e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31,
2009
|
OR
|
o
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file number
001-32868
DELEK US HOLDINGS,
INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
52-2319066
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
|
|
(I.R.S. employer
|
incorporation or
organization)
|
|
identification no.)
|
7102 Commerce Way
Brentwood, Tennessee
|
|
37027
|
(Address of principal executive
offices)
|
|
(Zip
code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code
(615) 771-6701
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $.01 par value
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
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
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 if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendments of this
Form 10-K. þ
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):
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
Accelerated filer þ
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
Smaller reporting company o
|
(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
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the common stock held by
non-affiliates as of June 30, 2009 was approximately
$119,696,268, based upon the closing sale price of the
registrants common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on
that date. For purposes of this calculation only, all directors,
officers subject to Section 16(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and 10% stockholders are deemed to be
affiliates.
At March 3, 2010, there were 54,339,479 shares of
common stock, $.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents incorporated by reference
Portions of the registrants definitive Proxy Statement to
be delivered to stockholders in connection with the 2010 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders, which will be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission within 120 days after
December 31, 2009, are incorporated by reference into
Part III of this
Form 10-K.
Unless otherwise indicated or the context requires otherwise,
the terms Delek, we, our,
company and us are used in this report
to refer to Delek US Holdings, Inc. and its consolidated
subsidiaries. Statements in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
other than purely historical information, including statements
regarding our plans, strategies, objectives, beliefs,
expectations and intentions are forward looking statements.
These forward looking statements generally are identified by the
words may, will, should,
could, would, predicts,
intends, believes, expects,
plans, scheduled, goal,
anticipates, estimates and similar
expressions. Forward- looking statements are based on current
expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and
uncertainties, including those discussed below and in
Item 1A, Risk Factors, which may cause actual results to
differ materially from the forward-looking statements. See also
Forward-Looking Statements included in Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations, of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
PART I
Company
Overview
We are a diversified energy business focused on petroleum
refining, wholesale sales of refined products and retail
marketing. Our business consists of three operating segments:
refining, marketing and retail. Our refining segment operates a
60,000 barrels per day (bpd) high conversion,
moderate complexity, independent refinery in Tyler, Texas. Our
marketing segment sells refined products on a wholesale basis in
west Texas through company-owned and third-party operated
terminals and owns
and/or
operates crude oil pipelines and associated tank farms in east
Texas. Our retail segment markets gasoline, diesel, other
refined petroleum products and convenience merchandise through a
network of approximately 440 company-operated retail fuel
and convenience stores located in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia. We
also own a 34.6% minority equity interest in Lion Oil Company, a
privately held Arkansas corporation, which owns and operates a
moderate conversion, independent refinery located in El Dorado,
Arkansas with a design crude distillation capacity of
75,000 barrels per day, and other pipeline and product
terminals.
Delek US Holdings, Inc. is the sole shareholder of MAPCO
Express, Inc. (Express), MAPCO Fleet, Inc.
(Fleet), Delek Refining, Inc.
(Refining), Delek Finance, Inc.
(Finance) and Delek Marketing & Supply,
Inc. (Marketing). We are a Delaware corporation
formed in connection with our acquisition in May 2001 of 198
retail fuel and convenience stores from a subsidiary of The
Williams Companies. Since then, we have completed several other
acquisitions of retail fuel and convenience stores. In April
2005, we expanded our scope of operations to include
complementary petroleum refining and wholesale and distribution
businesses by acquiring the Tyler refinery. We initiated
operations of our marketing segment in August 2006 with the
purchase of assets from Pride Companies LP and affiliates.
Delek and Express were incorporated during April 2001 in the
State of Delaware. Fleet, Refining, Finance, and Marketing were
incorporated in the State of Delaware during January 2004,
February 2005, April 2005 and June 2006, respectively.
We are a controlled company under the rules and regulations of
the New York Stock Exchange where our shares are traded under
the symbol DK. As of December 31, 2009,
approximately 74.0% of our outstanding shares were beneficially
owned by Delek Group Ltd. (Delek Group), a
conglomerate that is domiciled and publicly traded in Israel.
Delek Group has significant interests in fuel supply businesses
and is controlled indirectly by Mr. Itshak Sharon
(Tshuva).
The Tyler
Refinery Fire
On November 20, 2008, an explosion and fire occurred at our
60,000 barrels per day (bpd) refinery in Tyler, Texas
(Tyler refinery). Some individuals have claimed
injuries and two of our employees died as a result of the event.
The event caused damage to both our saturates gas plant and
naphtha hydrotreater and resulted in an immediate suspension of
our refining operations. After fully repairing the damages to
the Tyler refinery, we resumed normal operations in May 2009.
3
Several parallel investigations were commenced following the
event, including our own investigation and inspections by the
U.S. Department of Labors Occupational
Safety & Health Administration (OSHA),
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
(CSB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). OSHA concluded its inspection in May
2009 and issued citations assessing an aggregate penalty of
approximately $0.2 million. We are contesting these
citations and do not believe that the outcome will have a
material effect on our business, financial condition or results
of operations. We cannot assure you as to the outcome of the
other investigations, including possible civil penalties or
other enforcement actions.
Currently, we carry, and at the time of the incident we carried,
insurance coverage of $1.0 billion in combined limits to
insure against property damage and business interruption. Under
these policies, we are subject to a $5.0 million deductible
for property damage insurance and a 45 calendar day waiting
period for business interruption insurance. During the year
ended December 31, 2009, we recognized income from
insurance proceeds of $116.0 million, of which
$64.1 million was included as business interruption
proceeds and $51.9 million, was included as property damage
proceeds. We also recorded expenses of $11.6 million,
resulting in a net gain of $40.3 million, related to
property damage proceeds on the accompanying consolidated
statement of operations.
Acquisitions
We have integrated our refinery acquisition, six convenience
store chain acquisitions and a pipeline and terminal acquisition
since our formation in May 2001. Our principal acquisitions
since inception are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
Acquired Company/Assets
|
|
Acquired From
|
|
Approximate Purchase Price(1)
|
|
May 2001
|
|
MAPCO Express, Inc., with 198 retail fuel and convenience stores
|
|
Williams Express, Inc.
|
|
$162.5 million
|
June 2001
|
|
36 retail fuel and convenience stores in Virginia
|
|
East Coast Oil Corporation
|
|
$40.1 million
|
February 2003
|
|
Seven retail fuel and convenience stores
|
|
Pilot Travel Centers
|
|
$11.9 million
|
April 2004
|
|
Williamson Oil Co., Inc., with 89 retail fuel and convenience
stores in Alabama, and a wholesale fuel and merchandise operation
|
|
Williamson Oil Co., Inc.
|
|
$19.8 million, plus assumed debt of $28.6 million
|
April 2005
|
|
Refinery, pipeline and other refining, product terminal and
crude oil pipeline assets located in and around Tyler, Texas,
including physical inventories of crude oil, intermediates and
light products
|
|
La Gloria Oil and Gas Company
|
|
$68.1 million, including $25.9 million of prepaid crude
inventory and $38.4 million of assumed crude vendor liabilities
|
December 2005
|
|
21 retail fuel and convenience stores, a network of four
dealer-operated stores, four undeveloped lots and inventory in
the Nashville, Tennessee area
|
|
BP Products North America, Inc.
|
|
$35.5 million
|
July 2006
|
|
43 retail fuel and convenience stores located in Georgia and
Tennessee
|
|
Fast Petroleum, Inc. and affiliates
|
|
$50.0 million, including $0.1 million of cash acquired
|
August 2006
|
|
Refined petroleum product terminals, seven pipelines, storage
tanks, idle oil refinery equipment and rights under supply
contracts
|
|
Pride Companies, L.P. and affiliates
|
|
$55.1 million
|
April 2007
|
|
107 retail fuel and convenience stores located in northern
Georgia and southeastern Tennessee
|
|
Calfee Company of Dalton, Inc. and affiliates
|
|
$71.8 million, including $0.1 million of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes transaction costs |
4
Historically, we have grown through acquisitions, rather than by
organic growth. This strategy requires regular assessment of the
continued viability of assets, particularly in the retail
segment. We continually review acquisition and other growth
opportunities in the refining, marketing, retail fuel and
convenience store markets, as well as opportunities to acquire
assets related to distribution logistics, such as pipelines,
terminals and fuel storage facilities and may make acquisitions
as we deem appropriate. Please see Item 1A, Risk Factors,
of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
as well as our other filings with the SEC for a description of
the risks and uncertainties that are inherent in our acquisition
strategy.
Dispositions
of Assets Held for Sale
In late 2008, we initiated a plan to market the retail
segments 36 Virginia stores for sale. As a result, our
Virginia operations were reclassified to discontinued operations
for accounting purposes. As of December 31, 2008, we had
closed on the sale of 12 of the properties, which resulted in
proceeds, net of expenses of $9.8 million. During 2009, we
sold an additional 15 of the Virginia properties, which resulted
in proceeds, net of expenses of $9.3 million. As of
December 31, 2009, we ceased marketing the remaining nine
Virginia locations for sale and, accordingly, we have restored
these properties to normal operations. The results from the nine
Virginia stores have been reclassified to normal operations and
the assets and liabilities associated with remaining stores are
reflected in the appropriate balance sheet classifications for
all periods presented herein.
Information
About Our Segments
We prepare segment information on the same basis that we review
financial information for operational decision making purposes.
Additional segment and financial information is contained in our
segment results included in Item 6, Selected Financial
Data, Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and in
Note 13, Segment Data, of our consolidated financial
statements included in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Refining
Segment
We operate a high conversion, moderate complexity independent
refinery with a design crude distillation capacity of
60,000 bpd, and an associated light products loading
facility. The refinery is located in Tyler, Texas, and is the
only supplier of a full range of refined petroleum products
within a radius of approximately 100 miles. The Tyler
refinery is located in the Gulf Coast region (Gulf Coast
region), which is a defined area by the
U.S. Department of Energy in which prices for products have
historically differed from prices in the other four regional
Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts, or areas of the
country where refined products are produced and sold.
The Tyler refinery is situated on approximately 100 out of a
total of approximately 600 contiguous acres of land (excluding
pipelines) that we own in Tyler and adjacent areas. The Tyler
refinery includes a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC)
unit and a delayed coker, enabling us to produce approximately
95% light products, including primarily a full range of
gasoline, diesel, jet fuels, liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) and natural gas liquids (NGLs) and
has a complexity of 9.5. For 2009, gasoline accounted for
approximately 54.9% and diesel and jet fuels accounted for
approximately 36.7% of the Tyler refinerys fiscal
production.
As the only full range product supplier within 100 miles,
we believe our location is a natural advantage over other
suppliers. We believe the transportation cost of moving product
into Tyler stands as a barrier for competitors. We see this
differential as a margin enhancement.
Fuel Customers. We believe we have an
advantage of being able to deliver nearly all of our gasoline
and diesel fuel production into the local market using our
terminal at the refinery. Our customers generally have strong
credit profiles and include major oil companies, independent
refiners and marketers, jobbers, distributors, utility and
transportation companies, and independent retail fuel operators.
Our refinerys ten largest customers accounted for
$568.9 million, or 63.2%, of net sales for the refining
segment in 2009. Our customers include ExxonMobil, Valero
Marketing and Supply, Murphy Oil USA, Truman Arnold, the
U.S. government, Motiva and Chevron, among others. One
customer, ExxonMobil, accounted for $124.8 million, or
13.9% of our net sales in 2009. We have a contract with the
U.S. government to supply jet fuel (JP8) to
various military facilities that expires in
5
April 2010. The U.S. government solicits competitive
bids for this contract annually. Although we have submitted a
proposal in the formal process for a new contract, there can be
no assurance that we will be awarded a new contract or, if
awarded, the contract will be on acceptable terms. Sales under
this contract totaled $50.6 million, or 5.6%, of the
refining segments 2009 net sales.
The Tyler refinery does not generally supply fuel to our retail
fuel and convenience stores, since it is not located in the same
geographic region as our stores.
Refinery Design and Production. The Tyler
refinery has a crude oil processing unit with a 60,000 bpd
atmospheric column and an 21,000 bpd vacuum tower. The
other major process units at the Tyler refinery include a
20,200 bpd fluid catalytic cracking unit, a 6,500 bpd
delayed coking unit, a 22,000 bpd naphtha hydrotreating
unit, a 13,000 bpd gasoline hytrotreating unit, a
22,000 bpd distillate hydrotreating unit, a 17,500 bpd
continuous regeneration reforming unit, a 5,000 bpd
isomerization unit, and a sulfuric alkylation unit with a
capacity of 4,500 bpd.
The Tyler refinery is designed to mainly process light, sweet
crude oil, which is typically a higher quality, more expensive
crude oil than heavier and more sour crude oil. The Tyler
refinery has access to five crude oil pipeline systems that
allow us access to East Texas, West Texas, Gulf of Mexico and
foreign crude oils. A small amount of local East Texas crude oil
is also delivered to the refinery by truck. The table below sets
forth information concerning crude oil received at the Tyler
refinery in 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
Source
|
|
Crude Oil Received
|
|
East Texas crude oil
|
|
|
27.3
|
%
|
West Texas intermediate crude oil(1)
|
|
|
66.2
|
%
|
West Texas sour crude oil
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
West Texas intermediate crude oil (WTI) is a light,
sweet crude oil characterized by an API gravity between 38 and
40 and a sulfur content of less than 0.4 weight percent that is
used as a benchmark for other crude oils. |
Upon delivery to the Tyler refinery, crude oil is sent to a
distillation unit, where complex hydrocarbon molecules are
separated into distinct boiling ranges. The processed crude oil
is then treated in specific units of the refinery, and the
resulting distilled and treated fuels are blended to create the
desired finished fuel products. In the refining industry, a well
established metric called the crack spread, is used as a
benchmark for measuring a refinerys product margins by
measuring the difference between the price of light products and
crude oil. It represents the approximate gross margin resulting
from processing one barrel of crude oil into three fifths of a
barrel of gasoline and two fifths of a barrel of high sulfur
diesel. Because we are located in the Gulf Coast region, we
apply the Gulf Coast 5-3-2 crack spread (Gulf Coast crack
spread), which we calculate using the market values of
U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline 87 Octane Conventional Gasoline
and U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline No. 2 Heating Oil (high
sulfur diesel) and the market value of WTI crude oil.
U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline 87 Octane Conventional Gasoline is
a grade of gasoline commonly marketed as Regular Unleaded at
retail locations. U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline No. 2
Heating Oil is a petroleum distillate that can be used as either
a diesel fuel or a fuel oil. This is the standard by which other
distillate products (such as ultra low sulfur diesel) are
priced. U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline 87 Octane Conventional
Gasoline and U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline No. 2 Heating
Oil are prices for which the products trade in the Gulf Coast
region.
A summary of our production output for 2009 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline. Gasoline accounted for approximately
54.9% of our refinerys production. The refinery produces
two grades of conventional gasoline (premium 93
octane and regular 87 octane), as well as aviation
gasoline. Effective January 1, 2008, we began offering
E-10
products which contain 90% conventional fuel and 10% ethanol.
|
|
|
|
Diesel/jet fuels. Diesel and jet fuel products
accounted for approximately 36.7% of our refinerys
production. Diesel and jet fuel products include military
specification JP8, commercial jet fuel, low sulfur
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
diesel, and ultra low sulfur diesel. Since September 2006, the
refinery has produced primarily ultra low sulfur diesel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petrochemicals. We produced small quantities
of propane, refinery grade propylene and butanes.
|
|
|
|
Other products. We produced small quantities
of other products, including petroleum coke, slurry oil, sulfur
and other blendstocks.
|
The table below sets forth information concerning the historical
throughput and production at the Tyler refinery for the last
three fiscal years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009(1)
|
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Bpd
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Bpd
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Bpd
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Refinery throughput (average barrels per day):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sweet
|
|
|
46,053
|
|
|
|
85.6
|
%
|
|
|
46,468
|
|
|
|
81.6
|
%
|
|
|
49,711
|
|
|
|
88.5
|
%
|
Sour
|
|
|
3,251
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
5,215
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
4,149
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total crude
|
|
|
49,304
|
|
|
|
91.6
|
|
|
|
51,683
|
|
|
|
90.8
|
|
|
|
53,860
|
|
|
|
95.9
|
|
Other blendstocks(2)
|
|
|
4,498
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
5,239
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
2,303
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery throughput
|
|
|
53,802
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
56,163
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Products produced (average barrels per day):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline(3)
|
|
|
28,707
|
|
|
|
54.9
|
%
|
|
|
30,346
|
|
|
|
54.4
|
%
|
|
|
29,660
|
|
|
|
54.3
|
%
|
Diesel/jet
|
|
|
19,206
|
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
|
|
20,857
|
|
|
|
37.4
|
|
|
|
20,010
|
|
|
|
36.6
|
|
Petrochemicals, LPG, NGLs
|
|
|
2,064
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
2,142
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,350
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
2,607
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
2,848
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production
|
|
|
52,327
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
55,773
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
54,660
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The refinery did not operate during the period from the
November 20, 2008 explosion and fire through May 18,
2009. This information has been calculated based on the 228 and
324 days that the refinery was operational in 2009 and
2008, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes denatured ethanol. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes
E-10 product. |
Capital Improvements. The fourth quarter 2008
explosion and fire at the Tyler refinery resulted in a
suspension in production from November 20, 2008 through
May 18, 2009. During this period of refinery shutdown, we
moved forward with major unit turnarounds and the portions of
the Crude Optimization capital projects which were previously
slated to be completed in late 2009. Portions of the Crude
Optimization projects were completed in the first half of 2009.
We expect the remaining portions of these projects to be
completed by 2013.
Crude
Optimization Projects
|
|
|
|
|
Deep Cut Project. The Deep Cut project
includes modifications to the Crude, Vacuum and Amine
Regeneration Units (ARU) and the installation of a new Vacuum
Heater, Coker Heater, a second ARU and a NaSH Unit. A
significant portion of this project was completed in the first
half of 2009. The installation of the second ARU and the NaSH
Unit is expected to be completed by 2013. The completed portions
of this project have given us the ability to run a deeper
cut in the Vacuum Unit and allow the running of a heavier
crude slate, although this capability will not be fully realized
until we complete the remainder of the FCC Reactor revamp,
discussed below. The installation of the second ARU and NaSH
unit will further increase our sulfur capacity. Further, the new
Coker Heater should allow much longer runs between decoking,
which will reduce maintenance cost and increase the on-stream
efficiency of the Coker.
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
Coker Valve Project. The Coker Valve project
involved installing Delta Valves on the bottom heads of both
coke drums, modifying feed piping to coke drums and installing a
new Coke crusher and conveyor system. We believe the
installation of the Delta Valves has significantly improved the
safety of the operation to remove coke from the coke drums and
they will enable the Coker to run shorter cycles, thereby
increasing effective capacity. The entire project should allow
for the safe handling of shot coke that may be produced during
deep cut operations on a heavy crude slate. This project was
completed in the first half of 2009.
|
|
|
|
FCC Reactor Revamp. We plan to modify the
fractionation section of the FCC and install new catalyst
section equipment, including a new reactor and catalyst stripper
and make modifications to the riser. In the first half of 2009,
we completed the fractionation section modifications, which will
accommodate higher conversions expected from the FCC Reactor,
once the catalyst section installations are complete. The
remainder of this project is expected to be completed in 2013.
|
Gasoline
Hydrotreater
In 2008, we completed the installation of a Gasoline
Hydrotreater Unit at the Tyler refinery. The Gasoline
Hydrotreater allowed the refinery to meet the Tier II
gasoline specifications for sulfur in gasoline and eliminated
the previous constraints on the sulfur content in crude
selection because of the crude slates impact on the sulfur
content of the gasoline pool.
Kerosene
Merox Unit
In 2007, we completed a revamp of the Kerosene Merox Unit at the
Tyler refinery to significantly increase its capacity when
processing crude slates that contain increased quantities of
naphthenic acid components in the kerosene boiling range. This
project effectively removed constraints on the allowable
quantity of WTI or other crude types that could be included in
the crude slate, thereby providing additional flexibility to
potentially gain margin on crude selections and to increase
total distillate production.
Storage Capacity. Storage capacity at or near
the Tyler refinery, including tanks along the pipelines owned
and/or
operated by the marketing segment, totals approximately
2.5 million barrels, consisting of approximately
1.1 million barrels of crude oil storage and
1.4 million barrels of refined and intermediate product
storage.
Supply and Distribution. Approximately 27% of
the crude oil purchased for the Tyler refinery is East Texas
crude oil. Most of the East Texas crude oil processed in our
refinery is delivered to us by truck or through the pipelines
owned and/or
operated by the marketing segment from Nettleton Station in
Longview, Texas. This represents an inherent cost advantage due
to our ability to purchase crude oil on its way to the market,
as opposed to purchasing from a market or trade location. The
ability of our refinery to receive both domestic and foreign
barrels affords us the opportunity to replace barrels with
financially advantaged alternatives on short notice.
Our ability to access West Texas, Gulf of Mexico or foreign
crude oils, when available, at competitive prices has been a
significant competitive supply cost advantage at the refinery.
These alternate supply sources allow us to optimize the refinery
operation and utilization while also allowing us to more
favorably negotiate the cost and quality of the local East Texas
crude oil we purchase.
The vast majority of our transportation fuels and other products
are sold by truck directly from the refinery. We operate a nine
lane transportation fuels truck rack with a wide range of
additive options, including proprietary packages dedicated for
use by our major oil company customers. Capabilities at our rack
include the ability to simultaneously blend finished components
prior to loading trucks. LPG, NGLs and clarified slurry oil are
sold by truck from dedicated loading facilities at the refinery.
Effective January 1, 2008, we also began selling
E-10
products at our truck rack. We also have a pipeline connection
for the sale of propane into a facility owned by Texas Eastman.
We sell petroleum coke primarily by truck from the refinery. All
of our ethanol is currently transported to the refinery by
truck. Ethanol tank capacity is currently limited to
9,000 barrels.
Competition. The refining industry is highly
competitive and includes fully integrated national and
multinational oil companies engaged in many segments of the
petroleum business, including exploration, production,
transportation, refining, marketing and retail fuel and
convenience stores. Our principal competitors are Texas Gulf
Coast refiners, product terminal operators in the east Texas
region and Calumet Lubricants in Shreveport,
8
Louisiana. The principal competitive factors affecting our
refinery operations are crude oil and other feedstock costs,
refinery product margins, refinery efficiency, refinery product
mix, and distribution and transportation costs. Certain of our
competitors operate refineries that are larger and more complex
and in different geographical regions than ours, and, as a
result, could have lower per barrel costs, higher margins per
barrel and throughput or utilization rates which are better than
ours. We have no crude oil reserves and are not engaged in
exploration or production. We believe, however, our geographic
location provides an inherent advantage because our competitors
have an inherent transportation cost to deliver products into
the markets we serve. Our location allows for product pricing
that is favorable in comparison to the U.S. Gulf Coast
crack spread.
Marketing
Segment
Our marketing segment sells refined products on a wholesale
basis in west Texas through company-owned and third party
operated terminals. The segment also manages, through
company-owned and leased pipelines, the transportation of crude
to, and provides storage of crude for, the Tyler refinery. The
marketing segment also provides marketing services to the Tyler
refinery in the sales of its products through wholesale and
contract sales. Finally, the marketing segment provides storage
of ethanol to Express for blending with conventional gasoline
using dedicated ethanol tankage located at a third-party owned
terminal in Nashville, Tennessee.
Petroleum Product Marketing Terminals. Our
marketing segment markets products through three company-owned
terminals in San Angelo, Abilene and Tyler, Texas and
third-party terminal operations in Aledo, Odessa, Big Springs
and Frost, Texas. The San Angelo terminal began operations
in 1991 and has operated continuously. The Abilene terminal
began operations in the 1950s and has undergone routine
upgrading. At each terminal, products are loaded on two loading
lanes each having four bottom-loading arms. The loading racks
are fully automated and unmanned during the night. The Tyler
terminal was built in the 1970s and was most recently
expanded in 1994. It is currently owned and operated by our
refining segment, includes nine loading lanes and is fully
automated and unmanned at night. We have in excess of
1,000,000 barrels of combined refined product storage tank
capacity at Tye, Texas Station (a Magellan Pipeline Company,
L.P. (Magellan Pipeline) tie-in location) and our
terminals in Abilene and San Angelo.
Pipelines. We own seven product pipelines of
approximately 114 miles between our refined product
terminals in Abilene and San Angelo, Texas, which includes
a line connecting our facility to Dyess Air Force Base. These
refined product pipelines include:
|
|
|
|
|
an eight-inch pipeline from a Magellan Pipeline custody transfer
point at Tye Station to the Abilene terminal;
|
|
|
|
a 13.5 mile, four-inch pipeline from the Abilene terminal
to the Magellan Pipeline tie-in;
|
|
|
|
a 76.5 mile, six-inch pipeline system from the Magellan
Pipeline tie-in to San Angelo; and
|
|
|
|
three other local product pipelines.
|
We also own
and/or
operate pipelines, which consists of approximately 65 miles
of crude oil lines that transport crude oil to the Tyler
refinery. The following pump stations and terminals are also
owned and/or
leased by us:
|
|
|
|
|
Atlas Tank Farm: One 150,000 barrel tank
and one 300,000 barrel tank
|
|
|
|
Nettleton Station: Five 55,000 barrel
tanks
|
|
|
|
Bradford Station: One 54,000 barrel tank
and one 9,000 barrel tank
|
|
|
|
ARP Station: Two 55,000 barrel tanks
|
Substantially all of our pipeline system runs across leased land
or
rights-of-way.
Supply Agreements. Substantially all of our
petroleum products for sale in east Texas are purchased from two
suppliers, Northville Product Services, L.P.
(Northville) and Magellan Asset Services, L.P.
(Magellan), under separate supply contracts. Under
the terms of the Northville contract, we can purchase up to
20,350 bpd of
9
petroleum products for the Abilene terminal for sales and
exchange at Abilene and San Angelo. This agreement runs
through December 31, 2017.
Additionally, we can purchase up to an additional 7,000 bpd
of refined products under the terms of the contract with
Magellan. This agreement expires on December 14, 2015. The
primary purpose of this second contract is to supply products at
terminals in Aledo and Odessa, Texas.
Customers. We have various types of customers
including major oil companies such as ExxonMobil, independent
refiners and marketers such as Murphy Oil, jobbers,
distributors, utility and transportation companies, and
independent retail fuel operators. In general, marketing
customers typically come from within a
100-mile
radius of our terminal operations. Our customers include, among
others, ExxonMobil, Murphy Oil, and Susser Petroleum. One
customer, Susser Petroleum, accounted for more than 16% of our
marketing segment net sales and the top ten customers accounted
for 59.5% of the marketing segment net sales in 2009. Pursuant
to an arms length services agreement, our marketing
segment also provides marketing and sales services to the
refining segment. In return for these services, the marketing
segment receives a service fee based on the number of gallons
sold from the refining segment plus a sharing of marketing
margin above predetermined thresholds. Net fees received from
the refining segment under this arrangement were
$11.0 million and $13.8 million in 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and were eliminated in consolidation.
Competition. Our company-owned refined product
terminals compete with other independent terminal operators as
well as integrated oil companies on the basis of terminal
location, price, versatility and services provided. The costs
associated with transporting products from a loading terminal to
end users limit the geographic size of the market that can be
served economically by any terminal. The two key markets in west
Texas that we serve from our company-owned facilities are
Abilene and San Angelo, Texas. We have direct competition
from an independent refinery that markets through another
terminal in the Abilene market. There are no competitive fuel
loading terminals within approximately 90 miles of our
San Angelo terminal.
Retail
Segment
As of December 31, 2009, we operated 442 retail fuel and
convenience stores, which are located in Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and
Virginia, primarily under the MAPCO
Express®,
MAPCO
Mart®,
Discount Food
Marttm,
Fast Food and
Fueltm,
East
Coast®
and Favorite
Markets®
brands. In July 2006, we purchased 43 stores from Fast
Petroleum, Inc. and affiliates that strengthened our presence in
key markets located in southeastern Tennessee and northern
Georgia and we also re-imaged all stores purchased from BP
Products North America, Inc. (BP) in December 2005.
In April 2007, we purchased 107 stores from Calfee Company of
Dalton, Inc. and affiliates. This purchase further solidified
our presence in the southeastern Tennessee and northern Georgia
markets. In 2007, we completed three raze and
rebuilds and retrofitted one existing store using our next
generation, MAPCO Mart concept. The MAPCO Mart store with
GrilleMarx®
is designed to
offer premium amenities and products, such as a proprietary
made-to-order
food program with bi-lingual touch-screen order machines,
seating, expanded coffee and hot drink bars, an expanded cold
and frozen drink area where customers can customize their drink
flavors, a walk-in beer cave and an expanded import and micro
brew beer section. Historically, the majority of our raze
and rebuilds and retrofits occurred at stores in our
Nashville market. However, two of the three raze and
rebuilds completed in 2007 were in Alabama using our MAPCO
Mart brand. In 2008, we continued the expansion of our MAPCO
Mart concept with one store built from the ground up, two
additional raze and rebuilds and 51
re-image/retrofit sites. One raze and rebuild in
2008 was introduced to our Memphis market and another was
introduced to our Chattanooga market. In 2009, we completed one
raze and rebuild in Tennessee and completed the
re-imaging/retrofiting of 22 of our stores. We plan to continue
our raze and rebuild program in these and other of
our markets and will utilize the upscale imagery of these next
generation stores to continue re-imaging existing locations in
2010.
We believe that we have established strong brand recognition and
market presence in the major retail markets in which we operate.
Approximately 75% of our stores are concentrated in Tennessee
and Alabama. In terms of number of retail fuel and convenience
stores, we rank in the top-five in the major markets of
Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis and northern Alabama.
10
Our stores are positioned in high traffic areas and we operate a
high concentration of sites in similar geographic regions to
promote operational efficiencies. We employ a localized
marketing strategy that focuses on the demographics surrounding
each store and customizing product mix and promotional
strategies to meet the needs of customers in those demographics.
Our business model also incorporates a strong focus on
controlling operating expenses and loss prevention, which
continues to be an important element in the successful
development of our retail segment.
Company-Operated Stores. Of our sites,
approximately 62% are open 24 hours per day and the
remaining sites are open at least 14 hours per day. Our
average store size is approximately 2,420 square feet with
approximately 71% of our stores being 2,000 or more square feet.
Our retail fuel and convenience stores typically offer tobacco
products and immediately consumable items such as non-alcoholic
beverages, beer and a large variety of snacks and prepackaged
items. A significant number of the sites also offer state
sanctioned lottery games, ATM services and money orders. Several
of our stores include well recognized national branded quick
service food chains such as
Subway®
and Quiznos. We also have an in-house, quick service food
offering under the
GrilleMarx®
brand at 12 stores. In 2006, we introduced our own
MAPCO®
private label products in the majority of our locations for soft
drink, water and automotive categories which provide points of
differentiation and enhanced margins. In 2007, we introduced
candy under our
MAPCO®
private label program. All but three of our locations offer both
retail fuel and convenience stores. The majority of our
locations have four to five multi-pump fuel dispensers with
credit card readers. Virtually all of our company-operated
locations have a canopy to protect self-service customers from
rain and to provide street appeal by creating a modern, well-lit
and safe environment. Effective January 1, 2008, we
initiated blending of ethanol in our finished gasoline products,
allowing customers access to
E-10
products.
Fuel Operations. For 2009, 2008 and 2007, our
net fuel sales from continuing operations were 72.9%, 79.5%, and
76.5%, respectively, of total net sales from the continuing
operations for our retail segment. The following table
highlights certain information regarding our continuing fuel
operations for these years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
2007(1)
|
|
Number of stores (end of period)
|
|
|
442
|
|
|
|
467
|
|
|
|
470
|
|
Average number of stores (during period)
|
|
|
459
|
|
|
|
467
|
|
|
|
443
|
|
Retail fuel sales (thousands of gallons)
|
|
|
434,159
|
|
|
|
435,665
|
|
|
|
442,393
|
|
Average retail gallons per average number of stores (thousands
of gallons)
|
|
|
946
|
|
|
|
933
|
|
|
|
999
|
|
Retail fuel margin (cents per gallon)
|
|
$
|
0.136
|
|
|
$
|
0.198
|
|
|
$
|
0.144
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All numbers in this table reflect only continuing operations. |
We currently operate a fleet of delivery trucks that deliver
approximately one-half of the fuel sold at our retail fuel and
convenience stores. We believe that the operation of a
proprietary truck fleet enables us to reduce fuel delivery
expenses while enhancing service to our locations.
We purchased approximately 21% of the fuel sold at our retail
fuel and convenience stores in 2009 from Valero Marketing and
Supply under a contract that extends through the second quarter
of 2010. The remainder of our unbranded fuel is purchased from a
variety of independent fuel distributors and other suppliers. We
purchase fuel for our branded locations under contracts with BP,
ExxonMobil, Shell, Conoco, Marathon and Chevron. The price of
fuel purchased is generally based on contracted differentials to
local and regional price benchmarks. The initial terms of our
supply agreements range from one year to 15 years and
generally contain minimum monthly or annual purchase
requirements. To date, we have met most of our purchase
commitments under these contracts. We recorded liabilities for
failure to purchase required contractual volume minimums of
$0.3 million and $0.2 million,
11
respectively, 2008 and 2007. We did not have a liability for
failure to purchase required contractual volume minimums as of
December 31, 2009.
Merchandise Operations. For 2009, 2008 and
2007, our merchandise sales were 27.1%, 20.5%, and 23.1%,
respectively, of total net sales for our retail segment. The
following table highlights certain information regarding our
continuing merchandise operations for these years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009(1)
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
2007(1)
|
|
Comparable store merchandise sales change (year over year)
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)%
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Merchandise margin
|
|
|
30.9
|
%
|
|
|
31.7
|
%
|
|
|
31.7
|
%
|
Merchandise profit as a percentage of total margin
|
|
|
66.0
|
%
|
|
|
57.8
|
%
|
|
|
65.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All numbers in this table reflect only continuing operations. |
We purchased approximately 59% of our general merchandise,
including most tobacco products and grocery items, for 2009 from
a single wholesale grocer, Core-Mark International, Inc.
(Core-Mark). We entered into a contract with
Core-Mark that expires at the end of 2010, but may be renewed at
our option through the end of 2013. Our other major suppliers
include
Coca-Cola®,
Pepsi-Cola®
and Frito
Lay®.
Technology and Store Automation. We continue
to invest in our technological infrastructure to enable us to
better address the expectations of our customers and improve our
operating efficiencies and inventory management. In 2008, we
completed the implementation of a project for scanning in
merchandise as it is received at our company-operated stores. In
2009, we began testing a perpetual item level inventory system.
In 2007, we selected
FuelQueststm
Fuel Management System to enhance our management of fuel
inventory and fuel purchasing. We implemented this software in
the fourth quarter of 2008 and are realizing many efficiencies
across the multiple processes of fuel purchase accounting.
Most of our stores are connected to a high speed data network
and provide near real-time information to our supply chain
management, inventory management and security systems. We
believe that our systems provide many of the most desirable
features commercially available today in the information
software market, while providing us more rapid access to data,
customized reports and greater ease of use. Our information
technology systems help us reduce cash and merchandise
shortages. Our information technology systems allow us to
improve our profitability and strengthen operating and financial
performance in multiple ways, including by:
|
|
|
|
|
pricing fuel at individual stores on a daily basis, taking into
account competitors prices, competitors historical
behavior, daily changes in cost and the impact of pricing on
in-store merchandise sales;
|
|
|
|
allowing us to determine on a daily basis negative sales trends;
for example, merchandise categories that are below budget or
below the prior periods results; and
|
|
|
|
integrating our security video with our point of sales
transaction log in a searchable database that allows us to
search for footage related to specific transactions enabling the
identification of potentially fraudulent transactions and
providing examples through which to train our employees.
|
Dealer-Operated Stores. Our retail segment
also includes a wholesale fuel distribution network that
supplies 55 dealer-operated retail locations. In 2009, our
dealer net sales represented approximately 4.6% of net sales for
our retail segment. Our business with dealers includes a variety
of contractual arrangements in which we pay a commission to the
dealer based on profits from the fuel sales, contractual
arrangements in which we supply fuel and invoice the dealer for
the cost of fuel plus an agreed upon margin and non-contractual
arrangements in which dealers order fuel from us at their
discretion.
Competition. The retail fuel and convenience
store business is highly competitive. We compete on a
store-by-store
basis with other independent convenience store chains,
independent owner-operators, major petroleum companies,
supermarkets, drug stores, discount stores, club stores, mass
merchants, fast food operations and other retail outlets. Major
competitive factors affecting us include location, ease of
access, pricing, timely deliveries, product and service
selections, customer service, fuel brands, store appearance,
cleanliness and safety.
12
We believe we are able to effectively compete in the markets in
which we operate because our market concentration in most of our
markets allows us to gain better vendor support. Our retail
segment strategy continues to center on operating a high
concentration of sites in a similar geographic region to promote
operational efficiencies. In addition, we use proprietary
information technology that allows us to effectively manage our
fuel sales and margin.
Minority
Investment
We also own a 34.6% minority interest in Lion Oil Company
(Lion Oil), a privately held Arkansas corporation,
which owns and operates a moderate conversion, independent
refinery with a design crude distillation capacity of
75,000 barrels per day, three crude oil pipelines and
refined product terminals in Memphis and Nashville, Tennessee.
The refinery is located in El Dorado, Arkansas. The El Dorado
refinery has the ability to produce and sell all consumer grades
of gasoline, distillates, propanes, solvents, high sulfur
diesel, low sulfur diesel, dyed low sulfur diesel, asphalt and
protective coatings, specialty asphalt products and liquefied
petroleum gas. Effective October 1, 2008, we are accounting
for this interest using the cost method. See Note 7 of the
Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for further discussion.
Governmental
Regulation and Environmental Matters
We are subject to various federal, state and local environmental
laws. These laws raise potential exposure to future claims and
lawsuits involving environmental matters which could include
soil and water contamination, air pollution, personal injury and
property damage allegedly caused by substances which we
manufactured, handled, used, released or disposed, or that
relate to pre-existing conditions for which we have assumed
responsibility. While it is often difficult to quantify future
environmental-related expenditures, we anticipate that
continuing capital investments will be required for the
foreseeable future to comply with existing regulations.
We have recorded a liability of approximately $7.5 million
as of December 31, 2009 primarily related to the probable
estimated costs of remediating or otherwise addressing certain
environmental issues of a non-capital nature at the Tyler
refinery. This liability includes estimated costs for on-going
investigation and remediation efforts for known contamination of
soil and groundwater which were already being performed by the
former owner, as well as estimated costs for additional issues
which have been identified subsequent to the purchase.
Approximately $2.2 million of the liability is expected to
be expended over the next 12 months with the remaining
balance of approximately $5.3 million expendable by 2022.
In late 2004, the prior Tyler refinery owner began discussions
with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 6 and the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) regarding certain Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements at the refinery. Under the
agreement by which we purchased the Tyler refinery, we agreed to
be responsible for all cost of compliance under the settlement.
The prior refinery owner expected to settle the matter with the
EPA and the DOJ by the end of 2005; however, the negotiations
were not finalized until July 2009. A consent decree was entered
by the Court and became effective on September 23, 2009.
The consent decree does not allege any violations by us
subsequent to the purchase of the refinery and the prior owner
was responsible for payment of the assessed penalty. The capital
projects required by the consent decree have either been
completed (such as a new electrical substation to increase
operational reliability and additional sulfur removal capacity
to address upsets) or will not have a material adverse effect
upon our future financial results. In addition, the consent
decree requires certain on-going operational changes. We believe
any costs resulting from these changes will not have a material
adverse effect upon our business, financial condition or
operations.
In October 2007, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) approved an Agreed Order that resolved
alleged violations of certain air rules that had continued after
the Tyler refinery was acquired. The Agreed Order required the
refinery to pay a penalty and fund a Supplemental Environmental
Project for which we had previously reserved adequate amounts.
In addition, the refinery was required to implement certain
corrective measures, which we completed as specified in Agreed
Order Docket
No. 2006-1433-AIR-E,
with one exception that will be completed in early 2010. In a
letter dated July 31, 2009, the TCEQ confirmed that we are
no longer required
13
to install a continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS) on the wastewater flare at the Tyler refinery
under the Agreed Order due to an amendment to the EPA
regulation, on which the requirement was based.
Contemporaneous with the Tyler refinery purchase, we became a
party to a Waiver and Compliance Plan with the EPA that extended
the implementation deadline for low sulfur gasoline from
January 1, 2006 to May 2008, based on the capital
investment option we chose. In return for the extension, we
agreed to produce 95% of the diesel fuel at the refinery with a
sulfur content of 15 ppm or less by June 1, 2006
through the remainder of the term of the Waiver. During the
first quarter of 2008, it became apparent to us that the
construction of our gasoline hydrotreater would not be completed
by the original deadline of May 31, 2008 due to the
continuing shortage of skilled labor and ongoing delays in the
receipt of equipment. We began discussions with EPA regarding
this potential delay in the completion of the gasoline
hydrotreater and EPA agreed to extend certain provisions of the
Waiver that allowed us to exceed the 80 ppm per-gallon
sulfur maximum for up to two months past the original
May 31, 2008 compliance date. Construction and
commissioning of the gasoline hydrotreater was completed in June
2008 and all gasoline has met low sulfur specifications since
the end of June. All requirements of the Waiver and Compliance
Plan have been completed and EPA terminated the Waiver in early
June, 2009.
The EPA has issued final rules for gasoline formulation that
will require the reduction of average benzene content by
January 1, 2011 and the reduction of maximum benzene
content by July 1, 2012. It may be necessary for us to
purchase credits to comply with these content requirements and
there can be no assurance that such credits will be available or
that we will be able to purchase available credits at reasonable
prices.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires increasing amounts of
renewable fuel to be incorporated into the gasoline pool through
2012. Under final rules implementing this Act (the Renewable
Fuel Standard), the Tyler refinery is classified as a small
refinery exempt from renewable fuel standards through 2010. The
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
increased the amounts of renewable fuel required by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. A rule proposed by EPA to implement EISA
(referred to as the Renewable Fuel Standard
2) would require us to displace increasing amounts of
refined products with biofuels beginning with approximately 7.5%
in 2011 and escalating to approximately 18% in 2022. The
proposed rule could cause decreased crude runs and materially
affect profitability unless fuel demand rises at a comparable
rate or other outlets are found for the displaced products.
Although temporarily exempt from this rule, the Tyler refinery
began supplying an
E-10
gasoline-ethanol blend in January 2008.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as
Superfund, imposes liability, without regard to
fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain
classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the
release of a hazardous substance into the
environment. These persons include the owner or operator of the
disposal site or sites where the release occurred and companies
that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous
substances. Under CERCLA, such persons may be subject to joint
and several liabilities for the costs of cleaning up the
hazardous substances that have been released into the
environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs
of certain health studies. It is not uncommon for neighboring
landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal
injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous
substances or other pollutants released into the environment.
Analogous state laws impose similar responsibilities and
liabilities on responsible parties. In the course of the
refinerys ordinary operations, waste is generated, some of
which falls within the statutory definition of a hazardous
substance and some of which may have been disposed of at
sites that may require cleanup under Superfund. At this time, we
have not been named as a potentially responsible party at any
Superfund sites and under the terms of the refinery purchase
agreement, we did not assume any liability for wastes disposed
of at third party owned treatment, storage or disposal sites
prior to our ownership.
In June 2007, OSHA announced that, under a National Emphasis
Program (NEP) addressing workplace hazards at
petroleum refineries, it would conduct inspections of process
safety management programs at approximately 80 refineries
nationwide. OSHA conducted an NEP inspection at our Tyler, Texas
refinery between February and August of 2008 and issued
citations assessing an aggregate penalty of less than
$0.1 million. We are contesting the NEP citations. Between
November 2008 and May 2009, OSHA conducted another inspection at
our Tyler refinery as a result of the explosion and fire that
occurred there and issued citations assessing an aggregate
penalty of approximately $0.2 million. We are also
contesting these citations and do not believe that the outcome
of
14
any pending OSHA citations (whether alone or in the aggregate)
will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations.
In addition to OSHA, the Chemical Safety Board (CSB)
also requested information pertaining to the November 2008
incident and the EPA has requested information pertaining to our
compliance with the chemical accident prevention standards of
the Clean Air Act. We cannot assure you as to the outcome of
these investigations, including possible civil penalties or
other enforcement actions.
Employees
As of December 31, 2009, we had 3,578 employees, of
which 265 were employed in our refining segment, 16 were
employed in our marketing segment, 3,235 were employed either
full or part-time in our retail segment and 62 were employed by
the parent company. As of December 31, 2009, 155 operations
and maintenance hourly employees and 39 truck drivers at the
refinery were represented by the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union and its Local 202 and were
covered by collective bargaining agreements which run through
January 31, 2012. None of our employees in our marketing or
retail segments or in our corporate office are represented by a
union. We consider our relations with our employees to be
satisfactory.
