, and on the Company's internal
control over financial reporting based on our integrated 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 audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective
internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audits of the financial statements included 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, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting
included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial
reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and
evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
As
discussed in Note 21 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, the Company
changed the manner in which it accounts for pension and other postretirement
benefit obligations in 2006 and the manner in which it accounts for uncertain
tax positions in 2007.
A
company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal
control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i)
pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and
fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company;
(ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to
permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are
being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of
the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation
of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of
compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Dallas,
Texas
March 12,
2008
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
(In
thousands, except per share data)
ASSETS
|
December 31,
|
|||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | 52,742 | $ | 41,112 | ||||
Restricted cash and cash equivalents
|
7,356 | 4,970 | ||||||
Marketable securities
|
9,989 | 5,860 | ||||||
Accounts and other receivables,
net
|
22,138 | 22,221 | ||||||
Receivable from affiliates
|
238 | 1,271 | ||||||
Inventories,
net
|
21,733 | 24,277 | ||||||
Prepaid expenses
and other
|
1,326 | 1,516 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
5,543 | 6,474 | ||||||
Total current assets
|
121,065 | 107,701 | ||||||
Other assets:
|
||||||||
Marketable equity securities
|
122,344 | 113,393 | ||||||
Investment in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
160,527 | 147,119 | ||||||
Pension
asset
|
12,807 | 17,623 | ||||||
Goodwill
|
32,969 | 54,719 | ||||||
Assets
held for sale
|
- | 3,117 | ||||||
Other assets,
net
|
8,977 | 7,856 | ||||||
Total other assets
|
337,624 | 343,827 | ||||||
Property and equipment:
|
||||||||
Land
|
9,475 | 12,346 | ||||||
Buildings
|
30,751 | 35,963 | ||||||
Equipment
|
119,233 | 127,801 | ||||||
Construction in progress
|
2,559 | 2,659 | ||||||
162,018 | 178,769 | |||||||
Less accumulated depreciation
|
91,363 | 105,536 | ||||||
Net property and equipment
|
70,655 | 73,233 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 529,344 | $ | 524,761 |
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS (CONTINUED)
(In
thousands, except per share data)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY
|
December 31,
|
|||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
Current liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts payable
|
$ | 8,944 | $ | 8,769 | ||||
Accrued liabilities
|
25,530 | 26,039 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
9,778 | 11,863 | ||||||
Payable to affiliates
|
1,548 | 1,149 | ||||||
Income taxes
|
795 | 136 | ||||||
Total current liabilities
|
46,595 | 47,956 | ||||||
Noncurrent liabilities:
|
||||||||
Note
payable to affiliate
|
- | 49,730 | ||||||
Accrued pension costs
|
2,780 | 1,665 | ||||||
Accrued postretirement benefits cost
|
11,672 | 9,865 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
40,935 | 38,467 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
130,952 | 91,124 | ||||||
Other
|
2,482 | 25,126 | ||||||
Total noncurrent liabilities
|
188,821 | 215,977 | ||||||
Minority interest
|
45,416 | 14,366 | ||||||
Stockholders' equity:
|
||||||||
Preferred stock, no par value; 5,000 shares
authorized; none issued
|
- | - | ||||||
Common stock, $.125 par value; 150,000 shares
authorized; 48,586 and
48,592 shares issued and outstanding
|
6,073 | 6,073 | ||||||
Additional paid-in capital
|
363,472 | 345,338 | ||||||
Retained earnings
(deficit)
|
1,826 | (6,525 | ) | |||||
Accumulated other comprehensive income:
|
||||||||
Marketable securities
|
56,796 | 57,603 | ||||||
Currency translation
|
(133,981 | ) | (123,829 | ) | ||||
Defined
benefit pension plans
|
(44,063 | ) | (31,373 | ) | ||||
Postretirement
benefit (OPEB) plans
|
(1,611 | ) | (825 | ) | ||||
Total stockholders' equity
|
248,512 | 246,462 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’ equity
|
$ | 529,344 | $ | 524,761 | ||||
Commitments
and contingencies (Notes 15, 19 and 21)
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(In
thousands, except per share data)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 186,350 | $ | 190,123 | $ | 177,683 | ||||||
Cost
of goods sold
|
142,594 | 143,648 | 132,455 | |||||||||
Gross margin
|
43,756 | 46,475 | 45,228 | |||||||||
Selling, general and administrative expense
|
24,156 | 26,060 | 25,846 | |||||||||
Other operating income (expense):
|
||||||||||||
Insurance
recoveries
|
2,969 | 7,656 | 5,659 | |||||||||
Facility
consolidation expense
|
- | - | (2,665 | ) | ||||||||
Other income
(expense), net
|
(84 | ) | 51 | (1,342 | ) | |||||||
Corporate expense
|
(19,870 | ) | (24,247 | ) | (31,318 | ) | ||||||
Income (loss)
from operations
|
2,615 | 3,875 | (10,284 | ) | ||||||||
Equity in earnings (losses)
of Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
25,689 | 29,345 | (23,901 | ) | ||||||||
Other income (expense):
|
||||||||||||
Interest and dividends
|
5,750 | 5,140 | 4,778 | |||||||||
Securities transactions, net
|
14,603 | 297 | 22,749 | |||||||||
Interest expense
|
(336 | ) | (219 | ) | (760 | ) | ||||||
Income (loss)
before income taxes and minority interest
|
48,321 | 38,438 | (7,418 | ) | ||||||||
Provision for income taxes (benefit)
|
14,664 | 8,860 | (8,311 | ) | ||||||||
Minority interest
in after-tax earnings
|
352 | 3,468 | 2,624 | |||||||||
Income (loss)
from continuing operations
|
33,305 | 26,110 | (1,731 | ) | ||||||||
Discontinued operations,
net
|
(326 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Net income
(loss)
|
$ | 32,979 | $ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | |||||
Basic
and diluted net income (loss) per share
|
$ | .68 | $ | .54 | $ | (.04 | ) | |||||
Weighted-average
shares outstanding:
|
||||||||||||
Basic
|
48,541 | 48,568 | 48,590 | |||||||||
Dilutive
impact of stock options
|
46 | 16 | - | |||||||||
Diluted
|
48,587 | 48,584 | 48,590 |
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 32,979 | $ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | |||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:
|
||||||||||||
Marketable
securities:
|
||||||||||||
Unrealized
net gains arising during the year
|
7,301 | 22,712 | 15,475 | |||||||||
Realized
gains included in net income
|
- | - | (14,668 | ) | ||||||||
7,301 | 22,712 | 807 | ||||||||||
Defined
benefit pension plans :
|
||||||||||||
Net
actuarial gain arising during the year
|
- | - | 10,618 | |||||||||
Amortization
of prior service cost included in net periodic pension
cost
|
- | - | 1,623 | |||||||||
Minimum
pension liability change
|
(9,480 | ) | 2,388 | - | ||||||||
(9,480 | ) | 2,388 | 12,241 | |||||||||
Postretirement
benefit plan adjustment:
|
||||||||||||
Net
actuarial gain arising during the year
|
- | - | 861 | |||||||||
Amortization
of prior service cost included in net periodic pension
cost
|
- | - | (75 | ) | ||||||||
- | - | 786 | ||||||||||
Currency
translation adjustment
|
(5,318 | ) | 6,499 | 10,152 | ||||||||
Total
other comprehensive income (loss)
|
(7,497 | ) | 31,599 | 23,986 | ||||||||
Comprehensive
income
|
$ | 25,482 | $ | 57,709 | $ | 22,255 |
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Years
ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007
(In
thousands, except per share data)
Accumulated
other
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional
|
Retained
|
comprehensive
income (loss)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Common
|
paid-in
|
earnings
|
Marketable
|
Currency
|
Pension
|
OPEB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
stock
|
capital
|
(deficit)
|
securities
|
translation
|
plans
|
plans
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2004
|
$ | 6,054 | $ | 369,702 | $ | - | $ | 26,783 | $ | (135,162 | ) | $ | (33,207 | ) | $ | - | $ | 234,170 | ||||||||||||||
Net
income
|
- | - | 32,979 | - | - | - | - | 32,979 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
|
- | - | - | 7,301 | (5,318 | ) | (9,480 | ) | - | (7,497 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution
of shares of Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
- | - | (2,656 | ) | - | - | - | - | (2,656 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Income
tax on distribution
|
- | - | (3,017 | ) | - | - | - | - | (3,017 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock
|
16 | 2,583 | - | - | - | - | - | 2,599 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash
dividends - $.75 per share
|
- | (9,113 | ) | (27,306 | ) | - | - | - | - | (36,419 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Other
|
- | 114 | - | - | - | - | - | 114 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2005
|
6,070 | 363,286 | - | 34,084 | (140,480 | ) | (42,687 | ) | - | 220,273 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
income
|
- | - | 26,110 | - | - | - | - | 26,110 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
|
- | - | - | 22,712 | 6,499 | 2,388 | - | 31,599 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock
|
3 | 196 | - | - | - | - | - | 199 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash
dividends - $.50 per share
|
- | - | (24,284 | ) | - | - | - | - | (24,284 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Change
in accounting – asset and liability recognition provisions of SFAS No.
158
|
- | - | - | - | - | (3,764 | ) | (1,611 | ) | (5,375 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Other
|
- | (10 | ) | - | - | - | - | - | (10 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2006
|
6,073 | 363,472 | 1,826 | 56,796 | (133,981 | ) | (44,063 | ) | (1,611 | ) | 248,512 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
- | - | (1,731 | ) | - | - | - | - | (1,731 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
|
- | - | - | 807 | 10,152 | 12,241 | 786 | 23,986 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock
|
- | 63 | - | - | - | - | - | 63 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash
dividends - $.50 per share
|
- | (18,222 | ) | (6,073 | ) | - | - | - | - | (24,295 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Change
in accounting:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FIN
48
|
- | - | (97 | ) | - | - | - | - | (97 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
SFAS
No. 158 – measurement date provisions
|
- | - | (450 | ) | - | - | 449 | (1 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
|
- | 25 | - | - | - | - | - | 25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
$ | 6,073 | $ | 345,338 | $ | (6,525 | ) | $ | 57,603 | $ | (123,829 | ) | $ | (31,373 | ) | $ | (825 | ) | $ | 246,462 |
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 32,979 | $ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | |||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
11,334 | 12,220 | 11,375 | |||||||||
Deferred
income taxes:
|
||||||||||||
Continuing
operations
|
(10,555 | ) | 8,407 | (12,604 | ) | |||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
(187 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Minority
interest:
|
||||||||||||
Continuing
operations
|
352 | 3,468 | 2,624 | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
(151 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Securities
transaction gains
|
(14,603 | ) | (298 | ) | (22,749 | ) | ||||||
Benefit
plan expense greater (less)
than
cash funding:
|
||||||||||||
Defined
benefit pension plans
|
(885 | ) | (2,161 | ) | (2,464 | ) | ||||||
Other
postretirement benefit plans
|
(431 | ) | (1,009 | ) | 629 | |||||||
Equity
in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
(25,689 | ) | (29,345 | ) | 23,901 | |||||||
Distributions
from Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
17,593 | 17,516 | 17,516 | |||||||||
Other,
net
|
2,145 | 1,469 | 1,413 | |||||||||
Change
in assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||||||
Accounts
and other receivable
|
246 | 541 | 1,032 | |||||||||
Inventories
|
(936 | ) | 2,258 | (1,813 | ) | |||||||
Prepaid
expenses
|
(41 | ) | 352 | (160 | ) | |||||||
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
(4,038 | ) | (7,107 | ) | (918 | ) | ||||||
Income
taxes
|
6,324 | 509 | (1,127 | ) | ||||||||
Accounts
with affiliates
|
(4,201 | ) | 3,618 | (12,779 | ) | |||||||
Accrued
environmental costs
|
(12,870 | ) | (4,234 | ) | (383 | ) | ||||||
Other
noncurrent assets and liabilities, net
|
(1,684 | ) | (3,313 | ) | (4,533 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
(5,298 | ) | 29,001 | (2,771 | ) |
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (CONTINUED)
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Capital
expenditures
|
$ | (10,676 | ) | $ | (12,148 | ) | $ | (13,998 | ) | |||
Business
acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
(7,342 | ) | (9,832 | ) | - | |||||||
Collection
of loans to affiliates
|
10,000 | - | - | |||||||||
Collection
of note receivable
|
- | 1,306 | 1,306 | |||||||||
Change
in restricted cash equivalents and marketable debt securities,
net
|
(1,945 | ) | (2,903 | ) | 2,386 | |||||||
Proceeds
from disposal of:
|
||||||||||||
Business
unit
|
18,094 | - | - | |||||||||
Kronos
common stock
|
19,176 | - | - | |||||||||
Property
and equipment
|
27 | 1,316 | 73 | |||||||||
Cash
of disposed business unit
|
(4,006 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Purchase
of CompX common stock
|
(3,645 | ) | (2,318 | ) | (3,309 | ) | ||||||
Investment
in marketable securities
|
(7,503 | ) | (17,501 | ) | (5,861 | ) | ||||||
Proceeds
from sale of marketable securities
|
6,301 | 16,849 | 36,894 | |||||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
18,481 | (25,231 | ) | 17,491 | ||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Indebtedness:
|
||||||||||||
Borrowings
|
18 | - | - | |||||||||
Principal
payments
|
(93 | ) | (1,563 | ) | - | |||||||
Deferred
financing costs paid
|
(114 | ) | (110 | ) | - | |||||||
Repayment
of loan from affiliate
|
- | - | (2,600 | ) | ||||||||
Cash
dividends paid
|
(36,419 | ) | (24,284 | ) | (24,295 | ) | ||||||
Proceeds
from issuance of stock:
|
||||||||||||
NL
common stock
|
2,507 | 88 | - | |||||||||
CompX
common stock
|
639 | 347 | 1,395 | |||||||||
Tax
benefit from exercise of stock options
|
- | 111 | 73 | |||||||||
Distributions
to minority interests
|
(2,384 | ) | (2,272 | ) | (1,918 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash used by financing activities
|
(35,846 | ) | (27,683 | ) | (27,345 | ) | ||||||
Net
decrease
|
$ | (22,663 | ) | $ | (23,913 | ) | $ | (12,625 | ) |
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (CONTINUED)
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents - net change from:
|
||||||||||||
Operating, investing and financing activities
|
$ | (22,663 | ) | $ | (23,913 | ) | $ | (12,625 | ) | |||
Currency translation
|
390 | (257 | ) | 995 | ||||||||
Cash
and cash
equivalents at beginning of year
|
99,185 | 76,912 | 52,742 | |||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of year
|
$ | 76,912 | $ | 52,742 | $ | 41,112 | ||||||
Supplemental disclosures
– cash paid (received) for:
|
||||||||||||
Interest
|
$ | 259 | $ | 139 | $ | 109 | ||||||
Income taxes,
net
|
32,519 | (3,627 | ) | 19,680 | ||||||||
Non-cash investing and
financing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Note
payable to affiliate issued for repurchase of CompX common
stock
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 52,580 | ||||||
Receipt
of TIMET shares from Valhi
|
- | - | 11,410 | |||||||||
Accrual
for capital expenditures
|
- | - | 665 | |||||||||
Note received upon disposal of CompX business
unit
|
4,179 | - | - |
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December
31, 2007
Note
1
- Organization
and basis of presentation:
Nature of our
business – NL Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NL) is primarily a holding
company. We operate in the component products industry through our
majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. (NYSE: CIX). We
operate in the chemicals industry through our non-controlling interest in Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: KRO).
