RPM INTERNATIONAL INC/DE/ - Quarter Report: 2010 February (Form 10-Q)

 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

 

 

Commission File No. 1-14187

 

RPM International Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

(330) 273-5090

(Registrant’s telephone number including area code)

 

Not Applicable

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

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 (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o.

 

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 (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

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

 

As of April 1, 2010
129,637,774 Shares of RPM International Inc. Common Stock were outstanding.

 

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES*

 

INDEX

 

 

 

 

ITEM 1. — FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

 

The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are an integral part of these statements.

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

 

 

The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are an integral part of these statements.

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

 

 

The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are an integral part of these statements.

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FEBRUARY 28, 2010
(Unaudited)

 

 

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and do not include all of the information and notes required by generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. (“GAAP”) for complete financial statements. In our opinion, all adjustments (consisting of normal, recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included for the three and nine month periods ended February 28, 2010 and 2009. For further information, refer to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2009.

 

Our business is dependent on external weather factors. Historically, we have experienced strong sales and net income in our first, second and fourth fiscal quarters comprising the three month periods ending August 31, November 30 and May 31, respectively, with weaker performance in our third fiscal quarter (December through February).

 

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year amounts to conform to the current year presentation. Please refer to Note 10, “Segment Information,” for information pertaining to a change in the composition of our reportable segments during the current fiscal year.

 

 

Accounting Standards Codification — In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued the FASB Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (the “ASC”), which identifies itself as the source of authoritative accounting principles recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Rules and interpretive releases of the SEC under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The ASC became effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. The ASC does not change GAAP, but is intended to simplify user access to all authoritative GAAP by providing all the authoritative literature related to a particular topic in one place. Effective September 15, 2009, all of our public filings reference the ASC as the sole source of authoritative literature.

 

Subsequent Events — In February 2010, the FASB issued guidance which establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosures of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. Under the new guidance, entities that are SEC filers are required to evaluate subsequent events through the date the financial statements are issued. The guidance was effective upon issuance of the new provisions. Our adoption of the provisions of this new guidance had no impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Refer to Note 13, “Subsequent Events.”

 

Financial Instruments — In April 2009, the FASB issued new guidance regarding disclosures of the fair values of financial instruments for interim and annual reporting periods. The guidance is effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009. We adopted the new guidance as of June 1, 2009. Refer to Note 5, “Fair Value Measurements,” for additional discussion.

 

Business Combinations — In December 2007, the FASB issued guidance regarding the accounting for business combinations. Under the updated guidance, transaction costs are no longer considered part of the fair value of an acquisition, but are required to be expensed as incurred. Additionally under the updated guidance, upon initially obtaining control of another entity or business, an acquirer must recognize 100% of the fair values of assets acquired, including goodwill and liabilities assumed, with limited exceptions, even if the acquirer has not acquired 100% of the target. We adopted the provisions of this guidance as of June 1, 2009. The impact of our adoption will depend upon the nature and significance of any acquisitions subject to this statement.

 

Consolidation of Noncontrolling Interests — In December 2007, the FASB issued guidance surrounding the accounting and reporting of noncontrolling interests, which requires entities to report noncontrolling (minority)

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

interests in subsidiaries as equity in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Our June 1, 2009 adoption of this new guidance did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

 

Convertible Debt — In May 2008, the FASB issued guidance which requires the issuer of certain convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion to separately account for liability and equity components of the instrument in a manner that reflects the issuer’s nonconvertible debt borrowing rate. Although we called for redemption all of our outstanding Senior Convertible Notes due May 13, 2033 during the first fiscal quarter of 2009, the FASB’s guidance requires retrospective application to all years presented. We adopted this new guidance effective June 1, 2009, and as a result, recorded additional interest expense of $5.0 million during our fiscal year ended May 31, 2008, which resulted in an after-tax decrease to reported net income of $3.3 million and a reduction of reported basic and diluted earnings per share of $0.03 per share of common stock. The cumulative effect of our adoption of this guidance as of June 1, 2008 was a reduction of retained earnings of approximately $15.5 million. Additionally, our fiscal 2008 financial statements will be restated in our fiscal 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The following table illustrates the retrospective changes made to our comparative financial statements for fiscal 2009:

 

 

 

Inventories were composed of the following major classes:

 

 

 

The following tables summarize marketable securities held at February 28, 2010 and May 31, 2009 by asset type:

 

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

Marketable securities, included in other current and long-term assets, are composed of available-for-sale securities and are reported at fair value. Realized gains and losses on sales of investments are recognized in net income on the specific identification basis. Changes in the fair values of securities that are considered temporary are recorded as unrealized gains and losses, net of applicable taxes, in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) within stockholders’ equity. Other-than-temporary declines in market value from original cost are reflected in income before income taxes in the period in which the unrealized losses are deemed other-than-temporary. In order to determine whether an other-than-temporary decline in market value has occurred, the duration of the decline in value and our ability to hold the investment are considered in conjunction with an evaluation of the strength of the underlying collateral and the extent to which the investment’s amortized cost or cost, as appropriate, exceeds its related market value.

 

Gross gains and losses realized on sales of investments were $0.9 million and $0.5 million, respectively, for the quarter ended February 28, 2010. Gross gains and losses realized on sales of investments were $0.7 million and $0.1 million, respectively, for the quarter ended February 28, 2009. During the third quarter of fiscal 2010 and 2009, we recognized losses of $0.1 million and $4.0 million, respectively, for securities deemed to have other-than-temporary impairments.

 

Gross gains and losses realized on sales of investments were $2.3 million and $1.0 million, respectively, for the nine months ended February 28, 2010. Gross gains and losses realized on sales of investments were $4.4 million and $2.5 million, respectively, for the nine months ended February 28, 2009. During the first nine months of fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2009, we recognized losses of $0.2 million and $7.4 million, respectively, for securities deemed to have other-than-temporary impairments. These amounts are included in investment income, net in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

 

Summarized below are the securities we held at February 28, 2010 and May 31, 2009 that were in an unrealized loss position included in accumulated other comprehensive income, aggregated by the length of time the investments had been in that position:

 

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Included in the figures above is our investment in Kemrock Industries, which has a fair value of $16.0 million and an unrealized gain of $1.3 million at February 28, 2010. At May 31, 2009, our investment in Kemrock Industries had a fair value of $9.2 million, and an unrealized loss of $2.0 million. We have reviewed all of the securities included in the table above and have concluded that we have the ability and intent to hold these investments until their cost can be recovered, based upon the severity and duration of the decline. Therefore, we did not recognize any other-than-temporary impairment losses on these investments. Unrealized losses at February 28, 2010 were generally related to the volatility in valuations over the last several months for a portion of our portfolio of investments in marketable securities. The unrealized losses generally relate to investments whose fair values at February 28, 2010 were less than 15% below their original cost or have been in a loss position for less than six consecutive months. Although we have begun to see recovery in general economic conditions, if we were to experience continuing or significant unrealized losses within our portfolio of investments in marketable securities in the future, we may recognize additional other-than-temporary impairment losses. Such potential losses could have a material impact on our results of operations in any given reporting period. As such, we continue to closely evaluate the status of our investments and our ability and intent to hold these investments.

