Dana Holding Cororation 10-K
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
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 1-1063
Dana Holding
Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
Successor registrant to Dana Corporation
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
26-1531856
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
4500 Dorr Street, Toledo, Ohio
|
|
43615
|
(Address of principal executive
offices)
|
|
(Zip Code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(419)
535-4500
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class
|
|
Name of each exchange on which registered
|
|
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
(Title of Class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark 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
o
Accelerated filer
þ
Non-accelerated
filer o
Smaller reporting
Company o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
On June 30, 2007, the last business day of the most
recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market
value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the
predecessor registrant was approximately $315,000,000 based on
the average high and low trading prices of such common stock on
the OTC Bulletin Board.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all
documents and reports required to be filed by Section 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
On January 31, 2008, the predecessor registrants
common stock, par value $1.00 per share, was cancelled and the
registrant initiated the process of issuing
100,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per
share. There were 97,971,791 shares of registrants
common stock outstanding at March 3, 2008.
DANA HOLDING
CORPORATION
FORM 10-K
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1
PART I
(Dollars in
millions, except per share amounts)
General
Dana Holding Corporation (Dana), a global company incorporated
in Delaware in 2007, is headquartered in Toledo, Ohio. We are a
leading supplier of axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and
thermal products for global vehicle manufacturers. Our people
design and manufacture products for every major vehicle producer
in the world. We employ approximately 35,000 people in 26
countries and we operate 113 major facilities worldwide.
As a result of Dana Corporations emergence from bankruptcy
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the
Bankruptcy Code) on January 31, 2008 (the Effective Date),
Dana is the successor registrant to Dana Corporation (Prior
Dana) pursuant to
Rule 12g-3
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The terms Dana, we, our, and
us, when used in this report with respect to the
period prior to Dana Corporations emergence from
bankruptcy, are references to Prior Dana, and when used with
respect to the period commencing after Dana Corporations
emergence, are references to Dana. These references include the
subsidiaries of Prior Dana or Dana, as the case may be, unless
otherwise indicated or the context requires otherwise.
Emergence from
Reorganization Proceedings
Background Prior Dana and forty of its
wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the Debtors) operated
their businesses as
debtors-in-possession
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code from March 3,
2006 (the Filing Date) until emergence from bankruptcy on
January 31, 2008. The Debtors Chapter 11 cases
(collectively, the Bankruptcy Cases) were consolidated in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Bankruptcy Court) under the caption In re Dana
Corporation, et al., Case
No. 06-10354
(BRL). Neither Dana Credit Corporation (DCC) and its
subsidiaries nor any of our
non-U.S. affiliates
were Debtors.
On December 26, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
(the Confirmation Order) confirming the Third Amended Joint Plan
of Reorganization of Debtors and
Debtors-in-Possession
(as modified, the Plan) and, on the Effective Date, the Plan was
consummated and we emerged from bankruptcy.
As provided in the Plan and the Confirmation Order, asbestos
personal injury claims were reinstated, and holders of such
claims may continue to assert them. Certain other specific
categories of claims against the Debtors (primarily
workers compensation and inter-company liabilities to
non-Debtors) were retained and are being discharged in the
normal course of business.
Settlement obligations relating to non-pension retiree benefits
for retirees and union employees and long-term disability (LTD)
benefits for union claimants were satisfied with cash payments
of $788 to non-Dana sponsored Voluntary Employee Benefit
Associations (VEBAs) established for the benefit of the retirees
and union employees, including the LTD claimants. Additionally,
we paid DCC $49, the remaining amount due to DCC noteholders,
thereby settling DCCs general unsecured claim of $325
against the Debtors. DCC, in turn, used these funds to repay the
noteholders in full. Administrative claims, priority tax claims
and other classes of allowed claims of $222 were satisfied by
payment of cash at emergence, or will be satisfied with cash
payments as soon thereafter as practical.
Except as specifically provided in the Plan, the distributions
under the Plan were in exchange for, and in complete
satisfaction, discharge and release of, all claims and
third-party ownership interests in the Debtors arising on or
before the Effective Date, including any interest accrued on
such claims from and after the Filing Date.
2
Organization In connection with the
formation of a new holding company, we formed a new legal
organization aligned with how our businesses are managed
operationally. Except as described below, all operating assets
and related undischarged liabilities of Prior Dana were
transferred to new legal entities within the new holding company
structure. Certain other assets and liabilities, including those
associated with asbestos personal injury claims, were retained
in Prior Dana, which was then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a
consolidated wholly owned subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana
Companies, LLC include insurance rights relating to coverage
against these liabilities and other assets sufficient to satisfy
its liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC will continue to process
asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business
and will continue to pay such claims in cash. Dana Companies,
LLC will be separately managed, and will have an independent
board member. The independent board member is required to
approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. We expect our
involvement with Dana Companies, LLC will be limited to service
agreements for certain administrative activities. See
Contingencies discussion in Item 7 for a
discussion of our asbestos liabilities.
Common Stock Pursuant to the Plan, all
of the issued and outstanding shares of Prior Dana common stock,
par value $1.00 per share, and any other outstanding equity
securities of Prior Dana, including all options and warrants,
were cancelled. On the Effective Date, we began the process of
issuing 100 million shares of Dana common stock, par value
$0.01 per share, including approximately 70 million shares
for allowed unsecured nonpriority claims, approximately
28 million additional shares deposited to a reserve for
disputed unsecured nonpriority claims in Class 5B under the
Plan, approximately 1 million shares for payment of
post-emergence bonuses to union employees and approximately
1 million shares to pay bonuses to non-union hourly and
salaried non-management employees. The terms and conditions
governing these distributions are set forth in the Plan and
Confirmation Order. The charge to earnings for these bonuses was
recorded as of the Effective Date.
Preferred Stock Pursuant to the Plan, we
issued 2,500,000 shares of 4.0% Series A Preferred
Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the Series A Preferred)
and 5,400,000 shares of 4.0% Series B Preferred Stock,
par value $0.01 per share (the Series B Preferred) on the
Effective Date. The Series A Preferred was sold to
Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates
(Centerbridge) for $250, less a commitment fee of $3 and expense
reimbursement of $5, resulting in net proceeds of $242. The
Series B Preferred was sold to certain qualified investors
(as described in the Plan) for $540, less a commitment fee of
$11, resulting in net proceeds of $529.
In accordance with the terms of the preferred stock, all of the
shares of preferred stock are, at the holders option,
convertible into a number of fully paid and non-assessable
shares of new common stock. The price at which each share of
preferred stock will be convertible into common stock is 83% of
its distributable market equity value per share, provided the
ownership percentage held following the hypothetical conversion
of all preferred stock falls within a range defined in the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The distributable market
equity value is the per share value of the common stock
determined by calculating the volume-weighted average trading
price of such common stock on the New York Stock Exchange for
the 22 trading days beginning on February 1, 2008 (the
first trading day after the Effective Date) but disregarding the
days with the highest and lowest volume-weighted average sale
prices during such period. The
20-day
volume-weighted average trading price was $11.60.
The range of ownership is a function of our net debt plus the
value of our minority interests as of the Effective Date. If the
amount of our net debt plus the value of our minority interests
as of the Effective Date is $525, then 36.3% would be the upper
end of the range of ownership. Since the conversion of all
preferred stock at 83% of the $11.60 would result in more than
36.3% of our fully diluted common stock being issued to the
holders of preferred stock, the conversion price would be the
price at which the preferred stock is convertible into 36.3% of
our total common stock assuming conversion of all preferred
stock. The upper end of the range is subject to adjustment, as
provided in the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, to the
extent that our net debt plus the value of our minority
interests as of the Effective Date is an amount other than $525.
The initial conversion price is also subject to certain
adjustments as set forth in the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation.
3
Shares of Series A Preferred having an aggregate
liquidation preference of not more than $125 and the
Series B Preferred will be convertible at any time at the
option of the applicable holder on or after July 31, 2008.
The remaining shares of Series A Preferred will be
convertible after January 31, 2011. In addition, in the
event that the common stocks per share closing sale price
exceeds 140% of the conversion price divided by 0.83 for at
least 20 consecutive trading days beginning on or after
January 31, 2013, we will be able to force conversion of
all, but not less than all, of the preferred stock. The price at
which the preferred stock is convertible will be subject to
adjustment in certain customary circumstances, including as a
result of stock splits and combinations, dividends and
distributions and issuances of common stock or common stock
derivatives at a price below the preferred stock conversion
price in effect at that time.
Dividends on the preferred stock are payable in cash at a rate
of 4% per annum on a quarterly basis. If at any time we fail to
pay the equivalent of six quarterly dividends on the preferred
stock, the holders of the preferred stock, voting separately as
a single class, will be entitled to elect two additional
directors to our Board of Directors. However, so long as
Centerbridge owns Series A Preferred having an aggregate
liquidation preference of at least $125, this provision will not
be applicable.
In connection with the issuance of the preferred stock, we
entered into two registration rights agreements: one with
Centerbridge and the other with the purchasers of Series B
Preferred, and we also entered into a shareholders agreement.
Under the terms of these agreements and our Restated Certificate
of Incorporation, Centerbridge was granted representation on our
Board of Directors and certain approval rights related to the
management of our business. See Note 11 to the financial
statements in Item 8 for additional information.
Financing at Emergence On the Effective
Date, Dana, as Borrower, and certain of our domestic
subsidiaries, as guarantors, entered into an exit financing
facility (the Exit Facility) with Citicorp USA, Inc., Lehman
Brothers Inc. and Barclays Capital. The Exit Facility consists
of a Term Facility Credit and Guarantee Agreement in the total
aggregate amount of $1,430 (the Term Facility) and a $650
Revolving Credit and Guaranty Agreement (the Revolving
Facility). The Term Facility was fully drawn in borrowings of
$1,350 on the Effective Date and $80 on February 1, 2008.
There were no borrowings under the Revolving Facility, but $200
was utilized for existing letters of credit. Net proceeds from
the Exit Facility were $1,276 after $114 of original issue
discount and $40 of customary issuance costs and fees. The net
proceeds were used to repay the Senior Secured Superpriority
Debtor-in-Possession
Credit Agreement (DIP Credit Agreement), make other payments
required upon exit from bankruptcy and provide liquidity to fund
working capital and other general corporate purposes. See
Financing Activities in Item 7 and Note 16
to the financial statements in Item 8 for the terms and
conditions of the Exit Facility.
Fresh Start Accounting As required by
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
(GAAP), we adopted fresh start accounting effective
February 1, 2008 following the guidance of
SOP 90-7.
The financial statements for the periods ended December 31,
2007 and prior do not include the effect of any changes in our
capital structure or changes in the fair value of assets and
liabilities as a result of fresh start accounting. See
Note 23 to the financial statements in Item 8 for an
unaudited pro-forma presentation of the impact of emergence from
reorganization and fresh start accounting on our financial
position at December 31, 2007. The actual impact at
emergence on January 31, 2008 will be reported in our
Form 10-Q
for the first quarter of 2008. For additional explanation of the
impact of reorganization under the Plan and the application of
fresh start accounting see Emergence from Reorganization
Proceedings in Item 7 and Notes 1 and 23 to the
financial statements in Item 8.
Overview of our
Business
Markets
We serve three primary markets:
|
|
|
|
|
Automotive market In the light vehicle
market, we design and manufacture light axles, driveshafts,
structural products, sealing products, thermal products and
related service parts for passenger cars
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
and light trucks including
pick-up
trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and crossover
utility vehicles (CUVs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial vehicle market In the commercial
vehicle market, we sell, design and manufacture axles,
driveshafts, chassis and suspension modules, ride controls and
related modules and systems, engine sealing products, thermal
products, and related service parts for medium- and heavy-duty
trucks, buses and other commercial vehicles.
|
|
|
|
Off-Highway market In the off-highway market,
we sell, design and manufacture axles, transaxles, driveshafts,
suspension components, transmissions, electronic controls,
related modules and systems, sealing products, thermal products,
and related service parts for construction machinery and
leisure/utility vehicles and outdoor power, agricultural,
mining, forestry and material handling equipment and a variety
of non-vehicular, industrial applications.
|
We have two primary business units: the Automotive Systems Group
(ASG), which sells products mostly into the automotive market,
and the Heavy Vehicle Technologies and Systems Group (HVTSG),
which sells products to the commercial vehicle and off-highway
markets. ASG is organized into individual operating segments
specializing in product lines, while HVTSG is organized to serve
specific markets.
Segments
Senior management and our Board review our operations in seven
operating segments under the two primary business units.
|
|
|
|
|
ASG operates with five segments: Light Axle
Products (Axle), Driveshaft Products (Driveshaft), Sealing
Products (Sealing), Thermal Products (Thermal) and Structural
Products (Structures). ASG reported sales of $5,934 in 2007,
with Ford Motor Company (Ford), General Motors Corp. (GM) and
Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) among its largest customers.
At December 31, 2007, ASG employed 27,000 people and
had 86 facilities in 21 countries.
|
|
|
|
HVTSG is comprised of two operating
segments: Commercial Vehicle and Off-Highway,
each of which focuses on specific markets. HVTSG generated sales
of $2,784 in 2007. In 2007, the largest Commercial Vehicle
customers were PACCAR Inc (PACCAR), Navistar International Inc
(Navistar), Daimler AG (Daimler), Ford, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge Group,
GM Truck, Blue Diamond Truck, S de RL de CV, Crane Carrier
Corporation and Oshkosh Corporation. The largest Off-Highway
customers included Deere & Company, AGCO Corporation
and the Manitou Group. At December 31, 2007, HVTSG employed
7,000 people and had 21 facilities in 10 countries.
|
5
The operating segments of our ASG and HVTSG business units
provide the core products shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business Unit
|
|
Segment
|
|
Products
|
|
Market
|
|
ASG
|
|
Axle
|
|
Front and rear axles, differentials, torque couplings, and
modular assemblies
|
|
Light vehicle
|
ASG
|
|
Driveshaft*
|
|
Driveshafts
|
|
Light and commercial vehicle
|
ASG
|
|
Sealing
|
|
Gaskets, cover modules, heat shields, and engine sealing systems
|
|
Light and commercial vehicle and off-highway
|
ASG
|
|
Thermal
|
|
Cooling and heat transfer products
|
|
Light and commercial vehicle and off-highway
|
ASG
|
|
Structures
|
|
Frames, cradles, and side rails
|
|
Light and commercial vehicle
|
HVTSG
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
Axles, driveshafts*, steering shafts, suspensions, tire
management systems
|
|
Commercial vehicle
|
HVTSG
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
Axles, transaxles, driveshafts* and end-fittings, transmissions,
torque converters, and electronic controls
|
|
Off-highway
|
|
|
|
* |
|
The Driveshaft segment of ASG supplies product directly to
original equipment commercial vehicle customers. It also
supplies our Commercial Vehicle and Off-Highway segments with
these components for original equipment off-highway customers
and replacement part customers in both the commercial vehicle
and off-highway markets. |
Divestitures
In October 2005, our Board of Directors approved the divestiture
of three businesses (engine hard parts, fluid products and pump
products). These businesses employed approximately
9,100 people in 44 operations worldwide with annual
revenues exceeding $1,200 in 2006. These businesses are
presented in our financial statements as discontinued operations
through the dates of divestiture.
We have substantially completed these approved divestitures and
have also sold other investments and businesses since 2005. All
of these activities are summarized below.
In January 2007, we sold our trailer axle business manufacturing
assets for $28 in cash and recorded an after-tax gain of $14.
In March 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
We sold our engine hard parts business to MAHLE GmbH (MAHLE) and
received cash proceeds of $98, of which $10 remains escrowed
pending satisfaction of certain indemnification obligations. We
recorded an after-tax loss of $42 in the first quarter of 2007
in connection with this sale and an after-tax loss of $3 in the
second quarter related to a South American operation.
|
|
|
|
We sold our 30% equity interest in GETRAG Getriebe-und
Zahnradfabrik Hermann Hagenmeyer GmbH & Cie KG
(GETRAG) to our joint venture partner, an affiliate of GETRAG,
for $207 in cash. An impairment charge of $58 had been recorded
in the fourth quarter of 2006 to adjust this equity investment
to fair value and an additional charge of $2 after tax was
recorded in the first quarter of 2007 based on the value of the
investment at the time of closing.
|
In July and August 2007, we completed the sale of our fluid
products hose and tubing business to Orhan Holding A.S. and
certain of its affiliates. Aggregate cash proceeds of $84 were
received from these transactions, and an aggregate after-tax
gain of $32 was recorded in the third quarter in connection with
the sale of this business. A final purchase price adjustment is
pending on this sale.
In August 2007, we and certain of our affiliates executed an
axle agreement and related transaction documents providing for a
series of transactions relating to our rights and obligations
under two joint ventures with GETRAG and certain of its
affiliates. These agreements provided for relief from
non-compete provisions
6
in various agreements restricting our ability to participate in
certain markets for axle products other than through
participation in the joint ventures; the grant of a call option
to GETRAG to acquire our ownership interests in the two joint
ventures for a purchase price of $75; our payment to GETRAG of
$11 under certain conditions; the withdrawal, with prejudice, of
bankruptcy claims aggregating approximately $66 filed by GETRAG
and one of the joint venture entities relating to our alleged
breach of certain non-compete provisions; the amendment,
assumption, rejection
and/or
termination of certain other agreements between the parties; and
the grant of certain mutual releases by us and various other
parties. In connection with these agreements, $11 was recorded
as liabilities subject to compromise and as a charge to other
income, net in the second quarter of 2007 based on the
determination that the liability was probable. In October, 2007,
these agreements were approved by the Bankruptcy Court and
became effective. The $11 liability was reclassified to other
current liabilities at December 31, 2007.
In September 2007, we completed the sale of our coupled fluid
products business to Coupled Products Acquisition LLC by having
the buyer assume certain liabilities ($18) of the business at
closing. We recorded an after-tax loss of $23 in the third
quarter in connection with the sale of this business. A final
purchase price adjustment is pending on this sale.
We completed the sale of a portion of the pump products business
in October 2007, generating proceeds of $7 and a nominal
after-tax gain which was recorded in the fourth quarter.
In January 2008, we completed the sale of the remaining assets
of the pump products business to Melling Tool Company,
generating proceeds of $5 and an after-tax loss of $1 that will
be recorded in the first quarter of 2008.
Dana Credit
Corporation
We historically had been a provider of lease financing services
in selected markets through our wholly-owned subsidiary, DCC.
However, in 2001, we determined that the sale of DCCs
businesses would enable us to more sharply focus on our core
businesses. Over the last six years, DCC has sold significant
portions of its asset portfolio and has recorded asset
impairments, reducing its portfolio from $2,200 in December 2001
to $7 at the end of 2007. In September 2006, we adopted a plan
of liquidation providing for the disposition of substantially
all of DCCs assets over an 18- to
24-month
period and, in December 2006, DCC signed a forbearance agreement
with its noteholders which allowed DCC to sell its remaining
asset portfolio and use the proceeds to pay the forbearing
noteholders a pro rata share of the cash generated. On the
Effective Date, and pursuant to the Plan, we paid DCC $49, the
remaining amount due to DCC noteholders, thereby settling
DCCs general unsecured claim of $325 against the Debtors.
Presentation of
Divested Businesses in the Financial Statements
The engine hard parts, fluid products and pump products
businesses have been presented in the financial statements as
discontinued operations. The trailer axle business and DCC did
not meet the requirements for treatment as discontinued
operations, and their results have been included with continuing
operations. Substantially all of these operations have been sold
as of December 31, 2007. See Note 5 to the financial
statements in Item 8 for additional information on
discontinued operations.
7
Geographic
We maintain administrative organizations in four
regions North America, Europe, South America and
Asia Pacific to facilitate financial and statutory
reporting and tax compliance on a worldwide basis and to support
our business units. Our operations are located in the following
countries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North America
|
|
Europe
|
|
South America
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
|
Canada
|
|
Austria
|
|
Italy
|
|
Argentina
|
|
Australia
|
Mexico
|
|
Belguim
|
|
Spain
|
|
Brazil
|
|
China
|
United States
|
|
France
|
|
Sweden
|
|
Colombia
|
|
India
|
|
|
Germany
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
South Africa
|
|
Japan
|
|
|
Hungary
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
Uruguay
|
|
South Korea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Venezuela
|
|
Taiwan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thailand
|
Our international subsidiaries and affiliates manufacture and
sell products similar to those we produce in the U.S. Our
operations outside the U.S. may be subject to a greater
risk of changing political, economic and social environments,
changing governmental laws and regulations, currency
revaluations and market fluctuations than our domestic
operations. See the discussion of additional risk factors in
Item 1A.
Non-U.S. sales
comprised $4,721 of our 2007 consolidated sales of $8,721.
Non-U.S. net
income for 2007 was $10 while on a consolidated basis there was
a net loss of $551.
Non-U.S. net
income includes $12 of equity in earnings of international
affiliates. A summary of sales and long-lived assets by region
can be found in Note 22 to the financial statements in
Item 8.
Customer
Dependence
We have thousands of customers around the world and have
developed long-standing business relationships with many of
them. Our ASG segments are largely dependent on light vehicle
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) customers, while our
HVTSG segments have a broader and more geographically diverse
customer base, including machinery and equipment manufacturers
in addition to medium- and heavy-duty vehicle OEM customers.
Ford was the only individual customer accounting for 10% or more
of our consolidated sales in 2007. As a percentage of total
sales from continuing operations, our sales to Ford were
approximately 23% in 2007 and 2006 and 26% in 2005, and our
sales to GM were approximately 7% in 2007, 10% in 2006 and 11%
in 2005.
In 2007, Toyota became our third largest customer. As a
percentage of total sales from continuing operations, our sales
to Toyota were 6% in 2007, 5% in 2006 and 4% in 2005. In 2006,
PACCAR and Navistar were our third and fourth largest customers.
PACCAR, Navistar, Chrysler LLC (Chrysler), Daimler and Nissan
Motor Company Ltd. (Nissan), collectively accounted for
approximately 19% of our revenues in 2007, 23% in 2006 and 21%
in 2005.
Loss of all or a substantial portion of our sales to Ford, GM,
Toyota or other large volume customers would have a significant
adverse effect on our financial results until such lost sales
volume could be replaced and there is no assurance that any such
lost volume would be replaced. We continue to work to diversify
our customer base and geographic footprint.
8
Products
The mix of sales by product for the last three years is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Sales
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
|
30.1
|
%
|
|
|
25.9
|
%
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
68.1
|
|
|
|
65.5
|
|
|
|
69.0
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
23.5
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HVTSG
|
|
|
31.9
|
|
|
|
34.2
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
Other Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Note 22, Segment, Geographical Areas and Major
Customer Information, in Item 8 for additional
segment information including revenues from external customers,
segment profitability, capital spending, depreciation and
amortization and total assets.
Sources and
Availability of Raw Materials
We use a variety of raw materials in the production of our
products, including steel and products containing steel,
stainless steel, forgings, castings and bearings. Other
commodity purchases include aluminum, brass, copper and
plastics. Prior to 2005, operating units purchased most of the
raw materials they required from suppliers located within their
local geographic regions. The process was changed by combining
and centralizing our purchases to give us greater leverage with
our suppliers in order to manage and reduce our production
costs. These materials are usually available from multiple
qualified sources in quantities sufficient for our needs.
However, some of our operations remain dependent on single
sources for certain raw materials.
While our suppliers have generally been able to support our
needs, our operations may experience shortages and delays in the
supply of raw material from time to time, due to strong demand,
capacity limitations and other problems experienced by the
suppliers. A significant or prolonged shortage of critical
components from any of our suppliers could adversely impact our
ability to meet our production schedules and to deliver our
products to our customers in a timely manner.
High steel and other raw material costs, primarily resulting
from limited capacity and high demand, had a major adverse
effect on our results of operations in recent years, as
discussed in Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations in
Item 7.
Our bankruptcy created supplier concerns over non-payment for
pre-petition goods and services and other uncertainties. To
date, this has not had a significant effect on our ability to
negotiate new contracts and terms with our suppliers on an
ongoing basis.
9
Seasonality
Our businesses are generally not seasonal. However, our sales
are closely related to the production schedules of our OEM
customers and, historically, those schedules have been weakest
in the third quarter of the year due to a large number of model
year change-overs that occur during this period. Additionally,
third-quarter production schedules in Europe are typically
impacted by the summer holiday schedules and fourth quarter
production by year end holidays.
Backlog
Our products are not sold on a backlog basis since most orders
may be rescheduled or modified by our customers at any time. Our
product sales are dependent upon the number of vehicles that our
customers actually produce as well as the timing of such
production. A substantial amount of the new business we are
awarded by OEMs is granted well in advance of a program launch.
These awards typically extend through the life of the given
program. We estimate future revenues from new business on the
projected volume under these programs. See New
Business in Item 7 for additional explanations
related to new business awarded.
Competition
Within each of our markets, we compete with a variety of
independent suppliers and distributors, as well as with the
in-house operations of certain OEMs. We compete primarily on the
basis of price, product quality, technology, delivery and
service.
Automotive
Systems Group
The Automotive Systems Group consists of five product groups:
Axle; Driveshaft; Structural; Thermal and Sealing Products. It
is one of the leading independent suppliers serving the light
vehicle and other related markets around the world.
In the Axle and Driveshaft segments, our principal competitors
include ZF Friedrichshafen AG, GKN plc (GKN Driveline), American
Axle & Manufacturing (American Axle), Magna
International Inc. (Magna) and the in-house operations of
Chrysler and Ford. The sector is also attracting new competitors
from Asia who are entering both of these product lines through
acquisition of OEM non-core operations. For example, Wanxiang of
China has recently acquired Visteon Corporations (Visteon)
driveshaft manufacturing facilities in the USA.
The Structures segment produces vehicle frames and cradles and
its primary competitors are Magna, Press Kogyo Co., Ltd.,
Metalsa S. de R. L., Tower Automotive Inc. and Martinrea
International Inc.
In Sealing, we are also one of the worlds leading
independent suppliers with a product portfolio including
gaskets, seals, cover modules and thermal/acoustic shields. Our
primary global competitors in this segment are ElringKlinger AG,
Federal-Mogul Corporation and Freudenberg NOK Group.
The Thermal Products Group produces heat exchangers, valves and
small radiators for a wide variety of vehicle cooling
applications. Competitors in the Thermal segment include Behr
GmbH & Co. KG, Stuttgart, Modine Manufacturing
Company, Valeo Group and Denso Corporation.
Heavy Vehicle
Technologies and Systems Group
We are one of the primary independent suppliers of axles,
driveshafts and other products for both the medium- and
heavy-truck markets, as well as various specialty and
off-highway segments, and we also specialize in the manufacture
of off-highway transmissions.
Our primary competitors in North America are ArvinMeritor, Inc.
(ArvinMeritor) and American Axle in the medium- and heavy-truck
markets. Major competitors in Europe in both the heavy-truck and
off-highway markets include Carraro S.p.A. (Carraro), ZF Group,
Klein Products Inc. (Klein) and certain OEMs vertically
integrated operations.
10
Patents and
Trademarks
Our proprietary axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and
thermal product lines have strong identities in the markets we
serve. Throughout these product lines, we manufacture and sell
our products under a number of patents that have been obtained
over a period of years and expire at various times. We consider
each of these patents to be of value and aggressively protect
our rights throughout the world against infringement. We are
involved with many product lines, and the loss or expiration of
any particular patent would not materially affect our sales and
profits.
We own or have licensed numerous trademarks that are registered
in many countries, enabling us to market our products worldwide.
For example, our
Spicer®,
Victor
Reinz®,
Parish®
and
Long®
trademarks are widely recognized in their market segments.
Research and
Development
From our introduction of the automotive universal joint in 1904,
we have been focused on technological innovation. Our objective
is to be an essential partner to our customers and remain highly
focused on offering superior product quality, technologically
advanced products, world-class service and competitive prices.
To enhance quality and reduce costs, we use statistical process
control, cellular manufacturing, flexible regional production
and assembly, global sourcing and extensive employee training.
We engage in ongoing engineering, research and development
activities to improve the reliability, performance and
cost-effectiveness of our existing products and to design and
develop innovative products that meet customer requirements for
new applications. We are integrating related operations to
create a more innovative environment, speed product development,
maximize efficiency and improve communication and information
sharing among our research and development operations. At
December 31, 2007, ASG had five major technical centers and
HVTSG had one. Our engineering, research and development and
quality control costs were $189 in 2007, $221 in 2006 and $275
in 2005.
We are developing a number of products that will assist fuel
cell manufacturers for vehicular and other
applications to make this technology commercially
viable in mass production. Specifically, we are applying the
expertise from our Sealing segment to develop metallic and
composite bipolar plates used in the fuel cell stack.
Furthermore, our Thermal segment is applying its heat transfer
technology to provide thermal management sub-systems used in the
overall fuel cell process.
Employment
Our worldwide employment was approximately 35,000 at
December 31, 2007.
Environmental
Compliance
We make capital expenditures in the normal course of business as
necessary to ensure that our facilities are in compliance with
applicable environmental laws and regulations. The cost of
environmental compliance has not been, except for settlement of
certain environmental matters as part of the bankruptcy
proceedings, a material part of capital expenditures and did not
have a materially adverse effect on earnings or competitive
position in 2007.
In connection with our bankruptcy reorganization we settled
certain pre-petition claims related to environmental matters.
See Contingencies in Item 7 and the discussion
of our emergence in Note 1 to the financial statements in
Item 8.
Executive
Officers of the Registrant
We have eight executive officers as of March 3, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
John M. Devine, age 63, has been Executive Chairman of our
Board since January 2008 and Acting Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) since February 2008. Mr. Devine retired from GM in
2006. He was Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of GM
during the period from 2001 to 2006. Prior to joining GM,
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Devine served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of Fluid Ventures, LLC. Fluid Ventures, LLC was an internet
start-up
investment company. Previously, he spent 32 years at Ford,
where he last served as Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer. Mr. Devine is also a board member of
Amerigon Incorporated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard J. Dyer, age 52, has been a Vice President since
December 2005 and Chief Accounting Officer since March 2005. He
was Director Corporate Accounting from 2002 to 2005 and Manager,
Corporate Accounting from 1997 to 2002.
|
|
|
|
Ralf Goettel, age 41, has served as President of Sealing
Products, Dana Europe, and Thermal Products since November 2007.
Mr. Goettel was President of Engine Products and Dana
Europe from 2005 to 2007 when he assumed the added
responsibility of President of Thermal Products.
Mr. Goettel joined us in 1993 as an application engineer in
the Sealing Products Group.
|
|
|
|
Kenneth A. Hiltz, age 55, has been our Chief Financial
Officer (CFO) since March 2006. He previously served as CFO at
Foster Wheeler Ltd., a global provider of engineering services
and products, from 2003 to 2004 and as Chief Restructuring
Officer and CFO of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc., a global
supplier of automotive and commercial wheels, brakes,
powertrain, suspension, structural and other lightweight
components, from 2001 to 2003. Mr. Hiltz has been a
Managing Director of Alix Partners LLP, a financial advisory
firm specializing in performance improvement and corporate
turnarounds, since 1993.
|
|
|
|
Robert H. Marcin, age 62, has been our Chief Administrative
Officer since February 2008. Mr. Marcin retired from
Visteon, a supplier of automotive systems, modules and
components, in 2007. He was Senior Vice President, Leadership
Assessment of Visteon from 2005 to 2007. Prior to that, he
served as Senior Vice President, Corporate Relations from 2003
to 2005, and was Senior Vice President of Human Resources of
Visteon from its formation in January 2000 until 2003.
|
|
|
|
Paul E. Miller, age 56, has been our Vice
President Purchasing since May 2004. He was formerly
employed by Delphi Corporation, a global supplier of vehicle
electronics, transportation components, integrated systems and
modules and other electronic technology, where he was part of
Delphi Packard Electric Systems as Business Line Executive,
Electrical/Electronic Distribution Systems from 2002 to 2004,
and of Delphi Delco Electronics Systems as General
Director Sales, Marketing and Service from 2001 to
2002.
|
|
|
|
Nick L. Stanage, age 49, has been our President
Heavy Vehicle Products since December 2005. He joined us in
August 2005 as Vice President and General Manager of our
Commercial Vehicle Group. He was formerly employed by Honeywell
International (a diversified technology and manufacturing
leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and
services; control technologies for buildings, homes and
industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty
materials), where he served as Vice President and General
Manager of the Engine Systems & Accessories Division
during 2005, and in the Customer Products Group as Vice
President, Integrated Supply Chain & Technology from
2003 to 2005 and Vice President, Operations from 2001 to 2003.
|
|
|
|
Thomas R. Stone, age 55, has been our President, Light Axle
Products Group, Automotive Systems Group since June 2005.
Mr. Stone came to Dana from GKN plc (GKN) in June 2005 to
serve as President of Traction Products. He joined GKN in 1997
as Vice President Operations, GKN Automotive and
subsequently served as Managing Director GKN
Driveline Americas from January 2003 until June 2005.
|
Our executive officers were appointed to their positions by the
Board of Directors of Dana (the Board) and serve at the
Boards pleasure.
Available
Information
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
12
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) are available, free of charge, on or
through our Internet website
(http://www.dana.com/investors)
as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file
such materials with, or furnish them to, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). We also post our Corporate
Governance Guidelines, Standards of Business Code for Members of
the Board of Directors, Board Committee membership lists and
charters, Standards of Business Conduct and other
corporate governance materials at this website address. Copies
of these posted materials are available in print, free of
charge, to any stockholder upon request from: Investor Relations
Department, P.O. Box 1000, Toledo, Ohio 43697 or via
telephone at
419-535-4635
or e-mail at
InvestorRelations@dana.com. The inclusion of our website address
in this report is an inactive textual reference only, and is not
intended to include or incorporate by reference the information
on our website into this report.
Forward-looking
information
Statements in this report that are not entirely historical
constitute forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Such forwarding-looking statements are indicated by words such
as anticipates, expects,
believes, intends, plans,
estimates, projects and similar
expressions. These statements represent the present expectations
of Dana and its consolidated subsidiaries based on current
information and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are
inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. Our plans,
actions and actual results could differ materially from our
present expectations due to a number of factors, including those
discussed below and elsewhere in this report (our 2007
Form 10-K)
and in other filings with the SEC.
We are impacted by events and conditions that affect the light
vehicle, commercial vehicle and off-highway industries that we
serve, as well as by factors specific to Dana. Among the risks
that could materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition or results of operations are the following, many of
which are interrelated.
Company-Specific
Risk Factors
Our Exit Facility
contains covenants that may constrain our growth.
The financial covenants in our Exit Facility may hinder our
ability to finance future operations, make potential
acquisitions or investments, meet capital needs or engage in
business activities that may be in our best interest such as
future transactions involving our securities. These restrictions
could hinder us from responding to changing business and
economic conditions and from implementing our business plan.
We may be unable
to comply with the financial covenants in our Exit
Facility.
The financial covenants in our Exit Facility require us to
achieve certain financial ratios based on levels of earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and certain
levels of restructuring and reorganization related costs
(EBITDA), as defined in the Exit Facility. A failure to comply
with these or other covenants in the Exit Facility could, if we
were unable to obtain a waiver or an amendment of the covenant
terms, cause an event of default that would cause our loans
under the Exit Facility to become immediately due and payable.
In addition, a waiver or an amendment could substantially
increase the cost of borrowing.
We operate as a
holding company and depend on our subsidiaries for cash to
satisfy the obligations of the holding company.
Dana Holding Corporation is a holding company. Our subsidiaries
conduct all of our operations and own substantially all of our
assets. Our cash flow and our ability to meet our obligations
depends on the cash flow of our subsidiaries. In addition, the
payments of funds in the form of dividends, intercompany
payments, tax sharing payments and other forms may be subject to
restrictions under the laws of the countries of incorporation of
our subsidiaries.
13
We could be
adversely impacted by the loss of any of our significant
customers, changes in their requirements for our products or
changes in their financial condition.
We are reliant upon sales to a few significant customers. Sales
to Ford and GM were 30% of our overall revenue in 2007, while
sales to Toyota, PACCAR, Navistar, Chrysler, Daimler and Nissan
in the aggregate accounted for another 25%. Changes in our
business relationships with any of our large customers or in the
timing, size and continuation of their various programs could
have an adverse impact on us. The loss of any of these
customers, the loss of business with respect to one or more of
their vehicle models on which we have a high component content,
or a further significant decline in the production levels of
such vehicles would negatively impact our business, results of
operations and financial condition. We are continually bidding
on new business with these customers, as well as seeking to
diversify our customer base, but there is no assurance that our
efforts will be successful. Further, to the extent that the
financial condition of our largest customers deteriorates,
including a possible bankruptcy, or their sales otherwise
decline, our financial position and results of operations could
be adversely affected.
Labor stoppages
or work slowdowns at key suppliers of our customers could result
in a disruption in our operations and have a material adverse
effect on our business.
Our customers rely on other suppliers to provide them with the
parts they need to manufacture vehicles. Many of these
suppliers workforces are represented by labor unions.
Workforce disputes that result in work stoppages or slowdowns at
these suppliers could disrupt the operations of our customers
which could have a material adverse effect on demand for the
products we supply our customers.
We could be
adversely affected if we are unable to recover portions of our
high commodity costs (including costs of steel, other raw
materials and energy) from our customers.
For some time, high commodity costs have significantly impacted
our earnings. As part of our reorganization initiatives, we have
been working with our customers to recover a greater portion of
our commodity costs. While we have achieved some success in
these efforts to date, there is no assurance that commodity
costs will not continue to adversely impact our profitability in
the future.
We could be
adversely affected if we experience shortages of components from
our suppliers.
We spend over $4,000 annually for purchased goods and services.
To manage and reduce these costs, we have been consolidating our
supply base. As a result, we are dependent on single sources of
supply for some components of our products. We select our
suppliers based on total value (including price, delivery and
quality), taking into consideration their production capacities
and financial condition, and we expect that they will be able to
support our needs. However, there is no assurance that strong
demand, capacity limitations or other problems experienced by
our suppliers will not result in occasional shortages or delays
in their supply of components to us. If we were to experience a
significant or prolonged shortage of critical components from
any of our suppliers, particularly those who are sole sources,
and were unable to procure the components from other sources, we
would be unable to meet our production schedules for some of our
key products and to ship such products to our customers in
timely fashion, which would adversely affect our revenues,
margins and customer relations.
We could be
adversely impacted by the costs of environmental, health, safety
and product liability compliance.
Our operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations
in the U.S. and other countries that govern emissions to
the air; discharges to water; the generation, handling, storage,
transportation, treatment and disposal of waste materials and
the cleanup of contaminated properties. Historically,
environmental costs with respect to our former and existing
operations have not been material. However, there is no
assurance that the costs of complying with current environmental
laws and regulations, or those that may be adopted in the future
will not increase and adversely impact us.
14
There is also no assurance that the costs of complying with
various laws and regulations, or those that may be adopted in
the future, that relate to health, safety and product liability
concerns will not adversely impact us.
Our ability to
utilize net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs) will be
limited.
The discharge of a debt obligation by a taxpayer for an amount
less than the recorded value generally creates cancellation of
indebtedness (COD) income, which must be included in the
taxpayers taxable income. In our case the discharge of the
debt was granted by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to a plan of
reorganization approved by the court, and we will not be
required to recognize COD income as taxable income. However,
certain tax attributes otherwise available and of value to a
debtor are reduced by the amount of COD income. We have not
completed our analysis regarding the impact of COD income on our
tax attributes.
Based on our preliminary analysis, we believe that our
consolidated NOLs as of the Effective Date were eliminated and
other attributes were significantly reduced, including the tax
basis of assets, but 2008 post emergence payments will generate
tax deductions exceeding $700.
Risk Factors in
the Markets We Serve
We may be
adversely impacted by changes in national and international
economic, legislative and political conditions.
Our sales depend, in large part, on economic conditions in the
global light vehicle, commercial vehicle and off-highway OEM
markets that we serve. Demand in these markets fluctuates in
response to overall economic conditions, including changes in
general economic indicators, interest rate levels and, in our
vehicular markets, fuel costs. For example, higher gasoline
prices in 2007 contributed to weaker demand in North America for
certain vehicles for which we supply products, especially
full-size SUVs and
pick-up
trucks. If gasoline prices remain high or continue to rise, the
demand for such vehicles could weaken further and the recent
shift in consumer interest to passenger cars and CUVs, in
preference to SUVs and
pick-up
trucks, could be accelerated. This would have an adverse effect
on our business, as our product content on CUVs is less
significant than our content on
pick-up
trucks and SUVs. In particular, our structures business that
supplies the body-on-frame components for full-size SUVs does
not have significant content on CUVs.
We operate in 26 countries around the world and we depend on
significant foreign suppliers and vendors. Legislative and
political activities within the countries where we conduct
business, particularly in emerging and less developed
international countries, could adversely impact our ability to
operate in those countries. The political situation in some
countries creates a risk of the seizure of our assets. In
addition, the political environment could create instability in
our contractual relationships with no effective legal safeguards
for resolution of these issues.
We may be
adversely impacted by the strength of other currencies, relative
to the U.S. dollar, in the overseas countries in which we do
business.
Approximately 54% of our sales were from our operations located
in countries other than the United States. Currency variations
can have an impact on our results (expressed in
U.S. dollars). Currency variations can also adversely
affect margins on sales of our products in countries outside of
the United States and margins on sales of products that include
components obtained from affiliate or other suppliers located
outside of the United States. We use a combination of natural
hedging techniques and financial derivatives to protect against
foreign currency exchange rate risks. Such hedging activities
may be ineffective or may not offset more than a portion of the
adverse financial impact resulting from currency variations.
Gains or losses associated with hedging activities also may
impact operating results.
15
We may be
adversely impacted by new laws, regulations or policies of
governmental organizations related to increased fuel economy
standards and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, or changes in
existing ones.
It is anticipated that the number and extent of governmental
regulations related to fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas
emissions, and the costs to comply with them, will increase
significantly in the future. Recently, the United States enacted
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a new energy
bill that will require significant increases in the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy requirements applicable to cars and light
trucks beginning with the 2011 model year. In addition, a
growing number of states are adopting regulations that establish
carbon dioxide emission standards that effectively impose
similarly increased fuel economy standards for new vehicles sold
in those states. Compliance costs for our customers could
require them to alter their spending, research and development
plans, curtail sales, cease production or exit certain market
segments characterized by lower fuel efficiency. Any of these
actions could adversely affect our financial position and
results of operations.
Negative economic
outlooks in the United States and elsewhere could have a
material adverse effect on our business.
Our business is tied to general economic and industry
conditions. Demand for vehicles depends largely on general
economic conditions, including the strength of the economy,
unemployment levels, consumer confidence levels, the
availability and cost of credit and the cost of fuel. The
decline in housing construction further reduced demand for
vehicles, particularly
pick-up
trucks and SUVs on which we provide significant content. Leading
economic indicators such as employment levels and income growth
predict a downward trend in the United States economy. The
overall market for new vehicle sales in the United States is
expected to decline in 2008, possibly significantly. Our
customers could reduce their vehicle production in North America
and, as a result, demand for our products would be adversely
affected.
Risk Factors
Related to our Securities
There is limited
history of trading of our common stock, and volatility is
possible.
Our post-emergence common stock has traded for only a limited
period. Some of the holders who received common stock upon
emergence may not elect to hold their shares on a long-term
basis. Sales by these stockholders of a substantial number of
shares could significantly reduce the market price of our common
stock. Moreover, the perception that these stockholders might
sell significant amounts of our common stock could depress the
trading price of the stock for a considerable period. Such sales
of common stock, and the possibility thereof, could make it more
difficult for us to sell equity, or equity-related securities,
in the future at a time and price that we consider appropriate.
Our adoption of
fresh start accounting could result in additional asset
impairments and may make comparisons of our financial position
and results of operations to prior periods more
difficult.
Our adoption of fresh start accounting upon emergence will
increase the value of our long lived assets. This increased
valuation could result in additional impairments in future
periods.
As required by GAAP, Dana adopted fresh start accounting
effective February 1, 2008. Fresh start accounting requires
us to adjust all of our assets and liabilities to their
respective fair values. As a result, the consolidated financial
statements for periods after the emergence will not be
comparable to those of the periods prior to the emergence which
are presented on an historical basis. Fresh start accounting may
make it more difficult to compare our post-emergence financial
position and results of operations to those in the pre-emergence
periods which could limit investment in our stock.
16
One of our
stockholders has limited approval rights with respect to our
business and may have conflicts of interest with us in the
future.
In accordance with the Plan, Centerbridge owns preferred stock
and is entitled to vote on most matters presented to
stockholders on an as-converted basis. Centerbridge also has
certain approval rights, board representation and other rights
pursuant to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and a
shareholders agreement. These rights include the right to
approve a transaction involving a change of control of our
company, subject to being overridden by a two-thirds stockholder
vote. (See Note 11 to the financial statements in
Item 8 for additional information regarding
Centerbridges participation in the selection of our Board
of Directors and approval rights with respect to certain
transactions.)
Conflicts of interest may arise in the future between us and
Centerbridge. For example, Centerbridge and its affiliated
investors are in the business of making investments in companies
and may acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete
directly or indirectly with us.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
-None-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
|
|
|
Asia/
|
|
|
|
|
Type of Facility
|
|
America
|
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
America
|
|
|
Pacific
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Administrative Offices
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Engineering Multiple Groups
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Axle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing/Distribution
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing/Distribution
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing/Distribution
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Engineering
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing/Distribution
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing/Distribution
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Engineering
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing/Distribution
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Engineering
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing/Distribution
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Dana
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2007, we operated in 26 countries and had
113 major manufacturing/ distribution, engineering or office
facilities worldwide. While we lease 39 of the manufacturing and
distribution operations, we own the remainder of our facilities.
We believe that all of our property and equipment is properly
maintained. Historically, there was significant excess capacity
in our facilities based on our manufacturing and distribution
needs, especially in the United States. As part of our
reorganization initiatives, we took significant steps to close
facilities as discussed in Item 7, under Business
Strategy.
17
Our corporate headquarters facilities are located in Toledo,
Ohio and include three office facilities housing functions that
have global responsibility for finance and accounting, treasury,
risk management, legal, human resources, procurement and supply
chain management, communications and information technology. Our
obligations under the Exit Facility are secured by, among other
things, mortgages on all of our domestic facilities that we own.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
As discussed in Item 1. Business
Emergence from Reorganization Proceedings,
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Results of Operations Emergence Proceedings
and in Notes 1 and 23 to the financials statements in
Item 8, we emerged from bankruptcy on January 31,
2008. Pursuant to the Plan, the pre-petition ownership interests
in Prior Dana were cancelled and all of the pre-petition claims
against the Debtors, including claims with respect to debt,
pension and postretirement medical obligations and other
liabilities, were addressed in connection with our emergence
from bankruptcy.
On January 3, 2008, an Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants filed a notice of appeal of the
Confirmation Order (District Court Case
No. 08-CV-01037).
On January 4, 2008, an asbestos claimant, Jose Angel
Valdez, filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order
(District Court Case
No. 08-CV-01038).
On February 5, 2008, Prior Dana and the other
post-emergence Debtors (collectively, the Reorganized
Debtors) filed a motion seeking to consolidate the two
appeals. Briefing is ongoing in these appeals, and the
Reorganized Debtors are moving to have the appeals dismissed.
As previously reported and as discussed in Item 7 and in
Note 18 to the financial statements in Item 8, we are
a party to a pending stockholder derivative action, as well as
various pending judicial and administrative proceedings that
arose in the ordinary course of business (including both
pre-petition and subsequent proceedings), and we are cooperating
with a formal investigation by the SEC with respect to matters
related to the restatement of financial statements for the first
two quarters of 2005 and fiscal years 2002 through 2004. After
reviewing the currently pending lawsuits and proceedings
(including the probable outcomes, reasonably anticipated costs
and expenses, availability and limits of our insurance coverage
and surety bonds and our established reserves for uninsured
liabilities), we do not believe that any liabilities that may
result are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect
on our liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
We did not submit any matters for a stockholder vote in the
fourth quarter of 2007.
18
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
For Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Market
Information
Shares of common stock of Prior Dana issued and outstanding
traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol
DCNAQ beginning on March 3, 2006 and continued
until the Effective Date. On the Effective Date, all of the
outstanding common stock and all other outstanding equity
securities of Prior Dana, including all options and warrants,
were cancelled pursuant to the terms of the Plan.
On the Effective Date, we began the process of issuing
100 million shares of Dana common stock, par value $0.01
per share, including approximately 70 million shares for
allowed unsecured nonpriority claims, approximately
28 million additional shares deposited to a reserve for
disputed unsecured nonpriority claims in Class 5B under the
Plan, approximately 1 million shares for payment of
post-emergence bonuses to union employees and approximately
1 million shares to pay bonuses to non-union hourly and
salaried non-management employees. The charge to earnings for
these bonuses was recorded as of the Effective Date.
Pursuant to the Plan, we will be distributing approximately
500,000 shares of our common stock on or before April 1,
2008 for the bonuses to certain union and non-union employees as
discussed above. We will also distribute approximately
1 million shares of the 70 million shares discussed
above to satisfy claims of certain current and former employees.
All of these shares will be freely tradable upon issuance. While
it is not possible to predict the total volume of resales that
may occur, some or all of the recipients will likely direct
their independent agent to promptly sell a percentage of these
shares (estimated to be a maximum of 40% of the shares) on
behalf of the recipient in order to satisfy withholding
obligations with respect to these distributions.
Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol DAN.
The following table shows the quarterly ranges of the price per
share of Prior Dana common stock during 2006 and 2007. No
dividends were declared or paid in 2006 and 2007. The value of
one share of Prior Dana common stock bears no relation to the
value of one share of our newly-issued common stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarterly
|
|
High and Low Prices per Share of Prior Dana Common Stock
|
|
High Price
|
|
|
Low Price
|
|
|
As reported by the New York Stock Exchange:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter 2006 (through March 2, 2006)
|
|
$
|
8.05
|
|
|
$
|
1.02
|
|
Bid Prices per OTC Bulletin Board Quotations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter 2006 (beginning March 3, 2006)
|
|
$
|
2.03
|
|
|
$
|
0.65
|
|
Second Quarter 2006
|
|
|
3.52
|
|
|
|
1.27
|
|
Third Quarter 2006
|
|
|
2.83
|
|
|
|
0.84
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2006
|
|
|
2.02
|
|
|
|
1.05
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1.47
|
|
|
|
0.72
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
2.51
|
|
|
|
0.77
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
2.18
|
|
|
|
0.18
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
0.39
|
|
|
|
0.02
|
|
Holders of Common
Stock
The number of stockholders of record of our common stock on
March 3, 2008 was approximately 1,678.
Dividends
We did not pay any dividends during the two most recent fiscal
years. The terms of our Exit Facility restrict the payment of
dividends on shares of common stock, and we do not anticipate
paying any such dividends at this time. We anticipate that our
earnings will be retained to finance our operations and reduce
debt.
19
Issuers Purchases
of Equity Securities
No purchases of equity securities were made during the quarter
ended December 31, 2007.
Annual
Meeting
We do not intend to hold an annual meeting in 2008.
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
8,721
|
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
8,611
|
|
|
$
|
7,775
|
|
|
$
|
6,714
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
$
|
(387
|
)
|
|
$
|
(571
|
)
|
|
$
|
(285
|
)
|
|
$
|
(165
|
)
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(433
|
)
|
|
$
|
(618
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,175
|
)
|
|
$
|
72
|
|
|
$
|
155
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations*
|
|
|
(118
|
)
|
|
|
(121
|
)
|
|
|
(434
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
73
|
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,605
|
)
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share basic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(2.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.11
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.86
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
1.05
|
|
Discontinued operations*
|
|
|
(0.79
|
)
|
|
|
(0.81
|
)
|
|
|
(2.90
|
)
|
|
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|
|
0.49
|
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(3.68
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.92
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.73
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.41
|
|
|
$
|
1.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share diluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(2.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.11
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.86
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
1.04
|
|
Discontinued operations*
|
|
|
(0.79
|
)
|
|
|
(0.81
|
)
|
|
|
(2.90
|
)
|
|
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|
|
0.49
|
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(3.68
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.92
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.73
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.41
|
|
|
$
|
1.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends per common share
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average number of shares outstanding (in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
148
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
Stock price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
$
|
2.51
|
|
|
$
|
8.05
|
|
|
$
|
17.56
|
|
|
$
|
23.20
|
|
|
$
|
18.40
|
|
Low
|
|
|
0.02
|
|
|
|
0.65
|
|
|
|
5.50
|
|
|
|
13.86
|
|
|
|
6.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Summary of Financial Position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
6,425
|
|
|
$
|
6,664
|
|
|
$
|
7,358
|
|
|
$
|
9,019
|
|
|
$
|
9,485
|
|
Short-term debt
|
|
|
1,183
|
|
|
|
293
|
|
|
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
155
|
|
|
|
493
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
722
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
2,054
|
|
|
|
2,605
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(782
|
)
|
|
|
(834
|
)
|
|
|
545
|
|
|
|
2,411
|
|
|
|
2,050
|
|
Book value per share
|
|
|
(5.22
|
)
|
|
|
(5.55
|
)
|
|
|
3.63
|
|
|
|
16.19
|
|
|
|
13.85
|
|
20
|
|
|
* |
|
The provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) No. 144 are generally prospective from the date of
adoption and therefore do not apply to divestitures announced
prior to January 1, 2002. Accordingly, the disposals of
selected subsidiaries of DCC that were announced in October 2001
and completed at various times thereafter were not considered in
our determination of discontinued operations. |
We adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109 (FIN 48) on January 1, 2007
and increased our 2007 beginning retained earnings by
approximately $3. We adopted SFAS No.s 123(R) and 158
in 2006. SFAS 123(R), Share-Based Payments
requires that we measure compensation cost arising from the
grant of share-based awards to employees at fair value and
recognize such costs in income over the period during which the
service is provided. The adoption of SFAS No. 158,
Employers Accounting for Defined-Benefit Pension and
Other Postretirement Plans, resulted in a decrease in
total stockholders equity of $818 as of December 31,
2006. For further information regarding the impact of the
adoption of SFAS No. 158, see Note 14 to the
financial statements in Item 8. We previously reported a
change in accounting for warranty expense in 2005 and also
adopted new accounting guidance related to recognition of asset
retirement obligations. See Note 2 to the financial
statements in Item 8 for additional information related to
these changes in accounting.
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations (Dollars in millions)
|
Managements discussion and analysis of financial condition
and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the
financial statements and accompanying notes in Item 8 of
this report.
Management
Overview
We are a leading supplier of axle, driveshaft, structures,
sealing and thermal products, and we design and manufacture
products for every major vehicle producer in the world. We are
focused on being an essential partner to automotive, commercial
truck and off-highway vehicle customers. We employ approximately
35,000 people in 26 countries. Our world headquarters are
in Toledo, Ohio. Our Internet address is www.dana.com. The
inclusion of our website address in this report is an inactive
textual reference only, and is not intended to include or
incorporate by reference the information on our web site into
this report.
As discussed in Item 1. Business
Reorganization Proceedings under the Bankruptcy
Code, and in Notes 1 and 23 to the financials
statements of Item 8, we emerged from bankruptcy on
January 31, 2008. Pursuant to our Plan, all of the issued
and outstanding shares of Prior Dana common stock, par value
$1.00 per share, and any other outstanding equity securities of
Prior Dana, including all options and warrants, were cancelled.
On the Effective Date, we began the process of issuing
100 million shares of Dana common stock, par value $0.01
per share, including approximately 70 million shares for
allowed unsecured nonpriority claims, approximately
28 million additional shares deposited in an account for
future distribution to unsecured nonpriority claimants in
Class 5B under the Plan, approximately 1 million
shares for payment of post-emergence bonuses to union employees
and approximately 1 million shares to pay bonuses to
non-union hourly and salaried non-management employees. See
Item 1 for a discussion of the treatment of other claims
and settlements.
As part of our emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, all
pre-petition claims against the Debtors were addressed as
provided in the Plan, including claims with respect to debt,
pension and postretirement medical obligations, environmental
and other liabilities.
Business
Strategy
We utilized the reorganization process primarily to effect
fundamental changes in our U.S. operations as our long-term
viability depends on our ability to return our
U.S. operations to sustainable profitability.
During 2007, we implemented most of our reorganization
initiatives, and our emergence from bankruptcy finalized many of
these initiatives. Our efforts to improve our margins and reduce
costs have favorably impacted our performance and will help to
mitigate the underlying industry challenges and difficult
business
21
conditions we face. Operating cash flow, repatriated cash from
our overseas operations and amounts borrowed under our Exit
Facility are expected to meet our liquidity needs for 2008. With
the reorganization actions we have achieved, we expect our
U.S. operations will be less dependent on returns from our
foreign operations in the future. The reorganization initiatives
we have implemented include:
|
|
|
|
|
We have obtained substantial price increases from our customers,
which has helped us to improve margins;
|
|
|
|
We have restructured our wage and benefit programs to achieve a
more appropriate labor and benefit cost structure;
|
|
|
|
We have addressed excessive costs and funding requirements of
the legacy postretirement benefit liabilities that we have
accumulated over the years, in part from prior divestitures and
closed operations;
|
|
|
|
We have achieved a permanent reduction and realignment of our
overhead costs; and
|
|
|
|
We are continuing to optimize our manufacturing
footprint by closing facilities and repositioning
our production to lower cost countries.
|
Achievement of many of our objectives has enabled us to mitigate
the effects of the significantly curtailed production since the
second half of 2006 by some of our largest domestic customers,
particularly in the production of SUVs and pickup trucks, which
represent the primary market for our products in the
U.S. These production cuts also adversely impacted our
sales in 2007 in the light vehicle market. Weaker demand in the
U.S. heavy-duty and medium-duty truck markets in 2007 as a
result of pre-buying in 2006 ahead of new emissions rules also
negatively impacted our 2007 performance. However, we expect
that our reorganization initiatives will allow us to achieve
viable long-term U.S. operations despite a challenged
U.S. automotive industry and a cyclical commercial vehicle
market. A more detailed description of initiatives taken during
the reorganization process follows:
Product
Profitability
Following a detailed review of our product programs to identify
unprofitable contracts and meetings with our customers and their
advisors to address under-performing programs, we reached
agreement with most of our major customers resulting in
aggregate pricing improvements of approximately $180 on an
annualized basis.
Labor
and Benefit Costs
In June 2007, we amended our U.S. pension plans for
non-union employees to freeze service credits and benefit
accruals effective July 1, 2007. Actions to reduce other
non-union employee benefits, such as disability and healthcare,
were implemented in the first half of 2007.
In July 2007, we entered into settlement agreements subsequently
amended and then approved by the Bankruptcy Court with two
primary unions representing our active
U.S. employees the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (the UAW) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union (the USW) which resolve
our collective bargaining issues with these unions and, when
fully implemented, will help us achieve our labor cost reduction
goal (the Union Settlement Agreements). These agreements provide
for (i) collective bargaining agreements for UAW- and
USW-represented employees at our U.S. facilities until
June 1, 2011, and (ii) wage structure modifications
and modifications to pension, health care, short- and long-term
disability and life insurance benefits for the covered union
employees and retirees.
The Union Settlement Agreements also provide for a freeze of
credited service and benefit accruals under Dana-sponsored
defined benefit pension plans for UAW- and USW-represented
employees, effective January 31, 2008 and for future
benefits to be provided under the Steelworkers Pension
Trust
22
(SPT), a multi-employer, USW-sponsored defined benefit pension
plan, based on a
cents-per-hour
contribution for all eligible employees represented by either
the USW or the UAW.
Our labor and benefits cost reduction goal was $60 to $90 of
annual cost savings. With the actions referred to above and
other previously implemented actions, the annualized cost
savings are expected to approximate $80.
Other
Employee and Retiree Benefits
In March 2007, we reached an agreement (subsequently executed in
May after approval by the Bankruptcy Court) with the official
committee of non-unionized retired employees (the Retiree
Committee) to make $78 of cash contributions to a VEBA trust for
non-pension retiree benefits for our non-union retirees, in
exchange for release of our obligations for postretirement
health and welfare benefits for such retirees after
June 30, 2007. We also reached an agreement with the
International Association of Machinists (IAM) (subsequently
approved by the Bankruptcy Court) to pay $2 to resolve all IAM
claims after June 30, 2007 for non-pension retiree benefits
for retirees and active employees represented by the IAM.
In April 2007, we eliminated retiree healthcare benefits
coverage for our active non-union U.S. employees. In July
2007, we reduced long-term disability benefits for non-union
employees.
Under the Union Settlement Agreements, we eliminated
Dana-sponsored healthcare and life insurance benefits for
union-represented retirees and we transferred the obligations to
pay long-term disability benefits to union employees receiving
or entitled to receive disability benefits to the union VEBAs,
effective January 31, 2008. The UAW and the USW established
separate, union-specific VEBAs to provide such benefits to
eligible union-represented employees or retirees after that
date. Shortly after the Effective Date, we contributed $733 to
the UAW and USW VEBAs. An additional contribution of $2 was made
to an escrow account for the benefit of retirees of a divested
business.
As a result of these actions, we have eliminated our
U.S. postretirement healthcare obligations, resulting in
annualized cost savings of approximately $90.
Overhead
Costs
We implemented various initiatives to reduce overhead costs and
we continue to focus on our overhead cost structure. Reductions
in overhead occurred in part as a result of divestiture and
reorganization activities. We expect our reductions in overhead
spending to contribute annual expense savings of approximately
$50.
Manufacturing
Footprint
We identified a number of manufacturing and assembly plants that
carried an excessive cost structure or had excess capacity. We
closed certain locations and consolidated their operations into
lower cost facilities in other countries or into
U.S. facilities that had excess capacity. During 2007, we
completed the closure of fifteen facilities. We will close
additional facilities in 2008 and 2009, and other locations are
implementing work force reductions. We anticipate that our
manufacturing footprint actions will reduce operating costs by
$60 on an annualized basis when fully implemented by 2010.
Our customer pricing initiatives and labor and benefit actions
are substantially completed. The manufacturing footprint and
overhead reduction actions are progressing as planned. We
believe we are positioned to achieve the goals of our
reorganization initiatives and we expect these actions to
positively impact 2008 results of operations by $460 as we
complete the implementation of these initiatives during the year.
During 2007, we completed substantially all of our previously
announced divestitures.
In January 2007, we sold our trailer axle business manufacturing
assets for $28 in cash and recorded an after-tax gain of $14.
23
In March 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
We sold our engine hard parts business to MAHLE and received
cash proceeds of $98 of which $10 remains escrowed pending
satisfaction of certain of our indemnification obligations. We
recorded an after-tax loss of $42 in the first quarter of 2007
in connection with this sale and an after-tax loss of $3 in the
second quarter related to a South American operation.
|
|
|
|
We sold our 30% equity interest in GETRAG to our joint venture
partner, an affiliate of GETRAG, for $207 in cash. An impairment
charge of $58 had been recorded in the fourth quarter of 2006 to
adjust this equity investment to fair value and an additional
charge of $2 after tax was recorded in the first quarter of 2007
based on the value of the investment at the time of closing.
|
In July and August 2007, we completed the sale of our fluid
products hose and tubing business to Orhan Holding A.S. and
certain of its affiliates. Aggregate cash proceeds of $84 were
received from these transactions and an aggregate after-tax gain
of $32 was recorded in the third quarter in connection with the
sale of this business. A final purchase price adjustment is
pending on this sale.
In August 2007, we and certain of our affiliates executed an
axle agreement and related transaction documents providing for a
series of transactions relating to our rights and obligations
under two joint ventures with GETRAG and certain of its
affiliates. These agreements provide for relief from non-compete
provisions in various agreements restricting our ability to
participate in certain markets for axle products other than
through participation in the joint ventures; the grant of a call
option to GETRAG to acquire our ownership interests in the two
joint ventures for a purchase price of $75; our payment to
GETRAG of $11 under certain conditions; the withdrawal, with
prejudice, of bankruptcy claims aggregating approximately $66
filed by GETRAG and one of the joint venture entities relating
to our alleged breach of certain non-compete provisions; the
amendment, assumption, rejection
and/or
termination of certain other agreements between the parties; and
the grant of certain mutual releases by us and various other
parties. In connection with these agreements, $11 was recorded
as liabilities subject to compromise and as a charge to other
income, net in the second quarter based on the determination
that the liability was probable. In October 2007, these
agreements were approved by the Bankruptcy Court and became
effective. The $11 liability was reclassified to other current
liabilities at December 31, 2007.
In September 2007, we completed the sale of our coupled fluid
products business to Coupled Products Acquisition LLC by having
the buyer assume certain liabilities ($18) of the business at
closing. A third-quarter after-tax loss of $23 was recorded in
connection with the sale of this business. A final purchase
price adjustment is pending on this sale.
We completed the sale of a portion of the pump products business
in October 2007, generating proceeds of $7 and a nominal
after-tax gain, which was recorded in the fourth quarter.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, we substantially completed
our divestment of DCC assets. Since announcing the divestment
plan in 2001, when DCCs portfolio assets exceeded $2,200,
we have completed sales leaving us with portfolio assets of $7
at December 31, 2007.
In January 2008, we completed the sale of the remaining assets
of the pump products business to Melling Tool Company generating
proceeds of $5 and an after-tax loss of $1 that will be recorded
in the first quarter of 2008.
Business
Units
We manage our operations globally through two business
units ASG and HVTSG.
ASG focuses on the automotive market and primarily supports
light vehicle OEMs with products for light trucks, SUVs, CUVs,
vans and passenger cars. ASG has five operating segments focused
on specific products for the automotive market: Axle,
Driveshaft, Structures, Sealing and Thermal.
HVTSG supports the OEMs of medium-duty
(Classes 5-7)
and heavy-duty (Class 8) commercial vehicles
(primarily trucks and buses) and off-highway vehicles (primarily
wheeled vehicles used in construction,
24
agricultural and industrial applications). HVTSG has two
operating segments focused on specific markets: Commercial
Vehicle and Off-Highway.
Trends in Our
Markets
Light Vehicle
Markets
North
America
North American light vehicle unit production levels have
declined about 4.5% during the past three years
15.8 million in 2005, 15.3 million in 2006, and
15.0 million in 2007. Within this market, most of the
vehicle platforms that we supply are in the light truck segment.
Light truck unit production levels declined more significantly
during this period about 7.0% with unit
production levels at 9.2 million in 2005, 8.4 million
in 2006 and 8.6 million in 2007. Notably, within the light
truck segment there has also been a significant shift.
Production of
pick-ups,
SUVs and vans have dropped significantly (16% from 2005 to
2007) while production of smaller cross-over vehicles have
increased about 32%. Since a number of our key vehicle platforms
are pick-ups
and SUVs, this change in light truck production mix has had a
significant impact on our sales. The decline in
pick-up and
SUV production levels during the past two years has been driven
in large part by higher fuel prices, as consumer preferences
have increasingly moved toward passenger cars and CUVs, which
have better fuel efficiency.
Vehicle sales in North America during the second half of 2007
were especially sluggish. Concern about high fuel prices
continues to permeate the market, and other negative economic
factors have also risen to the forefront declining
housing starts, tightened credit and increased unemployment. In
response to lower second half 2007 sales, the OEMs reduced
production levels and managed to keep inventory levels in check.
At December 31, 2007, there was a 65 day supply of light
truck inventories in the U.S., which was down slightly from
67 days at the end of 2006.
With the current concerns surrounding fuel prices and other
economic factors, the outlook for the North American vehicle
market for 2008 is extremely cautious, particularly for the
first half of the year. Most forecasts for overall light duty
North American production in 2008 are currently around
14.5 million units a decline of about 3.5% from
2007. In the light truck segment, production levels are expected
to decline somewhat more, about 5.5%. On the vehicle platforms
which have higher Dana product content, we are currently
forecasting a 2008 production decline of around 6% from 2007.
Rest of
World
Outside of North America, light duty production levels have
generally increased or remained relatively flat over the past
three years. Following are the production levels for select
regions over the past three years and as forecasted for 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(millions of units)
|
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
|
|
23.9
|
|
|
|
26.1
|
|
|
|
28.3
|
|
|
|
30.1
|
|
Western Europe
|
|
|
16.1
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
|
|
|
16.1
|
|
|
|
16.0
|
|
Eastern Europe
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
South America
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
While the North American market continues to be our largest, our
business strategies have increasingly positioned us to be less
dependent on North America and to grow our business elsewhere in
the world. As indicated in the Results of Operations section,
Danas sales (all markets) outside of North America were
45% of total sales in 2007, up from 37% in 2005, and most of the
existing net new business coming on stream over the next three
years involves programs outside North America.
25
OEM Mix
The declining sales of light vehicles (especially light trucks,
which generally have a higher profit margin than passenger cars)
in North America, as well as losses of market share to
competitors such as Toyota and Nissan, continue to put pressure
on three of our largest customers: Ford, GM and Chrysler. These
three customers accounted for 63% of light truck production in
North America in 2007. Their share of such production in 2006
and 2005 was 65% and 69% (source: Global Insight). We expect any
continuing loss of market share by these customers could result
in their applying renewed pricing pressure on us relative to
existing business and in our efforts to generate new business.
Our discussion of product profitability initiatives in the
Business Strategy section above specifically addresses our
efforts to improve our pricing.
Commercial
Vehicle Markets
North
America
Our commercial vehicle business is significantly impacted by the
North American market, with approximately 85% of our commercial
vehicle sales being to North American customers. As expected,
the implementation of new engine emission regulations at the
beginning of 2007 led to decreased vehicle production this past
year as vehicle owners stepped up their purchases in 2006 to
take advantage of the lower cost of the engines built prior to
the new emission requirements. Production of heavy duty
(Class 8) vehicles in 2007 was about
205,000 units, which is down from 369,000 in 2006 and
334,000 in 2005. The drop off in production levels was less
severe in the medium duty
(Class 5-7)
market, but still significant. Medium duty production in 2007
was around 206,000 units as compared to 265,000 units
in 2006 and 244,000 units in 2005.
As is typical following such an emission regulation change,
production levels are expected to rebound in 2008. We currently
expect Class 8 production levels in 2008 to be around
230,000 units up 12% over 2007, and
Class 5-7
production to come in around 220,000 units an
increase of 7% over 2007. The current commercial vehicle market
is experiencing some of the same effects as the light duty
market with vehicle sales being adversely affected by a weak
housing market and continued high fuel prices. As a consequence,
the first half of 2008 is expected to be somewhat sluggish, with
production picking up more during the second half of the year.
Rest of
World
Outside of North America, commercial vehicle production levels
have generally increased over the past three years. Following
are the production levels for select regions over the past three
years and as forecast for 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(units in thousands)
|
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
|
|
925
|
|
|
|
1,090
|
|
|
|
1,270
|
|
|
|
1,352
|
|
Western Europe
|
|
|
475
|
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
|
515
|
|
|
|
510
|
|
Eastern Europe
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
195
|
|
South America
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
As with our light duty business, our recent strategic
initiatives in the commercial vehicle business have increased
our ability to capitalize on the stronger growth occurring
outside of North America, particularly in Asia Pacific. In June
2007, we purchased a 4% interest in the registered capital of
Dongfeng Dana Axle Co., Ltd. (a commercial vehicle axle
manufacturer in China formerly known as Dongfeng Axle Co., Ltd.)
from Dongfeng Motor Co., Ltd and certain of its affiliates for
$5. Under the purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions,
we agreed to acquire an additional 46% of Dongfeng Dana Axle
Co., Ltd. for approximately $55 within the three years following
our initial investment.
26
Off-Highway
Markets
Over the past three years, our Off-Highway business has become
an increasingly more significant component of our total
operations. With sales of $1,549, it accounted for 18% of our
total sales in 2007. Unlike our on-highway businesses, our
Off-Highway business is larger outside of North America, with
more than 75% of its 2007 sales coming from outside North
America.
We serve several segments of the diverse off-highway market,
including construction, agriculture, mining, material handling
and others. The European and North American construction and
agriculture segments are currently the two largest. Production
levels in these markets over the past three years and as
forecast for 2008 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(units in thousands)
|
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
197
|
|
|
|
203
|
|
Agriculture
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
212
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
218
|
|
North America
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
Agriculture
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
132
|
|
Similar to the businesses in our other markets, our Off-Highway
business has grown during the past three years in Eastern Europe
and in China, capitalizing on the Asia Pacific growth
opportunities that are also prevalent in this market.
Commodity
Costs
Another challenge we face is the increasing costs of steel and
other raw materials, which has had a significant adverse impact
on our results, and those of other North American automotive
suppliers, for the past several years. Steel suppliers began
assessing price surcharges and increasing base prices during the
first half of 2004, and prices since then have remained at
considerably higher levels.
Two commonly used market-based indicators a Tri
Cities Index for #1 bundled scrap steel (which represents
the monthly average costs in the Chicago, Cleveland and
Pittsburgh ferrous scrap markets, as posted by American Metal
Market, and is used by our domestic steel suppliers to determine
our monthly surcharge) and the spot market price for hot-rolled
sheet steel illustrate the impact. Average scrap
steel prices on the Tri Cities Index during 2007 were more than
50% higher than scrap prices at the end of 2003 and spot market
hot-rolled sheet steel prices during 2007 were more than 60%
higher. After increasing significantly through mid-2006, prices
of scrap and hot-rolled steel subsided some during the second
half of 2006 and first half of 2007. The scrap prices on the Tri
Cities Index were on average in 2007 11% higher than 2006, while
hot-rolled steel spot prices during 2007 were on about 10% lower
than 2006. We have taken actions to mitigate the impact of these
increases, including consolidating purchases, taking advantage
of our customers resale programs where possible, finding
new global steel sources, identifying alternative materials and
redesigning our products to be less dependent on higher cost
steel grades. Nevertheless, steel prices continue to have a
significant impact on our operating profit. During the second
half of 2007, scrap and hot-rolled steel spot steel prices began
increasing, and they have increased even more during early 2008.
Scrap prices at the end of January 2008 are about 40% higher
than mid-year 2007 price levels, while hot-rolled steel is up
nearly 20%.
During the latter part of 2005 and throughout 2007, prices for
raw materials other than steel were volatile. Average prices for
nickel (which is used to manufacture stainless steel) increased
more than 60% in 2006, and increased again in 2007 more than
50%. Importantly, however, while full year 2007 nickel prices
were up on average, prices during the second half of the year
declined significantly with January 2008 nickel
prices being about 20% lower than prices at the end of 2006.
Aluminum prices increased on average 37% in 2006 over 2005
prices, and remained relatively constant throughout
2007 up only about 3% over 2006. As was
27
the case with nickel, aluminum prices during the second half of
2007 declined somewhat with January 2008 prices
being about 12% lower than year end 2006 price levels.
As discussed above, our reorganization initiatives include
working with our customers to recover a greater portion of our
commodity materials costs.
Automotive
Supplier Bankruptcies
Several major U.S. automotive suppliers, in addition to us,
have filed for protection under the Bankruptcy Code since early
2005 including Tower Automotive, Inc., Collins &
Aikman Corporation, Delphi Corporation and Dura Automotive
Systems, Inc. These bankruptcy filings indicate stress in the
North American light vehicle market that could lead to further
filings or to competitor or customer reorganizations or
consolidations that could impact the marketplace and our
business.
New
Business
A continuing major focus for us is growing our revenue through
new business. Based on awards to date, we expect net new
business to contribute approximately $170 to our sales in 2008
and an additional $100 in 2009. Our current level of net new
business is lower than in recent years due, in part, to the
expiration or reduction in some of our larger customer programs
in 2006, including programs to supply certain structural
products to Ford and certain axle and driveshaft products to
Ford and a GM affiliate in Australia. Our 2008 net new
business projection also takes into consideration sales
reductions that we anticipate next year due to the co-sourcing
of a structural products program with Ford. While continuing to
support Ford, GM and Chrysler, we are striving to diversify our
sales across a broader customer base.
United States
Profitability
During the five years preceding our bankruptcy filing in 2006,
our U.S. operations generated losses before income taxes
aggregating approximately $2,000. The Debtor operations
continued to generate significant losses during 2006 with losses
before income taxes exceeding $400, inclusive of $117 of
reorganization expense attributable to our bankruptcy filing and
another $56 of restructuring and impairment charges. While
numerous factors have contributed to our lack of profitability
in the U.S., paramount among them are those discussed earlier in
this report: high raw material costs that we have been
absorbing, customer price reductions that have reduced our
margins, competition from suppliers in countries with lower
labor costs, and accumulated retiree healthcare costs
disproportionate to the scale of our current business. The
initiatives undertaken in the reorganization process discussed
under the Business Strategy section above outline the actions
taken to improve U.S. profitability.
Our loss before income taxes for the Debtors in 2007 increased
slightly to approximately $452 from $443 in 2006. However,
included are increases of $148 of bankruptcy-related
reorganization items and $46 in realignment and impairment
charges. Losses from continuing operations before interest,
reorganization items and income taxes decreased from $253 in
2006 to $115 in 2007. This improvement is reflective, in part,
of the initiatives implemented as part of the bankruptcy
reorganization process which contributed approximately $200 of
profit improvement in 2007, most of which benefited the
U.S. operations.
As discussed above, as we complete the reorganization
initiatives, we expect additional annual profit improvement in
2008. Recognition of the cost savings associated with most of
the benefits program modifications under the settlement
agreement with the unions commenced with our emergence from
bankruptcy. Additional benefits from the manufacturing footprint
actions and overhead reductions are also expected. As such, we
expect to realize a substantial portion of the full $460 of
profit improvement from reorganization initiatives in 2008 with
most of the additional improvement occurring in the U.S.
28
Results of
Operations Summary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 to 2006
|
|
|
2006 to 2005
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
8,721
|
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
8,611
|
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
(107
|
)
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
8,231
|
|
|
|
8,166
|
|
|
|
8,205
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
490
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
406
|
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
(68
|
)
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
365
|
|
|
|
419
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin less SG&A*
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
|
|
(94
|
)
|
|
|
206
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other costs and expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realignment charges, net
|
|
|
205
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
Impairment of other assets
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
234
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
(145
|
)
|
|
|
181
|
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
162
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expense, net of other income
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before interest, reorganization
items and income taxes
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(267
|
)
|
|
$
|
(117
|
)
|
|
$
|
260
|
|
|
$
|
(150
|
)
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(433
|
)
|
|
$
|
(618
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,175
|
)
|
|
$
|
185
|
|
|
$
|
557
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
(118
|
)
|
|
$
|
(121
|
)
|
|
$
|
(434
|
)
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
313
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,605
|
)
|
|
$
|
188
|
|
|
$
|
866
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Gross margin less SG&A is a non-GAAP financial measure
derived by excluding realignment charges, impairments and other
income, net from the most closely related GAAP measure which is
income from continuing operations before interest,
reorganization items and income taxes. We believe this non-GAAP
measure is useful for an understanding of our ongoing operations
because it excludes other income and expense items which are
generally not expected to be part of our ongoing business.
Certain reclassifications were made to conform 2005 and 2006 to
the 2007 reporting schedules. Intercompany sales and cost of
sales are included in our gross margin calculation. |
Results of
Operations (2007 versus 2006)
Geographic Sales,
Segment Sales and Gross Margin Analysis (2007 versus
2006)
The tables below show changes in our sales by geographic region,
business unit and segment for the years ended December 31,
2007 and 2006.
Geographic Sales
Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Change Due To
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Acquisitions/
|
|
|
Organic
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Effects
|
|
|
Divestitures
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
North America
|
|
$
|
4,791
|
|
|
$
|
5,171
|
|
|
$
|
(380
|
)
|
|
$
|
26
|
|
|
$
|
(90
|
)
|
|
$
|
(316
|
)
|
Europe
|
|
|
2,256
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
|
192
|
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
231
|
|
South America
|
|
|
1,007
|
|
|
|
854
|
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
|
|
667
|
|
|
|
623
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,721
|
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
348
|
|
|
$
|
(133
|
)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales increased $217, or 2.6%, from 2006 to 2007. Currency
movements increased 2007 sales by $348 due to an overall weaker
U.S. dollar compared to a number of the major currencies in
other global markets
29
where we conduct business. Sales in 2007 were reduced by net
divestiture impacts, principally due to a $152 reduction
resulting from the sale of our trailer axle business in January
2007. Partially offsetting this loss of sales was an increase
resulting from the July 2006 purchase of the axle and driveshaft
businesses previously owned by Spicer S.A., our equity affiliate
in Mexico. Excluding currency and net divestiture effects,
organic sales in 2007 were relatively flat compared to 2006.
Organic change is the
period-on-period
measure of the change in sales that excludes the effects of
currency movements, acquisitions and divestitures.
Regionally, North American sales were down $380 in 2007, or
7.3%. A stronger Canadian dollar increased sales slightly, while
the divestiture of the trailer axle business net of additional
axle and driveshaft business acquired from our previous equity
affiliate in Mexico decreased sales by $90. Excluding these
effects, organic sales were down $316, or 6.1%. Lower production
levels in the North American commercial vehicle market were the
primary contributor to lower organic sales. Class 8 vehicle
production was down more than 40% while medium duty production
of
Class 5-7
vehicles was down more than 20%. New engine emission
requirements effective at the beginning of 2007 increased costs
and led many vehicle owners to accelerate their purchases in
2006. Consequently, production levels in 2006 benefited from
this pull forward of customer demand, while 2007 levels were
lower. In North America, our 2007 organic sales to the
commercial vehicle market were down more than $400 compared to
2006. Partially offsetting the impact of lower commercial
vehicle build was higher production levels in the North American
light truck market. Year over year light truck production
increased 2.2%, with the vehicle platforms on which we have our
highest content up even more. Sales to the off-highway market
also increased in 2007, principally from new customer programs.
Additionally, North American sales in 2007 benefited from
pricing improvements of approximately $165.
Sales in Europe increased $400 in 2007 an increase
of 21.6%. Stronger European currencies relative to the
U.S. dollar accounted for $192 of the increase. The organic
sales increase of $231 was due in part to net new business in
2007 of approximately $150. Additionally, production levels in
two of our key markets the European light vehicle
market and the off-highway market were somewhat
stronger in 2007 than in 2006. In South America, the sales
increase of $153 resulted from somewhat stronger year-over-year
production levels in our major vehicular markets, and also from
stronger currencies in this region. Sales in Asia Pacific
similarly increased due to currencies in that region also
strengthening against the U.S. dollar.
Segment Sales
Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Change Due To
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Acquisitions/
|
|
|
Organic
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Effects
|
|
|
Divestitures
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
$
|
2,627
|
|
|
$
|
2,230
|
|
|
$
|
397
|
|
|
$
|
92
|
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
285
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
1,124
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Sealing
|
|
|
720
|
|
|
|
679
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
291
|
|
|
|
283
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
Structures
|
|
|
1,069
|
|
|
|
1,174
|
|
|
|
(105
|
)
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(131
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
5,934
|
|
|
|
5,567
|
|
|
|
367
|
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
1,235
|
|
|
|
1,683
|
|
|
|
(448
|
)
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(314
|
)
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
1,549
|
|
|
|
1,231
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
217
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HVTSG
|
|
|
2,784
|
|
|
|
2,914
|
|
|
|
(130
|
)
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
Other Operations
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,721
|
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
348
|
|
|
$
|
(133
|
)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
Business
Segment Review
Customer-related pricing improvements contributed approximately
$150 to organic sales growth in our ASG segments in 2007, while
the net effects of significantly lower commercial vehicle
production, somewhat higher light vehicle production and sales
mix reduced organic sales. In our Axle segment, pricing
improvements, new customer programs and higher production levels
contributed to the higher sales. Our Driveshaft segment sells to
the commercial vehicle market as well as the light vehicle
market. The significant decline in commercial vehicle production
levels more than offset stronger light duty production levels
and pricing improvements, leading to a slight decline in this
units organic sales. Neither the Thermal nor Sealing
segment benefited significantly from pricing improvement or new
business; consequently, the organic sales change in these
operations was primarily due to production level changes and
business mix. In Structures, higher sales due to stronger
production levels and improved pricing were more than offset by
discontinued programs, including the expiration of a frame
program with Ford in 2006.
In the HVTSG, our Commercial Vehicle segment is heavily
concentrated in the North American market and the organic sales
decline of 18.7% in this segment was primarily due to the drop
in North American production levels discussed in the regional
review. Organic sales in the Off-Highway segment have benefited
from stronger production levels and sales from new programs.
With its significant European presence, this segments
sales also benefited from the stronger euro.
31
Margin
Analysis
The chart below shows our business unit and segment margin
analysis for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Sales
|
|
|
Increase/
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Gross margin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
Axle
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
(2.4
|
)
|
Sealing
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
Thermal
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
Structures
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)%
|
Axle
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
Sealing
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin less SG&A:*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Axle
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
(2.3
|
)
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
|
(1.8
|
)
|
Sealing
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
Thermal
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
(5.2
|
)
|
Structures
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Gross margin less SG&A is a
non-GAAP financial measure derived by excluding realignment
charges, impairments and other income, net from the most closely
related GAAP measure, which is income from continuing operations
before interest, reorganization items and income taxes. We
believe this non-GAAP measure is useful for an understanding of
our ongoing operations because it excludes other income and
expense items which are generally not expected to be part of our
ongoing business. Intercompany sales and cost of sales are
included in our gross margin calculation.
|
32
Automotive
Systems Group
In ASG, gross margin less SG&A improved 1.2%, from 0.7% in
2006 to 1.9% in 2007. Customer pricing improvements of
approximately $150 was the principal factor increasing ASG
margins. Reductions to non-union benefit plans also contributed
to some additional margin. Partially offsetting these
improvements were negative impacts from sales mix and expiration
of higher margin programs.
In the Axle segment, the net margin improvement was 2.0%.
Customer pricing actions increased margins in Axle by
approximately $60, or 2.2% of sales. Non-union employee benefit
plan reductions and lower material costs also contributed to
some margin improvement. Although Axle sales were up
significantly in 2007, the sales mix was unfavorable with a
significant portion of the higher sales coming from vehicle
platforms with lower margins.
The Driveshaft segment experienced a net margin decline of 1.8%
despite a year-over-year sales increase. Adverse sales mix was a
major factor as the Driveshaft segment sells to customers in
both the light duty automotive market as well as the commercial
vehicle market. Lower production levels in the North American
commercial vehicle market reduced Driveshaft sales by about $90.
Margins on the commercial vehicle business are higher than the
light duty automotive programs, thereby negatively impacting
overall margins. Premium freight cost associated with
operational inefficiencies reduced margins by about $10.
Partially offsetting the negative margin effects of the adverse
sales mix and some operational inefficiencies was margin
improvement of approximately $27 2.2% of
sales due to customer pricing and lower material
costs.
Net margins in the Sealing segment were down 0.6%, primarily due
to higher material costs of approximately $20, or 2.7% of sales.
Stainless steel is a major material component for this business,
and the average cost of stainless steel in 2007 was about 67%
higher than in 2006. The higher raw material cost was partially
offset by margin improvements from non-union benefit plan
reductions and operational cost reduction actions.
Our Thermal segment experienced a net margin decline of 5.2% in
2007. Operational inefficiencies and warranty cost associated
with our European operation reduced margins by about $5, and
higher start up costs associated with our Hungary and China
operations negatively impacted margins by $3. Additionally, the
strengthening of the Canadian dollar against the
U.S. dollar also negatively impacts our margin in this
business as certain product manufactured in Canada is sold in
U.S. dollars.
In our Structures segment, net margins increased 4.9%, with
customer pricing actions contributing approximately $65, or 6.1%
of sales. This margin improvement was partially offset by
unfavorable margin effects associated with the lower sales in
this unit, principally due to expiration of two significant
customer programs.
Heavy Vehicle
Technology and Systems
Our Heavy Vehicle gross margins less SG&A increased 1.3% in
2007, benefiting primarily from increased pricing and stronger
off-highway sales levels. Commercial Vehicle segment margins
improved 0.6%, despite significantly lower sales due to reduced
production levels in the North American market. More than
offsetting the unfavorable margin impact of the lower production
levels was increased pricing which improved margins by about
$23, or 1.9% of sales. In the Off-Highway segment, net margins
improved 0.2%. Higher sales relative to fixed costs and reduced
material costs benefited margins. Margins were negatively
impacted by a stronger euro as we manufacture some product in
Europe for sale in dollars to the U.S. Higher warranty
costs of $7 also reduced our margins in this business.
Consolidated
Consolidated gross margin less SG&A includes corporate
expenses and other costs not allocated to the business units of
$146, or 1.7% of sales, in 2007 as compared to $240, or 2.8% of
sales, in 2006. This improvement in consolidated margins of 2.4%
results primarily from our overall efforts to control overhead
through headcount reduction, limited wage increases and cutbacks
in discretionary spending. Also
33
contributing to this margin improvement were the benefit plan
reductions effectuated in 2007 which eliminated retiree
postretirement benefits other than pension (OPEB) benefits for
non-union active employees and retirees and discontinued future
service accruals under non-union employee pension plans.
Realignment
charges
Realignment charges during 2007 included $136 of cost relating
to settlement of pension obligations in the United Kingdom (as
described more fully in Note 6 to the financial statements
in Item 8). Other realignment charges in 2007 and the
charges in 2006 are primarily costs associated with the
continuing manufacturing footprint optimization actions
described in the Business Strategy section.
Impairment of
goodwill and other assets
Our thermal business has experienced significant margin erosion
in recent years resulting from the higher cost of commodities,
especially aluminum. In connection with our annual assessment of
goodwill at December 31, 2007, we determined that goodwill
in our Thermal business segment was impaired and recorded a
charge of $89. The impairment charges in 2006 include charges of
$176 to reduce lease and other assets in DCC to their fair value
less cost to sell, a charge of $58 to adjust our equity
investment in GETRAG to fair value based on an
other-than-temporary decline in value related to the March 2007
sale of this investment, and a $46 charge to write off the
goodwill in our Axle business. Each of these charges is
described further in Notes 4 and 9 of the financial
statements in Item 8.
Other income,
net
Foreign currency transaction gains increased Other income
(expense) by $31 in 2007. During 2007, certain intercompany
loans receivable held by the Debtors that were previously
designated as invested indefinitely were identified for
repayment through near-term repatriation actions. As a
consequence, exchange rate movements on these loans and others
not permanently invested generated currency gains of $44 during
2007. Currency losses, net, elsewhere reduced other income in
2007 by $9. DCC income was lower by $7 in 2007 as we continued
to sell the remaining portfolio assets in this operation. The
2007 Other income, net, amount also includes an expense of $11
associated with settling a contractual matter with an investor
in one of our equity investments. See Note 21 to the
financial statements in Item 8 for additional components of
other income (expense).
Interest
expense
As a result of our Chapter 11 reorganization process, a
substantial portion of our debt obligations are recorded as
subject to compromise in our consolidated financial statements
included herein. During the bankruptcy reorganization process,
interest expense was no longer accrued on these obligations. The
post-filing interest expense not recognized on these obligations
amounted to $108 in 2007 and $89 in 2006.
Reorganization
items, net
Reorganization items are expenses directly attributed to our
Chapter 11 reorganization process. See Note 3 to our
financial statements in Item 8 of this report for a summary
of these costs. Higher professional advisory fees in 2007 were
due to a full year of reorganization activity, including the
completion of the settlement agreements with the unions and the
confirmation of our Plan. Higher contract rejection and claim
settlement costs in 2007 resulted from specific actions related
to contract settlements made to facilitate the reorganization
process. These higher settlement costs were partially offset by
a $56 credit to reorganization items to reduce liabilities for
long-term disability to amounts allowed by the Bankruptcy Court
for filed claims. Additional information relating to
Reorganization items is provided in Note 3 to the financial
statements in Item 8.
34
Income tax
benefit (expense)
Our reported income tax expense for 2007 was $62 as compared to
an expected benefit of $135 derived by applying the U.S. federal
income tax rate of 35% to reported income before tax. Among the
factors contributing to the higher tax expense are losses
generated in countries such as the U.S. and U.K. where we
determined that future taxable income was not likely to be
sufficient to realize existing net deferred tax assets. As a
consequence, until such time that it is determined that future
taxable income will be sufficient to realize deferred tax
assets, the tax benefits from losses in these countries are
generally offset with a valuation allowance. During 2007, we
incurred $136 of charges relating to the settlement of pension
obligations in the U.K., and the tax benefit associated with
these charges was offset with valuation allowances. Although we
have a full valuation allowance against net deferred tax assets
in the U.S., as discussed in Note 20 to the financial statements
in Item 8, the level of other comprehensive income generated
during 2007 in the U.S. enabled the recognition of $120 of tax
benefits on U.S. losses before income taxes. The net effect on
2007 income tax expense of recording valuation allowances
against deferred tax assets in the U.S., U.K. and other
countries was $37.
Other factors resulting in reported income tax expense being
higher than that expected by applying the U.S. rate of 35% were
non-deductible expenses and recognition of costs associated with
repatriation of undistributed earnings of operations outside the
U.S. Income before taxes included goodwill impairment charges,
certain reorganization costs and other items which are not
deductible for income tax purposes. These items resulted in
approximately $123 of higher reported income tax than that
expected using the U.S. rate of 35%. The recognition of taxes
associated with the planned repatriation of non-U.S. earnings
(also described in Note 20 to the financial statements in
Item 8) resulted in a charge of $37.
The primary factor resulting in income tax expense of $66 during
2006, as compared to a tax benefit of $200 that would be
expected based on the 35% U.S. federal income tax rate, was the
inability to recognize tax benefits on U.S. losses as a result
of the determination in 2005 that future taxable income was not
likely to ensure realization of net deferred tax assets. Also
impacting the rate differential was $46 of goodwill impairment
charges which are not deductible for income tax purposes.
Discontinued
operations
Losses from discontinued operations were $118 and $121, net of
tax, in 2007 and 2006. Discontinued operations in both years
included the engine hard parts, fluid routing and pump products
businesses held for sale at the end of 2006 and 2005. The 2007
amount included net losses of $36 recognized upon completion of
the sale, while the 2006 results included pre-tax impairment
charges of $137 that were required to reduce the net book value
of these businesses to expected fair value less cost to sell.
The discontinued operations results in 2007 also include charges
of $20 in connection with a bankruptcy claim settlement with the
purchaser of a previously sold discontinued business and charges
of $17 for settlement of pension obligations relating to
discontinued businesses. See Note 5 to the financial
statements in Item 8 for additional information relating to
the discontinued operations.
35
Results of
Operations (2006 versus 2005)
Geographic Sales,
Segment Sales and Gross Margin Analysis (2006 versus
2005)
The tables below show changes in our sales by geographic region,
business unit and segment for the years ended December 31,
2006 and 2005.
Geographic Sales
Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Change Due To
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Acquisitions/
|
|
|
Organic
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Effects
|
|
|
Divestitures
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
North America
|
|
$
|
5,171
|
|
|
$
|
5,383
|
|
|
$
|
(212
|
)
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
$
|
32
|
|
|
$
|
(296
|
)
|
Europe
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
1,623
|
|
|
|
233
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
215
|
|
South America
|
|
|
854
|
|
|
|
818
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
24
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
|
|
623
|
|
|
|
787
|
|
|
|
(164
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(159
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
8,611
|
|
|
$
|
(107
|
)
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
(216
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales decreased $107, or 1.2%, from 2005 to 2006. Currency
movements increased 2006 sales by $94 due to an overall weaker
U.S. dollar compared to a number of the major currencies in
other global markets where we conduct business. Sales in 2006
also benefited from net acquisitions, primarily the purchase of
the axle and driveshaft businesses previously owned by Spicer
S.A., our equity affiliate in Mexico. Excluding currency and
acquisition effects, we experienced an organic sales decline of
$216, or 2.5%, in 2006 compared to 2005. Organic change is the
period-on-period
measure of the change in sales that excludes the effects of
currency movements, acquisitions and divestitures.
Regionally, our North American sales were down $212 in 2006, or
3.9%. A stronger Canadian dollar increased sales as did the
acquisition of the axle and driveshaft business of our previous
equity affiliate in Mexico. Excluding the effect of these
increases, the organic sales decline was $296, or 5.5%,
principally due to lower production levels in the North American
light vehicle market. In our primary market light
trucks production levels in 2006 were down about 9%.
Within this market, production levels on vehicles with
significant Dana content primarily pickups and
SUVs were down about 12%. Partially offsetting the
effects of lower light truck production levels was net new
business of approximately $240 which came on stream during 2006
and a stronger commercial vehicle market, where Class B
heavy duty production was up 10% and
Class 5-7
medium duty production was up 9%.
Sales in Europe increased $233, mostly due to increases from net
new business. Production levels in two of our key
markets the European light vehicle market and the
off-highway market were somewhat stronger in 2006
than in 2005. In South America, comparable year-over-year
production levels in our major vehicular markets led to
relatively comparable year-over-year sales. In Asia Pacific,
sales declined significantly from 2005, by $164, due primarily
to expiration of an axle program in Australia with Holden Ltd.,
a subsidiary of GM.
36
Segment Sales
Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Change Due To
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Acquisitions/
|
|
|
Organic
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Effects
|
|
|
Divestitures
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
$
|
2,230
|
|
|
$
|
2,448
|
|
|
$
|
(218
|
)
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
(263
|
)
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
1,124
|
|
|
|
1,088
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
Sealing
|
|
|
679
|
|
|
|
661
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
283
|
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
Structures
|
|
|
1,174
|
|
|
|
1,288
|
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
(67
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(45
|
)
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
5,567
|
|
|
|
5,941
|
|
|
|
(374
|
)
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
(465
|
)
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
1,683
|
|
|
|
1,540
|
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
1,231
|
|
|
|
1,100
|
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HVTSG
|
|
|
2,914
|
|
|
|
2,640
|
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
256
|
|
Other Operations
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
8,611
|
|
|
$
|
(107
|
)
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
(216
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By operating segment, the organic sales declines occurred in the
segments of ASG. The North American light truck market, where
production levels were down about 9% in 2006, is a major market
for each of the ASG operating segments. The sales decrease in
the Axle segment also reflects the expiration of the Holden Ltd.
Axle program in Australia. Increased sales from new axle
programs in 2006 helped mitigate the reduced sales from lower
North America production levels and the loss of the Australian
business.
Our Driveshaft segment serves both light vehicle and commercial
vehicle original equipment customers. As such, the stronger
commercial vehicle market in 2006 in North America helped to
offset the reduced sales from lower production on the light
truck side of the business.