Organization
– We are
majority-owned by Valhi, Inc. (NYSE: VHI), which owns approximately 83% of our
outstanding common stock at December 31, 2007. Valhi is
majority-owned by a subsidiary of Contran Corporation. Substantially
all of Contran's outstanding voting stock is held by trusts established for the
benefit of certain children and grandchildren of Harold C. Simmons (for which
Mr. Simmons is the sole trustee), or is held by Mr. Simmons or other persons or
companies related to Mr. Simmons. Consequently, Mr. Simmons may be
deemed to control Contran, Valhi and us.
Unless
otherwise indicated, references in this report to “we,” “us” or “our” refer to
NL Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Kronos, taken
as a whole.
Management’s
estimates - In
preparing our financial statements in conformity with GAAP, we are required to
make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of our assets
and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at each
balance sheet date, and the reported amounts of our revenues and expenses during
each reporting period. Actual results may differ significantly from
previously-estimated amounts under different assumptions or
conditions.
Principles of
consolidation - Our consolidated financial statements include the
financial position, results of operations and cash flows of NL and our
wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, including CompX International
Inc. We eliminate all material intercompany accounts and
balances.
We
account for increases in our ownership interest of our consolidated subsidiaries
and equity investees, either through our purchase of additional shares of their
common stock or their purchase of their own shares of common stock, by the
purchase method (step acquisition). Unless otherwise noted, such
purchase accounting generally results in an adjustment to the carrying amount of
goodwill for our consolidated subsidiaries. The effect of other
changes in our ownership interest, which usually result from the exercise of
stock options to purchase shares of common stock by employees, is generally not
material.
Translation of
foreign currencies - We translate the assets and liabilities of our
subsidiaries and affiliates whose functional currency is other than the U.S.
dollar at year-end rates of exchange, while we translate their revenues and
expenses at average exchange rates prevailing during the year. We
accumulate the resulting translation adjustments in stockholders' equity as part
of accumulated other comprehensive income, net of related deferred income taxes
and minority interest. We recognize currency transaction gains and
losses in income.
Derivatives and
hedging activities – Certain of our sales generated by our non-U.S.
operations are denominated in U.S. dollars. We periodically use
currency forward contracts to manage a portion of currency exchange rate market
risk associated with receivables, or similar exchange rate risk associated with
future sales, denominated in a currency other than the holder's functional
currency. We have not entered into these contracts for trading or
speculative purposes in the past, nor do we anticipate entering into such
contracts for trading or speculative purposes in the future. Most of
our currency forward contracts meet the criteria for hedge accounting under GAAP
and are designated as cash flow hedges. For these currency forward
contracts, gains and losses representing the effective portion of our hedges are
deferred as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income, and are
subsequently recognized in earnings at the time the hedged item affects
earnings. Occasionally, we enter into currency forward contracts
which do not meet the criteria for hedge accounting. For these
contracts, we mark-to-market the estimated fair value of the contracts at each
balance sheet date based on quoted market prices for the forward contracts, with
any resulting gain or loss recognized in income currently as part of net
currency transactions. The quoted market prices for the forward
contracts are a Level 1 input as defined by Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (“SFAS”) No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements. See Note 21. We had no currency
forward contracts outstanding at December 31, 2006 or 2007.
Cash and cash
equivalents - We
classify bank time deposits and government and commercial notes and bills with
original maturities of three months or less as cash equivalents.
Restricted cash
equivalents and restricted marketable debt securities - We classify cash
equivalents and marketable debt securities that have been segregated or are
otherwise limited in use as restricted. To the extent the restricted
amount relates to a recognized liability, we classify such restricted amount as
either a current or noncurrent asset to correspond with the classification of
the liability. To the extent the restricted amount does not relate to
a recognized liability, we classify restricted cash as a current asset and we
classify the restricted debt security as either a current or noncurrent asset
depending upon the maturity date of the security. See Note
4.
Marketable
securities and securities transactions – We carry marketable debt and
equity securities at fair value based upon quoted market prices, which represent
Level 1 inputs as defined by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(“SFAS”) No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements. See Note 21. We recognize realized
and unrealized gains and losses on trading securities in income. We
accumulate unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities as part
of accumulated other comprehensive income, net of related deferred income taxes
and minority interest. We calculate realized gains and losses by the
specific identification of securities sold.
Accounts
receivable - We provide an allowance for doubtful accounts for known and
estimated potential losses arising from sales to customers based on a periodic
review of these accounts.
Inventories and
cost of sales - We state inventories at the lower of cost or market, net
of allowance for obsolete and slow-moving inventories. We generally
base inventory costs on average cost or the first-in, first-out
method. We allocate fixed manufacturing overheads based on normal
production capacity and recognize abnormal manufacturing costs as period
costs. Cost of sales includes costs for materials, packing and
finishing, utilities, salary and benefits, maintenance and
depreciation.
Investment in
Kronos Worldwide, Inc – We account for our 36% non-controlling interest
in Kronos by the equity method. See Note 7.
Goodwill and
other intangible assets; amortization expense - Goodwill represents the
excess of cost over fair value of individual net assets acquired in business
combinations. Goodwill is not subject to periodic
amortization. We amortize other intangible assets by the
straight-line method over their estimated useful lives and state them net of
accumulated amortization. We assess goodwill and other intangible
assets for impairment in accordance with SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets. See Notes 8 and 9.
Property and
equipment; depreciation expense - We state property and equipment at
cost. We compute depreciation of property and equipment for financial
reporting purposes principally by the straight-line method over the estimated
useful lives of ten to 40 years for buildings and three to 20 years for
equipment. We use accelerated depreciation methods for income tax
purposes, as permitted. Upon the sale or retirement of an asset, we
remove the related cost and accumulated depreciation from the accounts and
recognize any gain or loss in income.
We
expense maintenance, repairs and minor renewal expenditures as incurred. We
capitalize expenditures for major improvements. We capitalize
interest costs related to major long-term capital projects and renewals as a
component of construction costs. We did not capitalize any material
interest costs in 2005, 2006 or 2007.
We
perform impairment tests when events or changes in circumstances indicate the
carrying value may not be recoverable. We perform the impairment test
by comparing the estimated future undiscounted cash flows (exclusive of interest
expense) associated with the asset to the asset's net carrying value to
determine if a write-down to market value or to discounted cash flow value is
required. We assess impairment of property and equipment in
accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.
Employee benefit
plans - Accounting and funding policies for retirement and post
retirement benefits other than pensions (“OPEB”) plans are described in Notes 16
and 21.
Income
taxes - We and
our qualifying subsidiaries are members of Contran’s consolidated U.S. federal
income tax group (the “Contran Tax Group”). We and certain of our
qualifying subsidiaries also file consolidated unitary state income tax returns
with Contran in qualifying U.S. jurisdictions. As a member of the
Contran Tax Group, we are jointly and severally liable for the federal income
tax liability of Contran and the other companies included in the Contran Tax
Group for all periods in which we are included in the Contran Tax
Group. See Note 19. We are party to a tax sharing
agreement with Valhi and Contran pursuant to which we generally compute our
provision for income taxes on a separate-company basis, and make payments to or
receive payments from Valhi in amounts that we would have paid to or received
from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or the applicable state tax authority had
we not been a member of the Contran Tax Group. Refunds are limited to amounts
previously paid under the Contran Tax Agreement unless the individual company
was entitled to a refund from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service on a separate
company basis. The separate company provisions and payments are
computed using the tax elections made by Contran. We made net cash
payments to Valhi for income taxes of $1.7 million in 2005 and $14.2 million in
2007. In 2006, we received a net refund for income taxes from Valhi
of $5.8 million. In addition, see Note 2 regarding our payment in
2005 of certain income taxes to Valhi using shares of Kronos common
stock.
We
recognize deferred income tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax
consequences of temporary differences between the income tax and financial
reporting carrying amounts of our assets and liabilities, including investments
in our subsidiaries and affiliates who are not members of the Contran Tax Group
and undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries which are not permanently
reinvested. In addition, we recognize deferred income taxes with
respect to the excess of the financial reporting carrying amount over the income
tax basis of our direct investment in Kronos common stock because the exemption
under GAAP to avoid recognition of such deferred income taxes is not available
to us. The earnings of our foreign subsidiaries subject to permanent
reinvestment plans aggregated $5.7 million at December 31, 2007 (2006 - $5.6
million). It is not practical for us to determine the amount of the
unrecognized deferred income tax liability related to such earnings due to the
complexities associated with the U.S. taxation on earnings of foreign
subsidiaries repatriated to the U.S. We periodically evaluate our
deferred income tax assets and recognize a valuation allowance based on the
estimate of the amount of such deferred tax assets which we believe does not
meet the more-likely-than-not recognition criteria.
Prior to
2007, we provided a reserve for uncertain income tax positions when we believed
the benefit associated with a tax position was not probable of prevailing with
the applicable tax authority and the amount of the lost benefit associated with
such tax position was reasonably estimable. Beginning in 2007, we
record a reserve for uncertain tax positions in accordance with Financial
Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. ("FIN") 48, Accounting for Uncertain Tax
Positions for tax positions where we believe it is more-likely-than-not
our position will not prevail with the applicable tax
authorities. See Note 21.
Environmental
remediation costs – We record liabilities
related to environmental remediation obligations when estimated future
expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable. We adjust these
accruals as further information becomes available to us or as circumstances
change. We generally do not discount estimated future expenditures to
present value. We recognize any recoveries of remediation costs from
other parties when we deem their receipt probable. At December 31,
2006 and 2007, we had not recognized any receivables for
recoveries. See Note 19.
Net sales
– We record sales when products are shipped and title and other risks and
rewards of ownership have passed to the customer. Amounts charged to
customers for shipping and handling are not material. We state sales
net of price, early payment and distributor discounts and volume
rebates. We report any tax assessed by a governmental authority that
we collect from our customers that is both imposed on and concurrent with our
revenue-producing activities (such as sales, use, value added and excise taxes)
on a net basis (meaning we do not recognize these taxes either in our revenues
or in our costs and expenses).
Selling, general
and administrative expenses; advertising costs; research and development
costs - Selling,
general and administrative expenses include costs related to marketing, sales,
distribution, research and development, legal and administrative functions such
as accounting, treasury and finance, as well as costs for salaries and benefits,
travel and entertainment, promotional materials and professional
fees. Advertising costs related to continuing operations are expensed
as incurred and were approximately $1 million in each of 2005, 2006 and
2007. Research, development and certain sales technical support costs
related to continuing operations are expensed as incurred and approximated
$200,000 in each of 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Corporate
expenses - Corporate expenses include environmental, legal and other
costs attributable to formerly-owned business units.
Earnings per
share - Basic earnings per share of common stock is based upon the
weighted average number of our common shares actually outstanding during each
period. Diluted earnings per share of common stock includes the
impact of our outstanding dilutive stock options. The weighted
average number of outstanding stock options excluded from the calculation of
diluted earnings per share because their impact would have been anti-dilutive
was nil in 2005 and 2006 and was approximately 9,000 in 2007.
Note
2
- Business
combinations and related transactions:
CompX
International Inc. – At the beginning of 2005, we owned approximately 68%
of CompX’s outstanding common stock. In October 2007, CompX
repurchased or cancelled a net 2.7 million shares of its Class A common stock
held by TIMET, including the Class A shares held indirectly by TIMET through its
ownership interest in CompX Group, Inc. The repurchase was approved
by the independent members of CompX’s board of directors. CompX
purchased or cancelled these shares for $19.50 per share, or aggregate
consideration of $52.6 million, which was paid in the form of a promissory
note. The price per share was determined based on CompX’s open market
repurchases of its Class A common stock around the time the repurchase from
TIMET was approved. The promissory note bears interest at LIBOR plus
1% and provides for quarterly principal repayments of $250,000 commencing in
September 2008, with the balance due at maturity in September
2014. CompX may make prepayments on the promissory note at any time,
in any amount, without penalty. The promissory note is subordinated
to CompX’s U.S. revolving bank credit agreement. As a result of the
repurchase or cancellation of CompX’s Class A shares from TIMET, TIMET no longer
has any direct or indirect ownership in CompX or in CompX
Group. CompX’s outstanding Class A shares were reduced by 2.7 million
and, as a result, our ownership interest in CompX increased to approximately
86%. We accounted for our increase in ownership of CompX by the
purchase method (step acquisition).
In August
2005 and in April 2006, CompX completed the acquisition of two marine component
products businesses for aggregate cash consideration of $7.3 million and $9.8
million, respectively, net of cash acquired. We have included the
results of operations and cash flows of the acquired businesses in our
consolidated financial statements from the respective dates of
acquisition. The purchase price has been allocated among the tangible
and intangible net assets acquired (including goodwill) based upon an estimate
of the fair value of such net assets. The pro forma effect to us,
assuming this acquisition had been completed as of January 1, 2005, is not
material.
Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. – At the beginning
of 2005, we held an aggregate of 37% of Kronos’ outstanding common stock. During
the first quarter of 2005, we paid a quarterly dividend in the form of shares of
Kronos common stock and distributed approximately 266,000 shares of Kronos to
our shareholders in the form of a pro-rata dividend. In accordance
with GAAP, the carrying amount of such shares of Kronos common stock distributed
was accounted for as a reduction of our retained earnings and aggregated $2.7
million.
We made
certain other pro-rata distributions to our shareholders in the form of shares
of Kronos common stock prior to 2005. All of such distributions of
Kronos common stock were taxable to us, and as such we recognized a taxable gain
equal to the difference between the fair market value of the shares of Kronos
common stock distributed and our adjusted tax basis in such stock at the date of
distribution. In accordance with GAAP, the amount of such current
income tax represented by the excess of the carrying value of such stock for
financial reporting purposes over the adjusted tax basis of such stock is
included in the determination of net income in the period the shares were
distributed, and the amount of such current income tax represented by the excess
of the fair market value of such stock over the carrying value of such stock for
financial reporting purposes is accounted for as a direct reduction to
stockholders’ equity (retained earnings). The amount of such current
income tax included in the determination of net income aggregated $.9 million in
2005, while the amount of such current income tax accounted for as a direct
reduction to equity aggregated $3.0 million in 2005. In accordance
with GAAP, the amount of the deferred income tax we recognized with respect to
Kronos is adjusted as of the date of the distribution.