Trade
Names, Service Marks and Trademarks
We regard our intellectual property as being an important factor
in the marketing of goods and services in our retail segment. We
own, have registered or applied for registration of a variety of
trade names, service marks and trademarks for use in our
business. We own the following trademark registrations issued by
the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
MAPCO®,
MAPCO
MART®,
MAPCO EXPRESS &
Design®,
EAST
COAST®,
GRILLE
MARX®
CAFÉ EXPRESS FINEST COFFEE IN TOWN MAPCO &
Design®,
GUARANTEED RIGHT! MAPCO EXPRESS &
Design®,
FAST FOOD AND
FUELtm,
FLEET
ADVANTAGE®
and DELTA
EXPRESS®.
While we do not already have and have not applied for a
federally registered trademark for DISCOUNT FOOD
MARTtm,
we do claim common law trademark rights in this name. Our right
to use the MAPCO name is limited to the retail fuel
and convenience store industry. We are not otherwise aware of
any facts which would negatively impact our continuing use of
any of our trade names, service marks or trademarks.
Available
Information
Our internet website address is
http://www.DelekUS.com.
Information contained on our website is not part of this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
Our annual reports on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q
and current reports on
Form 8-K
filed with (or furnished to) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) are available on our internet
website (in the Investor Relations section), free of
charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file or
furnish such material to the SEC. We also post our corporate
governance guidelines, code of business conduct and ethics and
the charters of our board of directors committees in the
same website location. Our governance documents are available in
print to any stockholder that makes a written request to
Secretary, Delek US Holdings, Inc., 7102 Commerce Way,
Brentwood, TN 37027. In accordance with Section 303A.12(a)
of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, we
submitted our chief executive officers certification to
the New York Stock Exchange in 2008. Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2
of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contain certifications of our chief executive officer and chief
financial officer under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
15
We are subject to numerous known and unknown risks, many of
which are presented below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Any of the risk factors described below or additional risks and
uncertainties not presently known to us, or that we currently
deem immaterial, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Risks
Relating to Our Industry
Our
refining margins have been volatile and are likely to remain
volatile, which may have a material adverse effect on our
earnings and cash flows.
Our earnings, cash flow and profitability from our refining
operations are substantially determined by the difference
between the price of refined products and the price of crude
oil, which is referred to as the refined product
margin. Refining margins historically have been volatile
and are likely to continue to be volatile, as a result of
numerous factors beyond our control, including volatility in the
prices of crude oil and other feedstocks purchased by our Tyler
refinery, volatility in the costs of natural gas and electricity
used by our Tyler refinery, and volatility in the prices of
gasoline and other refined petroleum products sold by our Tyler
refinery. For example, during the year ended December 31,
2009, the price for West Texas Intermediate (WTI)
crude oil fluctuated between $33.98 and $81.37 per barrel, while
the price for U.S. Gulf Coast unleaded gasoline fluctuated
between $1.04 and $2.05 per gallon. Such volatility is affected
by, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in global and local economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
domestic and foreign supply and demand for crude oil and refined
products;
|
|
|
|
investor speculation in commodities;
|
|
|
|
worldwide political conditions, particularly in significant oil
producing regions such as the Middle East, Western Coastal
Africa, the former Soviet Union, and South America;
|
|
|
|
the level of foreign and domestic production of crude oil and
refined petroleum products;
|
|
|
|
the ability of the members of the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries to maintain oil price and production
controls;
|
|
|
|
pricing and other actions taken by competitors that impact the
market;
|
|
|
|
the level of crude oil, other feedstocks and refined petroleum
products imported into the United States;
|
|
|
|
utilization rates of refineries worldwide;
|
|
|
|
development and marketing of alternative and competing fuels
such as ethanol;
|
|
|
|
changes in fuel specifications required by environmental and
other laws, particularly with respect to oxygenates and sulfur
content;
|
|
|
|
events that cause disruptions in our distribution channels;
|
|
|
|
local factors, including market conditions, adverse weather
conditions and the level of operations of other refineries and
pipelines in our markets;
|
|
|
|
accidents, interruptions in transportation, inclement weather or
other events that can cause unscheduled shutdowns or otherwise
adversely affect our refinery, or the supply and delivery of
crude oil from third parties; and
|
|
|
|
U.S. government regulations.
|
The crude oil we purchase and the refined products we sell are
commodities whose prices are determined by market forces beyond
our control. While an increase or decrease in the price of crude
oil will often result in a corresponding increase or decrease in
the wholesale price of refined products, a change in the price
of one commodity does not always result in a corresponding
change in the other. A substantial or prolonged increase in
16
crude oil prices without a corresponding increase in refined
product prices or a substantial or prolonged decrease in refined
product prices without a corresponding decrease in crude oil
prices could have a significant negative effect on our results
of operations and cash flows. This is especially true for
non-transportation refined products such as asphalt, butane,
coke, propane and slurry whose prices are less likely to
correlate to fluctuations in the price of crude oil.
In addition, our Tyler refinery has historically processed
primarily light sweet crude oils as opposed to light to medium
sour crude oils. Due to increasing demand for lower sulfur
fuels, light sweet crude oils have historically been more costly
than heavy sour crude oils, and an increase in the cost of light
sweet crude oils could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations. The
capital improvements completed at the Tyler refinery in 2009
allow it to process more sour crude oils. As the Tyler refinery
begins to process more sour crude oils, a substantial or
prolonged decrease in the differential between the price of
sweet and sour crude oils could negatively impact our earnings
and cash flows.
Finally, higher refined product prices often result in negative
consequences for our retail operations such as higher credit
card expenses (because credit card fees are typically calculated
as a percentage of the transaction amount rather than a
percentage of gallons sold), lower retail fuel gross margin per
gallon, reduced consumer demand and fewer retail gallons sold.
We are
subject to loss of market share or pressure to reduce prices in
order to compete effectively with a changing group of
competitors in a fragmented retail industry.
The markets in which we operate our retail fuel and convenience
stores are highly competitive and characterized by ease of entry
and constant change in the number and type of retailers offering
the products and services found in our stores. We compete with
other convenience store chains, gas stations, supermarkets, drug
stores, discount stores, club stores, mass merchants, fast food
operations and other retail outlets. In some of our markets, our
competitors have been in existence longer and have greater
financial, marketing and other resources than we do. As a
result, our competitors may be able to respond better to changes
in the economy and new opportunities within the industry.
In recent years, several non-traditional retailers, such as
supermarkets, club stores and mass merchants, have affected the
convenience store industry by entering the retail fuel business.
These non-traditional gasoline retailers have obtained a
significant share of the motor fuels market and their market
share is expected to grow. Because of their diversity,
integration of operations, experienced management and greater
resources, these companies may be better able to withstand
volatile market conditions or levels of low or no profitability
in the retail segment. In addition, these retailers may use
promotional pricing or discounts, both at the pump and in the
store, to encourage in-store merchandise sales. These activities
by our competitors could pressure us to offer similar discounts,
adversely affecting our profit margins. Additionally, the loss
of market share by our retail fuel and convenience stores to
these and other retailers relating to either gasoline or
merchandise could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Independent owner-operators can generally operate stores with
lower overhead costs than ours. Should significant numbers of
independent owner-operators enter our market areas, retail
prices in some of our categories may be negatively affected, as
a result of which our profit margins may decline at affected
stores.
Our stores compete, in large part, based on their ability to
offer convenience to customers. Consequently, changes in traffic
patterns and the type, number and location of competing stores
could result in the loss of customers and reduced sales and
profitability at affected stores. Other major competitive
factors include ease of access, pricing, timely deliveries,
product and service selections, customer service, fuel brands,
store appearance, cleanliness and safety.
17
We
operate in a highly regulated industry and increased costs of
compliance with, or liability for violation of, existing or
future laws, regulations and other requirements could
significantly increase our costs of doing business, thereby
adversely affecting our profitability.
Our industry is subject to extensive laws, regulations and other
requirements including, but not limited to, those relating to
the environment, employment, labor, immigration, minimum wages
and overtime pay, health benefits, working conditions, public
accessibility, the sale of alcohol and tobacco and other
requirements. A violation of any of these requirements could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
Under various federal, state and local environmental
requirements, as the owner or operator of our locations, we may
be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of
contamination at our existing or former locations, whether we
knew of, or were responsible for, the presence of such
contamination. We have incurred such liability in the past and
several of our current and former locations are the subject of
ongoing remediation projects. The failure to timely report and
properly remediate contamination may subject us to liability to
third parties and may adversely affect our ability to sell or
rent our property or to borrow money using our property as
collateral. Additionally, persons who arrange for the disposal
or treatment of hazardous substances also may be liable for the
costs of removal or remediation of these substances at sites
where they are located, regardless of whether the site is owned
or operated by that person. We typically arrange for the
treatment or disposal of hazardous substances in our refining
operations. We do not typically do so in our retail operations,
but we may nonetheless be deemed to have arranged for the
disposal or treatment of hazardous substances. Therefore, we may
be liable for removal or remediation costs, as well as other
related costs, including fines, penalties and damages resulting
from injuries to persons, property and natural resources. In the
future, we may incur substantial expenditures for investigation
or remediation of contamination that has not been discovered at
our current or former locations or locations that we may acquire.
In addition, new legal requirements, new interpretations of
existing legal requirements, increased legislative activity and
governmental enforcement and other developments could require us
to make additional unforeseen expenditures. Companies in the
petroleum industry, such as us, are often the target of activist
and regulatory activity regarding pricing, safety, environmental
compliance and other business practices which could result in
price controls, fines, increased taxes or other actions
affecting the conduct of our business. For example, consumer
activists are lobbying various authorities to enact laws and
regulations mandating the use of temperature compensation
devices for fuel dispensed at our retail stores. In addition,
various legislative and regulatory measures to address climate
change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (including
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides) are in various
phases of discussion or implementation. These include proposed
federal regulation and state actions to develop statewide,
regional or nationwide programs designed to control and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2009, the U.S. House of
Representatives approved adoption of the American Clean
Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the
Waxman-Markey
cap-and-trade
legislation or ACESA. ACESA would establish an
economy-wide cap on emissions of GHGs in the United States and
impose increasing costs on the combustion of carbon-based fuels
such as oil and refined petroleum products. The U.S. Senate
has begun work on its own legislation for controlling and
reducing emissions of GHGs in the United States and President
Obama has indicated that he supports the adoption of legislation
to control and reduce emissions of GHGs through a
cap-and-trade
system. Although it is not possible to predict the requirements
of any
cap-and-trade
legislation that may be enacted, any laws or regulations that
may be adopted to restrict or reduce emissions of GHGs would
likely require us to incur increased operating costs. If we are
unable to sell our refined products at a price that reflects
such increased costs, there could be a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In addition, any increase in prices of refined products
resulting from such increased costs could have an adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Also, beginning with the 2010 calendar year, EPA rules require
us to report GHG emissions from our refinery operations and
consumer use of our products on an annual basis. While the cost
of compliance with the rule is not material and the rules do not
impose any limits or controls on GHG emissions, data gathered
under the rule may be used in the future to support additional
regulation of GHGs. GHG regulation could also impact the
consumption of refined products, thereby affecting our refinery
operations. Finally, the EPA has issued final rules for gasoline
formulation that require the reduction of average benzene
content by January 1, 2011. It may be necessary for us to
purchase credits to comply with these content requirements and
there can be no assurance that such credits will be
18
available or that we will be able to purchase available credits
at reasonable prices. Compliance with any future legislation or
regulation of temperature compensation, greenhouse gas emissions
or benzene content may result in increased capital and operating
costs and may have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations and financial condition.
Environmental regulation is becoming more stringent and new
environmental laws and regulations are continuously being
enacted or proposed. While it is impractical to predict the
impact that potential regulatory and activist activity may have,
such future activity may result in increased costs to operate
and maintain our facilities, as well as increased capital
outlays to improve our facilities. Such future activity could
also adversely affect our ability to expand production, result
in damaging publicity about us, or reduce demand for our
products. Our need to incur costs associated with complying with
any resulting new legal or regulatory requirements that are
substantial and not adequately provided for, could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
We
operate an independent refinery in Tyler, Texas which may not be
able to withstand volatile market conditions, compete on the
basis of price or obtain sufficient quantities of crude oil in
times of shortage to the same extent as integrated,
multinational oil companies.
We compete with a broad range of companies in our refining and
petroleum product marketing operations. Many of these
competitors are integrated, multinational oil companies that are
substantially larger than we are. Because of their diversity,
integration of operations, larger capitalization, larger and
more complex refineries and greater resources, these companies
may be better able to withstand volatile market conditions
relating to crude oil and refined product pricing, to compete on
the basis of price and to obtain crude oil in times of shortage.
We do not engage in the petroleum exploration and production
business and therefore do not produce any of our own crude oil
feedstocks. Certain of our competitors, however, obtain a
portion of their feedstocks from company-owned production.
Competitors that have their own crude production are at times
able to offset losses from refining operations with profits from
producing operations and may be better positioned to withstand
periods of depressed refining margins or feedstock shortages. In
addition, we compete with other industries, such as wind, solar
and hydropower that provide alternative means to satisfy the
energy and fuel requirements of our industrial, commercial and
individual customers. If we are unable to compete effectively
with these competitors, both within and outside our industry,
there could be a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
If the
market value of our inventory declines to an amount less than
our cost basis, we would record a write-down of inventory and a
non-cash charge to cost of sales, which may affect our
earnings.
The nature of our business requires us to maintain substantial
quantities of crude oil, refined petroleum product and
blendstock inventories. Because crude oil and refined petroleum
products are commodities, we have no control over the changing
market value of these inventories. Because inventory is valued
at the lower of cost or market value, we would record a
write-down of inventory and a non-cash charge to cost of sales
if the market value of our inventory were to decline to an
amount below our cost.
A
terrorist attack on our assets, or threats of war or actual war,
may hinder or prevent us from conducting our
business.
Terrorist attacks in the United States and the wars with Iraq
and Afganistan, as well as events occurring in response or
similar to or in connection with them, may harm our business.
Energy-related assets (which could include refineries, pipelines
and terminals such as ours) may be at greater risk of future
terrorist attacks than other possible targets in the United
States. In addition, the State of Israel, where our majority
stockholder, Delek Group Ltd. (Delek Group), is
based, has suffered armed conflicts and political instability in
recent years. We may be more susceptible to terrorist attack as
a result of our connection to an Israeli owner. On the date of
this report, three of our directors reside in Israel.
A direct attack on our assets or the assets of others used by us
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations. In addition, any terrorist
attack could have an adverse impact
19
on energy prices, including prices for our crude oil, other
feedstocks and refined petroleum products, and an adverse impact
on the margins from our refining and petroleum product marketing
operations. Disruption or significant increases in energy prices
could also result in government-imposed price controls.
Increased
consumption of renewable fuels could lead to a decrease in fuel
prices and/or a reduction in demand for refined
fuels.
Regulatory initiatives have caused an increase in the
consumption of renewable fuels such as ethanol. In the future,
renewable fuels may continue to be blended with, or may replace,
refined fuels. Such increased use of renewable fuels may result
in an increase in fuel supply and corresponding decrease in fuel
prices. Increased use of renewable fuels may also result in a
decrease in demand for refined fuels. A significant decrease in
fuel prices or refined fuel demand could have an adverse impact
on our financial results. For example, the Energy Policy Act of
2005 requires increasing amounts of renewable fuel to be
incorporated into the gasoline pool through 2012. The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) increases the
amounts of renewable fuel required by the Energy Policy Act of
2005. A rule proposed by the EPA would require us to displace
increasing amounts of refined products with biofuels, beginning
with approximately 7.5% in 2011 and escalating to 15% or more in
2022, depending on demand for motor fuels. The proposed rule
could cause decreased crude runs and materially affect our
profitability unless fuel demand rises at a comparable rate or
other outlets are found for the displaced products. Although the
Tyler refinery is exempt from renewable fuel standards through
2010, it began supplying an
E-10
gasoline-ethanol blend in January 2008.
Risks
Relating to Our Business
We are
particularly vulnerable to disruptions to our refining
operations, because our refining operations are concentrated in
one facility.
Because all of our refining operations are concentrated in the
Tyler refinery, significant disruptions at the Tyler facility
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations. Refining segment
contribution margin comprised approximately 57.6%, 42.9% and
62.2% of our consolidated contribution margin for the 2009, 2008
and 2007 fiscal years, respectively. The Tyler refinery consists
of many processing units, a number of which have been in
operation for many years. We expect to perform a maintenance
turnaround of each processing unit at the Tyler refinery every
three to five years. Depending on which units are affected, all
or a portion of the refinerys production will be disrupted
during a turnaround. One or more of the units may require
additional unscheduled down time for unanticipated maintenance
or repairs that are more frequent than our scheduled turnaround.
Due to an explosion and fire at our Tyler refinery on
November 20, 2008, operations at the refinery were
suspended through May 2009. Other concerns discussed elsewhere
in these risk factors, such as natural disasters, severe weather
conditions, workplace or environmental accidents, interruptions
of supply, work stoppages, losses of permits or authorizations
or acts of terrorism, could also disrupt production at the
refinery. Disruptions to our refining operations could reduce
our revenues during the period of time that our units are not
operating.
General
economic conditions and the current financial crisis may
adversely affect our business, operating results and financial
condition.
The current domestic economy and economic slowdown may have
serious negative consequences for our business and operating
results. Our performance is subject to domestic economic
conditions and their impact on levels of consumer spending. Some
of the factors affecting consumer spending include general
economic conditions, unemployment, consumer debt, reductions in
net worth based on recent declines in equity markets and
residential real estate values, adverse developments in mortgage
markets, taxation, energy prices, interest rates, consumer
confidence and other macroeconomic factors. During a period of
economic weakness or uncertainty, current or potential customers
may travel less, reduce or defer purchases, go out of business
or have insufficient funds to buy or pay for our products and
services.
Moreover, the current crisis has had a material adverse impact
on a number of financial institutions and has limited access for
many companies to capital and credit. This could, among other
things, make it more difficult for
20
us to obtain (or increase our cost of obtaining) capital and
financing for our operations. Our access to additional capital
may not be available on terms acceptable to us or at all.
The
costs, scope, timelines and benefits of our refining projects
may deviate significantly from our original plans and
estimates.
We may experience unanticipated increases in the cost, scope and
completion time for our improvement, maintenance and repair
projects at our Tyler refinery. Our refinery projects are
generally initiated to increase the yields of higher-value
products, increase our ability to process lower cost crude oils,
increase production capacity, meet new regulatory requirements
or maintain the operations of our existing assets. Equipment
that we require to complete these projects may be unavailable to
us at expected costs or within expected time periods.
Additionally, employee or contractor labor expense may exceed
our expectations. Due to these or other factors beyond our
control, we may be unable to complete these projects within
anticipated cost parameters and timelines. In addition, the
benefits we realize from completed projects may take longer to
achieve
and/or be
less than we anticipated. Our inability to complete
and/or
realize the benefits of our refinery projects in a timely manner
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
Due to
the concentration of our stores in the southeastern United
States, an economic downturn in that region could cause our
sales and the value of our assets to decline.
Substantially all of our retail fuel and convenience stores are
located in the southeastern United States, primarily in the
states of Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. As a result, our
results of operations are subject to general economic conditions
in that region. An economic downturn in the Southeast could
cause our sales and the value of our assets to decline and have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
The
dangers inherent in our operations could cause disruptions and
expose us to potentially significant costs and
liabilities.
Our refining operations are subject to significant hazards and
risks inherent in refining operations and in transporting and
storing crude oil, intermediate and refined petroleum products.
These hazards and risks include, but are not limited to, natural
or weather-related disasters, fires, explosions, pipeline
ruptures and spills, third party interference and mechanical
failure of equipment at our or third-party facilities, and other
events beyond our control. The occurrence of any of these events
could result in production and distribution difficulties and
disruptions, environmental pollution, personal injury or death
and other damage to our properties and the properties of others.
Because of these inherent dangers, our refining operations are
subject to various laws and regulations relating to occupational
health and safety. Continued efforts to comply with applicable
health and safety laws and regulations, or a finding of
non-compliance with current regulations, could result in
additional capital expenditures or operating expenses, as well
as fines and penalties.
In addition, the Tyler refinery is located in a populated area.
Any release of hazardous material or catastrophic event could
affect our employees and contractors at the refinery as well as
persons outside the refinery grounds. In the event that personal
injuries or deaths result from such events, we would likely
incur substantial legal costs and liabilities. The extent of
these costs and liabilities could exceed the limits of our
available insurance. As a result, any such event could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations
and cash flows.
For example, the incident at our Tyler refinery on
November 20, 2008 resulted in two employee deaths and a
suspension of production that continued until May 2009. We are a
party to lawsuits, claims and government investigations as a
result of this incident. Amounts we may pay in connection with
these claims and investigations may not be covered by insurance.
We also operate approximately forty fuel delivery trucks. These
trucks regularly transport highly combustible motor fuels on
public roads. A motor vehicle accident involving one of our
trucks could result in significant personal injuries
and/or
property damage.
21
From
time to time, our cash needs may exceed our internally generated
cash flow, and our business could be materially and adversely
affected if we are not able to obtain the necessary funds from
financing activities.
We have significant short-term cash needs to satisfy working
capital requirements such as crude oil purchases which fluctuate
with the pricing and sourcing of crude oil. We rely in part on
our ability to borrow to purchase crude oil for our Tyler
refinery. If the price of crude oil increases significantly, we
may not have sufficient borrowing capacity, and may not be able
to sufficiently increase borrowing capacity, under our existing
credit facilities to purchase enough crude oil to operate the
Tyler refinery at full capacity. Our failure to operate the
Tyler refinery at full capacity could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations. We also have significant long-term needs for cash,
including any expansion and upgrade plans, as well as for
regulatory compliance.
Depending on the conditions in credit markets, it may become
more difficult to obtain cash from third party sources. If we
cannot generate cash flow or otherwise secure sufficient
liquidity to support our short-term and long-term capital
requirements, we may not be able to comply with regulatory
deadlines or pursue our business strategies, in which case our
operations may not perform as well as we currently expect.
Our
debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional
financing and in pursuing other business
opportunities.
We have a significant amount of debt. As of December 31,
2009, we had total debt of $317.1 million, including
current maturities of $82.7 million. In addition to our
outstanding debt, as of December 31, 2009, our letters of
credit issued under our various credit facilities were
$123.9 million. Our borrowing availability under our
various credit facilities as of December 31, 2009 was
$132.5 million.
Our significant level of debt could have important consequences
for us. For example, it could:
|
|
|
|
|
increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and
industry conditions;
|
|
|
|
require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow
from operations to service our debt and lease obligations,
thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund
working capital, capital expenditures and other general
corporate purposes;
|
|
|
|
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes
in our business and the industry in which we operate;
|
|
|
|
place us at a disadvantage relative to our competitors that have
less indebtedness or better access to capital by, for example,
limiting our ability to enter into new markets, renovate our
stores or pursue acquisitions or other business opportunities;
|
|
|
|
limit our ability to borrow additional funds in the
future; and
|
|
|
|
increase the interest cost of our borrowed funds.
|
In addition, a substantial portion of our debt has a variable
rate of interest, which increases our exposure to interest rate
fluctuations, to the extent we elect not to hedge such exposures.
If we are unable to service our debt (principal and interest)
and lease obligations, we could be forced to restructure or
refinance our obligations, seek additional equity financing or
sell assets, which we may not be able to do on satisfactory
terms or at all. Our default on any of those obligations could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations. In addition, if new debt is
added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now
face could intensify.
22
Our
debt agreements contain operating and financial restrictions
that might constrain our business and financing
activities.
The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our
credit facilities and any future financing agreements could
adversely affect our ability to finance future operations or
capital needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business
activities. For example, to varying degrees our credit
facilities restrict our ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
declare dividends and redeem or repurchase capital stock;
|
|
|
|
prepay, redeem or repurchase debt;
|
|
|
|
make loans and investments, issue guaranties and pledge assets;
|
|
|
|
incur additional indebtedness or amend our debt and other
material agreements;
|
|
|
|
make capital expenditures;
|
|
|
|
engage in mergers, acquisitions and asset sales; and
|
|
|
|
enter into some intercompany arrangements and make some
intercompany payments, which in some instances could restrict
our ability to use the assets, cash flow or earnings of one
segment to support the other segment.
|
Other restrictive covenants require that we meet fixed charge
coverage, interest charge coverage and leverage tests as
described in the credit facility agreements. In addition, the
covenant requirements of our various credit agreements require
us to make many subjective determinations pertaining to our
compliance thereto and exercise good faith judgment in
determining our compliance. Our ability to comply with the
covenants and restrictions contained in our debt instruments may
be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing
economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other
economic conditions deteriorate, our ability to comply with
these covenants and restrictions may be impaired. If we breach
any of the restrictions or covenants in our debt agreements, a
significant portion of our indebtedness may become immediately
due and payable, and our lenders commitments to make
further loans to us may terminate. We might not have, or be able
to obtain, sufficient funds to make these immediate payments. In
addition, our obligations under our credit facilities are
secured by substantially all of our assets. If we are unable to
timely repay our indebtedness under our credit facilities, the
lenders could seek to foreclose on the assets or we may be
required to contribute additional capital to our subsidiaries.
Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Changes
in our credit profile could affect our relationships with our
suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity and our ability to operate the Tyler refinery at full
capacity.
Changes in our credit profile could affect the way crude oil
suppliers view our ability to make payments. As a result,
suppliers could shorten the payment terms of their invoices with
us or require us to provide significant collateral to them that
we do not currently provide. Due to the large dollar amounts and
volume of our crude oil and other feedstock purchases, any
imposition by our suppliers of more burdensome payment terms on
us may have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and our
ability to make payments to our suppliers. This in turn could
cause us to be unable to operate the Tyler refinery at full
capacity. A failure to operate the Tyler refinery at full
capacity could adversely affect our profitability and cash flows.
Interruptions
in the supply and delivery of crude oil may affect our refining
interests and limitations in systems for the delivery of crude
oil may inhibit the growth of our refining
interests.
Our Tyler refinery processes primarily light sweet crude oils,
which are less readily available to us than heavier, more sour
crude oils, and receives substantially all of its crude oil from
third parties. We could experience an interruption or reduction
of supply and delivery, or an increased cost of receiving crude
oil, if the ability of these third parties to transport crude
oil is disrupted because of accidents, governmental regulation,
terrorism, other third-party action or other events beyond our
control. The unavailability for our use for a prolonged period
of time of any system of delivery of crude oil could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations.
23
Moreover, limitations in delivery capacity may not allow our
refining interests to draw sufficient crude oil to support
increases in refining output. In order to materially increase
refining output, existing crude delivery systems may require
upgrades or supplementation, which may require substantial
additional capital expenditures.
Our
insurance policies do not cover all losses, costs or liabilities
that we may experience, and insurance companies that currently
insure companies in the energy industry may cease to do so or
substantially increase premiums.
While we carry property, business interruption, pollution and
casualty insurance, we do not maintain insurance coverage
against all potential losses. We could suffer losses for
uninsurable or uninsured risks or in amounts in excess of
existing insurance coverage. In addition, because our business
interruption policy does not cover losses during the first
45 days of the interruption, a significant part or all of a
business interruption loss could be uninsured. The occurrence of
an event that is not fully covered by insurance could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
The energy industry is highly capital intensive, and the entire
or partial loss of individual facilities or multiple facilities
can result in significant costs to both industry companies, such
as us, and their insurance carriers. In recent years, several
large energy industry claims have resulted in significant
increases in the level of premium costs and deductible periods
for participants in the energy industry. For example, hurricanes
in recent years have caused significant damage to several
petroleum refineries along the Gulf Coast, in addition to
numerous oil and gas production facilities and pipelines in that
region. As a result of large energy industry claims, insurance
companies that have historically participated in underwriting
energy-related facilities may discontinue that practice, may
reduce the insurance capacity they are willing to offer or
demand significantly higher premiums or deductible periods to
cover these facilities. If significant changes in the number or
financial solvency of insurance underwriters for the energy
industry occur, or if other adverse conditions over which we
have no control prevail in the insurance market, we may be
unable to obtain and maintain adequate insurance at reasonable
cost.
In addition, we cannot assure you that our insurers will renew
our insurance coverage on acceptable terms, if at all, or that
we will be able to arrange for adequate alternative coverage in
the event of non-renewal. The unavailability of full insurance
coverage to cover events in which we suffer significant losses
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
We may
not be able to successfully execute our strategy of growth
through acquisitions.
A significant part of our growth strategy is to acquire assets
such as refineries, pipelines, terminals, and retail fuel and
convenience stores that complement our existing sites or broaden
our geographic presence. If attractive opportunities arise, we
may also acquire assets in new lines of business that are
complementary to our existing businesses. Through eight major
transactions spanning from our inception in 2001 through April
2007, we acquired our refinery and refined products terminals in
Tyler, acquired approximately 500 retail fuel and convenience
stores and developed our wholesale fuel business. We expect to
continue to acquire retail fuel and convenience stores, refinery
assets and product terminals and pipelines as a major element of
our growth strategy, however:
|
|
|
|
|
we may not be able to identify suitable acquisition candidates
or acquire additional assets on favorable terms;
|
|
|
|
we usually compete with others to acquire assets, which
competition may increase, and, any level of competition could
result in decreased availability or increased prices for
acquisition candidates;
|
|
|
|
we may experience difficulty in anticipating the timing and
availability of acquisition candidates;
|
|
|
|
since the convenience store industry is dominated by small,
independent operators that own fewer than ten
stores, we will likely need to complete numerous small
acquisitions, rather than a few major acquisitions, to
substantially increase our number of retail fuel and convenience
stores;
|
|
|
|
the need to complete numerous acquisitions will require
significant amounts of our managements time;
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
we may not be able to obtain the necessary financing, on
favorable terms or at all, to finance any of our potential
acquisitions; and
|
|
|
|
as a public company, we are subject to reporting obligations,
internal controls and other accounting requirements with respect
to any business we acquire, which may prevent or negatively
affect the valuation of some acquisitions we might otherwise
deem favorable or increase our acquisition costs.
|
The occurrence of any of these factors could adversely affect
our growth strategy. We have not completed any major
acquisitions since April 2007.
Acquisitions
involve risks that could cause our actual growth or operating
results to differ adversely compared with our
expectations.
Due to our emphasis on growth through acquisitions, we are
particularly susceptible to transactional risks. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
during the acquisition process, we may fail or be unable to
discover some of the liabilities of companies or businesses that
we acquire;
|
|
|
|
we may assume contracts or other obligations in connection with
particular acquisitions on terms that are less favorable or
desirable than the terms that we would expect to obtain if we
negotiated the contracts or other obligations directly;
|
|
|
|
we may fail to successfully integrate or manage acquired assets;
|
|
|
|
acquired assets may not perform as we expect or we may not be
able to obtain the cost savings and financial improvements we
anticipate;
|
|
|
|
acquisitions may require us to incur additional debt or issue
additional equity;
|
|
|
|
we may fail to grow our existing systems, financial controls,
information systems, management resources and human resources in
a manner that effectively supports our growth; and
|
|
|
|
to the extent that we acquire assets in complementary new lines
of business, we may become subject to additional regulatory
requirements and additional risks that are characteristic or
typical of these new lines of business.
|
The occurrence of any of these factors could adversely affect
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We may
incur significant costs and liabilities with respect to
investigation and remediation of existing environmental
conditions at our Tyler refinery.
Prior to our purchase of the Tyler refinery and pipeline, the
previous owner had been engaged for many years in the
investigation and remediation of liquid hydrocarbons which
contaminated soil and groundwater at the purchased facilities.
Upon purchase of the facilities, we became responsible and
liable for certain costs associated with the continued
investigation and remediation of known and unknown impacted
areas at the refinery. In the future, it may be necessary to
conduct further assessments and remediation efforts at the
refinery and pipeline locations. In addition, we have identified
and self-reported certain other environmental matters subsequent
to our purchase of the refinery. Based upon environmental
evaluations performed internally and by third parties subsequent
to our purchase of the Tyler refinery, we recorded an
environmental liability of approximately $6.7 million as of
December 31, 2009 for the estimated costs of environmental
remediation for our refinery. We expect remediation of soil and
groundwater at the refinery to continue for the foreseeable
future. The need to make future expenditures for these purposes
that exceed the amounts we estimate and accrue for could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
25
We may
incur significant costs and liabilities in connection with site
contamination, new environmental regulations and prior
non-compliance with air emission regulations.
In the future, we may incur substantial expenditures for
investigation or remediation of contamination that has not been
discovered at our current or former locations or locations that
we may acquire. In addition, new legal requirements, new
interpretations of existing legal requirements, increased
legislative activity and governmental enforcement and other
developments could require us to make additional unforeseen
expenditures. We anticipate that compliance with new regulations
will require us to spend approximately $32.8 million in
capital costs in 2010.
We
could incur substantial costs or disruptions in our business if
we cannot obtain or maintain necessary permits and
authorizations or otherwise comply with health, safety,
environmental and other laws and regulations.
Our operations require numerous permits and authorizations under
various laws and regulations. These authorizations and permits
are subject to revocation, renewal or modification and can
require operational changes to limit impacts or potential
impacts on the environment
and/or
health and safety. A violation of authorization or permit
conditions or other legal or regulatory requirements could
result in substantial fines, criminal sanctions, permit
revocations, injunctions,
and/or
facility shutdowns. In addition, major modifications of our
operations could require modifications to our existing permits
or upgrades to our existing pollution control equipment. Any or
all of these matters could have a negative effect on our
business, results of operations and cash flows.
Our
Tyler refinery has only limited access to an outbound pipeline,
which we do not own, for distribution of our refined petroleum
products.
For the year ended December 31, 2009, approximately 100% of
our refinery sales volume in Tyler was completed through a rack
system located at the refinery. Unlike other refiners, we do not
own, and have limited access to, an outbound pipeline for
distribution of our refinery products to our Tyler customers.
Our lack of access to an outbound pipeline may limit our ability
to attract new customers for our refined petroleum products or
increase sales of our refinery products.
An
interruption or termination of supply and delivery of refined
products to our wholesale business could result in a decline in
our sales and earnings.
Our marketing segment sells refined products produced by
refineries owned by third parties. In 2009, Magellan and
Northville were the sole suppliers to our marketing segment. We
could experience an interruption or termination of supply or
delivery of refined products if our suppliers partially or
completely ceased operations, temporarily or permanently. The
ability of these refineries and our suppliers to supply refined
products to us could be disrupted by anticipated events such as
scheduled upgrades or maintenance, as well as events beyond
their control, such as unscheduled maintenance, fires, floods,
storms, explosions, power outages, accidents, acts of terrorism
or other catastrophic events, labor difficulties and work
stoppages, governmental or private party litigation, or
legislation or regulation that adversely impacts refinery
operations. In addition, any reduction in capacity of other
pipelines that connect with our suppliers pipelines or our
pipelines due to testing, line repair, reduced operating
pressures, or other causes could result in reduced volumes of
refined product supplied to our marketing business. A reduction
in the volume of refined products supplied to our marketing
segment could adversely affect our sales and earnings.
An
increase in competition and/or reduction in demand in the market
in which we sell our refined products could lower prices and
adversely affect our sales and profitability.
Our Tyler refinery is the only supplier of a full range of
refined petroleum products within a radius of approximately
100 miles of its location and there are no competitive fuel
loading terminals within approximately 90 miles of our
San Angelo terminal. If a refined petroleum products
delivery pipeline is built in or around the Tyler, Texas area,
or a competing terminal is built closer to the San Angelo
area, we could lose our niche market advantage, which could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
26
In addition, the maintenance or replacement of our existing
customers depends on a number of factors outside of our control,
including increased competition from other suppliers and demand
for refined products in the markets we serve. Loss of, or
reduction in, amounts purchased by our major customers could
have an adverse effect on us to the extent that we are not able
to correspondingly increase sales to other purchasers.
We may
be unable to negotiate market price risk protection in contracts
with unaffiliated suppliers of refined products.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we obtained 99% of
our supply of refined products for our marketing segment under
contracts that contain provisions that mitigate the market price
risk inherent in the purchase and sale of refined products. We
cannot assure you that in the future we will be able to
negotiate similar market price protections in other contracts
that we enter into for the supply of refined products or
ethanol. To the extent that we purchase inventory at prices that
do not compare favorably to the prices at which we are able to
sell refined products, our sales and margins may be adversely
affected.
Compliance
with and changes in tax laws could adversely affect our
performance.
We are subject to extensive tax liabilities, including federal
and state and transactional taxes such as excise, sales/use,
payroll, franchise, withholding, and ad valorem taxes. New tax
laws and regulations and changes in existing tax laws and
regulations are continuously being enacted or proposed that
could result in increased expenditures for tax liabilities in
the future. Certain of these liabilities are subject to periodic
audits by the respective taxing authority which could increase
our tax liabilities. Subsequent changes to our tax liabilities
as a result of these audits may also subject us to interest and
penalties.
We may
seek to grow by opening new retail fuel and convenience stores
in new geographic areas, which may present operational and
competitive challenges.
Since our inception, we have grown primarily by acquiring retail
fuel and convenience stores in the southeastern United States.
We may seek to grow by selectively pursuing acquisitions or by
opening new retail fuel and convenience stores in states
adjacent to those in which we currently operate, or in which we
currently have a relatively small number of stores. This growth
strategy would present numerous operational and competitive
challenges to our senior management and employees and would
place significant pressure on our operating systems. In
addition, we cannot assure you that consumers located in the
regions in which we may expand our retail fuel and convenience
store operations would be as receptive to our retail fuel and
convenience stores as consumers in our existing markets. The
achievement of our expansion plans will depend in part upon our
ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
select, and compete successfully in, new markets;
|
|
|
|
obtain suitable sites at acceptable costs;
|
|
|
|
realize an acceptable return on the cost of capital invested in
new facilities;
|
|
|
|
hire, train, and retain qualified personnel;
|
|
|
|
integrate new retail fuel and convenience stores into our
existing distribution, inventory control, and information
systems;
|
|
|
|
expand relationships with our suppliers or develop relationships
with new suppliers; and
|
|
|
|
secure adequate financing, to the extent required.
|
We cannot assure you that we will achieve our expansion goals,
manage our growth effectively, or operate our existing and new
retail fuel and convenience stores profitability. The failure to
achieve any of the foregoing could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
27
Adverse
weather conditions or other unforeseen developments could damage
our facilities, reduce customer traffic and impair our ability
to produce and deliver refined petroleum products or receive
supplies for our retail fuel and convenience
stores.
The regions in which we operate are susceptible to severe storms
including hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, extended periods
of rain, ice storms and snow, all of which we have experienced
in the past few years. Inclement weather conditions could damage
our facilities, interrupt production, adversely impact consumer
behavior, travel and retail fuel and convenience store traffic
patterns or interrupt or impede our ability to operate our
locations. If such conditions prevail in Texas, they could
interrupt or undermine our ability to produce and transport
products from our Tyler refinery and receive and distribute
products at our terminals. Regional occurrences, such as energy
shortages or increases in energy prices, fires and other natural
disasters, could also hurt our business. The occurrence of any
of these developments could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our
operating results are seasonal and generally lower in the first
and fourth quarters of the year for our refining and marketing
segments and in the first quarter of the year for our retail
segment. We depend on favorable weather conditions in the spring
and summer months.
Demand for gasoline and other merchandise is generally higher
during the summer months than during the winter months due to
seasonal increases in motor vehicle traffic. As a result, the
operating results of our refining segment and wholesale fuel
segment are generally lower for the first and fourth quarters of
each year. Seasonal fluctuations in traffic also affect sales of
motor fuels and merchandise in our retail fuel and convenience
stores. As a result, the operating results of our retail segment
are generally lower for the first quarter of the year.
Weather conditions in our operating area also have a significant
effect on our operating results. Customers are more likely to
purchase higher profit margin items at our retail fuel and
convenience stores, such as fast foods, fountain drinks and
other beverages and more gasoline during the spring and summer
months, thereby typically generating higher revenues and gross
margins for us in these periods. Unfavorable weather conditions
during these months and a resulting lack of the expected
seasonal upswings in traffic and sales could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations.
We
depend on one wholesaler for a significant portion of our
convenience store merchandise; we may not be able to maintain
favorable arrangements with vendors.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we purchased
approximately 59% of our general merchandise, including most
tobacco products and grocery items, from a single wholesale
grocer, Core-Mark International, Inc. A change of merchandise
suppliers, a disruption in supply or a significant change in our
relationship or pricing with our principal merchandise supplier
could lead to an increase in our cost of goods or a reduction in
the reliability of timely deliveries and could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations.
In addition, we believe that our arrangements with vendors with
respect to allowances, payment terms and operational support
commitments, have enabled us to decrease the operating expenses
of convenience stores that we acquire. If we are unable to
maintain favorable arrangements with these vendors, we may be
unable to continue to effect operating expense reductions at
convenience stores we have acquired or will acquire.
A
substantial portion of our refinery workforce is unionized, and
we may face labor disruptions that would interfere with our
operations.
As of December 31, 2009, we employed 265 people at our
Tyler refinery and pipeline. From among these employees, 155 of
our operations and maintenance hourly employees and 39 truck
drivers at the refinery were covered by separate collective
bargaining agreements which each expire on January 31,
2012. Although these collective bargaining agreements contain
provisions to discourage strikes or work stoppages, we cannot
assure you that strikes or work stoppages will not occur. A
strike or work stoppage could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
28
We are
dependent on fuel sales at our retail fuel and convenience
stores which makes us susceptible to increases in the cost of
gasoline and interruptions in fuel supply.
Net fuel sales at stores representing the continuing operations
of our retail segment represented approximately 73%, 80% and 77%
of total net sales of our retail segment for 2009, 2008 and
2007, respectively. Our dependence on fuel sales makes us
susceptible to increases in the cost of gasoline and diesel
fuel. As a result, fuel profit margins have a significant impact
on our earnings. The volume of fuel sold by us and our fuel
profit margins are affected by numerous factors beyond our
control, including the supply and demand for fuel, volatility in
the wholesale fuel market and the pricing policies of
competitors in local markets. Although we can rapidly adjust our
pump prices to reflect higher fuel costs, a material increase in
the price of fuel could adversely affect demand. A material,
sudden increase in the cost of fuel that causes our fuel sales
to decline could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations.
Our dependence on fuel sales also makes us susceptible to
interruptions in fuel supply. At December 31, 2009, fuel
from the U.S. Gulf Coast transported to us through the
Colonial and Plantation pipelines was the primary source of fuel
supply for approximately 87% of our retail fuel and convenience
stores. To mitigate the risks of cost volatility, we typically
have no more than a five day supply of fuel at each of our
stores. Our fuel contracts do not guarantee an uninterrupted,
unlimited supply in the event of a shortage. Gasoline sales
generate customer traffic to our retail fuel and convenience
stores. As a result, decreases in gasoline sales, in the event
of a shortage or otherwise, could adversely affect our
merchandise sales. A serious interruption in the supply of
gasoline could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations.
We may
incur losses as a result of our forward contract activities and
derivative transactions.
We occasionally use derivative financial instruments, such as
interest rate swaps and interest rate cap agreements, and
fuel-related derivative transactions to partially mitigate the
risk of various financial exposures inherent in our business. We
expect to continue to enter into these types of transactions. In
connection with such derivative transactions, we may be required
to make payments to maintain margin accounts and to settle the
contracts at their value upon termination. The maintenance of
required margin accounts and the settlement of derivative
contracts at termination could cause us to suffer losses or
limited gains. In particular, derivative transactions could
expose us to the risk of financial loss upon unexpected or
unusual variations in the sales price of crude oil and that of
wholesale gasoline. We cannot assure you that the strategies
underlying these transactions will be successful. If any of the
instruments we utilize to manage our exposure to various types
of risk is not effective, we may incur losses.
In addition, we evaluate the creditworthiness of each of our
counterparties but we may not always be able to fully anticipate
or detect deterioration in their creditworthiness and overall
financial condition. The deterioration of creditworthiness or
overall financial condition of a material counterparty (or
counterparties) could expose us to an increased risk of
nonpayment or other default under our contracts with them. If a
material counterparty (or counterparties) default on their
obligations to us, this could materially adversely affect our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
.
Due to
our minority ownership position in Lion Oil Company, we cannot
control the operations of the El Dorado refinery or the
corporate and management policies of Lion Oil.
As of December 31, 2009, we owned approximately 34.6% of
the issued and outstanding common stock of Lion Oil Company, a
privately held Arkansas corporation that owns and operates a
refinery in El Dorado, Arkansas. Approximately 53.7% of the
issued and outstanding common stock of Lion Oil is owned by one
shareholder. This controlling shareholder is party to a
management agreement with Lion Oil and, due to its majority
equity ownership position, is able to elect a majority of the
Lion Oil board of directors. As a result of our minority
ownership position and the controlling shareholders
majority equity ownership position and contractual management
rights, we are unable to control or influence the operations of
the refinery in El Dorado, Arkansas.
29
So long as there is a controlling shareholder of Lion Oil that
maintains a majority equity ownership position in, and the
contractual management rights with, Lion Oil, the controlling
shareholder will continue to control the election of a majority
of Lion Oils directors, influence Lion Oils
corporate and management policies (including the declaration of
dividends and the timing and preparation of its financial
statements) and determine, without our consent, the outcome of
any corporate transaction or other matter submitted to Lion Oil
shareholders for approval, including potential mergers or
acquisitions, asset sales and other significant corporate
transactions.
