NL INDUSTRIES INC - Annual Report: 2008 (Form 10-K)
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
|
|
Washington,
D.C. 20549
|
|
X
FORM
10-K
|
|
ANNUAL
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE
ACT
OF 1934 - For the fiscal year ended December
31, 2008
|
|
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 6.8 million shares of voting stock held by
nonaffiliates of NL Industries, Inc. as of June 30, 2008 (the last business day
of the Registrant's most recently-completed second fiscal quarter) approximated
$65 million.
As
of February 27, 2009, 48,602,584 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 affiliate, 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,
2008, Valhi owned approximately 83% of our outstanding common
stock. Subsidiaries of Contran Corporation owned approximately 94% of
Valhi’s outstanding common stock at December 31, 2008. 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 entities related to Mr. Simmons. Consequently, Mr. Simmons
may be deemed to control Contran, Valhi 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’ titanium dioxide pigments
(“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),
|
·
|
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 or solvency of our
competitors,
|
·
|
Demand
for office furniture,
|
·
|
Demand
for high performance marine
components,
|
·
|
Substitute
products,
|
·
|
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 Canadian
dollar and the New Taiwan 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 maintain sufficient
liquidity,
|
·
|
The
extent to which our subsidiaries were to become unable to pay us
dividends,
|
·
|
CompX’s
and Kronos’ 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,
|
·
|
Uncertainties
associated with new product
development,
|
·
|
The
ultimate ability to utilize income tax attributes or changes in income tax
rates related to such attributes, the benefits of which have been
recognized under the more-likely-than-not recognition
criteria,
|
·
|
Environmental
matters (such as those requiring compliance with emission and discharge
standards for existing and new facilities or new developments regarding
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 and
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. - 87%
owned
at December 31, 2008
|
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, 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 marine industry. CompX has production facilities in
North America and Asia.
|
Chemicals
Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. – 36%
owned
at December 31, 2008
|
Kronos
is a leading global producer and marketer of value-added TiO2
pigments, 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 2008, 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 33% of CompX’s total sales in 2008 are to
the office furniture manufacturing industry, compared to 32% in 2007 and 36% in
2006. The decrease in the percentage of sales to the office furniture
industry from 2006 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 features 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 an 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 to lock distributors and to smaller original equipment
manufacturers (“OEMs”) via its STOCK LOCKS distribution
program.
CompX’s
Furniture Components business, with 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, appliances, tool storage cabinets, imaging equipment, file cabinets,
desk drawers, automated teller machines 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 user 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 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 and other exhaust components;
and
|
·
|
high
performance gauges such as GPS speedometers and
tachometers;
|
·
|
controls,
throttles, steering wheels and other billet accessories;
and
|
·
|
dash
panels, LED lighting, rigging and other
accessories.
|
CompX
operated six manufacturing facilities at December 31, 2008 including one
facility in Grayslake, Illinois that houses operations relating to Security
Products and Marine Components.
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,
copper and brass (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, 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. All of our primary raw materials are impacted by related
commodity markets where prices are cyclical, reflecting overall economic trends
and specific developments in consuming industries.
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, 2008. 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™
|
|||
CompX
eLock®
|
Race
Rim™
|
|||
Lockview®
Software
|
CompX
Marine™
|
Sales, marketing
and distribution - CompX
sells components directly to large OEM customers through factory-based sales and
marketing professionals and with 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 2008,
our ten largest customers accounted for approximately 35% of our total sales;
however, no one customer accounted for sales of 10% or more in
2008. Of the 35%, 15% was related to Security Products and 20% 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 Security Products
and Furniture Components 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 2008 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, 2008,
CompX employed the
following number of people:
United
States
|
658 | |||
Canada(1)
|
237 | |||
Taiwan
|
81 | |||
Total
|
976 |
(1)
|
Approximately
75% of the Canadian employees are represented by a labor union covered by
a collective bargaining agreement. A new collective bargaining
agreement, providing for wage increases from 0% to 1%, was ratified in
January 2009 and expires January
2012.
|
We
believe our labor relations are good at all of our facilities.
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’ 2008 sales volumes were
attributable to markets in Europe. Kronos has an estimated 16% 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 other areas of the world. China continues to develop
into a significant market and as its economy continues to mature it is probable
that quality-of-life products, including TiO2, will
experience greater demand in that country. In addition, growth in
recent years in Eastern Europe and the Far East has been significant as the
economies in these regions continue developing to the point that quality-of-life
products, including TiO2,
experience greater demand.
Sales of
TiO2
were about 90% of Kronos’ net sales in 2008. 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 TiO2
pigment production. 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 514,000 metric tons of TiO2 in 2008,
up slightly from the 512,000 metric tons produced in 2007. 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 2006, 2007 and
2008. 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 2009 is approximately 532,000 metric tons; however, we
do expect that Kronos’ production volumes in 2009 will be significantly lower
than its attainable capacity.
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
2008. 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. The pricing under these agreements is
generally negotiated annually.
The following table summarizes raw
materials Kronos purchased or mined in 2008.
Production Process/Raw
Material
|
Raw Materials Procured or
Mined
|
(In
thousands of metric tons)
|
|
Chloride
process plants:
|
|
Purchased
slag or natural rutile ore
|
422
|
Sulfate
process plants:
|
|
Raw
ilmenite ore mined & used internally
|
305
|
Purchased
slag
|
30
|
TiO2 manufacturing
joint venture -
Kronos holds a 50% interest in a manufacturing joint venture with
Huntsman Corporation (Huntsman). 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; and Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd. These competitors have
estimated individual shares of TiO2 production
capacity ranging from 4% (for Ishihara) to 22% (for DuPont), and an estimated
aggregate share of worldwide TiO2 production
volume in excess of 60%. DuPont has about one-half of total North
American TiO2 production
capacity and is Kronos’ principal North American competitor. Tronox
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2009, and it is unclear
how and to what extent Tronox or a successor will compete in the TiO2 industry
at the conclusion of Tronox’s bankruptcy proceedings.
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 11% share of worldwide TiO2 sales
volume in 2008. Overall, Kronos is the world’s fifth-largest producer
of TiO2.
Over the
past ten years, Kronos and its competitors have increased industry capacity
through debottlenecking projects. Given the current economic
environment and reduced industry demand, we do not expect any significant
efforts will be undertaken by Kronos or its competitors to further increase
capacity through such projects in the foreseeable future. In
addition, Huntsman announced the closure of one of its European
facilities. Kronos believes further shutdowns or closures in the
industry are possible. Even with these reductions in industry
capacity, capacity utilization rates by Kronos and its competitors are expected
to be lower in 2009 as compared to 2008 in response to a reduction in
industry-wide demand, which in turn will result in downward pressure on average
TiO2
selling prices. Once the economic environment improves and
industry-wide demand increases, the expected reduction in industry-wide capacity
through plant shutdowns should have a favorable impact on production capacity
utilization, selling prices and profitability. However, the
volatility of the near-term economic environment makes it difficult to forecast
future demand. If actual developments differ from expectations,
Kronos and the TiO2 industry's
performances could continue to be unfavorably affected longer than
expected.
Worldwide
capacity additions in the TiO2 market
resulting from construction of new plants require significant capital
expenditures and substantial lead time (typically three to five
years). We are not aware of any TiO2 plants
currently under construction, and we believe that it is not likely any new
plants will be constructed in the foreseeable future.
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 conducts research and development activities at
its Leverkusen, Germany facility. Kronos’ expenditures for research
and development and certain technical support programs were approximately $11
million in 2006 and $12 million in each of 2007 and 2008. Kronos
plans to scale back its research and development activities in 2009 due to the
current adverse economic environment, consequently research and development
expenditures in 2009 are expected to be lower as compared to recent
history.
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 15 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 1 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 knowledge, 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 2008. Kronos’ largest ten
customers accounted for approximately 27% of sales in 2008.
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, 2008, Kronos employed approximately 2,450 persons (excluding
employees of the Louisiana joint venture), with 50 employees in the United
States, 400 employees in Canada and 2,000 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 employees are
covered by master collective bargaining agreements in the chemicals industry
that are generally 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 there
under. 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. In addition, at its German locations Kronos has a
contract with a third party to treat certain sulfate-process
effluents. At its Norwegian plant, Kronos ships spent acid to a third
party location where it is used as a neutralization agent. These
contracts 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.
In
December 2006, the EU approved Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of
Chemicals (“REACH”), which took effect on June 1, 2007 and will be phased in
over 11 years. Under REACH, companies that manufacture or import more
than one ton of a chemical substance per year will be required to register such
chemical substances in a central data base. REACH affects Kronos’
European operations by imposing a testing, evaluation and registration program
for many of the chemicals Kronos uses or produces in Europe. Kronos
has established a REACH team that is working to identify and list all substances
purchased, manufactured or imported by or for Kronos in the
EU. Kronos spent $.4 million in 2007 and $.5 million in 2008 on REACH
compliance, and we do not anticipate that future compliance costs will be
material to Kronos.
Kronos’
capital expenditures in 2008 related to ongoing environmental compliance,
protection and improvement programs were $11.9 million, and are currently
expected to be approximately $1 million in 2009.
OTHER
In addition to our 87% ownership of
CompX and our 36% ownership of Kronos at December 31, 2008, 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.
The
majority of our operating 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 this
regard, in the first quarter of 2009 Kronos announced the suspension of its
regularly quarterly dividend in consideration of the challenges and
opportunities that exist in the TiO2 pigment
industry. We currently believe that we will have sufficient liquidity
to service our liabilities in 2009. See Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations –
Liquidity.”
In February 2009, our Board of
Directors declared a first quarter 2009 cash dividend of $.125 per share to
shareholders of record as of March 10, 2009 to be paid on March 26,
2009. 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.
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 our product design, quality or durability over lower
cost products of our competitors.
|
Demand
for, and prices of, certain of Kronos’ products are influenced by changing
market conditions and Kronos is currently operating in a depressed worldwide
market 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. The current world-wide economic downturn has
depressed sales volumes in the fourth quarter of 2008, and we are unable to
predict with a high degree of certainty when demand will return to the levels
experience prior to the fourth quarter of 2008. 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. Huntsman announced the closure of one of its European
facilities, and we believe that further shutdowns or closures in the industry
are possible. The closures may not be sufficient to alleviate the
current excess industry capacity and such conditions 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 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. We spend a significant amount of time and effort to
refine, improve and adapt our existing products for new customers and
applications. Since expenditures for these types of activities are
not considered research and development expense under accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America, the amount of our research
and development expenditures, which is not significant, is not indicative of the
overall effort involved in the development of new product features. 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 coordinate these activities may be affected
by factors beyond CompX’s control. While we will continue to
emphasize the introduction of innovative new product features 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
product features 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, 2008, Kronos had consolidated debt of approximately $638.5 million,
the majority of which relates to Senior Secured Notes, a revolving credit
facility of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kronos International, Inc. and a note
payable to us. Kronos’ level of debt could have important
consequences to its stockholders (including us) and creditors,
including:
·
|
making
it more difficult for Kronos to satisfy its obligations with respect to
its liabilities;
|
·
|
increasing
its vulnerability to adverse general economic and industry
conditions;
|
·
|
requiring
that a portion of Kronos’ cash flows from operations be used for the
payment of interest on its debt, which reduces its ability to use cash
flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures, dividends on our
common stock, acquisitions or general corporate
requirements;
|
·
|
limiting
its ability to obtain additional financing to fund future working capital,
capital expenditures, dividends on its common stock, acquisitions or
general corporate requirements;
|
·
|
limiting
its flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in Kronos’
business and the industry in which it operates;
and
|
·
|
placing
it 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 $365.5 million
in 2009. 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. In this regard, we currently believe it is probable
that one of Kronos’ required financial ratios associated with its European
credit facility will not be maintained at some point during 2009, most likely
commencing at March 31, 2009.
Kronos
has begun discussions with the lenders to amend the terms of the existing
European credit facility to eliminate the requirement to maintain this financial
ratio until at least March 31, 2010. While we believe it is possible
that Kronos can obtain such an amendment to eliminate this financial ratio
through at least March 31, 2010, there is no assurance that such amendment will
be obtained, or if obtained that the requirement to maintain the financial ratio
will be eliminated (or waived, in the event the lenders would only agree to a
waiver and not an amendment to eliminate the covenant itself) through at least
March 31, 2010. Any such amendment or waiver which Kronos might
obtain could increase Kronos’ future borrowing costs, either from a requirement
that it pay a higher rate of interest on outstanding borrowings or pay a fee to
the lenders as part of agreeing to such amendment or waiver.
In the
event that Kronos would not be successful in obtaining the amendment or waiver
of the existing European credit facility to eliminate the requirement to
maintain the financial ratio, it would seek to refinance such facility with a
new group of lenders with terms that did not include such financial covenant or,
if required, it will use existing liquidity resources (which could include funds
provided by affiliates). While there is no assurance that Kronos
would be able to refinance the existing European credit facility with a new
group of lenders, we believe these other sources of liquidity available to
Kronos would allow it to refinance the existing European credit
facility. If required, Kronos believes by undertaking one or more of
these steps it will be successful in maintaining sufficient liquidity to meet
its future obligations including operations, capital expenditures and debt
service for the next 12 months.
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.
Negative
worldwide economic conditions could continue to result in a decrease in our
sales and an increase in our operating costs, which could continue to adversely
affect our business and operating results.
If the
current worldwide economic downturn continues, many of CompX’s direct and
indirect customers may continue to delay or reduce their purchases of the
components we manufacture or of the products that utilize our
components. In addition, many of CompX’s customers rely on credit
financing for their working capital needs. If the negative conditions
in the global credit markets continue to prevent CompX’s customers' access to
credit, product orders may continue to decrease which could result in lower
sales. Likewise, if suppliers continue to face challenges in
obtaining credit, in selling their products or otherwise in operating their
businesses, they may become unable to continue to offer the materials CompX uses
to manufacture our products. These actions could continue to result
in reductions in our sales, increased price competition and increased operating
costs, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and
financial condition.
Negative
global economic conditions increase the risk that we could suffer unrecoverable
losses on our customers' accounts receivable which would adversely affect our
financial results.
CompX and
Kronos extend credit and payment terms to some customers. Although we have an
ongoing process of evaluating customers' financial conditions, we could suffer
significant losses if a customer fails and is unable to pay. A
significant loss of an account receivable would have a negative impact on our
financial results.
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. To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are unspecified
unless otherwise indicated below. In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state
law. 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, non-appealable, adverse
judgments against us been entered.
We have
not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint
litigation cases. 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, a minor,
alleged injuries purportedly caused by lead on the surfaces of premises in homes
in which he resided and 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 April 2008, plaintiff filed an appeal,
and in February 2009, the appeal was stayed after the appellate court received
notice that one of the defendants, Millennium Chemicals, Inc., had filed for
bankruptcy.
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 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 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. In May 2007, plaintiffs appealed the ruling and all
proceedings in the trial court were stayed pending review by the appellate
court. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling, thereby
allowing contingent fee arrangements in the case. In May 2008, the
defendants filed a petition for review by the California Supreme Court, which
was granted in July 2008.
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 April 2008, the trial court judge certified a class
of children whose blood lead levels were screened venously between August
1995 and February 2008 and who had incurred expenses associated with such
screening. Certain defendants filed a motion to decertify the class
in January 2009. The case is proceeding in the trial
court.
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, and in November 2008, the
appellate court affirmed the verdict. In December 2008, the plaintiff
petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review.
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. In January 2009, NL filed a
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the case. 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 have denied all allegations of
liability. The case is proceeding in the trial court.
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 plaintiffs 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. Of the cases filed, five remain
pending, four of the remaining cases have been removed to Federal court and all
of the cases have been stayed. We have denied all liability in these
cases.
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). NL filed a motion to dismiss the claims in October
2008. In February 2009, the state voluntarily dismissed its
complaint.
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. We have
denied all liability. In October 2008, the complaint was amended to
add as defendants, former owners of other residences in which the plaintiff
lived. The case 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 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
the:
·
|
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, 2008, 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,
2008, 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 $76 million, including
the amount currently accrued. We have not discounted these estimates
to present value.
At
December 31, 2008, 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, strict liability, deceit by false
representation and was subsequently amended to assert claims under CERCLA
against us, six other mining companies and the United States of America with
respect to former operations in the Tar Creek mining district in
Oklahoma. Among other things, the complaint seeks actual and punitive
damages from defendants. We have moved to dismiss the complaint,
asserted certain counterclaims and have denied all of plaintiffs’
allegations. 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 December
2007, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Tribe’s medical
monitoring claims. In July 2008, the court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss the Tribe’s CERCLA natural resources damages
claim. In January 2009, the defendants filed a motion for partial
summary judgment, seeking dismissal of certain plaintiffs’ claims for lack of
standing.
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 October 2007, we moved to
dismiss several plaintiffs who failed to respond to discovery requests, and in
February 2008, the motion was granted with respect to all such
plaintiffs. In February 2008, the trial court entered a case
management order pursuant to which the case will proceed as to eight of the
plaintiffs’ claims, and the claims of the remaining plaintiffs have been stayed
in the meantime. In April 2008, the other defendant in the case
agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs, and we are the only remaining
defendant. The case is proceeding in the trial court.
In June
2008, we were served in Barton, et al. v. NL Industries,
Inc., (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No.:
2:08-CV-12558). In January 2009, we were served in Brown, et al. v. NL Industries, Inc.
et al. (Circuit Court Wayne County, Michigan, Case No. 09-002458
CE). The plaintiffs in both of these cases are additional property owners
and other past or present residents of the Krainz Woods Neighborhood, and the
claims raised in these cases are identical to those in the Brown case described
above. We intend to deny liability in both subsequent cases and will
defend vigorously against all claims.