With
respect to the shares of Kronos we distributed to Valhi in all of our pro-rata
distributions, we and Valhi previously agreed that substantially all of the
income tax liability generated from the distribution of such shares could be
paid by NL to Valhi in the form of shares of Kronos common stock held by
NL. Prior to 2005, we transferred such Kronos shares to Valhi in
satisfaction of such tax liability and the tax liability generated from the use
of such Kronos shares to settle such tax liability. The aggregate
amount of such tax liability, including the tax liability resulting from the use
of Kronos common stock to settle such liability, aggregated approximately $230
million. This aggregate $230 million tax liability has not been paid
by Valhi to Contran, nor has Contran paid such tax liability to the applicable
tax authority, because the related taxable gain is currently deferred at the
Valhi and Contran levels due to Valhi and NL being members of the Valhi tax
group on a separate company basis and of the Contran Tax Group. Such
income tax liability would become payable by Valhi to Contran, and by Contran to
the applicable tax authority, when the shares of Kronos transferred or
distributed by NL to Valhi are sold or otherwise transferred outside the Contran
Tax Group or in the event of certain restructuring transactions involving NL and
Valhi.
During
2005, we sold approximately 470,000 shares of Kronos common stock in market
transactions for an aggregate of $19.2 million. We recognized a $14.7
million pre-tax securities transaction gain related to such sales.
As a
result of all of the foregoing transactions, our ownership of Kronos was reduced
to approximately 36% as of December 31, 2007. See Note
7. At December 31, 2007, Valhi owned an additional 59% of Kronos’
outstanding common stock.
Note
3 - Geographic information:
We
operate in the component products industry through our majority ownership of
CompX. CompX is a leading manufacturer of security products,
precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support systems used in the
office furniture, transportation, postal, tool storage, home appliance and a
variety of other industries. CompX is also a leading manufacturer of
stainless steel exhaust systems, gauges and throttle controls for the
performance boat industry. CompX has production facilities in North
America and Asia.
For
geographic information, we attribute net sales to the place of manufacture
(point of origin) and the location of the customer (point of destination); we
attribute property and equipment to their physical location. At
December 31, 2006 and 2007 the net assets of non-U.S. subsidiaries included in
consolidated net assets approximated, $35.4 million, and $34.9 million,
respectively.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Net
sales - point of origin:
|
||||||||||||
United States
|
$ | 113.5 | $ | 127.6 | $ | 118.5 | ||||||
Canada
|
63.9 | 52.4 | 52.7 | |||||||||
Taiwan
|
14.2 | 15.9 | 11.7 | |||||||||
Eliminations
|
(5.2 | ) | (5.8 | ) | (5.2 | ) | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 186.4 | $ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | ||||||
Net sales - point of destination:
|
||||||||||||
United States
|
$ | 149.5 | $ | 153.9 | $ | 147.8 | ||||||
Canada
|
25.0 | 20.0 | 19.3 | |||||||||
Other
|
11.9 | 16.2 | 10.6 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 186.4 | $ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 |
December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Identifiable
assets -
|
||||||||||||
Net property and equipment:
|
||||||||||||
United States
|
$ | 43.7 | $ | 48.9 | $ | 51.9 | ||||||
Canada
|
17.0 | 14.1 | 13.9 | |||||||||
Taiwan
|
8.2 | 7.7 | 7.4 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 68.9 | $ | 70.7 | $ | 73.2 |
Note
4
- Marketable
securities:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Current
assets (available-for-sale):
|
||||||||
Restricted
debt securities
|
$ | 5,301 | $ | 5,301 | ||||
Other
marketable securities
|
4,688 | 559 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 9,989 | $ | 5,860 | ||||
Noncurrent
assets (available-for-sale):
|
||||||||
Valhi
common stock
|
$ | 122,344 | $ | 75,064 | ||||
TIMET
common stock
|
- | 38,329 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 122,344 | $ | 113,393 |
Restricted
debt securities at December 31, 2006 and 2007 collateralize certain of our
outstanding letters of credit.
At
December 31, 2006 and 2007, we owned approximately 4.7 million shares of Valhi
common stock accounted for as available-for-sale marketable equity securities
carried at fair value based on quoted market prices, a Level 1 input as defined
by SFAS No. 157. See Note 21. The aggregate cost basis for
our investment in Valhi at December 31, 2006 and 2007 was $34.6 million and
$23.2 million, respectively. The decrease in cost basis during 2007
is due to a special dividend Valhi paid in the form of TIMET stock as discussed
below. The quoted market price per share was $25.98 and $15.94 at
December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2007, respectively with an aggregate market
value of $122.3 million and $75.1 million at December 31, 2006 and December 31,
2007, respectively.
In March
2007, Valhi paid a special dividend to its stockholders in the form of the
shares of Titanium Metals Corporation (“TIMET”) common stock owned by
Valhi. Prior to the special dividend, Valhi owned approximately 35%
of TIMET’s outstanding common stock. As a result of the special
dividend, each Valhi stockholder, including us, received .4776 of a share of
TIMET common stock for each share of Valhi common stock held. We
received approximately 2.2 million shares of TIMET common stock in the special
dividend. For financial reporting purposes, Valhi’s carrying value of
the 2.2 million TIMET shares we received was approximately $11.4 million at the
date of distribution. We accounted for our receipt of the 2.2 million
shares of TIMET common stock by reducing the cost basis of our shares of Valhi
common stock by this $11.4 million carryover basis, since we and Valhi are under
the common control of Contran. We also account for our shares of
TIMET common stock as available-for-sale market equity securities based on
quoted market prices.
In
October 2007, we sold 800,000 shares of our TIMET common stock to Valhi for
approximately $26.8 million cash. The transaction was approved by the
independent members of our board of directors. The transaction was
valued based on TIMET’s October 10, 2007 closing market price. As a
result of such sale, we recognized a pre-tax securities transaction gain in the
fourth quarter of 2007 of $22.7 million. At December 31, 2007, the
quoted market price of the remaining 1.4 million shares of TIMET common stock
held by us was $26.45 per share, or an aggregate market value of $38.3
million.
The Valhi
and TIMET common stock we own are subject to the restrictions on resale pursuant
to certain provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule
144. In addition, as a majority-owned subsidiary of Valhi we cannot
vote our shares of Valhi common stock under Delaware Corporation Law, but we do
receive dividends from Valhi on these shares, when declared and
paid. For financial reporting purposes, Valhi reports its
proportional interest in these shares as treasury stock.
Note
5 - Accounts and other receivables, net:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Trade
receivables
|
$ | 20,698 | $ | 21,129 | ||||
Other
receivables
|
1,941 | 1,535 | ||||||
Refundable
income taxes
|
215 | 217 | ||||||
Allowance
for doubtful accounts
|
(716 | ) | (660 | ) | ||||
Total
|
$ | 22,138 | $ | 22,221 |
Note
6 - Inventories, net:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Raw
materials
|
$ | 5,892 | $ | 6,341 | ||||
In
process products
|
8,744 | 9,783 | ||||||
Finished
products
|
7,097 | 8,153 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 21,733 | $ | 24,277 |
Note
7 - Investment in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.:
At
December 31, 2006 and 2007, we owned approximately 17.5 million shares of Kronos
common stock. At December 31, 2007 the quoted market price was $17.45
per share, or an aggregate market value of $305.7 million, and at December 31,
2006 the quoted market price per share was $32.56, or an aggregate market value
of $570.3 million. The change in the carrying value of our investment
in Kronos during the past three years is summarized below:
Year ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at the beginning of the period
|
$ | 175.6 | $ | 147.7 | $ | 160.5 | ||||||
Equity
in earnings (losses) of Kronos
|
25.7 | 29.3 | (23.9 | ) | ||||||||
Dividends
received from Kronos
|
(17.6 | ) | (17.5 | ) | (17.5 | ) | ||||||
Sales
of Kronos stock
|
(4.4 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Dividends
paid in Kronos stock
|
(2.6 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Equity
in Kronos’ changes in accounting
|
- | (13.4 | ) | (2.1 | ) | |||||||
Other,
principally equity in other comprehensive income
|
(29.0 | ) | 14.4 | 30.1 | ||||||||
Balance
at the end of the period
|
$ | 147.7 | $ | 160.5 | $ | 147.1 |
Selected
financial information of Kronos is summarized below:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||
Current
assets
|
$ | 562.9 | $ | 621.7 | ||||
Property
and equipment, net
|
462.0 | 526.5 | ||||||
Investment
in TiO2
joint venture
|
113.6 | 118.5 | ||||||
Other
noncurrent assets
|
283.0 | 188.3 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 1,421.5 | $ | 1,455.0 | ||||
Current
liabilities
|
$ | 179.5 | $ | 224.5 | ||||
Long-term
debt
|
535.3 | 590.0 | ||||||
Accrued
pension and post retirement benefits
|
195.7 | 149.9 | ||||||
Other
noncurrent liabilities
|
62.6 | 79.6 | ||||||
Stockholders’
equity
|
448.4 | 411.0 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’ equity
|
$ | 1,421.5 | $ | 1,455.0 |
Year ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 1,196.7 | $ | 1,279.4 | $ | 1,310.3 | ||||||
Cost
of sales
|
869.2 | 968.9 | 1,058.9 | |||||||||
Income
from operations
|
176.0 | 143.2 | 84.9 | |||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
71.5 | 82.0 | (66.7 | ) |
Note
8 – Goodwill:
Substantially
all of our goodwill is related to our component products operations and was
generated principally from CompX's acquisitions of certain business units
completed prior to 2002, from the two acquisitions in August 2005 and April 2006
and from our step acquisition of CompX in 2007. See Note
2. The remaining goodwill resulted from our acquisition of EWI RE,
Inc., an insurance broker subsidiary, prior to 2005 and totaled approximately
$6.4 million.
Changes
in the carrying amount of goodwill related to the components products operations
during the past three years are presented in the table below.
Component
products operations
(In
millions)
|
||||
Balance
at December 31, 2004
|
$ | 14.4 | ||
Goodwill
acquired during the year
|
8.0 | |||
Disposition
of business
|
(1.4 | ) | ||
Changes
in foreign exchange rates
|
(.2 | ) | ||
Balance
at December 31, 2005
|
20.8 | |||
Goodwill
acquired during the year
|
5.6 | |||
Changes
in foreign exchange rates
|
.2 | |||
Balance
at December 31, 2006
|
26.6 | |||
Goodwill
acquired during the year
|
21.7 | |||
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
$ | 48.3 |
We have
assigned our goodwill related to the component products operations to three
reporting units (as
that term is defined in SFAS No. 142): one consisting of CompX's security
products operations, one consisting of CompX’s furniture components operations
and one consisting of CompX’s marine component operations. In
accordance with SFAS No. 142 we test for goodwill impairment at the reporting
unit level. In accordance with the requirements of SFAS No. 142, we
review goodwill for each of CompX’s reporting units for impairment during the
third quarter of each year or when circumstances arise that indicate impairment
might exist. In determining the estimated fair value of the reporting
units, we use appropriate valuation techniques, such as discounted cash
flows. Such discounted cash flows would be a Level 3 input as defined
by SFAS No. 157. See Note 21. If the fair value of an
evaluated asset is less than its book value, the asset is written down to fair
value. Our 2005, 2006 and 2007 annual impairment reviews of goodwill
indicated no impairments.
Note
9 - Intangible and other noncurrent assets:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Definite-lived
customer list intangible asset
|
$ | 743 | $ | 132 | ||||
Patents
and other intangible assets
|
3,174 | 2,569 | ||||||
Other
|
5,060 | 5,155 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 8,977 | $ | 7,856 |
Definite-lived
customer list intangible asset resulted from the acquisition of EWI RE,
Inc. See Note 8. This intangible asset is generally
amortized on a straight-line basis over a period of seven years (approximately
one year remaining at December 31, 2007) with no assumed residual value and is
presented net of accumulated amortization of $1.9 million and $2.5 million as of
December 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively. Patents and other
intangible assets, all of which relate to CompX, are stated net of accumulated
amortization of $2.5 million at December 31, 2006 and $3.1 million at December
31, 2007.
Aggregate
amortization expense of intangible assets was $686,000 in 2005, $813,000 in
2006, $1,216,000 in 2007 and is expected to be approximately $732,000 in 2008,
$600,000 in 2009 and 2010, $550,000 in 2011 and $250,000 in 2012.
Note
10 -Accrued liabilities:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Employee
benefits
|
$ | 9,506 | $ | 8,896 | ||||
Professional
fees
|
3,220 | 4,322 | ||||||
Reserve
for uncertain tax positions
|
- | 289 | ||||||
Other
|
12,804 | 12,532 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 25,530 | $ | 26,039 |
Note
11 - Other noncurrent liabilities:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Insurance
claims and expenses
|
$ | 1,007 | $ | 1,381 | ||||
Reserve
for uncertain tax positions
|
- | 22,128 | ||||||
Other
|
1,475 | 1,617 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 2,482 | $ | 25,126 |
Note
12 - Credit facility:
At
December 31, 2007, CompX has a $50 million revolving bank credit facility that
matures in January 2009 and bears interest, at CompX’s option, at rates based on
either the prime rate plus a margin determined by CompX’s leverage ratio or
LIBOR plus a margin determined by CompX’s leverage ratio. The credit
facility is collateralized by 65% of the ownership interests in CompX’s
first-tier non-U.S. subsidiaries. The facility contains certain
covenants and restrictions customary in lending transactions of this type which,
among other things, restricts the ability of CompX and its subsidiaries to incur
debt, incur liens, pay dividends or merge or consolidate with, or transfer all
or substantially all assets, to another entity. In the event of a
change of control of CompX, as defined, the lenders would have the right to
accelerate the maturity of the facility. At December 31, 2007, there
were no outstanding draws against the credit facility and the full amount of the
facility was available for borrowing.
Note
13 - Minority interest:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Minority
interest in net assets -
|
||||||||
CompX
International Inc.
|
$ | 45,416 | $ | 14,366 |
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Minority
interest in net earnings:
|
||||||||||||
CompX
International Inc.
|
$ | 290 | $ | 3,468 | $ | 2,624 | ||||||
NL
Environmental Management Services, Inc.
|
62 | - | - | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 352 | $ | 3,468 | $ | 2,624 |
Other - Other minority interest
related principally to our majority-owned environmental management subsidiary,
NL Environmental Management Services, Inc. ("EMS"). EMS was
established in 1998, at which time EMS contractually assumed certain of NL's
environmental liabilities. EMS' earnings were based, in part, upon
its ability to favorably resolve these liabilities on an aggregate
basis. We continue to consolidate EMS and to accrue for the
reasonably estimable costs for the settlement of EMS’ environmental liabilities,
as discussed in Note 19.
In June
2005, we received notices from the three minority shareholders of EMS indicating
they were each exercising their right, which became exercisable on June 1, 2005,
to require EMS to purchase their preferred shares in EMS as of June 30, 2005 for
a formula-determined amount as provided in EMS’ certificate of
incorporation. In accordance with the certificate of incorporation,
we made a determination in good faith of the amount payable to the three former
minority shareholders to purchase their shares of EMS stock, which amount may be
subject to review by a third party. See Note 19. In June
2005, we set aside funds as payment for the shares of EMS, but as of December
31, 2007 the former minority shareholders have not tendered their
shares. Therefore, the liability owed to these former minority
shareholders has not been extinguished for financial reporting purposes as of
December 31, 2007 and remains recognized as a current liability in our
Consolidated Financial Statements. We have similarly classified the
funds which have been set aside in restricted cash and cash
equivalents.
Discontinued
operations - Minority interest in losses of discontinued operations was
$200,000 in 2005 (nil in 2006 and 2007). See Note 22.