Our Sealing segment, like Driveshaft, supplies product to the
commercial vehicle and off-highway markets as well as the
consumer-based light vehicle markets, thereby offsetting the
impact of lower 2006 North American light vehicle production. In
the Thermal segment, we are more heavily concentrated on the
North American market. Consequently, our sales decline here is
largely driven by the lower production levels of North American
light vehicles. Similarly, in Structures, a number of our key
programs involve light truck platforms for the North American
market, driving the lower sales in this segment.
In the HVTSG, our Commercial Vehicle segment is primarily
focused on North America where Class 8 heavy
duty production was up 10% in 2006 and
Class 5-7
medium duty production was up 9%. Our Off-Highway segment, on
the other hand, has significant business in Europe, as well as
in North America. Each of these markets remained relatively
strong in 2006, with the production requirements of our major
customers up slightly or relatively comparable year-over-year.
Sales in this segment also benefited from net new business in
2006.
37
Margin
Analysis
The chart below shows our business unit and segment margin
analysis for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a Percentage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Sales
|
|
|
Increase/
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Gross margin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)%
|
Axle
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
Sealing
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
Thermal
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
21.3
|
|
|
|
(8.4
|
)
|
Structures
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
Axle
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
Thermal
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin less SG&A:*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)%
|
Axle
|
|
|
(2.3
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
(1.8
|
)
|
Sealing
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
Thermal
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
18.1
|
|
|
|
(9.2
|
)
|
Structures
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Gross margin less SG&A is a
non-GAAP financial measure derived by excluding realignment
charges, impairments and other income, net from the most closely
related GAAP measure, which is income from continuing operations
before interest, reorganization items and income taxes. We
believe this non-GAAP measure is useful for an understanding of
our ongoing operations because it excludes other income and
expense items which are generally not expected to be part of our
ongoing business. Intercompany sales and cost of sales are
included in our gross margin calculation.
|
38
Automotive
Systems
In ASG, gross margin less SG&A declined 1.6%, from 2.3% in
2005 to 0.7% in 2006. Lower sales of $374 contributed to the
margin decline, as we were unable to proportionately reduce
fixed costs.
In the Axle segment, the net margin decline was 2.1%. The margin
decline resulted in part from lower sales relative to fixed
costs. Additionally, the acquired Mexican axle operations of our
previous equity affiliate contributed losses of $3. Higher
premium freight costs to prevent disruption to customer
schedules mostly during the first half of the year
when we were managing the business disruption in the aftermath
of our bankruptcy filing and manufacturing
inefficiencies in our Venezuelan foundry operations resulted in
higher cost of $12. Partially offsetting these reductions to
Axle margins in 2006 were lower warranty expenses of $15,
primarily due to two programs which required higher provisions
in 2005, and lower overall material costs in 2006
mostly due to reduced steel cost.
The Driveshaft segment experienced a net margin decline of 1.8%
despite a year-over-year sales increase. The acquired Mexican
driveshaft operations from our previous equity affiliate
contributed losses of $6. Launch costs and competitive pricing
on a new light truck program in 2006 resulted in losses of
approximately $7.
Net margins in the Sealing segment were down 0.9%, primarily due
to higher material costs of $4 mostly due to the
higher costs of stainless steel, a major material component for
this business. Also contributing to the margin decline were
facility closure and asset impairment costs of $3.
Our Thermal segment experienced a significant sales decline in
2006, resulting in lower sales relative to fixed costs.
Additionally, higher material costs mostly due to
the high content of aluminum in this
business reduced margins by $6.
In our Structures segment, the margin decline was largely
attributed to an 8.8% reduction in sales, with the margin
reduction on the lost sales not offset by proportionate fixed
cost reductions. Program
start-up
costs were also higher in 2006. Partially offsetting these
margin reductions were lower overall material costs, principally
due to savings from purchasing more steel under customer re-sale
programs.
Heavy Vehicle
Technology and Systems
Unlike the ASG business, Heavy Vehicle gross margins less
SG&A benefited in 2006 from stronger sales levels,
increasing 2.1% from 2.0% in 2005 to 4.1% in 2006. Commercial
Vehicle segment net margins improved 2.7%. In addition to the
contribution from higher sales, Commercial Vehicle margins
benefited from price increases of $18, largely to help defray
the higher costs absorbed in previous years due to increased
material costs.
Margins also increased in 2006 as realignments of the operations
and other improvements addressed the manufacturing
inefficiencies which negatively impacted this business in 2005.
Lower overall material cost, due in part to more effective use
of steel grades and resourcing to lower cost steel suppliers,
also benefited margins slightly in this business. In the
Off-Highway segment, net margins improved 1.1%. Higher sales
relative to fixed costs contributed to some of the margin
improvement, with most of the remaining improvement coming from
reductions in material cost.
Consolidated
Consolidated gross margin less SG&A includes corporate
expenses and other costs not allocated to the business units of
$240, or 2.8% of sales, in 2006 as compared to $285, or 3.3% of
sales, in 2005. This improvement in consolidated margins of 0.1%
largely reflects our overall efforts to reduce overhead through
headcount reduction, limited wage increases, suspension of
benefits and cutbacks in discretionary spending.
39
Impairment of
goodwill and other assets
As discussed in Note 4 to the financial statements in
Item 8, an impairment charge of $165 was recorded in the
third quarter of 2006 to reduce lease and other assets in DCC to
their fair value less cost to sell. Additional impairment
charges in 2006 of $11 were recorded based on the planned sales
of specific DCC investments. DCC reviews its investments for
impairment on a quarterly basis. An impairment charge of $58 was
recorded in the fourth quarter of 2006 to adjust our equity
investment in GETRAG to fair value based on an
other-than-temporary decline in value related to the March 2007
sale of this investment.
As discussed in Note 4 to the financial statements in
Item 8, a $46 charge was taken in 2006 to write off the
goodwill in our Axle business. In 2005, we wrote off the
remaining goodwill in our Structures and Commercial Vehicles
businesses.
Realignment
charges
Realignment charges are discussed in Note 6 to the
financial statements in Item 8. These charges relate
primarily to employee separation and exit costs associated with
facility closures.
Other income,
net
Other income, net for 2006 was up $52 compared to 2005. The
increase was due primarily to $28 in losses from divestitures
and joint venture dissolutions in 2005, and the inclusion of
gains of $10 from such activities in 2006. Additionally, DCC
income, net of gains and losses on asset sales, was $14 higher
in 2006 than 2005. See Note 21 to the financial statements
in Item 8 for additional components of other income
(expense).
Interest
expense
As a result of our Chapter 11 reorganization process, a
substantial portion of our debt obligations are recorded as
subject to compromise in the financial statements included
herein. Effective with our filing for reorganization under
Chapter 11, interest expense is no longer accrued on these
obligations. The post-petition interest expense not recognized
in 2006 on these obligations amounted to $89.
Reorganization
items
Reorganization items are primarily expenses directly attributed
to our Chapter 11 reorganization process. See Note 3
to the financial statements in Item 8 for a summary of
these costs. Reorganization items reported in 2006 included
professional advisory fees, lease rejection costs, debt
valuation adjustments on pre-petition liabilities and
underwriting fees related to the DIP Credit Agreement. The debt
valuation adjustments and DIP Credit Agreement underwriting fees
were one-time charges associated with the initial phase of the
reorganization.
Income tax
benefit (expense)
The primary factor resulting in income tax expense of $66 during
2006, as compared to a tax benefit of $200 that would be
expected based on the 35% U.S. statutory income tax rate,
was the discontinued recognition of tax benefits on
U.S. losses. Also impacting this rate differential was $46
of goodwill impairment charges which are not deductible for
income tax purposes.
The 2005 results included a charge of $817 for placing a
valuation allowance against our net U.S. deferred tax
assets. Additional valuation allowances of $13 were also
provided in 2005 against net deferred tax assets in the U.K.
These provisions were the principal reason for tax expense of
$924 recognized in 2005 differing from a tax benefit of $100
that would be expected at a 35% federal U.S. tax rate.
Discontinued
operations
Losses from discontinued operations were $121 and $434 in 2006
and 2005. Discontinued operations in both years included the
engine hard parts, fluid routing and pump products businesses
held for sale at the
40
end of 2006 and 2005. The net losses included pre-tax impairment
charges of $137 in 2006 and $411 in 2005 that were required to
reduce the net book value of these businesses to expected fair
value less cost to sell. See Note 5 to the financial
statements in Item 8 for additional information relating to
the discontinued operations.
Liquidity
During 2007, we took the following steps to ensure adequate
liquidity for all of our operations and for the funding of our
realignment initiatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Increased the size of our DIP Credit Agreement;
|
|
|
|
Negotiated settlements with the Retiree Committee and the IAM
related to postretirement, non-pension benefits;
|
|
|
|
Sold our equity interest in GETRAG to our joint venture partner;
|
|
|
|
Sold our engine hard parts and fluid products businesses;
|
|
|
|
Sold our trailer axle business; and
|
|
|
|
Established a $225 five-year accounts receivable securitization
program with respect to our European operations.
|
As a result of these actions, we were able to finance our
business through our emergence from bankruptcy. The following
table summarizes our global liquidity at December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
$
|
1,271
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits supporting obligations
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
Cash in less than wholly-owned subsidiaries
|
|
|
(88
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available cash
|
|
|
1,072
|
|
Additional cash availability from:
|
|
|
|
|
Lines of credit in the U.S., Canada and Europe
|
|
|
367
|
|
Additional lines of credit supported by letters of credit from
the above facilities
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total global liquidity
|
|
$
|
1,481
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41
Liquidity upon
emergence from Bankruptcy
In connection with our emergence from bankruptcy we received
cash proceeds from a new exit financing facility that included a
$650 Revolving Facility and a Term Facility in the amount of
$1,430 and from the issuance of $790 of newly-authorized shares
of preferred stock. The net cash proceeds received from the exit
financing facility and preferred stock issuance were used to
repay the outstanding balance of the DIP Credit Facility and
satisfy other reorganization-related obligations. The following
table is a pro-forma summary of the impact of these new
facilities on our global liquidity after giving effect to cash
payments made or to be made following emergence. The cash
proceeds received for the exit financing facility and preferred
stock are net of original issue discount, commitment fees and
other issuance costs, fees and expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Cash at December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
1,271
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits supporting obligations
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
Cash in less than wholly-owned subsidiaries
|
|
|
(88
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available cash
|
|
|
1,072
|
|
Additional cash availability from:
|
|
|
|
|
Exit Facility funding (term loan)
|
|
|
1,276
|
|
Issuance of preferred stock plus interest received
|
|
|
773
|
|
Exit Facility revolving credit
|
|
|
330
|
|
European Receivable Facility
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,412
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of DIP Credit Agreement with interest
|
|
|
(901
|
)
|
VEBA Contributions
|
|
|
(788
|
)
|
Fees and Claims Settlements under the Plan paid or
to be paid
|
|
|
(323
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,012
|
)
|
Additional lines of credit supported by letters of credit from
the above facilities
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro-forma liquidity upon emergence
|
|
$
|
1,514
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the additional funding and availability, we believe we have
adequate availability to fund our operations for at least the
next twelve months.
Cash Flow
Summary
A summary of the changes in cash and cash equivalents for the
years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 is shown in
the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Cash flow summary:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
$
|
704
|
|
|
$
|
762
|
|
|
$
|
634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
|
(52
|
)
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
(216
|
)
|
Cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
348
|
|
|
|
(86
|
)
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
Cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
398
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
462
|
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
128
|
|
Impact of foreign exchange and discontinued operations
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$
|
1,271
|
|
|
$
|
704
|
|
|
$
|
762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Cash from Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,605
|
)
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
279
|
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
Impairment and divestiture-related charges
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
405
|
|
|
|
515
|
|
Non-cash portion of U.K. pension charge
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization items, net of payments
|
|
|
154
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPEB payments in excess of expense
|
|
|
(71
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment to VEBAs for postretirement benefits
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
751
|
|
Unremitted earnings of affiliates
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(135
|
)
|
|
|
(147
|
)
|
|
|
(45
|
)
|
Change in working capital
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
(171
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
$
|
(52
|
)
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
$
|
(216
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working capital provided $83 of cash for operating activities in
2007, as compared to a source of $199 in 2006 and use of $171 in
2005.
Increased accounts payable was the primary source of cash from
working capital, generating $110 million in 2007.
Subsequent to our bankruptcy filing in March 2006, shorter
payment terms with suppliers led to lower accounts payable.
During the latter part of 2007, as our reorganization activities
evolved, we were successful in obtaining longer payment terms
that were more reflective of those in effect before our
bankruptcy filing.
Working capital was also a source of $199 of cash in 2006. This
was primarily a consequence of relief provided through the
bankruptcy process. Accounts payable and other current
liabilities provided the primary source of the cash flow
increase. This was due primarily to the non-payment of accounts
payable and other current liabilities owed at the time of our
bankruptcy filing, which were classified as Liabilities subject
to compromise. Accounts payable and other current liabilities at
December 31, 2006 subject to compromise approximated $503.
As such, had it not been for bankruptcy relief, working capital
cash flow would have included payment of these liabilities, and
cash flow from operating activities would have reflected a use
of approximately $451.
In 2005, working capital consumed cash of $171. Reductions of
receivables and inventories provided cash of $146 and $81. The
consumption of cash was primarily due to a decrease in accounts
payable of approximately $241. After announcing the reduction in
our earnings forecast for the second half of 2005 and the
decision to provide a valuation allowance against our
U.S. deferred tax assets, we accelerated payments to
certain key suppliers to insure that deliveries would not be
delayed. Additionally, 2005 cash flow included a payment to
settle prior-year tax returns, partially offset by the
reimbursement of claims by certain insurers.
Excluding the working capital change, operating activities used
cash of $135 in 2007, $147 in 2006 and $45 in 2005. Sales less
cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses
were a profit of $125 in 2007, and losses of $81 in 2006 and $94
in 2005. Although improved overall profitability, as measured on
this basis, benefited cash flow in 2007, operating cash was
required for bankruptcy reorganization costs which were $141,
exclusive of non-cash supplier and claim settlements and payment
of $71 of postretirement medical claims in excess of amounts
expensed. Operating cash flows in 2006 were also reduced by
bankruptcy reorganization costs which used cash of $91 in 2006.
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Cash from Investing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
$
|
(254
|
)
|
|
$
|
(314
|
)
|
|
$
|
(297
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of businesses
|
|
|
414
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of DCC assets and partnership interests
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
Proceeds from sale of other assets
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Acquisition of business, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Payments received on leases and loans
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
$
|
348
|
|
|
$
|
(86
|
)
|
|
$
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divestitures of the engine hard parts, fluid products, pumps and
trailer axle businesses and the sale of our investment in GETRAG
provided cash of $414 in 2007. Proceeds from our continued
divestment of DCC assets generated additional proceeds in 2007
of $189. Expenditures for property, plant and equipment were
lower in 2007 than in 2006 and 2005 in part due to timing, the
redeployment of assets from closed facilities and some program
cancellations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Cash from Financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in short-term debt
|
|
$
|
(21
|
)
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
492
|
|
Payments of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(205
|
)
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
Proceeds from
debtor-in-possession
facility
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
700
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from European securitization program
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction in DCC Medium Term Notes
|
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
$
|
166
|
|
|
$
|
(49
|
)
|
|
$
|
398
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During 2007, we borrowed an additional $200 under the DIP Credit
Agreement that was established in 2006 in connection with our
bankruptcy filing to meet our working capital and other cash
requirements. Proceeds of $700 were initially obtained in 2006
and used in part to repay obligations under a then existing bank
facility and an accounts receivable securitization program which
had been used as our primary short-term financing vehicles. The
borrowings in 2005 were primarily draws under these financing
arrangements.
Certain of our European subsidiaries established an accounts
receivable securitization facility during 2007 and at the end of
the year had outstanding borrowings of $119 under the facility.
In accordance with the terms of the forbearance agreement
discussed in Note 3 to our financial statements in
Item 8, proceeds from the sale of DCC assets in 2007 were
used to repay $132 of DCC Medium Term Notes. Pursuant to the
forbearance agreement with DCC noteholders, proceeds from the
sale of DCC assets were remitted to the noteholders at the
beginning of each month following the end of each calendar
quarter, resulting in the reduction in DCC term notes.
During 2005, we made draws under an accounts receivable
securitization program and a five-year revolving credit facility
to meet our working capital needs. We also refinanced a secured
note due in 2007 related to a DCC investment to a non-recourse
note due in August 2010 and increased the principal outstanding
from $40 to $55. The remainder of our debt transactions in 2005
was generally limited to $61 of debt repayments, including a $50
scheduled payment at DCC.
44
Financing
Activities
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
At December 31, 2007, cash and cash equivalents held in the
U.S. amounted to $513. Included in this amount was $71 of
cash deposits that provide credit enhancement for certain lease
agreements and support surety bonds that enable us to
self-insure our workers compensation obligations in
certain states and fund an escrow account required to appeal a
judgment rendered in Texas. Cash of $93 held by DCC at
December 31, 2007 had been restricted under the terms of a
forbearance agreement discussed in Note 3 to our financial
statements in Item 8 and was reported separately as
restricted cash.
At December 31, 2007, cash and cash equivalents held
outside the U.S. amounted to $758. Included in this amount
was $40 of cash deposits that provide credit enhancement for
certain lease agreements, letters of credit, bank guarantees and
support surety bonds that enable us to self-insure certain
employee benefit obligations. These deposits are not considered
restricted cash as they could have been replaced by letters of
credit under our DIP Credit Agreement. See Note 16 to our
financial statements in Item 8. Availability at
December 31, 2007 was adequate to cover the deposits for
which replacement by letters of credit is permitted.
Availability under the Exit Facility is also adequate to cover
these deposits.
A substantial portion of our
non-U.S. cash
and equivalents is needed for working capital and other
operating purposes. Several countries have local regulatory
requirements that significantly restrict Danas ability to
access this cash. In addition, at December 31, 2007, $88
was held by consolidated entities that have minority interests
with varying levels of participation rights involving cash
withdrawals. Beyond these restrictions, there are practical
limitations on repatriation of cash from certain countries
because of the resulting tax cost.
Intercompany
Loans
Certain of our international operations had intercompany loan
obligations to the U.S. totaling $444 at December 31,
2007. These intercompany loans resulted (i) from certain
international operations having received cash or other forms of
financial support from the U.S. to finance their
activities, (ii) from U.S. entities transferring their
ownership in certain entities in exchange for intercompany notes
and (iii) from certain entities having declared a dividend
in kind in the form of a note payable. Intercompany loans of
$240 are denominated in a foreign currency and are not
considered to be permanently invested as they are expected to be
repaid in the near term. Accordingly, foreign exchange gains and
losses on these loans are reported in other income (expense)
rather than being recorded in OCI as translation gain or loss.
Pre-petition
Financing
Before the Filing Date, we had a five-year bank facility
maturing on March 4, 2010, which provided $400 of borrowing
capacity, and an accounts receivable securitization program that
provided up to a maximum of $275 to meet our periodic needs for
short-term financing. Outstanding obligations under the bank
facility and the accounts receivable securitization facility
aggregating $400 at the Filing Date were paid with the proceeds
of the term loan under the DIP Credit Agreement and the proceeds
from an interim DIP credit facility. The obligations under the
accounts receivable securitization program facility were paid
with the proceeds of an interim DIP revolving credit facility.
The proceeds of the term loan under the DIP Credit Agreement
were used to pay off the borrowing under the interim DIP
revolving credit facility and the five-year bank facility.
DIP Credit
Agreement
We, as borrower, and our Debtor subsidiaries, as guarantors,
were parties to the DIP Credit Agreement that was initially
approved by the Bankruptcy Court in March 2006. Under the DIP
Credit Agreement, we had a $650 revolving credit facility and a
$900 term loan facility at December 31, 2007. All of the
loans and other obligations under the DIP Credit Agreement were
settled as part of the consummation of the Plan, primarily from
the funding obtained from the Exit Facility. Amounts borrowed at
December 31, 2007 were at a rate of 7.36%, the London
Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus 2.5%. We also paid a
commitment fee of 0.375% per
45
annum for unused committed amounts under the facility as well as
a fee for issued and undrawn letters of credit in an amount per
annum equal to the LIBOR margin applicable to the revolving
credit facility and a per annum fronting fee of 0.25%.
The DIP Credit Agreement was guaranteed by substantially all of
our domestic subsidiaries, except for DCC and its subsidiaries.
As collateral, we and each of our guarantor subsidiaries had
granted a security interest in, and lien on, effectively all of
our assets, including a pledge of 66% of the equity interests of
each material foreign subsidiary directly or indirectly owned by
us.
Additionally, the DIP Credit Agreement had required us to
(i) maintain a minimum amount of consolidated earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization,
restructuring and reorganization costs (EBITDAR), for each
period beginning on March 1, 2006 and ending on the last
day of each month from May 2006 through February 2007, and
(ii) a rolling
12-month
cumulative EBITDAR for us and our direct and indirect
subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, beginning on
March 31, 2007 and ending on February 28, 2008, at
levels set forth in the DIP Credit Agreement, as amended. We
were also required to maintain minimum availability of $100 at
all times. The DIP Credit Agreement provided for certain events
of default customary for
debtor-in-possession
financings of this type, including cross default with other
indebtedness. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of
any event of default under the DIP Credit Agreement, interest on
all outstanding amounts would be payable on demand at 2% above
the then applicable rate. We were in compliance with the
requirements of the DIP Credit Agreement at December 31,
2007.
As of December 31, 2007, we had borrowed $900 under the DIP
Credit Agreement and based on our borrowing base collateral, had
additional availability of $282 after deducting the $100 minimum
availability requirement and $206 for outstanding letters of
credit. Letters of credit issued under the DIP Credit Agreement
were transferred to the Exit Facility.
Financing at
Emergence
On the Effective Date, Dana, as Borrower, and certain of our
domestic subsidiaries, as guarantors, entered into the Exit
Facility with Citicorp USA, Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc. and
Barclays Capital. The Exit Facility consists of the Term
Facility in the total aggregate amount of $1,430 and the $650
Revolving Facility. The Term Facility was fully drawn in
borrowings of $1,350 on the Effective Date and $80 on
February 1, 2008. Net proceeds were reduced by payment of
$114 of original issue discount and customary issuance costs and
fees of $40 for net proceeds of $1,276. There were no borrowings
under the Revolving Facility, but $200 was utilized for existing
letters of credit.
Amounts outstanding under the Revolving Facility may be
borrowed, repaid and reborrowed with the final payment due and
payable on January 31, 2013. Amounts outstanding under the
Term Facility are payable in equal quarterly amounts on the last
day of each fiscal quarter at a rate of 1% per annum of the
original principal amount of the Term Facility advances,
adjusted for any prepayments, prior to January 31, 2014,
with the remaining balance due in equal quarterly installments
in the final year of the Term Facility and final maturity on
January 31, 2015.
The Exit Facility contains mandatory prepayment requirements in
certain circumstances upon the sale of assets, insurance
recoveries, the incurrence of debt, the issuance of equity
securities and on the basis of excess cash flow as defined in
the agreement, subject to certain permitted reinvestment rights,
in addition to the ability to make optional prepayments. Certain
term loan prepayments are subject to a prepayment call premium
prior to the second anniversary of the Term Facility.
The Revolving Facility bears interest at a floating rate based
on, at our option, the base rate or LIBOR rate (each as
described in the Revolving Facility) plus a margin based on the
undrawn amounts available under the Revolving Facility set forth
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Borrowing Availability
|
|
Base Rate
|
|
|
LIBOR Rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greater than $450
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
2.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greater than $200 but less than or equal to $450
|
|
|
1.25
|
%
|
|
|
2.25
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$200 or less
|
|
|
1.50
|
%
|
|
|
2.50
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
We will pay a commitment fee of 0.375% per annum for unused
committed amounts under the Revolving Facility. Up to $400 of
the Revolving Facility may be applied to letters of credit.
Issued letters of credit reduce availability. We will pay a fee
for issued and undrawn letters of credit in an amount per annum
equal to the applicable LIBOR margin based on a quarterly
average availability under the Revolving Facility and a per
annum fronting fee of 0.25%, payable quarterly.
The Term Facility bears interest at a floating rate based on, at
our option, the base rate or LIBOR rate (each as described in
the Term Facility) plus a margin of 2.75% in the case of base
rate loans or 3.75% in the case of LIBOR rate loans.
For the first 24 months following the Effective Date, the
LIBOR rates in each of the Revolving Facility and the Term
Facility will not be less than 3.00%. Interest is due quarterly
in arrears with respect to base rate loans and at the end of
each interest period with respect to LIBOR loans. For LIBOR
loans with interest periods greater than 90 days, interest
is payable every 90 days from the first day of such
interest period and on the date such loan is converted or paid
in full.
Under the Exit Facility, Dana (with certain subsidiaries
excluded) is required to comply with customary covenants for
facilities of this type. These include (i) affirmative
covenants as to corporate existence, compliance with laws,
making after-acquired property or subsidiaries subject to the
liens of the lenders, environmental matters, insurance, payment
of taxes, access to books and records, using commercially
reasonable efforts to maintain credit ratings, use of proceeds,
maintenance of cash management systems, priority of liens in
favor of the lenders, maintenance of assets, interest rate
protection and quarterly, annual and other reporting
obligations, and (ii) negative covenants, including
limitations on liens, additional indebtedness, guarantees,
dividends, transactions with affiliates, investments, asset
dispositions, nature of business, capital expenditures, mergers
and consolidations, amendments to constituent documents,
accounting changes, and limitations on restrictions affecting
subsidiaries and sale and lease-backs.
Under the Term Facility, we are required to maintain compliance
with the following financial covenants measured on the last day
of each fiscal quarter:
(i) commencing as of December 31, 2008, a maximum
leverage ratio of not greater than 3.10 to 1.00 at
December 31, 2008, decreasing in steps to 2.25 to 1.00 as
of June 30, 2013, based on the ratio of consolidated funded
debt to the previous 12 month consolidated earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), as
defined in the agreement;
(ii) commencing as of December 31, 2008, minimum
interest coverage ratio of not less than 4.50 to 1.00 based on
the previous
12-month
consolidated EBITDA to consolidated interest expense for that
period, as defined in the agreement; and
(iii) a minimum EBITDA of $211 for the six months ending
June 30, 2008 and of $341 for the nine months ending
September 30, 2008.
The Revolving Facility requires us to comply with a minimum
fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.10 to 1.00,
measured quarterly, in the event availability under the
Revolving Facility falls below $75 for five consecutive business
days. The ratio is the last 12 months EBITDA less
unfinanced capital expenditures divided by the sum of interest,
scheduled principal payments, taxes and dividends paid for the
last 12 months.
The Exit Facility includes customary events of default for
facilities of this type, including failure to pay principal,
interest or other amounts when due, breach of representations
and warranties, breach of any covenant under the Exit Facility,
cross-default to other indebtedness, judgment default,
invalidity of any loan document, failure of liens to be
perfected, the occurrence of certain Employee Retirement Income
Security Act events or the occurrence of a change of control.
Upon the occurrence and continuance of an event of default, our
lenders may have the right, among other things, to terminate
their commitments under the Exit Facility, accelerate the
repayment of all of our obligations under the Exit Facility and
foreclose on the collateral granted to them.
The Exit Facility is guaranteed by all of our domestic
subsidiaries except DCC, Dana Companies, LLC and their
respective subsidiaries. As of the Effective Date, Dana and the
guarantors entered into the Revolving
47
Facility Security Agreement and the Term Facility Security
Agreement. The Revolving Facility Security Agreement grants a
first priority lien on Dana and the guarantors accounts
receivable and inventory and a second priority lien on
substantially all of Dana and the guarantors remaining
assets, including a pledge of 65% of the stock of each foreign
subsidiary we own. The Term Facility Security Agreement grants a
second priority lien on accounts receivable and inventory and a
first priority lien on substantially all of Dana and the
guarantors remaining assets, including a pledge of 65% of
the stock of each foreign subsidiary we own.
In connection with the Exit Facility, as of the Effective Date
we also entered into the Intercreditor Agreement, which
establishes the relationship between the security agreements
described above.
A portion of the net proceeds from the Exit Facility were used
to repay the DIP Credit Agreement (which was terminated pursuant
to its terms), make other payments required upon exit from
bankruptcy protection and provide liquidity to fund working
capital and other general corporate purposes.
The Revolving Facility received a rating of BB+ from
Standard & Poors and Ba2 from Moodys
Investment Services. The Term Facility received a rating of BB
from Standard & Poors and Ba3 from Moodys
Investment Services.
European
Receivables Loan Facility
In July 2007, certain of our European subsidiaries entered into
definitive agreements to establish an accounts receivable
securitization program. The agreements include a Receivable Loan
Agreement (the Loan Agreement) with GE Leveraged Loans Limited
(GE) that provides for a five-year accounts receivable
securitization facility under which up to the euro equivalent of
$225 in financing is available to those European subsidiaries
(collectively, the Sellers) subject to the availability of an
adequate level of accounts receivable.
Ancillary to the Loan Agreement, the Sellers entered into
receivables purchase agreements and related agreements, as
applicable, under which they, directly or indirectly, sell
certain accounts receivable to Dana Europe Financing (Ireland)
Limited, (the Purchaser). The Purchaser is a limited liability
company incorporated under the laws of Ireland as a special
purpose entity to purchase the identified accounts receivable.
The Purchaser pays the purchase price of the identified accounts
receivable in part from the proceeds of loans from GE and other
lenders under the Loan Agreement and in part from the proceeds
of certain subordinated loans from our subsidiary Dana Europe
S.A. The Purchasers obligations under the Loan Agreement
are secured by a lien on and security interest in all of its
rights to the transferred accounts receivable, as well as
collection accounts and items related to the accounts
receivable. The accounts receivable purchased are included in
our consolidated financial statements because the Purchaser does
not meet certain accounting requirements for treatment as a
qualifying special purpose entity under GAAP.
Accordingly, the sales of the accounts receivable and
subordinated loans from Dana Europe S.A. are eliminated in
consolidation and any loans to the Purchaser from GE and the
participating lenders are included in our consolidated financial
statements. The securitization program is accounted for as a
secured borrowing with a pledge of collateral. At
December 31, 2007, the total amount of accounts receivable
serving as collateral securing the borrowing was $351.
Advances to the Purchaser under the Loan Agreement are
determined based on advance rates relating to the value of the
transferred accounts receivable. Advances bear interest based on
the LIBOR applicable to the currency in which each advance is
denominated, plus a margin as specified in the Loan Agreement.
Advances are to be repaid in full by July 2012. The Purchaser
pays a fee to the lenders based on any unused amount of the
accounts receivable facility. The Loan Agreement contains
representations and warranties, affirmative and negative
covenants and events of default that are customary for
financings of this type.
The Sellers and our subsidiary Dana International Luxembourg
SARL, (Dana Luxembourg) and certain of its subsidiaries
(collectively, the Dana European Group) also entered into a
Performance and Indemnity Deed (the Performance Guaranty) with
GE under which Dana Luxembourg has, among other things,
guaranteed the Sellers obligations to perform under their
respective purchase agreements. The Performance Guaranty
contains representations and warranties, affirmative and
negative covenants, and events of default that are customary for
financings of this type, including certain restrictions on the
ability of members of the Dana
48
European Group to incur additional indebtedness, grant liens on
their assets, make acquisitions and investments, and pay
dividends and make other distributions. Dana Luxembourg has
agreed to act as the master servicer for the transferred
accounts receivable under the terms of a servicing agreement
with GE and each Seller has agreed to act as a sub-servicer
under the servicing agreement for the transferred accounts
receivable it sells.
At December 31, 2007, there was additional availability of
$33 in countries that have started securitization and there were
borrowings under this facility equivalent to $119 recorded as
notes payable. The proceeds from the borrowings were used for
operations and the repayment of intercompany debt.
Canadian Credit
Agreement
Dana Canada and certain of its Canadian affiliates were parties
to a Canadian Credit Agreement. The Canadian Credit Agreement
provided for a $100 revolving credit facility, of which $5 was
available for the issuance of letters of credit. At
December 31, 2007, less than $1 of the facility was being
utilized for letters of credit and there had been no borrowings
over the life of the agreement. Based on its borrowing base
collateral at December 31, 2007, Dana Canada had additional
availability of $52 after deducting the $20 minimum availability
requirement. The Canadian Credit Agreement was terminated upon
our emergence from bankruptcy.
Debt
Reclassification
The bankruptcy filing triggered the immediate acceleration of
our direct financial obligations (including, among others,
outstanding non-secured notes issued under our Indentures dated
as of December 15, 1997, August 8, 2001,
March 11, 2002 and December 10, 2004) and
DCCs obligations under the DCC Notes. The amounts
accelerated under the Indentures were characterized as unsecured
debt for purposes of the reorganization proceedings. Obligations
of $1,582 under our indentures were classified as Liabilities
subject to compromise, and the unsecured DCC notes have been
classified as part of the current portion of long-term debt in
our consolidated balance sheet.
DCC
Notes
At December 31, 2007, DCC held $136 of debt, classified as
short term, under a $500 Medium Term Note Program established in
1999. The DCC Notes were general unsecured obligations of DCC.
In January 2008, DCC repaid $87 of this debt pursuant to the
forbearance agreement with the noteholders. On the Effective
Date, we paid DCC the $49 remaining amount due to DCC
noteholders, thereby settling DCCs general unsecured claim
of $325 with the Debtors. DCC, in turn, used these funds to
repay the noteholders in full.
Interest Rate
Agreements
Under the terms of the Exit Facility, we are required to enter
into interest rate hedge agreements by May 30, 2008 and to
maintain agreements covering a notional amount of not less than
50% of the aggregate loans outstanding under the Term Facility
for a period of no less than three years.
At the Filing Date, we had two interest rate swap agreements
scheduled to expire in August 2011, under which we had agreed to
exchange the difference between fixed rate and floating rate
interest amounts on notional amounts corresponding with the
amount and term of our August 2011 notes. As of
December 31, 2005, the interest rate swap agreements
provided for us to receive a fixed rate of 9.0% on a notional
amount of $114 and pay variable rates based on LIBOR, plus a
spread. The average variable rate under these contracts
approximated 9.4% at the end of 2005. As a result of our
bankruptcy filing, the two swap agreements were terminated,
resulting in a termination payment of $6 on March 30, 2006.
49
Issuance of New
Common and Preferred Stock
New Common
Stock
Pursuant to the Plan, all of the issued and outstanding shares
of Prior Dana common stock, par value $1.00 per share, and any
other outstanding equity securities of Prior Dana, including all
options and warrants, were cancelled. On the Effective Date, we
began the process of issuing 100 million shares of Dana
common stock, par value $0.01 per share, including approximately
70 million shares for allowed unsecured nonpriority claims,
approximately 28 million shares deposited to a reserve for
disputed unsecured nonpriority claims in Class 5B under the
Plan, approximately 1 million shares for payment of
post-emergence bonuses to union employees and approximately
1 million shares to pay bonuses to non-union hourly and
salaried non-management employees. The charges to earnings for
these bonuses were recorded as of the Effective Date.
New Preferred
Stock
Pursuant to the Plan, we issued 2,500,000 shares of 4.0%
Series A Preferred and 5,400,000 shares of 4.0%
Series B Preferred on the Effective Date. After
July 31, 2008, and in accordance with the terms of the
preferred stock, the shares of Series B Preferred, and not
more than $125 of liquidation value of the Series A
Preferred, are, at the holders option, convertible into
fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock. The
remaining shares of Series A Preferred are convertible
after January 31, 2011. See description of preferred stock
in Item 1 and Note 11 to the financial statements in
Item 8 for additional information, including
Centerbridges participation in the selection of our Board
of Directors and limited approval rights with respect to certain
transactions.
Cash
Obligations
We are obligated to make future cash payments in fixed amounts
under various agreements. These include payments under our
long-term debt agreements, rent payments required under
operating lease agreements and payments for equipment, other
fixed assets and certain raw materials.
The following table summarizes our fixed cash obligations at
December 31, 2007 to make future payments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than
|
|
|
1-3
|
|
|
4-5
|
|
|
After
|
|
Contractual Cash Obligations
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
Principal of long-term debt (1)
|
|
$
|
1,062
|
|
|
$
|
1,043
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise to be paid in cash, including
VEBA fundings (2)
|
|
|
1,012
|
|
|
|
1,012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest payments (3)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leases (4)
|
|
|
380
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
Unconditional purchase obligations (5)
|
|
|
175
|
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension plan contributions (6)
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retiree healthcare benefits (7)
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
Uncertain income tax positions (8)
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual cash obligations
|
|
$
|
2,768
|
|
|
$
|
2,326
|
|
|
$
|
159
|
|
|
$
|
93
|
|
|
$
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The obligation to repay principal of long-term debt includes the
required repayment of the DIP Credit Agreement balance of $900
upon emergence. The principal and interest related to our Exit
Financing discussed above under Liquidity are not
included in this table. |
|
(2) |
|
Cash payments resulting from the bankruptcy proceedings. A
portion of these payments were made at emergence and the
remainder is expected to be paid in 2008. The remainder of our
Liabilities subject to |
50
|
|
|
|
|
compromise was resolved upon emergence through the issuance of
common stock of Dana or through the retention of the liability
to be paid in the normal course of business. |
|
(3) |
|
These amounts represent future interest payments based on the
debt balances at December 31. Payments related to variable
rate debt are based on the December 31, 2007 interest
rates. Interest on Exit Financing debt is not included. |
|
(4) |
|
Capital and operating leases related to real estate, vehicles
and other assets. |
|
(5) |
|
The unconditional purchase obligations presented are comprised
principally of commitments for procurement of fixed assets and
the purchase of raw materials. Also included are payments under
our long-term agreement with IBM for the outsourcing of certain
human resource services. |
|
|
|
We have a number of sourcing arrangements with suppliers for
various component parts used in the assembly of certain of our
products. These arrangements include agreements to procure
certain outsourced components that we had manufactured ourselves
in earlier years. These agreements do not contain any specific
minimum quantities that we must order in any given year, but
generally require that we purchase the specific component
exclusively from the supplier over the term of the agreement.
Accordingly, our cash obligation under these agreements is not
fixed. However, if we were to estimate volumes to be purchased
under these agreements based on our forecasts for 2008 and
assume that the volumes were constant over the respective
contract periods, the annual purchases from those agreements
where we estimate the annual volume would exceed $20 would be as
follows: $395 in 2008; $773 in 2009 and 2010 combined; $709 in
2011 and 2012 combined; and $788 thereafter. |
|
(6) |
|
These amounts represent estimated 2008 contributions to our
global defined benefit pension plans. We have not estimated
pension contributions beyond 2008 due to the significant impact
that return on plan assets and changes in discount rates might
have on such amounts. |
|
(7) |
|
These amounts represent estimated obligations under our
non-U.S.
retiree healthcare programs. Obligations under the retiree
healthcare programs are not fixed commitments and will vary
depending on various factors, including the level of participant
utilization and inflation. Our estimates of the payments to be
made in the future consider recent payment trends and certain or
our actuarial assumptions. |
|
(8) |
|
These amounts represent expected payments, with interest, for
uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2007. We were
unable to reasonably estimate the timing of the FIN 48
liability in individual years beyond 2008 due to uncertainties
in the timing of the effective settlement of tax positions. |
Pursuant to the Plan, we also issued 2,500,000 shares of
4.0% Series A Preferred and 5,400,000 shares of 4.0%
Series B Preferred. Dividend obligations of approximately
$8 per quarter will be incurred while all shares of preferred
stock are outstanding.
At December 31, 2007, we maintained cash balances of $111
on deposit with financial institutions to support surety bonds,
letters of credit and bank guarantees, and to provide credit
enhancements for certain lease agreements. These surety bonds
enable us to self-insure our workers compensation obligations.
We accrue the estimated liability for workers compensation
claims, including incurred but not reported claims. Accordingly,
no significant impact on our financial condition would result if
the surety bonds were called.
In connection with certain of our divestitures, there may be
future claims and proceedings instituted or asserted against us
relative to the period of our ownership or pursuant to
indemnifications or guarantees provided in connection with the
respective transactions. The estimated maximum potential amount
of payments under these obligations is not determinable due to
the significant number of divestitures and lack of a stated
maximum liability for certain matters. In some cases, we have
insurance coverage available to satisfy claims related to the
divested businesses. We believe that payments, if any, in excess
of amounts provided or insured related to such matters are not
reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.
51
Contingencies
Impact of Our
Bankruptcy Filing
During our bankruptcy reorganization proceedings, most actions
against us relating to pre-petition liabilities were
automatically stayed. Substantially all of our pre-petition
liabilities were addressed under the Plan. Our emergence from
bankruptcy resolved certain of our contingencies as discussed
below.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan on December 26,
2007. On January 3, 2008, an Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants filed a notice of appeal of the
Confirmation Order (District Court Case
No. 08-CV-01037).
On January 4, 2008, an asbestos claimant, Jose Angel
Valdez, filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order
(District Court Case
No. 08-CV-01038).
On February 5, 2008, Prior Dana and the other
post-emergence Debtors (collectively, the Reorganized
Debtors) filed a motion seeking to consolidate the two
appeals. Briefing is ongoing in these appeals, and the
Reorganized Debtors are moving to have the appeals dismissed.
Class Action
Lawsuit and Derivative Actions
A securities class action entitled Howard Frank v. Michael J.
Burns and Robert C. Richter was originally filed in October
2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, naming our former Chief Executive Officer, Michael J.
Burns, and former Chief Financial Officer, Robert C. Richter, as
defendants. In a consolidated complaint filed in August 2006,
lead plaintiffs alleged violations of the U.S. securities
laws and claimed that the price at which our stock traded at
various times between April 2004 and October 2005 was
artificially inflated as a result of the defendants
alleged wrongdoing. In June 2007, the District Court denied lead
plaintiffs motion for an order partially lifting the
statutory discovery stay which would have enabled them to obtain
copies of certain documents produced to the SEC. By order dated
August 21, 2007, the District Court granted the
defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
and entered a judgment closing the case. In September 2007, lead
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the District
Courts order and judgment and, in February 2008, they
filed their opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.
A stockholder derivative action entitled Roberta
Casden v. Michael J. Burns, et al. was originally filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio in March 2006. An amended complaint filed in August 2006
added alleged non-derivative class claims on behalf of holders
of our stock alleging, among other things, that the defendants,
our former Board of Directors and former Chief Financial Officer
had breached their fiduciary duties and acted in bad faith in
determining to file for protection under the Bankruptcy Laws.
These alleged non-derivative class claims are not asserted
against Dana. In June 2006, the District Court stayed the
derivative claims, deferring to the Bankruptcy Court on those
claims. In July 2007, the District Court dismissed the
non-derivative class claims asserted in the amended complaint
and entered a judgment closing the case. In August 2007,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the District
Courts order and judgment. In February 2008, the plaintiff
filed an opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. A second stockholder derivative action,
Steven Staehr v. Michael J. Burns, et al., remains
stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.
SEC
Investigation
In September 2005, we reported that management was investigating
accounting matters arising out of incorrect entries related to a
customer agreement in our Commercial Vehicle operations, and
that the Prior Dana Audit Committee had engaged outside counsel
to conduct an independent investigation of these matters, as
well. Outside counsel informed the SEC of the investigation,
which ended in December 2005, at which time we filed restated
financial statements for the first two quarters of 2005 and the
years 2002 through 2004. In January 2006, we learned that the
SEC had issued a formal order of investigation with respect to
matters related to our restatements. The SECs
investigation is a non-public, fact-finding inquiry to determine
whether any violations of the law have occurred. We are
continuing to cooperate fully with the SEC in the investigation.
52
Legal Proceedings
Arising in the Ordinary Course of Business
We are a party to various pending judicial and administrative
proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. These
include, among others, proceedings based on product liability
claims and alleged violations of environmental laws. We have
reviewed these pending legal proceedings, including the probable
outcomes, our reasonably anticipated costs and expenses, the
availability and limits of our insurance coverage and surety
bonds and our established reserves for uninsured liabilities. We
do not believe that any liabilities that may result from these
proceedings are reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect on our liquidity, financial condition or results of
operations.
Asbestos Personal
Injury Liabilities
We had approximately 41,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at December 31, 2007 compared to
73,000 at December 31, 2006, including approximately 6,000
claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and
payment. The number of active pending claims has been reduced
for two reasons. First, the dismissal of approximately 17,500
cases in the State of Mississippi reported in the third quarter
of 2007. Second, updates of our data on asbestos claims during
the bankruptcy process disclosed that approximately 13,000
additional claims were inactive. These claims were filed in
jurisdictions with inactive dockets or medical criteria that
renders them unlikely to become active. We project costs for
asbestos personal injury claims using the methodology that is
discussed in Note 18 to the financial statements in
Item 8. We had accrued $136 for indemnity and defense costs
for pending and future claims at December 31, 2007,
compared to $141 at December 31, 2006.
Prior to 2006, we reached agreements with some of our insurers
to commute policies covering asbestos personal injury claims. We
apply proceeds from insurance commutations first to reduce any
recorded recoverable amount. Proceeds from commutations in
excess of our estimated recoverable amount for pending and
future claims are recorded as a liability for future claims.
There were no commutations of insurance in 2007. At
December 31, 2007, our liability for future demands under
prior commutations was $12, bringing our total recorded
liability for asbestos personal injury claims to $148.
At December 31, 2007, we had recorded $69 as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for pending and projected
asbestos personal injury claims compared to $72 recorded at
December 31, 2006. The recorded asset reflects our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements
to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity
costs for pending claims and projected future demands. These
recoveries take into account elections to extend existing
coverage which we would exercise in order to maximize our
insurance recovery. The recorded asset does not represent the
limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would
expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity and defense
costs.
In addition, we had a net amount receivable from our insurers
and others of $17 at December 31, 2007, compared to $14 at
December 31, 2006. The receivable represents reimbursements
for settled asbestos personal injury liability claims, including
billings in progress and amounts subject to alternate dispute
resolution proceedings with some of our insurers. It is
anticipated that a favorable settlement to these proceedings
will be finalized soon.
As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated
with asbestos claims were retained in Prior Dana, which was then
merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly owned
subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include
insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities
and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its
liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC will continue to process
asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of
business, but it will be separately managed and will have an
independent board member. The independent board member is
required to approve certain transactions including dividends or
other transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. We expect our
involvement with Dana Companies, LLC will be limited to service
agreements for certain administrative activities.
53
Other Product
Liabilities
We had accrued $4 for non-asbestos product liabilities at
December 31, 2007, compared to $7 at December 31,
2006, with no recovery expected from third parties. We estimate
these liabilities based on assumptions about the value of the
claims and about the likelihood of recoveries against us derived
from our historical experience and current information.
Environmental
Liabilities
We had accrued $180 for environmental liabilities at
December 31, 2007, compared to $64 at December 31,
2006. We estimate these liabilities based on the most probable
method of remediation, current laws and regulations and existing
technology. Estimates are made on an undiscounted basis and
exclude the effects of inflation. In addition, expected claims
settlements have also been considered, as discussed below. If
there is a range of equally probable remediation methods or
outcomes, we accrue the lower end of the range.
Of the $180 accrued, $19 will be retained and continues as a
post-emergence obligation. The remaining $161 is being addressed
through the unresolved claims process described in the Emergence
from Reorganization Proceedings section of Item 1. As such,
the resolution of these matters will not have an impact on our
post-emergence financial condition or results of operations.
Among the larger unresolved claims at emergence was a claim
involving the Hamilton Avenue Industrial Park (Hamilton) site in
New Jersey. We are a potentially responsible party at this site
(also known as the Cornell Dubilier Electronics or CDE site)
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA). This matter has been the subject of an
estimation proceeding as a result of our objection to a claim
filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
other federal agencies (collectively, the Government) in
connection with this and several other CERCLA sites. During the
course of the proceedings and our efforts to address the
Governments claim, no additional information was provided
to support any adjustment to the amounts we had accrued for this
matter. For the past several months, we have been actively
litigating the claim and negotiating a settlement with the
Government on the Hamilton site as well as other environmental
claims. As a result of the continued negotiations, in February
2008 we concluded that there was a probable settlement outcome
involving the Hamilton site and other unresolved environmental
claims. The $180 accrued at December 31, 2007 includes a
provision of $119 to adjust the amounts accrued to the probable
settlement outcome.
As described in Note 3 to our financial statements in
Item 8, settlements of environmental claims and other
matters involving significant estimation could occur at amounts
significantly higher than the estimated accrued liabilities. In
the case of the settlement relating to the Hamilton site and
other environmental claims discussed above, uncertainties
regarding the levels of contamination, uncertainty of whether
there would be an equitable allocation of the claims to all
parties and the possibility of extended and costly litigation,
were all factors we considered in connection with the expected
settlement outcome. These same factors also precluded us, in the
absence of a consensual settlement, from previously determining
a probable and estimable liability beyond that which had been
previously accrued.
Other Liabilities
Related to Asbestos Claims
After the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) discontinued
negotiating shared settlements for asbestos claims for its
member companies in 2001, some former CCR members defaulted on
the payment of their shares of some settlements and some
settling claimants sought payment of the unpaid shares from
other members of the CCR at the time of the settlements,
including from us. We have been working with the CCR, other
former CCR members, our insurers and the claimants over a period
of several years in an effort to resolve these issues. Through
December 31, 2007, we had paid $47 to claimants and
collected $29 from our insurance carriers with respect to these
claims. At December 31, 2007, we had a receivable of $18
that we expect to recover from available insurance and surety
bonds relating to these claims. We are continuing to pursue
insurance collections with respect to claims paid prior to the
Filing Date.