Our
minority ownership position in Lion Oil is illiquid because
there is no active trading market for shares of Lion Oil common
stock.
Because Lion Oil is a privately held corporation, there is no
active trading market for shares of Lion Oil common stock. As a
result, we cannot assure you that we will be able to increase or
decrease our interest in Lion Oil, or that if we do, we will be
able to do so upon favorable terms or at favorable prices.
We
rely on information technology in our operations, and any
material failure, inadequacy, interruption or security failure
of that technology could harm our business
We rely on information technology systems across our operations,
including for management of our supply chain, point of sale
processing at our sites, and various other processes and
transactions. We rely on commercially available systems,
software, tools and monitoring to provide security for
processing, transmission and storage of confidential customer
information, such as payment card and personal credit
information. In addition, the systems currently used for certain
transmission and approval of payment card transactions, and the
technology utilized in payment cards themselves, may put certain
payment card data at risk, and these systems are determined and
controlled by the payment card industry, and not by us. Any
compromise or breach of our information and payment technology
systems could cause interruptions in our operations, damage our
reputation and reduce our customers willingness to visit
our sites and conduct business with us. Further, the failure of
these systems to operate effectively, or problems we may
experience with transitioning to upgraded or replacement
systems, could significantly harm our business and operations
and cause us to incur significant costs to remediate such
problems.
In addition, we invest in and rely heavily upon our proprietary
information technology systems to enable our managers to access
real-time data from our supply chain and inventory management
systems, our security systems and to monitor customer and sales
information. For example, our proprietary technology systems
enable our managers to view data for our stores, merchandise or
fuel on an aggregate basis or by specific store, type of
merchandise or fuel product, which in turn enables our managers
to quickly determine whether budgets and projected margins are
being met and to make adjustments in response to any shortfalls.
In the absence of this proprietary information technology, our
managers would be unable to respond as promptly in order to
reduce inefficiencies in our cost structure and maximize our
sales and margins.
If we
lose any of our key personnel, our ability to manage our
business and continue our growth could be negatively
impacted.
Our future performance depends to a significant degree upon the
continued contributions of our senior management team and key
technical personnel. We do not currently maintain key person
life insurance policies for any of our senior management team.
The loss or unavailability to us of any member of our senior
management team or a key technical employee could significantly
harm us. We face competition for these professionals from our
competitors, our customers and other companies operating in our
industry. To the extent that the services of members of our
senior management team and key technical personnel would be
unavailable to us for any reason, we would be required to hire
other personnel to manage and operate our company and to develop
our products and technology. We cannot assure you that we would
be able to locate or employ such qualified personnel on
acceptable terms or at all.
It may
be difficult to serve process on or enforce a United States
judgment against those of our directors who reside in
Israel.
On the date of this report, three of our seven directors reside
in the State of Israel. As a result, you may have difficulty
serving legal process within the United States upon any of these
persons. You may also have difficulty
30
enforcing, both in and outside the United States, judgments you
may obtain in United States courts against these persons in any
action, including actions based upon the civil liability
provisions of United States federal or state securities laws,
because a substantial portion of the assets of these directors
is located outside of the United States. Furthermore, there is
substantial doubt that the courts of the State of Israel would
enter judgments in original actions brought in those courts
predicated on U.S. federal or state securities laws.
If we
are, or become, a U.S. real property holding corporation,
special tax rules may apply to a sale, exchange or other
disposition of common stock and
non-U.S.
holders may be less inclined to invest in our stock as they may
be subject to U.S. federal income tax in certain
situations.
A
non-U.S. holder
may be subject to U.S. federal income tax with respect to
gain recognized on the sale, exchange or other disposition of
common stock if we are, or were, a U.S. real property
holding corporation or USRPHC, at any time
during the shorter of the five-year period ending on the date of
the sale or other disposition and the period such
non-U.S. holder
held our common stock (the shorter period referred to as the
lookback period). In general, we would be a USRPHC
if the fair market value of our U.S. real property
interests, as such term is defined for U.S. federal
income tax purposes, equals or exceeds 50% of the sum of the
fair market value of our worldwide real property interests and
our other assets used or held for use in a trade or business.
The test for determining USRPHC status is applied on certain
specific determination dates and is dependent upon a number of
factors, some of which are beyond our control (including, for
example, fluctuations in the value of our assets).If we are or
become a USRPHC, so long as our common stock is regularly traded
on an established securities market such as the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE), only a
non-U.S. holder
who, actually or constructively, holds or held during the
lookback period more than 5% of our common stock will be subject
to U.S. federal income tax on the disposition of our common
stock.
Litigation
and/or negative publicity concerning food or beverage quality,
health and other related issues could result in significant
liabilities or litigation costs and cause consumers to avoid our
convenience stores.
Negative publicity, regardless of whether the concerns are
valid, concerning food or beverage quality, food or beverage
safety or other health concerns, facilities, employee relations
or other matters related to our operations may materially
adversely affect demand for food and beverages offered in our
convenience stores and could result in a decrease in customer
traffic to our stores. Additionally, we may be the subject of
complaints or litigation arising from food or beverage-related
illness or injury in general which could have a negative impact
on our business.
It is critical to our reputation that we maintain a consistent
level of high quality food and beverages in our stores. Health
concerns, poor food or beverage quality or operating issues
stemming from one store or a limited number of stores can
materially adversely affect the operating results of some or all
of our stores and harm our proprietary brands.
Risks
Related to Our Common Stock
The
price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly, and you
could lose all or part of your investment.
The market price of our common stock may be influenced by many
factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our quarterly or annual earnings or those of other companies in
our industry;
|
|
|
|
changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance,
interpretations or principles;
|
|
|
|
general economic and stock market conditions;
|
|
|
|
the failure of securities analysts to cover our common stock or
changes in financial estimates by analysts;
|
|
|
|
future sales of our common stock;
|
|
|
|
announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts
or acquisitions; and
|
|
|
|
the other factors described in these Risk Factors.
|
31
In recent years, the stock market has experienced extreme price
and volume fluctuations. This volatility has had a significant
impact on the market price of securities issued by many
companies, including companies in our industry. The changes
often occur without any apparent regard to the operating
performance of these companies. The price of our common stock
could fluctuate based upon factors that have little or nothing
to do with our company, and these fluctuations could materially
reduce our stock price. In addition, the recent distress in the
credit and financial markets has resulted in extreme volatility
in trading prices of securities and diminished liquidity, and we
cannot assure you that our liquidity will not be affected by
changes in the financial markets and the global economy.
In the past, some companies that have had volatile market prices
for their securities have been subject to securities class
action suits filed against them. The filing of a lawsuit against
us, regardless of the outcome, could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations, as it could result in substantial legal costs and a
diversion of our managements attention and resources.
You
may suffer substantial dilution.
We may sell securities in the public or private equity markets
if and when conditions are favorable, even if we do not have an
immediate need for capital. In addition, if we have an immediate
need for capital, we may sell securities in the public or
private equity markets even when conditions are not otherwise
favorable. You will suffer dilution if we issue currently
unissued shares of our stock in the future in furtherance of our
growth strategy. You will also suffer dilution if stock,
restricted stock units, restricted stock, stock options, stock
appreciation rights, warrants or other equity awards, whether
currently outstanding or subsequently granted, are exercised.
We are
exposed to risks relating to evaluations of internal controls
required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.
To comply with the management certification and auditor
attestation requirements of Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 404), we
are required to evaluate our internal controls systems to allow
management to report on, and our independent auditors to audit,
our internal controls over financial reporting. During this
process, we may identify control deficiencies of varying degrees
of severity under applicable SEC and Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board rules and regulations that remain unremediated.
As a public company, we are required to report, among other
things, control deficiencies that constitute a material
weakness or changes in internal controls that, or are
reasonably likely to, materially affect internal controls over
financial reporting. A material weakness is a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control
over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable
possibility that a material misstatement of the companys
annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or
detected on a timely basis.
If we fail to comply with the requirements of Section 404,
we may be subject to sanctions or investigation by regulatory
authorities such as the SEC or the NYSE. Additionally, failure
to comply with Section 404 or the report by us of a
material weakness may cause investors to lose confidence in our
financial statements and our stock price may be adversely
affected. If we fail to remedy any material weakness, our
financial statements may be inaccurate, we may face restricted
access to the capital markets, and our stock price may decline.
We are
a controlled company within the meaning of the NYSE
rules and, as a result, we qualify for, and intend to rely on,
exemptions from certain corporate governance
requirements.
A company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by
an individual, a group or another company is a controlled
company and may elect not to comply with certain corporate
governance requirements of the NYSE, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the requirement that a majority of its board of directors
consist of independent directors;
|
|
|
|
the requirement to have a nominating/corporate governance
committee consisting entirely of independent directors with a
written charter addressing the committees purpose and
responsibilities; and
|
|
|
|
the requirement to have a compensation committee consisting
entirely of independent directors with a written charter
addressing the committees purpose and responsibilities.
|
32
We utilize all of these exemptions except that our compensation
committee does have a written charter addressing its purpose and
responsibilities. Accordingly, you will not have the same
protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are
subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the
NYSE.
Our
controlling stockholder may have conflicts of interest with
other stockholders in the future.
At December 31, 2009, Delek Group beneficially owned
approximately 74% of our outstanding common stock. As a result,
Delek Group and its controlling shareholder, Mr. Sharon,
will continue to be able to control the election of our
directors, influence our corporate and management policies
(including the declaration of dividends) and determine, without
the consent of our other stockholders, the outcome of any
corporate transaction or other matter submitted to our
stockholders for approval, including potential mergers or
acquisitions, asset sales and other significant corporate
transactions. So long as Delek Group continues to own a
significant amount of the outstanding shares of our common
stock, Delek Group will continue to be able to influence or
effectively control our decisions, including whether to pursue
or consummate potential mergers or acquisitions, asset sales,
and other significant corporate transactions. We cannot assure
you that the interests of Delek Group will coincide with the
interests of other holders of our common stock.
Future
sales of currently unregistered shares of our common stock could
depress the price of our common stock.
The market price of our common stock could decline as a result
of the introduction of a large number of currently unregistered
shares of our common stock into the market or the perception
that these sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility
that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult
for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at
a price that we deem appropriate. At December 31, 2009,
39,389,869 unregistered shares of our common stock were
controlled by Delek Group. Pursuant to a registration rights
agreement with us, Delek Group may register some or all of these
shares under the Securities Act, subject to specified
limitations. The registration rights we granted to Delek Group
apply to all shares of our common stock owned by Delek Group and
entities it controls. In addition, as of December 31, 2009,
Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. owned 1,916,667 unregistered
shares of our common stock that are freely tradable.
We
depend upon our subsidiaries for cash to meet our obligations
and pay any dividends.
We are a holding company. Our subsidiaries conduct substantially
all of our operations and own substantially all of our assets.
Consequently, our cash flow and our ability to meet our
obligations or pay dividends to our stockholders depend upon the
cash flow of our subsidiaries and the payment of funds by our
subsidiaries to us in the form of dividends, tax sharing
payments or otherwise. Our subsidiaries ability to make
any payments will depend on many factors, including their
earnings, cash flows, the terms of their indebtedness, tax
considerations and legal restrictions.
We may
be unable to pay future dividends in the anticipated amounts and
frequency set forth herein.
We will only be able to pay dividends from our available cash on
hand and funds received from our subsidiaries. Our ability to
receive dividends from our subsidiaries is restricted under the
terms of their senior secured credit facilities. For example,
under the terms of their respective senior secured credit
facilities, our subsidiaries are subject to certain covenants
customary for credit facilities of the type that limit their
ability to, subject to certain exceptions as defined in their
respective credit agreements, remit cash to, distribute assets
to, or make investments in, us as the parent company.
Specifically, these covenants limit the payment, in the form of
cash or other assets, of dividends or other cash payments, to
us. The declaration of future dividends on our common stock will
be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend
upon many factors, including our results of operations,
financial condition, earnings, capital requirements,
restrictions in our debt agreements and legal requirements.
Although we currently intend to pay quarterly cash dividends on
our common stock at an annual rate of $0.15 per share, we cannot
assure you that any dividends will be paid in the anticipated
amounts and frequency set forth herein, if at all.
Provisions
of Delaware law and our organizational documents may discourage
takeovers and business combinations that our stockholders may
consider in their best interests, which could negatively affect
our stock price.
In addition to the fact that Delek Group owns the majority of
our common stock, provisions of Delaware law and our amended and
restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated
bylaws may have the effect of
33
delaying or preventing a change in control of our company or
deterring tender offers for our common stock that other
stockholders may consider in their best interests.
Our certificate of incorporation authorizes us to issue up to
10,000,000 shares of preferred stock in one or more
different series with terms to be fixed by our board of
directors. Stockholder approval is not necessary to issue
preferred stock in this manner. Issuance of these shares of
preferred stock could have the effect of making it more
difficult and more expensive for a person or group to acquire
control of us and could effectively be used as an anti-takeover
device. On the date of this report, no shares of our preferred
stock are outstanding.
Our bylaws provide for an advance notice procedure for
stockholders to nominate director candidates for election or to
bring business before an annual meeting of stockholders and
require that special meetings of stockholders be called only by
our chairman of the board, president or secretary after written
request of a majority of our board of directors.
The anti-takeover provisions of Delaware law and provisions in
our organizational documents may prevent our stockholders from
receiving the benefit from any premium to the market price of
our common stock offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even
in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of these
provisions may adversely affect the prevailing market price of
our common stock if they are viewed as discouraging takeover
attempts in the future.
|
|
ITEM 1B.
|
UNRESOLVED
STAFF COMMENTS
|
None.
We own a refinery in Tyler, Texas, which is used by our refining
segment and is situated on approximately 100 out of a total
of approximately 600 acres of land owned by us and a light
products loading facility. We also own crude oil pipelines and
related tank farms, which are owned by our marketing segment and
operated by it on behalf of our refining segment. Much of our
pipeline system runs across leased land and
rights-of-way.
In 2008, we purchased five additional vacant or undeveloped
properties totaling less than ten acres and a railroad spur of
less than two acres adjacent to our property for additional
flexibility and buffer. This additional acreage is included in
the total of approximately 600 acres owned by us. We also
own terminals in San Angelo and Abilene, Texas, certain of
which are leased to third parties and used by our marketing
segment, along with 114 miles of refined product pipelines
and light product loading facilities.
As of December 31, 2009, we owned the real estate at
247 company operated retail fuel and convenience store
locations, and leased the real property at 195 company
operated stores. In addition to these stores, we own or lease 15
locations that were either leased or subleased to third party
dealers; 40 other dealer sites are owned or leased independently
by dealers.
The following table summarizes the real estate position of our
retail segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Operated
|
|
Number of
|
|
Number of
|
|
Number of
|
|
Lease Term
|
|
Lease Term
|
State
|
|
Sites
|
|
Dealer Sites(1)
|
|
Owned Sites
|
|
Leased Sites
|
|
< 3 Years(2)
|
|
> 3 Years(2)
|
|
Tennessee
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
Alabama
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Georgia
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Virginia
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Arkansas
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Kentucky
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Louisiana
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Mississippi
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
442
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
254
|
|
|
|
203
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes 40 sites neither owned by nor subleased by us. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes options renewable at our discretion; measured as of
December 31, 2009. |
Most of our retail fuel and convenience store leases are net
leases requiring us to pay taxes, insurance and maintenance
costs. Of the leases that expire in less than three years, we
anticipate that we will be able to negotiate acceptable
extensions of the leases for those locations that we intend to
continue operating. We believe that none of these leases are
individually material.
We lease our corporate headquarters at 7102 Commerce Way,
Brentwood, Tennessee. The lease is for 54,000 square feet
of office space of which we occupy 34,000 square feet and
sub-lease
the remaining space. The lease term expires in April 2022.
|
|
ITEM 3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
In the ordinary conduct of our business, we are from time to
time subject to lawsuits, investigations and claims, including,
environmental claims and employee related matters. Between
February and August of 2008, OSHA conducted an inspection at our
Tyler, Texas refinery and issued citations assessing an
aggregate penalty of less than $0.1 million. Between
November 2008 and May 2009, OSHA conducted another inspection at
our Tyler, Texas refinery as a result of the explosion and fire
that occurred on November 20, 2008, and issued citations
assessing an aggregate penalty of approximately
$0.2 million. We are contesting these citations and do not
believe that the outcome of any pending OSHA citations (whether
alone or in the aggregate) will have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate
resolution of lawsuits, investigations and claims asserted
against us, including civil penalties or other enforcement
actions, we do not believe that any currently pending legal
proceeding or proceedings to which we are a party will have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations.
|
|
ITEM 5.
|
MARKET
FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
AND ISSUER PURCHASE OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
Market
Information and Dividends
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol DK. The following table sets forth the
quarterly high and low sales prices of our common stock for each
quarterly period and dividends issued since January 1, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Dividends
|
|
Special Dividends
|
Period
|
|
High Sales Price
|
|
Low Sales Price
|
|
Per Common Share
|
|
Per Common Share
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
20.47
|
|
|
$
|
12.54
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
14.40
|
|
|
$
|
8.84
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
10.82
|
|
|
$
|
7.28
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
9.09
|
|
|
$
|
3.51
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
11.61
|
|
|
$
|
5.27
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
12.41
|
|
|
$
|
7.92
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
9.20
|
|
|
$
|
6.84
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
8.70
|
|
|
$
|
5.65
|
|
|
$
|
0.0375
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
In connection with our initial public offering in May 2006, our
Board of Directors announced its intention to pay a regular
quarterly cash dividend of $0.0375 per share of our common stock
beginning in the fourth quarter of 2006. The dividends paid in
2009 and 2008 totaled approximately $8.1 million and
$8.0 million, respectively. As of the date of this filing,
we intend to continue to pay quarterly cash dividends on our
common stock at the same annual rate of $0.15 per share. The
declaration and payment of future dividends to holders of our
common stock will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors
and will depend upon many factors, including our financial
condition,
35
earnings, legal requirements, restrictions in our debt
agreements and other factors our Board of Directors deems
relevant. Except as represented in the table above, we have paid
no other cash dividends on our common stock during the two most
recent fiscal years.
Holders
As of March 3, 2010, there were approximately 11 common
stockholders of record. This number does not include beneficial
owners of our common stock whose stock is held in nominee or
street name accounts through brokers.
Purchases
of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated
Purchasers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of Equity Securities by Affiliated Purchasers(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
Maximum Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased as
|
|
|
Shares That May Yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of Publicly
|
|
|
Be Purchased Under
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
Average Price
|
|
|
Announced Plans or
|
|
|
the Plans or
|
|
Period
|
|
Shares Purchased
|
|
|
Paid Per Share
|
|
|
Programs(2)
|
|
|
Programs
|
|
|
10/1/2009 10/31/2009
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
11/1/2009 11/30/2009
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
12/1/2009 12/31/2009
|
|
|
122,971
|
|
|
$
|
5.89
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
122,971
|
|
|
$
|
5.89
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The table reflects open market purchases of our common stock by
Delek Petroleum Ltd., a subsidiary of our controlling
stockholder, Delek Group, Ltd., and is based upon Delek
Petroleums filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Under Exchange Act Rule 10b-18, Delek Petroleum may
be deemed to be an affiliated purchaser because it
is under common control with us. We did not repurchase any
shares of our common stock during the periods reflected in the
table. |
|
(2) |
|
No purchases reflected in the table were made pursuant to a
publicly announced plan or program. |
36
Performance
Graph
The following Performance Graph and related information shall
not be deemed soliciting material or to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any
future filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, except to the extent that
we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.
The following graph and table compare cumulative total returns
for our stockholders since May 4, 2006 (the date of our
initial public offering) to the Standard and Poors 500
Stock Index and a peer group selected by management. The graph
assumes a $100 investment made on May 4, 2006. Each of the
three measures of cumulative total return assumes reinvestment
of dividends. The peer group is comprised of Alon USA Energy,
Inc., Caseys General Stores, Inc., Frontier Oil
Corporation, Holly Corporation, Pantry, Inc., Sunoco, Inc.,
Susser Holdings Corporation, Tesoro Corporation, TravelCenters
of America, LLC, Valero Energy Corporation and Western Refining,
Inc. The stock performance shown on the graph below is not
necessarily indicative of future price performance.
COMPARISON
OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
37
|
|
ITEM 6.
|
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
|
The following selected financial data should be read in
conjunction with Item 7, Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, of
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
|
2007(1)
|
|
|
2006(1)(3)(4)
|
|
|
2005(1)(3)(5)
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail
|
|
$
|
1,421.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,885.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,672.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,294.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,001.0
|
|
Refining
|
|
|
882.1
|
|
|
|
2,091.8
|
|
|
|
1,694.3
|
|
|
|
1,598.6
|
|
|
|
930.5
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
374.4
|
|
|
|
745.5
|
|
|
|
626.6
|
|
|
|
221.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(11.3
|
)
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
|
2,666.7
|
|
|
|
4,723.7
|
|
|
|
3,994.2
|
|
|
|
3,115.4
|
|
|
|
1,931.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
2,394.1
|
|
|
|
4,308.1
|
|
|
|
3,539.3
|
|
|
|
2,734.2
|
|
|
|
1,643.4
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
219.0
|
|
|
|
240.8
|
|
|
|
213.8
|
|
|
|
169.0
|
|
|
|
126.4
|
|
Insurance proceeds business interruption
|
|
|
(64.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property damage proceeds, net
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
|
|
54.1
|
|
|
|
37.6
|
|
|
|
22.8
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
|
|
21.8
|
|
|
|
15.1
|
|
Loss (gain) on sales of assets
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
(6.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
Unrealized (gain) loss on forward contract hedging activities(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,635.3
|
|
|
|
4,651.6
|
|
|
|
3,839.2
|
|
|
|
2,962.6
|
|
|
|
1,815.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
72.1
|
|
|
|
155.0
|
|
|
|
152.8
|
|
|
|
116.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
25.5
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
30.6
|
|
|
|
24.2
|
|
|
|
17.4
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
(9.3
|
)
|
|
|
(7.2
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
Interest expense to related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Loss from minority investment(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other expenses, net
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-operating expenses, net
|
|
|
26.0
|
|
|
|
28.9
|
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
43.2
|
|
|
|
130.5
|
|
|
|
134.6
|
|
|
|
95.9
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
35.0
|
|
|
|
43.1
|
|
|
|
33.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
24.6
|
|
|
|
95.5
|
|
|
|
91.5
|
|
|
|
62.3
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income before cumulative effect of a change in accounting
policy
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
96.4
|
|
|
|
93.0
|
|
|
|
64.4
|
|
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
96.4
|
|
|
$
|
93.0
|
|
|
$
|
64.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
|
$
|
1.83
|
|
|
$
|
1.94
|
|
|
$
|
1.59
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.02
|
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
0.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share before cumulative effect of a change in
accounting policy
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
$
|
1.85
|
|
|
$
|
1.98
|
|
|
$
|
1.64
|
|
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
$
|
1.85
|
|
|
$
|
1.98
|
|
|
$
|
1.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
1.81
|
|
|
$
|
1.91
|
|
|
$
|
1.59
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share before cumulative effect of a change
in accounting policy
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
1.82
|
|
|
$
|
1.94
|
|
|
$
|
1.64
|
|
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
1.82
|
|
|
$
|
1.94
|
|
|
$
|
1.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares, basic
|
|
|
53,693,258
|
|
|
|
53,675,145
|
|
|
|
52,077,893
|
|
|
|
47,077,369
|
|
|
|
39,389,869
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares, diluted
|
|
|
54,484,969
|
|
|
|
54,401,747
|
|
|
|
52,850,231
|
|
|
|
47,915,962
|
|
|
|
39,389,869
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends declared per common share outstanding
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
0.54
|
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
|
2007(1)
|
|
|
2006(1)
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Cash Flow Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
137.8
|
|
|
$
|
28.6
|
|
|
$
|
179.6
|
|
|
$
|
109.5
|
|
|
$
|
148.2
|
|
Cash flows used in investing activities
|
|
|
(102.9
|
)
|
|
|
(39.4
|
)
|
|
|
(221.8
|
)
|
|
|
(250.7
|
)
|
|
|
(161.8
|
)
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
(78.9
|
)
|
|
|
45.6
|
|
|
|
180.2
|
|
|
|
54.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
53.1
|
|
|
$
|
(89.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
$
|
39.0
|
|
|
$
|
40.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
2007(1)
|
|
2006(1)
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
68.4
|
|
|
$
|
15.3
|
|
|
$
|
105.0
|
|
|
$
|
101.6
|
|
|
$
|
62.6
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44.4
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
|
|
26.6
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
311.6
|
|
|
|
194.0
|
|
|
|
468.6
|
|
|
|
433.3
|
|
|
|
274.9
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
692.0
|
|
|
|
586.6
|
|
|
|
525.5
|
|
|
|
403.6
|
|
|
|
249.1
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
1,223.0
|
|
|
|
1,017.2
|
|
|
|
1,244.3
|
|
|
|
949.4
|
|
|
|
606.2
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
322.2
|
|
|
|
186.2
|
|
|
|
305.0
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
175.9
|
|
Total debt, including current maturities
|
|
|
317.1
|
|
|
|
286.0
|
|
|
|
355.2
|
|
|
|
286.6
|
|
|
|
268.8
|
|
Total non-current liabilities
|
|
|
369.8
|
|
|
|
297.2
|
|
|
|
426.8
|
|
|
|
336.3
|
|
|
|
310.5
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
531.0
|
|
|
|
533.8
|
|
|
|
512.5
|
|
|
|
382.2
|
|
|
|
119.8
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
|
1,223.0
|
|
|
|
1,017.2
|
|
|
|
1,244.3
|
|
|
|
949.4
|
|
|
|
606.2
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating results for 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 have been
restated to reflect the reclassification of the retail
segments remaining nine Virginia stores back to normal
operations. |
|
(2) |
|
Beginning October 1, 2008, Delek began reporting its
investment in Lion Oil using the cost method of accounting. See
Note 7 of the Consolidated Financial Statements in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this
Annual Report on
10-K for
further information. |
|
(3) |
|
Refinery segment operating results reflect certain
reclassifications made to conform prior year balances to current
year financial statement presentation. Sales of intermediate
feedstock sales have been reclassified to net sales which had
previously been presented on a net basis in cost of goods sold.
Certain pipeline expenses previously presented in cost of goods
sold have been reclassified to operating expenses, general and
administrative expenses and depreciation. These
reclassifications had no effect on either net income or
shareholders equity, as previously reported. |
|
(4) |
|
Effective August 1, 2006, marketing operations were
initiated in conjunction with the acquisition of the Pride
assets. |
|
(5) |
|
Effective April 29, 2005, we completed the acquisition of
the Tyler refinery and related assets. We operated the refinery
for 247 days in 2005. The results of operations of the
Tyler refinery and related assets are included in our financial
results from the date of acquisition. |
|
(6) |
|
To mitigate the risks of changes in the market price of crude
oil and refined petroleum products, from time to time we enter
into forward contracts to fix the purchase price of crude and
sales price of specific refined petroleum products for a
predetermined number of units at a future date. |
39
Segment
Data(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Net sales (excluding intercompany marketing fees and sales)
|
|
$
|
887.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,421.5
|
|
|
$
|
356.8
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,666.7
|
|
Intercompany marketing fees and sales
|
|
|
(5.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.6
|
|
|
|
(12.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
809.6
|
|
|
|
1,240.8
|
|
|
|
349.5
|
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
|
|
2,394.1
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
85.9
|
|
|
|
138.5
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)
|
|
|
219.0
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
Insurance proceeds business interruption
|
|
|
(64.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(64.1
|
)
|
Property damage proceeds, net
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution margin
|
|
$
|
91.0
|
|
|
$
|
35.2
|
|
|
$
|
23.7
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
151.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
Loss on disposal of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
573.8
|
|
|
$
|
430.0
|
|
|
$
|
62.3
|
|
|
$
|
156.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,223.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital spending (excluding business combinations)
|
|
$
|
155.1
|
|
|
$
|
14.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
170.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining(3)
|
|
|
Retail(2)
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Net sales (excluding intercompany marketing fees and sales)
|
|
$
|
2,105.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,885.7
|
|
|
$
|
731.7
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
4,723.7
|
|
Intercompany marketing fees and sales
|
|
|
(13.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
1,921.3
|
|
|
|
1,673.4
|
|
|
|
721.2
|
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
4,308.1
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
96.9
|
|
|
|
142.9
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240.8
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution margin
|
|
$
|
73.6
|
|
|
$
|
58.2
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
163.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
Gain on sales of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
72.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
348.4
|
|
|
$
|
464.8
|
|
|
$
|
55.3
|
|
|
$
|
148.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,017.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital spending (excluding business combinations)
|
|
$
|
82.9
|
|
|
$
|
18.6
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
102.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other and
|
|
|
|
|
Refining(3)
|
|
Retail(2)
|
|
Marketing
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
Net sales (excluding intercompany marketing fees and sales)
|
|
$
|
1,709.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,672.9
|
|
|
$
|
611.9
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
$
|
3,994.2
|
|
Intercompany marketing fees and sales
|
|
|
(14.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
1,460.2
|
|
|
|
1,482.2
|
|
|
|
596.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,539.3
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
82.2
|
|
|
|
130.1
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
213.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution margin
|
|
$
|
151.9
|
|
|
$
|
60.6
|
|
|
$
|
28.7
|
|
|
$
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
241.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54.1
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Gain on forward contract activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
155.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
380.9
|
|
|
$
|
517.9
|
|
|
$
|
93.5
|
|
|
$
|
252.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,244.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital spending (excluding business combinations)
|
|
$
|
61.6
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
$
|
2.0
|
|
|
$
|
87.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 280,
Segment Reporting, requires disclosure of a measure of
segment profit or loss. We measure the operating performance of
each segment based on segment contribution margin. We define
segment contribution margin as net sales less cost of goods sold
and operating expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization. |
|
|
|
For the retail segment, cost of goods sold comprises the costs
of specific products sold. Operating expenses include costs such
as wages of employees at the stores, lease expense for the
stores, utility expense for the stores and other costs of
operating the stores, excluding depreciation and amortization. |
|
|
|
For the refining segment, cost of goods sold includes all the
costs of crude oil, feedstocks and external costs. Operating
expenses include the costs associated with the actual operations
of the refinery, excluding depreciation and amortization. |
|
|
|
For the marketing segment, cost of goods sold includes all costs
of refined products, additives and related transportation.
Operating expenses include the costs associated with the actual
operation of owned terminals, excluding depreciation and
amortization, terminaling expense at third-party locations and
pipeline maintenance costs. |
|
(2) |
|
Retail operating results for 2008, 2007 and 2006 have been
restated to reflect the reclassification of the remaining nine
Virginia stores back to normal operations. |
|
(3) |
|
Refinery segment operating results reflect certain
reclassifications made to conform prior year balances to current
year financial statement presentation. Sales of intermediate
feedstock sales have been reclassified to net sales which had
previously been presented on a net basis in cost of goods sold.
Certain pipeline expenses previously presented in cost of goods
sold have been reclassified to operating expenses, general and
administrative expenses and depreciation. These
reclassifications had no effect on either net income or
shareholders equity, as previously reported. |
41
|
|
ITEM 7.
|
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations (MD&A) is
managements analysis of our financial performance and of
significant trends that may affect our future performance. It
should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial
statements and related notes included in Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Those statements in MD&A that are not historical in nature
should be deemed forward-looking statements that are inherently
uncertain.
Forward-Looking
Statements
This Annual Report contains forward looking
statements that reflect our current estimates,
expectations and projections about our future results,
performance, prospects and opportunities. Forward-looking
statements include, among other things, the information
concerning our possible future results of operations, business
and growth strategies, financing plans, expectations that
regulatory developments or other matters will not have a
material adverse effect on our business or financial condition,
our competitive position and the effects of competition, the
projected growth of the industry in which we operate, and the
benefits and synergies to be obtained from our completed and any
future acquisitions, and statements of managements goals
and objectives, and other similar expressions concerning matters
that are not historical facts. Words such as may,
will, should, could,
would, predicts, potential,
continue, expects,
anticipates, future,
intends, plans, believes,
estimates, appears, projects
and similar expressions, as well as statements in future tense,
identify forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements should not be read as a guarantee of
future performance or results, and will not necessarily be
accurate indications of the times at, or by which, such
performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking
information is based on information available at the time
and/or
managements good faith belief with respect to future
events, and is subject to risks and uncertainties that could
cause actual performance or results to differ materially from
those expressed in the statements. Important factors that could
cause such differences include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
competition;
|
|
|
|
changes in, or the failure to comply with, the extensive
government regulations applicable to our industry segments;
|
|
|
|
decreases in our refining margins or fuel gross profit as a
result of increases in the prices of crude oil, other feedstocks
and refined petroleum products;
|
|
|
|
our ability to execute our strategy of growth through
acquisitions and transactional risks in acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
general economic and business conditions, particularly levels of
spending relating to travel and tourism or conditions affecting
the southeastern United States;
|
|
|
|
dependence on one wholesaler for a significant portion of our
convenience store merchandise;
|
|
|
|
unanticipated increases in cost or scope of, or significant
delays in the completion of our capital improvement projects;
|
|
|
|
risks and uncertainties with respect to the quantities and costs
of refined petroleum products supplied to our pipelines
and/or held
in our terminals;
|
|
|
|
operating hazards, natural disasters, casualty losses and other
matters beyond our control;
|
|
|
|
increases in our debt levels;
|
|
|
|
compliance, or failure to comply, with restrictive and financial
covenants in our various debt agreements;
|
|
|
|
the inability of our subsidiaries to freely make dividends to us;
|
|
|
|
seasonality;
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
acts of terrorism aimed at either our facilities or other
facilities that could impair our ability to produce or transport
refined products or receive feedstocks;
|
|
|
|
changes in the cost or availability of transportation for
feedstocks and refined products;
|
|
|
|
volatility of derivative instruments;
|
|
|
|
potential conflicts of interest between our major stockholder
and other stockholders; and
|
|
|
|
other factors discussed under the heading Managements
Discussion and Analysis and in our other filings with the
SEC.
|
In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, our
actual results of operations and execution of our business
strategy could differ materially from those expressed in, or
implied by, the forward-looking statements, and you should not
place undue reliance upon them. In addition, past financial
and/or
operating performance is not necessarily a reliable indicator of
future performance and you should not use our historical
performance to anticipate results or future period trends. We
can give no assurances that any of the events anticipated by the
forward-looking statements will occur or, if any of them do,
what impact they will have on our results of operations and
financial condition.
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date the
statements are made. We assume no obligation to update
forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in
assumptions or changes in other factors affecting
forward-looking information except to the extent required by
applicable securities laws. If we do update one or more
forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we
will make additional updates with respect thereto or with
respect to other forward-looking statements.
Overview
We are a diversified energy business focused on petroleum
refining, wholesale sales of refined products and retail
marketing. Our business consists of three operating segments:
refining, marketing and retail. Our refining segment operates a
high conversion, moderate complexity independent refinery in
Tyler, Texas, with a design crude distillation capacity of
60,000 barrels per day (bpd), along with an
associated light products loading facility. Our marketing
segment sells refined products on a wholesale basis in west
Texas through company-owned and third-party operated terminals
and owns
and/or
operates crude oil pipelines and associated tank farms in east
Texas. Our retail segment markets gasoline, diesel, other
refined petroleum products and convenience merchandise through a
network of approximately 440 company-operated retail fuel
and convenience stores located in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia.
Additionally, we own a minority interest in Lion Oil Company, a
privately-held Arkansas corporation, which operates a
75,000 bpd moderate complexity crude oil refinery located
in El Dorado, Arkansas and other pipeline and product terminals.
Our profitability in the refinery segment is substantially
determined by the spread between the price of refined products
and the price of crude oil, referred to as the refined
product margin. The cost to acquire feedstocks and the
price of the refined petroleum products we ultimately sell from
our refinery depend on numerous factors beyond our control,
including the supply of, and demand for, crude oil, gasoline and
other refined petroleum products which, in turn, depend on,
among other factors, changes in domestic and foreign economies,
weather conditions such as hurricanes or tornadoes, local,
domestic and foreign political affairs, global conflict,
production levels, the availability of imports, the marketing of
competitive fuels and government regulation. Other significant
factors that influence our results in the refining segment
include the cost of crude, our primary feedstock, the
refinerys operating costs, particularly the cost of
natural gas used for fuel and the cost of electricity, seasonal
factors, refinery utilization rates and planned or unplanned
maintenance activities or turnarounds. Moreover, while the
increases in the cost of crude oil, are reflected in the changes
of light refined products, the value of heavier products, such
as coke, carbon black oil (CBO), and liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) have not moved in parallel with
crude cost. This causes additional pressure on our realized
margins.
We compare our per barrel refined product margin to a well
established industry metric, the U.S. Gulf Coast 5-3-2
crack spread (Gulf Coast crack spread), which is
used as a benchmark for measuring a refinerys product
margins by measuring the difference between the price of light
products and crude oil. It represents the approximate
43
gross margin resulting from processing one barrel of crude oil
into three fifths of a barrel of gasoline and two fifths of a
barrel of high sulfur diesel. We calculate the Gulf Coast crack
spread using the market value of U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline
87 Octane Conventional Gasoline and U.S. Gulf Coast
Pipeline No. 2 Heating Oil (high sulfur diesel) and the
first month futures price of light sweet crude oil on the New
York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). U.S. Gulf
Coast Pipeline 87 Octane Conventional Gasoline is a grade of
gasoline commonly marketed as Regular Unleaded at retail
locations. U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline No. 2 Heating Oil
is a petroleum distillate that can be used as either a diesel
fuel or a fuel oil. This is the standard by which other
distillate products (such as ultra low sulfur diesel) are
priced. The NYMEX is the commodities trading exchange located in
New York City where contracts for the future delivery of
petroleum products are bought and sold.
As we have previously reported, on November 20, 2008, an
explosion and fire occurred at the Tyler refinery, which halted
our production. The explosion and fire caused damage to both our
saturates gas plant and naphtha hydrotreater and resulted in an
immediate suspension of our refining operations. The refinery
was subject to a gradual, monitored restart in May 2009,
culminating in a full resumption of operations on May 18,
2009. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2009, the
refinery was fully operational for a total of 228 days.
Currently, we carry, and at the time of the incident we carried,
insurance coverage of $1.0 billion in combined limits to
insure against property damage and business interruption. We are
subject to a $5.0 million deductible for property damage
insurance and a 45 calendar day waiting period for business
interruption insurance. During the year ended December 31,
2009, we recognized income from insurance proceeds of
$116.0 million, of which $64.1 million was included as
business interruption proceeds and $51.9 million was
included as property damage proceeds. We also recorded expenses
of $11.6 million, resulting in a net gain of
$40.3 million related to property damage proceeds. Although
we have submitted all of our contemplated insurance claims, we
have not fully and finally resolved all of our outstanding
claims with our insurance companies for a number of reasons,
including, without limitation, the interpretation of insurance
policy provisions, the length of the insurance claim, insurance
deductible amounts and periods, market conditions that affect
projected revenues and firm profits, actual operating expenses,
additional or revised information, audit adjustments and other
verifications of the insurance claim and subsequent events.
The cost to acquire the refined fuel products we sell to our
wholesale customers in our marketing segment and at our
convenience stores in our retail segment depends on numerous
factors beyond our control, including the supply of, and demand
for, crude oil, gasoline and other refined petroleum products
which, in turn, depends on, among other factors, changes in
domestic and foreign economies, weather conditions, domestic and
foreign political affairs, production levels, the availability
of imports, the marketing of competitive fuels and government
regulation. Our retail merchandise sales are driven by
convenience, customer service, competitive pricing and branding.
Motor fuel margin is sales less the delivered cost of fuel and
motor fuel taxes, measured on a cents per gallon basis. Our
motor fuel margins are impacted by local supply, demand,
weather, competitor pricing and product brand.
As part of our overall business strategy, we regularly evaluate
opportunities to expand and complement our business and may at
any time be discussing or negotiating a transaction that, if
consummated, could have a material effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.
Strategic
Initiatives
We are committed to enhancing shareholder value while
maintaining financial stability and flexibility by continuing to:
|
|
|
|
|
focus on health, safety and environmental compliance;
|
|
|
|
provide value to our customers and employees by delivering a
high level of customer service standards;
|
|
|
|
demonstrate a prudent and scalable capital structure;
|
|
|
|
repair, modernize, grow and improve the profitability of our
operations through carefully evaluated capital
investments; and
|
|
|
|
pursue acquisition opportunities that strengthen our core
markets and leverage our core competencies.
|
44
In pursuit of the foregoing goals, the following represent
certain significant accomplishments in 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
In May 2009, we resumed full operations at our Tyler refinery.
|
|
|
|
In May 2009, we completed a maintenance turnaround and
significant work on our crude optimization projects. These
completed projects provide us with a much safer Coke processing
operation which also has reduced maintenance costs associated
with decoking.
|
|
|
|
Completed the installation of blast resistant buildings for area
control rooms at the Tyler refinery.
|
|
|
|
Re-imaged 22 store sites in Retail in our continued effort to
improve our MAPCO brand.
|
|
|
|
Amended and extended the maturity date on $45.0 million of
term loan debt and $108.0 million revolving credit facility
to ensure continued access to sufficient liquidity for our
operating businesses.
|
|
|
|
During 2009, we paid dividends totaling approximately
$8.1 million to our shareholders.
|
Market
Trends
Our results of operations are significantly affected by the cost
of commodities. Sudden change in petroleum price is our primary
source of market risk. Our business model is affected more by
the volatility of petroleum prices than by the cost of the
petroleum that we sell.
We continually experience volatility in the energy markets.
Concerns about the U.S. economy and continued uncertainty
in several oil-producing regions of the world resulted in
volatility in the price of crude oil which outpaced product
prices in 2009, 2008 and 2007. The average price of crude oil in
2009, 2008 and 2007 was $61.93, $99.73 and $72.44 per barrel,
respectively. The U.S. Gulf Coast crack spread ranged from
a high of $18.97 per barrel to a low of $1.89 per barrel during
2009 and averaged $6.92 per barrel during 2009 compared to an
average of $10.27 in 2008 and $13.04 per barrel in 2007.
We also continue to experience high volatility in the wholesale
cost of fuel. The U.S. Gulf Coast price for unleaded
gasoline ranged from a low of $1.04 per gallon to a high of
$2.05 per gallon in 2009 and averaged $1.65 per gallon in 2009,
which compares to averages of $2.49 per gallon in 2008 and $2.05
per gallon in 2007. If this volatility continues and we are
unable to fully pass our cost increases on to our customers, our
retail fuel margins will decline. Additionally, increases in the
retail price of fuel could result in lower demand for fuel and
reduced customer traffic inside our convenience stores in our
retail segment. This may place downward pressure on in-store
merchandise sales and margins. Finally, the higher cost of fuel
has resulted in higher credit card fees as a percentage of sales
and gross profit. As fuel prices increase, we see increased
usage of credit cards by our customers and pay higher
interchange costs since credit card fees are paid as a
percentage of sales.
The cost of natural gas used for fuel in our Tyler refinery has
also shown historic volatility. Our average cost of natural gas
decreased to $3.72 per million British Thermal Units
(MMBTU) in 2009 from $9.22 per million MMBTU in 2008
and $7.12 per MMBTU in 2007.
As part of our overall business strategy, management determines
the cost to store crude, the pricing of products and whether we
should maintain, increase or decrease inventory levels of crude
or other intermediate feedstocks based on various factors,
including the crude pricing market in the Gulf Coast region, the
refined products market in the same region, the relationship
between these two markets, our ability to obtain credit with
crude vendors, and any other factors which may impact the costs
of crude. At the end of 2009, we reduced our crude inventory,
primarily because of the limited refined product margin at that
time. At the end of 2008, we reduced certain of our crude and
feedstock inventories primarily as a result of the refinery
shutdown resulting from the explosion and fire in November 2008.
45
Factors
Affecting Comparability
The comparability of our results of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2009 as compared to the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007 was affected by the following
factors:
|
|
|
|
|
The explosion and fire at the Tyler refinery on
November 20, 2008, which shut down operations at the
refinery for a portion of each of the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008. Operations fully resumed on
May 18, 2009;
|
|
|
|
the change in the accounting for the investment in Lion Oil from
the equity method to the cost method beginning October 2008;
|
|
|
|
the addition of ethanol blending at our refining segment in 2008;
|
|
|
|
the purchase of 107 retail fuel and convenience stores from
Calfee Company of Dalton, Inc. in April 2007 (the Calfee
stores);
|
|
|
|
the purchase from existing shareholders of a 34.6% minority
interest investment in Lion Oil Company in August and September
2007; and
|
|
|
|
the receipt of $40.3 million of property damage insurance
proceeds, net of expenses, due to the November 20, 2008
explosion and fire at the Tyler refinery.
|
Results
of Operations
Consolidated
Results of Operations Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2009 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2008
In the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, we
generated net sales of $2,666.7 million and
$4,723.7 million, respectively. The $2,057.0 million,
or 43.5%, decrease in net sales is primarily attributed to lower
sales volume at the refinery due to the November 20, 2008
explosion and fire that led to the suspension of operations at
the refinery for the period from November 20, 2008 to
May 18, 2009 and lower sales prices due to a reduction in
commodity prices at all three of our operating segments.