Note
14 - Stockholders' equity:
Shares
of common stock issued and
outstanding
|
||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||
Balance
at December 31, 2004
|
48,440 | |||
Common
stock issued
|
122 | |||
Balance
at December 31, 2005
|
48,562 | |||
Common
stock issued
|
24 | |||
Balance
at December 31, 2006
|
48,586 | |||
Common
stock issued
|
6 | |||
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
48,592 |
NL common stock
options - The NL
Industries, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan provides for the discretionary
grant of restricted common stock, stock options, stock appreciation rights
(“SARs”) and other incentive compensation to our officers and other key
employees and non-employee directors, including individuals who are employed by
Kronos. In addition, certain stock options granted pursuant to
another plan remain outstanding at December 31, 2007, but we may not grant any
additional options under that plan.
We may
issue up to five million shares of our common stock pursuant to the 1998 plan,
and at December 31, 2007 4.1 million shares were available for future
grants. The 1998 plan provides for the grant of options that qualify
as incentive options and for options which are not so
qualified. Generally, stock options and SARs (collectively,
“options”) are granted at a price equal to or greater than 100% of the market
price at the date of grant, vest over a five-year period and expire ten years
from the date of grant. Restricted stock, forfeitable unless certain
periods of employment are completed, is held in escrow in the name of the
grantee until the restriction period expires. No SARs have been
granted under the 1998 plan.
Changes
in outstanding options granted under all plans are summarized in the table
below.
Shares
|
Exercise
price
per
share
|
Amount
payable
upon
exercise
|
Weighted-
average exercise price
|
|||||||||||||
(In
thousands, except per share amounts)
|
||||||||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2004
|
245 | $ | 2.66-13.34 | 2,401 | $ | 9.80 | ||||||||||
Exercised
|
(116 | ) | 5.63-11.89 | (1,222 | ) | 10.53 | ||||||||||
Cancelled
|
(1 | ) | 11.49 | (14 | ) | 11.49 | ||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2005
|
128 | 2.66-11.89 | 1,165 | 9.11 | ||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(17 | ) | 2.66- 9.34 | (88 | ) | 5.08 | ||||||||||
Cancelled
|
(5 | ) | 11.49-11.89 | (50 | ) | 10.48 | ||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2006
|
106 | 2.66-11.49 | 1,027 | 9.71 | ||||||||||||
Exercised
|
- | - | - | |||||||||||||
Cancelled
|
(9 | ) | 5.19-11.49 | (67 | ) | 7.51 | ||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2007
|
97 | $ | 2.66-11.49 | $ | 960 | $ | 9.91 |
At
December 31, 2007 all of the outstanding options were exercisable. At
December 31, 2007, the aggregate intrinsic value (defined as the excess of the
market price of our common stock over the exercise price) for the outstanding
options for which the exercise price was less than the market price of our
common stock of $11.43 per share was approximately
$151,000. Outstanding options at December 31, 2007 expire at various
dates through 2011. Shares issued under the 1998 plan are generally
newly-issued shares, however prior to September 2004 we issued shares from our
treasury shares.
The
intrinsic value of options exercised aggregated $1.3 million, $110,000 and nil
in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively and the related income tax benefit from such
exercises was approximately $500,000, $40,000 and nil in 2005, 2006 and 2007
respectively.
Stock option plan
of subsidiaries and affiliates - Through December 31, 2007, Kronos has
not granted any options to purchase its common stock. CompX maintains
a stock option plan that provides for the grant of options to purchase its
common stock. At December 31, 2007, options to purchase 349,000 CompX
shares were outstanding with exercise prices ranging from $12.15 to $20.00 per
share, or an aggregate amount payable upon exercise of $6.6
million.
Note
15 - Income taxes:
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Pre-tax
income (loss):
|
||||||||||||
U.S.
|
$ | 39.4 | $ | 31.1 | $ | (14.9 | ) | |||||
Non-U.S.
|
8.9 | 7.3 |
7.5
|
|||||||||
Total
|
$ | 48.3 | $ | 38.4 | $ | (7.4 | ) | |||||
Expected tax expense, at U.S.
federal
statutory income tax rate of 35%
|
$ | 16.9 | $ | 13.5 | $ | (2.6 | ) | |||||
Non-U.S. tax rates
|
(.3 | ) | (.3 | ) | (.2 | ) | ||||||
Incremental U.S. tax and rate differences
on equity in earnings
|
3.2 | (4.0 | ) | (5.0 | ) | |||||||
Nondeductible expenses
|
.3 | .3 | .5 | |||||||||
U.S. state income taxes, net
|
.5 | .5 | .5 | |||||||||
Excess of book basis over tax basis of Kronos
common stock:
|
||||||||||||
Sold
|
.9 | - | - | |||||||||
Distributed
|
1.9 | - | - | |||||||||
Tax contingency reserve adjustment, net
|
(7.2 | ) | .1 | (1.3 | ) | |||||||
Other, net
|
(1.5 | ) | (1.2 | ) | (.2 | ) | ||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
$ | 14.7 | $ | 8.9 | $ | (8.3 | ) |
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Components
of income tax expense (benefit):
|
||||||||||||
Currently payable (refundable):
|
||||||||||||
U.S. federal and state
|
$ | 21.7 | $ | (1.9 | ) | $ | .1 | |||||
Non-U.S.
|
3.5 | 2.4 | 3.6 | |||||||||
25.2 | .5 | 3.7 | ||||||||||
Deferred income taxes (benefit):
|
||||||||||||
U.S. federal and state
|
(10.4 | ) | 8.9 | (12.0 | ) | |||||||
Non-U.S.
|
(.1 | ) | (.5 | ) | - | |||||||
(10.5 | ) | 8.4 | (12.0 | ) | ||||||||
Total
|
$ | 14.7 | $ | 8.9 | $ | (8.3 | ) |
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Comprehensive
provision for
income
taxes (benefit) allocable to:
|
||||||||||||
Income
from continuing operations
|
$ | 14.7 | $ | 8.9 | $ | (8.3 | ) | |||||
Discontinued
operations
|
(.4 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Retained
earnings
|
3.0 | - | - | |||||||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
.1 | - | - | |||||||||
Other
comprehensive income:
|
||||||||||||
Marketable
securities
|
3.9 | 12.4 | (5.6 | ) | ||||||||
Pension
liabilities
|
(5.4 | ) | 1.4 | 6.8 | ||||||||
OPEB
Plans
|
- | - | .4 | |||||||||
Currency
translation
|
(3.5 | ) | 5.2 | 6.0 | ||||||||
Adoption
of SFAS 158:
|
||||||||||||
Pension
plans
|
- | (2.1 | ) | - | ||||||||
OPEB
plans
|
- | (.9 | ) | - | ||||||||
Total
|
$ | 12.4 | $ | 24.9 | $ | (.7 | ) |
The
components of the net deferred tax liability at December 31, 2006 and 2007 are
summarized in the following table. Our deferred income tax valuation
allowance was nil during each of the past three years.
December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||||||||||
Assets
|
Liabilities
|
Assets
|
Liabilities
|
|||||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||||||
Tax effect of temporary differences
related to:
|
||||||||||||||||
Inventories
|
$ | .8 | $ | - | $ | 1.0 | $ | - | ||||||||
Marketable securities
|
- | (28.7 | ) | - | (20.0 | ) | ||||||||||
Property and equipment
|
- | (5.6 | ) | - | (4.7 | ) | ||||||||||
Accrued OPEB costs
|
4.6 | - | 3.9 | - | ||||||||||||
Pension
asset
|
- | (4.5 | ) | - | (6.6 | ) | ||||||||||
Accrued pension cost
|
1.0 | - | 1.1 | - | ||||||||||||
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
17.0 | - | 16.4 | - | ||||||||||||
Other accrued liabilities and deductible
differences
|
2.6 | - | 2.5 | - | ||||||||||||
Other taxable differences
|
- | (36.3 | ) | - | (10.7 | ) | ||||||||||
Investments in subsidiaries and
affiliates
|
- | (76.8 | ) | - | (67.8 | ) | ||||||||||
Tax loss and tax credit carryforwards
|
.4 | - | .3 | - | ||||||||||||
Adjusted gross deferred tax assets
(liabilities)
|
26.4 | (151.9 | ) | 25.2 | (109.8 | ) | ||||||||||
Netting of items by tax jurisdiction
|
(20.9 | ) | 20.9 | (18.7 | ) | 18.7 | ||||||||||
5.5 | (131.0 | ) | 6.5 | (91.1 | ) | |||||||||||
Less net current deferred tax asset
|
5.5 | - | 6.5 | - | ||||||||||||
Net noncurrent deferred tax liability
|
$ | - | $ | (131.0 | ) | $ | - | $ | (91.1 | ) |
As discussed in Note 4, we received 2.2
million shares of TIMET common stock in March 2007 when Valhi paid a special
dividend. For income tax purposes, the tax basis in the shares of
TIMET we received is equal to the fair value of such TIMET shares on the date we
received them. However, if the fair value of all of the TIMET shares
distributed by Valhi exceeds Valhi’s cumulative earnings and profits as of the
end of 2007, we are required to reduce the tax basis of the shares of Valhi
common stock we own by an amount equal to the lesser of our tax basis in such
Valhi shares or our pro-rata share of the amount by which the aggregate fair
value of the TIMET shares distributed by Valhi exceeds Valhi’s earnings and
profits. Additionally, if our pro-rata share of the amount by which
the aggregate fair value of the TIMET shares distributed by Valhi exceeds
Valhi’s earnings and profits is greater than the tax basis of our Valhi shares,
we are required to recognize a capital gain for the difference. The
fair value of the TIMET shares we received exceeds our share of Valhi’s
cumulative earnings and profits at the end of 2007 and exceeds our aggregate tax
basis of our Valhi shares. Accordingly, the benefit associated with
receiving a fair-value tax basis in our TIMET shares has been offset by the
elimination of the tax basis in our Valhi shares and the capital gain we are
required to recognize for the excess. The income tax generated from
this capital gain is approximately $11.2 million. For financial
reporting purposes, we provide deferred income taxes for the excess of the
carrying value over the tax basis of our shares of both Valhi and TIMET common
stock, and as a result the $11.2 million current income tax generated is offset
by deferred income taxes we previously provided on our shares of Valhi common
stock.
We and our qualifying subsidiaries, and
Valhi, are members of Contran’s consolidated U.S. federal income tax group (the
“Contran Tax Group”), and we make payments to Valhi for income taxes in amounts
that we would have paid to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service had we not been a
member of the Contran Tax Group. Approximately $10.8 million of the $11.2
million tax related to the TIMET distribution is payable to Valhi (the remaining
$.4 million relates to one of our subsidiaries that was not a member of the
Contran Tax Group on the distribution date). Valhi is not currently
required to pay this $10.8 million tax liability to Contran, nor is Contran
currently required to pay this tax liability to the applicable tax authority,
because the related taxable gain is currently deferred at the Valhi and Contran
levels since Valhi and NL are members of the Valhi tax group on a separate
company basis and of the Contran Tax Group. This income tax liability
would become payable by Valhi to Contran, and by Contran to the applicable tax
authority, when the shares of Valhi common stock held by NL are sold or
otherwise transferred outside the Contran Tax Group or in the event of certain
restructuring transactions involving NL and Valhi.
Tax authorities are continuing to
examine certain of our U.S. and foreign tax returns including those of Kronos
and tax authorities have or may propose tax deficiencies, including penalties
and interest. We cannot guarantee that these tax matters will be
resolved in our favor due to the inherent uncertainties involved in settlement
initiatives and court and tax proceedings. We believe that we have
adequate accruals for additional taxes and related interest expense which could
ultimately result from tax examinations. We believe the ultimate
disposition of tax examinations should not have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.
Under
GAAP, we are required to recognize a deferred income tax liability with respect
to the incremental U.S. taxes (federal and state) and foreign withholding taxes
that would be incurred when undistributed earnings of a foreign subsidiary are
subsequently repatriated, unless we have determined that those undistributed
earnings are permanently reinvested for the foreseeable future. Prior to the
third quarter of 2005, CompX had not recognized a deferred tax liability related
to such incremental income taxes on the undistributed earnings of certain of its
foreign operations, as those earnings were subject to specific permanent
reinvestment plans. GAAP requires a company to reassess the permanent
reinvestment conclusion on an ongoing basis to determine if management’s
intentions have changed. In September of 2005, and based primarily
upon changes in CompX management’s strategic plans for certain of its non-U.S.
operations, CompX’s management has determined that the undistributed earnings of
such subsidiaries can no longer be considered to be permanently reinvested,
except for the pre-2005 earnings of its Taiwanese
subsidiary. Accordingly, in 2005 CompX recognized an aggregate $9.0
million provision for deferred income taxes on the aggregate undistributed
earnings of these foreign subsidiaries.
At
December 31, 2007, CompX had $.8 million of U.S. net operating loss
carryforwards expiring in 2008 through 2017. Utilization of such net
operating loss carryforwards is limited to approximately $400,000 per tax
year. CompX utilized approximately $400,000 of such carryforwards in
each of 2007, 2006 and 2005. We believe it is more-likely-than-not
that such carryforwards will be utilized to reduce future income tax
liabilities, and accordingly we have not provided a deferred income tax asset
valuation allowance to offset the benefit of such carryforwards.
In
January 2005, CompX completed its disposition of the Thomas Regout operations in
Europe (see Note 22 to the financial statements). CompX recognized a
$4.2 million income tax benefit associated with the U.S. capital loss expected
to be realized in the first quarter of 2005 upon completion of the sale of the
Thomas Regout operations. Under applicable GAAP, CompX recognized the
benefit of such capital loss in the fourth quarter of 2004 at the time such
operations were classified as held for sale. See Note
22.
Note
16 - Employee benefit plans:
Defined
contribution plans
- We maintain various defined contribution pension plans
worldwide. Company contributions are based on matching or other
formulas. Defined contribution plan expense approximated $2.3 million
in 2005, $2.2 million in 2006 and $2.5 million in 2007.
Defined benefit
plans – We
maintain a defined benefit pension plan in the U.S. We also maintain
a plan in the United Kingdom related to a former disposed business unit in the
U.K. Prior to December 31, 2007 we used a September 30 measurement
date for our defined benefit pension plans. Effective December 31,
2007, all of our defined benefit plans use a December 31 measurement
date. See Note 21. The benefits under our defined benefit
plans are based upon years of service and employee compensation. Our
funding policy is to contribute annually the minimum amount required under ERISA
(or equivalent foreign) regulations plus additional amounts as we deem
appropriate.