54
Critical
Accounting Estimates
The preparation of our consolidated financial statements in
conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the
reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting
period. Considerable judgment is often involved in making these
determinations. Critical estimates are those that require the
most difficult, subjective or complex judgments in the
preparation of the financial statements and the accompanying
notes. We evaluate these estimates and judgments on a regular
basis. We believe our assumptions and estimates are reasonable
and appropriate. However, the use of different assumptions could
result in significantly different results and actual results
could differ from those estimates. The following discussion of
accounting estimates is intended to supplement the Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies presented as Note 2 to the
financial statements in Item 8.
Income
Taxes
Accounting for income taxes is complex, in part, because we
conduct business globally and therefore file income tax returns
in numerous tax jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required
in determining the income tax provision, deferred tax assets and
liabilities and the valuation allowance recorded against our net
deferred tax assets. In assessing the recoverability of deferred
tax assets, we consider whether it is more likely than not that
some or a portion of the deferred tax assets will not be
realized. A valuation allowance is provided when, in our
judgment, based upon available information, it is more likely
than not that a portion of such deferred tax assets will not be
realized. We consider the projected future taxable income in
different tax jurisdictions and tax planning strategies in
making this assessment. We recorded a valuation allowance
against our U.S. deferred tax assets and U.S. and
foreign operating and other loss carryforwards for which
utilization is uncertain. Since future financial results may
differ from previous estimates, periodic adjustments to our
valuation allowance may be necessary.
In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions
and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is less
than certain. We are regularly under audit by the various
applicable tax authorities. Although the outcome of tax audits
is always uncertain, we believe that we have appropriate support
for the positions taken on our tax returns and that our annual
tax provisions include amounts sufficient to pay assessments, if
any, which may be proposed by the taxing authorities.
Nonetheless, the amounts ultimately paid, if any, upon
resolution of the issues raised by the taxing authorities may
differ materially from the amounts accrued for each year.
See additional discussion of our deferred tax assets and
liabilities in Note 20 to the financial statements in
Item 8.
Retiree
Benefits
Accounting for pensions and OPEB involves estimating the cost of
benefits to be provided well into the future and attributing
that cost over the time period each employee works. These plan
expenses and obligations are dependent on assumptions developed
by us in consultation with our outside advisors such as
actuaries and other consultants and are generally calculated
independently of funding requirements. The assumptions used,
including inflation, discount rates, investment returns, life
expectancies, turnover, retirement rates, future compensation
levels, and health care cost trend rates, have a significant
impact on plan expenses and obligations. These assumptions are
regularly reviewed and modified when appropriate based on
historical experience, current trends and the future outlook.
Changes in one or more of the underlying assumptions could
result in a material impact to our consolidated financial
statements in any given period. If actual experience differs
from expectations, our financial position and results of
operations in future periods could be affected.
Certain changes to our U.S. postretirement benefit plans
were implemented during the bankruptcy process, with those
related to union employees becoming effective upon emergence.
Our postretirement healthcare obligations for all
U.S. employees and retirees have been eliminated. With
regard to pension benefits, credited service and benefit
accruals have been frozen for all U.S. employees in defined
benefit
55
plans. These initiatives have eliminated our U.S. OPEB
costs and, after considering our VEBA contributions, eliminated
the related funding requirements and reduced our future
U.S. pension requirements.
The inflation assumption is based on an evaluation of external
market indicators. Retirement, turnover and mortality rates are
based primarily on actual plan experience. Health care cost
trend rates are developed based on our actual historical claims
experience, the near-term outlook and an assessment of likely
long-term trends. For our largest plans, discount rates are
based upon the construction of a theoretical bond portfolio,
adjusted according to the timing of expected cash flows for the
future obligations. A yield curve was developed based on a
subset of these high-quality fixed-income investments (those
with yields between the
40th and
90th percentiles).
The projected cash flows were matched to this yield curve and a
present value developed, which was then calibrated to develop a
single equivalent discount rate. Pension benefits are funded
through deposits with trustees that satisfy, at a minimum, the
applicable funding regulations. For our largest defined benefit
pension plans, expected investment rates of return are based
upon input from the plans investment advisors and actuary
regarding our current investment portfolio mix, historical rates
of return on those assets, projected future asset class returns,
the impact of active management and long-term market conditions
and inflation expectations. We believe that the long-term asset
allocation on average will approximate the targeted allocation
and we regularly review the actual asset allocation to
periodically rebalance the investments to the targeted
allocation when appropriate. Aside from contributions made to
VEBAs as part of settlement agreements in 2007, OPEB benefits
are funded as they become due.
Actuarial gains or losses may result from changes in assumptions
or when actual experience is different from that expected. Under
the applicable standards, those gains and losses are not
required to be immediately recognized as expense, but instead
may be deferred as part of accumulated other comprehensive
income and amortized into expense over future periods.
A change in the pension discount rate of 25 basis points
would result in a change in our U.S. pension obligations of
approximately $47 and a change in U.S. pension expense of
approximately $3. A 25 basis point change in the rate of
return would change U.S. pension expense by approximately
$4.
Restructuring actions involving facility closures and employee
downsizing and divestitures frequently give rise to adjustments
to employee benefit plan obligations, including the recognition
of curtailment or settlement gains and losses. Upon the
occurrence of these events, the obligations of the employee
benefit plans affected by the action are also re-measured based
on updated assumptions as of the re-measurement date.
See additional discussion of our pension and OPEB obligations in
Note 14 to the financial statements in Item 8.
Long-lived Asset
Impairment
We perform periodic impairment analyses on our long-lived assets
whenever events and circumstances indicate that the carrying
amount of such assets may not be recoverable. When indications
are present, we compare the estimated future undiscounted net
cash flows of the operations to which the assets relate to their
carrying amount. If the operations are determined to be unable
to recover the carrying amount of their assets, the long-lived
assets are written down to their estimated fair value. Fair
value is determined based on discounted cash flows, third party
appraisals or other methods that provide appropriate estimates
of value.
Asset impairments often result from significant actions like the
discontinuance of customer programs and facility closures. In
the Business Strategy section, we discuss a number
of reorganization initiatives that are completed or in process,
which include customer program evaluations and manufacturing
footprint assessments. We have recognized asset impairments
associated with these actions. Future decisions in connection
with these actions or new actions could result in additional
asset impairment losses in the future.
Goodwill
We test goodwill for impairment as of December 31 of each year
for all of our reporting units, or more frequently if events
occur or circumstances change that would warrant such a review.
We make significant assumptions and estimates about the extent
and timing of future cash flows, growth rates and discount
rates.
56
The cash flows are estimated over a significant future period of
time, which makes those estimates and assumptions subject to a
high degree of uncertainty. We also utilize market valuation
models which require us to make certain assumptions and
estimates regarding the applicability of those models to our
assets and businesses. We believe that the assumptions and
estimates used to determine the estimated fair values of each of
our reporting units are reasonable. However, different
assumptions could materially affect the results. As described in
Note 9 to the financials statements in Item 8, we
recorded goodwill impairment of $89 in 2007 related to our
Thermal business segment.
Liabilities
Subject to Compromise
Pre-petition obligations relating to matters such as contract
disputes, litigation and environmental remediation were
evaluated to determine whether a potential liability is
probable. If probable, an assessment, based on all information
then available, is made of whether the potential liability is
estimable. A liability is recorded when it is both probable and
estimable. In a case where there is a range of estimates which
are equally probable, a liability is generally recorded using
the low end of the range of estimates. In connection with our
emergence from bankruptcy, substantially all claims relating to
pre-petition matters are being satisfied and discharged under
the Plan through payment in cash or through the issuance of Dana
common stock in satisfaction of such claims, and a limited
number of claims have been reinstated as liabilities of Dana.
During the bankruptcy process, the likelihood of settlement and
potential settlement outcomes was considered in evaluating
whether potential obligations were probable and estimable as of
the end of each reporting period.
As described in Emergence from Reorganization
Proceedings in Item 1, those unsecured nonpriority
claims in Class 5B under the Plan that are not resolved as
of the Effective Date have been effectively addressed by the
creation of a reserve of shares of Dana common stock that will
be available for distribution in satisfaction of these unsecured
nonpriority claims as they are resolved. The ultimate resolution
of these claims is not expected to have an impact on our
post-emergence financial condition or results of operations.
Inventories
Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market. Cost is
generally determined on the
last-in,
first-out basis for U.S. inventories and on the
first-in,
first-out or average cost basis for
non-U.S. inventories.
Where appropriate, standard cost systems are utilized for
purposes of determining cost; the standards are adjusted as
necessary to ensure they approximate actual costs. Estimates of
reserves of surplus or obsolete inventory are determined at the
plant level and are based upon current economic conditions,
historical sales quantities and patterns and, in some cases, the
specific risk of loss on specifically identified inventories.
Warranty
Costs related to product warranty obligations are estimated and
accrued at the time of sale with a charge against cost of sales.
Warranty accruals are evaluated and adjusted as appropriate
based on occurrences giving rise to potential warranty exposure
and associated experience. Warranty accruals and adjustments
require significant judgment, including a determination of our
involvement in the matter giving rise to the potential warranty
issue or claim, our contractual requirements, estimates of units
requiring repair and estimates of repair costs. In June 2005, we
changed our method of accounting for warranty liabilities from
estimating the liability based only on the credit issued to the
customer, to accounting for the warranty liabilities based on
our total costs to settle the claim. We believe that this is a
change to a preferable method in that it more accurately
reflects the cost of settling the warranty liability. In
accordance with GAAP, the $6 pre-tax cumulative effect of the
change was recorded as of January 1, 2005 in the financial
statements. During the bankruptcy proceedings we continued to
honor our warranty obligations.
Contingency
Reserves
We have numerous other loss exposures, such as environmental
claims, product liability and litigation. Establishing loss
reserves for these matters requires the use of estimates and
judgment in regards to risk
57
exposure and ultimate liability. We estimate losses under the
programs using consistent and appropriate methods; however,
changes to our assumptions could materially affect our recorded
liabilities for loss.
Fresh Start
Accounting
As required by GAAP, in connection with emergence from
Chapter 11, we adopted the fresh start accounting
provisions of
SOP 90-7
effective February 1, 2008. Under
SOP 90-7,
the reorganization value represents the fair value of the entity
before considering liabilities and approximates the amount a
willing buyer would pay for the assets of Dana immediately after
restructuring. The reorganization value is allocated to the
respective fair value of assets. The excess reorganization value
over the fair value of identified tangible and intangible assets
is recorded as goodwill. Liabilities, other than deferred taxes,
are stated at present values of amounts expected to be paid.
Fair values of assets and liabilities represent our best
estimates based on independent appraisals and valuations. Where
the foregoing are not available, industry data and trends or
references to relevant market rates and transactions are used.
These estimates and assumptions are inherently subject to
significant uncertainties and contingencies beyond our
reasonable control. Moreover, the market value of our common
stock may differ materially from the fresh start equity
valuation.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
We are exposed to various types of market risks including the
effects of fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates,
adverse movements in commodity prices for products we use in our
manufacturing and adverse changes in interest rates. To reduce
our exposure to these risks, we maintain risk management
controls to monitor these risks and take appropriate actions to
attempt to mitigate such forms of market risks.
Foreign Currency
Exchange Rate Risks
Our operating results may be impacted by buying, selling and
financing in currencies other than the functional currencies of
our operating companies. Where possible we focus on natural
hedging techniques which include the following:
(i) structuring foreign subsidiary balance sheets with
appropriate levels of debt to reduce subsidiary net investments
and subsidiary cash flow subject to conversion risk;
(ii) avoidance of risk by denominating contracts in the
appropriate functional currency and (iii) managing cash
flows on a net basis (both in timing and currency) to minimize
the exposure to foreign currency exchange rates.
After considering natural hedging techniques, some portions of
remaining exposure, especially for anticipated inter-company and
third party commercial transaction exposure in the short term,
may be hedged using financial derivatives, such as foreign
currency exchange rate forwards. Some of our foreign entities
were party to foreign currency contracts for anticipated
transactions in U.S. dollars, British pounds, Swedish
krona, euros, South African rand, Singapore dollars and
Australian dollars at the end of 2007.
In addition to the transactional exposure discussed above, our
operating results are impacted by the translation of our foreign
operating income into U.S. dollars (translation exposure).
We do not enter into foreign exchange contracts to mitigate
translation exposure.
Interest Rate
Risk
Our interest rate risk relates primarily to our exposure on
borrowing under the Exit Facility. Under the terms of the Exit
Facility we are required to enter into interest rate hedge
agreements by May 30, 2008 and to maintain agreements
covering a notional amount of not less than 50% of the aggregate
loans outstanding under the Term Facility for a period of no
less than three years.
Risk from Adverse
Movements in Commodity Prices
We purchase certain raw materials, including steel and other
metals, which are subject to price volatility caused by
fluctuations in supply and demand as well as other factors.
Higher costs of raw materials and other commodities used in the
production process have had a significant adverse impact on our
operating results
58
over the last three years. We continue to take actions to
mitigate the impact of higher commodity prices, including
cost-reduction programs, consolidation of our supply base and
negotiation of fixed price supply contracts with our commodity
suppliers. In addition, the sharing of increased raw material
costs has been, and will continue to be, the subject of
negotiations with our customers. No assurances can be given that
the magnitude and duration of increased commodity costs will not
have a material impact on our future operating results. We had
no derivatives in place at December 31, 2007 to hedge
commodity price movements.
59
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
of Dana Holding Corporation (Formerly Dana Corporation)
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in
the index appearing under Item 15(a)(1) present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Dana
Corporation (Debtor in Possession) (the Company) and its
subsidiaries at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results
of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2007 in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial
statement schedule listed in the index appearing under
Item 15(a)(2) presents fairly, in all material respects,
the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with
the related consolidated financial statements. Also in our
opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects,
effective internal control over financial reporting 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 (COSO). The Companys management is responsible
for these financial statements and financial statement schedule,
for maintaining effective internal control over financial
reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, included in
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to
express opinions on these financial statements, on the financial
statement schedule, and on the Companys internal control
over financial reporting based on our integrated 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 audits to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement and whether effective internal
control over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audits of the financial statements included
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial
reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal
control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a
material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the
assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinions.
As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial
statements, the Company changed the manner in which it accounts
for asset retirement obligations effective December 31,
2005, the manner in which it accounts for share based
compensation effective January 1, 2006 and the manner in
which it accounts for uncertain tax positions effective
January 1, 2007. As discussed in Notes 14 and 19 to
the consolidated financial statements, respectively, the Company
changed the manner in which it accounts for defined benefit
pension and other postretirement plans effective
December 31, 2006 and the manner in which it accounts for
warranty liabilities effective January 1, 2005.
As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, the Company filed a petition on March 3, 2006
with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York for reorganization under the provisions of
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Companys Third
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Debtors and Debtors in
Possession (as modified, the Plan) was confirmed on
December 26, 2007. Confirmation of the Plan resulted in the
discharge of certain claims against the Company that arose
before March 3, 2006 and substantially alters rights and
interests of equity security holders as provided for in the
Plan. The Plan was substantially consummated on January 31,
2008 and the Company emerged from bankruptcy. In connection with
its emergence from bankruptcy, the Company adopted fresh start
accounting.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over
60
financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that
(i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in
reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company;
(ii) 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 (iii) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Toledo, Ohio
March 14, 2008
61
Dana
Corporation
(Debtor in Possession)
Consolidated Statement of Operations
For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
(In millions except per-share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
8,721
|
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
8,611
|
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
8,231
|
|
|
|
8,166
|
|
|
|
8,205
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
365
|
|
|
|
419
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Realignment charges, net
|
|
|
205
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
Impairment of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
234
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
162
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before interest, reorganization
items and income taxes
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(313
|
)
|
|
|
(117
|
)
|
Interest expense (contractual interest of $213 and $204 for the
years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006)
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
168
|
|
Reorganization items, net
|
|
|
275
|
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
(387
|
)
|
|
|
(571
|
)
|
|
|
(285
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(62
|
)
|
|
|
(66
|
)
|
|
|
(924
|
)
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
Equity in earnings of affiliates
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(433
|
)
|
|
|
(618
|
)
|
|
|
(1,175
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations before income taxes
|
|
|
(92
|
)
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
|
|
(441
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (expense) of discontinued operations
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(118
|
)
|
|
|
(121
|
)
|
|
|
(434
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
(551
|
)
|
|
|
(739
|
)
|
|
|
(1,609
|
)
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,605
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic loss per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before effect of change in
accounting
|
|
$
|
(2.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.11
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.86
|
)
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.79
|
)
|
|
|
(0.81
|
)
|
|
|
(2.90
|
)
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(3.68
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.92
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.73
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted loss per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before effect of change in
accounting
|
|
$
|
(2.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.11
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.86
|
)
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.79
|
)
|
|
|
(0.81
|
)
|
|
|
(2.90
|
)
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(3.68
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.92
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.73
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends declared and paid per common share
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average shares outstanding Basic
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
Average shares outstanding Diluted
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
62
Dana
Corporation
(Debtor in Possession)
Consolidated Balance Sheet
December 31, 2007 and 2006
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
1,271
|
|
|
$
|
704
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $20 in 2007 and
$23 in 2006
|
|
|
1,197
|
|
|
|
1,131
|
|
Other
|
|
|
295
|
|
|
|
235
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
812
|
|
|
|
725
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
3,792
|
|
|
|
3,254
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
416
|
|
Investments and other assets
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
663
|
|
Investments in affiliates
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
555
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
1,763
|
|
|
|
1,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
6,425
|
|
|
$
|
6,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Stockholders deficit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable, including current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
283
|
|
|
$
|
293
|
|
Debtor-in-possession
financing
|
|
|
900
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
1,072
|
|
|
|
886
|
|
Accrued payroll and employee benefits
|
|
|
258
|
|
|
|
225
|
|
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
195
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
322
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
2,952
|
|
|
|
2,016
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
3,511
|
|
|
|
4,175
|
|
Deferred employee benefits and other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
630
|
|
|
|
504
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Debtor-in-possession
financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
700
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
7,207
|
|
|
|
7,498
|
|
Common stock, $1 par value, authorized 350,
issued 150 in 2007 and 2006
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
Additional
paid-in-capital
|
|
|
202
|
|
|
|
201
|
|
Retained earnings (deficit)
|
|
|
(468
|
)
|
|
|
80
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(666
|
)
|
|
|
(1,265
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders deficit
|
|
|
(782
|
)
|
|
|
(834
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders deficit
|
|
$
|
6,425
|
|
|
$
|
6,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
63
Dana
Corporation
(Debtor in Possession)
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Net cash flows provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
$
|
(52
|
)
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
$
|
(216
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(254
|
)
|
|
|
(314
|
)
|
|
|
(297
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of businesses
|
|
|
414
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of DCC assets and partnership interests
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
Proceeds from sale of other assets
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Acquisition of business, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Payments received on leases and loans
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
Change in investments and other assets
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
(78
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
348
|
|
|
|
(86
|
)
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in short-term debt
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
(551
|
)
|
|
|
492
|
|
Payments of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(205
|
)
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
Proceeds from
debtor-in-possession
facility
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
700
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from European securitization program
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction in DCC Medium Term Notes
|
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
398
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
462
|
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
128
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents beginning of year
|
|
|
704
|
|
|
|
762
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash balances
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash of discontinued operations
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents end of year
|
|
$
|
1,271
|
|
|
$
|
704
|
|
|
$
|
762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net loss to net cash flows
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,605
|
)
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
279
|
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
Impairment and divestiture-related charges
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
|
405
|
|
|
|
515
|
|
Non-cash portion of U.K. pension charge
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization items, net of payments
|
|
|
154
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPEB payments in excess of expense
|
|
|
(71
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment to VEBAs for postretirement benefits
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
751
|
|
Unremitted earnings of affiliates
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
Change in accounts receivable
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
(62
|
)
|
|
|
146
|
|
Change in inventories
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
Change in other current assets
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
(93
|
)
|
Change in accounts payable
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
(241
|
)
|
Change in other current liabilities
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
(64
|
)
|
Effect of change in accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
$
|
(52
|
)
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
$
|
(216
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We paid Income taxes of $51, $87 and $127 and interest of $106,
$124 and $164 in 2007, 2006 and 2005.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
64
Dana
Corporation
(Debtor in Possession)
Consolidated Statement of Stockholders Equity (Deficit)
and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
(Deficit)
|
|
|
Translation
|
|
|
(Losses)
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
(Deficit)
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2004
|
|
$
|
150
|
|
|
$
|
190
|
|
|
$
|
2,479
|
|
|
$
|
(265
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(143
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,411
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss for 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,605
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,605
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
Minimum pension liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,815
|
)
|
Cash dividends declared
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
Issuance of shares for equity compensation plans, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2005
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
819
|
|
|
|
(323
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(295
|
)
|
|
|
545
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss for 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(739
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(739
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135
|
|
Minimum pension liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(687
|
)
|
Adjustment to initially apply SFAS No. 158 for pension
and OPEB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(699
|
)
|
|
|
(699
|
)
|
Issuance of shares for equity compensation plans, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2006
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
201
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,077
|
)
|
|
|
(834
|
)
|
Adoption of FIN 48 tax adjustment, January 1, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss for 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(551
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(551
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
Pension and postretirement healthcare plan adjustments,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
568
|
|
|
|
568
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
599
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
Issuance of shares for equity compensation plans, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
150
|
|
|
$
|
202
|
|
|
$
|
(468
|
)
|
|
$
|
(155
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(509
|
)
|
|
$
|
(782
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
65
Dana
Corporation
Index to Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements
1. Emergence from Reorganization Proceedings
2. Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting
Policies
3. Reorganization under Chapter 11 and Debtor
Financial Statements
4. Impairments, Asset Disposals, Divestitures and
Acquisitions
5. Discontinued Operations
6. Realignment of Operations
7. Inventories
8. Components of Certain Balance Sheet Amounts
9. Goodwill
10. Investments in Affiliates
11. Preferred Stock
12. Common Stock
13. Equity-Based Compensation
14. Pension and Postretirement Benefit Plans
15. Cash Deposits
16. Financing Agreements
17. Fair Value of Financial Instruments
18. Commitments and Contingencies
19. Warranty Obligations
20. Income Taxes
21. Other Income, Net
22. Segment, Geographical Area and Major Customer
Information
23. Reorganization and Fresh Start Accounting Pro Forma
Information (Unaudited)
66
Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements
(In millions, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
Note 1.
|
Emergence from
Reorganization Proceedings
|
Organization
Dana Holding Corporation (Dana), incorporated in Delaware, is
headquartered in Toledo, Ohio. We are a leading supplier of
axle, driveshaft, structural, and sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. Our people design and
manufacture products for every major vehicle producer in the
world. We employ approximately 35,000 people in 26
countries and operate 113 major facilities throughout the world.
As a result of Dana Corporations emergence from
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the
Bankruptcy Code) on January 31, 2008 (the Effective Date),
Dana is the successor registrant to Dana Corporation (Prior
Dana) pursuant to
Rule 12g-3
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The terms Dana, we, our, and
us, when used in this report with respect to the
period prior to Dana Corporations emergence from
bankruptcy, are references to Prior Dana, and when used with
respect to the period commencing after Dana Corporations
emergence, are references to Dana. These references include the
subsidiaries of Prior Dana or Dana, as the case may be, unless
otherwise indicated or the context requires otherwise.
Emergence from
Reorganization Proceedings and Related Subsequent
Events
Background Dana and forty of its wholly-owned
subsidiaries (collectively, the Debtors) operated their
businesses as
debtors-in-possession
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code from March 3,
2006 (the Filing Date) until emergence from Chapter 11 on
January 31, 2008. The Debtors Chapter 11 cases
(collectively, the Bankruptcy Cases) were consolidated in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Bankruptcy Court) under the caption In re Dana
Corporation, et al., Case
No. 06-10354
(BRL). Neither Dana Credit Corporation (DCC) and its
subsidiaries nor any of our
non-U.S. affiliates
were Debtors.
Claims resolution On December 26, 2007,
the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the Confirmation Order)
confirming the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of
Debtors and
Debtors-in-Possession
(as modified, the Plan) and, on the Effective Date, the Plan was
consummated and we emerged from bankruptcy. As provided in the
Plan and the Confirmation Order, we issued and distributed
approximately 70 million shares of Dana common stock to
holders of allowed unsecured claims totaling approximately
$2,050. Pursuant to the Plan, we have issued and set aside
approximately 28 million additional shares of Dana common
stock for future distribution to all holders of allowed
unsecured nonpriority claims in Class 5B under the Plan.
These shares will be distributed as the disputed and
unliquidated claims (estimated not to exceed $800) are resolved.
The terms and conditions governing such distributions are set
forth in the Plan and the Confirmation Order.
As provided in the Plan and the Confirmation Order, asbestos
personal injury claims were reinstated, and holders of such
claims may continue to assert them. Certain other specific
categories of claims against the Debtors (primarily
workers compensation and intercompany liabilities to
non-Debtors) were retained and are being discharged in the
normal course of business.
Settlement obligations relating to non-pension retiree benefits
for retirees and union employees and long-term disability (LTD)
benefits for union claimants were satisfied with cash payments
of $788 to non-Dana sponsored Voluntary Employee Benefit
Associations (VEBAs) established for the benefit of the retirees
and union employees. Additionally, we paid DCC $49, the
remaining amount due to DCC noteholders, thereby settling
DCCs general unsecured claim of $325 against the Debtors.
DCC, in turn, used these funds to repay the noteholders in full.
Administrative claims, priority tax claims and other classes of
allowed claims of $222 were satisfied by payment of cash at
emergence, or will be satisfied with cash payments as soon
thereafter as practical.
67
Except as specifically provided in the Plan, the distributions
under the Plan were in exchange for, and in complete
satisfaction, discharge and release of, all claims and
third-party ownership interests in the Debtors arising on or
before the Effective Date, including any interest accrued on
such claims from and after the Filing Date.
Organization In connection with the formation
of a new holding company, we formed a new legal organization
aligned with how our businesses are managed operationally.
Except as described below, all operating assets and related
undischarged liabilities of Prior Dana were transferred to new
legal entities within the new holding company structure. Certain
other assets and liabilities, including those associated with
asbestos personal injury claims, were retained in Prior Dana,
which was then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated
wholly owned subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies,
LLC include insurance rights relating to coverage against these
liabilities and other assets sufficient to satisfy its
liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC will continue to process
asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business
and will continue to pay such claims in cash. Dana Companies,
LLC will be separately managed, and will have an independent
board member. The independent board member is required to
approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. We expect our
involvement with Dana Companies, LLC will be limited to service
agreements for certain administrative activities. See
Note 18 for a discussion of our asbestos liabilities.
Common Stock Pursuant to the Plan, all of the
issued and outstanding shares of Prior Dana common stock, par
value $1.00 per share, and any other outstanding equity
securities of Prior Dana, including all options and warrants,
were cancelled. On the Effective Date, we began the process of
issuing 100 million shares of Dana common stock, par value
$0.01 per share, including approximately 70 million shares
for allowed unsecured nonpriority claims, approximately
28 million additional shares deposited to a reserve for
disputed unsecured nonpriority claims in Class 5B under the
Plan, approximately 1 million shares for payment of
post-emergence bonuses to union employees and approximately
1 million shares to pay bonuses to non-union hourly and
salaried non-management employees. The charge to earnings for
these bonuses will be recorded as of the Effective Date.
Preferred Stock Pursuant to the Plan, we
issued 2,500,000 shares of 4.0% Series A Preferred
Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the Series A Preferred)
and 5,400,000 shares of 4.0% Series B Preferred Stock,
par value $0.01 per share (the Series B Preferred) on the
Effective Date. The Series A Preferred was sold to
Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates
(Centerbridge) for $250, less a commitment fee of $3 and expense
reimbursement of $5, resulting in net proceeds of $242. The
Series B Preferred was sold to certain qualified investors
(as described in the Plan) for $540, less a commitment fee of
$11, resulting in net proceeds of $529.
In accordance with the terms of the preferred stock, all of the
shares of preferred stock are, at the holders option,
convertible into a number of fully paid and non-assessable
shares of common stock.
In accordance with the terms of the preferred stock, all of the
shares of preferred stock are, at the holders option,
convertible into a number of fully paid and non-assessable
shares of new common stock. The price at which each share of
preferred stock will be convertible into common stock is 83% of
its distributable market equity value per share, provided the
ownership percentage held following the hypothetical conversion
of all preferred stock falls within a range defined in the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The distributable market
equity value is the per share value of the common stock
determined by calculating the volume-weighted average trading
price of such common stock on the New York Stock Exchange for
the 22 trading days beginning on February 1, 2008 (the
first trading day after the Effective Date) but disregarding the
days with the highest and lowest volume-weighted average sales
price during such period. The
20-day
volume-weighted average trading price was $11.60.
The range of ownership is a function of our net debt plus the
value of our minority interests as of the Effective Date. If the
amount of our net debt plus the value of our minority interests
as of the Effective Date is $525, then 36.3% would be the upper
end of the range of ownership. Since the conversion of all
preferred stock at 83% of the $11.60 would result in more than
36.3% of our fully diluted common stock being issued to the
holders of preferred stock, the conversion price would be the
price at which the preferred stock is convertible
68
into 36.3% of our total common stock assuming conversion of all
preferred stock. The upper end of the range is subject to
adjustment, as provided in the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, to the extent that our net debt plus the value of
our minority interests as of the Effective Date is an amount
other than $525. The initial conversion price is also subject to
certain adjustments as set forth in the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation.
Shares of Series A Preferred having an aggregate
liquidation preference of not more than $125 and the
Series B Preferred are convertible at any time at the
option of the applicable holder after July 31, 2008. The
remaining shares of Series A Preferred are convertible
after January 31, 2011. In addition, in the event that the
common stocks per share closing sales price exceeds 140%
of the conversion price divided by 0.83 for at least 20
consecutive trading days beginning on or after January 31,
2013, we will be able to force conversion of all, but not less
than all, of the preferred stock. The price at which the
preferred stock is convertible is subject to adjustment in
certain customary circumstances, including as a result of stock
splits and combinations, dividends and distributions and
issuances of common stock or common stock derivatives at a price
below the preferred stock conversion price in effect at that
time.
Dividends on the preferred stock are payable in cash at a rate
of 4% per annum on a quarterly basis. If at any time we fail to
pay the equivalent of six quarterly dividends on the preferred
stock, the holders of the preferred stock, voting separately as
a single class, will be entitled to elect two additional
directors to our Board of Directors. However, so long as
Centerbridge owns Series A Preferred having an aggregate
liquidation preference of at least $125, this provision will not
be applicable.
In connection with the issuance of the preferred stock, we
entered into two registration rights agreements: one with
Centerbridge and the other with the purchasers of Series B
Preferred, and we also entered into a shareholders agreement.
Under the terms of these agreements and the Restated Certificate
of Incorporation, Centerbridge was granted representation on our
Board of Directors and limited approval rights. See Note 11
for additional information.
Financing at emergence On the Effective Date,
Dana, as borrower, and certain of our domestic subsidiaries, as
guarantors, entered into an exit financing facility (the Exit
Facility) with Citicorp USA, Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc. and
Barclays Capital. The Exit Facility consists of a Term Facility
Credit and Guaranty Agreement in the total aggregate amount of
$1,430 (the Term Facility) and a $650 Revolving Credit and
Guaranty Agreement (the Revolving Facility). The Term Facility
was fully drawn in borrowings of $1,350 on the Effective Date
and $80 on February 1, 2008. There were no borrowings under
the Revolving Facility, but $200 was utilized for existing
letters of credit. Net proceeds from the Exit Facility were
$1,276 after $114 of original issue discount and $40 of
customary issuance costs and fees. The net proceeds were used to
repay the Senior Secured Superpriority
Debtor-in-Possession
Credit Agreement (DIP Credit Agreement), make other payments
required upon exit from bankruptcy and provide liquidity to fund
working capital and other general corporate purposes. See
Note 16 for the terms and conditions of these facilities.
Fresh Start Accounting As required by
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
(GAAP), we adopted fresh start accounting effective
February 1, 2008 following the guidance of American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
Statement of Position
90-7,
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under
the Bankruptcy Code
(SOP 90-7).
The financial statements for the periods ended December 31,
2007 and prior do not include the effect of any changes in our
capital structure or changes in the fair value of assets and
liabilities as a result of fresh start accounting. See
Note 23 for an unaudited pro-forma presentation of the
impact of emergence from reorganization and fresh start
accounting on our financial position.
|
|
Note 2.
|
Organization and
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Organization We serve the majority of the
worlds vehicular manufacturers as a leader in the
engineering, manufacture and distribution of original equipment
systems and components, and we continue to manufacture and
supply a variety of service parts. We had also been a provider
of lease financing services in selected markets through our
wholly-owned subsidiary, DCC. Over the last five years, DCC has
sold significant portions of its asset portfolio, and in
September 2006 adopted a plan of liquidation of substantially
all its remaining assets (See Note 4).
69
Basis of Presentation As discussed in
Note 3, the Debtors reorganized under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code.
SOP 90-7,
which is applicable to companies operating under
Chapter 11, generally does not change the manner in which
financial statements are prepared. However,
SOP 90-7
does require that the financial statements for periods
subsequent to the filing of a Chapter 11 petition
distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated
with the reorganization from the ongoing operations of the
business.
We adopted
SOP 90-7
on the Filing Date and prepared our financial statements in
accordance with its requirements. Revenues, expenses, realized
gains and losses and provisions for losses that can be directly
associated with the reorganization and restructuring of our
business are reported separately as reorganization items in our
statement of operations. Our balance sheet distinguishes
pre-petition liabilities subject to compromise both from those
pre-petition liabilities that are not subject to compromise and
from post-petition liabilities. Liabilities that were affected
by the plan of reorganization were reported at the amounts
expected to be allowed by the Bankruptcy Court. In connection
with our emergence from bankruptcy certain liabilities
previously reported as subject to compromise were retained by
Dana. These liabilities were reclassified to the appropriate
liability caption as of December 31, 2007. In addition,
cash provided by or used for reorganization items is disclosed
separately in our statement of cash flows. See Note 3 for
further information about our financial statement presentation
under
SOP 90-7.
Estimates These consolidated financial
statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States (GAAP), which require
the use of estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the
amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and
accompanying disclosures. Some of the more significant estimates
include: valuation of deferred tax assets and inventories;
restructuring, environmental, product liability and warranty
accruals; valuation of post-employment and postretirement
benefits; valuation, depreciation and amortization of long-lived
assets; valuation of goodwill; residual values of leased assets
and allowances for doubtful accounts. We believe our assumptions
and estimates are reasonable and appropriate. However, due to
the inherent uncertainties in making estimates, actual results
could differ from those estimates.
Principles of Consolidation Our consolidated
financial statements include all subsidiaries in which we have
the ability to control operating and financial policies. All
significant intercompany balances and transactions have been
eliminated in consolidation. Affiliated companies (20% to 50%
ownership) are generally recorded in the statements using the
equity method of accounting, as are certain investments in
partnerships and limited liability companies in which we may
have an ownership interest of less than 20%. Historically,
certain of the equity affiliates that were engaged in lease
financing activities qualified as Variable Interest Entities
(VIEs). In addition, certain leveraged leases qualified as VIEs
but were not required to be consolidated under Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 46(R),
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an
interpretation of ARB No. 51
(FIN No. 46(R)). Accordingly, these leveraged leases
were not consolidated and were included with other investments
in equity affiliates. Other investments in leveraged leases that
qualify as VIEs were consolidated. Substantially all of these
investments have been sold as of December 31, 2007.
Operations of affiliates accounted for under the equity method
of accounting are generally included for periods ended within
one month of our year-end. Less than 20%-owned companies are
included in the financial statements at the cost of our
investment. Dividends, royalties and fees from these cost basis
affiliates are recorded in income when received.
Discontinued Operations In accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 144,
Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived
Assets, we classify a business component that either has
been disposed of or is classified as held for sale as a
discontinued operation if the cash flow of the component has
been or will be eliminated from our ongoing operations and we
will no longer have any significant continuing involvement in
the component. The results of operations of our discontinued
operations through the date of sale, including any gains or
losses on disposition, are aggregated and presented on two lines
in the income statement. SFAS No. 144 requires the
reclassification of amounts presented for prior years to reflect
their classification as discontinued operations.
70
With respect to the consolidated balance sheet, the assets and
liabilities not subject to compromise relating to our
discontinued operations are aggregated and reported separately
as assets and liabilities of discontinued operations following
the decision to dispose of the components. The balance sheet at
December 31, 2006 reflects our announced plans to sell our
engine hard parts, fluid products and pump products businesses.
The balance sheet at December 31, 2007 includes the
residual assets and liabilities of certain pump products
operations yet to be sold. In the consolidated statement of cash
flows, the cash flows of discontinued operations are included in
the applicable line items with continuing operations. See
Note 5 for additional information regarding discontinued
operations.
Cash and Cash Equivalents For purposes of
reporting cash flows, we consider highly liquid investments with
maturities of three months or less when purchased to be cash
equivalents. Marketable securities that satisfy the criteria for
cash equivalents are classified accordingly.
At December 31, 2007, we maintained cash deposits of $111
to provide credit enhancement for certain lease agreements,
letters of credit and bank guarantees and to support surety
bonds that allow us to self-insure certain employee benefit
obligations. These financial arrangements are typically renewed
each year. The deposits generally can be withdrawn if we provide
comparable security in the form of letters of credit. These
banking facilities provide for the issuance of letters of
credit, and the availability at December 31, 2007 was
adequate to cover the amounts on deposit.
The ability to move cash among operating locations is subject to
the operating needs of those locations in addition to locally
imposed restrictions on the transfer of funds in the form of
dividends, cash advances or loans. In addition, we must meet
distributable reserve requirements. Restricted net assets
related to our consolidated subsidiaries totaled $167 as of
December 31, 2007. Of this amount, $75 and $69 are
attributable to our Venezuelan and Chinese operations and are
subject to strict governmental limitations on our
subsidiaries ability to transfer funds outside each of
those countries, and $23 is attributable to cash deposits
required by certain of our Canadian subsidiaries in connection
with credit enhancements on lease agreements, letters of credit
and the support of surety bonds. An additional $93 of cash held
by DCC at December 31, 2007 was also restricted by the
forbearance agreement discussed in Notes 4 and 16.
Condensed financial information of registrant (Parent
company information) (Schedule I) is required to be
included in reports on
Form 10-K
when a registrants proportionate share of restricted net
assets (as defined in
Rule 4-08(e)
of
Regulation S-X)
exceeds 25% of total consolidated net assets. The purpose of
this disclosure is to provide information on restrictions that
limit the payment of dividends by the registrant. We have not
provided Schedule I for the following reasons. First, as
debtors in possession in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding
during 2007, we were precluded from paying dividends to our
stockholders and therefore other restrictions are not
significant. Second, the amount of our restricted net assets of
consolidated subsidiaries in relation to the assets of our
consolidated subsidiaries without restrictions is not material.
At December 31, 2007, we had a consolidated
stockholders deficit and, as discussed above, $167 of
restricted distributable net assets in consolidated
subsidiaries. Third, the debtor company financial information in
Note 3 provides information as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 that is more meaningful than the
information that would be contained in Schedule I. While
the debtor company financial information includes both the
parent company and the subsidiaries included in the bankruptcy
filing, there are no restrictions on asset distributions from
these subsidiaries to the parent company.
Financial information for 2005 is not presented in Note 3
because it is not required. However, for the reasons described
above, we do not believe the information from earlier periods is
relevant to the users of our financial statements. During 2007,
2006 and 2005, the parent company received dividends from
consolidated subsidiaries of $76, $81 and $238. Dividends from
less than 50%-owned affiliates in each of the last three years
was $1 or less.
Inventories Inventories are valued at the
lower of cost or market. Cost is generally determined on the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) basis for U.S. inventories and on the
first-in,
first-out (FIFO) or average cost basis for
71
non-U.S. inventories.
In connection with our adoption of fresh start accounting on
February 1, 2008, inventories were revalued to their fair
market value. See Note 23 for an unaudited pro-forma
estimated impact of the fresh start valuation.
Property, Plant and Equipment Property, plant
and equipment is recorded at historical costs unless impaired.
Depreciation is recognized over the estimated useful lives using
primarily the straight-line method for financial reporting
purposes and accelerated depreciation methods for federal income
tax purposes. Useful lives for buildings and building
improvements, machinery and equipment, tooling and office
equipment, furniture and fixtures principally range from twenty
to thirty years, five to ten years, three to five years and
three to ten years. In connection with our adoption of fresh
start accounting on February 1, 2008, fixed assets were
revalued to their fair market value, generally their appraised
value, and new lives were established. See Note 23 for an
unaudited pro-forma estimated impact of the fresh start
valuation.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets We review the
carrying value of long-lived assets for impairment whenever
events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying
amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of
assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the
carrying amount of the assets to the undiscounted future net
cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. If such
assets are considered to be impaired, the impairment to be
recognized is measured by the amount by which the carrying
amount of the assets exceeds the fair value of the assets.
Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of the
carrying amount or fair values less costs to sell and are no
longer depreciated.
Pre-Production Costs Related to Long-Term Supply
Arrangements The costs of tooling used to make
products sold under long-term supply arrangements are
capitalized as part of property, plant and equipment and
amortized over their useful lives if we own the tooling or if we
fund the purchase but our customer owns the tooling and grants
us the irrevocable right to use the tooling over the contract
period. If we have a contractual right to bill our customers,
costs incurred in connection with the design and development of
tooling are carried as a component of other accounts receivable
until invoiced. Design and development costs related to customer
products are deferred if we have an agreement to collect such
costs from the customer; otherwise, they are expensed when
incurred. At December 31, 2007, the machinery and equipment
component of property, plant and equipment included $7 of our
tooling related to long-term supply arrangements and $8 of our
customers tooling which we have the irrevocable right to
use, while trade and other accounts receivable included $67 of
costs related to tooling that we have a contractual right to
collect from our customers.
Lease Financing Lease financing consists of
direct financing leases, leveraged leases and operating leases
on equipment. Income on direct financing leases is recognized by
a method that produces a constant periodic rate of return on the
outstanding investment in the lease. Income on leveraged leases
is recognized by a method that produces a constant rate of
return on the outstanding net investment in the lease, net of
the related deferred tax liability, in the years in which the
net investment is positive. Initial direct costs are deferred
and amortized using the interest method over the lease period.
Operating leases for equipment are recorded at cost, net of
accumulated depreciation. Income from operating leases is
recognized ratably over the term of the leases. In 2006, we
adopted a plan to accelerate the sale of these leases and
recorded an impairment charge of $176 (see Note 4). At
December 31, 2007, one lease remains with a carrying value,
net of non-recourse borrowing, of less than $1.
Allowance for Losses on Lease Financing
Provisions for losses on lease financing receivables were
determined based on loss experience and assessment of inherent
risk. Adjustments were made to the allowance for losses to
adjust the net investment in lease financing to an estimated
collectible amount. Income recognition was generally
discontinued on accounts that were contractually past due and
where no payment activity had occurred within 120 days.
Accounts were charged against the allowance for losses when
determined to be uncollectible. Accounts where asset
repossession had started as the primary means of recovery were
classified within other assets at their estimated realizable
value.
Goodwill In accordance with
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets, we test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis
as of December 31 unless conditions arise that warrant a more
frequent valuation. In assessing the recoverability of goodwill,
projections regarding estimated future cash flows and
72
other factors are made to determine the fair value of the
respective assets. If these estimates or related projections
change in the future, we may be required to record goodwill
impairment charges.
Financial Instruments The reported fair
values of financial instruments are based on a variety of
factors. Where available, fair values represent quoted market
prices for identical or comparable instruments. Where quoted
market prices are not available, fair values are estimated based
on assumptions concerning the amount and timing of estimated
future cash flows and assumed discount rates reflecting varying
degrees of credit risk. Fair values may not represent actual
values of the financial instruments that could be realized as of
the balance sheet date or that will be realized in the future.
Derivative Financial Instruments We enter
into forward currency contracts to hedge our exposure to the
effects of currency fluctuations on a portion of our projected
sales and purchase commitments. The changes in the fair value of
these contracts are recorded in cost of sales and are generally
offset by exchange gains or losses on the underlying exposures.
We may also use interest rate swaps to manage exposure to
fluctuations in interest rates and to adjust the mix of our
fixed and floating rate debt. We do not use derivatives for
trading or speculative purposes, and we do not hedge all of our
exposures.
We follow SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and
SFAS No. 138, Accounting for Certain Derivative
Instruments and Certain Hedging Transactions. These
Statements require, among other things, that all derivative
instruments be recognized on the balance sheet at fair value.
Forward currency contracts have not been designated as hedges,
and the effect of marking these instruments to market has been
recognized in the results of operations.
Environmental Compliance and Remediation
Environmental expenditures that relate to current operations
are expensed or capitalized as appropriate. Expenditures that
relate to existing conditions caused by past operations that do
not contribute to our current or future revenue generation are
expensed. Liabilities are recorded when environmental
assessments
and/or
remedial efforts are probable and the costs can be reasonably
estimated. Estimated costs are based upon current laws and
regulations, existing technology and the most probable method of
remediation. The costs are not discounted and exclude the
effects of inflation. If the cost estimates result in a range of
equally probable amounts, the lower end of the range is accrued.
Settlements with Insurers In certain
circumstances we commute policies that provide insurance for
asbestos personal injury claims. Proceeds from commutations in
excess of our estimated receivable recorded for pending and
future claims are generally deferred.
Pension Benefits We sponsor a number of
defined benefit pension plans covering eligible salaried and
hourly employees. Benefits are determined based upon
employees length of service, wages or a combination of
length of service and wages. Our practice is to fund these costs
through deposits with trustees in amounts that, at a minimum,
satisfy the applicable local funding regulations. Annual net
pension benefits expenses and the related liabilities are
determined on an actuarial basis. These amounts are dependent on
managements assumptions used by actuaries. We review these
actuarial assumptions annually and make modifications when
necessary. With the input of independent actuaries and other
relevant sources, we believe that the assumptions used are
reasonable; however, changes in these assumptions, or experience
different from that assumed, could impact our financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows. See Note 14
for additional information.
Postretirement Benefits Other than Pensions
We provide other postretirement benefits including medical
and life insurance for certain eligible employees upon
retirement. Benefits are determined primarily based upon
employees length of service and include applicable
employee cost sharing. Our policy is to fund these benefits as
they become due. Annual net postretirement benefits expense and
the related liabilities are determined on an actuarial basis.
These amounts are dependent on managements assumptions
used by actuaries. We review these actuarial assumptions
annually and make modifications when necessary. With the input
of independent actuaries and other relevant sources, we believe
that the assumptions used are reasonable; however, changes in
these assumptions, or experience different from that assumed,
could impact our financial position, results of operations, or
cash flows. See Note 14 for additional information and a
discussion of the reduction of the domestic benefits.
73
Postemployment Benefits Costs to provide
postemployment benefits to employees are accounted for on an
accrual basis. Obligations that do not accumulate or vest are
recorded when payment of the benefits is probable and the
amounts can be reasonably estimated. Our policy is to fund these
benefits equal to our cash basis obligation. Annual net
postemployment benefits expense and the related liabilities are
accrued as service is rendered for those obligations that
accumulate or vest and can be reasonably estimated.
Equity-Based Compensation Effective
January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payments (SFAS No. 123(R)). We
measure compensation cost arising from the grant of share-based
awards to employees at fair value and recognize such costs in
income over the period during which the service is provided,
usually the vesting period. We adopted SFAS No. 123(R)
using the modified prospective transition method, and recognized
compensation expense for all awards granted after
December 31, 2005 and for the unvested portion of
outstanding awards at the date of adoption.
Revenue Recognition Sales are recognized when
products are shipped and risk of loss has transferred to the
customer. We accrue for warranty costs, sales returns and other
allowances based on experience and other relevant factors, when
sales are recognized. Adjustments are made as new information
becomes available. Shipping and handling fees billed to
customers are included in sales, while costs of shipping and
handling are included in cost of sales. We record taxes
collected from customers on a net basis (excluded from revenues).
Supplier agreements with our OEM customers generally provide for
fulfillment of the customers purchasing requirements over
vehicle program lives, which generally range from three to ten
years. Prices for product shipped under the programs are
established at inception, with subsequent pricing adjustments
mutually agreed through negotiation. Pricing adjustments are
occasionally determined retroactively based on historical
shipments and either paid or received, as appropriate, in lump
sum to effectuate the price settlement. Retroactive price
increases are deferred upon receipt and amortized over the
remaining life of the appropriate program, unless the
retroactive price increase was determined to have been received
under contract or legal provisions in which case revenue is
recognized upon receipt.
Foreign Currency Translation The financial
statements of subsidiaries and equity affiliates outside the
U.S. located in non-highly inflationary economies are
measured using the currency of the primary economic environment
in which they operate as the functional currency, which
typically is the local currency. Transaction gains and losses
resulting from translating assets and liabilities of these
entities into the functional currency are included in Other
income. When translating into U.S. dollars, income and
expense items are translated at average monthly rates of
exchange, while assets and liabilities are translated at the
rates of exchange at the balance sheet date. Translation
adjustments resulting from translating the functional currency
into U.S. dollars are deferred and included as a component
of Comprehensive loss in stockholders equity. For
affiliates whose functional currency is the U.S. dollar,
non-monetary assets are translated into U.S. dollars at
historical exchange rates and monetary assets are translated at
current exchange rates. Translation expense included in net
income for these affiliates were $2 in 2007, 2006 and 2005.
