UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x        QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006

OR

o        TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from               to               

Commission File Number 1-9753

GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

(770) 395-4500

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:)

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 x No o

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

Large accelerated filer x     Accelerated filer o     Non-accelerated filer o

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

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

 

 

GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2006
INDEX

			Page Number
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
	Item 1.	Financial Statements	3
		Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	3
		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income	4
		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	5
		Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	6
	Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	24
	Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	30
	Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	30
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
	Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	31
	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	31
	Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	31
	Item 6.	Exhibits	32
SIGNATURES			33
CERTIFICATIONS

 

2

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION.

Item 1.                        FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)

 

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)

 

 

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)

 

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements do reflect all the adjustments that, in the opinion of management, are necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods reported. Such adjustments are of a normal, recurring nature. Our operating results for the period ended March 31, 2006, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2006.

These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes to consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. There have been no material changes in the accounting policies followed by us during the period ended March 31, 2006, other than the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123R, Share Based Payments, (See note 9).

2. NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In March 2006 the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 156, Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets—an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140. SFAS No. 156 requires an entity to recognize a servicing asset or servicing liability each time it undertakes an obligation to service a financial asset by entering into a servicing contract in specific situations. Additionally, the servicing asset or servicing liability shall be initially measured at fair value, if practicable. SFAS No. 156 is effective as of an entity’s first fiscal year beginning after September 15, 2006. We do not expect the adoption of this statement to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2006 the FASB issued SFAS No. 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments—an amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140. SFAS No. 155 simplifies accounting for certain hybrid instruments currently governed by SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, by allowing fair value remeasurement of hybrid instruments that contain an embedded derivative that otherwise would require bifurcation. SFAS No. 155 also eliminates the guidance in SFAS No. 133 Implementation Issue No. D1, Application of Statement 133 to Beneficial Interests in Securitized Financial Assets, which provides that such beneficial interests are not subject to SFAS No. 133. SFAS No. 155 amends SFAS No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities—a Replacement of FASB Statement No. 125, by eliminating the restriction on passive derivative instruments that a qualifying special-purpose entity may hold. This statement is effective for financial instruments acquired or issued by us after December 31, 2006. We do not expect the adoption of this statement to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

On September 15, 2005, the FASB’s Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) reached a consensus on EITF Issue No. 04-13, Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the Same Counterparty. The consensus states that an entity would be required to treat sales and purchases of inventory between the entity and the same counterparty as one transaction for purposes of applying Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions, when such transactions are entered into in contemplation of each other. When such transactions are legally contingent on each other, they

6

---

have been entered into in contemplation of each other. The consensus also defines other factors that should be considered in determining whether transactions have been entered into in contemplation of each other. EITF Issue No. 04-13 will be effective for new arrangements entered into, and modifications or renewals of existing arrangements, beginning in the first interim or annual reporting period beginning after March 15, 2006. We do not expect the adoption of EITF Issue No. 04-13 to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

3. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SECURITIZATION

We have an agreement pursuant to which we sell an undivided percentage ownership interest in a defined pool of our trade receivables on a revolving basis through a wholly owned subsidiary to third parties (the “Securitization”). As collections reduce accounts receivable included in the pool, we sell ownership interests in new receivables to bring the ownership interests sold up to a maximum of $165.0 million, as permitted by the Securitization. At March 31, 2006, and December 31, 2005, the unpaid balance of accounts receivable in the defined pool was approximately $294.5 million and $277.3 million, respectively. The balances of receivables sold as of March 31, 2006, and December 31, 2005, were $163.0 million and $141.0 million, respectively.

4. INVENTORIES

The major classes of inventories were as follows:

 

5. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT, NET

Property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:

 

7

---

6. OTHER ASSETS, NET

Other assets, net of accumulated amortization, consisted of the following:

 

7. LONG-TERM DEBT

Long-term debt consisted of the following:

 

Over the next twelve months, we expect to pay off $30.0 million of the borrowings under our revolving credit facility; therefore, we have classified this debt as current. At March 31, 2006, we had a maximum borrowing capacity of $240.0 million under our revolving credit facility, and our unused revolving credit facility totaled $138.4 million, net of outstanding letters of credit for $6.6 million and borrowings of $95.0 million.