 

The net carrying values of debt securities at February 28, 2010, by contractual maturity, are shown below. Expected maturities will differ from contractual maturities because the issuers of the securities may have the right to prepay obligations without prepayment penalties.

 

 

 

Financial instruments recorded on the balance sheet include cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, notes and accounts payable, and debt. The carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and notes and accounts payable approximates fair value because of their short-term maturity.

 

An allowance for anticipated uncollectible trade receivable amounts is established using a combination of specifically identified accounts to be reserved, and a reserve covering trends in collectibility. These estimates are based on an analysis of trends in collectibility, past experience, and individual account balances identified as doubtful based on specific facts and conditions. Receivable losses are charged against the allowance when we confirm uncollectibility.

 

All derivative instruments are recognized on the balance sheet and measured at fair value. Changes in the fair values of derivative instruments that do not qualify as hedges and/or any ineffective portion of hedges are recognized as a gain or (loss) in our Consolidated Statement of Income in the current period. Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments used effectively as fair value hedges are recognized in earnings (losses), along with the change in the value of the hedged item. We do not hold or issue derivative instruments for speculative purposes.

 

The carrying amount of our debt instruments approximates fair value based on quoted market prices, variable interest rates or borrowing rates for similar types of debt arrangements, with the exception of our contingently-convertible notes due 2033. We called these notes for redemption during fiscal 2009. Please refer to Note 11, “Debt,” for further information.

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Effective June 1, 2008, we implemented new guidance issued by the FASB relating to fair value accounting. The guidance clarifies the definition of fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value based on the inputs used to measure fair value and expands the disclosures of fair value measurements. Effective June 1, 2009, we implemented the portion of this new guidance which pertains to our nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities. Our implementation of these provisions did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

 

The valuation techniques utilized for establishing the fair values of assets and liabilities are based on observable and unobservable inputs. Observable inputs reflect readily obtainable data from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect management’s market assumptions. The fair value hierarchy has three levels based on the reliability of the inputs used to determine fair value, as follows:

 

Level 1 Inputs — Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets.

 

Level 2 Inputs — Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations whose inputs are observable or whose significant value drivers are observable.

 

Level 3 Inputs — Instruments with primarily unobservable value drivers.

 

The following table presents our assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis and are categorized using the fair value hierarchy.

 

 

Our marketable securities are composed of mainly available-for-sale securities, and are valued using a market approach based on quoted market prices for identical instruments. The availability of inputs observable in the market varies from instrument to instrument and depends on a variety of factors including the type of instrument, whether the instrument is actively traded, and other characteristics particular to the transaction. For most of our financial instruments, pricing inputs are readily observable in the market, the valuation methodology used is widely accepted by market participants, and the valuation does not require significant management discretion. For other financial instruments, pricing inputs are less observable in the market and may require management judgment.

 

Our cross-currency swap was designed to fix our interest and principal payments in euros for the life of the debt, which resulted in an effective euro fixed-rate borrowing of 5.31%. The basis for determining the rates for this swap included three legs at the inception of the agreement: the USD fixed rate to a USD floating rate; the euro floating to euro fixed rate; and the dollar to euro basis fixed rate at inception. Therefore, we essentially exchanged fixed payments denominated in USD for fixed payments denominated in fixed euros, paying fixed euros at 5.31% and receiving fixed USD at 6.70%. The ultimate payments are based on the notional principal amounts of 150 million USD and approximately 125 million euros. There will be an exchange of the notional amounts at maturity. The rates included in this swap are based upon observable market data, but are not quoted market prices, and therefore, the cross-currency swap is considered a Level 2 liability on the fair value hierarchy. Additionally, our cross-currency swap has been designated as a hedging instrument, and is classified as other long-term liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The carrying value of our current financial instruments, which include cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities, trade accounts receivable, accounts payable, and short-term debt, approximates fair value because of the short-term maturity of these financial instruments. At February 28, 2010, the fair value of our long-term debt was estimated using active market quotes, based on our current incremental borrowing rates for similar types of borrowing arrangements which are considered to be Level 2 inputs. Based on the analysis performed, the fair value and the carrying value of our financial instruments and long-term debt as of February 28, 2010 are as follows:

 

 

 

Asbestos-related Contingencies

 

Certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, principally Bondex International, Inc. (collectively referred to as the subsidiaries), are defendants in various asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with the vast majority of current claims pending in six states — Texas, Florida, Maryland, Illinois, Mississippi and Ohio. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured by our subsidiaries or others.

 

As of February 28, 2010, our subsidiaries had a total of 10,329 active asbestos cases, compared to a total of 10,281 cases as of February 28, 2009. For the quarter ended February 28, 2010, our subsidiaries secured dismissals and/or settlements of 644 cases, compared to a total of 228 cases dismissed and/or settled for the quarter ended February 28, 2009. For the nine months ended February 28, 2010, our subsidiaries secured dismissals and/or settlements of 1,301 cases, compared to a total of 2,253 cases dismissed and/or settled for the nine months ended February 28, 2009.

 

Of the 2,253 cases that were dismissed in the nine months ended February 28, 2009, 1,420 were non-malignancies or unknown disease cases that had been maintained on an inactive docket in Ohio and were administratively dismissed by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas during our second fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2008. These claims were dismissed without prejudice and may be re-filed should the claimants involved be able to demonstrate disease in accordance with medical criteria laws established in the State of Ohio.

 

For the quarter ended February 28, 2010, our subsidiaries made total cash payments of $19.9 million relating to asbestos cases, which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter of $7.0 million, compared to total cash payments of $19.8 million relating to asbestos cases during the quarter ended February 28, 2009, which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter of $6.9 million. For the nine months ended February 28, 2010, our subsidiaries made total cash payments of $57.4 million relating to asbestos cases, which included defense-related payments of $22.1 million, compared to total cash payments of $52.2 million relating to asbestos cases during the nine months ended February 28, 2009, which included defense-related payments of $19.7 million.