In June
2006, we and several other PRPs received a Unilateral Administrative Order
(“UAO”) 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, which was purchased by a predecessor of Doe Run from us in
approximately 1936. Doe Run is also named in the Order. In
April 2008, the parties signed a definitive cost sharing agreement for sharing
of the costs anticipated in connection with the order. In May 2008,
the parties began work at the site as required by the UAO and in accordance with
the cost sharing agreement.
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 Operating Unit 6 of the 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 the EPA for remediating a tributary
that drains the portions of the site in which the PRPs operated. We
will also reimburse the EPA for a portion of its past and future response costs
related to the site.
In June 2008, we received a Directive
and Notice to Insurers from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (“NJDEP”) regarding the Margaret’s Creek site in Old Bridge Township,
New Jersey. NJDEP alleged that a waste hauler transported waste from
one of our former facilities for disposal at the site in the early
1970s. We are involved in an ongoing dialogue with the NJDEP
regarding the scope of the remedial activities that may be necessary at the site
and the identification of other parties who may have liability for the
site.
In September 2008, we received a
Special Notice letter from the EPA for liability associated with the Tar Creek
site and a demand for related past and relocation costs. We responded
with a good-faith offer to pay certain of the past costs and to complete limited
work in the areas in which it operated, but declined to pay for other past costs
and declined to pay for any relocation costs. We are involved in an
ongoing dialogue with the EPA regarding a potential settlement with the
EPA.
Other
litigation
In
addition to the matters 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 certain legal proceedings with a number 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 lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one carrier reimburses us for a
portion of our asbestos litigation defense costs. We are not able to
determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for defense
costs incurred by us, because of certain issues that arise regarding which
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.
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, 2008.
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 28, 2009, there were approximately 3,480 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 27, 2009 the closing price of our common stock
was $9.27.
High
|
Low
|
Cash
dividends
paid
|
||||||||||
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 | |||||||||
Year
ended December 31, 2008
|
||||||||||||
First
Quarter
|
$ | 11.63 | $ | 8.65 | $ | .125 | ||||||
Second
Quarter
|
11.89 | 9.53 | .125 | |||||||||
Third
Quarter
|
10.93 | 9.37 | .125 | |||||||||
Fourth
Quarter
|
13.96 | 8.09 | .125 | |||||||||
January
1, 2009 through February 27, 2009
|
$ | 14.35 | $ | 9.21 | $ | .125 |
__________________________
In
February 2009, our Board of Directors declared a first quarter 2009 cash
dividend of $.125 per share to shareholders of record as of March 10, 2009 to be
paid on March 26, 2009. 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, 2003 through December 31,
2008. The graph shows the value at December 31 of each year assuming
an original investment of $100 at December 31, 2003 and the reinvestment of
dividends.
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NL
common stock
|
$ | 100 | $ | 213 | $ | 144 | $ | 111 | $ | 128 | $ | 157 | ||||||||||||
S&P
500 Composite Stock Price Index
|
100 | 111 | 116 | 135 | 142 | 90 | ||||||||||||||||||
S&P
500 Industrial Conglomerates Index
|
100 | 119 | 115 | 125 | 130 | 63 | ||||||||||||||||||
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, 2008, there were 95,050 options outstanding to purchase shares of
our common stock, and approximately 4,086,000 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 13 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,
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||||||||
(In
millions, except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS DATA:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Component
products
|
$ | 182.6 | $ | 186.4 | $ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | $ | 165.5 | ||||||||||
Chemicals
(1)
|
559.1 | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
$ | 741.7 | $ | 186.4 | $ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | $ | 165.5 | |||||||||||
Income
from operations:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Component
products
|
$ | 16.2 | $ | 19.3 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | $ | 5.3 | ||||||||||
Chemicals
(1)
|
66.7 | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
$ | 82.9 | $ | 19.3 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | $ | 5.3 | |||||||||||
Equity
in earnings(losses) of Kronos (1)
|
$ | 9.1 | $ | 25.7 | $ | 29.3 | $ | (23.9 | ) | $ | 3.2 | |||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$ | 159.1 | $ | 33.3 | $ | 26.1 | $ | (1.7 | ) | 33.2 | ||||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
3.5 | (.3 | ) | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 162.6 | $ | 33.0 | $ | 26.1 | $ | (1.7 | ) | $ | 33.2 | |||||||||
DILUTED
EARNINGS PER SHARE DATA:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$ | 3.29 | $ | .68 | $ | .54 | $ | (.04 | ) | $ | .68 | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
.07 | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 3.36 | $ | .68 | $ | .54 | $ | (.04 | ) | $ | .68 | |||||||||
Dividends
per share (2)
|
$ | .80 | $ | 1.00 | $ | .50 | $ | .50 | $ | .50 | ||||||||||
Weighted
average common shares outstanding
|
48,419 | 48,587 | 48,584 | 48,590 | 48,605 | |||||||||||||||
BALANCE
SHEET DATA (at year end):
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 552.5 | $ | 485.6 | $ | 529.3 | $ | 524.8 | $ | 419.5 | ||||||||||
Long-term debt, including current maturities (3)
|
.1 | 1.4 | - | 50.0 | 43.0 | |||||||||||||||
Stockholders'
equity
|
234.2 | 220.3 | 248.5 | 246.5 | 188.4 | |||||||||||||||
STATEMENT
OF CASH FLOW DATA:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
cash provided by(used in):
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Operating
activities
|
$ | 92.7 | $ | (5.3 | ) | $ | 29.0 | $ | (2.8 | ) | $ | .8 | ||||||||
Investing
activities
|
34.5 | 18.5 | (25.2 | ) | 17.5 | 7.1 | ||||||||||||||
Financing
activities
|
(28.7 | ) | (35.8 | ) | (27.7 | ) | (27.3 | ) | (32.2 | ) |
(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)
|
Amounts
paid in 2005 (last three quarters), 2006, 2007 and 2008 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 and 2008 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 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,
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 marine 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
net income of $33.2 million, or $.68 per diluted share, in 2008 compared to
a net loss of $1.7 million, or $.04 per diluted share, in 2007 and net
income of $26.1 million, or $.54 per diluted share, in 2006.
The
increase in our diluted earnings per share from 2007 to 2008 is due primarily to
the net effects of:
·
|
a
litigation settlement pre-tax gain of $48.8 million in
2008;
|
·
|
a
goodwill impairment charge of $10.1 million in
2008;
|
·
|
higher
equity in earnings from Kronos in
2008;
|
·
|
lower
litigation and related expenses in
2008;
|
·
|
higher
environmental costs in 2008; and
|
·
|
higher
insurance recoveries in 2008.
|
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.
|
Our net
income in 2008 includes:
·
|
a
litigation settlement gain of $.65 per diluted share related to the
settlement of condemnation proceedings on real property we
owned;
|
·
|
a
goodwill impairment charge of $.21 per diluted share related to the marine
business line of our component products
operations;
|
·
|
interest
income of $.06 per diluted share related to certain escrow
funds;
|
·
|
income
included in our equity in earnings of Kronos of $.03 per diluted share
related to an adjustment of certain income tax attributes of Kronos in
Germany; and
|
·
|
income
of $.13 per diluted share related to certain insurance
recoveries.
|
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 net
income 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.
|
Outlook
for 2009
We
currently expect our net income in 2009 to be significantly lower than 2008 due
to the net effects of:
·
|
lower
income from operations in 2009 as a result of higher legal defense
costs;
|
·
|
lower
equity in earnings from Kronos in 2009;
and
|
·
|
lower
litigation settlement gains in
2009.
|
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 (Level 1 inputs) 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, 2008, 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 $51.2
million carrying value exceeded its $24.3 million cost basis by about 111%, and
the $12.8 million carrying value of our investment in TIMET exceeded its $11.4
million cost basis by about 12%. At December 31, 2008, the $11.65 per
share quoted market price of our investment in Kronos (our only equity method
investee) exceeded its per share net carrying value by about 79%.
·
|
Long-lived
assets. We recognize an impairment charge associated
with our long-lived assets, including property and equipment, whenever we
determine that recovery of such long-lived asset is not
probable. Such determination is made in accordance with the
applicable GAAP requirements of SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment
or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, and is based upon, among other
things, estimates of the amount of future net cash flows to be generated
by the long-lived asset (Level 3 inputs) and estimates of the current fair
value of the asset. Significant judgment is required in
estimating such cash flows. Assumptions used in our impairment
evaluations, such as forecasted growth rates and our cost of capital, are
consistent with our internal projections and operating
plans. We do not assess our property and equipment for
impairment unless certain impairment indicators specified in SFAS No. 144
are present. We did not evaluate any long-lived assets for impairment
during 2008 because no such impairment indicators were
present.
|
·
|
Goodwill - In
accordance with SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and other Intangible
Assets, we review goodwill for impairment at least on an annual
basis. We are also required to review goodwill for impairment
at other times during each year when impairment indicators, as defined,
are present. The estimated fair values of CompX’s three
reporting units are determined based on discounted cash flow projections
(Level 3 inputs). See Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. 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 our cost of capital, are consistent with our
internal projections and operating
plans.
|
During
the third quarter of 2008, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $10.1
million for CompX’s marine components reporting unit, which represented all of
the goodwill we had previously recognized for this reporting unit (including a
nominal amount of goodwill inherent in our investment in CompX). We used a
discounted cash flow methodology in determining the estimated fair value of
CompX’s marine components reporting unit. The factors that led us to
conclude that goodwill associated with CompX’s marine components reporting unit
was fully impaired include the continued decline in consumer spending in the
marine market as well as the overall negative economic outlook, both of which
resulted in near-term and longer-term reduced revenue, profit and cash flow
forecasts for the marine components unit. While we continue to believe in
the long term potential of the Marine Components unit, due to the extraordinary
economic downturn in the marine industry we are not currently able to foresee
when the industry and our business will recover. In response to the
present economic conditions, we have taken steps to reduce operating costs
without inhibiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities to expand our
market share.
When we
performed this analysis in the third quarter, we also reviewed the goodwill
associated with CompX’s security products and furniture components reporting
units and concluded there was no impairment of the goodwill for those reporting
units or the other intangible assets of our Marine Components
unit. The estimated fair values were also determined based on
discounted cash flow projections. Assumptions used in these
impairment evaluations, such as forecasted growth rates and our cost of capital,
are consistent with our internal projections and operating plans. However,
different assumptions and estimates could result in materially different
findings which could result in the recognition of a material asset
impairment. Due to the continued weakening of the economy, we
re-evaluated the goodwill associated with our Furniture Components reporting
unit again in the fourth quarter of 2008 and concluded no additional impairments
were present.
If our
future results were to be significantly below our current expectations, it is
reasonably likely that we would conclude additional impairments of the goodwill
and intangible assets associated with our Furniture Components reporting unit
would be present. As of December 31, 2008 our Furniture Components
reporting unit had approximately $7.1 million of goodwill. Holding
all other assumptions constant at the re-evaluation date, a 100 to 200 basis
point increase in the discount rate would reduce the enterprise value for our
Furniture Components reporting unit, indicating potential
impairment. If we record additional impairment charges in the future,
it could cause CompX to fail to comply with one or more of the financial
covenants contained in its credit facility. See Note 12 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements. In the event CompX were to fail to
comply with one or more covenants, we would attempt to negotiate waivers of any
noncompliance; however, there can be no assurance that we would be able to
negotiate any waivers. In addition the costs or conditions associated with any
waivers could be significant. At December 31, 2008 we had no balances
outstanding under the facility and we do not anticipate needing to utilize the
facility for operations in 2009.
·
|
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 us in the
U.S.
·
|
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).
|
Net
income from operations of CompX and Kronos 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, long-lived assets,
defined benefit pension and OPEB plans and loss accruals,
and
|
·
|
Component
products – reserves for obsolete or unmarketable inventories, impairment
of goodwill and 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||||||||||||||
(Dollars
in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
CompX
|
$ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | $ | 5.3 | (25 | )% | (66 | )% | ||||||||||
Insurance
recoveries
|
7.7 | 5.6 | 9.6 | (27 | )% | 70 | % | |||||||||||||
Litigation
settlement gain
|
- | - | 48.8 | - | 100 | % | ||||||||||||||
Corporate
expense and other
|
(24.3 | ) | (31.3 | ) | (24.9 | ) | 29 | % | (20 | )% | ||||||||||
Income
(loss) from operations
|
$ | 3.9 | $ | (10.3 | ) | $ | 38.8 | (364 | )% | 477 | % |
CompX
International Inc.
Year ended December 31,
|
% Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||||||||||||||
(Dollars
in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | $ | 165.5 | (7 | )% | (7 | )% | ||||||||||
Cost
of goods sold
|
143.6 | 132.5 | 125.7 | (8 | )% | (5 | )% | |||||||||||||
Gross
margin
|
46.5 | 45.2 | 39.8 | (3 | )% | (12 | )% | |||||||||||||
Operating
costs and expenses
|
26.0 | 29.8 | 34.5 | 15 | % | 16 | % | |||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
$ | 20.5 | $ | 15.4 | $ | 5.3 | (25 | )% | (66 | )% | ||||||||||
Percentage
of net sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Cost
of goods sold
|
76 | % | 75 | % | 76 | % | ||||||||||||||
Gross
margin
|
24 | % | 25 | % | 24 | % | ||||||||||||||
Operating
costs and expenses
|
14 | % | 16 | % | 21 | % | ||||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
11 | % | 9 | % | 3 | % |
Net
Sales – Net
sales decreased in 2008 as compared to 2007 principally due to lower order rates
from many of our customers resulting from unfavorable economic conditions in
North America, offset in part by the effect of sales price increases for certain
products to mitigate the effect of higher raw material costs.
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 minimally
sufficient margin to us 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.
Costs of
Goods Sold and Gross Margin – Cost of goods sold
decreased from 2007 to 2008 primarily due to decreased sales
volumes. As a percentage of sales, gross margin decreased in 2008
from the prior year. The decrease in gross margin is primarily due to
higher raw material costs, not all of which could be recovered through sales
price increases or surcharges, combined with reduced coverage of fixed
manufacturing costs from lower sales volume partially offset by lower
depreciation expense in 2008 due to a reduction in capital expenditure
requirements for shorter lived assets over the last several years in response to
lower sales.
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.
Goodwill
Impairment – During 2008, we recorded a non-cash goodwill impairment
charge of $10.1 million for CompX’s marine components reporting
unit. See Note 8 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Income from
operations – Excluding the goodwill
impairment charge discussed above, the comparison of income from operations for
2008 compared to 2007 includes the net effects of:
·
|
a
negative impact of approximately $5.4 million relating to lower order
rates from many of our customers resulting from unfavorable economic
conditions in North America,
|
·
|
increased
raw material costs that we were not able to fully recover through sales
price increases by approximately $1 million due to the competitive nature
of the markets we serve,
|
·
|
the
one-time $2.7 million charge for facility consolidation costs incurred in
2007,
|
·
|
$1.8
million in lower depreciation expense in 2008 due to a reduction in
capital expenditures for shorter lived assets over the last several years
in response to lower sales, and
|
·
|
$1.3
million favorable effect on operating income from changes in foreign
currency exchange rates.
|
Income
from operations for 2007 decreased $5.1 million, or 25% compared to 2006 and
operating margins decreased to 9% in 2007 compared to 11% for
2006. 2007 income from operations includes the net effects
of:
·
|
a
higher portion of the sales decline in 2007 occurring among lower margin
products,
|
·
|
an
increased percentage of sales from our higher margin Marine
business,
|
·
|
the
$2.7 million charge for facility consolidation
costs,
|
·
|
a
$2.4 million unfavorable effect of relative changes in foreign currency
exchange rates (including the $1.2 million related to foreign exchange
transaction losses noted above),
|
·
|
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 incurred in 2007 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 14 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
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. Overall,
fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates had the following effects on our
net sales and income from operations in 2008 as compared to 2007.
Increase
(decrease) –
Year ended December
31,
|
||||||||
2007 vs. 2006
|
2008 vs. 2007
|
|||||||
Impact
on:
|
(In
thousands)
|
|||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 886 | $ | 406 | ||||
Income
from operations
|
(2,384 | ) | 1,304 |
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 operating income for the 2007 versus 2006 comparison results from the
U.S. dollar denominated sales of non-U.S. operations converted 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 the
local currency. The positive impact on operating income for the 2008
versus 2007 comparison is due to lower currency exchange losses in 2008 as
compared to 2007.
General – CompX’s profitability
primarily depends on our ability to utilize production capacity effectively,
which is affected by, among other things, the demand for our products and our
ability to control our 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 51% of our total
cost of sales. During 2006, 2007 and most of 2008, 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 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. While raw material purchase prices have recently
declined, it is uncertain whether the current prices will stabilize during
2009. 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 for CompX’s products continues to slow, especially during the fourth
quarter of 2008, as customers react to the condition of the overall
economy. While all of CompX’s product lines are being affected, we
are experiencing a greater softness in demand in the industries we serve which
are more directly connected to lower consumer spending, as further explained
below.
·
|
Our
Security Products business is the least affected by the softness in
consumer demand, because we sell products to a diverse number of customers
across a wide range of markets, most of which are not directly impacted by
changes in consumer demand. While demand within this business
is not as significantly affected by softness in the overall economy, we do
expect sales to be lower over the next twelve
months.
|
·
|
Our
Furniture Components sales are primarily concentrated in the office
furniture, toolbox, home appliance and a number of other
industries. Several of these industries, primarily toolbox and
home appliance, are more directly affected by consumer demand than those
served by our Security Products business. We expect many of the
markets served by Furniture Components to continue to experience low
demand over the next twelve months.
|
·
|
Our
Marine business has been the most affected by the slowing economy as the
decrease in consumer confidence, the decline in home values, a tighter
credit market and volatile fuel costs have resulted in a significant
reduction in consumer spending in the marine market. We do not
expect the marine market to recover until consumer confidence returns and
home values stabilize.
|
While
changes in market demand are not within our control, we are focused on the areas
we can impact. We expect our lean manufacturing and cost improvement
initiatives to continue to positively impact our productivity and result in a
more efficient infrastructure that we can leverage when demand growth
returns. Additionally, we continue to seek opportunities to gain
market share in markets we currently serve, expand into new markets and develop
new product features in order to mitigate the impact of reduced demand as well
as broaden our sales base.