Cost of goods sold was $2,394.1 million in 2009 compared to
$4,308.1 million in 2008, a decrease of
$1,914.0 million or 44.4%. This decrease is primarily
attributable to lower costs of crude and sales volumes at the
refinery, lower fuel costs at the retail segment and lower
product cost per barrel at the marketing segment.
Operating expenses were $219.0 million in 2009 compared to
$240.8 million in 2008, an decrease of $21.8 million
or 9.1%. This decrease was primarily driven by lower natural gas
and electricity rates in the refining segment and lower credit
card expenses at the retail segment.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded
insurance proceeds of $116.0 million related to the
November 20, 2008 explosion and fire at the refinery, of
which $64.1 million was included as business interruption
proceeds and $51.9 million was included as property damage
proceeds. We also recorded expenses of $11.6 million,
resulting in a net gain of $40.3 million related to
property damage proceeds.
Goodwill impairment was $7.0 million in 2009 and relates to
the write-off of goodwill associated with our purchase of stores
from Fast Petroleum, Inc. and affiliates (Fast stores). Goodwill
impairment was $11.2 million in 2008 and relates to the
write-off of goodwill associated with our purchase of the Calfee
stores. The impairments taken in both 2009 and 2008 were based
on our annual impairment testing performed in the fourth quarter
of each year.
General and administrative expenses were $64.3 million in
2009 compared to $57.0 million in 2008, an increase of
$7.3 million, or 12.8%. The overall increase was primarily
due to an increase in legal fees associated with the
November 20, 2008 explosion and fire at the refinery and
increases in salaried labor and outside services. We do not
allocate general and administrative expenses to our operating
segments.
46
Depreciation and amortization was $52.4 million in 2009
compared to $41.3 million in 2008, an increase of
$11.1 million or 26.9%. This increase was primarily due to
the completion of a full turnaround at the refinery in the first
half of 2009.
Gain (loss) on sale of assets was $(2.9) million in 2009
compared to $6.8 million in 2008. In 2009, the retail
segment sold 24 non-core real estate assets during the third and
fourth quarters for a net loss of $2.9 million. In 2008,
the retail segment sold two retail fuel and convenience stores,
one in the second quarter and the other in the third quarter,
for a net gain of $6.8 million.
Interest expense was $25.5 million in 2009 compared to
$23.7 million in 2008, an increase of $1.8 million.
This increase was due to an increase in our deferred financing
charges and a decrease in capitalized interest, partially offset
by lower average borrowing rates on our variable rate facilities
and decreases in average loan balances and letters of credit
issued. Interest income was $0.1 million for 2009 compared
to $2.1 million for 2008, a decrease of $2.0 million.
This decrease was primarily due to our reduction in short-term
investments and lower rates of return in 2009.
Beginning October 1, 2008, we began reporting our
investment in Lion Oil using the cost method of accounting.
Accordingly, there was no income or loss from equity method
investment in the year ended December 31, 2009. Loss from
equity method investment was $7.9 million in 2008. Our
proportionate share of the loss from the Lion Oil minority
investment was $7.1 million for 2008. In addition, we had
amortization expense of $0.8 million for 2008 related to
the fair value differential determined at the acquisition date
of our minority investment. We included our proportionate share
of the operating results of Lion Oil in our consolidated
statements of operations two months in arrears.
Gain on extinguishment of debt was $1.6 million in 2008 and
relates to a purchase in a participating stake in debt of Delek
US held by Finance, as permitted under the terms of the credit
agreement. At a consolidated level, this purchase resulted in a
gain on debt extinguishment. There was no gain or loss on
extinguishment of debt in 2009.
Other operating expenses, net, were $0.6 million in 2009
compared to $1.0 million in 2008. In the second quarter of
2009, we exchanged our auction rate securities investment for
shares of common stock in Bank of America to be held as
available for sale securities. This conversion resulted in a
loss of $2.0 million. In the third quarter of 2009, we sold
the common stock of Bank of America. This sale resulted in a
gain of $1.4 million, which partially offset the loss
recognized on conversion. In 2008, we recognized a
$1.0 million loss associated with the change in the fair
market value of our interest rate derivatives.
Income tax expense was $3.1 million in 2009 compared to
$18.6 million in 2008, a decrease of $15.5 million.
This decrease was primarily due to the decrease in net income in
2009 as compared to 2008. Our effective tax rate was 57.4% in
2009, compared to 43.1% in 2008. The increase in the effective
tax rate was primarily due to adjustments to our valuation
allowances on deferred tax assets in 2009, which increased our
2009 expense, and the goodwill impairment recognized in the
fourth quarter of 2009, a portion of which was non-deductible
for tax purposes.
Income (loss) from discontinued operations was
$(1.6) million and $1.9 million in 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and relates to the operations of the 27 Virginia
stores classified as discontinued operations. As of
December 31, 2009 there were no remaining assets held for
sale.
Consolidated
Results of Operations Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2008 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2007
In the fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, we
generated net sales of $4,723.7 million and
$3,994.2 million, respectively. The $729.5 increase in net
sales is primarily attributed to higher sales prices at all
three of our operating segments and the inclusion of a full year
of results from the Calfee stores. This increase was partially
offset by lower sales volume, particularly at the refinery due
to the suspension of operations in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Cost of goods sold was $4,308.1 million in 2008 compared to
$3,539.3 million in 2007, an increase of
$768.8 million or 21.7%. This increase is primarily
attributable to higher costs of crude at the refinery, higher
fuel
47
costs at the retail segment, and the inclusion of a full year of
results from the Calfee stores. This increase is offset by gains
on derivatives of $41.5 million in 2008.
Operating expenses were $240.8 million in 2008 compared to
$213.8 million in 2007, an increase of $27.0 million
or 12.6%. This increase was primarily driven by changes in the
retail segment, including an $8.7 million increase related
to the operation of the Calfee stores for a full year in 2008
and higher credit card and insurance expenses. The refining
segment also experienced higher operating expenses primarily due
to the increase in the usage and price of natural gas.
Goodwill impairment was $11.2 million in 2008 and relates
to the write-off of goodwill associated with our purchase of the
Calfee stores, based on our annual impairment testing performed
in the fourth quarter of 2008. There was no goodwill impairment
necessary in 2007.
General and administrative expenses were $57.0 million in
2008 compared to $54.1 million in 2007, an increase of
$2.9 million, or 5.4%. The overall increase was primarily
due to the addition of personnel, professional support and
contractors as a result of the acquisition of the Calfee stores
and an increase in property taxes. We do not allocate general
and administrative expenses to our operating segments.
Depreciation and amortization was $41.3 million in 2008
compared to $32.1 million in 2007. This increase was
primarily due to the completion of several raze and rebuild
projects in the retail segment, the inclusion of a full year of
depreciation expense associated with the Calfee stores acquired
in the second quarter of 2007, and several capital projects that
were placed in service at the refinery in the second quarter of
2008, as well as the accelerated depreciation due to the
rescheduling of our turnaround from late 2009 to the first half
of 2009.
Gain (loss) on sale of assets was $6.8 million in 2008 and
related to two retail fuel and convenience stores sold by the
retail segment, one in the second quarter and the other in the
third quarter. There were no asset sales during the year ended
December 31, 2007.
Interest expense was $23.7 million in 2008 compared to
$30.6 million in 2007, a decrease of $6.9 million.
This decrease was due to a decrease in our average borrowing
rates on our variable rate facilities, as well as a decrease in
average loan balances. Interest income was $2.1 million for
2008 compared to $9.3 million for 2007, a decrease of
$7.2 million. This decrease was primarily due to our
reduction in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments
and lower rates of return in 2008.
Loss from equity method investment was $7.9 million and
$0.8 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. Our
proportionate share of the loss from the Lion Oil minority
investment was $7.1 million and $0.6 million for 2008
and 2007, respectively. In addition, we had amortization expense
of $0.8 million and $0.2 million for 2008 and 2007,
respectively, related to the fair value differential determined
at the acquisition date of our minority investment. We included
our proportionate share of the operating results of Lion Oil in
our consolidated statements of operations two months in arrears.
Beginning October 1, 2008, Delek began reporting its
investment in Lion Oil using the cost method of accounting. See
Note 7 of the consolidated financial statements in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, of
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for further information.
Gain on extinguishment of debt was $1.6 million in 2008 and
relates to a purchase in a participating stake in debt of Delek
US held by Finance, as permitted under the terms of the credit
agreement. At a consolidated level, this purchase resulted in a
gain on debt extinguishment. There was no extinguishment of debt
in 2007.
Other operating expenses, net, were $1.0 million in 2008
compared to $2.4 million in 2007. In 2008, we recognized a
$1.0 million loss associated with the change in the fair
market value of our interest rate derivatives as compared to a
loss of $2.4 million in 2007.
Income tax expense was $18.6 million in 2008 compared to
$35.0 million in 2007, a decrease of $16.4 million.
This decrease was primarily due to the decrease in net income in
2008 compared to 2007. Our effective tax rate was 43.1% in 2008,
compared to 26.8% in 2007. The increase in the effective tax
rate was primarily due to federal tax credits in 2007 related to
production of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel, and the goodwill
impairment recognized in the fourth quarter of 2008.
48
Income from discontinued operations was $1.9 million and
$0.9 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively, and relates to
the operations of the 27 Virginia stores held for sale in as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007.
Operating
Segments
We review operating results in three reportable segments:
refining, marketing and retail. Our company was initially formed
in May 2001 with the acquisition of 198 retail fuel and
convenience stores from Williams Express, Inc., a subsidiary of
The Williams Companies Inc. The refining segment was created in
April 2005 with the acquisition of the Tyler refinery. Effective
August 1, 2006, we added a third segment, marketing, to
track the activity associated with the sales of refined products
on a wholesale basis.
Refining
Segment
The table below sets forth information concerning our refinery
segment operations for 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Days operated in period(1)
|
|
|
228
|
|
|
|
324
|
|
|
|
365
|
|
Total sales volume (average barrels per day)(1)
|
|
|
51,823
|
|
|
|
56,609
|
|
|
|
54,282
|
|
Products manufactured (average barrels per day)(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
28,707
|
|
|
|
30,346
|
|
|
|
29,660
|
|
Diesel/jet
|
|
|
19,206
|
|
|
|
20,857
|
|
|
|
20,010
|
|
Petrochemicals, LPG, NGLs
|
|
|
2,064
|
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
|
|
2,142
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,350
|
|
|
|
2,607
|
|
|
|
2,848
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production
|
|
|
52,327
|
|
|
|
55,773
|
|
|
|
54,660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refinery throughput (average barrels per day)(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil
|
|
|
49,304
|
|
|
|
51,683
|
|
|
|
53,860
|
|
Other feedstocks
|
|
|
4,498
|
|
|
|
5,239
|
|
|
|
2,303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery throughput
|
|
|
53,802
|
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
|
|
56,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per barrel of sales(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining operating margin(3)
|
|
$
|
6.14
|
|
|
$
|
9.29
|
|
|
$
|
11.82
|
|
Refining operating margin excluding intercompany marketing
fees(4)
|
|
|
7.07
|
|
|
|
10.05
|
|
|
|
12.56
|
|
Direct operating expenses(5)
|
|
|
7.28
|
|
|
|
5.28
|
|
|
|
4.15
|
|
Pricing statistics (average for the period presented)(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTI Cushing crude oil (per barrel)
|
|
$
|
71.22
|
|
|
$
|
106.95
|
|
|
$
|
72.44
|
|
U.S. Gulf Coast 5-3-2 crack spread (per barrel)
|
|
|
5.97
|
|
|
|
11.13
|
|
|
|
13.04
|
|
U.S. Gulf Coast unleaded gasoline (per gallon)
|
|
|
1.87
|
|
|
|
2.69
|
|
|
|
2.05
|
|
Ultra low sulfur diesel (per gallon)
|
|
|
1.85
|
|
|
|
3.11
|
|
|
|
2.14
|
|
Natural gas (per MMBTU)
|
|
|
3.71
|
|
|
|
9.22
|
|
|
|
7.12
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The refinery did not operate during the period from
November 21, 2008 through May 17, 2009 due to the
November 20, 2008 explosion and fire. The refinery resumed
full operations on May 18, 2009. Sales volumes for 2009
include minimal sales of intermediate products made prior to the
restart of the refinery. Information is calculated based on the
number of days the refinery was fully operational. |
|
(2) |
|
Per barrel of sales information is calculated by
dividing the applicable income statement line item (operating
margin or operating expenses) divided by the total barrels sold
during the period. |
|
(3) |
|
Operating margin is defined as refining segment net
sales less cost of goods sold. |
49
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Operating margin excluding intercompany marketing
fees is defined as refining segment net sales less cost of goods
sold, adjusted to exclude the fees paid to the marketing segment
of $11.0 million, $13.8 million and $14.7 million
in the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. |
|
(5) |
|
Direct operating expenses are defined as operating
expenses attributed to the refining segment. |
Refining
Segment Operational Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2009 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2008
In the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and
2008 net sales for the refining segment were
$882.1 million and $2,091.8 million, respectively, a
decrease of $1,209.7 million, or 57.8%. Total sales volume
for 2009 averaged 51,823 barrels per day compared to
56,609 barrels per day in 2008. The decrease in total sales
volume was primarily due to the November 20, 2008 explosion
and fire that led to the suspension of operations at the
refinery for the period from November 20, 2008 to
May 17, 2009. The average sales price also decreased by
$40.42 per barrel, to $73.63 per barrel sold in 2009 compared to
$114.05 per barrel sold in 2008. Although the refinerys
operations were suspended subsequent to the November 20,
2008 explosion and fire, nominal amounts of intermediates and
finished products were sold during the period from
November 21, 2008 through May 18, 2009.
Cost of goods sold for our refining segment in 2009 was
$809.6 million compared to $1,921.3 million in 2008, a
decrease of $1,111.7 million or 57.9%. This cost decrease
resulted from decrease in the average cost per barrel of $37.91,
from $104.75 per barrel in 2008 to $66.84 per barrel in 2009.
Further contributing to the decrease in cost of goods sold was
the decrease in sales volume due to the November 20, 2008
explosion and fire discussed above. Cost of goods sold for 2009
includes a $6.6 million gain on derivative contracts,
compared to a gain of $38.8 million in 2008.
Our refining segment has a service agreement with our marketing
segment, which among other things, requires the refining segment
to pay service fees based on the number of gallons sold at the
Tyler refinery and to share with the marketing segment a portion
of the marketing margin achieved in return for providing
marketing, sales and customer services. This service agreement
lowered the margin achieved by our refining segment in 2009 by
$0.93 per barrel to $6.14 per barrel. Without this fee, the
refining segment would have achieved a refining operating margin
of $7.07 per barrel in 2009 compared to $10.05 per barrel in
2008. We eliminate this intercompany fee in consolidation.
Operating expenses were $85.9 million in 2009, or $7.28 per
barrel sold, compared to $96.9 million in 2008, or $5.28
per barrel sold. The increase in operating expense per barrel
sold was due primarily to the continuation of fixed costs, such
as salaries, benefits and utilities despite the suspension of
operations for the first 137 days of 2009. The overall
decrease in operating expenses of $11.0 million, or 11.4%,
is attributed to a decrease in natural gas and electricity rates
in 2009, partially offset by a $4.0 million increase in
transportation and pipeline expenses, which are paid to the
marketing segment. We eliminate these fees in consolidation.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded
insurance proceeds of $116.0 million related to the
November 20, 2008 explosion and fire at the refinery, of
which $64.1 million is included as business interruption
proceeds and $51.9 million is included as property damage
proceeds. We also recorded expenses of $11.6 million,
resulting in a net gain of $40.3 million related to
property damage proceeds.
Contribution margin for the refining segment in 2009 was
$91.0 million, or 60.3% of our consolidated contribution
margin.
Refining
Segment Operational Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2008 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2007
In the fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, net
sales for the refining segment were $2,091.8 million and
$1,694.3 million, respectively, an increase of
$397.5 million, or 23.5%. Sales volume for 2008 averaged
56,609 barrels per day compared to 54,282 barrels per
day in 2007. The decrease in total sales volume was primarily
due to the November 20, 2008 explosion and fire that led to
the suspension of operations at the refinery for the near term.
The average sales price was $114.05 per barrel sold in 2008
compared to $85.52 per barrel sold in 2007.
50
Although the refinerys operations were suspended
subsequent to the November 20, 2008 explosion and fire,
nominal amounts of intermediates and finished products were sold
during that period and are included in net sales.
Cost of goods sold for our refining segment in 2008 was
$1,921.3 million compared to $1,460.2 million in 2007,
an increase of $461.1 million. This cost increase resulted
from the volatile cost of crude in 2008 which ranged from
$145.27 per barrel to $33.87 per barrel, partially offset by the
reduction in sales volume. The average cost per barrel was
$104.75 in 2008 compared to $73.70 per barrel in 2007. This
increase was offset by a $38.8 million gain on derivative
contracts recognized in 2008.
In conjunction with the acquisition of the Pride assets and the
formation of our marketing segment effective August 1,
2006, our refining segment entered into a service agreement with
our marketing segment on October 1, 2006, which among other
things, requires the refining segment to pay service fees based
on the number of gallons sold at the Tyler refinery and to share
with the marketing segment a portion of the marketing margin
achieved in return for providing marketing, sales and customer
services. This service agreement lowered the margin achieved by
our refining segment in 2008 by $0.76 per barrel to $9.29 per
barrel. Without this fee, the refining segment would have
achieved a refining operating margin of $10.05 per barrel in
2008 compared to $12.56 per barrel in 2007. We eliminate this
intercompany fee in consolidation.
Operating expenses were $96.9 million in 2008, or $5.28 per
barrel sold, compared to $82.2 million in 2007, or $4.15
per barrel sold. The increase in operating expense per barrel
sold was due primarily to a $13.8 million increase in
natural gas costs, as a result of increased usage, and higher
natural gas costs in 2008. Although refining operations were
suspended on November 20, 2008, we continued to have fixed
costs, such as salaries, benefits and utilities.
Contribution margin for the refining segment in 2008 was
$73.6 million, or 45.0% of our consolidated contribution
margin.
Marketing
Segment
The table below sets forth certain information concerning our
marketing segment for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Days operated in period
|
|
|
365
|
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
365
|
|
Products sold (average barrels per day):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
6,777
|
|
|
|
7,980
|
|
|
|
8,166
|
|
Diesel/jet
|
|
|
6,552
|
|
|
|
8,517
|
|
|
|
9,651
|
|
Other
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales
|
|
|
13,378
|
|
|
|
16,557
|
|
|
|
17,923
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct operating expenses (per barrel of sales)
|
|
$
|
0.25
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
Marketing
Segment Operational Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2009 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2008
Net sales for the marketing segment were $374.4 million and
$745.5 million in the years ended December 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively, a decrease of $371.1 million or
49.8%. Total sales volume averaged 13,378 barrels per day
in 2009 and 16,557 barrels per day in 2008. The average
sales price per gallon of gasoline decreased to $1.73 per gallon
in 2009, from $2.73 per gallon in 2008. The average sales price
per gallon of diesel also decreased to $1.75 per gallon in 2009,
from $3.08 per gallon in 2008. The decrease in sales volumes
during 2009 can be attributed primarily to a rise in refined
product inventory in central Texas. Refined product volumes that
are typically shipped by competitors into upper Midwestern
markets remained in central Texas during the period, as summer
demand in the outside markets declined below historical levels.
Net sales included $11.0 million and $13.8 million,
respectively, of service fees in 2009 and 2008 and
$6.6 million in transportation and storage fees for the
year ended December 31, 2009. These fees were paid by our
refining segment to our marketing segment and are eliminated in
consolidation. The service fees are based on the number of
gallons sold and a shared portion of the margin achieved
51
in return for providing marketing, sales and customer support
services. The transportation and storage fees are based on the
number of barrels of crude transferred to the refinery from
certain pipelines owned and leased by the marketing segment,
plus a set monthly storage fee.
Cost of goods sold was $349.5 million in 2009, or $71.58
per barrel sold compared to $721.2 million in 2008, or
$119.01 per barrel sold, a decrease of $371.7 million or
51.5%. Average gross margin was $3.75 and $4.02 per barrel in
2009 and 2008, respectively. We recognized a (loss) gain of
$(2.1) million and $5.7 million in 2009 and 2008,
respectively, associated with the settlement of nomination
differences under a long-term purchase contract and finished
grade fuel derivatives.
Operating expenses in the marketing segment were
$1.2 million and $1.0 million, respectively in 2009
and 2008. These costs primarily relate to salaries, utilities
and insurance costs.
Contribution margin for the marketing segment in 2009 was
$23.7 million, or 15.7% of our consolidated segment
contribution margin.
Marketing
Segment Operational Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2008 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2007
Net sales for the marketing segment were $745.5 million and
$626.6 million in the years ended December 31, 2008
and 2007, respectively, an increase of $118.9 million or
19.0%. Total sales volume averaged 16,557 barrels per day
in 2008 and 17,923 barrels per day in 2007. Net sales
included $13.8 million of service fees paid by our refining
segment to our marketing segment in 2008 and $14.7 million
paid in 2007. These service fees are based on the number of
gallons sold and a shared portion of the margin achieved in
return for providing marketing, sales and customer support
services.
Cost of goods sold was $721.2 million in 2008, or $119.01
per barrel sold compared to $596.9 million in 2007, or
$91.24 per barrel sold, an increase of $124.3 million or
20.8%. Average gross margin was $4.02 and $4.54 per barrel in
2008 and 2007, respectively. We recognized a gain of
$5.7 million and $0.6 million in 2008 and 2007,
respectively, associated with the settlement of nomination
differences under long-term purchase contracts and finished
grade fuel derivatives.
Operating expenses in the marketing segment were
$1.0 million in 2008 and 2007. These costs primarily relate
to salaries, utilities and insurance costs.
Contribution margin for the marketing segment in 2008 was
$23.3 million, or 14.2% of our consolidated segment
contribution margin.
Retail
Segment
The table below sets forth information concerning our retail
segment continuing operations for the last three years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Number of stores (end of period)
|
|
|
442
|
|
|
|
467
|
|
|
|
470
|
|
Average number of stores
|
|
|
459
|
|
|
|
467
|
|
|
|
443
|
|
Retail fuel sales (thousands of gallons)
|
|
|
434,159
|
|
|
|
435,665
|
|
|
|
442,393
|
|
Average retail gallons per average number of stores (in
thousands)
|
|
|
946
|
|
|
|
933
|
|
|
|
999
|
|
Retail fuel margin ($ per gallon)
|
|
$
|
0.136
|
|
|
$
|
0.198
|
|
|
$
|
0.144
|
|
Merchandise sales (in millions)
|
|
$
|
385.6
|
|
|
$
|
387.4
|
|
|
$
|
392.8
|
|
Merchandise margin %
|
|
|
30.9
|
%
|
|
|
31.7
|
%
|
|
|
31.7
|
%
|
Credit expense (% of gross margin)
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
Merchandise and cash over/short (% of net sales)
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Operating expenses/merchandise sales plus total gallons
|
|
|
16.3
|
%
|
|
|
16.7
|
%
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
52
Retail
Segment Operational Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2009 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2008
In the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, net
sales for our retail segment were $1,421.5 million and
$1,885.7 million, respectively, a decrease of
$464.2 million or 24.6%. Retail fuel sales, including
wholesale dollars, decreased 30.2% to $983.0 million in
2009. This decrease was due primarily to a decrease in retail
fuel prices of $0.95 per gallon, to an average price of $2.24
per gallon in 2009 compared to an average price of $3.19 per
gallon in 2008. Retail fuel sales were 434.2 million
gallons in 2009 compared to 435.7 million gallons in 2008.
Merchandise sales decreased 0.5% to $385.6 million in 2009.
The decrease in merchandise sales was primarily due to decreases
in our dairy, beer, fountain and food service categories. This
decrease was partially offset by higher cigarette sales, which
can be attributed to the April 1, 2009 federal tax increase
on cigarettes. Our comparable store merchandise sales increased
by 0.4%.
Cost of goods sold for our retail segment decreased 25.9% to
$1,240.8 million in 2009 from $1,673.4 million in
2008. This decrease was primarily due to the decrease in the
average cost per gallon of 30.5%, to an average cost of $2.10
per gallon in 2009 compared to an average cost of $3.02 per
gallon in 2008.
Operating expenses were $138.5 million in 2009, a decrease
of $4.4 million, or 3.1%. This decrease was primarily due
to the decrease in the number of stores operated and a decrease
in credit expenses. The ratio of operating expenses to
merchandise sales plus total gallons sold in our retail
operations decreased to 16.3% in 2009 from 16.7% in 2008.
Goodwill impairment was $7.0 million in 2009 and relates to
the write-off of goodwill associated with our purchase of the
Fast stores. Goodwill impairment was $11.2 million in 2008
and relates to the write-off of goodwill associated with our
purchase of the Calfee stores. The impairments taken in both
2009 and 2008 were based on our annual impairment testing
performed in the fourth quarter of each year.
Contribution margin for the retail segment in 2009 was
$35.2 million, or 23.3% of our consolidated contribution
margin.
Retail
Segment Operational Comparison of the Year Ended
December 31, 2008 versus the Year Ended December 31,
2007
In the fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, net
sales for our retail segment were $1,885.7 million and
$1,672.9 million, respectively, an increase of
$212.8 million or 12.7%. Retail fuel sales, including
wholesale dollars, increased 17.1% to $1,401.0 million in
2008. Merchandise sales decreased 1.3% to $376.1 million in
2008.
Retail fuel sales were 435.7 million gallons in 2008
compared to 442.4 million gallons in 2007. This decrease
was primarily due to a decrease of 5.8% in comparable store
gallons for 2008 compared to 2007. The decrease was partially
offset by the full year results from the purchased Calfee
stores, which increased fuel gallons sold by 18.0 million
gallons. Retail fuel sales price increased 18.8%, or $0.51 per
gallon, to an average price of $3.22 per gallon in 2008 from an
average price of $2.71 per gallon in 2007.
The decrease in merchandise sales was primarily due to a
decrease in comparable store merchandise sales of 6.8%,
primarily due to decreases in our soft drink and general
merchandise categories. This decrease was partially offset by
the $17.9 million increase in merchandise sales resulting
from the inclusion of a full year of merchandise sales from the
Calfee stores.
We continue to develop our private label product offerings which
currently include water, soft drinks, generic cigarettes, motor
oil, automatic transmission fluid and bag candy. In 2008,
private label merchandise sales represented 2.9% of total retail
segment merchandise sales compared to 3.0% of total retail
segment merchandise sales in 2007. Private label water
represented 35.5% of the water subcategory, private label soda
represented 2.8% of the soft drink category, automotive products
represented 32.5% of the automotive subcategory and candy
represented 4.6% of the candy category in 2008.
Cost of goods sold for our retail segment increased 12.9% to
$1,673.4 million in 2008 from $1,482.2 million in
2007. This increase was primarily due to the inclusion of a full
year of results from the Calfee stores acquired which
53
increased cost of goods sold by 5.5%, and an increase in the
average cost of fuel of $0.46 per gallon, to $3.02 per gallon in
2008, as compared to $2.56 per gallon in 2007.
Operating expenses were $142.9 million in 2008, an increase
of $12.8 million, or 9.8%. This increase was primarily due
to $8.7 million operating costs from the inclusion of a
full year of results from the Calfee stores, and higher utility,
maintenance, credit card and insurance expenses at our existing
stores, which were partially offset by a decrease in other
expenses. The ratio of operating expenses to merchandise sales
plus total gallons sold in our retail operations increased to
16.7% in 2008 from 15.0% in 2007.
Goodwill impairment was $11.2 million in 2008 and relates
to the write-off of goodwill associated with our purchase of the
Calfee stores, based on our annual impairment testing performed
in the fourth quarter of 2008. There was no goodwill impairment
necessary in 2007.
Contribution margin for the retail segment in 2008 was
$58.2 million, or 35.6% of our consolidated contribution
margin.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Our primary sources of liquidity are cash generated from our
operating activities and borrowings under our revolving credit
facilities, and due to the refinery incident in the fourth
quarter of 2008, business interruption and property damage
insurance proceeds covering the period of downtime experienced
by the refinery and necessary capital expenditures to repair and
replace assets damaged in the incident. We believe that our cash
flows from operations, borrowings under our current credit
facilities and remaining insurance proceeds will be sufficient
to satisfy the anticipated cash requirements associated with our
existing operations for at least the next 12 months.
Additional capital may be required in order to consummate
acquisitions, for capital expenditures, or to fund expanded
general operations. We will likely seek these additional funds
from a variety of sources, including public or private debt and
stock offerings, and borrowings under credit lines or other
sources. We continue to monitor the capital markets but there
can be no assurance that we will be able to raise additional
funds on favorable terms or at all.
Cash
Flows
The following table sets forth a summary of our consolidated
cash flows for 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Cash Flow Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
137.8
|
|
|
$
|
28.6
|
|
|
$
|
179.6
|
|
Cash flows used in investing activities
|
|
|
(102.9
|
)
|
|
|
(39.4
|
)
|
|
|
(221.8
|
)
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
(78.9
|
)
|
|
|
45.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
53.1
|
|
|
$
|
(89.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
Flows from Operating Activities
Net cash provided by operating activities was
$137.8 million for 2009 compared to $28.6 million for
2008 and $179.6 million for 2007. The increase in cash
flows from operations in 2009 from 2008 was primarily due to
increases in accounts payable and other current liabilities,
partially offset by increases in accounts receivable and
inventory, resulting from the resumption of operations of the
refinery in 2009. Further contributing to the increase was an
increase in deferred tax liabilities and non-cash losses
relating to asset sales and the impairment of our minority
investment in 2009.
The decrease in cash flows from operations in 2008 from 2007 was
primarily due to decreases in net income and accounts payable
which were partially offset by decreases in both accounts
receivable and inventory. The
54
significant decreases in payables, receivables and inventory
were primarily the result of the refinery shutdown occurring on
November 20, 2008.
Cash
Flows from Investing Activities
Net cash used in investing activities was $102.9 million
for 2009 compared to $39.4 million for 2008 and
$221.8 million for 2007. The increase from 2008 to 2009 was
primarily due to the increase in capital spending in 2009,
primarily relating to the rebuild of the saturates gas plant
that was damaged in the November 20, 2008 explosion and
fire at the refinery. Further contributing to the increase was
cash of $44.4 million provided by net sales proceeds on
short-term investments in 2008, for which there was no
comparable activity in 2009.
Cash used in investing activities in 2009 includes our capital
expenditures of approximately $170.0 million, of which
$155.1 million was spent on projects at our refinery,
$0.5 million in our marketing segment and
$14.3 million in our retail segment. During 2009, we spent
$70.6 million on regulatory and maintenance projects and
$49.3 on the saturates gas plant rebuild at the refinery. In our
retail segment, we spent $7.4 million completing several
reimaging and raze and rebuild projects.
The decrease from 2007 to 2008 was primarily due to the 2007
acquisitions of both the Calfee stores and the 34.6% equity
ownership of Lion Oil. This decrease was partially offset by the
increase in net sales of short-term investments in 2008. Cash
used in investing activities in 2008 includes our capital
expenditures of approximately $102.4 million, of which
$82.9 million was spent on projects at our refinery,
$0.9 million in our marketing segment and
$18.6 million in our retail segment. During 2008, we spent
$45.4 million on regulatory and maintenance projects at the
refinery. In our retail segment, we spent $6.8 million
completing several raze and rebuild projects.
Cash
Flows from Financing Activities
Net cash provided by financing activities was $18.2 million
for 2009, compared to cash used in financing activities of
$78.9 million for 2008 and cash provided by financing
activities of $45.6 million during 2007. Net cash provided
by financing activities in 2009 was primarily due to the
$33.8 million net increase in our revolving debt, as well
as $65.0 million proceeds from a note payable to Delek
Petroleum. These increases were partially offset by
$67.7 million in repayments on our other debt obligations.
Net cash used in financing activities in 2008 was primarily due
to the $62.0 million repayment on debt and capital lease
obligations. We also had net repayments on our revolving credit
facilities of $42.2 million. These decreases were partially
offset by the addition of $35.0 million of new notes
payable in 2008.
Cash
Position and Indebtedness
As of December 31, 2009, our total cash and cash
equivalents were approximately $68.4 million and we had
total indebtedness of approximately $317.1 million.
Borrowing availability under our four revolving credit
facilities was approximately $132.5 million and we had a
total face value of letters of credit issued of
$123.9 million.
A summary of our total third party indebtedness as of
December 31, 2009 is shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Senior secured credit facility term loan
|
|
$
|
81.4
|
|
Senior secured credit facility revolver
|
|
|
32.4
|
|
Fifth Third revolver
|
|
|
42.5
|
|
Promissory notes
|
|
|
160.0
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
317.1
|
|
Less: Current portion of long-term debt, notes payable and
capital lease obligations
|
|
|
82.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
$
|
234.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
Senior
Secured Credit Facility
The senior secured credit facility consists of a
$120.0 million revolving credit facility and
$165.0 million term loan facility, which, as of
December 31, 2009, had $32.4 million outstanding under
the revolver and $81.4 million outstanding under the term
loan. As of December 31, 2009, Fifth Third Bank, N.A.
(Fifth Third) was the administrative agent and a lender under
the facility. On September 1, 2009, Fifth Third assumed the
role of successor administrative agent under the facility from
the resigning administrative agent Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(LCPI). During September 2008, upon the bankruptcy filing of its
parent company, LCPI informed Express that it would not be
funding its pro rata lender participation of future borrowings
under the revolving credit facility. Since the communication of
its intention through the date of its resignation as
administrative agent, LCPI did not participate in any borrowings
by Express under the revolving credit facility. LCPIs
commitment amount under the revolving credit facility is
$12.0 million, leaving Express with an effective revolving
credit facility of $108.0 million. LCPI remains, despite
the September 1, 2009 amendment hereinafter discussed, a
lender to Express under the term loan facility. The
unavailability of LCPIs pro rata lender participation in
the revolving credit facility has not had and is not expected to
have a material impact on Express liquidity or its
operations.
Borrowings under the senior secured credit facility are secured
by substantially all the assets of Express and its subsidiaries.
Letters of credit issued under the facility totaled
$17.9 million as of December 31, 2009. The senior
secured credit facility term loan requires quarterly principal
payments of $0.4 million through March 31, 2011 and a
balloon payment of the remaining principal balance due upon
maturity on April 28, 2011. We are also required to make
certain prepayments of this facility depending on excess cash
flow as defined in the credit agreement. In accordance with this
excess cash flow calculation, we prepaid $19.7 million in
March 2009 and expect to prepay approximately $15 million
in March 2010. Due to our intention to satisfy this payment with
availability on the revolving credit facility, this amount is
reflected in the non-current portion of long-term debt in the
foregoing summary table. In June 2008, Express sold real
property operated by a third party for $3.9 million. In
September 2008, Express sold its leasehold interest in a
location it operated for $4.5 million. The proceeds of the
June sale, net of expenses, were used to pay down the term loan,
while the net proceeds of the September sale were retained,
pursuant to the terms of the facility, for asset reinvestment
purposes. During the period from December 2008 through the
December 31, 2009, consistent with the terms of the
December 3, 2008 amendment discussed below, Express
disposed of 55 non-core real property assets, of which 27 were
located in Virginia. The application of the proceeds from these
asset sales, net of any amounts set aside pursuant to the terms
of the facility for reinvestment purposes, resulted in the
reduction of the term loan in the amount of $18.8 million
and $13.7 million during the years ended December 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively.
As of the date of this filing, and as a direct result of the
December 10, 2009 amendment and restatement of the credit
agreement discussed below and the transactions contemplated
thereby, the termination date of $108.0 million of
revolving credit commitments under the senior secured revolver
was extended by one year from April 28, 2010 to
April 28, 2011. The $12.0 million commitment of LCPI
is the only commitment that has not been extended. As a result,
this commitment will expire on the original termination date of
the senior secured revolver, April 28, 2010, and the amount
of revolving commitments will reduce to $108.0 million
until the new expiration date of April 28, 2011. The senior
secured credit facility term and senior secured credit facility
revolver loans bear interest based on predetermined pricing
grids which allow us to choose between a Base Rate
or Eurodollar rate. At December 31, 2009, the
weighted average borrowing rate was approximately 6.5% for the
senior secured credit facility term loan and 6.0% for the senior
secured credit facility revolver. Additionally, the senior
secured credit facility requires us to pay a quarterly fee of
0.5% per year on the average available revolving commitment
under the senior secured revolver. Amounts available under the
senior secured revolver as of December 31, 2009 were
approximately $57.7 million excluding the commitment of
LCPI as a lender under this facility.
On December 3, 2008, the credit facility was amended to
allow for the disposition of specific Express real and personal
property assets in certain of its geographic operating regions.
The amendment also allows for additional asset sales of up to
$35.0 million per calendar year subject to such sales
meeting certain financial criteria. Additionally, the amendment
appointed Fifth Third Bank as the successor administrative agent
subject to the resignation or removal of LCPI. As stated above,
the resignation of LCPI and the subsequent assumption of the
role of administrative agent by Fifth Third were consummated on
September 1, 2009. On January 28, 2009, the credit
facility was further amended to allow for the one-time
prepayment in the amount of $25.0 million toward the
56
outstanding principal of certain subordinated debt owed to Delek
and incurred in conjunction with Deleks purchase, through
its Express subsidiary, of 107 retail fuel and convenience
stores located in northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee, and
related assets, from the Calfee Company of Dalton, Inc. and its
affiliates in 2007 (the Calfee acquisition). Pursuant to the
terms of the amendment, the $25.0 million prepayment was
completed on March 5, 2009. The amendment also implemented
a 100 basis point credit spread increase across all tiers
in the pricing grid and implemented a LIBOR rate floor of 2.75%
for all Eurodollar rate borrowings.
On September 1, 2009, the borrowers and lenders under the
credit facility executed a resignation and appointment agreement
that consummated the resignation of LCPI as administrative agent
and swing line lender under the facility and the appointment of
Fifth Third as the successor administrative agent and successor
swing line lender under the facility. The agreement also
clarifies that as long as LCPI remains a non-performing lender
under the credit facility, it has no voting rights and is not
entitled to any fees under the facility. Additionally, under the
terms of the September 1, 2009 amendment, Express, along
with other relevant parties, released LCPI from any and all
liabilities they may have arising out of or in connection with
the credit facility, including LCPIs non-performance as a
lender under the facility. As stated above, LCPIs
commitment, and therefore its status as a non-performing lender,
expires on April 28, 2010.
On December 10, 2009, the credit facility was amended and
restated in its entirety. The primary effects of the amendment
and restatement were, among other things, (i) the one year
extension of the $108.0 million of revolving credit
commitments, (ii) the addition of a new accordion feature
to the revolving credit facility accommodating an increase in
maximum revolver commitments of up to $180.0 million,
subject to the identification by the borrower of such additional
lender commitments, (iii) the favorable adjustment for the
remaining term of the credit facility in the required financial
covenant levels for Leverage Ratio, Adjusted Leverage Ratio, and
Adjusted Interest Coverage Ratio, as these are defined under the
facility, and (iv) the increase in interest rate spreads
across all tiers in the existing pricing grid by 75 basis
points and the addition of a new top tier for leverage ratios
greater than 4.00x.
Under the terms of the credit facility, Express and its
subsidiaries are subject to certain covenants customary for
credit facilities of this type that limit their ability to,
subject to certain exceptions as defined in the credit
agreement, remit cash to, distribute assets to, or make
investments in entities other than Express and its subsidiaries.
Specifically, these covenants limit the payment, in the form of
cash or other assets, of dividends or other distributions, or
the repurchase of shares, in respect of Express and its
subsidiaries equity. Additionally, Express and its
subsidiaries are limited in their ability to make investments,
including extensions of loans or advances to, or acquisition of
equity interests in, or guarantees of obligations of, any other
entities.
We are required to comply with certain financial and
non-financial covenants under the senior secured credit
facility. We believe we were in compliance with all covenant
requirements as of December 31, 2009.
SunTrust
ABL Revolver
On October 13, 2006, we amended and restated our existing
asset based revolving credit facility. The amended and restated
agreement, among other things, increased the size of the
facility from $250 to $300 million, including a
$300 million
sub-limit
for letters of credit, and extended the maturity of the facility
by one year to April 28, 2010. The revolving credit
agreement bears interest based on predetermined pricing grids
that allow us to choose between a Base Rate or
Eurodollar rate. Availability under the SunTrust ABL
revolver is determined by a borrowing base calculation defined
in the credit agreement and is supported primarily by cash,
certain accounts receivable and inventory.
Effective December 15, 2008 and in light of the temporary
suspension of our refining operations, the SunTrust ABL revolver
was amended to eliminate any need to maintain minimum levels of
borrowing base availability during all times that there were
zero utilizations of credit (i.e., no loans outstanding or
letters of credit issued) under the facility. During times that
there were outstanding utilizations of credit under the
facility, in the event that our availability (net of a
$15.0 million availability block requirement) under the
borrowing base was less than $30.0 million or less than
$15.0 million on any given measurement date, we would have
became subject to certain reporting obligations and certain
covenants, respectively. Then, effective February 18, 2009,
we further amended the SunTrust ABL revolver to suspend the
credit facility while the refinery was non-operational. The
amendment also provided for a series of conditions precedent to
the renewed access to the full terms of the credit facility
while
57
allowing for limited letter of credit access during the restart
phase of refinery operations. The amendment also added a
covenant that required the restart of the refining operations by
September 30, 2009 at a prescribed throughput level to last
for a prescribed duration. This amendment also permitted the
sale of refinerys pipeline and tankage assets located
outside of the refinery gates to a subsidiary of
Marketing & Supply for net proceeds of no less than
$27.5 million which proceeds were required to be used in
the refinery. The sale of the assets was subsequently completed
on March 31, 2009 for a total consideration of
$29.7 million. The amendment also increased credit spreads
by 125 basis points across all tiers of the pricing grid
and increased the commitment fees by up to 25 basis points.
During the quarter ending September 30, 2009, we had
satisfied all conditions precedent to the renewed access to the
full terms of the credit facility and full access had been
restored. We believe we were in compliance with all covenant
requirements under this facility as of December 31, 2009.
The SunTrust ABL revolver primarily supports our issuance of
letters of credit used in connection with the purchases of crude
oil for use in our refinery. Such letter of credit usage and any
borrowings under the facility may at no time exceed the
aggregate borrowing capacity available under the SunTrust ABL
revolver. As of December 31, 2009, we had no outstanding
loans under the credit agreement but had letters of credit
issued under the facility totaling approximately
$92.0 million. Borrowing capacity, as calculated and
reported under the terms of the SunTrust ABL revolver, net of a
$15.0 million availability block requirement, as of
December 31, 2009 was $40.3 million.
The SunTrust ABL revolver contains certain customary
non-financial covenants, including a negative covenant that
prohibits us from creating, incurring or assuming any liens,
mortgages, pledges, security interests or other similar
arrangements against the property, plant and equipment of the
refinery, subject to customary exceptions for certain permitted
liens. Additionally, under the terms of the SunTrust revolver,
Refining and its subsidiaries are subject to certain covenants
customary for credit facilities of this type that limit their
ability to, subject to certain exceptions as defined in the
credit agreement, remit cash to, distribute assets to, or make
investments in entities other than Refining and its
subsidiaries. Specifically, these covenants limit the payment,
in the form of cash or other assets, of dividends or other
distributions, or the repurchase of shares, in respect of
Refinings and its subsidiaries equity. Additionally,
Refining and its subsidiaries are limited in their ability to
make investments, including extensions of loans or advances to,
or acquisition of equity interests in, or guarantees of
obligations of, any other entities.
On February 23, 2010, we entered into a new, four-year
$300.0 million ABL revolving credit facility with a
consortium of lenders, including Wells Fargo Capital Finance,
LLC as administrative agent, and simultaneously repaid and
terminated our SunTrust ABL revolver. Please refer to
Note 21, Subsequent Events, included in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, of this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
Fifth
Third Revolver
On July 27, 2006, Delek executed a short-term revolver with
Fifth Third Bank, as administrative agent, in the amount of
$50.0 million. The proceeds of this revolver were used to
fund the working capital needs of the newly formed subsidiary,
Delek Marketing & Supply, LP. The Fifth Third revolver
initially had a maturity date of July 30, 2007, but on
July 27, 2007 the maturity was extended until
January 31, 2008. On December 19, 2007, we amended and
restated our existing revolving credit facility. The amended and
restated agreement, among other things, increased the size of
the facility from $50.0 to $75.0 million, including a
$25.0 million
sub-limit
for letters of credit, and extended the maturity of the facility
to December 19, 2012. On October 17, 2008, the
agreement was further amended to permit the payment of a
one-time distribution of $20.0 million from the borrower,
Delek Marketing & Supply, LP, a subsidiary of
Marketing to Delek, increase the size of the
sub-limit
for letters of credit to $35.0 million and reduce the
leverage ratio financial covenant limit.
