NL INDUSTRIES INC - Quarter Report: 2017 March (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarter ended March 31, 2017

Commission file number 1-640

NL INDUSTRIES, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1700

Dallas, Texas 75240-2697

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (972) 233-1700

Indicate by check mark 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  ☒    No   ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).    Large accelerated filer  ☐    Accelerated filer  ☐    Non-accelerated filer  ☒    Smaller reporting company  ☐    Emerging growth company  ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act).    ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Number of shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding on April 28, 2017:  48,705,884.

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX

Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Part II are omitted because there is no information to report.

2

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands)

3

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (CONTINUED)

(In thousands)

Commitments and contingencies (Note 13)

See accompanying notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share data)

See accompanying notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

5

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

6

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EQUITY

Three months ended March 31, 2017

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

7

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

8

NL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

March 31, 2017

(unaudited)

Note 1 – Organization and basis of presentation:

Organization – At March 31, 2017, Valhi, Inc. (NYSE: VHI) held approximately 83% of our outstanding common stock and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Contran Corporation held approximately 93% of Valhi’s outstanding common stock. All of Contran’s outstanding voting stock is held by a family trust established for the benefit of Lisa K. Simmons and Serena Simmons Connelly and their children for which Ms. Simmons and Ms. Connelly are co-trustees, or is held directly by Ms. Simmons and Ms. Connelly or entities related to them.  Consequently, Ms. Simmons and Ms. Connelly may be deemed to control Contran, Valhi and us.

Basis of presentation – Consolidated in this Quarterly Report are the results of our majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc.  We also own 30% of Kronos Worldwide, Inc. (Kronos).  CompX (NYSE MKT: CIX) and Kronos (NYSE: KRO); each file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Quarterly Report have been prepared on the same basis as the audited Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 that we filed with the SEC on March 10, 2017 (the 2016 Annual Report).  In our opinion, we have made all necessary adjustments (which include only normal recurring adjustments) in order to state fairly, in all material respects, our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows as of the dates and for the periods presented.  We have condensed the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2016 contained in this Quarterly Report as compared to our audited Consolidated Financial Statements at that date, and we have omitted certain information and footnote disclosures (including those related to the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2016) normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP).  Our results of operations for the interim period ended March 31, 2017 may not be indicative of our operating results for the full year.  The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Quarterly Report should be read in conjunction with our 2016 Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our 2016 Annual Report.

Unless otherwise indicated, references in this report to “NL,” “we,” “us” or “our” refer to NL Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliate, Kronos, taken as a whole.

Note 2 – Accounts and other receivables, net:

Accrued insurance recoveries are discussed in Note 13.

9

Note 3 – Inventories, net:

Note 4 – Marketable securities:

At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, we held approximately 14.4 million shares of common stock of our immediate parent company, Valhi.  See Note 1.  We account for our investment in Valhi common stock as available-for-sale marketable equity securities and any unrealized gains or losses on the securities are recognized through other comprehensive income, net of deferred income taxes.  Our shares of Valhi common stock are carried at fair value based on quoted market prices, representing a Level 1 input within the fair value hierarchy.  At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, the quoted per share market price of Valhi common stock was $3.46 and $3.28, respectively.

The Valhi common stock we own is subject to the restrictions on resale pursuant to certain provisions of the SEC Rule 144.  In addition, as a majority-owned subsidiary of Valhi, we cannot vote our shares of Valhi common stock under Delaware General Corporation Law, but we do receive dividends from Valhi on these shares, when declared and paid.

Note 5 – Investment in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.:

At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, we owned approximately 35.2 million shares of Kronos common stock.  At March 31, 2017, the quoted market price of Kronos’ common stock was $16.43 per share, or an aggregate market value of $578.7 million.  At December 31, 2016, the quoted market price was $11.94 per share, or an aggregate market value of $420.5 million.

10

The change in the carrying value of our investment in Kronos during the first quarter of 2017 is summarized below.