 

During the third quarter of fiscal 2009, one payment totaling $3.6 million was made to satisfy an adverse judgment in a previous trial that occurred in calendar 2006 in California. This payment, which included a significant amount of accrued pre-judgment interest as required by California law, was made on December 8, 2008, approximately two and a half years after the adverse verdict and after all post-trial and appellate remedies had been exhausted. Such satisfaction of judgment amounts are not included in incurred costs until available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined. As a result, the timing and amount of any such payments could have a significant impact on quarterly settlement costs.

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Excluding defense-related payments, the average payment made to settle or dismiss a case approximated $20,000 and $56,600 for each of the quarters ended February 28, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and approximated $27,100 and $14,400 for each of the nine month periods ended February 28, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The amount and timing of dismissals and settlements can fluctuate significantly from period to period, resulting in volatility in the average cost to resolve a case in any given quarter or year. In addition, in some jurisdictions, cases may involve more than one individual claimant. As a result, settlement or dismissal payments on a per case basis are not necessarily reflective of the payment amounts on a per claimant basis. For example, the average amount paid to settle or dismiss a case can vary widely depending on a variety of factors, including the mix of malignancy and non-malignancy claimants and the amount of defense expenditures incurred during the period.

 

Estimating the future cost of asbestos-related contingent liabilities was and continues to be subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims, including the outcome of coverage litigation against our subsidiaries’ third-party insurers; (iv) future earnings and cash flow of our subsidiaries; (v) the impact of bankruptcies of other companies whose share of liability may be imposed on our subsidiaries under certain state liability laws; (vi) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vii) the outcome of any such trials including judgments or jury verdicts, as a result of our more aggressive defense posture, which includes taking selective cases to verdict; (viii) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure to products for which one of our subsidiaries is responsible and the claimants’ diseases; (ix) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state law; and (x) the potential impact of various proposed structured settlement transactions or subsidiary bankruptcies by other companies, some of which are the subject of federal appellate court review, the outcome of which could materially affect any future asbestos-related liability estimates.

 

In fiscal 2006, we retained Crawford & Winiarski (“C&W”), an independent, third-party consulting firm with expertise in the area of asbestos valuation work, to assist us in calculating an estimate of our liability for unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims. The methodology used by C&W to project our liability for unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims included C&W doing an analysis of: (a) widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos; (b) epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases; (c) historical rate at which mesothelioma incidences resulted in the payment of claims by us; (d) historical settlement averages to value the projected number of future compensable mesothelioma claims; (e) historical ratio of mesothelioma-related indemnity payments to non-mesothelioma indemnity payments; and (f) historical defense costs and their relationship with total indemnity payments.

 

During fiscal 2006, we recorded a liability for asbestos claims in the amount of $380.0 million, while paying out $59.9 million for dismissals and/or settlements, which resulted in our accrued liability balance moving from $101.2 million at May 31, 2005 to $421.3 million at May 31, 2006. This increase was based largely upon C&W’s analysis of our total estimated liability for unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims through May 31, 2016. This amount was calculated on a pre-tax basis and was not discounted for the time value of money. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, we determined at that time that a ten-year period was the most reasonable time period over which reasonably accurate estimates might still be made for projecting asbestos liabilities and defense costs and, accordingly, our accrual did not include asbestos liabilities for any period beyond ten years.

 

During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008, we reviewed and evaluated our ten-year asbestos liability established as of May 31, 2006. As part of that review and evaluation process, the credibility of epidemiological studies of our mesothelioma claims, first introduced to management by C&W some two-and-one-half years earlier, was validated. At the core of our evaluation process, and the basis of C&W’s actuarial work on behalf of Bondex, is the Nicholson Study. The Nicholson Study is the most widely recognized reference in bankruptcy trust valuations, global settlement negotiations and the Congressional Budget Office’s work done on the proposed FAIR Act in 2006. Based on our ongoing comparison of the Nicholson Study projections and Bondex’s specific actual experience,

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

which at that time continued to bear an extremely close correlation to the study’s projections, we decided to extend our asbestos liability projection out to the year 2028. C&W assisted us in calculating an estimate of our liability for unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims out to that twenty-year period.

 

C&W projected that the cost of extending the asbestos liability to 2028, coupled with an updated evaluation of our current known claims to reflect our most recent actual experience, would be $288.1 million. Therefore, we added $288.1 million to our existing asbestos liability, which brought our total asbestos-related balance sheet liabilities at May 31, 2008 to $559.7 million. Of that total, $65.0 million was estimated to be the short-term liability due in fiscal 2009, with the remaining $494.7 million balance reflected as a long-term liability. The material components of the accruals are: (i) the gross number of open malignancy claims (principally mesothelioma claims) as these claims have the most significant impact on our asbestos settlement costs; (ii) historical and current settlement costs and dismissal rates by various categories; (iii) analysis of the jurisdiction and governing laws of the states in which these claims are pending; (iv) outside defense counsel’s opinions and recommendations with respect to the merits of such claims; and (v) analysis of projected liabilities for unasserted potential future claims.

 

In determining the amount of our asbestos liability, we relied on assumptions that are based on currently known facts and projection models. Our actual expenses could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the period of exposure to asbestos claims, the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the rate at which mesothelioma incidences result in compensable claims against us, the average cost of disposing of each such new claim, the dismissal rates each year and the related annual defense costs. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the jurisdiction where filed, the average cost of resolving each such claim and the quality of the product identification, could change our estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort reform or a structured-settlement transaction could also change the estimated liability.

 

Subject to the foregoing variables, and based on currently available data, we believe that our current asbestos liability is sufficient to cover asbestos-related expenses for our known pending and unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims through 2028. However, given the uncertainties associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors outside of our control, we believe that it is reasonably possible we may incur additional material asbestos liabilities in periods before 2028. Due to the uncertainty inherent in the process undertaken to estimate our losses, we are unable at the present time to estimate an additional range of loss in excess of our existing accruals. While it is reasonably possible that such excess liabilities could be material to operating results in any given quarter or year, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that such excess liabilities would have a material adverse effect on our long-term results of operations, liquidity or consolidated financial position.

