Form 10-K
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
Commission file number 0-52105
KAISER ALUMINUM
CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
94-3030279
|
(State of
Incorporation)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
27422 PORTOLA PARKWAY, SUITE 350,
FOOTHILL RANCH, CALIFORNIA
(Address of principal
executive offices)
|
|
92610-2831
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(949) 614-1740
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Class
|
|
Name of Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, par value $0.01 par value
|
|
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
|
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 þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or 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, and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ 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 amendment to 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 þ
|
|
Accelerated
Filer o
|
|
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 registrants common stock
held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business
day of the registrants most recently completed second
fiscal quarter (June 29, 2007) was approximately
$1.1 billion.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all
documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12,
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to
the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a
court. Yes þ No o
As of January 31, 2008, there were 20,580,815 shares
of common stock of the registrant outstanding.
Documents Incorporated By Reference. Certain portions of the
registrants definitive proxy statement related to the
registrants 2008 annual meeting of stockholders are
incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report on
Form 10-K.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
PART I
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Item 1.
|
|
|
Business
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Item 1A.
|
|
|
Risk Factors
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
Item 1B.
|
|
|
Unresolved Staff Comments
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
Item 2.
|
|
|
Properties
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
Item 3.
|
|
|
Legal Proceedings
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
Item 4.
|
|
|
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART II
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
Item 5.
|
|
|
Market for Registrants Common Equity and Related
Stockholder Matters
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
Item 6.
|
|
|
Selected Financial Data
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
Item 7.
|
|
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
Item 7A.
|
|
|
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Item 8.
|
|
|
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
Item 9.
|
|
|
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 9A.
|
|
|
Controls and Procedures
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 9B.
|
|
|
Other Information
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART III
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 10.
|
|
|
Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 11.
|
|
|
Executive Compensation
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 12.
|
|
|
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
and Related Stockholder Matters
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 13.
|
|
|
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
Item 14.
|
|
|
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART IV.
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
Item 15.
|
|
|
Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SIGNATURES
|
|
|
124
|
|
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
|
|
|
125
|
|
In this Report, all references to Kaiser,
we, us, the Company and
our refer to Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and its
subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires or where
otherwise indicated.
i
PART I
Forward-Looking
Statements
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contains statements which constitute forward-looking
statements within the meaning of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements appear
throughout this Report, including this Item 1.
Business Business Operations,
Item 1A. Risk Factors, and Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Conditions and Results of Operations. These
forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of
forward-looking terminology such as believes,
expects, may, estimates,
will, should, plans, or
anticipates, or the negative of the foregoing or
other variations or comparable terminology, or by discussions of
strategy.
Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements
are not guarantees of future performance and involve significant
risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may vary from
those in the forward-looking statements as a result of various
factors. These factors include: the effectiveness of
managements strategies and decisions; general economic and
business conditions, including cyclicality and other conditions
in the aerospace and other end markets we serve; developments in
technology; new or modified statutory or regulatory
requirements; changing prices and market conditions; and other
factors discussed in Item 1A. Risk Factors and
elsewhere in this Report.
Readers are urged to consider these factors carefully in
evaluating any forward-looking statements and are cautioned not
to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The
forward-looking statements included herein are made only as of
the date of this Report, and we undertake no obligation to
update any information contained in this Report or to publicly
release any revisions to any forward-looking statements that may
be made to reflect events or circumstances that occur, or that
we become aware of, after the date of this Report.
Availability
of Information
We make available our Annual Reports on Form
10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q,
Current Reports on
Form 8-K,
and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, free of charge through our Internet website at
www.kaiseraluminum.com under the heading Investor
Relations as soon as reasonably practicable after we
electronically file such material with or furnish it to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The public
also may read and copy any of these materials at the SECs
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, D.C. 20549. Information on the operation of the
Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at
1-800-732-0330.
The SEC also maintains an Internet site that contains the
Companys filings; the address of that site is
http://www.sec.gov.
Business
Overview
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (Kaiser, the
Company, we or us) is an
independent fabricated aluminum products manufacturing company
with 2007 net sales of approximately $1.5 billion. We
were founded in 1946 and operate 10 production facilities in the
United States and one in Canada. We manufacture rolled,
extruded, drawn and forged aluminum products within three end
use categories consisting of aerospace and high strength
products (which we refer to as Aero/HS products), general
engineering products (which we refer to as GE products) and
custom automotive and industrial products (which we refer to as
Custom products).
We produced and shipped approximately 548 million pounds of
fabricated aluminum products in 2007 which comprised 86% of our
total net sales. We have long-standing relationships with our
customers, which include leading aerospace companies, automotive
suppliers and metal distributors. We strive to tightly integrate
the management of the operations within our Fabricated Products
segment across multiple production facilities, product lines and
target markets in order to maximize the efficiency of product
flow to our customers. In our served markets, we seek to be the
supplier of choice by pursuing Best in Class
customer satisfaction and offering a broad product portfolio.
1
In order to capitalize on the significant growth in demand for
high quality heat treat aluminum plate products in the market
for Aero/HS products, in the third quarter of 2005 we began a
major expansion at our Trentwood facility in Spokane,
Washington. The Trentwood expansion significantly increased our
aluminum plate production capacity and enables us to produce
thicker gauge aluminum plate. The three phase expansion is
expected to amount to $139 million in capital investment.
The first phase became fully operational in the fourth quarter
of 2006. The second phase was fully operational at
December 31, 2007 and the third phase is expected to be
fully operational by the end of 2008.
In 2007, we announced a $91 million investment program in
our rod, bar and tube value stream including a facility expected
to be in Kalamazoo, Michigan, as well as improvements at three
existing extrusion and drawing facilities. This investment
program is expected to significantly improve the capabilities
and efficiencies of our rod and bar and seamless extruded and
drawn tube operations and enhance the market position of such
products. The Kalamazoo facility will be equipped with two
extrusion presses and a remelt operation. Completion of these
investments is expected to occur by late 2009.
In February 2008, we announced $14 million of additional
programs that will enhance our Kaiser
Select®
capabilities in our Tulsa, Oklahoma and Sherman, Texas extrusion
plants and significantly reduce energy consumption at one of our
casting units in our Trentwood facility. We expect the majority
of these additional programs to be completed during 2008.
In addition to our core Fabricated Products operations, we have
a 49% ownership interest in Anglesey Aluminium Limited (which we
refer to as Anglesey), a company that owns an
aluminum smelter based in Holyhead, Wales. Anglesey has produced
in excess of 300 million pounds of primary aluminum for
each of the last three fiscal years, of which 49% is available
to us. During 2007, sales of our portion of Angleseys
output represented 14% of our total net sales. Because we also
purchase primary aluminum for our fabricated products at market
prices, Angleseys production acts as a natural hedge for
our Fabricated Products operations. Anglesey operates under a
power agreement that provides sufficient power to sustain its
aluminum reduction operations at full capacity through September
2009. The nuclear facility which supplies power to Anglesey is
scheduled to close operations in 2010. Angleseys ability
to operate its aluminum reduction operations past September 2009
is dependent upon procuring adequate power on acceptable terms.
We can give no assurance that Anglesey will be able to do so. If
Anglesey cannot obtain adequate power on acceptable terms,
Angleseys aluminum reduction operations will likely be
shut down. Given the potential for future shutdown and related
costs, dividends from Anglesey were temporarily suspended while
Anglesey studied future cash requirements. A shutdown process
may involve significant costs to Anglesey which could decrease
or eliminate its ability to pay future dividends. Based on a
review of cash anticipated to be available for future cash
requirements, Anglesey removed the temporary suspension of
dividends and distributed $4.4 million and
$9.9 million in dividends in August and December of 2007,
respectively. No assurance can be given that Anglesey will not
suspend dividends again in the future. The process of shutting
down aluminum reduction operations may involve transition
complications which may prevent Anglesey from operating at full
capacity until the expiration of the power agreement.
Between the first quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
Kaiser and 25 of our then-existing subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware (which we refer to as the
Bankruptcy Court) under chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code (which we refer to as the
Bankruptcy Code). Pursuant to our Second Amended
Plan of Reorganization (which we refer to as our
Plan), we emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy on
July 6, 2006 (which we refer to as the Effective
Date). Our Plan allowed us to eliminate significant legacy
liabilities, including long-term indebtedness, pension
obligations, retiree medical obligations and liabilities
relating to asbestos and other personal injury claims. In
addition, prior to our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy, we sold all of our interests in bauxite mining
operations, alumina refineries and aluminum smelters, other than
our interest in Anglesey, in order to focus on our fabricated
aluminum products business, which we believe has a stronger
competitive position and presents greater opportunities for
growth.
2
Business
Operations
Fabricated
Products Business Unit
Overview. Our Fabricated Products business
unit produces rolled, extruded, drawn, and forged aluminum
products used principally for aerospace and defense, automotive,
consumer durables, electronics, electrical, and machinery and
equipment end-use applications. In general, the Fabricated
Products business unit manufactures products in one of three
broad categories: Aero/HS products; GE products; and Custom
products. During 2007, 2006 and 2005, our eleven North American
fabricated products manufacturing facilities produced and
shipped approximately 548, 523 and 482 million pounds of
fabricated aluminum products, respectively, which accounted for
approximately 86%, 85% and 86% of our total net sales for 2007,
2006 and 2005, respectively.
Types of
Products Produced
The aluminum fabricated mill products market is broadly defined
to include the markets for flat-rolled, extruded, drawn, forged
and cast aluminum products, used in a variety of end-use
applications. We participate in certain portions of the markets
for flat-rolled, extruded/drawn and forged products focusing on
highly engineered products for Aero/HS products; GE products;
and Custom products. The portions of the markets in which we
participate accounted for approximately 20% of total North
American shipments of aluminum fabricated mill products in 2007.
Aerospace and High Strength Products. Our
Aero/HS products include high quality heat treat plate and
sheet, as well as cold finish bar, seamless drawn tube and
billet that are manufactured to demanding specifications for the
global aerospace and defense industries. These industries use
our products in applications that demand high tensile strength,
superior fatigue resistance properties and exceptional
durability even in harsh environments. For instance, aerospace
manufacturers use high-strength alloys for a variety of
structures that must perform consistently under extreme
variations in temperature and altitude. Our Aero/HS products are
used for a wide variety of end uses. We make aluminum plate and
tube for aerospace applications, and we manufacture a variety of
specialized rod and bar products that are incorporated in
diverse applications. The aerospace and defense markets
consumption of fabricated aluminum products is driven by overall
levels of industrial production, airframe build rates, which are
cyclical in nature, and defense spending, as well as the
potential availability of competing materials such as
composites. Demand growth is expected to increase for thick
plate with growth in monolithic construction of
commercial and other aircraft. In monolithic construction,
aluminum plate is heavily machined to form the desired part from
a single piece of metal (as opposed to creating parts using
aluminum sheet, extrusions or forgings that are affixed to one
another using rivets, bolts or welds). Military applications for
heat treat plate and sheet include aircraft frames for military
use and skins and armor plating to protect ground vehicles from
explosive devices. Products sold for Aero/HS applications
represented 32% of our 2007 fabricated products shipments.
Aero/HS products net sales in 2007 were approximately 39% of our
2007 fabricated products net sales.
General Engineering Products. GE products
consist primarily of standard catalog items sold to large metal
distributors. These products have a wide range of uses, many of
which involve further fabrication of these products for numerous
transportation and industrial end-use applications where
machining of plate, rod and bar is intensive. Our GE products
consist of 6000-series alloy rod, bar, tube, sheet, plate and
standard extrusions. The 6000-series alloy is an extrudable
medium-strength alloy that is heat treatable and extremely
versatile. Our GE products have a wide range of uses and
applications, many of which involve further fabrication of these
products for numerous transportation and other industrial end
uses. For example, our products are used in the enhancement of
military vehicles, in the specialized manufacturing process for
liquid crystal display screens, and in the vacuum chambers in
which semiconductors are made. Our rod and bar products are
manufactured into rivets, nails, screws, bolts and parts of
machinery and equipment. Demand growth and cyclicality for GE
products tend to mirror broad economic patterns and industrial
activity in North America. Demand is also impacted by the
destocking and restocking of inventory in the full supply chain.
Products sold for GE applications represented 45% of our 2007
fabricated products shipments. GE products net sales in 2007
were approximately 40% of our 2007 fabricated products net sales.
Custom Automotive and Industrial Products. Our
Custom products consist of extruded/drawn and forged aluminum
products for many North American automotive and industrial end
uses, including consumer durables,
3
electrical/electronic, machinery and equipment, automobile,
light truck, heavy truck and truck trailer applications.
Examples of the wide variety of custom products that we supply
to the automotive industry include extruded products for bumpers
and anti-lock braking systems, drawn tube for drive shafts and
forgings for suspension control arms and drive train yokes.
Other Custom product sales include extruded products for water
heater anodes, truck trailers and electrical/electronic
exchangers. For some Custom products, we perform limited
fabrication, including sawing and cutting to length. Demand
growth and cyclicality for Custom products tend to mirror broad
economic patterns and industrial activity in North America, with
specific individual market segments such as automotive, heavy
truck and truck trailer applications tracking their respective
build rates. Products sold for Custom applications represented
23% of our 2007 fabricated products shipments. Custom products
net sales in 2007 were approximately 21% of our 2007 fabricated
products net sales.
End Markets In Which We Do Not Participate. We
have elected not to participate in certain end markets for
fabricated aluminum products, including beverage and food cans,
building and construction materials, and foil used for
packaging. We believe our chosen end markets present better
opportunities for sales growth and premium pricing of
differentiated products. The markets we have elected to
participate in represented approximately 7% of the North
American flat rolled products market and 54% of the North
American extrusion market in 2007.
Types of
Manufacturing Processes Employed
We utilize the following manufacturing processes to produce our
fabricated products:
Flat rolling. The traditional manufacturing
process for aluminum flat-rolled products uses ingot, a large
rectangular slab of aluminum, as the starter material. The ingot
is processed through a series of rolling operations, both hot
and cold. Finishing steps may include heat treatment, annealing,
coating, stretching, leveling or slitting to achieve the desired
metallurgical, dimensional and performance characteristics.
Aluminum flat-rolled products are manufactured using a variety
of alloy mixtures, a range of tempers (hardness), gauges
(thickness) and widths, and various coatings and finishes.
Flat-rolled aluminum semi-finished products are generally either
sheet (under 0.25 inches in thickness) or plate (up to
15 inches in thickness). The vast majority of the North
American market for aluminum flat-rolled products uses
common alloy material for construction and other
applications and beverage/food can sheet. However, these are
products and markets in which we have chosen not to participate.
Rather, we have focused our efforts on heat treat
products. Heat treat products are distinguished from common
alloy products by higher strength and other desired product
attributes. The primary end use of heat treat flat-rolled sheet
and plate is for Aero/HS and GE products.
Extrusion. The extrusion process typically
starts with a cast billet, which is an aluminum cylinder of
varying length and diameter. The first step in the process is to
heat the billet to an elevated temperature whereby the metal is
malleable. The billet is put into an extrusion press and pushed,
or extruded, through a die that gives the material the desired
two-dimensional cross section. The material is either quenched
as it leaves the press, or subjected to a post-extrusion heat
treatment cycle, to control the materials physical
properties. The extrusion is then straightened by stretching and
cut to length before being hardened in aging ovens. The largest
end uses of extruded products are in the construction, general
engineering and custom markets. Building and construction
products represent the single largest end-use market for
extrusions by a significant amount. However, we have chosen to
focus our efforts on GE and Custom products because we believe
we have strong production capability, well-developed technical
expertise and high product quality with respect to these
products.
Drawing. Drawing is a fabrication operation in
which extruded tubes and rods are pulled through a die, or
drawn. The purpose of drawing is to reduce the diameter and wall
thickness while improving physical properties and dimensions.
Material may go through multiple drawing steps to achieve the
final dimensional specifications. Aero/HS products is a primary
end-use market and is our focus.
Forging. Forging is a manufacturing process in
which metal is pressed, pounded or squeezed under great pressure
into high-strength parts known as forgings. Forged parts are
heat treated before final shipment to the customer. The end-use
applications are primarily in transportation, where high
strength-to-weight
ratios in products are valued. We focus our production on
certain types of automotive and sports vehicle applications.
4
A description of the manufacturing processes and category of
products at each of our 11 production facilities is shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Process
|
|
Types of Products
|
|
Chandler, Arizona
|
|
Drawing
|
|
Aero/HS
|
Greenwood, South Carolina
|
|
Forging
|
|
Custom
|
Jackson, Tennessee
|
|
Extrusion/Drawing
|
|
Aero/HS, GE
|
London, Ontario
|
|
Extrusion
|
|
Custom
|
Los Angeles, California
|
|
Extrusion
|
|
GE, Custom
|
Newark, Ohio
|
|
Extrusion/Rod Rolling
|
|
Aero/HS, GE
|
Richland, Washington
|
|
Extrusion
|
|
Aero/HS, GE
|
Richmond, Virginia
|
|
Extrusion/Drawing
|
|
GE, Custom
|
Sherman, Texas
|
|
Extrusion
|
|
Custom
|
Spokane, Washington
|
|
Flat Rolling
|
|
Aero/HS, GE
|
Tulsa, Oklahoma
|
|
Extrusion
|
|
GE
|
As can be seen in the table above, many of our facilities employ
the same basic manufacturing process and produce the same type
of end use products. Over the past several years, given the
similar economic and other characteristics at each location, we
have made a significant effort to more tightly integrate the
management of our Fabricated Products business unit across
multiple manufacturing locations, product lines, and target
markets to maximize the efficiency of product flow to customers.
Purchasing is centralized for a substantial portion of the
Fabricated Products business units primary aluminum
requirements in order to maximize price, credit and other
benefits. Because many customers purchase a number of different
products that are produced at different plants, there has also
been substantial integration of the sales force and its
management. We believe that integration of our operations allows
us to capture efficiencies while allowing our facilities to
remain highly focused.
Raw
Materials
We purchase substantially all of the primary aluminum and
recycled and scrap aluminum used to make our fabricated products
from third-party suppliers. In a majority of the cases, we
purchase primary aluminum ingot and recycled and scrap aluminum
in varying percentages depending on various market factors
including price and availability. The price for primary aluminum
purchased for the Fabricated Products business unit is typically
based on the Average Midwest Transaction Price (or Midwest
Price), which from 2002 to 2007, has ranged between
approximately $.02 to $.08 per pound above the price traded on
the London Metal Exchange (or LME) depending on
primary aluminum supply/demand dynamics in North America.
Recycled and scrap aluminum are typically purchased at a modest
discount to ingot prices but can require additional processing.
In addition to producing fabricated aluminum products for sale
to third parties, certain of our production facilities provide
one another with billet, log or other intermediate material in
lieu of purchasing such items from third party suppliers. For
example, a substantial majority of the product from the
Richland, Washington facility is used as base input at the
Chandler, Arizona facility; the Sherman, Texas facility is
currently supplying billet to the Tulsa, Oklahoma facility; the
Richmond, Virginia facility typically receives some portion of
its metal supply from either (or both of) the London, Ontario or
Newark, Ohio facilities; and the Newark, Ohio facility also
supplies billet and log to the Jackson, Tennessee facility and
extruded forge stock to the Greenwood, South Carolina facility.
Pricing
The price we pay for primary aluminum, the principal raw
material for our fabricated aluminum products business, consists
of two components: the price quoted for primary aluminum ingot
on the LME and the Midwest Transaction Premium, a premium to LME
reflecting domestic market dynamics as well as the cost of
shipping and warehousing. Because aluminum prices are volatile,
we manage the risk of fluctuations in the price of primary
5
aluminum through a combination of pricing policies, internal
hedging and financial derivatives. Our three principal pricing
mechanisms are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Spot price. Some of our customers pay a
product price that incorporates the spot price of primary
aluminum in effect at the time of shipment to a customer. This
pricing mechanism typically allows us to pass commodity price
risk to the customer.
|
|
|
|
Index-based price. Some of our customers pay a
product price that incorporates an index-based price for primary
aluminum such as Platts Midwest price for primary
aluminum. This pricing mechanism also typically allows us to
pass commodity price risk to the customer.
|
|
|
|
Firm price. Some of our customers pay a firm
price. We bear commodity price risk on firm-price contracts,
which we normally hedge though a combination of financial
derivatives and production from Anglesey. For internal reporting
purposes, whenever the Fabricated Products business unit enters
into a firm price contract, it also enters into an
internal hedge with the Primary Aluminum business
unit, so that all the metal price risk resides in the Primary
Aluminum business unit. Results from internal hedging activities
between the two business units are eliminated in consolidation.
|
Sales,
Marketing and Distribution
Industry sales margins for fabricated products fluctuate in
response to competitive and market dynamics. Sales are made
directly to customers by our sales personnel located in the
United States, Canada and Europe, and by independent sales
agents in Asia, Mexico and the Middle East. Our sales and
marketing efforts are focused on the markets for Aero/HS, GE,
and Custom products.
Aerospace and High Strength
Products. Approximately 50% of our Aero/HS
product shipments are sold to distributors with the remainder
sold directly to customers. Sales are made either under
contracts (with terms spanning from one year to several years)
or on an
order-by-order
basis. We serve this market with a North American sales force
focused on Aero/HS and GE products and direct sales
representatives in Western Europe. Key competitive dynamics for
Aero/HS products include the level of commercial aircraft
construction spending (which in turn is often subject to broader
economic cycles) and defense spending.
General Engineering Products. A substantial
majority of our GE products are sold to large distributors in
North America, with orders primarily consisting of standard
catalog items shipped with a relatively short lead-time. We
service this market with a North American sales force focused on
GE and Aero/HS products. Key competitive dynamics for GE
products include product price, product-line breadth, product
quality, delivery performance and customer service.
Custom Automotive and Industrial Products. Our
Custom products are sold primarily to first tier automotive
suppliers and industrial end users. Sales contracts are
typically medium to long term in length. Almost all sales of
Custom products occur through direct channels using a North
American direct sales force that works closely with our
technical sales organization. Key demand drivers for our
automotive products include the level of North American light
vehicle manufacturing and increased use of aluminum in vehicles
in response to increasingly strict governmental standards for
fuel efficiency. Demand for industrial products is directly
linked to the strength of the U.S. industrial economy.
Customers
In 2007, our Fabricated Products business unit had approximately
600 customers. The largest, Reliance Steel & Aluminum,
and the five largest customers for fabricated products accounted
for approximately 15% and 36%, respectively, of our net sales in
2007. The loss of Reliance, as a customer, would have a material
adverse effect on us. However, we believe that our relationship
with Reliance is good and the risk of loss of Reliance as a
customer is remote.
6
Research
and Development
We operate three research and development
centers. Our Rolling and Heat Treat Center and
our Metallurgical Analysis Center are both located at our
Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington. The Rolling and Heat
Treat Center has complete hot rolling, cold rolling and heat
treat capabilities to simulate, in small lots, processing of
flat-rolled products for process and product development on an
experimental scale. The Metallurgical Analysis Center consists
of a full metallographic laboratory and a scanning electron
microscope to support research development programs as well as
respond to plant technical service requests. The third center,
our Solidification and Casting Center, is located in Newark,
Ohio and has a short stroke experimental caster with ingot cast
rolling capabilities for the experimental rolling mill and for
extrusion billet used in plant extrusion trials. Due to our
research and development efforts, we have been able to introduce
products such as our unique
T-Form®
sheet which provides aerospace customers with high formability
as well as requisite strength characteristics.
Primary
Aluminum Business Unit
Our Primary Aluminum business unit contains two primary
elements: (a) activities related to our interests in and
related to Anglesey and (b) primary aluminum
hedging-related activities. Our Primary Aluminum business unit
accounted for approximately 14%, 15% and 14% of our total net
sales for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Anglesey. We own a 49% interest in Anglesey,
which owns an aluminum smelter at Holyhead, Wales. Rio Tinto Plc
owns the remaining 51% ownership interest in Anglesey and has
day-to-day
operating responsibilities for Anglesey. Anglesey has produced
in excess of 300 million pounds for each of the last three
fiscal years. We supply 49% of Angleseys alumina
requirements and purchase 49% of Angleseys aluminum
output, in each case based on a market-related pricing formula.
Anglesey produces billet, rolling ingot and sow for the United
Kingdom and European marketplace. We sell our share of
Angleseys output to a single third party at market prices.
The price received for sales of production from Anglesey
typically approximates the LME price. We also realize a premium
(historically between $.05 and $.12 per pound above LME price
depending on the product) for sales of value- added products
such as billet and rolling ingot.
To meet our obligation to sell alumina to Anglesey in proportion
to our ownership percentage, we purchase alumina under a
contract that provides adequate alumina for operations through
August 2009 at prices that are based on market prices for
primary aluminum. We will need to secure a new alumina contract
for the period after August 2009 in the event additional power
is secured. We can give no assurance regarding our ability to
secure a source of alumina on comparable terms. If we are unable
to do so, the results of our Primary Aluminum operations will be
affected.
Anglesey operates under a power agreement that provides
sufficient power to sustain its operations at full capacity
through September 2009. The nuclear facility which supplies
power to Anglesey is scheduled to close operations in 2010.
Angleseys ability to operate its aluminum reduction
operations past September 2009 is dependent upon procuring
adequate power on acceptable terms. We can give no assurance
that Anglesey will be able to do so. If Anglesey cannot obtain
adequate power on acceptable terms, Angleseys aluminum
reduction operations will likely be shut down. Given the
potential for future shutdown and related costs, dividends from
Anglesey were temporarily suspended while Anglesey studied
future cash requirements. Based on the review of cash
anticipated to be available for future cash requirements,
Anglesey removed the temporary suspension of dividends and
distributed $4.4 million and $9.9 million in dividends
to us in August and December of 2007, respectively. No assurance
can be given that Anglesey will not suspend dividends again in
the future. The shutdown process may involve significant costs
to Anglesey which could decrease or eliminate its ability to pay
future dividends. The process of shutting down operations may
involve transition complications which may prevent Anglesey from
operating at full capacity until the expiration of the power
agreement.
Hedging. Our pricing of fabricated aluminum
products, as discussed above, is generally intended to lock-in a
conversion margin (representing the value added from the
fabrication process(es)) and to pass metal price risk on to our
customers. However, in certain instances we do enter into firm
price arrangements. In such instances, we have price risk on our
anticipated primary aluminum purchases in respect of the
customers order. Total fabricated products shipments for
which we were subject to price risk were 239, 200 and 155 (in
millions of pounds) during 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
7
Whenever our Fabricated Products business unit enters into a
firm price contract, our Primary Aluminum business unit and
Fabricated Products business unit enter into an internal
hedge so that all the metal price risk resides in our
Primary Aluminum business unit. Results from internal hedging
activities between the two segments eliminate in consolidation.
As more fully discussed in Item 7A. Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, during the last
three years, our net exposure to primary aluminum price risk at
Anglesey substantially offset the volume of fabricated products
shipments with underlying primary aluminum price risk. As such,
we consider our access to Anglesey production overall to be a
natural hedge against any Fabricated Products firm
metal-price risk. However, since the volume of fabricated
products shipped under firm prices may not match up on a
month-to-month
basis with expected Anglesey-related primary aluminum shipments
and to the extent that firm price contracts from our Fabricated
Products business unit exceed the Anglesey-related primary
aluminum shipments, we may use third party hedging instruments
to eliminate any net remaining primary aluminum price exposure
existing at any time.
Primary aluminum-related hedging activities are managed
centrally on behalf of our business segments to minimize
transaction costs, to monitor consolidated net exposures and to
allow for increased responsiveness to changes in market factors.
Hedging activities are conducted in compliance with a policy
approved by our board of directors, and hedging transactions are
only entered into after appropriate approvals are obtained from
our hedging committee (which includes our chief executive
officer and key financial officers).
Discontinued
Operations
Prior to 2004, we were a more significant producer of primary
aluminum and sold significant amounts of our alumina and primary
aluminum production in domestic and international markets. Our
strategy was to sell all of the alumina and primary aluminum
available to us in excess of our internal requirements to third
parties. As part of our reorganization, we made a strategic
decision to sell all of our commodity-related interests, other
than our interests in and related to Anglesey, as summarized
below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entity/Facility
|
|
Location
|
|
Product
|
|
Period of Disposition
|
|
Queensland Alumina Limited
|
|
Australia
|
|
Alumina
|
|
Second Quarter 2005
|
Gramercy refinery
|
|
Louisiana
|
|
Alumina
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2004
|
Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company
|
|
Jamaica
|
|
Bauxite
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2004
|
Volta Aluminium Company Limited
|
|
Ghana
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2004
|
Alumina Partners of Jamaica
|
|
Jamaica
|
|
Alumina
|
|
Third Quarter 2004
|
Mead Smelter
|
|
Washington
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
Second Quarter 2004
|
We refer to Queensland Alumina Limited and Alumina Partners of
Jamaica herein as QAL and Alpart, respectively.
Segment
and Geographical Area Financial Information
The information set forth in Note 16 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
regarding our segments and geographical areas in which we
operate is incorporated herein by reference.
Competition
The fabricated aluminum industry is highly competitive. We
concentrate our fabricating operations on highly engineered
products for which we believe we have production capability,
technical expertise, high product quality, and geographic and
other competitive advantages. We differentiate ourselves from
our competition by Best in Class customer satisfaction which is
driven by quality, availability, price and service, including
delivery performance. Our primary competition in the global heat
treated flat-rolled products is Alcoa and Rio Tinto (through
its ownership of Alcans fabricated aluminum products
business). In the extrusion market, we compete with many
regional participants as well as larger companies with national
reach such as Sapa AG (the joint venture formed by Orkla and
Alcoa), Norsk Hydro ASA and Indalex. Some of our competitors are
substantially larger, have greater financial
8
resources, and may have other strategic advantages, including
more efficient technologies or lower raw material costs.
Our fabricated aluminum products facilities are located in North
America. To the extent our competitors have production
facilities located outside North America, they may be able to
produce similar products at a lower cost. We may not be able to
adequately reduce costs to compete with these products.
Increased competition could cause a reduction in our shipment
volume and profitability or increase our expenditures, any one
of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations.
In addition, our fabricated aluminum products compete with
products made from other materials, such as steel and
composites, for various applications, including aircraft
manufacturing. The willingness of customers to accept
substitutions for aluminum and the ability of large customers to
exert leverage in the marketplace to reduce the pricing for
fabricated aluminum products could adversely affect our results
of operations.
For the heat treat plate and sheet products, new competition is
limited by technological expertise that only a few companies
have developed through significant investment in research and
development. Further, use of plate and sheet in safety critical
applications make quality and product consistency critical
factors. Suppliers must pass a rigorous qualification process to
sell to airframe manufacturers. Additionally, significant
investment in infrastructure and specialized equipment is
required to supply heat treat plate and sheet.
Barriers to entry are lower for extruded and forged products,
mostly due to the lower required investment in equipment.
However, the products that we produce are somewhat
differentiated from the majority of products sold by
competitors. We maintain a competitive advantage by using
application engineering and advanced process engineering to
distinguish our company and our products. We believe our
metallurgical expertise and controlled manufacturing processes
enable superior product consistency.
Employees
At December 31, 2007, we employed approximately
2,600 persons, of which approximately 2,540 were employed
in our Fabricated Products business unit and approximately 60
were employed in our corporate group, most of whom are located
in our offices in Foothill Ranch, California.
The table below shows each manufacturing location, the primary
union affiliation, if any, and the expiration date for the
current union contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract
|
Location
|
|
Union
|
|
Expiration Date
|
|
Chandler, AZ
|
|
Non-union
|
|
|
Greenwood, SC
|
|
Non-union
|
|
|
Jackson, TN
|
|
Non-union
|
|
|
London, Ontario
|
|
USW Canada
|
|
Feb 2009
|
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Teamsters
|
|
May 2009
|
Newark, OH
|
|
USW
|
|
Sept 2010
|
Richland, WA
|
|
Non-union
|
|
|
Richmond, VA
|
|
USW/IAM
|
|
Nov 2010
|
Sherman, TX
|
|
IAM
|
|
Dec 2010
|
Spokane, WA
|
|
USW
|
|
Sept 2010
|
Tulsa, OK
|
|
USW
|
|
Nov 2010
|
As part of our chapter 11 reorganization, we entered into a
settlement with the United Steelworkers, or USW, regarding,
among other things, pension and retiree medical obligations.
Under the terms of the settlement, we agreed to adopt a position
of neutrality regarding the unionization of any of our employees.
9
Environmental
Matters
We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations
with respect to, among other things: air and water emissions and
discharges; the generation, storage, treatment, transportation
and disposal of solid and hazardous waste; and the release of
hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants and contaminants into
the environment. Compliance with these environmental laws is and
will continue to be costly.
Our operations, including our operations conducted prior to our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2006, have
subjected, and may in the future subject, us to fines or
penalties for alleged breaches of environmental laws and to
obligations to perform investigations or clean up of the
environment. We may also be subject to claims from governmental
authorities or third parties related to alleged injuries to the
environment, human health or natural resources, including claims
with respect to waste disposal sites, the clean up of sites
currently or formerly used by us or exposure of individuals to
hazardous materials. Any investigation,
clean-up or
other remediation costs, fines or penalties, or costs to resolve
third-party claims, may be significant and could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
We have accrued, and will accrue as necessary, for costs
relating to the above matters that are reasonably expected to be
incurred based on available information. However, it is possible
that actual costs may differ, perhaps significantly, from the
amounts expected or accrued, and such differences could have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. In addition, new laws or regulations,
or changes to existing laws and regulations may occur, and we
cannot assure you as to the amount that we would have to spend
to comply with such new or amended laws and regulations or the
effects that they would have on our financial position, results
of operations and cash flows.
Emergence
From Reorganization Proceedings
From the first quarter of 2002 to June 30, 2006, Kaiser and
25 of its subsidiaries operated under chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code under the supervision of the
Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to our Plan, Kaiser and its
subsidiaries, which included all of our core fabricated products
facilities and operations and a 49% interest in Anglesey,
emerged from chapter 11 on July 6, 2006. Pursuant to
the Plan, all material pre-petition debt, pension and
post-retirement medical obligations and asbestos and other tort
liabilities, along with other pre-petition claims (which in
total aggregated at June 30, 2006 approximately
$4.4 billion) were addressed and resolved. Pursuant to the
Plan, all of the equity interests of Kaisers pre-emergence
stockholders were cancelled without consideration. Equity of the
newly emerged Kaiser was issued and delivered to a third-party
disbursing agent for distribution to claimholders pursuant to
the Plan.
All financial statement information before July 1, 2006
relates to Kaiser before emergence from chapter 11
(sometimes referred to herein as the Predecessor).
Kaiser after emergence is sometimes referred to herein as the
Successor. As more fully discussed below, there will
be a number of differences between the financial statements
before and after emergence that will make comparisons of future
and past financial information difficult and may make it more
difficult to assess our future prospects based on historical
performance.
We also made some changes to our accounting policies and
procedures as part of the application of fresh start
accounting as required by the American Institute of Certified
Professional Accountants Statement of Position
90-7
(SOP 90-7),
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code and the emergence process. In general, our
accounting policies are the same as or similar to those
historically used to prepare our financial statements. In
certain cases, however, we adopted different accounting
principles for, or applied methodologies differently to, our
post emergence financial statement information. For instance, we
changed our accounting methodologies with respect to inventory
accounting. While we still account for inventories on a
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) basis after emergence, we are
applying LIFO differently than we did in the past. Specifically,
we now view each quarter on a standalone basis for computing
LIFO; in the past, we recorded LIFO amounts with a view to the
entire fiscal year, which, with certain exceptions, tended to
result in LIFO charges being recorded in the fourth quarter or
second half of the year.
10
Legal
Structure
In connection with our Plan, we restructured and simplified our
corporate structure. The result of the simplified corporate
structure is summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
We directly own 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of
capital stock of Kaiser Aluminum Investments Company, a Delaware
corporation (KAIC), which functions as an
intermediate holding company.
|
|
|
|
KAIC owns 49% of the ownership interests of Anglesey and 100% of
the ownership interests of each of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (KAFP), which holds the assets and
liabilities associated with our Fabricated Products business
unit (excluding those assets and liabilities associated with our
London, Ontario facility);
|
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Canada Limited, an Ontario corporation
(KACL), which holds the assets and liabilities
associated with our London, Ontario facility and certain former
Canadian subsidiaries that were largely inactive;
|
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (KACC, LLC),
which, as a successor by merger to Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation, holds our remaining non-operating assets
and liabilities not assumed by KAFP;
|
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminium International, Inc., a Delaware corporation
which functions primarily as the seller of our products
delivered outside the United States; and
|
|
|
|
Trochus Insurance Co., Ltd., a corporation formed in Bermuda
which has historically functioned as a captive insurance company.
|
This Item may contain statements which constitute
forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. See
Item 1. Business Forward Looking
Statements for cautionary information with respect to such
forward-looking statements. Such cautionary information should
be read as applying to all forward-looking statements wherever
they appear in this Report. Forward-looking statements are not
guarantees of future performance and involve significant risks
and uncertainties. Actual results may vary from those in
forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors
including those we discuss in this Item and elsewhere in this
Report.
In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this Report,
the risks described below are those which we believe are the
material risks we face. The occurrence of any of the events
discussed below could significantly and adversely affect our
business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows as well as the trading price of our common stock.
A
reader may not be able to compare our historical financial
information to our financial information relating to periods
after our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy.
As a result of the effectiveness of our chapter 11 plan of
reorganization, our Plan, on July 6, 2006, we are operating
our business under a new capital structure. In addition, we
adopted fresh start reporting in accordance with American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants Statement of Position
90-7, or
SOP 90-7,
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code as of July 1, 2006. Because
SOP 90-7
requires us to account for our assets and liabilities at their
fair values as of the effectiveness of our Plan, our financial
condition and results of operations from and after July 1,
2006 are not comparable in some material respects to the
financial condition or results of operations reflected in our
historical financial statements at dates or for periods prior to
July 1, 2006.
We
operate in a highly competitive industry which could adversely
affect our profitability.
The fabricated products segment of the aluminum industry is
highly competitive. Competition in the sale of fabricated
aluminum products is based upon quality, availability, price and
service, including delivery performance. Many of our competitors
are substantially larger than we are and have greater financial
resources than we do, and
11
may have other strategic advantages, including more efficient
technologies or lower raw material costs. Our facilities are
primarily located in North America. To the extent that our
competitors have production facilities located outside North
America, they may be able to produce similar products at a lower
cost. We may not be able to adequately reduce costs to compete
with these products. Increased competition could cause a
reduction in our shipment volumes and profitability or increase
our expenditures, any one of which could have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.
Recent
economic factors.
Over recent months, several banks and other financial
institutions have announced multi-billion dollar write-downs
related to their exposure to mortgage-backed securities and
other financial instruments. This, along with other factors, has
led to a tightening in the credit markets for certain borrowers.
In addition, oil prices have hit unprecedented high levels and
are having a negative impact on air carriers around the world.
Further, there is uncertainty over the general direction of the
U.S. economy. Although certain markets we serve, including
aerospace and defense, remain strong, the impact of the high
price of oil or a downturn in the U.S. or global economy
could result in a decrease in demand for our products, cause our
customers to fail to meet contractual commitments and have a
material adverse impact on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
We
depend on a core group of significant customers.
In 2007, our largest fabricated products customer, Reliance,
accounted for approximately 15% of our fabricated products net
sales, and our five largest customers accounted for
approximately 36% of our fabricated products net sales. If our
existing relationships with significant customers materially
deteriorate or are terminated and we are not successful in
replacing lost business, our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely
affected. In addition, a significant downturn in the business or
financial condition of any of our significant customers could
materially and adversely affect our financial position, results
of operations and cash flows.
Our
industry is very sensitive to foreign economic, regulatory and
political factors that may adversely affect our
business.
We import primary aluminum from, and manufacture fabricated
products used in, foreign countries. We also own 49% of
Anglesey. We purchase alumina to supply to Anglesey and we
purchase aluminum from Anglesey for sale to a third party in the
United Kingdom. Factors in the politically and economically
diverse countries in which we operate or have customers or
suppliers, including inflation, fluctuations in currency and
interest rates, competitive factors, civil unrest and labor
problems, could affect our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. Our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows could also be adversely affected by:
|
|
|
|
|
acts of war or terrorism or the threat of war or terrorism;
|
|
|
|
government regulation in the countries in which we operate,
service customers or purchase raw materials;
|
|
|
|
the implementation of controls on imports, exports or prices;
|
|
|
|
the adoption of new forms of taxation and duties;
|
|
|
|
the imposition of currency restrictions;
|
|
|
|
the nationalization or appropriation of rights or other
assets; and
|
|
|
|
trade disputes involving countries in which we operate, service
customers or purchase raw materials.
|
The
aerospace industry is cyclical and downturns in the aerospace
industry, including downturns resulting from acts of terrorism,
could adversely affect our revenues and
profitability.
We derive a significant portion of our revenue from products
sold to the aerospace industry, which is highly cyclical and
tends to decline in response to overall declines in industrial
production. As a result, our business is affected by overall
levels of industrial production and fluctuations in the
aerospace industry. The commercial
12
aerospace industry is historically driven by the demand from
commercial airlines for new aircraft. Demand for commercial
aircraft is influenced by airline industry profitability, trends
in airline passenger traffic, by the state of the U.S. and
world economies and numerous other factors, including the
effects of terrorism. The military aerospace cycle is highly
dependent on U.S. and foreign government funding; however,
it is also driven by the effects of terrorism, a changing global
political environment, U.S. foreign policy, regulatory
changes, the retirement of older aircraft and technological
improvements to new aircraft engines that increase reliability.