Income Taxes In the ordinary course of
business there is inherent uncertainty in quantifying our income
tax positions. We assess our income tax positions and record tax
liabilities for all years subject to examination based upon
managements evaluation of the facts and circumstances and
information available at the reporting dates. For those tax
positions where it is more-likely-than-not that a tax benefit
will be sustained, we have recorded the largest amount of tax
benefit with a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized
upon ultimate settlement with a taxing authority that has full
knowledge of all relevant information. For those income tax
positions where it is not more-likely-than-not that a tax
benefit will be sustained, no tax benefit has been recognized in
the financial statements. Where applicable, associated interest
has also been recognized.
We adopted the provision of Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, (FIN 48) on
January 1, 2007. As a result of this adoption, we
recognized a credit of approximately $3 to the 2007 beginning
retained earnings balance. We recognize interest accrued
relative to unrecognized tax benefits and penalties, if
incurred, as a component of income tax expense. Interest income
or expense relating to income tax audit adjustments and
settlements is recognized
74
as a component of income tax expense or benefit. Net interest
expense of $9, $12 and $6 was recognized in 2007, 2006 and 2005.
Deferred income taxes are provided for future tax effects
attributable to temporary differences between the recorded
values of assets and liabilities for financial reporting
purposes and the bases of such assets and liabilities as
measured by tax laws and regulations. Deferred income taxes are
also provided for net operating losses (NOLs), tax credit and
other carryforwards. Amounts are stated at enacted tax rates
expected to be in effect when taxes are actually paid or
recovered. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of
a change in tax rates is recognized in the results of continuing
operations in the period that includes the enactment date.
In accordance with SFAS No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes, in each reporting period we assess whether
it is more likely than not that we will generate sufficient
future taxable income to realize our deferred tax assets. This
assessment requires significant judgment and, in making this
evaluation, we consider all available positive and negative
evidence. Such evidence includes trends and expectations for
future U.S. and
non-U.S. pre-tax
operating income, our historical earnings and losses, the time
period over which our temporary differences and carryforwards
will reverse and the implementation of feasible and prudent tax
planning strategies. While the assumptions require significant
judgment, they are consistent with the plans and estimates we
are using to manage the underlying business.
We provide a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets
if, based upon available evidence, we determine that it is more
likely than not that some portion or all of the recorded
deferred tax assets will not be realized in future periods.
Creating a valuation allowance serves to increase income tax
expense during the reporting period. Once created, a valuation
allowance against deferred tax assets is maintained until
realization of the deferred tax asset is judged more likely than
not to occur. Reducing a valuation allowance against deferred
tax assets serves to reduce income tax expense in the reporting
period of change unless the reduction occurs due to the
expiration of the underlying loss or tax credit carryforward
period. See Note 20 for an explanation of the valuation
allowance adjustments made for our net deferred tax assets. See
Note 20 for additional information on income taxes.
Reclassifications Certain prior period
amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year
presentation.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements In December
2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), Business
Combinations (SFAS No. 141(R)). This Statement
replaces SFAS No. 141, Business
Combinations. SFAS No. 141(R) retains the
fundamental requirements of SFAS No. 141 that the
purchase method of accounting (now referred to as the
acquisition method) be used for all business combinations and
for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination.
SFAS 141(R) defines the acquirer as the entity that obtains
control of one or more businesses in the business combination
and establishes the acquisition date as the date that the
acquirer achieves control. SFAS 141(R) applies to all
transactions or other events in which the acquirer obtains
control of one or more businesses, including those achieved
without the transfer of consideration. The accounting for
business combinations requires that the business, as well as the
underlying assets and liabilities, should be recorded at fair
value, including contingencies and earn-out arrangements such as
contingent consideration. SFAS No. 141(R) applies
prospectively and is effective for fiscal years beginning on or
after December 15, 2008, with early adoption prohibited. We
are evaluating the requirements of SFAS No. 141(R) and we
have not yet determined the effect, if any, it will have on our
consolidated financial statements in 2009.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160,
Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements, amendment of ARB No. 51.
SFAS No. 160 establishes accounting and reporting
standards for the noncontrolling interest, sometimes called a
minority interest, in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation
of a subsidiary. Noncontrolling interests should be classified
as a component of equity. SFAS No. 160 establishes a
single method of accounting for changes in a parents
ownership interest in a subsidiary that do not result in
deconsolidation and requires expanded disclosures that clearly
identify and distinguish between the interests of the
parents owners and the interests of the noncontrolling
owners of a subsidiary. SFAS No. 160 requires
retroactive adoption of the presentation and disclosure
requirements for existing minority interests with all other
requirements applied prospectively. SFAS No. 160 is
effective for fiscal years beginning on or
75
after December 15, 2008, with early adoption prohibited. We
are evaluating the requirements of SFAS No. 160 and we have
not yet determined the effect, if any, it will have on our
consolidated financial statements in 2009.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159,
The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities Including an Amendment of FASB Statement
No. 115. SFAS No. 159 permits an entity to
choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other
items at fair value. Most of the provisions in
SFAS No. 159 are elective; however, the amendment to
SFAS No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments
in Debt and Equity Securities, applies to all entities
with available-for-sale and trading securities. The fair value
option established by SFAS No. 159 permits companies
to choose to measure eligible items at fair value at specified
election dates. Entities that elect the fair value option must
report unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair
value option has been elected in earnings at each subsequent
reporting date. SFAS No. 159 is effective as of the
beginning of an entitys first fiscal year that begins
after November 15, 2007. We adopted SFAS No. 159
as of January 1, 2008 and expect that adoption will have
little or no effect on our consolidated financial statements in
2008.
In September 2006, the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force
(EITF) promulgated Issue
No. 06-4,
Accounting for Deferred Compensation and Postretirement
Benefit Aspects of Endorsement Split-Dollar Life Insurance
Arrangements (EITF
No. 06-4).
In March 2007, the EITF promulgated Issue
No. 06-10,
Accounting for Collateral Assignment Split-Dollar Life
Insurance Arrangements (EITF
No. 06-10).
EITF Nos.
06-4 and
06-10
require a company that provides a benefit to an employee under
an endorsement or collateral assignment split-dollar life
insurance arrangement that extends to postretirement periods to
recognize a liability and related compensation costs. We have
adopted EITF Nos.
06-4 and
06-10
effective in the first quarter of 2008. The effect of adoption
on our consolidated financial statements was immaterial.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements. SFAS No. 157
defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair
value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements.
SFAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning
after November 15, 2007. In February 2008, the FASB decided
to defer the effective date of SFAS No. 157 for all
nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except those
that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial
statements on a recurring basis (at least annually). We expect
to use the new definitions of fair value upon adoption of
SFAS 157 on January 1, 2008. We will apply the
applicable disclosure requirements of SFAS 157 in our 2008
financial statements.
In July 2006, the FASB issued FIN 48 prescribing a
comprehensive model for how a company should recognize, measure,
present and disclose in its financial statements uncertain tax
positions that a company has taken or expects to take on a tax
return. We adopted the provisions of FIN 48 on
January 1, 2007 and increased 2007 beginning retained
earnings by approximately $3. Refer to Note 20 for more
information on the adoption of FIN 48.
|
|
Note 3.
|
Reorganization
under Chapter 11 and Debtor Financial Statements
|
The Bankruptcy Cases were jointly administered, with the Debtors
managing their businesses as debtors in possession subject to
the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court. We continued normal
business operations during the bankruptcy process and emerged
from bankruptcy on January 31, 2008.
Claims
resolution
See Note 1 for an explanation of the distributions. Except
as specifically provided in the Plan, the distributions under
the Plan were in exchange for, and in complete satisfaction,
discharge and release of, all claims and third-party ownership
interests in the Debtors arising on or before the Effective
Date, including any interest accrued on such claims from and
after the Filing Date.
76
Pre-petition
Debt
Our bankruptcy filing had triggered the immediate acceleration
of certain direct financial obligations of the Debtors,
including, among others, an aggregate of $1,621 in principal and
accrued interest on outstanding unsecured notes issued under our
1997, 2001, 2002 and 2004 indentures. Such amounts were
characterized as unsecured debt for purposes of the
reorganization proceedings and the related obligations are
classified as liabilities subject to compromise in our
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007.
In accordance with
SOP 90-7,
following the Filing Date, we recorded the Debtors
pre-petition debt instruments at the allowed claim amount, as
defined by
SOP 90-7,
and we accelerated the amortization of the related deferred debt
issuance costs, the original issuance discounts and the
valuation adjustment related to the termination of interest rate
swaps. These items resulted in a pre-tax charge of $17 during
March 2006 that is included in reorganization items in our
consolidated statement of operations. In addition, we
discontinued recording interest expense on debt classified as
liabilities subject to compromise.
Reorganization
Initiatives
It was critical to the Debtors successful emergence from
bankruptcy that they (i) maintain positive margins for
their products through substantial price increases from their
customers; (ii) continue to recover or otherwise provide
for increased material costs through renegotiation or rejection
of various customer programs; (iii) realize the
restructured wage and benefit programs from settlement
agreements with two primary unions which eliminate the excessive
cash requirements of the legacy pension and other postretirement
benefit liabilities accumulated over the years;
(iv) realize the benefits of changes in the manufacturing
footprint that eliminated excess capacity, closed and
consolidated facilities and repositioned operations in lower
cost facilities and (v) continue the permanent reduction
and realignment of their overhead costs.
Plan of
Reorganization
On December 26, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
confirming our Plan and, on January 31, 2008, the Plan was
consummated and we emerged from our reorganization with a
significantly restructured balance sheet.
The Plan and the related disclosure statement describe the
organization, operations and financing of the reorganized
Debtors. Among other things, the Plan incorporates certain
provisions of the following agreements: (i) the settlement
agreements with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (the USW) and the International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (the UAW) (Union Settlement Agreements);
(ii) the investment agreement with Centerbridge Capital
Partners, L.P. and CBP Parts Acquisition Co. LLC, a Centerbridge
affiliate, that provides for the Centerbridge affiliate to
purchase $250 in Series A Preferred of Dana, with qualified
creditors of the Debtors (i.e., creditors who meet
specific criteria) having an opportunity to purchase up to $540
in Series B Preferred on a pro rata basis (the Investment
Agreement); (iii) the support agreement by and among Dana,
the USW, the UAW, Centerbridge and certain creditors of ours
(the Plan Support Agreement); and (iv) a letter agreement
dated October 18, 2007 with us, specified members of the ad
hoc steering committee of bondholders and their affiliates (the
Backstop Investors) (the Backstop Commitment Letter) who
severally agreed to purchase up to $290 in Series B
Preferred that are not subscribed for by qualified supporting
creditors in the offering or purchased by Centerbridge in
accordance with its obligations under the Investment Agreement.
Through these arrangements, Dana issued $790 of preferred stock
through the offering to Centerbridge and the Backstop Investors.
After commitment fees of $14 and other customary costs of $5,
the net proceeds were $771.
The disclosure statement contained certain information about the
Debtors pre-petition operating and financial history, the
events leading up to the commencement of the Bankruptcy Cases
and significant events that occurred during the Bankruptcy
Cases. The disclosure statement also described the terms and
provisions of the Plan, including certain effects of
confirmation of the Plan, certain risk factors associated
77
with securities to be issued under the Plan, certain
alternatives to the Plan, and the manner in which distributions
were to be made under the Plan.
DIP Credit
Agreement
In March 2006, the Bankruptcy Court approved our $1,450 DIP
Credit Agreement, originally consisting of a $750 revolving
credit facility and a $700 term loan facility. This facility
provided funding to continue our operations without disruption
and meet our obligations to suppliers, customers and employees
during the Chapter 11 reorganization process. In January
2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved an amendment to the DIP
Credit Agreement to increase the term loan facility by $200 to
$900, subject to certain terms and conditions. Also in January
2007, we permanently reduced the aggregate commitment under the
revolving credit facility from $750 to $650. As a result of
these actions, the DIP Credit Agreement was $1,550 at
December 31, 2007. Upon emergence, amounts outstanding
under the DIP Credit Agreement were repaid from the proceeds of
the Exit Facility. See Note 16 for a discussion of the
terms and conditions of the DIP Credit Agreement and the Exit
Facility.
DCC
Notes
DCC was a non-Debtor subsidiary of Dana. At the time of our
bankruptcy filing, DCC had outstanding notes totaling
approximately $399. In December 2006, DCC and most of its
noteholders executed a Forbearance Agreement under which
(i) the forbearing noteholders agreed not to exercise their
rights or remedies with respect to the DCC Notes for a period of
24 months (or until the effective date of our plan of
reorganization). Since then, DCC has sold substantially all of
its remaining asset portfolio and has used the proceeds to pay
down the DCC Notes to a balance of $136 at December 31,
2007. In January 2008, DCC made a $90 payment to the forbearing
noteholders, consisting of $87 of principal and $3 of interest.
Contemporaneously with the execution of the Forbearance
Agreement, Dana and DCC executed a settlement agreement whereby
they agreed to the discontinuance of a tax sharing agreement
between them and to a stipulated amount of a general unsecured
claim owed by Prior Dana to DCC of $325 (the DCC Claim). On the
Effective Date and pursuant to the Plan, we paid DCC $49, the
remaining amount due to DCC noteholders, thereby settling
DCCs general unsecured claim of $325 against the Debtors.
DCC, in turn, used these funds to repay the noteholders in full.
Liabilities
Subject to Compromise
As required by
SOP 90-7,
liabilities being addressed through the bankruptcy process
(i.e., general unsecured nonpriority claims arising prior to the
Filing Date) are reported as liabilities subject to compromise
and adjusted to allowed claim amounts as determined through the
bankruptcy process, or to the estimated claim amount if
determined to be probable and estimable in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. As described in the
Claims Resolution section of this Note 3, certain of these
claims were resolved and satisfied on or before our emergence on
January 31, 2008, while others have been or will be
resolved subsequent to emergence. Although the allowed amount of
certain unresolved claims has not been determined, our liability
associated with these unresolved claims subject to compromise
has been discharged upon our emergence in exchange for the
treatment outlined in the Plan. Except for certain specific
claims, most of the general unsecured claims will be satisfied
by distributions from the previously funded reserve holding
shares of Dana common stock. As such, the future resolution of
claims subject to the reserve will not have an impact on our
post-emergence results of operations or financial condition.
Dana believes that the entire amount of reported liabilities
subject to compromise at December 31, 2007 was effectively
resolved at January 31, 2008 as disclosed in the unaudited
pro forma adjustments in Note 23.
78
The unresolved claims relate primarily to matters such as
contract disputes, litigation and environmental remediation and
related costs. The amounts reported as liabilities subject to
compromise for these claims are, in most cases, significantly
lower than the amount claimed based on the Debtors
assessment of the probable and estimable liabilities. Since
receipt of the filed claims, the Debtors have been actively
evaluating the merits of the claims and obtaining additional
information to ascertain their validity. The Reorganized Debtors
are in settlement discussions with many of the remaining
claimants and are seeking to reach agreement as to the allowed
claim amounts. Agreements to settle these claims could be for
amounts in excess of the liability currently recorded. Where
settlement outcomes subsequent to December 31, 2007 have
been finalized, or an estimable outcome has been determined to
be probable, the amounts reported as liabilities subject to
compromise at December 31, 2007 were adjusted to the
probable allowed amount of the claim resulting from the
settlement. Claims which have not been resolved as of the
present date, do not meet the probable and estimable standards
for recognition in the financial statements.
Liabilities subject to compromise in the consolidated balance
sheet include the amounts related to our discontinued operations
and consisted of the following at December 31, 2007 and
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
285
|
|
|
$
|
290
|
|
Pension and other postretirement obligations
|
|
|
1,034
|
|
|
|
1,687
|
|
Debt (including accrued interest of $39)
|
|
|
1,621
|
|
|
|
1,623
|
|
Other
|
|
|
571
|
|
|
|
575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
3,511
|
|
|
|
4,175
|
|
Payables to non-Debtor subsidiaries
|
|
|
402
|
|
|
|
402
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debtor liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
$
|
3,913
|
|
|
$
|
4,577
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upon emergence, the Plan required that certain liabilities
previously reported as liabilities subject to compromise be
retained by Dana. Approximately $213 of liabilities, including
$145 of asbestos liabilities, $27 of pension liabilities and $41
of other liabilities were reclassified from liabilities subject
to compromise to current or long-term liabilities of Dana, as
appropriate. In addition to this reduction for liabilities being
retained, liabilities subject to compromise were reduced through
claim settlements and adjustments to allowed amounts as
determined through the bankruptcy process, principally the
pension, postretirement and long-term disability actions
described below. These reductions were partially offset by the
inclusion of the contract rejection claims that gave rise to
allowed claims as discussed below and the settlement of claims
pursuant to the disputed claim resolution process discussed
above.
As discussed in Note 14, the reduction in pension and
postretirement obligations since the end of 2006 is attributed
to the elimination of postretirement healthcare benefits for
non-union employees and retirees and the freezing of service and
benefit accruals for non-union employees and benefit payments.
Based on the Bankruptcy Courts determination of allowed
long-term disability claims during the fourth quarter of 2007,
we reduced the recorded amount of long-term disability
liabilities subject to compromise by $56.
79
Debtors pre-petition bond debt of $1,621 is included in
liabilities subject to compromise. As of the Filing Date, we
discontinued recording interest expense on debt classified as
liabilities subject to compromise. On a consolidated basis,
contractual interest on all debt, including the portion
classified as liabilities subject to compromise, amounted to
$213 and $204 for the years ended December 31, 2007 and
2006.
Other includes accrued liabilities for environmental, product
liabilities, income taxes, deferred compensation, other
postemployment benefits and contract rejection claims. During
2007, there were two notable settlement agreements that resulted
in the recognition of allowed claims in liabilities subject to
compromise. In August 2007, we entered into a new long-term
supply agreement with Sypris, and Sypris received a general,
unsecured nonpriority claim of $90 for damages in connection
with cancellation of the old supply agreement. At emergence,
this claim was satisfied pursuant to the terms of the Plan. The
portion of the claim attributable to price reductions on future
products to be acquired from Sypris was estimated at $35 and was
recorded as a deferred asset in investments and other assets.
The remaining contract claim of $55 attributable to the economic
effects of other modifications to the Sypris contract (primarily
to exclude certain products) was recorded as a charge to
reorganization items in the third quarter of 2007.
Additionally, in August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved a
settlement agreement relating to our lease of an engineering and
office facility from the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority (the
Port Authority). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, in
exchange for modifying the terms of the existing lease, the Port
Authority received a secured claim of $19 and a general
unsecured nonpriority claim of $15 under the Plan. The secured
claim of $19 was satisfied in January 2008 by execution of an
amended lease substantially in the form agreed to by the parties
and included in the Bankruptcy Courts settlement order.
This settlement was recognized as a lease modification. The
unsecured claim of $15 has been recorded as prepaid rent in
investments and other assets, with liabilities subject to
compromise increasing by a like amount at December 31,
2007. Since the prices under the new supply agreement with
Sypris and the rental payments under the amended lease with the
Port Authority have been determined to be at prevailing market
rates, the deferred assets recognized in connection with the
above settlement actions were eliminated and charged to
reorganization items, net as part of the application of fresh
start accounting on February 1, 2008.
As described in the Environmental Liabilities section of
Note 18, based on the probable outcome of certain
unresolved environmental claim negotiations, we recognized
reorganization expense in 2007 and increased liabilities subject
to compromise by $119.
Liabilities subject to compromise at December 31, 2007
includes $117 to record probable settlements of disputed claims
based on discussions subsequent to December 31, 2007.
Payables to non-Debtor subsidiaries include the DCC Claim of
$325.
80
Reorganization
Items
Professional advisory fees and other costs directly associated
with our reorganization are reported separately as
reorganization items pursuant to
SOP 90-7.
Professional fees include underwriting fees paid in connection
with the DIP Credit Agreement and other financings undertaken as
part of the reorganization process. Reorganization items also
include provisions and adjustments to reflect the carrying value
of certain pre-petition liabilities at their estimated allowable
claim amounts, as well as the costs incurred by the non-Debtor
companies as a result of the Debtors bankruptcy
proceedings.
The reorganization items in the consolidated statement of
operations for years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
consisted of the following items:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Debtor reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
$
|
121
|
|
|
$
|
114
|
|
Debt valuation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Contract rejections and claim settlements
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Union agreement and other costs
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debtor reorganization items
|
|
|
265
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
Non-Debtor reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Claim settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total reorganization items
|
|
$
|
275
|
|
|
$
|
143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The debt valuation adjustments in 2006 resulted from the
elimination of costs associated with the termination of interest
rate swaps as a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and
unamortized debt issuance costs associated with pre-petition
debt. The contract rejections and claim settlements net expense
includes the charge associated with the Sypris and other claim
settlements and recognition of allowable claims in connection
with other contract rejections. These charges were partially
offset primarily by the adjustment of long-term disability
obligations to allowed amounts.
As a consequence of the Debtors entry into the Union
Settlement Agreements in the third quarter of 2007, lump sum
payments made to union employees of approximately $22 in
connection with the ratification of the agreements were
recognized as reorganization cost.
Non-Debtor professional fees related principally to
organizational restructuring to facilitate future repatriations,
financings and other actions. The non-Debtor loss on settlement
of claims in 2006 was recorded by DCC in connection with the
settlement of intercompany amounts with Dana pursuant to the
claim settlement action discussed in the DCC Notes section of
this Note. A corresponding gain was recorded in the Debtor
reorganization items.
81
Debtor in
Possession Financial Information
In accordance with
SOP 90-7,
aggregate financial information of the Debtors is presented
below as of and for the years ended December 31, 2007 and
2006. Intercompany balances between Debtors and non-Debtors are
not eliminated. The investment in non-Debtor subsidiaries is
accounted for on an equity basis and, accordingly, the net loss
reported in the
debtor-in-possession
statement of operations is equal to the consolidated net loss.
DANA
CORPORATION
DEBTOR IN POSSESSION
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
(Non-debtor entities, principally
non-U.S.
subsidiaries, reported as equity earnings)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
|
|
$
|
3,975
|
|
|
$
|
4,180
|
|
Non-Debtor subsidiaries
|
|
|
254
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
4,229
|
|
|
|
4,430
|
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
4,243
|
|
|
|
4,531
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
226
|
|
|
|
270
|
|
Realignment and impairment
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before interest, reorganization
items and income taxes
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
(253
|
)
|
Interest expense (contractual interest of $180 and $162 for the
years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006)
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
Reorganization items, net
|
|
|
265
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
(452
|
)
|
|
|
(443
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (expense)*
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
Minority interest income
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of affiliates
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(392
|
)
|
|
|
(494
|
)
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(186
|
)
|
|
|
(72
|
)
|
Equity in earnings (loss) of non-Debtor subsidiaries
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
(173
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Although maintaining valuation
allowances on net deferred tax assets in the U.S., the Debtors
recorded net income tax benefits of $55 in 2007. As discussed in
Note 20, the level of other comprehensive income generated
during 2007, in large part due to employee benefit reduction
actions, resulted in the recognition of $120 of tax benefits on
the U.S. loss from continuing operations. Partially offsetting
the $120 of benefits were tax expenses of $37 for the expected
repatriation of undistributed earnings of operations outside the
U.S. and expenses to record adjustments for expected settlement
of tax matters.
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense is reported in
2006 in the Debtor in Possession Statement of Operations as a
result of DCC (a non-Debtor) being reported in this statement on
an equity basis. Within DCCs results, which are included
in Equity in earnings (loss) of non-Debtor subsidiaries in this
statement, are net tax benefits of $68 which were recognized in
accordance with DCCs Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) with
Dana. Because DCC is included in our consolidated U.S. federal
tax return and we were unable to recognize U.S. tax benefits due
to the valuation allowance against our U.S. deferred tax assets,
a tax provision is required in the Dana parent company financial
statements to offset the tax benefits recorded by DCC. The TSA
was cancelled in December 2006 in connection with the Settlement
Agreement between DCC and Dana. DCCs tax liabilities
totaling $86 at the time of the TSA cancellation were treated by
us as a capital contribution.
|
82
DANA
CORPORATION
DEBTOR IN POSSESSION
BALANCE SHEET
(Non-debtor entities, principally
non-U.S.
subsidiaries, reported as equity investments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
510
|
|
|
$
|
216
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $20 in 2007 and
$23 in 2006
|
|
|
414
|
|
|
|
460
|
|
Other
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
273
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
1,328
|
|
|
|
1,240
|
|
Investments and other assets
|
|
|
432
|
|
|
|
875
|
|
Investments in equity affiliates
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
Investments in non-Debtor subsidiaries
|
|
|
2,220
|
|
|
|
2,292
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
821
|
|
|
|
689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
4,932
|
|
|
$
|
5,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders deficit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debtor-in-possession
financing
|
|
$
|
900
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
331
|
|
|
|
294
|
|
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
292
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
1,523
|
|
|
|
685
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
3,913
|
|
|
|
4,577
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
Debtor-in-possession
financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
700
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
5,714
|
|
|
|
6,040
|
|
Stockholders deficit
|
|
|
(782
|
)
|
|
|
(834
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders deficit
|
|
$
|
4,932
|
|
|
$
|
5,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83
DANA
CORPORATION
DEBTOR IN POSSESSION
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
(Non-debtor entities, principally
non-U.S.
subsidiaries, reported as equity investments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739
|
)
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
Loss on sale of assets
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
|
|
56
|
|
Impairment and divestiture-related charges
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Reorganization items, net of payments
|
|
|
154
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Equity in losses of non-Debtor subsidiaries, net of dividends
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
173
|
|
Payment to VEBAs for postretirement benefits
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
OPEB payments in excess of expense
|
|
|
(76
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany settlements
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in working capital
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
Other
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows provided by (used for) operating activities
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
(198
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
|
|
(150
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of businesses
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows provided by (used for) investing activities
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(196
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from
debtor-in-possession
facility
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
700
|
|
Payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
Net change in short-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(355
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows provided by financing activities
|
|
|
198
|
|
|
|
324
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
294
|
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents beginning of period
|
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents end of period
|
|
$
|
510
|
|
|
$
|
216
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 4.
|
Impairments,
Asset Disposals, Divestitures and Acquisitions
|
Impairments
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, Impairment of
Long-lived Assets (SFAS No. 144), we review
long-lived assets, including goodwill, for impairment whenever
events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount
of such assets may not be recoverable. Recoverability of these
assets is determined by comparing the forecasted undiscounted
net cash flows of the operation in which the assets are utilized
to their carrying amount. If those cash flows are determined to
be less than the carrying amount of the assets, the long-lived
assets of the operation (excluding goodwill) are written down to
fair value if the fair value is lower than the carrying amount.
Fair value is determined based on discounted cash flows or other
methods providing best estimates of value.
84
Asset impairments often result from significant actions like the
discontinuance of customer programs, facility closures or other
events which result in the assets being held for sale. When this
occurs, the specific assets are adjusted to their fair value
less cost to sell or dispose. A number of recent realignment
actions have been completed and a few remain in process.
Long-lived assets that continue to be used internally are
evaluated for impairment, in the aggregate, by business segment
given the global nature of the business segment operation, the
interdependency of operations within the segment and the ability
to reallocate assets within the segment.
With our adoption of fresh start accounting upon emergence,
assets will be revalued based on our enterprise reorganization
value and the appraised values of long-lived assets will
increase. This increased valuation for fresh start accounting
purposes could subject us to greater risks of future impairment.
Our preliminary valuation is discussed in Note 23.
See Note 9 for an explanation of our goodwill impairment
assessment.
DCC Asset
Disposals and Impairments
Since 2001, DCC has sold its assets in individually structured
transactions and achieved further reductions through normal
portfolio runoff. In 2006, DCC adopted a plan to proceed with an
accelerated sale of substantially all of its remaining assets.
As a result of this action, we recognized an asset impairment
charge of $176 in 2006.
The carrying value of the remaining DCC portfolio assets was $7
at December 31, 2007 compared to $178 at December 31,
2006. Where applicable, these assets were adjusted quarterly to
their estimated fair value less cost to sell. During 2007, DCC
continued to dispose of assets under the terms of the
Forbearance Agreement discussed in Note 3, generating cash
proceeds of $189 in 2007.
The remaining DCC assets include a partnership investment with a
current carrying value of $6. Based on a letter of intent to
sell this investment, we recognized a loss of $13 in the fourth
quarter of 2007 to adjust the carrying value to the expected net
sale proceeds.
Divestitures
In October 2005, our Board of Directors approved the divestiture
of three businesses (engine hard parts, fluid products and pump
products). These businesses employed approximately
9,100 people in 44 operations worldwide with annual
revenues exceeding $1,200 in 2006. These businesses are
presented in our financial statements as discontinued operations
through the dates of divestiture.
We have substantially completed these approved divestitures and
have also sold other investments and businesses since 2005. All
of these activities are summarized below.
In January 2007, we sold our trailer axle business manufacturing
assets for $28 in cash and recorded an after-tax gain of $14.
In March 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
We sold our engine hard parts business to MAHLE GmbH (MAHLE) and
received cash proceeds of $98, of which $10 remains escrowed
pending satisfaction of certain indemnification obligations. We
recorded an after-tax loss of $42 in the first quarter of 2007
in connection with this sale and an after-tax loss of $3 in the
second quarter related to a South American operation.
|
|
|
|
We sold our 30% equity interest in GETRAG Getriebe-und
Zahnradfabrik Hermann Hagenmeyer GmbH & Cie KG
(GETRAG) to our joint venture partner, an affiliate of GETRAG,
for $207 in cash. We had recorded an impairment charge of $58 in
the fourth quarter of 2006 to adjust this equity investment to
fair value and we recorded an additional charge of $2 after tax
in the first quarter of 2007 based on the value of the
investment at the time of closing.
|
85
In July and August 2007, we completed the sale of our fluid
products hose and tubing business to Orhan Holding A.S. and
certain of its affiliates. Aggregate cash proceeds of $84 were
received from these transactions and an aggregate after-tax gain
of $32 was recorded in the third quarter in connection with the
sale of this business. A final purchase price adjustment is
pending on this sale.
In August 2007, we and certain of our affiliates executed an
axle agreement and related transaction documents providing for a
series of transactions relating to our rights and obligations
under two joint ventures with GETRAG and certain of its
affiliates. These agreements provide for relief from non-compete
provisions in various agreements restricting our ability to
participate in certain markets for axle products other than
through participation in the joint ventures; the grant of a call
option to GETRAG to acquire our ownership interests in the two
joint ventures for a purchase price of $75; our payment to
GETRAG of $11 under certain conditions; the withdrawal, with
prejudice, of bankruptcy claims aggregating approximately $66
filed by GETRAG and one of the joint venture entities relating
to our alleged breach of certain non-compete provisions; the
amendment, assumption, rejection
and/or
termination of certain other agreements between the parties; and
the grant of certain mutual releases by us and various other
parties. In connection with these agreements, we had recorded
$11 as liabilities subject to compromise and as a charge to
other income, net in the second quarter based on our
determination that the liability was probable. In October 2007,
these agreements were approved by the Bankruptcy Court and
became effective. The $11 liability was reclassified to other
current liabilities at December 31, 2007.
In September 2007, we completed the sale of our coupled fluid
products business to Coupled Products Acquisition LLC by having
the buyer assume certain liabilities ($18) of the business at
closing. An after-tax loss of $23 was recorded in the third
quarter in connection with the sale of this business. A final
purchase price adjustment is pending on this sale.
We completed the sale of a portion of the pump products business
in October 2007, generating proceeds of $7 and a nominal
after-tax gain, which was recorded in the fourth quarter.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, we substantially completed
our divestment of DCC assets. Since we announced the plan of
divestment in 2001, when DCCs portfolio assets exceeded
$2,200, we have completed sales leaving us with portfolio assets
of $7 at December 31, 2007.
In January 2008, we completed the sale of the remaining assets
of the pump products business to Melling Tool Company,
generating proceeds of $5 and an after-tax loss of $1 that will
be recorded in the first quarter of 2008.
During 2005, an aggregate after-tax charge of approximately $18
was recorded for the following transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
We dissolved our joint venture with Daido Metal America, which
manufactured engine bearings and related materials in Atlantic,
Iowa and Bellefontaine, Ohio. We previously had a 70% interest
in the joint venture, which was consolidated for financial
reporting purposes. During the third quarter of 2005, we
acquired the remaining minority interests, sold the
Bellefontaine operations, and assumed full ownership of the
Atlantic facility.
|
|
|
|
We sold our domestic fuel rail business, consisting of a
production facility in Angola, Indiana.
|
|
|
|
We sold our South African electronic engine parts distribution
business.
|
|
|
|
We sold our Lipe business, a manufacturer and re-manufacturer of
heavy-duty clutches, based in Haslingden, Lancashire, United
Kingdom.
|
Acquisitions
In June 2007, our subsidiary Dana Mauritius Limited (Dana
Mauritius) purchased 4% of the registered capital of Dongfeng
Dana Axle Co., Ltd. (a commercial vehicle axle manufacturer in
China formerly known as Dongfeng Axle Co., Ltd.) from Dongfeng
Motor Co., Ltd. (Dongfeng Motor) and certain of its affiliates
for $5.
86
Dana Mauritius has agreed, subject to certain conditions, to
purchase an additional 46% equity interest in Dongfeng Dana Axle
Co., Ltd. within the next three years for approximately $55.
In July 2006, we completed the dissolution of Spicer S.A. de
C.V. (Spicer S.A.), our joint venture in Mexico with Desc
Automotriz, S.A. de C.V. (Desc). The transaction included the
sale of our 49% interest in Spicer S.A. to Desc and our
acquisition of the Spicer S.A. subsidiaries in Mexico that
manufacture and assemble axles, driveshafts, gears, forgings and
castings (in which we previously held an indirect 49% interest).
Desc, in turn, acquired full ownership of the subsidiaries that
hold the transmission and aftermarket gasket operations in which
it previously held a 51% interest. Prior to the sale, we loaned
$20 to two subsidiaries of Spicer S.A. that we later acquired.
For the sale of our 49% interest in Spicer S.A., we received a
$166 note receivable and $15 of cash from Desc. The aggregate
proceeds of $181 exceeded our investment in Spicer S.A. by $19,
including $9 related to the transmission and gasket operations.
The $9 was recognized as a gain on sale of assets in our results
of operations in the quarter ended September 30, 2006,
along with $4 of related tax expense. The remainder of the
excess of the proceeds over our investment ($10) relates to the
assets we ultimately retained and was recorded as a reduction of
the basis of those assets.
The aggregate purchase price for the subsidiaries we acquired in
this transaction was $166, which we satisfied through the return
of the $166 note receivable from Desc. The $166 assigned to the
net assets acquired has been reduced by the remaining $10 excess
of the proceeds over our investment and by $3 for the cash
acquired, resulting in net assets acquired of $153.
The operating results of the five manufacturing subsidiaries
that we acquired have been included in our results of operations
since July 1, 2006. These units had total 2005 sales of
$296, a substantial portion of which was to us. The incremental
2006 sales impact of the acquired operations is not significant
given that a substantial portion of the acquired Spicer S.A.
operations revenues were intercompany sales to us. In
addition, the earnings impact in 2005 and 2006 is not material
since Spicer S.A. has operated near break-even in recent years,
and 49% of the income (loss) was previously included in our
Equity in earnings of affiliates.
|
|
Note 5.
|
Discontinued
Operations
|
In October 2005, our Board approved a plan to sell the engine
hard parts, fluid products and pump products businesses. Since
that date, these businesses have been treated as held for
sale and are aggregated and presented as discontinued
operations through their respective dates of divestiture. In
2005, the long-lived assets of the businesses were assessed for
potential impairment and provisions were recorded to reduce the
net assets of the discontinued operations to their fair value
less cost to sell. Since 2005, we have periodically adjusted the
underlying net assets of the discontinued operations to their
net fair value less cost to sell based on the profit outlook for
these businesses, discussions with potential buyers and other
factors impacting expected sale proceeds. These valuation
adjustments were recorded in the discontinued operations results
as impairment charges.
In the third quarter of 2005, a non-cash charge of $207 was
recorded to reduce property, plant and equipment of these
businesses to their estimated fair value. The $207 was comprised
of $165 related to our engine hard parts business and $42
related to the fluid routing business. Additionally, we recorded
a charge of $83 to reduce goodwill related to the fluid routing
business to its estimated fair value. There was no goodwill
associated with the engine hard parts and pump products
businesses. A tax benefit of $15, related to the charges
associated with certain
non-U.S. operations,
was recorded resulting in an after-tax charge of $275 being
incurred in the third quarter of 2005.
Additional charges of $121 to reduce the businesses to fair
value less cost to sell on a held for sale basis were recorded
in the fourth quarter of 2005, including cumulative translation
adjustment recognition of $67. The $121 was comprised of $67
related to the engine hard parts business, $53 to the pump
business and $1 to the fluid routing business. A tax expense of
$2 was recognized, resulting in a fourth quarter 2005 after-tax
impairment of $123.
87
The combined pre-tax charge in 2005 of $411 was comprised of
$232 for the engine hard parts business, $126 for the fluid
products business and $53 for the pump business. The $411
pre-tax and $398 after-tax charge are included in loss from
discontinued operations before income taxes and loss from
discontinued operations in the consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2005.
An additional provision of $137 was recorded in 2006 to adjust
the net assets of the discontinued operations to their fair
value less cost to sell. Included in the $137 were $75 related
to engine hard parts, $44 to fluid routing and $18 to pump
products. Tax benefits of these adjustments related primarily to
the
non-U.S. entities
and totaled $21 in 2006.
The sales of these businesses were substantially completed
during 2007 as discussed in Note 4, resulting in an
aggregate after-tax loss upon sale of $36 during 2007.
The results of our discontinued operations for 2007, 2006 and
2005 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
495
|
|
|
$
|
1,220
|
|
|
$
|
1,221
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
1,172
|
|
|
|
1,173
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
Impairment charges
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
|
411
|
|
Realignment and other income (expense), net
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(92
|
)
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
|
|
(441
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (expense)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
(118
|
)
|
|
$
|
(121
|
)
|
|
$
|
(434
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realignment in 2007 includes $17 for settlement of pension
obligations in the United Kingdom (U.K.) (see
Note 14) relating to discontinued operations, $16 of
pre-tax losses upon completion of the sales and $20 for a
bankruptcy claim settlement with the purchaser of a previously
sold discontinued business.
The effective income tax rate of discontinued operations differs
from the U.S. federal income tax rate primarily due to our
inability to recognize tax benefits on U.S. and
U.K. losses following the recording of a valuation
allowance against U.S. and U.K. deferred tax assets in
2005. The magnitude of this effect varies greatly and depends on
the mix of taxable income in
non-U.S. locations
and U.S. losses recorded in 2007, 2006 and 2005.
At December 31, 2007, the net assets of the remaining pump
products business have been reduced to the extent permitted by
GAAP. The sale of this operation in January 2008 generated
proceeds of $5 and an after-tax loss of $1.
88
The sales and net loss of our discontinued operations consisted
of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engine
|
|
$
|
131
|
|
|
$
|
657
|
|
|
$
|
671
|
|
Fluid
|
|
|
276
|
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
|
454
|
|
Pump
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Discontinued Operations
|
|
$
|
495
|
|
|
$
|
1,220
|
|
|
$
|
1,221
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engine
|
|
$
|
(68
|
)
|
|
$
|
(63
|
)
|
|
$
|
(234
|
)
|
Fluid
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
(150
|
)
|
Pump
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
|
|
(118
|
)
|
|
|
(434
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Discontinued Operations
|
|
$
|
(118
|
)
|
|
$
|
(121
|
)
|
|
$
|
(434
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The assets and liabilities of discontinued operations reported
in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2007 and
2006 consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
223
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
Cash and other assets
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
Investments in leases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
95
|
|
Accrued payroll and employee benefits
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
195
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the consolidated statement of cash flows, the cash flows of
discontinued operations are reported in the respective
categories of cash flows, along with those of our continuing
operations. Liabilities subject to compromise of discontinued
operations and certain other accounts are included in continuing
operations and are not included in the liabilities of
discontinued operations. The assets and liabilities of
discontinued operations have declined due to the sale of
substantially all of the businesses held for sale.
|
|
Note 6.
|
Realignment of
Operations
|
Realignment of our manufacturing operations was an essential
component of our bankruptcy reorganization plans. We focused on
eliminating excess capacity, closing and consolidating
facilities and repositioning operations in lower cost facilities
or those with excess capacity and on reducing and realigning
overhead costs.
89
During 2007, we completed the closure of fifteen facilities.
Additional facilities will close in 2008 and 2009, and other
locations are in various stages of implementing work force
reductions. In Axle, facilities in Syracuse, Indiana; Buena
Vista, Virginia and Cape Girardeau, Missouri were closed. Four
Structures facilities in Guelph, Ontario; Thorold, Ontario;
Valencia, Venezuela and Garland, Texas were closed. Three
Driveshaft facilities in Renton, Washington; Charlotte, North
Carolina and Bristol, Virginia were also closed in 2007 and a
fourth facility in Thorold, Ontario will be closed by the end of
2008. Two Thermal facilities in Danville, Indiana and Sheffield,
Pennsylvania were closed. One Commercial Vehicle facility in
Barrie, Ontario is scheduled to be closed in 2009. Three smaller
facilities were closed including the Sealing facility in Fulton,
Kentucky; the Off-Highway facility in Statesville, North
Carolina and the technical center in Ottawa Lake, Michigan.
Included in 2007 realignment charges is $69 relating primarily
to the ongoing facility closure activities associated with
previously announced manufacturing footprint actions and other
restructuring or downsizing actions. The remaining $136 of
realignment charges related to U.K. pension restructuring.
In 2007, the pension liabilities of our U.K. operations were
restructured (see Note 14). As a result of the underlying
agreement, a pension curtailment charge of $8 was recorded as a
realignment charge in the first quarter of 2007. In April 2007,
the U.K. subsidiaries settled their pension plan obligations to
the plan participants through a cash payment of $93 and the
transfer of a 33% equity interest in our remaining U.K. axle and
driveshaft operating businesses to the plans. Concurrent with
the cash payment and equity transfer, a pension settlement
charge of $145 was recorded as realignment expense of $128 with
$17 expensed in discontinued operations.
In December 2006, the closure of four North American production
facilities was announced, two in Axle and two in Structures.
Realignment charges of $27 related to severance costs were
recorded in 2006 for these closures. At December 31, 2006,
we had committed to additional facility closures and work force
reduction actions that were announced in 2007. Since most of
these actions involved people with existing contractual
severance arrangements, a realignment charge of $54 was recorded
for the separation cost for these closures.
In December 2005, plans were announced to consolidate our North
American Thermal operations to reduce operating and overhead
costs and strengthen our competitiveness. Three facilities,
located in Danville, Indiana; Sheffield, Pennsylvania and
Burlington, Ontario, employing 200 people, were closed. We
also announced workforce reductions of approximately
500 people at our Structures plant in Thorold, Ontario and
approximately 300 people at three Axle facilities in
Australia, resulting from the expiration of supply agreements
for truck frames and rear axle modules. Expenses of $31 were
recorded related to these actions.
During the second quarter of 2005, the status of our plan to
reduce the workforce within our Off-Highway segment was
reviewed. This reduction had been announced in the fourth
quarter of 2004 and resulted in realignment charges of $34 in
connection with the planned closure of the Statesville, North
Carolina facility and workforce reductions in Brugge, Belgium.
These actions were to eliminate approximately 300 jobs. A
conclusion was reached that completion of the plan was no longer
probable within the required timeframe due to subsequent changes
in the related markets. Accordingly, we reversed the accrual for
employee termination benefits.
90
The following table shows the realignment charges and related
payments, exclusive of the U.K. pension charges discussed above,
recorded in our continuing operations during 2007, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee
|
|
|
Long-Lived
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination
|
|
|
Asset
|
|
|
Exit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Impairment
|
|
|
Costs
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
44
|
|
Activity during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charges to expense
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
Adjustments of accruals
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
Non-cash write-off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
Cash payments
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
Activity during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charges to expense
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
Adjustments of accruals
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Transfer of balances
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
Non-cash write-off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Cash payments
|
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
Activity during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charges to expense
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
Adjustments of accruals
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(32
|
)
|
Non-cash write-off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
Cash payments
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(42
|
)
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
53
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The transfer of balances in 2006 moves a portion of the accrual
from our realignment accruals to the pension liability accruals.
Employee terminations relating to the plans within our
continuing operations were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Restructuring Initiated
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Total estimated future terminations
|
|
|
1,013
|
|
|
|
2,630
|
|
|
|
1,276
|
|
|
|
4,919
|
|
Less actual reduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(460
|
)
|
|
|
(382
|
)
|
|
|
(842
|
)
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,324
|
)
|
|
|
(842
|
)
|
|
|
(2,166
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
1,013
|
|
|
|
846
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
1,886
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the plant closures discussed above, downsizing
actions at several locations also resulted in terminations which
are included above. At December 31, 2007, $68 of
realignment accruals remained in accrued liabilities, including
$53 for the reduction of approximately 1,900 employees to
be completed over the next two years and $15 for lease
terminations and other exit costs. The estimated cash
expenditures related to these liabilities are projected to
approximate $48 in 2008 and $20 thereafter. In addition to the
$68 accrued at December 31, 2007, we estimate that another
$96 will be expensed to complete pending initiatives.
Realignment initiatives generally occur over multiple reporting
periods. The following table provides project-to-date and
estimated future expenses for completion of the pending
realignment initiatives for ASG
91
and the Heavy Vehicle Technologies and Systems Group (HVTSG)
business units and the underlying segments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expense Recognized
|
|
|
Future
|
|
|
|
Prior to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Cost to
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
to Date
|
|
|
Complete
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
$
|
42
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
53
|
|
|
$
|
8
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
Other ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
160
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial Vehicles
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HVTSG
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total continuing operations
|
|
$
|
178
|
|
|
$
|
69
|
|
|
$
|
247
|
|
|
$
|
96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The remaining cost to complete includes estimated
non-contractual separation payments, lease cancellations,
equipment transfers and other costs which are required to be
recognized as closures are finalized or as incurred during the
closure.
The components of inventory are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
331
|
|
|
$
|
274
|
|
Work in process and finished goods
|
|
|
481
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
812
|
|
|
$
|
725
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories in the U.S. amounting to $275 and $240 at
December 31, 2007 and 2006 were valued using the LIFO
method. If all inventories were valued at replacement cost,
reported values would be increased by $123 and $116 at
December 31, 2007 and 2006. During 2007, we experienced
reductions in certain inventory quantities which caused a
liquidation of LIFO inventory values and reduced our net loss
from continuing operations by $10.
|
|
Note 8.
|
Components of
Certain Balance Sheet Amounts
|
The following items comprise the amounts indicated in the
respective balance sheet captions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expense
|
|
$
|
72
|
|
|
$
|
51
|
|
Deferred tax benefits
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Investments and other assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax benefits
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
293
|
|
Noncurrent pension asset
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
Amounts recoverable from insurers
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
Investment in leveraged leases
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
Other
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
349
|
|
|
$
|
663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land and improvements to land
|
|
$
|
121
|
|
|
$
|
117
|
|
Buildings and building fixtures
|
|
|
688
|
|
|
|
641
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
3,338
|
|
|
|
3,515
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
4,147
|
|
|
|
4,273
|
|
Less: Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
2,384
|
|
|
|
2,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
|
|
$
|
1,763
|
|
|
$
|
1,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred employee benefits and other noncurrent
liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension obligations
|
|
$
|
205
|
|
|
$
|
291
|
|
Postretirement other than pension
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
Asbestos liabilities
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workers compensation liability
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
630
|
|
|
$
|
504
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of the net investment in leveraged leases are as
follows:
|
Rental receivables
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
739
|
|
Residual values
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
Nonrecourse debt service
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(535
|
)
|
Unearned income
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(145
|
)
|
Lease impairment reserve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(76
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
Less: deferred taxes arising from leverage leases
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investments
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets, goodwill is required to be tested
for impairment at least annually, at the reporting unit level.
Goodwill must be tested for impairment between annual tests if
an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely
than not reduce the fair value of the reporting unit below its
related carrying value. Fair value is approximated using a
combination of discounted future cash flows and market
multiples. The annual impairment tests are performed as of
December 31.
During the third quarter of 2005, management determined that the
divestiture of ASGs engine hard parts, fluid products and
pump products businesses was likely. Although these operations
were considered held for use at September 30,
2005, the likelihood of divesting these businesses triggered a
review of
93
goodwill and other long-lived assets relating to these
operations. Goodwill of $86 related to these businesses was
written off as impaired.
In connection with the 2005 annual assessment, management
determined that $53 of goodwill was impaired, including $28
related to Structures, $8 related to Commercial Vehicle, $7
related to a DCC investment and $10 related to a joint venture
based in the U.K. These amounts are reported as impairment of
goodwill in continuing operations in the consolidated statement
of operations.