 

During fiscal 2004, certain of our subsidiaries’ third-party insurers claimed exhaustion of coverage. On July 3, 2003, certain of our subsidiaries filed the case of Bondex International, Inc. et al. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-1322, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith against these third-party insurers, challenging their assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related claims have been exhausted. The coverage litigation involves, among other matters, insurance coverage for claims arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos containing products manufactured by the previous owner of the Bondex tradename before March 1, 1966. On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc. (as it was known then), purchased the assets and assumed the liabilities of the previous owner of the Bondex tradename. That previous owner subsequently dissolved and was never a subsidiary of Republic Powdered Metals, Bondex, RPM, Inc. or the Company. Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however, Bondex has historically responded, and must continue to respond, to lawsuits alleging exposure to these asbestos-containing products. We discovered that the defendant insurance companies in the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate limits. This conduct, apparently known by the insurance industry based on discovery conducted to date, was in breach of the insurers’

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

policy language. Two of the defendant insurers have filed counterclaims seeking to recoup certain monies should plaintiffs prevail on their claims.

 

During the second fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2006, plaintiffs and one of the defendant insurers reached a settlement of $15.0 million, the terms of which are confidential by agreement of the parties. The settling defendant was dismissed from the case.

 

In 2007, plaintiffs had filed motions for partial summary judgment against the defendants and defendants had filed motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs had filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim filed by one of the defendants. On December 1, 2008, the court decided the pending motions for summary judgment and dismissal. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs on a narrow ground. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss one defendant’s amended counterclaim. In light of its summary judgment rulings, the court entered judgment as a matter of law on all remaining claims and counterclaims, including the counterclaim filed by another defendant, and dismissed the action. The court also dismissed certain remaining motions as moot. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and will continue to aggressively pursue their claims on appeal. Certain defendants have filed cross-appeals. On December 17, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a briefing schedule. Plaintiffs’ first brief on appeal was filed on January 26, 2010. On February 2, 2010, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs. Defendants moved for an extension of time to file their briefs, which was granted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, defendants’ briefs were filed on March 31, 2010, and final briefs are due on April 28, 2010.

 

We are unable at the present time to predict the timing or ultimate outcome of this insurance coverage litigation or whether there will be any further settlements. Consequently, we are unable to predict whether, or to what extent, any additional insurance may be available to cover a portion of our subsidiaries’ asbestos liabilities. We have not included any potential benefits from this litigation in calculating our current asbestos liability. Our wholly-owned captive insurance companies have not provided any insurance or reinsurance coverage for any of our subsidiaries’ asbestos-related claims.

 

The following table illustrates the movement of current and long-term asbestos-related liabilities through February 28, 2010:

 

Asbestos Liability Movement
(Current and Long-Term)

 

 

 

 

EIFS Litigation

 

As of February 28, 2010, Dryvit, one of our wholly owned subsidiaries, was a defendant or co-defendant in various single family residential exterior insulating finishing systems (“EIFS”) cases, the majority of which are pending in the southeastern region of the country. Dryvit is also defending EIFS lawsuits involving commercial structures, townhouses and condominiums. The vast majority of Dryvit’s EIFS lawsuits seek monetary relief for

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

water intrusion related property damages, although some claims in certain lawsuits allege personal injuries from exposure to mold.

 

Third-party excess insurers have historically paid varying shares of Dryvit’s defense and settlement costs in the individual commercial and residential EIFS lawsuits under various cost-sharing agreements. Dryvit has assumed a greater share of the costs associated with its EIFS litigation as it seeks funding commitments from our third-party excess insurers and will likely continue to do so pending the outcome of coverage litigation involving these same third-party insurers. This coverage litigation, Dryvit Systems, Inc. et al v. Chubb Insurance Company et al, Case No. CV 05 578004, is pending in the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas. As previously reported, all parties filed motions for partial summary judgment in 2008. The motions were filed pursuant to an order entered by the trial court on March 17, 2008, which requested the parties to address the following three issues: (1) whether the policies of Defendants contain a duty to defend; (2) whether the policies contain an obligation to reimburse defense costs; and (3) whether Defendants’ policy obligations are triggered through exhaustion of the underlying coverage.

 

On November 23, 2009, the trial court filed its Journal Entry ruling upon the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment. The trial court decided issues one and two relating to defense coverage in favor of Chubb and Agricultural. The court ruled that Chubb and Agricultural do not have a duty to pay defense costs under their respective 1995 and 1996 policies. As a result, the trial court denied another Defendant’s motion to dismiss the broker negligence and breach of contract claims asserted by RPM and Dryvit.

 

With respect to the third issue, the trial court ruled that the 1995 Agricultural policy was not properly exhausted because Agricultural did not pay $10 million in indemnity payments to settle claims. The trial court found that the $5.2 million Agricultural paid for defense costs under its 1995 policy did not reduce its aggregate limit of liability. The trial court also determined that the 1995 Chubb excess policy is not required to pay indemnity for Dryvit EIFS claims at this time.

 

The trial court’s November 23, 2009 Journal Entry is not a final appealable order, and the court denied the broker Defendant’s motion seeking a certification of the ruling for an interlocutory appeal. The parties may appeal from the trial court’s ruling after other claims and defenses in the litigation are decided by motion or at trial.

 

The parties are required by court order to engage in settlement negotiations through private mediation. If the mediation is not successful, the parties will complete discovery, which will include discovery on damages and expert witnesses in anticipation of filing additional summary judgment motions and conducting a jury trial.

 

Other Contingencies

 

We provide, through our wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries, certain insurance coverage, primarily product liability, to our other subsidiaries. Excess coverage is provided by third-party insurers. Our reserves provide for these potential losses as well as other uninsured claims.

 

We also offer warranty programs at several of our industrial businesses and have established a product warranty liability. We review this liability for adequacy on a quarterly basis and adjust it as necessary. The primary factors that could affect this liability may include changes in the historical system performance rate as well as the costs of replacement. Provision for estimated warranty costs is recorded at the time of sale and periodically adjusted, as required, to reflect actual experience. It is probable that we will incur future losses related to warranty claims we have received, but that have not been fully investigated, and claims not yet received, which are not currently estimable due to the significant number of variables contributing to the extent of any necessary remediation. While our warranty liability represents our best estimate at February 28, 2010, we can provide no assurances that we will not experience material claims in the future or that we will not incur significant costs to

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

resolve such claims beyond the amounts accrued or beyond what we may recover from our suppliers. Product warranty expense is recorded within selling, general and administrative expense.

 

The following table includes the changes in our accrued warranty balances:

 

 

 

 

In addition, like other companies participating in similar lines of business, some of our subsidiaries are involved in several proceedings relating to environmental matters. It is our policy to accrue remediation costs when it is probable that such efforts will be required and the related costs can be reasonably estimated. These liabilities are undiscounted.

 

 

The effective income tax benefit rate was 17.2% for the three months ended February 28, 2010 compared to an effective income tax benefit rate of 30.5% for the three months ended February 28, 2009. The effective income tax rate was 32.8% for the nine months ended February 28, 2010 compared to an effective income tax rate of 30.9% for the same period a year ago.