In
addition to challenges with overall demand, volatility in the cost of raw
materials is ongoing. While the cost of commodity raw materials
declined in the second half of 2008, we currently expect these costs to continue
to be volatile in 2009. If raw material prices increase, we may not
be able to fully recover the cost by passing them on to our customers through
price increases due to the competitive nature of the markets we serve and the
depressed economic conditions.
Kronos
Worldwide, Inc.
Years ended December 31,
|
% Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||||||||||||||
(Dollars
in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 1,279.4 | $ | 1,310.3 | $ | 1,316.9 | 2 | % | 1 | % | ||||||||||
Cost
of sales
|
968.9 | 1,058.9 | 1,096.3 | 9 | % | 4 | % | |||||||||||||
Gross
margin
|
$ | 310.5 | $ | 251.4 | $ | 220.6 | ||||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
$ | 143.2 | $ | 84.9 | $ | 47.2 | (41 | )% | (44 | )% | ||||||||||
Other
general corporate, net
|
3.6 | 2.5 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||
Loss
on prepayment of debt
|
(22.3 | ) | - | - | ||||||||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
(43.2 | ) | (39.4 | ) | (42.2 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Income
before income taxes
|
81.3 | 48.0 | 6.0 | |||||||||||||||||
Provision
for income taxes (benefit)
|
(.7 | ) | 114.7 | (3.0 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 82.0 | $ | (66.7 | ) | $ | 9.0 | |||||||||||||
Percentage
of net sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Cost
of sales
|
76 | % | 81 | % | 83 | % | ||||||||||||||
Income
from operations
|
11 | % | 6 | % | 4 | % | ||||||||||||||
Equity
in earnings (losses) of Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
$ | 29.3 | $ | (23.9 | ) | $ | 3.2 | |||||||||||||
TiO2
operating statistics:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Sales
volumes*
|
511 | 519 | 478 | 1 | % | (8 | )% | |||||||||||||
Production
volumes*
|
516 | 512 | 514 | (1 | )% | - | % | |||||||||||||
Change
in Ti02
net sales:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Ti02
product pricing
|
(4 | )% | 2 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Ti02
sales volume
|
1 | (8 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
Ti02
product mix
|
- | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
Changes
in currency exchange rates
|
5 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
|
2 | % | 1 | % |
*
Thousands of metric tons
Net sales
– Kronos’ net sales increased 1% or $6.6 million in 2008 compared to 2007,
primarily due to favorable currency exchange rates, which we estimate increased
Kronos’ net sales for 2008 by approximately $61 million, or 5%, compared to the
same period in 2007. Variations in grades of products sold favorably
impacted net sales by 2%, along with a 2% increase in average TiO2 selling
prices. TiO2 selling
prices generally follow industry trends and prices will increase or decrease
generally as a result of competitive market pressures. During the
second and third quarters of 2008, Kronos and its competitors announced various
price increases and surcharges in response to higher operating
costs. A portion of these increase announcements were implemented
during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2008. The positive impact
of currency, product mix and pricing in 2008 were substantially offset by an 8%
decrease in sales volumes. Kronos’ sales volumes decreased 8% in 2008
primarily due to lower sales volumes in all markets as a result of a global
weakening of demand due to poor overall economic conditions.
Kronos’
net sales increased 2% or $30.9 million in 2007 compared to 2006, primarily due
to favorable currency exchange rates and a 1% increase in sales volumes offset
somewhat by a 4% decrease in average TiO2 selling
prices. We estimate the favorable effect of changes in currency exchange rates
increased Kronos’ net sales for 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. Kronos’
TiO2
sales volumes in 2007 were a new record for Kronos.
Cost of
sales – Kronos’ cost of sales increased 4% or $37.4 million in 2008
compared to 2007 due to the impact of a 22% or approximately $27 million
increase in utility costs (primarily energy costs), a 10% or approximately $35
million increase in raw material costs largely offset by currency fluctuations
(primarily the euro). The cost of sales as a percentage of net sales
increased to 83% in the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to 81% in the same
period of 2007 primarily due to the net effects of higher operating costs and
slightly higher average selling prices.
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.
Income from
operations – Kronos’ income from
operations in 2008 declined by 44% to $47.2 million compared to 2007; income
from operations as a percentage of net sales decreased to 4% in 2008 from 6% for
2007. The decline in income from operations is driven by the decline
in gross margin, which decreased to 17% in 2008 compared to 19% in
2007. While Kronos’ average TiO2 selling
prices were higher in 2008, Kronos’ gross margin decreased primarily because of
lower sales volumes and higher manufacturing costs, which more than offset the
impact of higher sales prices. Changes in currency rates have also
negatively affected Kronos’ gross margin. We estimate the negative
effect of changes in currency exchange rates decreased income from operations by
approximately $4 million when comparing 2008 to 2007.
As a
percentage of net sales, selling, general and administrative expenses were
relatively consistent at approximately 12% and 13% for 2007 and 2008,
respectively.
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 2007 and 2006
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.)
Effects of
currency exchange rates - 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, 2007
vs. 2006
|
Year
ended
December
31, 2008
vs. 2007
|
|||||||
Increase (decrease), in
millions
|
||||||||
Impact
on:
|
||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 65 | $ | 61 | ||||
Income
from operations
|
(4 | ) | (4 | ) |
Interest
expense –
Kronos’ interest expense increased $2.8 million from $39.4 million in 2007 to
$42.2 million in 2008 due to unfavorable changes in currency exchange rates in
2008 compared to 2007 and increased borrowings in 2008 (primarily under Kronos’
European credit facility).
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.
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’ benefit for income taxes was $3.0 million in 2008 compared to an
income tax provision of $114.7 million for 2007. Some of the more
significant items impacting this reconciliation are summarized
below.
Income
tax benefit in 2008 includes:
·
|
A
non-cash benefit of $7.2 million relating to a European Court ruling that
resulted in the favorable resolution of certain income tax issues in
Germany and an increase in the amount of Kronos’ German corporate and
trade tax net operating loss carryforwards.
|
Income
tax expense in 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 relating 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.
|
Income
tax benefit in 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 relating 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.
|
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, and as a result, both
Kronos and LPC filed claims with their insurers. Kronos recognized a
$1.8 million gain related to its business interruption claim in
2006.
Outlook –
Kronos currently expects income from operations will be lower in 2009 compared
to 2008 primarily from higher production costs resulting in part from
significantly reduced production volumes and the resulting unabsorbed fixed
production costs and unfavorable currency effects. Kronos currently
expects to report a net loss in 2009 as compared to reporting net income in 2008
due to lower expected income from operations in 2009.
In
response to the worldwide economic slowdown and weak consumer confidence, Kronos
is significantly reducing its production volumes in 2009 in order to reduce its
finished goods inventory and improve its liquidity. While overall
industry pigment demand is expected to be lower in 2009 as compared to 2008 as a
result of worldwide economic conditions, Kronos currently expects sales volumes
in 2009 will be slightly higher as compared to 2008, as it expects to gain
market share following anticipated reductions in industry capacity due to
competitors’ permanent plant shutdowns. Kronos believes average
selling prices in 2009 will decline from year end levels during the first half
of the year but will rise during the second half of 2009 which should result in
slightly higher average worldwide TiO2 selling
prices for the year. To mitigate the negative impact of its
significantly reduced production volumes, Kronos is reducing operating costs
where possible, such as; reducing maintenance expenditures, research development
expenditures and personnel costs.
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, solvency and
continued operation of competitors, unexpected or earlier than expected capacity
additions or reductions and technological advances. If actual
developments differ from expectations, results of operations could be
unfavorably affected.
Kronos
believes that its annual attainable production capacity for 2009 is
approximately 532,000 metric tons. Kronos expect its production
volumes in 2009 will be significantly lower than attainable
capacity. Kronos currently expects that it will operate at 75% to 85%
of attainable production capacity in 2009. Expected capacity
utilization levels could be adjusted upwards or downwards to match changes in
demand for Kronos’ product.
General
corporate and other items
Interest and
dividend income –
Interest and dividend income in 2008 increased $3.2 million from 2007
primarily due to the interest received on certain escrow funds that we became
entitled to as part of the April 2008 litigation settlement
agreement. We recognized this as interest income during the second
quarter of 2008. See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Interest
and dividend income in 2007 decreased $362,000 from 2006 due primarily to lower
levels of funds available for investment. Other interest and dividend
income fluctuates in part based upon the amount of funds invested and yields
thereon. We expect that interest income will be lower in 2009 than
2008 primarily due to the 2008 receipt of interest on certain escrow
funds.
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.
Litigation
settlement gain – In October 2008 we recognized a $48.8 million gain
related to the initial closing associated with the settlement of condemnation
proceedings on certain real property we owned that is subject to environmental
remediation, and for which we had a carrying value of approximately $5.8 million
at the date of closing. A second closing is scheduled for April 2009,
and if that closing occurs we will receive additional consideration at that time
and recognize an additional gain. See Note 19 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Insurance
recoveries –
Insurance recoveries in 2006, 2007 and 2008 relate to amounts we received from
certain of our former insurance carriers, and relate principally to the recovery
of prior lead pigment and asbestos 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 and asbestos litigation defense costs, and the insurance recoveries in
2007 and 2008 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 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 the extent to which 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 $25.0 million in 2008, $6.3 million or 20% lower
than in 2007. Included in 2008 corporate expense are:
·
|
Litigation
and related costs of $14.6 million in 2008 compared to $22.1 in 2007;
and
|
·
|
Environmental
expenses of $6.8 million in 2008, compared to $4.4 million in
2007.
|
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. Included in
2007 corporate expenses are:
·
|
Litigation
and related costs of $22.1 million in 2007 compared to $15.3 million in
2006; and
|
·
|
Environmental
expense of $4.4 million in 2007, compared to $4.3 million in
2006.
|
We expect
that net general corporate expenses in 2009 will be higher than in 2008,
primarily due to higher expected litigation and related expenses as well as
higher defined benefit pension plan expense.
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 2009, our
corporate expenses would be higher than we currently estimate. See
Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Interest
expense -
Substantially all of our interest expense in 2006, 2007 and 2008 relates
to CompX. Interest expense increased $1.6 million in 2008 compared to
2007 and increased $541,000 in 2007 compared to 2006 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.
Provision for
income taxes - We
recognized an income tax expense of $14.9 million in 2008 compared to a benefit
of $8.3 million in 2007 and an expense of $8.9 million in 2006. 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 in periods during which we
receive dividends from Kronos. In this regard, Kronos announced the
suspension of its regularly quarterly dividend in February 2009 in consideration
of the challenges and opportunities that exist in the TiO2 pigment
industry. If Kronos continues to not pay any dividends for the
remainder of 2009, our effective tax rate in 2009 would consequently be higher
as compared to 2008.
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.
The
goodwill impairment charge of $10.1 million recorded in the third quarter of
2008 (see Note 8) is non-deductible goodwill for income tax
purposes. Accordingly, there is no income tax benefit associated with
the goodwill impairment charge for financial reporting purposes. Our
income tax expense in 2008 includes a $2.1 million benefit related to a net
reduction in our reserve for uncertain tax positions primarily due to a fourth
quarter recognition of unrecognized tax benefits because of statute of
limitation expirations.
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 statute 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.
Minority
interest –
Minority interest in earnings decreased $3.0 million in 2008 as compared to
2007. This decrease is due to both our increased ownership of CompX
as compared to the same period last year and to lower earnings of CompX in
2008.
Minority
interest decreased $844,000 in 2007 as compared to 2006 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 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 $2.2 million in
2006, $2.5 million in 2007 and $3.1 million in 2008. 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 $1.3
million in 2006, $900,000 in 2007, and $600,000 in 2008.
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, 2008, approximately 86% 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, 2006
and
expense in 2007
|
Obligations
at
December
31, 2007 and expense in 2008
|
Obligations
at
December
31, 2008 and expense in 2009
|
||||||||||
U.S.
|
5.8 | % | 6.1 | % | 6.1 | % | ||||||
United
Kingdom
|
5.0 | % | 5.8 | % | 6.0 | % |
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, 2008, approximately 85% 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, 2007 and 2008, 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, 2006, 2007 and 2008, 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 over 20-year history of the CMRT from its
inception in 1987 through December 31, 2008, the average annual rate of return
has been approximately 11%.
The CMRT
weighted-average asset allocation by asset category was as follows:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
Equity
securities
|
98 | % | 53 | % | ||||
Debt
securities
|
- | 43 | ||||||
Cash
and other
|
2 | 4 | ||||||
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 2006, 2007 and 2008 were as follows:
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
U.S.
|
10.0 | % | 10.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||
United
Kingdom
|
6.5 | % | 6.5 | % | 7.0 | % |
We currently expect to utilize the same
long-term rate of return on plan asset assumptions in 2009 as we used in 2008
for purposes of determining the 2009 defined benefit pension plan
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
2008, all of our defined benefit pension plans generated a combined net
actuarial loss of approximately $31.6 million. This actuarial loss
resulted primarily from the general market decline and the actual return on plan
assets below 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 2009, we expect that our defined benefit
pension expense will approximate $700,000 in 2009. In comparison, we
expect to be required to make approximately $600,000 of contributions to such
plans during 2009.
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, 2008, 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
2009. 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 expense would be expected to increase by approximately $73,000 during
2009.
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.
We
recognized consolidated OPEB expense of $622,000 in 2006, $629,000 in 2007, and
$476,000 in 2008. 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 $1.9 million in 2006, $1.5 million in 2007 and $1.1 million in
2008. 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, 2008 the
expected rate of increase in future health care costs ranges from 8.5% in 2009,
declining to 5.5% in 2014 and thereafter.
Based on the actuarial assumptions
described above and our current expectation for what actual average currency
exchange rates will be during 2009, we expect that our consolidated OPEB expense
will approximate $400,000 in 2009. In comparison, we expect to be
required to make approximately $1.2 million of contributions to such plans
during 2009.
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, 2008, 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 2009. 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
$500,000 at December 31, 2008 and OPEB expense would have increased by less than
$50,000 in 2008.
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, 2008, 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, 2008, Kronos had substantial net assets
denominated in the euro, Canadian dollar, Norwegian krone and British pound
sterling.
LIQUIDITY
AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Consolidated
cash flows
Operating
activities
Trends in cash flows from operating
activities, excluding the impact of deferred taxes and relative changes in
assets and liabilities, are generally similar to trends in our income from
operations. Cash flows provided by operating activities increased
from $2.8 million used in operating activities in 2007 to $760,000 provided by
operating activities in 2008. The $3.5 million increase in cash
provided by operating activities includes the net effect of:
·
|
higher
income from operations in 2008 of $10.4 million (excluding both the $10.1
million non-cash goodwill impairment charge and the litigation settlement
pre-tax gain of $48.8 million), due primarily to lower litigation expense
of $7.5 million and lower depreciation and amortization in 2008 of $2.0
million;
|
·
|
higher
interest income of $3.2 million in 2008 primarily due to $4.3 million of
interest received from certain escrow
funds;
|
·
|
higher
cash paid for environmental liabilities in 2008 of $2.3
million;
|
·
|
lower
net cash provided by relative changes in our inventories and receivables
of $3.0 million; and
|
·
|
higher
cash paid for interest in 2008 of $2.2 million due to CompX’s issuance of
its note payable to an affiliate in the fourth quarter of
2007.
|
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 primarily due to the net effect
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.
|
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. The reference to NL Parent in the tables below
is a reference to NL Industries, Inc., as the parent company of CompX and our
other wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Cash
provided by (used in) operating
activities:
|
||||||||||||
CompX
|
$ | 27.4 | $ | 11.9 | $ | 15.7 | ||||||
NL
Parent and wholly-owned subsidiaries
|
6.9 | (9.3 | ) | (9.5 | ) | |||||||
Eliminations
|
(5.3 | ) | (5.4 | ) | (5.4 | ) | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 29.0 | $ | (2.8 | ) | $ | .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, 2008 was 41 days compared to 44 days at December 31,
2007. The decrease is primarily due to the timing of collections on a
lower accounts receivable balance as of December 31, 2008. For
comparative purposes, our average DSO was 44 days for December 31, 2007 and 41
days at December 31, 2006. Our average number of days-in-inventory
(“DII”) was 70 days at December 31, 2008 and 63 days at December 31,
2007. The increase in DII is primarily due to lower sales in the
fourth quarter of 2008 which impacted the DII calculation, although in absolute
terms we reduced inventory by $1.6 million from 2007 to 2008. For
comparative purposes our average DII was 63 days at December 31, 2007 and 57
days at December 31, 2006. The increase is primarily due to the
higher cost of commodity raw materials during 2007 and higher inventory balances
associated with the facility consolidation in 2007.