The timing, duration and severity of cyclical upturns and
downturns cannot be predicted with certainty. A future downturn
or reduction in demand could have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
In addition, because we and other suppliers are expanding
production capacity, heat treat plate prices may eventually
begin to decrease as production capacity increases or demand
decreases. Although we have implemented cost reduction and sales
growth initiatives to minimize the impact on our results of
operations, as heat treat plate prices return to more typical
historical levels, these initiatives may not be adequate and our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows may be
adversely affected. Similarly, additional delays in the ramp up
of production of new commercial aircraft programs could
substantially reduce near-term demand for certain of our
products. A reduction in anticipated demand could have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
A number of major airlines have also recently undergone
chapter 11 bankruptcy and continue to experience financial
strain from high fuel prices. Continued financial instability in
the industry may lead to reduced demand for new aircraft that
utilize our products, which could adversely affect our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.
The aerospace industry suffered significantly in the wake of the
events of September 11, 2001, resulting in a sharp decrease
globally in new commercial aircraft deliveries and order
cancellations or deferrals by the major airlines. This decrease
reduced the demand for our Aero/HS products. While there has
been a recovery since 2001, the threat of terrorism and fears of
future terrorist acts could negatively affect the aerospace
industry and our financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.
Our
customers may reduce their demand for aluminum products in favor
of alternative materials.
Our fabricated aluminum products compete with products made from
other materials, such as steel and composites, for various
applications. For instance, the commercial aerospace industry
has used and continues to evaluate the further use of
alternative materials to aluminum, such as composites, in order
to reduce the weight and increase the fuel efficiency of
aircraft. The willingness of customers to accept substitutions
for aluminum or the ability of large customers to exert leverage
in the marketplace to reduce the pricing for fabricated aluminum
products could adversely affect the demand for our products,
particularly our aerospace and high strength products, and thus
adversely affect our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
Further
downturns in the automotive industry could adversely affect our
net sales and profitability.
The demand for many of our general engineering and custom
products is dependent on the production of automobiles, light
trucks and heavy duty vehicles in North America. The automotive
industry is highly cyclical, as new vehicle demand is dependent
on consumer spending and is tied closely to the overall strength
of the North American economy. The North American automotive
industry is facing costly inventory corrections which could
adversely affect our net sales and profitability. Multiple
production cuts by heavy duty truck and major United States
automobile manufacturers in recent years may continue to
adversely affect the demand for our products. The North American
automotive manufacturers are also burdened with substantial
structural costs, including pension and healthcare costs that
impact their profitability and labor relations. If the financial
condition of these auto manufacturers continues to be unsteady
or if any of these automobile manufacturers seek restructuring
or relief through bankruptcy proceedings, the demand for our
products may decline, adversely affecting our net sales and
profitability. Similarly, any decline in the demand for new
automobiles, particularly in the United States, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. Seasonality experienced by the
automotive industry in the third and fourth quarters of the
calendar year also affects our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
13
Changes
in consumer demand may adversely affect our operations which
supply automotive end users.
Recent and any future increases in energy costs that consumers
incur is resulting in shifts in consumer demand away from motor
vehicles that typically have a higher content of the products we
currently supply, such as light trucks and SUVs. The loss of
business with respect to, or a lack of commercial success of,
one or more particular vehicle models for which we are a
significant supplier could have an adverse impact on our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We may
not be able to successfully negotiate pricing terms with our
automotive customers.
Cost cutting initiatives that our automotive customers have
adopted generally result in increased downward pressure on
pricing and our automotive customers typically seek agreements
requiring reductions in pricing over the period of production.
Pricing pressure may increase further, particularly in North
America, as North American manufacturers pursue cost cutting
initiatives. If we are unable to generate sufficient production
cost savings in the future to offset any required price
reductions our financial position, results of operations and
cash flows could be adversely impacted.
Because
our products are often components of our customers
products, reductions in demand for our products may be more
severe than, and may occur prior to reductions in demand for,
our customers products.
Our products are often components of the end-products of our
customers. Customers purchasing our fabricated aluminum
products, such as those in the cyclical automotive and aerospace
industries, generally require significant lead time in the
production of their own products. Therefore, demand for our
products may increase prior to demand for our customers
products. Conversely, demand for our products may decrease as
our customers anticipate a downturn in their respective
businesses. As demand for our customers products begins to
soften, our customers typically reduce or eliminate their demand
for our products and meet the reduced demand for their products
using their own inventory without replenishing that inventory,
which results in a reduction in demand for our products that is
greater than the reduction in demand for their products. This
amplified reduction in demand for our products in the event of a
downswing in our customers respective businesses
(de-stocking) may adversely affect our financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.
Our
business is subject to unplanned business interruptions which
may adversely affect our performance.
The production of aluminum and fabricated aluminum products is
subject to unplanned events such as explosions, fires, inclement
weather, natural disasters, accidents, transportation
interruptions and supply interruptions. Operational
interruptions at one or more of our production facilities,
particularly interruptions at our Trentwood facility in Spokane,
Washington where our production of plate and sheet is
concentrated, could cause substantial losses in our production
capacity. Furthermore, because customers may be dependent on
planned deliveries from us, customers that have to reschedule
their own production due to our delivery delays may be able to
pursue financial claims against us, and we may incur costs to
correct such problems in addition to any liability resulting
from such claims. Such interruptions may also harm our
reputation among actual and potential customers, potentially
resulting in a loss of business. To the extent these losses are
not covered by insurance, our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows may be adversely affected by such
events.
Covenants
and events of default in our debt instruments could limit our
ability to undertake certain types of transactions and adversely
affect our liquidity.
Our revolving credit facility contains negative and financial
covenants and events of default that may limit our financial
flexibility and ability to undertake certain types of
transactions. For instance, we are subject to negative covenants
that restrict our activities, including restrictions on creating
liens, engaging in mergers, consolidations and sales of assets,
incurring indebtedness, providing guaranties, engaging in
different businesses, making loans and investments, making
certain dividends, debt and other restricted payments, making
certain prepayments of indebtedness, engaging in certain
transactions with affiliates and entering into certain
restrictive agreements. If we fail to satisfy the covenants set
forth in our revolving credit facility or another event of
default occurs under the
14
revolving credit facility, we could be prohibited from borrowing
for our working capital needs. If we cannot borrow under the
revolving credit facility to meet our working capital needs, we
could be required to seek additional financing, if available, or
curtail our operations. Additional financing may not be
available on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. If the
revolving credit facility is terminated and we do not have
sufficient cash on hand to pay any amounts due, we could be
required to sell assets or to obtain additional financing.
We
depend on our subsidiaries for cash to meet our obligations and
pay any dividends.
We are a holding company. Our subsidiaries conduct 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 provide
funding will depend on their earnings, the terms of their
indebtedness (including the revolving credit facility), tax
considerations and legal restrictions.
We may
not be able to successfully implement our productivity and cost
reduction initiatives.
We have undertaken and expect to continue to undertake
productivity and cost reduction initiatives to improve
performance, including deployment of company-wide business
improvement methodologies, such as our production system, the
Kaiser Production System, which involves the integrated
utilization of application and advanced process engineering and
business improvement methodologies such as Lean Enterprise,
Total Productive Maintenance and Six Sigma. We cannot assure you
that all of these initiatives will be completed or beneficial to
us or that any estimated cost saving from such activities will
be fully realized. Even when we are able to generate new
efficiencies successfully in the short to medium term, we may
not be able to continue to reduce cost and increase productivity
over the long term.
Our
profitability could be adversely affected by increases in the
cost of raw materials and freight.
The price of primary aluminum has historically been subject to
significant cyclical price fluctuations, and the timing of
changes in the market price of aluminum is largely
unpredictable. Although our pricing of fabricated aluminum
products is generally intended to pass the risk of price
fluctuations on to our customers, we may not be able to pass on
the entire cost of such increases to our customers or offset
fully the effects of higher costs for other raw materials, which
may cause our profitability to decline. There will also be a
potential time lag between increases in prices for raw materials
under our purchase contracts and the point when we can implement
a corresponding increase in price under our sales contracts with
our customers. As a result, we may be exposed to fluctuations in
raw material prices, including aluminum, since, during the time
lag, we may have to bear the additional cost of the price
increase under our purchase contracts. If these events were to
occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Furthermore, we are party to arrangements based on fixed prices
so that we bear the entire risk of rising aluminum prices, which
may cause our profitability to decline. In addition, an increase
in raw material prices may cause some of our customers to
substitute other materials for our products, adversely affecting
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows due
to both a decrease in the sales of fabricated aluminum products
and a decrease in demand for the primary aluminum produced at
Anglesey.
We are responsible for selling and delivering alumina to
Anglesey in proportion to our ownership percentage at a
predetermined price. Such alumina is purchased under contracts
that extends through August 2009 at prices tied to primary
aluminum prices. In addition we delivered the alumina to
Anglesey under the terms of a freight contract that expired at
the end of 2007. Current freight rates are substantially higher
than rates under the former contract. We cannot assure you that
we will be able to secure a source of alumina at comparable
process for the period after August of 2009. If we are unable to
do so or freight rates do not improve, our financial position,
results of operations and cash flows associated with our
Primarily Aluminum business segment may be adversely affected.
The
price volatility of energy costs may adversely affect our
profitability.
Our income and cash flows depend on the margin above fixed and
variable expenses (including energy costs) at which we are able
to sell our fabricated aluminum products. The volatility in
costs of fuel, principally natural gas,
15
and other utility services, principally electricity, used by our
production facilities affect operating costs. Fuel and utility
prices have been, and will continue to be, affected by factors
outside our control, such as supply and demand for fuel and
utility services in both local and regional markets. The daily
closing price of the front-month futures contract for natural
gas per million British thermal units as reported on NYMEX
ranged between $5.38 and $8.64 in 2007, $4.20 and $10.63 in 2006
and $5.79 and $15.38 in 2005. Typically, electricity prices
fluctuate with natural gas prices which increases our exposure
to energy costs. Future increases in fuel and utility prices may
have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
Our
hedging programs may limit the income and cash flows we would
otherwise expect to receive if our hedging program were not in
place.
From time to time in the ordinary course of business, we may
enter into hedging transactions to limit our exposure to price
risks relating to primary aluminum prices, energy prices and
foreign currency. To the extent that these hedging transactions
fix prices or exchange rates and the prices for primary aluminum
exceed the fixed or ceiling prices established by these hedging
transactions or energy costs or foreign exchange rates are below
the fixed prices, our income and cash flows will be lower than
they otherwise would have been. Additionally, to the extent that
primary aluminum prices, energy prices and/or foreign currency
exchange rates deviate materially and adversely from fixed or
ceiling prices or rates established by outstanding hedging
transactions, we could incur margin calls which could adversely
impact our liquidity.
The
expiration of the power agreement for Anglesey may adversely
affect our cash flows and affect our hedging
programs.
The agreement under which Anglesey receives power expires in
September 2009, and the nuclear facility which supplies such
power is scheduled to cease operations in 2010. As of the date
of this Report, Anglesey has not identified a source from which
to obtain sufficient power to sustain its operations on
reasonably acceptable terms after the expiration of the current
agreement in September 2009, and we cannot assure you that
Anglesey will be able to do so. If, as a result, Angleseys
aluminum reduction is curtailed or its costs are increased, our
cash flows may be adversely affected. In addition, any decrease
in Angleseys production would reduce or eliminate the
natural hedge against rising primary aluminum prices
created by our participation in the primary aluminum market and,
accordingly, we may deem it appropriate to increase our hedging
activity to limit exposure to such price risks, potentially
adversely affecting our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
If Anglesey cannot obtain sufficient power on acceptable terms,
Angleseys aluminum reduction operations will likely be
shut down. Given the potential for future shut down and related
costs, Anglesey temporarily suspended dividends during the last
half of 2006 and the first half of 2007 while it studied future
cash requirements. Based on a review of cash anticipated to be
available for future cash requirements, Anglesey removed the
temporary suspension of dividends and declared dividends in
August 2007 and November 2007. The shut down may involve
significant costs to Anglesey which could decrease or eliminate
its ability to pay dividends. The process of shutting down
aluminum reduction operations may involve transition
complications which may prevent Anglesey from operating its
aluminum reduction operations at full capacity until the
expiration of the power contract. As a result, our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows may be negatively
affected even before the September 2009 expiration of the power
contract.
We are
exposed to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates and
interest rates, as well as inflation and other economic factors
in the countries in which we operate.
Economic factors, including inflation and fluctuations in
foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates in the
countries in which we operate, could affect our revenues,
expenses and results of operations. In particular, lower
valuation of the U.S. dollar against other currencies,
particularly the Canadian dollar, Euro and British Pound
Sterling, may affect our profitability as some important raw
materials are purchased in other currencies, while products
generally are sold in U.S. dollars.
16
Our
ability to keep key management and other personnel in place and
our ability to attract management and other personnel may affect
our performance.
We depend on our senior executive officers and other key
personnel to run our business. The loss of any of these officers
or other key personnel could materially and adversely affect our
operations. Competition for qualified employees among companies
that rely heavily on engineering and technology is intense, and
the loss of qualified employees or an inability to attract,
retain and motivate additional highly skilled employees required
for the operation and expansion of our business could hinder our
ability to improve manufacturing operations, conduct research
activities successfully or develop marketable products.
Our
production costs may increase and we may not sustain our sales
and earnings if we fail to maintain satisfactory labor
relations.
A significant number of our employees are represented by labor
unions under labor contracts with varying durations and
expiration dates. All of these contracts currently expire in
2009 and 2010, including labor contracts with the USW covering
four of our manufacturing locations and approximately 1,055, or
41%, of our employees scheduled to expire in the Fall of 2010.
We may not be able to renegotiate these or our other labor
contracts on satisfactory terms when they expire. As part of any
such renegotiation, we may reach agreements with respect to
future wages and benefits that could materially and adversely
affect our future financial position, results of operations and
cash flows. In addition, such negotiations could divert
management attention or result in union-initiated work actions,
including strikes or work stoppages that could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows. Moreover, the existence of labor agreements may
not prevent such union-initiated work actions.
Our
business is regulated by a wide variety of health and safety
laws and regulations and compliance may be costly and may
adversely affect our results of operations.
Our operations are regulated by a wide variety of health and
safety laws and regulations. Compliance with these laws and
regulations may be costly and could have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations. In addition, these laws and
regulations are subject to change at any time, and we can give
you no assurance as to the effect that any such changes would
have on our operations or the amount that we would have to spend
to comply with such laws and regulations as so changed.
Environmental
compliance, clean up and damage claims may decrease our cash
flow and adversely affect our results of
operations.
We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations
with respect to, among other things: air and water emissions and
discharges; the generation, storage, treatment, transportation
and disposal of solid and hazardous waste; and the release of
hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants and contaminants into
the environment. Compliance with these environmental laws is and
will continue to be costly.
Our operations, including our operations conducted prior to our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, have subjected, and
may in the future subject, us to fines or penalties for alleged
breaches of environmental laws and to obligations to perform
investigations or clean up of the environment. We may also be
subject to claims from governmental authorities or third parties
related to alleged injuries to the environment, human health or
natural resources, including claims with respect to waste
disposal sites, the clean up of sites currently or formerly used
by us or exposure of individuals to hazardous materials. Any
investigation,
clean-up or
other remediation costs, fines or penalties, or costs to resolve
third-party claims may be significant and could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
We have accrued, and will accrue, for costs relating to the
above matters that are reasonably expected to be incurred based
on available information. However, it is possible that actual
costs may differ, perhaps significantly, from the amounts
expected or accrued, and such differences could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows. In addition, new laws or regulations or changes
to existing laws and regulations may occur, and we cannot assure
you as to the amount that we would have to spend to comply with
such new or amended laws and regulations or the effects that
they would have on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
17
Other
legal proceedings or investigations or changes in the laws and
regulations to which we are subject may adversely affect our
results of operations.
In addition to the matters described above, we may from time to
time be involved in, or be the subject of, disputes, proceedings
and investigations with respect to a variety of matters,
including matters related to personal injury, employees, taxes
and contracts, as well as other disputes and proceedings that
arise in the ordinary course of business. It could be costly to
defend against these claims or any investigations involving
them, whether meritorious or not, and legal proceedings and
investigations could divert managements attention as well
as operational resources, negatively affecting our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows. It could also be
costly to make payments on account of any such claims.
Additionally, as with the environmental laws and regulations to
which we are subject, the other laws and regulations which
govern our business are subject to change at any time, and we
cannot assure you as to the amount that we would have to spend
to comply with such laws and regulations as so changed or
otherwise as to the effect that any such changes would have on
our operations.
Product
liability claims against us could result in significant costs or
negatively affect our reputation and could adversely affect our
results of operations.
We are sometimes exposed to warranty and product liability
claims. We cannot assure you that we will not experience
material product liability losses arising from such claims in
the future. We generally maintain insurance against many product
liability risks but we cannot assure you that our coverage will
be adequate for liabilities ultimately incurred. In addition, we
cannot assure you that insurance will continue to be available
to us on terms acceptable to us. A successful claim that exceeds
our available insurance coverage could have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.
Our
Trentwood expansion and rod, bar, and tube investment projects
may not be completed as scheduled.
We are currently in the process of a $139 million expansion
of production capacity and gauge capability at our Trentwood
facility which includes the final $34 million follow-on
investment announced in June 2007. While the first two phases
were successfully completed at December 31, 2007, our
ability to complete the final phase of this project, and the
timing and costs of doing so, are subject to various risks
associated with all major construction projects, many of which
are beyond our control, including technical or mechanical
problems. If completion of the final phase is significantly
delayed or interupts production, we may lose production or be
unable to meet shipping deadlines on time or at all, which would
adversely affect our results of operations, may lead to
litigation and may damage our relationships with these customers
and our reputation generally.
In the third quarter of 2007 we announced a $91 million
investment in our rod, bar, and tube value stream including the
development of a production facility expected to be in
Kalamazoo, Michigan. If we are unable to fully complete these
projects or if the actual costs for these projects exceed our
current expectations, our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.
We may
not be able to successfully execute our strategy of growth
through acquisitions.
A component of our growth strategy is to acquire fabricated
products assets in order to complement our product portfolio.
Our ability to do so will be dependent upon a number of factors,
including our ability to identify acceptable acquisition
candidates, consummate acquisitions on favorable terms,
successfully integrate acquired assets, obtain financing to fund
acquisitions and support our growth and many other factors
beyond our control. Risks associated with acquisitions include
those relating to:
|
|
|
|
|
diversion of managements time and attention from our
existing business;
|
|
|
|
challenges in managing the increased scope, geographic diversity
and complexity of operations;
|
|
|
|
difficulties integrating the financial, technological and
management standards, processes, procedures and controls of the
acquired business with those of our existing operations;
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
liability for known or unknown environmental conditions or other
contingent liabilities not covered by indemnification or
insurance;
|
|
|
|
greater than anticipated expenditures required for compliance
with environmental or other regulatory standards or for
investments to improve operating results;
|
|
|
|
difficulties achieving anticipated operational improvements;
|
|
|
|
incurrence of indebtedness to finance acquisitions or capital
expenditures relating to acquired assets; and
|
|
|
|
issuance of additional equity, which could result in further
dilution of the ownership interests of existing stockholders.
|
We may not be successful in acquiring additional assets, and any
acquisitions that we do consummate may not produce the
anticipated benefits or may have adverse effects on our
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We are
exposed to risks relating to evaluations of controls required by
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.
We are required to comply with Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. While we have concluded that at
December 31, 2007 we have no material weaknesses in our
internal controls over financial reporting we cannot assure you
that we will not have a material weakness in the future. A
material weakness is a control deficiency, or
combination of significant deficiencies that results in more
than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the
annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or
detected. If we fail to maintain a system of internal controls
over financial reporting that meets the requirements of
Section 404, we might be subject to sanctions or
investigation by regulatory authorities such as the SEC or by
the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. 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 not have access to the capital
markets, and our stock price may be adversely affected.
We may
not be able to adequately protect proprietary rights to our
technology.
Our success will depend in part upon our proprietary technology
and processes. Although we attempt to protect our intellectual
property through patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights,
confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements and other measures,
these measures may not be adequate to protect such intellectual
property, particularly in foreign countries where the laws may
offer significantly less intellectual property protection than
is offered by the laws of the United States. In addition, any
attempts to enforce our intellectual property rights, even if
successful, could result in costly and prolonged litigation,
divert managements attention and adversely affect our
results of operations and cash flows. Failure to adequately
protect our intellectual property may adversely affect our
results of operations as our competitors would be able to
utilize such property without having had to incur the costs of
developing it, thus potentially reducing our relative
profitability. Furthermore, we may be subject to claims that our
technology infringes the intellectual property rights of
another. Even if without merit, those claims could result in
costly and prolonged litigation, divert managements
attention and adversely affect our income and cash flows. In
addition, we may be required to enter into licensing agreements
in order to continue using technology that is important to our
business. However, we may be unable to obtain license agreements
on acceptable terms, which could negatively affect our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.
We may
not be able to utilize all of our net operating loss
carry-forwards.
We have net operating loss carry-forwards and other significant
U.S. tax attributes that we believe could offset otherwise
taxable income in the United States. At December 31, 2007,
these tax attributes could together offset $897.5 million
of otherwise taxable income. The amount of net operating loss
carry-forwards available in any year to offset our net taxable
income will be reduced or eliminated if we experience an
ownership change as defined in the Internal Revenue
Code (the Code). Upon our emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy, we entered into a stock transfer
restriction agreement with our largest stockholder, a VEBA that
provides benefits for certain eligible
19
retirees represented by certain unions and their spouses and
eligible dependents (which we refer to as the Union VEBA), and
our certificate of incorporation was amended to prohibit and
void certain transfers of our common stock. Both reduce the risk
that an ownership change will jeopardize our net operating loss
carry-forwards. Because U.S. tax law limits the time during
which carry-forwards may be applied against future taxes, we may
not be able to take full advantage of the carry-forwards for
federal income tax purposes. In addition, the tax laws
pertaining to net operating loss carry-forwards may be changed
from time to time such that the net operating loss
carry-forwards may be reduced or eliminated. If the net
operating loss carry-forwards become unavailable to us or are
fully utilized, our future income will not be shielded from
federal income taxation, thereby reducing funds otherwise
available for general corporate purposes.
Transfer
restrictions and other factors could hinder the market for our
common stock.
In order to reduce the risk that any change in our ownership
would jeopardize the preservation of our U.S. federal
income tax attributes, including net operating loss
carry-forwards, for purposes of Sections 382 and 383 of the
Code, upon emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we entered
into a stock transfer restriction agreement with our largest
stockholder, the Union VEBA, and amended and restated our
certificate of incorporation to include restrictions on
transfers involving 5% ownership. These transfer restrictions
could hinder the market for our common stock. In addition, the
market price of our common stock may be subject to significant
fluctuations in response to numerous factors, including
variations in our annual or quarterly financial results or those
of our competitors, changes by financial analysts in their
estimates of our future earnings, substantial amounts of our
common stock being sold into the public markets upon the
expiration of share transfer restrictions, which expire in July
2016, or upon the occurrence of certain events relating to
U.S. tax benefits available under section 382 of the
Code, conditions in the economy or stock market in general or in
the fabricated aluminum products industry in particular or
unfavorable publicity.
We may
not be able to engage in or approve certain transactions
involving our common shares without impairing the use our
federal income tax attributes.
Section 382 of the Code affects our ability to use our
federal income tax attributes, including our net operating loss
carry-forwards, following a more than 50% change in ownership
during any period of 36 consecutive months, all as determined
under the Code, an ownership change. Certain
transactions may be included in the calculation of an ownership
change, including transactions involving our repurchase of our
common shares, our issuance of new common shares, the sale of
additional common shares by the Union VEBA, any person or group
of persons becoming a 5% holder of our common shares and any 5%
holder increasing the number of common shares held. Transactions
included in the calculation of an ownership change may limit our
ability to engage in or approve additional transactions during
the balance of the applicable 36 month period without
affecting our ability to use our federal income tax attributes.
The limitation on our inability to engage in or approve
additional transactions may adversely impact the market for our
common shares and our ability to pursue certain transactions,
including the repurchase of our common shares or to raise
capital in the equity markets
and/or to
issue new common shares to pursue external growth opportunities.
Our
net sales, operating results and profitability may vary from
period to period, which may lead to volatility in the trading
price of our stock.
Our financial and operating results may be significantly below
the expectations of public market analysts and investors and the
price of our common stock may decline due to the following
factors:
|
|
|
|
|
volatility in the spot market for primary aluminum and energy
costs;
|
|
|
|
changes in the volume, price and mix of the products we sell;
|
|
|
|
our annual accruals for variable payment obligations to the
Union VEBA and another VEBA that provides benefits for certain
other eligible retirees and their surviving spouses and eligible
dependents (which we refer to as the Salaried VEBA);
|
|
|
|
non-cash charges including
last-in,
first-out, or LIFO, inventory charges and impairments;
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
global economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
unanticipated interruptions of our operations for any reason;
|
|
|
|
variations in the maintenance needs for our facilities;
|
|
|
|
unanticipated changes in our labor relations;
|
|
|
|
cyclical aspects impacting demand for our products; and
|
|
|
|
reductions in defense spending.
|
Our
annual variable payment obligations to the Union VEBA and
Salaried VEBA are linked with our profitability, which means
that not all of our earnings will be available to our
stockholders.
We are obligated to make annual payments to the Union VEBA and
Salaried VEBA calculated based on our profitability and
therefore not all of our earnings will be available to our
stockholders. The aggregate amount of our annual payments to
these VEBAs is capped however at $20 million and is subject
to other limitations. As a result of these payment obligations,
our earnings and cash flows may be reduced. Although our
obligation to make annual payments to the Union VEBA terminates
for periods beginning after December 31, 2012, the Union
VEBA or other groups representing our current and future retired
hourly employees may seek to extend our obligation beyond the
termination date. Any such extension could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
A
significant percentage of our stock is held by the Union VEBA
which may exert significant influence over us.
The Union VEBA owns 23.5% of our common stock as of
December 31, 2007. As a result, the Union VEBA has
significant influence over matters requiring stockholder
approval, including the composition of our Board of Directors.
Further, to the extent that the Union VEBA and other substantial
stockholders were to act in concert, they could potentially
control any action taken by our stockholders. This concentration
of ownership could also facilitate or hinder proxy contests,
tender offers, open market purchase programs, mergers or other
purchases of our common stock that might otherwise give
stockholders the opportunity to realize a premium over the then
prevailing market price of our common stock or cause the market
price of our common stock to decline. We cannot assure you that
the interests of our major stockholders will not conflict with
our interests or the interests of our other investors.
The
USW has director nomination rights through which it may
influence us, and USW interests may not align with our interests
or the interests of our other investors.
Pursuant to an agreement, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, or USW, has been
granted rights to nominate candidates which, if elected, would
constitute 40% of our Board of Directors through
December 31, 2012 at which time the USW is required to
cause any director nominated by the USW to submit his or her
resignation to our Board of Directors, which submission our
Board of Directors may accept or reject in its discretion. As a
result, the directors nominated by the USW may have a
significant voice in the decisions of our Board of Directors. It
is possible that the USW may seek to extend the term of the
agreement and its right to nominate board members beyond 2012
and continue its ability to have a significant voice in the
decisions of our Board of Directors.
Payment
of dividends may not continue in the future and our payment of
dividends and stock repurchases are subject to
restriction.
In June 2007, our Board of Directors initiated the payment of a
regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.18 per common share per
quarter. A quarterly cash dividend has been paid in each
subsequent quarter. Future declaration and payment of dividends,
if any, will be at the discretion of the Board of Directors and
will be dependent upon our results of operations, financial
condition, cash requirements, future prospects and other
factors. We can give no assurance that any dividends will be
declared and paid in the future. Our revolving credit facility
currently restricts our ability to pay any dividends or purchase
any of our stock. Under our revolving credit facility, we may
pay cash
21
dividends only if we are not in default or would not be in
default as a result of the dividends, and are limited to an
amount based on a portion of cumulative earnings, net of
dividends, as adjusted for certain other cash inflows.
Our
certificate of incorporation includes transfer restrictions that
may void transactions in our common stock effected by 5%
stockholders.
Our certificate of incorporation places restrictions on transfer
of our equity securities if either (1) the transferor holds
5% or more of the fair market value of all of our issued and
outstanding equity securities or (2) as a result of the
transfer, either any person would become such a 5% stockholder
or the percentage stock ownership of any such 5% stockholder
would be increased. These restrictions are subject to exceptions
set forth in our certificate of incorporation. Any transfer that
violates these restrictions will be unwound as provided in our
certificate of incorporation. Moreover, as indicated below,
these provisions may make our stock less attractive to large
institutional holders, and may also discourage potential
acquirers from attempting to take over our company. As a result,
these transfer restrictions may have the effect of delaying or
deterring a change of control of our company and may limit the
price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for
shares of our common stock.
Delaware
law, our governing documents and the stock transfer restriction
agreement we entered into as part of our Plan may impede or
discourage a takeover, which could adversely affect the value of
our common stock.
Provisions of Delaware law, our certificate of incorporation and
the stock transfer restriction agreement with the Union VEBA may
have the effect of discouraging a change of control of our
company or deterring tender offers for our common stock. We are
currently subject to anti-takeover provisions under Delaware
law. These anti-takeover provisions impose various impediments
to the ability of a third party to acquire control of us, even
if a change of control would be beneficial to our existing
stockholders. Additionally, provisions of our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws impose various procedural and other
requirements, which could make it more difficult for
stockholders to effect some corporate actions. For example, our
certificate of incorporation authorizes our Board of Directors
to determine the rights, preferences and privileges and
restrictions of unissued shares of preferred stock without any
vote or action by our stockholders. Thus, our Board of Directors
can authorize and issue shares of preferred stock with voting or
conversion rights that could adversely affect the voting or
other rights of holders of common stock. Our certificate of
incorporation also divides our Board of Directors into three
classes of directors who serve for staggered terms. A
significant effect of a classified board of directors may be to
deter hostile takeover attempts because an acquirer could
experience delays in replacing a majority of directors.
Moreover, stockholders are not permitted to call a special
meeting. As indicated above, our certificate of incorporation
prohibits certain transactions in our common stock involving 5%
stockholders or parties who would become 5% stockholders as a
result of the transaction. In addition, we are party to a stock
transfer restriction agreement with the Union VEBA which limits
its ability to transfer our common stock. The general effect of
the transfer restrictions in the stock transfer restriction
agreement and our certificate of incorporation is to ensure that
a change in ownership of more than 45% of our outstanding common
stock cannot occur in any three-year period. These rights and
provisions may have the effect of delaying or deterring a change
of control of our company and may limit the price that investors
might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common
stock.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
22
The locations of the principal plants and other materially
important physical properties relating to our Fabricated
Products business unit are below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Square footage
|
|
|
Owned or Leased
|
|
|
Chandler, Arizona
|
|
|
57,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
(1)
|
Greenwood, South Carolina
|
|
|
134,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
Jackson, Tennessee
|
|
|
310,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
London, Ontario (Canada)
|
|
|
274,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
Los Angeles, California
|
|
|
178,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
(2)
|
Newark, Ohio
|
|
|
1,293,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
Richland, Washington
|
|
|
48,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
(3)
|
Richmond, Virginia
|
|
|
443,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
Plainfield, Illinois
|
|
|
80,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
(4)
|
Sherman, Texas
|
|
|
313,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
Spokane, Washington
|
|
|
2,854,000
|
|
|
|
Owned/Leased
|
(5)
|
Tulsa, Oklahoma
|
|
|
23,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
6,007,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Chandler, Arizona facility is subject to a lease with a
primary lease term that expires in 2033. We have certain
extension rights in respect of the Chandler lease. |
|
(2) |
|
The Los Angeles, California facility is subject to a lease with
a 2014 expiration date. |
|
(3) |
|
The Richland, Washington facility is subject to a lease with a
2011 expiration date, subject to certain extension rights held
by us. |
|
(4) |
|
The Plainfield, Illinois facility is subject to a lease with a
2010 expiration date with a renewal option subject to certain
terms and conditions. |
|
(5) |
|
2,733,000 square feet is owned and 121,000 square feet is leased
with a 2010 expiration date with a renewal option subject to
certain terms and conditions. |
Plants and equipment and other facilities are generally in good
condition and suitable for their intended uses.
Our corporate headquarters located in Foothill Ranch,
California, is a leased facility consisting of
21,500 square feet.
Our obligations under the revolving credit facility are secured
by, among other things, liens on our U.S. production
facilities. See Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data for further discussion.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
Reorganization
Proceedings
The discussion in Item 1. Business
Emergence from Reorganization Proceedings and Notes 2
and 19 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data are incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to our
Plan, on July 6, 2006, the pre-petition ownership interests
of Kaiser were cancelled without consideration and approximately
$4.4 billion of pre-petition claims against us, including
claims in respect of debt, pension and postretirement medical
obligations and asbestos and other tort liabilities were
resolved on our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
No matters were submitted to a vote of our security holders
during the fourth quarter of 2007.
23
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity and Related Stockholder
Matters
|
Market
Information
Our outstanding common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global
Select Market under the ticker symbol KALU.
The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices of
our common stock for each quarterly period since such common
stock began trading on July 7, 2006 following our emergence
from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Fiscal 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third quarter (from July 7, 2006)
|
|
$
|
44.50
|
|
|
$
|
37.50
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
62.00
|
|
|
$
|
43.50
|
|
Fiscal 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
78.00
|
|
|
$
|
57.60
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
88.68
|
|
|
$
|
72.33
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
78.26
|
|
|
$
|
57.88
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
80.58
|
|
|
$
|
66.27
|
|
Holders
As of January 31, 2008, there were 601 holders of record of
our common stock.
Dividends
In June 2007, our Board of Directors initiated the payment of a
regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.18 per common share per
quarter. A quarterly cash dividend has been paid in each
subsequent quarter. Future declaration and payment of dividends,
if any, will be at the discretion of the Board of Directors and
will be dependent upon our results of operations, financial
condition, cash requirements, future prospects and other
factors. We can give no assurance that any dividends will be
declared or paid in the future. Our revolving credit facility
currently restricts our ability to pay any dividends or purchase
any of our stock. Under our revolving credit facility, we may
pay cash dividends only if we are not in default or would not be
in default as a result of the dividends, and are limited to an
amount based on a portion of cumulative earnings, net of
dividends, as adjusted for certain other cash inflows.
24
Stock
Performance Graph
The following graph compares the cumulative total shareholder
return on the Companys common stock with: (i) the Dow
Jones Wilshire 5000 Index, (ii) the Russell 2000 which we
are a part of and (iii) the S&P SmallCap 600. The
graph assumes (i) an initial investment of $100 as of
July 7, 2006, the first day on which the Companys
common stock began trading on the Nasdaq, and
(ii) reinvestment of all dividends. The performance graph
is not necessarily indicative of future performance of our stock
price.
COMPARISON
OF 18 MONTH CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000
Index,
The Russell 2000 Index and The S&P SmallCap 600
Index
* $100 invested on 7/7/06 in stock or on 6/30/06 in
index-including reinvestment of dividends.
Fiscal year ending December 31.
Our performance graph reflects the cumulative return of
(i) the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index, a broad equity
market index that includes companies whose equity securities are
traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, (ii) the Russell
2000, a broad equity market index of which we are a component
and (iii) the S&P SmallCap 600. We added the
comparison to the Russell 2000 index in the above graph as we
became a component of the index in 2007. We elected to use the
S&P SmallCap 600 index after determining that no published
industry or line-of-business indexes were closely enough related
to our industry or business to provide a reasonable basis for
comparison. Similarly, we determined that we could not identify
comparables to include in a peer group that would provide a
reasonable basis for comparison and that, as a result, an index
consisting of companies with similar market capitalizations was
appropriate.
25
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The following table represents our selected financial data. The
table should be read in conjunctions with Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, and Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
of this Report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In millions of dollars, except shipments, average sales
price and per share amounts)
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,504.5
|
|
|
$
|
667.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
689.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,089.7
|
|
|
$
|
942.4
|
|
|
$
|
710.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
101.0
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
|
3,136.9
|
|
|
|
(1,112.7
|
)
|
|
|
(868.1
|
)
|
|
|
(273.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
|
|
(514.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income Earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
$
|
101.0
|
|
|
$
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,141.2
|
|
|
$
|
(753.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(746.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(788.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
$
|
39.37
|
|
|
$
|
(13.97
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.88
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.41
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.05
|
|
|
|
4.57
|
|
|
|
1.52
|
|
|
|
(6.42
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.06
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
$
|
39.42
|
|
|
$
|
(9.46
|
)
|
|
$
|
(9.36
|
)
|
|
$
|
(9.83
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shipments (mm lbs)
|
|
|
705.0
|
|
|
|
326.9
|
|
|
|
|
350.6
|
|
|
|
637.5
|
|
|
|
615.2
|
|
|
|
531.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized third party sales price (per lb)
|
|
$
|
2.13
|
|
|
$
|
2.04
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.71
|
|
|
$
|
1.53
|
|
|
$
|
1.34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends declared per common share
|
|
$
|
0.54
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures, net of accounts payable
|
|
$
|
61.8
|
|
|
$
|
30.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
28.1
|
|
|
$
|
31.0
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
$
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
$
|
11.9
|
|
|
$
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
19.9
|
|
|
$
|
22.3
|
|
|
$
|
25.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,165.2
|
|
|
$
|
655.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,538.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,882.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,623.5
|
|
Long-term borrowings, including amounts due within one year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
The financial information for all prior periods has been
reclassified to reflect discontinued operations. See
Note 20 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Earnings (loss) per share and share information for the
Predecessor may not be meaningful because, pursuant to the Plan,
the equity interests in the Companys existing stockholders
were cancelled without consideration.
In addition to the operational results presented in Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, significant items
that impacted the results included, but were not limited to, the
following:
2007: During the fourth quarter we repaid our
$50 million term loan. In June of 2007, our Board of
Directors initiated a regular quarterly dividend of $.18 per
share. We declared total dividends of $11.1 million in
2007. In addition, in 2007 we determined that we met the
more likely than not criteria for recognition of our
deferred tax assets and we released the vast majority of the
valuations allowance. At December 31, 2007, total assets
included net deferred tax assets of $327.8 million.
2006: We emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy on
July 6, 2006 with all of our fabricated product facilities
and operations and a 49% interest in Anglesey. During the period
from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 we recorded gains
on emergence and other reorganization related benefits (costs)
of approximately $3.1 billion.
2005: We were in chapter 11 bankruptcy for the entire
year. During 2005 we recorded reorganization costs of
approximately $1.2 billion. We also recorded a
$4.7 million charge as a result of adopting accounting for
conditional asset retirement obligations.
2004: We were in chapter 11 bankruptcy for the entire
year. We disposed of various foreign operations and recorded
settlement and termination charges related to the termination of
post-retirement medical and pension benefits plans. During 2004
we recorded reorganization costs of approximately
$39 million.
2003: We were in chapter 11 bankruptcy for the entire
year. We recorded an impairment charge of $368.0 million
relating to our interests in Gramercy/Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite
Company which were sold in 2004. We also recorded non-cash
charges of $121.2 million upon termination of a pension
plan.
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contains statements which constitute forward-looking
statements within the meaning of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements appear
throughout this Report and can be identified by the use of
forward-looking terminology such as believes,
expects, may, estimates,
will, should, plans or
anticipates or the negative of the foregoing or
other variations of comparable terminology, or by discussions of
strategy. Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking
statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve
significant risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may
vary from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of
various factors. These factors include: the effectiveness of
managements strategies and decisions; general economic and
business conditions including cyclicality and other conditions
in the aerospace, automobile and other end markets we serve;
developments in technology; new or modified statutory or
regulatory requirements; and changing prices and market
conditions. This Item and Item 1A. Risk Factors
each identify other factors that could cause actual results to
vary. No assurance can be given that these are all of the
factors that could cause actual results to vary materially from
the forward-looking statements.
In accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, conducted an evaluation of our internal
control over financial
27
reporting and concluded that such control was effective as of
December 31, 2007. Managements report on the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
and the related report of our independent registered public
accounting firm are included in Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, of this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations (MD&A) is designed to
provide a reader of our financial statements with a narrative
from the perspective of our management on our financial
condition, results of operations, liquidity and certain other
factors that may affect our future results. Our MD&A is
presented in ten sections:
|
|
|
|
|
Overview
|
|
|
|
Financial Reporting Changes
|
|
|
|
Business Strategy and Core Philosophies
|
|
|
|
Management Review of 2007 and Outlook for the Future
|
|
|
|
Results of Operations
|
|
|
|
Other Matters
|
|
|
|
Liquidity and Capital Resources
|
|
|
|
Contractual Obligations, Commercial Commitments and
Off-Balance-Sheet and Other Arrangements
|
|
|
|
Critical Accounting Estimates
|
|
|
|
New Accounting Pronouncements
|
We believe our MD&A should be read in conjunction with the
Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes included in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data, of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Unless otherwise noted, this MD&A relates only to results
from continuing operations. In the discussion of operating
results below, certain items are referred to as non-run-rate
items. For purposes of such discussion, non-run-rate items are
items that, while they may recur from period to period, are
(i) particularly material to results, (ii) affect
costs primarily as a result of external market factors, and
(iii) may not recur in future periods if the same level of
underlying performance were to occur. Non-run-rate items are
part of our business and operating environment but are worthy of
being highlighted for the benefit of the users of the financial
statements. Our intent is to allow users of the financial
statements to consider our results both in light of and
separately from items such as fluctuations in underlying metal
prices, natural gas prices and currency exchange rates.
Overview
We are a leading producer of fabricated aluminum products for
aerospace / high strength, general engineering and
custom automotive and industrial applications. In addition, we
own a 49% interest in Anglesey, which owns and operates an
aluminum smelter in Holyhead, Wales.
We have two reportable operating segments, Fabricated Products
and Primary Aluminum, and our Corporate segment. The Fabricated
Products segment is comprised of all of the operations within
the fabricated aluminum products industry including our eleven
fabricating facilities in North America at the end of 2007. The
Fabricated Products segment sells value-added products such as
heat treat aluminum sheet and plate, extrusions and forgings
which are used in a wide range of industrial applications,
including aerospace, defense, automotive and general engineering
end-use applications.
The Primary Aluminum segment produces commodity grade products
as well as value-added products such as ingot and billet, for
which we receive a premium over normal commodity market prices
and conducts hedging activities in respect of our exposure to
primary aluminum price risk.