 

For the three and nine months ended February 28, 2010 and February 28, 2009, respectively, the effective tax rate differed from the federal statutory rate principally due to the impact of certain foreign operations on our U.S. taxes and the effect of lower tax rates in certain of our foreign jurisdictions. These decreases in taxes were partially offset by an increase in state taxes, non-deductible business operating expenses and provisions for valuation allowances associated with losses incurred by certain of our foreign businesses and for foreign tax credit carryforwards.

 

We file income tax returns in the U.S. and in various state, local and foreign jurisdictions. As of February 28, 2010, the fiscal years 2007 through 2009 are subject to U.S. federal income tax examination. With limited exceptions we are also subject to various state and local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for the fiscal years 2003 through 2009. Currently, the Internal Revenue Service is examining the fiscal 2007 and 2008 tax years. Also, the Canada Revenue Authority is examining certain 2006 and 2007 Canadian returns. While it is reasonably possible that these matters could be resolved during the next 12 months, the timing and ultimate outcomes are uncertain.

 

As of February 28, 2010, we have determined, based on the available evidence, that it is uncertain whether we will be able to recognize certain deferred tax assets. Therefore, we intend to maintain the tax valuation allowances recorded at February 28, 2010 for certain deferred tax assets until sufficient positive evidence (for example, cumulative positive foreign earnings or additional foreign source income) exists to support their reversal. These valuation allowances relate to U.S. foreign tax credit carryforwards, certain foreign net operating losses and net foreign deferred tax assets. A portion of the valuation allowance is associated with deferred tax assets recorded in purchase accounting for prior year acquisitions. A reversal of the valuation allowance that was recorded in purchase accounting will impact earnings.

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

 

We offer defined benefit pension plans, defined contribution pension plans, as well as several unfunded health care benefit plans primarily for certain of our retired employees. The following tables provide the retirement-related benefit plans’ impact on income before income taxes for the three and nine month periods ended February 28, 2010 and 2009:

 

 

 

 

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

We previously disclosed in our financial statements for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009 that we expected to contribute approximately $10.8 million to our retirement plans in the U.S. and approximately $8.7 million to plans outside the U.S. during the current fiscal year. As of February 28, 2010, we have updated our expected contributions to the Retirement Plans in the U.S. to be $30.5 million, in an effort to improve the funded status of those plans. We do not anticipate any changes to the contribution levels outside the U.S.

 

The fair value of the assets held by our pension plans at May 31, 2009 declined from their prior year values due primarily to the significant declines that have taken place in the stock markets over that time. Although we have seen a recovery in the stock markets in recent months, we cannot be certain that this trend will continue. The actuarial assumptions used to calculate our net periodic benefit cost are reviewed annually, most recently as of our May 31, 2009 measurement date. Those actuarial assumptions and related market conditions are reflected in our current fiscal year net periodic benefit costs included above.

 

 

On June 1, 2009, we implemented the provisions of recent guidance issued by the FASB regarding the computation of earnings per share. The FASB’s updated guidance clarifies that unvested share-based payment awards that contain rights to receive non-forfeitable dividends are participating securities. Our unvested restricted shares are considered participating securities. The FASB also updated their guidance on how to allocate earnings to participating securities and compute earnings per share using the two-class method. We have retroactively applied the provisions of this guidance to the financial information included herein, which impacted prior year reported figures by reducing basic and diluted earnings per share for the nine months ended February 28, 2009 by $0.01 per share, from reported basic earnings per share of $0.64 to as-adjusted basic earnings per share of $0.63, and from reported diluted earnings per share of $0.63 to as-adjusted diluted earnings per share of $0.62. No other prior year figures were impacted by this change.

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The following table sets forth the reconciliation of the numerator and denominator of basic and diluted earnings per share, as calculated using the two-class method, for the nine month periods ended February 28, 2010 and 2009. For the quarters ended February 28, 2010 and 2009, the treasury stock method was utilized for the purpose of computing basic and diluted earnings per share, as the result under the two-class method would have been anti-dilutive:

 

 

 

We operate a portfolio of businesses and product lines that manufacture and sell a variety of specialty paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants and adhesives. We manage our portfolio by organizing our businesses and product lines into two reportable segments: the industrial reportable segment and the consumer reportable segment. Within each reportable segment, we aggregate several operating segments that consist of individual groups of companies and product lines, which generally address common markets, share similar economic characteristics, utilize similar technologies and can share manufacturing or distribution capabilities. Our five operating segments represent components of our business for which separate financial information is available that is utilized on a regular basis by our chief executive officer in determining how to allocate the assets of the Company and evaluate performance. These five operating segments are each managed by an operating segment manager, who is responsible for the day-to-day operating decisions and performance evaluation of the operating segment’s underlying businesses. Over the past several years, a number of product lines included within our RPM II/Consumer Group were either sold to third-parties or reassigned to other operating segments within our consumer reportable segment to better align with how management views our business. After a comprehensive review and analysis of the remaining product lines in the RPM II/Consumer Group and the current customer base and markets served, it was determined that these remaining businesses are more appropriately accounted for in our RPM II/

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Industrial Group. Total net sales for these businesses approximated 3.0% of consolidated net sales for the quarter and nine month periods ended February 28, 2009. The financial statements and notes contained herein reflect the reclassification of these product lines to the RPM II/Industrial Group for all periods presented.

 

Our industrial reportable segment products are sold throughout North America and also account for the majority of our international sales. Our industrial product lines are sold directly to contractors, distributors and end-users, such as industrial manufacturing facilities, public institutions and other commercial customers. This reportable segment comprises three separate operating segments — our Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group, and RPM II Group. Products and services within this reportable segment include construction chemicals; roofing systems; weatherproofing and other sealants; polymer flooring; wood stains; edible coatings and specialty glazes for pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries; and other specialty chemicals.

 

Our consumer reportable segment manufactures and markets professional use and do-it-yourself (“DIY”) products for a variety of mainly consumer applications, including home improvement and personal leisure activities. Our consumer segment’s major manufacturing and distribution operations are located primarily in North America, along with a few locations in Europe. Consumer segment products are sold directly to mass merchandisers, home improvement centers, hardware stores, paint stores, craft shops and to other smaller customers through distributors. This reportable segment comprises two operating segments — our DAP Group and our Rust-Oleum Group. Products within this reportable segment include specialty, hobby and professional paints; caulks; adhesives; silicone sealants; and wood stains.