Selected financial information of Kronos is summarized below:

11

Note 6 – Other noncurrent assets, net:

Note 7 – Accrued and other current liabilities:

Note 8 – Long-term debt:  

During the first quarter of 2017, our wholly owned subsidiary, NLKW Holding, LLC had  no borrowing or repayments under its $50 million secured revolving credit facility with Valhi.  At March 31, 2017, we had outstanding borrowings of $0.5 million under such facility, and the remaining $49.5 million was available for future borrowing under this facility.  Outstanding borrowings under such credit facility bear interest at the prime rate plus 1.875% per annum, and the average interest rate as of and for the period ending March 31, 2017 was 5.88% and 5.67%, respectively.  We are in compliance with all of the convenants contained in such facility at March 31, 2017.  

Note 9 – Employee benefit plans:

Defined benefit plans – The components of net periodic defined benefit pension cost (income) are presented in the table below.

12

Postretirement benefits – The components of net periodic postretirement benefits other than pension (OPEB) income are presented in the table below.  

Contributions – We currently expect our 2017 contributions to our defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement plans to be approximately $0.7 million.

Note 10 – Other noncurrent liabilities:

13

Note 11 – Income taxes:

In accordance with GAAP, we recognize deferred income taxes on our undistributed equity in earnings (losses) of Kronos.  Because we and Kronos are part of the same U.S. federal income tax group, any dividends we receive from Kronos are nontaxable to us.  Accordingly, we do not recognize and we are not required to pay income taxes on dividends from Kronos.  We received aggregate dividends from Kronos of $5.3 million in the first quarter of 2016 and 2017.  The amounts shown in the above table of our income tax rate reconciliation for rate differences on equity in earnings (losses) of Kronos represents the net tax (benefit) associated with such non-taxability of the dividends we receive from Kronos, as it relates to the amount of deferred income taxes we recognize on our undistributed equity in earnings (losses) of Kronos.

Kronos has substantial net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards in Germany and Belgium, the benefit of which Kronos had previously recognized under the more-likely-than-not recognition criteria.  In the second quarter of 2015, Kronos determined such losses did not meet the more-likely-than-not recognition criteria, and as a result Kronos recognized a non-cash deferred income tax expense as a valuation allowance against its net deferred income tax assets in such jurisdictions.  Kronos continued to conclude such losses did not meet the more-likely-than-not recognition criteria through March 31, 2017.  During the first quarter of 2017, Kronos recognized an aggregate non-cash income tax benefit of $5.0 million as a result of a net decrease in such deferred income tax asset valuation allowance, due to utilizing a portion of both the German and Belgian NOLs during such period.

Tax authorities are examining certain of Kronos’ U.S. and non-U.S. tax returns and have or may propose tax deficiencies, including penalties and interest.  Because of the inherent uncertainties involved in settlement initiatives and court and tax proceedings, Kronos cannot guarantee that these matters will be resolved in its favor, and therefore Kronos’ potential exposure, if any, is also uncertain.  As a result of ongoing audits in certain jurisdictions, in 2008 Kronos filed Advance Pricing Agreement Requests with the tax authorities in the U.S., Canada and Germany.  These requests have been under review with the respective tax authorities since 2008 and prior to 2016, it was uncertain whether an agreement would be reached between the tax authorities and whether Kronos would agree to execute and finalize such agreements.  During 2016, Contran, as the ultimate parent of Kronos’ U.S. Consolidated income tax group, executed and finalized an Advance Pricing Agreement with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and Kronos’

14

Canadian subsidiary executed and finalized an Advance Pricing Agreement with the Competent Authority for Canada (collectively, the “U.S.-Canada APA”) effective for tax years 2005 - 2015. Pursuant to the terms of the U.S.-Canada APAs, the U.S. and Canadian tax authorities agreed to certain prior year changes to taxable income of Kronos’ U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries.  As a result of such agreed-upon changes, Kronos’ Canadian subsidiary will incur a cash income tax payment of approximately CAD $3 million (USD $2.3 million) related to the U.S.-Canada APA, but such payment was fully offset by previously provided accruals (such USD $2.3 million has not been paid as of March 31, 2017, and is classified as part of Kronos’ income taxes payable at such date).  Kronos currently expects the Advance Pricing Agreement between Canada and Germany (collectively, the “Canada-Germany APA”) to be executed and finalized within the next twelve months.  Kronos believes it has adequate accruals to cover any cash income tax payment which might result from the finalization of the Canada-Germany APA, and accordingly Kronos does not expect the execution of such APA to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.  