Under the senior credit facility and the indenture related to the 7.125 percent notes, we are subject to certain restrictive covenants, the most significant of which require us to maintain certain financial ratios and limit our ability to pay dividends, make investments, grant liens, sell our assets and engage in certain other activities. As of and for the three months ended March 31, 2006, we were in compliance with all such covenants.

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings.   We are a party to numerous individual and several class-action lawsuits filed against us, among other parties, arising out of an incident that occurred in September 1996 in which workers were exposed to a chemical substance on our premises in Plaquemine, Louisiana. The substance was later identified to be a form of mustard agent, which occurred as a result of an unforeseen chemical reaction. All of the actions claim one or more forms of compensable damages, including past and future wages, past and future physical and emotional pain and suffering. The lawsuits were originally filed in Louisiana state court in Iberville Parish.

In September 1998 the state court trial judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion permitting the filing of amended petitions that added the additional allegations that we had engaged in intentional conduct against the plaintiffs. Amended petitions making such allegations were filed. Our two insurers notified us that they were reserving their rights to deny coverage to the extent liability could be established due to such intentional conduct in accordance with their insurance policies. We disputed the insurers’ reservation

8

---

of rights. In December 1998, as required by the terms of the insurance policies, each insurer demanded arbitration of the issue of the insurers’ duties relating to the intentional conduct allegations. As a result of the arbitrations relating to the insurance issue, as permitted by federal statute, the insurers removed the cases to United States District Court in December 1998.

Following the above removal of these actions and unsuccessful attempts by plaintiffs to remand the cases, we were able to settle the claims of all but two worker plaintiffs (and their collaterals) who had filed suit prior to removal. These settlements included the vast majority of those claimants believed to be the most seriously injured. No further legal proceedings are required relating to these settled cases. Negotiations regarding the remaining claims of the two worker plaintiffs are ongoing.

Following these settlements, we were sued by approximately 400 additional plaintiff workers (and their collaterals) who claim that they were injured as a result of the incident. After negotiation, including a mediation, we reached an agreement for the settlement of these additional claims. This court-approved settlement, which is on a class basis, will resolve the claims of all workers who claim to have been exposed and injured as a result of the incident other than those workers who opt out of the class settlement. We are aware of two worker plaintiffs and several collaterals who have filed suit in state court who have opted not to participate in the class settlement, as well as the two worker plaintiffs and collaterals whose claims are pending in federal court (see discussion above). Based on the present status of the proceedings, we believe the liability ultimately imposed on us will not have a material effect on our financial position or on our results of operations.

Many of the workers injured in this accident were employed by contractors we hired to perform various services on our site. Under the contracts for services, the contractors agreed to hold us harmless and indemnify us for amounts we were required to pay for personal injuries to their workers. During the course of this litigation, we had made demands for the contractors to reimburse us for damage amounts we had paid to their employees. In August 2003 we recovered $3.1 million as reimbursement for amounts paid by us to one contractor’s employees. We continue to pursue additional repayments from other contractors, but we do not believe any future recoveries will be material.

In August 2004 and January and February 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) conducted environmental investigations of our manufacturing facilities in Aberdeen, Mississippi and Plaquemine, Louisiana, respectively. The USEPA has informed us that it has identified several “areas of concern,” and has indicated that such areas of concern may, in its view, constitute violations of applicable requirements, thus warranting monetary penalties and possible injunctive relief. In lieu of pursuing such relief through its traditional enforcement process, the USEPA has proposed that the parties enter into negotiations in an effort to reach a global settlement of the areas of concern and that such a global settlement cover our manufacturing facilities at Lake Charles, Louisiana and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as well. It is likely that any such global settlement, if achieved, will result in the imposition of monetary penalties, capital expenditures for installation of environmental controls, and/or other relief. We do not know the total cost of monetary penalties, environmental projects, or other relief that would be imposed in any settlement or order. While we expect that such costs will exceed $100,000, we do not expect that such costs will have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations.

In addition, we are subject to other claims and legal actions that may arise in the ordinary course of business. We believe that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these other claims and legal actions will not have a material effect on our financial position or on our results of operations.