Investing
activities
Net cash
provided by investing activities totaled $7.1 million in 2008 and $17.5 million
in 2007 compared to net cash used in 2006 of $25.2 million. Capital
expenditures, substantially all of which relate to CompX, were $6.9 million in
2008, $14.0 million in 2007 and $12.1 million in 2006. Capital
expenditure projects in 2008 emphasized improved production efficiency and
included $2.6 million spent to replace CompX’s waste water treatment equipment
at its South Carolina facility. Capital expenditures in 2006 and 2007
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
2008:
·
|
We
received $39.6 million from the initial closing contained in a settlement
agreement related to condemnation proceedings on certain real property we
owned in New Jersey;
|
·
|
We
provided loans to affiliates in the amount of $19.2 million to Kronos and
$3.0 million to Valhi;
|
·
|
CompX
purchased approximately 126,000 shares of its common stock in market
transactions for $1.0 million;
|
·
|
We
purchased approximately 79,500 shares of Kronos common stock for $.8
million and approximately 79,000 shares of Valhi for $1.1 million in
market transactions; and
|
·
|
We
used a net $2.6 million of cash to fund two new escrow accounts related to
environmental matters (such escrow funds are classified as restricted
cash.)
|
In
addition during 2008 we received a $15 million promissory note related to the
settlement of condemnation proceedings. See Notes 9 and 19 to the
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
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.
|
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.
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.
|
Financing
activities
Net cash
used in financing activities totaled $32.2 million, $27.3 million and $27.7
million in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. We paid cash dividends
of $24.3 million ($.50 per share) in 2008, 2007 and 2006. Other
financing cash flows over the past three years consisted principally
of:
·
|
CompX
paid cash dividends to minority interests in the amount of $.8 million in
2008, $1.9 million in 2007 and $2.3 million in
2006;
|
·
|
CompX
prepaid $7.0 million in 2008 and $2.6 million in 2007 on its note payable
to TIMET and in 2006 prepaid $1.6 million of indebtedness assumed in its
August 2005 business acquisition;
|
·
|
We
received proceeds from the exercise of options to purchase CompX common
stock of $1.4 million in 2007 and $.3 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. None of Kronos’ credit agreements contain
provisions that link the debt payment rates or schedules or borrowing
availability to its credit rating. 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.
CompX and
Kronos are in compliance with all of their debt covenants at December 31,
2008. Our and our affiliates’ ability to borrow funds under our
credit facilities in the future will, in some instances, depend in part on our
ability to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy certain financial
covenants contained in the applicable credit agreement. In this
regard, Kronos currently expects that one of its required financial ratios of
its European credit facility may not be maintained during
2009. Kronos has begun discussions with the lenders to obtain a
waiver of such ratio. While we believe we can obtain such a waiver,
there is no assurance that such waiver would be obtained.
Liquidity
Our
primary source of liquidity on an ongoing basis is our cash flow from operating
activities. We generally use these amounts to (i) fund capital
expenditures (substantially all of which relate to CompX), (ii) pay ongoing
environmental remediation and legal expenses and (iii) provide for the payment
of debt service and dividends.
In
January 2009, CompX amended its secured revolving bank credit facility, which
extended the facility until January 15, 2012. Additionally, CompX
reduced the size of the credit facility from $50 million to $37.5 million, which
more appropriately reflects our potential borrowing needs. The credit
facility is collateralized by 65% of the ownership interests in CompX’s
first-tier non-United States subsidiaries. Provisions contained in
the Revolving Bank Credit Agreement could result in the acceleration of
outstanding indebtedness prior to its stated maturity for reasons other than
defaults from failing to comply with typical financial covenants. For
example, the Credit Agreement allows the lender to accelerate the maturity of
the indebtedness upon a change of control (as defined) of the
borrower. The terms of the Credit Agreement could result in the
acceleration of all or a portion of the indebtedness following a sale of assets
outside of the ordinary course of business. At December 31, 2008 we
had no balances outstanding under the facility.
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, 2008, we had an
aggregate of $29.4 million of restricted and unrestricted cash, cash equivalents
and debt securities. A detail by entity is presented in the table
below.
CompX
|
$ | 14.4 | ||
NL
Parent and wholly-owned subsidiaries
|
15.0 | |||
Total
|
$ | 29.4 |
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,
2009). 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 2009 will
be approximately $4 million. 2009 capital expenditures are expected
to be lower than in 2008 in response to the current economic conditions and are
limited to those expenditures required to meet the lower expected customer
demand and to properly maintain our facilities. Kronos intends to
spend approximately $29 million for major improvements and upgrades to existing
facilities during 2009, including approximately $3 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. CompX currently pays a regular quarterly
dividend of $.125 per share. At that rate, and based on the 10.8
million shares of CompX we held at December 31, 2008, we would receive annual
dividends from CompX of $5.4 million. In addition, Valhi pays regular
quarterly dividends of $.10 per share. Based on the 4.8 million
shares of Valhi we held at December 31, 2008, we would receive annual dividends
from Valhi of $1.9 million. In February 2009, Kronos announced the suspension of
its regularly quarterly dividend in consideration of the challenges and
opportunities that exist in the TiO2 pigment
industry. Also in February 2009, TIMET announced the suspension of its regular
quarterly dividend on its common stock in consideration of the challenges and
opportunities that exist in the titanium metals industry.
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.
During
2008 we purchased approximately 79,000 shares of Valhi in open-market
transactions for an aggregate amount of $1.1 million. Also during
2008 we purchased approximately 79,500 shares of Kronos in open–market
transactions for an aggregate amount of $800,000. See Notes 4 and 7
to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
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, 2008
by the type and date of payment.
Payment due date
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Contractual commitment
|
2009
|
2010/2011 | 2012/2013 |
2014
and
After
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Note
and interest payable to affiliate
|
$ | 3.1 | $ | 6.1 | $ | 5.9 | $ | 39.4 | $ | 54.5 | ||||||||||
Estimated
tax obligations
|
1.9 | - | - | - | 1.9 | |||||||||||||||
Operating
leases
|
.6 | .7 | .2 | - | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||
Purchase
obligations
|
16.5 | - | - | - | 16.5 | |||||||||||||||
Fixed
asset acquisitions
|
.6 | - | - | - | .6 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 22.7 | $ | 6.8 | $ | 6.1 | $ | 39.4 | $ | 75.0 | |||||||||||
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. The
amount shown for income taxes is the consolidated amount of income taxes payable
including the net amount payable to Valhi under our tax sharing agreement at
December 31, 2008, which is assumed to be paid during 2009. 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
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 currency exchange rates, interest rates, raw materials and
equity security prices.
Interest
rates - We are
exposed to market risk from changes in interest rates, primarily related to our
indebtedness.
At
December 31, 2008 and 2007, CompX had no amounts outstanding under its 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, 2008, there was $43.0 million outstanding
on the promissory note ($50.0 million at December 31, 2007) which bears interest
at LIBOR plus 1%, (5.05% and 5.98% at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively)
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.
As
mentioned above, certain of our sales generated by CompX’s non-U.S. operations
are denominated in U.S. dollars. To mitigate the financial statement
impact of changes in currency exchange rates, CompX periodically enters into
forward currency contracts. At each balance sheet date, 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. To manage a portion of the currency exchange rate market risk
associated with receivables, or similar exchange rate risk associated with
future sales, at December 31, 2008 CompX had entered into a series of short-term
forward currency exchange contracts to exchange an aggregate of $7.5 million for
an equivalent value of Canadian dollars at exchange rates of Cdn. $1.25 to $1.26
per U.S. dollar. These contracts qualified for hedge accounting and
mature through June 2009. At December 31, 2008, the actual exchange
rate was Cdn. $1.22 per U.S. dollar. The estimated fair value of such
contracts was not material at December 31, 2008. We had no forward
currency contracts outstanding at December 31, 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, 2007 and 2008 was $113.4 million and $64.0 million,
respectively. The potential change in the aggregate fair value of
these investments, assuming a 10% change in prices, would be $11.3 million at
December 31, 2007 and $6.4 million at December 31, 2008. The fair
value of marketable debt securities at December 31, 2007 was $5.9 million and
was $5.5 million at December 31, 2008. The potential change in the
aggregate fair value of these investments assuming a 10% change in prices would
be $590,000 at December 31, 2007 and $550,000 at December 31, 2008.
Raw materials
- CompX will
occasionally enter into raw material arrangements to mitigate the short-term
impact if future increases in raw material costs. Otherwise, we
generally do not have long-term supply agreements for our raw material
requirements because either we believe the risk of unavailability of those raw
materials is low and we believe the price to be stable or because long-term
supply agreements for those materials are generally not available. We
do not engage in commodity hedging programs.
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, 2008. Based
upon their evaluation, these executive officers have concluded that our
disclosure controls and procedures are effective as of December 31,
2008.
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, 2008. Our independent registered public accounting firm
is also required to audit our internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2008.
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, 2008 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, 2008.
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, 2008, 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 2008, our chief executive officer filed
such annual certification with the NYSE. The 2008 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, 2008 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,
2008) 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, 2008
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 May 22,
2008 - incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1 to the Registrant’s
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for the annual meeting held on May 21,
2008.
|
3.2
|
Amended
and Restated Bylaws of NL Industries, Inc. as of May 23, 2008 –
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 May 23, 2008.
|
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 Industries, Inc. and the
independent members of the Board of Directors of NL Industries, Inc. -
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 NL Industries, Inc. 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 NL Industries, Inc. 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 NL Industries,
Inc. effective as of January 1, 2004 – incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the NL Industries, Inc. 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 NL Industries,
Inc. – incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.48 to the NL Industries,
Inc. 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 the Kronos International, Inc. 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 NL Industries, Inc. 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).
|
10.31
|
Third
Amendment Agreement Relating to a Facility Agreement dated June 25, 2002
executed as of May 26, 2008 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 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of Kronos
International, Inc. (File No. 333-100047) dated May 26,
2008. Certain schedules, exhibits, annexes and similar
attachments to this Exhibit 10.1 have not been filed; upon request, the
registrant will furnish supplementally to the Commission a copy of any
omitted exhibit, annex or
attachment.
|
10.32
|
Reinstated
and Amended Settlement Agreement and Release, dated June 26, 2008, by and
among NL Industries, Inc., NL Environmental Management Services, Inc., the
Sayreville Economic and Redevelopment Agency, Sayreville Seaport
Associates, L.P., and the County of Middlesex. Certain
schedules, exhibits, annexes and similar attachments to this Exhibit 10.1
have not been filed; upon request, the registrant will furnish
supplementally to the Commission a copy of any omitted exhibit, annex or
attachment -incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the NL
Industries, Inc. Current Report on Form 8-K that was filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16,
2008.
|
10.33
|
Amendment
to Restated and Amended Settlement Agreement and Release, dated September
25, 2008 by and among NL Industries, Inc., NL Environmental
Management Services, Inc., the Sayreville Economic and Redevelopment
Agency, Sayreville Seaport Associates, L.P., and the County of Middlesex -
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the NL Industries, Inc.
Current Report on Form 8-K that was filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 16,
2008.
|
10.34
|
Mortgage
Note, dated October 15, 2008 by Sayreville Seaport Associates, L.P. in
favor of NL Industries, Inc. and NL Environmental Management Services, Inc
- incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the NL Industries, Inc.
Current Report on Form 8-K that was filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 16,
2008.
|
10.35
|
Leasehold
Mortgage, Assignment, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing, dated October
15, 2008, by Sayreville Seaport Associates, L.P. in favor of NL
Industries, Inc. and NL Environmental Management Services,
Inc. Certain schedules, exhibits, annexes and similar
attachments to this Exhibit 10.4 have not been filed; upon request, the
registrant will furnish supplementally to the Commission a copy of any
omitted exhibit, annex or attachment -incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.4 to the NL Industries, Inc. Current Report on Form 8-K that was filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16,
2008.
|
10.36
|
Intercreditor,
Subordination and Standstill Agreement, dated October 15, 2008, by NL
Industries, Inc., NL Environmental Management Services, Inc., Bank of
America, N.A. on behalf of itself and the other financial institutions,
and acknowledged and consented to by Sayreville Seaport Associates, L.P.
and J. Brian O'Neill. Certain schedules, exhibits, annexes and
similar attachments to this Exhibit 10.5 have not been filed; upon
request, the registrant will furnish supplementally to the Commission a
copy of any omitted exhibit, annex or attachment -incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the NL Industries, Inc. Current Report on
Form 8-K that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 16, 2008.
|
10.37
|
Multi
Party Agreement, dated October 15, 2008 by and among Sayreville Seaport
Associates, L.P., Sayreville Seaport Associates Acquisition Company, LLC,
OPG Participation, LLC, J. Brian O'Neill, NL Industries, Inc., NL
Environmental Management Services, Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company
of America, Sayreville PRISA II LLC. Certain schedules,
exhibits, annexes and similar attachments to this Exhibit 10.6 have not
been filed; upon request, the registrant will furnish supplementally to
the Commission a copy of any omitted exhibit, annex or attachment -incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the NL Industries, Inc. Current Report on
Form 8-K that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 16, 2008.
|
10.38
|
Guaranty
Agreement, dated October 15, 2008, by J. Brian O’Neill in favor of NL
Industries, Inc. and NL Environmental Management Services, Inc -
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to the NL Industries, Inc.
Current Report on Form 8-K that was filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 16,
2008.
|
10.39
|
Unsecured
Revolving Demand Promissory Note dated October 29, 2008 in the original
principal amount of $40.0 million executed by Kronos Worldwide, Inc. and
payable to the order of NL Industries, Inc. - incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K that Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
(Commission File No. 1-31763) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 29, 2008.
|
10.40
|
Unsecured
Revolving Demand Promissory Note dated November 5, 2008 in the original
principal amount of $40.0 million executed by Valhi, Inc. and payable to
the order of NL Industries, Inc. -incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.1 to the NL Industries, Inc. Current Report on Form 8-K, Commission
File No. 1-640, that was filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5,
2008.
|
10.41
|
Third
Amendment Agreement Relating to a Facility Agreement dated June 25, 2002
executed as of May 26, 2008 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 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of Kronos
International, Inc. (File No. 333-100047) dated May 26,
2008. Certain schedules, exhibits, annexes and similar
attachments to this Exhibit 10.1 have not been files; upon request, the
registrant will furnish supplementally to the Commission a copy of any
omitted exhibit, annex or
attachment.
|
10.42
|
Second
Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of January 15, 2009 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, 2008.
|
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, 2008.
|
*
|
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
11, 2009
|
(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 11, 2009
|
Steven
L. Watson, March 11, 2009
|
(Chairman
of the Board and Chief
|
(Director)
|
Executive
Officer)
|
|
/s/ Thomas P.
Stafford
|
/s/ Glenn R.
Simmons
|
Thomas
P. Stafford, March 11, 2009
|
Glenn
R. Simmons, March 11, 2009
|
(Director)
|
(Director)
|
/s/ C. H. Moore, Jr.
|
/s/ Gregory M.
Swalwell
|
C.
H. Moore, Jr., March 11, 2009
|
Gregory
M. Swalwell, March 11, 2009
|
(Director)
|
(Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial
Officer)
|
/s/ Terry N.
Worrell
|
/s/ Tim C.