We believe 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 operating or liquidity.  We currently estimate that our unrecognized tax benefits will not change materially during the next twelve months.

15

Note 12 – Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss):

Changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) attributable to NL stockholders, including amounts resulting from our investment in Kronos Worldwide (see Note 5), are presented in the table below.

See Note 9 for amounts related to our defined benefit pension plans and OPEB plans.

16

Note 13 – Commitments and contingencies:

General

We are involved in various environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our current and former businesses.  At least quarterly our management discusses and evaluates the status of any pending litigation or claim to which we are a party or which has been asserted against us. The factors considered in such evaluation include, among other things, the nature of such pending cases and claims, the status of such pending cases and claims, the advice of legal counsel and our experience in similar cases and claims (if any). Based on such evaluation, we make a determination as to whether we believe (i) it is probable a loss has been incurred, and if so if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (ii) it is reasonably possible but not probable a loss has been incurred, and if so if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (iii) the probability a loss has been incurred is remote.

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 or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs.  

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:

Accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead—based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based.

17

In one of these lead pigment cases, 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. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of California government entities against the former pigment manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers.  The County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs have expended or would 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.  In July 2003, the trial judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all remaining claims.  Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and fraud claims in March 2006.  A fourth amended complaint was filed in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland.  That complaint alleged that the presence of lead paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting jurisdictions and sought its abatement.  In July and August 2013, the case was tried.  In January 2014, the Judge issued a judgment finding us, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra Grocery Products Company jointly and severally liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to the people of the State of California to fund such abatement.  In February 2014, we filed a motion for a new trial, and in March 2014 the court denied the motion.  Subsequently in March 2014, we filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California and the appeal is proceeding with the appellate court.  NL believes that this judgment is inconsistent with California law and is unsupported by the evidence, and we will defend vigorously against all claims.

The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of “probable” as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive, substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts have ever been rendered against us, or any of the other former lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever successfully been upheld).  In addition, liability that may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process, that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity.

New cases may continue to be filed against us.  We do not know if we will 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.  In the future, if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us (such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such matters), at that time we would consider such information in evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to whether it might then have become probable we have incurred liability with respect to these matters, and whether such liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable.  The resolution of any of these cases could result in the 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 non-U.S. statutes, the resolution of which typically

18

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 and common law.  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 that we or our predecessors, our subsidiaries or their predecessors currently or previously owned, operated or used, 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, and among whom costs may be shared or allocated.  In addition, we are occasionally named as a party in a number of personal injury lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions alleging claims related to environmental conditions alleged to have resulted from our operations.

Obligations associated with environmental remediation and related matters are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons including the:

In addition, the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes regarding site cleanup costs or the 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.  We do not know if actual costs will exceed accrued amounts or the upper end of the range for sites for which estimates have been made, and we do not know if costs will be incurred for sites where no estimates presently can be made.  Further, additional environmental and related 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 and related matters (including costs associated with damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources) when estimated future expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable.  We adjust such accruals as further information becomes available to us or as circumstances change.  Unless the amounts and timing of such estimated future expenditures are fixed and reasonably determinable, we generally do not discount estimated future expenditures to their present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the payout.  We recognize recoveries of costs from other parties, if any, as

19

assets when their receipt is deemed probable.  At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, 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 and related costs.  The timing of payments depends upon a number of factors, including but not limited to 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 and related 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.

Changes in the accrued environmental remediation and related costs during the first three months of 2017 are as follows:

On a quarterly basis, we evaluate the potential range of our liability for environmental remediation and related costs 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 March 31, 2017, we had accrued approximately $119 million related to approximately 41 sites associated with remediation and related matters that we believe are at the present time and/or in their current phase reasonably estimable.  The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to us for remediation and related matters for which we believe it is possible to estimate costs is approximately $160 million, including the amount currently accrued.  These accruals have not been discounted to present value.

We believe that it is not reasonably possible to estimate the range of costs for certain sites.  At March 31, 2017, there were approximately 5 sites for which we are not currently able to reasonably 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 for the contamination at the site, if any, and the extent of contamination at and cost to remediate 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 and/or state agencies alleging that we, sometimes with other PRPs, are liable for past and future costs of remediating environmental contamination allegedly caused by former operations.  These notifications may assert that we, along with any other alleged PRPs, are liable for past and/or future clean-up costs.  As further information becomes available to us for any of these sites, which would allow us to estimate a range of costs, we would at that time adjust our accruals.  Any such adjustment could result in the recognition of an accrual that would have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.