During the third quarter of 2006, lower than expected sales
resulting from production cutbacks by major customers within
certain of our businesses and a weaker near-term outlook for
sales in these businesses triggered goodwill and long-lived
asset impairment assessments. Based on estimates of expected
future cash flows relating to these businesses, it was
determined that we could not support the carrying value of the
goodwill in the Axle segment. Accordingly, a $46 charge was
recorded in the third quarter to write off this goodwill.
Our Thermal business has experienced significant margin erosion
in recent years resulting from the higher costs of commodities,
especially aluminum. We evaluated Thermal goodwill for
impairment at December 31, 2007 using its internal plan
developed in connection with our reorganization activities and
the appraisal information obtained in connection with the
anticipated application of fresh start accounting upon emergence
from bankruptcy. We also considered comparable market
transactions and the appeal of this business to other strategic
buyers in assessing the fair value of the business. As a result
of this annual assessment, we determined that $89 of goodwill
was impaired. This amount is reported as impairment of goodwill
in continuing operations in the consolidated statement of
operations.
Assessments at December 31, 2007 supported the remaining
amount of goodwill carried by our businesses. Market conditions
or operational execution impacting any of the key assumptions
underlying our estimated cash flows could result in potential
future goodwill impairment.
Changes in goodwill during the years ended December 31,
2007 and 2006 by segment were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Ending
|
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Impairments
|
|
|
and Other
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
$
|
158
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
173
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
301
|
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
230
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
416
|
|
|
$
|
(89
|
)
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
349
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
$
|
43
|
|
|
$
|
(46
|
)
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
328
|
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
301
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
439
|
|
|
$
|
(46
|
)
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
416
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
Note 10.
|
Investments in
Affiliates
|
Equity
Affiliates
At December 31, 2007, we had a number of investments in
entities that engage in the manufacture of vehicular parts,
primarily axles, driveshafts, wheel-end braking systems, and all
wheel drive systems, supplied to OEMs. In addition, DCC had one
remaining investment in a general and limited partnership that
is a special purpose entity engaged in financing transactions
for the benefit of third parties.
Our retained earnings includes undistributed income of our
non-consolidated manufacturing and leasing affiliates accounted
for under the equity method of $50 and $209 at December 31,
2007 and 2006.
Dividends received from equity affiliates were $1 or less in
each of the last three years.
Manufacturing
Affiliates
The principal component of our investments in equity affiliates
engaged in manufacturing activities at December 31, 2007
(those with an investment balance exceeding $5) were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bendix Spicer Foundation Brake LLC
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
GETRAG Corporation
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
GETRAG Dana Holding GmbH
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Chassis Systems Limited
|
|
|
50
|
%.
|
As discussed in Note 4, we sold our 30% interest in GETRAG
in 2007. At December 31, 2007, the investments above
totaled $139, out of an aggregate investment of $155 in all
affiliates that engage in manufacturing activities. Summarized
combined financial information for our equity affiliates engaged
in manufacturing activities and held at year-end follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Statement of Income Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,129
|
|
|
$
|
1,752
|
|
|
$
|
2,205
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
272
|
|
|
|
206
|
|
|
|
259
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danas share of net income
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Position Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$
|
297
|
|
|
$
|
694
|
|
|
$
|
717
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
|
333
|
|
|
|
1,060
|
|
|
|
1,181
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
277
|
|
|
|
510
|
|
|
|
520
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
606
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net worth
|
|
|
265
|
|
|
|
638
|
|
|
|
878
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danas share of net worth
|
|
$
|
155
|
|
|
$
|
438
|
|
|
$
|
611
|
|
95
Leasing and
Financing Affiliates
DCC had investments in equity affiliates engaged in leasing and
financing activities at December 31, 2007 totaling $6. For
2007, DCCs share of equity earnings of partnerships was
$10. Summarized combined financial information of all of
DCCs equity affiliates engaged in lease financing
activities follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Statement of Operations Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease finance and other revenue
|
|
$
|
58
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
DCCs share of net income
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Financial Position Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease financing and other assets
|
|
$
|
85
|
|
|
$
|
182
|
|
|
$
|
383
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net worth
|
|
$
|
67
|
|
|
$
|
144
|
|
|
$
|
269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCCs share of net worth
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
$
|
207
|
|
Variable Interest
Entities (VIEs)
Included in the equity affiliates engaged in lease financing
activities were certain affiliates that qualify as VIEs, where
DCC is not the primary beneficiary. DCC had an investment in a
leveraged lease that had qualified as a VIE which was not
required to be consolidated and was included with other
investments in equity affiliates. The following summarizes
information relating to this investment, which was sold in 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
$
|
472
|
|
|
$
|
499
|
|
Residual values
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
Nonrecourse debt service
|
|
|
(265
|
)
|
|
|
(292
|
)
|
Unearned income
|
|
|
(133
|
)
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Less Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
(68
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment in leveraged leases
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCCs ownership interest in leases
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
Dongfeng Joint
Venture
In March 2007, Dana Mauritius, our wholly owned non-Debtor
subsidiary, entered into an amended Sale and Purchase Agreement
with Dongfeng Motor and certain of its affiliates. The agreement
provides for Dana Mauritius to purchase a 50% equity interest in
Dongfeng Axle in two stages. Dana Mauritius purchased a 4%
equity interest in Dongfeng Axle during 2007 for approximately
$5 in 2007 and will purchase the remaining 46% equity interest
for approximately $55 (subject to certain adjustments) after
April 1, 2008 and within three years. The ancillary
agreements were also amended to reflect the revised share
purchase arrangement.
Preferred
Stock
Prior Dana had 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock
authorized, without par value, including 1,000,000 shares
reserved for issuance under a Rights Agreement. No shares of
Prior Dana preferred stock were issued. These shares were
cancelled on the Effective Date.
96
Subsequent
event New Preferred Stock
Issuance Pursuant to the Plan, we issued
2,500,000 shares of our Series A Preferred and
5,400,000 shares of our Series B Preferred. The
Series A Preferred was sold to Centerbridge for $250, less
a commitment fee of $3 and expense reimbursement of $5,
resulting in net proceeds of $242. The Series B Preferred
was sold to certain qualified investors (as described in the
Plan) for $540, less a commitment fee of $11, resulting in net
proceeds of $529.
Conversion Rights In accordance with the
terms of the preferred stock, all of the shares of preferred
stock are, at the holders option, convertible into a
number of fully paid and non-assessable shares of new common
stock. The price at which each share of preferred stock will be
convertible into common stock is 83% of its distributable market
equity value per share, provided the ownership percentage held
following the hypothetical conversion of all preferred stock
falls within a range defined in the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation. The distributable market equity value is the per
share value of the common stock determined by calculating the
volume-weighted average trading price of such common stock on
the New York Stock Exchange for the 22 trading days beginning on
February 1, 2008 (the first trading day after the Effective
Date) but disregarding the days with the highest and lowest
volume-weighted average sale prices during such period. The
20-day
volume-weighted average trading price was $11.60.
The range of ownership is a function of our net debt plus the
value of our minority interests as of the Effective Date. If the
amount of our net debt plus the value of our minority interests
as of the Effective Date is $525, then 36.3% would be the upper
end of the range of ownership. Since the conversion of all
preferred stock at 83% of the $11.60 would result in more than
36.3% of our fully diluted common stock being issued to the
holders of preferred stock, the conversion price would be the
price at which the preferred stock is convertible into 36.3% of
our total common stock assuming conversion of all preferred
stock. The upper end of the range is subject to adjustment, as
provided in the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, to the
extent that our net debt plus the value of our minority
interests as of the Effective Date is an amount other than $525.
The initial conversion price is also subject to certain
adjustments as set forth in the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation.
Shares of Series A Preferred having an aggregate
liquidation preference of not more than $125 and the
Series B Preferred is convertible at any time at the option
of the applicable holder after July 31, 2008. The remaining
shares of Series A Preferred are convertible after
January 31, 2011. In addition, in the event that the per
share closing sale price of the common stock exceeds 140% of the
conversion price divided by 0.83 for at least 20 consecutive
trading days beginning on or after January 31, 2013, we will be
able to cause the conversion of all, but not less than all, of
the preferred stock. The price at which the preferred stock is
convertible is subject to adjustment in certain customary
circumstances, including as a result of stock splits and
combinations, dividends and distributions and certain issuances
of common stock or common stock derivatives.
In connection with the issuance of the preferred stock, we
entered into the Registration Rights Agreements and the
Shareholders Agreement (each as defined below).
Registration Rights Agreements On the
Effective Date, we entered into two registration rights
agreements: one with Centerbridge (the Series A
Registration Rights Agreement) and the other with the purchasers
of the Series B Preferred (the Series B Registration
Rights Agreement and together with the Series A
Registration Rights Agreement, the Registration Rights
Agreements). The Registration Rights Agreements provide
registration rights for the shares of our preferred stock and
certain other of our equity securities.
Under each of the registration rights agreements, holders
collectively holding more than 50% of the securities registrable
under such registration rights agreements (collectively, the
Registrable Securities) have demand registration rights to
request that we use our reasonable best efforts to effect the
registration of the Registrable Securities held by such
requesting holders under the applicable Registration Rights
Agreement, plus the Registrable Securities of any other holder
giving us a timely request to join in such registration (a
Demand Registration). Until such time as we are qualified to
register the Registrable Securities on a
97
registration statement on
Form S-3,
the parties under each Registration Rights Agreement are allowed
only one Demand Registration. A registration is not deemed to be
a Demand Registration if holders of less than 90% of the
Registrable Securities are permitted to participate in such
registration.
Additionally, under the Registration Rights Agreements, if we
propose to register any of our own equity securities for our own
account or for the account of other stockholders, then we must
provide the holders of the Registrable Securities with piggyback
registration rights to have their Registrable Securities
included in such registration statement (in the case of an
underwritten offering, pro rata after the securities that we are
registering) (a Piggyback Registration). Once we qualify to use
a registration statement on
Form S-3
to register the Registrable Securities, the holders will be
allowed up to four additional Demand Registrations under each
Registration Rights Agreement subject to certain limitations.
Registration rights are assignable to transferees of Registrable
Securities that agree to be bound by the provisions of such
Registration Rights Agreement.
We are not required to effect a Demand Registration under the
following circumstances if: (i) we would have to consent to
service of process to effect the registration; (ii) the
Registrable Securities requested to be included in the
registration have an aggregate public offering price (before any
underwriting discounts and commissions) below (a) in the
case of the Series A Registration Rights Agreement, $25,
and (b) in the case of the Series B Registration
Rights Agreement, $54; (iii) we are actively pursuing
another registration of our securities (other than with respect
to an employee benefit plan or the registration of securities in
a transaction pursuant to Rule 145 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the Securities Act)); or (iv) we determine the Demand
Registration would be seriously detrimental to us or our
stockholders; provided, that each of the circumstances specified
in (iii) and (iv) above may be used to delay a
registration under the applicable Registration Rights Agreement
only once in any
12-month
period. We are also not required to effect a Demand Registration
on
Form S-3
within 180 days of the effective date of the most-recent
Demand Registration on
Form S-3
in which the particular holder under the applicable Registration
Rights Agreement could have participated.
Under the Registration Rights Agreements, we have further agreed
to keep each Demand Registration and any Piggyback Registrations
effective for 90 days. Holders will be required to make
certain representations to us (as described in the Registration
Rights Agreements) in order to participate in either a Demand
Registration or a Piggyback Registration. Holders will also be
required to deliver certain information to be used in connection
with either a Demand Registration or a Piggyback Registration to
have their Registrable Securities included in such
registrations. The Registration Rights Agreements contain other
customary provisions, including customary indemnification
provisions regarding Dana and the applicable holders.
Shareholders Agreement On the Effective Date,
we entered into a Shareholders Agreement with Centerbridge (the
Shareholders Agreement) containing, among other things, the
rights and restrictions described below.
Centerbridge is limited for ten years from the Effective Date in
its ability to acquire additional shares of our common stock,
par value $0.01 per share, if it would own more than 30% of the
voting power of our equity securities after such acquisition, or
to take other actions to control us after the Effective Date
without the consent of a majority of our Board of Directors
(excluding directors elected by the holders of Series A
Preferred or nominated by the Series A Nominating Committee
for election by the holders of common stock), including publicly
proposing, announcing or otherwise disclosing an intent to
propose, or entering into an agreement with any person for,
(i) any form of business combination, acquisition or other
transaction relating to Dana or any of its subsidiaries,
(ii) any form of restructuring, recapitalization or similar
transaction with respect to Dana or any of its subsidiaries, or
(iii) any demand to amend, waive or terminate the
standstill provision in the Shareholders Agreement. Centerbridge
has also agreed that it will not otherwise act, alone or in
concert with others, to seek or to offer to control or influence
our management, our Board of Directors or our policies.
Until such time as Centerbridge no longer beneficially owns at
least 50% of the shares of Series A Preferred outstanding
at such time, holders of preferred stock have preemptive rights
sufficient to prevent dilution of ownership interests of such
holders with respect to issuances of new shares of our capital
stock, other than shares of common stock if at the time of
issuance the common stock is listed on a national
98
securities exchange, certain issuances to employees, directors
or consultants of ours or in connection with certain business
acquisitions. Such preemptive rights require that we must offer
such ownership interests on the same terms and purchase price as
the new shares of capital stock to which such rights relate.
Right to Select Board Members Pursuant to the
Shareholders Agreement and our Restated Certificate of
Incorporation as long as shares of Series A Preferred
having an aggregate Series A Liquidation Preference (as
defined in the Shareholders Agreement) of at least $125 are
owned by Centerbridge, the Board will consist of nine members.
Centerbridge will be entitled, voting as a separate class, to
elect three directors at each meeting of stockholders held for
the purpose of electing directors, at least one of whom will be
independent of both Dana and Centerbridge, as
defined under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange. In case
of any removal, either with or without cause, of a director
elected by the holders of the shares of Series A Preferred,
the holders of the shares of Series A Preferred will be
entitled, voting as a separate class either by written consent
or at a special meeting or next regular meeting, to elect a
successor to hold office for the unexpired term of the director
who has been removed.
Additionally, prior to any shareholder meeting where directors
will be elected, we will establish a nominating committee (the
Series A Nominating Committee) which will be separate from
the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board.
This nominating committee will consist of three directors, two
of which will be the Centerbridge designated directors. The
Series A Nominating Committee will be entitled to nominate
one director for election by the shareholders (a Series A
Nominee); provided, however, that, in order for such nomination
to be effective, the nomination by the Series A Nominating
Committee must be made unanimously by the committee. To the
extent the members of the Series A Nominating Committee are
unable to unanimously agree on the identity of a Series A
Nominee on or before the latest time at which we can reasonably
meet our obligations with respect to printing and mailing a
proxy statement for an annual meeting of our stockholders, the
Board will designate a committee of all of the independent
directors, which committee will, by a majority vote, select an
individual for the Board seat. Each Series A Nominee will,
at all times during his or her service on the Board, be
qualified to serve as a director under any applicable law, rule
or regulation imposing or creating standards or eligibility
criteria for individuals serving as directors of organizations
such as Dana and will be an independent director.
Each elected Series A Nominee will serve until his or her
successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier
resignation, retirement, disqualification, removal from office
or death. If any Series A Nominee ceases to be our director
for any reason, we will promptly use our best efforts to cause a
person designated by the Series A Nominating Committee to
replace such director.
Approval Rights For a period of three years,
so long as Centerbridge owns Series A Preferred having a
liquidation preference of at least $125, Centerbridges
approval is required for us to be able to do any of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
enter into material transactions with directors, officers or 10%
stockholders (other than officer and director compensation
arrangements);
|
|
|
|
issue debt or equity securities senior to or pari passu with the
Series A Preferred other than in connection with certain
refinancings;
|
|
|
|
issue equity at a price below fair market value;
|
|
|
|
amend our bylaws in a manner that materially changes the rights
of Centerbridge or stockholders generally or amend our charter
(or similar constituent documents);
|
|
|
|
subject to certain limitations, take any actions that would
result in share repurchases or redemptions involving cash
payments in excess of $10 in any
12-month
period;
|
|
|
|
effect a merger or similar transaction that results in the
transfer of 50% or more of our outstanding voting power, a sale
of all or substantially all of our assets or any other form of
corporate reorganization in which 50% or more of the outstanding
shares of any class or series of our capital stock is exchanged
for or converted into cash, securities or property of another
business organization;
|
99
|
|
|
|
|
voluntarily or involuntarily liquidate us; or
|
|
|
|
pay cash dividends on account of common stock or any other stock
that ranks junior to or on parity with the Series A
Preferred, including the Series B Preferred (other than the
stated 4% dividend on the Series B Preferred).
|
Centerbridges approval rights above are subject to
override by a vote of two-thirds of our voting securities not
owned by Centerbridge or any of its affiliates, and its approval
rights for dividends and the issuance of senior or pari passu
securities will end no later than the third anniversary of the
Effective Date and may end after the first anniversary of the
Effective Date if certain financial ratios are met.
In the event that Centerbridge and its affiliates at any time
own in excess of 40% of our issued and outstanding voting
securities, on an as-converted basis, all voting securities in
excess of such 40% threshold must be voted in the same
proportion that our other stockholders vote their voting
securities with respect to the applicable proposal.
Prior Dana
Common Stock Outstanding
Common stock transactions of Prior Dana during the last three
years were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Shares in millions)
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Shares outstanding at beginning of year
|
|
|
150.3
|
|
|
|
150.5
|
|
|
|
149.9
|
|
Issued for equity compensation plans, net of forfeitures
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares outstanding at end of year
|
|
|
150.2
|
|
|
|
150.3
|
|
|
|
150.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certain of our now-cancelled equity plans provided that
participants could tender stock to satisfy the purchase price of
the shares
and/or the
income taxes required to be withheld on the transaction. In
connection with these plans, we repurchased 21,659, 81,744 and
635 shares of common stock in 2007, 2006 and 2005.
The following table reconciles the average shares outstanding
used in determining basic earnings per share to the number of
shares to be considered in the diluted earnings per share
calculation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Shares in millions)
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Average shares outstanding for the year basic
|
|
|
149.9
|
|
|
|
149.7
|
|
|
|
149.6
|
|
Plus: Incremental shares from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred compensation units
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potentially dilutive shares
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average shares outstanding for the year
diluted
|
|
|
150.3
|
|
|
|
150.3
|
|
|
|
151.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The potentially dilutive shares shown above are excluded from
the computation of earnings per share for the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 as the loss from
continuing operations for these periods caused the shares to
have an anti-dilutive effect.
In addition, potential common shares of 11.1 million,
12.8 million and 13.6 million for 2007, 2006 and 2005
were excluded from the computation of earnings per share, as the
effect of including them would be anti-dilutive. These shares
represent stock options with exercise prices higher than the
average per share trading price of our stock during the
respective periods.
100
Dividends
Dividends were declared and paid during 2005 at a rate of $0.12
per share for the first three quarters and $0.01 per share for
the fourth quarter. No dividends were declared or paid in 2006
or 2007. Applicable bankruptcy law and the terms of the DIP
Credit Agreement did not allow the payment of dividends on
shares of common stock and we do not currently anticipate paying
any such dividends following the reorganization. Earnings will
be retained to finance our operations and reduce debt.
Subsequent
event New Common Stock
On the Effective Date, we began the process of issuing
100 million shares of Dana common stock, par value $0.01
per share, including approximately 70 million shares for
allowed unsecured nonpriority claims, approximately
28 million additional shares deposited to a reserve for
disputed unsecured nonpriority claims in Class 5B under the
Plan, approximately 1 million shares for payment of
post-emergence bonuses to union employees and approximately
1 million shares to pay bonuses to non-union hourly and
salaried non-management employees. We relied, based on the
Confirmation Order, on Section 1145(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy
Code to exempt us from the registration requirements of the
Securities Act for the offer and sale of the common stock to the
general unsecured creditors. We filed a Registration Statement
on
Form S-8
with respect to the common stock issued for the post-emergence
bonuses to non-union hourly and salaried non-management
employees. The charge to earnings for these bonuses was recorded
as of the Effective Date.
|
|
Note 13.
|
Equity-Based
Compensation
|
Upon emergence, common stock and outstanding stock options of
Prior Dana were cancelled. The activity prior to emergence is
discussed below.
Employee Plans Under our now-cancelled Stock
Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee of our Board could
grant stock options to our employees. Outstanding options had
been granted at exercise prices equal to the market price of our
underlying common stock on the dates of grant. Generally, the
grant terms provided that the options became exercisable in
cumulative 25% increments at each of the first four anniversary
dates of the grant and expired ten years from the date of grant.
The vesting of most outstanding options had been accelerated as
described below.
When we merged with Echlin Inc. in 1998, we assumed
Echlins 1992 Stock Option Plan for employees and the
underlying Echlin shares were converted to our stock. At the
time of the merger, there were options outstanding under this
plan for the equivalent of 1,692,930 shares. No options
were granted under this plan after the merger. The plan expired
in 2002 but the options outstanding at the date of expiration
remained exercisable according to their terms. All options
outstanding under this plan were terminated upon our emergence
from bankruptcy.
The following table summarizes the stock option activity under
these two plans in the last three years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
16,178,213
|
|
|
$
|
26.20
|
|
Granted 2005
|
|
|
2,368,570
|
|
|
|
14.87
|
|
Exercised 2005
|
|
|
(166,233
|
)
|
|
|
10.12
|
|
Cancelled 2005
|
|
|
(3,079,852
|
)
|
|
|
30.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
15,300,698
|
|
|
|
23.83
|
|
Cancelled 2006
|
|
|
(2,979,629
|
)
|
|
|
25.71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
12,321,069
|
|
|
|
23.37
|
|
Cancelled 2007
|
|
|
(2,047,955
|
)
|
|
|
27.26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
10,273,114
|
|
|
$
|
22.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101
The following table summarizes information about the stock
options outstanding under these plans at December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options
|
|
|
Exercisable Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Range of Exercise Prices
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Life in Years
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
$ 8.34-$18.81
|
|
|
4,521,680
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
$
|
13.33
|
|
|
|
4,333,399
|
|
|
$
|
13.39
|
|
20.19- 25.05
|
|
|
4,230,948
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
23.35
|
|
|
|
4,230,948
|
|
|
|
23.35
|
|
40.38- 52.56
|
|
|
1,520,486
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
48.06
|
|
|
|
1,520,486
|
|
|
|
48.06
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,273,114
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
$
|
22.60
|
|
|
|
10,084,833
|
|
|
$
|
22.80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Plans Some of our non-management
directors had outstanding options granted under our
1998 Directors Stock Option Plan, which we terminated
in 2004. Under the plan, options for 3,000 shares of common
stock had been granted annually to each non-management director.
The option price was the market value of the stock at the date
of grant. The options outstanding on the termination date
remained exercisable in accordance with their terms. All options
outstanding under this plan would have expired no later than
2013, if not exercised or cancelled before then. The following
is a summary of the stock option activity of this plan in the
last three years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
189,000
|
|
|
$
|
28.73
|
|
Cancelled 2005
|
|
|
(15,000
|
)
|
|
|
24.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
174,000
|
|
|
|
29.07
|
|
Cancelled 2006
|
|
|
(15,000
|
)
|
|
|
32.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
159,000
|
|
|
|
28.77
|
|
Cancelled 2007
|
|
|
(18,000
|
)
|
|
|
31.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
141,000
|
|
|
$
|
28.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes information about the stock
options outstanding under this plan at December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options
|
|
|
Exercisable Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Range of Exercise Prices
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Life in Years
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
$ 8.52-$21.53
|
|
|
81,000
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
$
|
15.56
|
|
|
|
81,000
|
|
|
$
|
15.56
|
|
28.78
|
|
|
21,000
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
28.78
|
|
|
|
21,000
|
|
|
|
28.78
|
|
50.25- 60.09
|
|
|
39,000
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
54.79
|
|
|
|
39,000
|
|
|
|
54.79
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141,000
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
$
|
28.38
|
|
|
|
141,000
|
|
|
$
|
28.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Deferred Fee Plan Prior to February
2006, our non-management directors could elect to defer payment
of their retainers and fees for Board and Committee service.
Deferred amounts were credited to an Interest Equivalent Account
and/or a
Stock Account. The number of stock units credited to the Stock
Account was based on the amount deferred and the market price of
our stock. Stock Accounts were credited with additional stock
units when cash dividends were paid on our stock, based on the
number of units in the Stock Account and the amount of the
dividend. Prior to 2006, non-management directors were also
credited with an annual grant of units to their Stock Accounts
equal in value to the number of shares of our stock that could
have been purchased for seventy-five thousand dollars, assuming
a stock purchase price based on the
102
average of the high and low trading prices of our stock on the
grant date. The annual grants were suspended in 2006. This plan
provided that distributions would be made when the directors
retire, die or terminate service with us, in the form of cash
and/or our
stock. Following our bankruptcy filing, directors with
pre-petition deferred compensation under this plan filed general
creditors claims for the deferred amounts, and their
claims were satisfied pursuant to the procedures established by
the Plan.
Equity-Based Compensation In accordance with
our accounting policy for stock-based compensation, we had not
recognized any compensation expense relating to our stock
options prior to 2006. The table below sets forth the amounts
that would have been recorded as stock option expense for the
year ended December 31, 2005 if we had used the fair value
method of accounting, the alternative policy set out in
SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Stock compensation expense, as reported
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
Stock option expense, pro forma
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock compensation expense, pro forma
|
|
$
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss, as reported
|
|
$
|
(1,605
|
)
|
Net loss, pro forma
|
|
|
(1,642
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss, as reported
|
|
$
|
(10.73
|
)
|
Net loss, pro forma
|
|
|
(10.98
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss, as reported
|
|
$
|
(10.73
|
)
|
Net loss, pro forma
|
|
|
(10.98
|
)
|
As a result of our providing a valuation allowance against our
U.S. net deferred tax assets as of the beginning of 2005,
no tax benefit related to stock compensation expense was
recorded for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Accelerated Option Vesting On
December 1, 2005, the Compensation Committee approved the
immediate vesting of all unvested stock options and stock
appreciation rights (SARs) granted to employees under the
Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan with an option
exercise price of $15.00 or more per share or an SAR grant price
of $15.00 or more. As a result, unvested stock options granted
under the plan to purchase 3,584,646 shares of our common
stock, with a weighted average exercise price of $18.23 per
share, and 11,837 unvested SARs, with a weighted average grant
price of $21.97 per share, became exercisable on
December 1, 2005 rather than on the later dates when they
would have vested in the normal course.
The decision to accelerate the vesting of these stock options
and SARs was made to reduce the compensation expense that we
would otherwise have been required to record in future periods
following our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). We adopted
SFAS No. 123(R) in January 2006. If the vesting of
these stock options and SARs had not been accelerated and the
plans had not been cancelled, we would have expected to
recognize an incremental share-based compensation expense of
approximately $19 in the aggregate from 2006 through 2009. The
resulting pro forma share-based expense of $19 is included in
the pro forma 2005 expense reflected in the table above. We
recognized $2 of stock option expense in 2006 and a de minimis
amount in 2007.
Option Valuation Methods During the first
quarter of 2005, we changed the method used to value stock
option grants from the Black-Scholes method to the binomial
method, which provides a fair value more representative of our
historical exercise and termination experience because it
considers the possibility of
103
early exercises of options. We have valued stock options granted
prior to January 1, 2005 using the Black-Scholes method and
stock options granted thereafter using the binomial method.
The weighted average fair value of the 2,368,570 options and
SARs granted in 2005 was $4.04 per share under the binomial
method, using a weighted average market value at date of grant
of $14.87 and the following weighted average assumptions:
risk-free interest rate of 3.91%, a dividend yield of 2.69%,
volatility of 30.8% to 31.5%, expected forfeitures of 17.93% and
an expected option life of 6.8 years. No options were
granted in 2007 or 2006.
Other Equity Grants Our Stock Incentive Plan
also provided for the issuance of restricted stock units,
restricted shares, stock awards and performance shares and SARs,
which historically could be granted separately or in conjunction
with options. During 2005, we granted 66,625 restricted stock
units, 17,000 restricted shares, 342,104 stock-denominated
performance shares, 67,250 shares as stock awards and 7,960
SARs. The vesting periods for these grants, where applicable,
ranged from one to five years. Charges to expense related to
these incentive awards totaled $3 in 2005 and de minimis amounts
in 2006 and 2007. There were no grants under this program in
2007 or 2006. This plan was cancelled upon emergence.
Other
Compensation Plans
Additional Compensation Plan Historically, we
had numerous additional compensation plans under which we paid
our employees for increased productivity and improved
performance. One such plan was our Additional Compensation Plan,
under which key management employees selected by our
Compensation Committee could earn annual cash bonuses if
pre-established annual corporate
and/or other
performance goals were attained. Prior to 2005, the participants
in this plan could elect whether to defer the payment of their
bonuses, whether the deferred amounts would be credited to a
Stock Account
and/or an
Interest Equivalent Account and whether payment of the deferred
awards would be made in cash
and/or
stock. Amounts deferred in a Stock Account were credited in the
form of units, each equivalent to a share of our stock, and the
units were credited with the equivalent of dividends on our
stock and adjusted in value based on the market value of the
stock. The bonus deferral feature was eliminated in 2005;
however, plan accounts established before 2005 remained in
effect. Expense related to the Stock Accounts is charged or
credited in connection with increases or decreases in the value
of the units in those accounts. Amounts deferred in the Interest
Equivalent Accounts were credited quarterly with interest earned
at a rate tied to the prime rate until 2006, when interest
accruals stopped after the Filing Date. Following our bankruptcy
filing, participants with pre-petition deferred compensation
under this plan filed general creditors claims for the
deferred amounts and their claims were satisfied pursuant to the
procedures established by the Plan.
The operating impact for the last three years related to the
compensation deferred under this plan was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Accrued for bonuses
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Dividends and interest credited to participants accounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark-to-market adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan expense (credit)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to satisfy a portion of our deferred compensation
obligations to retirees and other former employees under this
plan, we distributed shares totaling 12,599 and 318,641 in 2006
and 2005. No shares were distributed in 2007 and the plan was
cancelled upon emergence.
Restricted Stock Plans Our Compensation
Committee could grant restricted common stock to key employees
under the 1999 Restricted Stock Plan. The shares were subject to
forfeiture until the restrictions lapsed or terminated.
Generally, for outstanding restricted shares, the employee was
required to remain employed with us for three to five years
after the date of grant to avoid forfeiting the shares.
Dividends on restricted shares had historically been credited in
the form of additional restricted shares. Participants
historically could elect to convert their unvested restricted
stock into an equal number of restricted stock units
104
under certain conditions. This conversion feature was eliminated
in 2005. There were no restricted shares converted to restricted
stock units in 2005. The units, which were credited with the
equivalent of dividends, are payable in unrestricted stock upon
retirement or termination of employment unless subject to
forfeiture.
Under the 1999 Restricted Stock Plan, we granted no shares in
2007 or 2006 and 345,436 in 2005. This plan was cancelled upon
emergence.
Grants were made under the predecessor 1989 Restricted Stock
Plan through February 1999, at which time the authorization to
grant restricted stock under this plan lapsed. Expenses for
these plans were $1, $1 and $2 for 2007, 2006 and 2005.
Employees Stock Purchase Plan Our
Employees Stock Purchase Plan, which had been in effect
for many years, was discontinued effective November 1, 2005.
Under the plan, our full-time employees and full-time employees
of our wholly-owned subsidiaries and some part-time employees of
our
non-U.S. subsidiaries
had been able to authorize payroll deductions of up to 15% of
their earnings. These deductions were deposited with an
independent plan custodian. We matched up to 50% of the
participants contributions in cash over a five-year
period, beginning with the year the amounts were withheld. To
get the full 50% match, shares purchased by the custodian for
any given year had to remain in the participants account
for five years.
The custodian used the payroll deductions and matching
contributions to purchase our stock at current market prices. As
record keeper for the plan, we allocated the purchased shares to
the participants accounts. Shares were distributed to the
participants from their accounts on request in accordance with
the plans withdrawal provisions.
In the last year of the plan, 2005, the custodian purchased
1,447,001 shares in the open market. Expense for our
matching contributions was $5 in 2005.
We were also authorized to issue up to 4,500,000 shares to
sell to the custodian in lieu of open market purchases. No
shares were issued for this purpose.
Compensation
Plans of Dana Holding Corporation
As part of the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court approved our 2008
Omnibus Incentive Plan (the Equity Incentive Plan). The purpose
of the Equity Incentive Plan is to attract and retain our
directors, officers, other employees and consultants and to
motivate and provide to such persons incentives and rewards for
superior performance. The eligibility requirements and terms
governing the allocation of any common stock and the receipt of
other consideration under the Equity Incentive Plan will be
established and determined by the Board of Directors
and/or the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, as applicable.
Under the Equity Incentive Plan and subject to adjustment as
provided in the Equity Incentive Plan, the number of shares of
common stock that may be issued or delivered
|
|
|
|
|
upon the exercise of option rights or appreciation rights,
|
|
|
|
as restricted shares and released from the substantial risk of
forfeiture thereof,
|
|
|
|
as settlement for restricted stock units upon satisfaction of
the substantial risk of forfeiture thereof,
|
|
|
|
in payment of performance shares or performance units that have
been earned,
|
|
|
|
as awards to non-employee directors, or
|
|
|
|
in payment of dividend equivalents paid with respect to awards
made under the Equity Incentive Plan
|
105
may not exceed in the aggregate 16,090,000 shares, plus any
shares relating to awards that terminate or are forfeited. The
aggregate number of shares of common stock we actually issue or
transfer upon the exercise of incentive stock options may not
exceed 4,000,000 shares. Further, no participant may be
granted option rights or appreciation rights for more than
2,000,000 shares of common stock during any calendar year,
subject to adjustments as provided in the Equity Incentive Plan.
In no event may any participant receive restricted shares,
restricted stock units or performance shares in the aggregate
for more than 1,000,000 shares of common stock during any
calendar year, or receive an award of performance units having
an aggregate maximum value as of their respective dates of grant
in excess of $10. The maximum number of shares that may be
granted under the Equity Incentive Plan is subject to adjustment
in the event of stock dividends, stock splits, combinations of
shares, recapitalizations, mergers, consolidations, spin-offs,
reorganizations, liquidations, issuances of rights or warrants
and similar events.
No grants may be made under the Equity Incentive Plan after
December 25, 2017.
Under the Equity Incentive Plan, the Board of Directors may
also, in its discretion, authorize the granting of option rights
and appreciation rights to non-employee directors and may also
authorize the grant of other awards.
Upon a change in control of Dana, except as otherwise provided
in the terms of the award or as provided by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors, to the extent outstanding
awards are not assumed, converted or replaced by the resulting
entity, all outstanding awards that may be exercised will become
fully exercisable, all restrictions with respect to outstanding
awards will lapse and such awards will become fully vested and
non-forfeitable, and any specified performance measures with
respect to outstanding awards will be deemed to be satisfied at
target.
|
|
Note 14.
|
Pension and
Postretirement Benefit Plans
|
We have provided defined contribution and defined benefit,
qualified and nonqualified, pension plans for certain employees
and also provided other postretirement benefits including
medical and life insurance for certain employees upon retirement.
Under the terms of the qualified defined contribution retirement
plans, employee and employer contributions may be directed into
a number of diverse investments. None of these qualified defined
contribution plans allow direct investment in our stock.
On September 29, 2006, the FASB issued
SFAS No. 158, Employers Accounting for
Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans. We
adopted SFAS No. 158 effective December 31, 2006.
SFAS No. 158 requires companies to recognize the
funded status of each defined benefit pension and postretirement
plans on the balance sheet. The funded status of a plan is
measured as the difference between the plan assets at fair value
and the benefit obligation. The funded status of all overfunded
plans are aggregated and reported in Investments and other
assets. The funded status of all underfunded plans are
aggregated and reported in Deferred employee benefits and other
non-current liabilities and Liabilities subject to compromise.
In addition, the portion of the benefits payable in the next
year which exceeds the fair value of plan assets is reported in
Accrued payroll and employee benefits and is determined on a
plan-by-plan
basis. SFAS No. 158 also requires the measurement date
of a plans assets and its obligations to coincide with a
companys year end, with which we already comply.
Additionally, SFAS No. 158 requires companies to
recognize changes in the funded status of a defined benefit
pension or postretirement plan in the year in which the change
occurs. SFAS No. 158 did not change the existing
criteria for measurement of net periodic benefit costs, plan
assets or benefit obligations.
106
The impact on Accumulated other comprehensive loss (AOCI) of
adopting SFAS No. 158 was reported as $818 in our 2006 Form
10-K. We determined in 2007 that our 2006 actuarial valuation
did not properly consider the December 31, 2006 merger of
most of our U.S. defined benefit pension plans, resulting in an
understatement of the minimum pension liability and Other
comprehensive loss (OCI) and a corresponding overstatement of
the adjustment to adopt SFAS No. 158. These items did not
affect our net loss for the year ended December 31, 2006 or
shareholders deficit at December 31, 2006. The
following table summarizes the adjusted impact of adopting SFAS
No. 158 on the consolidated balance sheet at
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before Application
|
|
|
|
|
|
After Application
|
|
|
|
of SFAS No. 158
|
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
|
of SFAS No. 158
|
|
|
Investments and other assets
|
|
$
|
1,003
|
|
|
$
|
(340
|
)
|
|
$
|
663
|
|
Accrued payroll and employee benefits
|
|
|
217
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
225
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
3,766
|
|
|
|
409
|
|
|
|
4,175
|
|
Deferred employee benefits and other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
562
|
|
|
|
(58
|
)
|
|
|
504
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(378
|
)
|
|
|
(699
|
)
|
|
|
(1,077
|
)
|
Upon adoption of SFAS No. 158 at December 31,
2006, previously unrecognized differences between actual amounts
and estimates based on actuarial assumptions were included in
AOCI in the consolidated balance sheet. In future reporting
periods, the difference between actual amounts and estimates
based on actuarial assumptions will be recognized in OCI in the
period in which they occur.
107
The components of net periodic benefit costs and amounts
recognized in OCI are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(158
|
)
|
|
|
(51
|
)
|
|
|
(173
|
)
|
|
|
(45
|
)
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Recognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
25
|
|
Curtailment (gain) loss
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Settlement loss
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
128
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination cost
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost after curtailments and
settlements
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
$
|
48
|
|
|
$
|
47
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in OCI:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service cost (credit) from plan amendments
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount due to net actuarial (gains) losses
|
|
|
(96
|
)
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service (cost) credit in net periodic cost
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net actuarial gains (losses) in net periodic cost
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immediate recognition of prior service cost, unrecognized gains
(losses) and transition obligation due to divestitures
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recognized in OCI
|
|
|
(129
|
)
|
|
|
(159
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recognized in benefit cost and OCI
|
|
$
|
(97
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Curtailment gain
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlement gain
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination cost
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost after curtailments and
settlements
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
118
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
121
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in OCI:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service cost (credit) from plan amendments
|
|
|
(326
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount due to net actuarial (gains) losses
|
|
|
(68
|
)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service (cost) credit in net periodic cost
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net actuarial gains (losses) in net periodic cost
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recognized in OCI
|
|
|
(399
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recognized in benefit cost and OCI
|
|
$
|
(339
|
)
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated prior service cost and net actuarial loss for the
defined benefit pension plans that will be amortized from AOCI
into benefit cost in 2008 are $3 and $20 for our U.S. plans
and less than $1 and $1 for our
non-U.S. plans.
The net actuarial loss related to other postretirement benefit
plans that will be amortized from AOCI into benefit cost in 2008
is $33 for our U.S. plans and $3 for our
non-U.S. plans.
The 2008 U.S. benefit cost will be reduced by an estimated
$35 of amortization of prior service credit related to other
postretirement benefit plans.
109
The following tables provide a reconciliation of the changes in
the plans benefit obligations and plan assets for 2007 and
2006 and the funded status and amounts recognized in the
consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2007 and 2006
for both continuing and discontinued operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Reconciliation of benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at January 1
|
|
$
|
2,024
|
|
|
$
|
1,172
|
|
|
$
|
2,151
|
|
|
$
|
1,077
|
|
|
$
|
1,494
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
$
|
1,543
|
|
|
$
|
126
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(337
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
(36
|
)
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Benefit payments and transfers
|
|
|
(260
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
(265
|
)
|
|
|
(52
|
)
|
|
|
(136
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Settlements, curtailments and terminations
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
(706
|
)
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
Acquisitions and divestitures
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Translation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at December 31
|
|
$
|
1,849
|
|
|
$
|
529
|
|
|
$
|
2,024
|
|
|
$
|
1,172
|
|
|
$
|
1,019
|
|
|
$
|
141
|
|
|
$
|
1,494
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Reconciliation of fair value of plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at January 1
|
|
$
|
1,921
|
|
|
$
|
891
|
|
|
$
|
1,985
|
|
|
$
|
796
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisitions and divestitures
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit payments and transfers
|
|
|
(260
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
(265
|
)
|
|
|
(52
|
)
|
|
|
(136
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(692
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at December 31
|
|
$
|
1,865
|
|
|
$
|
358
|
|
|
$
|
1,921
|
|
|
$
|
891
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status at December 31
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
(171
|
)
|
|
$
|
(103
|
)
|
|
$
|
(281
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,019
|
)
|
|
$
|
(141
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,494
|
)
|
|
$
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
27
|
|
|
$
|
82
|
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(137
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
Noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
(184
|
)
|
|
|
(297
|
)
|
|
|
(882
|
)
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
|
|
(1,375
|
)
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
AOCI
|
|
|
304
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
209
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
514
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized
|
|
$
|
320
|
|
|
$
|
(121
|
)
|
|
$
|
330
|
|
|
$
|
(72
|
)
|
|
$
|
(904
|
)
|
|
$
|
(89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(980
|
)
|
|
$
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in AOCI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net actuarial loss
|
|
$
|
299
|
|
|
$
|
47
|
|
|
$
|
429
|
|
|
$
|
204
|
|
|
$
|
528
|
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
|
$
|
630
|
|
|
$
|
47
|
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(413
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(116
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Transition asset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross amount recognized
|
|
|
304
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
209
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
514
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Deferred tax benefits
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
(93
|
)
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
Minority and equity interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized
|
|
$
|
235
|
|
|
$
|
29
|
|
|
$
|
340
|
|
|
$
|
190
|
|
|
$
|
210
|
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
514
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In February 2007, the restructuring of our pension liabilities
in the U.K. was announced. Ten subsidiaries located in the U.K.
and the trustees of four U.K. defined benefit pension plans
entered into an Agreement as to Structure of Settlement
and Allocation of Debt to compromise and settle the
liabilities owed by the U.K. operating subsidiaries to the
pension plans. The agreement provides for the trustees of the
plans to release the operating subsidiaries from all such
liabilities in exchange for an aggregate cash payment of $93 and
the transfer of 33% equity interest in the axle manufacturing
and driveshaft assembly businesses in the U.K. for the benefit
of the pension plan participants. The agreement was necessitated
primarily by the planned divestitures of several non-core U.K.
businesses which, upon completion, would have resulted in
unsustainable pension funding demands on the operating
subsidiaries under U.K. pension law, in addition to their
ongoing funding obligations. Pursuant to the agreement, we
recorded $8 of pension curtailment cost in the first quarter of
2007. In April 2007, our U.K. subsidiaries settled their pension
plan obligations to the plan participants through the cash
payment and equity transfer. As a result, $145 of settlement
costs were recorded during the second quarter of 2007, inclusive
of $17 relating to discontinued operations. Remaining employees
in the U.K. operations will receive future pension benefits
pursuant to a defined contribution arrangement similar to our
actions in the U.S.
In March 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved the elimination of
postretirement healthcare benefits for active non-union
employees in the U.S. effective as of April 1, 2007.
This action reduced the accumulated postretirement benefit
obligation (APBO) for postretirement healthcare by $115 in the
first quarter. Because the elimination of these benefits reduced
benefits previously earned, it was considered a negative plan
amendment. Accordingly, the reduction in the APBO was offset by
a credit to OCI which was amortized to income in future periods
as a reduction of OPEB expense.
During the first quarter of 2007, the sale of the engine hard
parts business resulted in a postretirement medical plan
settlement gain of $12.
In May 2007, an agreement was reached with the Official
Committee of Non-Union Retirees (the Retiree Committee) to make
cash contributions totaling $78 to a Voluntary Employee
Beneficiary Association (VEBA)
111
trust for postretirement healthcare and life insurance benefits
for non-union retirees in the U.S. in exchange for release
of the Debtors from these obligations. A payment of $25 was made
in June 2007. In May 2007, we also made a $2 payment to the
International Association of Machinists (IAM) to resolve all
claims for postretirement non-pension benefits after
June 30, 2007 for retirees and active employees represented
by the IAM. As a result of these actions, we reduced APBO by
$303, with $80 being offset by the payment obligations to the
VEBAs and $223 being credited to OCI.
The elimination of non-pension retiree benefits for non-union
employees in March 2007 and the agreement with the Retiree
Committee on behalf of such employees in May 2007 necessitated
the remeasurement of U.S. postretirement healthcare
obligation as of June 30, 2007. The discount rate used for
remeasurement was 6.29% versus 5.88% used at December 31,
2006.
In June 2007, our U.S. pension plans for non-union
employees were amended to freeze future service credits and
benefit accruals effective July 1, 2007. In connection with
this action, a curtailment charge of $3 was recorded during the
second quarter of 2007 and certain plan assets and liabilities
were remeasured.
The Union Settlement Agreements reached with the UAW and USW in
July 2007, are discussed in Note 3. Some provisions of the
agreements, such as wage structure modifications and buyouts for
certain eligible employees represented by the UAW and the USW
(the union-represented employees), were effective upon the
Bankruptcy Courts approval of the settlement agreements in
August 2007.
Other provisions, related to pensions and other postretirement
benefits, were implemented on emergence from bankruptcy. Under
these provisions, we have:
|
|
|
|
|
frozen credited service and benefit accruals under our defined
benefit pension plans for union-represented employees;
|
|
|
|
agreed to make future contributions, based on a cents per hour
formula, to a USW multiemployer pension trust, which will
provide future pension benefits for covered union-represented
employees;
|
|
|
|
eliminated non-pension retiree benefits (postretirement
healthcare and life insurance benefits) for union-represented
employees and retirees; and
|
|
|
|
contributed an aggregate of approximately $733 in cash (net of
amounts paid for non-pension retiree benefits, long-term
disability and related healthcare claims of union-represented
retirees incurred and paid between July 1, 2007 and the
Effective Date) to UAW- and USW-administered VEBAs. These VEBAs
will provide non-pension retiree benefits, disability benefits
and related healthcare benefits, as determined by the VEBA
trustees, to eligible union-represented retirees.
|
When implemented, these actions eliminated our remaining APBO
for non-pension retiree benefits in the U.S. ($1,019 as of
December 31, 2007). Although these actions were expected to
be implemented, certain circumstances (such as termination of
the Centerbridge investment commitments) could have impacted or
precluded implementation. As a result of the contractual
conditions, recognition of the effects of the benefits
associated with these actions was determined to be appropriate
when the conditions were satisfied. The conditions were
satisfied on January 31, 2008 with our emergence from
bankruptcy.
During the third quarter of 2007, lump sum distributions from
one of the pension plans reached a level requiring recognition
of $12 as pension settlement expense. The portions attributable
to divested operations and manufacturing footprint actions
amounted to $4 and $5 and were included in discontinued
operations and realignment charges. Exercise of employee early
retirement incentives, resulting from the settlement agreements
with the unions, generated pension plan curtailment losses of $5
which are included in reorganization items, net. The lump sum
distributions and the reversal of the decision to close a
facility required a remeasurement of two plans which reduced our
pension obligation by $42 resulting in a credit to OCI.
Completion of a facility closure in the third quarter of 2007
resulted in recognition of a postretirement medical plan
curtailment gain of $8 in realignment charges.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, continuing high levels of
lump sum pension fund distributions triggered $7 of additional
pension settlement charges. The portions attributable to
divested operations and
112
manufacturing footprint actions amounted to $1 and $3 and were
included in discontinued operations and realignment charges.
Exercise of employee early retirement incentives, resulting from
the settlement agreements with the unions, generated pension
plan curtailment losses of $2 which are included in
reorganization items, net.
The following table presents information regarding the aggregate
funding levels of our defined benefit pension plans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Plans with fair value of plan assets in excess of
obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
1,405
|
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
$
|
558
|
|
|
$
|
405
|
|
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
|
1,405
|
|
|
|
305
|
|
|
|
562
|
|
|
|
416
|
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
1,445
|
|
|
|
332
|
|
|
|
643
|
|
|
|
442
|
|
Plans with obligations in excess of fair value of plan
assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
444
|
|
|
$
|
206
|
|
|
$
|
1,460
|
|
|
$
|
703
|
|
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
|
444
|
|
|
|
224
|
|
|
|
1,462
|
|
|
|
756
|
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
420
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
1,278
|
|
|
|
449
|
|
Benefit obligations of the U.S. non-qualified and certain
non-U.S. pension
plans, amounting to $186 at December 31, 2007, and other
postretirement benefit plans of $1,159 are not funded.
The weighted average asset allocations of our pension plans at
December 31 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Asset Category
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
37
|
%
|
|
|
38
|
%
|
|
|
47
|
%
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
Controlled-risk debt securities
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
Absolute return strategies investments
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Cash and short-term securities
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target asset allocations of U.S. pension plans for equity
securities, controlled-risk debt securities, absolute return
strategies investments and cash and other assets at
December 31, 2007 and 2006 were 40%, 35%, 20% and 5%.