Changes in global, regional, or country-specific economic
conditions can have a significant impact on overall demand for
aluminum-intensive fabricated products in the markets in which
we participate. Such changes in
28
demand can directly affect our earnings by impacting the overall
volume and mix of such products sold. During 2007, 2006, and
2005, the markets for aerospace and high strength products in
which we participate were strong, resulting in higher shipments
and improved margins.
Changes in primary aluminum prices also affect our Primary
Aluminum segment and expected earnings under any firm price
fabricated products contracts. However, the impacts of such
changes are generally offset by each other or by primary
aluminum hedges. Our operating results are also, albeit to a
lesser degree, sensitive to changes in prices for power and
natural gas and changes in certain foreign exchange rates. All
of the foregoing have been subject to significant price
fluctuations over recent years. For a discussion of our
sensitivity to changes in market conditions, see Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risks, Sensitivity.
During 2007, the average London Metal Exchange, or LME,
transaction price per pound of primary aluminum was $1.20.
During 2006 and 2005, the average LME price per pound for
primary aluminum was $1.17 and $.86, respectively. At
January 31, 2008, the LME price was approximately $1.20 per
pound.
Financial
Reporting Changes
From the first quarter of 2002 to June 30, 2006, Kaiser and
25 of its subsidiaries operated under chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code under the supervision of the
Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to the Plan, Kaiser and its
subsidiaries, which owned all of our core fabricated products
facilities and operations and a 49% interest in Anglesey,
emerged from chapter 11 on July 6, 2006. Pursuant to
the Plan, all material pre-petition debt, pension and
post-retirement medical obligations and asbestos and other tort
liabilities, along with other pre-petition claims (which in
total aggregated at June 30, 2006 approximately
$4.4 billion) were addressed and resolved. Pursuant to the
Plan, all of the equity interests of Kaisers pre-emergence
stockholders were cancelled without consideration. Equity of the
newly emerged Kaiser was issued and delivered to a third-party
disbursing agent for distribution to claimholders pursuant to
the Plan. See Notes 2 and 19 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included in this Report for additional
information on Kaisers reorganization and the Plan.
Our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy and adoption of
fresh start accounting resulted in a new reporting entity for
accounting purposes. Although we emerged from chapter 11
bankruptcy on July 6, 2006, we adopted fresh start
accounting under the provisions of American Institute of
Certified Professional Accountants (AICPA) Statement
of Position
90-7
(SOP 90-7),
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code, effective as of the beginning of business
on July 1, 2006. As such, it was assumed that the emergence
was completed instantaneously at the beginning of business on
July 1, 2006 so that all operating activities during the
period from July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 are
reported as applying to the new reporting entity. We believe
that this is a reasonable presentation as there were no material
non-Plan-related transactions between July 1, 2006 and
July 6, 2006.
All financial statement information before July 1, 2006
relates to Kaiser before emergence from chapter 11
(sometimes referred to herein as the Predecessor).
Kaiser after emergence is sometimes referred to herein as the
Successor. As more fully discussed below, there will
be a number of differences between the financial statements
before and after emergence that will make comparisons of
financial information difficult and may make it more difficult
to assess our future prospects based on historical performance.
As indicated above, we also made changes to our accounting
policies and procedures as part of the application of
fresh start accounting as required by
SOP 90-7.
In general, our accounting policies are the same as or similar
to those historically used to prepare our financial statements.
In certain cases, however, we adopted different accounting
principles for, or applied methodologies differently to, our
post emergence financial statement information. For instance, we
changed our accounting methodologies with respect to inventory
accounting. While we still account for inventories on a
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) basis after emergence, we are
applying LIFO differently than we did in the past. Specifically,
we now view each quarter on a standalone year-to-date basis for
computing LIFO; in the past, the Predecessor recorded LIFO
amounts with a view to the entire fiscal year, which, with
certain exceptions, tended to result in LIFO charges being
recorded in the fourth quarter or second half of the year.
29
Additionally, certain items such as earnings per share and
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123-R,
Share-Based Payment (see discussion in Note 11 and
Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data), which had few, if any, implications
while we were in chapter 11 bankruptcy, will have increased
importance in our future financial statement information.
Business
Strategy and Core Philosophies
We are a leading manufacturer of fabricated aluminum products.
We specialize in providing highly engineered solutions that meet
the demanding needs of the transportation and industrial
markets. We are leaders in our industry, maintaining a strong
competitive position in a significant majority of the markets we
serve. In a very competitive marketplace, we distinguish
ourselves with our Best in Class customer
satisfaction along with a broad and deep product offering. Our
blue-chip customer base includes some of the top names in
industry, with whom we share long-standing relationships based
on quality and trust. We have established a platform for growth
that is well positioned within the industry.
We strive to reinforce our position as supplier of choice
through our Best in Class customer satisfaction,
seeking to continuously improve our cost performance and efforts
to be the low cost provider by eliminating waste throughout the
value stream.
Our line of Kaiser
Select®
products reflects a structured approach to reduce waste and
variability for our customers. Our Kaiser
Select®
products are manufactured according to strict specifications
that deliver enhanced product characteristics with improved
consistency that result in better performance and in many cases
lower cost for our customers.
Our lean enterprise initiative is facilitated by the Kaiser
Production System (KPS), which is an integrated
application of the tools of Lean manufacturing, Six Sigma and
Total Productive Manufacturing which underpins our continuous
effort to provide Best in Class customer
satisfaction. KPS enables us to deliver superior customer
service through consistent, on-time delivery of superior quality
products on short lead times. We are committed to imbedding KPS
as the common culture through which we continuously improve our
operations and enhance our total competitive position.
Management
Review of 2007 and Outlook for the Future
In 2007, we continued our focus on the generation of long-term
value through our organic growth initiatives, cost control, and
ongoing focus on streamlining our existing value streams. This
focus contributed to the following financial achievements:
|
|
|
|
|
Record Fabricated Products segment shipments of 548 million
pounds, and Fabricated Products operating income of
$169 million with Fabricated Products net sales growth over
2006 of 12%;
|
|
|
|
Consolidated net income of $101 million, or $4.97 per
diluted share;
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations for 2007 up 39% from 2006
(Predecessor and Successor combined excluding Reorganization
items) in spite of the continued high cost for primary aluminum,
natural gas and other general cost inflation;
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by operating activities of $130 million which
funded all capital investment and also allowed us to repay our
$50 million term loan during the fourth quarter of 2007;
|
|
|
|
Recognition of $328 million of net deferred tax assets at
December 31, 2007 primarily in relation to our net
operating loss carry-forwards.
|
During 2007 our results benefited from higher average realized
third party sales prices in both our Fabricated Products and
Primary Aluminum segments due primarily to favorable mix and
higher value-added pricing as well as higher underlying primary
metal prices. In addition, there was continued strong demand for
our products in the aerospace, high strength and defense
markets. We brought additional heat treat capacity online at our
Trentwood
30
facility and benefited from continued strong demand for our
products in the aerospace, high strength and defense markets. In
2007 we also faced a number of challenges including; weakness in
demand in the ground transportation and general industrial
markets; lower industry mill shipments of general engineering
rod and bar products primarily as a result of service center
de-stocking; and higher energy prices.
Looking into 2008 and beyond we anticipate our main areas of
focus will be:
|
|
|
|
|
Completing and realizing the benefits from our organic growth
initiatives described above together with the additional
$14 million investment announced on February 13, 2008;
|
|
|
|
Capitalizing on our strong market presence and generating a
return on capital that exceeds our cost of capital;
|
|
|
|
Generating cash from operations that funds capital expenditures
made in the ordinary course of business as well as other
initiatives, including additional organic growth programs and
external growth acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
Managing our debt and capital structure to maintain a balance
between cost and flexibility; and
|
|
|
|
Maximization of shareholder value.
|
Results
of Operations
Fiscal
2007 Summary
For the purposes of this discussion the Successors results
for the period from July 1, 2006 through December 31,
2006 have been combined with the Predecessors results for
the period from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and
are compared to the Successors results for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
Net income for the year ended December 31, 2007 was
$101.0 million compared with $3,167.4 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006. Net income for the year ended
December 31, 2006 included a non-cash gain of approximately
$3,110.3 million related to our implementation of the Plan and
application of fresh start accounting.
|
|
|
|
Net sales for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased by
11% to $1,504.5 million compared to $1,357.3 million
the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase primarily
reflected higher shipments, favorable product mix and higher
value-added pricing in Fabricated Products as well as higher
market prices for primary aluminum. Such increases in primary
aluminum market prices do not necessarily directly translate to
increased profitability because (a) a substantial portion
of the business conducted by our Fabricated Products business
unit passes primary aluminum prices on directly to customers and
(b) our hedging activities, while limiting our risk of
losses, may limit our ability to participate in price increases.
|
|
|
|
Our operating income for the year ended December 31, 2007
increased by 81% to $182.0 million compared to the year
ended December 31, 2006. The increase was primarily a
result of increased shipments, favorable product mix and higher
value-added pricing for the period in our Fabricated Products
segment together with gains in our Primary Aluminum segment from
higher realized primary aluminum prices (net of hedging),
improved contractual alumina pricing, favorable currency
exchange (net of hedging), higher shipments and lower operating
costs.
|
|
|
|
Net income for the year ended December 31, 2007 included
Other operating benefits of $13.6 million related primarily
to the reimbursement of $8.3 million of amounts paid in
connection with the sale of our interests in and related to
Queensland Alumina Limited in 2005, a $4.9 million non-cash
gain from the settlement of a claim by the purchaser of the
Gramercy alumina refinery and our interests in and related to
Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company, a $1.6 million gain from
the resolution of contingencies relating to the sale of a
property prior to emergence, a $1.3 million gain related to
a settlement with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation or
PBGC, and a charge of $2.6 million related to other
post-emergence chapter 11 related items (see Note 14
of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data).
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Our effective tax rate remained high at 44.6% for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (see discussion of Provision for
Income Taxes).
|
|
|
|
Starting in June 2007, our Board of Directors initiated the
payment of a regular quarterly cash dividend of $.18 per common
share per quarter. During the year ended December 31, 2007
we made two dividend payments totaling $0.36 per common share or
$7.4 million in the aggregate. During December 2007, we
declared a third quarterly cash dividend of $.18 per common
share, or $3.7 million, which was paid in February 2008.
|
Consolidated
Selected Operational and Financial Information
The table below provides selected operational and financial
information on a consolidated basis (in millions of dollars,
except shipments and prices). The selected operational and
financial information after July 6, 2006 are those of the
Successor and are not comparable to those of the Predecessor.
However, for purposes of this discussion (in the table below and
subsequently throughout this section), the Successors
results for the period from July 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006 have been combined with the
Predecessors results for the period from January 1,
2006 to July 1, 2006 and are compared to the
Successors results for the year ended December 31,
2007 and Predecessors results for the year ended
December 31, 2005. Differences between periods due to fresh
start accounting are explained when material.
32
The following data should be read in conjunction with our
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included
in Item 8. Financial and Supplementary Data.
See Note 16 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data for further information regarding
segments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions of dollars, except shipments and average sales
price)
|
|
Shipments (mm lbs):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
547.8
|
|
|
|
249.6
|
|
|
|
|
273.5
|
|
|
|
523.1
|
|
|
|
481.9
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
157.2
|
|
|
|
77.3
|
|
|
|
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
154.4
|
|
|
|
155.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
705.0
|
|
|
|
326.9
|
|
|
|
|
350.6
|
|
|
|
677.5
|
|
|
|
637.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Realized Third Party Sales Price (per pound):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products(1)
|
|
$
|
2.37
|
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.16
|
|
|
$
|
2.21
|
|
|
$
|
1.95
|
|
Primary Aluminum(2)
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.28
|
|
|
$
|
1.29
|
|
|
$
|
.95
|
|
Net Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$
|
1,298.3
|
|
|
$
|
567.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
590.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,158.1
|
|
|
$
|
939.0
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
206.2
|
|
|
|
100.3
|
|
|
|
|
98.9
|
|
|
|
199.2
|
|
|
|
150.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Net Sales
|
|
$
|
1,504.5
|
|
|
$
|
667.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
689.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,357.3
|
|
|
$
|
1,089.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products(3)(4)
|
|
$
|
169.0
|
|
|
$
|
60.8
|
|
|
|
$
|
61.2
|
|
|
$
|
122.0
|
|
|
$
|
87.2
|
|
Primary Aluminum(5)(6)
|
|
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
|
|
23.2
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
(47.1
|
)
|
|
|
(25.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
(45.8
|
)
|
|
|
(35.8
|
)
|
Other Operating Benefits (Charges), Net(7)
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
|
(.9
|
)
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Income
|
|
$
|
182.0
|
|
|
$
|
48.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
$
|
100.7
|
|
|
$
|
59.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued Operations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.3
|
|
|
$
|
4.3
|
|
|
$
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization Items(8)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,090.3
|
|
|
$
|
3,090.3
|
|
|
$
|
(1,162.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from Cumulative Effect on Years Prior to 2005 of Adopting
Accounting For Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations(9)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax provision
|
|
$
|
81.4
|
|
|
$
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
6.2
|
|
|
$
|
29.9
|
|
|
$
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss)
|
|
$
|
101.0
|
|
|
$
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,141.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,167.4
|
|
|
$
|
(753.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures, (net of accounts payable and excluding
discontinued operations)
|
|
$
|
61.8
|
|
|
$
|
30.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
28.1
|
|
|
$
|
58.1
|
|
|
$
|
31.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Average realized prices for our Fabricated Products business
unit are subject to fluctuations due to changes in product mix
as well as underlying primary aluminum prices and are not
necessarily indicative of changes in underlying profitability.
See Item 1. Business. |
|
(2) |
|
Average realized prices for our Primary Aluminum business unit
exclude hedging revenues. |
|
(3) |
|
Fabricated Products business unit operating results for 2007,
2006 combined and 2005 include non-cash LIFO inventory benefits
(charges) of $14.0 million, $(25.0) million and
$(9.3) million, respectively, and metal gains (losses) of
approximately $(13.1) million, $20.8 million and
$4.6 million, respectively. |
33
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Fabricated Products business unit operating results for 2007 and
2006 combined include non-cash mark-to-market gains (losses) on
natural gas and foreign currency hedging activities totaling
$1.7 million and $(2.2) million. For further
discussion regarding mark-to-market matters, see Note 13 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data. |
|
(5) |
|
Primary Aluminum business unit operating results for 2007, 2006
combined, include non-cash mark-to-market gains (losses) on
primary aluminum hedging activities totaling $16.2 million
and $5.7 million, respectively, and on foreign currency
derivatives of $(8.2) million and $11.6 million,
respectively. 2005 included a non-cash mark-to-market loss of
$4.1 million on primary aluminum and foreign currency
hedging and derivative activities. For further discussion
regarding mark-to-market matters, see Note 13 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. |
|
(6) |
|
Primary Aluminum business unit operating results for 2005
include non-cash charges of approximately $4.1 million in
respect of our decision in 2006 to restate our accounting for
derivative financial instruments. |
|
(7) |
|
See Note 14 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data for a detailed summary of the
components of Other operating benefits (charges), net and the
business segment to which the items relate. |
|
(8) |
|
See Notes 2 and 19 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data for a discussion of Reorganization
items. |
|
(9) |
|
See Notes 1 and 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data for a discussion of the changes in
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations. |
Summary. We reported net income of
$101.0 million for 2007 compared to net income of
$3,167.4 million for 2006 and a net loss of
$753.7 million for 2005. Net income for 2006 includes a
non-cash gain of $3,110.3 million related to the
implementation of our Plan and application of fresh start
accounting. Net loss for 2005 includes a non-cash loss of
$1,131.5 million related to the assignment of intercompany
claims for the benefit of certain creditors offset by a gain of
$365.6 million on the sale of our interests in and related
to QAL and favorable QAL operating results prior to its sale on
April 1, 2005. All years include a number of non-run-rate
items that are more fully explained in the sections below.
Net Sales. We reported Net sales in 2007 of
$1,504.5 million compared to $1,357.3 million in 2006
and $1,089.7 million in 2005. As more fully discussed
below, the increase in revenues in 2007 is primarily the result
of higher shipments, favorable product mix and value-added
pricing in Fabricated Products as well as a higher market price
for primary aluminum. Such increases in primary aluminum market
prices do not necessarily directly translate to increased
profitability because (a) a substantial portion of the
business conducted by the Fabricated Products business unit
passes primary aluminum prices on directly to customers and
(b) our hedging activities, while limiting our risk of
losses, may limit our ability to participate in price increases.
The increase in revenues in 2006 as compared to 2005 is
primarily due to higher market prices for primary aluminum and
secondarily due to increased fabricated products shipments.
Cost of Products Sold. Cost of goods sold in
2007 totaled $1,251.1 million compared to
$1,176.8 million in 2006 or 83% and 87% of net sales
respectively. The reduction in Cost of products sold as a
percentage of nets sales in 2007 was primarily the result of a
LIFO gain of $14.0 million in 2007 compared to a LIFO
charge of $25.0 million in 2006. Cost of products sold in
2006 totaled $1,176.8 million compared to
$951.1 million in 2005 or 87% in both years.
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation
and amortization for 2007 was $11.9 million compared to
$15.3 million for 2006. The period from July 1, 2006
to December 31, 2006 and the year ended December 31,
2007 benefited from lower depreciation as a result of the
application of fresh start accounting. This accounted for a
reduction in depreciation expense of approximately
$4.5 million related to the first half of 2007 compared to
the period from January 1, 2006 through July 1, 2006.
This reduction was partially offset in 2007 by an increase in
depreciation expense as a result of construction in progress
being placed into production during the second half of 2007.
34
Depreciation and amortization for 2006 was $15.3 million
compared to $19.9 million for 2005. The period from
July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 benefited from
$4.3 million of lower depreciation as a result of the
application of fresh start accounting.
Selling, Administrative, Research and Development, and
General. Selling, administrative, research and
development, and general expense totaled $73.1 million in
2007 compared to $65.8 million in 2006. The increase in
2007 is primarily related to an increase in non-cash equity
compensation expense from $4.0 million in 2006 to
$9.1 million in 2007. In addition, in 2007 we incurred
$2.8 million of additional expenses in relation to the
continued investment in research and development, our Kaiser
Production System group and management of our capital spending
programs.
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
expense totaled $65.8 million in 2006 compared to
$50.9 million in 2005. The increase of $14.9 million
in 2006 primarily related to higher incentive compensation
expense of approximately $8.3 million, approximately
$1.9 million in professional fees relating to work in
regard to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and approximately
$1.3 million of costs associated with certain computer
upgrades.
Other Operating (Benefits) Charges,
Net. Included within Other operating (benefits)
charges, net (in millions of dollars) for 2007, 2006 and 2005
were the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Reimbursement of amounts paid in connection with sale of the
Companys interests in and related to QAL-Corporate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMT (Note 9)
|
|
$
|
(7.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefit related to terminated pension plans
Corporate (Notes 10 and 24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resolution of a pre-emergence
contingency Corporate (Note 12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
settlement Corporate(1)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash benefit resulting from settlement of a $5.0 claim by
the purchaser of the Gramercy, Louisiana alumina refinery and
Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company for payment of $.1
Corporate
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resolution of contingencies relating to sale of property prior
to emergence Corporate(2)
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post emergence Chapter 11 related
items Corporate(3)
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charges associated with retroactive portion of contributions to
defined contribution plans upon termination of defined benefit
plans(4) (Note 10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(.1
|
)
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(13.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
.9
|
|
|
$
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The PBGC proceeds consist of a payment related to a settlement
agreement entered into with the PBGC in connection with the our
chapter 11 reorganization (see Note 12). |
|
(2) |
|
During 2007, certain contingencies related to the sale of the
Predecessors interest in a smelter in Tacoma, Washington
were resolved with the buyer. As a result, approximately
$1.6 million of the sale proceeds which had been placed
into escrow at the time of sale, were released to us. At the
Effective Date, no value had been ascribed to the funds in
escrow because they were deemed to be contingent assets at that
time. |
|
(3) |
|
Post-emergence
chapter 11-related
items include primarily professional fees and expenses incurred
after emergence which related directly to our reorganization. |
|
(4) |
|
Amount in 2006 represents a one time contribution related to the
retroactive implementation of the hourly defined benefit plans
(See Note 10). |
Interest Expense. Interest expense was
$4.3 million in 2007 compared with $1.9 million in
2006 resulting in an increase of $2.4 million. The increase
in interest expense is primarily related to the prepayment of a
term loan resulting in a $1.5 million write-off of the
remaining unamortized deferred financing costs as interest
expense and the change in total borrowing outstanding during the
period, partially offset by an increase in interest capitalized
as construction in progress during the year.
Interest expense was $1.9 million in 2006 compared to
$5.2 million in 2005 resulting in a decrease of
$3.3 million. The period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006 excluded unrecorded contractual interest
expense of $47.4 million and 2005 excluded unrecorded
contractual interest expense of $95.0 million because we
were still in chapter 11 bankruptcy during these periods.
Reorganization Items. We recognized no costs
or benefits in relation to reorganization items in 2007 compared
to a benefit of $3,090.3 million in 2006 and a cost of
$1,162.1 million in 2005. The primary component of the
benefit recognized in 2006 was a gain of $3,110.3 million
related to the implementation of our Plan and the application of
fresh start accounting. The primary component of the cost
recognized in 2005 was a loss of $1,131.5 million related
to the assignment of intercompany claims for the benefit of
certain creditors.
Other Income (Expense) Net. Other
income (expense) net was a benefit of
$4.7 million in 2007 compared to a benefit of
$3.9 million in 2006. The increase in 2007 is primarily
related to an increase in interest income of $3.3 million.
Interest income was recorded as a reduction in reorganization
expense before our emergence from bankruptcy. This increase was
partially offset by a $1.6 million gain on the sale of real
estate in 2006 compared to a loss on disposition of assets of
$.6 million in 2007.
Other income (expense) net was a benefit of
$3.9 million in 2006 compared to a charge of
$2.4 million in 2005. The change of $6.3 million is
primarily due to a $2.0 million increase in interest
income. Interest income was recorded as a reduction in
reorganization expense before our emergence from bankruptcy.
Also included in 2006 was $1.6 million of gain on sales of
real estate.
Provision for Income Taxes. Our effective tax
rate was 44.6% for 2007. The high effective tax rate in 2007 was
impacted by several factors including:
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys equity in income before income taxes of
Anglesey is treated as a reduction (increase) in Cost of
products sold, excluding depreciation expense. The income tax
effects of the Companys equity in income are included in
the tax provision. This resulted in $12.9 million being
included in the income tax provision, increasing the effective
tax rate by approximately 7%.
|
|
|
|
Benefits associated with changes in the valuation allowance
established at emergence were first utilized to reduce
intangible assets, with any excess being recorded as an
adjustment to Stockholders equity. This resulted in
$62.2 million of benefits not being included in the income
tax provision but increasing Stockholders equity. This
increased the effective tax rate by approximately 34%.
|
|
|
|
The impact of unrecognized tax benefits, including interest and
penalties, increased the income tax provision by $3.0 million
and the effective tax rate by approximately 2%.
|
36
|
|
|
|
|
The foreign currency impact on unrecognized tax benefits,
interest and penalties resulted in a $3.8 million currency
translation adjustment that was recorded in Accumulated other
comprehensive income.
|
|
|
|
A favorable geographical distribution of income.
|
Comparison of the 2007 effective tax rate to the rates in 2006
and 2005 are not useful due to the significant reorganization
related benefits and costs recognized in those periods that were
not subject to normal income tax treatment. Accordingly, no
comparison to prior years is provided.
Income From Discontinued Operations. Income
from discontinued operations for 2006 included a payment from an
insurer for certain residual claims relating to the 2000
incident at our Gramercy, Louisiana alumina facility, which was
sold in 2004, and a refund related to certain energy surcharges,
which had been pending for a number of years. These amounts were
partially offset by a charge resulting from an agreement between
the Bonneville Power Administration and us for a rejected
electric power contract (see Note 20 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data).
Operating results from discontinued operations for 2005 included
the $365.6 million gain on the sale of our interests in and
related to QAL and the favorable operating results of our
interests in and related to QAL, which were sold as of
April 1, 2005.
Cumulative Effect of Accounting
Change. Effective December 31, 2005, we
adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
Interpretation No. 47, Accounting for Conditional
Asset Retirement Obligations (FIN 47) and
recorded a cumulative effect adjustment of $4.7 million,
consisting primarily of costs associated with the removal and
disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully
contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, ceilings or
piping) of certain older plants if such plants were to undergo
major renovation or be demolished (see Note 1 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data).
Segment
Information
Our continuing operations are organized and managed by product
type and include two operating segments and the Corporate
segment. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as
those described in Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data. Segment results are
evaluated internally by us before any allocation of Corporate
overhead and without any charge for income taxes, interest
expense, or Other operating (benefits) charges, net.
Fabricated
Products
The table below provides selected operational and financial
information for our Fabricated Products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Shipments (mm lbs)
|
|
|
547.8
|
|
|
|
249.6
|
|
|
|
|
273.5
|
|
|
|
523.1
|
|
|
|
481.9
|
|
Average realized third party sales price (per pound)
|
|
$
|
2.37
|
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.16
|
|
|
$
|
2.21
|
|
|
$
|
1.95
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,298.3
|
|
|
$
|
567.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
590.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,158.1
|
|
|
$
|
939.0
|
|
Segment Operating Income
|
|
$
|
169.0
|
|
|
$
|
60.8
|
|
|
|
$
|
61.2
|
|
|
$
|
122.0
|
|
|
$
|
87.2
|
|
Net sales of fabricated products increased by 12% to
$1,298.3 million for 2007 as compared to 2006, primarily
due to a 5% increase in shipments and a 7% increase in average
realized prices. Shipments of products for aerospace and defense
applications were higher in 2007 as compared to 2006, reflecting
continued strong demand for such products as well as incremental
capacity from two new heat treat plate furnaces at our Trentwood
facility in Spokane, Washington which were fully operational for
the entire year in 2007. This was partially offset by lower
shipments of products for ground transportation and other
industrial applications as compared to 2006. The increase
37
in the average realized prices primarily reflects improved
value-added pricing and a favorable product mix as well as the
pass-through to customers of higher underlying primary aluminum
prices.
Overall, we believe the mix of products will continue to benefit
from increased heat treat plate shipments in 2008 that will be
made possible by incremental capacity from the third heat treat
plate furnace and the new stretcher which enables us to produce
heavier gauge plate products, both of which were fully
operational at December 31, 2007, as well as the final
Trentwood capacity expansion phase which is scheduled to be
fully operational by the end of 2008. 2007 reflected an overall
richer product mix which we expect to continue into 2008. Recent
trends in other parts of our business that could affect 2008
include a potential weakening of industrial demand, service
center re-stocking of extruded rod and bar inventories which
began in late 2007 and reduced vehicle builds in 2008 offset by
our participation in new automotive programs and selected export
opportunities.
Net sales of fabricated products increased by 23% to
$1,158.1 million for 2006 as compared to 2005, primarily
due to a 13% increase in average realized prices and a 9%
increase in shipments. The increase in the average realized
prices primarily reflects higher underlying primary aluminum
prices together with a richer product mix. The increase in
volume in 2006 was led by Aero/HS and defense-related shipments.
Shipments of custom automotive and industrial products and
general engineering products were also higher in 2006. The
increased aerospace and defense-related shipments reflect the
strong demand for such products. Additionally, the first new
heat treat plate furnace of our $139 million Trentwood
expansion project reached full capacity and started producing in
fourth quarter of 2006, contributing to increased shipments and
a richer product mix in that quarter.
Operating income for 2007 of $169.0 million was
$47.0 million higher than 2006. Operating income for 2007
included favorable impacts from heat treat plate of
approximately $41.5 million from higher shipments and
stronger value added pricing as compared to the prior year. The
impact of shipments for ground transportation and other
industrial applications to operating income was approximately
$2.1 million unfavorable. The results of 2007 also reflect
higher planned major maintenance expense and other costs,
including energy and research and development as compared to
2006, partially offset by improved general cost performance year
over year. Depreciation and amortization in 2007 was
approximately $3.4 million lower than 2006, primarily as a
result of the application of fresh start accounting partially
offset by Construction in progress being placed into production
in 2007.
Operating income for 2006 of $122.0 million was
$34.8 million higher than for the prior year. Operating
income for 2006 included a favorable impact of
$33.6 million from higher shipments, favorable mix,
stronger value-added pricing and favorable scrap raw material
costs as compared to the prior year. Energy costs and cost
performance both slightly improved year over year, offset by
slightly higher major maintenance. Depreciation and amortization
in 2006 was $4.6 million lower than 2005, primarily as a
result of the adoption of fresh start accounting.
Operating income for 2007, 2006 and 2005 includes non-run-rate
items. Non-run-rate items to us are items that, while they may
recur from period to period, are (1) particularly material
to results, (2) affect costs primarily as a result of
external market factors, and (3) may not recur in future
periods if the same level of underlying performance were to
occur. Non-run-rate items are part of our business and operating
environment but are worthy of being highlighted for the benefit
of the users of the financial statements. Our intent is to allow
users of the financial statements to consider our results both
in light of and separately from fluctuations in underlying metal
prices, natural gas prices and currency exchange rates. These
items are listed below (in millions of dollars) (Predecessor and
Successor periods in 2006 have been combined for the purpose of
this discussion):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Metal gains (losses) (before considering LIFO)
|
|
$
|
(13.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
20.8
|
|
|
$
|
4.6
|
|
Non-cash LIFO benefit (charges)
|
|
|
14.0
|
|
|
|
(25.0
|
)
|
|
|
(9.3
|
)
|
Mark-to-market gains (losses)
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-run-rate items
|
|
$
|
2.6
|
|
|
$
|
(6.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment operating results for 2007, 2006 and 2005 include gains
on intercompany hedging activities with the Primary Aluminum
business unit totaling $19.8 million, $44.6 million
and $11.1 million, respectively. These
38
amounts eliminate in consolidation. Segment operating results
exclude defined contribution savings plan charges of
approximately $.4 million and $6.3 million for 2006
and 2005, respectively, which are included in Other operating
(benefits) charges, net (see Note 14 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data).
Primary
Aluminum
The table below provides selected operational and financial
information (in millions of dollars except shipments and prices)
for our Primary Aluminum segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Shipments (mm lbs)
|
|
|
157.2
|
|
|
|
77.3
|
|
|
|
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
154.4
|
|
|
|
155.6
|
|
Average realized third party sales price (per pound)
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.28
|
|
|
$
|
1.29
|
|
|
$
|
.95
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
206.2
|
|
|
$
|
100.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
98.9
|
|
|
$
|
199.2
|
|
|
$
|
150.7
|
|
Segment Operating Income
|
|
$
|
46.5
|
|
|
$
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
$
|
12.4
|
|
|
$
|
23.2
|
|
|
$
|
16.4
|
|
During 2007, third party net sales of primary aluminum increased
4% compared to 2006. The increase in net sales is primarily due
to a 2% increase in shipments and a 2% increase in average
realized prices. During 2006, third party net sales of primary
aluminum increased 32% compared to 2005. This increase in 2006
was almost entirely attributable to the increases in average
realized primary aluminum prices. The net sales and unit prices
do not consider the impact of hedging transactions.
The following table recaps the major components of segment
operating results for the current and prior year periods (in
millions of dollars) and the discussion following the table
looks at the primary factors leading to such differences. Many
of such factors indicated are subject to significant fluctuation
from period to period and are largely impacted by items outside
managements control. See Item 1A. Risk
Factors. (Predecessor and Successor periods in 2006 have
been combined for the purpose of this discussion.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Anglesey operations-related(1)(4)
|
|
$
|
58.7
|
|
|
$
|
49.4
|
|
|
$
|
32.5
|
|
Internal hedging with Fabricated Products(2)
|
|
|
(19.8
|
)
|
|
|
(44.6
|
)
|
|
|
(11.1
|
)
|
Derivative settlements Pound Sterling(3)(4)
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
|
(.1
|
)
|
|
|
(.6
|
)
|
Derivative settlements External metal hedging(3)(4)
|
|
|
(10.6
|
)
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
Market-to-market on derivative instruments(3)
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
46.5
|
|
|
$
|
23.2
|
|
|
$
|
16.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating income from sales of production from Anglesey is
impacted by the market price for primary aluminum and alumina
pricing, offset by the impact of foreign currency translation. |
|
(2) |
|
Eliminates in consolidation. |
|
(3) |
|
Impacted by positions and market prices. |
|
(4) |
|
In 2007 we began to track Pound Sterling and external metal
hedging derivative settlement gains and losses separately from
the Anglesey operations-related income. As such we have
conformed the presentation for 2006 and 2005 to that of 2007 to
allow for an appropriate comparison of results. |
Primary Aluminum segment operating income in 2007 as compared to
2006 was favorably impacted approximately $14.7 million by
improved realized pricing (after considering the impact of
hedging transactions), the components of which were
(a) $24.8 million of lower losses on intercompany
hedging activities with the
39
Fabricated Products segment (these intercompany hedge amounts
are eliminated in consolidation), (b) $11.8 million of
higher realized losses on external metal derivative
transactions, and (c) $1.7 million of favorable impact
from the changes in the LME price for primary aluminum on the
operations of Anglesey (included in Anglesey
operations-related
in the table above). Anglesey operations-related results in 2007
also reflected a 20% favorable contractual pricing adjustment
for alumina starting in the second quarter of 2007, with a
favorable impact of $7.6 million as compared to 2006.
Additionally, higher shipments and lower operating costs had a
favorable impact of $6.5 million on Anglesey
operations-related results. The foreign currency exchange rate
(Pound Sterling) caused an adverse impact of $8.0 million
to Anglesey operations-related results, which was more than
offset by realized hedging gains on Pound Sterling derivative
transactions, which was $10.3 million more favorable in
2007 than 2006. Segment operating results for 2007 reflected
unrealized mark-to-market gains for metal and currency
derivative transactions of $8.0 million compared to
$17.3 million for 2006.
In 2008, we anticipate that the Primary Aluminum segment will be
adversely impacted by approximately $9 million due to the
impact of Pound Sterling exchange rates, reflecting derivative
transactions that set a higher effective exchange rate in 2008
than those in place for 2007. Additionally, management believes
ocean freight cost increases will have an adverse impact of
approximately $7 million in 2008 as compared to 2007.
The improvement in Anglesey operations-related results in 2006
over 2005, as well as the offsetting adverse internal hedging
results were driven primarily by increases in primary aluminum
market prices. Beginning in the second quarter of 2005, the
Anglesey operations-related operating results were adversely
affected by an approximate 20% increase in contractual alumina
costs. Anglesey operations-related operating results were also
affected by an approximate 15% contractual increase in
Angleseys power costs in 2006 (an adverse change of
approximately $5 million compared to 2005). Segment
operating results for 2006 reflected unrealized mark-to-market
gains for metal and currency derivative transactions of
$17.3 million compared to unrealized losses of
$4.1 million for 2006.
The nuclear plant that supplies Anglesey its power is currently
slated for decommissioning in 2010. For Anglesey to be able to
continue aluminum reduction past September 2009 when its current
power contract expires, Anglesey will have to secure a new or
alternative power contract at prices that make its aluminum
reduction operations viable. No assurance can be provided that
Anglesey will be successful in this regard.
In addition, given the potential for future shutdown and related
costs, Anglesey temporarily suspended dividends during the last
half of 2006 and the first half of 2007 while it studied future
cash requirements. Based on a review of cash anticipated to be
available for future cash requirements, Anglesey removed the
temporary suspension of dividends and declared and paid
dividends in August and December of 2007. We received total
dividends of $14.3 million in respect of our 49% ownership
interest in 2007. Dividends over the past five years have
fluctuated substantially depending on various operational and
market factors. During the last five years, cash dividends
received were as follows: 2007 $14.3, 2006
$11.8, 2005 $9.0, 2004 $4.5
and 2003 $4.3. No assurance can be given that
Anglesey will not suspend dividends again in the future.
Corporate
and Other
Corporate operating expenses represent corporate general and
administrative expenses that are not allocated to our business
segments. Corporate operating expenses exclude Other operating
(benefit) charges, net discussed above.
Corporate operating expenses for 2007 were $1.3 million
higher than in 2006. Of this increase, salary and incentive
compensation accruals were $9.6 million higher primarily as
a result of better operating results in 2007 as compared to
2006. Included in the increase was an increase of
$5.1 million in non-cash charges associated with equity
compensation (see Note 11 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data). These increases were
partially offset by a reduction in retiree medical expense of
$1.0 million, a reduction in VEBA net periodic benefit
income (costs) of $3.2 million and lower costs for outside
services related to compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 of $1.1 million. Additionally, in 2006 we incurred
approximately $1.3 million related to computer system
upgrades compared to $.3 million of such costs in 2007.
40
Corporate operating expenses for 2006 were $10.0 million
higher than in 2005. Incentive compensation accruals were
$8.3 million higher in 2006 than in 2005, including a
$4.0 million non-cash charge associated with the granting
of vested and non-vested shares of our common stock at emergence
as more fully discussed in Notes 1 and 10 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Additionally, we incurred $1.9 million of preparation costs
related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and $1.3 million
of costs associated with certain computer system upgrades. The
remaining change in 2006 primarily reflects lower salary and
other costs related to the movement toward a post-emergence
structure.
Other
Matters
Internal
Revenue Service Section 382 Ruling
On May 2, 2007, we received a ruling from the Internal
Revenue Service (the IRS) relating to the
application of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (the Code) to our federal income tax attributes
(the IRS ruling).
Section 382 of the Code affects a corporations
ability to use its federal income tax attributes, including its
net operating loss carry-forwards, following a more than 50%
change in ownership during any period of 36 consecutive months,
all as determined under the Code (an ownership
change). Under Section 382(l)(5) of the Code, if we
were to have an ownership change prior to July 6, 2008
(i.e., within the two-year period following our emergence
from chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006), our
ability to use our federal income tax attributes would be
eliminated. However, if we were to have an ownership change on
or after July 6, 2008, our ability to use our federal
income tax attributes would be limited, but not eliminated. In
such circumstances, the amount of post-ownership change annual
taxable income that could be offset by pre-ownership change tax
attributes would be limited to an amount equal to the product of
(a) the aggregate value of our outstanding common shares
immediately prior to the ownership change and (b) the
applicable federal long-term tax exempt rate in effect on the
date of the ownership change.
In order to reduce the risk that any change in our ownership
would jeopardize the preservation of our federal income tax
attributes existing upon our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy, our certificate of incorporation prohibits certain
transfers of our equity securities. More specifically, subject
to certain exceptions for transactions that would not impair our
federal income tax attributes, our certificate of incorporation
prohibits a transfer of our equity securities without the prior
approval of our Board of Directors if either (a) the
transferor holds 5% or more of the total fair market value of
all of our issued and outstanding equity securities (such
person, a 5% shareholder) or (b) as a result of
such transfer, either (i) any person or group of persons
would become a 5% shareholder or (ii) the percentage stock
ownership of any 5% shareholder would be increased (any such
transfer, a 5% transaction).
In addition, we entered into a stock transfer restriction
agreement with the Union VEBA, which was our largest shareholder
upon our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under the
stock transfer restriction agreement, until the restriction
release date, subject to exceptions for certain transactions
that would not impair our federal income tax attributes, the
Union VEBA is prohibited from transferring or otherwise
disposing of more than 15% of the total common shares issued to
the Union VEBA pursuant to our Plan during any
12-month
period without the prior approval of our Board of Directors.
Under our Plan, the Union VEBA had rights to receive 11,439,900
common shares upon our emergence from chapter 11
bankruptcy; however, prior to emergence, the Union VEBA sold its
right to 2,630,000 of such shares. Under the terms of the stock
transfer restriction agreement, the Union VEBA was treated as if
it received the full 11,439,900 shares at emergence and
sold 2,630,000 of such shares immediately thereafter.
The stock transfer restriction agreement contemplated that a
ruling would be sought from the IRS that, for purposes of
Section 382 of the Code, we could treat the Union VEBA as
having received 8,809,900 rather than 11,439,900 common shares
pursuant to our plan of reorganization. On May 2, 2007, we
received the IRS ruling, which was to that effect. As a result
of the IRS ruling, under the stock transfer restriction
agreement, the number of common shares that generally may be
sold by the Union VEBA during any
12-month
period was reduced from 1,715,985 to 1,321,485 and the next date
on which the Union VEBA could sell common shares without the
prior consent of our Board of Directors was January 31,
2009. At the September 2007 meeting of our Board of Directors,
the Board approved a resolution granting its consent to the sale
by the Union VEBA of up to 627,200 common
41
shares. All 627,200 shares were sold by the Union VEBA in
the fourth quarter of 2007. The next date on which the Union
VEBA may sell common shares without the prior consent of our
Board of Directors is January 31, 2010.
Preserving our federal income tax attributes affects our ability
to issue new common shares because such issuances must be
considered in determining whether an ownership change has
occurred under Section 382 of the Code. The IRS ruling
increased the number of common shares that we can currently
issue without potentially impairing our ability to use our
federal income tax attributes. As a result of the IRS ruling, we
can currently issue approximately 17,400,000 common shares
without potentially impairing our ability to use our federal
income tax attributes. However, additional sales by the Union
VEBA could, and other 5% transactions would, decrease the number
of common shares we can issue during any 36 month period
without impairing our ability to use our federal income tax
attributes. Similarly, any issuance of common shares by us would
limit the number of shares that could be transferred in 5%
transactions (other than sales permitted to be made by the Union
VEBA under the stock transfer restriction agreement without the
consent of our Board of Directors). If at any time we were to
issue the maximum number of common shares that we could possibly
issue without potentially impairing our ability to use of our
federal income tax attributes, there could be no 5% transactions
(other than sales by the Union VEBA permitted under the stock
transfer restriction agreement without the consent of our Board
of Directors) during the
36-month
period thereafter.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Summary
We ended 2007 with $68.7 million of cash and cash
equivalents, up from $50.0 million at the end of 2006.
