Net revenues

Cost of goods sold

 

Gross profit

Operating expenses (including business acquisition costs)

 

Operating profit

Interest expense

Investment income and other

 

Income before income taxes

Income tax expense

 

Net income

 

 

Income per common share — basic and diluted

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding — basic and diluted

 

Cash dividends per common share

 

Cash and cash equivalents

Trade receivables, net

Inventories, net

Interest receivable from Forethought

Deferred income taxes

Other current assets

 

Total current assets

Property, net

Intangible assets, net

Auction rate securities

Note and long-term interest receivable from Forethought

Investments

Other assets

 

 

 

Trade accounts payable

Accrued compensation

Accrued customer rebates and advances

Other current liabilities

 

Total current liabilities

Long-term debt

Accrued pension and long-term postretirement healthcare

Deferred income taxes

Other long-term liabilities

 

 

 

Commitments and contingencies

 

Common stock, no par value, 63.4 and 63.1 shares issued, 62.6 and 62.3 shares outstanding, of which 0.9 and 0.6 are restricted at December 31, 2010 and September 30, 2010

Additional paid-in-capital

Retained earnings

Treasury stock, at cost; 0.8 shares at December 31, 2010 and September 30, 2010

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

 

 

Net income

Adjustments to reconcile net income to cash provided by operating activities:

Depreciation and amortization

Deferred income taxes

Net gain on auction rate securities, related put right, and investments

Interest income on Forethought note

Equity in net income from affiliates

Stock-based compensation

Trade accounts receivable

Inventories

Other current assets

Trade accounts payable

Accrued expenses and other current liabilities

Income taxes prepaid or payable

Defined benefit plan funding

Defined benefit plan expense

Other, net

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

 

Capital expenditures

Proceeds from redemption and sales of auction rate securities and investments

Capital contributions to affiliates

Return of investment capital from affiliates

 

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

 

 

Proceeds from revolving credit facilities

Repayments on revolving credit facilities

Payment of dividends on common stock

Proceeds from issuance of common stock

Financing costs and other

 

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

 

 

 

 

 

At beginning of period

 

At end of period

 

 

Hillenbrand, Inc. (Hillenbrand or the Company) is the parent holding company of its wholly owned subsidiaries, Batesville Services, Inc. (Batesville) and K-Tron International, Inc. (K-Tron).

Through Batesville, we are the leader in the North American death care products industry where we manufacture, distribute, and sell funeral service products to licensed funeral directors who operate licensed funeral homes. Our Batesville-branded products consist primarily of burial caskets but also include cremation caskets, containers and urns, selection room display fixturing for funeral homes, and other personalization and memorialization products and services, including web based applications and the creation and hosting of websites for licensed funeral homes.

Through K-Tron, we design, produce, market, and service bulk solids material handling equipment and systems for a wide variety of industrial markets, particularly in the plastics, food, chemical, pharmaceutical, power generation, coal mining, pulp and paper, wood and forest products, and biomass energy generation industries.

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Hillenbrand, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries. These unaudited financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for interim financial statements and therefore do not include all information required in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (U.S. GAAP). The unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. Certain prior period balances have been reclassified to conform to our current presentation. In the opinion of management, these financial statements reflect all normal and recurring adjustments considered necessary to present fairly the Company’s consolidated financial position and the consolidated results of our operations and our cash flows as of the dates and for the periods presented.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of certain assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities as of the dates presented. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Examples of such estimates include, but are not limited to, the collectability of our note receivable from Forethought Financial Group, Inc. (Forethought); the establishment of reserves related to our customer rebates, allowance for doubtful accounts, warranties, early pay discounts, inventories, income taxes, accrued litigation, and self-insurance reserves; the estimation of progress towards performance criteria under our incentive compensation programs; and the estimation of fair value associated with our auction rate securities (ARS).

The accounting policies used in preparing these financial statements are consistent with the accounting policies as described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. The following represent additions and changes to our significant accounting policies as described in our previously filed Form 10-K.

On December 31, 2010, we adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB’s) accounting standard update 2010-20, Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses. The standard requires companies to provide additional disclosures about the credit quality of their financing receivables and the credit reserves held against them. The disclosure requirements of this standard are included in Note 5.