We
currently expect to contribute approximately $700,000 to all of our defined
benefit pension plans during 2008. Benefit payments to plan
participants out of plan assets are expected to be the equivalent
of:
2008
|
$ 2.8
million
|
2009
|
$ 2.8
million
|
2010
|
$ 2.7
million
|
2011
|
$ 2.8
million
|
2012
|
$ 2.8
million
|
Next 5 years
|
$15.5
million
|
The
funded status of our defined benefit pension plans is presented in the table
below.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Change
in projected benefit obligations ("PBO"):
|
||||||||
Balance
at beginning of the year
|
$ | 55,439 | $ | 53,351 | ||||
Elimination
of early measurement date
|
- | 732 | ||||||
Interest cost
|
2,889 | 2,925 | ||||||
Participant contributions
|
12 | 18 | ||||||
Actuarial gains,
net
|
(2,621 | ) | (2,224 | ) | ||||
Change in foreign currency exchange rates
|
1,192 | 180 | ||||||
Benefits paid
|
(3,560 | ) | (4,060 | ) | ||||
Benefit
obligation at end of the year
|
53,351 | 50,922 | ||||||
Change in plan assets:
|
||||||||
Fair value
at beginning of the year
|
58,083 | 63,199 | ||||||
Elimination
of early measurement date
|
- | 1,451 | ||||||
Actual return on plan assets
|
6,496 | 5,327 | ||||||
Employer contributions
|
1,261 | 869 | ||||||
Participant contributions
|
12 | 18 | ||||||
Change in foreign currency exchange rates
|
907 | (98 | ) | |||||
Benefits paid
|
(3,560 | ) | (4,060 | ) | ||||
Fair value of
plan assets at end of year
|
63,199 | 66,706 | ||||||
Funded status
|
$ | 9,848 | $ | 15,784 | ||||
Amounts recognized in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
|
||||||||
Pension
asset
|
$ | 12,807 | $ | 17,623 | ||||
Accrued pension costs:
|
||||||||
Current
|
(179 | ) | (174 | ) | ||||
Noncurrent
|
(2,780 | ) | (1,665 | ) | ||||
$ | 9,848 | $ | 15,784 | |||||
Accumulated other comprehensive income:
|
||||||||
Actuarial
gains, net
|
$ | (3,066 | ) | $ | (5,103 | ) | ||
Accumulated
benefit obligation (“ABO”)
|
$ | 53,351 | $ | 50,922 |
The
amounts shown in the table above for unrecognized actuarial gains and losses at
December 31, 2006 and 2007 have not been recognized as components of our
periodic defined benefit pension cost as of those dates. These
amounts will be recognized as components of our periodic defined benefit cost in
future years. In accordance with SFAS No. 158, these amounts, net of
deferred income taxes, are recognized in our accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss) at December 31, 2006 and 2007. We expect that $.2
million of the unrecognized actuarial gains will be recognized as a component of
our periodic defined benefit pension cost in 2008. See Note
21. The table below details the changes in other comprehensive income
during 2007.
Year
Ended
|
||||
December 31, 2007
|
||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||
Changes
in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized in other comprehensive
income:
|
||||
Net
actuarial gains arising during the year
|
$ | 1,735 | ||
Amortization
of unrecognized net actuarial gains
|
295 | |||
Change
in measurement date
|
76 | |||
Total
|
$ | 2,106 | ||
The
components of our net periodic defined benefit pension cost are presented in the
table below. During 2007, the amount shown below for the amortization
of unrecognized actuarial losses, net of deferred income taxes, was recognized
as a component of our accumulated other comprehensive income at December 31,
2006.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Net
periodic pension cost (income):
|
||||||||||||
Interest cost on PBO
|
$ | 3,020 | $ | 2,889 | $ | 2,925 | ||||||
Expected return on plan assets
|
(4,051 | ) | (5,396 | ) | (5,800 | ) | ||||||
Amortization
of unrecognized:
|
||||||||||||
Net transition obligations
|
(67 | ) | (67 | ) | - | |||||||
Net actuarial losses
|
384 | 414 | 295 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | (714 | ) | $ | (2,160 | ) | $ | (2,580 | ) |
Certain
information concerning our defined benefit pension plans is presented in the
table below.
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
PBO
at end of the year:
|
||||||||
U.S. plan
|
$ | 43,636 | $ | 41,725 | ||||
U.K. plan
|
9,715 | 9,197 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 53,351 | $ | 50,922 | ||||
Fair value of plan assets at end of the year:
|
||||||||
U.S. plan
|
$ | 55,249 | $ | 58,239 | ||||
U.K. plan
|
7,950 | 8,467 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 63,199 | $ | 66,706 |
The
weighted-average rate assumptions used in determining the actuarial present
value of our benefit obligations as of December 31, 2006 and 2007 are 5.7% and
6.0%, respectively. Such weighted-average rates were determined using
the projected benefit obligations at each date. At December 31, 2006
and 2007, we had no active employees participating in our defined benefit
pension plans. Such plans are closed to additional participants and
assumptions regarding future compensation levels are not applicable;
consequently, the accumulated benefit obligations for all of our defined benefit
pension plans were equal to the projected benefit obligations at December 31,
2006 and 2007. The accumulated benefit obligation of our U.K. plan
was less than the fair value of the plan’s assets at December 31, 2006 and
2007.
The weighted-average rate assumptions
used in determining the net periodic pension cost for 2005, 2006 and 2007 are
presented in the table below. Such weighted-average discount rates
were determined using the projected benefit obligations as of the beginning of
each year, and the weighted-average long-term return on plan assets was
determined using the fair value of plan assets as of the beginning of each
year.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
Rate
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||||
Discount
rate
|
5.7 | % | 5.4 | % | 5.7 | % | ||||||
Long-term
return on plan assets
|
9.6 | % | 9.6 | % | 9.6 | % |
Variances
from actuarially assumed rates will result in increases or decreases in
accumulated pension obligations, pension expense and funding requirements in
future periods.
At
December 31, 2006 and 2007, substantially all of the assets attributable to U.S.
plans were invested in the Combined Master Retirement Trust (“CMRT”), a
collective investment trust sponsored by Contran to permit the collective
investment by certain master trusts which fund certain employee benefits plans
sponsored by Contran and certain of its affiliates.
The
CMRT’s long-term investment objective is to provide a rate of return exceeding a
composite of broad market equity and fixed income indices (including the S&P
500 and certain Russell indices) utilizing both third-party investment managers
as well as investments directed by Mr. Harold Simmons. Mr. Simmons is
the sole trustee of the CMRT. The trustee of the CMRT, along with the
CMRT's investment committee, of which Mr. Simmons is a member, actively manages
the investments of the CMRT. The trustee and investment committee
periodically change the asset mix of the CMRT based upon, among other things,
advice they receive from third-party advisors and their expectations as to what
asset mix will generate the greatest overall return. For the years
ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the assumed long-term rate of return for
plan assets invested in the CMRT was 10%. In determining the
appropriateness of the rate of return assumption, we considered, among other
things, the historical rates of return for the CMRT, the current and projected
asset mix of the CMRT and the investment objectives of the CMRT's
managers. During the 20-year history of the CMRT from its inception
in 1987 through December 31, 2007, the average annual rate of return has been
approximately 14% (including a 17% return for 2006 and an 11% return in
2007).
The CMRT
weighted-average asset allocation by asset category was as follows:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
U.S.
equity securities
|
86 | % | 90 | % | ||||
International
equity securities
|
7 | 8 | ||||||
Real
estate, fixed income, cash and other
|
7 | 2 | ||||||
Total
|
100 | % | 100 | % |
Postretirement
benefits other than pensions - In addition to providing pension benefits,
we also provide certain health care and life insurance benefits for eligible
retired employees. We use a December 31 measurement date for our OPEB
plans. The majority of all retirees are required to contribute a
portion of the cost of their benefits and certain current and future retirees
are eligible for reduced health care benefits at age 65. We have no
OPEB plan assets, rather, we fund postretirement benefits as they are incurred,
net of any contributions by the retiree. At December 31, 2007, we
currently expect to contribute approximately $1.4 million to all OPEB plans
during 2008. Benefit payments, net of estimated Medicare Part D
subsidy of approximately $210,000 per year, to OPEB plan participants are
expected to be approximately:
2008
|
$1.4
million
|
|
2009
|
$1.3
million
|
|
2010
|
$1.3
million
|
|
2011
|
$1.3
million
|
|
2012
|
$1.2
million
|
|
Next 5 years
|
$4.9
million
|
The
funded status of our OPEB plans is presented in the table below.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Actuarial
present value of accumulated
OPEB obligations:
|
||||||||
Balance at beginning of the year
|
$ | 14,001 | $ | 13,257 | ||||
Interest cost
|
734 | 726 | ||||||
Actuarial (gain)
loss
|
418 | (837 | ) | |||||
Plan
amendment
|
- | (425 | ) | |||||
Net
benefits paid
|
(1,896 | ) | (1,479 | ) | ||||
Obligations at end of the year
|
13,257 | 11,242 | ||||||
Fair
value of plan assets at end of year
|
- | - | ||||||
Funded status
|
$ | (13,257 | ) | $ | (11,242 | ) | ||
Accrued
OPEB costs recognized in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
|
||||||||
Current
|
$ | (1,585 | ) | $ | (1,377 | ) | ||
Noncurrent
|
(11,672 | ) | (9,865 | ) | ||||
Total
|
$ | (13,257 | ) | $ | (11,242 | ) | ||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss:
|
||||||||
Unrecognized net actuarial losses
|
$ | 3,110 | $ | 1,953 | ||||
Unrecognized prior service credit
|
(570 | ) | (883 | ) | ||||
Total
|
$ | 2,540 | $ | 1,070 |
The
amounts shown in the table above for unrecognized actuarial losses and prior
service credit at December 31, 2006 and 2007 have not been recognized as
components of our periodic OPEB cost as of those dates. These amounts
will be recognized as components of our periodic OPEB cost in future
years. In accordance with SFAS No. 158, these amounts, net of
deferred income taxes, are now recognized in our accumulated other comprehensive
income at December 31, 2006 and 2007. We expect to recognize
approximately $179,000 of the prior service credit as a component of our
periodic OPEB cost in 2008. See Note 21. The table below details the
changes in other comprehensive income during 2007.
Year
Ended
|
||||
December 31, 2007
|
||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||
Changes
in benefit obligations recognized in
other
comprehensive income:
|
||||
Net
actuarial gain arising during the year
|
$ | 836 | ||
Current
year plan amendments
|
425 | |||
Amortization
of unrecognized:
|
||||
Prior service cost
|
(112 | ) | ||
Net
actuarial losses
|
15 | |||
Total
|
$ | 1,164 |
The
components of our periodic OPEB cost are presented in the table
below. During 2007, the amounts shown below for the amortization of
unrecognized actuarial losses and prior service credit, net of deferred income
taxes, were recognized as components of our accumulated other comprehensive
income at December 31, 2006.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Net
periodic OPEB cost:
|
||||||||||||
Interest cost
|
$ | 844 | $ | 734 | $ | 726 | ||||||
Amortization of prior service credit
|
(286 | ) | (112 | ) | (112 | ) | ||||||
Recognized actuarial losses
|
- | - | 15 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 558 | $ | 622 | $ | 629 |
A summary
of our key actuarial assumptions used to determine the net benefit obligation as
of December 31, 2006 and 2007 follows:
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
Health
care inflation:
|
||||||||
Initial
rate
|
7 | % | 8.5 | % | ||||
Ultimate
rate
|
5.5 | % | 5.5 | % | ||||
Year
of ultimate rate achievement
|
2009
|
2014
|
||||||
Discount
rate
|
5.8 | % | 6.2 | % |
The
assumed health care cost trend rate has a significant effect on the amount we
report for OPEB cost. A one-percent change in assumed health care
trend rates would have the following effect:
1% Increase
|
1% Decrease
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Effect
on net OPEB cost during 2007
|
$ | 50 | $ | (40 | ) | |||
Effect
at December 31, 2007 on
postretirement
obligation
|
574 | (520 | ) |
The
weighted average discount rate used in determining the net periodic OPEB cost
for 2007 was 5.8% (the rate was 5.6% in 2006 and 5.7% in 2005). The
weighted average rate was determined using the projected benefit obligation as
of the beginning of each year.
The
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 provides a
federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a
prescription drug benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare
Part D. We are eligible for the federal subsidy. We
account for the effect of this subsidy prospectively from the date we determined
actuarial equivalence. The subsidy did not have a material impact on
the applicable accumulated postretirement benefit obligation, and will not have
a material impact on the net periodic OPEB cost going forward.
Note
17 - Related party transactions:
We may be
deemed to be controlled by Harold C. Simmons. See
Note 1. We and other entities that may be deemed to be
controlled by or affiliated with Mr. Simmons sometimes engage in (a)
intercorporate transactions such as guarantees, management and expense sharing
arrangements, shared fee arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships, loans,
options, advances of funds on open account, and sales, leases and exchanges of
assets, including securities issued by both related and unrelated parties and
(b) common investment and acquisition strategies, business combinations,
reorganizations, recapitalizations, securities repurchases, and purchases and
sales (and other acquisitions and dispositions) of subsidiaries, divisions or
other business units, which transactions have involved both related and
unrelated parties and have included transactions which resulted in the
acquisition by one related party of a publicly-held minority equity interest in
another related party. We periodically consider, review and evaluate,
and understand that Contran and related entities consider, review and evaluate
such transactions. Depending upon the business, tax and other
objectives then relevant, it is possible that we might be a party to one or more
such transactions in the future.
Receivables
from and payables to affiliates are summarized in the table below.
December
31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Current
receivables from affiliates:
|
||||||||
Income
taxes refundable from Valhi
|
$ | - | $ | 1,271 | ||||
Kronos
|
238 |
-
|
||||||
Total
|
$ | 238 | $ | 1,271 | ||||
Current
payables to affiliates:
|
||||||||
Income
taxes payable to Valhi
|
$ | 1,179 | $ | - | ||||
Note
payable TIMET
|
- | 250 | ||||||
Accrued
interest payable to TIMET
|
- | 559 | ||||||
Kronos
|
- | 20 | ||||||
Tremont
|
369 |
320
|
||||||
Total
|
$ | 1,548 | $ | 1,149 |
December
31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Noncurrent
payable to affiliate:
|
||||||||
Note
payable to TIMET
|
$ | - | $ | 49,980 | ||||
Less
current maturities
|
- | 250 | ||||||
Total
note payable to TIMET
|
$ | - | $ | 49,730 |
In 2007,
CompX purchased or cancelled a net 2.7 million shares of its Class A common
stock from TIMET. A subsidiary of Contran and persons and other
entities related to Mr. Simmons own an aggregate of approximately 52% of TIMET’s
outstanding common stock at December 31, 2007. CompX purchased or
cancelled these shares for $19.50 per share, or aggregate consideration of $52.6
million, which was paid in the form of a promissory note. The price
per share was determined based on CompX’s open market repurchases of its Class A
common stock around the time the repurchase and/or cancellation from TIMET was
approved. The promissory note bears interest at LIBOR plus 1% (5.98%
at December 31, 2007) and provides for quarterly principal repayments of
$250,000 commencing in September 2008, with the balance due at maturity in
September 2014. The promissory note is subordinated to CompX’s U.S.
revolving bank credit agreement. See Note 12. CompX may
make prepayments on the promissory note payable to TIMET at any time, in any
amount, without penalty. During the fourth quarter of 2007, CompX
prepaid approximately $2.6 million of the promissory note. At
December 31, 2007, $50.0 million was outstanding under the promissory note, of
which $250,000 was classified as a current liability. The scheduled repayments
of the promissory note are shown in the table below.