Hafer
|
Terry
N. Worrell, March 11, 2009
|
Tim
C. Hafer, March 11, 2009
|
(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, 2007 and 2008
|
F-4
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations -
Years ended December 31, 2006,
2007 and 2008
|
F-6
|
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income -
Years ended December 31, 2006,
2007 and 2008
|
F-7
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity -
Years ended December 31, 2006,
2007 and 2008
|
F-8
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows -
Years ended December 31, 2006,
2007 and 2008
|
F-9
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
F-11
|
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, 2007 and 2008 and the results of their operations and their cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008 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, 2008, 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 Notes 16 and 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 11,
2009
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
(In
thousands, except per share data)
ASSETS
|
December 31,
|
|||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | 41,112 | $ | 16,450 | ||||
Restricted cash and cash equivalents
|
4,970 | 7,457 | ||||||
Marketable securities
|
5,860 | 5,534 | ||||||
Accounts and other receivables,
net
|
22,221 | 25,513 | ||||||
Receivable from affiliates
|
1,271 | 3,150 | ||||||
Inventories,
net
|
24,277 | 22,661 | ||||||
Prepaid expenses
and other
|
1,516 | 1,435 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
6,474 | 5,766 | ||||||
Total current assets
|
107,701 | 87,966 | ||||||
Other assets:
|
||||||||
Marketable equity securities
|
113,393 | 64,000 | ||||||
Investment in and
advances to
Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
147,119 | 133,745 | ||||||
Pension
asset
|
17,623 | - | ||||||
Goodwill
|
54,719 | 44,194 | ||||||
Assets
held for sale
|
3,117 | 3,517 | ||||||
Other,
net
|
7,856 | 17,832 | ||||||
Total other assets
|
343,827 | 263,288 | ||||||
Property and equipment:
|
||||||||
Land
|
12,346 | 12,232 | ||||||
Buildings
|
35,963 | 32,723 | ||||||
Equipment
|
127,801 | 115,546 | ||||||
Construction in progress
|
2,659 | 4,406 | ||||||
178,769 | 164,907 | |||||||
Less accumulated depreciation
|
105,536 | 96,625 | ||||||
Net property and equipment
|
73,233 | 68,282 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 524,761 | $ | 419,536 |
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS (CONTINUED)
(In
thousands, except per share data)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY
|
December 31,
|
|||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
Current liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts payable
|
$ | 8,769 | $ | 6,802 | ||||
Accrued liabilities
|
26,039 | 24,475 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
11,863 | 9,834 | ||||||
Payable to affiliates
|
1,149 | 3,139 | ||||||
Income taxes
|
136 | 1,167 | ||||||
Total current liabilities
|
47,956 | 45,417 | ||||||
Noncurrent liabilities:
|
||||||||
Note
payable to affiliate
|
49,730 | 41,980 | ||||||
Accrued pension costs
|
1,665 | 11,768 | ||||||
Accrued postretirement benefits (OPEB)
cost
|
9,865 | 8,883 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
38,467 | 40,220 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
91,124 | 49,215 | ||||||
Other
|
25,126 | 21,823 | ||||||
Total noncurrent liabilities
|
215,977 | 173,889 | ||||||
Minority interest
|
14,366 | 11,866 | ||||||
Stockholders' equity:
|
||||||||
Preferred stock, no par value; 5,000 shares
authorized; none issued
|
- | - | ||||||
Common stock, $.125 par value; 150,000 shares
authorized; 48,592
and 48,599 shares issued and outstanding
|
6,073 | 6,074 | ||||||
Additional paid-in capital
|
345,338 | 330,879 | ||||||
Retained earnings
(deficit)
|
(6,525 | ) | 16,909 | |||||
Accumulated other comprehensive income:
|
||||||||
Marketable securities
|
57,603 | 24,970 | ||||||
Currency translation
|
(123,829 | ) | (135,922 | ) | ||||
Defined
benefit pension plans
|
(31,373 | ) | (54,333 | ) | ||||
Postretirement
benefit (OPEB) plans
|
(825 | ) | (213 | ) | ||||
Total stockholders' equity
|
246,462 | 188,364 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders' equity
|
$ | 524,761 | $ | 419,536 | ||||
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,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 190,123 | $ | 177,683 | $ | 165,502 | ||||||
Cost
of goods sold
|
143,648 | 132,455 | 125,749 | |||||||||
Gross margin
|
46,475 | 45,228 | 39,753 | |||||||||
Selling, general and administrative expense
|
26,060 | 25,846 | 24,818 | |||||||||
Other operating income (expense):
|
||||||||||||
Insurance
recoveries
|
7,656 | 5,659 | 9,610 | |||||||||
Facility
consolidation expense
|
- | (2,665 | ) | - | ||||||||
Goodwill
impairment
|
- | - | (10,111 | ) | ||||||||
Litigation
settlement gain
|
- | - | 48,806 | |||||||||
Currency
transaction gains (losses), net
|
145 | (1,086 | ) | 679 | ||||||||
Other expense,
net
|
(94 | ) | (256 | ) | (131 | ) | ||||||
Corporate expense
|
(24,247 | ) | (31,318 | ) | (25,012 | ) | ||||||
Income (loss)
from operations
|
3,875 | (10,284 | ) | 38,776 | ||||||||
Equity in earnings (losses)
of Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
29,345 | (23,901 | ) | 3,229 | ||||||||
Other income (expense):
|
||||||||||||
Interest and dividends
|
5,140 | 4,778 | 8,010 | |||||||||
Securities transactions, net
|
297 | 22,749 | (1 | ) | ||||||||
Interest expense
|
(219 | ) | (760 | ) | (2,362 | ) | ||||||
Income (loss)
before income taxes and minority interest
|
38,438 | (7,418 | ) | 47,652 | ||||||||
Provision for income taxes (benefit)
|
8,860 | (8,311 | ) | 14,850 | ||||||||
Minority interest
in after-tax earnings (loss)
|
3,468 | 2,624 | (382 | ) | ||||||||
Net income
(loss)
|
$ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | $ | 33,184 | |||||
Basic
and diluted net income (loss) per share
|
$ | .54 | $ | (.04 | ) | $ | .68 | |||||
Weighted-average
shares outstanding:
|
||||||||||||
Basic
|
48,568 | 48,590 | 48,596 | |||||||||
Dilutive
impact of stock options
|
16 | - | 9 | |||||||||
Diluted
|
48,584 | 48,590 | 48,605 |
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | $ | 33,184 | |||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:
|
||||||||||||
Marketable
securities:
|
||||||||||||
Unrealized
net gains (losses) arising during the year
|
22,712 | 15,475 | (32,633 | ) | ||||||||
Realized
gains included in net income
|
- | (14,668 | ) | - | ||||||||
22,712 | 807 | (32,633 | ) | |||||||||
Currency
translation adjustment
|
6,499 | 10,152 | (12,093 | ) | ||||||||
Defined
benefit pension plans :
|
||||||||||||
Net
actuarial gain (loss) arising during the year
|
- | 10,618 | (23,151 | ) | ||||||||
Amortization
of prior service cost included in net periodic pension
cost
|
- | 1,623 | 191 | |||||||||
Minimum pension liability chan |
2,388
|
- | - | |||||||||
2,388 | 12,241 | (22,960 | ) | |||||||||
Postretirement
benefit plan adjustment:
|
||||||||||||
Net
actuarial gain arising during the year
|
- | 861 | 746 | |||||||||
Amortization
of prior service credit included in net periodic pension
cost
|
- | (75 | ) | (134 | ) | |||||||
- | 786 | 612 | ||||||||||
Total
other comprehensive income (loss)
|
31,599 | 23,986 | (67,074 | ) | ||||||||
Comprehensive
income (loss)
|
$ | 57,709 | $ | 22,255 | $ | (33,890 | ) |
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Years
ended December 31, 2006, 2007 and 2008
(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, 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net income
|
- | - | 33,184 | - | - | - | - | 33,184 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
|
- | - | - | (32,633 | ) | (12,093 | ) | (22,960 | ) | 612 | (67,074 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance of common stock
|
1 | 71 | - | - | - | - | - | 72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash dividends - $.50 per share
|
- | (14,549 | ) | (9,750 | ) | - | - | - | - | (24,299 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Other
|
- | 19 | - | - | - | - | - | 19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
$ | 6,074 | $ | 330,879 | $ | 16,909 | $ | 24,970 | $ | (135,922 | ) | $ | (54,333 | ) | $ | (213 | ) | $ | 188,364 | |||||||||||||
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | $ | 33,184 | |||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
12,220 | 11,375 | 9,420 | |||||||||
Deferred
income taxes
|
8,407 | (12,604 | ) | (4,352 | ) | |||||||
Minority
interest
|
3,468 | 2,624 | (382 | ) | ||||||||
Securities
transaction gains
|
(298 | ) | (22,749 | ) | - | |||||||
Benefit
plan expense greater (less)
than
cash funding:
|
||||||||||||
Defined
benefit pension plans
|
(2,161 | ) | (2,464 | ) | (2,976 | ) | ||||||
Other
postretirement benefit plans
|
(1,009 | ) | 629 | 476 | ||||||||
Equity
in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
(29,345 | ) | 23,901 | (3,229 | ) | |||||||
Distributions
from Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
17,516 | 17,516 | 17,532 | |||||||||
Goodwill
impairment
|
- | - | 10,111 | |||||||||
Litigation
settlement gain
|
- | - | (48,806 | ) | ||||||||
Other,
net
|
1,469 | 1,413 | 601 | |||||||||
Change
in assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||||||
Accounts
and other receivable
|
541 | 1,032 | (4,703 | ) | ||||||||
Inventories
|
2,258 | (1,813 | ) | 889 | ||||||||
Prepaid
expenses
|
352 | (160 | ) | 92 | ||||||||
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
(7,107 | ) | (918 | ) | (2,830 | ) | ||||||
Income
taxes
|
509 | (1,127 | ) | 976 | ||||||||
Accounts
with affiliates
|
3,618 | (12,779 | ) | 2,277 | ||||||||
Accrued
environmental costs
|
(4,234 | ) | (383 | ) | (275 | ) | ||||||
Other noncurrent assets and liabilities, net
|
(3,313 | ) | (4,533 | ) | (7,245 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
29,001 | (2,771 | ) | 760 | ||||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Capital
expenditures
|
(12,148 | ) | (13,998 | ) | (6,897 | ) | ||||||
Proceeds
from real estate-related litigation settlement
|
- | - | 39,550 | |||||||||
Business
acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
(9,832 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Loans
to affiliates, net
|
- | - | (22,210 | ) | ||||||||
Collection
of note receivable
|
1,306 | 1,306 | 1,306 | |||||||||
Change
in restricted cash equivalents and marketable debt securities,
net
|
(2,903 | ) | 2,386 | (2,558 | ) | |||||||
Proceeds
from disposal of:
|
||||||||||||
Marketable
securities
|
16,849 | 36,894 | 554 | |||||||||
Property
and equipment
|
1,316 | 73 | 377 | |||||||||
Purchase
of:
|
||||||||||||
CompX
common stock
|
(2,318 | ) | (3,309 | ) | (1,007 | ) | ||||||
Kronos
common stock
|
- | - | (793 | ) | ||||||||
Valhi
common stock
|
- | - | (1,081 | ) | ||||||||
Other
marketable securities
|
(17,501 | ) | (5,861 | ) | (156 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
(25,231 | ) | 17,491 | 7,085 |
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (CONTINUED)
(In
thousands)
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Indebtedness:
|
||||||||||||
Principal
payments
|
$ | (1,563 | ) | $ | - | $ | - | |||||
Deferred
financing costs paid
|
(110 | ) | - | (56 | ) | |||||||
Repayment
note payable to affiliate
|
- | (2,600 | ) | (7,000 | ) | |||||||
Cash
dividends paid
|
(24,284 | ) | (24,295 | ) | (24,299 | ) | ||||||
Proceeds
from issuance of stock:
|
||||||||||||
NL
common stock
|
88 | - | 6 | |||||||||
CompX
common stock
|
347 | 1,395 | - | |||||||||
Tax
benefit from exercise of stock options
|
111 | 73 | - | |||||||||
Distributions
to minority interests
|
(2,272 | ) | (1,918 | ) | (804 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash used in financing activities
|
(27,683 | ) | (27,345 | ) | (32,153 | ) | ||||||
Net
decrease
|
$ | (23,913 | ) | $ | (12,625 | ) | $ | (24,308 | ) | |||
Cash
and cash equivalents - net change from:
|
||||||||||||
Operating, investing and financing activities
|
$ | (23,913 | ) | $ | (12,625 | ) | $ | (24,308 | ) | |||
Currency translation
|
(257 | ) | 995 | (354 | ) | |||||||
Cash
and cash
equivalents at beginning of year
|
76,912 | 52,742 | 41,112 | |||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of year
|
$ | 52,742 | $ | 41,112 | $ | 16,450 | ||||||
Supplemental disclosures:
|
||||||||||||
Cash
paid (received) for:
|
||||||||||||
Interest
|
$ | 139 | $ | 109 | $ | 2,278 | ||||||
Income taxes,
net
|
(3,627 | ) | 19,680 | 19,398 | ||||||||
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 | 511 | |||||||||
Note
receivable from litigation settlement
|
- | - | 15,000 |
See
accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December
31, 2008
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, 2008. Valhi is
majority-owned by subsidiaries 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 affiliate, Kronos, taken as a
whole.
Management’s
estimates - In
preparing our financial statements in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America (“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. We
account for the 13% non-controlling interest in CompX as minority
interest. 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. See Note 21.
Foreign currency
translation - The financial statements of our non-U.S. subsidiaries are
translated to U.S. dollars in accordance with the provisions of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 52 “Foreign Currency
Translation.” The functional currency of our non-U.S. subsidiaries is
generally the local currency of the country. Accordingly, we
translate the assets and liabilities 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 – We
recognize derivatives as either an asset or liability measured at fair value in
accordance with SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended and
interpreted. We recognize the effect of changes in the fair value of
derivatives either in net income or other comprehensive income, depending on the
intended use of the derivative. See Notes 20 and 21.
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. We adopted SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements,
which establishes a framework for measuring fair value on January 1,
2008. The statement requires fair value measurements to be classified
and disclosed in one of the following three categories:
|
·
|
Level 1 – Unadjusted
quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement
date for identical, unrestricted assets or
liabilities;
|
|
·
|
Level 2 – Quoted prices
in markets that are not active, or inputs which are observable, either
directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the assets or
liability; and
|
|
·
|
Level 3 – Prices or
valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the
fair value measurement and
unobservable.
|
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 goods sold - 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 goods sold 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 - We account for goodwill and
other intangible assets in accordance with SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets. Goodwill represents the excess of cost over fair value of
individual net assets acquired in business combinations accounted for by the
purchase method. 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 evaluate goodwill for impairment
annually or when circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be
recoverable. See Notes 8 and 9.
Property and
equipment; depreciation expense - We state property and equipment at
cost, including capitalized interest on borrowings during the actual
construction period of major capital projects. We did not capitalize
any material interest costs in 2006, 2007 or 2008. 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 as incurred maintenance, repairs and minor renewal expenditures that do
not improve or extend the life of the assets, including planned major
maintenance.
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 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 our retirement and post
retirement benefits other than pensions (“OPEB”) plans are described in Note
16.
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 $14.2 million in 2007 and $15.4 million in
2008. In 2006, we received a net refund for income taxes from Valhi
of $5.8 million.
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 non-U.S. 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 non-U.S. subsidiaries subject to permanent
reinvestment plans aggregated $5.6 million at December 31, 2008 (2007 - $5.7
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 non-U.S.
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. 48 (“FIN”), 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,
2007 and 2008, 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 2006, 2007 and
2008. Research, development and certain sales technical support costs
related to continuing operations are expensed as incurred and approximated
$200,000 in each of 2006, 2007 and 2008.
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 immaterial in each of 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Note
2
- Business
combinations and related transactions:
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. See Note
17. 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. 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%. During 2008, CompX purchased
approximately 126,000 shares of its Class A shares, which has subsequently
increased NL’s ownership to approximately 87%. We accounted for
our increase in ownership of CompX by the purchase method (step
acquisition).
In April
2006, CompX completed the acquisition of a marine component products business
for aggregate cash consideration of $9.8 million, net of cash
acquired. We have included the results of operations and cash flows
of the acquired business in our consolidated financial statements from the date
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, 2006, is
not material. During 2008 we determined that all of the goodwill associated with
CompX’s marine components business was impaired. See Note
8.
Note
3 - Geographic information:
We
operate in the component products industry through our majority ownership of
CompX. CompX manufactures and sells component products (security
products, precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support systems)
used in 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, 2007 and 2008 the net assets of non-U.S. subsidiaries included in
consolidated net assets approximated $34.9 million and $28.5 million,
respectively.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Net
sales - point of origin:
|
||||||||||||
United States
|
$ | 127.6 | $ | 118.5 | $ | 115.5 | ||||||
Canada
|
52.4 | 52.7 | 46.5 | |||||||||
Taiwan
|
15.9 | 11.7 | 8.3 | |||||||||
Eliminations
|
(5.8 | ) | (5.2 | ) | (4.8 | ) | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | $ | 165.5 | ||||||
Net sales - point of destination:
|
||||||||||||
United States
|
$ | 153.9 | $ | 147.8 | $ | 134.2 | ||||||
Canada
|
20.0 | 19.3 | 16.9 | |||||||||
Other
|
16.2 | 10.6 | 14.4 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 190.1 | $ | 177.7 | $ | 165.5 |
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||
Identifiable
assets -
|
||||||||
Net property and equipment:
|
||||||||
United States
|
$ | 51.9 | $ | 52.2 | ||||
Canada
|
13.9 | 9.0 | ||||||
Taiwan
|
7.4 | 7.1 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 73.2 | $ | 68.3 |
Note
4
- Marketable
securities:
December
31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Current
assets (available-for-sale):
|
||||||||
Restricted
debt securities
|
$ | 5,301 | $ | 5,372 | ||||
Other
marketable securities
|
559 | 162 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 5,860 | $ | 5,534 | ||||
Noncurrent
assets (available-for-sale):
|
||||||||
Valhi
common stock
|
$ | 75,064 | $ | 51,234 | ||||
TIMET
common stock
|
38,329 | 12,766 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 113,393 | $ | 64,000 |
Fair
Value Measurements at December
31, 2008
|
||||||||||||
Total
|
Quoted
Prices in Active Markets (Level
1)
|
Significant
Other Observable Inputs (Level
2)
|
||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Current assets (available-for-sale):
|
||||||||||||
Restricted debt securities
|
$ | 5,372 | $ |
-
|
$ | 5,372 | ||||||
Other marketable securities
|
162 |
-
|
162 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 5,534 | $ |
-
|
$ | 5,534 | ||||||
Noncurrent assets (available-for-sale):
|
||||||||||||
Valhi common stock
|
$ | 51,234 | $ | 51,234 | $ |
-
|
||||||
TIMET common stock
|
12,766 | 12,766 |
-
|
|||||||||
Total
|
$ | 64,000 | $ | 64,000 | $ |
-
|
We held
no level 3 securities at December 31, 2008. Restricted debt
securities at December 31, 2007 and 2008 collateralize certain of our
outstanding letters of credit.
The
aggregate cost of the restricted debt securities and other available-for-sale
marketable securities approximates their net carrying value at December 31, 2007
and 2008. The fair value of these securities is generally determined
using Level 2 inputs as defined is SFAS No. 157 because although these
securities are traded, in many cases the market is not active and the year end
valuation is based on the last trade of the year which may be several days prior
to December 31.
At
December 31, 2007 and 2008, we owned approximately 4.7 million and 4.8 million
shares, respectively, of Valhi common stock. During 2008 we purchased
approximately 79,000 shares of Valhi common stock in market transactions for an
aggregate of $1.1 million. We account for our shares of Valhi common
stock 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 quoted market price per share of
Valhi common stock was $15.94 and $10.70 at December 31, 2007 and December 31,
2008, respectively, with an aggregate market value of $75.1 million and $51.2
million, respectively. The aggregate cost basis of our investment in
Valhi common stock was $23.2 million and $24.3 million at December 31, 2007 and
2008, 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 and 2008, we owned approximately 1.4 million shares of TIMET
common stock. The quoted market price per share of TIMET common stock
was $26.45 and $8.81 at December 31, 2007 and 2008, respectively, or an
aggregate market value of $38.3 million and $12.8 million,
respectively. The aggregate cost basis of our shares of TIMET common
stock was $7.4 million at December 31, 2007 and 2008.