Working capital, the excess of current assets over current
liabilities, was $289.2 million at the end of 2007, up from
$208.5 million at the end of 2006. The increase in working
capital is primarily driven by increases in cash, inventories
and deferred income tax assets, partially offset by a decrease
in current derivative assets; and a decrease in current
derivative liabilities primarily as a result of changing
underlying metal prices and foreign currency exchange rates.
Cash equivalents consist primarily of money market accounts and
other highly liquid investments with an original maturity of
three months or less when purchased. Our liquidity is affected
by restricted cash that is pledged as collateral for certain
letters of credit or restricted to use for workers
compensation requirements and other agreements. Short term
restricted cash, included in Prepaid expenses and other current
assets, totaled $1.5 million and $1.7 million as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Long term
restricted cash, which was included in Other Assets, was
$14.4 million and $23.5 million as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
42
Cash
Flows
The following table summarizes our cash flow from operating,
investing and financing activities for each of the past three
years (in millions of dollars):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
to December 31,
|
|
|
|
to July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Total cash provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$
|
144
|
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
75
|
|
|
$
|
88
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
(36
|
)
|
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
130
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
|
$
|
(12
|
)
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
(62
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
401
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(53
|
)
|
|
$
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
(27
|
)
|
|
$
|
(57
|
)
|
|
$
|
371
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
(58
|
)
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(387
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(58
|
)
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
50
|
|
|
$
|
(394
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
Activities
Fabricated Products In 2007, Fabricated
Products operating activities provided approximately
$144 million of cash. This amount compares with 2006 when
Fabricated Products operating activities provided approximately
$75 million of cash and with 2005 when the Fabricated
Products operating activities of the Predecessor provided
approximately $88 million of cash. Cash provided in 2007
and 2006 was primarily due to improved operating results offset
in part by increased working capital. The increase in working
capital in 2007 and 2006 was primarily the result of the impact
of higher primary aluminum prices and increased demand for
fabricated aluminum products on inventories and accounts
receivable. Substantially all of the cash provided in 2005 was
generated from operating results; working capital changes were
modest.
Primary Aluminum In 2007, operating
activities attributable to our interest in and related to
Anglesey provided approximately $25 million in cash. This
compares to 2006, when operating activities provided
approximately $29 million of cash attributable to our
interest in and related to Anglesey. In 2005 the operating
activities of the Predecessor provided approximately
$20 million of cash attributable to our interests in and
related to Anglesey. The increases in cash flows between 2007
and 2006 and between 2006 and 2005 were primarily attributable
to increases in primary aluminum market prices.
Corporate and Other Corporate and Other
operating activities used approximately $39 million of cash
during 2007. Corporate and Other operating activities (including
all legacy costs) used approximately
$106 million of cash during 2006. Corporate and Other
operating activities of the Predecessor used approximately
43
$108 million of cash in 2005. Cash outflows from corporate
and other operating activities in 2007, 2006 and 2005 included:
(1) zero, $11 million and $37 million,
respectively, in respect of former employee and retiree medical
obligations through funding of the VEBAs; (2) payments for
reorganization costs of approximately $7 million,
$28 million and $39 million, respectively; and
(3) payments in respect of general and administrative costs
totaling approximately $43 million, $41 million,
$29 million, respectively. The cash outflows in 2007 were
offset by approximately $9 million of proceeds from Other
operating (benefits) charges, net. Cash outflows for Corporate
and Other operating activities in 2006 also included payments
pursuant to our Plan of $25 million.
Discontinued Operations In 2006, Discontinued
Operations operating activities provided $9 million of
cash. This compares with 2005 when Discontinued Operations
operating activities of the Predecessor provided
$17 million of cash. Cash provided by Discontinued
Operations in 2006 consisted of the proceeds from an
$8 million payment from an insurer and a $1 million
refund from commodity interests energy vendors. The decrease in
cash provided by Discontinued Operations in 2006 over 2005
resulted primarily from a decrease in favorable operating
results due to the sale of all of the commodity interests on
April 1, 2005.
Investing
Activities
Fabricated Products Cash used in investing
activities for Fabricated Products was $62 million in 2007.
This compares to 2006 when Fabricated Products investing
activities used $57 million in cash. Cash used in investing
activities for Predecessor Fabricated Products was
$30 million in 2005. The increase in cash used in investing
activities in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2006 compared to 2005 is
primarily due to higher capital expenditures at our Trentwood
facility in Spokane, WA. Refer to Capital
Expenditures below for additional information.
Corporate and Other Cash provided in
investing activities for Corporate and Other was $9 million
in 2007. This is related to the release of restricted funds that
we had on deposit as financial assurance for workers
compensation claims from the State of Washington.
Financing
Activities
Corporate and Other Cash used in 2007 was
primarily related to a $50 million repayment of the term
loan and approximately $7 million in cash dividends paid to
shareholders. Cash provided in 2006 was primarily related to
drawing upon the $50 million term loan facility subsequent
to emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy. Cash used in 2005
primarily relates to net cash used by Discontinued Operations of
approximately $387 million.
Sources
of Liquidity
Our most significant sources of liquidity are funds generated by
operating activities and available cash and cash equivalents. We
believe funds generated from the expected results of operations,
together with available cash and cash equivalents will be
sufficient to finance anticipated expansion plans and strategic
initiatives for the next fiscal year. In addition, our revolving
credit facility is available for additional working capital
needs or investment opportunities. There can be no assurance,
however, that we will continue to generate cash flows at or
above current levels or that we will be able to maintain our
ability to borrow under our revolving credit facility.
In December 2007, we expanded our revolving line of credit to
$265 million. At December 31, 2007, we could borrow
approximately $239.6 million under this facility. Under the
revolving credit facility, we are able to borrow (or obtain
letters of credit) from time to time in an aggregate amount
equal to the lesser of $265 million and a borrowing base
comprised of eligible accounts receivable, eligible inventory
and certain eligible machinery, equipment and real estate,
reduced by certain reserves, all as specified in the revolving
credit facility. The revolving credit facility has a five-year
term and matures in July 2011, at which time all principal
amounts outstanding thereunder will be due and payable.
Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear interest at
a rate equal to either a base prime rate or LIBOR, at our
option, plus a specified variable percentage determined by
reference to the then remaining borrowing availability under the
revolving credit facility. The revolving credit facility may,
subject to certain conditions and the agreement of lenders
thereunder, be increased up to $275 million.
44
Amounts owed under the revolving credit facility may be
accelerated upon the occurrence of various events of default set
forth in the agreement, including, without limitation, the
failure to make interest payments when due and breaches of
covenants, representations and warranties set forth in the
agreement.
The revolving credit facility is secured by a first priority
lien on substantially all of our assets and the assets of our US
operating subsidiaries that are also borrowers thereunder. The
revolving credit facility places restrictions on our ability to,
among other things, incur debt, create liens, make investments,
pay dividends, sell assets, undertake transactions with
affiliates and enter into unrelated lines of business. At
January 31, 2008, there were no borrowings outstanding and
approximately $12.7 million of outstanding letters of
credit under the revolving credit facility.
Capital
Expenditures
A component of our long-term strategy is our capital expenditure
program including our organic growth initiatives.
We continue to fund our $139 million heat treat plate
expansion project at our Trentwood facility in Spokane,
Washington, the majority of which is now fully operational. This
project significantly increases our heat treat plate production
capacity and augments our product offering by increasing the
thickness of heat treat stretched plate we can produce for
aerospace and defense and general engineering applications.
Approximately $112.7 million of spending on this project
was incurred through 2007. Much of the capital spending related
to the last phase of the heat treat plate project, a
$34 million follow-on investment announced in June 2007,
will carry over to 2008.
In 2007, we announced a $91 million investment program in
our rod, bar and tube value stream including a facility expected
to be located in Kalamazoo, Michigan as well as improvements at
three existing extrusion and drawing facilities. This investment
program is expected to significantly improve the capabilities
and efficiencies of our rod and bar and seamless extruded and
drawn tube operations and enhance the market position of such
products. We expect the facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan to be
equipped with two extrusion presses and a remelt operation.
Completion of these investments is expected to occur by late
2009. Approximately $7 million of spending on these
projects was incurred in 2007. Management estimates that
approximately an additional $30 million to $35 million
will be incurred in 2008 and the remainder will be incurred in
2009.
In February 2008, we announced $14 million of additional
programs that will enhance Kaiser
Select®
capabilities in our Tulsa, Oklahoma and Sherman, Texas extrusion
plants and significantly reduce energy consumption at one of our
casting units in our Trentwood facility. We expect the majority
of these additional programs to be completed during 2008.
The remainder of our capital spending in 2007 was spread among
all manufacturing locations on projects expected to reduce
operation costs, improve product quality or increase capacity.
The following table presents our capital expenditures, net of
accounts payable, for each of the past three fiscal years (in
millions of dollars):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to July 1,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Heat treat expansion project
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
26
|
|
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
18
|
|
Rod, bar and tube value stream investment
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Capital expenditures in accounts payable
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures, net of accounts payable
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45
Total capital expenditures for Fabricated Products are currently
expected to be in the $80 million to $90 million range
for 2008 and are expected to be funded using cash from
operations. Capital expenditures in 2008 will primarily be
comprised of (a) the remainder of the follow-on heat treat
plate investment noted above, (b) additional spending
related to the $91 million investment program discussed
above, and (c) the $14 million of investment programs
also noted above. We anticipate the remainder of the 2008
capital spending to be spread among all manufacturing locations
on projects expected to reduce operating costs, improve product
quality, increase capacity or enhance operational security. We
anticipate capital spending in 2009 on currently approved
capital projects and maintenance activities to be in the
$60 million to $70 million range.
The level of capital expenditures may be adjusted from time to
time depending on our business plans, price outlook for
fabricated aluminum products, our ability to maintain adequate
liquidity and other factors. No assurances can be provided as to
the timing or success of any such expenditures.
Debt
and Capital
Concurrent with the execution of the revolving credit facility
on July 6, 2006 discussed in the Sources of Liquidity
section above, we entered into a term loan facility with a
group of lenders that provided for a $50 million term loan
guaranteed by certain of our domestic operating subsidiaries.
The term loan facility was fully drawn on August 4, 2006.
The term loan facility had a five-year term expiring in July
2011, at which time all principal amounts outstanding thereunder
would be due and payable. Borrowings under the term loan
facility bore interest at a rate equal to either a premium over
a base prime rate or a premium over LIBOR, at our option. On
December 13, 2007, the term loan was paid in full without
incurring any pre-payment penalties.
Dividends
In June 2007, our Board of Directors approved the payment of a
regular quarterly cash dividend of $.18 per common share. In
2007 we declared and paid a total of approximately
$7.4 million, or $.36 per common share, in cash dividends
under this program. Additionally, on December 11, 2007, we
declared a third dividend of $3.7 million, or $.18 per
common share, to stockholders of record at the close of business
on January 25, 2008, which was paid on February 15,
2008 bringing the total dividends declared for 2007 to
approximately $11.1 million or $0.54 per common share.
Capital
Structure
Successor: On the July 6, 2006 effective
date of our Plan, pursuant to the Plan, all equity interests in
Kaiser outstanding immediately prior to such date were cancelled
without consideration and issued 20,000,000 new shares of common
stock to a third-party disbursing agent for distribution in
accordance with our Plan. As we discussed in Note 9 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data and elsewhere in this Report, there are restrictions
on the transfer of our common stock. In addition, under our
revolving credit facility, there are restrictions on ability to
purchase our common stock and limitations on our ability to pay
dividends.
Predecessor: Prior to July 6, 2006,
effective date of our Plan, MAXXAM Inc. and one of its wholly
owned subsidiaries collectively owned approximately 63% of our
common stock, with the remaining approximately 37% being
publicly held. However, as discussed in Note 19 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
pursuant to our Plan, all of the pre-emergence equity interests
in Kaiser were cancelled without consideration upon our
emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006.
Environmental
Commitments and Contingencies
We are subject to a number of environmental laws, to fines or
penalties assessed for alleged breaches of the environmental
laws, and to claims and litigation based upon such laws. Based
on our evaluation of these and other environmental matters, we
have established environmental accruals of $7.7 million at
December 31, 2007. However, we believe that it is
reasonably possible that changes in various factors could cause
costs associated with these environmental matters to exceed
current accruals by amounts that could be, in the aggregate, up
to an
46
estimated $15.5 million primarily in connection with our
ongoing efforts to address the historical use of oils containing
polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, at the Trentwood facility
where we are working with regulatory authorities and performing
studies and remediation pursuant to several consent orders with
the State of Washington.
Contractual
Obligations, Commercial Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet and
Other Arrangements
Contractual
Obligations and Commercial Commitments
We are obligated to make future payments under various contracts
such as long-term purchase obligations and lease agreements. We
have grouped these contractual obligations into operating
activities, investing activities and financing activities in the
same manner as they are classified in the Statement of
Consolidated Cash Flows in order to provide a better
understanding of the nature of the obligations and to provide a
basis for comparison to historical information.
The following table provides a summary of our significant
contractual obligations at December 31, 2007 (dollars in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012 and
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating leases
|
|
$
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
Purchase obligations(1)
|
|
|
24.8
|
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
8.7
|
|
Deferred revenue arrangements(2)
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital equipment(3)
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends to shareholders(4)
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standby letters of credit(5)
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncertain tax liabilities (FIN 48)(6)
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual obligations(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
21.9
|
|
|
$
|
4.7
|
|
|
$
|
3.2
|
|
|
$
|
2.1
|
|
|
$
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We have various contracts with suppliers of aluminum that
require us to purchase minimum quantities of aluminum in future
years at a price to be determined at the time of purchase
primarily based on the underlying metal price at that time.
Amounts presented in the table exclude such contracts as it is
not possible to determine what the cost of the commitments will
be at the time of payment. We believe the minimum quantities are
lower than our current requirements for aluminum. |
|
(2) |
|
See Obligations for operating activities. |
|
(3) |
|
See Obligations for investing activities. |
|
(4) |
|
See Obligations for financing activities. |
|
(5) |
|
This amount represents the total amount committed under standby
letters of credit, substantially all of which expire within
approximately twelve months. The letters of credit relate
primarily to workers compensation, environmental and other
activities. As the amounts under these letters of credit are
contingent on nonpayment to third parties, it is not practical
to present annual payment information. |
|
(6) |
|
At December 31, 2007, we had uncertain tax positions which
ultimately could result in a tax payment. As the amount of
ultimate tax payment is contingent on the tax authorities
assessment, it is not practical to present annual payment
information. |
|
(7) |
|
Total contractual obligations exclude future annual variable
cash contributions to the VEBAs, which cannot be determined at
this time. See Off-Balance Sheet and Other
Arrangements below for a summary of possible annual
variable cash contribution amounts at various levels of earnings
and cash expenditures. |
47
Obligations
for operating activities
Cash outlays for operating activities consist primarily of
operating leases. Operating leases represent multi-year
obligations for certain manufacturing facilities, warehousing ,
office space and equipment. Deferred revenue arrangements relate
to commitment fees received from customers for future delivery
of products over the specified contract period. While these
obligations are not expected to result in cash payments, they
represent contractual obligations for which we would be
obligated if the specified product deliveries could not be made.
Purchase obligations represent raw-material, energy and other
purchase obligations.
Obligations
for investing activities
Capital project spending included in the preceding table
represents non-cancelable capital commitments as of
December 31, 2007. We expect capital projects to be funded
through cash from our operations.
Obligations
for financing activities
Cash outlays for financing activities consist of dividends to
shareholders. In June 2007, our Board of Directors initiated the
payment of a regular quarterly cash dividend of $.18 per common
share. In 2007 we declared and paid a total of approximately
$7.4 million, or $.36 per common share, in cash dividends
under this program. On December 11, 2007, the Company
declared a third dividend of $3.7 million, or $.18 per
common share, to stockholders of record at the close of business
on January 25, 2008, which was paid on February 15,
2008.
Off-Balance
Sheet and Other Arrangements
We have agreements to supply alumina to and to purchase aluminum
from Anglesey. Both the alumina sales agreement and primary
aluminum purchase agreement are tied to primary aluminum prices.
Our employee benefit plans include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
We are obligated to make monthly contributions of one dollar per
hour worked by each bargaining unit employee to the appropriate
multi-employer pension plans sponsored by the USW and
International Association of Machinists and certain other unions
at six of our production facilities. This obligation came into
existence in December 2006 for four of our production facilities
upon the termination of four defined benefit plans. The
arrangement for the other two locations came into existence
during the first quarter of 2005. We currently estimate that
contributions will range from $1 million to $3 million
per year.
|
|
|
|
We have a defined contribution 401(k) savings plan for hourly
bargaining unit employees at five of our production facilities.
We are required to make contributions to this plan for active
bargaining unit employees at these production facilities that
will range from $800 to $2,400 per employee per year, depending
on the employees age
and/or
service. This arrangement came into existence in December 2004
for two production facilities upon the termination of one
defined benefit plan. The arrangement for the other three
locations came into existence during December 2006. We currently
estimate that contributions to such plans will range from
$1 million to $3 million per year.
|
|
|
|
We have a defined benefit plan for our salaried employees at our
production facility in London, Ontario with annual contributions
based on each salaried employees age and years of service.
|
|
|
|
We have a defined contribution 401(k) savings plan for salaried
and non-bargaining unit hourly employees providing for a match
of certain contributions dollar for dollar on the first four
percent of compensation made by employees plus an annual
contribution of between 2% and 10% of their compensation
depending on their age and years of service. All new hires after
January 1, 2004 receive a fixed 2% contribution. We
currently estimate that contributions to such plan will range
from $1 million to $3 million per year.
|
|
|
|
We have a non-qualified defined contribution restoration plan
for key employees who would otherwise suffer a loss of benefits
under our defined contribution 401(k) savings plan as a result
of the limitations by the Code.
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
We have an annual variable cash contribution to the VEBA under
agreements reached during our chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under
these agreements, the amount to be contributed to the VEBAs will
be 10% of the first $20 million of annual cash flow (as
defined; but generally, earnings before interest, taxes and
depreciation and amortization less cash payments for, among
other things, interest, income taxes and capital expenditures),
plus 20% of annual cash flow, as defined, in excess of
$20 million. Our agreement with the Union VEBA terminates
for periods beginning after December 31, 2012. Under these
agreements the aggregate annual payments may not exceed
$20 million and are also limited (with no carryover to
future years) to the extent that the payments would cause our
liquidity to be less than $50 million. Such amounts are
determined on an annual basis and payable upon the earlier of
(a) 120 days following the end of fiscal year, or
within 15 days following the date on which we file our
Form 10-K
with the SEC (or, if no such report is required to be filed,
within 15 days of the delivery of the independent
auditors opinion of our annual financial statements).
|
The following table shows (in millions of dollars) the estimated
amount of variable VEBA payments that would occur under these
agreements at differing levels of earnings before depreciation,
interest, income taxes (EBITDA) and cash payments in
respect of, among other items, interest, income taxes and
capital expenditures. The table below does not consider the
liquidity limitation and certain other factors that could impact
the amount of variable VEBA payments due and, therefore, should
be considered only for illustrative purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Payments for
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures, Income Taxes,
|
|
|
|
Interest Expense, etc.
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$25.0
|
|
|
$50.0
|
|
|
$75.0
|
|
|
$100.0
|
|
|
$20.0
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
40.0
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60.0
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80.0
|
|
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
13.0
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
120.0
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
140.0
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
16.0
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
160.0
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
15.0
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
180.0
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
19.0
|
|
|
|
14.0
|
|
200.0
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a short term incentive compensation plan for certain
members of management payable in cash which is based primarily
on earnings, adjusted for certain safety and performance
factors. Most of our production facilities have similar programs
for both hourly and salaried employees.
|
|
|
|
We have a stock-based long-term incentive plan for certain
members of management and our directors. As more fully discussed
in Note 11 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
included in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, an initial, emergence-related award
was made under this program in the second half of 2006. Awards
were also made in April and June 2007 and additional awards are
expected to be made in future years.
|
Critical
Accounting Estimates
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance
with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). In connection with the preparation of our
financial statements, we are required to make assumptions and
estimates about future events, and apply judgments that affect
the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, expenses
and the related disclosures. We base our assumptions, estimates
and judgments on historical experience, current trends and other
factors that management believes to be relevant at the time our
consolidated financial statements are prepared. On a regular
basis, management reviews the accounting policies, assumptions,
estimates and judgments to ensure that our financial statements
are presented fairly and in accordance
49
with United States GAAP. However, because future events and
their effects cannot be determined with certainty, actual
results could differ from our assumptions and estimates, and
such differences could be material.
Our significant accounting policies are discussed in
Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies,
of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, included in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data. Management believes that the following accounting
estimates are the most critical to aid in fully understanding
and evaluating our reported financial results, and require
managements most difficult, subjective or complex
judgments, resulting from the need to make estimates about the
effects of matters that are inherently uncertain. Management has
reviewed these critical accounting estimates and related
disclosures with the Audit Committee of our Board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Application of fresh start accounting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upon emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we applied
fresh start accounting to our consolidated financial
statements as required by
SOP 90-7.
As such, in July 2006, we adjusted stockholders equity to
equal the reorganization value of the entity at emergence.
Additionally, items such as accumulated depreciation,
accumulated deficit and accumulated other comprehensive income
(loss) were reset to zero. We allocated the reorganization value
to our individual assets and liabilities based on their
estimated fair value at the emergence date based, in part, on
information from a third party appraiser. Such items as current
liabilities, accounts receivable and cash reflected values
similar to those reported prior to emergence. Items such as
inventory, property, plant and equipment, long-term assets and
long-term liabilities were significantly adjusted from amounts
previously reported. Because fresh start accounting was adopted
at emergence and because of the significance of liabilities
subject to compromise that were relieved upon emergence,
meaningful comparisons between the historical financial
statements and the financial statements from and after emergence
are difficult to make.
|
|
We determine fair value using widely accepted valuation
techniques, including discounted cash flow and market multiple
analyses. These types of analyses contain uncertainties because
they require management to make assumptions and to apply
judgment to estimate industry economic factors and the
profitability of future business strategies.
|
|
Although we believe that the judgments and estimates discussed
herein are reasonable, if actual results are not consistent with
our estimates or assumptions, we may be exposed to an impairment
charge that could be significant.
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Our judgments and estimates with respect to commitments and
contingencies.
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation of legal and other contingent claims is subject to a
great deal of judgment and substantial uncertainty. Under United
States GAAP, companies are required to accrue for contingent
matters in their financial statements only if the amount of any
potential loss is both probable and the amount (or a
range) of possible loss is estimatable. In reaching
a determination of the probability of an adverse ruling in
respect of a matter, we typically consult outside experts.
However, any such judgments reached regarding probability are
subject to significant uncertainty. We may, in fact, obtain an
adverse ruling in a matter that we did not consider a
probable loss and which, therefore, was not accrued
for in our financial statements. Additionally, facts and
circumstances in respect of a matter can change causing key
assumptions that were used in previous assessments of a matter
to change. It is possible that amounts at risk in respect of one
matter may be traded off against amounts under
negotiations in a separate matter.
|
|
In estimating the amount of any loss, in many instances a single
estimation of the loss may not be possible. Rather, we may only
be able to estimate a range for possible losses. In such event,
United States GAAP requires that a liability be established for
at least the minimum end of the range assuming that there is no
other amount which is more likely to occur.
|
|
Although we believe that the judgments and estimates discussed
herein are reasonable, actual results could differ, and we may
be exposed to losses or gains that could be material if
different than those reflected in our accruals.
To
the extent we prevail in matters for which reserves have been
established or are required to pay amounts in excess of our
reserves, our future results from operations could be materially
affected.
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Our judgments and estimates in respect of our employee
defined benefit plans.
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2007 we had two defined benefit
postretirement medical plans (the postretirement medical plans
maintained by the VEBAs which we are required to reflect on our
financial statements) and a pension plan for our Canadian plant.
Liabilities and expenses for pension and other postretirement
benefits are determined using actuarial methodologies and
incorporate significant assumptions, including the rate used to
discount the future estimated liability, the long-term rate of
return on plan assets, and several assumptions relating to the
employee workforce (salary increases, medical costs, retirement
age, and mortality). The most significant assumptions used in
determining the estimated year-end obligations were the assumed
discount rate, long-term rate of return (LTRR) and
the assumptions regarding future medical cost increases (See
Note 10).
|
|
Since recorded obligations represent the present value of
expected pension and postretirement benefit payments over the
life of the plans, decreases in the discount rate (used to
compute the present value of the payments) would cause the
estimated obligations to increase. Conversely, an increase in
the discount rate would cause the estimated present value of the
obligations to decline. The LTRR on plan assets reflects an
assumption regarding what the amount of earnings would be on
existing plan assets (before considering any future
contributions to the plans). Increases in the assumed LTRR would
cause the projected value of plan assets available to satisfy
pension and postretirement obligations to increase, yielding a
reduced net expense in respect of these obligations. A reduction
in the LTRR would reduce the amount of projected net assets
available to satisfy pension and postretirement obligations and,
thus, cause the net expense in respect of these obligations to
increase. As the assumed rate of increase in medical costs goes
up, so does the net projected obligation. Conversely, if the
rate of increase was assumed to be smaller, the projected
obligation would decline.
|
|
The rate used to discount future estimated liabilities is
determined considering the rates available at year end on debt
instruments that could be used to settle the obligations of the
plan. A change in the discount rate of 1/4 of 1% would impact
the accumulated pension benefit obligations by approximately $.2
million, $1.3 million and $7.0 million in relation the Canadian
pension plan, the VEBA that provides benefits for eligible
salaried retirees and their surviving spouses and eligible
dependents (the Salaried VEBA) and the Union VEBA,
respectively, and have an immaterial impact to net income in
2008.
The long-term rate of return on plan assets is estimated by
considering historical returns and expected returns on current
and projected asset allocations. A change in the assumption for
the long-term rate of return on plan assets of 1/4 of 1% would
impact net income by approximately zero, $.2 million and
$.9 million in 2008 in relation to the Canadian pension
plan, the Salaried VEBA and the Union VEBA, respectively.
An increase in the health care trend rate of 1/4 of 1% would
increase the accumulated benefit obligations of the Union VEBA
by approximately $6.7 million and net income by $.6 million
in 2008 and a decrease in the health care trend rate of 1/4 of
1% would decrease accumulated benefit obligations of the Union
VEBA by approximately $7.0 million and net income by
$.5 million in 2008.
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Our judgments and estimates in respect to environmental
commitments and contingencies.
|
|
|
|
|
We are subject to a number of environmental laws and
regulations, to fines or penalties assessed for alleged breaches
of such laws and regulations and to claims and litigation based
upon such laws and regulations. Based on our evaluation of
environmental matters, we have established environmental
accruals, primarily related to potential solid waste disposal
and soil and groundwater remediation matters. These
environmental accruals represent our estimate of costs
reasonably expected to be incurred on a going concern basis in
the ordinary course of business based on presently enacted laws
and regulations, currently available facts, existing technology
and our assessment of the likely remediation action to be taken.
|
|
Making estimates of possible environmental remediation costs is
subject to inherent uncertainties. As additional facts are
developed and definitive remediation plans and necessary
regulatory approvals for implementation of remediation are
established or alternative technologies are developed, changes
in these and other factors may result in actual costs exceeding
the current environmental accruals.
|
|
Although we believe that the judgments and estimates discussed
herein are reasonable, actual results could differ, and we may
be exposed to losses or gains that could be material if
different than those reflected in our accruals.
To
the extent we prevail in matters for which reserves have been
established, or are required to pay amounts in excess of our
reserves, our future results from operations could be materially
affected.
|
See Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data for additional information in respect of
environmental contingencies.
|
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Our judgments and estimates in respect of conditional asset
retirement obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
We recognize conditional asset retirement obligations (CAROs)
related to legal obligations associated with the normal
operations of certain of our facilities. These CAROs consist
primarily of incremental costs that would be associated with the
removal and disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be
fully contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, ceilings
or piping) of certain of the older facilities if such facilities
were to undergo major renovation or be demolished. No plans
currently exist for any such renovation or demolition of such
facilities and the Companys current assessment is that the
most probable scenarios are that no such CARO would be triggered
for 20 or more years, if at all.
Under
current accounting guidelines, liabilities and costs for CAROs
must be recognized in a companys financial statements even
if it is unclear when or if the CARO will be triggered. If it is
unclear when or if a CARO will be triggered, companies are
required to use probability weighting for possible timing
scenarios to determine the probability weighted amounts that
should be recognized in the companys financial statements.
|
|
The estimation of CAROs is subject to a number of inherent
uncertainties including: (1) the timing of when any such CARO
may be incurred, (2) the ability to accurately identify all
materials that may require special handling or treatment, (3)
the ability to reasonably estimate the total incremental special
handling and other costs, (4) the ability to assess the relative
probability of different scenarios which could give rise to a
CARO, and (5) other factors outside a companys control
including changes in regulations, costs and interest rates. As
such, actual costs and the timing of such costs may vary
significantly from the estimates, judgments and probable
scenarios we considered, which could, in turn, have a material
impact on our future financial statements.
|
|
Although we believe that the judgments and estimates discussed
herein are reasonable, actual results could differ, and we may
be exposed to losses or gains that could be material if
different than those reflected in our accruals.
|
See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data for additional information in respect of
environmental contingencies.
|
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Long Lived Assets
|
|
|
|
|
Long-lived assets other than goodwill and indefinite-lived
intangible assets, which are separately tested for impairment,
are evaluated for impairment whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be
recoverable. When evaluating long-lived assets for potential
impairment, we first compare the carrying value of the asset to
the assets estimated future cash flows (undiscounted and
without interest charges). If the estimated future cash flows
are less than the carrying value of the asset, we calculate an
impairment loss. The impairment loss calculation compares the
fair value, which may be based on estimated future cash flows
(discounted and with interest charges). We recognize an
impairment loss if the amount of the assets carrying value
exceeds the assets estimated fair value. If we recognize an
impairment loss, the adjusted carrying amount of the asset
becomes its new cost basis. For a depreciable long-lived asset,
the new cost basis will be depreciated (amortized) over the
remaining useful life of that asset.
|
|
Our impairment loss calculations would contain uncertainties
because they require management to make assumptions and apply
judgment to estimate future cash flows and asset fair values,
including forecasting useful lives of the assets and selecting
the discount rate that reflects the risk inherent in future cash
flows.
|
|
We have not made any material changes in our impairment loss
assessment methodology during the past three fiscal years.
We do
not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be
a material change in the estimates or assumptions we use to
calculate long-lived asset impairment losses. However, if actual
results are not consistent with our estimates and assumptions
used in estimating future cash flows and asset fair values, we
may be exposed to losses from impairment charges that could be
material.
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Income Tax Provision.
|
|
|
|
|
We have substantial tax attributes available to offset the
impact of future income taxes. We have a process for determining
the need for a valuation allowance with respect to these
attributes. The process includes an extensive review of both
positive and negative evidence including our earnings history,
future earnings, adverse recent occurrences, carry forward
periods, an assessment of the industry and the impact of the
timing differences. At the conclusion of this process in 2007,
we determined we met the more likely than not
criteria to recognize the vast majority of our tax attributes.
The benefit associated with the reduction of the valuation
allowance, previously recorded against these tax attributes, was
recorded as an adjustment to Stockholders equity rather
than as a reduction of income tax expense. We expect to record a
full statutory tax provision in future periods and, therefore,
the benefit of any tax attributes realized will only affect
future balances sheets and statements of cash flows.
In
accordance with United States GAAP, financial statements for
interim periods include an income tax provision based on the
effective tax rate expected to be incurred in the current year.
|
|
Inherent within the completion of our assessment of the need for
a valuation allowance, we made significant judgments and
estimates with respect to future operating results, timing of
the reversal of deferred tax assets and our assessment of
current market and industry factors. In order to determine the
effective tax rate to apply to interim periods estimates and
judgments are made (by taxable jurisdiction) as to the amount of
taxable income that may be generated, the availability of
deductions and credits expected and the availability of net
operating loss carry forwards or other tax attributes to offset
taxable income.
Making such estimates and judgments is subject to inherent
uncertainties given the difficulty predicting such factors as
future market conditions, customer requirements, the cost for
key inputs such as energy and primary aluminum, overall
operating efficiency and many other items. However, if among
other things, (1) actual results vary from our forecasts due to
one or more of the factors cited above or elsewhere in this
Report, (2) income is distributed differently than expected
among tax jurisdictions, (3) one or more material events or
transactions occur which were not contemplated, (4) other
uncontemplated transactions occur, or (5) certain expected
deductions, credits or carry forwards are not be available, it
is possible that the effective tax rate for a year could vary
materially from the assessments used to prepare the interim
consolidated financial statements. See Note 9 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data for
additional discussion of these matters.
|
|
Although we believe that the judgments and estimates discussed
herein are reasonable, actual results could differ, and we may
be exposed to losses or gains that could be material.
A
change in our effective tax rate by 1% would have had an impact
of approximately $1.8 to net income for the year ended December
31, 2007.
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Effect if Actual Results
|
Description
|
|
Judgments and Uncertainties
|
|
Differ From Assumptions
|
|
Tax Contingencies.
|
|
|
|
|
We adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an Interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109 (FIN 48) at emergence. The adoption of
FIN 48 did not have a material impact on our financial
statements.
In
accordance with FIN 48, we use a more likely than
not threshold for recognition of tax attributes that are
subject to uncertainties and measure reserves in respect of such
expected benefits based on their probability as prescribed by
FIN 48. A number of years may elapse before a particular
matter, for which we have established a reserve, is audited and
fully resolved or clarified. We adjust our FIN 48 reserve
and income tax provision in the period in which actual results
of a settlement with tax authorities differs from our
established reserve, the statute of limitations expires for the
relevant tax authority to examine the tax position or when more
information becomes available.
|
|
Our FIN 48 reserve contains uncertainties because management is
required to make assumptions and to apply judgment to estimate
the exposures associated with our various filing positions.
Our
effective income tax rate is also affected by changes in tax
law, the tax jurisdiction of new plants or business ventures,
the level of earnings and the results of tax audits.
|
|
Although management believes that the judgments and estimates
discussed herein are reasonable, actual results could differ,
and we may be exposed to losses or gains that could be
material.
To
the extent we prevail in matters for which reserves have been
established, or are required to pay amounts in excess of our
reserves, our effective income tax rate in a given financial
statement period could be materially affected. An unfavorable
tax settlement could require use of our cash and would result in
an increase in our effective income tax rate in the period of
resolution. A favorable tax settlement would be recognized as a
reduction in our effective income tax rate in the period of
resolution.
A
change in our effective tax rate by 1% would have had an impact
of approximately $1.8 to net income for the year ended December
31, 2007.
|
Predecessor:
Our critical accounting policies after emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy will, in some cases, be different
from those before emergence. Many of the significant judgments
affecting our financial statements relate to matters related to
chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings or liabilities that were
resolved pursuant to our Plan. Where critical accounting
policies before emergence were the same as current policies
and/or no
unique circumstances existed, the policies are not repeated
below.
1. Predecessor Reporting While in Reorganization.
Our consolidated financial statements as of and for dates and
periods prior to July 1, 2006, were prepared on a
going concern basis in accordance with
SOP 90-7
and did not include the impacts of our Plan including
adjustments relating to recorded asset amounts, the resolution
of liabilities subject to compromise and the cancellation of the
interests of our pre-emergence stockholders. Adjustments related
to our Plan materially affected the consolidated financial
statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data as more fully shown in the opening
July 1, 2006 balance sheet presented in Note 2 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data.
In addition, during the course of the chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings, there were material impacts including:
|
|
|
|
|
Additional filing date claims were identified through the proof
of claim reconciliation process and arose in connection with
actions taken by us in the chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings. For example, while we considered rejection of the
Bonneville Power Administration, or BPA, contract to be in our
best long-term interests, the rejection resulted in an
approximate $75 million claim by the BPA. In the second
quarter of 2006, an agreement with the BPA was approved by the
Bankruptcy Court under which the claim was settled for a
pre-petition claim of $6.1 million.
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of pre-filing date claims ultimately allowed by the
Bankruptcy Court in respect of contingent claims and benefit
obligations was materially different from the amounts reflected
in our consolidated financial statements.
|
|
|
|
As more fully discussed below, changes in business plans
precipitated by the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings
resulted in significant charges associated with the disposition
of assets.
|
2. Our judgments and estimates with respect to commitments
and contingencies.
Valuation of legal and other contingent claims is subject to
judgment and substantial uncertainty. Under United States GAAP,
companies are required to accrue for contingent matters in their
financial statements only if the amount of any potential loss is
both probable and the amount or range of possible
loss is estimatable. In reaching a determination of
the probability of adverse rulings, we typically consult outside
experts. However, any judgments reached regarding probability
are subject to significant uncertainty. We may, in fact, obtain
an adverse ruling in a matter that it did not consider a
probable loss and which was not accrued for in our
financial statements. Additionally, facts and circumstances
causing key assumptions that were used in previous assessments
are subject to change. It is possible that amounts at risk in
one matter may be traded off against amounts under
negotiation in a separate matter. Further, in many instances a
single estimation of a loss may not be possible. Rather, we may
only be able to estimate a range for possible losses. In such
event, United States GAAP requires that a liability be
established for at least the minimum end of the range assuming
that there is no other amount which is more likely to occur.
Prior to our emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy, we had
two potentially material contingent obligations that were
subject to significant uncertainty and variability in their
outcome: (1) the USW unfair labor practice claim and
(2) the net obligation in respect of personal
injury-related matters.
As more fully discussed in Note 24 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, we accrued an amount in
the fourth quarter of 2004 for the USW unfair labor practice
matter. We did not accrue any amount prior to the fourth quarter
of 2004 because we did not consider the loss to be
probable. Our assessment had been that the possible
range of loss in this matter ranged from zero to
$250 million based on the proof of claims filed (and other
information provided) by the National Labor Relations Board, or
NLRB, and the USW in connection with our chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings. While we continued to believe that the
unfair labor practice charges were without merit, during January
2004, we agreed to allow a claim in favor of the USW in the
amount of the $175 million as a compromise and in return
for the USW agreeing to substantially reduce or eliminate
certain benefit payments as more fully discussed in Note 24
of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data. However, this settlement was not recorded at that
time because it was still subject to Bankruptcy Court approval.
The settlement was ultimately approved by the Bankruptcy Court
in February 2005 and, as a result of the contingency being
removed with respect to this item (which arose prior to the
December 31, 2004 balance sheet date), a non-cash charge of
$175 million was reflected in our consolidated financial
statements at December 31, 2004.
Also, as more fully discussed in Note 24 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, we were
one of many defendants in personal injury claims by a large
number of persons who assert that their injuries were caused by,
among other things, exposure to asbestos during, or as a result
of, their exposure to products containing asbestos last produced
or sold by us more than 20 years ago. We have also
previously disclosed that certain other personal injury claims
had been filed in respect of alleged pre-filing date exposure to
silica and coal tar pitch volatiles. Due to the chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, existing lawsuits in respect of all such
personal injury claims were stayed and new lawsuits could not be
commenced against us. Our June 30, 2006 financial
statements included a liability for estimated asbestos-related
costs of $1,115 million, which represented our estimate of
the minimum end of a range of costs. The upper end of our
estimate of costs was approximately $2,400 million and we
were aware that certain constituents had asserted that they
believed that actual costs could exceed the top end of our
estimated range, by a potentially material amount. No estimation
of our liabilities in respect of such matters occurred as a part
of our Plan. However, given that our Plan was implemented in
July 2006, all such obligations in respect of these personal
injury claims have been resolved and will not have a continuing
effect on our financial condition after emergence.
58
Our June 30, 2006 financial statements included a long-term
receivable of $963.3 million for estimated insurance
recoveries in respect of personal injury claims. We believed
that, prior to the implementation of our Plan, recovery of this
amount was probable (if our Plan was not approved) and
additional amounts were recoverable in the future if additional
liability was ultimately determined to exist. However, we could
not provide assurance that all such amounts would be collected.
However, as our Plan was implemented in July 2006, the rights to
the proceeds from these policies have been transferred (along
with the applicable liabilities) to certain personal injury
trusts set up as a part of our Plan and we have no continuing
interests in such policies.
3. Our judgments and estimates related to employee benefit
plans.
Pension and postretirement medical obligations included in the
consolidated financial statements at June 30, 2006 and at
prior dates were based on assumptions that were subject to
variation from year to year. Such variations can cause our
estimate of such obligations to vary significantly.
Restructuring actions relating to our exit from most of our
commodities businesses also had a significant impact on the
amount of these obligations.
For pension obligations, the most significant assumptions used
in determining the estimated year-end obligation were the
assumed discount rate and LTRR on pension assets. Since recorded
pension obligations represent the present value of expected
pension payments over the life of the plans, decreases in the
discount rate used to compute the present value of the payments
cause the estimated obligations to increase. Conversely, an
increase in the discount rate would cause the estimated present
value of the obligations to decline. The LTRR on pension assets
reflected our assumption regarding what the amount of earnings
would be on existing plan assets before considering any future
contributions to the plans. Increases in the assumed LTRR would
cause the projected value of plan assets available to satisfy
pension obligations to increase, yielding a reduced net pension
obligation. A reduction in the LTRR would reduce the amount of
projected net assets available to satisfy pension obligations
and, thus, cause the net pension obligation to increase.
For postretirement obligations, the key assumptions used to
estimate the year-end obligations were the discount rate and the
assumptions regarding future medical costs increases. The
discount rate affected the postretirement obligations in a
similar fashion to that described above for pension obligations.
As the assumed rate of increase in medical costs went up, so did
the net projected obligation. Conversely, as the rate of
increase was assumed to be smaller, the projected obligation
declined.
Since our largest pension plans and the post-retirement medical
plans were terminated in 2003 and 2004, the amount of
variability in respect of such plans was substantially reduced.
However, there were five remaining defined benefit pension plans
that were still ongoing pending the resolution of certain
litigation with the PBGC. We prevailed in the litigation against
the PBGC in August 2006 upholding earlier decisions, and four of
these remaining plans were terminated in December 2006 pursuant
to an agreement reached with PBGC.