On March 31, 2009, the credit agreement was amended to
permit the use of facility proceeds for the purchase of the
crude pipeline and tankage assets of the refinery that are
located outside the gates of the refinery and which are used to
supply substantially all of the necessary crude feedstock to the
refinery from the refining subsidiary to a newly-formed
subsidiary of Delek Marketing & Supply LP. Pursuant to
the terms of the amendment, the purchase of the crude pipeline
and tankage assets was completed on March 31, 2009 for a
total consideration of $29.7 million, all of which was
borrowed from the Fifth Third revolver. The amendment also
increased credit spreads by up to
58
225 basis points and commitment fees by up to 20 basis
points across the various tiers of the pricing grid. In
addition, on May 6, 2009, the credit agreement was further
amended, effective March 31, 2009, related to the
definition of certain covenant terms.
The revolver bears interest based on predetermined pricing grids
that allow us to choose between Base Rate or
Eurodollar rate loans. Borrowings under the Fifth
Third revolver are secured by substantially all of the assets of
Delek Marketing & Supply LP. As of December 31,
2009, we had $42.5 million outstanding borrowings under the
facility at a weighted average borrowing rate of 4.4%. We also
had letters of credit issued under the facility of
$10.0 million as of December 31, 2009. Amounts
available under the Fifth Third revolver as of December 31,
2009 were approximately $22.5 million.
Under the terms of the credit agreement, Marketing and its
subsidiaries are subject to certain covenants customary for
credit facilities of this type that limit their ability to,
subject to certain exceptions as defined in the credit
agreement, remit cash to, distribute assets to, or make
investments in entities other than Marketing and its
subsidiaries. Specifically, these covenants limit the payment,
in the form of cash or other assets, of dividends or other
distributions, or the repurchase of shares, in respect of
Marketings and its subsidiaries equity.
Additionally, Marketing and its subsidiaries are limited in
their ability to make investments, including extensions of loans
or advances to, or acquisition of equity interests in, or
guarantees of obligations of, any other entities.
We are required to comply with certain financial and
non-financial covenants under this revolver. We believe we were
in compliance with all covenant requirements as of
December 31, 2009.
Lehman
Credit Agreement
On March 30, 2007, Delek entered into a credit agreement
with Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. (LCPI) as administrative
agent. Through March 30, 2009, LCPI remained the
administrative agent under this facility. The credit agreement
provided for unsecured loans of $65.0 million, the proceeds
of which were used to pay a portion of the costs for the Calfee
acquisition in April 2007. In December 2008, a related party to
the borrower, Delek Finance, Inc., purchased a participating
stake in the loan outstanding as permitted under the terms of
the agreement. At a consolidated level, this resulted in a gain
of $1.6 million on the extinguishment of debt. The loans
matured on March 30, 2009 and the facility was repaid in
full on the maturity date.
Promissory
Notes
On July 27, 2006, Delek executed a three year promissory
note in favor of Bank Leumi USA (Bank Leumi) in the amount of
$30.0 million (2006 Leumi Note). The proceeds of this note
were used to fund an acquisition and working capital needs. On
June 23, 2009, this note was amended to extend the maturity
date to January 3, 2011 and require quarterly principal
amortization in amounts of $2.0 million beginning on
April 1, 2010, with a balloon payment of the remaining
principal amount due at maturity. As amended, the note bears
interest at the greater of a fixed spread over 3 month
LIBOR or an interest rate floor of 4.5%. The amendment also
implemented certain financial and non-financial covenants and
requires a perfected collateral pledge of Deleks shares in
Lion Oil by January 4, 2010. The shares pledged secure
Delek debt obligations outstanding on January 4, 2010 under
all current promissory notes from Bank Leumi as well as current
promissory notes from the Israel Discount Bank of New York (IDB)
on a pari passu basis in accordance with the terms of an
intercreditor agreement and the stock pledge agreements executed
on June 23, 2009 between Bank Leumi, IDB, and Delek. The
pledge of the shares under this note was completed by
January 4, 2010. As of December 31, 2009, the weighted
average borrowing rate for amounts borrowed under this note was
4.5%. We are required to comply with certain financial and
non-financial covenants under the 2006 Leumi Note, as amended.
We believe we were in compliance with all covenant requirements
as of December 31, 2009.
On May 12, 2008, Delek executed a second promissory note in
favor of Bank Leumi for $20.0 million, maturing on
May 11, 2011 (2008 Leumi Note). The proceeds of this note
were used to reduce short term debt and for working capital
needs. This note was amended in December 2008 to change the
financial covenant calculation methodology and applicability.
The note was further amended on June 23, 2009 to require
quarterly principal amortization in the amount of
$1.0 million beginning on July 1, 2010, with a balloon
payment of the remaining principal amount due at maturity. The
amendment also modified certain financial and non-financial
covenants and
59
required the perfected collateral pledge of Deleks shares
in Lion Oil by January 4, 2010, as discussed above. The
pledge of the shares under this note was completed by
January 4, 2010. As amended, the note bears interest at the
greater of a fixed spread over LIBOR for periods of 30 or
90 days, as elected by the borrower, or an interest rate
floor of 4.5%. As of December 31, 2009, the weighted
average borrowing rate for amounts borrowed under this note was
4.5%. We are required to comply with certain financial and
non-financial covenants under the note, as amended. We believe
we were in compliance with all covenant requirements as of
December 31, 2009.
On May 23, 2006, Delek executed a $30.0 million
promissory note in favor of IDB (2006 IDB Note). The proceeds of
this note were used to repay the then existing promissory notes
in favor of IDB and Bank Leumi. On December 30, 2008, the
2006 IDB Note was amended and restated. As amended and restated,
the 2006 IDB Note matures on December 31, 2011 and requires
quarterly principal amortization in amounts of
$1.25 million beginning on March 31, 2010, with a
balloon payment of remaining principal amount due at maturity.
The amendment also introduced certain financial and
non-financial covenants. The 2006 IDB Note bears interest at the
greater of a fixed spread over 3 month LIBOR or an interest
rate floor of 5.0%. Additionally, on June 23, 2009, Delek
agreed to pledge its shares in Lion Oil by January 4, 2010,
to secure its obligations under the 2006 IDB Note, in pari passu
with certain other notes, as discussed above. The pledge of the
shares under this note was completed by January 4, 2010. As
of December 31, 2009, the weighted average borrowing rate
for amounts borrowed under the 2006 IDB Note was 5.0%. We
believe we were in compliance with all covenant requirements as
of December 31, 2009.
On December 30, 2008, Delek executed a second promissory
note in favor of IDB for $15.0 million (2008 IDB Note). The
proceeds of this note were used to repay the then existing note
in favor of Delek Petroleum. On December 24, 2009, the 2008
IDB Note was amended and restated. As amended and restated, the
2008 IDB Note matures on December 31, 2011 and requires
quarterly principal amortization in amounts of
$0.75 million beginning on March 31, 2010, with a
balloon payment of remaining principal amount due at maturity.
The note bears interest at the greater of a fixed spread over
various LIBOR tenors, as elected by the borrower, or an interest
rate floor of 5.0%. Additionally, on June 23, 2009, Delek
agreed to pledge its shares in Lion Oil by January 4, 2010
to secure its obligations under the 2008 IDB Note, in pari passu
with certain other notes, as discussed above. The pledge of the
shares under this note was completed by January 4, 2010. As
of December 31, 2009, the weighted average borrowing rate
for amounts borrowed under the note was 5.0%. We are required to
comply with certain financial and non-financial covenants under
the note. We believe we were in compliance with all covenant
requirements as of December 31, 2009.
On September 29, 2009, Delek executed a promissory note in
favor of Delek Petroleum, Ltd., an Israeli corporation
controlled by our beneficial majority stockholder, Delek Group,
in the amount of $65.0 million for general corporate
purposes. The note matures on October 1, 2010 and bears
interest at 8.5% (net of any applicable withholding taxes)
payable on a quarterly basis. Additionally, the lender has the
option, any time after December 31, 2009, to elect a
one-time adjustment to the functional currency of the principal
amount. The note also provides the lender the option to make a
one-time adjustment to the interest rate during the term of the
note, provided, however, that the effect of such adjustment
cannot exceed the then prevailing market interest rate. The note
is unsecured and contains no covenants. The loan is prepayable
at the borrowers election in whole or in part at any time
without penalty or premium.
Reliant
Bank Revolver
On March 28, 2008, we entered into a revolving credit
agreement with Reliant Bank, a Tennessee bank, headquartered in
Brentwood, Tennessee. The credit agreement provides for
unsecured loans of up to $12.0 million. As of
December 31, 2009 we had no amounts outstanding under this
facility. The facility matures on March 28, 2011 and bears
interest at a fixed spread over the 30 day LIBOR rate. This
agreement was amended in September 2008 to conform certain
portions of the financial covenant definition to those contained
in some of our other credit agreements. We are required to
comply with certain financial and non-financial covenants under
this revolver. We believe we were in compliance with all
covenant requirements as of December 31, 2009.
60
Capital
Spending
A key component of our long-term strategy is our capital
expenditure program. Our capital expenditures for 2009 were
$170.0 million, of which $155.1 million was spent in
our refining segment, $0.5 million was spent in our
marketing segment and $14.3 million was spent in our retail
segment. Our capital expenditure budget is approximately
$58.7 million for 2010. The following table summarizes our
actual capital expenditures for 2009 and planned capital
expenditures for 2010 by operating segment and major category
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010 Budget
|
|
|
2009 Actual
|
|
|
Refining:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustaining maintenance, including turnaround activities
|
|
$
|
4.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.5
|
|
Regulatory
|
|
|
32.8
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
Saturates Gas Plant rebuild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49.3
|
|
Discretionary projects
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
34.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining segment total
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
|
|
155.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discretionary projects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing segment total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustaining maintenance
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
Growth/profit improvement
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
Store enhancements
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
Re-image/builds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail segment total
|
|
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital spending
|
|
$
|
58.7
|
|
|
$
|
170.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2010, we plan to spend approximately $18.0 million in
the retail segment, $6.0 million of which is expected to
consist of the re-imaging of 16 of our existing stores. We spent
$7.4 million on similar projects in 2009. We expect to
spend approximately $32.8 million on regulatory projects in
the refining segment in 2010, $19.3 million of which
relates to the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) II
compliance project and another $8.2 million of which
relates to the maintenance shop and warehouse relocation
project, both of which are discussed further below. We spent
$18.4 million on such projects in 2009. In addition, we
plan to spend approximately $4.7 million on maintenance
projects and approximately $3.2 million for other
discretionary projects in 2010.
Refining
Capital Improvements
The fourth quarter 2008 explosion and fire at the Tyler refinery
resulted in a suspension in production from November 20,
2008 through May 18, 2009. During this period of refinery
shutdown, we moved forward with major unit turnarounds and the
portions of the Crude Optimization capital projects which were
previously slated to be completed in late 2009. Portions of the
Crude Optimization projects were completed in the first half of
2009. We expect the remaining portions of these projects to be
completed by 2013. Below is a discussion of the Crude
Optimization projects, as well as several of our other major
refinery projects.
Crude
Optimization Projects
Deep Cut Project. The Deep Cut project
includes modifications to the Crude, Vacuum and Amine
Regeneration Units (ARU) and the installation of a new Vacuum
Heater, Coker Heater, a second ARU and a NaSH Unit. A
significant portion of this project was completed in the first
half of 2009. The installation of the second ARU and the NaSH
Unit is expected to be completed in 2013. The completed portions
of this project have given us the ability to
61
run a deeper cut in the Vacuum Unit and allow the
running of a heavier crude slate, although this capability will
not be fully realized until we complete the remainder of the FCC
Reactor revamp, discussed below. The installation of the second
ARU and NaSH unit will further increase our sulfur capacity.
Further, the new Coker Heater should allow much longer runs
between decoking, which will reduce maintenance cost and
increase the on-stream efficiency of the Coker.
Coker Valve Project. The Coker Valve project
involved installing Delta Valves on the bottom heads of both
coke drums, modifying feed piping to coke drums and installing a
new coke crusher and conveyor system. The installation of the
Delta Valves has significantly improved the safety of the
operation to remove coke from the coke drums and they will
enable the coker to run shorter cycles, thereby increasing
effective capacity. The entire project will allow for the safe
handling of shot coke that may be produced during deep cut
operations on a heavy crude slate. This project was completed in
the first half of 2009.
FCC Reactor Revamp. We plan to modify the
fractionation section of the FCC and install a new reactor and
catalyst stripper, and make modifications to the riser. In the
first half of 2009, we completed the fractionation section
modifications, which will accommodate higher conversions
expected from the FCC Reactor, once the catalyst section
installations are complete. The remainder of this project is
expected to be completed by 2013.
MSAT II
Compliance Project
The purpose of the MSAT II project is to comply with the MSAT II
regulations, which limit the annual average benzene content in
gasoline beginning in January 2011. The project will consist of
new fractionation equipment, Isomerization Unit modifications
and a new catalyst for saturating benzene. The fractionation
section is expected to be completed by 2011 and the
Isomerization Unit modifications are planned for completion by
2013.
Maintenance
Shop and Warehouse Relocation Project
This project involves the construction of a single, new building
outside of potential overpressure zones for personnel working in
the existing maintenance shops and warehouse. The purpose of the
project is to provide a safer working environment for
maintenance and warehouse workers at the Tyler refinery by
minimizing the risk of injury due to vapor cloud explosions,
fires and releases of hazardous substances. The purchasing
department employees will also be relocated to this building due
to synergies with the warehouse operation. This project began in
2009 and is expected to be completed in 2010.
The amount of our capital expenditure budget is subject to
change due to unanticipated increases in the cost, scope and
completion time for our capital projects. For example, we may
experience increases in the cost of
and/or
timing to obtain necessary equipment required for our continued
compliance with government regulations or to complete
improvement projects to the refinery. Additionally, the scope
and cost of employee or contractor labor expense related with
installation of that equipment could increase from our
projections.
Contractual
Obligations and Commitments
Information regarding our known contractual obligations of the
types described below as of December 31, 2009, is set forth
in the following table (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
>5 Years
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Long term debt, notes payable and capital lease obligations
|
|
$
|
82.7
|
|
|
$
|
233.8
|
|
|
$
|
0.2
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
$
|
317.1
|
|
Interest(1)
|
|
|
18.3
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
27.3
|
|
Operating lease commitments(2)
|
|
|
14.0
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
Capital project commitments(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
115.0
|
|
|
$
|
264.3
|
|
|
$
|
10.7
|
|
|
$
|
14.9
|
|
|
$
|
404.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes expected interest payments on debt outstanding under
credit facilities in place at December 31, 2009. Variable
interest is calculated using December 31, 2009 rates. |
62
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Amounts reflect future estimated lease payments under operating
leases having remaining non-cancelable terms in excess of one
year as of December 31, 2009. |
|
(3) |
|
Amounts constitute a minimum obligation that would be required
as a penalty payment if a certain capital project is not
completed. We have no expectation that this capital project will
not be completed. |
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We have no off-balance sheet arrangements.
Critical
Accounting Policies
The fundamental objective of financial reporting is to provide
useful information that allows a reader to comprehend the
business activities of Delek. We prepare our consolidated
financial statements in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States, and in the process of
applying these principles, we must make judgments, assumptions
and estimates based on the best available information at the
time. To aid a readers understanding, management has
identified Deleks critical accounting policies. These
policies are considered critical because they are both most
important to the portrayal of our financial condition and
results, and require our most difficult, subjective or complex
judgments. Often they require judgments and estimation about
matters which are inherently uncertain and involve measuring at
a specific point in time, events which are continuous in nature.
Actual results may differ based on the accuracy of the
information utilized and subsequent events, some over which we
may have little or no control.
LIFO
Inventory
Refining segment inventory consists of crude oil, refined
petroleum products and blendstocks which are stated at the lower
of cost or market. Cost is determined under the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) valuation method. The LIFO method
requires management to make estimates on an interim basis of the
anticipated year-end inventory quantities, which could differ
from actual quantities.
Delek believes the accounting estimate related to the
establishment of anticipated year-end LIFO inventory is a
critical accounting estimate because it requires management to
make assumptions about future production rates in the refinery,
the future buying patterns of our customers, as well as numerous
other factors beyond our control including the economic
viability of the general economy, weather conditions, the
availability of imports, the marketing of competitive fuels and
government regulation. The impact of changes in actual
performance versus these estimates could be material to the
inventories reported on our quarterly balance sheets and the
results reported in our quarterly statements of operations could
be material. In selecting assumed inventory levels, Delek uses
historical trending of production and sales, recognition of
current market indicators of future pricing and value, and new
regulatory requirements which might impact inventory levels.
Managements assumptions require significant judgment
because actual year-end inventory levels have fluctuated in the
past and may continue to do so.
At each year-end, actual physical inventory levels are used to
calculate both ending inventory balances and final cost of goods
sold for the year.
Long-lived
Asset Recovery
A significant portion of our total assets are long-lived assets,
consisting primarily of property, plant and equipment
(PP&E), definite life intangibles and goodwill.
Changes in technology, changes in the regulatory climate,
Deleks intended use for the assets, as well as changes in
broad economic or industry factors, may cause the estimated
period of use or the value of these assets to change.
Property,
Plant and Equipment and Definite Life Intangibles
Impairment
PP&E and definite life intangibles are evaluated for
impairment whenever indicators of impairment exist. Accounting
standards require that if an impairment indicator is present,
Delek must assess whether the carrying amount of the asset is
unrecoverable by estimating the sum of the future cash flows
expected to result from the asset,
63
undiscounted and without interest charges. If the carrying
amount is more than the recoverable amount, an impairment charge
must be recognized based on the fair value of the asset.
Property and equipment of retail stores we are closing are
written down to their estimated net realizable value at the time
we close such stores. Changes in market demographics,
competition, economic conditions and other factors can impact
the operations of certain locations. Cash flows vary from year
to year, and we analyze regional market, division and store
operations. As a result, we identified and recorded impairment
charges of $0.4 million and $0.3 million for closed
stores in 2008 and 2007. In 2007, we turned certain locations
into unbranded dealer operations. Similar changes may occur in
the future that will require us to record impairment charges.
Goodwill
and Potential Impairment
Goodwill is reviewed at least annually for impairment or more
frequently if indicators of impairment exist. Goodwill is tested
by comparing net book value of the operating segments to the
estimated fair value of the reporting unit. In assessing the
recoverability of goodwill, assumptions are made with respect to
future business conditions and estimated expected future cash
flows to determine the fair value of a reporting unit. If these
estimates and assumptions change in the future due to such
factors as a decline in general economic conditions, competitive
pressures on sales and margins, and other economic and industry
factors beyond managements control, an impairment charge
may be required. Details of remaining goodwill balances by
segment are included in Note 9 to the consolidated
financial statements in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and are incorporated herein by reference.
Vendor
Discounts and Deferred Revenue
In our retail segment, we receive cash discounts or cash
payments from certain vendors related to product promotions
based upon factors such as quantities purchased, quantities
sold, merchandise exclusivity, store space and various other
factors. In accordance with the provisions of the ASC
605-50,
Revenue Recognition Customer Payments and
Incentives, we recognize these amounts as a reduction of
inventory until the products are sold, at which time the amounts
are reflected as a reduction in cost of goods sold. Certain of
these amounts are received from vendors related to agreements
covering several periods. These amounts are initially recorded
as deferred revenue, are reclassified as a reduction in
inventory upon receipt of the products and are subsequently
recognized as a reduction of cost of goods sold as the products
are sold.
We make assumptions and judgments regarding, for example, the
likelihood of attaining specified levels of purchases or selling
specified volumes of products, and the duration of carrying a
specified product. In selecting estimates, we use historical
trending of sales, market industry information and recognition
of current market indicators about general economic conditions
which might impact future sales. The impact of changes in actual
performance versus these estimates could be material.
Environmental
Expenditures
It is our policy to accrue environmental and
clean-up
related costs of a non-capital nature when it is both probable
that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be
reasonably estimated. Environmental liabilities represent the
current estimated costs to investigate and remediate
contamination at our properties. This estimate is based on
internal and third-party assessments of the extent of the
contamination, the selected remediation technology and review of
applicable environmental regulations. Accruals for estimated
costs from environmental remediation obligations generally are
recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility
study, and include, but are not limited to, costs to perform
remedial actions and costs of machinery and equipment that is
dedicated to the remedial actions and that does not have an
alternative use. Such accruals are adjusted as further
information develops or circumstances change. We discount
environmental liabilities to their present value if payments are
fixed and determinable. Expenditures for equipment necessary for
environmental issues relating to ongoing operations are
capitalized.
Changes in laws and regulations, the financial condition of
state trust funds associated with environmental remediation and
actual remediation expenses compared to historical experience
could significantly impact our
64
results of operations and financial position. We believe the
estimates selected, in each instance, represent our best
estimate of future outcomes, but the actual outcomes could
differ from the estimates selected.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2009, the FASB issued guidance regarding subsequent
events, which is effective for interim or annual periods ending
after June 15, 2009 and should be applied prospectively.
This guidance is largely similar to the current guidance in the
auditing literature with some exceptions which are not intended
to result in significant changes in practice. We adopted this
guidance in May 2009. The adoption did not have an impact on our
financial position or results of operations.
In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance on the recognition and
presentation of
other-than-temporary
impairments and provided some new disclosure requirements for
debt securities. This pronouncement is effective for interim and
annual periods ending after June 15, 2009, and is applied
to existing and new investments held by an entity as of the
beginning of the period in which it was adopted. We adopted this
guidance in April 2009. The adoption did not have an impact on
our financial position or results of operations.
In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance on estimating fair value
when the volume and activity for an asset or liability have
significantly decreased in relation to normal market activity
for the asset or liability. This pronouncement also provides
additional guidance on circumstances that may indicate a
transaction is not orderly. We adopted this guidance in April
2009. The adoption did not have an impact on our financial
positions or results of operations.
In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance that extends the
disclosure requirements regarding the fair value of financial
instruments to interim financial statements of publicly traded
companies. This pronouncement is effective for interim and
annual periods ending after June 15, 2009. We adopted this
pronouncement in April 2009. The additional disclosures required
did not have an impact on our financial position or results of
operations.
In March 2008, the FASB issued guidance regarding the disclosure
about derivative instruments and hedging activities, which
applies to all derivative instruments and non-derivative
instruments that are designated and qualify as hedging
instruments and related hedged items. The standard requires
entities to provide greater transparency through additional
disclosures about how and why an entity uses derivative
instruments, how derivative instruments and related hedged items
are accounted for and its related interpretations, and how
derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an
entitys financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows. This guidance is effective for financial statements
issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008.
We have adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2009.
See Note 11 for discussion of our derivative activities.
In December 2007, the FASB issued guidance requiring the
acquiring entity in a business combination to recognize the fair
value of all the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the
transaction, establishing the acquisition-date as the fair value
measurement point, and modifying the disclosure requirements.
This guidance applies prospectively to business combinations for
which the acquisition date is on or after January 1, 2009.
However, accounting for changes in valuation allowances for
acquired deferred tax assets and the resolution of uncertain tax
positions for prior business combinations will impact tax
expense instead of impacting the prior business combination
accounting starting January 1, 2009. We adopted this
guidance effective January 1, 2009 and wrote-off
$0.7 million in previously capitalized transaction costs as
a result of the adoption. We will also assess the impact of this
guidance in the event we enter into a business combination in
the future.
Also in December 2007, the FASB issued guidance that changes the
classification of non-controlling interests, sometimes called
minority interest, in the consolidated financial statements.
Additionally, this guidance establishes a single method of
accounting for changes in a parent companys ownership
interest that do not result in deconsolidation and requires a
parent company to recognize a gain or loss when a subsidiary is
deconsolidated. This guidance is effective January 1, 2009,
and will be applied prospectively with the exception of the
presentation and disclosure requirements which must be applied
retrospectively. We have no minority interest reporting in our
consolidated reporting, therefore adoption of this guidance does
not have an impact on our financial position or results of
operations.
65
|
|
ITEM 7A.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK
|
Changes in commodity prices (mainly petroleum crude oil and
unleaded gasoline) and interest rates are our primary sources of
market risk. When we make the decision to manage our market
exposure, our objective is generally to avoid losses from
negative price changes, realizing we will not obtain the benefit
of positive price changes.
Commodity
Price Risk
Impact of Changing Prices. Our revenues and
cash flows, as well as estimates of future cash flows, are
sensitive to changes in energy prices. Major shifts in the cost
of crude oil, the prices of refined products and the cost of
ethanol can generate large changes in the operating margin in
each of our segments. Gains and losses on transactions accounted
for using
mark-to-market
accounting are reflected in cost of goods sold in the
consolidated statements of operations at each period end. Gains
or losses on commodity derivative contracts accounted for as
cash flow hedges are recognized in other comprehensive income on
the consolidated balance sheets and ultimately, when the
forecasted transactions are completed in net sales or cost of
goods sold in the consolidated statements of operations.
Price Risk Management Activities. At times, we
enter into commodity derivative contracts to manage our price
exposure to our inventory positions, future purchases of crude
oil and ethanol, future sales of refined products or to fix
margins on future production. During 2007, in connection with
our marketing segments supply contracts, we entered into
certain futures contracts. In accordance with ASC 815,
Derivatives and Hedging (ASC 815), all of
these commodity futures contracts are recorded at fair value,
and any change in fair value between periods has historically
been recorded in the profit and loss section of our consolidated
financial statements. At December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, we had open derivative contracts
representing 113,000 barrels and 148,000 barrels,
respectively, of refined petroleum products with an unrealized
net gain of $0.1 million and $0.8 million,
respectively.
In December 2007, in connection with our offering of renewable
fuels in our retail segment markets, we entered into a series of
OTC swaps based on the futures price of ethanol as quoted on the
Chicago Board of Trade and a series of OTC swaps based on the
futures price of unleaded gasoline as quoted on the New York
Mercantile Exchange. In accordance with ASC 815, all of these
swaps are recorded at fair value, and any change in fair value
between periods has historically been recorded in the
consolidated statements of operations. As of December 31,
2009 and December 31, 2008, we had open derivative
contracts representing 95,976 barrels and
1,214,548 barrels of ethanol, respectively, with unrealized
net losses of $0.5 million and $6.8 million,
respectively. As of December 31, 2009 and December 31,
2008, we also had open derivative contracts representing
96,000 barrels and 1,200,000 barrels, respectively, of
unleaded gasoline with unrealized net gains of $0.8 million
and $11.1 million, respectively.
In March 2008, we entered into a series of OTC swaps based on
the future price of WTI as quoted on the NYMEX which fixed the
purchase price of WTI for a predetermined number of barrels at
future dates from July 2008 through December 2009. We also
entered into a series of OTC swaps based on the future price of
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) as quoted on the Gulf
Coast ULSD PLATTS which fixed the sales price of ULSD for a
predetermined number of gallons at future dates from July 2008
through December 2009.
In accordance with ASC 815, the WTI and ULSD swaps were
designated as cash flow hedges with the change in fair value
recorded in other comprehensive income. However, as of
November 20, 2008, due to the suspension of operations at
the Tyler refinery, the cash flow designation was removed
because the probability of occurrence of the hedged forecasted
transactions for the period of the shutdown became remote. All
changes in the fair value of these swaps subsequent to
November 20, 2008 have been recognized in the statement of
operations. For the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008,
we recognized gains of $9.6 million and $13.8 million,
respectively, which are included as an adjustment to cost of
goods sold in the condensed consolidated statement of operations
as a result of the discontinuation of these cash flow hedges.
For the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded
unrealized gains as a component of other comprehensive income of
$0.9 million ($0.6 million, net of deferred taxes)
related to the change in the fair value of these swaps. As of
December 31, 2008, we had total unrealized losses, net of
deferred income taxes, in accumulated other comprehensive income
of $0.6 million associated with these hedges. The fair
value of these contracts in accumulated other comprehensive
income was recognized in income as the positions
66
were closed and the hedged transactions were recognized in
income. There were no unrealized gains or losses remaining in
accumulated other comprehensive income as of December 31,
2009.
We maintain at our refinery and in third-party facilities
inventories of crude oil, feedstocks and refined petroleum
products, the values of which are subject to wide fluctuations
in market prices driven by world economic conditions, regional
and global inventory levels and seasonal conditions. At
December 31, 2009, we held approximately 1.1 million
barrels of crude and product inventories valued under the LIFO
valuation method with an average cost of $63.20 per barrel. At
December 31, 2008, market values had fallen below most of
our LIFO inventory layer values and, as a result, we recognized
a pre-tax loss of approximately $10.9 million relating to
the reflection of market value at a level below cost. At
December 31, 2009, the excess of replacement cost (FIFO)
over the carrying value (LIFO) of refinery inventories was
$20.8 million. The excess of replacement cost (FIFO) over
the carrying value (LIFO) of refinery inventories at
December 31, 2008 was nominal. We refer to this excess as
our LIFO reserve.
Interest
Rate Risk
We have market exposure to changes in interest rates relating to
our outstanding variable rate borrowings, which totaled
$251.3 million as of December 31, 2009. We help manage
this risk through interest rate swap and cap agreements that
modify the interest characteristics of our outstanding long-term
debt. In accordance with ASC 815, all interest rate hedging
instruments are recorded at fair value and any changes in the
fair value between periods are recognized in earnings. The fair
value of our interest rate hedging instruments decreased by a
nominal amount for the year ended December 31, 2009 and
$1.0 million and $2.4 million, respectively, for the
years ending December 31, 2008 and 2007. The fair values of
our interest rate swaps and cap agreements are obtained from
dealer quotes. These values represent the estimated amount that
we would receive or pay to terminate the agreements taking into
account the difference between the contract rate of interest and
rates currently quoted for agreements, of similar terms and
maturities. We believe that interest rate derivatives will
reduce our exposure to short-term interest rate movements. The
annualized impact of a hypothetical one percent change in
interest rates on floating rate debt outstanding as of
December 31, 2009 would be to change interest expense by
$2.5 million. Increases in rates would be partially
mitigated by interest rate derivatives mentioned above. As of
December 31, 2009, we had interest rate cap agreements in
place representing $60.0 million in notional value with
expiration dates in July 2010. These interest rate caps range
from 3.75% to 4.00% as measured by the
3-month
LIBOR rate and include a knock-out feature at rates ranging from
6.65% to 7.15% using the same measurement rate. The fair value
of our interest rate derivatives was nominal as of both
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
The types of instruments used in our hedging and trading
activities described above include swaps and futures. Our
positions in derivative commodity instruments are monitored and
managed on a daily basis to ensure compliance with our risk
management strategies which have been approved by our board of
directors.
|
|
ITEM 8.
|
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
|
The information required by Item 8 is incorporated by
reference to the section beginning on
page F-1.
|
|
ITEM 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
|
None.
|
|
ITEM 9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Rule 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e))
under the Exchange Act that are designed to provide reasonable
assurance that the information that we are required to disclose
in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods specified in the SECs rules and forms, and such
information is accumulated and communicated to our management,
including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely
67
decisions regarding required disclosure. It should be noted
that, because of inherent limitations, our disclosure controls
and procedures, however well designed and operated, can provide
only reasonable, and not absolute, assurance that the objectives
of the disclosure controls and procedures are met.
As required by paragraph (b) of
Rules 13a-15
and 15d-15
under the Exchange Act, our Chief Executive Officer and our
Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of our
disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by
this report. Based on such evaluation, our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer have concluded, as of
the end of the period covered by this report, that our
disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a
reasonable assurance level to ensure that the information that
we are required to disclose in the reports we file or submit
under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and
reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and
forms and such information is accumulated and communicated to
our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure.
Managements
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting. Our internal
control over financial reporting is a process that is designed
under the supervision of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, and effected by our Board of Directors,
management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States. Our internal control over financial reporting
includes those policies and procedures that:
i. Pertain to the maintenance of records that, in
reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of our assets;
ii. Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States, and that receipts and
expenditures recorded by us are being made only in accordance
with authorizations of our management and Board of
Directors; and
iii. Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition
of our assets that could have a material effect on our financial
statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.
Management has conducted its evaluation of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, based on the framework in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
Managements assessment included an evaluation of the
design of our internal control over financial reporting and
testing the operational effectiveness of our internal control
over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of the
assessment with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors.
Based on its assessment, management determined that, at
December 31, 2009, we maintained effective internal control
over financial reporting.
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Our independent registered public accounting firm,
Ernst & Young LLP, has audited the effectiveness of
our internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, as stated in their report, which is
included in the section beginning on
page F-1.
The information required by Item 8 is incorporated by
reference to the section beginning on
page F-1.
68
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There have been no changes in our internal control over
financial reporting during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009
that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
From time to time, we make changes to our internal control over
financial reporting that are intended to enhance its
effectiveness and which do not have a material effect on our
overall internal control over financial reporting. We will
continue to evaluate the effectiveness of our disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting on an ongoing basis and will take action as
appropriate.
|
|
ITEM 9B.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
None.
PART III
|
|
ITEM 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers And Corporate Governance
|
Our Board Governance Guidelines, our charters for our Audit and
Compensation Committees and our Code of Business
Conduct & Ethics covering all employees, including our
principal executive officer, principal financial officer,
principal accounting officer and controllers, are available on
our website, www.DelekUS.com. A copy will be mailed upon request
made to Investor Relations, Delek US Holdings, Inc. or
ir@delekus.com. We intend to disclose any amendments to or
waivers of the Code of Business Conduct & Ethics on
behalf of our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Controller, and persons performing similar functions on our
website, at www.DelekUS.com, under the Investor
Relations caption, promptly following the date of any such
amendment or waiver.
The information required by Item 401 of
Regulation S-K
regarding directors will be included under Election of
Directors in the definitive Proxy Statement for our Annual
Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 4, 2010 (the
Definitive Proxy Statement), and is incorporated
herein by reference. Information regarding executive officers
will be included under Management in the Definitive
Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference. The
information required by Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
will be included under Section 16(a) Beneficial
Ownership Reporting Compliance in the Definitive Proxy
Statement and is incorporated herein by reference. The
information required by Items 407(c)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5)
of
Regulation S-K
will be included under Corporate Governance in the
Definitive Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
ITEM 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
The information required by this Item will be included under
Executive Compensation and Corporate
Governance in the Definitive Proxy Statement and is
incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
ITEM 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Owners and Management and Related
Stockholder Matters
|
The information required by this Item will be included under
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management and Securities Authorized for Issuance
Under Equity Compensation Plans in the Definitive Proxy
Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
ITEM 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions and Director
Independence
|
The information required by this Item will be included under
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions in
the Definitive Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by
reference.
The information required by Item 407(a) of
Regulation S-K
will be included under Election of Directors and
Corporate Governance in the Definitive Proxy
Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.
69
|
|
ITEM 14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services
|
Set forth below are the fees paid for the services of
Ernst & Young LLP during fiscal years 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Audit fees(1)
|
|
$
|
1,568,558
|
|
|
$
|
1,931,279
|
|
Audit-related fees(2)
|
|
|
303,426
|
|
|
|
105,975
|
|
Tax fees(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,835
|
|
All other fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,871,984
|
|
|
$
|
2,056,089
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Audit fees consisted of services rendered to us or certain of
our subsidiaries. Such audit services include audits of
financial statements, reviews of our quarterly financial
statements, audit services provided in connection with our
regulatory filings, and preliminary review of our documentation
and test plans in connection with our evaluation of internal
controls. Fees and expenses are for services in connection with
the audit of our fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008 regardless of when the fees and expenses
were paid. |
|
(2) |
|
Fees for audit-related matters billed in 2009 and 2008 consisted
of agreed upon procedures for us and our subsidiaries,
procedures related to regulatory filings of our parent, and
consultations on various accounting and reporting areas. |
|
(3) |
|
Fees for tax services billed in 2009 and 2008 consisted
primarily of preparation of federal and state income tax returns
for us and certain of our subsidiaries and consultation on
various tax matters related to us and our subsidiaries. |
The Audit Committee has considered and determined that the
provision of non-audit services by our independent registered
public accounting firm is compatible with maintaining auditor
independence.
Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures. In
general, all engagements performed by our independent registered
public accounting firm, whether for auditing or non-auditing
services, must be pre-approved by the Audit Committee. During
2009, all of the services performed for us by Ernst &
Young LLP were pre-approved by the Audit Committee.
70
PART IV
|
|
ITEM 15.
|
EXHIBITS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
(a) Certain Documents Filed as Part of this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
1. Financial Statements and Schedule
2. Exhibits See below
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Companys
Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC
File No. 333-131675)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.2 to the Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen common stock certificate (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4.1 to the Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.1*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated as of May 1, 2009 by and between
Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Ezra Uzi Yemin (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 6, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
Amended and Restated Consulting Agreement, dated as of
April 11, 2006, by and between Greenfeld-Energy Consulting,
Ltd. and Delek Refining, Ltd. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys Registration Statement
on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.3*
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement for Directors and Officers
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2006,
by and between Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Delek Group Ltd.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of
April 28, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., MAPCO Family
Centers, Inc., the several lenders from time to time party to
the Agreement, Lehman Brothers Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi
USA and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(a)
|
|
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of August 18, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., MAPCO
Family Centers, Inc., the several banks and other financial
institutions or entities from time to time parties thereto,
Lehman Brothers Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman
Commercial Paper Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(b)
|
|
Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of October 11, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the
several banks and other financial institutions or entities from
time to time parties to the Agreement, Lehman Brothers Inc.,
SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(c)
|
|
Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of December 15, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the
several banks and other financial institutions or entities from
time to time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers
Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper
Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(d)
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of April 18, 2006, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the
several banks and other financial institutions or entities from
time to time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers,
Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper
Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(e)
|
|
Fifth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of June 14, 2006, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the several
banks and other financial institutions or entities from time to
time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
71
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.5(f)
|
|
Sixth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement entered
into effective July 13, 2006, among MAPCO Express, Inc.,
the several banks and other financial institutions or entities
from time to time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman
Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman
Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(g)
|
|
Seventh Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
entered into effective March 30, 2007, among MAPCO Express,
Inc., the several banks and other financial institutions or
entities, from time to time, parties to the Credit Agreement,
Lehman Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman
Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(h)
|
|
Eighth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
entered into effective December 3, 2008, among MAPCO
Express, Inc., the several banks and other financial
institutions or entities, from time to time, parties to the
Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank
Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(i)
|
|
Ninth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
entered into effective January 28, 2009, among MAPCO
Express, Inc., the several banks and other financial
institutions or entities, from time to time, parties to the
Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank
Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(j)+++
|
|
Resignation, Waiver, Consent and Appointment Agreement dated
September 1, 2009 by and between Fifth Third Bank, N.A.,
Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. and MAPCO Express, Inc.
|
|
10
|
.5(k)+++
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of
December 10, 2009 between MAPCO Express, Inc. as borrower,
Fifth Third Bank as arranger and administrative agent, Bank
Leumi USA as co-administrative agent, SunTrust Bank as
syndication agent and the lenders from time to time parties
thereto.
|
|
10
|
.6+++
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of
October 13, 2006, among Delek Refining, Ltd., Delek
Pipeline Texas, Inc., various financial institutions, SunTrust
Bank and The CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(a)
|
|
First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated as of December 15, 2008, among Delek Refining, Ltd.,
Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc., various financial institutions,
SunTrust Bank and The CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc.
(superseded by Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(b)
|
|
Letter Agreement (Second Amendment) to Second Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2009,
among Delek Refining, Ltd., Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and
various financial institutions including SunTrust Bank as
administrative agent, issuing bank, swingline lender and
collateral agent (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.6(d) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009) (superseded by
Exhibit 10.6(f)))
|
|
10
|
.6(c)
|
|
Third Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated as of February 13, 2009, among Delek Refining, Ltd.,
Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and various financial institutions
including SunTrust Bank as administrative agent, issuing bank,
swingline lender and collateral agent (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.6(e) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009) (superseded by Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(d)+++
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit
Agreement, dated as of February 18, 2009, among Delek
Refining, Ltd., Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and various financial
institutions including SunTrust Bank as administrative agent,
issuing bank, swingline lender and collateral agent (superseded
by Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(e)
|
|
Fifth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated as of June 30, 2009, among Delek Refining, Ltd.,
Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and various financial institutions
including SunTrust Bank as administrative agent, issuing bank,
swingline lender and collateral agent (superseded by
Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(f)
|
|
Credit Agreement dated February 23, 2010 by and between
Delek Refining, Ltd. As borrower and a consortium of lenders
including Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC as administrative
agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to the
Companys
Form 8-K
filed on February 25, 2010)
|
|
10
|
.7+
|
|
Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, dated April 12, 1999,
between La Gloria Oil and Gas Company and Scurlock Permian,
LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
72
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.7(a)+
|
|
One-Year Renewal of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, dated
December 21, 2004, between Plains Marketing, L.P., as
successor to Scurlock Permian LLC, and La Gloria Oil and
Gas Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11(a)
to the Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(b)+
|
|
Assignment of the Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, as amended
and renewed on December 21, 2004, by La Gloria Oil and
Gas Company to Delek Refining, Ltd. (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.11(b) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(c)+
|
|
Amendment to One-Year Renewal of Pipeline Capacity Lease
Agreement, dated January 15, 2006, between Delek Refining,
Ltd. and Plains Marketing, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.11(c) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(d)+
|
|
Extension of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, dated
January 15, 2006, between Delek Refining, Ltd. and Plains
Marketing, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.11(d) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(e)+
|
|
Modification and Extension of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement,
effective May 1, 2006, between Delek Refining, Ltd. and
Plains Marketing, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.11(e) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(f)++
|
|
Modification and Extension of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement
dated March 31, 2009 between Delek Crude Logistics, LLC and
Plains Marketing L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 11, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.8+
|
|
Branded Jobber Contract, dated December 15, 2005, between
BP Products North America, Inc. and MAPCO Express, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9*
|
|
Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9(a)*
|
|
Form of Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan
Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.13(a) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9(b)*
|
|
Director Form of Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term
Incentive Plan Stock Option Agreement (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.13(b) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9(c)*
|
|
Officer Form of Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive
Plan Stock Option Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.13(c) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
Description of Director Compensation (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.8 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 15, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
Management and Consulting Agreement, dated as of January 1,
2006, by and between Delek Group Ltd. and Delek US Holdings,
Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
Amended and Restated Term Loan Note, dated December 30,
2008, in the principal amount of $30,000,000 of Delek Finance,
Inc., in favor of Israel Discount Bank of New York (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.12(a) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated December 19,
2007 by and between Delek Marketing & Supply, LP and
various financial institutions from time to time party to the
agreement, as Lenders, and Fifth Third Bank, as Administrative
Agent and L/C issuer (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.16(c) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.13(a)
|
|
First Amendment dated October 17, 2008 to Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement dated December 19, 2007 by and
between Delek Marketing & Supply, LP and various
financial institutions from time to time party to the agreement,
as Lenders, and Fifth Third Bank, as Administrative Agent and
L/C issuer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13(d)
to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009)
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.13(b)
|
|
Second Amendment dated March 31, 2009 to Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement dated December 19, 2007 by and
between Delek Marketing & Supply, LP and various
financial institutions from time to time party to the agreement,
as Lenders, and Fifth Third Bank, as Administrative Agent and
L/C issuer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to
the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 11, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
Promissory Note dated July 27, 2006, by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc., and Bank Leumi USA as lender (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 14, 2006)
|
|
10
|
.14(a)
|
|
Letter agreement dated June 23, 2009 between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Bank Leumi USA (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
Term Promissory Note dated September 29, 2009 in the
principal amount of $65,000,000 between Delek US Holdings, Inc.
and Delek Petroleum, Ltd. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 6, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
Credit Agreement dated March 30, 2007, by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
documentation agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 15, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.16(a)
|
|
First Amendment dated August 20, 2007 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 9, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.16(b)
|
|
Second Amendment dated October 17, 2007 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc. as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.19(b) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.16(c)
|
|
Third Amendment dated December 4, 2007 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc. as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.19(c) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.16(d)
|
|
Fourth Amendment dated June 26, 2008 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 11, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.16(e)
|
|
Fifth Amendment dated December 29, 2008 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.16(e) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.17*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated May 1, 2009 by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc. and Assaf Ginzburg (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.18*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated May 1, 2009 by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc. and Frederec Green (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.19*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated June 10, 2009 by and between
MAPCO Express, Inc. and Igal Zamir (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009)
|
74
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.20*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated August 25, 2009 by and between
Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Mark B. Cox (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 6, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.21*
|
|
Letter agreement between Edward Morgan and Delek US Holdings,
Inc. dated April 17, 2009 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 11, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement dated August 22, 2007 by and
between Delek US Holdings, Inc. and TransMontaigne, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the
Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 9, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.22(a)
|
|
Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated October 9, 2007
by and between TransMontaigne, Inc., as assignor, Morgan Stanley
Capital Group, Inc., as assignee, and Delek US Holdings, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24(a) to the
Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.23++
|
|
Distribution Service Agreement dated December 28, 2007 by
and between MAPCO Express, Inc. and Core-Mark International,
Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the
Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.24*
|
|
Letter agreement dated February 24, 2010 by and between
Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Lynwood E. Gregory, III
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to the
Companys
Form 8-K
filed on February 25, 2010)
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a)
under the Securities Exchange Act
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a)
under the Securities Exchange Act
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement. |
|
+ |
|
Confidential treatment has been requested and granted with
respect to certain portions of this exhibit pursuant to Rule 406
of the Securities Act. Omitted portions have been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
|
++ |
|
Confidential treatment has been requested and granted with
respect to certain portions of this exhibit pursuant to Rule
24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act. Omitted portions have been
filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
|
+++ |
|
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to
certain portions of this exhibit pursuant to
Rule 24b-2
of the Securities Exchange Act. Omitted portions have been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
75
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and
For Each of the Three Years Ended December 31,
2009
INDEX TO
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULE
|
|
|
|
|
F-2
|
Audited Financial Statements:
|
|
|
|
|
F-4
|
|
|
F-5
|
|
|
F-6
|
|
|
F-7
|
|
|
F-8
|
|
|
F-48
|
All other financial schedules are not required under related
instructions, or are inapplicable and therefore have been
omitted.