The unaudited financial information in the table below summarizes the combined results of operations for the Company, including K-Tron, for the three months ended December 31, 2009, on a pro forma basis, as though the companies were combined as of the beginning of the period presented. The pro forma financial information is presented for informational purposes only and may not be indicative of the results of operations if the acquisition had actually taken place at the beginning of the period presented and should not be considered representative of our future consolidated results of operations. The pro forma financial information for the three months ended December 31, 2009, includes adjustments for additional interest expense (assuming we would have been able to borrow $375.0 at October 1, 2009) and additional depreciation and amortization expense (associated with fair value adjustments to property and intangible assets), and excludes $2.8 of business acquisition costs and the non-recurring effects of fair value adjustments to inventory and backlog, all net of estimated income tax effects. See Note 17 for further information regarding K-Tron’s financial contribution to our consolidated financial results.

Pro forma net revenues

Pro forma net income

Pro forma diluted earnings per share

 

Trade accounts receivable reserves

 

 

Inventories:

Raw materials and components

Work in process

Finished products

Reserves for excess or obsolescence

 

Total inventories

 

 

Accumulated depreciation on property

 

 

Accumulated amortization of intangible assets

 

In accordance with accounting standard update 2010-20, Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses, Hillenbrand has two types of financing instruments that require quarterly disclosure: our Forethought note and our notes receivable from customers. We have no significant changes to report to the disclosures regarding the Forethought note contained in our previously filed Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010.

As of December 31, 2010, we had $7.8 of notes receivable from customers representing long-term payment plans that were negotiated to settle unpaid balances. These notes generally carry repayment terms up to five years at a weighted average interest rate of 6.5%. The current portion of these notes, $4.3, is included in trade receivables and the long-term portion, $3.5, is included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheets. We evaluate the recoverability of notes receivable and record allowances thereon based upon historical experience and individual customer collection experience. Of our $7.8 notes receivable, $7.1 was current and $0.7 was over 31 days past due as of December 31, 2010. Accordingly, we established $0.4 of reserves to address potential collectability as of December 31, 2010. Each quarter we perform a detailed review of all notes upon which a reserve was established to determine whether any amounts should be charged off.

Balance at September 30, 2010

Change in fair value

Purchases

Sales and redemptions

 

Balance at December 31, 2010

 

See Note 16 for information related to the determination of fair value. See Note 18 for information regarding a subsequent event.

Borrowings under our financing agreements included:

$400 revolving credit facility

$150 senior unsecured notes, due July 15, 2020, net of discount

 

Total long-term debt

 

As of December 31, 2010, we (i) had $6.9 outstanding undrawn letters of credit under the facility, (ii) were in compliance with all covenants set forth in the credit agreement, and (iii) had $118.1 of remaining borrowing capacity available under the facility. Under our Distribution Agreement with Hill-Rom, our ability to borrow against the facility for certain strategic transactions such as acquisitions may be limited. The term of the revolving credit facility expires in March 2013. During the three-month periods ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the applicable weighted average interest rates were 0.7%.

Our Swiss location maintains $19.2 local credit facilities secured by cash or real property. As of December 31, 2010, there were no borrowings under these facilities and availability was reduced by $4.1 for outstanding bank guarantees. We had additional outstanding letters of credit and bank guarantees with other financial institutions totaling $3.6 and $0.3 of restricted cash at December 31, 2010.

On July 9, 2010, we issued and sold $150.0 fixed-rate senior unsecured notes due July 15, 2020 (the Notes). The Notes bear interest at a fixed rate of 5.5%, payable semi-annually in arrears commencing on January 15, 2011. The Notes were issued at an original issue discount of $1.6, which is being amortized into interest expense over the term of the Notes using the effective interest rate method, resulting in an annual interest rate of 5.65%. Deferred financing costs associated with the Notes of $2.1 are being amortized to interest expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the Notes.

Components of net pension costs were:

Service costs

Interest costs

Expected return on plan assets

Amortization of unrecognized prior service costs, net

Amortization of net loss

 

Net pension costs

 

The net postretirement healthcare costs recorded during the three months ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $0.3 and $0.3.

For the three months ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, expenses related to our defined contribution plans were $1.6 and $1.2.

The effective tax rates for the three months ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 were 35.9% and 33.9%. The increase in the December 31, 2010 effective tax rate was primarily attributable to a favorable adjustment of $0.6 recorded in the prior year as a result of periodic reconciliation of our income tax accounts to filed income tax returns.