Given that all of our significant benefit plans after the
emergence date are defined contribution plans or have limits on
the amounts to be paid, our future financial statements will not
be subject to the same volatility as our financial statements
prior to emergence and the termination of the plans.
4. Our judgments and estimates related to environmental
commitments and contingencies.
We are subject to a number of environmental laws and
regulations, to fines or penalties that may be assessed for
alleged breaches of such laws and regulations, and to
clean-up
obligations and other claims and litigation based upon such laws
and regulations. We have in the past been and may in the future
be subject to a number of claims under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of
1986, or CERCLA.
Based on our evaluation of these and other environmental
matters, we have established environmental accruals, primarily
related to investigations and potential remediation of the soil,
groundwater and equipment at our current operating facilities
that may have been adversely impacted by hazardous materials,
including PCBs. These environmental accruals represent our
estimate of costs reasonably expected to be incurred on a going
concern basis in the ordinary course of business based on
presently enacted laws and regulations, currently available
facts, existing technology and our assessment of the likely
remedial action to be taken. However, making estimates of
possible environmental costs is subject to inherent
uncertainties. As additional facts are developed and definitive
remediation plans and necessary regulatory approvals for
implementation of remediation are established or alternative
technologies are developed, actual costs may exceed the current
environmental accruals.
59
New
Accounting Pronouncements
The section New Accounting Pronouncements from
Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data is incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Our operating results are sensitive to changes in the prices of
alumina, primary aluminum and fabricated aluminum products, and
also depend to a significant degree upon the volume and mix of
all products sold. As discussed more fully in Note 13 of
Notes to Interim Consolidated Financial Statements, we
historically have utilized hedging transactions to lock-in a
specified price or range of prices for certain products which we
sell or consume in our production process and to mitigate our
exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.
Sensitivity
Primary Aluminum. Our share of primary
aluminum production from Anglesey is approximately
150 million pounds annually. Because we purchase alumina
for Anglesey at prices linked to primary aluminum prices, only a
portion of our net revenues associated with Anglesey is exposed
to price risk. We estimate the net portion of our share of
Anglesey production exposed to primary aluminum price risk to be
approximately 100 million pounds annually (before
considering income tax effects).
Our pricing of fabricated aluminum products is generally
intended to lock-in a conversion margin (representing the value
added from the fabrication process(es)) and to pass metal price
risk on to customers. However, in certain instances, we do enter
into firm price arrangements. In such instances, we do have
price risk on anticipated primary aluminum purchases in respect
of the customer orders. Total fabricated products shipments
during 2007, the period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006, the period from July 1, 2006 to
December 31, 2006 and 2005 for which we had price risk were
(in millions of pounds) 239.1, 103.9, 96.0 and 155.0,
respectively.
During the last three years, the volume of fabricated products
shipments with underlying primary aluminum price risk was at
least as much as our net exposure to primary aluminum price risk
at Anglesey. As such, we consider our access to Anglesey
production overall to be a natural hedge against
fabricated products firm metal-price risks. However, since the
volume of fabricated products shipped under firm prices may not
match up on a
month-to-month
basis with expected Anglesey-related primary aluminum shipments
and to the extent that firm price contracts from our Fabricated
Products business unit exceed the Anglesey related primary
aluminum shipments, we may use third party hedging instruments
to eliminate any net remaining primary aluminum price exposure
existing at any time.
At December 31, 2007, the Fabricated Products segment held
contracts for the delivery of fabricated aluminum products that
have the effect of creating price risk on anticipated primary
aluminum purchases for the period 2008 through 2012 totaling
approximately (in millions of pounds): 2008 161;
2009 89; 2010 86; 2011 77
and 2012 8.
Foreign Currency. We from time to time will
enter into forward exchange contracts to hedge material
exposures for foreign currencies. Our primary foreign exchange
exposure is the Anglesey-related commitment that we fund in
Pound Sterling. We estimate that, before consideration of any
hedging activities, a US $0.01 increase (decrease) in the value
of the Pound Sterling results in an approximate $.4 million
(decrease) increase in our annual pre-tax operating income.
From time to time in the ordinary course of business, we enter
into hedging transactions for Pound Sterling. As of
December 31, 2007, we had forward purchase agreements for a
total of 4.2 million Pound Sterling for the months of
November and December 2008.
Energy. We are exposed to energy price risk
from fluctuating prices for natural gas. We estimate that,
before consideration of any hedging activities, each $1.00
change in natural gas prices (per mmbtu) impacts our annual
pre-tax operating results by approximately $4.0 million.
We from time to time in the ordinary course of business enter
into hedging transactions with major suppliers of energy and
energy-related financial investments. As of December 31,
2007, our exposure to increases in natural gas prices had been
substantially limited for approximately 87% of natural gas
purchases for January 2008 through March 2008, approximately 13%
of natural gas purchases for April 2008 through June 2008 and
approximately 1% of natural gas purchases for July 2008 through
September 2008.
60
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
120
|
|
61
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
Managements
Report on the Financial Statements
Our management is responsible for the preparation, integrity and
objectivity of the accompanying consolidated financial
statements and the related financial information. The financial
statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America
and necessarily include certain amounts that are based on
estimates and informed judgments. Our management also prepared
the related financial information included in this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
and is responsible for its accuracy and consistency with the
financial statements.
The consolidated financial statements have been audited by
Deloitte & Touche LLP for the years ended
December 31, 2007, the period from July 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006, the period from January 1,
2006 to July 1, 2006 and 2005, an independent registered
public accounting firm who conducted their audits in accordance
with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). The independent registered public
accounting firms responsibility is to express an opinion
as to the fairness with which such financial statements present
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in
Rule 13a-15(f)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Our internal control
over financial reporting is designed under the supervision of
our principal executive officer and principal 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
and include those policies and procedures that:
(1) Pertain to the maintenance of records that in
reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect our transactions
and the dispositions of our assets;
(2) Provide reasonable assurance that our transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States, and that our receipts and
expenditures are being made only in accordance with
authorizations of our management and Board of Directors; and
(3) 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.
Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can
provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial
statement preparation and presentation.
62
Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our principal executive officer and
principal financial officer, we assessed the effectiveness of
our internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, using the criteria set forth by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO) in Internal Control Integrated
Framework. Based on its assessment, management has concluded
that our internal control over financial reporting was effective
as of December 31, 2007. Based on managements
assessment and those criteria, management believes that we
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2007. Deloitte & Touche LLP, the
independent registered public accounting firm that audited our
consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2007, included in Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, of this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K,
has issued an audit report on the effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting.
|
|
|
/s/ Jack
A. Hockema
|
|
/s/ Joseph
P. Bellino
|
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
63
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
Foothill Ranch, California
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiaries (the
Company) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006
(Successor Company balance sheets), and the related consolidated
statements of income (loss), stockholders equity (deficit)
and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year
ended December 31, 2007 (Successor Company operations), the
period from July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006
(Successor Company operations), the period from January 1,
2006 to July 1, 2006 (Predecessor Company operations) and
for the year ended December 31, 2005 (Predecessor Company
operations). These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on the financial statements 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.
As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, the Company emerged from bankruptcy on July 6,
2006. In connection with its emergence, the Company adopted
fresh-start reporting pursuant to American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants Statement of Position
90-7,
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under the
Bankruptcy Code, as of July 1, 2006. As a result, the
consolidated financial statements of the Successor Company are
presented on a different basis than those of the Predecessor
Company and, therefore, are not comparable.
In our opinion, the Successor Company consolidated financial
statements referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of the Company as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 2007 and period from July 1, 2006 to
December 31, 2006, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. Further, in
our opinion, the Predecessor Company consolidated financial
statements referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, and the results of its operations and its cash flows
for the period from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006
and for the year ended December 31, 2005, in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
Companys internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission and our report dated February 25, 2008 expressed an
unqualified opinion on the Companys internal control over
financial reporting.
/s/ DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
February 25, 2008
64
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
Foothill Ranch, California
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and subsidiaries (the
Company) as of December 31, 2007, based on
criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Companys
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 the accompanying 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 by, or under the supervision of, the
companys principal executive and principal financial
officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected
by the companys 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
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 the inherent limitations of internal control over
financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or
improper management override of controls, material misstatements
due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a
timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting
to future periods are subject to the risk that the 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, the Company maintained, in all material
respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2007, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007, of the Company, and our report dated
February 25, 2008, expressed an unqualified opinion on those
financial statements.
/s/ DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
February 25, 2008
65
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In millions of dollars, except share amounts)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
68.7
|
|
|
$
|
50.0
|
|
Receivables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful receivables of $1.4 and $2.0
|
|
|
96.5
|
|
|
|
98.4
|
|
Due from affiliate
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
207.6
|
|
|
|
188.1
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
|
|
40.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
454.6
|
|
|
|
384.9
|
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
222.7
|
|
|
|
170.3
|
|
Net assets in respect of VEBAs
|
|
|
134.9
|
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
Deferred tax assets net
|
|
|
268.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
43.1
|
|
|
|
40.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,165.2
|
|
|
$
|
655.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
70.1
|
|
|
$
|
73.2
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages, and related expenses
|
|
|
40.1
|
|
|
|
39.4
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
36.6
|
|
|
|
47.6
|
|
Payable to affiliate
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
165.4
|
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
222.4
|
|
|
|
284.7
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $.01, 45,000,000 shares authorized;
20,580,815 shares issued and outstanding at
December 31, 2007; 20,525,660 shares issued and
outstanding at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
948.9
|
|
|
|
487.5
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
116.1
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
Common stock owned by Union VEBA subject to transfer
restrictions, at reorganization value, 4,845,465 shares at
December 31, 2007 and 6,291,945 shares at
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
(116.4
|
)
|
|
|
(151.1
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
(6.0
|
)
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
942.8
|
|
|
|
370.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,165.2
|
|
|
$
|
655.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are
an integral part of these statements.
66
72KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
STATEMENTS
OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1,
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006 to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions of dollars, except share and per share
amounts)
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,504.5
|
|
|
$
|
667.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
689.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,089.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold excluding depreciation
|
|
|
1,251.1
|
|
|
|
580.4
|
|
|
|
|
596.4
|
|
|
|
951.1
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
73.1
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
|
30.3
|
|
|
|
50.9
|
|
Other operating (benefits) charges, net
|
|
|
(13.6
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
1,322.5
|
|
|
|
619.2
|
|
|
|
|
637.4
|
|
|
|
1,029.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
182.0
|
|
|
|
48.3
|
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
59.8
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded contractual interest
expense of $47.4 for the period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006 and $95.0 in 2005)
|
|
|
(4.3
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
(5.2
|
)
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,090.3
|
|
|
|
(1,162.1
|
)
|
Other income (expense) net
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
(2.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and discontinued operations
|
|
|
182.4
|
|
|
|
49.9
|
|
|
|
|
3,143.1
|
|
|
|
(1,109.9
|
)
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(81.4
|
)
|
|
|
(23.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
(6.2
|
)
|
|
|
(2.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
101.0
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
|
3,136.9
|
|
|
|
(1,112.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes,
including minority interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
Gain from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
101.0
|
|
|
$
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,141.2
|
|
|
$
|
(753.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
$
|
39.37
|
|
|
$
|
(13.97
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
.05
|
|
|
$
|
4.57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(.06
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
$
|
39.42
|
|
|
$
|
(9.46
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Diluted (same as Basic for
Predecessor):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (000):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
20,014
|
|
|
|
20,003
|
|
|
|
|
79,672
|
|
|
|
79,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
20,308
|
|
|
|
20,089
|
|
|
|
|
79,672
|
|
|
|
79,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are
an integral part of these statements.
67
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
STATEMENTS
OF CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY AND
COMPREHENSIVE
INCOME (LOSS) Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VEBA
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Subject to
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Transfer
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
(Deficit)
|
|
|
Restriction
|
|
|
(Loss)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In millions of dollars)
|
|
|
BALANCE, December 31, 2004
|
|
$
|
.8
|
|
|
$
|
538.0
|
|
|
$
|
(2,917.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(5.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,384.2
|
)
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(753.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(753.7
|
)
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.2
|
)
|
|
|
(3.2
|
)
|
Unrealized net decrease in value of derivative instruments
arising during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment for net realized losses on
derivative instruments included in net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(757.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, December 31, 2005
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
538.0
|
|
|
|
(3,671.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)
|
|
|
(3,141.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (same as Comprehensive income)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, June 30, 2006
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
538.0
|
|
|
|
(3,635.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)
|
|
|
(3,105.3
|
)
|
Cancellation of Predecessor common stock
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of Successor common stock (20,000,000 shares) to
creditors
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
480.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
480.4
|
|
Common stock owned by Union VEBA subject to transfer
restrictions, at reorganization value, 6,291,945 shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1
|
)
|
Plan and fresh start adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(538.8
|
)
|
|
|
3,635.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
3,105.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, July 1, 2006
|
|
$
|
.2
|
|
|
$
|
480.2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(151.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
329.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are
an integral part of these statements.
68
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
STATEMENTS
OF CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY AND
COMPREHENSIVE
INCOME Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VEBA
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject to
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Transfer
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Restriction
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In millions of dollars, except for shares)
|
|
|
BALANCE, July 1, 2006
|
|
|
20,000,000
|
|
|
$
|
.2
|
|
|
$
|
480.2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(151.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
329.3
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
Benefit plan adjustments not recognized in earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34.1
|
|
Issuance of common stock to directors in lieu of annual retainer
fees
|
|
|
4,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
Recognition of pre-emergence tax benefits in accordance with
fresh start accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Issuance of restricted stock to employees and directors
|
|
|
521,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of unearned equity compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, December 31, 2006
|
|
|
20,525,660
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
487.5
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
(151.1
|
)
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
370.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101.0
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.7
|
)
|
|
|
(3.7
|
)
|
Benefit plan adjustments not recognized in earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87.1
|
|
Removal of transfer restrictions on 1,446,480 shares of
common stock owned by Union VEBA, net of income taxes of $9.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82.9
|
|
Recognition of pre-emergence tax benefits in accordance with
fresh start accounting (including release of valuation allowance
of $343.0 and current year tax benefits of $14.1 and $62.2 for
the quarter and year ended December 31, 2007, respectively)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404.5
|
|
Equity compensation recognized by an unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
Cancellation of common stock held by employees on vesting of
restricted stock
|
|
|
(8,346
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.7
|
)
|
Issuance of common stock to directors in lieu of annual retainer
fees
|
|
|
3,877
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
Issuance of restricted stock to employees and directors
|
|
|
61,662
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock to employees upon vesting of restricted
stock units
|
|
|
1,232
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancellation of restricted stock upon forfeiture
|
|
|
(3,270
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends on common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.1
|
)
|
Amortization of unearned equity compensation (including unearned
equity compensation of $2.3 for the quarter ended
December 31, 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,580,815
|
|
|
$
|
.2
|
|
|
$
|
948.9
|
|
|
$
|
116.1
|
|
|
$
|
(116.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
942.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are
an integral part of these statements.
69
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
STATEMENTS
OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
January 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions of dollars)
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
101.0
|
|
|
$
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,141.2
|
|
|
$
|
(753.7
|
)
|
Less net income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) from continuing operations, including loss
from cumulative effect of adopting change in accounting in 2005
|
|
|
101.0
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
|
3,136.9
|
|
|
|
(1,117.4
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income(loss) from continuing
operations to net cash used by continuing operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognition of pre-emergence tax benefits in accordance with
fresh start accounting
|
|
|
62.2
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash charges in reorganization items in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,131.5
|
|
Depreciation and amortization (including deferred financing
costs of $2.1, $.3, $.9 and $4.4 , respectively)
|
|
|
14.0
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
24.3
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
(.7
|
)
|
|
|
(.4
|
)
|
Non-cash equity compensation
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on discharge of pre-petition obligations and fresh start
adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,110.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Payments pursuant to plan of reorganization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Net non-cash (benefit) charges in other operating (benefits)
charges, net and LIFO charges (benefits)
|
|
|
(18.9
|
)
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
21.7
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
(Gains)/losses on sale and disposition of property, plant and
equipment
|
|
|
.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
(.2
|
)
|
Equity in (income) loss of unconsolidated affiliates, net of
distributions
|
|
|
(22.4
|
)
|
|
|
(7.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
(10.1
|
)
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
Decrease (increase) in trade and other receivables
|
|
|
(6.3
|
)
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
|
|
|
(18.3
|
)
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
Increase in inventories, excluding LIFO adjustments and other
non-cash operating items
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)
|
|
|
(19.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
(29.5
|
)
|
|
|
(18.7
|
)
|
Decrease (increase) in prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
33.8
|
|
|
|
(7.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
(14.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
(Decrease) increase in accounts payable
|
|
|
(6.2
|
)
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
(Decrease) increase in other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(14.8
|
)
|
|
|
(12.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
(14.9
|
)
|
(Decrease) increase in payable to affiliates
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
(16.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
.1
|
|
(Decrease) increase in accrued income taxes
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
(3.9
|
)
|
Net cash impact of changes in long-term assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
(25.0
|
)
|
Benefit plan adjustments not recognized in earnings
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
17.9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used) provided by operating activities
|
|
|
129.6
|
|
|
|
18.8
|
|
|
|
|
(11.7
|
)
|
|
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures, net of accounts payable of $3.1, $5.8,
$1.6 and $0, respectively
|
|
|
(61.8
|
)
|
|
|
(30.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
(28.1
|
)
|
|
|
(31.0
|
)
|
Net proceeds from dispositions: real estate in 2006 and 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
Decrease in restricted cash
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by discontinued operations; primarily proceeds
from sale of commodity interests in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
401.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used) provided by investing activities
|
|
|
(52.6
|
)
|
|
|
(30.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
(27.1
|
)
|
|
|
371.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings under Term Loan Facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing costs
|
|
|
(.2
|
)
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
(.2
|
)
|
|
|
(3.7
|
)
|
Cash dividend paid to shareholders
|
|
|
(7.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retirement of common stock
|
|
|
(.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of debt
|
|
|
(50.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
Decrease (increase) in restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)
|
Net cash used by discontinued operations: primarily increase in
restricted cash in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(387.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used) provided by financing activities
|
|
|
(58.3
|
)
|
|
|
49.2
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
(394.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents during the
period
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
|
|
38.0
|
|
|
|
|
(37.5
|
)
|
|
|
(5.9
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
|
49 .5
|
|
|
|
55.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$
|
68.7
|
|
|
$
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
12.0
|
|
|
$
|
49.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements are
an integral part of these statements.
70
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
(In
millions of dollars, except share amounts)
The accompanying financial statements include the financial
statements of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (the
Company) both before and after emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy. Financial information related to the
Company after emergence is generally referred to throughout this
Report as Successor information. Information of the
Company before emergence is generally referred to as
Predecessor information. The financial information
of the Successor entity is not comparable to that of the
Predecessor given the impacts of the Plan, implementation of
fresh start reporting and other factors as more fully described
below.
The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are grouped
into two categories: (1) those primarily affecting the
Successor entity (Notes 1 through 17) and
(2) those primarily affecting the Predecessor entity
(Notes 18 through 24).
SUCCESSOR
|
|
1.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Principles of Consolidation and Basis of
Presentation. The consolidated financial
statements include the statements of the Company and its wholly
owned subsidiaries. Investments in 50%-or-less-owned entities
are accounted for primarily by the equity method. The only such
affiliate for the periods covered by this report was Anglesey
Aluminium Limited (Anglesey). Intercompany balances
and transactions are eliminated.
The Companys emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy and
adoption of fresh start accounting resulted in a new reporting
entity for accounting purposes. Although the Company emerged
from chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2006 (the
Effective Date), the Company adopted fresh
start accounting as required by the American Institute of
Certified Professional Accountants Statement of Position
90-7
(SOP 90-7),
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code, effective as of the beginning of business
on July 1, 2006. As such, it was assumed that the emergence
was completed instantaneously at the beginning of business on
July 1, 2006 such that all operating activities during the
period from July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 are
reported as applying to the Successor. The Company believes that
this is a reasonable presentation as there were no material
transactions between July 1, 2006 and July 6, 2006
that were not related to Kaisers Second Amended Plan of
Reorganization (the Plan). Due to the implementation
of the Plan, the application of fresh start accounting and
changes in accounting policies and procedures, the financial
statements of the Successor are not comparable to those of the
Predecessor.
The Predecessor Statement of Consolidated Cash Flows for the
period January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 includes
Plan-related payments of $25.3 made between July 1, 2006
and July 6, 2006.
Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial
Statements. The preparation of financial
statements in accordance with United States Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) requires the use of
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities known to exist as of the date the financial
statements are published, and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the reporting period. Uncertainties, with
respect to such estimates and assumptions, are inherent in the
preparation of the Companys consolidated financial
statements; accordingly, it is possible that the actual results
could differ from these estimates and assumptions, which could
have a material effect on the reported amounts of the
Companys consolidated financial position and results of
operation.
Recognition of Sales. Sales are recognized
when title, ownership and risk of loss pass to the buyer and
collectibility is reasonably assured. A provision for estimated
sales returns from and allowances to customers is made in the
same period as the related revenues are recognized, based on
historical experience or the specific identification of an event
necessitating a reserve.
Earnings per Share. Basic earnings per share
is computed by dividing earnings by the weighted average number
of common shares outstanding during the applicable period. The
shares owned by a voluntary employee beneficiary association
(VEBA) for the benefit of certain union retirees,
their surviving spouses and eligible dependents (the Union
VEBA) that are subject to transfer restrictions, while
treated in the Consolidated Balance
71
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Sheets as being similar to treasury stock (i.e., as a reduction
in Stockholders equity), are included in the computation
of basic shares outstanding in the Statement of Consolidated
Income because such shares were irrevocably issued and have full
dividend and voting rights.
Diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing earnings by
the sum of (a) the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during the period and (b) the dilutive effect
of potential common share equivalents consisting of non-vested
common shares, restricted stock units and stock options (see
Note 15).
Stock-Based Employee Compensation. The Company
accounts for stock-based employee compensation plans at fair
value. The Company measures the cost of employee services
received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on
the grant-date fair value of the award and the number of awards
expected to ultimately vest. The cost of the award is recognized
as an expense over the period that the employee provides service
for the award. The Company has elected to amortize compensation
expense for equity awards with grading vesting using the
straight line method. During the year ended December 31,
2007 and period from July 1, 2006 through December 31,
2006, $9.1 million and $4.0 of compensation cost,
respectively, was recognized in connection with vested and
non-vested stock and restricted stock units issued to executive
officers, other key employees and directors (see Note 11).
Other Income (Expense), net. Amounts included
in Other income (expense), other than interest expense and
reorganization items in 2007, 2006 and 2005, included the
following pre-tax gains (losses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
January 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
to July 1,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Interest income(a)
|
|
$
|
5.3
|
|
|
$
|
2.0
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
All other, net
|
|
|
(.6
|
)
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
(2.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.7
|
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
(2.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
In accordance with S0P
90-7,
interest income during the pendency of the chapter 11
reorganization proceedings was treated as a reduction of
reorganization expense. |
Income Taxes. Deferred income taxes reflect
the future tax effect of temporary differences between the
carrying amount of assets and liabilities for financial and
income tax reporting and are measured by applying statutory tax
rates in effect for the year during which the differences are
expected to reverse. Deferred tax assets are reduced by a
valuation allowance to the extent it is more likely than not
that the deferred tax assets will not be realized.
Although the Company had approximately $981 of tax attributes,
including the net operating loss (NOL)
carryforwards, available at December 31, 2006 to offset the
impact of future income taxes, the Company did not meet the
more likely than not criteria for recognition of
such attributes at December 31, 2006 primarily because the
Company did not have sufficient history of paying taxes. As
such, the Company recorded a full valuation allowance against
the amount of tax attributes available and no deferred tax asset
was recognized. The benefit associated with any reduction of the
valuation allowance was first utilized to reduce intangible
assets with any excess being recorded as an adjustment to
Stockholders equity rather than as a reduction of income
tax expense. During the fourth quarter of 2007, after the
completion of a robust analysis of expected future taxable
income and other factors, the Company concluded that it had met
the more likely than not criteria for recognition of
its deferred tax assets and as a result released the vast
majority of the valuation allowance as of December 31,
2007. In accordance with fresh start accounting, the release of
the valuation allowance was recorded as an adjustment to
Stockholders equity rather than through the income
statement (see Note 9). The Company currently maintains a
valuation allowance on deferred tax assets that did not meet the
more likely than not recognition criteria which are
72
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
related to state NOL carryforwards and general business credits
that the Company believes will more likely than not expire
unused.
In accordance with
SOP 90-7,
the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109 (FIN 48) at emergence. In
accordance with FIN 48, the Company uses a more
likely than not threshold for recognition of tax
attributes that are subject to uncertainties and measures any
reserves in respect of such expected benefits based on their
probability as prescribed by FIN 48.
Cash and Cash Equivalents. The Company
considers only those short-term, highly liquid investments with
original maturities of 90 days or less when purchased to be
cash equivalents.
Restricted Cash. The Company is required to
keep certain amounts on deposit relating to workers
compensation, collateral for certain letters of credit and other
agreements totaling $15.9 and $25.2 at December 31, 2007
and 2006, respectively. On July 17, 2007, the State of
Washington reduced the amount the Company is required to have on
deposit with the State by approximately $9.5. The remaining $7.7
on deposit with the State of Washington represents the deposit
required to serve as collateral for existing workers
compensation claims. Of the restricted cash balance at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, $1.5 and $1.7, respectively are
considered short term and are included in Prepaid expenses and
other current assets; $14.4 and $23.5, respectively, are
considered long term and are included in Other assets on the
balance sheet (see Note 7).
Inventories. Inventories are stated at the
lower of cost or market value. Finished products, work in
process and raw material inventories are stated on the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) basis. Other inventories,
principally operating supplies and repair and maintenance parts,
are stated at average cost. Inventory costs consist of material,
labor and manufacturing overhead, including depreciation.
Abnormal costs, such as idle facility expenses, freight,
handling costs and spoilage, are accounted for as current period
charges (see Note 3).
Shipping and Handling Costs. Shipping and
handling costs are recorded as a component of Cost of products
sold excluding depreciation.
Advertising Costs. Advertising costs, which
are included in Selling, administrative, research and
development, and general, are expensed as incurred. Advertising
costs for the year ended December 31, 2007, for the period
from July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and the
period from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and for
the year ended December 31, 2005 were $.6, $.1, zero and
$.2, respectively.
Depreciation. Depreciation is computed
principally using the straight-line method at rates based on the
estimated useful lives of the various classes of assets. The
principal estimated useful lives, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful Life
|
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
Land improvements
|
|
|
3-7
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
15-35
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
2-22
|
|
Upon emergence from reorganization, the accumulated depreciation
was reset to zero as a result of applying fresh start accounting
to its consolidated financial statements as required by
SOP 90-7.
The new lives and carrying values assigned to the individual
assets and the application of fresh start accounting (see
Notes 2 and 6) will cause future depreciation expense
to be different than the historical depreciation expense of the
Predecessor. Depreciation expense relating to Fabricated
Products is not included in Cost of products sold excluding
depreciation and is shown separately on the Statements of
Consolidated Income (Loss).
Major Maintenance Activities. Substantially
all of the major maintenance costs are accounted for using the
direct expensing method.
73
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Leases. For leases that contain predetermined
fixed escalations of the minimum rent, the Company recognizes
the related rent expense on a straight-line basis from the date
we take possession of the property to the end of the initial
lease term. The Company records any difference between the
straight-line rent amounts and the amount payable under the
lease as part of deferred rent, in accrued liabilities or Other
long term liabilities, as appropriate. Deferred rent for all
periods presented was not material.
Capitalization of Interest. Interest related
to the construction of qualifying assets is capitalized as part
of the construction costs. The aggregate amount of interest
capitalized is limited to the interest expense incurred in the
period.
Deferred Financing Costs. Costs incurred to
obtain debt financing are deferred and amortized over the
estimated term of the related borrowing. Such amortization is
included in Interest expense. Deferred financing costs included
in other assets at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were $.9 and
$2.8, respectively.
Foreign Currency. The Company uses the United
States dollar as the functional currency for its foreign
operations.
Derivative Financial Instruments. Hedging
transactions using derivative financial instruments are
primarily designed to mitigate the Companys exposure to
changes in prices for certain of the products which the Company
sells and consumes and, to a lesser extent, to mitigate the
Companys exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange
rates. The Company does not utilize derivative financial
instruments for trading or other speculative purposes. The
Companys derivative activities are initiated within
guidelines established by management and approved by the
Companys board of directors. Hedging transactions are
executed centrally on behalf of all of the Companys
business segments to minimize transaction costs, monitor
consolidated net exposures and allow for increased
responsiveness to changes in market factors.
The Company recognizes all derivative instruments as assets or
liabilities in its balance sheet and measures those instruments
at fair value by marking-to-market all of its
hedging positions at each period-end (see Note 13). The
Company does not meet the documentation requirements for hedge
(deferral) accounting under Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities (SFAS No. 133).
Changes in the market value of the Companys open
derivative positions resulting from the mark-to-market process
are reflected in Net income.
Conditional Asset Retirement
Obligations. Effective December 31, 2005,
the Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 47
(FIN 47), Accounting for Conditional Asset
Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 143 (SFAS No. 143)
retroactive to the beginning of 2005. Pursuant to
SFAS No. 143 and FIN 47, companies are required
to estimate incremental costs for special handling, removal and
disposal costs of materials that may or will give rise to
conditional asset retirement obligations (CAROs) and
then discount the expected costs back to the current year using
a credit adjusted risk free rate. Under the guidelines clarified
in FIN 47, liabilities and costs for CAROs must be
recognized in a companys financial statements even if it
is unclear when or if the CARO may/will be triggered. If it is
unclear when or if a CARO will be triggered, companies are
required to use probability weighting for possible timing
scenarios to determine the probability weighted amounts that
should be recognized in the companys financial statements.
The Company evaluated FIN 47 and determined that it has
CAROs at several of its fabricated products facilities. The vast
majority of such CAROs consist of incremental costs that would
be associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of
which is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within
walls, floors, ceilings or piping) of certain of the older
plants if such plants were to undergo major renovation or be
demolished. The retroactive application of FIN 47 resulted
in the Company recognizing, retroactive to the beginning of
2005, the following in the fourth quarter of 2005: (i) a
charge of approximately $2.0 reflecting the cumulative earnings
impact of adopting FIN 47, (ii) an increase in
Property, plant and equipment of $.5 and (iii) offsetting
the amounts in (i) and (ii), an increase in Long-term
liabilities of approximately $2.5. In addition, pursuant to
FIN 47 there was an immaterial amount of incremental
depreciation expense recorded (in Depreciation and amortization)
for the year ended December 31, 2005 as a result of the
retroactive increase in
74
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Property, plant and equipment (discussed in (ii) above) and
there was an incremental $.2 of non-cash charges (in Cost of
products sold) to reflect the accretion of the liability
recognized at January 1, 2005 (discussed in
(iii) above) to the estimated fair value of the CARO of
$2.7 at December 31, 2005.
The Companys estimates and judgments that affect the
probability weighted estimated future contingent cost amounts
did not change during the year ended December 31, 2007.
However, a revision was made to the estimated timing for certain
future contingent costs during the year ended December 31,
2007 which resulted in an incremental charge of approximately
$.1 (see Note 5).
Anglesey (see Note 4) also recorded CARO liabilities
of approximately $15.0 in its financial statements as of
December 31, 2005. During the first quarter of 2007, based
on a new surveyors report and new environmental related
regulations enacted in Wales, Anglesey increased its CARO
liability by approximately $9.0. The treatment applied by
Anglesey was not consistent with the principles of
SFAS No. 143 or FIN 47. Accordingly, the Company
adjusted Angleseys recording of the CARO to comply with
United States GAAP treatment (see Note 5).
New Accounting Pronouncements. Statement of
Accounting Standards No. 141 (revised 2007), Business
Combinations (SFAS No. 141R) was
issued in December 2007. SFAS No. 141R establishes
principles and requirements for how the acquirer of a business
recognizes and measures in its financial statements the
identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any
noncontrolling interest in the acquiree. SFAS No. 141R
also provides guidance for recognizing and measuring the
goodwill acquired in the business combination and determines
what information to disclose to enable users of the financial
statements to evaluate the nature and financial effects of the
business combination. SFAS No. 141R is effective for
the Company in its fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009.
The Company is currently evaluating what impact, if any, this
pronouncement will have on its consolidated financial statements.
Statement of Accounting Standards No. 160,
Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements an amendment of ARB No. 51
(SFAS No. 160) was issued in
December 31, 2007. SFAS No. 160 establishes
accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling
interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. It clarifies that a noncontrolling interest in a
subsidiary is an ownership interest in the consolidated entity
that should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial
statements. SFAS No. 160 is effective for the Company
in fiscal years beginning January 1, 2009. The adoption of
SFAS No. 160 is not currently expected to have a
material impact on the Companys consolidated financial
statements.
Emerging Issues Task Force issue
06-11,
Tax benefit on dividend payment Accounting for Income Tax
Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Award,
(Issue
06-11)
was issued in June 2007.
Issue 06-11
applies to share-based payment arrangements with dividend
protection features that entitle employees to receive
(a) dividends on equity-classified nonvested shares,
(b) dividend equivalents on equity-classified nonvested
share units, or (c) payments equal to the dividends paid on
the underlying shares while an equity-classified share option is
outstanding, when those dividends or dividend equivalents are
charged to retained earnings under Statement of Accounting
Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based
Payments (SFAS No. 123R) and result in an
income tax deduction for the employer. The Task Force reached a
consensus that a realized income tax benefit from dividends or
dividend equivalents that are charged to retained earnings and
are paid to employees for equity classified nonvested equity
shares, nonvested equity share units, and outstanding equity
share options should be recognized as an increase to additional
paid-in capital. The amount recognized in additional paid-in
capital for the realized income tax benefit from dividends on
those awards should be included in the pool of excess tax
benefits available to absorb tax deficiencies on share-based
payment awards (as described in Statement 123(R)). The consensus
in
Issue 06-11
is effective for the Company for income tax benefits that result
from dividends on equity-classified employee share-based payment
awards that are declared in fiscal years beginning
January 1, 2008. The Company is currently evaluating what
impact, if any, this pronouncement will have on its consolidated
financial statements.
75
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 159, The
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities, including an amendment of FASB Statement
No. 115 (SFAS No. 159) was issued
in February 2007 and will become effective for the Company on
January 1, 2008. SFAS No. 159 permits entities
the option to measure many financial instruments and certain
other items at fair value. Unrealized gains and losses in
respect of assets and liabilities for which the fair value
option has been elected will be reported in earnings. Selection
of the fair value option is irrevocable and can be applied on a
partial basis, i.e., to some but not all similar financial
assets or liabilities. The Company has determined that it will
not elect the fair value option under SFAS No. 159 for
any of its financial assets and liabilities for which
SFAS No. 159 allowed such an election to be made.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS No. 157) was issued in September
2006 to increase consistency and comparability in fair value
measurements and to expand their disclosures. The new standard
includes a definition of fair value as well as a framework for
measuring fair value. The provisions of this standard apply to
other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair
value measurements. SFAS No. 157 does not require any new fair
value measurements. SFAS No. 157 is effective with
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and should
be applied prospectively, except for certain financial
instruments where it must be applied retrospectively as a
cumulative-effect adjustment to the balance of opening retained
earnings in the year of adoption. In November 2007, the FASB
agreed to a one-year deferral of SFAS No. 157s
fair-value measurement requirements for nonfinancial assets and
liabilities that are not required or permitted to be measured at
fair value on a recurring basis. The FASB also intends to
clarify disclosure requirements about the fair-value
measurements of pension plan assets by plan sponsors and will
develop additional guidance on how SFAS No. 157
applies to measurements of liabilities. The Company does not
currently anticipate that the adoption of this standard will
have a material impact on its financial statements.
Significant accounting policies of the Predecessor are discussed
in Note 18.
|
|
2.
|
Emergence
from Reorganization Proceedings.
|
Summary. As more fully discussed in
Note 19, from the first quarter of 2002 to June 30,
2006, the Company and 25 of its subsidiaries operated under
chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the
Code) under the supervision of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the
Bankruptcy Court).
As also outlined in Note 19, Kaiser and its debtor
subsidiaries which included all of the Companys core
fabricated products facilities and a 49% interest in Anglesey
which owns a smelter in the United Kingdom, emerged from
chapter 11 on Effective Date pursuant to the Plan. Four
subsidiaries not related to the Fabricated Products operations
were liquidated in December 2005. Pursuant to the Plan, all
material pre-petition debt, pension and postretirement medical
obligations and asbestos and other tort liabilities, along with
other pre-petition claims (which in total aggregated to
approximately $4.4 billion in the June 30, 2006
consolidated financial statements) were addressed and resolved.
Pursuant to the Plan, the equity interests of all of
Kaisers pre-emergence stockholders were cancelled without
consideration. The equity of the newly emerged Kaiser was issued
and delivered to a third-party disbursing agent for distribution
to claimholders pursuant to the Plan.
Impacts on the Opening Balance Sheet After
Emergence. As a result of the Companys
emergence from chapter 11, the Company applied fresh
start accounting to its opening July 2006 consolidated
financial statements as required by
SOP 90-7.
As such, the Company adjusted its stockholders equity to
equal the reorganization value at the Effective Date. Items such
as accumulated depreciation, accumulated deficit and accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) were reset to zero. The
Company allocated the reorganization value to its individual
assets and liabilities based on their estimated fair value.
Items such as current liabilities, accounts receivable, and cash
reflected values similar to those reported prior to emergence.
Items such as inventory, property, plant and equipment,
long-term assets and long-term liabilities were significantly
adjusted from amounts previously reported. Because fresh start
accounting was applied at emergence and because of the
significance of liabilities subject to compromise that were
relieved upon emergence, comparisons between the historical
financial statements and the financial statements from and after
emergence are difficult to make.
76
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The following shows the impacts of the Plan and the adoption of
fresh start accounting on the opening balance sheet of the new
reporting entity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan
|
|
|
Fresh Start
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
|
Historical
|
|
|
Adjustments(a)
|
|
|
Adjustments(b)
|
|
|
Sheet
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
37.3
|
|
|
$
|
(25.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12.0
|
|
Receivables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful receivables
|
|
|
114.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
114.8
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
123.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48.9
|
|
|
|
172.0
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
34.0
|
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
314.2
|
|
|
|
(25.6
|
)
|
|
|
49.6
|
|
|
|
338.2
|
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
|
|
(11.3
|
)
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
242.7
|
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
|
(98.9
|
)
|
|
|
139.7
|
|
Personal injury-related insurance recoveries receivable
|
|
|
963.3
|
|
|
|
(963.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
(11.7
|
)
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
Net assets in respect of VEBAs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.2
|
(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.2
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
44.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,597.9
|
|
|
$
|
(969.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(48.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
579.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Liabilities not subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
56.1
|
|
|
$
|
(.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
53.8
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages, and related expenses
|
|
|
37.0
|
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
33.6
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
61.0
|
|
|
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59.2
|
|
Payable to affiliate
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
Long-term debt current portion
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations current liabilities
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
190.8
|
|
|
|
(8.6
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
181.1
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
49.0
|
|
|
|
17.5
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
69.0
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations liabilities (liabilities subject
to compromise)
|
|
|
73.5
|
|
|
|
(73.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
314.5
|
|
|
|
(65.8
|
)
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
250.1
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
4,388.0
|
|
|
|
(4,388.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
(.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
.2
|
(d)
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
.2
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
538.0
|
|
|
|
480.2
|
(d)
|
|
|
(538.0
|
)
|
|
|
480.2
|
|
Common stock owned by Union VEBA subject to transfer restrictions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1
|
)(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151.1
|
)
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(3,635.3
|
)
|
|
|
3,155.5
|
(e)
|
|
|
479.8
|
(f)
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(3,105.3
|
)
|
|
|
3,484.8
|
|
|
|
(50.2
|
)
|
|
|
329.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,597.9
|
|
|
$
|
(969.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(48.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
579.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Reflects impacts on the Effective Date of implementing the Plan,
including the settlement of liabilities subject to compromise
and related payments, distributions of cash and new shares of
common stock and the cancellation of predecessor common stock
(see Note 19). Includes the reclassification of
approximately $21.0 from Liabilities subject to compromise to
Long-term liabilities in respect of certain pension and benefit
plans retained by the Company pending the outcome of the
litigation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) as more fully discussed in Note 12. |
|
(b) |
|
Reflects the adjustments to reflect fresh start
accounting. These include the write up of Inventories (see
Note 3) and Property, plant and equipment to their
appraised values and the elimination of Accumulated deficit and
Additional paid in capital. The fresh start adjustments for
intangible assets and stockholders equity are based on a
third party appraisal report. |
In accordance with United States GAAP, the reorganization value
is allocated to individual assets and liabilities by first
allocating value to current assets, current liabilities,
monetary and similar long-term items for which specific market
values are determinable. The remainder is allocated to long-term
assets such as property, plant and equipment, equity
investments, identified intangibles and unidentified intangibles
(e.g. goodwill). To the extent that there is insufficient value
to allocate to long-term assets after first allocating to the
current, monetary and similar items, such shortfall is first
used to reduce unidentified intangibles to zero and then to
proportionately reduce the amount allocated to property, plant
and equipment, equity investments and identified intangibles
based on the initial (pre-reorganization value allocation)
assessed fair value. In allocating the reorganization value, the
Company determined that the value of the long-term assets
exceeded the amount of reorganization value available to be
allocated to such items by approximately $187.2. Such excess
value was allocated to Property, plant and equipment, Investment
in unconsolidated affiliate and Identified intangibles in the
following amounts based on initial fair value assessments
determined by a third party appraisal:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appraised Value
|
|
Allocation of
|
|
Opening Balance
|
|
|
Based on Third
|
|
Reorganization
|
|
Sheet Amount at
|
|
|
Party Appraisal
|
|
Value Shortfall
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
$
|
299.8
|
|
|
$
|
(160.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
139.7
|
|
Investment in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
$
|
24.0
|
|
|
$
|
(12.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
11.1
|
|
Identified intangibles
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
(14.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
|
As more fully discussed in Note 10, after discussions with
the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
concluded that, while the Companys only obligations in
respect of two VEBAs is an annual variable contribution
obligation based primarily on earnings and capital spending, the
Company should account for the VEBAs as defined benefit
postretirement plans with a cap. |
|
(d) |
|
Reflects the issuance of new common stock to pre-petition
creditors. |
|
(e) |
|
Reflects gain extinguishment of obligations from implementation
of the Plan. |
|
(f) |
|
Reflects fresh start loss of $47.4 and elimination of retained
deficit. |
78
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finished products
|
|
$
|
68.6
|
|
|
$
|
61.1
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
76.9
|
|
|
|
72.8
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
|
49.5
|
|
|
|
42.0
|
|
Operating supplies and repairs and maintenance parts
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
|
|
12.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
207.5
|
|
|
|
188.0
|
|
Commodities Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
207.6
|
|
|
$
|
188.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As stated in Note 1, the Company determines cost for
substantially all of its product inventories on a LIFO basis.