Environmental Regulation.   Our operations are subject to increasingly stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental quality. These regulations, which are enforced principally by the USEPA and comparable state agencies, govern the management of solid hazardous waste, emissions into the air and discharges into surface and underground waters, and the manufacture of chemical substances.

9

---

In October 2004 the USEPA notified us that we have been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for a Superfund site in Galveston, Texas. The site is a former industrial waste recycling, treatment and disposal facility. Over one thousand PRPs have been identified by the USEPA. We contributed a relatively small proportion of the total amount of waste shipped to the site. In the notice, the USEPA informed us of the agency’s willingness to settle with us and other PRPs that contributed relatively small proportions of the total quantity of waste shipped to the Superfund site. We believe that we can reach a settlement with the USEPA in this matter, and although there can be no assurance, we expect the amount of the settlement to be less than $100,000.

There are several serious environmental issues concerning the VCM facility at Lake Charles, Louisiana we acquired from CONDEA Vista Company (“CONDEA Vista” is now Sasol North America, Inc.) on November 12, 1999. Substantial investigation of the groundwater at the site has been conducted, and groundwater contamination was first identified in 1981. Groundwater remediation through the installation of groundwater recovery wells began in 1984. The site currently contains about 90 monitoring wells and 18 recovery wells. Investigation to determine the full extent of the contamination is ongoing. It is possible that offsite groundwater recovery will be required, in addition to groundwater monitoring. Soil remediation could also be required.

Investigations are currently underway by federal environmental authorities concerning contamination of an estuary near the Lake Charles VCM facility we acquired known as the Calcasieu Estuary. It is likely that this estuary will be listed as a Superfund site and be the subject of a natural resource damage recovery claim. It is estimated that there are about 200 PRPs associated with the estuary contamination. CONDEA Vista is included among these parties with respect to its Lake Charles facilities, including the VCM facility we acquired. The estimated cost for investigation and remediation of the estuary is unknown and could be quite costly. Also, Superfund statutes may impose joint and several liability for the cost of investigations and remedial actions on any company that generated the waste, arranged for disposal of the waste, transported the waste to the disposal site, selected the disposal site, or presently or formerly owned, leased or operated the disposal site or a site otherwise contaminated by hazardous substances. Any or all of the responsible parties may be required to bear all of the costs of cleanup regardless of fault, legality of the original disposal or ownership of the disposal site. Currently, we discharge our wastewater to CONDEA Vista, which has a permit to discharge treated wastewater into the estuary.

CONDEA Vista has agreed to retain responsibility for substantially all environmental liabilities and remediation activity relating to the vinyls business we acquired from it, including the Lake Charles, Louisiana VCM facility. For all matters of environmental contamination that were currently known at the time of acquisition, we may make a claim for indemnification at any time; for environmental matters that were then unknown, we must generally make claims for indemnification before November 12, 2009. Further, Georgia Gulf’s agreement with CONDEA Vista provides that CONDEA Vista will be subject to the presumption that all later discovered on-site environmental contamination arose before closing, and is therefore CONDEA Vista’s responsibility; this presumption may only be rebutted if CONDEA Vista can show that we caused the environmental contamination by a major, unaddressed release.

At our Lake Charles VCM facility, CONDEA Vista will continue to conduct the ongoing remediation at its expense until November 12, 2009. After November 12, 2009, we will be responsible for remediation costs up to about $150,000 of expense per year, as well as costs in any year in excess of this annual amount up to an aggregate one-time amount of about $2.3 million. As part of our ongoing assessment of our environmental contingencies, we determined these remediation costs to be probable and estimable and therefore recorded an accrual to other non-current liabilities of $2.7 million.

The property owned by CONDEA Vista in Mansfield, Massachusetts, for which we negotiated an early lease termination, has been the subject of ongoing environmental investigations under an order with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Groundwater investigations continue at the

10

---

Mansfield property to address identified on-site groundwater contamination and investigate the possible off-site migration of contaminated groundwater. It is also possible that the USEPA may list the property as a Superfund site. The environmental investigations and actions are associated with the past operations at the property and were not assumed in our lease of the property. In addition, CONDEA Vista has indemnified us for claims related to this environmental contamination beyond an aggregate threshold amount of about $0.3 million, including coverage for potential joint and several liabilities under the environmental statutes. Upon removal of manufacturing equipment and termination of the lease, the site with buildings and infrastructure equipment reverted to CONDEA Vista.