The activity within our reserve for unrecognized tax benefits was:

Balance at September 30, 2010

Additions for current-year tax positions

 

Balance at December 31, 2010

 

 

Other amounts accrued at December 31, 2010 for interest and penalties

 

At December 31, 2010 and 2009, potential dilutive effects of our time-based restricted stock units and stock option awards, representing approximately 2.2 million and 1.7 million common shares, were excluded from income per common share as their effects were anti-dilutive. The dilutive effects of our performance-based stock awards will be included in diluted net income per share when the related performance criteria are met. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, potential dilutive effects, representing approximately 1.6 million and 1.1 million common shares, were excluded from the computation of income per common share as the related performance criteria was not met, although we expect to meet various levels of criteria in the future. There was no significant difference in basic and diluted net income per share and average common shares outstanding as a result of dilutive equity awards for the three-month periods ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.

During the three months ended December 31, 2010, we paid $11.7 of cash dividends and issued 0.3 million shares of our common stock pursuant to our stock incentive plans.

Stock-based compensation costs

Income tax benefit

 

Stock-based compensation costs, net of tax

 

During the three months ended December 31, 2010, we made the following grants:

Stock options

Restricted stock units (RSUs)

Performance-based stock units (PBUs)

Stock options granted had a weighted average exercise price of $19.49, and our RSUs and PBUs had a weighted average grant date fair value of $21.51 and $19.50 for the three month period ended December 31, 2010.

The components of comprehensive income, each net of tax (corresponding to income tax rates between 35.4% and 37.3%, excluding foreign currency translation adjustment), were:

Net income

Foreign currency translation adjustment

Change in items not recognized as a component of net pension and postretirement healthcare costs

Changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on derivative instruments

Changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on available for sale securities

 

Comprehensive income

 

The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, each net of tax (corresponding to income tax rates between 35.4% and 37.3%, excluding cumulative foreign currency translation adjustment), were:

Cumulative foreign currency translation adjustment

Items not recognized as a component of net pension and postretirement benefit costs

Net unrealized (loss) on derivative instruments

Net unrealized gain on available for sale securities

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

The components of investment income and other were:

Interest income on note receivable from Forethought

Interest income on ARS

Equity in net income of affiliates

Realized gain on sale of investments

Net realized (loss) on sale or impairment of ARS

Foreign currency exchange (loss), net

Other, net

 

Investment income and other

 

In 2005 the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. (“FCA”) and a number of individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers of Batesville^® caskets against the Company and our former parent company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. (“Hill-Rom”), and three national funeral home businesses (the “FCA Action”). A similar purported antitrust class action lawsuit was later filed by Pioneer Valley Casket Co. and several so-called “independent casket distributors” on behalf of casket sellers who were unaffiliated with any licensed funeral home (the “Pioneer Valley Action”). Class certification hearings in the FCA Action and the Pioneer Valley Action were held before a Magistrate Judge in early December 2006. On November 24, 2008, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in both cases be denied. On March 26, 2009, the District Judge adopted the memoranda and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denied class certification in both cases. On April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs in the FCA case filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to file an appeal of the Court’s order denying class certification. On June 19, 2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA plaintiffs’ petition. On July 9, 2009, the FCA plaintiffs filed a request for reconsideration of the denial of their petition. On July 29, 2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and their alternative motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing en banc (by all the judges sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals).

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court’s order denying class certification and, on April 29, 2009, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the District Court dismissed the Pioneer Valley Action with prejudice (i.e., Pioneer Valley cannot appeal or otherwise reinstitute the case). Neither the Company nor Hill-Rom provided any payment or consideration for the plaintiffs to dismiss this case, other than agreeing to bear their own costs rather than pursuing plaintiffs for costs.

Plaintiffs in the FCA Action have generally sought monetary damages on behalf of a class, trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a report indicating that they were seeking damages ranging from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion before trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they seek to represent, based on approximately one million casket purchases by the purported class members.

Because Batesville continues to adhere to its long-standing policy of selling Batesville caskets only to licensed funeral directors operating licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial, the plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for periods between their reports and the time of trial. At this point, it is not possible to estimate the amount of any additional alleged damage claims they may make. The defendants are vigorously contesting both liability and the plaintiffs’ damages theories.