All Predecessor LIFO layers were eliminated in connection with
the application of fresh start accounting. The Company applies
LIFO differently than the Predecessor did in that it views each
quarter on a standalone year-to-date basis for computing LIFO;
whereas the Predecessor recorded LIFO amounts with a view to the
entire fiscal year which, with certain exceptions, tended to
result in LIFO charges being recorded in the fourth quarter or
the second half of the year. The Company recorded a net non-cash
LIFO benefit of approximately $14.0 during the year ended
December 31, 2007, and net non-cash LIFO charges of $3.3,
$21.7 and $9.3 for the period from July 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006, the period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006 and the year ended December 31, 2005,
respectively. These amounts are primarily a result of changes in
metal prices.
Pursuant to fresh start accounting, as more fully discussed in
Note 2, all inventory amounts at the Effective Date were
stated at fair market value. Raw materials and Operating
supplies and repairs and maintenance parts were recorded at
published market prices including any location premiums.
Finished products and Work in process (WIP) were
recorded at selling price less cost to sell, cost to complete
and a reasonable apportionment of the profit margin associated
with the selling and conversion efforts. As a result, as
reported in Note 2, inventories were increased by
approximately $48.9 at the Effective Date.
Given the recent strength in demand for many types of fabricated
aluminum products and primary aluminum, the Company has a larger
volume of raw materials, WIP and finished goods than is its long
term historical average, and the price for such goods that was
reflected in the opening inventory balance at the Effective
Date, given the application of fresh start accounting, is higher
than long term historical averages. As such, with the inevitable
ebb and flow of business cycles, non-cash LIFO charges and
potential lower of cost and market adjustments will result when
inventory levels drop
and/or
margins compress. Such adjustments could be material to results
in future periods.
|
|
4.
|
Investment
In and Advances To Unconsolidated Affiliate.
|
The Company has a 49% ownership interest in Anglesey, which owns
an aluminum smelter at Holyhead, Wales. The Company accounts for
its 49% ownership in Anglesey using the equity method. The
Companys equity in income before income taxes of Anglesey
is treated as a reduction (increase) in Cost of products sold
gross of our share of United Kingdom corporation tax. The income
tax effects of the Companys equity in income are included
in the Companys income tax provision.
The nuclear plant that supplies power to Anglesey is currently
slated for decommissioning in late 2010. For Anglesey to be able
to continue its aluminum reduction operations past September
2009, when its current power contract expires, Anglesey will
have to secure power at prices that make its aluminum reduction
operation viable. No assurances can be provided that Anglesey
will be successful in this regard. In addition, given the
potential for future shutdown and related costs, Anglesey
temporarily suspended dividends during the last half of 2006 and
the
79
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
first half of 2007 while it studied future cash requirements.
Based on a review of cash anticipated to be available for future
cash requirements, Anglesey removed the temporary suspension of
dividends and paid dividends in both August and December of
2007. Dividends in respect of the Companys ownership
interests totaled $14.3 in 2007 resulting in a reduction of
Investment in unconsolidated affiliate. Dividends over the past
five years have fluctuated substantially depending on various
operational and market factors. During the last five years, cash
dividends received were as follows: 2007 $14.3,
2006 $11.8, 2005 $9.0, 2004
$4.5 and 2003 $4.3. No assurance can be given that
Anglesey will not suspend dividends again in the future.
Summary
of Angleseys Financial Position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Current assets(1)
|
|
$
|
160.0
|
|
|
$
|
111.7
|
|
Non-current assets (primarily property, plant, and equipment,
net)
|
|
|
52.0
|
|
|
|
51.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
212.0
|
|
|
$
|
162.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
$
|
81.1
|
|
|
$
|
62.5
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
30.9
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
104.7
|
|
|
|
69.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
212.0
|
|
|
$
|
162.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes cash and cash equivalents of $85.2 and $39.0. |
Summary
of Angleseys Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
408.7
|
|
|
$
|
198.1
|
|
|
$
|
170.1
|
|
|
$
|
266.2
|
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(319.7
|
)
|
|
|
(155.2
|
)
|
|
|
(132.1
|
)
|
|
|
(243.9
|
)
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(26.0
|
)
|
|
|
(12.2
|
)
|
|
|
(11.2
|
)
|
|
|
(6.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
63.0
|
|
|
$
|
30.7
|
|
|
$
|
26.8
|
|
|
$
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companys equity in income(1)
|
|
$
|
33.4
|
|
|
$
|
18.3
|
|
|
$
|
11.0
|
|
|
$
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends received
|
|
$
|
14.3
|
|
|
$
|
9.1
|
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Companys equity income differs from the summary net
income due to equity method accounting adjustments and applying
United States GAAP. |
Since the Companys emergence from chapter 11
reorganization, total equity earnings from Anglesey have been
$51.7, of which $23.4 of dividends has been distributed, leaving
$28.3 in the Companys retained earnings as of
December 31, 2007.
The Company and Anglesey have interrelated operations. The
Company is responsible for selling alumina to Anglesey in
respect of its ownership percentage. During the first three
quarters of 2007, such alumina is purchased at prices that were
tied to primary aluminum prices under a contract that expired at
the end of the third quarter in 2007. The Company secured a new
contract to purchase alumina at comparable prices that expires
in August 2009.
80
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The Company is responsible for purchasing primary aluminum from
Anglesey in respect to its ownership percentage at prices tied
to primary aluminum market prices.
Purchases from and sales to Anglesey were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Purchases
|
|
$
|
199.3
|
|
|
$
|
95.0
|
|
|
$
|
82.4
|
|
|
$
|
150.4
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
50.2
|
|
|
|
24.4
|
|
|
|
24.9
|
|
|
|
35.1
|
|
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, the receivables from
Anglesey were $9.5 and $1.3, respectively, and payables to
Anglesey were $18.6 and $16.2, respectively.
As a result of fresh start accounting, the Company decreased its
investment in Anglesey at the Effective Date by $11.6 (see
Note 2). The $11.6 difference between the Companys
share of Angleseys equity and the investment amount
reflected in the Companys balance sheet is being amortized
(included in Cost of products sold) over the period from July
2006 to September 2009, the end of the current power contract.
The non-cash amortization was approximately $3.6 and $1.8 for
the year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. At
December 31, 2007, the remaining unamortized amount was
$6.2.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company
recorded a $.3 charge for share-based equity compensation for
employees of Anglesey who participate in the employee share
savings plan of its parent (Rio Tinto). The $.3 has
been recognized as a reduction in the equity in earnings of
Anglesey for the year ended December 31, 2007. In
accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18,
The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common
Stock, this transaction has been accounted for as a capital
transaction of Anglesey. As a result, the Company increased its
Additional capital for the year ended December 31, 2007 by
$.3 rather than adjust its Investment in and advances to
unconsolidated affiliate.
|
|
5.
|
Conditional
Asset Retirement Obligations
|
The Company has conditional asset retirement obligations
(CAROs) at several of its fabricated products
facilities. The vast majority of such CAROs consist of
incremental costs that would be associated with the removal and
disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully
contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, ceilings or
piping) at certain of the older plants if such plants were to
undergo major renovation or be demolished. No plans currently
exist for any such renovation or demolition of such facilities
and the Companys current assessment is that the most
probable scenarios are that no such significant CARO would be
triggered for 20 or more years, if at all. Nonetheless, the
retroactive application of FASB Interpretation No. 47
(FIN 47), Accounting for Conditional Assets
Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 143 (SFAS No. 143) resulted
in the Company recognizing a Long-term liability of
approximately $2.5 at December 31, 2005.
The Companys estimates and judgments that affect the
probability weighted estimated future contingent cost amounts
did not change during the year ended December 31, 2007.
However, there was a revision to the estimated timing for
certain future contingent costs during the year ended
December 31, 2007 that resulted in a $.1 charge to Net
income. In addition, the Companys results for the year
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, included an immaterial
incremental amount of depreciation expense and an incremental
accretion of the estimated liability of $.2 (recorded in Cost of
products sold). The estimated fair value of the CARO at
December 31, 2007 was $3.0.
Anglesey (see Note 4) also recorded CARO liabilities
of approximately $15.0 in its financial statements as of
December 31, 2005. During the first quarter of 2007, based
on new surveyors report and new environmental related
regulations enacted in Wales, Anglesey increased its CARO
liability by approximately $9.0. The treatment applied by
Anglesey was not consistent with the principles of
SFAS No. 143 or FIN 47. Accordingly, the Company
adjusted Angleseys recording of the CARO to comply with
United States GAAP treatment. The Company adjusted its
81
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
equity in earnings for Anglesey for the year ended
December 31, 2007, the period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006, from July 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006 and the year ended December 31, 2005
by $1.3, $.3, $.3 and $.1, respectively, to reflect the impact
of applying United States GAAP with respect to the Anglesey CARO
liability.
For purposes of the Companys fair value estimates with
respect to the CARO liabilities, a credit adjusted risk free
rate of 7.5% was used.
6. Property,
Plant and Equipment
The major classes of property, plant, and equipment are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Land and improvements
|
|
$
|
12.9
|
|
|
$
|
12.8
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
25.2
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
168.7
|
|
|
|
92.3
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
51.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
239.8
|
|
|
|
175.6
|
|
Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(17.1
|
)
|
|
|
(5.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
222.7
|
|
|
$
|
170.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to fresh start accounting, as more fully discussed in
Note 2, the Company adjusted its Property, plant and
equipment to its fair value as adjusted for the allocation of
the reorganization value and reset Accumulated depreciation to
zero. The fair value of the vast majority of the Companys
Property, plant and equipment was based on an independent
appraisal with only a small portion being based on
managements estimates. The fair value of the Property,
plant and equipment at July 1, 2006 was estimated to be
approximately $300.0. However, as a result of the allocation of
the reorganization value, the value at July 1, 2006 was
reduced to $139.7 (i.e. the net results of the fresh
start process, as reported in Note 2, was a net decrease in
Property, plant and equipment of $103.0). The amount of
depreciation to be recognized by the Company was initially lower
than the amount historically recognized by the Predecessor.
Approximately $20.2 of the Construction in progress at
December 31, 2007, relates to the Companys Spokane,
Washington facility (see Commitments
Note 12).
For the year ended December 31, 2007, the period from
July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, the period
from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and the year
ended December 31, 2005, the Company recorded depreciation
expense of $11.8, $5.2, $9.7 and $19.6, respectively, relating
to the Companys operating facilities in its Fabricated
Products segment.
|
|
7.
|
Supplemental
Balance Sheet Information
|
Prepaid Expenses and Other Current
Assets. Prepaid expenses and other current assets
were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Current derivative assets (Note 13)
|
|
$
|
1.5
|
|
|
$
|
29.8
|
|
Current deferred tax assets
|
|
|
59.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short term restricted cash
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
66.0
|
|
|
$
|
40.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Other Assets. Other assets were comprised of
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Derivative assets (Note 13)
|
|
$
|
27.6
|
|
|
$
|
13.4
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
14.4
|
|
|
|
23.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
43.1
|
|
|
$
|
40.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Accrued Liabilities. Other accrued
liabilities were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Current derivative liabilities (Note 13)
|
|
$
|
6.6
|
|
|
$
|
25.4
|
|
Accrued income taxes, taxes payable and FIN 48 liabilities
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
Accrued bank overdraft see below
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
Dividend payable
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued annual VEBA contribution
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
36.6
|
|
|
$
|
47.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accrued bank overdraft balance at December 31, 2007 and
2006 represents uncleared cash disbursements.
Long-term Liabilities. Long-term liabilities
were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
FIN 48 liabilities
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
12.5
|
|
Workers compensation accruals
|
|
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
17.4
|
|
Environmental accruals
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
Derivative liabilities (Note 13)
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
Asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
Other long term liabilities
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
57.0
|
|
|
$
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Secured
Debt and Credit Facilities
|
Secured debt and credit facilities debt consisted of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Term Loan Facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
Less Current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the Effective Date, the Company and certain subsidiaries of
the Company entered into a new Senior Secured Revolving Credit
Agreement with a group of lenders providing for a $200.0
revolving credit facility (the
83
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Revolving Credit Facility), of which up to a maximum
of $60.0 may be utilized for letters of credit. Under the
Revolving Credit Facility, the Company is able to borrow (or
obtain letters of credit) from time to time in an aggregate
amount equal to the lesser of a stated amount, initially $200.0
and a borrowing base comprised of eligible accounts receivable,
eligible inventory and certain eligible machinery, equipment and
real estate, reduced by certain reserves, all as specified in
the Revolving Credit Facility. The Revolving Credit Facility has
a five-year term and matures in July 2011, at which time all
principal amounts outstanding thereunder will be due and
payable. Borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility bear
interest at a rate equal to either a base prime rate or LIBOR,
at the Companys option, plus a specified variable
percentage determined by reference to the then remaining
borrowing availability under the Revolving Credit Facility. The
Revolving Credit Facility may, subject to certain conditions and
the agreement of lenders thereunder, be increased to $275.0 at
the request of the Company. During the fourth quarter of 2007,
certain conditions were met and the Company and the lenders
amended the Revolving Credit Facility, effective
December 10, 2007, to increase the stated amount of the
credit facility from $200.0 to $265.0.
Amounts owed under the Revolving Credit Facility may be
accelerated upon the occurrence of various events of default set
forth in the agreement, including, without limitation, the
failure to make principal or interest payments when due, and
breaches of covenants, representations and warranties. The
Revolving Credit Facility is secured by a first priority lien on
substantially all of the assets of the Company and certain of
its U.S. operating subsidiaries that are also borrowers
thereunder. The Revolving Credit Facility places restrictions on
the ability of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries to,
among other things, incur debt, create liens, make investments,
pay dividends, sell assets, undertake transactions with
affiliates and enter into unrelated lines of business. At
December 31, 2007, the Company was in full compliance with
all covenants related to the Revolving Credit Facility.
At December 31, 2007, there were no borrowings outstanding
under the Revolving Credit Facility and there were approximately
$14.1 of outstanding letters of credit.
Concurrent with the execution of the Revolving Credit Facility,
the Company also entered into a Term Loan and Guaranty Agreement
with a group of lenders (the Term Loan Facility).
The Term Loan Facility provided for a $50.0 term loan and was
guaranteed by the Company and certain of its domestic operating
subsidiaries. The Term Loan Facility was fully drawn on
August 4, 2006. The Term Loan Facility had a five-year term
expiring in July 2011, at which time all principal amounts
outstanding thereunder would have been due and payable.
Borrowings under the Term Loan Facility bore interest at a rate
equal to either a premium over a base prime rate or LIBOR, at
the Companys option. On December 13, 2007, the
Company repaid in full the outstanding balance of the Term Loan
Facility and the related accrued interest. In connection with
the repayment, $1.5 of related deferred financing costs were
written off and included in interest expense.
Tax Attributes. Although the Company had
approximately $981 of tax attributes, including the NOL
carry-forwards available at December 31, 2006 to offset the
impact of future income taxes, the Company did not meet the
more likely than not criteria for recognition of
such attributes primarily because the Company did not have
sufficient history of paying taxes. As such, the Company
recorded a full valuation allowance against the amount of tax
attributes available and no deferred tax asset was recognized.
The benefit associated with any reduction of the valuation
allowance was first utilized to reduce intangible assets with
any excess being recorded as an adjustment to Stockholders
equity rather than as a reduction of income tax expense. In
order to assess whether a valuation allowance was still required
at December 31, 2007, the Company executed a process for
determining the need for a valuation allowance. The process
included extensive review of both positive and negative evidence
including the Companys earnings history; existing
contracts and backlog; future earnings; adverse recent
occurrences; carry forward periods; an assessment of the
industry; loss contingencies; and the impact of timing
differences. At the conclusion of this process the Company
concluded that it had met the more likely than not
criteria for recognition of its deferred tax assets and thus
released the vast majority of the valuation allowance at
December 31, 2007. In
84
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
accordance with fresh start accounting, the release of the
valuation allowance was taken as an adjustment to
Stockholders equity rather than through the income
statement. The Company maintains a valuation allowance on
deferred tax assets that did not meet the more likely than
not recognition criteria and these assets are primarily
state NOL carryforwards that the Company believes will likely
expire unused.
At December 31, 2007, the Company had $897.5 of net
operating loss carry-forwards available to reduce future cash
payments for income taxes in the United States. Of the $897.5 of
NOL carryforwards, $1.0 relates to the excess tax benefits from
employee restricted stock. Equity will be increased by $1.0 if
and when such excess tax benefits are ultimately realized. Such
NOL carryfowards expire periodically through 2027. The Company
also had $90.1 of other tax attributes including $88.4 of gross
alternative minimum tax (AMT) credit carry-forwards
with an indefinite life, available to offset regular federal
income tax requirements. The remainder is general business
credits that will expire periodically through 2011.
Pursuant to the Plan, to preserve the NOL carryforwards that may
be available to the Company after emergence, on the Effective
Date, the Companys certificate of incorporation was
amended and restated to, among other things, include certain
restrictions on the transfer of common stock and the Company and
the Union VEBA, the Companys largest stockholder, entered
into a stock transfer restriction agreement.
Tax Provision. Income (loss) before income
taxes and minority interests by geographic area (excluding
discontinued operations and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle) is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
January 1,
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2006 to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
$
|
127.9
|
|
|
$
|
27.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,082.6
|
|
|
$
|
(1,130.7
|
)
|
Foreign
|
|
|
54.5
|
|
|
|
22.9
|
|
|
|
60.5
|
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
182.4
|
|
|
$
|
49.9
|
|
|
$
|
3,143.1
|
|
|
$
|
(1,109.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes are classified as either domestic or foreign, based
on whether payment is made or due to the United States or a
foreign country. Certain income classified as foreign is also
subject to domestic income taxes.
85
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The (provision) benefit for income taxes on income (loss) before
income taxes and minority interests (excluding discontinued
operations and cumulative effect of change in accounting
principle) consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
State
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(22.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22.5
|
)
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.5
|
)
|
Benefit applied to (increase)/decrease Additional capital/Other
comprehensive income
|
|
|
(55.8
|
)
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
(6.5
|
)
|
|
|
(58.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(55.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(81.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(9.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(9.9
|
)
|
Benefit applied to reduce intangible assets and increase
Additional capital
|
|
|
(14.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
(15.4
|
)
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(14.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(23.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
.9
|
|
|
$
|
(7.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.1
|
)
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
.9
|
|
|
$
|
(7.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(3.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
.5
|
|
|
$
|
(3.3
|
)
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(3.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
.5
|
|
|
$
|
(2.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reconciliation between the (provision) benefit for income
taxes and the amount computed by applying the federal statutory
income tax rate to income (loss) before income taxes and
minority interests (excluding discontinued operations and
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle) is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
January 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
to July 1,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Amount of federal income tax benefit (expense) based on the
statutory rate
|
|
$
|
(63.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,100.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
388.5
|
|
Decrease (increase) in valuation allowances(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,099.3
|
|
|
|
(379.8
|
)
|
Non-deductible Expense
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State income taxes, net of federal benefit
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign income taxes
|
|
|
(11.5
|
)
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
(.5
|
)
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)
|
|
|
(15.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
(81.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(23.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
|
(1) |
|
At December 31, 2007 the valuation allowance was $24.8
compared to $503.8 at December 31, 2006. The entire change
in the valuation was recorded as an adjustment in Additional
capital in accordance with fresh start accounting. |
The table above reflects a full statutory U.S. tax
provision despite the fact that the Company is only paying AMT
in the U.S. in some years. See Tax Attributes above.
Deferred Income Taxes. Deferred income taxes
reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the
carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial
reporting purposes and amounts used for income tax purposes. The
components of the Companys net deferred income tax assets
(liabilities) are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and credit carryforwards
|
|
$
|
398.1
|
|
|
$
|
442.4
|
|
Pension benefits
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
.7
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
Inventories and other
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
61.8
|
|
Valuation allowances
|
|
|
(24.8
|
)
|
|
|
(503.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax assets net
|
|
|
405.5
|
|
|
|
20.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment
|
|
|
(14.7
|
)
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
VEBA
|
|
|
(50.8
|
)
|
|
|
(16.0
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(12.2
|
)
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
(77.7
|
)
|
|
|
(24.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred income tax assets (liabilities)(1)(2)
|
|
$
|
327.8
|
|
|
$
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Of the total net deferred income tax assets of $327.8, $59.2 was
included in Prepaid expenses and other current assets and $268.6
was presented as Deferred tax assets, net on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2007. |
|
(2) |
|
Due to the full valuation allowance in 2006, the Company netted
deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities, and recorded a
net $4.6 of deferred tax liabilities which is included in
Long-term liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
December 31, 2006. |
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 not 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 taxable income in carryback
years, the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, tax
planning strategies and projected future taxable income in
making this assessment. As of December 31, 2007, due to
uncertainties surrounding the realization of some of the
Companys deferred tax assets including state NOLs
sustained during the prior years and expiring tax benefits, the
Company has a valuation allowance of $24.8 against its deferred
tax assets. When recognized, the tax benefits relating to any
reversal of the valuation allowance will be recorded as an
adjustment of Stockholders equity rather than as a
reduction of income tax expense. Valuation allowance adjustments
related to post emergence events will flow through the tax
provision.
Other. The Company and its subsidiaries file
income tax returns in the US federal jurisdiction and various
states and foreign jurisdictions. The Companys federal
income tax return for the 2004 tax year is currently under
examination by the Internal Revenue Service. The Company does
not expect that the results of this examination will
87
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
have a material effect on its financial condition or results of
operations. The Canada Revenue Agency audited and issued
assessment notices for 1998 through 2001 for which Notices of
Objection have been filed. The 2002 to 2004 tax years are
currently under audit by the Canada Revenue Agency. The Company
currently does not expect that the results of these examinations
will have a material effect on its financial condition or
results of operations. Certain past years are still subject to
examination by taxing authorities and the use of NOL
carry-forwards in future periods could trigger a review of
attributes and other tax matters in years that are not otherwise
subject to examination.
No US federal or state liability has been recorded for the
undistributed earnings of the Companys Canadian
subsidiaries at December 31, 2007. These undistributed
earnings are considered to be indefinitely reinvested.
Accordingly, no provision for US federal and state income taxes
or foreign withholding taxes has been provided on such
undistributed earnings. Determination of the potential amount of
unrecognized deferred US income tax liability and foreign
withholding taxes is not practicable because of the complexities
associated with its hypothetical calculation.
In accordance with the requirements of
SOP 90-7,
the Company adopted the provisions of FIN 48 on
July 1, 2006. The Company has gross unrecognized tax
benefits of $19.7 and $14.6 at December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively. The change during the year ended December 31,
2007 was primarily due to currency fluctuations and $3.0 of
additional unrecognized tax benefits that were offset by net
operating losses. The Company recognizes interest and penalties
related to these unrecognized tax benefits in the income tax
provision. During the year ended December 31, 2007 and
2006, the Company recognized approximately $5.1, of which $1.6
was taken as an adjustment to additional capital, and $.5,
respectively, in interest and penalties. In 2007, the foreign
currency impact on gross unrecognized tax benefits, interest and
penalties resulted in a $3.8 currency translation adjustment
that was recorded in Accumulated other comprehensive income, of
which $2.7 related to gross unrecognized tax benefits and $1.1
related to accrued interest and penalties. Additionally, the
Company had approximately $10.7 and $4.5 accrued at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, for interest and
penalties which were included in Long-term liabilities in the
balance sheet. Due to the potential for resolution of a Federal
audit of the 2004 tax year, it is reasonably possible that the
Companys gross unrecognized tax benefits balance may
change within the next twelve months by $2.5. This will not have
a material impact on the Companys earnings.
A summary of activities with respect to the gross unrecognized
tax benefits for the year ended December 31, 2007 is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Gross unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
14.6
|
|
Gross increases for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
Gross increases for tax positions of current years
|
|
|
.2
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2007(1)
|
|
$
|
19.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Of the $19.7, $15.8 is recorded as a FIN 48 liability on
the balance sheet in Long term liabilities and $3.9 is offset by
net operating losses and indirect tax benefits. If and when the
$19.7 ultimately is recognized, $15.8 will go through the
Companys income tax provision and thus affect the
effective tax rate in future periods. |
In connection with the sale of the Companys interests in
and related to Queensland Alumina Limited (QAL), the
Company made payments totaling approximately $8.5 for AMT in the
United States (approximately $8.0 of federal AMT and
approximately $.5 of state AMT). Such payments were made in the
fourth quarter of 2005. Upon completion of the Companys
2005 federal income tax return, the Company determined that
approximately $1.0 of AMT was overpaid and was refundable. The
Company applied for the refund in the 2005 federal income tax
return filed in September 2006 and received the refund in
October 2006. The Company believed that the remainder of the
United States AMT amounts paid in respect of the sale of its QAL
interests should, in accordance with the Intercompany Settlement
Agreement entered into in connection with the Companys
chapter 11 bankruptcy, be
88
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
reimbursed to the Company from the funds held by the liquidating
trustee for the plan of liquidation of two former subsidiaries
of the Company (Kaiser Alumina Australia Corporation and Kaiser
Finance Corporation). A claim for reimbursement of $7.2 was made
in January 2007. In May 2007, the liquidating trust approved the
claim and the Company received the $7.2 reimbursement, which
amount was recorded as a benefit in Other operating benefits
(charges), net in the second quarter of 2007 (see Note 14).
Income tax matters of the Predecessor are discussed in
Note 22.
Pension and Similar Plans. Pensions and
similar plans include:
|
|
|
|
|
Monthly contributions of one dollar per hour worked by each
bargaining unit employee to the appropriate multi-employer
pension plans sponsored by the United Steelworkers and
International Association of Machinists and certain other unions
at six of our production facilities. This obligation came into
existence in December 2006 for four of our production facilities
upon the termination of four defined benefit plans. The
arrangement for the other two locations came into existence
during the first quarter of 2005. The Company currently
estimates that contributions will range from $1 to $3 per year.
|
|
|
|
A defined contribution 401(k) savings plan for hourly bargaining
unit employees at five of the Companys production
facilities. The Company is required to make contributions to
this plan for active bargaining unit employees at these
production facilities ranging from $800 to $2,400 per employee
per year, depending on the employees age
and/or
service. This arrangement came into existence in December 2004
for two production facilities upon the termination of one
defined benefit plan. The arrangement for the other three
locations came into existence during December 2006. The Company
currently estimates that contributions to such plans will range
from $1 to $3 per year.
|
|
|
|
A defined benefit plan for our salaried employees at the
Companys facility in London, Ontario with annual
contributions based on each salaried employees age and
years of service.
|
|
|
|
A defined contribution savings plan for salaried and
non-bargaining unit hourly employees (which we refer to herein
as the Salaried DC Plan) providing for a match of
certain contributions made by employees plus a contribution of
between 2% and 10% of their compensation depending on their age
and years of service. All new hires after January 1, 2004
receive a fixed 2% contribution. The Company currently estimates
that contributions to such plans will range from $1 to $3 per
year.
|
|
|
|
A non-qualified defined contribution plan for key employees who
would otherwise suffer a loss of benefits under the
Companys defined contribution plan as a result of the
limitations by the Code.
|
Postretirement Medical Obligations. As a part
of the Companys reorganization efforts, the
Predecessors postretirement medical plan was terminated in
2004. Participants were given the option of COBRA coverage or
participation in the applicable (Union or Salaried) VEBA. All
past and future bargaining unit employees are covered by the
Union VEBA. The Salaried VEBA covers all other retirees
including employees who retired prior to the 2004 termination of
the prior plan or who retire with the required age and service
requirements so long as their employment commenced prior to
February 2002. The benefits paid by the VEBAs are at the sole
discretion of the respective VEBA trustees and are outside the
Companys control.
At emergence, the Salaried VEBA received rights to
1,940,100 shares of the Companys newly issued common
stock. However, prior to the Companys emergence, the
Salaried VEBA sold its rights to approximately
940,200 shares and received net proceeds of approximately
$31. The remaining approximately 999,900 shares of the
Companys common stock held by the Salaried VEBA at
July 1, 2006 were unrestricted. The Salaried VEBA sold its
remaining shares during the second half of 2006.
89
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
At emergence, the Union VEBA had rights to receive 11,439,900
common shares upon the Companys emergence from
chapter 11 bankruptcy. However, prior to the Companys
emergence, the Union VEBA sold its rights to approximately
2,630,000 shares and received net proceeds of approximately
$81.
During the first quarter of 2007, 6,281,180 common shares were
sold to the public by existing stockholders pursuant to a
registered offering. The Company did not sell any shares in, and
did not receive any proceeds from, the offering. The Union VEBA
was one of the selling stockholders. Of the
3,337,235 shares sold by the Union VEBA in the offering,
819,280 common shares were unable to be sold without the
Companys approval under an agreement restricting the Union
VEBAs ability to sell or otherwise transfer its common
shares. However, during the first quarter of 2007, the Union
VEBA received approval from the Company to include such shares
in the offering.
The 819,280 previously restricted shares were treated as a
reduction of Stockholders equity (at the $24.02 per share
reorganization value) in the December 31, 2006 balance
sheet. As a result of the relief of the restrictions, during the
first quarter of 2007: (i) the value of the
819,280 shares previously restricted was added to VEBA
assets at the approximate $58.19 per share price realized by the
Union VEBA in the offering (totaling $47.7);
(ii) approximately $19.7 of the December 31, 2006
reduction in Stockholders equity associated with the
restricted shares (common shares owned by Union VEBA subject to
restrictions) was reversed and (iii) the difference between
the two amounts (approximately $23, net of income taxes of $5)
was credited to Additional capital.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Union VEBA sold an
additional 627,200 shares upon the Board of Directors
approval. The 627,200 shares sold resulted in (i) an
increase of $45.1 in VEBA assets at an approximate $72.03
weighted average per share price realized by the Union VEBA,
(ii) a reduction of $15.1 in common stock owned by Union
VEBA (at the $24.02 per share reorganization value), and
(iii) the difference between the two amounts (approximately
$25.2, net of income taxes of $4.9) was credited to Additional
capital. After the sale, the Union VEBA now owns approximately
23.5% of the outstanding common stock as of December 31,
2007.
As of the date of filing of this Report, the Companys only
obligation to the VEBAs is an annual variable cash contribution.
The amount to be contributed to the VEBAs is 10% of the first
$20.0 of annual cash flow (as defined; in general terms, the
principal elements of cash flow are earnings before interest
expense, provision for income taxes and depreciation and
amortization less cash payments for, among other things,
interest, income taxes and capital expenditures), plus 20% of
annual cash flow, as defined, in excess of $20.0. Such annual
payments may not exceed $20.0 and are also be limited (with no
carryover to future years) to the extent that the payments would
cause the Companys liquidity to be less than $50.0. Such
amounts are determined on an annual basis and payable upon the
earlier of (a) 120 days following the end of fiscal
year, or within 15 days following the date on which the
Company files its Annual Report on
Form 10-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
(or, if no such report is required to be filed, within
15 days of the delivery of the independent auditors
opinion of the Companys annual financial statements).
During the course of the reorganization process, $49.7 of
contributions were made to the VEBAs, of which $12.7 was
available to reduce post emergence payments that may become due
pursuant to the annual variable cash requirement. Of this
amount, $1.9 was utilized in 2006 and the remaining $10.8 was
utilized in 2007. At December 31, 2007, the Company owed
the VEBAs $8.8 million under this arrangement which has
been recorded in Other accrued liabilities in the Companys
consolidated balance sheets and a corresponding increase in net
assets in respect of the VEBAs.
For accounting purposes, after discussions with the staff of the
SEC, the Company has concluded that the postretirement medical
benefits to be paid by the VEBAs and the Companys related
annual variable contribution obligations should be treated as
defined benefit postretirement plans with the current VEBA
assets and future variable contributions described above, and
earnings thereon, operating as a cap on the benefits to be paid.
As such, while the Companys only obligation to the VEBAs
is to pay the annual variable contribution amount and has no
control over the plan assets, the Company must account for net
periodic postretirement benefit costs in accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 106,
Employers Accounting for Postretirement Benefits other
than Pensions (SFAS No. 106) and
record any difference between the assets of each VEBA and its
accumulated postretirement benefit obligation (APBO)
in the Companys financial statements. Such information
90
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
must be obtained from the Salaried VEBA and Union VEBA on a
periodic basis. In general, as more fully described below, given
the significance of the assets currently available and expected
to be available to the VEBAs in the future and the current level
of benefits, the cap does not impact the computation of the
APBO. However, should the benefit formulas being used by the
VEBAs increase
and/or if
the assets were to substantially decrease, it is possible that
existing assets may be insufficient alone to fund such benefits
and that the benefits to be paid in future periods could be
reduced to the amount of annual variable contributions
reasonably expected to be paid by the Company in those years.
Any such limitations would also have to consider any remaining
amount of excess pre-emergence VEBA contributions made.
Key assumptions made in computing the net obligation of each
VEBA and in total at the December 31, 2007 and 2006 include:
With respect to VEBA assets:
|
|
|
|
|
The 4,845,465 shares of the Companys common stock
held by the Union VEBA that were not transferable have been
excluded from assets used to compute the net asset or liability
of the Union VEBA, and will continue to be excluded until the
restrictions lapse. Such shares are being accounted for similar
to treasury stock in the interim (see Note 1).
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2007, neither VEBA held any unrestricted
shares of the Companys common stock. At December 31,
2006, the fair value of the unrestricted shares of common stock
held by each VEBA was $55.98 per share.
|
|
|
|
Based on the information received from the VEBAs at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, both the Salaried and Union
VEBA assets were invested in various managed proprietary funds.
|
|
|
|
The Company assumed that the Salaried VEBA would achieve a long
term rate of return of approximately 5.50% and 5.50% on its
assets as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The
Company assumed that the Union VEBA would achieve a long term
rate of return of approximately 5.50% and 5.50% on its assets as
of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The long-term
rate of return assumption is based on the Companys
expectation of the investment strategies to be utilized by the
VEBAs trustees.
|
|
|
|
The annual variable payment obligation is being treated as a
funding/contribution policy and not counted as a VEBA asset at
December 31, 2007 for actuarial purposes. However, the
amount owed under the funding obligation in relation to the
results for the year ended December 31, 2007 has been
accrued and is included within Other accrued liabilities and Net
assets in respect of VEBAs.
|
With respect to VEBA obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
The APBO for each VEBA has been computed based on the level of
benefits being provided by each VEBA at December 31, 2007
and 2006.
|
|
|
|
The present value of APBO for each VEBA was computed using a
discount rate of return of 6.00% and 5.75% at December 31,
2007 and 2006, respectively.
|
|
|
|
Since the Salaried VEBA was paying a fixed annual amount to its
constituents at both December 31, 2007 and 2006, no future
cost trend rate increase has been assumed in computing the APBO
for the Salaried VEBA.
|
|
|
|
For the Union VEBA, which is currently paying certain
prescription drug benefits, an initial cost trend rate of 12%
has been assumed and the trend rate is assumed to decline to 5%
by 2013 at both December 31, 2007 and 2006. The trend rate
used by the Company was based on information provided by the
Union VEBA and industry data from the Companys actuaries.
|
91
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The following recaps the net assets of each VEBA as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006 (such information is also
included in the tables required under United States GAAP below
which roll forward the assets and obligations):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
Union VEBA
|
|
|
Salaried VEBA
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Union VEBA
|
|
|
Salaried VEBA
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
APBO
|
|
$
|
(232.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(62.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(294.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(226.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(51.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(278.1
|
)
|
Plan assets
|
|
|
353.6
|
|
|
|
76.0
|
|
|
|
429.6
|
|
|
|
241.4
|
|
|
|
77.4
|
|
|
|
318.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net asset
|
|
$
|
121.6
|
|
|
$
|
13.3
|
|
|
$
|
134.9
|
|
|
$
|
14.8
|
|
|
$
|
25.9
|
|
|
$
|
40.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys results of operations included the following
impacts associated with the VEBAs: (a) charges for service
rendered by employees; (b) a charge for accretion of
interest; (c) a benefit for the return on plan assets; and
(d) amortization of net gains or losses on assets, prior
service costs associated with plan amendments and actuarial
differences. The VEBA-related amounts included in the results of
operations are shown in the tables below.
Financial
Data.
Assumptions The following recaps the key
assumptions used and the amounts reflected in the Companys
financial statements with respect to the Successors and
Predecessors pension plans and other postretirement
benefit plans. In accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, impacts of the changes in the Companys pension
and other postretirement benefit plans discussed above have been
reflected in such information.
The Company uses a December 31 measurement date for all of its
plans.
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine benefit
obligations as of December 31 and net periodic benefit cost
(income) for the years ended December 31 are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits(1)
|
|
|
Medical/Life Benefits(2)
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Benefit obligations assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.60
|
%
|
|
|
5.20
|
%
|
|
|
5.50
|
%
|
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
3.75
|
%
|
|
|
3.00
|
%
|
|
|
3.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.20
|
%
|
|
|
5.20
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
|
|
8.50
|
%
|
|
|
5.50
|
%
|
|
|
5.50
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
3.00
|
%
|
|
|
3.00
|
%
|
|
|
3.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Pension Benefits for 2007 and 2006 primarily represent the
defined benefit plan of the Canadian facility. Pension Benefits
for 2005 primarily represent the Predecessors defined
benefit plans that were terminated in December 2006 as more
fully discussed above. |
|
(2) |
|
Medical /Life Benefits percentages for 2007 and 2006 relate to
the VEBAs. |
92
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Benefit Obligations and Funded Status The
following table presents the benefit obligations and funded
status of the Companys pension and other postretirement
benefit plans as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the
corresponding amounts that are included in the Companys
Consolidated Balance Sheets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Medical/Life Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Change in Benefit Obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
4.0
|
|
|
$
|
32.1
|
|
|
$
|
278.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,017.0
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
.6
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
15.5
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
Plan amendments relating to Salaried VEBA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtailments, settlements and amendments Predecessor
plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,005.6
|
)
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
Benefits paid Predecessor plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.4
|
)
|
Benefits paid Successor plans
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creation of VEBA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
262.0
|
|
Reimbursement from Retiree Drug Subsidy(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid by VEBA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.0
|
)
|
|
|
(7.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at end of year
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
294.7
|
|
|
|
278.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Plan Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMV of plan assets at beginning of year
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
|
318.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual return on assets
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
25.8
|
|
|
|
30.9
|
|
Employer contributions(2)
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
101.7
|
|
|
|
306.6
|
|
Reimbursement from Retiree Drug Subsidy(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets for which contributions transferred to the PBGC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid(3)
|
|
|
(.3
|
)
|
|
|
(.7
|
)
|
|
|
(20.0
|
)
|
|
|
(18.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMV of plan assets at end of year
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
429.6
|
|
|
|
318.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued (prepaid) benefit liability(4)
|
|
$
|
.5
|
|
|
$
|
.4
|
|
|
$
|
(134.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(40.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In January 2005, the Department of Health and Human
Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
released final regulations governing the Medicare prescription
drug benefit and other key elements of the Medicare
Modernization Act that went into effect January 1, 2006.
The Union VEBA is eligible for the Retiree Drug Subsidy because
the plan meets the definition of actuarial equivalence and
therefore qualifies for federal subsidies equal to 28% of
allowable drug costs. As a result, the Company has measured its
obligations and costs to take into account this subsidy. |
|
(2) |
|
Employer contributions to Medical/Life benefit plans in 2007
consist of $92.8 related to the release of transfer restrictions
and subsequent sale of 1,446,480 shares of the
Companys common stock held by the Union VEBA plus $8.8
owed to the VEBAs, but unpaid, at December 31, 2007 in
respect to the annual variable cash contribution which will be
paid in the first quarter of 2008. Employer contributions to
Medical/Life benefit plans in 2006 consist of $11.4 paid by the
VEBAs before emergence and $295.2 of value associated with
assets received by the VEBA at the Effective Date. |
93
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Benefits paid by Medical/Life benefit plans in 2006 consist of
$11.4 paid by the VEBAs prior to emergence and $7.3 paid by the
VEBAs after the Effective Date. |
|
(4) |
|
Accrued benefit liability for the defined benefit pension
plan(s) at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were included in
Long-term liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. |
The accumulated benefit obligation for all defined benefit
pension plans (other than the Terminated Plans) was $4.1 and
$3.6 at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The amount of loss which is recognized in the balance sheet (in
Accumulated other comprehensive income) associated with the
Companys defined benefit pension plan and the VEBAs that
have not been recognized in earnings as of December 31,
2007 were $.4 and $1.9, respectively. The portion of the pension
plan and VEBA amounts not recognized in earnings at
December 31, 2007 that is expected to be recognized in
earnings in 2008 is $1.2.