U.S. pension plan target asset allocations are established
through an investment policy, which is updated periodically and
reviewed by the Board of Directors.
Our policy recognizes that the link between assets and
liabilities is the level of long-term interest rates and that
properly managing the relationship between assets of the pension
plans and pension liabilities serves to mitigate the impact of
market volatility on our funding levels.
Given the U.S. plans demographics, an important
component of our asset/liability modeling approach is the use of
what we refer to as controlled-risk assets; for the
U.S. fund these assets are long duration
U.S. government fixed-income securities. Such securities
are a positively correlated asset class to pension liabilities
and their use mitigates interest rate risk and provides the
opportunity to allocate additional plan assets to other asset
categories with low correlation to equity market indices.
The investment policy permits plan assets to be invested in a
number of diverse investment categories, including
absolute return strategies investments such as hedge
funds. Absolute return strategies investments are currently
limited to not less than 10% nor more than 30% of total assets.
At December 31, 2007,
113
approximately 25% of our U.S. plan assets were invested in
absolute return strategies investments, primarily in
U.S. and international hedged directional equity funds. The
cash and other short-term debt securities provide adequate
liquidity for anticipated near-term benefit payments.
The weighted-average asset allocation targets for our
non-U.S. plans
at December 31, 2007 were 58% equity securities, 34%
controlled-risk sovereign debt securities and 8% cash and other
assets.
The significant weighted average assumptions used in the
measurement of pension benefit obligations are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.26
|
%
|
|
|
5.88
|
%
|
|
|
5.65
|
%
|
|
|
5.27
|
%
|
|
|
5.03
|
%
|
|
|
4.65
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
3.11
|
|
|
|
2.98
|
|
|
|
3.25
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
8.25
|
|
|
|
8.25
|
|
|
|
8.50
|
|
|
|
6.66
|
|
|
|
6.32
|
|
|
|
6.38
|
|
The assumptions and the expected return on plan assets presented
in the table above are used to determine pension expense for the
succeeding year.
The pension plan discount rate assumptions are evaluated
annually. Long-term interest rates on high quality debt
instruments in the U.S., which are used to determine the
discount rate of our U.S. plans, rose steadily during most
of the year, ending 2007 up 38 basis points after rising
23 basis points in 2006. The discount rate selected to
determine our pension benefit obligation for our U.S. plans
is based upon using a discounted bond portfolio analysis, with
appropriate consideration given to defined benefit payment terms
and duration of the liabilities. Input from local pension fund
consultants form the basis of the assumptions set for our
non-U.S. plans.
A change in the discount rate of 25 basis points would
result in a change in the U.S. pension obligation of
approximately $47 and a change in U.S. pension expense of
approximately $3.
The expected rate of return on plan assets was selected on the
basis of a long-term view of the pension plans asset portfolio
performance. Since 1985, the asset/liability management
investment policy has resulted in a compound rate of return of
12.5%. Our three-year, five-year and ten-year compounded rates
of return through December 31, 2007 were 11.4%, 13.5% and
8.3%. The appropriateness of the expected rate of return is
assessed on an annual basis and revised if necessary. The rate
of return assumption for U.S. plans was 8.25% as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006.
The significant weighted average assumptions used in the
measurement of other postretirement benefit obligations in the
U.S. are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.24
|
%
|
|
|
5.86
|
%
|
|
|
5.60
|
%
|
Initial weighted health care costs trend rate
|
|
|
9.50
|
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
9.00
|
|
Ultimate health care costs trend rate
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ultimate reached
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
The assumptions presented in the table above, which are
evaluated annually, are used to determine expense for the
succeeding year. The discount rate selection process is similar
to the pension plans. Assumed healthcare cost trend rates have a
significant effect on the healthcare obligation. To determine
the trend rates, consideration is given to the plan design,
recent experience, and health care economics.
A one-percentage-point change in assumed healthcare costs trend
rates would have the following effects for 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Point
|
|
1% Point
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
Decrease
|
|
Effect on total of service and interest cost components
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
Effect on postretirement benefit obligations
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
114
Expected benefit payments by our pension plans and other
postretirement plans, before recognition of the Union Settlement
Agreements effective upon emergence from bankruptcy, for each of
the next five years and for the period 2013 through 2017 are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross before
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net after
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medicare
|
|
|
Medicare
|
|
|
Medicare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Part D
|
|
|
Part D
|
|
|
Part D
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
167
|
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
|
$
|
143
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
137
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
2009
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
2010
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
234
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
2011
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
2012
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
2013-2017
|
|
|
702
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
419
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
382
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,474
|
|
|
$
|
444
|
|
|
$
|
929
|
|
|
$
|
69
|
|
|
$
|
860
|
|
|
$
|
80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected contributions to be made to the defined benefit
pension plans in 2008 are $16 for our U.S. plans and $15
for our
non-U.S. plans.
With our emergence from bankruptcy on January 31, 2008, we
satisfied our settlement agreements with the unions and
non-union retirees by making the stipulated payments to the
VEBAs. With these payments, our non-pension postretirement
obligations relating to these groups were eliminated, and the
consequent charges resulting from this action were recorded as
of the Effective Date. Additionally, the application of fresh
start accounting provisions to all remaining defined benefit
pension and other postretirement plans at emergence will require
the recognition of any unamortized actuarial gains or losses and
prior service cost or credits.
Cash deposits are maintained to provide credit enhancement for
certain agreements. These financial instruments are typically
renewed each year and are recorded in Cash and cash equivalents.
In most jurisdictions, these cash deposits can generally be
withdrawn if comparable security is provided in the form of
letters of credit.
At December 31, 2007, cash and cash equivalents held in the
U.S. amounted to $513. Included in this amount was $71 of
cash deposits that provide credit enhancement for certain lease
agreements and to support surety bonds that enable us to
self-insure our workers compensation obligations in
certain states and fund an escrow account required to appeal a
judgment rendered in Texas. In addition, cash held by DCC of $93
was restricted under the terms of the Forbearance Agreement as
discussed in Notes 4 and 16 and is reported separately as
restricted cash.
At December 31, 2007, cash and cash equivalents held
outside the U.S. amounted to $758. Included in this amount
was $40 of cash deposits that provide credit enhancement for
certain lease agreements, letters of credit and bank guarantees,
and to support surety bonds that enable us to self-insure
certain employee benefit obligations.
The cash deposits other than DCCs cash are not considered
restricted as they could have been replaced by letters of credit
available under our DIP Credit Agreement (discussed in
Note 16). Availability at December 31, 2007 was
adequate to cover the deposits for which replacement by letters
of credit is permitted.
A substantial portion of the
non-U.S. cash
and cash equivalents is needed for working capital and other
operating purposes. Several countries have local regulatory
requirements that significantly restrict the ability of the
Debtors to access this cash. In addition, at December 31,
2007, $88 was held by consolidated entities
115
that have minority interests with varying levels of
participation rights involving cash withdrawals. Beyond these
restrictions, there are practical limitations on repatriation of
cash from certain countries because of the resulting tax cost.
|
|
Note 16.
|
Financing
Agreements
|
DIP Credit
Agreement
We, as borrower, and our Debtor subsidiaries, as guarantors,
were parties to the DIP Credit Agreement that was initially
approved by the Bankruptcy Court in March 2006. Under the DIP
Credit Agreement, we had a $650 revolving credit facility and a
$900 term loan facility at December 31, 2007. All of the
loans and other obligations under the DIP Credit Agreement were
repaid as part of the consummation of the Plan, primarily from
the funding obtained from the Exit Facility. Amounts borrowed at
December 31, 2007, were at a rate of 7.36%, the London
Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus 2.5%. We also paid a
commitment fee of 0.375% per annum for unused committed amounts
under the facility as well as a fee for issued and undrawn
letters of credit in an amount per annum equal to the LIBOR
margin applicable to the revolving credit facility and a per
annum fronting fee of 0.25%.
The DIP Credit Agreement was guaranteed by substantially all of
our domestic subsidiaries, except for DCC and its subsidiaries.
As collateral, we and each of our guarantor subsidiaries granted
a security interest in, and lien on, effectively all of our
assets, including a pledge of 66% of the equity interests of
each material foreign subsidiary directly or indirectly owned by
us.
Additionally, the DIP Credit Agreement had required us to
maintain a minimum amount of consolidated earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, restructuring and
reorganization costs (EBITDAR), based on rolling
12-month
cumulative EBITDAR requirements for us and our direct and
indirect subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, beginning on
March 31, 2007 and ending on February 28, 2008, at
levels set forth in the DIP Credit Agreement, as amended. We
were also required to maintain minimum availability of $100 at
all times. The DIP Credit Agreement provided for certain events
of default customary for
debtor-in-possession
financings of this type, including cross default with other
indebtedness. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of
any event of default under the DIP Credit Agreement, interest on
all outstanding amounts would be payable on demand at 2% above
the then applicable rate. We were in compliance with the
requirements of the DIP Credit Agreement at December 31,
2007.
As of December 31, 2007, we had borrowed $900 under the DIP
Credit Agreement Term Loan and based on our borrowing base
collateral, had additional availability of $282 after deducting
the $100 minimum availability requirement and $206 for
outstanding letters of credit. As noted above, all borrowings
under the DIP Credit Agreement were refinanced as part of the
Plan. Letters of credit issued under the DIP Credit Agreement
were transferred to the Exit Facility.
Subsequent
Event Exit Financing
On the Effective Date, Dana, as Borrower, and certain of our
domestic subsidiaries, as guarantors, entered into the Exit
Facility with Citicorp USA, Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc. and
Barclays Capital. The Exit Facility consists of the Term
Facility in the total aggregate amount of $1,430 and the $650
Revolving Facility. The Term Facility was fully drawn in
borrowings of $1,350 on the Effective Date and $80 on
February 1, 2008. Net proceeds were reduced by payment of
$114 of original issue discount and other customary issuance
costs and fees of $40 for net proceeds of $1,276. There were no
borrowings under the Revolving Facility, but $200 was utilized
for existing letters of credit.
Amounts outstanding under the Revolving Facility may be
borrowed, repaid and reborrowed with the final payment due and
payable on January 31, 2013. Amounts outstanding under the
Term Facility are payable in equal quarterly amounts on the last
day of each fiscal quarter at a rate of 1% per annum of the
original principal amount of the Term Facility advances,
adjusted for any prepayments, prior to January 31, 2014,
with the remaining balance due in equal quarterly installments
in the final year of the Term Facility and final maturity on
January 31, 2015.
116
The Exit Facility contains mandatory prepayment requirements in
certain circumstances upon the sale of assets, insurance
recoveries, the incurrence of debt, the issuance of equity
securities and on the basis of excess cash flow as defined in
the agreement, subject to certain permitted reinvestment rights,
in addition to the ability to make optional prepayments. Certain
term loan prepayments are subject to a prepayment call premium
prior to the second anniversary of the Term Facility.
The Revolving Facility bears interest at a floating rate based
on, at our option, the base rate or LIBOR rate (each as
described in the Revolving Facility) plus a margin based on the
undrawn amounts available under the Revolving Facility set forth
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Borrowing Availability
|
|
Base Rate
|
|
|
LIBOR Rate
|
|
|
Greater than $450
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
2.00
|
%
|
Greater than $200 but less than or equal to $450
|
|
|
1.25
|
%
|
|
|
2.25
|
%
|
$200 or less
|
|
|
1.50
|
%
|
|
|
2.50
|
%
|
We will pay a commitment fee of 0.375% per annum for unused
committed amounts under the Revolving Facility. Up to $400 of
the Revolving Facility may be applied to letters of credit.
Issued letters of credit reduce availability. We will pay a fee
for issued and undrawn letters of credit in an amount per annum
equal to the applicable LIBOR margin based on a quarterly
average availability under the Revolving Facility and a per
annum fronting fee of 0.25%, payable quarterly.
The Term Facility bears interest at a floating rate based on, at
our option, the base rate or LIBOR rate (each as described in
the Term Facility) plus a margin of 2.75% in the case of base
rate loans or 3.75% in the case of LIBOR rate loans.
For the first 24 months following the Effective Date, the
LIBOR rates in each of the Revolving Facility and the Term
Facility will not be less than 3.00%. Interest is due quarterly
in arrears with respect to base rate loans and at the end of
each interest period with respect to LIBOR loans. For LIBOR
loans with interest periods greater than 90 days, interest
is payable every 90 days from the first day of such
interest period and on the date such loan is converted or paid
in full.
Under the Exit Facility, Dana (with certain subsidiaries
excluded) is required to comply with customary covenants for
facilities of this type. These include (i) affirmative
covenants as to corporate existence, compliance with laws,
making after-acquired property or subsidiaries subject to the
liens of the lenders, environmental matters, insurance, payment
of taxes, access to books and records, using commercially
reasonable efforts to maintain credit ratings, use of proceeds,
maintenance of cash management systems, priority of liens in
favor of the lenders, maintenance of assets, interest rate
protection and quarterly, annual and other reporting
obligations, and (ii) negative covenants, including
limitations on liens, additional indebtedness, guarantees,
dividends, transactions with affiliates, investments, asset
dispositions, nature of business, capital expenditures, mergers
and consolidations, amendments to constituent documents,
accounting changes, and limitations on restrictions affecting
subsidiaries and sale and lease-backs.
Under the Term Facility, we are required to maintain compliance
with the following financial covenants measured on the last day
of each fiscal quarter:
(i) commencing as of December 31, 2008, a maximum
leverage ratio of not greater than 3.10 to 1.00 at
December 31, 2008, decreasing in steps to 2.25 to 1.00 as
of June 30, 2013, based on the ratio of consolidated funded
debt to the previous 12 month consolidated earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), as
defined in the agreement;
(ii) commencing as of December 31, 2008, minimum
interest coverage ratio of not less than 4.50 to 1.00 based on
the previous
12-month
consolidated EBITDA to consolidated interest expense for that
period, as defined in the agreement; and
(iii) a minimum EBITDA of $211 for the six months ending
June 30, 2008 and of $341 for the nine months ending
September 30, 2008.
117
The Revolving Facility requires us to comply with a minimum
fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.10 to 1.00,
measured quarterly, in the event availability under the
Revolving Facility falls below $75 for five consecutive business
days. The ratio is the last 12 months EBITDA less
unfinanced capital expenditures divided by the sum of interest,
scheduled principal payments, taxes and dividends paid for the
last 12 months.
The Exit Facility includes customary events of default for
facilities of this type, including failure to pay principal,
interest or other amounts when due, breach of representations
and warranties, breach of any covenant under the Exit Facility,
cross-default to other indebtedness, judgment default,
invalidity of any loan document, failure of liens to be
perfected, the occurrence of certain ERISA events or the
occurrence of a change of control. Upon the occurrence and
continuance of an event of default, our lenders may have the
right, among other things, to terminate their commitments under
the Exit Facility, accelerate the repayment of all of our
obligations under the Exit Facility and foreclose on the
collateral granted to them.
The Exit Facility is guaranteed by all of our domestic
subsidiaries except for DCC, Dana Companies, LLC and their
respective subsidiaries. As of the Effective Date, Dana and the
guarantors entered into the Revolving Facility Security
Agreement and the Term Facility Security Agreement. The
Revolving Facility Security Agreement grants a first priority
lien on Dana and the guarantors accounts receivable and
inventory and a second priority lien on substantially all of
Dana and the guarantors remaining assets, including a
pledge of 65% of the stock of each foreign subsidiary. The Term
Facility Security Agreement grants a second priority lien on
accounts receivable and inventory and a first priority lien on
substantially all of Dana and the guarantors remaining
assets, including a pledge of 65% of the stock of each foreign
subsidiary.
In connection with the Exit Facility, as of the Effective Date
we also entered into the Intercreditor Agreement, which
establishes the relationship between the security agreements
described above.
Under the terms of the Exit Facility, we are required to enter
into interest rate hedge agreements by May 30, 2008 and to
maintain agreements covering a notional amount of not less than
50% of the aggregate loans outstanding under the Term Facility
for a period of not less than three years.
A portion of the net proceeds from the Exit Facility were used
to repay Danas DIP Credit Agreement (which was terminated
pursuant to its terms), make other payments required upon exit
from bankruptcy protection and provide liquidity to fund working
capital and other general corporate purposes.
As of February 29, 2008, the amount outstanding under the
Term Facility was $1,317 and the amount utilized under the
Revolving Facility was $193, attributable to issued but undrawn
letters of credit.
The revolving credit facility received a rating of BB+ from
Standard & Poors and Ba2 from Moodys
Investment Services. The term loan facility received a rating of
BB from Standard & Poors and Ba3 from
Moodys Investment Services.
With the additional funding and availability of the Exit
Facility, we believe we have adequate availability to fund our
operations for at least the next twelve months.
European
Receivables Loan Facility
In July 2007, certain of our European subsidiaries entered into
definitive agreements to establish an accounts receivable
securitization program. The agreements include a Receivable Loan
Agreement (the Loan Agreement) with GE Leveraged Loans Limited
(GE) that provides for a five-year accounts receivable
securitization facility under which up to the euro equivalent of
$225 in financing is available to those European subsidiaries
(collectively, the Sellers) subject to the availability of
adequate levels of accounts receivable.
Ancillary to the Loan Agreement, the Sellers entered into
receivables purchase agreements and related agreements, as
applicable, under which they, directly or indirectly, sell
certain accounts receivable to Dana Europe Financing (Ireland)
Limited, (the Purchaser). The Purchaser is a limited liability
company incorporated under the laws of Ireland as a special
purpose entity to purchase the identified accounts receivable.
The Purchaser pays the purchase price of the identified accounts
receivable in part from the proceeds of loans from GE and other
lenders under the Loan Agreement and in part from the proceeds
of certain subordinated loans from our subsidiary Dana Europe
S.A. The Purchasers obligations under the Loan Agreement
are
118
secured by a lien on and security interest in all of its rights
to the transferred accounts receivable, as well as collection
accounts and items related to the accounts receivable. The
accounts receivable purchased are included in our consolidated
financial statements because the Purchaser does not meet certain
accounting requirements for treatment as a qualifying
special purpose entity under GAAP. Accordingly, the sales
of the accounts receivable and subordinated loans from Dana
Europe S.A. are eliminated in consolidation and any loans to the
Purchaser from GE and the participating lenders are included in
our consolidated financial statements. The securitization
program is accounted for as a secured borrowing with a pledge of
collateral. At December 31, 2007, the total amount of
accounts receivable serving as collateral securing the
borrowing was $351.
Advances to the Purchaser under the Loan Agreement are
determined based on advance rates relating to the value of the
transferred accounts receivable. Advances bear interest based on
the LIBOR applicable to the currency in which each advance is
denominated, plus a margin as specified in the Loan Agreement.
Advances are to be repaid in full by July 2012. The Purchaser
pays a fee to the lenders based on any unused amount of the
accounts receivable facility. The Loan Agreement contains
representations and warranties, affirmative and negative
covenants and events of default that are customary for
financings of this type.
The Sellers and our subsidiary Dana International Luxembourg
SARL (Dana Luxembourg) and certain of its subsidiaries
(collectively, the Dana European Group) also entered into a
Performance and Indemnity Deed (the Performance Guaranty) with
GE under which Dana Luxembourg has, among other things,
guaranteed the Sellers obligations to perform under their
respective purchase agreements. The Performance Guaranty
contains representations and warranties, affirmative and
negative covenants, and events of default that are customary for
financings of this type, including certain restrictions on the
ability of members of the Dana European Group to incur
additional indebtedness, grant liens on their assets, make
acquisitions and investments, and pay dividends and make other
distributions. Dana Luxembourg has agreed to act as the master
servicer for the transferred accounts receivable under the terms
of a servicing agreement with GE and each Seller has agreed to
act as a sub-servicer under the servicing agreement for the
transferred accounts receivable it sells.
At December 31, 2007, there was additional availability of
$33 in countries that have participated in the securitization
program and there were borrowings under this facility equivalent
to $119 recorded as notes payable. The proceeds from the
borrowings were used for operations and the repayment of
intercompany debt.
Canadian Credit
Agreement
In June 2006, Dana Canada Corporation (Dana Canada), as
borrower, and certain of its Canadian affiliates, as guarantors,
entered into a Credit Agreement (the Canadian Credit Agreement)
with Citibank Canada as agent, initial lender and an issuing
bank, and with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Toronto Branch, and
Bank of America, N.A., Canada Branch, as initial lenders and
issuing banks. The Canadian Credit Agreement provided for a $100
revolving credit facility, of which $5 was available for the
issuance of letters of credit. At December 31, 2007, less
than $1 of the facility was being utilized for the letters of
credit and there had been no borrowings over the life of this
agreement. Based on its borrowing base collateral at
December 31, 2007, Dana Canada had additional availability
of $52 after deducting a $20 minimum availability requirement.
The Canadian Credit Agreement was terminated upon our emergence
from bankruptcy.
DCC
Notes
DCC was a non-Debtor subsidiary. At the time of our bankruptcy
filing, DCC had outstanding notes (the DCC Notes) in the amount
of approximately $399. The holders of a majority of the
outstanding principal amount of the DCC Notes formed an Ad Hoc
Committee which asserted that the DCC Notes had become
immediately due and payable. Two DCC noteholders that were not
part of the Ad Hoc Committee sued DCC for nonpayment of
principal and accrued interest on their DCC Notes. In December
2006, DCC made a payment of $8 to these two noteholders in full
settlement of their claims. Also in December 2006, DCC and the
holders of most of the DCC Notes executed a forbearance
agreement and, contemporaneously, Dana
119
and DCC executed a settlement agreement relating to claims
between them. Together, these agreements provided, among other
things, that (i) the forbearing noteholders would not
exercise their rights or remedies with respect to the DCC Notes
for a period of 24 months (or until the effective date of
our reorganization plan), during which time DCC would endeavor
to sell its remaining asset portfolio in an orderly manner and
use the proceeds to pay down the DCC Notes, and (ii) Dana
stipulated to a general unsecured pre-petition claim by DCC in
the Bankruptcy Cases in the amount of $325 (the DCC Claim) in
exchange for DCCs release of certain claims against the
Debtors.
Under the settlement agreement, Dana and DCC also terminated
their intercompany tax sharing agreement under which they had
formerly computed tax benefits and liabilities with respect to
their U.S. consolidated federal tax returns and
consolidated or combined state tax returns. Under the
Forbearance Agreement, DCC agreed to pay the forbearing
noteholders their pro rata share of any cash it maintained in
the U.S. greater than $7.5 on a quarterly basis.
At December 31, 2007 the amount of principal outstanding
under these DCC Notes was $136. In January 2008, DCC made a $90
payment to the forbearing noteholders, consisting of $87 of
principal and $3 of interest. On the Effective Date and pursuant
to the Plan we paid DCC the $49 remaining amount due to DCC
noteholders, thereby settling DCCs general unsecured claim
of $325 with the Debtors. DCC, in turn, used these funds to
repay the noteholders in full.
Debt
Reclassification
The bankruptcy filing triggered the immediate acceleration of
our direct financial obligations (including, among others,
outstanding non-secured notes issued under our Indentures dated
as of December 15, 1997, August 8, 2001,
March 11, 2002 and December 10, 2004) and
DCCs obligations under the DCC Notes. The amounts
accelerated under our Indentures are characterized as unsecured
debt for purposes of the reorganization proceedings. Obligations
of $1,582 under our Indentures have been classified as
Liabilities subject to compromise, and the unsecured DCC Notes
have been classified as part of the current portion of long-term
debt in our consolidated balance sheet.
Fees are paid to the banks for providing committed lines, but
not for uncommitted lines. We paid fees of $18, $30 and $10 in
2007, 2006 and 2005 in connection with our committed facilities.
Amortization of bank commitment fees totaled $13, $37 and $7 in
2007, 2006 and 2005.
Selected details of consolidated short-term borrowings are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
139
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
Average during 2007
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
Maximum during 2007 (month end)
|
|
|
171
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
Average during 2006
|
|
|
168
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
Maximum during 2006 (month end)
|
|
|
635
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
120
Details of consolidated long-term debt are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Indebtedness of Dana, excluding consolidated
subsidiaries DIP-Term Loan
|
|
$
|
900
|
|
|
$
|
700
|
|
Indebtedness of DCC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unsecured notes, fixed rates, 2.00% 8.375%, due 2008
to 2012
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
266
|
|
Nonrecourse notes, fixed rates, 5.92%, due 2008 to 2011
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Indebtedness of other consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,062
|
|
|
|
995
|
|
Less: Current maturities
|
|
|
1,043
|
|
|
|
273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
722
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total maturities of all long-term debt, excluding debt
recorded as Liabilities subject to compromise, for the next five
years and after are as follows: 2008, $1,043; 2009, $9; 2010,
$2; 2011, $5; 2012, $1 and beyond 2012, $2. These amounts
exclude the Exit Financing discussed above.
An additional $1,582 of debt is included in Liabilities subject
to compromise and was satisfied in accordance with the
applicable Plan provisions as general unsecured nonpriority
claims in the Bankruptcy Cases.
Interest Rate
Agreements
In 2006, we terminated two interest rate swap agreements
scheduled to expire in August 2011, under which we had agreed to
exchange the difference between fixed rate and floating rate
interest amounts on notional amounts corresponding with the
amount and term of our August 2011 notes. Converting the fixed
interest rate to a variable rate was intended to provide a
better balance of fixed and variable rate debt. Both swap
agreements had been designated as fair value hedges of the
August 2011 notes. Upon approval by the Bankruptcy Court of the
DIP Credit Agreement, these swap agreements were terminated with
a payment of $6 on March 30, 2006.
|
|
Note 17.
|
Fair Value of
Financial Instruments
|
The estimated fair values of our financial instruments are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Financial assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
1,364
|
|
|
$
|
1,364
|
|
|
$
|
719
|
|
|
$
|
719
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
Currency forwards
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term debt
|
|
$
|
139
|
|
|
$
|
139
|
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
1,062
|
|
|
|
1,061
|
|
|
|
995
|
|
|
|
1,013
|
|
Currency forwards
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
At December 31, 2007, the carrying value of our debt
included in Liabilities subject to compromise was $1,582. The
fair market value of this debt, based on quoted prices, was
$1,188.
121
|
|
Note 18.
|
Commitments and
Contingencies
|
Impact of Our
Bankruptcy Filing
During our Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, most
actions against us relating to pre-petition liabilities were
automatically stayed. Substantially all of our pre-petition
liabilities were addressed under the Plan. Our emergence from
bankruptcy resolved certain of our contingencies as discussed
below.
The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan on December 26,
2007. On January 3, 2008, an Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants filed a notice of appeal of the
Confirmation Order (District Court Case
No. 08-CV-01037).
On January 4, 2008, an asbestos claimant, Jose Angel
Valdez, filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order
(District Court Case
No. 08-CV-01038).
On February 5, 2008, Prior Dana and the other
post-emergence Debtors (collectively, the Reorganized
Debtors) filed a motion seeking to consolidate the two
appeals. Briefing is ongoing in these appeals, and the
Reorganized Debtors are moving to have the appeals dismissed.
Class Action
Lawsuit and Derivative Actions
A securities class action entitled Howard Frank v. Michael J.
Burns and Robert C. Richter was originally filed in October
2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, naming our former Chief Executive Officer, Michael J.
Burns, and former Chief Financial Officer, Robert C. Richter, as
defendants. In a consolidated complaint filed in August 2006,
lead plaintiffs alleged violations of the U.S. securities
laws and claimed that the price at which our stock traded at
various times between April 2004 and October 2005 was
artificially inflated as a result of the defendants
alleged wrongdoing. In June 2007, the District Court denied lead
plaintiffs motion for an order partially lifting the
statutory discovery stay which would have enabled them to obtain
copies of certain documents produced to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). By order dated August 21, 2007,
the District Court granted the defendants motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and entered a judgment
closing the case. In September 2007, lead plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal from the District Courts order and
judgment and, in February 2008, they filed their opening brief
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
A stockholder derivative action entitled Roberta
Casden v. Michael J. Burns, et al., was originally
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio in March 2006. An amended complaint filed in August 2006
added alleged non-derivative class claims on behalf of holders
of our stock alleging, among other things, that the defendants,
our former Board of Directors and former Chief Financial Officer
had breached their fiduciary duties and acted in bad faith in
determining to file for protection under the Bankruptcy Laws.
These alleged non-derivative class claims are not asserted
against Dana. In June 2006, the District Court stayed the
derivative claims, deferring to the Bankruptcy Court on those
claims. In July 2007, the District Court dismissed the
non-derivative class claims asserted in the amended complaint
and entered a judgment closing the case. In August 2007,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the District
Courts order and judgment. In February 2008, the
plaintiff filed an opening brief in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A second stockholder derivative
action, Steven Staehr v. Michael Burns, et al.,
remains stayed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.
SEC
Investigation
In September 2005, we reported that management was investigating
accounting matters arising out of incorrect entries related to a
customer agreement in our Commercial Vehicle operations, and
that the Prior Dana Audit Committee had engaged outside counsel
to conduct an independent investigation of these matters as
well. Outside counsel informed the SEC of the investigation,
which ended in December 2005 at which time we filed restated
financial statements for the first two quarters of 2005 and the
years 2002 through 2004. In January 2006, we learned that the
SEC had issued a formal order of investigation with respect to
matters related to our restatements. The SECs
investigation is a non-public, fact-finding inquiry to determine
whether any violations of the law have occurred. We are
continuing to cooperate fully with the SEC in the investigation.
122
Legal Proceedings
Arising in the Ordinary Course of Business
We are a party to various pending judicial and administrative
proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. These
include, among others, proceedings based on product liability
claims and alleged violations of environmental laws. We have
reviewed these pending legal proceedings, including the probable
outcomes, our reasonably anticipated costs and expenses, the
availability and limits of our insurance coverage and surety
bonds and our established reserves for uninsured liabilities.
Further information about some of these legal proceedings
follows, including information about our accruals for the
liabilities that may arise from such proceedings. We accrue for
contingent liabilities at the time when we believe they are both
probable and estimable. We review our assessments of probability
and estimability as new information becomes available and adjust
our accruals quarterly, if appropriate. Since we do not accrue
for contingent liabilities that we believe are probable unless
we can reasonably estimate the amounts of such liabilities, our
actual liabilities may exceed the amounts we have recorded. We
do not believe that any liabilities that may result from these
proceedings are reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect on our liquidity or financial condition.
Asbestos Personal
Injury Liabilities
We had approximately 41,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at December 31, 2007, compared to
73,000 at December 31, 2006, including approximately 6,000
claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and
payment. The number of active pending claims has been reduced
for two reasons. First, the dismissal of approximately 17,500
cases in the State of Mississippi reported in the third quarter
of 2007. Second, updates of our data on asbestos claims during
the bankruptcy process disclosed that approximately 13,000
additional claims were inactive. These claims were filed in
jurisdictions with inactive dockets or medical criteria that
renders them unlikely to become active. We had accrued $136 for
indemnity and defense costs for pending and future asbestos
personal injury liability claims at December 31, 2007,
compared to $141 at December 31, 2006.
Generally accepted methods of projecting future asbestos product
liability claims and costs require a complex modeling of data
and assumptions about occupational exposures, disease incidence,
mortality, litigation patterns and strategy and settlement
values. Although we do not believe that our products have ever
caused any asbestos diseases, for modeling purposes we combined
historical data relating to claims filed against us with labor
force data in an epidemiological model, in order to project past
and future disease incidence and resulting claims propensity.
Then we compared our claims history to historical incidence
estimates and applied these relationships to the projected
future incidence patterns, in order to estimate future
compensable claims. We then established a cost for such claims,
based on historical trends in claim settlement amounts. In
applying this methodology, we made a number of key assumptions,
including labor force exposure, the calibration period, the
nature of the diseases and the resulting claims that might be
made, the number of claims that might be settled, the settlement
amounts and the defense costs we might incur. Given the inherent
variability of our key assumptions, the methodology produced a
potential liability through 2022 within a range of $136 to $212.
Since the outcomes within that range are equally probable, the
accrual at December 31, 2007 represents the lower end of
the range. While the process of estimating future demands is
highly uncertain beyond 2022, we believe there are reasonable
circumstances in which our expenditures related to asbestos
personal injury liability claims after that date would be de
minimis. Our estimated liability for asbestos personal
injury claims at December 31, 2006 was within a range of
$141 to $208.
Prior to 2006, we reached agreements with some of our insurers
to commute policies covering asbestos personal injury claims. We
apply proceeds from insurance commutations first to reduce any
recorded recoverable amount. Proceeds from commutations in
excess of our estimated recoverable amount for pending and
future claims are recorded as a liability for future claims.
There were no commutations of insurance in 2007 or 2006. At
December 31, 2007, our liability for future demands under
prior commutations was $12, bringing our total recorded
liability for asbestos personal injury liability claims to $148.
At December 31, 2007, we had recorded $69 as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and
projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to
$72 recorded at December 31,
123
2006. The recorded asset reflects our assessment of the capacity
of our current insurance agreements to provide for the payment
of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims
and projected future demands. These recoveries take into account
elections to extend existing coverage which we would exercise in
order to maximize our insurance recovery. The recorded asset
does not represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but
rather the amount we would expect to recover if we paid the
accrued indemnity and defense costs.
In addition, we had a net amount receivable from our insurers
and others of $17 at December 31, 2007, compared to $14 at
December 31, 2006. The receivable represents reimbursements
for settled asbestos personal injury liability claims, including
billings in progress and amounts subject to alternate dispute
resolution proceedings with some of our insurers. It is
anticipated that a favorable settlement to these proceedings
will be finalized soon.
As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated
with asbestos claims were retained in Prior Dana which was then
merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly owned
subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include
insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities
and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its
liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC will continue to process
asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of
business, but it will be separately managed and will have an
independent board member. The independent board member is
required to approve certain transactions including dividends or
other transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. We expect our
involvement with Dana Companies, LLC will be limited to service
agreements for certain administrative activities.
Other Product
Liabilities
We had accrued $4 for non-asbestos product liability costs at
December 31, 2007, compared to $7 at December 31,
2006, with no recovery expected from third parties at either
date. We estimate these liabilities based on assumptions about
the value of the claims and about the likelihood of recoveries
against us derived from our historical experience and current
information.
Environmental
Liabilities
We had accrued $180 for environmental liabilities at
December 31, 2007, compared to $64 at December 31,
2006. We estimate these liabilities based on the most probable
method of remediation, current laws and regulations and existing
technology. Estimates are made on an undiscounted basis and
exclude the effects of inflation. In addition, expected claims
settlements have also been considered, as discussed below. If
there is a range of equally probable remediation methods or
outcomes, we accrue the lower end of the range.
Of the $180 accrued, $19 will be retained and continues as a
post-emergence obligation. The remaining $161 is being addressed
through the unresolved claims process described in the Emergence
from Reorganization Proceedings section of Item 1. As such,
the resolution of these matters will not have an impact on our
post-emergence financial condition or results of operations.
Among the larger unresolved claims at emergence was a claim
involving the Hamilton Avenue Industrial Park (Hamilton) site in
New Jersey. We are a potentially responsible party at this site
(also known as the Cornell Dubilier Electronics or CDE site)
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA). This matter has been the subject of an
estimation proceeding as a result of our objection to a claim
filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
other federal agencies (collectively, the Government) in
connection with this and several other CERCLA sites. During the
course of the proceedings and our efforts to address the
Governments claim, no additional information was provided
to support any adjustment to the amounts we had accrued for this
matter. For the past several months, we have been actively
litigating the claim and negotiating a settlement with the
Government on the Hamilton site as well as other environmental
claims. As a result of the continued negotiations, in February
2008 we concluded that there was a probable settlement outcome
involving the Hamilton site and other unresolved environmental
claims. The $180 accrued at December 31, 2007 includes a
provision of $119 to adjust the amounts accrued to the probable
settlement outcome.
124
As described in Note 3, settlements of environmental claims
and other matters involving significant estimation could occur
at amounts significantly higher than the estimated accrued
liabilities. In the case of the settlement relating to the
Hamilton site and other environmental claims discussed above,
uncertainties regarding the levels of contamination, uncertainty
of whether there would be an equitable allocation of the claims
to all parties and the possibility of extended and costly
litigation, were all factors we considered in connection with
the expected settlement outcome. These same factors also
precluded us, in the absence of a consensual settlement, from
previously determining a probable and estimable liability beyond
that which had been previously accrued.
Other Liabilities
Related to Asbestos Claims
After the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) discontinued
negotiating shared settlements for asbestos claims for its
member companies in 2001, some former CCR members defaulted on
the payment of their shares of some settlements and some
settling claimants sought payment of the unpaid shares from
other members of the CCR at the time of the settlements,
including from us. We have been working with the CCR, other
former CCR members, our insurers and the claimants over a period
of several years in an effort to resolve these issues. Through
December 31, 2007, we had paid $47 to claimants and
collected $29 from our insurance carriers with respect to these
claims. At December 31, 2007, we had a receivable of $18
that we expect to recover from available insurance and surety
bonds relating to these claims. We are continuing to pursue
insurance collections with respect to claims paid prior to the
Filing Date.
Lease
Commitments
Cash obligations under future minimum rental commitments under
operating leases and net rental expense are shown in the table
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
Total
|
|
Lease Commitments
|
|
$
|
68
|
|
|
$
|
56
|
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
$
|
29
|
|
|
$
|
145
|
|
|
$
|
372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
Rental Expense
|
|
$
|
105
|
|
|
$
|
113
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
|
Note 19.
|
Warranty
Obligations
|
We record a liability for estimated warranty obligations at the
dates our products are sold. Adjustments are made as new
information becomes available. Changes in our warranty
liabilities in 2007 and 2006 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of period
|
|
$
|
90
|
|
|
$
|
91
|
|
Amounts accrued for current period sales
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Adjustments of prior accrual estimates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
Settlements of warranty claims
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation and other
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of period
|
|
$
|
92
|
|
|
$
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In June 2005, we changed our method of accounting for warranty
liabilities from estimating the liability based on the credit
issued to the customer, to accounting for the warranty
liabilities based on our costs to settle the claim. Management
believes that this is a change to a preferable method in that it
more accurately reflects the cost of settling the warranty
liability. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the $6 pre-tax
cumulative effect of the change was effective as of
January 1, 2005 and was reflected in the financial
statements for the three months ended March 31, 2005. In
the third quarter of 2005, the previously recorded tax expense
of $2
125
was offset by the valuation allowance established against our
U.S. net deferred tax assets. Warranty obligations are
reported as current liabilities in the consolidated balance
sheet.
We have been notified by a customer in Europe that a quality
matter relating to a specific product supplied by us could
potentially result in warranty claims. Our customer has advised
us of alleged vehicle performance issues which may be
potentially attributable to our product. We are currently
investigating the information provided by our customer and
performing product testing to ascertain whether the reported
performance failures are attributable to our product. At
December 31, 2007, no liability had been recorded for this
matter as the information currently available to us is
insufficient to assess our liability, if any.
Income tax expense (benefit) attributable to continuing
operations is summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
$
|
56
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
67
|
|
U.S. state and local
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal and state
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
776
|
|
Non-U.S.
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Deferred
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expense
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
66
|
|
|
$
|
924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense was calculated based upon the following
components of income (loss) from continuing operations before
income tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
U.S. operations
|
|
$
|
(406
|
)
|
|
$
|
(634
|
)
|
|
$
|
(736
|
)
|
Non-U.S.
operations
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss before income taxes
|
|
$
|
(387
|
)
|
|
$
|
(571
|
)
|
|
$
|
(285
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. operations included those of the debtor companies and
DCC, a non-debtor company.
The current income tax expense reflects changes in the amount of
income taxes currently payable or receivable. Although our 2007
and 2005 operating results, as discussed below, did not generate
federal income taxes payable in the U.S., the 2007 and 2005
current federal income tax expense includes estimated amounts
payable as a result of Internal Revenue Service examinations of
the years 1997 through 2005.
Deferred income taxes are provided for temporary differences
between amounts of assets and liabilities for financial
reporting purposes and the bases of such assets and liabilities
as measured under enacted tax laws and regulations, as well as
NOLs, tax credit and other carryforwards.
SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes,
requires that deferred tax assets be reduced by a valuation
allowance if, based on all available evidence, it is considered
more likely than not that some portion or all of the recorded
deferred tax assets will not be realized in future periods.
We periodically assess the need to establish valuation
allowances against our net deferred tax assets. Consideration is
given to all positive and negative evidence related to the
realization of some or all of our deferred tax assets. This
assessment considers, among other matters, forecasts of future
profitability, the nature, frequency and severity of recent
losses, the duration of statutory carryforward periods and the
126
implementation of feasible and prudent tax planning strategies.
Based on this analysis, we established a 100% valuation
allowance against our U.S. and U.K. deferred tax assets in
2005 with a charge to tax expense of $817 that year. Similar
valuation allowances are recorded in other countries where,
based on the profit outlook, realization of the deferred taxes
does not satisfy the more-likely-than-not recognition criterion.
The tax expense or benefit recorded in continuing operations is
generally determined without regard to other categories of
earnings, such as a loss from discontinued operations or OCI. An
exception is provided if there is aggregate pre-tax income from
other categories and a pre-tax loss from continuing operations,
even if a valuation allowance has been established against
deferred tax assets as of the beginning of the year. The tax
benefit allocated to continuing operations is the amount by
which the loss from continuing operations reduces the tax
expense recorded with respect to the other categories of
earnings.
Prior to considering the effect of income taxes, our operations
in the U.S. reported OCI of $530 for 2007, primarily as a
result of amending our pension and other postretirement benefit
plans. The exception described in the preceding paragraph
resulted in a charge to OCI of $120. An offsetting tax benefit
was recognized in continuing operations, effectively resulting
from a reduction in the valuation allowance against deferred tax
assets.
With the exception of the $120 of income tax benefits recorded
in continuing operations for 2007, we have not recognized tax
benefits on losses generated since 2005 in several countries,
including the U.S. and the U.K., where the recent history
of operating losses does not allow us to satisfy the
more-likely-than-not criterion for realization of deferred tax
assets.
Our income tax provision for the year ended December 31,
2007 included net charges of $43, including $24 related to
continuing and $19 related to discontinued operations, that
should have been recorded in prior years. These amounts did not
have a material effect on the reported net loss for any of the
affected periods.
127
Deferred tax benefits (liabilities) consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Net operating loss carryforwards
|
|
$
|
642
|
|
|
$
|
592
|
|
Postretirement benefits other than pensions
|
|
|
365
|
|
|
|
620
|
|
Expense accruals
|
|
|
306
|
|
|
|
183
|
|
Research and development costs
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
212
|
|
Capital loss carryforward
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
Foreign tax credits recoverable
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
Other tax credits recoverable
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
Postemployment benefits
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
Inventory reserves
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Other employee benefits
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Pension accruals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
Other
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,899
|
|
|
|
2,270
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(1,609
|
)
|
|
|
(1,971
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
290
|
|
|
|
299
|
|
Depreciation non-leasing
|
|
|
(98
|
)
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
Unremitted earnings
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Leasing activities
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
Pension accruals
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
(208
|
)
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
82
|
|
|
$
|
202
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our deferred tax assets include benefits expected from the
utilization of NOLs, capital loss and credit carryforwards in
the future. The following table identifies the various deferred
tax asset components and the related allowances that existed at
December 31, 2007. Due to time limitations on the ability
to realize the
128
benefit of the carryforwards, additional portions of these
deferred tax assets may become unrealizable in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earliest
|
|
|
|
Tax
|
|
|
Valuation
|
|
|
Carryforward
|
|
Year of
|
|
|
|
Asset
|
|
|
Allowance
|
|
|
Period
|
|
Expiration
|
|
|
Net operating losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
$
|
396
|
|
|
$
|
(396
|
)
|
|
20
|
|
|
2023
|
|
U.S. state
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
(120
|
)
|
|
Various
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
Unlimited
|
|
|
|
|
France
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unlimited
|
|
|
|
|
Germany
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
Unlimited
|
|
|
|
|
U.K.
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
Unlimited
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-U.S.
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
Various
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
642
|
|
|
|
(605
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital losses
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
(116
|
)
|
|
Various
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Foreign tax credit
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
10
|
|
|
2010
|
|
Other credits
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
|
20
|
|
|
2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
926
|
|
|
$
|
(889
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to 2007, we did not provide for U.S. federal income
and
non-U.S. withholding
taxes on undistributed earnings from our
non-U.S. operations
because such earnings were considered to be re-invested
indefinitely outside of the U.S. With the confirmation of
our plan of reorganization and emergence from bankruptcy, we
intend to repatriate approximately $972 of accumulated
non-U.S. earnings.
Accordingly, income tax expense for 2007 includes a charge of
$37, net of valuation allowances, representing the
non-U.S. withholding
taxes which are expected to be incurred in connection with the
repatriation of these
non-U.S. earnings.
The earnings of our
non-U.S. subsidiaries
will likely be repatriated to the U.S. in the form of
repayments of intercompany borrowings and distributions from
earnings. Certain of our international operations had
intercompany loan obligations to the U.S. totaling $444.
These intercompany loans resulted (i) from certain
international operations having received cash or other forms of
financial support from the U.S. to finance their
activities, (ii) from U.S. entities transferring their
ownership in certain entities in exchange for intercompany notes
and (iii) from certain entities having declared a dividend
in kind in the form of a note payable. Of these intercompany
loans, $240 are denominated in a foreign currency and are not
considered to be permanently invested as they are expected to be
repaid in the near term.
As discussed in Note 2, we adopted FIN 48 on
January 1, 2007, and credited retained earnings for the
initial impact of approximately $3. As of the adoption date, we
had gross unrecognized tax benefits of $137, of which $112 could
be reduced by NOL carryforwards, and other timing adjustments.
The net amount of $25, if recognized, would affect our effective
tax rate. Unrecognized tax benefits are the difference between a
tax position taken, or expected to be taken, in a tax return and
the benefit recognized for accounting purposes pursuant to
FIN 48.
We conduct business globally and, as a result, file income tax
returns in multiple jurisdictions and are subject to examination
by taxing authorities throughout the world. With few exceptions,
we are no longer subject to U.S. federal, state and local
or foreign income tax examinations for years before 1999. The
1999 2002 U.S. federal audits are closed except
for a determination of the treatment of certain leasing
transactions. The closing agreement for this audit is expected
to be finalized in 2008, and the effect, if any, on the
financial statements is not expected to be material. We are
currently under audit by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service
(U.S. IRS) for the 2003 to 2005 tax years. The examination
phase of this audit is expected to be completed in 2008.
129
As of December 31, 2007, the total amount of gross
unrecognized tax benefits was $57, of which $39, if recognized,
would impact the effective tax rate. A reconciliation of the
beginning to ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Unrecognized Tax Benefits
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Balance at January 1
|
|
$
|
137
|
|
Decreases related to prior year tax positions
|
|
|
(90
|
)
|
Increases related to current year tax positions
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The gross unrecognized tax benefits decrease of $90 from
January 1, 2007 was caused by our continuing assessment of
uncertain tax positions. If matters for 1999 through 2005 are
settled with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) within
the next 12 months, the total amounts of unrecognized tax
benefits for all open tax years may be modified. Audit outcomes
and the timing of the audit settlements are subject to
significant uncertainty; therefore, we cannot make an estimate
of the impact on earnings at this time. As discussed in
Note 2, we have included accrued liabilities for income
taxes of the Debtors in liabilities subject to compromise since
they are being settled as part of the bankruptcy process.
Tax laws in Australia and Germany limit the future utilization
of NOLs for companies that change ownership as occurred with our
emergence. Deferred tax assets were reduced by $13 in December
2007 due to these laws. Tax legislation enacted in the U.K. and
State of Michigan, during the third quarter of 2007 and Mexico
in the fourth quarter did not have a material effect on our
financial statements.
The effective income tax rate for continuing operations differs
from the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate for the
following reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
U.S. federal income tax rate
|
|
|
(35
|
)%
|
|
|
(35
|
)%
|
|
|
(35
|
)%
|
Adjustments resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-deductible items, including reorganization expense
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State and local income taxes, net of federal benefit
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
Non-U.S.
income
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Non-U.S.
withholding taxes on undistributed earnings of
non-U.S.
operations
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General business tax credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Ohio legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Settlement and return adjustments
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Miscellaneous items
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of continuing operations before valuation allowance
adjustments on effective tax rate
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
Valuation allowance adjustments
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
347
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate continuing
operations
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
|
|
324
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going forward, the need to maintain a valuation allowance
against deferred tax assets in the U.S. and other foreign
countries will cause variability in our effective tax rate. We
will maintain full valuation allowances against our net deferred
tax assets in the U.S., U.K. and other applicable countries
until sufficient positive evidence exists to reduce or eliminate
the valuation allowance.
130
Limitations on
our Ability to Utilize NOLs
Generally, the discharge of a debt obligation by a debtor for an
amount less than the adjusted issue price creates cancellation
of indebtedness (COD) income, which must be included in the
debtors income. However, COD income is not recognized by a
taxpayer that is a debtor in a reorganization case if the
discharge is granted by the court or pursuant to a plan of
reorganization approved by the court. The Plan enabled the
Debtors to qualify for this bankruptcy exclusion rule.
Therefore, the COD income, triggered by the Plan, will not be
included in the taxable income of the Debtors.
However, certain income tax attributes otherwise available and
of value to the debtor are reduced, by the amount of COD income.