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

20

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 agreements with certain of our former insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our future lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier reimburses us for a portion of our future 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.  Accordingly, 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.

For a complete discussion of certain litigation involving us and certain of our former insurance carriers, refer to our 2016 Annual Report.

Other litigation

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. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by us.  There are 103 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs.  In addition, the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state court.  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:

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. For a discussion of other legal proceedings to which we are a party, refer to our 2016 Annual Report.

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 matters.

We currently believe the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes, individually and 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.

21

Note 14 – Financial instruments and fair value measurements:

See Note 4 for information on how we determine fair value of our marketable securities.

The following table presents the financial instruments that are not carried at fair value but which require fair value disclosure:

The fair value of our noncontrolling interest in CompX stockholders’ equity is based upon its quoted market price at each balance sheet date, which represents a Level 1 input.  Due to their near-term maturities, the carrying amounts of accounts receivable and accounts payable are considered equivalent to fair value.

Note 15 – Recent accounting pronouncements not yet adopted:

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).  This standard replaces existing revenue recognition guidance, which in many cases was tailored for specific industries, with a uniform accounting standard applicable to all industries and transactions.  The new standard, as amended, is currently effective for us beginning with the first quarter of 2018.  Entities may elect to adopt ASU No. 2014-09 retrospectively for all periods for all contracts and transactions which occurred during the period (with a few exceptions for practical expediency) or retrospectively with a cumulative effect recognized as of the date of adoption.  ASU No. 2014-09 is a fundamental rewriting of existing GAAP with respect to revenue recognition, and we are still evaluating the effect the Standard will have on our Consolidated Financial Statements.  We currently expect to adopt the standard in the first quarter of 2018 using the modified retrospective approach to adoption.  Our sales generally involve single performance obligations to ship goods pursuant to customer purchase orders without further underlying contracts, and as such, we expect adoption of this standard will have a minimal effect on our revenues.  We are in the process of evaluating the additional disclosure requirements.  

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Financial Instruments-Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, which addresses certain aspects related to the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of financial instruments.  The ASU requires equity investments (except for those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in the consolidation of the investee) to generally be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income.  The amendment also requires a number of other changes,  including among others: simplifying the impairment assessment for equity instruments without readily determinable fair values; eliminating the requirement for public business entities to disclose method and assumptions used to determine fair value for financial instruments measured at amortized cost; requiring an exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; and requiring separate presentation of financial assets and liabilities by measurement category and form of asset.  The changes indicated above will be effective for us beginning in the first quarter of 2018, with prospective application required, and early adoption is not permitted.  The most significant aspect of adopting this ASU will be the requirement to recognize changes in fair value of our available-for-sale marketable equity securities in net income (currently changes in fair value of such securities are recognized in other comprehensive income).

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which is a comprehensive rewriting of the lease accounting guidance which aims to increase comparability and transparency with regard to lease transactions.   The primary change will be the recognition of lease assets for the right-of-use of the underlying asset and lease liabilities for the obligation to make payments by lessees on the balance sheet for leases currently classified as operating leases.   The ASU also requires increased qualitative disclosure about leases in addition to quantitative disclosures currently required.  Companies are required to use a modified retrospective approach to