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost (Income)
The following table presents the components of net periodic
benefit cost (income) for the years ended December 31,
2007, 2006 and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Medical/Life Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
.2
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
|
$
|
.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
15.5
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)
|
|
|
(19.5
|
)
|
|
|
(7.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)
|
|
|
.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defined contribution plans
|
|
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
10.1
|
|
|
$
|
9.4
|
|
|
$
|
9.0
|
|
|
$
|
(2.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above table excludes pension plan curtailment and settlement
costs of $.2 and $6.3 in 2007 and 2006, respectively, and
pension plan curtailment and settlement credits of $.7 in 2005.
The periodic pension costs associated with the Terminated Plans
were zero, $1.1 and $1.6 for the years ended December 31,
2007, 2006 and 2005.
94
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost (Income) and Cash
Flow and Charges The following tables present
the components of net periodic pension benefits cost for the
years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
VEBA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
|
$
|
.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
15.5
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(19.5
|
)
|
|
|
(7.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)
|
|
|
.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defined benefit pension plans (including service costs of $.2,
$.5, $.6 and $1.2)
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
Defined contributions plans
|
|
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
Retroactive impact of defined contribution plans adoption
included in Other operating charges, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.5
|
|
|
$
|
5.5
|
|
|
$
|
4.9
|
|
|
$
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following tables present the allocation of these charges
(income):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Fabricated Products segment
|
|
$
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
4.9
|
|
|
$
|
4.5
|
|
|
$
|
8.7
|
|
Corporate segment
|
|
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
Other operating charges, net (Note 14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.5
|
|
|
$
|
5.5
|
|
|
$
|
4.9
|
|
|
$
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For all periods presented, the net periodic benefits relating to
the VEBAs are included as a component of Selling,
administrative, research and development and general expense
within the Corporate segment and substantially all of the
Fabricated Products segments related charges are in Cost
of products sold with the balance being in Selling,
administrative, research and development and general expense.
An amount of $.8 was accrued at December 31, 2006 in
Accrued salaries, wages, and related expenses relating to the
retroactive implementation of the remaining defined benefit
plans. Of the $.8, $.4 was recorded in Cost of products sold and
$.4 was recorded in Other operating charges, net (Note 14).
The amount recorded in Other operating charges, net represents a
one time payment. This amount was paid in 2007. The amount
related to the retroactive implementation of the Salaried DC
Plan was paid in July 2005. In September 2005, the Company and
the USW amended a prior agreement to provide, among other
things, for the Company to contribute per employee amounts to
the Steelworkers Pension Trust totaling approximately $.9.
The amended agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court and
such amount was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2005.
95
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The Successor also paid benefits applicable to the Predecessor
(see Cash and other Compensation in Note 11).
Employee benefit and incentive plans of the Predecessor are
discussed in Note 23.
|
|
11.
|
Employee
Incentive Plans
|
Equity
Based Compensation.
General Upon the Companys emergence
from chapter 11 bankruptcy, the 2006 Equity and Performance
Incentive Plan (the Equity Incentive Plan) became
effective. Officers and other key employees of the Company or
one or more of its subsidiaries, as well as directors of the
Company, are eligible to participate in the Equity Incentive
Plan. The Equity Incentive Plan permits the granting of awards
in the form of options to purchase common shares, stock
appreciation rights, shares of non-vested and vested stock,
restricted stock units, performance shares, performance units
and other awards. The Equity Incentive Plan will expire on
July 6, 2016. No grants will be made after that date, but
all grants made on or prior to that date will continue in effect
thereafter subject to the terms thereof and of the Equity
Incentive Plan. The Companys Board of Directors may, in
its discretion, terminate the Equity Incentive Plan at any time.
The termination of the Equity Incentive Plan will not affect the
rights of participants or their successors under any awards
outstanding and not exercised in full on the date of termination.
Subject to certain adjustments that may be required from time to
time to prevent dilution or enlargement of the rights of
participants under the Equity Incentive Plan, 2,222,222 common
shares were reserved for issuance under the Equity Incentive
Plan.
Compensation charges related to the Equity Incentive Plan for
the year ended December 31, 2007 were $9.1, of which $8.9
related to vested and non-vested common shares and restricted
stock units and $.2 related to stock options. Compensation
charges related to the Equity Incentive Plan for the period from
July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 were $4.0 all of
which related to vested and non-vested common shares. The total
charges for all periods were included in Selling,
administrative, research and development and general expense.
At December 31, 2007, 1,604,197 common shares were
available for additional awards under the Equity Incentive Plan.
Non-vested Common Shares and Restricted Stock
Units In June 2007, the Company granted 7,281
non-vested
common shares to its non-employee directors. The shares are
subject to a one year vesting requirement that lapses on
June 6, 2008. The fair value of the shares granted of $.5
is being amortized to expense over a one year period on a
ratable basis. An additional 3,877 common shares were issued to
non-employee directors electing to receive common shares in lieu
of all or a portion of their annual retainer fee. The fair value
of the shares of $.3, based on the fair value of the shares at
date of issuance, was recognized in earnings in the year ended
December 31, 2007 as a period expense.
In April 2007, the Company issued 54,381 non-vested common
shares and granted 1,260 restricted stock units to executive
officers and other key employees. The shares and the restricted
stock units are subject to a three year vesting requirement that
lapses on April 3, 2010. The fair value of the shares
issued, after assuming a 5% forfeiture rate, is being amortized
to expense over a three year period on a ratable basis. The
restricted stock units have rights similar to the rights of
non-vested common shares and the employee will receive one
common share for each restricted stock unit upon the vesting of
the restricted stock unit. The restricted stock units vest one
third on the first anniversary of the grant date and one third
on each of the second and third anniversaries of the date of
issuance. The fair value of the restricted stock units issued,
after assuming a 5% forfeiture rate is being amortized to
expense over the vesting period on a ratable basis.
Upon emergence from chapter 11 reorganization, the Company
issued 521,387 shares of non-vested common shares and 3,699
restricted stock units to directors, executive officers and
other key employees. The weighted average grant date fair value
for non-vested common shares and restricted stock units were
$42.31 and $62.0, respectively. No non-vested common shares or
restricted stock units vested during 2006. The non-vested common
96
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
shares and restricted stock units issued to executive officers
and other key employees are subject to a three year vesting
requirement that lapses on various dates in 2009. The non-vested
common shares issued to directors were subject to a one year
vesting requirement that lapsed on August 1, 2007. An
additional 4,273 common shares were issued in 2006 to
non-employee directors electing to receive common shares in lieu
of all or a portion of their annual retainer fee. The fair value
of the shares of $.2, based on the fair value of the shares at
date of issuance, was recognized in earnings in the year ended
December 31, 2006 as a period expense.
The fair value of the non-vested common shares and restricted
stock units is determined based on the closing trading price of
the common shares on the grant date. A summary of the activity
with respect to non-vested common shares and restricted stock
units for the year ended December 31, 2007 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Vested
|
|
|
Restricted
|
|
|
|
Common Shares
|
|
|
Stock Units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighed-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant-Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant-Date
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Non-vested shares and restricted stock units at January 1,
2007
|
|
|
521,387
|
|
|
$
|
42.31
|
|
|
|
3,699
|
|
|
$
|
62.00
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
61,662
|
|
|
|
79.31
|
|
|
|
1,260
|
|
|
|
80.01
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(30,708
|
)
|
|
|
43.09
|
|
|
|
(1,232
|
)
|
|
|
62.00
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(3,270
|
)
|
|
|
53.76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested shares and restricted stock units at
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
549,071
|
|
|
$
|
46.36
|
|
|
|
3,727
|
|
|
$
|
68.09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the Equity Incentive Plan, the Company allows participants
to elect to have the Company withhold common shares to satisfy
minimum statutory tax withholding obligations arising on the
vesting of non-vested shares and restricted stock units and
stock options. When the Company withholds the shares, it is
required to remit to the appropriate taxing authorities the fair
value of the shares withheld. During the year ended
December 31, 2007, 8,346 shares (which are included in
vested shares in the above tables) were withheld upon the
vesting of common shares. During the fourth quarter of 2007, the
Board of Directors approved the cancellation of such shares and
all future shares withheld as a result of vesting of non-vested
shares and restricted stock units and the exercising of stock
options. The fair value of the common shares withheld of $.7 has
been recorded as a reduction to Additional capital in the year
ended December 31, 2007.
As of December 31, 2007, there was $13.5 of unrecognized
compensation cost related to non-vested common shares and
restricted stock units. That cost is expected to be recognized
over a weighted-average period of 1.6 years.
Stock Options On April 3, 2007, the
Company granted options to purchase 25,137 of its common shares
to executive officers and other key employees with a contractual
life of ten years.
The fair value of each of the Companys stock option awards
is estimated on the date of grant using a Black-Scholes
option-pricing model that uses the assumptions noted in the
table below. The fair value of the Companys stock option
awards, which are subject to graded vesting, is expensed on a
straight line basis over the vesting period of the stock
options. Due to the Companys short trading history for its
common shares since emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy on
July 6, 2006, expected volatility could not be reliably
calculated based on the historical volatility of the common
shares. As such, the Company has determined volatility for use
in the Black-Sholes option-pricing model using the volatility of
the stock of a number of similar public companies over a period
equal to the expected option life of six years. The risk-free
rate for periods within the contractual life of the stock option
award is based on the yield curve of a zero-coupon US Treasury
bond on the date the stock option is awarded. The Company uses
historical data to estimate employee terminations and the
simplified method to estimate the expected option life within
the valuation model.
97
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The significant weighted average assumptions used in determining
the grant date fair value of the option awards granted on
April 3, 2007 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
|
%
|
Volatility rate
|
|
|
45
|
%
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.59
|
%
|
Expected option life (years)
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
Prior to April 3, 2007, the Company had no outstanding
options to purchase common shares. A summary of the
Companys stock option activity for the year ended
December 31, 2007 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Life (In years)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Outstanding at January 1, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grants
|
|
|
25,137
|
|
|
|
80.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
25,137
|
|
|
$
|
80.01
|
|
|
|
9.25
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected to vest at December 31, 2007 (assuming a 5%
forfeiture rate)
|
|
|
23,880
|
|
|
$
|
80.01
|
|
|
|
9.25
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted average fair value of the options granted during
the year ended December 31, 2007 was $39.90. At
December 31, 2007, there was $.7 of unrecognized
compensation costs related to stock options. This cost is
expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of
2.3 years.
Cash and
other Compensation.
|
|
|
|
|
A short term incentive compensation plan for management, payable
in cash, which is based primarily on earnings, adjusted for
certain safety and performance factors. Most of the
Companys locations also have similar programs for both
hourly and salaried employees. During 2007, 2006 and 2005, the
Company recorded charges of $12.0, $7.9 and $5.7, respectively,
related to these plans. Of the total charges in 2007, 2006 and
2005, $3.1, $2.9 and $3.3, respectively, were included in Cost
of products sold and $8.9, $5.0 and $2.4, respectively,
were included in Selling, administrative, research and
development and general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certain employment agreements between the Company and certain
members of management remain effective. Additionally, other
members of management continue to retain certain pre-emergence
contractual arrangements. In particular, the terms of the change
in control agreements survive after the Effective Date for a
period ending two years following a change in control, unless
superseded by another agreement (see Note 23). The
terms of the severance agreements with certain members of
management terminated in 2007.
|
|
|
12.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Commitments. The Company and its subsidiaries
have a variety of financial commitments, including purchase
agreements, forward foreign exchange and forward sales contracts
(see Note 13), letters of credit and guarantees. The
Company and its subsidiaries also have agreements to supply
alumina to and to purchase aluminum from Anglesey (see
Note 4). As of December 31, 2007, orders were placed
for certain equipment
and/or
services intended to augment the heat treat and aerospace
capabilities at the Companys Trentwood facility in
Spokane,
98
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Washington. The Company expects the total costs for such
equipment and services to be approximately $139. Approximately
$112.7 of such costs were incurred from inception of the
Trentwood project through the end of 2007. The balance is
expected to be incurred during 2008. As of December 31,
2007, orders were also placed for certain equipment and/or
services relating to the $91 rod, bar and tube value stream
investment. Approximately $7.3 was incurred from inception of
the investment through the end of 2007. The balance is expected
to be incurred during 2008 and 2009.
Minimum rental commitments under operating leases at
December 31, 2007, are as follows: years ending
December 31, 2008 $3.8; 2009 $3.5;
2010 $2.0; 2011 $.9 and 2012 and
thereafter $.5. Rental expenses, after excluding
rental expenses of discontinued operations, were $5.0, $4.0 and
$3.6 for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
Environmental Contingencies. The Company and
its subsidiaries are subject to a number of environmental laws,
to fines or penalties assessed for alleged breaches of the
environmental laws, and to claims based upon such laws.
A substantial portion of the Companys pre-emergence
obligations, primarily in respect of non-owned locations, was
resolved by the chapter 11 proceedings (see Note 24).
The remaining environmental accruals are primarily related to
potential solid waste disposal and soil and groundwater
remediation matters. The following table presents the changes in
such accruals, which are primarily included in Long-term
liabilities, for the period from July 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2007 (see Note 24 for a table that
presents the changes in the environmental accruals for the
period from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and the
year ended December 31, 2005).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
8.4
|
|
|
$
|
10.4
|
|
Additional accruals
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
.7
|
|
Less expenditures
|
|
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
|
(2.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
7.7
|
|
|
$
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These environmental accruals represent the Companys
estimate of costs reasonably expected to be incurred based on
presently enacted laws and regulations, currently available
facts, existing technology, and the Companys assessment of
the likely remediation action to be taken and are calculated on
an undiscounted basis. In the ordinary course, the Company
expects that these remediation actions will be taken over the
next several years and estimates that expenditures to be charged
to these environmental accruals will be approximately $1.7 in
2008, $1.8 in 2009, $.7 in 2010 , $.8 in 2011 and $2.7 in 2012
and thereafter.
As additional facts are developed and definitive remediation
plans and necessary regulatory approvals for implementation of
remediation are established or alternative technologies are
developed, changes in these and other factors may result in
actual costs exceeding the current environmental accruals. The
Company believes that it is reasonably possible that costs
associated with these environmental matters may exceed current
accruals by amounts that could range, in the aggregate, up to an
estimated $15.5. As the resolution of these matters is subject
to further regulatory review and approval, no specific assurance
can be given as to when the factors upon which a substantial
portion of this estimate is based can be expected to be
resolved. However, the Company is currently working to resolve
certain of these matters.
Other Environmental Matters. The Company has
been working with regulatory authorities and performing studies
and remediation pursuant to several consent orders with the
State of Washington relating to the historical use of oils
containing PCBs at our Trentwood facility in Spokane, Washington
before 1978. During April 2004, the Company was served with a
subpoena for documents and notified by Federal authorities that
they were investigating certain environmental compliance issues
with respect to the Companys Trentwood facility in
Spokane, Washington. The Company undertook its own internal
investigation of the matter through specially retained counsel
to
99
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
ensure that it had all relevant facts regarding Trentwoods
compliance with applicable environmental laws. In early 2007,
the Company received a letter from the regulatory authorities
confirming that their investigation had been closed.
Resolution of Contingencies with respect to the
PBGC. As more fully described in Note 24, in
response to the January 2004 motion to terminate or
substantially modify substantially all of the Companys
defined benefit pension plans, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that
the Company had met the factual requirements for distress
termination as to all of the plans at issue. The PBGC appealed
the Bankruptcy Courts ruling. However, as more fully
discussed in Note 24, while the PBGCs appeal was
pending, the Company and the PBGC reached a settlement under
which the PBGC agreed to assume the Terminated Plans (as defined
below). The Bankruptcy Court approved this settlement in January
2005. The Company believed that all issues in respect of such
matters were resolved. However, despite the settlement with the
PBGC, the intermediate appellate court proceeded to consider the
PBGCs earlier appeal and issued a ruling dated
March 31, 2005 affirming the Bankruptcy Courts
rulings regarding distress termination of all such plans. In
July 2005, the Company and the PBGC reached an agreement, which
was approved by the Bankruptcy Court in September 2005, under
which the PBGC agreement previously approved by the Bankruptcy
Court was amended to permit the PBGC to further appeal the
intermediate appellate court ruling. Under the terms of the
amended PBGC agreement, if the PBGC were to prevail in the
further appeal, all aspects of the previously approved PBGC
agreement would remain the same. On the other hand, under the
amended agreement, if the intermediate appellate court ruling
was upheld on further appeal, the PBGC would be required to:
(a) approve the distress termination of the remaining
defined benefit pension plans; and (b) reduce the amount of
the administrative claim to $11.0 (from $14.0). Under the
amended agreement, both the Company and the PBGC agreed to take
up no further appeals. Pending the final resolution of this
matter, the Companys settlement with the PBGC remained in
full force and effect. Upon consummation of the two separate
plans of liquidation (collectively, the Liquidating
Plans) in December 2005, the $11.0 minimum was paid to the
PBGC.
In July 2006, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the intermediate appellate courts ruling
upholding the Bankruptcy Courts finding that the factual
requirements for distress termination of all defined benefit
plans had been met. Accordingly, four of the five remaining
plans were terminated by the PBGC on December 29, 2006.
These four pension plans, together with the pension plans
terminated by the PBGC in 2004 and 2003 (see
Note 23) are herein after collectively referred to as
the Terminated Plans. The Terminated Plans were
replaced with defined contribution plans as described in
Note 10. As a result of the July 2006 ruling, the $3.0 of
previously recorded administrative claim included in the
Companys opening balance sheet was credited to Other
operating charges, net (see Note 14). The termination of
the Terminated Plans in 2006 resulted in a non-cash benefit of
approximately $4.2 (reflected in Other operating (benefits)
charges, net see Note 14).
Other Contingencies. The Company and its
subsidiaries are involved in various other claims, lawsuits, and
proceedings relating to a wide variety of matters related to
past or present operations. While uncertainties are inherent in
the final outcome of such matters and it is presently impossible
to determine the actual costs that ultimately may be incurred,
management currently believes that the resolution of such
uncertainties and the incurrence of such costs should not have a
material adverse effect on the Companys consolidated
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.
Commitment and contingencies of the Predecessor are discussed in
Note 24.
|
|
13.
|
Derivative
Financial Instruments and Related Hedging Programs
|
In conducting its business, the Company uses various
instruments, including forward contracts and options, to manage
the risks arising from fluctuations in aluminum prices, energy
prices and exchange rates. The Company has historically entered
into derivative transactions from time to time to limit its
exposure resulting from (1) its anticipated sales of
primary aluminum and fabricated aluminum products, net of
expected purchase costs for items that fluctuate with aluminum
prices, (2) the energy price risk from fluctuating prices
for natural gas used in its production process, and
(3) foreign currency requirements with respect to its cash
commitments with foreign
100
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
subsidiaries and affiliates. As the Companys hedging
activities are generally designed to lock-in a specified price
or range of prices, realized gains or losses on the derivative
contracts utilized in the hedging activities (excluding the
impact of mark-to-market fluctuations on those contracts
discussed below) generally offset at least a portion of any
losses or gains, respectively, on the transactions being hedged.
The Companys share of primary aluminum production from
Anglesey is approximately 150,000,000 pounds annually. Because
the Company purchases alumina for Anglesey at prices linked to
primary aluminum prices, only a portion of the Companys
net revenues associated with Anglesey are exposed to price risk.
The Company estimates the net portion of its share of Anglesey
production exposed to primary aluminum price risk to be
approximately 100,000,000 pounds annually (before considering
income tax effects).
The Companys pricing of fabricated aluminum products is
generally intended to lock-in a conversion margin (representing
the value added from the fabrication process(es)) and to pass
metal price risk on to its customers. However, in certain
instances the Company does enter into firm price arrangements.
In such instances, the Company does have price risk on its
anticipated primary aluminum purchase in respect of the
customers order. Total fabricated products shipments
during the year ended December 31, 2007, the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006, the period from
July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and the year
ended December 31, 2005 that contained fixed price terms
were (in millions of pounds) 239.1, 103.9, 96.0 and 155.0,
respectively.
During the last three years, the volume of fabricated products
shipments with underlying primary aluminum price risk were at
least as much as the Companys net exposure to primary
aluminum price risk at Anglesey. As such, the Company considers
its access to Anglesey production overall to be a
natural hedge against fabricated products firm
metal-price risks. However, since the volume of fabricated
products shipped under firm prices may not match up on a
month-to-month basis with expected Anglesey-related primary
aluminum shipments and to the extent that firm price contracts
from our Fabricated Products business unit exceed the Anglesey
related primary aluminum shipments, the Company may use third
party hedging instruments to eliminate any net remaining primary
aluminum price exposure existing at any time.
At December 31, 2007, the fabricated products business held
contracts for the delivery of fabricated aluminum products that
have the effect of creating price risk on anticipated purchases
of primary aluminum during the 2008 through 2012 totaling
approximately (in millions of pounds): 2008 161.4,
2009 88.5, 2010 86.5, 2011
77.5 and 2012 8.1.
The following table summarizes the Companys material
derivative positions at December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
|
Carrying/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts
|
|
|
Market
|
|
Commodity
|
|
Period
|
|
|
(mmlbs)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option purchase contracts
|
|
|
1/11
through 12/11
|
|
|
|
48.9
|
|
|
$
|
12.7
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
1/08
through 12/12
|
|
|
|
169.3
|
|
|
$
|
9.6
|
|
Fixed priced sales contracts
|
|
|
1/08
through 12/09
|
|
|
|
68.6
|
|
|
$
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
|
Carrying/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts
|
|
|
Market
|
|
Foreign Currency
|
|
Period
|
|
|
(mm)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Pounds Sterling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
11/08 through 12/08
|
|
|
|
£4.2
|
|
|
$
|
(.2
|
)
|
Euro Dollars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts
|
|
|
1/08 through 7/09
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
.1
|
|
101
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
|
Carrying/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts
|
|
|
Market
|
|
Energy
|
|
Period
|
|
|
(mmbtu)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Natural gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed priced purchase contracts(a)
|
|
|
1/08 through 9/08
|
|
|
|
1,120,000
|
|
|
$
|
(.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
As of December 31, 2007, the Companys exposure to
increases in natural gas prices had been substantially limited
for approximately 87% of natural gas purchases for January 2008
through March 2008, approximately 13% of natural gas purchases
for April 2008 through June 2008 and approximately 1% of natural
gas purchases for July 2008 through September 2008. |
As more fully discussed in Note 1, the Company reflects
changes in the market value of its derivative instruments in Net
income (rather than deferring such gains/losses to the date of
the underlying transactions to which the related hedges occur).
Included in Net income (Cost of products sold) for the year
ended December 31, 2007 were realized gains (losses) and
unrealized gains (losses) of $(3.6) and $9.7, respectively.
Included in Net income (Cost of product sold) for the period
from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and for the
period from July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006
were realized gains (losses) of $1.6 and $(4.6), respectively,
and unrealized gains of $6.1 and $9.0, respectively. Included in
Net income (Cost of products sold) for the year ended
December 31, 2005 were realized gains of $1.0 and
unrealized losses of $4.1.
102
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
14.
|
Other
Operating (Benefits) Charges, Net
|
The (income) loss impact associated with other operating
(benefits) charges, net, was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
January 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Reimbursement of amounts paid in connection with sale of
Companys interests in and related to QAL-Corporate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMT (Note 9)
|
|
$
|
(7.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefit related to terminated pension plans
Corporate (Notes 10 and 23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resolution of a pre-emergence
contingency Corporate (Note 12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
settlement Corporate(1)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash benefit resulting from settlement of a $5 claim by the
purchaser of the Gramercy, Louisiana alumina refinery and Kaiser
Jamaica Bauxite Company for payment of $.1 Corporate
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resolution of contingencies relating to sale of property prior
to emergence Corporate(2)
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post emergence Chapter 11 related
items Corporate(3)
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charges associated with retroactive portion of contributions to
defined contribution plans upon termination of defined benefit
plans(4) (Note 10) Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(.1
|
)
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(13.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
.9
|
|
|
$
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The PBGC proceeds consist of a payment related to a settlement
agreement entered into with the PBGC in connection with the
Companys chapter 11 reorganization (Note 12). |
|
(2) |
|
During 2007, certain contingencies related to the sale of the
Predecessors interest in a smelter in Tacoma, Washington
were resolved with the buyer. As a result, approximately $1.6 of
the sale proceeds which had been placed into escrow at the time
of sale were released to the Company. At the Effective Date, no
value had been ascribed to the funds in escrow as they were
deemed to be contingent assets at that time. |
|
(3) |
|
Post-emergence
chapter 11-related
items include primarily professional fees and expenses incurred
after emergence which related directly to the Companys
reorganization and chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. |
|
(4) |
|
Amount in 2006 represents a one time contribution related to the
retroactive implementation of the hourly defined benefit plans.
(Note 10) |
103
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Basic and diluted earnings per share for the year ended
December 31, 2007, the period from July 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006, the period from January 1,
2006 to July 1, 2006 and the year ended December 31,
2005 were calculated as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
101.0
|
|
|
$
|
26.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,136.9
|
|
|
$
|
(1,112.7
|
)
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (Loss)
|
|
$
|
101.0
|
|
|
$
|
26.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,141.2
|
|
|
$
|
(753.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
20,014
|
|
|
|
20,003
|
|
|
|
79,672
|
|
|
|
79,675
|
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested common shares and restricted stock units
|
|
|
294
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding, assuming full
dilution
|
|
|
20,308
|
|
|
|
20,089
|
|
|
|
79,672
|
|
|
|
79,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
$
|
39.37
|
|
|
$
|
(13.97
|
)
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.05
|
|
|
|
4.57
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.06
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (Loss)
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
$
|
39.42
|
|
|
$
|
(9.46
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
39.37
|
|
|
$
|
(13.97
|
)
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.05
|
|
|
|
4.57
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.06
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (Loss)
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
39.42
|
|
|
$
|
(9.46
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options to purchase 25,137 common shares at an average exercise
price of $80.01 were outstanding at December 31, 2007.
552,798 and 525,086 non-vested common shares and restricted
stock units were outstanding at December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively. Diluted income per share reflects the potential
dilutive effect of options to purchase common shares and
non-vested common shares and restricted stock units using the
treasury stock method. Options to purchase 25,137 common shares
for the year ended December 31, 2007 were excluded from the
weighted average diluted shares computation because their
inclusion would have been anti-dilutive. Additionally, for the
year ended December 31, 2007 and the period from
July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006, 257,996, and
104
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
439,732 non-vested common shares and restricted stock units were
excluded from the average share computation, respectively,
because their inclusion would be anti-dilutive.
In June 2007, the Board of Directors initiated the payment of a
regular quarterly cash dividend of $.18 per common share. In
2007 the Company paid a total of approximately $7.4, or $.36 per
common share, in cash dividends under this program.
Additionally, on December 11, 2007, the Company declared a
third dividend of $3.7, or $.18 per common share, to
stockholders of record at the close of business on
January 25, 2008, which was paid on February 15, 2008,
bringing the total dividends declared for 2007 to approximately
$11.1 or $0.54 per common share.
|
|
16.
|
Segment
and Geographical Area Information
|
The Companys primary line of business is the production of
fabricated aluminum products. In addition, the Company owns a
49% interest in Anglesey, which owns an aluminum smelter in
Holyhead, Wales.
The Companys continuing operations are organized and
managed by product type and include two operating segments of
the aluminum industry and the corporate segment. The aluminum
industry segments include: Fabricated Products and Primary
Aluminum. The Fabricated Products segment sells value-added
products such as heat treat aluminum sheet and plate, extrusions
and forgings which are used in a wide range of industrial
applications, including for automotive, aerospace and general
engineering end-use applications. The Primary Aluminum segment
produces commodity grade products as well as value-added
products such as ingot and billet, for which the Company
receives a premium over normal commodity market prices and
conducts hedging activities in respect of the Companys
exposure to primary aluminum price risk. The accounting policies
of the segments are the same as those described in Note 1.
Segment results are evaluated internally by management before
any allocation of corporate overhead and without any charge for
income taxes, interest expense or Other operating charges, net.
Financial information by operating segment, excluding
discontinued operations, at and for the year ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Net Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$
|
1,298.3
|
|
|
$
|
567.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
590.9
|
|
|
$
|
939.0
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
206.2
|
|
|
|
100.3
|
|
|
|
|
98.9
|
|
|
|
150.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,504.5
|
|
|
$
|
667.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
689.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,089.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income of unconsolidated affiliate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
$
|
33.4
|
|
|
$
|
18.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.0
|
|
|
$
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products(1)
|
|
$
|
169.0
|
|
|
$
|
60.8
|
|
|
|
$
|
61.2
|
|
|
$
|
87.2
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
(47.1
|
)
|
|
|
(25.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
(35.8
|
)
|
Other Operating Benefits (Charges), Net Note 14
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
|
(.9
|
)
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
182.0
|
|
|
$
|
48.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
$
|
59.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating results for 2007 includes a LIFO inventory benefit of
$14.0. Operating results for 2006 and 2005 include LIFO
inventory charges of $25.0 and $9.3, respectively. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$
|
11.8
|
|
|
$
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
9.7
|
|
|
$
|
19.6
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.9
|
|
|
$
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
19.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures, net of accounts payable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$
|
61.7
|
|
|
$
|
29.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
27.2
|
|
|
$
|
30.6
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
61.8
|
|
|
$
|
30.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
28.1
|
|
|
$
|
31.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
$
|
41.3
|
|
|
$
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
$
|
486.3
|
|
|
$
|
434.4
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
99.1
|
|
|
|
87.8
|
|
Corporate and Other(1)
|
|
|
579.8
|
|
|
|
133.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,165.2
|
|
|
$
|
655.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Corporate and Other includes all of the Companys cash and
cash equivalents, net assets in respect of VEBAs and net
deferred income tax assets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Income taxes paid:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
.8
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
.2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
$
|
.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Income taxes paid excludes income tax paid by discontinued
operations of $18.9 in 2005. |
106
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Geographical information for net sales, based on country of
origin, and long-lived assets follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Net sales to unaffiliated customers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
1,197.0
|
|
|
$
|
517.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
532.8
|
|
|
$
|
836.1
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
101.3
|
|
|
|
50.2
|
|
|
|
|
58.1
|
|
|
|
102.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,298.3
|
|
|
|
567.2
|
|
|
|
|
590.9
|
|
|
|
939.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
206.2
|
|
|
|
100.3
|
|
|
|
|
98.9
|
|
|
|
148.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
206.2
|
|
|
|
100.3
|
|
|
|
|
98.9
|
|
|
|
150.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,504.5
|
|
|
$
|
667.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
689.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,089.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Long-lived assets:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabricated Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
208.3
|
|
|
$
|
155.6
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
218.6
|
|
|
|
166.2
|
|
Primary Aluminum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
264.0
|
|
|
$
|
188.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Long-lived assets include Property, plant, and equipment, net
and Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates. |
The aggregate foreign currency transaction gains (losses)
included in determining net income was immaterial for the years
ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. Sales to the
Companys largest fabricated products customer accounted
for sales of approximately 15%, 18% and 19% of total revenue in
2007, 2006 and 2005. The loss of the customer would have a
material adverse effect on the Company taken as a whole.
However, in the Companys opinion, the relationship between
the customer and the Company is good and the risk of loss of the
customer is remote. Export sales were less than 10% of total
revenue during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and
2005.
107
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
17.
|
Supplemental
cash flow information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest of $3.1, $1.6, $1.0
and $.6, respectively
|
|
$
|
3.1
|
|
|
$
|
.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
$
|
.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
22.3
|
|
Less income taxes paid by discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
$
|
.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removal of transfer restrictions on common stock owned by Union
VEBA (Note 10)
|
|
$
|
92.8
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend declared and unpaid
|
|
$
|
3.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognition of deferred income tax assets and liabilities due to
release of valuation allowance through equity
|
|
$
|
343.0
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREDECESSOR
|
|
18.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
The accompanying consolidated financial statements of the
Predecessor were prepared on a going concern basis
in accordance with
SOP 90-7,
and do not include the impacts of the Plan including adjustments
relating to recorded asset amounts, the resolution of
liabilities subject to compromise, or the cancellation of the
interests of the Companys pre-emergence stockholders.
In most instances, but not all, the accounting policies of the
Predecessor were the same or similar to those of the Successor.
Where accounting policies differed or the Predecessor applied
methodologies differently to its financial statement information
than that which is used in preparing and presenting Successor
financial statement information, discussion has been added to
this Report in the appropriate section of the Successor notes.
|
|
19.
|
Reorganization
Proceedings
|
Background. The Company and 25 of its
subsidiaries filed separate voluntary petitions in the
Bankruptcy Court for reorganization under chapter 11 of the
Code; the Company and 16 of its subsidiaries (the Original
Debtors) filed in the first quarter of 2002 and nine
additional subsidiaries (the Additional Debtors)
filed in the first quarter of 2003. The Company and its
subsidiaries continued to manage their businesses in the
ordinary course as
debtors-in-possession
subject to the control and administration of the Bankruptcy
Court. The Original Debtors and the Additional Debtors are
collectively referred to herein as the Debtors. For
purposes of this Report, the term Filing Date means
with respect to any Debtor, the date such Debtor filed its
chapter 11 proceeding.
108
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The Original Debtors found it necessary to file the
chapter 11 proceedings primarily because of liquidity and
cash flow problems of the Company and its subsidiaries that
arose in late 2001 and early 2002. The Company was facing
significant near-term debt maturities at a time of unusually
weak aluminum industry business conditions, depressed aluminum
prices and a broad economic slowdown that was further
exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001. In
addition, the Company had become increasingly burdened by
asbestos litigation and growing legacy obligations for retiree
medical and pension costs. The confluence of these factors
created the prospect of continuing operating losses and negative
cash flows, resulting in lower credit ratings and an inability
to access the capital markets. The chapter 11 proceedings
filed by the Additional Debtors were commenced, among other
reasons, to protect the assets held by these Debtors against
possible statutory liens that might have arisen and been
enforced by the PBGC.
Reorganizing Debtors; Entities Containing the Fabricated
Products and Certain Other Operations. On
February 6, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
(the Confirmation Order) confirming the Plan. On
May 11, 2006, the District Court for the District of
Delaware entered an order affirming the Confirmation Order and
adopting the Bankruptcy Courts findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding confirmation of the Plan. On
July 6, 2006, the Plan became effective and was
substantially consummated, whereupon the Company emerged from
chapter 11.
Pursuant to the Plan, on the Effective Date, the pre-emergence
ownership interests in the Company were cancelled without
consideration and all material pre-petition claims against the
Company and its remaining debtor subsidiaries, including claims
in respect of debt, pension and postretirement medical
obligations, and asbestos and other tort liabilities (totaling
approximately $4.4 billion in the June 30, 2006
consolidated financial statements), were resolved as follows:
(a) Claims in Respect of Retiree Medical Obligations.
Pursuant to settlements reached with representatives of hourly
and salaried retirees:
|
|
|
|
|
an aggregate of 11,439,900 shares of the Companys
common stock were delivered to the Union VEBA and entities that
prior to the Effective Date acquired from the Union VEBA rights
to receive a portion of such shares (see Note 10);
|
|
|
|
an aggregate of 1,940,100 shares of common stock were
delivered to the Salaried VEBA and entities that prior to the
Effective Date acquired from the Salaried VEBA rights to receive
a portion of such shares (see Note 10); and
|
|
|
|
the Company became obligated to make certain contingent annual
cash payments of up to $20.0 annually to the VEBAs that
fluctuate based on earnings, adjusted for certain cash flow
items (see Note 10).
|
(b) Priority Claims and Secured Claims. All pre-petition
priority claims, pre-petition priority tax claims and
pre-petition secured claims were paid in full in cash.
(c) Unsecured Claims. With respect to pre-petition
unsecured claims (other than the personal injury claims
specified below):
|
|
|
|
|
all pre-petition unsecured claims of the PBGC against the
Companys Canadian debtor affiliates were satisfied by the
delivery of 2,160,000 shares of common stock and $2.5 in
cash; and
|
|
|
|
all pre-petition general unsecured claims against the Company
and its remaining debtor subsidiaries, other than Canadian
debtor subsidiaries, including claims of the PBGC and holders of
public debt, were satisfied by the issuance of
4,460,000 shares of common stock to a third-party
disbursing agent, with such shares to be delivered to the
holders of such claims in accordance with the terms of the Plan
(to the extent not constituting convenience claims satisfied
with cash payments). Of such 4,460,000 shares of common
stock, less than 200,000 shares continue to be held by the
third-party disbursing agent as a reserve pending resolution of
|
109
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
disputed claims; to the extent a holder of a disputed claim is
not entitled to shares reserved in respect of such claim, such
shares will be distributed to holders of allowed claims.
|
(d) Personal Injury Claims. Certain trusts (the PI
Trusts) were formed to receive distributions from the
Company, assume responsibility from the Company for personal
injury liabilities (including those resulting from alleged
pre-petition exposures to asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch
volatiles and noise-induced hearing loss), and to make payments
in respect of such personal injury claims. The Company
contributed to the PI Trusts:
|
|
|
|
|
the rights with respect to proceeds associated with personal
injury-related insurance recoveries that were reflected on the
Companys financial statements at June 30, 2006 as a
receivable having a value of $963.3 (see Note 24);
|
|
|
|
$13.0 in cash, less approximately $.3 advanced prior to the
Effective Date, which was paid on the Effective Date;
|
|
|
|
the stock of a subsidiary whose primary assets was approximately
145 acres of real estate located in Louisiana and the
rights as lessor under a lease agreement for such real property
that produces modest rental income; and
|
|
|
|
75% of a pre-petition general unsecured claim against one of the
Companys subsidiaries in the amount of $1.1 billion
entitling certain of the PI Trusts to a share of the
4,460,000 shares of common stock distributed to unsecured
claimholders.
|
The PI Trusts assumed all liability and responsibility for the
past, pending and future personal injury claims resulting from
alleged pre-petition exposures to asbestos, silica and coal tar
pitch volatile, and pending noise induced hearing loss personal
injury claims. As of the Effective Date, injunctions were
entered prohibiting any person from pursuing any claims against
the Company or any of its affiliates in respect of such matters.
Cash payments on the Effective Date for priority and secured
claims, payments to the PI Trusts, bank and professional fees
totaled approximately $29.0 and were funded using existing cash
resources.
Liquidating Debtors. As previously disclosed
in prior periods, the Company generated net cash proceeds of
approximately $686.8 from the sale of its interests in and
related to QAL and Alumina Partners of Jamaica
(Alpart). The Companys interests in and
related to QAL and Alpart were owned by four of its debtor
subsidiaries (the Liquidating Subsidiaries) that
were subsidiary guarantors of one of the Companys
subsidiaries senior and senior subordinated notes.
Throughout 2005, the proceeds were held in separate escrow
accounts pending distribution to the creditors of the
Liquidating Subsidiaries.
On December 20, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
confirming the two separate joint plans of liquidation (the
Liquidating Plans) for the Liquidating Subsidiaries.
On December 22, 2005, the Liquidating Plans became
effective and all restricted cash and other assets held on
behalf of or by the Liquidating Subsidiaries, consisting
primarily of approximately $686.8 of net cash proceeds from the
sale of interests in and related to QAL and Alpart, were
transferred to a trustee for subsequent distribution to holders
of claims against the Liquidating Subsidiaries in accordance
with the terms of the Liquidating Plans. In connection with the
Liquidating Plans, the Liquidating Subsidiaries were dissolved
and their corporate existence was terminated.
When the Liquidating Plans became effective, substantially all
amounts were to be paid to (or received by) the Company from/to
the creditors of the Liquidating Subsidiaries pursuant to the
Intercompany Agreement, other than certain payments of
alternative minimum tax paid by the Company. The Company
received $7.2 that was ultimately determined to be due from two
of the Liquidating Subsidiaries (Kaiser Alumina Australia
Corporation and Kaiser Finance Corporation under the Liquidating
Plan (hereafter referred to as the KAAC/KFC Plan)
during the first half of 2007 in connection with the completion
of its 2005 tax return (see Note 9). The Intercompany
Agreement also resolved substantially all pre- and post-petition
intercompany claims among the Debtors.
110
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
The effectiveness of the Liquidating Plans and the dissolution
of the Liquidating Subsidiaries did not resolve a dispute
between the holders of senior notes and the holders of senior
subordinated notes regarding their respective entitlement to
certain of the proceeds from the sales by the Liquidating
Subsidiaries of interests in QAL and Alpart (the Senior
Note-Sub Note Dispute). On December 22, 2005, the
Bankruptcy Court issued a decision in connection with the Senior
Note-Sub Note Dispute, finding (in favor of the senior notes)
that the senior subordinated notes were contractually
subordinate to the senior notes in regard to certain subsidiary
guarantors (particularly the Liquidating Subsidiaries) and that
certain parties were not due certain reimbursements. The
Bankruptcy Courts ruling was appealed and in
January 2008, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy
Courts ruling. The District Courts ruling has been
appealed. The Company cannot predict, however, the ultimate
resolution of the Senior Note-Sub Note Dispute on appeal, when
any such resolution will occur, or what impact any such outcome
will have on distributions to affected note holders under the
Liquidating Plans. However, given the Companys now
completed emergence from the chapter 11, the Company does
not have any continuing liability in respect of the Senior
Note-Sub Note Dispute.
Classification of Liabilities as Liabilities Not
Subject to Compromise Versus Liabilities Subject to
Compromise. Liabilities not subject to
compromise include the following:
(1) liabilities incurred after the date each entity filed
for reorganization (i.e., its Filing Date);
(2) pre-Filing Date liabilities that were expected to be
paid in full, including priority tax and employee claims and
certain environmental liabilities; and
(3) pre-Filing Date liabilities that were approved for
payment by the Bankruptcy Court and that were expected to be
paid (in advance of a plan of reorganization) over the next
twelve-month period in the ordinary course of business,
including certain employee related items (salaries, vacation and
medical benefits), claims subject to a currently existing
collective bargaining agreements, and certain postretirement
medical and other costs associated with retirees.
Liabilities subject to compromise refer to all other pre-Filing
Date liabilities of the Debtors.