 

In addition to our two reportable segments, there is a category of certain business activities and expenses, referred to as corporate/other, that does not constitute an operating segment. This category includes our corporate headquarters and related administrative expenses, results of our captive insurance companies, gains or losses on the sales of certain assets and other expenses not directly associated with either reportable segment. Assets related to the corporate/other category consist primarily of investments, prepaid expenses, deferred pension assets, and headquarters’ property and equipment. These corporate and other assets and expenses reconcile reportable segment data to total consolidated income before income taxes and identifiable assets. Our comparative three and nine month results for the periods ended February 28, 2010 and 2009, and identifiable assets as of February 28, 2010 and May 31, 2009 are presented in segment detail in the following table.

 

 

 

RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

 

On October 9, 2009, we sold $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of 6.125% Notes due 2019 (the “Notes”). The net proceeds from the offering of the Notes were used to repay $163.7 million in principal amount of our unsecured notes due October 15, 2009, and approximately $120.0 million in principal amount of short-term borrowings outstanding under our accounts receivable securitization program. The balance of the net proceeds was used for general corporate purposes.

 

During our first fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2008, our Senior Convertible Notes (the “Convertible Notes”) due May 13, 2033 became eligible for conversion based upon the price of RPM International Inc. common stock. Subsequent to this event, on June 13, 2008, we called for the redemption of all of our outstanding Convertible Notes on the effective date of July 14, 2008 (the “Redemption Date”). Prior to the Redemption Date, virtually all of the holders had already converted their Convertible Notes into 8,030,455 shares of RPM International Inc. common stock, or 27.0517 shares of common stock for each $1,000 Face Value Convertible Note they held. Any fractional shares from the conversion were paid in cash.

 

 

The following table illustrates the components of total comprehensive income:

 

 

 

We have evaluated events subsequent to February 28, 2010, through the date the financial statements were issued, and have determined no events have occurred that require adjustment of or disclosure in the consolidated financial statements.

 

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

 

Our Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of RPM International Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiaries. Preparation of our financial statements requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of our assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. We continually evaluate these estimates, including those related to our asbestos liability; allowances for doubtful accounts; inventories; allowances for recoverable taxes; useful lives of property, plant and equipment; goodwill and other intangible assets; environmental, warranties and other contingent liabilities; income tax valuation allowances; pension plans; and the fair value of financial instruments. We base our estimates on historical experience, our most recent facts, and other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. These estimates form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of our assets and liabilities. Actual results, which are shaped by actual market conditions, including legal settlements, may differ materially from our estimates.

 

We have identified below the accounting policies and estimates that are the most critical to our financial statements.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

Revenues are recognized when realized or realizable, and when earned. In general, this is when title and risk of loss pass to the customer. Further, revenues are realizable when we have persuasive evidence of a sales arrangement, the product has been shipped or the services have been provided to the customer, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. We reduce our revenues for estimated customer returns and allowances, certain rebates, sales incentives and promotions in the same period the related sales are recorded.

 

We also record revenues generated under long-term construction contracts, mainly in connection with the installation of specialized roofing and flooring systems, and related services. In general, we account for long-term construction contracts under the percentage-of-completion method, and therefore record contract revenues and related costs as our contracts progress. This method recognizes the economic results of contract performance on a timelier basis than does the completed-contract method; however, application of this method requires reasonably dependable estimates of progress toward completion, as well as other dependable estimates. When reasonably dependable estimates cannot be made, or if other factors make estimates doubtful, the completed-contract method is applied. Under the completed-contract method, billings and costs are accumulated on the balance sheet as the contract progresses, but no revenue is recognized until the contract is complete or substantially complete.

 

Translation of Foreign Currency Financial Statements and Foreign Currency Transactions

 

Our reporting currency is the U.S. dollar. However, the functional currency for each of our foreign subsidiaries is its local currency. We translate the amounts included in our Consolidated Statements of Income from our foreign subsidiaries into U.S. dollars at weighted-average exchange rates, which we believe are representative of the actual exchange rates on the dates of the transactions. Our foreign subsidiaries’ assets and liabilities are translated into U.S. dollars from local currency at the actual exchange rates as of the end of each reporting date, and we record the resulting foreign exchange translation adjustments in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). If the U.S. dollar continues to strengthen, we will continue to reflect the resulting losses as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income. Conversely, if the U.S. dollar were to weaken, foreign exchange translation gains could result, which would favorably impact accumulated other comprehensive income. Translation adjustments will be included in net earnings in the event of a sale or liquidation of any of our underlying foreign investments, or in the event that we distribute the accumulated earnings of consolidated foreign subsidiaries. If we determined that the functional currency of any of our foreign subsidiaries should be the U.S. dollar, our financial statements would be affected. Should this occur, we would adjust our reporting to appropriately account for any such changes.

As appropriate, we use permanently invested intercompany loans as a source of capital to reduce exposure to foreign currency fluctuations at our foreign subsidiaries. These loans, on a consolidated basis, are treated as being analogous to equity for accounting purposes. Therefore, foreign exchange gains or losses on these intercompany loans are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). If we were to determine that the functional currency of any of our subsidiaries should be the U.S. dollar, we would no longer record foreign exchange gains or losses on such intercompany loans.

 

Goodwill

 

We test our goodwill balances at least annually, or more frequently as impairment indicators arise, using a fair-value approach at the reporting unit level. Our reporting units have been identified at the component level, or one level below our operating segments. We perform a two-step impairment test. In the first step, we compare the fair value of each of our reporting units to its carrying value. We have elected to perform our annual required impairment tests, which involve the use of estimates related to the fair market values of the reporting units with which goodwill is associated, during our fourth fiscal quarter. Calculating the fair market values of reporting units requires our use of estimates and assumptions.

 

We use significant judgment in determining the most appropriate method to establish the fair values of each of our reporting units. We estimate the fair values of our reporting units by employing various valuation techniques, depending on the availability and reliability of comparable market value indicators, and employ methods and assumptions which include the application of third-party market value indicators and the computation of discounted future cash flows for each of our reporting unit’s annual projected earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”). For each of our reporting units, we calculate a break-even multiple based on its carrying value as of the testing date. We then compare each reporting unit’s break-even EBITDA market multiple to guideline EBITDA market multiples applicable to our industry and peer group, the data for which we develop internally and through third-party sources. The result of this analysis provides us with insight and sensitivity as to which reporting units, if any, may have a higher risk for a potential impairment.