Years ending December 31,
|
Amount
|
|||
(In
thousands)
|
||||
2008
|
$ | 250 | ||
2009
|
1,000 | |||
2010
|
1,000 | |||
2011
|
1,000 | |||
2012
|
1,000 | |||
2013
and thereafter
|
45,730 | |||
Total
|
$ | 49,980 |
From time
to time, we will have loans and advances outstanding between us and various
related parties, pursuant to term and demand notes. We generally
enter into these loans and advances for cash management
purposes. When we loan funds to related parties, we are generally
able to earn a higher rate of return on the loan than the lender would earn if
the funds were invested in other instruments. While certain of such
loans may be of a lesser credit quality than cash equivalent instruments
otherwise available to us, we believe that we have evaluated the credit risks
involved and reflected those credit risks in the terms of the applicable
loans. When we borrow from related parties, we are generally able to
pay a lower rate of interest than we would pay if we borrowed from unrelated
parties. Related party interest expense in 2007, all related to our
note payable to TIMET, was approximately $.6 million.
Under the
terms of various intercorporate services agreements ("ISAs") we enter into with
Contran, employees of Contran will provide certain management, tax planning,
financial and administrative services to the other company on a fee
basis. Such charges are based upon estimates of the time devoted by
the Contran employees to our affairs, and the compensation and other expenses
associated with those persons. Because of the large number of
companies affiliated with Contran, we believe we benefit from cost savings and
economies of scale gained by not having certain management, financial and
administrative staffs duplicated at each entity, thus allowing certain Contran
employees to provide services to multiple companies but only be compensated by
Contran. The net ISA fees charged to us by Contran, (including
amounts attributable to Kronos for all periods), approved by the independent
members of the applicable board of directors, aggregated approximately $12.6
million, $13.8 million, and $14.3 million in 2005, 2006, and 2007
respectively.
Tall
Pines Insurance Company and EWI RE, Inc. provide for or broker certain insurance
or reinsurance policies for Contran and certain of its subsidiaries and
affiliates, including us. Tall Pines is wholly-owned by a subsidiary
of Valhi, and EWI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours. Consistent
with insurance industry practices, Tall Pines and EWI receive commissions from
insurance and reinsurance underwriters and/or assess fees for the policies that
they provide or broker. These amounts principally included payments
for insurance and reinsurance premiums paid to third parties, but also included
commissions paid to Tall Pines and EWI. Tall Pines purchases
reinsurance for substantially all of the risks it underwrites. We
expect that these relationships with Tall Pines and EWI will continue in
2008.
Contran
and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, including us, purchase certain
of their insurance policies as a group, with the costs of the jointly-owned
policies being apportioned among the participating companies. With
respect to certain of such policies, it is possible that unusually large losses
incurred by one or more insured party during a given policy period could leave
the other participating companies without adequate coverage under that policy
for the balance of the policy period. As a result, Contran and
certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, including us, have entered into a
loss sharing agreement under which any uninsured loss is shared by those
entities who have submitted claims under the relevant policy. We
believe the benefits in the form of reduced premiums and broader coverage
associated with the group coverage for such policies justifies the risk
associated with the potential for any uninsured loss.
Note
18 – Insurance recoveries and other income (expense):
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Insurance
recoveries
|
$ | 2,969 | $ | 7,656 | $ | 5,659 | ||||||
Currency
transaction gains (losses), net
|
(71 | ) | 145 | (1,085 | ) | |||||||
Other,
net
|
(13 | ) | (94 | ) | (257 | ) | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 2,885 | $ | 7,707 | $ | 4,317 |
Insurance
recoveries in 2005, 2006 and 2007 relate to amounts we received from certain of
our former insurance carriers, and relate principally to recovery of prior lead
pigment litigation defense costs incurred by us. We have agreements
with two former insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us
for a portion of our past and future lead pigment litigation defense costs, and
the insurance recoveries we recognized in both years include amounts we received
from these carriers. We are not able to determine how much we will
ultimately recover from these carriers for the past defense costs we incurred
because of certain issues that arise regarding which past defense costs qualify
for reimbursement. Insurance recoveries in 2005 and 2006 also include
amounts we received for prior legal defense and indemnity coverage for certain
of our environmental expenditures. We do not expect to receive any
further material insurance settlements relating to environmental remediation
matters.
While we
continue to seek additional insurance recoveries for lead pigment and asbestos
litigation matters, we do not know if we will be successful in obtaining
additional reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. We
have not considered any additional potential insurance recoveries in determining
accruals for lead pigment litigation matters. Any additional
insurance recoveries would be recognized when the receipt is probable and the
amount is determinable.
Note
19 - Commitments and contingencies:
Lead pigment
litigation
Our
former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint. We, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for
use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the “former pigment
manufacturers”), and the Lead Industries Association (“LIA”), which discontinued
business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal
proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and
governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based
paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school
districts, and certain others have been asserted as class
actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories,
including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent
failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of
action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation,
violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and
similar claims.
The
plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants
responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the
use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution
and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and
costs for educational programs. A number of cases are inactive or
have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in
various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or
summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs. In addition, various other cases are pending (in which we
are not a defendant) seeking recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead
pigment and lead-based paint. Although we are not a defendant in
these cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that might
be filed against us in the future.
We
believe that these actions are without merit, and we intend to continue to deny
all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions
vigorously. We have never settled any of these cases, nor have any
final adverse judgments against us been entered. However, see the
discussion below in The State
of Rhode Island case.
In
October 1999, we were served with a complaint in State of Rhode Island v. Lead
Industries Association, et al. (Superior Court of Rhode Island, No.
99-5226). The State sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as reimbursement for public and private building abatement expenses and funding
of a public education campaign and health screening programs. A 2002
trial on the sole question of whether lead pigment in paint on Rhode Island
buildings is a public nuisance, resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable
to reach a verdict on the question, with the jury reportedly deadlocked 4-2 in
defendants' favor. In 2005, the trial court dismissed the conspiracy
claim with prejudice, and the State dismissed its Unfair Trade Practices Act
claim without prejudice. A second trial commenced
against us and three other defendants on November 1, 2005 on the State’s
remaining claims of public nuisance, indemnity and unjust
enrichment. Following the State’s presentation of its case, the trial
court dismissed the State’s claims of indemnity and unjust
enrichment. In February 2006, the jury found that we and two other
defendants substantially contributed to the creation of a public nuisance as a
result of the collective presence of lead pigments in paints and coatings on
buildings in Rhode Island. The jury also found that we and the two
other defendants should be ordered to abate the public
nuisance. Following the trial, the trial court dismissed the State’s
claim for punitive damages. In March 2007, the final judgment and
order was entered, and defendants filed an appeal. In April 2007, the
State cross-appealed the issue of exclusion of past and punitive damages, as
well as the dismissal of one of the defendants. Oral argument on the
appeal has been scheduled for May 2008. While the appeal is pending,
the trial court continues to move forward on the abatement
process. In September 2007, the State submitted its plan of abatement
and defendants’ filed a response in December 2007. In December 2007,
the Judge named two special masters to assist the judge in determining the scope
of any abatement remedy.
The
Rhode Island case is unique in that this is the first time that an adverse
verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been entered against
us. We believe there are a number of meritorious issues which we have
raised in the appeal in this case; therefore we currently believe it is not
probable that we will ultimately be found liable in this matter. In
addition, we cannot reasonably estimate potential liability, if any, with
respect to this and the other lead pigment litigation. However, legal
proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, and we cannot assure you that
any appeal would be successful. Therefore it is reasonably possible
we could in the near term conclude that it is probable we have incurred some
liability in the Rhode Island matter that would result in recognizing a loss
contingency accrual. The potential liability could have a material
adverse impact on net income for the interim or annual period during which such
liability is recognized, and a material adverse impact on our consolidated
financial condition and liquidity.
We have
not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint
litigation cases, including the Rhode Island case. Liability that may
result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. In addition, new
cases may continue to be filed against us. We cannot assure you that
we will not incur liability in the future in respect of any of the pending or
possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and
jury rulings. The resolution of any of these cases could result in
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse
impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such
liability is recognized, and a material adverse impact on our consolidated
financial condition and liquidity.
Environmental
matters and litigation
Our
operations are governed by various environmental laws and
regulations. Certain of our businesses are and have been engaged in
the handling, manufacture or use of substances or compounds that may be
considered toxic or hazardous within the meaning of applicable environmental
laws and regulations. As with other companies engaged in similar
businesses, certain of our past and current operations and products have the
potential to cause environmental or other damage. We have implemented
and continue to implement various policies and programs in an effort to minimize
these risks. Our policy is to maintain compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations at all of our plants and to strive to improve
environmental performance. From time to time, we may be subject to
environmental regulatory enforcement under U.S. and foreign statutes, the
resolution of which typically involves the establishment of compliance
programs. It is possible that future developments, such as stricter
requirements of environmental laws and enforcement policies, could adversely
affect our production, handling, use, storage, transportation, sale or disposal
of such substances. We believe that all of our facilities are in
substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws.
Certain
properties and facilities used in our former operations, including divested
primary and secondary lead smelters and former mining locations, are the subject
of civil litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under
federal and state environmental laws. Additionally, in connection
with past operating practices, we are currently involved as a defendant,
potentially responsible party (“PRP”) or both, pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“CERCLA”), and similar state laws
in various governmental and private actions associated with waste disposal
sites, mining locations, and facilities we or our predecessors currently or
previously owned, operated or were used by us or our subsidiaries, or their
predecessors, certain of which are on the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s (“EPA”) Superfund National Priorities List or similar state
lists. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal
injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural
resources. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for
substantial amounts. Although we may be jointly and severally liable
for these costs, in most cases we are only one of a number of PRPs who may also
be jointly and severally liable. In addition, we are a party to a
number of personal injury lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions alleging
claims related to environmental conditions alleged to have resulted from our
operations.
Environmental
obligations are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons
including:
·
|
complexity
and differing interpretations of governmental
regulations,
|
·
|
number
of PRPs and their ability or willingness to fund such allocation of
costs,
|
·
|
financial
capabilities of the PRPs and the allocation of costs among
them,
|
·
|
solvency
of other PRPs,
|
·
|
multiplicity
of possible solutions, and
|
·
|
number
of years of investigatory, remedial and monitoring activity
required.
|
In
addition, the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under
environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes regarding site
cleanup costs or allocation of costs among PRPs, solvency of other PRPs, the
results of future testing and analysis undertaken with respect to certain sites
or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of
hazardous substances at other sites, could cause our expenditures to exceed our
current estimates. Because we may be jointly and severally liable for
the total remediation cost at certain sites, the amount for which we are
ultimately liable may exceed our accruals due to, among other things, the
reallocation of costs among PRPs or the insolvency of one or more
PRPs. We cannot assure you that actual costs will not exceed accrued
amounts or the upper end of the range for sites for which estimates have been
made, and we cannot assure you that costs will not be incurred for sites where
no estimates presently can be made. Further, additional environmental
matters may arise in the future. If we were to incur any future
liability, this could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.
We record
liabilities related to environmental remediation obligations when estimated
future expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable. We adjust
our environmental accruals as further information becomes available to us or as
circumstances change. We generally do not discount estimated future
expenditures to their present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the
pay out. We recognize recoveries of remediation costs from other
parties, if any, as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. At
December 31, 2007, we have not recognized any receivables for
recoveries.
We do not
know and cannot estimate the exact time frame over which we will make payments
for our accrued environmental costs. The timing of payments depends
upon a number of factors including the timing of the actual remediation process;
which in turn depends on factors outside of our control. At each
balance sheet date, we estimate the amount of our accrued environmental costs
which we expect to pay within the next twelve months, and we classify this
estimate as a current liability. We classify the remaining accrued
environmental costs as a noncurrent liability.
The table
below presents a summary of the activity in our accrued environmental costs
during the past three years. The amount charged to expense is
included in corporate expense on our consolidated statements of
income.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at the beginning of the year
|
$ | 67,817 | $ | 54,947 | $ | 50,713 | ||||||
Additions
charged to expense, net
|
2,293 | 3,958 | 4,368 | |||||||||
Payments,
net
|
(15,163 | ) | (8,192 | ) | (4,751 | ) | ||||||
Balance
at the end of the year
|
$ | 54,947 | $ | 50,713 | $ | 50,330 | ||||||
Amounts
recognized in the balance sheet:
|
||||||||||||
Current liability
|
$ | 13,302 | $ | 9,778 | $ | 11,863 | ||||||
Noncurrent liability
|
41,645 | 40,935 | 38,467 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 54,947 | $ | 50,713 | $ | 50,330 |
On a
quarterly basis, we evaluate the potential range of our liability at sites where
we have been named as a PRP or defendant, including sites for which our
wholly-owned environmental management subsidiary, NL Environmental Management
Services, Inc. (“EMS”) has contractually assumed our obligations. At
December 31, 2007, we had accrued approximately $50 million for those
environmental matters which we believe are reasonably estimable. We
believe that it is not possible to estimate the range of costs for certain
sites. The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to us
for sites for which we believe it is possible to estimate costs is approximately
$71 million, including the amount currently accrued. We have not
discounted these estimates to present value.
At
December 31, 2007, there were approximately 20 sites for which we are
not currently able to estimate a range of costs. For these sites,
generally the investigation is in the early stages, and we are unable to
determine whether or not we actually had any association with the site, the
nature of our responsibility, if any, for the contamination at the site and the
extent of contamination at the site. The timing and availability of
information on these sites is dependent on events outside of our control, such
as when the party alleging liability provides information to us. At
certain of these previously inactive sites, we have received general and special
notices of liability from the EPA alleging that we, along with other PRPs, are
liable for past and future costs of remediating environmental contamination
allegedly caused by former operations conducted at the sites. These
notifications may assert that we, along with other PRPs, are liable for past
clean-up costs that could be material to us if we are ultimately found
liable.
Insurance
coverage claims
We are involved in various legal
proceedings with certain of our former insurance carriers regarding the nature
and extent of the carriers’ obligations to us under insurance policies with
respect to certain lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits. The issue of whether
insurance coverage for defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist
for our lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of factors,
and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will be available.
We have not considered any potential insurance recoveries for lead pigment or
asbestos litigation matters in determining related accruals.
We have agreements with two former
insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of
our past and future lead pigment litigation defense costs. We are not able
to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for past
defense costs incurred by us, because of certain issues that arise regarding
which past defense costs qualify for reimbursement. While we continue to
seek additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be successful in
obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. We have not
considered any additional potential insurance recoveries in determining accruals
for lead pigment or asbestos litigation matters. Any additional insurance
recoveries would be recognized when the receipt is probable and the amount is
determinable.
We have
settled insurance coverage claims concerning environmental claims with certain
of our principal former carriers. We do not expect further material
settlements relating to environmental remediation coverage.
New York cases - In October
2005 we were served with a complaint in OneBeacon American Insurance Company
v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, Index No. 603429-05). The plaintiff, a former
insurance carrier, seeks a declaratory judgment of its obligations to us under
insurance policies issued to us by the plaintiff’s predecessor with respect to
certain lead pigment lawsuits filed against us. In March 2006, the
trial court denied our motion to dismiss. In April 2006, we filed a
notice of appeal of the trial court’s ruling, and in September 2007, the Supreme
Court – Appellate Division (First Department) reversed and ordered that the
OneBeacon complaint be dismissed. The Appellate Division did not
dismiss the counterclaims and cross claims.