As for employee and independent contractor exposure claims, CONDEA Vista is responsible for exposures before November 12, 2009, and we are responsible for exposures after November 12, 2009, on a pro rata basis determined by years of employment or service before and after November 12, 1999, by any claimant. There is, however, a presumption for claims brought before November 12, 2004, by current or former CONDEA Vista employees and contractors that, absent a showing of new acute exposure after November 12, 1999, all responsibility will be deemed to have arisen before November 12, 1999, and will be solely CONDEA Vista’s.

We believe that we are in material compliance with all current environmental laws and regulations. We estimate that any expenses incurred in maintaining compliance with these requirements will not materially affect earnings or cause us to exceed our level of anticipated capital expenditures. However, there can be no assurance that regulatory requirements will not change, and it is not possible to accurately predict the aggregate cost of compliance resulting from any such changes.

9. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

On January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123R, Share Based Payment, using the modified prospective method of adoption. SFAS No. 123R requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options and shares purchased under an employee stock purchase plan to be recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values.

Upon our adoption of SFAS No. 123R, we began recording compensation cost related to the continued vesting of all stock options that remained unvested as of January 1, 2006, as well as for all new stock option grants after our adoption date. The compensation cost to be recorded is based on the fair value at the grant date. The adoption of SFAS No. 123R did not have an effect on our recognition of compensation expense relating to restricted stock grants. SFAS No. 123R required the elimination of unearned compensation (contra-equity account) related to earlier awards against the appropriate equity accounts, additional paid in capital, in our circumstance.

Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123R, cash flows resulting from the tax benefit related to stock-based compensation was presented in operating activities in the statement of cash flows, along with other tax cash flows, in accordance with the provisions of EITF Issue No. 00-15, Classification in the Statement of Cash Flows of the Income Tax Benefit Received by a Company upon Exercise of a Nonqualified Employee Stock Option. SFAS No. 123R superseded EITF Issue No. 00-15, amended SFAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows, and requires tax benefits relating to excess share-based compensation deductions to be prospectively presented in the statement of cash flows as a financing activity cash inflow.

11

---

The impact of adopting SFAS No. 123R on our operating income, income before income taxes, net income, net cash provided by operating activities, net cash provided by financing activities, and basic and diluted earnings per share for the three-month ended March 31, 2006, is as follows:

 

Prior to our adoption of SFAS No. 123R, we accounted for our stock-based compensation plans in accordance with APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and complied with SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, as amended, for disclosure purposes. Under these provisions, no compensation was recognized for our stock option plans or our employee stock purchase plan. For SFAS No. 123 purposes, the fair value of each stock option and stock purchase right for 2005 has been estimated as of the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

 

12

---

Using the above assumptions, additional compensation expense under the fair value method would be:

 

Had compensation expense been determined consistently with SFAS No. 123, utilizing the assumptions previously detailed, our net income and earnings per common share would have been the following pro forma amounts:

 

Under the 1998 and 2002 Equity and Performance Incentive Plans, we are authorized by our stockholders to grant up to 4,500,000 shares of our common stock for stock options and restricted stock to employees and non-employee directors.

As of March 31, 2006, we had various types of share-based payment arrangements with our employees and non-employee directors; restricted and deferred stock units, stock options and the employee stock purchase plan (“ESPP”), which are described below.

Restricted and Deferred Stock.   For the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, we granted 136,902 restricted stock units and deferred stock units and 116,375 shares of restricted stock and deferred stock units, respectively, to our key employees and non-employee directors. The restricted stock units and restricted stock vest over a three-year period and the deferred stock units vest over one-year period. The weighted average grant date fair value per share of restricted and deferred stock units and restricted stock granted during the first three months of 2006 and 2005 was $28.70 and $52.81, respectively. Share-based compensation expense for the first quarter of 2006 from restricted and deferred stock units was approximately $2.6 million and the related tax benefit was about $1.0 million. During the same period of 2005, share-based compensation expense and the related tax benefit were about $0.8 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

13

---

A summary of restricted stock units and awards activity is as follows:

 

Stock Options and ESPP.   For the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, we granted 351,996 and 314,700 stock options, respectively, to our key employees and non-employee directors. Option prices are equal to the closing price of our common stock on the day prior to the date of grant. Options vest over a one or three-year period from the date of grant and expire no more than ten years after the date of grant.