Despite the ruling denying class certification, the FCA plaintiffs continued to pursue their individual injunctive and damages claims. Their individual damages claims are limited to the alleged overcharges on the plaintiffs’ individual casket purchases (the complaint currently alleges a total of eight casket purchases by the individual plaintiffs), which would be trebled, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

In June 2010, co-defendant Stewart Enterprises, Inc. announced a settlement with the plaintiffs. On July 16, 2010, the District Court granted the remaining defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On August 2, 2010, the District Court heard argument on the motion and ordered full dismissal of the lawsuit on September 24, 2010, concluding that “plaintiffs shall take nothing by their suit.” In light of this decision, defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court order plaintiffs to pay costs incurred by Batesville and SCI in the approximate amount of $0.7 million. The Court denied this motion on October 22, 2010.

Plaintiffs had 30 days to declare their intent to appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit, and they did so by way of a Notice of Appeal filed on October 19, 2010. Plaintiffs’ Notice indicates that they intend to appeal both the Court’s final judgment of dismissal entered on September 24, 2010 and the Court’s order denying class certification entered on March 26, 2009. The appeal is to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiffs recently requested an enlargement of time to file their brief appealing the denial of the two District Court orders. The request was granted by the Court of Appeals on January 3, 2011; therefore, plaintiffs’ brief must now be filed by February 23, 2011. Defendants’ brief will be due 30 days after receiving plaintiffs’ brief, unless an enlargement of time is requested and granted. Plaintiffs will then have an opportunity to file a reply brief. Once all briefs are submitted, the Court of Appeals may hear oral argument by the parties’ attorneys and will then issue its ruling as to whether or not the District Court’s decisions should be reversed or affirmed. It should be noted, however, that the above appellate schedule is only approximate and is subject to change dependent upon a number of factors, including the granting of any extensions of time and the relative congestion of the docket of the Court of Appeals.

If plaintiffs succeed in overturning the judgment, reversing the District Court order denying class certification, and a class is subsequently certified in the FCA Action filed against Hill-Rom and Batesville, and if the plaintiffs prevail at a trial of the class action, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have a significant material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and/or liquidity. In antitrust actions such as the FCA Action, the plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against any or all of the co-defendants, who have no statutory contribution rights against each other. We and Hill-Rom have entered into a judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential liabilities associated with this litigation between us and Hill-Rom. See Note 6 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

As of December 2010, we had incurred approximately $27.8 million in cumulative legal and related costs associated with the FCA matter since its inception.

We are involved on an ongoing basis in claims and lawsuits relating to our operations, including environmental, antitrust, patent infringement, business practices, commercial transactions, and other matters. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty. An estimated loss from these contingencies is recognized when we believe it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, it is difficult to measure the actual loss that might be incurred related to litigation. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow.

Legal fees associated with claims and lawsuits are generally expensed as incurred. Upon recognition of an estimated loss resulting from a settlement, an estimate of legal fees to complete the settlement is also included in the amount of the loss recognized.

We are also involved in other possible claims, including product and general liability, workers compensation, auto liability, and employment-related matters. Claims other than employment and related matters have deductibles and self-insured retentions ranging from $0.5 million to $1.0 million per occurrence or per claim, depending upon the type of coverage and policy period. Outside insurance companies and third-party claims administrators establish individual claim reserves, and an independent outside actuary provides estimates of ultimate projected losses, including incurred but not reported claims, which are used to establish reserves for losses. Claim reserves for employment-related matters are established based upon advice from internal and external counsel and historical settlement information for claims and related fees, when such amounts are considered probable of payment.

The recorded amounts represent our best estimate of the costs we will incur in relation to such exposures, but it is virtually certain that actual costs will differ from those estimates.