In
February 2006, we were served with a complaint in Certain Underwriters at Lloyds,
London v. Millennium Holdings LLC et al. (Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, Index No. 06/60026). The plaintiff, a
former insurance carrier of ours, seeks a declaratory judgment of its
obligations to us under insurance policies issued to us by plaintiff with
respect to certain lead pigment lawsuits. In April 2006, the trial
court denied our motion to dismiss. In October 2006, we filed a
notice of appeal of the trial court’s ruling, and in October 2007, the Supreme
Court – Appellate Division (First Department) denied our appeal. In
January 2008, Lloyds filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to
block us from litigating our claims in the Texas case described below, which was
denied. In January 2008, Lloyds appealed that decision and obtained a
temporary restraining order which was granted, not on the merits, but in order
to obtain a review of the appeal by a full panel.
Texas case - In November of
2005, we filed an action against OneBeacon and certain other insurance
companies, which also issued insurance policies to us in the past, captioned
NL Industries, Inc. v.
OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et. al. (District Court for Dallas
County, Texas, Case No. 05-11347). In April 2006, we filed a
comprehensive action against all of the insurance companies which issued
policies to us that potentially could provide insurance for lead pigment actions
and/or asbestos actions asserted against us, captioned NL Industries, Inc. v. American Re
Insurance Company, et al. (Dallas County Court at Law, Texas, Case No.
CC-06-04523-E). In this action, we assert that defendants have
breached their contractual obligations to us under such insurance policies with
respect to lead pigment and asbestos claims, and we seek a declaration as to the
rights and obligations of each insurance company with respect to such
claims. Both cases, as well as a third case in which we seek
interpretation of a Stand-Still Agreement that was in place between us and
certain of our insurers, have been consolidated into the NL Industries, Inc. v. American Re
Insurance Company, et al. case. In October 2007, we filed a
motion for summary judgment on the issue of OneBeacon’s obligation to defend us
in the Rhode Island lead pigment action (described above).
Other
litigation
In April
2006, we were served with a complaint in Murphy, et al. v. NL Industries,
Inc., et al. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No.
2:06-cv-01535-WHW-SDW). The plaintiffs in this action were the
former minority shareholders of EMS. See Note 13. In July 2006,
defendants filed, among other things, a motion to disqualify plaintiffs’
counsel, which was granted in January 2008. In February 2008, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice and simultaneously filed a
counterclaim, third party petition and a plea in intervention in the Terry S. Casey case discussed
below.
In May
2007, we filed a complaint in Texas state court (Contran Corporation, et al. v. Terry
S. Casey, et al., Case No. 07-04855, 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas
County, Texas) in which we alleged negligence,
conversion, and breach of contract against a former service provider of ours who
was also a former minority shareholder of EMS. In February 2008, two other
former minority shareholders of EMS filed counterclaims, third-party petition
and petition in intervention, seeking damages related to their former ownership
in EMS. The counter-defendants named in the counterclaims are us and
Contran, and the third-party defendants are Valhi and certain of our current or
former officers or directors and certain current or former officers or directors
of EMS. See Note 13. The intervenors and counter-plaintiffs claim
that, in preparing the valuation of the minority shareholders’ preferred shares
for purchase by EMS, counter-defendants and third-party defendants have
committed minority shareholder oppression, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
civil conspiracy, breach of contract and tortuous interference with economic
relations under New Jersey law. We believe that these claims are without
merit and intend to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and defend against the
claims vigorously.
We have
been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging
personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products
manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. Approximately 470 of these types of cases remain pending, involving
a total of approximately 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses. In addition,
the claims of approximately 3,300 former plaintiffs have been administratively
dismissed from Ohio State Courts. We do not expect these claims will
be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts’ medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably
estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated
liable in any of these matters. Based on information available to us,
including:
·
|
facts
concerning historical operations,
|
·
|
the
rate of new claims,
|
·
|
the
number of claims from which we have been
dismissed,
|
·
|
and
our prior experience in the defense of these
matters,
|
we
believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be
consistent with our historical costs (which are not
material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible
outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity. We have and will continue to
vigorously seek dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each
claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries,
including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into
settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may
seek indemnification from us.
In
addition to the litigation described above, we and our affiliates are also
involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent
(or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental
to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance
coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material
insurance coverage for environmental claims.
We
currently believe that the disposition of all claims and disputes, individually
or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the
accruals already provided.
Concentrations
of credit risk
Component
products are sold primarily in North America to original equipment
manufacturers. The ten largest customers accounted for approximately
43% of sales in 2005, 38% in 2006 and 31% in 2007. The HON Company
accounted for approximately $19.4 million (10%) of sales in 2005. No
customer accounted for sales of 10% or more in 2006 or 2007.
At
December 31, 2007, consolidated cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
includes $31.9 million invested in U.S. Treasury securities purchased under
short-term agreements to resell (2006 - $31.5 million), all of which is held in
trust by a single U.S. bank.
Other
Rent
expense, principally for CompX operating facilities and equipment, was $738,000
in 2005, $787,000 in 2006 and $429,000 in 2007. At December 31, 2007,
future minimum rentals under noncancellable operating leases are
approximately:
Years ending December 31,
|
Amount
|
|||
(In
thousands)
|
||||
2008
|
$ | 435 | ||
2009
|
382 | |||
2010
|
146 | |||
2011
|
138 | |||
2012
and thereafter
|
11 | |||
Total
|
$ | 1,112 |
Income
taxes
We and
Valhi have agreed to a policy providing for the allocation of tax liabilities
and tax payments as described in Note 1. Under applicable law, we, as
well as every other member of the Contran Tax Group, are each jointly and
severally liable for the aggregate federal income tax liability of Contran and
the other companies included in the Contran Tax Group for all periods in which
we are included in the Contran Tax Group. Valhi has agreed, however, to
indemnify us for any liability for income taxes of the Contran Tax Group in
excess of our tax liability previously computed and paid by NL in accordance
with the tax allocation policy. In this regard, in the event all or a
portion of the $230 million income tax liability related to the shares of Kronos
transferred or distributed by us to Valhi, or the $10.8 million income tax
liability related to the shares of TIMET transferred by Valhi to us, becomes
payable by Contran to the applicable tax authority (See Notes 2 and 15), we and
every other member of the Contran Tax Group would be jointly and severally
liable for such income tax liabilities in the event Contran did not pay such tax
to the applicable tax authority. However, in this event, we would
also have the benefit of Valhi’s indemnification, as described
above.
Note
20 - Financial instruments:
Summarized
below is the estimated fair value and related net carrying value of our
financial instruments.
December 31, 2006
|
December 31, 2007
|
|||||||||||||||
Carrying
Amount
|
Fair
Value
|
Carrying
Amount
|
Fair
Value
|
|||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents, current restricted cash equivalents and current
marketable securities
|
$ | 70.1 | $ | 70.1 | $ | 51.9 | $ | 51.9 | ||||||||
Marketable
equity securities - classified as available-for-sale
|
$ | 122.3 | $ | 122.3 | $ | 113.4 | $ | 113.4 | ||||||||
Minority
interest in CompX common stock
|
$ | 45.4 | $ | 91.0 | $ | 14.4 | $ | 25.2 | ||||||||
Common
stockholders’ equity
|
$ | 248.5 | $ | 502.4 | $ | 246.8 | $ | 555.4 |
Fair
value of our marketable equity securities, restricted marketable debt securities
and notes, and the fair value of our common stockholder’s equity and minority
interest in Kronos and CompX, are based upon quoted market prices at each
balance sheet date, which represent Level 1 inputs as defined by SFAS No.
157. See Note 21.
Certain
of our sales generated by CompX's non-U.S. operations are denominated in U.S.
dollars. CompX periodically uses currency forward contracts to manage
a portion
of currency exchange rate market risk associated with
receivables, or similar exchange rate
risk associated with future sales,
denominated in a currency other than the holder's functional currency. CompX has
not entered into these contracts for trading
or speculative purposes in the past, nor do
they anticipate entering into
such contracts for trading or
speculative purposes in the future. A majority of the currency forward contracts
CompX enters into meet the criteria for hedge accounting under GAAP and are
designated as cash flow hedges. For these currency forward contracts, gains and
losses representing the effective portion of the
hedges are deferred as a
component of accumulated other comprehensive income,
and are subsequently recognized in earnings at the time the hedged
item affects earnings. Occasionally, CompX enters into currency
forward contracts for specific transactions which do not meet the criteria for
hedge accounting. CompX marks-to-market the estimated fair value of
such contracts at each balance sheet date based on quoted market prices for such
forward contracts, with any resulting gain or loss recognized in income
currently as part of net currency transactions. The quoted market prices for
such forward contracts are a Level 1 input as defined by SFAS No. 157, Fair
Value Measurements. See Note 21. We had no currency
forward contracts outstanding at December 31, 2006 or 2007.
Note
21 – Recent accounting pronouncements:
Pension and Other
Postretirement Plans
- In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting
Standard (“SFAS”) No. 158 Employers’ Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans. SFAS No. 158
requires us to recognize an asset or liability for the over or under funded
status of each of our individual defined benefit pension and postretirement
benefit plans on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. This standard does not
change the existing recognition and measurement requirements that determine the
amount of periodic benefit cost we recognize in net income.
We
adopted the asset and liability recognition and disclosure requirements of this
standard effective December 31, 2006 on a prospective basis, in which we
recognized through other comprehensive income all of our prior unrecognized
gains and losses and prior service costs or credits, net of tax and minority
interest, as of December 31, 2006. The effect of adopting the asset
and liability recognition requirements of this standard resulted in a $5.4
million net decrease in our accumulated other comprehensive income, consisting
of a $3.8 million loss related to our defined benefit pension plans and $1.6
million loss related to our postretirement benefit plans. Starting
January 1, 2007, we now recognize all changes in the funded status of these
plans through comprehensive income, net of tax and minority
interest. Any future changes will be recognized either in net income
to the extent they are reflected in periodic benefit cost, or through other
comprehensive income.
In
addition, prior to December 31, 2007 we used September 30 as a measurement date
for our defined benefit pension plans. In accordance with the
measurement date requirements of this standard, effective December 31, 2007 we
transitioned to a December 31 measurement date for all of our defined benefit
pension plans using a 15 month net periodic benefit cost based on the September
30, 2006 actuarial valuations. Accordingly, four-fifths of the net periodic
benefit cost for such 15-month period has been included in the determination of
our net income for 2007, and one-fifth of the net periodic benefit cost for such
15-month period, net of income taxes, has been allocated as a direct adjustment
to our retained deficit in accordance with the transition provisions of the
standard to reflect the change in measurement dates. To the extent
that the net periodic benefit cost included amortization of unrecognized
actuarial losses, prior service cost and net transition obligations, which were
previously recognized as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income
at December 31, 2006, the effect on retained deficit, net of income taxes, was
offset by a change in our accumulated other comprehensive
income. See Note 16.
Fair Value
Measurements – In September 2006, the
FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair
Value Measurements, which will become effective for us on January 1,
2008. SFAS No. 157 generally provides a consistent, single fair value
definition and measurement techniques for GAAP pronouncements. SFAS
No. 157 also establishes a fair value hierarchy for different measurement
techniques based on the objective nature of the inputs in various valuation
methods. In February 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. FAS 157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement No.
157 which will delay the provisions of SFAS No. 157 for one year for all
nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except those that are
recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring
basis (at least annually). We will be required to ensure all of our
fair value measurements are in compliance with SFAS No. 157 on a prospective
basis beginning in the first quarter of 2008, except for nonfinancial assets and
liabilities, which will be required to be in compliance with SFAS No. 157
prospectively beginning in the first quarter of 2009. In addition, we
will be required to expand our disclosures regarding the valuation methods and
level of inputs we utilize in the first quarter of 2008, except for nonfinancial
assets and liabilities, which will require disclosure in the first quarter of
2009. The adoption of this standard will not have a material effect
on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Fair Value
Option - In the
first quarter of 2007 the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities. SFAS 159 permits companies
to choose, at specified election dates, to measure eligible items at fair value,
with unrealized gains and losses included in the determination of net
income. The decision to elect the fair value option is generally
applied on an instrument-by-instrument basis, is irrevocable unless a new
election date occurs, and is applied to the entire instrument and not to only
specified risks or cash flows or a portion of the instrument. Items
eligible for the fair value option include recognized financial assets and
liabilities, other than an investment in a consolidated subsidiary, defined
benefit pension plans, OPEB plans, leases and financial instruments classified
in equity. An investment accounted for by the equity method is an
eligible item. The specified election dates include the date the
company first recognizes the eligible item, the date the company enters into an
eligible commitment, the date an investment first becomes eligible to be
accounted for by the equity method and the date SFAS No. 159 first becomes
effective for the company. If we elect to measure eligible items at
fair value under the standard, we would be required to present certain
additional disclosures for each item we elect. SFAS No. 159 becomes effective
for us on January 1, 2008. We do not expect to elect to measure any
additional assets or liabilities at fair value that are not already measured at
fair value under existing standards, therefore the adoption of this standard
will not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Noncontrolling
Interest – In
December 2007 the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements, an Amendment of ARB No.
51. SFAS No. 160 establishes a single method of accounting for
changes in a parent’s ownership interest in a subsidiary that do not result in
deconsolidation. On a prospective basis any changes in ownership will
be accounted for as equity transactions with no gain or loss recognized on the
transactions unless there is a change in control; under existing GAAP such
changes in ownership generally result either in the recognition of additional
goodwill (for an increase in ownership) or a gain or loss included in the
determination of net income (for a decrease in ownership). The
statement standardizes the presentation of noncontrolling interest as a
component of equity on the balance sheet and on a net income basis in the
statement of operations. This Statement also requires expanded
disclosures in the consolidated financial statements that clearly identify and
distinguish between the interests of the parent and the interests of the
noncontrolling owners of a subsidiary. Those expanded disclosures include a
reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of the equity attributable
to the parent and the noncontrolling owners and a schedule showing the effects
of changes in a parent’s ownership interest in a subsidiary on the equity
attributable to the parent. This statement will be effective for us
on a prospective basis in the first quarter of 2009. We will be
required to reclassify our balance sheet and statement of operations to conform
to the new presentation requirements and to include the expanded disclosures at
this time. Because the new method of accounting for changes in
ownership applies on a prospective basis, we are unable to predict the impact of
the statement on our Consolidated Financial Statements. However, to the extent
we have subsidiaries that are not wholly owned at the date of adoption, any
subsequent increase in ownership of such subsidiaries for an amount of
consideration that exceeds the then-carrying value of the noncontrolling
interest related to the increased ownership would result in a reduction in the
amount of equity attributable to our shareholders.