A summary of stock option activity under all plans is as follows:

 

The fair value of each stock option and the ESPP shares for 2006 has been estimated as of the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The use of a valuation model requires us to make certain assumptions with respect to selected model inputs. We use the historical volatility for our stock as we believe that historical volatility is more representative than implied volatility. The expected life of the awards is based on historical and other economic data trended into the future. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based on observed interest rates appropriate for the terms of our awards. The dividend yield assumption is based on our history and expectation of dividend payouts. The weighted average fair value derived from the Black-Scholes model and the related weighted-average assumptions used in the model are as follows:

 

14

In the quarter ended March 31, 2006, we recognized stock-based compensation expense of approximately $2.9 million related to the vesting of stock options and ESPP shares and the related tax benefit of approximately $1.1 million.

Nonvested shares.   A summary of the status of the nonvested shares activity under all plans is as follows:

 

As of March 31, 2006, we had approximately $14.1 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested share-based compensation, which we will record in our statement of income over a weighted average recognition period of less than two years. The total fair value of shares vested during the quarters ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, was $7.7 million and $5.5 million, respectively.

10. EARNINGS PER SHARE

There are no adjustments to “Net income” or “Income before income taxes” for the diluted earnings per share computations.

The following table reconciles the denominator for the basic and diluted earnings per share computations shown on the condensed consolidated statements of income:

 

For the quarters ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, outstanding options to purchase 0.6 million and 0.3 million shares, respectively, of common stock were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share as the exercise prices of these options were antidilutive during these periods.

15

---

11. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) INFORMATION

Our comprehensive income is comprised of net income (loss) and an additional minimum pension liability, net of related income taxes. The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss and total comprehensive income (loss) are shown as follows:

Accumulated other comprehensive loss—net of tax

 

Total comprehensive income (loss)

There were no components of comprehensive income other than net income for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and March 31, 2005. Therefore, comprehensive income for these periods is the same as net income.

12. EMPLOYEE PENSION PLANS

The following table provides the components for the net periodic benefit cost for all pension plans:

 

Our major assumptions used to determine net periodic benefit cost for pension plans are presented as weighted-averages:

 

As of the three months ended March 31, 2006, we had made no contributions to the plan trust and we made $0.5 million and $0.6 million in the form of direct benefit payments for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.

16

---

13. SEGMENT INFORMATION

We have two reportable segments through which we conduct our operating activities: chlorovinyls and aromatics. These two segments reflect the organization that we use for internal reporting. The chlorovinyls segment is a highly integrated chain of products that includes chlorine, caustic soda, vinyl chloride monomer and vinyl resins and compounds. The aromatics segment is also vertically integrated and includes cumene and the co-products phenol and acetone.

Earnings of each segment exclude interest income and expense, unallocated corporate expenses and general plant services, and provision for (benefit from) income taxes. Intersegment sales and transfers are insignificant.

 

14. SUPPLEMENTAL GUARANTOR INFORMATION

Our payment obligations under our 7.125 percent senior subordinated notes are guaranteed by Great River Oil & Gas Corporation, Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC and Georgia Gulf Chemicals & Vinyls, LLC, some of our wholly owned subsidiaries (the “Guarantor Subsidiaries”). The guarantees are full, unconditional and joint and several. Georgia Gulf Corporation is in essence a holding company for all of its wholly owned subsidiaries. The following unaudited condensed consolidating balance sheets, statements of income and statements of cash flows present the financial statements of the parent company, and the combined financial statements of our Guarantor Subsidiaries and our remaining subsidiaries (the “Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries”). Provisions in our senior credit facility limit payment of dividends, distributions, loans and advances to us by our subsidiaries.

17

Georgia Gulf Corporation and Subsidiaries
Supplemental Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet
March 31, 2006
(Unaudited)

 

18

---

Georgia Gulf Corporation and Subsidiaries
Supplemental Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet
December 31, 2005
(Unaudited)

 

19