The Valhi
and TIMET common stock we own is 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,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Trade
receivables
|
$ | 21,129 | $ | 17,598 | ||||
Accrued
insurance recoveries
|
- | 7,219 | ||||||
Other
receivables
|
1,535 | 1,069 | ||||||
Refundable
income taxes
|
217 | 338 | ||||||
Allowance
for doubtful accounts
|
(660 | ) | (711 | ) | ||||
Total
|
$ | 22,221 | $ | 25,513 |
Accrued insurance recoveries are
discussed in Note 19.
Note
6
- Inventories,
net:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Raw
materials
|
$ | 6,341 | $ | 7,552 | ||||
In
process products
|
9,783 | 8,225 | ||||||
Finished
products
|
8,153 | 6,884 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 24,277 | $ | 22,661 |
Note
7
- Investment
in and advances to Kronos Worldwide, Inc.:
At
December 31, 2008, we owned approximately 17.6 million shares of Kronos common
stock and the quoted market price was $11.65 per share, or an aggregate market
value of $205.0 million. At December 31, 2007, we owned approximately
17.5 million shares and the quoted market price per share was $17.45, or an
aggregate market value of $305.7 million. During 2008 we purchased
approximately 79,500 shares of Kronos common stock in market transactions for an
aggregate $.8 million.
The
composition of our investment in and advances to Kronos at December 31, 2007 and
2008 are summarized below. Our loan to Kronos is discussed in Note
17.
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||
Investment
in Kronos
|
$ | 147.1 | $ | 114.5 | ||||
Loan
to Kronos
|
- | 19.2 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 147.1 | $ | 133.7 | ||||
The
change in the carrying value of our investment in Kronos during the past three
years is summarized below:
Year ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at the beginning of the period
|
$ | 147.7 | $ | 160.5 | $ | 147.1 | ||||||
Equity
in earnings (losses) of Kronos
|
29.3 | (23.9 | ) | 3.2 | ||||||||
Dividends
received from Kronos
|
(17.5 | ) | (17.5 | ) | (17.5 | ) | ||||||
Purchases
of Kronos stock
|
- | - | .8 | |||||||||
Equity
in Kronos’ changes in accounting
|
(13.4 | ) | (2.1 | ) | - | |||||||
Other,
principally equity in other comprehensive income
|
14.4 | 30.1 | (19.1 | ) | ||||||||
Balance
at the end of the period
|
$ | 160.5 | $ | 147.1 | $ | 114.5 |
Selected
financial information of Kronos is summarized below:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||
Current
assets
|
$ | 621.7 | $ | 589.5 | ||||
Property
and equipment, net
|
526.5 | 485.5 | ||||||
Investment
in TiO2
joint venture
|
118.5 | 105.6 | ||||||
Other
noncurrent assets
|
188.3 | 178.1 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 1,455.0 | $ | 1,358.7 | ||||
Current
liabilities
|
$ | 224.5 | $ | 204.4 | ||||
Long-term
debt
|
590.0 | 618.5 | ||||||
Note
payable to NL
|
- | 19.2 | ||||||
Accrued
pension and post retirement benefits
|
149.9 | 134.2 | ||||||
Other
noncurrent liabilities
|
79.6 | 64.5 | ||||||
Stockholders’
equity
|
411.0 | 317.9 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’ equity
|
$ | 1,455.0 | $ | 1,358.7 |
Year ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
Net
sales
|
$ | 1,279.4 | $ | 1,310.3 | $ | 1,316.9 | ||||||
Cost
of sales
|
968.9 | 1,058.9 | 1,096.3 | |||||||||
Income
from operations
|
143.2 | 84.9 | 47.2 | |||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
82.0 | (66.7 | ) | 9.0 |
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 2006, from the marine components business acquired in 2006
and from our step acquisition of CompX in 2007. See Note
2. Our remaining goodwill resulted from our acquisition of EWI RE,
Inc., an insurance broker subsidiary, prior to 2006 and totaled approximately
$6.4 million.
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 the requirements of SFAS No. 142, we test for goodwill impairment at each
of our three component products reporting units as well as the goodwill
associated with the EWI reporting unit during the third quarter of each year or
when circumstances arise that indicate impairment might be present. In
determining the estimated fair value of all four of these reporting units, we
use appropriate valuation techniques, such as discounted cash flows. Such
discounted cash flows are a Level 3 input as defined by SFAS No. 157 (although
SFAS No. 157 is not in effect with respect to estimating the fair value of a
reporting unit under SFAS No. 142 until January 1, 2009). See Note
21. If the carrying amount of goodwill exceeds its implied fair value, an
impairment charge is recorded.
During
the third quarter of 2008, we determined that all of the goodwill associated
with CompX’s marine components reporting unit was impaired. We recognized
a $10.1 million charge for the goodwill impairment, which represented all of the
goodwill we had previously recognized for this reporting unit (including a
nominal amount of goodwill inherent in our investment in CompX). The
factors that led us to conclude that goodwill associated with CompX’s marine
components reporting unit was fully impaired include the continued decline in
consumer spending in the marine market as well as the overall negative economic
outlook, both of which resulted in near-term and longer-term reduced revenue,
profit and cash flow forecasts for the marine components unit. While we
continue to believe in the long term potential of the marine components
reporting unit, due to the extraordinary economic downturn in the boating
industry we are not currently able to foresee when the industry and our business
will recover. In response to the present economic conditions, we have
taken steps to reduce operating costs without inhibiting our ability to take
advantage of opportunities to expand our market share. When we
performed this analysis in the third quarter of 2008, we also reviewed the
goodwill associated with CompX’s security products and furniture components
reporting units as well as the EWI reporting unit and concluded there was no
impairment of the goodwill for those reporting units. Due to the
continued weakening of the economy, we re-evaluated the goodwill associated with
our furniture components reporting unit again in the fourth quarter of 2008 and
concluded that no additional impairments were present. Our 2006 and
2007 annual impairment reviews of goodwill indicated no
impairments.
Changes
in the carrying amount of goodwill related to our three components products
reporting units (which excludes the $6.4 million of goodwill related to our EWI
reporting unit) during the past three years are presented in the table
below.
Component
products operations
(In
millions)
|
||||
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 | |||
Goodwill
impairment during the year
|
(10.1 | ) | ||
Changes
in foreign exchange rates
|
(.4 | ) | ||
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
$ | 37.8 |
Note
9 - Intangible and other noncurrent assets:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Promissory
note receivable
|
$ | - | $ | 15,000 | ||||
Patents
and other intangible assets, net
|
2,569 | 1,991 | ||||||
Other
|
5,287 | 841 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 7,856 | $ | 17,832 |
Patents
and other intangible assets, all of which relate to CompX, are stated net of
accumulated amortization of $3.1 million at December 31, 2007 and $3.7 million
at December 31, 2008.
Aggregate
amortization expense of all intangible assets, including certain intangible
assets which were fully amortized prior to 2008, was $813,000 in 2006,
$1,216,000 in 2007 and $716,000 in 2008 and is expected to be approximately
$600,000 in 2009, $600,000 in 2010, $400,000 in 2011, $300,000 in 2012, and
$100,000 in 2013.
The
promissory note receivable is discussed in Note 19.
Note
10 -Accrued liabilities:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Employee
benefits
|
$ | 8,896 | $ | 8,158 | ||||
Professional
fees
|
4,322 | 3,624 | ||||||
Reserve
for uncertain tax positions
|
289 | 212 | ||||||
Other
|
12,532 | 12,481 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 26,039 | $ | 24,475 |
Note
11 - Other noncurrent liabilities:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Insurance
claims and expenses
|
$ | 1,381 | $ | 1,197 | ||||
Reserve
for uncertain tax positions
|
22,128 | 19,121 | ||||||
Other
|
1,617 | 1,505 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 25,126 | $ | 21,823 |
Our reserve for uncertain tax positions
is discussed in Note 21.
Note
12 - Credit facility:
At
December 31, 2008, CompX had a $50 million revolving bank credit facility that
matured in January 2009. At December 31, 2008, there were no
outstanding draws against the credit facility and the full amount of the
facility was available for borrowing. In January 2009, CompX amended
the terms of the credit facility to extend the maturity date to January 15, 2012
and to reduce the size of the facility from $50 million to $37.5
million. The amended credit facility bears interest, at CompX’s
option, at the prime rate plus a margin or LIBOR plus a margin. 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 CompX and its subsidiaries’ ability to incur debt,
incur liens, pay dividends or merge or consolidate with, or transfer all or
substantially all assets to, another entity. The facility also
requires maintenance of specified levels of net worth (as
defined). In the event of a change of control, as defined, the
lenders would have the right to accelerate the maturity of the
facility.
The
credit facility permits CompX to pay dividends and/or repurchase common stock in
an amount equal to the sum of (i) a dividend of $.125 per share in any calendar
quarter, not to exceed $8.0 million in any calendar year, plus (ii) $20.0
million plus 50% of aggregate net income over the term of the credit
facility. In addition to the permitted $.125 per share amount to
repurchase common stock and/or to pay dividends, at December 31, 2008, $20.4
million was available for dividends and/or repurchases of CompX’s common stock
under the terms of the facility.
Note
13 - Stockholders' equity:
Shares
of common stock issued and
outstanding
|
||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||
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 | |||
Common
stock issued
|
7 | |||
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
48,599 |
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, 2008, 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, 2008 4.1 million shares were available for future
grants. The 1998 plan currently provides for the grant of options due
to its extension for an additional five years, and for options which are not
qualified as incentive stock options. 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, 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 | ||||||||||||
Cancelled
|
(9 | ) | 5.19-11.49 | (67 | ) | 7.51 | ||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2007
|
97 | 2.66-11.49 | 960 | 9.91 | ||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(1 | ) | 5.63 | (3 | ) | 5.63 | ||||||||||
Cancelled
|
(1 | ) |
11.49
|
(14 | ) | 11.49 | ||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2008
|
95 | $ | 2.66-$11.49 | $ | 943 | $ | 9.92 |
At
December 31, 2008 all of the outstanding options were exercisable. At
December 31, 2008, 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 $13.40 per share was approximately
$331,000. Outstanding options at December 31, 2008 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 $110,000, nil and under $5,000
in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, and the related income tax benefit from
such exercises was approximately $40,000, nil and minimal in 2006, 2007 and
2008, respectively.
Stock option plan
of subsidiaries and affiliates - CompX maintains a stock option plan that
provides for the grant of options to purchase its common stock. At
December 31, 2008, options to purchase 134,000 CompX shares were outstanding
with exercise prices ranging from $12.15 to $19.25 per share, or an aggregate
amount payable upon exercise of $2.3 million. Through December 31,
2008, Kronos has not granted any options to purchase its common
stock.
Note
14 – 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 the facility, and during 2007 CompX
incurred approximately $9.6 million of capital expenditures in connection with
the expansion.
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 write downs 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 2009. 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.
Note
15 - Income taxes:
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Pre-tax
income (loss):
|
||||||||||||
U.S.
|
$ | 31.1 | $ | (14.9 | ) | $ | 53.0 | |||||
Non-U.S.
|
7.3 | 7.5 |
(5.3
|
) | ||||||||
Total
|
$ | 38.4 | $ | (7.4 | ) | $ | 47.7 | |||||
Expected tax expense, at U.S.
federal
statutory income tax rate of 35%
|
$ | 13.5 | $ | (2.6 | ) | $ | 16.7 | |||||
Non-U.S. tax rates
|
(.3 | ) | (.2 | ) | (.3 | ) | ||||||
Incremental U.S. tax and rate differences
on equity in earnings
|
(4.0 | ) | (5.0 | ) | (3.4 | ) | ||||||
Nondeductible expenses
|
.3 | .5 | .3 | |||||||||
U.S. state income taxes, net
|
.5 | .5 | .9 | |||||||||
Goodwill
impairment
|
- | - | 3.5 | |||||||||
Tax contingency reserve adjustment, net
|
.1 | (1.3 | ) | (2.1 | ) | |||||||
Other, net
|
(1.2 | ) | (.2 | ) | (.7 | ) | ||||||
Provision
for income taxes (benefit)
|
$ | 8.9 | $ | (8.3 | ) | $ | 14.9 |
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Components
of income tax expense (benefit):
|
||||||||||||
Currently payable (refundable):
|
||||||||||||
U.S. federal and state
|
$ | (1.9 | ) | $ | .1 | $ | 18.6 | |||||
Non-U.S.
|
2.4 | 3.6 | 3.7 | |||||||||
.5 | 3.7 | 22.3 | ||||||||||
Deferred income taxes (benefit):
|
||||||||||||
U.S. federal and state
|
8.9 | (12.0 | ) | (7.1 | ) | |||||||
Non-U.S.
|
(.5 | ) | - | (.3 | ) | |||||||
8.4 | (12.0 | ) | (7.4 | ) | ||||||||
Total
|
$ | 8.9 | $ | (8.3 | ) | $ | 14.9 |
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||
Comprehensive
provision for
income
taxes (benefit) allocable to:
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 8.9 | $ | (8.3 | ) | $ | 14.9 | |||||
Other
comprehensive income:
|
||||||||||||
Marketable
securities
|
12.4 | (5.6 | ) | (17.8 | ) | |||||||
Pension
liabilities
|
1.4 | 6.8 | (12.6 | ) | ||||||||
OPEB
Plans
|
- | .4 | .3 | |||||||||
Currency
translation
|
5.2 | 6.0 | (7.0 | ) | ||||||||
Adoption
of SFAS 158:
|
||||||||||||
Pension
plans
|
(2.1 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
OPEB
plans
|
(.9 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Total
|
$ | 24.9 | $ | (.7 | ) | $ | (22.2 | ) |
The
components of the net deferred tax liability at December 31, 2007 and 2008 are
summarized in the following table. Our deferred income tax valuation
allowance was nil during each of the past three years.
December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||||
Assets
|
Liabilities
|
Assets
|
Liabilities
|
|||||||||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||||||||||
Tax effect of temporary differences
related to:
|
||||||||||||||||
Inventories
|
$ | 1.0 | $ | - | $ | .9 | $ | - | ||||||||
Marketable securities
|
- | (20.0 | ) | - | (2.4 | ) | ||||||||||
Property and equipment
|
- | (4.7 | ) | - | (5.5 | ) | ||||||||||
Accrued OPEB costs
|
3.9 | - | 3.5 | - | ||||||||||||
Pension
asset
|
- | (6.2 | ) | - | - | |||||||||||
Accrued pension cost
|
.7 | - | 4.2 | - | ||||||||||||
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
16.4 | - | 17.7 | - | ||||||||||||
Other accrued liabilities and deductible
differences
|
2.5 | - | 2.6 | - | ||||||||||||
Other taxable differences
|
- | (10.7 | ) | - | (11.3 | ) | ||||||||||
Investments in subsidiaries and
affiliates
|
- | (67.8 | ) | - | (53.3 | ) | ||||||||||
Tax loss and tax credit carryforwards
|
.3 | - | .2 | - | ||||||||||||
Adjusted gross deferred tax assets
(liabilities)
|
24.8 | (109.4 | ) | 29.1 | (72.5 | ) | ||||||||||
Netting of items by tax jurisdiction
|
(18.3 | ) | 18.3 | (23.3 | ) | 23.3 | ||||||||||
6.5 | (91.1 | ) | 5.8 | (49.2 | ) | |||||||||||
Less net current deferred tax asset
|
6.5 | - | 5.8 | - | ||||||||||||
Net noncurrent deferred tax liability
|
$ | - | $ | (91.1 | ) | $ | - | $ | (49.2 | ) |
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, our qualifying subsidiaries and
Valhi are members of Contran’s consolidated U.S. federal income tax group (the
“Contran Tax Group”). 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.
Kronos
has received a notice of proposed adjustment from the Canadian tax authorities
related to the years 2002 – 2004. Kronos objects to the proposed
assessment and intends to formally respond to the Canadian tax authorities in
March 2009. Because of the inherent uncertainties involved in the
settlement of the potential exposure, if any, the final outcome is also
uncertain. We believe that we have provided adequate
reserves.
The goodwill impairment charge of $10.1
million recorded in the third quarter of 2008 (see Note 8) is non-deductible
goodwill for income tax purposes. Accordingly, there is no income tax
benefit associated with the goodwill for financial reporting
purposes.
At December 31, 2008, CompX had $.4
million of U.S. net operating loss carryforwards expiring in 2009 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 2008, 2007, and 2006. 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.
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 $2.2 million
in 2006, $2.5 million in 2007 and $2.1 million in 2008.
Changes in
accounting for defined benefit pension and postretirement benefits other than
pension (OPEB) plans - 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 SFAS
No. 158 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.
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.