F-1
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Delek US Holdings, Inc.
We have audited Delek US Holdings, Inc.s internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on
criteria established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Delek
US Holdings, Inc.s management is responsible for
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting,
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting included in Managements Report on
Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on the companys internal control
over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Delek US Holdings, Inc. maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on the COSO
criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of Delek US Holdings, Inc. as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity
and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2009 of Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and our report dated March 12, 2010
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Nashville, Tennessee
March 12, 2010
F-2
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Delek US Holdings, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Delek US Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes
in shareholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2009. Our audits also included the financial
statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a). These
financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Delek US Holdings, Inc. at
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the consolidated results of
its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2009, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our
opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Delek
US Holdings, Inc.s internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee on Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission and our report dated March 12, 2010
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Nashville, Tennessee
March 12, 2010
F-3
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
68.4
|
|
|
$
|
15.3
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
76.7
|
|
|
|
45.4
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
116.4
|
|
|
|
81.2
|
|
Assets held for sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
50.1
|
|
|
|
38.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
311.6
|
|
|
|
194.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
865.5
|
|
|
|
716.6
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(173.5
|
)
|
|
|
(130.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
692.0
|
|
|
|
586.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
71.9
|
|
|
|
78.9
|
|
Other intangibles, net
|
|
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
Minority investment
|
|
|
131.6
|
|
|
|
131.6
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,223.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,017.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
192.5
|
|
|
$
|
68.0
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital lease obligations
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
68.9
|
|
Notes payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.0
|
|
Note payable to related party
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
47.0
|
|
|
|
34.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
322.2
|
|
|
|
186.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and capital lease obligations, net of current
portion
|
|
|
234.4
|
|
|
|
202.1
|
|
Environmental liabilities, net of current portion
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
Asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
110.5
|
|
|
|
71.1
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current liabilities
|
|
|
369.8
|
|
|
|
297.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 10,000,000 shares
authorized, no shares issued and outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 110,000,000 shares
authorized, 53,700,570 and 53,682,070 shares issued and
outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
281.8
|
|
|
|
277.8
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
248.7
|
|
|
|
256.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
531.0
|
|
|
|
533.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
1,223.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,017.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements
F-4
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except shares and per share data)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
2,666.7
|
|
|
$
|
4,723.7
|
|
|
$
|
3,994.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
2,394.1
|
|
|
|
4,308.1
|
|
|
|
3,539.3
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
219.0
|
|
|
|
240.8
|
|
|
|
213.8
|
|
Insurance proceeds business interruption
|
|
|
(64.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property damage insurance, net
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
|
|
54.1
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Loss (gain) on sales of assets
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
(6.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on forward contract activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,635.3
|
|
|
|
4,651.6
|
|
|
|
3,839.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
72.1
|
|
|
|
155.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
25.5
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
30.6
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
(9.3
|
)
|
Loss from minority investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Gain on debt extinguishment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other expenses, net
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-operating expenses
|
|
|
26.0
|
|
|
|
28.9
|
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations before income tax expense
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
43.2
|
|
|
|
130.5
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
35.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
24.6
|
|
|
|
95.5
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
96.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
|
$
|
1.83
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total basic earnings per share
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
$
|
1.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
1.81
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total diluted earnings per share
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
1.82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
53,693,258
|
|
|
|
53,675,145
|
|
|
|
52,077,893
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
54,484,969
|
|
|
|
54,401,747
|
|
|
|
52,850,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends declared per common share outstanding
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
0.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements
F-5
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except shares and per share data)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
51,139,869
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
211.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169.8
|
|
|
|
382.2
|
|
Comprehensive income, net of tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96.4
|
|
|
|
96.4
|
|
Unrealized gain on cash flow hedges, net of deferred income tax
expense of $0.2 million
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
96.4
|
|
|
|
96.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividends ($0.54 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28.5
|
)
|
|
|
(28.5
|
)
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Income tax benefit of stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
Exercise of stock-based awards
|
|
|
610,034
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
Stock issued in connection with purchase of minority investment
|
|
|
1,916,667
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
|
Cumulative effect of adoption of ASC 740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
53,666,570
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
274.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
$
|
237.6
|
|
|
$
|
512.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income, net of tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
Unrealized loss on cash flow hedges, net of deferred income tax
benefit of $0.6 million
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
25.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividends ($0.15 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
Exercise of stock-based awards
|
|
|
15,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
53,682,070
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
277.8
|
|
|
$
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
256.1
|
|
|
$
|
533.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income, net of tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Unrealized gain on cash flow hedges, net of deferred income tax
expense of $0.3 million
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividends ($0.15 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.1
|
)
|
|
|
(8.1
|
)
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
Exercise of stock-based awards
|
|
|
18,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
53,700,570
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
281.8
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
248.7
|
|
|
$
|
531.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements
F-6
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
96.4
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
Accretion of asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
Gain on involuntary conversion of assets
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
39.8
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
Loss from minority investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Loss on interest rate derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
Loss on sale of investments
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of assets
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
(6.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of assets held for sale
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Income tax benefit of stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.8
|
)
|
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
(31.3
|
)
|
|
|
73.4
|
|
|
|
(35.1
|
)
|
Inventory and other current assets
|
|
|
(46.9
|
)
|
|
|
58.9
|
|
|
|
(19.7
|
)
|
Accounts payable and other current liabilities
|
|
|
137.2
|
|
|
|
(193.2
|
)
|
|
|
84.7
|
|
Non-current assets and liabilities, net
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
(10.3
|
)
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
137.8
|
|
|
|
28.6
|
|
|
|
179.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(472.8
|
)
|
|
|
(3,213.7
|
)
|
Sales of short-term investments
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
517.2
|
|
|
|
3,242.5
|
|
Purchase of minority investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89.1
|
)
|
Business combinations, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(74.6
|
)
|
Expenditures to rebuild refinery
|
|
|
(11.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property damage insurance proceeds
|
|
|
51.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(170.0
|
)
|
|
|
(102.4
|
)
|
|
|
(87.2
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of convenience store assets
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
Proceeds from sale of assets held for sale
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(102.9
|
)
|
|
|
(39.4
|
)
|
|
|
(221.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from revolvers
|
|
|
554.9
|
|
|
|
871.4
|
|
|
|
473.5
|
|
Payments on revolvers
|
|
|
(521.1
|
)
|
|
|
(913.6
|
)
|
|
|
(468.8
|
)
|
Proceeds from other debt instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.0
|
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
Payments on debt and capital lease obligations
|
|
|
(67.7
|
)
|
|
|
(62.0
|
)
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)
|
Proceeds from note payable to related parties
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
|
|
15.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments of note payable to related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
Income tax benefit of stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
(8.1
|
)
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
(28.5
|
)
|
Deferred financing costs paid
|
|
|
(4.8
|
)
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
(78.9
|
)
|
|
|
45.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
53.1
|
|
|
|
(89.7
|
)
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
|
|
105.0
|
|
|
|
101.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period
|
|
$
|
68.4
|
|
|
$
|
15.3
|
|
|
$
|
105.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the year for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest, net of capitalized interest of $1.4 million,
$3.4 million and $2.1 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively
|
|
$
|
19.1
|
|
|
$
|
17.8
|
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$
|
1.7
|
|
|
$
|
5.1
|
|
|
$
|
34.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock issued in connection with acquisition of minority
investment
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
51.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements
F-7
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Delek US Holdings, Inc. (Delek, we,
our or us) is the sole shareholder of
MAPCO Express, Inc. (Express), MAPCO Fleet, Inc.
(Fleet), Delek Refining, Inc.
(Refining), Delek Finance, Inc.
(Finance) and Delek Marketing and Supply, Inc.
(Marketing), (collectively, the
Subsidiaries).
We are a Delaware corporation formed in connection with our
acquisition in May 2001 of 198 retail fuel and convenience
stores from a subsidiary of the Williams Companies. Since then,
we have completed several other acquisitions of retail fuel and
convenience stores. In April 2005, we expanded our scope of
operations to include complementary petroleum refining and
wholesale and distribution businesses by acquiring a refinery in
Tyler, Texas. We initiated operations of our marketing segment
in August 2006 with the purchase of assets from Pride Companies
LP and affiliates (Pride Acquisition). Delek and Express were
incorporated during April 2001 in the State of Delaware. Fleet,
Refining, Finance, and Marketing were incorporated in the State
of Delaware during January 2004, February 2005, April 2005 and
June 2006, respectively.
Delek is listed on the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) under the symbol DK. As of
December 31, 2009, approximately 74.0% of our outstanding
shares are beneficially owned by Delek Group Ltd. (Delek
Group) located in Natanya, Israel.
Basis
of Presentation
Our consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Delek and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant
intercompany transactions and account balances have been
eliminated in consolidation.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) and in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Segment
Reporting
Delek is a diversified energy business focused on petroleum
refining, wholesale sales of refined products and retail
marketing. Management views operating results in primarily three
segments: refining, marketing and retail. The refining segment
operates a high conversion, independent refinery in Tyler,
Texas. The marketing segment sells refined products on a
wholesale basis in west Texas through company-owned and
third-party operating terminals. The retail segment markets
gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum products, and
convenience merchandise through a network of
442 company-operated retail fuel and convenience stores.
Segment reporting is more fully discussed in Note 13.
Discontinued
Operations
In December 2008, we met the requirements under the provisions
of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Codification
(ASC) 360, Property, Plant and Equipment
(ASC 360) to classify our retail segments
Virginia division (Virginia stores) as a group of
assets held for sale. The fair value assessment of these assets,
performed in the fourth quarter of 2008, did not result in an
impairment. We ceased depreciation of these assets. In December
2008, we sold 12 of the 36 stores in this division. During 2009,
we sold an additional 15 stores and in December 2009, the
remaining nine stores were reclassified back into normal
operations. The assets of these nine stores required a
depreciation catch up in December 2009.
F-8
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Reclassifications
In December 2009, nine stores remained of the Virginia stores
previously held for sale. These assets were reclassified to
normal operations and the consolidated balance sheets and
statements of operations for all periods presented reflect this
reclassification.
We have reclassified the goodwill impairment charge relating to
certain reporting units of the retail segment from non-operating
expenses and reflected them as an operating expense for all
periods presented, in order to conform to the current year
presentation.
These reclassifications were made in order to conform to the
current year reporting and had no effect on net income or
shareholders equity as previously reported.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Delek maintains cash and cash equivalents in accounts with
large, national financial institutions and retains nominal
amounts of cash at the convenience store locations as petty
cash. All highly liquid investments purchased with an original
maturity of three months or less are considered to be cash
equivalents. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, these cash
equivalents consisted primarily of overnight investments in
U.S. Government obligations and bank repurchase obligations
collateralized by U.S. Government obligations.
Investments
We have owned an investment in an auction rate security, valued
at $5.6 million, since the auction rate market began to
fail in 2008. During 2008, because of these failed auctions, we
reclassified our auction rate investment from short-term
investments to other non-current assets. The $5.6 million
investment we held in auction rate securities had an underlying
investment in a single series of preferred stock of Bank of
America.
In June 2009, Bank of America made an offer to exchange shares
of common stock of Bank of America for certain series of its
preferred shares that were then outstanding. On June 22,
2009, we redeemed our auction rate trust certificates for Bank
of Americas Series 5, floating rate, non-cumulative
preferred stock, which we exchanged on June 23, 2009, for
286,496 shares of common stock of Bank of America. Due to
the consideration paid for the Bank of America preferred shares
under the terms of the exchange offer, we recognized a loss of
approximately $2.0 million on this exchange.
However, in September 2009, we sold the 286,496 shares of
Bank of America common stock received in the exchange, and
recognized a gain of $1.4 million relating to the sale. For
the year ended December 31, 2009, we recognized a
cumulative loss of $0.6 million, which is included in other
expenses on the accompanying consolidated statement of
operations. Upon the sale of these 286,496 shares, we had
no remaining position in auction rate securities or in the
common stock of Bank of America.
Accounts
Receivable
Accounts receivable primarily consists of receivables related to
credit card sales, receivables from vendor promotions and trade
receivables generated in the ordinary course of business. Delek
recorded an allowance for doubtful accounts related to trade
receivables of less than $0.1 million as of both
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
We sell a variety of products to a diverse customer base. On a
consolidated basis, there were no customers that accounted for
more than 10% of net sales during the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
One customer of our refinery segment accounted for 34.4% and
24.2% of the refining segments accounts receivable balance
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
F-9
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
One credit card provider accounted for 16% and 14% of the retail
segments total accounts receivable balance as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Two customers accounted for approximately 28.3% and 51.8% of the
marketing segments accounts receivable balance as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Inventory
Refinery inventory consists of crude oil, refined products and
blendstocks which are stated at the lower of cost or market.
Cost is determined under the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) valuation method. Cost of crude
oil, refined product and blendstock inventories in excess of
market value are charged to cost of goods sold. Such changes are
subject to reversal in subsequent periods, not to exceed LIFO
cost, if prices recover.
Marketing inventory consists of refined products which are
stated at the lower of cost or market on a
first-in,
first-out (FIFO) basis.
Retail merchandise inventory consists of gasoline, diesel fuel,
other petroleum products, cigarettes, beer, convenience
merchandise and food service merchandise. Fuel inventories are
stated at the lower of cost or market on a FIFO basis. Non-fuel
inventories are stated at estimated cost as determined by the
retail inventory method.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Assets acquired by Delek in conjunction with acquisitions are
recorded at estimated fair market value in accordance with the
purchase method of accounting as prescribed in ASC 805,
Business Combinations (ASC 805). Other
acquisitions of property and equipment are carried at cost.
Betterments, renewals and extraordinary repairs that extend the
life of an asset are capitalized. Maintenance and repairs are
charged to expense as incurred. Delek owns certain fixed assets
on leased locations and depreciates these assets and asset
improvements over the lesser of managements estimated
useful lives of the assets or the remaining lease term.
Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over
managements estimated useful lives of the related assets,
which are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years
|
|
Automobiles
|
|
|
3-5
|
|
Computer equipment and software
|
|
|
3-10
|
|
Refinery turnaround costs
|
|
|
4
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
5-15
|
|
Retail store equipment
|
|
|
7-15
|
|
Asset retirement obligation assets
|
|
|
15-50
|
|
Refinery machinery and equipment
|
|
|
5-40
|
|
Petroleum and other site (POS) improvements
|
|
|
8-15
|
|
Building and building improvements
|
|
|
15-40
|
|
F-10
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Property, plant and equipment and accumulated depreciation by
reporting segment as of December 31, 2009 and depreciation
expense by operating segment for the year ended
December 31, 2009 are as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
and Other
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
$
|
433.3
|
|
|
$
|
35.5
|
|
|
$
|
394.6
|
|
|
$
|
2.1
|
|
|
$
|
865.5
|
|
Less: Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(55.5
|
)
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
|
|
(112.0
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(173.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
377.8
|
|
|
$
|
29.7
|
|
|
$
|
282.6
|
|
|
$
|
1.9
|
|
|
$
|
692.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
$
|
24.9
|
|
|
$
|
1.7
|
|
|
$
|
24.4
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
51.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
Intangible Assets
Delek has definite-life intangible assets consisting of
long-term supply contracts, non-compete agreements and
trademarks. The amortization periods associated with these
assets are 11.5 years for the supply contracts, ten years
for the non-compete agreements and four years for the trademarks.
Property,
Plant and Equipment and Other Intangibles
Impairment
Property, plant and equipment and definite life intangibles are
evaluated for impairment whenever indicators of impairment
exist. In accordance with ASC 360 and ASC 350,
Intangibles Goodwill and Other (ASC
350), Delek evaluates the realizability of these
long-lived assets as events occur that might indicate potential
impairment. In doing so, Delek assesses whether the carrying
amount of the asset is unrecoverable by estimating the sum of
the future cash flows expected to result from the asset,
undiscounted and without interest charges. If the carrying
amount is more than the recoverable amount, an impairment charge
must be recognized based on the fair value of the asset.
Property and equipment of retail stores identified for closing
are written down to their estimated net realizable value at the
time such stores are closed. Delek analyzes regional market,
division and store operations for changes in market
demographics, competition, economic conditions and other
factors, including the variability of cash flow. As a result,
Delek identified and recorded impairment charges of
$0.3 million for closed stores in 2007. In 2007, we turned
certain locations into unbranded dealer operations. Similar
changes may occur in the future that will require us to record
an impairment charge.
Capitalized
Interest
Delek had a significant construction period associated with
several capital projects in the refining segment and with the
construction related to the new prototype stores
being built in the retail segment. For the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, interest of
$1.3 million, $3.3 million and $1.9 million,
respectively, was capitalized by the refining segment. The
retail segment capitalized interest of $0.1 million for the
each of the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, and
$0.2 million of interest for the year ended 2007. There was
no interest capitalized by the marketing segment for the years
ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
Refinery
Turnaround Costs
Refinery turnaround costs are incurred in connection with
planned shutdowns and inspections of the refinerys major
units to perform necessary repairs and replacements. Refinery
turnaround costs are deferred when incurred, classified as
property, plant and equipment and amortized on a straight-line
basis over that period of time estimated to lapse until the next
planned turnaround occurs. Refinery turnaround costs include,
among other things, the cost to repair, restore, refurbish or
replace refinery equipment such as vessels, tanks, reactors,
piping, rotating equipment, instrumentation, electrical
equipment, heat exchangers and fired heaters. During the second
quarter of 2009, we successfully completed a major turnaround on
all of the units at the refinery.
F-11
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Goodwill
and Potential Impairment
Goodwill in an acquisition represents the excess of the
aggregate purchase price over the fair value of the identifiable
net assets. Deleks goodwill, all of which was acquired in
various purchase business combinations, is recorded at original
fair value and is not amortized. Goodwill is subject to annual
assessment to determine if an impairment of value has occurred
and Delek performs this review annually in the fourth quarter.
We could also be required to evaluate our goodwill if, prior to
our annual assessment, we experience disruptions in our
business, have unexpected significant declines in operating
results, or sustain a permanent market capitalization decline.
If a reporting units carrying amount exceeds its fair
value, the impairment assessment leads to the testing of the
implied fair value of the reporting units goodwill to its
carrying amount. If the implied fair value is less than the
carrying amount, a goodwill impairment charge is recorded. Our
annual impairment assessment of goodwill resulted in
$7.0 million and $11.2 million goodwill impairment
charges to our retail segment during the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Derivatives
Delek records all derivative financial instruments, including
interest rate swap and cap agreements, fuel-related derivatives,
over the counter (OTC) future swaps and forward
contracts at estimated fair value in accordance with the
provisions of ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging (ASC
815). Changes in the fair value of the derivative
instruments are recognized in operations, unless we elect to
apply the hedging treatment permitted under the provisions of
ASC 815 allowing such changes to be classified as other
comprehensive income. We validate the fair value of all
derivative financial instruments on a monthly basis, utilizing
valuations from third party financial and brokerage
institutions. On a regular basis, Delek enters into commodity
contracts with counterparties for crude oil and various finished
products. These contracts usually qualify for the normal
purchase / normal sale exemption under the standard and, as
such, are not measured at fair value.
Deleks policy under the guidance of ASC
815-10-45,
Derivatives and Hedging Other Presentation
Matters (ASC
815-10-45),
is to net the fair value amounts recognized for multiple
derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty and
offset these values against the cash collateral arising from
these derivative positions.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
The fair values of financial instruments are estimated based
upon current market conditions and quoted market prices for the
same or similar instruments. Management estimates that the
carrying value approximates fair value for all of Deleks
assets and liabilities that fall under the scope of ASC 825,
Financial Instruments (ASC 825).
Delek applies the provisions of ASC 820, Fair Value
Measurements and Disclosure (ASC 820) in its
presentation and disclosures regarding fair value, which pertain
to certain financial assets and liabilities measured at fair
value in the statement of position on a recurring basis. ASC 820
defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair
value and expands disclosures about such measurements that are
permitted or required under other accounting pronouncements. See
Note 14 for further discussion.
Delek also applies the provisions of ASC 825 as it pertains to
the fair value option. This standard permits the election to
carry financial instruments and certain other items similar to
financial instruments at fair value on the balance sheet, with
all changes in fair value reported in earnings. By electing the
fair value option in conjunction with a derivative, an entity
can achieve an accounting result similar to a fair value hedge
without having to comply with complex hedge accounting rules. As
of December 31, 2009, we did not make the fair value
election for any financial instruments not already carried at
fair value in accordance with other standards.
F-12
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Self-Insurance
Reserves
Delek is primarily self-insured for employee medical,
workers compensation and general liability costs, with
varying limits of per claim and aggregate stop loss insurance
coverage that management considers adequate. We maintain an
accrual for these costs based on claims filed and an estimate of
claims incurred but not reported. Differences between actual
settlements and recorded accruals are recorded in the period
identified.
Vendor
Discounts and Deferred Revenue
Delek receives cash discounts or cash payments from certain
vendors related to product promotions based upon factors such
as, quantities purchased, quantities sold, merchandise
exclusivity, store space and various other factors. In
accordance with ASC
605-50,
Revenue Recognition Customer Payments and
Incentives, we recognize these amounts as a reduction of
inventory until the products are sold, at which time the amounts
are reflected as a reduction in cost of goods sold. Certain of
these amounts are received from vendors related to agreements
covering several periods. These amounts are initially recorded
as deferred revenue, are reclassified as a reduction in
inventory over the period the products are received, and are
subsequently recognized as a reduction of cost of goods sold as
the products are sold.
Delek also receives advance payments from certain vendors
relating to non-inventory agreements. These amounts are recorded
as deferred revenue and are subsequently recognized as a
reduction of cost of goods sold as earned.
Environmental
Expenditures
It is Deleks policy to accrue environmental and
clean-up
related costs of a non-capital nature when it is both probable
that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be
reasonably estimated. Environmental liabilities represent the
current estimated costs to investigate and remediate
contamination at our properties. This estimate is based on
internal and third-party assessments of the extent of the
contamination, the selected remediation technology and review of
applicable environmental regulations, typically considering
estimated activities and costs for the next 15 years,
unless a specific longer range estimate is practicable. Accruals
for estimated costs from environmental remediation obligations
generally are recognized no later than completion of the
remedial feasibility study and include, but are not limited to,
costs to perform remedial actions and costs of machinery and
equipment that is dedicated to the remedial actions and that
does not have an alternative use. Such accruals are adjusted as
further information develops or circumstances change. We
discount environmental liabilities to their present value if
payments are fixed and determinable. Expenditures for equipment
necessary for environmental issues relating to ongoing
operations are capitalized.
Asset
Retirement Obligations
Delek recognizes liabilities which represent the fair value of a
legal obligation to perform asset retirement activities,
including those that are conditional on a future event, when the
amount can be reasonably estimated. In the retail segment, these
obligations relate to the net present value of estimated costs
to remove underground storage tanks at owned and leased retail
sites which are legally required under the applicable leases.
The asset retirement obligation for storage tank removal on
leased retail sites is being accreted over the expected life of
the owned retail site or the average retail site lease term. In
the refining segment, these obligations relate to the required
disposal of waste in certain storage tanks, asbestos abatement
at an identified location and other estimated costs that would
be legally required upon final closure of the refinery. In the
marketing segment, these obligations related to the required
cleanout of the pipeline and terminal tanks, and removal of
certain above-grade portions of the pipeline situated on
right-of-way
property.
F-13
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The reconciliation of the beginning and ending carrying amounts
of asset retirement obligations as of December 31, 2009 and
2008 is as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
6.6
|
|
|
$
|
5.3
|
|
Additional liabilities(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Acquired liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities settled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
7.0
|
|
|
$
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
This amount represents the recognition of an asset retirement
obligation associated with two hazardous waste units at the
Tyler refinery, and additional underground storage tanks at
various retail stores, as well as managements reassessment
of future cost estimates associated with the refining and retail
segments previously recognized remediation obligations. |
In order to determine fair value, management must make certain
estimates and assumptions including, among other things,
projected cash flows, a credit-adjusted risk-free rate and an
assessment of market conditions that could significantly impact
the estimated fair value of the asset retirement obligation.
Revenue
Recognition
Revenues for products sold are recorded at the point of sale
upon delivery of product, which is the point at which title to
the product is transferred, and when payment has either been
received or collection is reasonably assured.
Delek derives service revenue from the sale of lottery tickets,
money orders, car washes and other ancillary product and service
offerings. Service revenue and related costs are recorded at
gross amounts and net amounts, as appropriate, in accordance
with the provisions of ASC
605-45,
Revenue Recognition Principal Agent
Considerations (ASC
605-45).
We record service revenue and related costs at gross amounts
when Delek is the primary obligor, is subject to inventory risk,
has latitude in establishing prices and selecting suppliers,
influences product or service specifications, or has several but
not all of these indicators. When Delek is not the primary
obligor and does not possess other indicators of gross reporting
as discussed previously, we record net service revenue.
Cost
of Goods Sold and Operating Expenses
For the retail segment, cost of goods sold comprises the costs
of specific products sold. Operating expenses include costs such
as wages of employees at the stores, lease expense for the
stores, utility expense for the stores and other costs of
operating the stores. For the refining segment, cost of goods
sold includes all the costs of crude oil, feedstocks and
external costs. Operating expenses include the costs associated
with the actual operations of the refinery. For the marketing
segment, cost of goods sold includes all costs of refined
products, additives and related transportation. Operating
expenses include the costs associated with the actual operation
of owned terminals, terminaling expense at third-party locations
and pipeline maintenance costs.
Sales,
Use and Excise Taxes
Deleks policy is to exclude sales, use and excise taxes
from revenue when we are an agent of the taxing authority, in
accordance with ASC
605-45.
F-14
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Deferred
Financing Costs
Deferred financing costs represent expenses related to issuing
our long-term debt and obtaining our lines of credit. These
amounts are amortized ratably over the remaining term of the
respective financing and are included in interest expense. See
Note 11 for further information.
Advertising
Costs
Delek expenses advertising costs as the advertising space is
utilized. Advertising expense for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $3.5 million,
$2.5 million and $2.1 million, respectively.
Operating
Leases
Delek leases land and buildings under various operating lease
arrangements, most of which provide the option, after the
initial lease term, to renew the leases. Some of these lease
arrangements include fixed rental rate increases, while others
include rental rate increases based upon such factors as
changes, if any, in defined inflationary indices.
In accordance with ASC
840-20,
Leases Operating Leases, for all leases that
include fixed rental rate increases, Delek calculates the total
rent expense for the entire lease period, considering renewals
for all periods for which failure to renew the lease imposes
economic penalty, and records rental expense on a straight-line
basis in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
Income
Taxes
Income taxes are accounted for under the provisions of ASC 740,
Income Taxes (ASC 740). This statement
generally requires Delek to record deferred income taxes for the
differences between the book and tax bases of its assets and
liabilities, which are measured using enacted tax rates and laws
that will be in effect when the differences are expected to
reverse. Deferred income tax expense or benefit represents the
net change during the year in our deferred income tax assets and
liabilities.
ASC 740 also prescribes a comprehensive model for how companies
should recognize, measure, present and disclose in their
financial statements uncertain tax positions taken or expected
to be taken on a tax return and prescribes the minimum
recognition threshold a tax position is required to meet before
being recognized in the financial statements. Finally, ASC 740
requires an annual tabular rollforward of unrecognized tax
benefits.
Delek adopted certain provisions of ASC 740 relating to
uncertain tax positions effective January 1, 2007. The
adoption of these provisions to all of Deleks tax
positions resulted in an increase in the liability for
unrecognized tax benefits and a cumulative effect adjustment of
$0.1 million recognized as an adjustment to retained
earnings. At December 31, 2009, Delek had unrecognized tax
benefits of $0.4 million which, if recognized, would affect
our effective tax rate.
Delek files a consolidated U.S. federal income tax return,
as well as income tax returns in various state jurisdictions.
Delek is no longer subject to U.S. federal income tax
examinations by tax authorities for years before 2005 or state
and local income tax examinations by tax authorities for the
years before 2004. The Internal Revenue Service has examined
Deleks income tax returns through 2004 and during the
second quarter of 2008, began the process of examining the
returns for 2005 and 2006.
Delek recognizes accrued interest and penalties related to
unrecognized tax benefits as an adjustment to the current
provision for income taxes. A nominal amount of interest was
recognized related to unrecognized tax benefits during the year
ended December 31, 2009, compared to $0.3 million
during the year ended December 31, 2008.
Delek benefits from federal tax incentives related to its
refinery operations. Specifically, Delek is entitled to the
benefit of the domestic manufacturers production deduction
for federal tax purposes. Additionally, in 2007 Delek was
entitled to federal tax credits related to the production of
ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. The combination of these
F-15
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
two items reduced Deleks federal effective tax rate to an
amount that, for the year ended December 31, 2007, was less
than the statutory rate of 35%.
Earnings
Per Share
Basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) are
computed by dividing net income by the weighted average common
shares outstanding. The common shares used to compute
Deleks basic and diluted earnings per share are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
53,693,258
|
|
|
|
53,675,145
|
|
|
|
52,077,893
|
|
Dilutive effect of equity instruments
|
|
|
791,711
|
|
|
|
726,602
|
|
|
|
772,338
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding, assuming dilution
|
|
|
54,484,969
|
|
|
|
54,401,747
|
|
|
|
52,850,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding stock options totaling 3,419,922, 1,816,598 and
1,541,783 common shares were excluded from the diluted earnings
per share calculation for the years ended December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. These stock options did not
have a dilutive effect under the treasury stock method.
Stock-Based
Compensation
ASC 718, Compensation Stock Compensation
(ASC 718), requires the cost of all share-based
payments to employees, including grants of employee stock
options, to be recognized in the income statement and
establishes fair value as the measurement objective in
accounting for share-based payment arrangements. ASC 718
requires the use of a valuation model to calculate the fair
value of stock-based awards. Delek uses the Black-Scholes-Merton
option-pricing model to determine the fair value of stock option
awards and the Monte-Carlo simulation model to determine the
fair value of stock appreciation rights on the dates of grant.
Restricted stock units (RSUs) are measured based on
the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of
grant. Vested RSUs are not issued until the minimum statutory
withholding requirements have been remitted to us for payment to
the taxing authority. As a result, the actual number of shares
accounted for as issued may be less than the number of RSUs
vested, due to any withholding amounts which have not been
remitted.
We generally recognize compensation expense related to
stock-based awards with graded or cliff vesting on a
straight-line basis over the vesting period. It is our practice
to issue new shares when stock-based compensation is exercised.
Comprehensive
Income
Comprehensive income includes net income and changes in the fair
value of derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges.
Comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007 was as follows (in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
96.4
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments, net of tax
(benefit) expense of $0.3 million, $(0.6) million and
$0.2 million, respectively
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
$
|
1.3
|
|
|
$
|
25.6
|
|
|
$
|
96.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-16
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2009, the FASB issued guidance regarding subsequent
events, which is effective for interim or annual periods ending
after June 15, 2009 and should be applied prospectively.
This guidance is largely similar to the current guidance in the
auditing literature with some exceptions which are not intended
to result in significant changes in practice. Delek adopted this
guidance in May 2009. The adoption did not have an impact on our
financial position or results of operations.
In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance on the recognition and
presentation of
other-than-temporary
impairments and provided some new disclosure requirements for
debt securities. This pronouncement is effective for interim and
annual periods ending after June 15, 2009, and is applied
to existing and new investments held by an entity as of the
beginning of the period in which it was adopted. Delek adopted
this guidance in April 2009. The adoption did not have an impact
on our financial position or results of operations.
In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance on estimating fair value
when the volume and activity for an asset or liability have
significantly decreased in relation to normal market activity
for the asset or liability. This pronouncement also provides
additional guidance on circumstances that may indicate a
transaction is not orderly. Delek adopted this guidance in April
2009. The adoption did not have an impact on our financial
positions or results of operations.
In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance that extends the
disclosure requirements regarding the fair value of financial
instruments to interim financial statements of publicly traded
companies. This pronouncement is effective for interim and
annual periods ending after June 15, 2009. Delek adopted
this pronouncement in April 2009. The additional disclosures
required did not have an impact on our financial position or
results of operations.
In March 2008, the FASB issued guidance regarding the disclosure
about derivative instruments and hedging activities, which
applies to all derivative instruments and non-derivative
instruments that are designated and qualify as hedging
instruments and related hedged items. The standard requires
entities to provide greater transparency through additional
disclosures about how and why an entity uses derivative
instruments, how derivative instruments and related hedged items
are accounted for and its related interpretations, and how
derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an
entitys financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows. This guidance is effective for financial statements
issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008.
Delek has adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2009.
See Note 11 for discussion of our derivative activities.
In December 2007, the FASB issued guidance requiring the
acquiring entity in a business combination to recognize the fair
value of all the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the
transaction, establishing the acquisition-date as the fair value
measurement point, and modifying the disclosure requirements.
This guidance applies prospectively to business combinations for
which the acquisition date is on or after January 1, 2009.
However, accounting for changes in valuation allowances for
acquired deferred tax assets and the resolution of uncertain tax
positions for prior business combinations will impact tax
expense instead of impacting the prior business combination
accounting starting January 1, 2009. Delek adopted this
guidance effective January 1, 2009 and wrote-off
$0.7 million in previously capitalized transaction costs as
a result of the adoption. We will also assess the impact of this
guidance in the event we enter into a business combination in
the future.
Also in December 2007, the FASB issued guidance that changes the
classification of non-controlling interests, sometimes called
minority interest, in the consolidated financial statements.
Additionally, this guidance establishes a single method of
accounting for changes in a parent companys ownership
interest that do not result in deconsolidation and requires a
parent company to recognize a gain or loss when a subsidiary is
deconsolidated. This guidance is effective January 1, 2009,
and will be applied prospectively with the exception of the
presentation and disclosure requirements which must be applied
retrospectively. Delek has no minority interest reporting in its
consolidated reporting, therefore adoption of this guidance does
not have an impact on our financial position or results of
operations.
F-17
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
3.
|
Explosion
and Fire at the Tyler, Texas Refinery
|
On November 20, 2008, an explosion and fire occurred at our
60,000 barrels per day (bpd) refinery in Tyler, Texas. Some
individuals have claimed injury and two of our employees died as
a result of the event. The event caused damage to both our
saturates gas plant and naphtha hydrotreater and resulted in an
immediate suspension of our refining operations. We resumed
normal operations in May 2009.
Several parallel investigations were commenced following the
event, including our own investigation and inspections by the
U.S. Department of Labors Occupational
Safety & Health Administration (OSHA),
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
(CSB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). OSHA concluded its inspection in May
2009 and issued citations assessing an aggregate penalty of
approximately $0.2 million. We are contesting these
citations and do not believe that the outcome will have a
material effect on our business. We cannot assure you as to the
outcome of the other investigations, including possible civil
penalties or other enforcement actions.
We carried insurance coverage of $1.0 billion in combined
limits to insure against property damage and business
interruption. We are subject to a $5.0 million deductible
for property damage insurance and a 45 calendar day waiting
period for business interruption insurance. During the year
ended December 31, 2009, we recognized income from
insurance proceeds of $116.0 million, of which
$64.1 million is included as business interruption proceeds
and $51.9 million, is included as property damage proceeds.
We also recorded expenses of $11.6 million, resulting in a
net gain of $40.3 million related to property damage
proceeds on the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of
operations. At December 31, 2008, a receivable of
$8.4 million was recorded relating to expected insurance
proceeds covering certain losses incurred to limit commodity
inventory exposure with the suspension of operations at the
refinery. This receivable was reversed in January 2009 upon
receipt of insurance monies.
Calfee
Acquisition
In the first quarter of 2007, Delek, through its Express
subsidiary, agreed to purchase 107 retail fuel and convenience
stores located in northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee, and
related assets, from the Calfee Company of Dalton, Inc. and its
affiliates (the Calfee acquisition). We completed the purchase
of 103 stores and assumed the management of all 107 stores in
the second quarter of 2007. The purchase of the remaining four
locations closed on July 27, 2007. Of the 107 stores, Delek
owns 70 of the properties and assumed leases for the remaining
37 properties. Delek purchased the assets for approximately
$71.8 million, including $0.1 million of cash. In
addition to the consideration paid as acquisition cost for the
Calfee acquisition, Delek incurred and capitalized
$2.9 million in acquisition transaction costs. The
allocation of the aggregate purchase price of the Calfee
acquisition is summarized as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
$
|
6.7
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
Other intangible assets
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Current and non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(10.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Calfee acquisition was accounted for using the purchase
method of accounting, as prescribed in ASC 805, and the results
of operations associated with the Calfee stores have been
included in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations from the date of acquisition. The purchase price was
allocated to the underlying assets and
F-18
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
liabilities based on their estimated fair values. Delek
finalized the valuation work associated with certain intangibles
and the associated purchase price allocation during the year
ended December 31, 2008. The goodwill associated with this
acquisition was impaired, in accordance with our annual
assessment of goodwill performed in the fourth quarter of 2008
and therefore, a charge of $11.2 million was recorded in
the accompanying consolidated statements of operations during
the year ended December 31, 2008.
|
|
5.
|
Dispositions
and Assets Held for Sale
|
Virginia
Stores
In December 2008, the retail segments Virginia division
met the requirements as enumerated in ASC 360, that require the
separate reporting of assets held for sale. Management committed
to plan to sell the retail segments Virginia stores and
proceeded with efforts to locate buyers, however until we
obtained the necessary amendments to our credit agreements, we
were encumbered from that action. At the time the credit
agreement limitations were lifted, in December 2008, we had
contracts to sell 28 of the 36 Virginia properties. As of
December 31, 2008, we closed on 12 of the properties. We
sold an additional 15 of these stores during the year ended
December 31, 2009. In December 2009, the remaining nine
Virginia stores were reclassified back into normal operations.
We received proceeds from these sales, net of expenses, of
$9.3 million and $9.8 million, respectively,
recognizing net (losses) gains on the sales of
$(1.1) million and $0.4 million, respectively, during
the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. In addition to
the real properties sold, we sold $0.9 million and
$1.0 million, respectively, in inventory, at cost, to the
buyers during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
The carrying amounts of the Virginia store assets sold during
the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 are as follows
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
Property, plant & equipment, net of accumulated
depreciation of $4.0 million
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.3
|
|
|
$
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The carrying amounts of the major classes of assets and
liabilities included in assets held for sale and liabilities
associated with assets held for sale as of December 31,
2008 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Assets held for sale:
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
Property, plant & equipment, net of accumulated
depreciation of $4.0 million
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets held for sale
|
|
$
|
13.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were no assets held for sale as of December 31, 2009.
Once the Virginia stores were identified as assets held for
sale, the operations associated with these properties qualified
for reporting as discontinued operations under ASC 360.
Accordingly, the operating results, net of tax, from
discontinued operations are presented separately in Deleks
Consolidated Statement of Operations and the Notes to the
consolidated financial statements have been adjusted to exclude
the discontinued operations. The amounts eliminated from
continuing operations did not include allocations of corporate
expenses included in the selling, general and administrative
expenses caption in the Consolidated Statement of Operations,
nor the income tax benefits from such expenses. The remaining
nine Virginia stores that were reclassified into normal
operations
F-19
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
required a depreciation catch up in December 2009. Components of
amounts reflected in income from discontinued operations for the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 are as follows
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
6.4
|
|
|
$
|
107.9
|
|
|
$
|
102.9
|
|
Operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
(105.2
|
)
|
|
|
(101.4
|
)
|
(Loss) gain on sale of assets held for sale
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations before taxes
|
|
|
(2.7
|
)
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
Income tax (benefit) expense
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.9
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying value of inventories consisted of the following (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Refinery raw materials and supplies
|
|
$
|
19.3
|
|
|
$
|
20.1
|
|
Refinery work in process
|
|
|
28.6
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
Refinery finished goods
|
|
|
22.9
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
Retail fuel
|
|
|
15.1
|
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
Retail merchandise
|
|
|
26.6
|
|
|
|
28.5
|
|
Marketing refined products
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventories
|
|
$
|
116.4
|
|
|
$
|
81.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008, market values had fallen below
most of our LIFO inventory layer values and, as a result, we
recognized a pre-tax loss of approximately $10.9 million
relating to the reflection of market value at a level below
cost. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the excess of
replacement cost (FIFO) over the carrying value
(LIFO) of refinery inventories was
$20.8 million and a nominal amount, respectively. There
were reductions of $2.5 million, $0.6 million and
$11.4 million to costs of goods sold during the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, as a result
of the liquidation of LIFO inventories.
One retail merchandise vendor accounted for approximately 59%,
56%, and 53%, of total retail merchandise purchases during the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007,
respectively. Additionally, two retail fuel vendors accounted
for approximately 43% of total retail fuel purchases during the
year ended December 31, 2009 and one retail fuel vendor
accounted for approximately 28% and 32% of total retail fuel
purchases during the years ended December 31, 2008, and
2007, respectively. In 2009, five crude oil vendors accounted
for approximately 74% of total crude oil purchased during 2009.
In 2008, three crude oil vendors accounted for approximately 83%
of total crude oil purchased during 2008 and in 2007, 12 crude
oil vendors accounted for approximately 96% of total crude oil
purchased during 2007. In our marketing segment, two vendors
supplied 99% of the petroleum products in 2009 and all of the
petroleum products in 2008. In 2007, one of these vendors was
the sole supplier of petroleum products during 2007. Delek
believes that sources of inventory are available from suppliers
other than from its current vendors; however, the cost structure
of such purchases may be different.
F-20
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
On August 22, 2007, Delek completed the acquisition of
approximately 28.4% of the issued and outstanding shares of
common stock of Lion Oil Company (Lion Oil). On
September 25, 2007, Delek completed the acquisition of an
additional approximately 6.2% of the issued and outstanding
shares of Lion Oil, bringing its total ownership interest to
approximately 34.6%. Total cash consideration paid to the
sellers by Delek in both transactions totaled approximately
$88.2 million. Delek also incurred and capitalized
$0.9 million in acquisition transaction costs. In addition
to cash consideration, Delek issued to one of the sellers
1,916,667 unregistered shares of Delek common stock, par value
$0.01 per share, valued at $51.2 million using the closing
price of our stock on the date of the acquisition. As of
December 31, 2007, our total investment in Lion Oil was
$139.5 million.
Lion Oil, a privately held Arkansas corporation, owns and
operates a 75,000 barrel per day, crude oil refinery in El
Dorado, Arkansas, three crude oil pipelines, a crude oil
gathering system and two refined petroleum product terminals in
Memphis and Nashville, Tennessee. The two terminals supply
products to some of Deleks 180 convenience stores in the
Memphis and Nashville markets. These product purchases are made
at market value and totaled $9.8 million,
$11.7 million and $24.8 million in 2009, 2008 and
2007, respectively. The refining segment also made sales of
$2.5 million in 2009 and $1.9 million of intermediate
products to the Lion Oil refinery during both 2008 and 2007.
At the time of acquisition, Delek acknowledged that our
ownership percentage set a presumption of the use of the equity
method of accounting as established in ASC 323,
Investments Equity Method and Joint Ventures
(ASC 323). As a result, Delek had reported its
investment using the equity method since acquisition. However,
our interactions with Lion Oil since acquisition led us to the
conclusion that the initial presumption under ASC 323 had been
rebutted. Beginning October 1, 2008, Delek began reporting
its investment in Lion Oil using the cost method of accounting.
This investment in a non-public entity, which is carried at
cost, is only reviewed for a diminishment of fair value in the
instance when there are indicators that a possible impairment
has occurred. Delek carried its investment in Lion Oil at
$131.6 million as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
8.
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment
|
Property, plant and equipment, at cost, consist of the following
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
77.2
|
|
|
$
|
83.0
|
|
Building and building improvements
|
|
|
182.4
|
|
|
|
185.7
|
|
Refinery machinery, marketing equipment and pipelines
|
|
|
377.0
|
|
|
|
236.6
|
|
Retail, including petroleum, store equipment and other site
improvements
|
|
|
117.4
|
|
|
|
115.6
|
|
Refinery turnaround costs
|
|
|
58.1
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
Other equipment
|
|
|
22.0
|
|
|
|
19.7
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
865.5
|
|
|
|
716.6
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(173.5
|
)
|
|
|
(130.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
692.0
|
|
|
$
|
586.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008, and 2007 was $51.1 million, $39.7 million and
$30.3 million, respectively.
F-21
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Goodwill represents the excess of the aggregate purchase price
over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired.
Goodwill acquired in a purchase business combination is recorded
at fair value and is not amortized. Deleks goodwill
relates to its retail and marketing segments only. Changes in
the carrying amounts of goodwill for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007 occurred because of acquisitions
(discussed in Note 4). Additionally, Delek recognized
impairment to certain goodwill carried in the retail segment in
2009 and 2008.