22

adoption with a practical expedient which will allow companies to continue to account for existing leases under the prior guidance unless a lease is modified, other than the requirement to recognize the right-of-use asset and lease liability for all operating leases.  The changes indicated above will be effective for us beginning in the first quarter of 2019, with early adoption permitted.  We are in the process of assessing all of our current leases.  We have not yet evaluated the effect this ASU will have on our Consolidated Financial Statements, but given the insignificant amount of our future minimum payments under non-cancellable operating leases at December 31, 2016 discussed in Note 17 to our 2016 Annual Report, we do not expect the adoption of this standard to have a material effect on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, Intangibles— Goodwill and Other (Topic 350) Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment, which aims to simplify the subsequent measurement of goodwill by eliminating Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test.  Previously, Step 2 measured a goodwill impairment loss by comparing the implied fair value of a reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill.  Instead, under the new ASU, an entity should perform its annual, or interim, goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, and a goodwill impairment charge would be recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value.  In no circumstances would the loss recognized exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit.  The changes indicated above will be effective for us beginning in 2020 (our annual impairment tests are completed in the third quarter), with prospective application required, and early adoption is permitted.  We do not believe the application of ASU 2017-04 will have a material effect on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and we plan to early adopt this ASU beginning with our current year goodwill impairment tests.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-07, Compensation— Retirement Benefits (Topic 715)  Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost, which requires that the service cost component of net periodic defined benefit pension and OPEB cost be reported in the same line item as other compensation costs for applicable employees incurred during the period.  Other components of such net benefit cost are required to be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component, and below income from operations (if such a subtotal is presented).  These other net benefit cost components must be disclosed either on the face of the financial statements or in the notes to the financial statements.  In addition only the service cost component is eligible for capitalization in assets where applicable (inventory or internally constructed fixed assets for example).  The amendments in ASU 2017-06 are effective for us beginning with in the first quarter of 2018, early adoption as of the beginning of an annual period is permitted, retrospective presentation is required for the income statement presentation of the service cost component and other components of net benefit cost, and prospective application is required for the capitalization in assets of the service cost component of net benefit cost.  We expect to adopt this ASU in the first quarter of 2018.  Our net benefit cost for both defined benefit pension plans and OPEB plans does not include any service cost component, none of such net benefit costs are capitalized in assets, we present a subtotal for income from operations and our net benefit cost is currently included in the determination of income from operations.  Accordingly, adoption of this standard will change the determination of the amount we report as income from operations.  As disclosed in Note 11 to our 2016 Annual Report, our total net periodic defined benefit pension costs were $865,000 in 2016, and our net periodic OPEB cost was a credit of $597,000 during 2016.

23

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 MKT: CIX) and Kronos (NYSE: KRO) file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

CompX is a leading manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of applications and industries.  Through its Security Products operations, CompX manufactures mechanical and electronic cabinet locks and other locking mechanisms used in recreational transportation, postal, office and institutional furniture, cabinetry, tool storage and healthcare applications.  CompX also manufactures stainless steel exhaust systems, gauges, throttle controls and trim tabs for the recreational marine and other non-marine industries through its Marine Components operations.  

We account for our 30% non-controlling interest in Kronos by the equity method.  Kronos is a leading global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments (TiO₂).  TiO₂ is used for a variety of manufacturing applications including paints, plastics, paper and other industrial and specialty products.

Forward-looking information

This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended.  Statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that are not historical facts are forward-looking in nature and represent management’s beliefs and assumptions based on currently available information.  Statements in this report including, but not limited to, statements found in Item 2 — “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” are forward-looking statements that represent our 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 the expectations reflected in 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 our actual future results to differ materially from those described herein are the risks and uncertainties discussed in this Quarterly Report and those described from time to time in our other filings with the SEC including, but are not limited to, the following:

24

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.

25

Results of operations

Net income (loss) overview

Quarter ended March 31, 2017 compared to the quarter ended March 31, 2016

Our net income attributable to NL stockholders was $8.4 million, or $.17 per share, in the first quarter of 2017 compared to net loss attributable to NL stockholders of $2.5 million, or $.05 per share, in the first quarter of 2016.  As more fully described below, the increase in our earnings per share from 2016 to 2017 is primarily due to the net effects of:

Our 2016 net loss attributable to NL stockholders includes income of $.01 per share, net of income taxes, included in our equity in losses of Kronos related to Kronos’ insurance settlement gain related to a 2014 business interruption claim.

Our 2017 net income attributable to NL stockholders includes income of $.02 per share, net of income taxes, included in our equity in earnings of Kronos related to Kronos’ non-cash deferred income tax benefit recognized as a result of a net decrease in Kronos’ deferred income tax asset valuation allowance related to its German and Belgian operations.  

Loss from operations

The following table shows the components of our loss from operations.

Amounts attributable to CompX relate primarily to its components products business, while the other amounts generally relate to NL.  Each of these items is further discussed below.

The following table shows the components of our income (loss) before income taxes exclusive of our loss from operations.

26

CompX International Inc.