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. All of our defined benefit plans use a December 31 measurement
date. 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 $600,000 to all of our defined
benefit pension plans during 2009. Benefit payments to plan
participants out of plan assets are expected to be the equivalent of (in
millions):
2009
|
$ 2.9
|
|
2010
|
2.8
|
|
2011
|
2.9
|
|
2012
|
2.9
|
|
2013
|
3.0
|
|
Next 5 years
|
15.8
|
The
funded status of our defined benefit pension plans is presented in the table
below.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Change
in projected benefit obligations ("PBO"):
|
||||||||
Balance
at beginning of the year
|
$ | 53,351 | $ | 50,922 | ||||
Elimination
of early measurement date
|
732 | - | ||||||
Interest cost
|
2,925 | 2,931 | ||||||
Participant contributions
|
18 | 10 | ||||||
Plan
amendment
|
- | 27 | ||||||
Actuarial losses
(gains), net
|
(2,224 | ) | 125 | |||||
Change in foreign currency exchange rates
|
180 | (2,535 | ) | |||||
Benefits paid
|
(4,060 | ) | (3,516 | ) | ||||
Benefit
obligation at end of the year
|
50,922 | 47,964 | ||||||
Change in plan assets:
|
||||||||
Fair value
at beginning of the year
|
63,199 | 66,706 | ||||||
Elimination
of early measurement date
|
1,451 | - | ||||||
Actual return on plan assets
|
5,327 | (25,593 | ) | |||||
Employer contributions
|
869 | 560 | ||||||
Participant contributions
|
18 | 10 | ||||||
Change in foreign currency exchange rates
|
(98 | ) | (2,145 | ) | ||||
Benefits paid
|
(4,060 | ) | (3,516 | ) | ||||
Fair value of
plan assets at end of year
|
66,706 | 36,022 | ||||||
Funded status
|
$ | 15,784 | $ | (11,942 | ) | |||
Amounts recognized in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
|
||||||||
Pension
asset
|
$ | 17,623 | $ | - | ||||
Accrued pension costs:
|
||||||||
Current
|
(174 | ) | (174 | ) | ||||
Noncurrent
|
(1,665 | ) | (11,768 | ) | ||||
$ | 15,784 | $ | (11,942 | ) | ||||
Accumulated other comprehensive income
-
|
||||||||
actuarial
losses (gains), net
|
$ | (5,103 | ) | $ | 26,393 | |||
Accumulated
benefit obligation (“ABO”)
|
$ | 50,922 | $ | 47,964 |
The
amounts shown in the table above for unrecognized actuarial gains and losses at
December 31, 2007 and 2008 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, 2007 and 2008. We expect that $1.2
million of the unrecognized actuarial losses will be recognized as a component
of our periodic defined benefit pension cost in 2009. The table below
details the changes in other comprehensive income during 2007 and
2008.
Years
Ended December 31,
(In
thousands)
|
|||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||
Changes
in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized in other comprehensive
income:
|
|||||||||
Net
actuarial gains (loss) arising during the year
|
$ | 1,735 | $ | (31,640 | ) | ||||
Amortization
of unrecognized net actuarial gains
|
295 | 144 | |||||||
Change
in measurement date
|
76 | - | |||||||
Total
|
$ | 2,106 | $ | (31,496 | ) | ||||
The
components of our net periodic defined benefit pension cost are presented in the
table below. The amount shown below for the amortization of
unrecognized actuarial losses in 2007 and 2008, net of deferred income taxes,
was recognized as a component of our accumulated other comprehensive income at
December 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Net
periodic pension cost (income):
|
||||||||||||
Interest cost on PBO
|
$ | 2,889 | $ | 2,925 | $ | 2,931 | ||||||
Expected return on plan assets
|
(5,396 | ) | (5,800 | ) | (6,209 | ) | ||||||
Plan
amendment
|
- | - | 27 | |||||||||
Amortization
of unrecognized:
|
||||||||||||
Net actuarial losses
|
414 | 295 | 144 | |||||||||
Net transition obligations
|
(67 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Total
|
$ | (2,160 | ) | $ | (2,580 | ) | $ | (3,107 | ) |
Certain
information concerning our defined benefit pension plans is presented in the
table below.
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
PBO
at end of the year:
|
||||||||
U.S. plan
|
$ | 41,725 | $ | 41,440 | ||||
U.K. plan
|
9,197 | 6,524 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 50,922 | $ | 47,964 | ||||
Fair value of plan assets at end of the year:
|
||||||||
U.S. plan
|
$ | 58,239 | $ | 30,623 | ||||
U.K. plan
|
8,467 | 5,399 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 66,706 | $ | 36,022 | ||||
Plans
for which the accumulated benefit obligationexceeds plan
assets:
|
||||||||
PBO
|
9,197 | 47,964 | ||||||
ABO
|
9,197 | 47,964 | ||||||
Fair
value of plan assets
|
8,467 | 36,022 |
The weighted-average rate assumptions
used in determining the actuarial present value of our benefit obligations as of
December 31, 2007 and 2008 are 6.0% and 6.1%, respectively. Such
weighted-average rates were determined using the projected benefit obligations
at each date. At December 31, 2007 and 2008, 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, 2007 and 2008.
The weighted-average rate assumptions
used in determining the net periodic pension cost for 2006, 2007 and 2008 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
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||||
Discount
rate
|
5.4 | % | 5.7 | % | 6.0 | % | ||||||
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, 2007 and 2008, 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, 2006, 2007 and 2008, 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, 2008, the average annual rate of return has been
approximately 11%.
The CMRT
weighted-average asset allocation by asset category was as follows:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
Equity
securities
|
98 | % | 53 | % | ||||
Debt securities
|
- | 43 | ||||||
Cash
and other
|
2 | 4 | ||||||
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, 2008, we
currently expect to contribute approximately $1.2 million to all OPEB plans
during 2009. Benefit payments, net of estimated Medicare Part D
subsidy of approximately $190,000 per year, expected to be paid to OPEB plan
participants are summarized in the table below:
2009
|
$1.2
million
|
|
2010
|
1.2
million
|
|
2011
|
1.2
million
|
|
2012
|
1.1
million
|
|
2013
|
1.0
million
|
|
Next 5 years
|
4.3
million
|
The
funded status of our OPEB plans is presented in the table below.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Actuarial
present value of accumulated OPEB obligations:
|
||||||||
Balance at beginning of the year
|
$ | 13,257 | $ | 11,242 | ||||
Interest cost
|
726 | 655 | ||||||
Actuarial gain
|
(837 | ) | (665 | ) | ||||
Plan
amendment
|
(425 | ) | - | |||||
Net
benefits paid
|
(1,479 | ) | (1,118 | ) | ||||
Obligations at end of the year
|
11,242 | 10,114 | ||||||
Fair
value of plan assets at end of year
|
- | - | ||||||
Funded status
|
$ | (11,242 | ) | $ | (10,114 | ) | ||
Accrued
OPEB costs recognized in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
|
||||||||
Current
|
$ | (1,377 | ) | $ | (1,231 | ) | ||
Noncurrent
|
(9,865 | ) | (8,883 | ) | ||||
Total
|
$ | (11,242 | ) | $ | (10,114 | ) | ||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss:
|
||||||||
Unrecognized net actuarial losses
|
$ | 1,953 | $ | 1,288 | ||||
Unrecognized prior service credit
|
(883 | ) | (704 | ) | ||||
Total
|
$ | 1,070 | $ | 584 |
The
amounts shown in the table above for unrecognized actuarial losses and prior
service credit at December 31, 2007 and 2008 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, 2007 and 2008. We expect to recognize
approximately $179,000 of the prior service credit as a component of our
periodic OPEB cost in 2009.
The table
below details the changes in other comprehensive income during 2007 and
2008.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Changes
in benefit obligations recognized in
other
comprehensive income:
|
||||||||
Net
actuarial gain arising during the year
|
$ | (836 | ) | $ | (665 | ) | ||
Current
year plan amendments
|
(425 | ) | - | |||||
Amortization
of unrecognized:
|
||||||||
Prior service credit
|
112 | 179 | ||||||
Net actuarial losses
|
(15 | ) | - | |||||
Total
|
$ | (1,164 | ) | $ | (486 | ) |
The
components of our periodic OPEB cost are presented in the table
below. The amounts shown below for the amortization of unrecognized
actuarial losses and prior service credit in 2007 and 2008, net of deferred
income taxes, were recognized as components of our accumulated other
comprehensive income at December 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Net
periodic OPEB cost:
|
||||||||||||
Interest cost
|
$ | 734 | $ | 726 | $ | 655 | ||||||
Amortization of prior service credit
|
(112 | ) | (112 | ) | (179 | ) | ||||||
Recognized actuarial losses
|
- | 15 | - | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 622 | $ | 629 | $ | 476 |
A summary
of our key actuarial assumptions used to determine the net benefit obligation as
of December 31, 2007 and 2008 follows:
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
Health
care inflation:
|
||||||||
Initial
rate
|
8.5 | % | 8.0 | % | ||||
Ultimate
rate
|
5.5 | % | 5.5 | % | ||||
Year
of ultimate rate achievement
|
2014
|
2014
|
||||||
Discount
rate
|
6.2 | % | 5.8 | % |
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 2008
|
$ | 40 | $ | (35 | ) | |||
Effect
at December 31, 2008 on
postretirement
obligation
|
500 | (450 | ) |
The
weighted average discount rate used in determining the net periodic OPEB cost
for 2008 was 6.2% (the rate was 5.8% in 2007 and 5.6% in 2006). The
weighted average rate was determined using the projected benefit obligation as
of the beginning of each year.
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,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Current
receivables from affiliates:
|
||||||||
Income
taxes refundable from Valhi
|
$ | 1,271 | $ | 150 | ||||
Note
receivable from Valhi
|
- |
3,000
|
||||||
Total
|
$ | 1,271 | $ | 3,150 | ||||
Current
payables to affiliates:
|
||||||||
Income
taxes payable to Valhi
|
$ | - | $ | 919 | ||||
Note
payable TIMET
|
250 | 1,000 | ||||||
Accrued
interest payable to TIMET
|
559 | 528 | ||||||
Kronos
|
20 | 256 | ||||||
Tremont
|
320 |
436
|
||||||
Total
|
$ | 1,149 | $ | 3,139 |
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Noncurrent
payable to affiliate:
|
||||||||
Note
payable to TIMET
|
$ | 49,980 | $ | 42,980 | ||||
Less
current maturities
|
250 | 1,000 | ||||||
Total
note payable to TIMET
|
$ | 49,730 | $ | 41,980 |
In 2007,
CompX purchased or cancelled a net 2.7 million shares of its Class A common
stock from TIMET. 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% (5.05% at December 31, 2008) 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 2007 and 2008, CompX prepaid approximately $2.6
million and $7.0 million, respectively, on the promissory
note. Interest expense on our note payable to TIMET was approximately
$.6 million and $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively. At
December 31, 2007 and 2008, approximately $50.0 million and $43.0 million,
respectively, was outstanding under the promissory note, of which $250,000 and
$1.0 million, respectively, 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)
|
||||
2009
|
$ | 1,000 | ||
2010
|
1,000 | |||
2011
|
1,000 | |||
2012
|
1,000 | |||
2013
|
1,000 | |||
2014
|
37,980 | |||
Total
|
$ | 42,980 |
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.
In 2008
the independent members of our Board of Directors and the independent members of
the Board of Directors of Kronos and Valhi approved the terms for us to lend up
to $40 million to each of Kronos and Valhi. Our loans to Kronos and Valhi
under each of the revolving notes are unsecured, bear interest at the prime rate
minus 1.5% (1.75% at December 31, 2008) with all principal due on demand (and no
later than December 31, 2009). The amount of our outstanding loans we have
to Kronos and Valhi at any time is solely at our discretion. At December
31, 2008, we had loans of $19.2 million outstanding under the
revolving note to Kronos and $3.0 million outstanding to Valhi. Loans
to Kronos are included in our equity investment in Kronos. See Note
7. Interest earned on our notes receivable from Kronos and Valhi
aggregated approximately $115,000 in 2008.
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 $13.8
million, $14.3 million and $14.7 million in 2006, 2007 and 2008
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
2009.
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 – Other operating income (expense):
Insurance
recoveries in 2006, 2007 and 2008 relate to amounts we received from certain of
our former insurance carriers, and relate principally to the recovery of prior
lead pigment and asbestos 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 lead pigment litigation defense
costs, and one such carrier reimburses us for a portion of our asbestos
litigation defense costs. The insurance recoveries we recognized in
each year include amounts we received from these carriers. We are not
able to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for
the defense costs we incurred because of certain issues that arise regarding
which defense costs qualify for reimbursement. Insurance recoveries
in 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 the extent to which 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 or asbestos litigation
matters. Any additional insurance recoveries would be recognized when
the receipt is probable and the amount is determinable.
The
litigation settlement gain is discussed in Note 19.
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. To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally
unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the
requirements of applicable state law. 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 do not believe it is probable that we have incurred
any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which
we are a party, and liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard
cannot be reasonably estimated, because:
·
|
we
have never settled any of these
cases,
|
·
|
no
final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against us,
and
|
·
|
we
have never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such
litigation matters.
|
Accordingly,
we have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and
lead-based paint litigation cases. 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
the:
·
|
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, 2008, 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,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at the beginning of the year
|
$ | 54,947 | $ | 50,713 | $ | 50,330 | ||||||
Additions
charged to expense, net
|
3,958 | 4,368 | 6,779 | |||||||||
Payments,
net
|
(8,192 | ) | (4,751 | ) | (7,055 | ) | ||||||
Balance
at the end of the year
|
$ | 50,713 | $ | 50,330 | $ | 50,054 | ||||||
Amounts
recognized in the balance sheet:
|
||||||||||||
Current liability
|
$ | 9,778 | $ | 11,863 | $ | 9,834 | ||||||
Noncurrent liability
|
40,935 | 38,467 | 40,220 | |||||||||
Total
|
$ | 50,713 | $ | 50,330 | $ | 50,054 |
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, 2008, 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
$76 million, including the amount currently accrued. We have not
discounted these estimates to present value.
At
December 31, 2008, 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.
In 2005,
certain real property we owned that is subject to environmental remediation was
taken from us in a condemnation proceeding by a governmental authority in New
Jersey. The condemnation proceeds, the adequacy of which we disputed,
were placed into escrow with a court in New Jersey. Because such
funds were in escrow with the court and were beyond our control, we never gave
recognition to such condemnation proceeds for financial reporting
purposes. In April 2008, we reached a tentative settlement agreement
with such governmental authority and a real estate developer, among others,
pursuant to which, among other things, we would receive certain agreed-upon
amounts in satisfaction of our claim to just compensation for the taking of our
property in the condemnation proceeding and we would be indemnified against
certain environmental liabilities related to such property. The
tentative settlement agreement was subject to certain conditions which
ultimately were not met, and on May 2, 2008 we terminated such
agreement. In late June 2008 the settlement agreement was reinstated,
and the initial closing under the reinstated settlement agreement occurred in
October 2008. At the October 2008 initial closing, we received
aggregate proceeds of $54.6 million, comprising $39.6 million in cash plus a
promissory note in the amount of $15.0 million, in exchange for the release of
our equitable lien on a portion of the property. The agreement calls
for two subsequent closings that are scheduled to take place in April 2009 and
October 2010, respectively, and that are subject to, among other things, our
receipt of certain additional payments. In exchange for the
additional payments we would receive at the two subsequent closings, we would
release our equitable lien on the remaining two portions of the
property. The settlement agreement provides for the dismissal of the
pending condemnation proceeding with prejudice. Our carrying value of
this property was approximately $6.5 million at the time of the October 2008
agreement.
The $15.0
million promissory note bears interest at LIBOR plus 2.75%, with interest
payable monthly. All principal is due no later than October
2011. The promissory note is collateralized by the real estate
developer’s ground lease on the property, and all improvements to the property
performed by the developer. Both the promissory note and our lien on
the property are subordinated to certain senior indebtedness of the
developer. In the event that the developer has not repaid the
promissory note at its stated maturity, we have the right to demand repayment of
up to $15.0 million due under the promissory note from one of the developer’s
equity partners, and such right is not subordinated to the developer’s senior
indebtedness.
For
financial reporting purposes, we have accounted for the aggregate consideration
received at the October 2008 closing of the reinstated settlement agreement by
the full accrual method of accounting for real estate sales (since the
settlement agreement arose out of a dispute concerning the adequacy of the
condemnation proceeds for our former real property in New Jersey). Under
this method, we recognized a pre-tax gain related to the October 2008 closing
based on the difference between the aggregate $54.6 million consideration
received and the carrying value of the portion of the property for which we have
released our equitable lien ($5.8 million). Accordingly, we recognized a
pre-tax gain in the fourth quarter of 2008 of approximately $48.8 million.
Similarly, the cash consideration we received at the initial
closing is reflected, and the proceeds from collecting the principal on the
$15.0 million promissory note will be reflected, as an investing activity in our
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.
In
addition to the consideration that we received at the October 2008 closing, as
part of the June 2008 agreement, we became entitled to receive the interest that
had accrued on the escrow funds, and in May 2008 we received approximately $4.3
million of such interest, which we recognized as interest income during the
second quarter of 2008.
Insurance
coverage claims
We are involved in certain legal
proceedings with a number 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
recognize insurance recoveries in income only when receipt of the recovery is
probable and we are able to reasonably estimate the amount of the
recovery.
We have agreements with two former
insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of
our lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier reimburses us
for a portion of our asbestos litigation defense costs. We are not able to
determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for defense
costs incurred by us, because of certain issues that arise regarding which
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.
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 the plaintiff with
respect to certain lead pigment lawsuits.
In
December 2008, we reached partial settlements with the plaintiffs in the two
cases discussed above, pursuant to which the two former insurance carriers
agreed to pay us an aggregate of approximately $7.2 million in settlement of
certain counter-claims related to past lead pigment and asbestos defense
costs. We received these funds from the carriers in January
2009. In connection with these partial settlements, we agreed to
dismiss the case captioned NL
Industries, Inc. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al. (District
Court for Dallas County, Texas, Case No. 05-11347), and in January 2009 we filed
a notice of non-suit without prejudice in that matter. The remaining
claims in New York state cases are proceeding in the trial court.
Other
litigation
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. In June 2005, we set aside funds
as payment for the shares of EMS, but as of December 31, 2008 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, 2008 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.
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, a third-party petition
and petition in intervention, seeking damages related to their former ownership
in EMS. Our original claims were removed to arbitration, and the case is
now captioned Industrial
Recovery Capital Holdings Co. et al. v. Harold C. Simmons et al., Case No. 08-02589, District Court,
Dallas County, Texas. The defendants are us, Contran, Valhi and
certain of our and EMS’s current or former officers or directors. The
plaintiffs claim that, in preparing the valuation of the former minority
shareholders’ preferred shares for purchase by EMS, defendants have committed
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, breach of contract and
tortious interference with economic relations. We believe that these
claims are without merit and have denied all liability therefor. We and
EMS have also filed counterclaims against the former minority shareholders
relating to the formation and management of EMS. Trial is scheduled for
July 2009.