Delek performs an annual assessment of whether goodwill retains
its value. This assessment is done more frequently if indicators
of potential impairment exist. We performed our annual goodwill
impairment review in the fourth quarter of 2009, 2008 and 2007.
In performing these reviews we determined reporting units at a
level below segment for our retail segment and for our marketing
segment our review was done at the segment level. We performed a
discounted cash flows test to test for value of each of our
reporting units. We used a market participant weighted average
cost of capital, minimal growth rates for both revenue and gross
profit, and estimated capital expenditures based on historical
practice. We also estimated the fair values of the reporting
units using a multiple of expected future cash flows such as
those used by third party analysts. In 2009, this review
resulted in the need to determine the impairment of goodwill in
one of the reporting units of the retail segment. The need to
perform an analysis of goodwill value in a different retail
reporting unit was required in the 2008 review. We estimated the
fair value of the assets and liabilities attributable to
reporting units and this work resulted in impairments of
goodwill, and therefore, charges of $7.0 million and
$11.2 million were recorded in the accompanying
consolidated statements of operations during the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In 2007, the
annual impairment review resulted in the determination that no
impairment of goodwill had occurred.
A summary of our goodwill accounts in our retail and marketing
segments are as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
71.6
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
$
|
79.2
|
|
Acquisitions and adjustments
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2007
|
|
|
80.0
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
87.5
|
|
Acquisitions and adjustments
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
(11.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2008
|
|
|
71.4
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
78.9
|
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
(7.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
64.4
|
|
|
$
|
7.5
|
|
|
$
|
71.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
|
Other
Intangible Assets
|
Supply
Contracts
In connection with an acquisition, Delek obtained rights
associated with certain refined products supply contracts with a
major pipeline, which define both pricing and volumes that we
are allowed to draw on a monthly basis. We are amortizing
approximately $1.0 million per year of the estimated
acquisition date fair value of these contracts over their terms.
Supply contracts as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 consist
of the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Supply contracts
|
|
$
|
12.2
|
|
|
$
|
12.2
|
|
Accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(3.6
|
)
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.6
|
|
|
$
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-22
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Trademarks
In connection with certain of the retail segment acquisitions,
Delek obtained the rights associated with certain brand names.
We are amortizing these intangibles over the four year period we
expect to continue to use these brands. Trademarks as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 consisted of the following (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
Accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.2
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense on trademarks was approximately
$0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 and
$0.2 million for each of the years ended December 31,
2008 and 2007.
Non-Compete
Agreements
In connection with a retail segment acquisition, Delek entered
into five separate non-compete agreements with key personnel of
the seller totaling $1.0 million. The individuals may not
compete within a
ten-mile
radius of the acquired stores for a period of ten years. We are
amortizing the cost over the term of these agreements.
Non-compete agreements as of December 31, 2009 and 2008
consisted of the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Non-compete agreements
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
Accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense on non-compete agreements was approximately
$0.1 million for each of the years ended December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
11.
|
Long-Term
Obligations and Short-Term Notes Payable
|
Outstanding third party borrowings under Deleks existing
debt instruments and capital lease obligations are as follows
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Senior secured credit facility term loan
|
|
$
|
81.4
|
|
|
$
|
121.2
|
|
Senior secured credit facility revolver
|
|
|
32.4
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
Fifth Third revolver
|
|
|
42.5
|
|
|
|
18.8
|
|
Reliant Bank revolver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
Lehman note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27.7
|
|
Promissory notes
|
|
|
160.0
|
|
|
|
95.0
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
317.1
|
|
|
|
286.0
|
|
Less: current portion of long-term debt, notes payable and
capital lease obligations
|
|
|
82.7
|
|
|
|
83.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
234.4
|
|
|
$
|
202.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-23
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Senior
Secured Credit Facility
The senior secured credit facility consists of a
$120.0 million revolving credit facility and
$165.0 million term loan facility, which, as of
December 31, 2009, had $32.4 million outstanding under
the revolver and $81.4 million outstanding under the term
loan. As of December 31, 2009, Fifth Third Bank, N.A.
(Fifth Third) was the administrative agent and a lender under
the facility. On September 1, 2009, Fifth Third assumed the
role of successor administrative agent under the facility from
the resigning administrative agent Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(LCPI). During September 2008, upon the bankruptcy filing of its
parent company, LCPI informed Express that it would not be
funding its pro rata lender participation of future borrowings
under the revolving credit facility. Since the communication of
its intention through the date of its resignation as
administrative agent, LCPI did not participate in any borrowings
by Express under the revolving credit facility. LCPIs
commitment amount under the revolving credit facility is
$12.0 million, leaving Express with an effective revolving
credit facility of $108.0 million. LCPI remains, despite
the September 1, 2009 amendment hereinafter discussed, a
lender to Express under the term loan facility. The
unavailability of LCPIs pro rata lender participation in
the revolving credit facility has not had and is not expected to
have a material impact on Express liquidity or its
operations.
Borrowings under the senior secured credit facility are secured
by substantially all the assets of Express and its subsidiaries.
Letters of credit issued under the facility totaled
$17.9 million as of December 31, 2009. The senior
secured credit facility term loan requires quarterly principal
payments of $0.4 million through March 31, 2011 and a
balloon payment of the remaining principal balance due upon
maturity on April 28, 2011. We are also required to make
certain prepayments of this facility depending on excess cash
flow as defined in the credit agreement. In accordance with this
excess cash flow calculation, we prepaid $19.7 million in
March 2009 and expect to prepay approximately $15 million
in March 2010. Due to our intention to satisfy this payment with
availability on the revolving credit facility, this amount is
reflected in the non-current portion of long-term debt in the
foregoing summary table. In June 2008, Express sold real
property operated by a third party for $3.9 million. In
September 2008, Express sold its leasehold interest in a
location it operated for $4.5 million. The proceeds of the
June sale, net of expenses, were used to pay down the term loan,
while the net proceeds of the September sale were retained,
pursuant to the terms of the facility, for asset reinvestment
purposes. During the period from December 2008 through the
December 31, 2009, consistent with the terms of the
December 3, 2008 amendment discussed below, Express
disposed of 55 non-core real property assets, of which 27 were
located in Virginia. The application of the proceeds from these
asset sales, net of any amounts set aside pursuant to the terms
of the facility for reinvestment purposes, resulted in the
reduction of the term loan in the amount of $18.8 million
and $13.7 million during the years ended December 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively.
As of the date of this filing, and as a direct result of the
December 10, 2009 amendment and restatement of the credit
agreement discussed below, the termination date of
$108.0 million of revolving credit commitments under the
senior secured revolver was extended by one year from
April 28, 2010 to April 28, 2011. The
$12.0 million commitment of LCPI is the only commitment
that has not been extended. As a result, this commitment will
expire on the original termination date of the senior secured
revolver, April 28, 2010, and the amount of revolving
commitments will reduce to $108.0 million until the new
expiration date of April 28, 2011. The senior secured
credit facility term and senior secured credit facility revolver
loans bear interest based on predetermined pricing grids which
allow us to choose between a Base Rate or
Eurodollar rate. At December 31, 2009, the
weighted average borrowing rate was approximately 6.5% for the
senior secured credit facility term loan and 6.0% for the senior
secured credit facility revolver. Additionally, the senior
secured credit facility requires us to pay a quarterly fee of
0.5% per year on the average available revolving commitment
under the senior secured revolver. Amounts available under the
senior secured revolver as of December 31, 2009 were
approximately $57.7 million excluding the commitment of
LCPI as a lender under this facility.
On December 3, 2008, the credit facility was amended to
allow for the disposition of specific Express real and personal
property assets in certain of its geographic operating regions.
The amendment also allows for additional asset sales of up to
$35.0 million per calendar year subject to such sales
meeting certain financial criteria.
F-24
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Additionally, the amendment appointed Fifth Third Bank as the
successor administrative agent subject to the resignation or
removal of LCPI. As stated above, the resignation of LCPI and
the subsequent assumption of the role of administrative agent by
Fifth Third were consummated on September 1, 2009. On
January 28, 2009, the credit facility was further amended
to allow for the one-time prepayment in the amount of
$25.0 million toward the outstanding principal of certain
subordinated debt owed to Delek and incurred in conjunction with
Deleks purchase, through its Express subsidiary, of 107
retail fuel and convenience stores located in northern Georgia
and eastern Tennessee, and related assets, from the Calfee
Company of Dalton, Inc. and its affiliates in 2007 (the Calfee
acquisition). Pursuant to the terms of the amendment, the
$25.0 million prepayment was completed on March 5,
2009. The amendment also implemented a 100 basis point
credit spread increase across all tiers in the pricing grid and
implemented a LIBOR rate floor of 2.75% for all Eurodollar rate
borrowings.
On September 1, 2009, the borrowers and lenders under the
credit facility executed a resignation and appointment agreement
that consummated the resignation of LCPI as administrative agent
and swing line lender under the facility and the appointment of
Fifth Third as the successor administrative agent and successor
swing line lender under the facility. The agreement also
clarifies that as long as LCPI remains a non-performing lender
under the credit facility, it has no voting rights and is not
entitled to any fees under the facility. Additionally, under the
terms of the September 1, 2009 amendment, Express, along
with other relevant parties, released LCPI from any and all
liabilities they may have arising out of or in connection with
the credit facility, including LCPIs non-performance as a
lender under the facility. As stated above, LCPIs
commitment, and therefore its status as a non-performing lender
expires on April 10, 2010.
On December 10, 2009, the credit facility was amended and
restated in its entirety. The primary effects of the amendment
and restatement were, among other things, (i) the one year
extension of the $108.0 million of revolving credit
commitments, (ii) the addition of a new accordion feature
to the revolving credit facility accommodating an increase in
maximum revolver commitments of up to $180.0 million,
subject to the identification by the borrower of such additional
lender commitments, (iii) the favorable adjustment for the
remaining term of the credit facility in the required financial
covenant levels for Leverage Ratio, Adjusted Leverage Ratio, and
Adjusted Interest Coverage Ratio, as these are defined under the
facility, and (iv) the increase in interest rate spreads
across all tiers in the existing pricing grid by 75 basis
points and the addition of a new top tier for leverage ratios
greater than 4.00x.
Under the terms of the credit facility, Express and its
subsidiaries are subject to certain covenants customary for
credit facilities of this type that limit their ability to,
subject to certain exceptions as defined in the credit
agreement, remit cash to, distribute assets to, or make
investments in entities other than Express and its subsidiaries.
Specifically, these covenants limit the payment, in the form of
cash or other assets, of dividends or other distributions, or
the repurchase of shares, in respect of Express and its
subsidiaries equity. Additionally, Express and its
subsidiaries are limited in their ability to make investments,
including extensions of loans or advances to, or acquisition of
equity interests in, or guarantees of obligations of, any other
entities.
We are required to comply with certain financial and
non-financial covenants under the senior secured credit
facility. We believe we were in compliance with all covenant
requirements as of December 31, 2009.
SunTrust
ABL Revolver
On October 13, 2006, we amended and restated our existing
asset-backed loan (ABL) revolving credit facility
(SunTrust ABL revolver). The amended and restated
agreement, among other things, increased the size of the
facility from $250 to $300 million, including a
$300 million
sub-limit
for letters of credit, and extended the maturity of the facility
by one year to April 28, 2010. The revolving credit
agreement bears interest based on predetermined pricing grids
that allow us to choose between a Base Rate or
Eurodollar rate. Availability under the SunTrust ABL
revolver is determined by a borrowing base calculation defined
in the credit agreement and is supported primarily by cash,
certain accounts receivable and inventory.
F-25
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Effective December 15, 2008, and in light of the temporary
suspension of our refining operations, the SunTrust ABL revolver
was amended to eliminate any need to maintain minimum levels of
borrowing base availability during all times that there were
zero utilizations of credit (i.e., no loans outstanding or
letters of credit issued) under the facility. During times that
there were outstanding utilizations of credit under the
facility, in the event that our availability (net of a
$15.0 million availability block requirement) under the
borrowing base was less than $30.0 million or less than
$15.0 million on any given measurement date, we would have
became subject to certain reporting obligations and certain
covenants, respectively. Then, effective February 18, 2009,
we further amended the SunTrust ABL revolver to suspend the
credit facility while the refinery was non-operational. The
amendment also provided for a series of conditions precedent to
the renewed access to the full terms of the credit facility
while allowing for limited letter of credit access during the
restart phase of refinery operations. The amendment also added a
covenant that required the restart of the refining operations by
September 30, 2009 at a prescribed throughput level to last
for a prescribed duration. This amendment also permitted the
sale of refinerys pipeline and tankage assets located
outside of the refinery gates to a subsidiary of
Marketing & Supply for net proceeds of no less than
$27.5 million which proceeds were required to be used in
the refinery. The sale of the assets was subsequently completed
on March 31, 2009 for a total consideration of
$29.7 million. The amendment also increased credit spreads
by 125 basis points across all tiers of the pricing grid
and increased the commitment fees by up to 25 basis points.
During the quarter ending September 30, 2009, we had
satisfied all conditions precedent to the renewed access to the
full terms of the credit facility and full access had been
restored. We believe we were in compliance with all covenant
requirements under this facility as of December 31, 2009.
The SunTrust ABL revolver primarily supports our issuance of
letters of credit used in connection with the purchases of crude
oil for use in our refinery. Such letter of credit usage and any
borrowings under the facility may at no time exceed the
aggregate borrowing capacity available under the SunTrust ABL
revolver. As of December 31, 2009, we had no outstanding
loans under the credit agreement but had letters of credit
issued under the facility totaling approximately
$92.0 million. Borrowing capacity, as calculated and
reported under the terms of the SunTrust ABL revolver, net of a
$15.0 million availability block requirement, as of
December 31, 2009 was $40.3 million.
The SunTrust ABL revolver contains certain customary
non-financial covenants, including a negative covenant that
prohibits us from creating, incurring or assuming any liens,
mortgages, pledges, security interests or other similar
arrangements against the property, plant and equipment of the
refinery, subject to customary exceptions for certain permitted
liens. Additionally, under the terms of the SunTrust revolver,
Refining and its subsidiaries are subject to certain covenants
customary for credit facilities of this type that limit their
ability to, subject to certain exceptions as defined in the
credit agreement, remit cash to, distribute assets to, or make
investments in entities other than Refining and its
subsidiaries. Specifically, these covenants limit the payment,
in the form of cash or other assets, of dividends or other
distributions, or the repurchase of shares, in respect of
Refinings and its subsidiaries equity. Additionally,
Refining and its subsidiaries are limited in their ability to
make investments, including extensions of loans or advances to,
or acquisition of equity interests in, or guarantees of
obligations of, any other entities.
On February 23, 2010, we entered into a new, four-year,
$300.0 million ABL revolving credit facility with a
consortium of lenders including Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC
as administrative agent, and simultaneously repaid and
terminated our SunTrust ABL revolver. Please refer to
Note 21, Subsequent Events, for more information.
Fifth
Third Revolver
On July 27, 2006, Delek executed a short-term revolver with
Fifth Third Bank, as administrative agent, in the amount of
$50.0 million. The proceeds of this revolver were used to
fund the working capital needs of the newly formed subsidiary,
Delek Marketing & Supply, LP. The Fifth Third revolver
initially had a maturity date of July 30, 2007, but on
July 27, 2007 the maturity was extended until
January 31, 2008. On December 19, 2007, we amended
F-26
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
and restated our existing revolving credit facility. The amended
and restated agreement, among other things, increased the size
of the facility from $50.0 to $75.0 million, including a
$25.0 million
sub-limit
for letters of credit, and extended the maturity of the facility
to December 19, 2012. On October 17, 2008, the
agreement was further amended to permit the payment of a
one-time distribution of $20.0 million from the borrower,
Delek Marketing & Supply, LP, a subsidiary of
Marketing to Delek, increase the size of the
sub-limit
for letters of credit to $35.0 million and reduce the
leverage ratio financial covenant limit.
On March 31, 2009, the credit agreement was amended to
permit the use of facility proceeds for the purchase of the
crude pipeline and tankage assets of the refinery that are
located outside the gates of the refinery and which are used to
supply substantially all of the necessary crude feedstock to the
refinery from the refining subsidiary to a newly-formed
subsidiary of Delek Marketing & Supply LP. Pursuant to
the terms of the amendment, the purchase of the crude pipeline
and tankage assets was completed on March 31, 2009 for a
total consideration of $29.7 million, all of which was
borrowed from the Fifth Third revolver. The amendment also
increased credit spreads by up to 225 basis points and
commitment fees by up to 20 basis points across the various
tiers of the pricing grid. In addition, on May 6, 2009, the
credit agreement was further amended, effective March 31,
2009, related to the definition of certain covenant terms.
The revolver bears interest based on predetermined pricing grids
that allow us to choose between Base Rate or
Eurodollar rate loans. Borrowings under the Fifth
Third revolver are secured by substantially all of the assets of
Delek Marketing & Supply LP. As of December 31,
2009, we had $42.5 million outstanding borrowings under the
facility at a weighted average borrowing rate of 4.4%. We also
had letters of credit issued under the facility of
$10.0 million as of December 31, 2009. Amounts
available under the Fifth Third revolver as of December 31,
2009 were approximately $22.5 million.
Under the terms of the credit agreement, Marketing and its
subsidiaries are subject to certain covenants customary for
credit facilities of this type that limit their ability to,
subject to certain exceptions as defined in the credit
agreement, remit cash to, distribute assets to, or make
investments in entities other than Marketing and its
subsidiaries. Specifically, these covenants limit the payment,
in the form of cash or other assets, of dividends or other
distributions, or the repurchase of shares, in respect of
Marketings and its subsidiaries equity.
Additionally, Marketing and its subsidiaries are limited in
their ability to make investments, including extensions of loans
or advances to, or acquisition of equity interests in, or
guarantees of obligations of, any other entities.
We are required to comply with certain financial and
non-financial covenants under this revolver. We believe we were
in compliance with all covenant requirements as of
December 31, 2009.
Lehman
Credit Agreement
On March 30, 2007, Delek entered into a credit agreement
with Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. (LCPI) as administrative
agent. Through March 30, 2009, LCPI remained the
administrative agent under this facility. The credit agreement
provided for unsecured loans of $65.0 million, the proceeds
of which were used to pay a portion of the costs for the Calfee
acquisition in April 2007. In December 2008, a related party to
the borrower, Delek Finance, Inc., purchased a participating
stake in the loan outstanding as permitted under the terms of
the agreement. At a consolidated level, this resulted in a gain
of $1.6 million on the extinguishment of debt. The loans
matured on March 30, 2009 and the facility was repaid in
full on the maturity date.
Promissory
Notes
On July 27, 2006, Delek executed a three year promissory
note in favor of Bank Leumi USA (Bank Leumi) in the amount of
$30.0 million (2006 Leumi Note). The proceeds of this note
were used to fund an acquisition and working capital needs. On
June 23, 2009, this note was amended to extend the maturity
date to January 3, 2011 and require quarterly principal
amortization in amounts of $2.0 million beginning on
April 1, 2010, with a balloon payment of the remaining
principal amount due at maturity. As amended, the note bears
interest at the greater of a
F-27
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
fixed spread over 3 month LIBOR or an interest rate floor
of 4.5%. The amendment also implemented certain financial and
non-financial covenants and requires a perfected collateral
pledge of Deleks shares in Lion Oil by January 4,
2010. The shares pledged secure Delek debt obligations
outstanding on January 4, 2010 under all current promissory
notes from Bank Leumi as well as current promissory notes from
the Israel Discount Bank of New York (IDB) on a pari passu basis
in accordance with the terms of an intercreditor agreement and
the stock pledge agreements executed on June 23, 2009
between Bank Leumi, IDB, and Delek. The pledge of the shares
under this note was completed by January 4, 2010. As of
December 31, 2009, the weighted average borrowing rate for
amounts borrowed under this note was 4.5%. We are required to
comply with certain financial and non-financial covenants under
the 2006 Leumi Note, as amended. We believe we were in
compliance with all covenant requirements as of
December 31, 2009.
On May 12, 2008, Delek executed a second promissory note in
favor of Bank Leumi for $20.0 million, maturing on
May 11, 2011 (2008 Leumi Note). The proceeds of this note
were used to reduce short term debt and for working capital
needs. This note was amended in December 2008 to change the
financial covenant calculation methodology and applicability.
The note was further amended on June 23, 2009 to require
quarterly principal amortization in the amount of
$1.0 million beginning on July 1, 2010, with a balloon
payment of the remaining principal amount due at maturity. The
amendment also modified certain financial and non-financial
covenants and required the perfected collateral pledge of
Deleks shares in Lion Oil by January 4, 2010, as
discussed above. The pledge of shares under this note was
completed by January 4, 2010. As amended, the note bears
interest at the greater of a fixed spread over LIBOR for periods
of 30 or 90 days, as elected by the borrower, or an
interest rate floor of 4.5%. As of December 31, 2009, the
weighted average borrowing rate for amounts borrowed under this
note was 4.5%. We are required to comply with certain financial
and non-financial covenants under the note, as amended. We
believe we were in compliance with all covenant requirements as
of December 31, 2009.
On May 23, 2006, Delek executed a $30.0 million
promissory note in favor of IDB (2006 IDB Note). The proceeds of
this note were used to repay the then existing promissory notes
in favor of IDB and Bank Leumi. On December 30, 2008, the
2006 IDB Note was amended and restated. As amended and restated,
the 2006 IDB Note matures on December 31, 2011 and requires
quarterly principal amortization in amounts of
$1.25 million beginning on March 31, 2010, with a
balloon payment of remaining principal amount due at maturity.
The amendment also introduced certain financial and
non-financial covenants. The 2006 IDB Note bears interest at the
greater of a fixed spread over 3 month LIBOR or an interest
rate floor of 5.0%. Additionally, on June 23, 2009, Delek
agreed to pledge its shares in Lion Oil by January 4, 2010,
to secure its obligations under the 2006 IDB Note, in pari passu
with certain other notes, as discussed above. The pledge of
shares under this note was completed by January 4, 2010. As
of December 31, 2009, the weighted average borrowing rate
for amounts borrowed under the 2006 IDB Note was 5.0%. We
believe we were in compliance with all covenant requirements as
of December 31, 2009.
On December 30, 2008, Delek executed a second promissory
note in favor of IDB for $15.0 million (2008 IDB Note). The
proceeds of this note were used to repay the then existing note
in favor of Delek Petroleum Ltd. (Delek Petroleum). On
December 24, 2009, the 2008 IDB Note was amended and
restated. As amended and restated, the 2008 IDB Note matures on
December 31, 2011 and requires quarterly principal
amortization in amounts of $0.75 million beginning on
March 31, 2010, with a balloon payment of remaining
principal amount due at maturity. The note bears interest at the
greater of a fixed spread over various LIBOR tenors, as elected
by the borrower, or an interest rate floor of 5.0%.
Additionally, on June 23, 2009, Delek agreed to pledge its
shares in Lion Oil by January 4, 2010 to secure its
obligations under the 2008 IDB Note, in pari passu with certain
other notes, as discussed above. The pledge of shares under this
note was completed by January 4, 2010. As of
December 31, 2009, the weighted average borrowing rate for
amounts borrowed under the note was 5.0%. We are required to
comply with certain financial and non-financial covenants under
the note. We believe we were in compliance with all covenant
requirements as of December 31, 2009.
On September 29, 2009, Delek executed a promissory note in
favor of Delek Petroleum, an Israeli corporation controlled by
our beneficial majority stockholder, Delek Group, in the amount
of $65.0 million for general
F-28
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
corporate purposes. The note matures on October 1, 2010 and
bears interest at 8.5% (net of any applicable withholding taxes)
payable on a quarterly basis. Additionally, the lender has the
option, any time after December 31, 2009, to elect a
one-time adjustment to the functional currency of the principal
amount. The note also provides the lender the option to make a
one-time adjustment to the interest rate during the term of the
note, provided, however, that the effect of such adjustment
cannot exceed the then prevailing market interest rate. The note
is unsecured and contains no covenants. The loan is prepayable
at the borrowers election in whole or in part at any time
without penalty or premium.
Reliant
Bank Revolver
On March 28, 2008, we entered into a revolving credit
agreement with Reliant Bank, a Tennessee bank, headquartered in
Brentwood, Tennessee. The credit agreement provides for
unsecured loans of up to $12.0 million. As of
December 31, 2009, we had no amounts outstanding under this
facility. The facility matures on March 28, 2011 and bears
interest at a fixed spread over the 30 day LIBOR rate. This
agreement was amended in September 2008 to conform certain
portions of the financial covenant definition to those contained
in some of our other credit agreements. We are required to
comply with certain financial and non-financial covenants under
this revolver. We believe we were in compliance with all
covenant requirements as of December 31, 2009.
Restricted
Net Assets
Some of Deleks subsidiaries have restrictions in their
respective credit facilities limiting their use of certain
assets, as has been discussed above. The total amount of our
subsidiaries restricted net assets as of December 31,
2009 was $316.2 million.
Letters
of Credit
As of December 31, 2009, Delek had in place letters of
credit totaling approximately $123.9 million with various
financial institutions securing obligations with respect to its
workers compensation self-insurance programs, as well as
purchases of crude oil for the refinery, gasoline and diesel for
the marketing segment and fuel for our retail fuel and
convenience stores. No amounts were outstanding under these
facilities as of December 31, 2009.
Annual
Maturities of Debt Instruments
Principal maturities of Deleks existing third party debt
instruments for the next five years and thereafter are as
follows as of December 31, 2009 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Senior secured credit facility term loan
|
|
$
|
1.7
|
|
|
$
|
79.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.4
|
|
Senior secured credit facility revolver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.4
|
|
Fifth Third revolver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.5
|
|
Promissory notes
|
|
|
81.0
|
|
|
|
79.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160.0
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
82.7
|
|
|
$
|
191.2
|
|
|
$
|
42.6
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
$
|
317.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-Rate
Derivative Instruments
Delek had interest rate cap agreements in place totaling
$60.0 million and $73.8 million of notional principal
amounts as of December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. These agreements are intended to
F-29
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
economically hedge floating rate debt related to our current
borrowings under the Senior Secured Credit Facility. However, as
we have elected to not apply the permitted hedge accounting
treatment, including formal hedge designation and documentation,
in accordance with the provisions of ASC 815, the fair value of
the derivatives is recorded in other non-current assets in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets with the offset
recognized in earnings. The derivative instruments mature in
July 2010. The estimated fair values of our interest rate
derivatives as of both December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008 were nominal.
In accordance with ASC 815 we recorded non-cash expense
representing the change in estimated fair value of the interest
rate cap agreements of nominal amounts and $1.0 million for
the years ended December 31, 2009 and December 31,
2008, respectively.
While Delek has not elected to apply permitted hedge accounting
treatment for these interest rate derivatives in accordance with
the provisions of ASC 815 in the past, we may choose to elect
that treatment in future transactions.
|
|
12.
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
|
Employment
Agreement
On September 25, 2009, we entered into an employment
agreement with our President and Chief Executive Officer,
Mr. Yemin, which contains a deferred compensation element.
Under the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Yemin was granted
1,850,040 Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) under the
Plan on September 30, 2009. The SARs vest over a period of
approximately four years. 640,440 of the SARs are subject to a
base price of $8.57 per share (the fair market value at the date
of grant), 246,400 SARs each are subject to base prices of
$12.40, $13.20, $14.00, and $14.80 per share and the remaining
224,000 SARs are subject to a base price of $15.60 per share.
The SARs will expire upon the earlier of the first anniversary
of Mr. Yemins termination of employment or
October 31, 2014 (the first anniversary of the expiration
of the agreement). The SARs may be settled in shares of common
stock or cash at Deleks sole discretion.
Effective May 1, 2004, Delek entered into an employment
agreement with its President and Chief Executive Officer,
Mr. Yemin, which contains a deferred compensation element.
Pursuant to the employment agreement, Mr. Yemin was granted
share purchase rights that upon completion of an initial public
offering of Deleks common stock permitted him to purchase,
subject to certain vesting requirements, up to five percent of
Deleks outstanding shares, or 1,969,493 shares
immediately prior to the completion of the initial public
offering at an exercise price of $2.03.
Upon completion of Deleks initial public offering of
common stock on May 6, 2006, Mr. Yemin was immediately
vested in 787,797 of these shares. In the remainder of 2006,
Mr. Yemin vested in an additional 262,599 shares and
in the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, he
vested in an additional 393,900, 394,688 and
130,509 shares, respectively. Mr. Yemin made two
cashless exercises and immediate sales of shares. In December
2006, he sold 250,000 shares and in August 2007, he sold
400,000 shares. As of December 31, 2009,
Mr. Yemin had the right to purchase 1,319,493 vested shares
and these share purchase rights were scheduled to expire on
April 30, 2010.
On February 21, 2010, Mr. Yemin exercised the
1,319,493 share purchase rights in connection with a net
share settlement. As a result, 638,909 shares of common
stock were issued to him and 680,584 shares of common stock
were withheld as a partial cashless exercise and to pay
withholding taxes. Mr. Yemin has exercised all of his share
purchase rights under this agreement.
2006
Long-Term Incentive Plan
In April 2006, Deleks Board of Directors adopted the Delek
US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the
Plan) pursuant to which Delek may grant stock
options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted
stock units and other stock-based awards of up to
3,053,392 shares of Deleks common stock to certain
F-30
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
directors, officers, employees, consultants and other
individuals who perform services for Delek or its affiliates.
The options granted under the Plan are generally granted at
market price or higher. All of the options granted require
continued service in order to exercise the option except that
vesting of stock-based awards granted to two executive employees
could, under certain circumstances, accelerate upon termination
of their employment.
On May 13, 2009, we filed a Tender Offer statement that
gave eligible employees and directors the ability to exchange
outstanding options under the Plan with per share exercise
prices ranging between $16.00 and $35.08, for new options under
the Plan to purchase fewer shares of our common stock at a lower
exercise price. This offer expired on June 10, 2009 and we
accepted for exchange options to purchase an aggregate of
1,398,641 shares of our common stock, representing 84.28%
of the 1,659,589 shares covered by eligible options. We
granted replacement options to purchase 803,385 shares of
common stock in exchange for the tendered options. The exercise
price per share of each replacement option granted pursuant to
the Offer was $9.17, the closing price of our common stock on
the New York Stock Exchange on the grant date, June 10,
2009. This modification resulted in an additional
$0.1 million in stock-based compensation expense, which
will be recognized over the remaining terms of the original
options granted. Prior to the Tender Offer, approximately 75% of
grants under the Plan vested ratably over a period between three
to five years and approximately 25% of the grants vested at the
end of the fourth year. Following the Tender Offer, we expect
that most new awards granted under the Plan will vest ratably
over a period of four years.
Option
Assumptions
The table below provides the assumptions used in estimating the
fair values of stock options. For all options granted, we
calculated volatility using historical volatility and implied
volatility of a peer group of public companies using weekly
stock prices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 Grants
|
|
2009 Grants
|
|
2009 Grants
|
|
2008 Grants
|
|
2008 Grants
|
|
|
(Graded Vesting)
|
|
(Cliff Vesting)
|
|
(SARs)
|
|
(Graded Vesting)
|
|
(Cliff Vesting)
|
|
|
3-4 Years
|
|
4 Years
|
|
4 Years
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
4 Years
|
|
Expected Volatility
|
|
|
34.73%-37.78
|
%
|
|
|
35.31%-37.22
|
%
|
|
|
35.39
|
%
|
|
|
33.80%-38.95
|
%
|
|
|
33.56%-38.19
|
%
|
Dividend Yield
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
Expected Term
|
|
|
6.0-6.25 years
|
|
|
|
7.0 years
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
7.0 years
|
|
|
|
6.0-6.5 years
|
|
Risk Free Rate
|
|
|
0.06%-3.53
|
%
|
|
|
0.06%-3.53
|
%
|
|
|
0.06%-3.31
|
%
|
|
|
0.11%-3.99
|
%
|
|
|
0.11%-3.99
|
%
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
$2.85
|
|
|
|
$0.98
|
|
|
|
$2.51
|
|
|
|
$2.48
|
|
|
|
$2.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 2004
|
|
|
2007 Grants
|
|
2007 Grants
|
|
2006 Grants
|
|
2006 Grants
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
(Graded Vesting)
|
|
(Cliff Vesting)
|
|
(Graded Vesting)
|
|
(Cliff Vesting)
|
|
(5-Year
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
4 Years
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
4 Years
|
|
Graded Vesting)
|
|
Expected Volatility
|
|
|
31.12%-33.12
|
%
|
|
|
31.20%-32.98
|
%
|
|
|
31.44%-31.96
|
%
|
|
|
31.46%-31.91
|
%
|
|
|
31.60
|
%
|
Dividend Yield
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Expected Term
|
|
|
6.0 years
|
|
|
|
7.0 years
|
|
|
|
6.0-6.5 years
|
|
|
|
7.0 years
|
|
|
|
4.5 years
|
|
Risk Free Rate
|
|
|
3.05%-4.15
|
%
|
|
|
3.05%-4.15
|
%
|
|
|
4.74%-5.02
|
%
|
|
|
4.50%-5.03
|
%
|
|
|
3.85
|
%
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
$7.83
|
|
|
|
$6.22
|
|
|
|
$5.91
|
|
|
|
$4.87
|
|
|
|
$0.67
|
|
F-31
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Stock
Option Activity
The following table summarizes the stock option activity for
Delek for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Term
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Options outstanding, December 31, 2006
|
|
|
3,372,445
|
|
|
$
|
9.62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
503,668
|
|
|
$
|
23.94
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(592,909
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(205,626
|
)
|
|
$
|
18.82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding, December 31, 2007
|
|
|
3,077,578
|
|
|
$
|
11.93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
357,300
|
|
|
$
|
17.64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(302,162
|
)
|
|
$
|
19.43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding, December 31, 2008
|
|
|
3,132,716
|
|
|
$
|
11.86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,447,285
|
|
|
$
|
8.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchanged
|
|
|
(1,398,641
|
)
|
|
$
|
19.35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(211,860
|
)
|
|
$
|
17.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding, December 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,969,500
|
|
|
$
|
6.52
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
$
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested options exercisable, December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1,319,493
|
|
|
$
|
2.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value, which represents the difference
between the underlying stocks market price and the
options exercise price, of the options exercised during
the year ended December 31, 2007 was $9.0 million.
Cash received from option exercises during the year ended
December 31, 2007 was $3.9 million, and the actual tax
benefit realized for tax deductions from option exercises
totaled $3.8 million. There were no options exercised
during the years ended December 31, 2009 or 2008. We issue
new shares of common stock upon exercise of stock options.
Restricted
Stock Units
The fair value of restricted stock units (RSUs) is
determined based on the closing price of Deleks common
stock on grant date. The weighted-average grant date fair value
of RSUs granted during the year ended December 31, 2009 was
$8.94.
F-32
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The following table summarizes the RSU activity for Delek for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
RSUs
|
|
|
Grant Price
|
|
|
Non-vested RSUs, December 31, 2006
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
$
|
15.56
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
$
|
23.50
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(17,125
|
)
|
|
$
|
15.59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested RSUs, December 31, 2007
|
|
|
62,375
|
|
|
$
|
16.12
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
$
|
11.28
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(15,500
|
)
|
|
$
|
15.76
|
|
Forfeitures
|
|
|
(2,500
|
)
|
|
$
|
15.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested RSUs, December 31, 2008
|
|
|
48,875
|
|
|
$
|
15.84
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
109,500
|
|
|
$
|
8.94
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(18,500
|
)
|
|
$
|
15.42
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(3,250
|
)
|
|
$
|
15.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested RSUs, December 31, 2009
|
|
|
136,625
|
|
|
$
|
10.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
Appreciation Rights
The fair value of SARs is determined using a Monte-Carlo
simulation model, based on the assumptions disclosed in the
table above. The weighted-average grant date fair value of the
1,850,040 SARs granted during the year ended December 31,
2009 was $2.51. The weighted average exercise price of the SARs
granted during the year ended December 31, 2009 was $12.10.
There were no SARs exercised, vested or forfeited during the
year ended December 31, 2009.
Compensation
Expense Related to Equity-based Awards
Compensation expense for the equity-based awards amounted to
$4.0 million ($2.7 million, net of taxes),
$3.7 million ($2.4 million, net of taxes) and
$3.3 million ($2.4 million, net of taxes) for the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
These amounts are included in general and administrative
expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations. We also recognized a total income tax benefit for
share-based compensation arrangements of $3.8 million for
the year ended December 31, 2007. There was a nominal
income tax benefit for share-based arrangements for the years
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
As of December 31, 2009, there was $6.6 million of
total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested
share-based compensation arrangements, which is expected to be
recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.1 years.
We report our operating results in three reportable segments:
refining, marketing and retail. Decisions concerning the
allocation of resources and assessment of operating performance
are made based on this segmentation. Management measures the
operating performance of each of its reportable segments based
on the segment contribution margin.
Segment contribution margin is defined as net sales less cost of
sales and operating expenses, excluding depreciation and
amortization. Operations which are not specifically included in
the reportable segments are included in the corporate and other
category, which primarily consists of operating expenses,
depreciation and amortization expense, and interest income and
expense associated with corporate headquarters.
The refining segment processes crude oil that is transported
through our crude oil pipeline and an unrelated third-party
pipeline. The refinery processes the crude and other purchased
feedstocks for the manufacture of
F-33
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
transportation motor fuels including various grades of gasoline,
diesel fuel, aviation fuel and other petroleum-based products
that are distributed through its product terminal located at the
refinery.
Our marketing segment sells refined products on a wholesale
basis in west Texas through company-owned and third-party
operated terminals. This segment also provides marketing
services to the Tyler refinery.
Our retail segment markets gasoline, diesel, other refined
petroleum products and convenience merchandise through a network
of company-operated retail fuel and convenience stores
throughout the southeastern United States. As of
December 31, 2009, we had 442 stores in total consisting
of, 239 located in Tennessee, 93 in Alabama, 81 in Georgia, 13
in Arkansas and 9 in Virginia. The remaining 7 stores are
located in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi. The retail fuel
and convenience stores operate under Deleks brand names
MAPCO
Express®,
MAPCO
Mart®,
Discount Food
Marttm,
Fast Food and
Fueltm,
Favorite
Markets®
and East
Coast®
brands. In the retail segment, management reviews operating
results on a divisional basis, where a division represents a
specific geographic market. These divisional operating segments
exhibit similar economic characteristics, provide the same
products and services, and operate in such a manner such that
aggregation of these operations is appropriate for segment
presentation.
Our refining business has a services agreement with our
marketing segment, which among other things, required it to pay
service fees based on the number of gallons sold at the Tyler
refinery and a sharing of a portion of the marketing margin
achieved in return for providing marketing, sales and customer
services. This intercompany transaction fee was
$11.0 million, $13.8 million and $14.7 million in
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. Additionally, in April 2009, the refining segment
began paying crude transportation and storage fees to the
marketing segment, relating to the utilization of certain crude
pipeline assets. These fees were $6.6 million during the
year ended December 31, 2009. During the year ended
December 31, 2009, refining sold finished product to
marketing in the amount of $5.4 million. There were no such
sales during the years ended December 31, 2008 or 2007. All
inter-segment transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
The following is a summary of business segment operating
performance as measured by contribution margin for the period
indicated (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Net sales (excluding intercompany marketing fees and sales)
|
|
$
|
887.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,421.5
|
|
|
$
|
356.8
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,666.7
|
|
Intercompany marketing fees and sales
|
|
|
(5.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.6
|
|
|
|
(12.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
809.6
|
|
|
|
1,240.8
|
|
|
|
349.5
|
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
|
|
2,394.1
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
85.9
|
|
|
|
138.5
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)
|
|
|
219.0
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
Insurance proceeds business interruption
|
|
|
(64.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(64.1
|
)
|
Property damage proceeds, net
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution margin
|
|
$
|
91.0
|
|
|
$
|
35.2
|
|
|
$
|
23.7
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
151.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
Loss on disposal of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
573.8
|
|
|
$
|
430.0
|
|
|
$
|
62.3
|
|
|
$
|
156.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,223.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital spending (excluding business combinations)
|
|
$
|
155.1
|
|
|
$
|
14.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
170.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-34
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
|
Retail(1)
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Net sales (excluding intercompany marketing fees and sales)
|
|
$
|
2,105.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,885.7
|
|
|
$
|
731.7
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
4,723.7
|
|
Intercompany marketing fees and sales
|
|
|
(13.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
1,921.3
|
|
|
|
1,673.4
|
|
|
|
721.2
|
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
4,308.1
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
96.9
|
|
|
|
142.9
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240.8
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution margin
|
|
$
|
73.6
|
|
|
$
|
58.2
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
163.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
Gain on sales of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
72.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
348.4
|
|
|
$
|
464.8
|
|
|
$
|
55.3
|
|
|
$
|
148.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,017.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital spending (excluding business combinations)
|
|
$
|
82.9
|
|
|
$
|
18.6
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
102.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
|
Retail(1)
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Net sales (excluding intercompany marketing fees and sales)
|
|
$
|
1,709.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,672.9
|
|
|
$
|
611.9
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
$
|
3,994.2
|
|
Intercompany marketing fees and sales
|
|
|
(14.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
1,460.2
|
|
|
|
1,482.2
|
|
|
|
596.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,539.3
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
82.2
|
|
|
|
130.1
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
213.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution margin
|
|
$
|
151.9
|
|
|
$
|
60.6
|
|
|
$
|
28.7
|
|
|
$
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
241.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54.1
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Gain on forward contract activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
155.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
380.9
|
|
|
$
|
517.9
|
|
|
$
|
93.5
|
|
|
$
|
252.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,244.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital spending (excluding business combinations)
|
|
$
|
61.6
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
$
|
2.0
|
|
|
$
|
87.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Retail operating results for 2008 and 2007 have been restated to
reflect the reclassification of the remaining nine Virginia
stores to normal operations. |
F-35
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
14.
|
Fair
Value Measurements
|
ASC 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for its
measurement and expands disclosures about fair value
measurements. We elected to implement this statement with the
one-year deferral permitted by ASC 820 for non-financial assets
and non-financial liabilities measured at fair value, except
those that are recognized or disclosed on a recurring basis (at
least annually). The deferral applies to non-financial assets
and liabilities measured at fair value in a business
combination; impaired properties, plant and equipment;
intangible assets and goodwill; and initial recognition of asset
retirement obligations and restructuring costs for which we use
fair value. We adopted ASC 820 for non-financial assets and
non-financial liabilities measured at fair value effective
January 1, 2009. This adoption did not impact our
consolidated financial statements.
ASC 820 applies to our interest rate and commodity derivatives
that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis. The
standard also requires that we assess the impact of
nonperformance risk on our derivatives. Nonperformance risk is
not considered material at this time.
ASC 820 requires disclosures that categorize assets and
liabilities measured at fair value into one of three different
levels depending on the observability of the inputs employed in
the measurement. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active
markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs
are observable inputs other than quoted prices included within
Level 1 for the asset or liability, either directly or
indirectly through market-corroborated inputs. Level 3
inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability
reflecting our assumptions about pricing by market participants.
We value our available for sale investments using unadjusted
closing prices provided by the NYSE as of the balance sheet
date, and these would be classified as Level 1 in the fair
value hierarchy. OTC commodity swaps, physical commodity
purchase and sale contracts and interest rate swaps are
generally valued using industry-standard models that consider
various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for
interest rates, time value, volatility factors and contractual
prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant
economic measures. The degree to which these inputs are
observable in the forward markets determines the classification
as Level 2 or 3. Our contracts are valued using quotations
provided by brokers based on exchange pricing
and/or price
index developers such as PLATTS or ARGUS. These are classified
as Level 2.
The fair value hierarchy for our financial assets and
liabilities accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis as
of December 31, 2009, was (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity derivatives
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
9.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
9.7
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.4
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The derivative values above are based on analysis of each
contract as the fundamental unit of account as required by ASC
820. Derivative assets and liabilities with the same
counterparty are not netted, where the legal right of offset
exists. This differs from the presentation in the financial
statements which reflects our policy under the guidance of ASC
815-10-45,
wherein we have elected to offset the fair value amounts
recognized for multiple derivative instruments executed with the
same counterparty. As of December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, respectively, $2.7 million and
$26.9 million of net derivative positions are included in
other current assets on the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets. As of December 31, 2009, $0.3 million of cash
collateral is held by counterparty brokerage firms. These
amounts have been netted with the net derivative positions with
each counterparty.
F-36
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
15.
|
Derivative
Instruments
|
From time to time, Delek enters into swaps, forwards, futures
and option contracts for the following purposes:
|
|
|
|
|
To limit the exposure to price fluctuations for physical
purchases and sales of crude oil and finished products in the
normal course of business; and
|
|
|
|
To limit the exposure to floating-rate fluctuations on current
borrowings.
|
We use derivatives to reduce normal operating and market risks
with a primary objective in derivative instrument use being the
reduction of the impact of market price volatility on our
results of operations. The following discussion provides
additional details regarding the types of derivative contracts
held during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
Swaps
In December 2007, in conjunction with providing
E-10
products in our retail markets, we entered into a series of OTC
swaps based on the futures price of ethanol as quoted on the
Chicago Board of Trade, which fixed the purchase price of
ethanol for a predetermined number of gallons at future dates
from April 2008 through December 2009. We also entered into a
series of OTC swaps based on the future price of unleaded
gasoline as quoted on the NYMEX, which fixed the sales price of
unleaded gasoline for a predetermined number of gallons at
future dates from April 2008 through December 2009. Delek
recognized gains of $4.9 million and $0.5 million,
respectively, during the years ended December 31, 2008 and
2007, which were included as an adjustment to cost of goods sold
in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. There
were no gains or losses recognized on these swaps during year
ended December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, total unrealized gains of
$0.3 million and $4.3 million, respectively, are held
as other current assets on the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets.