Business
Combinations –
In December 2007 the FASB issued SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combinations, which
applies to us prospectively for business combinations that close in 2009 and
beyond. The statement expands the definition of a business
combination to include more transactions including some asset purchases and
requires an acquirer to recognize assets acquired, liabilities assumed and any
noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date at fair value as
of that date with limited exceptions. The statement also requires
that acquisition costs be expensed as incurred and restructuring costs that are
not a liability of the acquiree at the date of the acquisition be recognized in
accordance with SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with
Exit or Disposal Activities. Due to the unpredictable nature
of business combinations and the prospective application of this statement we
are unable to predict the impact of the statement on our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Uncertain Tax
Positions -
In the second quarter of 2006 the FASB issued FIN 48, Accounting for Uncertain Tax
Positions, which
we adopted on January 1, 2007. FIN 48 clarifies when and how much of
a benefit we can recognize in our consolidated financial statements for certain
positions taken in our income tax returns under SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes,
and enhances the disclosure requirements for our income tax policies and
reserves. Among other things, FIN 48 prohibits us from recognizing
the benefits of a tax position unless we believe it is more-likely-than-not our
position will prevail with the applicable tax authorities and limits the amount
of the benefit to the largest amount for which we believe the likelihood of
realization is greater than 50%. FIN 48 also requires companies to
accrue penalties and interest on the difference between tax positions taken on
their tax returns and the amount of benefit recognized for financial reporting
purposes under the new standard. We are required to classify any
future reserves for uncertain tax positions in a separate current or noncurrent
liability, depending on the nature of the tax position.
Upon
adoption of FIN 48 on January 1, 2007, we decreased our existing reserve for
uncertain tax positions, which we previously classified as part of our deferred
income taxes, from $24.3 million to $23.9 million and accounted for such $.4
million decrease as an increase in retained earnings in accordance with the
transition provisions of the standard. Kronos also adopted FIN 48 as
of January 1, 2007. The amount of our pro-rata share of the impact to
Kronos from adopting FIN 48, net of our applicable deferred income taxes,
resulted in a $.5 million decrease in our retained earnings.
We accrue
interest and penalties on our uncertain tax positions as a component of our
provision for income taxes. The amount of interest and penalties we
accrued during 2007 was not material, and at December 31, 2007 we had $1.3
million accrued for interest and an immaterial amount accrued for penalties for
our uncertain tax positions.
The
following table shows the changes in the amount of our uncertain tax positions
(exclusive of the effect of interest and penalties) during 2007:
Amount
|
||||
(In
millions)
|
||||
Unrecognized
tax liabilities:
|
||||
Amount
at adoption of FIN 48
|
$ | 23.1 | ||
Settlements
with taxing authorities – cash paid
|
(.3 | ) | ||
Lapse
of applicable statute of limitations
|
(1.7 | ) | ||
Amount
at December 31, 2007
|
$ | 21.1 |
If our
uncertain tax positions were recognized, a benefit of $19.0 million would affect
our effective income tax rate from continuing operations. We
currently estimate that our unrecognized tax benefits will decrease by
approximately $1.6 million during the next twelve months due to the resolution
of certain examination and filing procedures related to one or more of our
subsidiaries and to the expiration of certain statutes of
limitations.
We file
income tax returns in various U.S. federal, state and local jurisdictions.
We also file income tax returns in various foreign jurisdictions, principally in
Canada and Taiwan. Our domestic income tax returns prior to 2004 are
generally considered closed to examination by applicable tax authorities.
Our foreign income tax returns are generally considered closed to examination
for years prior to 2002 for Taiwan and 2003 for Canada.
Note
22 – Facility consolidation and discontinued operations:
Facility
Consolidation -
Prior to 2007, CompX had three facilities in northern Illinois, two
Security Products facilities (located in Lake Bluff, Illinois and River Grove,
Illinois) and one Marine Components facility (located in Grayslake,
Illinois). In order to create opportunities to reduce operating costs
and improve operating efficiencies, CompX determined that it would be more
effective to consolidate these three operations into one location. In
2006, CompX acquired land adjacent to the Marine Components facility for
approximately $1.8 million in order to provide the capability to expand such
facility, and during 2007 CompX incurred approximately $9.6 million of capital
expenditures in connection with the expansion of such facility.
In
addition to the capital expenditures, during 2007 CompX incurred approximately
$2.7 million in expenses relating to the facility consolidation, including
physical move costs, equipment installation, redundant labor and recruiting fees
as well as impairment charges for fixed assets no longer in use, all of which
are included in facility consolidation expense in the accompanying Consolidated
Statement of Operations. The majority of these costs were incurred
during the fourth quarter of 2007.
The fixed
asset write-downs amounted to $765,000, of which $600,000 related to the
classification of the River Grove facility as an “asset held for sale” in
November 2007 as it was no longer being utilized and met all of the criteria
under GAAP to be classified as an “asset held for sale”. In
classifying the facility and related assets (primarily land, building, and
building improvements) as held for sale, we concluded that the carrying amount
of the assets exceeded the estimated fair value less costs to sell such
assets. In determining the estimated fair value of such assets, we
considered recent sales prices for other property near the facility, Level 2
inputs as defined by SFAS No. 157. Accordingly, CompX recognized
$600,000 to write-down the assets to their estimated net realizable value of
approximately $3.1 million at December 31, 2007. We expect to dispose
of the River Grove facility during 2008. The Lake Bluff, Illinois facility was
sold in 2006 for approximately $1.3 million which approximated book value and
was leased back until CompX vacated the facility in October 2007.
Discontinued
operations - In January 2005, CompX completed the sale of its Thomas
Regout European operations for proceeds (net of expenses) of approximately $22.3
million. The net proceeds consisted of approximately $18.1 million in
cash at the date of sale and a $4.2 million principal amount note receivable
from the purchaser bearing interest at a fixed rate of 7% and is payable over
four years. The note receivable is collateralized by a secondary lien
on the assets sold and is subordinated to certain third-party indebtedness of
the purchaser. The net proceeds from the January 2005 sale of such
operations was $864,000 less than the net realizable value estimated at the time
of the goodwill impairment charge (primarily due to higher expenses associated
with the sale), and discontinued operations in 2005 includes a charge related to
the differential ($326,000, net of income tax benefit and minority interest).
The charge represents an additional impairment of goodwill.
Note
23 - Quarterly results of operations (unaudited):
Quarter ended
|
||||||||||||||||
March 31
|
June 30
|
Sept. 30
|
Dec. 31
|
|||||||||||||
(In
millions, except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||
Year
ended December 31, 2006
|
||||||||||||||||
Net sales
|
$ | 47.0 | $ | 50.2 | $ | 48.8 | $ | 44.1 | ||||||||
Gross margin
|
$ | 11.6 | $ | 12.4 | $ | 12.9 | $ | 9.6 | ||||||||
Income from continuing
operations
|
$ | 6.6 | $ | 2.9 | $ | 3.3 | $ | 13.3 | ||||||||
Discontinued operations
|
- | (.2 | ) | - | .2 | |||||||||||
Net income
|
$ | 6.6 | $ | 2.7 | $ | 3.3 | $ | 13.5 | ||||||||
Diluted earnings per common
share
|
$ | .14 | $ | .06 | $ | .07 | $ | .28 | ||||||||
Year ended December 31, 2007
|
||||||||||||||||
Net sales
|
$ | 43.6 | $ | 45.2 | $ | 46.4 | $ | 42.5 | ||||||||
Gross margin
|
$ | 12.1 | $ | 11.9 | $ | 11.9 | (a) | $ | 9.3 | (a) | ||||||
Net income
(loss)
|
$ | 5.8 | $ | (1.5 | ) | $ | (16.0 | ) | $ | 10.0 | (b) | |||||
Diluted earnings
(loss) per common share
|
$ | .12 | $ | (.03 | ) | $ | (.33 | ) | $ | .21 |
The sum
of the quarterly per share amounts may not equal the annual per share amounts
due to relative changes in the weighted average number of shares used in the per
share computations.
(a) Income from operations
for the quarters ended September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2007 was impacted by
$808,000 and $1.9 million, respectively, of costs related to the consolidation
of three of CompX’s northern Illinois facilities into one new facility including
a $600,000 charge to write-down a vacated facility to its estimated net
realizable value. See Note 22. We have reclassified certain third quarter 2007
amounts to conform to the year-end presentation.
(b) Net
income in the fourth quarter of 2007 includes $14.7 million gain from our sale
of 800,000 shares of TIMET common stock to Valhi. See Note
4.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE
I - CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT
Condensed
Balance Sheets
(In
thousands)
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | 11,022 | $ | 4,542 | ||||
Restricted cash equivalents
|
137 | 143 | ||||||
Restricted marketable debt securities
|
5,301 | 5,301 | ||||||
Accounts and notes receivable
|
558 | 208 | ||||||
Receivable from subsidiaries and affiliates
|
998 | 1,758 | ||||||
Prepaid expenses
|
35 | 39 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
3,084 | 4,009 | ||||||
Total current assets
|
21,135 | 16,000 | ||||||
Other assets:
|
||||||||
Marketable securities
|
91,527 | 79,500 | ||||||
Investment in subsidiaries
|
118,101 | 122,524 | ||||||
Investment in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
160,527 | 147,119 | ||||||
Pension
asset
|
12,807 | 17,623 | ||||||
Other
|
1,099 | 1,560 | ||||||
Property and equipment, net
|
700 | 875 | ||||||
Total other assets
|
384,761 | 369,201 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 405,896 | $ | 385,201 | ||||
Current liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
$ | 5,271 | $ | 6,152 | ||||
Payable to subsidiaries and affiliates
|
1,807 | 607 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
7,156 | 8,521 | ||||||
Total current liabilities
|
14,234 | 15,280 | ||||||
Noncurrent liabilities:
|
||||||||
Note
payable to affiliate
|
7,380 | 2,000 | ||||||
Deferred income tax
|
105,542 | 73,754 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
13,293 | 11,049 | ||||||
Accrued pension cost
|
2,782 | 1,665 | ||||||
Accrued postretirement benefits cost
|
11,672 | 9,865 | ||||||
Other
|
2,481 | 25,126 | ||||||
Total noncurrent liabilities
|
143,150 | 123,459 | ||||||
Stockholders' equity
|
248,512 | 246,462 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’ equity
|
$ | 405,896 | $ | 385,201 | ||||
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of the financial
statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE
I - CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT (CONTINUED)
Condensed
Statements of Operations
(In
thousands)
Years ended December
31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Revenues
and other income (expense):
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in income (losses) of subsidiaries and affiliates
|
$ | 27,617 | $ | 37,972 | $ | (18,401 | ) | |||||
Interest and dividends
|
3,105 | 1,976 | 1,482 | |||||||||
Securities transactions, net
|
14,603 | - | 22,741 | |||||||||
Insurance
recoveries
|
2,970 | 7,656 | 5,659 | |||||||||
Other income
(expense), net
|
335 | 85 | (215 | ) | ||||||||
Total
revenues and other income
|
48,630 | 47,689 | 11,266 | |||||||||
Costs and expenses:
|
||||||||||||
Corporate
expense
|
19,779 | 22,797 | 28,842 | |||||||||
Interest
|
- | 7 | 1 | |||||||||
Total
costs and expenses
|
19,779 | 22,804 | 28,843 | |||||||||
Income
(loss) before income taxes
|
28,851 | 24,885 | (17,577 | ) | ||||||||
Income
tax benefit
|
(4,454 | ) | (1,225 | ) | (15,846 | ) | ||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
33,305 | 26,110 | (1,731 | ) | ||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
(326 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 32,979 | $ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | |||||
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of the financial
statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE
I - CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT (CONTINUED)
Condensed
Statements of Cash Flows
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 32,979 | $ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | |||||
Distributions
from Kronos
|
17,593 | 17,516 | 17,516 | |||||||||
Distributions
from CompX
|
5,224 | 5,351 | 8,376 | |||||||||
Deferred
income taxes
|
(20,563 | ) | 7,009 | (5,871 | ) | |||||||
Equity
in earnings of subsidiaries and investments:
|
||||||||||||
Continuing
operations
|
(27,617 | ) | (37,972 | ) | 18,401 | |||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
326 | - | - | |||||||||
Securities
transactions
|
(14,603 | ) | - | (22,741 | ) | |||||||
Other,
net
|
(1,225 | ) | (3,097 | ) | (1,578 | ) | ||||||
Net
change in assets and liabilities
|
(2,204 | ) | (4,843 | ) | (15,795 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
(10,090 | ) | 10,074 | (3,423 | ) | |||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Capital
expenditures
|
- | - | (175 | ) | ||||||||
Change
in restricted cash equivalents and marketable debt securities,
net
|
3,591 | (10 | ) | (7 | ) | |||||||
Other
|
- | (57 | ) | - | ||||||||
Proceeds
from sales of securities
|
19,176 | - | 26,800 | |||||||||
Purchase
of CompX common stock
|
(3,645 | ) | (2,318 | ) | - | |||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
19,122 | (2,385 | ) | 26,618 | ||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Loans from affiliates, net
|
- | 7,380 | (5,380 | ) | ||||||||
Dividends paid
|
(36,419 | ) | (24,284 | ) | (24,295 | ) | ||||||
Common stock issued
|
2,507 | 88 | - | |||||||||
Net
cash used by financing activities
|
(33,912 | ) | (16,816 | ) | (29,675 | ) | ||||||
Net
change during the year from operating investing and financing
activities
|
(24,880 | ) | (9,127 | ) | (6,480 | ) | ||||||
Balance
at beginning of year
|
45,029 | 20,149 | 11,022 | |||||||||
Balance
at end of year
|
$ | 20,149 | $ | 11,022 | $ | 4,542 |
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of the financial
statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE
I - CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT (CONTINUED)
Notes
to Condensed Financial Information
December
31, 2007
Note
1
- Basis
of presentation:
The
Consolidated Financial Statements of NL Industries, Inc. and the related Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements are incorporated herein by
reference. The accompanying financial statements reflect NL
Industries, Inc.'s investment in Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International
Inc. and NL's other subsidiaries on the equity method of
accounting.
Note
2 – Investment in and advances to subsidiaries:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Current:
|
||||||||
Receivable
from:
|
||||||||
Kronos
|
$ | 238 | $ | - | ||||
EWI
– income taxes
|
112 | - | ||||||
Valhi
– income taxes
|
- | 1,271 | ||||||
153506
Canada
|
413 | - | ||||||
CompX
– income taxes
|
136 | 282 | ||||||
EMS
– income taxes
|
- | 71 | ||||||
Other
|
99 | 134 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 998 | $ | 1,758 | ||||
Payable
to:
|
||||||||
CompX
– income taxes
|
$ | 259 | $ | 223 | ||||
Valhi
– income taxes
|
1,179 | - | ||||||
EWI
– income taxes
|
- | 44 | ||||||
Tremont
|
369 | 320 | ||||||
Kronos
|
- | 20 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 1,807 | $ | 607 |
December 31,
|
||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Investment
in:
|
||||||||
CompX
|
$ | 94,078 | $ | 97,266 | ||||
Other
subsidiaries
|
24,023 | 25,258 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 118,101 | $ | 122,524 |
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in earnings (losses) of subsidiaries and affiliates:
|
||||||||||||
Kronos
|
$ | 25,689 | $ | 29,345 | $ | (23,901 | ) | |||||
CompX
|
592 | 8,188 | 6,356 | |||||||||
Other
subsidiaries
|
1,336 | 439 | (856 | ) | ||||||||
Total
|
$ | 27,617 | $ | 37,972 | $ | (18,401 | ) |