 

We then supplement this analysis with an evaluation of discounted future cash flows for each reporting unit’s projected EBITDA. Under this approach, we calculate the fair value of each reporting unit based on the present value of estimated future cash flows. If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds the carrying value of the net assets of the reporting unit, goodwill is not impaired. An indication that goodwill may be impaired results when the carrying value of the net assets of a reporting unit exceeds the fair value of the reporting unit. At that point, the second step of the impairment test is performed, which requires a fair value estimate of each tangible and intangible asset in order to determine the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill. If the carrying value of a reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds its implied fair value, then we record an impairment loss equal to the difference.

 

In applying the discounted cash flow methodology, we rely on a number of factors, including future business plans, actual and forecasted operating results, and market data. The significant assumptions employed under this method include discount rates, revenue growth rates, including assumed terminal growth rates, and operating margins used to project future cash flows for each reporting unit. The discount rates utilized reflect market-based estimates of capital costs and discount rates adjusted for management’s assessment of a market participant’s view with respect to other risks associated with the projected cash flows of the individual reporting units. Our estimates are based upon assumptions we believe to be reasonable, but which by nature are uncertain and unpredictable. We believe we incorporate ample sensitivity ranges into our analysis of goodwill impairment testing for each reporting unit, such that actual experience would need to be materially out of the range of expected assumptions in order for an impairment to remain undetected.

 

Our annual goodwill impairment analysis, which we performed during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, resulted in an impairment charge related to a reduction in the carrying value of goodwill in the amount of $14.9 million, relating to our Fibergrate reporting unit. The remaining net goodwill balance relating to our Fibergrate unit approximates $23 million. The excess of fair value over carrying value for our other reporting units as of March 1, 2009, ranged from approximately $1.3 million to $249.8 million. In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the fair value calculations of our goodwill impairment test, we applied a hypothetical 5% decrease to the fair values of each reporting unit. This hypothetical 5% decrease would result in excess fair value over carrying value

ranging from approximately $1.0 million to $231.8 million for our reporting units. Further, we compare the sum of the fair values of our reporting units resulting from our discounted cash flow calculations to our market capitalization as of our valuation date. We use this comparison to further assess the reasonableness of the assumptions employed in our valuation calculations. As of the valuation date, the sum of the fair values we calculated for our reporting units was approximately 15% above our market capitalization.

 

Should the future earnings and cash flows at our reporting units decline and/or discount rates increase, future impairment charges to goodwill and other intangible assets may be required.

 

Other Long-Lived Assets

 

We assess identifiable, non-goodwill intangibles and other long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in facts and circumstances indicate the possibility that the carrying values of these assets may not be recoverable over their estimated remaining useful lives. Factors considered important in our assessment, which might trigger an impairment evaluation, include the following:

 

 

Additionally, we test all indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment at least annually during our fiscal fourth quarter. Measuring a potential impairment of non-goodwill intangibles and other long-lived assets requires the use of various estimates and assumptions, including the determination of which cash flows are directly related to the assets being evaluated, the respective useful lives over which those cash flows will occur and potential residual values, if any. If we determine that the carrying values of these assets may not be recoverable based upon the existence of one or more of the above-described indicators or other factors, any impairment amounts would be measured based on the projected net cash flows expected from these assets, including any net cash flows related to eventual disposition activities. The determination of any impairment losses would be based on the best information available, including internal estimates of discounted cash flows; quoted market prices, when available; and independent appraisals, as appropriate, to determine fair values. Cash flow estimates would be based on our historical experience and our internal business plans, with appropriate discount rates applied. Our fiscal 2009 annual impairment tests of each of our indefinite-lived intangible assets resulted in an impairment loss of $0.5 million related to the reduction in carrying value of one of our tradenames. This loss was primarily the result of continued declines in sales and projected sales in one of our businesses which operates primarily in the residential housing market. We also performed a recoverability test with respect to the assets of both of our entities that incurred goodwill or other intangible asset impairments during the current fiscal year. The tests included the comparison of our estimation of undiscounted future cash flows associated with these businesses to their respective book value as of the date of our annual impairment tests. No impairment losses were required as a result of either of these tests for recoverability.

 

Deferred Income Taxes

 

Our provision for income taxes is calculated using the liability method which requires the recognition of deferred income taxes. Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes and certain changes in valuation allowances. We provide valuation allowances against deferred tax assets if, based on available evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.

 

In determining the adequacy of valuation allowances, we consider cumulative and anticipated amounts of domestic and international earnings or losses, anticipated amounts of foreign source income, as well as the anticipated taxable income resulting from the reversal of future taxable temporary differences.

We intend to maintain any recorded valuation allowances until sufficient positive evidence (for example, cumulative positive foreign earnings or additional foreign source income) exists to support a reversal of the tax valuation allowances.

 

Contingencies

 

We are party to claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including the various asbestos-related suits discussed in Note 6 to our financial statements. Although we cannot precisely predict the amount of any liability that may ultimately arise with respect to any of these matters, we record provisions when we consider the liability probable and reasonably estimable. Our provisions are based on historical experience and legal advice, reviewed quarterly and adjusted according to developments. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple forecasted factors that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties, such as regulators, courts, and state and federal legislatures. Changes in the amounts of our loss provisions, which can be material, affect our Consolidated Statements of Income. Due to the inherent uncertainties in the process undertaken to estimate potential losses, we are unable to estimate an additional range of loss in excess of our accruals. While it is reasonably possible that such excess liabilities, if they were to occur, could be material to operating results in any given quarter or year of their recognition, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that such excess liabilities would have a material adverse effect on our long-term results of operations, liquidity or consolidated financial position.

 

Our environmental-related accruals are similarly established and/or adjusted as more information becomes available upon which costs can be reasonably estimated. Here again, actual costs may vary from these estimates because of the inherent uncertainties involved, including the identification of new sites and the development of new information about contamination. Certain sites are still being investigated and, therefore, we have been unable to fully evaluate the ultimate costs for those sites. As a result, accruals have not been estimated for certain of these sites and costs may ultimately exceed existing estimated accruals for other sites. We have received indemnities for potential environmental issues from purchasers of certain of our properties and businesses and from sellers of some of the properties or businesses we have acquired. We have also purchased insurance to cover potential environmental liabilities at certain sites. If the indemnifying or insuring party fails to, or becomes unable to, fulfill its obligations under those agreements or policies, we may incur environmental costs in addition to any amounts accrued, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Several of our industrial businesses offer extended warranty terms and related programs, and thus have established a corresponding warranty liability. Warranty expense is impacted by variations in local construction practices and installation conditions, including geographic and climate differences.

 

Additionally, our operations are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign tax laws and regulations which govern, among other things, taxes on worldwide income. The calculation of our income tax expense is based on the best information available and involves our significant judgment. The actual income tax liability for each jurisdiction in any year can be, in some instances, determined ultimately several years after the financial statements have been published.