In March 2008, we entered into a series of OTC swaps based on
the future price of West Texas Intermediate Crude
(WTI) as quoted on the NYMEX which fixed the
purchase price of WTI for a predetermined number of barrels at
future dates from July 2008 through December 2009. We also
entered into a series of OTC swaps based on the future price of
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) as quoted on the Gulf
Coast ULSD PLATTS which fixed the sales price of ULSD for a
predetermined number of gallons at future dates from July 2008
through December 2009.
In accordance with ASC 815, the WTI and ULSD swaps were
designated as cash flow hedges with the change in fair value
recorded in other comprehensive income. However, as of
November 20, 2008, due to the suspension of operations at
the refinery, the cash flow designation was removed because the
probability of occurrence of the hedged forecasted transactions
for the period of the shutdown became remote. All changes in the
fair value of these swaps subsequent to November 20, 2008
have been recognized in the statement of operations. For the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, we recognized gains
of $9.6 million and $13.8 million, respectively, which
are included as an adjustment to cost of goods sold in the
consolidated statement of operations as a result of the
discontinuation of these cash flow hedges. For the year ended
December 31, 2008, Delek recorded unrealized losses as a
component of other comprehensive income of $0.9 million
($0.6 million, net of deferred taxes) related to the change
in the fair value of these swaps. As of December 31, 2008,
Delek had total unrealized losses, net of deferred income taxes,
in accumulated other comprehensive income of $0.6 million
associated with these hedges. The fair value of these contracts
in accumulated other comprehensive income was recognized in
income as the positions were closed and the hedged transactions
were recognized in income. There were no unrealized gains or
losses remaining in accumulated other comprehensive income as of
December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, total unrealized gains of
$2.0 million and $11.6 million, respectively, are held
as other current assets on the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets.
F-37
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Forward
Fuel Contracts
From time to time, Delek enters into forward fuel contracts with
major financial institutions that fix the purchase price of
finished grade fuel for a predetermined number of units at a
future date and have fulfillment terms of less than
90 days. Delek recognized (losses) gains of
$(2.1) million, $5.7 million and $0.5 million,
respectively, during the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007 which are included as an adjustment to cost of
goods sold in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations. As of December 31, 2009 and December 31,
2008, total unrealized gains (losses) of $0.1 million and
$(0.8) million, respectively, are held as other current
assets (liabilities) on the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets.
Options
In the first quarter of 2008, Delek entered into a put option
with a major financial institution that fixes the sales price of
crude oil for a predetermined number of units, which settled in
December 2008. Delek recorded a realized gain of
$2.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2008,
which is included as an adjustment to cost of goods sold in the
accompanying consolidated statements of operations. There were
no option contracts outstanding during the years ended
December 31, 2009 or 2007.
Futures
Contracts
From time to time, Delek enters into futures contracts with
major financial institutions that fix the purchase price of
crude oil and the sales price of finished grade fuel for a
predetermined number of units at a future date and have
fulfillment terms of less than 90 days. Delek recognized
(losses) gains of $(0.5) million and $14.3 million,
respectively, during the years ended December 31, 2009 and
2008, which are included as an adjustment to cost of goods sold
in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. There
were no gains or losses recognized on futures contracts during
the year ended December 31, 2007. As of December 31,
2008, total unrealized gains of $0.1 million were held as
other current assets on the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets. There were no futures contracts outstanding as of
December 31, 2009.
From time to time, Delek also enters into futures contracts with
fuel supply vendors that secure supply of product to be
purchased for use in the normal course of business at our
refining and retail segments. These contracts are priced based
on an index that is clearly and closely related to the product
being purchased, contain no net settlement provisions and
typically qualify under the normal purchase exemption from
derivative accounting treatment under ASC 815.
Due to the suspension of operations at the refinery in November
2008, Delek was unable to take delivery under the refining
contracts covering the period of the refinery shutdown and
settled these contracts net with the vendors, even though no net
settlement provisions exist. Therefore, Delek discontinued the
normal purchase exemption under ASC 815 for the refining
contracts covering the periods from January 2009 through April
2009. Delek has recognized losses of $2.0 million relating
to the market value of these contracts for the year ended
December 31, 2009. There were no futures contracts recorded
at fair value under ASC 815 during the years ended
December 31, 2008 or 2007. As of December 31, 2008,
total unrealized gains of $5.4 million were held as other
current assets on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.
There were no outstanding contracts as of December 31, 2009.
Interest
Rate Instruments
From time to time, Delek enters into interest rate swap and cap
agreements that are intended to economically hedge floating rate
debt related to our current borrowings. These interest rate
derivative instruments are discussed in conjunction with our
long term debt in Note 11.
F-38
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary
differences between the carrying amounts of assets and
liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts
used for income tax purposes.
Significant components of Deleks deferred tax assets and
liabilities, reported separately in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements, as of December 31, 2009
and 2008 are as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Current Deferred Taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self-insurance accruals
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
2.4
|
|
Other accrued reserves
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current deferred tax assets
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current Deferred Taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(104.9
|
)
|
|
|
(75.0
|
)
|
Net operating loss carryforwards
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
Straight-line lease expense
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
ASC 718 stock compensation
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
ASC 815 derivatives
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
(8.6
|
)
|
Minority investment
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
ARO liability
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
Deferred revenues
|
|
|
(17.7
|
)
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Environmental reserves
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(2.9
|
)
|
|
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
(110.5
|
)
|
|
|
(71.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(108.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(67.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total current deferred tax assets and liabilities are
$3.0 million and $(0.5) million, respectively, as of
December 31, 2009 and $3.3 million and
$(0.1) million, respectively, as of December 31, 2008.
The total non-current deferred tax assets and liabilities,
excluding the valuation allowance, are $15.2 million and
$(122.8) million, respectively as of December 31, 2009
and $14.4 million and $(83.7) million, respectively as
of December 31, 2008.
The difference between the actual income tax expense and the tax
expense computed by applying the statutory federal income tax
rate to income from continuing operations is attributable to the
following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Provision for federal income taxes at statutory rate
|
|
$
|
1.9
|
|
|
$
|
15.1
|
|
|
$
|
45.7
|
|
State income taxes, net of federal tax provision
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Credits
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
(12.7
|
)
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Other items
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
$
|
3.1
|
|
|
$
|
18.6
|
|
|
$
|
35.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-39
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Income tax expense from continuing operations is as follows (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
(35.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
7.5
|
|
|
$
|
24.7
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.1
|
|
|
$
|
18.6
|
|
|
$
|
35.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax expense above is reflective of the changes
in deferred tax assets and liabilities during the current period.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, Delek recorded an
increase to the valuation allowance in the amount of
$1.1 million related to certain state net operating loss
carryforwards.
In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets,
management considers whether it is more likely than not that
some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will be realized.
The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent
upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods
in which those temporary differences become deductible.
Management considers the scheduled reversal of deferred tax
liabilities, projected future taxable income, and tax planning
strategies in making this assessment. Based upon the level of
historical taxable income and projections for future taxable
income over the periods, for which the deferred tax assets are
deductible, management believes it is more likely than not Delek
will realize the benefits of these deductible differences, net
of the existing valuation allowance. The amount of the deferred
tax assets considered realizable, however, could be reduced in
the near term if estimates of future taxable income during the
carryforward period are reduced. Subsequently recognized tax
benefit or expense relating to the valuation allowance for
deferred tax assets will be reported as an income tax benefit or
expense in the consolidated statement of operations.
At December 31, 2009, Delek has no federal net operating
loss carryforwards and will be carrying back current year losses
to recover taxes paid in prior years in excess of
$35.0 million. Delek does continue to carry
$0.6 million of federal tax credit carryforwards. State net
operating loss carryforwards at December 31, 2009, totaled
$75.6 million which were subject to a 100% valuation
allowance and which include $9.5 million related to
non-qualified stock option deductions. Delek has
$1.1 million of state net operating losses that are set to
expire between 2011 and 2012. Remaining net operating losses
will begin expiring in
2017-2029.
To the extent net operating loss carryforwards, when realized,
relate to non-qualified stock option deductions, the resulting
benefits will be credited to stockholders equity.
In 2007, Delek adopted certain provisions of ASC 740 relating to
uncertain tax positions, which provides a recognition threshold
and guidance for measurement of income tax positions taken or
expected to be taken on a tax return. ASC 740 requires the
elimination of the income tax benefits associated with any
income tax position where it is not more likely than
not that the position would be sustained upon examination
by the taxing authorities. The adoption of ASC 740 required an
adjustment to retained earnings for the tax benefit of any
uncertain tax position existing prior to January 1, 2007.
Deleks cumulative retained earnings adjustment was in the
amount of $0.1 million for federal and state unrecognized
tax benefits including penalties and interest, net of federal
and state tax benefits. During the year ending December 31,
2009 an additional $0.2 million of unrecognized tax
benefits were recorded, while $(1.1) million of
unrecognized tax benefits were settled.
F-40
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Increases and decreases to the beginning balance of unrecognized
tax benefits during the year ended December 31, 2009 were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized
|
|
|
Unrecognized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit
|
|
|
Benefit
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Beginning of period unrecognized benefit
|
|
$
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
1.3
|
|
Net increase from current period tax positions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Decreases related to settlements of tax positions
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of period unrecognized benefits
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of the unrecognized benefit above that if recognized
would change the effective tax rate is $0.3 million.
There was a net decrease of $(1.1) million to the liability
for unrecognized tax benefits related to timing differences
during the year ended December 31, 2009, which also
resulted in the increase of a corresponding deferred tax asset.
This decrease in the unrecognized tax benefits resulted from
settlement of the IRS audits covering years ended
December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2006, as well as
filing accounting method changes to settle uncertain positions.
During 2008, Delek increased its liability for unrecognized tax
benefits due to a tax law change enacted at the end of 2007, but
was retroactive for two prior year filings. Delek amended its
2007 federal income tax return, which resulted in the settlement
of $3.3 million of unrecognized tax benefits.
Uncertain tax positions have been examined by Delek for any
material changes in the next 12 months and none are
expected.
|
|
17.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Litigation
In the ordinary conduct of our business, we are from time to
time subject to lawsuits, investigations and claims, including,
environmental claims and employee related matters. In addition,
certain private parties who claim they were adversely affected
by this incident have commenced litigation against us. Although
we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of
lawsuits, investigations and claims asserted against us,
including civil penalties or other enforcement actions, we do
not believe that any currently pending legal proceeding or
proceedings to which we are a party will have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations.
Self-insurance
Delek is self-insured for employee medical claims up to
$0.1 million per employee per year.
Delek is self-insured for workers compensation claims up
to $1.0 million on a per accident basis. We self-insure for
general liability claims up to $4.0 million on a per
occurrence basis. We self-insure for auto liability up to
$4.0 million on a per accident basis.
We have umbrella liability insurance available to each of our
segments in an amount determined reasonable by management.
Environmental
Health and Safety
Delek is subject to various federal, state and local
environmental laws. These laws raise potential exposure to
future claims and lawsuits involving environmental matters which
could include soil and water contamination, air pollution,
personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by
substances which we manufactured, handled,
F-41
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
used, released or disposed, or that relate to pre-existing
conditions for which we have assumed responsibility. While it is
often difficult to quantify future environmental-related
expenditures, Delek anticipates that continuing capital
investments will be required for the foreseeable future to
comply with existing regulations.
We have recorded a liability of approximately $7.5 million
as of December 31, 2009 primarily related to the probable
estimated costs of remediating or otherwise addressing certain
environmental issues of a non-capital nature at the Tyler
refinery. This liability includes estimated costs for on-going
investigation and remediation efforts for known contamination of
soil and groundwater which were already being performed by the
former owner, as well as estimated costs for additional issues
which have been identified subsequent to the purchase.
Approximately $2.2 million of the liability is expected to
be expended over the next 12 months with the remaining
balance of $5.3 million expendable by 2022.
In late 2004, the prior refinery owner began discussions with
the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 6 and the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) regarding certain Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements at the refinery. Under the
agreement by which we purchased the Tyler refinery, we agreed to
be responsible for all cost of compliance under the settlement.
The prior refinery owner expected to settle the matter with the
EPA and the DOJ by the end of 2005; however, the negotiations
were not finalized until July 2009. A consent decree was entered
by the Court and became effective on September 23, 2009.
The consent decree does not allege any violations by Delek
subsequent to the purchase of the refinery and the prior owner
was responsible for payment of the assessed penalty. The capital
projects required by the consent decree have either been
completed (such as a new electrical substation to increase
operational reliability and additional sulfur removal capacity
to address upsets) or will not have a material adverse effect
upon our future financial results. In addition, the consent
decree requires certain on-going operational changes. We believe
any costs resulting from these changes will not have a material
adverse effect upon our business, financial condition or
operations.
In October 2007, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) approved an Agreed Order that resolved
alleged violations of certain air rules that had continued after
the Tyler refinery was acquired. The Agreed Order required the
refinery to pay a penalty and fund a Supplemental Environmental
Project for which we had previously reserved adequate amounts.
In addition, the refinery was required to implement certain
corrective measures, which the company completed as specified in
Agreed Order Docket
No. 2006-1433-AIR-E,
with one exception that will be completed in early 2010. In a
letter dated July 31, 2009, the TCEQ confirmed that Delek
is no longer required to install a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) on the wastewater flare at
the Tyler refinery under the Agreed Order due to an amendment to
the EPA regulation, on which the requirement was based.
Contemporaneous with the refinery purchase, Delek became a party
to a Waiver and Compliance Plan with the EPA that extended the
implementation deadline for low sulfur gasoline from
January 1, 2006 to May 2008, based on the capital
investment option we chose. In return for the extension, we
agreed to produce 95% of the diesel fuel at the refinery with a
sulfur content of 15 ppm or less by June 1, 2006
through the remainder of the term of the Waiver. During the
first quarter of 2008, it became apparent to us that the
construction of our gasoline hydrotreater would not be completed
by the original deadline of May 31, 2008 due to the
continuing shortage of skilled labor and ongoing delays in the
receipt of equipment. We began discussions with EPA regarding
this potential delay in the completion of the gasoline
hydrotreater and EPA agreed to extend certain provisions of the
Waiver that allowed us to exceed the 80 ppm per-gallon
sulfur maximum for up to two months past the original
May 31, 2008 compliance date. Construction and
commissioning of the gasoline hydrotreater was completed in June
2008 and all gasoline has met low sulfur specifications since
the end of June. All requirements of the Waiver and Compliance
Plan have been completed and EPA terminated the Waiver in early
June, 2009.
The EPA has issued final rules for gasoline formulation that
will require the reduction of average benzene content by
January 1, 2011 and the reduction of maximum benzene
content by July 1, 2012. It may be necessary for us to
purchase credits to comply with these content requirements and
there can be no assurance that such credits will be available or
that we will be able to purchase available credits at reasonable
prices.
F-42
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires increasing amounts of
renewable fuel to be incorporated into the gasoline pool through
2012. Under final rules implementing this Act (the Renewable
Fuel Standard), the Tyler refinery is classified as a small
refinery exempt from renewable fuel standards through 2010. The
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
increased the amounts of renewable fuel required by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. A rule proposed by EPA to implement EISA
(referred to as the Renewable Fuel Standard
2) would require us to displace increasing amounts of
refined products with biofuels beginning with approximately 7.5%
in 2011 and escalating to approximately 18% in 2022. The
proposed rule could cause decreased crude runs and materially
affect profitability unless fuel demand rises at a comparable
rate or other outlets are found for the displaced products.
Although temporarily exempt from this rule, the Tyler refinery
began supplying an
E-10
gasoline-ethanol blend in January 2008.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as
Superfund, imposes liability, without regard to
fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain
classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the
release of a hazardous substance into the
environment. These persons include the owner or operator of the
disposal site or sites where the release occurred and companies
that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous
substances. Under CERCLA, such persons may be subject to joint
and several liabilities for the costs of cleaning up the
hazardous substances that have been released into the
environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs
of certain health studies. It is not uncommon for neighboring
landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal
injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous
substances or other pollutants released into the environment.
Analogous state laws impose similar responsibilities and
liabilities on responsible parties. In the course of the
refinerys ordinary operations, waste is generated, some of
which falls within the statutory definition of a hazardous
substance and some of which may have been disposed of at
sites that may require cleanup under Superfund. At this time, we
have not been named as a potentially responsible party at any
Superfund sites and under the terms of the refinery purchase
agreement, we did not assume any liability for wastes disposed
of at third party owned treatment, storage or disposal sites
prior to our ownership.
In June 2007, OSHA announced that, under a National Emphasis
Program (NEP) addressing workplace hazards at
petroleum refineries, it would conduct inspections of process
safety management programs at approximately 80 refineries
nationwide. OSHA conducted an NEP inspection at our Tyler, Texas
refinery between February and August of 2008 and issued
citations assessing an aggregate penalty of less than
$0.1 million. We are contesting the NEP citations. Between
November 2008 and May 2009, OSHA conducted another inspection at
our Tyler refinery as a result of the explosion and fire that
occurred there and issued citations assessing an aggregate
penalty of approximately $0.2 million. We are also
contesting these citations and do not believe that the outcome
of any pending OSHA citations (whether alone or in the
aggregate) will have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.
In addition to OSHA, the Chemical Safety Board (CSB)
and the EPA have requested information pertaining to the
November 2008 incident. The EPA is currently conducting an
investigation under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act
pertaining to our compliance with the chemical accident
prevention standards of the Clean Air Act.
Vendor
Commitments
Delek maintains an agreement with a significant vendor that
requires the purchase of certain general merchandise exclusively
from this vendor over a specified period of time. Additionally,
we maintain agreements with certain fuel suppliers which contain
terms which generally require the purchase of predetermined
quantities of third-party branded fuel for a specified period of
time. In certain fuel vendor contracts, penalty provisions exist
if minimum quantities are not met.
F-43
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Letters
of Credit
As of December 31, 2009, Delek had in place letters of
credit totaling approximately $123.9 million with various
financial institutions securing obligations with respect to its
workers compensation self-insurance programs, as well as
purchases of crude oil for the refinery, gasoline and diesel for
the marketing segment and fuel for our retail fuel and
convenience stores. No amounts were outstanding under these
facilities at December 31, 2009.
Operating
Leases
Delek leases land, buildings, equipment and corporate office
space under agreements expiring at various dates through 2032
after considering available renewal options. Many of these
leases contain renewal options and require Delek to pay
executory costs (such as property taxes, maintenance, and
insurance). Lease expense for all operating leases for the years
ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 totaled
$16.9 million, $14.7 million, and $13.3 million,
respectively.
The following is an estimate of our future minimum lease
payments for operating leases having remaining noncancelable
terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2009 (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
14.0
|
|
2011
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
2012
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
2013
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
2014
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total future minimum rentals
|
|
$
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workforce
A portion of our workforce in the refining segment is
represented by the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union and its Local 202. As of December 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively, 155 and 149 operations and
maintenance hourly employees, respectively, and 39 and 40 truck
drivers, respectively, at the refinery were represented by the
union and covered by collective bargaining agreements which run
through January 31, 2012. None of our employees in our
marketing or retail segments or in our corporate office are
represented by a union. We consider our relations with our
employees to be satisfactory.
401(k)
Plan
We sponsor a voluntary 401(k) Employee Retirement Savings Plan
for eligible employees administered by Fidelity Management
Trust Company. Employees must be at least 21 years of
age and have 60 days of service to be eligible to
participate in the plan. Employee contributions are matched on a
fully-vested basis by us up to a maximum of 6% of eligible
compensation. Eligibility for the company matching contribution
begins on the first of the month following one year of
employment. For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007, the 401(k) expense recognized was $1.7 million,
$1.6 million, and $1.5 million respectively.
|
|
19.
|
Related
Party Transactions
|
At December 31, 2009, Delek Group Ltd. owned approximately
74.0% of our outstanding common stock. As a result, Delek Group
Ltd. and its controlling shareholder, Mr. Sharon
(Tshuva), will continue to control the
F-44
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
election of our directors, influence our corporate and
management policies and determine, without the consent of our
other stockholders, the outcome of any corporate transaction or
other matter submitted to our stockholders for approval,
including potential mergers or acquisitions, asset sales and
other significant corporate transactions.
On September 29, 2009, Delek executed a promissory note in
favor of Delek Petroleum, Ltd., an Israeli corporation
controlled by our indirect majority stockholder, Delek Group,
Ltd (Delek Petroleum) in the amount of
$65.0 million. The note matures on October 1, 2010 and
bears interest at 8.5% (net of any applicable withholding taxes)
payable on a quarterly basis. Additionally, the lender has the
option, any time after December 31, 2009, to elect a
one-time adjustment to the functional currency of the principal
amount. The note also provides the lender the option to make an
adjustment to the interest rate, once during the note life, but
that adjustment cannot exceed the then prevailing market
interest rate. The note is unsecured. The loan is prepayable in
whole or in part at any time without penalty or premium at the
borrowers election.
In December 2008, Delek Finance, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Delek, borrowed $15 million from Delek Petroleum. The
interest rate was LIBOR + 4% and the debt was fully repaid on
December 31, 2008.
On January 22, 2007, we granted 28,000 stock options to
Gabriel Last, one of our directors, under our 2006 Long-Term
Incentive Plan. These options vest ratably over four years, have
an exercise price of $16.00 per share and will expire on
January 22, 2017. The grant to Mr. Last was a special,
one-time grant in consideration of his supervision and direction
of management and consulting services provided by Delek Group,
Ltd. to us. The grant was not compensation for his service as a
director. This grant does not mark the adoption of a policy to
compensate our non-employee related directors and we do not
intend to issue further grants to Mr. Last in the future.
On December 10, 2006, we granted 28,000 stock options to
Asaf Bartfeld, one of our directors, under our 2006 Long-Term
Incentive Plan. These options vest ratably over four years and
have an exercise price of $17.64 per share and will expire on
December 10, 2016. The grant to Mr. Bartfeld was a
special, one-time grant in consideration of his supervision and
direction of management and consulting services provided by
Delek Group, Ltd. to us. The grant was not compensation for his
service as a director. This grant does not mark the adoption of
a policy to compensate our non-employee related directors and we
do not intend to issue further grants to Mr. Bartfeld in
the future.
On January 12, 2006, we entered into a consulting agreement
with Charles H. Green, the father of one of our named executive
officers, Frederec Green. Under the terms of the agreement,
Charles Green provides assistance and guidance, primarily in the
area of electrical reliability, at our Tyler refinery, and is
paid $100 per hour for services rendered. We paid a nominal
amount, $0.1 million and $0.2 million for these
services during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007, respectively.
Effective January 1, 2006, Delek entered into a management
and consulting agreement with Delek Group, pursuant to which key
management personnel of Delek Group provide management and
consulting services to Delek, including matters relating to
long-term planning, operational issues and financing strategies.
The agreement has an initial term of one year and will continue
thereafter until either party terminates the agreement upon
30 days advance notice. As compensation, the
agreement provides for payment to Delek Group of $125 thousand
per calendar quarter payable within 90 days of the end of
each quarter and reimbursement for reasonable
out-of-pocket
costs and expenses incurred.
As of May 1, 2005, Delek entered into a consulting
agreement with Greenfeld-Energy Consulting, Ltd.,
(Greenfeld) a company owned and controlled by one of
Deleks directors. Under the terms of the agreement, the
director personally provides consulting services relating to the
refining industry and Greenfeld receives monthly consideration
and reimbursement of reasonable expenses. From May 2005 through
August 2005, Delek paid Greenfeld approximately $7 thousand per
month. Since September 2005, Delek has paid Greenfeld a monthly
payment of approximately $8 thousand. In April 2006, Delek paid
Greenfeld a bonus of $70 thousand for services rendered in 2005.
Pursuant to the agreement, on May 3, 2006, we granted
Mr. Greenfeld options to purchase 130,000 shares of
our common stock at $16.00 per share, our initial public
offering price, pursuant to our 2006
F-45
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Long-Term Incentive Plan. These options vest ratably over five
years. The agreement continues in effect until terminated by
either party upon six months advance notice to the other party.
|
|
20.
|
Selected
Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
Quarterly financial information for the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008 is summarized below. The
quarterly financial information summarized below has been
prepared by Deleks management and is unaudited (in
millions, except per share data).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Month Periods Ending
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
June 30,
|
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2009(1)(2)
|
|
2009(1)(2)
|
|
2009(2)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
(Revised)
|
|
(Revised)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
368.3
|
|
|
$
|
613.3
|
|
|
$
|
835.6
|
|
|
$
|
849.5
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
53.0
|
|
|
$
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22.7
|
)
|
Net (loss) income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
29.6
|
|
|
$
|
(4.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(21.1
|
)
|
Basic (loss) earnings per share from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
|
$
|
(0.09
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.39
|
)
|
Diluted (loss) earnings per share from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.54
|
|
|
$
|
(0.09
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Month Periods Ending
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
June 30,
|
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2008(2)
|
|
2008(2)
|
|
2008(2)
|
|
2008(2)
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,191.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,419.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,433.9
|
|
|
$
|
678.8
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
4.5
|
|
|
$
|
10.7
|
|
|
$
|
45.6
|
|
|
$
|
11.3
|
|
Net (loss) income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(5.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.6
|
|
|
$
|
24.9
|
|
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
Basic (loss) earnings per share from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(0.10
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
Diluted (loss) earnings per share from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(0.10
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
These amounts have been revised due to a misapplication of
guidance associated with accounting for lower of cost or market
(LCM) reserves when using the LIFO method of
accounting for inventories. We recognized a reversal of a LCM
reserve in the first quarter of 2009 in the amount of
$4.8 million ($3.1 million, net of tax). The reversal
should not have been recognized until the second quarter of 2009
when our refinery resumed operations and the related inventory
was sold. This resulted in an overstatement of earnings in the
first quarter and an understatement of earnings in the second
quarter by the same amount. The 2009 annual results are not
affected by this change. |
|
(2) |
|
Having reclassified the nine Virginia stores back to normal
operations, the results of operations as shown on a quarterly
basis for all periods above have been restated to reflect the
results of the nine Virginia stores as income from continuing
operations. |
Dividend
Declaration
On February 10, 2010, Delek announced that its Board of
Directors voted to declare a quarterly cash dividend of $0.0375
per share, payable on March 18, 2010, to shareholders of
record on February 25, 2010.
F-46
Delek US
Holdings, Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
ABL
Revolver
Effective February 23, 2010, Delek Refining, Ltd., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Delek US Holdings, Inc., entered into
a new $300 million ABL revolver with a consortium of
lenders including Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC as
administrative agent (Wells ABL). The Wells ABL is
scheduled to mature on February 23, 2014 and it replaces
the SunTrust ABL credit facility which had a maturity date of
April 28, 2010, as discussed in Note 11.
The primary purpose of the Wells ABL is to support the working
capital requirements of our petroleum refinery in Tyler, Texas.
The Wells ABL includes (i) a $300 million revolving
credit limit, (ii) a $30 million swing line loan
sublimit, (iii) a $300 million letter of credit
sublimit, and (iv) an accordion feature which permits an
increase in facility size of up to $600 million subject to
additional lender commitments. Under the facility, revolving
loans and letters of credit are provided subject to availability
requirements which are determined pursuant to a borrowing base
calculation as such is defined in the Wells ABL. Borrowings
under the facility bear interest based on predetermined pricing
grids which allow us to choose between Base Rate Loans or LIBOR
Rate Loans. The initial pricing for loans under the facility
includes a margin of 4.0% above LIBOR for loans designated as
LIBOR Rate Loans and 2.50% above the prime rate for loans
designated as Base Rate Loans.
The lenders under the Wells ABL were granted a perfected, first
priority security interest in all of our refining operations
accounts receivable, general intangibles, letter of credit
rights, deposit accounts, investment property, inventory,
equipment and all products and proceeds thereof. The security
interest in the equipment is limited to $50 million and
will be subordinated or released under certain limited
circumstances. Delek Refining, Inc. and Delek U.S. Refining
GP, LLC, the limited and general partner of our refining
subsidiary, respectively and Delek US Holdings are guarantors of
the obligations under the Wells ABL, with the latter guaranty
being limited to $15 million. The credit facility contains
usual and customary affirmative and negative covenants for
financings of this type including limitations at the refining
subsidiary level on the incurrence of indebtedness, making of
investments, creation of liens, disposition of property, making
of restricted payments and transactions with affiliates.
Under the new facility, Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC and
Bank of America, N.A., serve as co-collateral agents.
Exercise
of Share Purchase Rights
On February 21, 2010, our president and chief executive
officer, Ezra Uzi Yemin, exercised 1,319,493 share purchase
rights in connection with a net share settlement. As a result,
638,909 shares of Common Stock were issued to him and
680,584 shares of Common Stock were withheld as a partial
cashless exercise and to pay withholding taxes. The
1,319,493 share purchase rights represent the balance of
the 1,969,493 share purchase rights granted to
Mr. Yemin pursuant to his prior employment agreement and
were scheduled to expire on April 30, 2010.
Subsequent
Event Evaluation
We have evaluated subsequent events from December 31, 2009
through the date of the filing of this
Form 10-K,
the date the financial statements were issued. Other than
disclosed above, no material subsequent events have occurred
during this time which would require recognition in the
consolidated financial statements or footnotes as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2009.
F-47
SCHEDULE I
Delek US Holdings, Inc.
Parent Company Only
Condensed Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
19.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
$
|
63.2
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.7
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable from subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest receivable from subsidiaries
|
|
|
18.9
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
Income tax receivable
|
|
|
40.0
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
78.8
|
|
|
|
19.7
|
|
|
|
108.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes receivable from related parties
|
|
|
113.0
|
|
|
|
148.2
|
|
|
|
77.0
|
|
Minority investment
|
|
|
131.6
|
|
|
|
131.6
|
|
|
|
139.5
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
348.8
|
|
|
|
324.9
|
|
|
|
300.9
|
|
Deferred tax asset
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
677.7
|
|
|
$
|
634.9
|
|
|
$
|
628.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
Accounts payable to subsidiaries
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.0
|
|
Note payable to related party
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note payable to subsidiary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital lease obligations
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
57.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
104.5
|
|
|
|
75.6
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and capital lease obligations, net of current
portion
|
|
|
42.0
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
95.0
|
|
Note payable to subsidiary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current liabilities
|
|
|
42.2
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
101.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 10,000,000 shares
authorized, no shares issued and outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 110,000,000 shares
authorized, 53,700,570, 53,682,070 and 53,666,570 shares
issued and outstanding at December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
281.8
|
|
|
|
277.8
|
|
|
|
274.1
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
248.7
|
|
|
|
254.5
|
|
|
|
237.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
531.0
|
|
|
|
532.8
|
|
|
|
512.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
677.7
|
|
|
$
|
634.9
|
|
|
$
|
628.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of
Delek US Holdings, Inc., beginning on
page F-8
of this
Form 10-K
are an integral part of these condensed financial statements.
F-48
SCHEDULE I (Continued)
Delek US Holdings, Inc.
Parent Company Only
Condensed Statements of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except shares and per share data)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on forward contract activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(11.9
|
)
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
(3.8
|
)
|
Net interest income from related parties
|
|
|
(6.4
|
)
|
|
|
(5.6
|
)
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)
|
Earnings from investment in subsidiaries(1)
|
|
|
(7.9
|
)
|
|
|
(30.2
|
)
|
|
|
(100.8
|
)
|
Loss from minority investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Other expenses, net
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-operating income
|
|
|
(10.8
|
)
|
|
|
(22.7
|
)
|
|
|
(100.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income before income tax expense
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
|
92.2
|
|
Income tax benefit
|
|
|
(3.4
|
)
|
|
|
(3.4
|
)
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
2.3
|
|
|
$
|
24.9
|
|
|
$
|
96.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The earnings from investment in subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 2009 includes a gain on extinguishment of debt
of $1.6 million that was recognized in consolidation for
the year ended December 31, 2008. The debt was extinguished
by the consolidated entity in 2008; however, on a separate
company basis, the extinguishment was not recognized by our
subsidiary until 2009. See discussion of the Lehman Credit
Agreement in Note 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements herein. |
The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of
Delek US Holdings, Inc., beginning on
page F-8
of this
Form 10-K
are an integral part of these condensed financial statements.
F-49
SCHEDULE I (Continued)
Delek US Holdings, Inc.
Parent Company Only
Condensed Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
2.3
|
|
|
$
|
24.9
|
|
|
$
|
96.4
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash used in
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
Loss from equity method investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
Income from subsidiaries
|
|
|
(7.9
|
)
|
|
|
(30.2
|
)
|
|
|
(100.8
|
)
|
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories and other current assets
|
|
|
(33.4
|
)
|
|
|
16.4
|
|
|
|
(21.6
|
)
|
Receivables and payables from subsidiaries
|
|
|
22.8
|
|
|
|
(20.7
|
)
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
Accounts payable and other current liabilities
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Non-current assets and liabilities, net
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
(6.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities
|
|
|
(9.7
|
)
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)
|
|
|
(12.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.3
|
)
|
|
|
(1,055.8
|
)
|
Sales of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
|
|
|
1,112.3
|
|
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)
|
Purchase of minority investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89.1
|
)
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
(15.2
|
)
|
|
|
(12.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends from subsidiaries
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
|
127.3
|
|
Net repayments (proceeds) of notes receivable from subsidiaries
|
|
|
35.2
|
|
|
|
(71.2
|
)
|
|
|
(65.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
22.9
|
|
|
|
(45.0
|
)
|
|
|
27.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from revolver
|
|
|
68.5
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments on revolver
|
|
|
(75.0
|
)
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from note payable to related party
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment on note payable to subsidiary
|
|
|
(17.3
|
)
|
|
|
(6.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from other debt instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
Repayments on other debt instruments
|
|
|
(27.7
|
)
|
|
|
(20.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
(8.1
|
)
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
(28.5
|
)
|
Deferred financing costs paid
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
(8.6
|
)
|
|
|
40.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
(62.3
|
)
|
|
|
56.0
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
63.2
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period
|
|
$
|
19.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
$
|
63.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of
Delek US Holdings, Inc., beginning on
page F-8
of this
Form 10-K
are an integral part of these condensed financial statements.
F-50
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Companys
Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.2 to the Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen common stock certificate (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4.1 to the Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.1*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated as of May 1, 2009 by and between
Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Ezra Uzi Yemin (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 6, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
Amended and Restated Consulting Agreement, dated as of
April 11, 2006, by and between Greenfeld-Energy Consulting,
Ltd. and Delek Refining, Ltd. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys Registration Statement
on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.3*
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement for Directors and Officers
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2006,
by and between Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Delek Group Ltd.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of
April 28, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., MAPCO Family
Centers, Inc., the several lenders from time to time party to
the Agreement, Lehman Brothers Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi
USA and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(a)
|
|
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of August 18, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., MAPCO
Family Centers, Inc., the several banks and other financial
institutions or entities from time to time parties thereto,
Lehman Brothers Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman
Commercial Paper Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(b)
|
|
Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of October 11, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the
several banks and other financial institutions or entities from
time to time parties to the Agreement, Lehman Brothers Inc.,
SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(c)
|
|
Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of December 15, 2005, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the
several banks and other financial institutions or entities from
time to time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers
Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper
Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(d)
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of April 18, 2006, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the
several banks and other financial institutions or entities from
time to time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers,
Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper
Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(e)
|
|
Fifth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated
as of June 14, 2006, among MAPCO Express, Inc., the several
banks and other financial institutions or entities from time to
time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(f)
|
|
Sixth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement entered
into effective July 13, 2006, among MAPCO Express, Inc.,
the several banks and other financial institutions or entities
from time to time parties to the Credit Agreement, Lehman
Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman
Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(g)
|
|
Seventh Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
entered into effective March 30, 2007, among MAPCO Express,
Inc., the several banks and other financial institutions or
entities, from time to time, parties to the Credit Agreement,
Lehman Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank Leumi USA and Lehman
Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.5(h)
|
|
Eighth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
entered into effective December 3, 2008, among MAPCO
Express, Inc., the several banks and other financial
institutions or entities, from time to time, parties to the
Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank
Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(i)
|
|
Ninth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
entered into effective January 28, 2009, among MAPCO
Express, Inc., the several banks and other financial
institutions or entities, from time to time, parties to the
Credit Agreement, Lehman Brothers, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Bank
Leumi USA and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.5(k))
|
|
10
|
.5(j)+++
|
|
Resignation, Waiver, Consent and Appointment Agreement dated
September 1, 2009 by and between Fifth Third Bank, N.A.,
Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. and MAPCO Express, Inc.
|
|
10
|
.5(k)+++
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of
December 10, 2009 between MAPCO Express, Inc. as borrower,
Fifth Third Bank as arranger and administrative agent, Bank
Leumi USA as co-administrative agent, SunTrust Bank as
syndication agent and the lenders from time to time parties
thereto.
|
|
10
|
.6+++
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of
October 13, 2006, among Delek Refining, Ltd., Delek
Pipeline Texas, Inc., various financial institutions, SunTrust
Bank and The CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc. (superseded by
Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(a)
|
|
First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated as of December 15, 2008, among Delek Refining, Ltd.,
Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc., various financial institutions,
SunTrust Bank and The CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc.
(superseded by Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(b)
|
|
Letter Agreement (Second Amendment) to Second Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2009,
among Delek Refining, Ltd., Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and
various financial institutions including SunTrust Bank as
administrative agent, issuing bank, swingline lender and
collateral agent (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.6(d) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009) (superseded by Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(c)
|
|
Third Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated as of February 13, 2009, among Delek Refining, Ltd.,
Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and various financial institutions
including SunTrust Bank as administrative agent, issuing bank,
swingline lender and collateral agent (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.6(e) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009) (superseded by Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(d)+++
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit
Agreement, dated as of February 18, 2009, among Delek
Refining, Ltd., Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and various financial
institutions including SunTrust Bank as administrative agent,
issuing bank, swingline lender and collateral agent (superseded
by Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(e)
|
|
Fifth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated as of June 30, 2009, among Delek Refining, Ltd.,
Delek Pipeline Texas, Inc. and various financial institutions
including SunTrust Bank as administrative agent, issuing bank,
swingline lender and collateral agent (superseded by
Exhibit 10.6(f))
|
|
10
|
.6(f)
|
|
Credit Agreement dated February 23, 2010 by and between
Delek Refining, Ltd. As borrower and a consortium of lenders
including Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC as administrative
agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to the
Companys
Form 8-K
filed on February 25, 2010)
|
|
10
|
.7+
|
|
Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, dated April 12, 1999,
between La Gloria Oil and Gas Company and Scurlock Permian,
LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(a)+
|
|
One-Year Renewal of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, dated
December 21, 2004, between Plains Marketing, L.P., as
successor to Scurlock Permian LLC, and La Gloria Oil and
Gas Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11(a)
to the Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(b)+
|
|
Assignment of the Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, as amended
and renewed on December 21, 2004, by La Gloria Oil and
Gas Company to Delek Refining, Ltd. (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.11(b) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.7(c)+
|
|
Amendment to One-Year Renewal of Pipeline Capacity Lease
Agreement, dated January 15, 2006, between Delek Refining,
Ltd. and Plains Marketing, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.11(c) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(d)+
|
|
Extension of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement, dated
January 15, 2006, between Delek Refining, Ltd. and Plains
Marketing, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.11(d) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(e)+
|
|
Modification and Extension of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement,
effective May 1, 2006, between Delek Refining, Ltd. and
Plains Marketing, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.11(e) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.7(f)++
|
|
Modification and Extension of Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement
dated March 31, 2009 between Delek Crude Logistics, LLC and
Plains Marketing L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 11, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.8+
|
|
Branded Jobber Contract, dated December 15, 2005, between
BP Products North America, Inc. and MAPCO Express, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9*
|
|
Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9(a)*
|
|
Form of Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan
Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.13(a) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9(b)*
|
|
Director Form of Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term
Incentive Plan Stock Option Agreement (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.13(b) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.9(c)*
|
|
Officer Form of Delek US Holdings, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive
Plan Stock Option Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.13(c) to the Companys Registration
Statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on April 20, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
Description of Director Compensation (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.8 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 15, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
Management and Consulting Agreement, dated as of January 1,
2006, by and between Delek Group Ltd. and Delek US Holdings,
Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed on February 8, 2006, SEC File
No. 333-131675)
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
Amended and Restated Term Loan Note, dated December 30,
2008, in the principal amount of $30,000,000 of Delek Finance,
Inc., in favor of Israel Discount Bank of New York (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.12(a) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated December 19,
2007 by and between Delek Marketing & Supply, LP and
various financial institutions from time to time party to the
agreement, as Lenders, and Fifth Third Bank, as Administrative
Agent and L/C issuer (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.16(c) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.13(a)
|
|
First Amendment dated October 17, 2008 to Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement dated December 19, 2007 by and
between Delek Marketing & Supply, LP and various
financial institutions from time to time party to the agreement,
as Lenders, and Fifth Third Bank, as Administrative Agent and
L/C issuer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13(d)
to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.13(b)
|
|
Second Amendment dated March 31, 2009 to Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement dated December 19, 2007 by and
between Delek Marketing & Supply, LP and various
financial institutions from time to time party to the agreement,
as Lenders, and Fifth Third Bank, as Administrative Agent and
L/C issuer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to
the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 11, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
Promissory Note dated July 27, 2006, by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc., and Bank Leumi USA as lender (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 14, 2006)
|
|
10
|
.14(a)
|
|
Letter agreement dated June 23, 2009 between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Bank Leumi USA (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
Term Promissory Note dated September 29, 2009 in the
principal amount of $65,000,000 between Delek US Holdings, Inc.
and Delek Petroleum, Ltd. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 6, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
Credit Agreement dated March 30, 2007, by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
documentation agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 15, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.16(a)
|
|
First Amendment dated August 20, 2007 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 9, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.16(b)
|
|
Second Amendment dated October 17, 2007 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc. as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.19(b) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.16(c)
|
|
Third Amendment dated December 4, 2007 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc. as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.19(c) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.16(d)
|
|
Fourth Amendment dated June 26, 2008 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 11, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.16(e)
|
|
Fifth Amendment dated December 29, 2008 to the Credit
Agreement dated March 30, 2007 by and between Delek US
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
administrative agent, Lehman Brothers, Inc., as arranger and
joint bookrunner, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as documentation
agent, arranger and joint bookrunner (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.16(e) to the Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 9, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.17*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated May 1, 2009 by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc. and Assaf Ginzburg (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.18*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated May 1, 2009 by and between Delek
US Holdings, Inc. and Frederec Green (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.19*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated June 10, 2009 by and between
MAPCO Express, Inc. and Igal Zamir (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on August 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.20*
|
|
Employment Agreement dated August 25, 2009 by and between
Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Mark B. Cox (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 6, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.21*
|
|
Letter agreement between Edward Morgan and Delek US Holdings,
Inc. dated April 17, 2009 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on May 11, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement dated August 22, 2007 by and
between Delek US Holdings, Inc. and TransMontaigne, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the
Companys
Form 10-Q
filed on November 9, 2007)
|
|
10
|
.22(a)
|
|
Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated October 9, 2007
by and between TransMontaigne, Inc., as assignor, Morgan Stanley
Capital Group, Inc., as assignee, and Delek US Holdings, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24(a) to the
Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.23++
|
|
Distribution Service Agreement dated December 28, 2007 by
and between MAPCO Express, Inc. and Core-Mark International,
Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the
Companys
Form 10-K
filed on March 3, 2008)
|
|
10
|
.24*
|
|
Letter agreement dated February 24, 2010 by and between
Delek US Holdings, Inc. and Lynwood E. Gregory, III
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to the
Companys
Form 8-K
filed on February 25, 2010)
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a)
under the Securities Exchange Act
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a)
under the Securities Exchange Act
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
Certification of the Companys Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement. |
|
+ |
|
Confidential treatment has been requested and granted with
respect to certain portions of this exhibit pursuant to Rule 406
of the Securities Act. Omitted portions have been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
|
++ |
|
Confidential treatment has been requested and granted with
respect to certain portions of this exhibit pursuant to Rule
24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act. Omitted portions have been
filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
|
+++ |
|
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to
certain portions of this exhibit pursuant to
Rule 24b-2
of the Securities Exchange Act. Omitted portions have been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Delek US Holdings, Inc.
Mark Cox
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Dated: March 12, 2010
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, this report has been signed below by or on behalf of
the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the
capacities indicated on March 9, 2010:
Ezra Uzi Yemin
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Gabriel Last
Director
Asaf Bartfeld
Director
Carlos E. Jorda
Director
Zvi Greenfeld
Director
Philip L. Maslowe
Director
Charles H. Leonard
Director
Mark Cox
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Mark Cox
Individually and as
Attorney-in-Fact