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 465 of these types of cases remain pending, involving
a total of approximately 5,400 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of
approximately 4,400 former plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or
placed on the inactive docket in 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 sought 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
February 2009, a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade
Commission (“ITC”) by Humanscale Corporation requesting that the ITC commence an
investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine
allegations concerning the unlawful importation of certain adjustable keyboard
related products into the U.S. by CompX’s Canadian subsidiary, Waterloo
Furniture Components Limited. The products are alleged to infringe
certain claims under a U.S. patent held by Humanscale. The complaint
seeks as relief the barring of future imports of the products into the U.S.
until the expiration of the related patent in 2011. We intend to deny
the infringement before the ITC and seek to dismiss the complaint. In
addition, in February 2009 a complaint for patent infringement was filed in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, by Humanscale
against CompX and Waterloo Furniture Components Limited. CompX denies
the allegations of patent infringement noted in this complaint.
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 of these various other 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
38% of sales in 2006, 31% in 2007 and 35% in 2008. No customer
accounted for sales of 10% or more in 2006, 2007 or 2008.
At
December 31, 2008, consolidated cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
includes $11.9 million invested in U.S. Treasury securities purchased under
short-term agreements to resell (2007 - $31.9 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 $787,000
in 2006, $429,000 in 2007 and $648,000 in 2008. At December 31, 2008,
future minimum rentals under noncancellable operating leases are
approximately:
Years ending December 31,
|
Amount
|
|||
(In
thousands)
|
||||
2009
|
$ | 587 | ||
2010
|
341 | |||
2011
|
330 | |||
2012
|
201 | |||
Total
|
$ | 1,459 |
CompX has
firm purchase commitments for capital projects in process and for raw material
and other purchase commitments outstanding at December 31, 2008. The
purchase obligations consist of all open purchase orders and contractual
obligations, primarily commitments to purchase raw materials. All
purchase commitments at December 31, 2008 are expected to be fulfilled in
2009.
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 that all
or a portion of the $10.8 million income tax liability discussed in Note 15
related to the shares of TIMET transferred by Valhi to us in 2007 becomes
payable by Contran to the applicable tax authority, 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:
We
adopted SFAS No. 157 effective January 1, 2008 for financial assets
and liabilities measured on a recurring basis. SFAS No. 157
applies to all financial assets and financial liabilities that are being
measured and reported on a fair value basis. SFAS No. 157
establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure about
fair value measurements. The statement requires fair value
measurements to be classified and disclosed in one of three categories, see
Notes 1 and 21.
There was
no impact for the adoption of SFAS No. 157 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. The following table summarizes the valuation of our
investments and financial instruments by the above SFAS No. 157 categories
as of December 31, 2008.
Fair
Value Measurements
at
December 31, 2008
|
||||||||||||||
Total
|
Quoted
Prices in Active Markets (Level
1)
|
Significant
Other Observable Inputs (Level
2)
|
||||||||||||
(in
millions)
|
||||||||||||||
Marketable
securities:
|
||||||||||||||
Current
|
$ | 5.5 | $ | - | $ | 5.5 | ||||||||
Noncurrent
|
64.0 | 64.0 | - |
See Note
4 for information on how we determine fair value of our marketable
securities.
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. Most 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
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. To manage such currency
exchange rate risk, at December 31, 2008, CompX held a series of contracts to
exchange an aggregate U.S. $7.5 million for an equivalent value of Canadian
dollars at exchange rates ranging from Cdn. $1.25 to $1.26 per U.S.
dollar. These contracts qualified for hedge accounting and mature
through June 2009. The exchange rate was $1.22 per U.S. dollar at
December 31, 2008. The estimated fair value of the contracts was not
material at December 31, 2008. We had no currency forward contracts
outstanding at December 31, 2007.
The
following table presents the financial instruments that are not carried at fair
value but which require fair value disclosure as December 31, 2007 and
2008:
December 31, 2007
|
December 31, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||
Carrying
Amount
|
Fair
Value
|
Carrying
Amount
|
Fair
Value
|
|||||||||||||
(in
millions)
|
||||||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents, current restricted cash equivalents and current
marketable securities
|
$ | 51.9 | $ | 51.9 | $ | 29.4 | $ | 29.4 | ||||||||
Promissory
note receivable
|
- | - | $ | 15.0 | $ | 15.0 | ||||||||||
Note
payable to affiliate
|
$ | 50.0 | $ | 50.0 | $ | 43.0 | $ | 43.0 | ||||||||
Minority
interest in CompX common stock
|
$ | 14.4 | $ | 25.2 | $ | 11.9 | $ | 8.5 | ||||||||
Common
stockholders’ equity
|
$ | 246.8 | $ | 555.4 | $ | 188.9 | $ | 651.2 |
The fair
value of our current marketable equity securities, restricted marketable debt
securities, minority interest in CompX and our common stockholder’s equity are
based upon quoted market prices at each balance sheet date, which represent
Level 1 inputs as defined by SFAS No. 157. The fair value of our
promissory note receivable and our variable interest rate debt is deemed to
approximate book value. Due to their near-term maturities, the
carrying amounts of accounts receivable and accounts payable are considered
equivalent to fair value.
Note
21 – Recent accounting pronouncements:
Fair Value
Measurements – In September 2006, the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements,
which became 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 delays the provisions of SFAS No. 157 until January 1, 2009 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). Beginning with our first quarter 2008
filing, all of our fair value measurements are in compliance with SFAS No. 157,
except for such nonfinancial assets and liabilities for which we will be
required to be in compliance with SFAS No. 157 prospectively beginning in the
first quarter of 2009. In addition, in accordance with the new standard we
have expanded our disclosures regarding the valuation methods and level of
inputs we utilize beginning with our first quarter 2008 filing, except for such
nonfinancial assets and liabilities, which will require disclosure in the first
quarter of 2009. The adoption of this standard did 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. SFAS No. 159 became effective for us on
January 1, 2008. We did not elect to measure any eligible items at
fair value in accordance with this new standard either at the date we adopted
the new standard or subsequently during 2008; therefore the adoption of this
standard did 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
that 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
that 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.
The
following table shows the changes in the amount of our uncertain tax positions
(exclusive of the effect of interest and penalties) during 2007 and
2008:
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
millions)
|
||||||||
Unrecognized
liabilities:
|
||||||||
Balance at the beginning of the period
|
$ | 23.1 | $ | 21.1 | ||||
Tax positions taken in prior periods:
|
||||||||
Gross
increases
|
- | - | ||||||
Gross decreases
|
- | (.3 | ) | |||||
Settlements with taxing authorities-cash paid
|
(.3 | ) | - | |||||
Lapse of applicable statute of limitations
|
(1.7 | ) | (2.0 | ) | ||||
Balance at the end of the period
|
$ | 21.1 | $ | 18.8 | ||||
If our
uncertain tax positions were recognized, a benefit of $19.0 million and $16.8
million would affect our effective income tax rate from continuing operations in
2007 and 2008, respectively. We currently estimate that our unrecognized
tax benefits will decrease by approximately $1.9 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 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 and 2008 was not material, and at December 31, 2007 and
December 31, 2008 we had $1.3 million and $.5 million, respectively accrued for
interest and an immaterial amount accrued for penalties for our uncertain tax
positions.
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 2005 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 2003 for Taiwan and 2004 for Canada.
Derivative
Disclosures – In March 2008 the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, an Amendment of FASB Statement No.
133. SFAS No. 161 changes the disclosure requirements for
derivative instruments and hedging activities to provide enhanced disclosures
about how and why we use derivative instruments, how derivative instruments and
related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and how derivative
instruments and related hedged items affect our financial position and
performance and cash flows. This statement will become effective for us in
the first quarter of 2009. We periodically use currency forward contracts
to manage a portion of our foreign currency exchange rate market risk associated
with trade receivables or future sales. Because our prior disclosures
regarding these forward contracts have substantially met all of the applicable
disclosure requirements of the new standard, we do not believe the enhanced
disclosure requirements of this new standard will have a significant effect on
our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Benefit Plan
Asset Disclosures - During the fourth quarter of 2008, the FASB issued
FSP SFAS 132 (R)-1, Employers’
Disclosures about Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets, which amends SFAS
No. 87, 88 and 106 to require expanded disclosures about employers’ pension plan
assets. FSP 132 (R)-1 will be effective for us beginning with our 2009
annual report, and we will provide the expanded disclosures about our pension
plan assets at that time.
Note
22
- 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, 2007
|
||||||||||||||||
Net sales
|
$ | 43.6 | $ | 45.2 | $ | 46.4 | $ | 42.5 | ||||||||
Gross margin
(a)
|
12.1 | 11.9 | 11.9 | 9.3 | ||||||||||||
Net income
(loss)(b)
|
5.8 | (1.5 | ) | (16.0 | ) | 10.0 | ||||||||||
Diluted earnings
(loss) per common share
|
$ | .12 | $ | (.03 | ) | $ | (.33 | ) | $ | .21 | ||||||
Year ended December 31, 2008
|
||||||||||||||||
Net sales
|
$ | 40.5 | $ | 43.7 | $ | 43.9 | $ | 37.4 | ||||||||
Gross margin
|
9.4 | 11.0 | 11.2 | 8.2 | ||||||||||||
Net income
(loss) (c)
|
(.3 | ) | 4.0 | (6.8 | ) | 36.3 | ||||||||||
Diluted earnings
(loss) per common share
|
$ | (.01 | ) | $ | .08 | $ | (.14 | ) | $ | .75 |
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 andDecember 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 14. 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.
|
·
|
$2.7
million expense 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 14; and
|
|
·
|
$32.5
million charge included in our equity in earnings of Kronos in the third
quarter for a change in the German tax
rates.
|
(c) We
recognized the following amounts during 2008:
|
·
|
$10.1
million goodwill impairment charge in the third quarter of 2008, see Note
8; and
|
|
·
|
$48.8
million pre-tax gain in the fourth quarter for a litigation settlement,
see Note 19.
|
NL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE
I - CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT
Condensed
Balance Sheets
(In
thousands)
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | 4,542 | $ | 1,075 | ||||
Restricted cash equivalents
|
143 | 2,452 | ||||||
Restricted marketable debt securities
|
5,301 | 5,371 | ||||||
Accounts and notes receivable
|
208 | 7,343 | ||||||
Receivable from subsidiaries and affiliates
|
1,758 | 6,308 | ||||||
Prepaid expenses
|
39 | 35 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
4,009 | 3,611 | ||||||
Total current assets
|
16,000 | 26,195 | ||||||
Other assets:
|
||||||||
Marketable securities
|
79,500 | 46,317 | ||||||
Investment in subsidiaries
|
122,524 | 97,419 | ||||||
Investment in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
|
147,119 | 133,745 | ||||||
Pension
asset
|
17,623 | - | ||||||
Other
|
1,560 | 15,490 | ||||||
Property and equipment, net
|
875 | 647 | ||||||
Total other assets
|
369,201 | 293,618 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 385,201 | $ | 319,813 | ||||
Current liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
$ | 6,152 | $ | 6,755 | ||||
Payable to subsidiaries and affiliates
|
2,607 | 22,185 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
8,521 | 7,253 | ||||||
Total current liabilities
|
17,280 | 36,193 | ||||||
Noncurrent liabilities:
|
||||||||
Deferred income tax
|
73,754 | 39,240 | ||||||
Accrued environmental costs
|
11,049 | 13,542 | ||||||
Accrued pension cost
|
1,665 | 11,767 | ||||||
Accrued postretirement benefits cost
|
9,865 | 8,883 | ||||||
Other
|
25,126 | 21,824 | ||||||
Total noncurrent liabilities
|
121,459 | 95,256 | ||||||
Stockholders' equity
|
246,462 | 188,364 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders' equity
|
$ | 385,201 | $ | 319,813 | ||||
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,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
Revenues
and other income (expense):
|
||||||||||||
Equity in income (losses) of subsidiaries and affiliates
|
$ | 37,972 | $ | (18,401 | ) | $ | (3,706 | ) | ||||
Litigation
settlement gain
|
- | - | 52,266 | |||||||||
Interest and dividends
|
1,976 | 1,482 | 6,266 | |||||||||
Securities transactions, net
|
- | 22,741 | - | |||||||||
Insurance
recoveries
|
7,656 | 5,659 | 9,610 | |||||||||
Other income
(expense), net
|
85 | (215 | ) | 65 | ||||||||
Total
revenues and other income
|
47,689 | 11,266 | 64,501 | |||||||||
Costs and expenses:
|
||||||||||||
Corporate
expense
|
22,797 | 28,842 | 23,516 | |||||||||
Interest
|
7 | 1 | - | |||||||||
Total
costs and expenses
|
22,804 | 28,843 | 23,516 | |||||||||
Income
(loss) before income taxes
|
24,885 | (17,577 | ) | 40,985 | ||||||||
Income
tax expense (benefit)
|
(1,225 | ) | (15,846 | ) | 7,801 | |||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | $ | 33,184 | |||||
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,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 26,110 | $ | (1,731 | ) | $ | 33,184 | |||||
Distributions
from Kronos
|
17,516 | 17,516 | 17,532 | |||||||||
Distributions
from CompX
|
5,351 | 8,376 | 5,378 | |||||||||
Deferred
income taxes
|
7,009 | (5,871 | ) | (4,250 | ) | |||||||
Equity
in earnings of subsidiaries and investments
|
(37,972 | ) | 18,401 | 3,706 | ||||||||
Securities
transactions
|
- | (22,741 | ) | - | ||||||||
Litigation
settlement gain
|
- | - | (52,266 | ) | ||||||||
Other,
net
|
(3,097 | ) | (1,578 | ) | (2,429 | ) | ||||||
Net
change in assets and liabilities
|
(4,843 | ) | (15,795 | ) | (9,700 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
10,074 | (3,423 | ) | (8,845 | ) | |||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Capital
expenditures
|
- | (175 | ) | (45 | ) | |||||||
Loans
to affiliates, net
|
- | - | (22,210 | ) | ||||||||
Proceeds
from real estate-related litigation settlement
|
- | - | 39,550 | |||||||||
Change
in restricted cash equivalents and marketable debt securities,
net
|
(10 | ) | (7 | ) | (2,379 | ) | ||||||
Purchase
of CompX common stock
|
(2,318 | ) | - | (1,081 | ) | |||||||
Proceeds
from disposal of marketable securities
|
- | 26,800 | - | |||||||||
Other
|
(57 | ) | - | (794 | ) | |||||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
(2,385 | ) | 26,618 | 13,041 | ||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Loans from affiliates, net
|
7,380 | (5,380 | ) | 16,630 | ||||||||
Dividends paid
|
(24,284 | ) | (24,295 | ) | (24,299 | ) | ||||||
Common stock issued
|
88 | - | 6 | |||||||||
Net
cash used in financing activities
|
(16,816 | ) | (29,675 | ) | (7,663 | ) | ||||||
Net
change during the year from operating investing and financing
activities
|
(9,127 | ) | (6,480 | ) | (3,467 | ) | ||||||
Balance
at beginning of year
|
20,149 | 11,022 | 4,542 | |||||||||
Balance
at end of year
|
$ | 11,022 | $ | 4,542 | $ | 1,075 |
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, 2008
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,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Current:
|
||||||||
Receivable
from:
|
||||||||
Valhi
– income taxes
|
$ | 1,271 | $ | 150 | ||||
CompX
– income taxes
|
282 | - | ||||||
EMS
– income taxes
|
71 | - | ||||||
Valhi
|
- | 3,000 | ||||||
EMS
|
- | 3,158 | ||||||
Other
|
134 | - | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 1,758 | $ | 6,308 | ||||
Payable
to:
|
||||||||
EWI
- promissory note
|
$ | 2,000 | $ | 2,000 | ||||
EMS
- promissory note
|
- | 16,630 | ||||||
CompX
– income taxes
|
223 | 1,472 | ||||||
Valhi
– income taxes
|
- | 919 | ||||||
EWI
– income taxes
|
44 | 16 | ||||||
EMS
– income taxes
|
- | 456 | ||||||
Tremont
|
320 | 436 | ||||||
Kronos
|
20 | 256 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 2,607 | $ | 22,185 |
December 31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2008
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||
Investment
in:
|
||||||||
CompX
|
$ | 97,266 | $ | 86,372 | ||||
Other
subsidiaries
|
25,258 | 11,047 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 122,524 | $ | 97,419 |
_Years ended December 31,_
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in earnings (losses) of subsidiaries and affiliates:
|
||||||||||||
Kronos
|
$ | 29,345 | $ | (23,901 | ) | $ | 3,229 | |||||
CompX
|
8,188 | 6,356 | (3,257 | ) | ||||||||
Other
subsidiaries
|
439 | (856 | ) | (3,678 | ) | |||||||
Total
|
$ | 37,972 | $ | (18,401 | ) | $ | (3,706 | ) |
We have a
demand revolving promissory note between us and EWI Re, Inc., that provides for
borrowings of up to $3 million. Our loans from EWI are unsecured and bear
interest at a rate equal to the three month United States LIBOR rate plus 1.75%
per year with all principal due on demand (and no later than December 31,
2009).
We also
have a demand revolving promissory note with EMS, for borrowings up to $21
million. Our loans from EMS are unsecured and bear interest at
a rate equal to the three month United States LIBOR rate plus one 1.75% per year
with all principal due on demand (and no later than December 31,
2009).