 

We maintain accruals for estimated income tax exposures for many different jurisdictions. Tax exposures are settled primarily through the resolution of audits within each tax jurisdiction or the closing of a statute of limitation. Tax exposures can also be affected by changes in applicable tax laws or other factors, which may cause us to believe a revision of past estimates is appropriate. We believe that appropriate liabilities have been established for income tax exposures; however, actual results may differ materially from our estimates.

 

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Receivable

 

An allowance for anticipated uncollectible trade receivable amounts is established using a combination of specifically identified accounts to be reserved and a reserve covering trends in collectibility. These estimates are based on an analysis of trends in collectibility, past experience and individual account balances identified as doubtful based on specific facts and conditions. Receivable losses are charged against the allowance when we confirm uncollectibility. Actual collections of trade receivables could differ from our estimates due to changes in future economic or industry conditions or specific customer’s financial conditions.

Inventories

 

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market, cost being determined on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis and market being determined on the basis of replacement cost or net realizable value. Inventory costs include raw materials, labor and manufacturing overhead. We review the net realizable value of our inventory in detail on an on-going basis, with consideration given to various factors, which include our estimated reserves for excess, obsolete, slow moving or distressed inventories. If actual market conditions differ from our projections, and our estimates prove to be inaccurate, write-downs of inventory values and adjustments to cost of sales may be required. Historically, our inventory reserves have approximated actual experience.

 

Marketable Securities

 

Marketable securities, included in other current and long-term assets, are composed of available-for-sale securities and are reported at fair value. Realized gains and losses on sales of investments are recognized in net income on the specific identification basis. Changes in fair values of securities that are considered temporary are recorded as unrealized gains and losses, net of applicable taxes, in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) within stockholders’ equity. Other-than-temporary declines in market value from original cost are reflected in operating income in the period in which the unrealized losses are deemed other than temporary. In order to determine whether an other-than-temporary decline in market value has occurred, the duration of the decline in value and our ability to hold the investment to recovery are considered in conjunction with an evaluation of the strength of the underlying collateral and the extent to which the investment’s amortized cost or cost, as appropriate, exceeds its related market value.

 

Pension and Postretirement Plans

 

We sponsor qualified defined benefit pension plans and various other nonqualified postretirement plans. The qualified defined benefit pension plans are funded with trust assets invested in a diversified portfolio of debt and equity securities and other investments. Among other factors, changes in interest rates, investment returns and the market value of plan assets can (i) affect the level of plan funding; (ii) cause volatility in the net periodic pension cost; and (iii) increase our future contribution requirements. A significant decrease in investment returns or the market value of plan assets or a significant decrease in interest rates could increase our net periodic pension costs and adversely affect our results of operations. A significant increase in our contribution requirements with respect to our qualified defined benefit pension plans could have an adverse impact on our cash flow.

 

Changes in our key plan assumptions would impact net periodic benefit expense and the projected benefit obligation for our defined benefit and various postretirement benefit plans. Based upon May 31, 2009 information, the following tables reflect the impact of a 1% change in the key assumptions applied to our defined benefit pension plans in the U.S. and internationally:

 

Based upon May 31, 2009 information, the following tables reflect the impact of a 1% change in the key assumptions applied to our various postretirement health care plans:

 

 

REPORTABLE SEGMENT INFORMATION

 

Our business is divided into two reportable segments: the industrial reportable segment and the consumer reportable segment. Within each reportable segment, we aggregate several operating segments that consist of individual groups of companies and product lines, which generally address common markets, share similar economic characteristics, utilize similar technologies and can share manufacturing or distribution capabilities. Our five operating segments represent components of our business for which separate financial information is available that is utilized on a regular basis by our chief executive officer in determining how to allocate the assets of the Company and evaluate performance. These five operating segments are each managed by an operating segment manager, who is responsible for the day-to-day operating decisions and performance evaluation of the operating segment’s underlying businesses. We evaluate the profit performance of our segments primarily based on gross profit, and, to a lesser extent, income (loss) before income taxes, but also look to earnings (loss) before interest and taxes (“EBIT”) as a performance evaluation measure because interest expense is essentially related to corporate acquisitions, as opposed to segment operations. Over the past several years, a number of product lines included within our RPM II/Consumer Group were either sold to third-parties or reassigned to other operating segments within our consumer reportable segment to better align with how management views our business. After a comprehensive review and analysis of the remaining product lines in the RPM II/Consumer Group and the current customer base and markets served, it was determined that these remaining businesses are more appropriately accounted for in our RPM II/Industrial Group. Total net sales for these businesses approximated 3.0% of consolidated net sales for the three and nine month periods ended February 28, 2009. The financial statements and notes contained herein reflect the reclassification of these product lines to the RPM II/Industrial Group for all periods presented.

 

Our industrial reportable segment products are sold throughout North America and also account for the majority of our international sales. Our industrial product lines are sold directly to contractors, distributors and end-users, such as industrial manufacturing facilities, public institutions and other commercial customers. This reportable segment comprises three separate operating segments — our Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group, and RPM II Group. Products and services within this reportable segment include construction chemicals; roofing systems; weatherproofing and other sealants; polymer flooring; wood stains; edible coatings and specialty glazes for pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries; and other specialty chemicals.

 

Our consumer reportable segment manufactures and markets professional use and do-it-yourself (“DIY”) products for a variety of mainly consumer applications, including home improvement and personal leisure activities. Our consumer segment’s major manufacturing and distribution operations are located primarily in North America. Consumer segment products are sold throughout North America directly to mass merchants, home improvement centers, hardware stores, paint stores, craft shops and to other smaller customers through distributors. This reportable segment comprises two operating segments — our DAP Group and our Rust-Oleum Group. Products within this reportable segment include specialty, hobby and professional paints; caulks; adhesives; silicone sealants; and wood stains.

In addition to our two reportable segments, there is a category of certain business activities and expenses, referred to as corporate/other, that does not constitute an operating segment. This category includes our corporate headquarters and related administrative expenses, results of our captive insurance companies, gains or losses on the sales of certain assets and other expenses not directly associated with either reportable segment. Assets related to the corporate/other category consist primarily of investments, prepaid expenses, deferred pension assets, and headquarters’ property and equipment. These corporate and other assets and expenses reconcile reportable segment data to total consolidated income before income taxes, interest expense and earnings before interest and taxes.

 

The following table reflects the results of our reportable segments consistent with our management philosophy, and represents the information we utilize, in conjunction with various strategic, operational and other financial performance criteria, in evaluating the performance of our portfolio of product lines.