Our fair value measurements for our financial assets and liabilities were classified into one of three categories as defined in Note 14 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

Assets:

Cash and cash equivalents

ARS

Forethought note

Equity investments

Investments in rabbi trust

 

Liabilities:

Revolving credit facility

$150 senior unsecured notes

Derivative instruments, net

The following table reconciles the change in our Level 3 financial assets:

Balance at September 30, 2010

Total gains (losses) (realized and unrealized):

Included in earnings, net

Included in other comprehensive income

Change in fair value

Purchases, issuances, and settlements

Transfers in (out) of Level 3

 

Balance at December 31, 2010

 

The methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of each class of financial instrument for which it is practicable to estimate that value are described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. The decrease in the fair value of the Forethought Note at December 31, 2010 was attributable to a 1.6% increase in the required yield to maturity (discount rate) observed in the marketplace on comparable debt instruments. Assets excluded from the tables above are described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

Our operations consist of two reporting segments, Batesville and K-Tron. The following tables provide summary financial information regarding these segments and our corporate operations:

Batesville

K-Tron

 

Total consolidated net revenues

 

 

Batesville

K-Tron

 

Total consolidated gross profit

 

 

Batesville¹

K-Tron²

Corporate ³

 

Total consolidated operating profit

 

 

Batesville

K-Tron

Corporate

 

Total EBITDA

 

 

United States

Canada

Switzerland

All other foreign business units

 

Total consolidated net revenues

 

Batesville

K-Tron

Corporate

 

Total consolidated assets

 

 

Batesville

K-Tron

 

Total consolidated goodwill

 

 

United States

Switzerland

All other foreign business units

 

Total property, net

 

In January 2011, we sold our remaining ARS for proceeds of $12.3, resulting in a gain of $0.5. We have now fully liquidated the original $56.9 portfolio of ARS transferred to us on March 31, 2008, in connection with our separation from Hill-Rom. We recovered approximately 95.5% of the historical cost of these securities.

intend

 

become

 

targeted

Net revenues

Gross profit

Operating expenses (including business acquisition costs)

Operating profit

Interest expense

Investment income and other

Income taxes

Net income

Our net revenues were positively impacted by the K-Tron acquisition in April 2010, providing $51.1 of additional net revenue in the three months ended December 31, 2010, compared to the same period in the prior year. Batesville’s revenues were relatively flat, decreasing $1.6 or 1% in the three months ended December 31, 2010, compared to the same period in the prior year.

Gross profit margin for the three months ended December 31, 2010, declined by 140 basis points compared to the same period in the prior year, largely driven by rising commodity costs at Batesville, principally steel and fuel. Batesville’s gross profit margin was 42.8% and 44.6% for the three months ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. K-Tron’s gross profit margin was 44.6% for the three months ended December 31, 2010.

Operating expenses increased $18.2 in the three months ended December 31, 2010, compared to the same period in the prior year.

The addition of K-Tron into our results added $15.9 of operating expenses, including $2.7 relating to incremental amortization of the acquired intangible assets.

An increase of $3.5 in operating expenses was due to sales tax recoveries for Batesville. These recoveries relate to overpayments in previous years and are not a normal part of ongoing operations. Additional recoveries are not expected to be significant. We recognized a benefit of $0.6 in the three months ended December 31, 2010, compared to $4.1 in the same period in the prior year.

We incurred $0.3 of business acquisitions costs in the three months ended December 31, 2010, compared to $2.8 in the same period of the prior year.

Absent sales tax recoveries, operating expenses remained relatively flat for Batesville for the three months ended December 31, 2010, compared to the same period in the prior year. Excluding incremental amortization expense, operating expenses for K-Tron were relatively flat compared to the same period a year ago, yielding an improved operating expense to sales ratio given the revenue growth. Due to the technical nature of its products and related customer support requirements, K-Tron’s business model has a higher ratio of operating expenses to sales compared to Batesville. This results in a higher consolidated operating expense to sales ratio for Hillenbrand post-acquisition.

Net income

Interest income

Interest expense

Income tax expense

Depreciation and amortization

 

EBITDA¹

 

Revenue

Gross profit

Operating expenses¹

Operating profit¹

Revenue

Gross profit

Operating expenses¹

Operating profit¹

Operating expenses, excluding business acquisition costs

Business acquisition costs

Cash flows provided by (used in):

Operating activities

Investing activities

Financing activities

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents

 

Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate;

may have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement;

may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to you or other investors; and

were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments.

 

DATE: February 2, 2011

 

 

 

DATE: February 2, 2011

 

 

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Instance document

 

Schema document

 

Calculation linkbase document

 

Labels linkbase document

 

Presentation linkbase document

 

Definition linkbase document