Reorganization Items. Reorganization items are
expense or income items that were incurred or realized by the
Company because it was in reorganization. These items include,
but are not limited to, professional fees and similar types of
expenses incurred directly related to the reorganization
proceedings, loss accruals or gains or losses resulting from
activities of the reorganization process, and interest earned on
cash accumulated by the Debtors because they were not paying
their pre-Filing Date liabilities. For the year ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005, reorganization items were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Gain on plan implementation and fresh start
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(3,110.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21.2
|
|
|
|
35.2
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
Assigned intercompany claims for benefit of certain creditors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,131.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(3,090.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,162.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company continued to incur legal and certain other costs
related to the emergence from chapter 11 in 2007, the costs
are included in Other operating charges (benefits).
Additionally, certain professionals were
111
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
contractually due certain success fees due upon the
Companys emergence from chapter 11 and Bankruptcy
Court approval. Approximately $5.0 of such amounts were borne by
the Company and were recorded by the Predecessor in connection
with emergence and fresh start accounting. The $5.0 was paid in
January 2007.
|
|
20.
|
Discontinued
Operations
|
As part of the Companys plan to divest certain of its
commodity assets, the Company sold its interests in and related
to QAL in April 2005 for net cash proceeds totaling
approximately $401.4. The buyer assumed the Companys
obligations for approximately $60.0 of QAL debt and the
Companys obligation to pay its proportionate share (20%)
of debt, operating expenses and certain other costs of QAL. In
connection with the sale, the Company also paid a termination
fee of $11.0. After considering transaction costs (including the
termination fee and a $7.7 deferred charge associated with a
back-up bid
fee), the transaction resulted in a gain, net of estimated
income tax of $7.9, of approximately $366.2. As described in
Note 19, a substantial majority of the proceeds from the
sale of the Companys interests in and related to QAL were
held in escrow for the benefit of the creditors under the
liquidating trust for the KAAC/KFC Plan until the KAAC/KFC Plan
was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and became effective in
December 2005.
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of
Long-Lived Assets (SFAS No. 144), the
assets, liabilities, operating results and gains from sale of
the QAL have been reported as discontinued operations in the
accompanying financial statements.
As previously disclosed during the fourth quarter of 2005, the
official committee of unsecured creditors (the UCC)
negotiated a settlement with a third party that had asserted an
approximate $67.0 claim for damages against Kaiser Bauxite
Company (KBC) for rejection of a bauxite supply
agreement. Pursuant to the settlement, among other things, the
Company agreed to (a) allow the third party an unsecured
pre-petition claim in the amount of $42.1,
(b) substantively consolidate KBC with certain of the other
Debtors solely for the purpose of treating that claim, and any
other pre-petition claim of KBC, under the Plan and
(c) modify the Plan to implement the settlement. In
consideration of the settlement, the third party, among other
things, agreed to not object to the Plan. The settlement was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court in January 2006 and the Company
recorded a charge of $42.1 in the fourth quarter of 2005 in
Discontinued operations and reflected an increase in
Discontinued operations liabilities subject to compromise by the
same amount.
During the second quarter of 2006, the Company recorded a $5.0
charge as a result of an agreement between the Company and the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) related to a
rejected electric power contract (see Note 24). This amount
is included in Discontinued operations for the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006.
During the first quarter of 2006, the Company received a $7.5
payment from an insurer in settlement of certain residual claims
the Company had in respect of a 2000 incident at its Gramercy,
Louisiana alumina refinery (which was sold in 2004). This amount
is included in Discontinued operations for the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006.
Operating activity during the year ended December 31, 2005
consisted almost exclusively of the Companys interests in
and related to QAL, which were sold in April 2005, and related
hedging activity.
|
|
21.
|
Debt and
Credit Facilities
|
On February 1, 2006, and again on May 11, 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court approved amendments to the Companys
Secured Super-Priority
Debtor-In-Possession
Revolving Credit and Guaranty Agreement (the DIP
Facility) extending its expiration date ultimately to the
earlier of the Companys emergence from chapter 11 or
August 31, 2006. The DIP Facility terminated on the
Effective Date.
Under the DIP Facility, which provided for a secured, revolving
line of credit, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
able to borrow amounts by means of revolving credit advances and
to have issued letters of credit
112
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
(up to $60.0) in an aggregate amount equal to the lesser of
$200.0 or a borrowing base comprised of eligible accounts
receivable, eligible inventory and certain eligible machinery,
equipment and real estate, reduced by certain reserves, as
defined in the DIP Facility agreement. At June 30, 2006,
there were no outstanding borrowings under the DIP Facility and
there were outstanding letters of credit of approximately $17.7
(which on the Effective Date were converted to outstanding
letters of credit under the Revolving Credit Facility).
The DIP Facility, which was implemented during the first quarter
of 2005, replaced a post-petition credit facility (the
Replaced Facility) that the Company and one of its
subsidiaries entered into on February 12, 2002. The
Replaced Facility was amended a number of times during its term
as a result of, among other things, reorganization transactions,
including disposition of the Companys interests in its
commodity subsidiaries.
During the first quarter of 2005, the Company deposited cash of
$13.3 as collateral for the Replaced Facilitys letters of
credit and deposited approximately $1.7 of collateral with the
Replaced Facilitys lenders until certain other banking
arrangements were terminated. As of June 30, 2006, all of
the collateral for the Replaced Facilitys letters of
credit and the collateral for certain other banking arrangements
(of which $1.5 was received during 2006) had been refunded
to the Company.
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the income tax
provision for continuing operations included a foreign income
tax provision of approximately $7.0. The income tax provision
for continuing operations related primarily to foreign income
taxes. The six months ended June 30, 2006 include an
approximate $1.0 benefit associated with a U.S. income tax
refund. While the Company considered the July 2006 emergence
from chapter 11 for purposes of estimating impacts on the
effective tax rate, the Companys provisions for income
taxes as of June 30, 2006 did not include any direct
impacts from the Companys emergence from chapter 11.
Such impacts are reflected in periods following emergence as
more fully discussed in Note 9.
|
|
23.
|
Employee
Benefit and Incentive Plans
|
The Company and its subsidiaries historically provided
(a) postretirement health care and life insurance benefits
to eligible retired employees and their dependents and
(b) pension benefit payments to retirement plans.
Substantially all employees became eligible for health care and
life insurance benefits if they reached retirement age while
still working for the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company
did not fund the liability for these benefits, which were
expected to be paid out of cash generated by operations. The
Company reserved the right, subject to applicable collective
bargaining agreements, to amend or terminate these benefits.
Retirement plans were generally non-contributory for salaried
and hourly employees and generally provided for benefits based
on formulas which considered such items as length of service and
earnings during years of service.
In January 2004, the Company filed motions with the Bankruptcy
Court to terminate or substantially modify postretirement
medical obligations for both salaried and certain hourly
employees and for the distressed termination of substantially
all domestic hourly pension plans. The Company subsequently
concluded agreements with a committee appointed in the
Companys reorganization proceedings that represented
salaried employees and union representatives that represented
the vast majority of the Companys hourly employees. The
agreements provided for the termination of existing salaried and
hourly postretirement medical benefit plans, and the termination
of existing hourly pension plans. Under the agreements, salaried
and hourly retirees were provided an opportunity for continued
medical coverage through COBRA or the VEBAs and active salaried
and hourly employees were provided with an opportunity to
participate in one or more replacement pension plans
and/or
defined contribution plans. The agreements were approved by the
Bankruptcy Court, but were subject to certain conditions,
including Bankruptcy Court approval of the Intercompany
Agreement in a form acceptable to the Debtors and UCC.
On June 1, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order,
subject to certain conditions including final Bankruptcy Court
approval of the Intercompany Agreement, authorizing the Company
to terminate its
113
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
postretirement medical plans as of May 31, 2004 and to make
advance payments to the VEBAs. As previously disclosed, pending
the resolution of all contingencies in respect of the
termination of the existing postretirement medical benefit plan,
during the period June 1, 2004 through December 31,
2004, the Company continued to accrue costs based on the
existing plan and treated the VEBA contributions as a reduction
of its liability under the plan. However, because the
Intercompany Agreement was approved in February 2005 and all
other contingencies had already been met, the Company determined
that the existing postretirement medical plan should be treated
as terminated as of December 31, 2004.
The PBGC assumed responsibility for the Companys three
largest pension plans, which represented the vast majority of
the Companys net pension obligation including the
Companys Salaried Employees Retirement Plan (in December
2003), the Inactive Pension Plan (in July 2004) and the
Kaiser Aluminum Pension Plan (in September 2004), collectively
referred to as the Terminated Plans (see Note 12). The
PBGCs assumption of the Terminated Plans resulted in the
Company recognizing non-cash pension charges of approximately
$121.2 in 2003 and $310.0 in 2004. Pursuant to the agreement
with the PBGC, the Company and the PBGC agreed, among other
things, that: (a) the Company would continue to sponsor the
Companys remaining pension plans (which primarily are in
respect of hourly employees at four Fabricated Products
facilities) and paid approximately $5.0 minimum funding
contribution for these plans in March 2005; (b) the PBGC
would have an allowed post-petition administrative claim of
$14.0, which was expected to be paid upon the consummation of a
plan of reorganization for the Company or the consummation of
the KAAC/KFC Plan, whichever came first; and (c) the PBGC
would have allowed pre-petition unsecured claims in respect of
the Terminated Plans in the amount of $616.0, which would be
resolved in the Companys plan or plans of reorganization
provided that the PBGCs cash recovery from proceeds of the
Companys sale of its interests in and related to Alpart
and QAL was limited to 32% of the net proceeds distributable to
holders of the Companys senior notes, senior subordinated
notes and the PBGC. However, certain contingencies arose in
respect of the settlement with the PBGC which were ultimately
resolved in the Companys favor. See
Note 12 Resolution of Contingencies with
respect to the PBGC.
Cash Flow
and Charges.
Domestic PlansDuring the first three years of the
chapter 11 proceedings, the Company did not make any
further significant contributions to any of its domestic pension
plans. However, as discussed above in connection with the PBGC
settlement agreement, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court
in January 2005, the Company paid approximately $5.0 in March
2005 and approximately $1.0 in July 2005 in respect of minimum
funding contributions for retained pension plans and paid $11.0
in respect of post-petition administrative claims of the PBGC
when the KAAC/KFC Plan became effective in December 2005. An
additional $3.0 was pending the resolution of the ongoing
litigation with the PBGC (see Note 12). Any other payments
to the PBGC were limited to recoveries under the Liquidating
Plans and the Plan.
Prior to the Effective Date, the Company agreed to make the
following contributions to the VEBAs:
a) an amount not to exceed $36.0 payable on emergence from
the chapter 11 proceedings so long as the Companys
liquidity (i.e., cash plus borrowing availability) was at least
$50.0 after considering such payments; and
b) advances of $3.1 in June 2004 and $1.9 per month
thereafter until the Company emerged from the chapter 11
proceedings. Any advances made pursuant to such agreement
constitute a credit toward the $36.0 maximum contribution due
upon emergence.
In October 2004, the Company entered into an amendment to the
USW agreement (see Note 24) to pay an additional $1.0
to the VEBAs in excess of the originally agreed $36.0
contribution described above, which amount was paid in March
2005. Under the terms of the amended agreement, the Company was
required to continue to make the monthly VEBA contributions as
long as it remained in chapter 11, even if the sum of such
monthly payments exceeded the $37.0 maximum amount discussed
above. The monthly amounts paid during the chapter 11
114
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
process in excess of the $37.0 limit will offset future variable
contribution requirements after emergence. The amended agreement
was approved by the Bankruptcy Court in February 2005.
VEBA-related payments prior to the Effective Date totaled
approximately $49.7. As a result, $12.7 was available to the
Company to offset future VEBA contributions of the Successor at
the Effective Date (see Note 10).
Total charges associated with the VEBAs in 2006 prior to the
Effective Date and the year ended December 31, 2005 were
$11.4 and $23.8, respectively. These amounts were reflected as a
reduction of Liabilities subject to compromise.
Key Employee Retention PlanUnder the Key Employee
Retention Plan (KERP), approved by the Bankruptcy
Court in September 2002, financial incentives were provided to
retain certain key employees during the chapter 11
proceedings. The KERP included six key elements: a retention
plan, a severance plan, a change in control plan, a completion
incentive plan, the continuation for certain participants of an
existing supplemental executive retirement plan
(SERP) and a long-term incentive plan. Under the
KERP:
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to the retention plan, retention payments were paid
between September 2002 and March 31, 2004, except that 50%
of the amounts payable to certain senior officers were withheld
until the Companys emergence from chapter 11
proceedings or as otherwise agreed pursuant to the KERP.
|
|
|
|
The severance and change in control plans generally provided for
severance payments of between nine months and three years of
salary and certain benefits, depending on the facts and
circumstances and the level of employee involved.
|
|
|
|
The completion incentive plan lapsed without any amounts being
due.
|
|
|
|
The SERP generally provided additional non-qualified pension
benefits for certain active employees at the time that the KERP
was approved, who would suffer a loss of benefits based on
Internal Revenue Code limitations, so long as such employees
were not subsequently terminated for cause or voluntarily
terminated their employment prior to reaching their retirement
age. The Successors board of directors terminated the SERP
and funded payments totaling $2.3. Such amounts had been fully
accrued by the Predecessor and were included in the
Successors opening balance sheet.
|
|
|
|
The long-term incentive plan generally provided for incentive
awards to key employees based on an annual cost reduction
target. Payment of such long-term incentive awards generally
will be made: (a) 50% upon emergence and (b) 50% one
year from the date the Debtors emerged from the chapter 11
proceedings. Approximately $3.4 which was previously accrued by
the Predecessor at December 31, 2006 in respect of the KERP
long-term incentive plan was paid in 2007 by the Successor.
|
Foreign PlansContributions to foreign pension plans
(excluding those that are considered part of discontinued
operations) were nominal.
|
|
24.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Impact of Reorganization Proceedings. During
the chapter 11 proceedings, substantially all pending
litigation, except certain environmental claims and litigation,
against the Debtors was stayed. Generally, claims against a
Debtor arising from actions or omissions prior to its Filing
Date were resolved pursuant to the Plan.
Environmental Contingencies. The Company and
one of its subsidiaries were subject to a number of
environmental laws and regulations, to fines or penalties
assessed for alleged breaches of the environmental laws, and to
claims and litigation based upon such laws and regulations. The
Company was also subject to a number of claims under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA), and, along
with certain other entities, was named as a potentially
responsible party for remedial costs at certain third-party
sites listed on the National Priorities List under CERCLA.
115
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
Based on the Companys evaluation of these and other
environmental matters, the Company established an environmental
accrual, primarily related to potential solid waste disposal and
soil and ground water remediation matters. The following table
presents the changes in such accruals, which are primarily
included in Long-term liabilities, for the period from
January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 and the year ended
December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of period
|
|
$
|
46.5
|
|
|
$
|
58.3
|
|
Additional accruals
|
|
|
.3
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
Less expenditures
|
|
|
(7.0
|
)
|
|
|
(12.3
|
)
|
Less amounts resolved in connection with the Plan
|
|
|
(29.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of period
|
|
$
|
10.4
|
|
|
$
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005 $29.4 and
$30.7, respectively, of the environmental accrual was included
in Liabilities subject to compromise (see Note 19). These
amounts related to non-owned locations and were resolved as part
of the Plan.
Asbestos and Certain Other Personal Injury
Claims. The Company was one of many defendants in
a number of lawsuits, some of which involved claims of multiple
persons, in which the plaintiffs allege that certain of their
injuries were caused by, among other things, exposure to
asbestos or exposure to products containing asbestos produced or
sold by the Company or as a result of employment or association
with the Company. The lawsuits generally related to products the
Company had not sold for more than 20 years. As of the
initial Filing Date, approximately 112,000 asbestos-related
claims were pending. The Company also previously disclosed that
certain other personal injury claims had been filed in respect
of alleged pre-Filing Date exposure to silica and coal tar pitch
volatiles (approximately 3,900 claims and 300 claims,
respectively).
Due to the reorganization proceedings, holders of asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile claims were stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing
new lawsuits against the Debtors. As a result, the Company did
not make any asbestos payments (or other payments) during the
pendency of the reorganization proceedings. However, the Company
continued to pursue insurance collections in respect of
asbestos-related amounts paid prior to its Filing Date and, as
described below, to negotiate insurance settlements and
prosecute certain actions to clarify policy interpretations in
respect of such coverage.
While a formal estimation process was never completed, the
Company believed it had obtained sufficient information to
project a range of likely asbestos and other tort-related costs.
The Company estimated that its total liability for asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile personal injury claims was
expected to be between approximately $1,100.0 and $2,400.0.
However, as previously disclosed, the Company did not think that
other constituents would necessarily agree with this cost range.
In particular, the Company was aware that certain informal
assertions made by representatives for the asbestos, silica and
coal tar pitch volatiles claimants suggested that the actual
liability might exceed, perhaps significantly, the top end of
the Companys expected range. While the Company could not
reasonably predict what the ultimate amount of such claims might
be determined to be, the Company believed that the minimum end
of the range was both probable and reasonably estimatable.
Accordingly, the Company reflected an accrued liability of
$1,115.0 for the minimum end of the expected range. All of such
amounts (which were included in Liabilities subject to
compromise) were resolved as a part of the Plan (see
Note 19).
As previously disclosed, the Company believed it had insurance
coverage available that would recover a substantial portion of
its asbestos-related costs. However, the timing and amount of
future insurance recoveries were dependent on the resolution of
disputes regarding coverage under certain of the applicable
insurance policies through the process of negotiations or
further litigation. The Company previously stated that it
believed that substantial recoveries from the insurance carriers
were probable and had estimated the amount of remaining solvent
116
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
insurance coverage (before considering the contingent settlement
agreements discussed below) to be in the range of
$1,400.0 $1,500.0. Further, the Company previously
disclosed that, assuming that actual asbestos, silica and coal
tar pitch volatile costs were to be the $1,115.0 amount accrued
(as discussed above) the Company believed that it would be able
to recover from insurers amounts totaling approximately $965.0,
which amount was reflected as Personal injury-related
insurance recoveries receivable (reduced to $963.3 at
June 30, 2006 due to certain subsequent recoveries).
Throughout the reorganization process, the Company continued its
efforts with insurers to make clear the amount of insurance
coverage expected to be available in respect of asbestos, silica
and coal tar pitch personal injury claims. Part of such efforts
focused on certain litigation in San Francisco Superior
Court. The Companys efforts in this regard were also
intended to provide certainty as to the amounts available to the
PI Trusts and to resolve certain appeals by insurers to the
confirmation order in respect of the Plan.
During the latter half of 2005 and the first half of 2006, the
Company entered into conditional settlement agreements with
insurers (all of which were approved by the Bankruptcy Court)
under which the insurers agreed (in aggregate) to pay
approximately $1,246.0 in respect of substantially all coverage
under certain policies having a combined face value of
approximately $1,460.0. Many of the agreements provided for
multi-year payouts and for some of the settlement amounts to be
accessed, claims would have to be made against the PI Trusts
that would aggregate well in excess of the approximate $1,115.0
liability amount reflected by the Company at June 30, 2006.
There are no remaining policies that are expected to yield any
material amounts for the benefit of the Company or the PI Trusts.
The Company did not provide any accounting recognition for the
conditional settlement agreements in the June 30, 2006
financial statements given: (1) the conditional nature of
the settlements; (2) the fact that, if the Plan did not
become effective as of June 30, 2006, the Companys
interests with respect to the insurance policies covered by the
agreements were not impaired in any way; and (3) the
Company believed that collection of the approximate $963.3
amount of Personal injury-related insurance recovery receivable
was probable even if the conditional agreements were ultimately
approved.
Hearing Loss Claims. During February 2004, the
Company reached a settlement in principle in respect of 400
claims, which alleged that certain individuals who were
employees of the Company, principally at a facility previously
owned and operated by KACC in Louisiana, suffered hearing loss
in connection with their employment. Under the terms of the
settlement, the claimants were allowed claims totaling up to
$15.8 (included in Liabilities subject to compromise, Other
accrued liabilities see Note 19). At emergence,
these claims were transferred to the PI Trusts along with
certain rights against certain insurance policies of the
Company. While the Company believed that the insurance policies
were of value, no amounts were reflected in the Companys
financial statements in respect of such policies as the Company
could not with the level of certainty necessary determine the
amount of recoveries that were probable.
During the chapter 11 proceedings, the Company received
approximately 3,200 additional proofs of claim alleging
pre-petition injury due to noise induced hearing loss. It was
never determined how many, if any, of such claims had merit or
at what level such claims might qualify within the parameters
established by the above-referenced settlement in principle for
the 400 claims. However, under the Plan all such claims were
transferred, along with certain rights against certain insurance
policies, to the PI Trusts and resolved in that manner rather
than being settled prior to the Companys emergence from
the chapter 11 proceedings.
Labor Matters. In January 2004, as part of its
settlement with the USW with respect to pension and retiree
medical benefits, the Company and the USW agreed to settle a
case pending before the National Labor Relations Board in
respect of certain unfair labor practice (ULP)
claims made by the USW in connection with a 1998 USW strike and
subsequent lock-out by the Company. Under the terms of the
agreement, solely for the purposes of determining distributions
in connection with the reorganization, an unsecured pre-petition
claim in the amount of $175.0 was allowed. Also, the Company
agreed to adopt a position of neutrality regarding the
unionization of any employees of the Company. The settlement was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court in February 2005. The Company
117
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
recorded a $175.0 non-cash charge in the fourth quarter of 2004
associated with the ULP settlement. The obligations in respect
of the ULP claim were resolved on the Effective Date.
Pacific Northwest Power Matters. As a part of
the reorganization process, the Company rejected a contract with
the BPA that provided power to fully operate the Trentwood
facility, as well as approximately 40% of the combined capacity
of the Companys former Mead and Tacoma aluminum smelting
operations, which had been curtailed since the last half of
2000. The BPA filed a proof of claim for approximately $75.0 in
connection with the contract rejection. In June 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court approved an agreement between the Company and
the BPA which resolved the claim by granting the BPA an
unsecured pre-petition claim totaling approximately $6.1
(i.e., $5.0 in addition to $1.1 of previously accrued
pre-petition accounts payable). The Company recorded a non-cash
charge for the incremental $5.0 amount in the second quarter of
2005 (in Discontinued operations see Note 20).
This claim was resolved as a part of the Plan and has no impact
on the Successor.
118
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL DATA (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended
|
|
|
Quarter Ended
|
|
|
Quarter Ended
|
|
|
Quarter Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31
|
|
|
June 30
|
|
|
September 30
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
392.2
|
|
|
$
|
385.1
|
|
|
$
|
366.7
|
|
|
$
|
360.5
|
|
Costs of products sold
|
|
|
337.1
|
|
|
|
314.0
|
|
|
|
303.3
|
|
|
|
296.7
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
32.3
|
|
|
|
62.7
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
43.0
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
17.1
|
|
|
|
34.7
|
|
|
|
24.8
|
|
|
|
24.4
|
|
Earnings per share Basic:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
.86
|
|
|
|
1.73
|
|
|
|
1.24
|
|
|
|
1.22
|
|
Earnings per share Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
.85
|
|
|
|
1.71
|
|
|
|
1.22
|
|
|
|
1.20
|
|
Common stock market price:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
78.00
|
|
|
|
88.68
|
|
|
|
78.26
|
|
|
|
80.58
|
|
Low
|
|
|
57.60
|
|
|
|
72.33
|
|
|
|
57.88
|
|
|
|
66.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended
|
|
|
Quarter Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1 through
|
|
|
Quarter Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31
|
|
|
June 30
|
|
|
July 1
|
|
|
September 30
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
336.3
|
|
|
$
|
353.5
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
331.4
|
|
|
$
|
336.1
|
|
Costs of products sold
|
|
|
272.2
|
|
|
|
324.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
291.8
|
|
|
|
288.6
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21.7
|
|
|
|
26.6
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
|
|
3,105.3
|
(1)
|
|
|
14.3
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
38.4
|
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
|
|
3,105.3
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
Earnings per share Basic:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
.39
|
|
|
|
.01
|
|
|
|
38.98
|
|
|
|
.72
|
|
|
|
.59
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
.09
|
|
|
|
(.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
.48
|
|
|
|
(.03
|
)
|
|
|
38.98
|
|
|
|
.72
|
|
|
|
.59
|
|
Earnings per share Diluted (same as basic for
Predecessor):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.72
|
|
|
|
.59
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.72
|
|
|
|
.59
|
|
Common stock market price:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
.07
|
|
|
|
.26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44.50
|
|
|
|
62.00
|
|
Low
|
|
|
.03
|
|
|
|
.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.50
|
|
|
|
43.50
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes a non-cash gain of $3,110.3 related to the
implementation of the Plan and application of fresh start
accounting (see Note 19 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements). |
|
(2) |
|
Earnings (loss) per share for the first two quarters of
2006 may not be meaningful because the equity interests of
the Companys existing stockholders were cancelled without
consideration pursuant to the Plan. |
119
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
FIVE-YEAR
FINANCIAL DATA
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
68.7
|
|
|
$
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.5
|
|
|
$
|
55.4
|
|
|
$
|
35.5
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
112.3
|
|
|
|
106.0
|
|
|
|
|
101.5
|
|
|
|
111.0
|
|
|
|
80.5
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
207.6
|
|
|
|
188.1
|
|
|
|
|
115.3
|
|
|
|
105.3
|
|
|
|
92.5
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
|
|
40.8
|
|
|
|
|
21.0
|
|
|
|
19.6
|
|
|
|
23.8
|
|
Discontinued operations current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30.6
|
|
|
|
193.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
454.6
|
|
|
|
384.9
|
|
|
|
|
287.3
|
|
|
|
321.9
|
|
|
|
426.0
|
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliate
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
16.7
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
222.7
|
|
|
|
170.3
|
|
|
|
|
223.4
|
|
|
|
214.6
|
|
|
|
230.1
|
|
Restricted proceeds from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
280.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal injury-related insurance recoveries receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
965.5
|
|
|
|
967.0
|
|
|
|
465.4
|
|
Intangible assets including goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
Net assets in respect of VEBAs
|
|
|
134.9
|
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets net
|
|
|
268.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
43.1
|
|
|
|
40.9
|
|
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
|
|
43.7
|
|
Discontinued operations long-term assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38.9
|
|
|
|
433.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,165.2
|
|
|
$
|
655.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,538.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,882.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,623.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities not subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accruals
|
|
$
|
146.8
|
|
|
$
|
160.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
149.6
|
|
|
$
|
175.3
|
|
|
$
|
98.4
|
|
Accrued postretirement medical benefit obligation
current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
|
Payable to affiliate
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
Long-term debt current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
Discontinued operations current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
57.7
|
|
|
|
177.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
165.4
|
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
|
167.6
|
|
|
|
248.9
|
|
|
|
321.1
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
|
42.0
|
|
|
|
32.9
|
|
|
|
59.4
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
Discontinued operations liabilities, including liabilities
subject to compromise and minority interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68.5
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
208.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
222.4
|
|
|
|
284.7
|
|
|
|
|
279.3
|
|
|
|
311.0
|
|
|
|
591.4
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,400.1
|
|
|
|
3,954.9
|
|
|
|
2,770.1
|
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
.7
|
|
|
|
.7
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
.8
|
|
Additional capital
|
|
|
948.9
|
|
|
|
487.5
|
|
|
|
|
538.0
|
|
|
|
538.0
|
|
|
|
539.1
|
|
Retained earnings (deficit)
|
|
|
116.1
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
|
(3,671.2
|
)
|
|
|
(2,917.5
|
)
|
|
|
(2,170.7
|
)
|
Common stock owned by Union VEBA subject to transfer
restrictions, at reorganization value
|
|
|
(116.4
|
)
|
|
|
(151.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(6.0
|
)
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)
|
|
|
(107.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
942.8
|
|
|
|
370.7
|
|
|
|
|
(3,141.2
|
)
|
|
|
(2,384.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1,738.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,165.2
|
|
|
$
|
655.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,538.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,882.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,623.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Selected Consolidated Financial Data should be read in
conjunction with Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. The
consolidated financial data has been derived from the audited
consolidated financial statements. |
120
KAISER
ALUMINUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
FIVE-YEAR
FINANCIAL DATA
UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME (LOSS)(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2006
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
to July 1, 2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,504.5
|
|
|
$
|
667.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
689.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,089.7
|
|
|
$
|
942.4
|
|
|
$
|
710.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold excluding depreciation
|
|
|
1,251.1
|
|
|
|
580.4
|
|
|
|
|
596.4
|
|
|
|
951.1
|
|
|
|
852.2
|
|
|
|
681.2
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
|
|
|
25.7
|
|
Selling, administrative, research and development, and general
|
|
|
73.1
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
|
30.3
|
|
|
|
50.9
|
|
|
|
92.3
|
|
|
|
92.5
|
|
Other operating (benefits) charges, net
|
|
|
(13.6
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
793.2
|
|
|
|
141.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
1,322.5
|
|
|
|
619.2
|
|
|
|
|
637.4
|
|
|
|
1,029.9
|
|
|
|
1,760.0
|
|
|
|
941.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
182.0
|
|
|
|
48.3
|
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
59.8
|
|
|
|
(817.6
|
)
|
|
|
(230.8
|
)
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (excluding unrecorded contractual interest
expense of $47.4 for the period from January 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006,$95.0 in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.)
|
|
|
(4.3
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
|
(9.5
|
)
|
|
|
(9.1
|
)
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,090.3
|
|
|
|
(1,162.1
|
)
|
|
|
(39.0
|
)
|
|
|
(27.0
|
)
|
Other income (expense) net
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
(2.4
|
)
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and discontinued operation
|
|
|
182.4
|
|
|
|
49.9
|
|
|
|
|
3,143.1
|
|
|
|
(1,109.9
|
)
|
|
|
(861.9
|
)
|
|
|
(272.1
|
)
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(81.4
|
)
|
|
|
(23.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
(6.2
|
)
|
|
|
(2.8
|
)
|
|
|
(6.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
101.0
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
|
3,136.9
|
|
|
|
(1,112.7
|
)
|
|
|
(868.1
|
)
|
|
|
(273.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operation, net of income taxes and
minority interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
|
|
(5.3
|
)
|
|
|
(514.7
|
)
|
Gain from sale of commodity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366.2
|
|
|
|
126.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
|
|
(514.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting accounting
for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
101.0
|
|
|
$
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,141.2
|
|
|
$
|
(753.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(746.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(788.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share Basic:(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
$
|
39.37
|
|
|
$
|
(13.97
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.88
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.41
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
.05
|
|
|
$
|
4.57
|
|
|
$
|
1.52
|
|
|
$
|
(6.42
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(.06
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
5.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
$
|
39.42
|
|
|
$
|
(9.46
|
)
|
|
$
|
(9.36
|
)
|
|
$
|
(9.83
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share Diluted (same as basic for
predecessor):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinuing operations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from cumulative effect on years prior to 2005 of adopting
accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
4.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends per common share
|
|
$
|
.54
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (000):(2) Basic
|
|
|
20,014
|
|
|
|
20,003
|
|
|
|
|
79,672
|
|
|
|
79,675
|
|
|
|
79,815
|
|
|
|
80,175
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
20,308
|
|
|
|
20,089
|
|
|
|
|
79,672
|
|
|
|
79,675
|
|
|
|
79,815
|
|
|
|
80,175
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Selected Consolidated Financial Data should be read in
conjunction with Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. The
consolidated financial data has been derived from the audited
consolidated financial statements. |
|
(2) |
|
Earnings (loss) per share and share information for the
Predecessor may not be meaningful because, pursuant to the Plan,
the equity interests of the Companys existing stockholders
were cancelled without consideration. |
121
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and
Procedures. We maintain disclosure controls and
procedures that are designed to ensure that information required
to be disclosed in our reports under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 is processed, recorded, summarized and reported within
the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange
Commissions rules and forms and that such information is
accumulated and communicated to management, including the
principal executive officer and principal financial officer, to
allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In
designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures,
management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no
matter how well designed and operated, can provide only
reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control
objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in
evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls
and procedures. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the design
and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures was
performed as of the end of the period covered by this Report
under the supervision of and with the participation of our
management, including the principal executive officer and
principal financial officer. Based on that evaluation, our
principal executive officer and principal financial officer
concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were
effective as of December 31, 2007.
Managements Annual Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting. Our managements report
on internal control over financial reporting is included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data and is incorporated herein by reference.
Changes in Internal Controls Over Financial
Reporting. We had no changes in our internal
controls over financial reporting during our most recently
completed fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal controls
over financial reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
|
The information called for by this item is set forth under the
captions Executive Officers,
Proposals Requiring Your Vote Proposal
for Election of Directors, Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance and
Corporate Governance in our proxy statement for the
2008 annual meeting of stockholders.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
The information called for by this item is set forth under the
captions Executive Compensation, Director
Compensation and Corporate Governance
Board Committees Compensation Committee
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider
Participation in our proxy statement for the 2008 annual
meeting of stockholders.
Item 12. Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
The information required by this item is incorporated by
reference to the information included under the captions
Equity Compensation Plan Information and
Principal Stockholders and Management Ownership in
our proxy statement for the 2008 annual meeting of stockholders.
122
Item 13. Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence
The information required by this item is incorporated by
reference to the information included under the captions
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and
Corporate Governance Director
Independence in our proxy statement for the 2008 annual
meeting of stockholders.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
The information required by this item is incorporated by
reference to the information included under the caption
Independent Public Accountants in our proxy
statement for the 2008 annual meeting of stockholders.
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits
and Financial Statement Schedules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
1.
|
|
Financial Statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managements Report on the Financial Statements and
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on the
Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
Statements of Consolidated Income (Loss)
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
Statements of Consolidated Stockholders Equity and
Comprehensive Income (Loss)
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
Five-Year Financial Data
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
Financial Statement Schedules
|
|
|
|
|
All schedules are omitted because they are either inapplicable
or the required information is included in the Consolidated
Financial Statements or the Notes thereto included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data and are incorporated herein by reference.
Reference is made to the Index of Exhibits immediately preceding
the exhibits hereto (beginning on page 125), which index is
incorporated herein by reference.
123
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.
KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION
Jack A. Hockema
President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 25, 2008
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Jack
A. Hockema
Jack
A. Hockema
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Joseph
P. Bellino
Joseph
P. Bellino
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Lynton
J. Rowsell
Lynton
J. Rowsell
|
|
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carolyn
Bartholomew
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl
B. Frankel
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Teresa
A. Hopp
Teresa
A. Hopp
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
William
F. Murphy
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Alfred
E. Osborne, Jr., Ph.D.
Alfred
E. Osborne, Jr., Ph.D.
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Georganne
Proctor
Georganne
Proctor
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack
Quinn
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas
M. Van Leeuwen
Thomas
M. Van Leeuwen
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Brett
E. Wilcox
Brett
E. Wilcox
|
|
Director
|
|
Date: February 25, 2008
|
124
INDEX OF
EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for Alpart Jamaica Inc.
(AJI) and Kaiser Jamaica Corporation
(KJC), dated February 25, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2004, filed by the Company on
March 31, 2005, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.2
|
|
Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for
AJI and KJC, dated April 7, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.2 to the Current Report Form 8-K, filed by the Company
on December 23, 2005, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.3
|
|
Second Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for AJI and KJC, dated November 22, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.3 to the Current Report
Form 8-K, filed by the Company on December 23, 2005, File No.
1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.4
|
|
Third Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for AJI and KJC, dated December 19, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.4 to the Current Report
Form 8-K, filed by the Company on December 23, 2005, File No.
1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.5
|
|
Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for Kaiser Alumina
Australia Corporation (KAAC) and Kaiser Finance
Corporation (KFC), dated February 25, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, filed by
the Company on March 31, 2005, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.6
|
|
Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation for
KAAC and KFC, dated April 7, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.6 to the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the
Company on December 23, 2005, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.7
|
|
Second Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for KAAC and KFC, dated November 22, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.7 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on December 23, 2005, File No.
1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.8
|
|
Third Modification to the Third Amended Joint Plan of
Liquidation for KAAC and KFC, dated December 19, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.8 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on December 23, 2005, File No.
1-9447)
|
|
2
|
.9
|
|
Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for the Company,
KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, dated as of
September 7, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to
the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on
September 13, 2005, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.10
|
|
Modifications to the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for the Company, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates
Pursuant to Stipulation and Agreed Order between Insurers,
Debtors, Committee and Future Representatives (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.2 to the Current Report on Form 8-K,
filed by the Company on February 7, 2006, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.11
|
|
Modification to the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for the Company, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates,
dated as of November 22, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.3 to the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the
Company on February 7, 2006, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.12
|
|
Third Modification to the Second Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization for the Company, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor
Affiliates, dated as of December 16, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.4 to the Current Report on Form 8-K,
filed by the Company on February 7, 2006, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.13
|
|
Order Confirming the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
of the Company, KACCand Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.5 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on February 7, 2006, File No.
1-9447).
|
|
2
|
.14
|
|
Order Affirming the Confirmation Order of the Second Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization of the Company, KACC and Certain of
Their Debtor Affiliates, as modified (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.6 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A, filed
by the Company on July 6, 2006, File
No. 1-9447).
|
125
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
2
|
.15
|
|
Special Procedures for Distributions on Account of NLRB Claim,
as agreed by the National Labor Relations Board, the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
(formerly known as the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC) (the USW) and the Company pursuant to Section
7.8e of the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of the
Company, KACC and Certain of Their Debtor Affiliates, as
modified (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.7 to the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A, filed by the Company on July
6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registration
Statement on Form 8-A, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006,
File No. 000-52105).
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registration Statement on Form
8-A, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Senior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of July 6,
2006, among the Company, Kaiser Aluminum Investments Company,
Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC (KAFP),
Kaiser Aluminum International, Inc., certain financial
institutions from time to time thereto, as lenders,
J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., The CIT Group/Business
Credit, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative
agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006, File
No. 000-52105).
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
First Amendment to Senior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement,
Consent and Facility Increase, dated as of December 10, 2007
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on December 13, 2007, File No.
000-52105)
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Term Loan and Guaranty Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
among KAFP, the Company and certain indirect subsidiaries of the
Company listed as dGuarantors thereto, certain financial
institutions from time to time party thereto, as lenders,
J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
administrative agent, and Wilmington Trust Company, as
collateral agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to
the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on July 6,
2006, File
No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.4
|
|
Description of 2006 Compensation of Directors (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Report on Form 8-K, filed by
the Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.5
|
|
Description of 2007 Compensation of Directors (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K,
filed by the Company on June 12, 2007, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.6
|
|
2006 Short Term Incentive Plan for Key Managers (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Report on Form 8-K, filed by
the Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.7
|
|
Summary of the Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products 2007 Short
Term Incentive Plan for Key Managers (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the
Company on April 5, 2007, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.8
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between the
Company and Jack A. Hockema (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.5 to the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the
Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.9
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between the
Company and Joseph P. Bellino (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.6 to the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the
Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.10
|
|
Form of Director Indemnification Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Current Report on Form 8-K,
filed by the Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.11
|
|
Form of Officer Indemnification Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Current Report on Form 8-K,
filed by the Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.12
|
|
Form of Director and Officer Indemnification Agreement
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006, File
No. 000-52105).
|
126
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
*10
|
.13
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation Amended and Restated 2006 Equity and
Performance Incentive Plan.
|
|
**10
|
.14
|
|
2006 Form of Executive Officer Restricted Stock Award Agreement
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006, File
No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.15
|
|
2006 Form of Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Award
Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the
Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on July 6,
2006, File
No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.16
|
|
2007 Form of Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Award
Agreement (incorporated by reference to the Current Report on
Form 8-K, filed by the Company on June 12, 2007, File No.
000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.17
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products Restoration Plan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006, File
No. 000-52105).
|
|
10
|
.18
|
|
Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
between the Company and National City Bank, in its capacity as
the trustee for the trust that provides benefits for certain
eligible retirees of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
represented by the USW, the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America and its Local 1186, the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Chemical
Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers,
and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and their surviving spouses
and eligible dependents (the Union VEBA)
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registration
Statement on Form 8-A, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006,
File No. 000-52105).
|
|
10
|
.19
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006, between
the Company and the Union VEBA and the other parties thereto
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Registration
Statement on Form 8-A, filed by the Company on July 6, 2006,
File No. 000-52105).
|
|
10
|
.20
|
|
Director Designation Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2006,
between the Company and the USW (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4.3 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A, filed by
the Company on July 6, 2006, File No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.21
|
|
Key Employee Retention Plan (effective September 3, 2002)
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, filed by
the Company on March 31, 2003, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
**10
|
.22
|
|
Form of Retention Agreement for the KACC Key Employee Retention
Plan (effective September 3, 2002) for Jack A. Hockema and John
Barneson (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2002, filed by the Company on March 31, 2003, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
**10
|
.23
|
|
Severance Plan (effective September 3, 2002) (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.30 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2002, filed by the Company on
March 31, 2003, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
**10
|
.24
|
|
Form of Severance Agreement for the Severance Plan (effective
September 3, 2002) for John Barneson and John M. Donnan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.31 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, filed by
the Company on March 31, 2003, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
**10
|
.25
|
|
Form of Change in Control Severance Agreement for John Barneson
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, filed by
the Company on March 31, 2003, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
**10
|
.26
|
|
Form of Change in Control Severance Agreement for John M. Donnan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.33 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, filed by
the Company on March 31, 2003, File No. 1-9447).
|
|
**10
|
.27
|
|
Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2004, filed by the Company on
March 31, 2005, File No. 1-9447).
|
127
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
**10
|
.28
|
|
2007 Form of Executive Officer Restricted Stock Award Agreement
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on April 5, 2007, File
No. 000-52105).
|
|
**10
|
.29
|
|
2007 Form of Executive Officer Option Rights Award Agreement
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K, filed by the Company on April 5, 2007, File No.
000-52105).
|
|
*21
|
|
|
Significant Subsidiaries of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation.
|
|
*23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
|
|
*31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Jack A. Hockema pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
*31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Joseph P. Bellino pursuant to Section 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
*32
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Jack A. Hockema pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
*32
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Joseph P. Bellino pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Filed herewith. |
|
** |
|
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required
to be filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. |
128