The prescribed order of attribute reduction is as follows:
(a) net operating losses (NOLs) for the year of discharge
and NOL carryforwards; (b) most credit carryforwards,
including the general business credit and the minimum tax
credit; (c) net capital losses for the year of discharge and
capital loss carryforwards; (d) the tax basis of the
debtors assets.
However, a debtor may elect to avoid the prescribed order of
attribute reduction and instead reduce the basis of certain
property first. We have not completed our analysis as to whether
it would be beneficial to reduce the basis of certain property
before reducing NOLs. Our financial statements assume that we
will reduce the NOLs first.
We also have not completed our analysis regarding the impact of
COD income on our attributes. However, based on our preliminary
analysis, we believe that the consolidated NOLs as of the
Effective Date will likely be eliminated and other tax
attributes will likely be significantly reduced.
To the extent that NOL, capital loss, and certain tax credit
carryforwards exist at the Effective Date, Section 382 of
the Internal Revenue Code imposes an annual limitation on their
use. There is also a limitation on the recognition of built-in
losses generated as a result of an ownership change. Generally,
under a special rule applicable to ownership changes occurring
in connection with a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, the
annual limitation amount is equal to the value of the stock of a
company immediately after emergence multiplied by an applicable
federal rate.
|
|
Note 21.
|
Other Income,
Net
|
Other income, net included:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
$
|
42
|
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
DCC income, net
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Divestiture gains (losses)
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
Foreign exchange gain (loss), net
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
Claim settlement
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government grants
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income, net
|
|
$
|
162
|
|
|
$
|
140
|
|
|
$
|
88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency denominated intercompany loans valued at $240
at December 31, 2007 by the Debtors to certain
non-U.S. operations
are not considered to be permanently invested. As such, the
foreign exchange gains on these loans of $44 for 2007 are
included above in Foreign exchange gain (loss), net, rather than
as translation gain in OCI. The claim settlement charge of $11
represents the estimated costs to settle a contractual issue
with GETRAG.
131
|
|
Note 22.
|
Segments,
Geographical Area and Major Customer Information
|
SFAS No. 131, Disclosures about Segments of an
Enterprise and Related Information, establishes standards
for reporting information about operating segments and related
disclosures about products and services and geographic
locations. SFAS No. 131 requires reporting on a single
basis of segmentation. The components that management
establishes for purposes of making decisions about an
enterprises operating matters are referred to as
operating segments. We currently have seven
operating segments within two manufacturing business units (ASG
and HVTSG).
ASG consists of five operating segments: Axle, Driveshaft,
Sealing, Thermal and Structures. HVTSG consists of two operating
segments: Commercial Vehicle and Off-Highway.
Management also monitors shared services and other operations
that are not part of the operating segments. These operations
include businesses unrelated to the segments, transportation
operations, other shared services, trailing liabilities of
closed operations and other administrative costs.
Management evaluates DCC as if it were accounted for under the
equity method of accounting rather than on the fully
consolidated basis required for external reporting. DCC is
included as a reconciling item between the segment results and
our loss before income tax.
Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) is the key internal
measure of performance used by management as a measure of
profitability for our segments. EBIT, a non-GAAP financial
measure, represents earnings before interest and taxes, and
excludes equity in earnings of affiliates. It includes sales
less cost of sales less SG&A plus Other income (expense),
net. Certain nonrecurring and unusual items like goodwill
impairment, realignment charges and divestiture gains and losses
are excluded from segment EBIT. It is a critical component of
EBITDA, which is the measure used to determine compliance with
our credit agreement covenants. See Note 16. for
information concerning our Exit Facility and the covenants
contained therein.
Segment
Information
We used the following information to evaluate our operating
segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inter-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Depreciation/
|
|
2007
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
Spend
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
$
|
2,627
|
|
|
$
|
102
|
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
819
|
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
84
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
217
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
720
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
275
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
291
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
1,069
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
Eliminations and other
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
(255
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
5,934
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
159
|
|
|
|
2,148
|
|
|
|
181
|
|
|
|
218
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
1,235
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
368
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
1,549
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
426
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Eliminations and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HVTSG
|
|
|
2,784
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
155
|
|
|
|
794
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
Other Operations
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
561
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,721
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
314
|
|
|
$
|
3,503
|
|
|
$
|
252
|
|
|
$
|
278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inter-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Depreciation/
|
|
2006
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
Spend
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
$
|
2,230
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
|
$
|
(43
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,131
|
|
|
$
|
90
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
1,124
|
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
591
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
679
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
256
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
283
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
1,174
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
416
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
Eliminations and other
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
(168
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
5,567
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
2,606
|
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
208
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
1,683
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
444
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
1,231
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
377
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Eliminations and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HVTSG
|
|
|
2,914
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
821
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
Other Operations
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
280
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(121
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
181
|
|
|
$
|
3,707
|
|
|
$
|
286
|
|
|
$
|
268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inter-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Depreciation/
|
|
2005
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
Spend
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
ASG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axle
|
|
$
|
2,448
|
|
|
$
|
59
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
979
|
|
|
$
|
39
|
|
|
$
|
66
|
|
Driveshaft
|
|
|
1,088
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
493
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Sealing
|
|
|
661
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Thermal
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
187
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Structures
|
|
|
1,288
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
460
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
Eliminations and other
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
(145
|
)
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ASG
|
|
|
5,941
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
|
|
2,355
|
|
|
|
179
|
|
|
|
205
|
|
HVTSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial Vehicle
|
|
|
1,540
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
396
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Off-Highway
|
|
|
1,100
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
320
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Eliminations and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HVTSG
|
|
|
2,640
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
716
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
Other Operations
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,611
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
222
|
|
|
$
|
3,307
|
|
|
$
|
264
|
|
|
$
|
257
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133
The following table reconciles segment EBIT to the consolidated
income (loss) from continuing operations before income tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Segment EBIT
|
|
$
|
314
|
|
|
$
|
181
|
|
|
$
|
222
|
|
Shared services and administrative
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
(202
|
)
|
Closed operations not in segments
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
DCC EBIT
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Impairment of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(234
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
Reorganization items, net
|
|
|
(275
|
)
|
|
|
(143
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(105
|
)
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
(168
|
)
|
Foreign exchange not in segments
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Realignment not in segments
|
|
|
(200
|
)
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
Other income (loss)
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
$
|
(387
|
)
|
|
$
|
(571
|
)
|
|
$
|
(285
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets at the business unit level are intended to correlate
with invested capital. The amount includes accounts receivable,
inventories, prepaid expenses (excluding taxes), goodwill,
investments in affiliates, net property, plant and equipment,
accounts payable and certain accrued liabilities, but excludes
assets and liabilities of discontinued operations.
Net assets differ from consolidated total assets as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Net assets
|
|
$
|
3,503
|
|
|
$
|
3,707
|
|
Accounts payable and other current liabilities
|
|
|
1,643
|
|
|
|
1,308
|
|
DCCs assets in excess of equity
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
296
|
|
Other current and long-term assets
|
|
|
1,106
|
|
|
|
961
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated total assets
|
|
$
|
6,425
|
|
|
$
|
6,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although accounting for discontinued operations does not result
in the reclassification of prior balance sheets, our segment
reporting excludes the assets of our discontinued operations for
all periods presented based on the treatment of these items for
internal reporting purposes.
The differences between operating capital spend and depreciation
shown by business unit and purchases of property, plant and
equipment and depreciation shown on the cash flow statement
result from the exclusion from the segment table of the amounts
related to discontinued operations and our equity method of
measuring DCC for operating purposes. DCC has no capital
spending and depreciation is not included in the operating
segment measures. DCC purchased equipment for lease to our
manufacturing operations through 2002 and continues to lease
that equipment to the business units. These operating leases
have been included in the consolidated statements as purchases
of assets and the assets are being depreciated over their useful
lives.
Certain expenses incurred in connection with realignment
activities are included in the respective segment operating
results, as are credits to earnings resulting from the periodic
adjustments of our restructuring accruals to reflect changes in
our estimates of the total cost remaining on uncompleted
restructuring projects and gains and losses realized on the sale
of assets related to realignment.
134
Geographic
Information
For consolidated net sales, no country other than the
U.S. accounts for more than 10% and only Brazil, Italy,
Germany and Canada account for more than 5%. Sales are
attributed to the location of the product entity recording the
sale. Long-lived assets include property, plant and equipment;
goodwill and equity investments in joint ventures. They do not
include certain other non-current assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Sales
|
|
|
Long-Lived Assets
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
North America
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
4,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,204
|
|
|
$
|
4,432
|
|
|
$
|
1,070
|
|
|
$
|
1,152
|
|
|
$
|
1,467
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
536
|
|
|
|
757
|
|
|
|
842
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
169
|
|
Mexico
|
|
|
255
|
|
|
|
210
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total North America
|
|
|
4,791
|
|
|
|
5,171
|
|
|
|
5,383
|
|
|
|
1,224
|
|
|
|
1,413
|
|
|
|
1,651
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Italy
|
|
|
832
|
|
|
|
625
|
|
|
|
517
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
Germany
|
|
|
462
|
|
|
|
396
|
|
|
|
368
|
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
|
535
|
|
|
|
482
|
|
Other Europe
|
|
|
962
|
|
|
|
835
|
|
|
|
738
|
|
|
|
302
|
|
|
|
293
|
|
|
|
270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Europe
|
|
|
2,256
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
1,623
|
|
|
|
585
|
|
|
|
901
|
|
|
|
816
|
|
South America
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
531
|
|
|
|
409
|
|
|
|
419
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
Other South America
|
|
|
476
|
|
|
|
445
|
|
|
|
399
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total South America
|
|
|
1,007
|
|
|
|
854
|
|
|
|
818
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
209
|
|
|
|
224
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
323
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Other Asia Pacific
|
|
|
417
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
299
|
|
|
|
169
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Asia Pacific
|
|
|
667
|
|
|
|
623
|
|
|
|
787
|
|
|
|
266
|
|
|
|
223
|
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,721
|
|
|
$
|
8,504
|
|
|
$
|
8,611
|
|
|
$
|
2,282
|
|
|
$
|
2,746
|
|
|
$
|
2,887
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major Customer
Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Sales
|
|
Sales to Major Customers
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Ford
|
|
$
|
1,991
|
|
|
$
|
1,936
|
|
|
$
|
2,234
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
General Motors
|
|
$
|
642
|
|
|
$
|
807
|
|
|
$
|
990
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
11
|
%
|
Export sales from the U.S. to international customers were
$314, $402 and $343 in 2007, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
Note 23.
|
Reorganization
and Fresh Start Accounting Pro Forma Adjustments
(Unaudited)
|
Once the Plan is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and there are
no remaining contingencies material to completing the
implementation of the Plan, fresh start accounting principles
are to be applied pursuant to
SOP 90-7.
The financial statements as of February 1, 2008 and for
subsequent periods will report the results of a new entity with
no beginning retained earnings. Any presentation of the new
reporting entity represents the financial position and results
of operations of a new reporting entity and is not comparable to
prior periods.
SOP 90-7
provides, among other things, for a determination of the value
to be assigned to the equity of the reorganized Dana as of a
date selected for financial reporting purposes. The timing of
the availability of
135
funds from the Exit Facility resulted in a January 31, 2008
consummation of the Plan. We have selected February 1, 2008
for adoption of fresh start accounting. In accordance with
SOP 90-7,
the results of operations of Dana prior to February 1, 2008
(the predecessor) will include (i) a pre-emergence gain of
approximately $308 resulting from the discharge of liabilities
under the Plan; (ii) pre-emergence charges to earnings to
be recorded as reorganization items resulting from certain costs
and expenses relating to the Plan becoming effective; and
(iii) a pre-emergence increase in earnings of $522
resulting from the aggregate changes to the net carrying value
of our pre-emergence assets and liabilities to reflect their
fair values under fresh start accounting.
Danas compromise total enterprise value is $3,563. Under
fresh start accounting, the compromise total enterprise value
was allocated to our assets based on their respective fair
values in conformity with the purchase method of accounting for
business combinations in SFAS No. 141, Business
Combinations.
The valuations required to determine the fair value of certain
of Danas assets as presented below represent the
preliminary results of the valuation procedures performed by
Danas valuation specialists. Such valuation specialists
are updating the valuation of certain of our assets as of
January 31, 2008.
The compromise total enterprise value represents the amount of
resources available, or that become available, for the
satisfaction of post-petition liabilities and allowed claims, as
negotiated between the Debtors and the creditors (the Interested
Parties). This value, along with other terms of the Plan, was
determined only after extensive arms-length negotiations between
the Interested Parties. Each Interested Party developed its view
of what the value should be based upon expected future cash
flows of the business after emergence from Chapter 11,
discounted at rates reflecting perceived business and financial
risks. This valuation and a valuation using market value
multiples for peer companies were blended to arrive at the
compromise valuation. This value is viewed as the fair value of
the entity before considering liabilities and is intended to
approximate the amount a willing buyer would pay for the assets
of Dana immediately after restructuring. Based on the conditions
in the automobile industry and the general economic conditions,
the valuation used by the Interested Parties was at the low end
of the valuations provided by the valuation specialists.
The adjustments presented below are presented on an unaudited
pro-forma basis as of December 31, 2007 even though the
actual date of emergence is January 31, 2008. Accordingly,
these estimates are preliminary and subject to further revisions
and adjustments, based on any updated valuations, actual amounts
and applicable economic conditions as of January 31, 2008.
Danas actual fresh start accounting adjustments may vary
significantly from those presented below.
The audited balance sheet and the unaudited pro forma
adjustments presented below summarize the impact of the Plan and
the adoption of fresh start accounting as if the Effective Date
had occurred on December 31, 2007.
136
PRO FORMA
REORGANIZED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
As of DECEMBER
31, 2007
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Reorganization
|
|
|
Fresh Start
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Adjustments(1)
|
|
|
Adjustments(2)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
1,271
|
|
|
$
|
946
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,217
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
(93
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade
|
|
|
1,197
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,197
|
|
Other
|
|
|
295
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
295
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
812
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
|
977
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
3,792
|
|
|
|
853
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
4,783
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(170
|
)(4)
|
|
|
179
|
|
Intangibles
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
683
|
|
|
|
684
|
|
Investments and other assets
|
|
|
348
|
|
|
|
39
|
(3)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
346
|
|
Investments in equity affiliates
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
174
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
1,763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
271
|
|
|
|
2,034
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
6,425
|
|
|
$
|
892
|
|
|
$
|
883
|
|
|
$
|
8,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable, including current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
283
|
|
|
$
|
(138
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
145
|
|
Debtor-in-possession
financing
|
|
|
900
|
|
|
|
(900
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
1,072
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,072
|
|
Accrued payroll and employee benefits
|
|
|
258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
258
|
|
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
944
|
(7)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
1,342
|
(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
2,952
|
|
|
|
(94
|
)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
2,838
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise
|
|
|
3,511
|
|
|
|
(3,511
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred employee benefits and other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
630
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
996
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Term loan facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,236
|
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,236
|
|
Debtor-in-possession
financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
7,207
|
|
|
|
(2,369
|
)
|
|
|
361
|
|
|
|
5,199
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A preferred stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
242
|
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
242
|
|
Series B preferred stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
529
|
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
529
|
|
Common stock predecessor
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
(150
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid in capital predecessor
|
|
|
202
|
|
|
|
(202
|
)(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Additional paid in capital successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,229
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,229
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(468
|
)
|
|
|
612
|
(5)
|
|
|
(144
|
)(6)
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
(666
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
666
|
(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(782
|
)
|
|
|
3,261
|
|
|
|
522
|
|
|
|
3,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity (deficit)
|
|
$
|
6,425
|
|
|
$
|
892
|
|
|
$
|
883
|
|
|
$
|
8,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents amounts recorded on the Effective Date for the
implementation of 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 as discussed in
Note 1. |
137
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Records the adjustments for fresh start accounting including the
write-up of
inventory and the adjustment of property, plant and equipment to
an appraised value. Fresh start adjustments for intangible
assets and stockholders equity are also included and are
based on third party valuations by certain valuation
specialists. The fresh start adjustments also include the
elimination of the accumulated deficit and AOCI. |
|
|
|
The reorganization value of each of our operating segments was
allocated to individual assets and liabilities at their fair
market value. Allocations were made first to current assets,
current liabilities and long-term monetary assets and
liabilities. The remainder was allocated to long-term assets
such as property, plant and equipment, equity investments and
intangible assets. The excess of our reorganization value over
the fair value of our assets is estimated to be $179 and is
recorded as goodwill. |
|
(3) |
|
Records debt financing for the senior credit facility and the
issuance of new Series A and Series B Preferred. An
additional $80 of the term loan facility was borrowed on
February 1, 2008 by the successor company and is not
included in the term loan balance above. Debt issuance costs of
$39 are recorded in Investments and other assets and are
deferred over the debt term. The $790 of preferred stock is
recorded at the net proceeds of $771. |
|
(4) |
|
The goodwill of Prior Dana has been eliminated and the fair
market value of the assets in excess of the reorganization value
has been allocated to long-term assets as shown above. |
|
(5) |
|
Records the gain of $308 on extinguishment of the obligations
pursuant to implementation of the Plan, the cancelation of old
stock of $352 and the distribution of $39 of stock as a bonus to
certain employees. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes the elimination of the retained deficit and the net
adjustment to assets and liabilities for fresh start accounting. |
|
(7) |
|
Other accrued liabilities includes a $733 liability to the union
VEBA paid on February 1, 2008 by the successor company. On
February 1, 2008, the cash balance of the successor company
was reduced by this amount and was increased by the $80 of term
loan borrowings in (3) above. Subsequent payments under the
terms of the Plan including approximately $222 of other claims
are also included in other accrued liabilities of the successor
company. Professional fees had been accrued previously. |
138
Quarterly Results
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the 2007 Quarters Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31
|
|
|
June 30
|
|
|
September 30
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
2,145
|
|
|
$
|
2,289
|
|
|
$
|
2,130
|
|
|
$
|
2,157
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
$
|
102
|
|
|
$
|
148
|
|
|
$
|
113
|
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(92
|
)
|
|
$
|
(133
|
)
|
|
$
|
(69
|
)
|
|
$
|
(257
|
)
|
Net loss per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
(0.61
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.46
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.71
|
)
|
Fully diluted
|
|
$
|
(0.61
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.46
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.71
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the 2006 Quarters Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31
|
|
|
June 30
|
|
|
September 30
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
2,197
|
|
|
$
|
2,300
|
|
|
$
|
2,009
|
|
|
$
|
1,998
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
$
|
105
|
|
|
$
|
139
|
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(126
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28
|
)
|
|
$
|
(356
|
)
|
|
$
|
(229
|
)
|
Net loss per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
(0.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.37
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.51
|
)
|
Fully diluted
|
|
$
|
(0.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.37
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.51
|
)
|
The second quarter of 2007 included a charge of $128 to
continuing operations and a charge of $17 to discontinued
operations in connection with the settlement of pension
obligations in the U.K. Net loss in the fourth quarter of 2007
included additional pretax reorganization charges of $102 in the
quarter primarily related to settlements of bankruptcy claims
subsequent to the end of the year and a pre-tax impairment of
goodwill of $89. Also included were pre-tax charges of $5 and
tax charges of $18 related to prior periods.
Net loss in the third quarter of 2006 included a goodwill
impairment charge of $46 and an impairment charge of $165 to
reduce lease investments and other assets in DCC to their fair
value less cost to sell. Net loss in the fourth quarter of 2006
included an impairment charge of $58 in connection with the sale
of our 30% interest in GETRAG and $90 of realignment charges.
139
DANA CORPORATION
AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS AND RESERVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arising
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
from change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
charged
|
|
|
|
|
|
in currency
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
beginning
|
|
|
(credited)
|
|
|
Allowance
|
|
|
exchange rates
|
|
|
end of
|
|
Description
|
|
of period
|
|
|
to income
|
|
|
utilized
|
|
|
and other items
|
|
|
period
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances Deducted from Assets Allowance for Doubtful
Receivables
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax Assets
|
|
|
1,971
|
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(302
|
)
|
|
|
1,609
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Allowances Deducted from Assets
|
|
$
|
1,994
|
|
|
$
|
(58
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(302
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,629
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances Deducted from Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for Doubtful Receivables
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
Allowance for Credit Losses Lease Financing
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation Allowance for Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Assets
|
|
|
1,535
|
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
258
|
|
|
|
1,971
|
|
Allowance for Loan Losses
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Allowances Deducted from Assets
|
|
$
|
1,583
|
|
|
$
|
165
|
|
|
$
|
(11
|
)
|
|
$
|
257
|
|
|
$
|
1,994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances Deducted from Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for Doubtful Receivables
|
|
$
|
36
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
Allowance for Credit Losses Lease Financing
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Valuation Allowance for Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Assets
|
|
|
387
|
|
|
|
1,191
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
1,535
|
|
Allowance for Loan Losses
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Allowances Deducted from Assets
|
|
$
|
438
|
|
|
$
|
1,201
|
|
|
$
|
(8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(48
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,583
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
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 the our
reports filed with the SEC and submitted under the Exchange Act
of 1934 as amended (the Exchange Act) is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the
SECs rules and forms, and that such information is
accumulated and communicated to our management, including our
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO),
as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required
disclosure.
Our management, with participation of our CEO and CFO, has
evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the fiscal year covered by this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Our CEO and CFO have concluded that, as of the end of the period
covered by this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Exchange Act) were effective.
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
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Exchange Act). Our internal control over financial
reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the
United States of America (U.S. GAAP). Our internal control
over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures
that: (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in
reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of our assets; (ii) provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary
to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with
U.S. GAAP and that our receipts and expenditures are being
made only in accordance with authorizations of management and
the oversight of our board of directors; and (iii) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that
could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Under the supervision of our CEO and CFO, management assessed
the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2007, using the criteria set
forth in the framework established by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in
Internal Control-Integrated Framework.
Based on managements assessment using the COSO criteria,
management has concluded that our internal control over
financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2007.
The effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2007 has been audited by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, as stated in their report which appears herein.
Remediation of
Previously Disclosed Material Weaknesses
As disclosed in our 2006 Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and in our Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
for each of the first three quarters of 2007, our reported
material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting
related to (1) our financial and accounting organization,
(2) the completeness and accuracy of certain revenue and
expense accruals, (3) reconciliations of certain financial
statement accounts, (4) valuation and accuracy of
long-lived assets and goodwill, and (5) segregation of
duties over transaction processes. A
141
material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of
deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such
that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will
not be prevented or detected.
As of December 31, 2007, we have remediated the previously
reported material weaknesses in our internal control over
financial reporting. The following remedial actions have been
undertaken:
In remediating the material weakness related to our financial
and accounting organizations ability to support our
financial accounting and reporting needs, we:
|
|
|
|
|
Prepared and conducted three
multi-day
controller training sessions for our Corporate, North American,
South American, European and Asia / Pacific financial
leaders. These sessions focused on U.S. GAAP, internal
controls over financial reporting and certain transaction
processing. U.S. GAAP training focused on specific topics
such as revenue recognition, asset impairment, inventory
valuation, account reconciliations and contingencies.
|
|
|
|
Engaged additional qualified financial personnel at our plant
and Corporate locations to enhance our resources.
|
|
|
|
Engaged qualified temporary resources, as necessary, at our
plant and Corporate locations to enhance our resources and
provide supplementary skills over certain transactions.
|
|
|
|
Reduced turnover of personnel at plant and Corporate locations,
thereby enhancing the knowledge of our operations and
consistency of our financial resources.
|
|
|
|
Implemented improved project management around the financial
close process to proactively identify and resolve financial
reporting matters in a thorough and timely manner.
|
|
|
|
In certain more complex accounting areas, we have engaged an
accounting firm (other than our independent registered public
accounting firm) to complete a review prior to audit by our
external auditors.
|
|
|
|
Increased accountability of operating and financial personnel
through weekly and monthly status reporting to executive
management of non-remediated items, timeliness of remediation
activities and monitoring of unsatisfactory performance.
|
|
|
|
Engaged Ernst & Young to serve as our internal audit
function.
|
The remediation of the material weakness related to our
financial and accounting organizations ability to support
our financial accounting and reporting needs contributed to the
remediation of the material weakness relating to effective
controls over the completeness and accuracy of certain revenue
and expense accruals, and account reconciliations, for which we:
|
|
|
|
|
Increased the awareness of internal control policies and
procedures through regular weekly meetings and worldwide
teleconferences with operating and financial management to
communicate expectations, continue compliance education,
reinforce standards and monitor and address control risks.
|
|
|
|
Expanded the internal certification processes of plant, division
and business unit operating and financial personnel to
specifically address areas of greater risk.
|
|
|
|
Enhanced Corporate policies and procedures to better describe
responsibilities of local management over the monitoring and
assessment of the design and operating effectiveness of their
internal control over financial reporting.
|
|
|
|
Developed a tool to identify circumstances where plant locations
may require inventory values to be updated.
|
|
|
|
Further deployed tools and tracking mechanisms to additional
facilities to enhance compliance with controls.
|
|
|
|
Centralized selected transactional processes and controls to
reduce the demands on plant and division controllers and improve
the consistency and quality of control effectiveness.
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
Enhanced controls in the Corporate tax area to help ensure tax
accounts are reviewed and reconciled each quarter in a
comprehensive manner to permit a detailed understanding of the
components of each account.
|
The remediation of the material weakness related to our
financial and accounting organizations ability to support
our financial accounting and reporting needs contributed to the
remediation of the material weakness relating to controls around
impairment of long-lived assets and goodwill, for which we:
|
|
|
|
|
Engaged an accounting firm (other than our independent
registered public accounting firm) to review and present
suggestions for improvement in our methodology and procedures
regarding impairment of long-lived assets and goodwill.
|
|
|
|
Engaged an accounting firm (other than our independent
registered public accounting firm) to complete a review of
impairment analysis and other more complex accounting areas
prior to audit by our external auditors.
|
The remediation of the material weakness related to our
financial and accounting organizations ability to support
our financial accounting and reporting needs contributed to the
remediation of the material weakness relating to controls around
segregation of duties, for which we:
|
|
|
|
|
Developed and utilized programs to identify, evaluate and
address potential conflicts of duties for significant North
American financial application systems.
|
|
|
|
Implemented compensating controls where local circumstances did
not permit adequate segregation of responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
Fully implemented the enhanced Standards of Business Conduct.
|
During the year, we have undertaken and completed, as
appropriate, our testing to validate the effectiveness of the
enhanced policies, procedures and controls. In reviewing the
results from this testing, management has concluded that our
internal control over financial reporting related to the
material weaknesses discussed above has been significantly
improved and that the above referenced material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting have been remediated
as of December 31, 2007.
Changes in
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There was no change identified in our internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the fourth fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting. We completed testing in the fourth quarter of the
controls that had been remediated during the first three
quarters of 2007, and we concluded that these controls are now
effective.
CEO and CFO
Certifications
The Certifications of our CEO and CFO that are attached to this
report as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 include information about
our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting. These Certifications should be read in
conjunction with the information contained in this Item 9A
for a more complete understanding of the matters covered by the
Certifications.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
-None-
143
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
|
Directors
Our Board currently has seven non-management directors and one
management director. All of our directors are elected annually
serving a one-year term expiring at the next annual meeting of
stockholders. The next annual stockholders meeting is expected
to be held in 2009. The following individuals are the current
members of our Board of Directors as of March 14, 2008:
|
|
|
GARY L. CONVIS
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. Convis retired in 2007 as the Chairman of Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky (TMMK), a position he held since 2006.
Mr. Convis became President of TMMK in 2001. He also was
Executive Vice President of Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing North America, Inc., where he had served since
2003. Prior to serving in these roles, Mr. Convis spent
16 years at New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., a joint
venture between General Motors Corporation (GM) and Toyota.
Mr. Convis also spent more than 20 years in various
roles with GM and Ford Motor Company. Mr. Convis is a board
member of Cooper-Standard Automotive Inc. and Compass Automotive
Group, Inc.
|
|
January 2008
Age 65
|
|
|
|
JOHN M. DEVINE
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. Devine has been the Executive Chairman of our Board
since January 2008 and Acting Chief Executive Officer since
February 2008. Mr. Devine retired from GM in 2006. He was
the Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of GM from 2001 to
2006. Prior to joining GM, Mr. Devine served as Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of Fluid Ventures, LLC., an internet
start-up
investment company. Previously, he spent 32 years at Ford
Motor Company, where he last served as Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Devine is a board member
of Amerigon Incorporated.
|
|
January 2008
Age 63
|
|
|
|
MARK T. GALLOGLY
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. Gallogly has been Managing Partner of Centerbridge
Partners, L.P., a multi-strategy private investment firm, since
2005. Prior to co-founding Centerbridge, Mr. Gallogly
served as a Senior Managing Director of The Blackstone Group, a
private equity and investment management firm from 1994 to 2005,
heading the firms Private Equity Group from 2003 to 2005.
|
|
January 2008
Age 51
|
|
|
|
RICHARD A. GEPHARDT
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. Gephardt is a senior counsel in the Government Affairs
practice group at DLA Piper, a global legal services
organization. Previously, Mr. Gephardt served as a
Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives for
Missouris Third Congressional District for 28 years.
He served as United States House of Representatives majority
leader from 1989 to 1994 and United States House of
Representatives minority leader from 1995 to 2003. Since 2005,
Mr. Gephardt has been Chief Executive Officer of Gephardt
Group LLC. Mr. Gephardt is currently a board member of
Iogen Corporation, a privately-held corporation.
Mr. Gephardt is a board member of US Steel Corporation,
Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc, Centene Corporation, Allied
Telesis Holdings, K.K. and Embarq Corporation.
|
|
January 2008
Age 67
|
144
|
|
|
STEPHEN J. GIRSKY
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. Girsky has been President of Centerbridge Industrial
Partners, LLC., the industrial unit of Centerbridge Partners,
L.P., a multi-strategy private investment firm, since 2006.
Prior to joining Centerbridge, Mr. Girsky was the Special
Adviser to the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of General Motors Corporation from 2005 to 2006. Prior
to joining GM, Mr. Girsky was a managing director at Morgan
Stanley and the senior analyst of the Morgan Stanley Global
Automotive and Auto Parts Research Team.
|
|
January 2008
Age 45
|
|
|
|
TERRENCE J. KEATING
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. Keating has been Chairman of Accuride Corporation, a
manufacturer and supplier of commercial vehicle components since
October 2007 and served as a director of the company since April
2002. Mr. Keating served as Chief Executive Officer of
Accuride from April 2002 to October 2007. Mr. Keating was
President of Accuride from April 2002 to December 2006.
Mr. Keating also serves as Vice Chairman and a director of
the Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association. Mr. Keating is a
board member of A.M. Castle & Co.
|
|
January 2008
Age 58
|
|
|
|
MARK A. SCHULZ
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. Schulz retired from the Ford Motor Company in 2007
where he most recently served as the President of International
Operations at Ford. Mr. Schulz spent 32 years at Ford
in a variety of global roles. Mr. Schulz serves as a member
of several boards, including the National Committee of United
States-China Relations, the United States-China Business
Council, and the National Bureau of Asian Research. He is also a
member of the International Advisory Board for the President of
the Republic of the Philippines. Mr. Schulz is a board
member of YRC Worldwide Inc.
|
|
January 2008
Age 55
|
|
|
|
JEROME B. YORK
|
|
Director since
|
Mr. York has been Chief Executive Officer of Harwinton
Capital LLC (formerly Harwinton Capital Corporation), a private
investment company that he controls, since September 2003. From
January 2000 until September 2003, Mr. York was Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of MicroWarehouse, Inc., a reseller
of computer hardware, software and peripheral products. From
September 1995 to October 1999, he was Vice Chairman of Tracinda
Corporation, a private investment corporation. From May 1993 to
September 1995 he was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of IBM Corporation, and served as a member of IBMs
Board of Directors from January 1995 to August 1995.
Mr. York is a director of Apple Inc. and Tyco International
Ltd.
|
|
January 2008
Age 69
|
Under our Bylaws, each director will hold office on the Board
until the election and qualification of a successor at an annual
meeting of shareholders or until his earlier resignation,
disqualification, removal, death or other cause.
Selection of
Board of Directors
Pursuant to the Plan, the initial Board of Directors of Dana was
set at nine members, and was selected as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
four directors chosen by Centerbridge, one of whom is required
to be independent of Dana in accordance with the standards of
the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and one of whom is required
to be independent of Centerbridge in accordance with such
standards, determined as if such director was a director of
Centerbridge and Centerbridge was a company whose securities are
listed on the NYSE;
|
|
|
|
three directors chosen by the official committee of the
unsecured creditors (the Creditors Committee), each of
whom must be independent of Dana in accordance with NYSE
standards;
|
145
|
|
|
|
|
one director, who must be independent of Dana in accordance with
NYSE standards, chosen by the Creditors Committee from a
list of three candidates provided by Centerbridge; provided,
however, if none of the candidates on the list were reasonably
satisfactory to the Creditors Committee, Centerbridge
would select the names of additional candidates until the name
of a candidate reasonably satisfactory to the Creditors
Committee was selected and, at any time during that process, the
Creditors Committee was permitted to offer its own list,
which would be subject to the same process; and
|
|
|
|
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
|
As a result, the initial members were chosen as follows:
|
|
|
Board Member
|
|
Entity Selecting the Board Member
|
|
Michael J. Burns
|
|
None
|
Gary L. Convis
|
|
Joint selection by Centerbridge and Creditors Committee
|
John M. Devine
|
|
Selected by Centerbridge
|
Mark T. Gallogly
|
|
Selected by Centerbridge
|
Richard A. Gephardt
|
|
Selected by Creditors Committee
|
Stephen J. Girsky
|
|
Selected by Centerbridge
|
Terrence J. Keating
|
|
Selected by Creditors Committee
|
Mark A. Schulz
|
|
Selected by Centerbridge
|
Jerome B. York
|
|
Selected by Creditors Committee
|
Under the Plan, each initial director serves from and after the
effective date, which was January 31, 2008, until his
successor is duly elected or appointed and qualified or earlier
resignation, disqualification, removal, death or other cause in
accordance with the terms of the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation and Bylaws. Mr. Burns resigned from the Board
on January 31, 2008, subsequent to his election.
Right to Select
Board Members
Pursuant to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Dana
and the Shareholders Agreement dated January 31, 2008,
among Dana and Centerbridge (Shareholders Agreement) as long as
shares of Series A Preferred having an aggregate
Series A Liquidation Preference (as defined in the
Shareholders Agreement) of at least $125 million are owned
by Centerbridge, the Board will consist of nine members and
Centerbridge will be entitled to elect three directors at each
meeting of stockholders held for the purpose of electing
directors, at least one of whom must be independent
of both Dana and Centerbridge, as defined under the rules of the
New York Stock Exchange. In case of any removal, either with or
without cause, of a director elected by the holders of the
shares of Series A Preferred, the holders of the shares of
Series A Preferred will be entitled, voting as a separate
class either by written consent or at a special meeting or next
regular meeting, to elect a successor to hold office for the
unexpired term of the director who has been removed.
Additionally, prior to any stockholder meeting where directors
will be elected, the Company will establish a nominating
committee (the Series A Nominating Committee) which will be
separate from the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
of the Board. This nominating committee will consist of three
directors, two of whom will be the Centerbridge designated
directors. The Series A Nominating Committee will be
entitled to nominate one director for election by the
stockholders of the Company (a Series A Nominee); provided,
however, that, in order for such nomination to be effective, the
nomination by the Series A Nominating Committee must be
made unanimously by the committee. To the extent the members of
the Series A Nominating Committee are unable to unanimously
agree on the identity of a Series A Nominee on or before
the latest time at which the Company can reasonably meet its
obligations with respect to printing and mailing a proxy
statement for an annual meeting of Company stockholders, the
Board will designate a committee of all of the independent
directors, which committee will, by a majority vote, select an
individual nominee for the Board seat. Each Series A
Nominee will, at all times during his or her service on the
Board, be qualified to serve as a director of the Company under
any applicable law, rule or regulation imposing or
146
creating standards or eligibility criteria for individuals
serving as directors of organizations such as the Company and
will be an independent director.
Each elected Series A Nominee will serve until his or her
successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier
resignation, retirement, disqualification, removal from office
or death. If any Series A Nominee ceases to be a director
of the Company for any reason, the Company will promptly use its
best efforts to cause a person designated by the Series A
Nominating Committee to replace such director.
The remaining directors are elected by holders of shares of
common stock and any other class of capital stock entitled to
vote in the election of directors (including the Series A
Preferred and Series B Preferred), voting together as a
single class at each meeting of stockholders held for the
purpose of electing directors.
Executive
Officers
For information about our executive officers, see
Executive Officers of the Registrant in Item 1
of this report.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, our directors,
executive officers and persons who own more than 10% of our
stock are required to file initial stock ownership reports and
reports of changes in their ownership with the SEC. SEC
regulations also require the Company to identify any person
subject to this requirement who failed to file any such report
on a timely basis. Under SEC rules, we must be furnished with
copies of these reports. Based on our review of these reports
and the representations made to us by such persons that no
Forms 5 were required, we do not know of any failure by
such persons to file a report required by Section 16(a) on
a timely basis during 2007.
Code of
Ethics
Our Standards of Business Conduct (the Standards) constitutes
the code of ethics that we have adopted for our employees,
including our principal executive, financial and accounting
officers. The Standards are designed to deter wrongdoing and to
promote (i) honest and ethical conduct, including the
ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest
between personal and professional relationships; (ii) full,
fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports
and documents that we file with, or submit to, the SEC and in
our other public communications; (iii) compliance with
applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;
(iv) prompt internal reporting of violations of the
Standards to the persons identified therein; and
(v) accountability for adherence to the Standards. A copy
of the Standards is posted on our Internet website at
http://www.dana.com/Investors,
at the link to Corporate Governance. Copies are also
available, at no charge, upon written request addressed to Dana
Office of Business Conduct, P.O. Box 1000, Toledo,
Ohio 43697.
If we adopt a substantive amendment to the Standards or grant a
waiver or implicit waiver of any provision of the Standards
relating to the above elements to our principal executive,
financial or accounting officers, we will post a notice at the
above Internet website address within four business days,
describing the nature of the amendment or waiver (and, in the
case of a waiver, the name of the person to whom it was granted
and the date). For this purpose, our approval of a material
departure from a provision of the Standards constitutes a
waiver and our failure to take action within a
reasonable period of time regarding a material departure from a
provision of the Standards that has been made known to one of
our executive officers constitutes an implicit
waiver.
147
Director
Nominations
As a result of our emergence from bankruptcy, new procedures by
which stockholders may recommend nominees to our Board were
adopted by our Board on January 31, 2008, the date of our
emergence from bankruptcy, and are set forth in our Corporate
Governance Guidelines, and are described below:
Our Board seeks as members individuals who, based on their
talents and experience, will best serve the interests of Dana.
The Boards Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
recommends nominees for directorships. Criteria for assessing
nominees include a potential nominees ability to represent
the
long-term
interests of Dana. Minimum qualifications for a director nominee
are experience in those areas that the Board determines are
necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of Dana, including
leadership positions in public companies, large or middle market
businesses, or not-for-profit, professional or educational
organizations. For those proposed director nominees who meet the
minimum qualifications, the Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee will then assess the proposed nominees specific
qualifications, evaluate his or her independence, and consider
other factors, including skills, business segment
representation, geographic location, considerations of
diversity, standards of integrity, memberships on other boards
(with a special focus on director interlocks), and ability and
willingness to commit to serving on the Board for an extended
period of time and to dedicate adequate time and attention to
the affairs of Dana as necessary to properly discharge his or
her duties.
It is the policy of the Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee to consider director nominees recommended by
stockholders, provided that they comply with appropriate
procedures. Stockholders who wish to have their recommendations
for director nominee considered must comply with applicable laws
and regulations, as well as Danas Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, Bylaws and Shareholders Agreement. Stockholders
who wish the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee to
consider their recommendations for nominees for the position of
director should submit their recommendations in writing to Dana
Holding Corporation, 4500 Dorr Street, Toledo, Ohio 43615,
Attention: Corporate Secretary, by the deadline outlined in
Rule 14a-8
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. In addition, they must comply with the Companys
Bylaws, under which stockholders must provide separate advance
notice to the Company if they wish to nominate persons for
election as directors at an annual stockholders meeting.
Audit Committee
and Audit Committee Financial Expert
Our Board has a separately designated Audit Committee
established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the
Exchange Act to oversee our accounting and financial reporting
processes and the audits of our financial statements. All
members of our Audit Committee are non-management directors who
meet the independence requirements of Section 303A.02 of
the Listed Company Manual of The New York Stock Exchange.
The current members of our Audit Committee are Mr. York
(Chairman), Mr. Girsky and Mr. Keating. Our Board has
determined that Mr. York is an audit committee
financial expert as defined in Item 407(d)(5) of
Regulation S-K
under the Exchange Act.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation.
|
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
This section contains managements discussion and analysis
of Danas executive compensation program prior to our
emergence from bankruptcy, including the objectives of the
program, how the program was administered, and the elements of
compensation paid to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and the other named executive officers during
2007.
Introduction
It is an underlying premise of the executive compensation
program that the caliber, motivation and leadership of our
senior management team make a significant difference in
Danas performance. The
148
program is designed to attract, retain and reward highly
qualified senior executives who are committed to Danas
long-term success.
Prior to our emergence from bankruptcy, our existing
compensation programs were established and administered by the
Compensation Committee of our prior Board (where appropriate we
refer to this Compensation Committee as the prior
Compensation Committee).
During our Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, the prior
Compensation Committee designed our executive compensation
programs to motivate our senior management team to attain
performance goals that would allow us to continue as a going
concern and to develop a reorganization plan that would enable
us to emerge from bankruptcy positioned for long-term
profitability and growth. During our reorganization proceedings,
certain aspects of our executive compensation program were
subject to the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, as
determined by the Bankruptcy Court.
The Compensation Committee established by our Board after
emergence (where appropriate we refer to this Compensation
Committee as the new Compensation Committee) has
begun an extensive review of our existing compensation programs
with a view towards identifying those compensation programs,
arrangements, policies and objectives that may need to be
revised in light of our emergence from bankruptcy.
Administration
Our Compensation Committee has consisted of, and will continue
to consist of, a chairperson and independent directors who are
appointed annually by the Board. Under its Charter, the
Compensation Committee must have at least three members. All
members must be non-management directors who meet applicable
independence requirements under the Exchange Act, the SECs
rules and regulations, the requirements of the New York Stock
Exchange and our Standards of Director Independence. They must
also qualify as non-employee directors within the
meaning of Exchange Act
Rule 16b-3
and as outside directors for purposes of
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
During 2007, the prior Compensation Committee members were A.
Charles Baillie, David E. Berges, James P. Kelly, and Richard B.
Priory (Chairman). All of our 2007 directors resigned from
the Board on January 31, 2008, the effective date of our
emergence from bankruptcy. On January 31, 2008, our Board
appointed the following members to the new Compensation
Committee: Stephen J. Girsky (Chairman), Mark A. Schulz,
and Jerome B. York.
Historically, the Compensation Committee had the overall
responsibility for our executive compensation program and will
continue to retain such responsibilities. The Compensation
Committee has, and will (i) review our executive
compensation philosophy and strategy, (ii) set the base
salary and incentive opportunities for our Chief Executive
Officer and a small group of key senior executives designated by
our Chief Executive Officer (historically, 10 to 20 individuals)
and the salary levels and incentive compensation opportunity
levels for certain other executives designated by our Chief
Executive Officer (historically, 40 to 60 individuals),
(iii) establish incentive compensation performance
objectives for our Chief Executive Officer and executives
designated by our Chief Executive Officer, and
(iv) determine whether the performance objectives have been
achieved and the incentive compensation has been earned. The
Compensation Committee will also (i) recommend to the
Board, employment or consulting agreements, severance
arrangements, change in control arrangements, perquisites and
special, supplemental or non-qualified benefits for our Chief
Executive Officer, and (ii) approve such agreements or
benefits for key senior executives designated by our
Chief Executive Officer.
The Compensation Committee has authority to retain outside
compensation, legal, accounting and other advisors to assist it
in performing its functions, at Danas expense and without
Board approval. Historically, Frederic W. Cook & Co.,
Inc. (Cook) has served as the Compensation Committees
independent compensation advisor. Since our emergence from
bankruptcy in January, the new Compensation Committee has
retained Towers Perrin to advise it with respect to executive
and director compensation.
In making compensation decisions pre-emergence, the prior
Compensation Committee considered the advice of Cook;
competitive market data provided by our outside compensation
advisor, Mercer Human
149
Resource Consulting, Inc. (Mercer); and the recommendations of
our Chief Executive Officer (except with respect to his own
compensation) and the officer responsible for human resources.
Mercers data compared our executive compensation levels
and the relationship between our compensation levels and
corporate performance to those of companies selected by the
prior Compensation Committee, from time to time, with national
and international operations and lines of business comparable to
ours. The peer group has consisted of American Axle &
Manufacturing, Inc.; ArvinMeritor, Inc.; BorgWarner Inc.;
Caterpillar Inc.; Cooper Tire & Rubber Company;
Cummins Inc.; Deere & Company; Delphi Corporation;
Eaton Corporation; The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company; Johnson
Controls, Inc.; Lear Corporation; Magna International Inc.;
Navistar International Corporation; Tenneco Inc.; TRW
Automotive; and Visteon Corporation. During our bankruptcy, the
prior Compensation Committee and management also compared our
executive compensation to that in other large manufacturing
companies undergoing Chapter 11 reorganizations.
Comparisons were made to six manufacturing companies with more
than $3.5 billion in sales: Armstrong World Industries,
Inc.; Calpine Corporation; Collins & Aikman
Corporation; Federal-Mogul Corporation; Owens Corning; and USG
Corporation.
Elements of Our
Compensation
Prior to our bankruptcy filing, our compensation program was
comprised of three elements targeted at the median of those for
selected peer group companies: (i) base salaries,
(ii) short-term cash incentives linked to annual corporate,
operating unit
and/or
individual performance objectives, and (iii) long-term
equity-based incentives comprised of a mix of stock options or
stock appreciation rights and performance shares that derived
their value from corporate performance over multi-year periods
and service-based restricted stock and restricted stock units.
During our Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, the base
salaries of our Chief Executive Officer, the named executive
officers, and other senior executives participating in our
Annual Incentive Plan, discussed under Grants of
Plan-Based Awards, were generally frozen at the amounts in
effect on March 1, 2006, and the long-term equity-based
incentive grants and our executive stock ownership guidelines
were suspended. Consistent with our pay for performance
objectives, we, however, continued to provide our senior
executives with annual cash incentives linked to corporate,
product group and individual performance objectives under our
Annual Incentive Plan and the Executive Incentive Compensation
plan.
Base
Salaries
The prior Compensation Committee set the base salaries for our
Chief Executive Officer and key senior executives designated by
our Chief Executive Officer annually. The prior Compensation
Committee made such salary determinations on an individual
basis, and considered the following factors without weighting
them: the individuals responsibilities, performance,
contributions to Danas success, current salary, and tenure
in the job; internal equity among positions; pay practices for
comparable positions within the peer group companies; and for
the key senior executives designated by our Chief Executive
Officer, the recommendations of our Chief Executive Officer and
the officer responsible for human resources. The prior
Compensation Committee approved the salary levels for other
senior executives designated by our Chief Executive Officer
annually, based on the recommendations of our Chief Executive
Officer and the officer responsible for human resources. In
recent years, salary determinations were made at the prior
Compensation Committees February meeting (the first
scheduled meeting in the year and a time when results from the
previous year were known to the prior Compensation Committee)
and the base salaries have historically taken effect on
March 1.
For 2007, under an Order of the Bankruptcy Court dated
December 18, 2006, the prior Compensation Committee fixed
the annual base salaries of our Chief Executive Officer and the
named executive officers at the salary levels in effect on
March 1, 2006.
150
Annual Incentive
Plan
For 2007, the prior Compensation Committee recommended and the
prior Board approved performance-based cash incentives to
critical and key employees of Dana and our subsidiaries
(including our Chief Executive Officer and the other named
executive officers) under the Annual Incentive Plan (AIP). The
focus of the 2007 incentives for the critical and key employees
was primarily on full-year performance. If the Companys
2007 half-year performance goals were achieved, any interim
payouts for the critical and key employees would be limited to
one-half of the amount of their interim awards and the other
half of such awards would be earned and paid out only upon the
achievement of performance goals for the full year.
Specifically, the second half of the interim awards were to be
earned and paid incrementally based on the achievement of
Danas full-year corporate EBITDAR performance goals,
starting with the achievement of corporate EBITDAR midway
between the goals at the threshold and target levels for the
full year and reaching 100% with the achievement of the
corporate EBITDAR goal at the target level for the full year.
Consequently, if we did not achieve full-year corporate EBITDAR
at least equal to the midpoint between the threshold and target
goals, the critical and key leaders (which would include the
Chief Executive Officer and the named executive officers) would
forfeit the second half of the amount of their interim awards.
Certain participants with product group responsibilities had, in
addition to the corporate EBITDAR goals, product group
performance goals. Interim awards for these participants were
subject to the same criteria as those whose award was based 100%
on corporate performance. The provision limiting the payout of
the interim award only applied to the critical and key leaders,
who had the greatest responsibility for achieving the full-year
goals, and not to the Dana leaders, whose responsibilities,
while important to Danas reorganization efforts, were more
limited.
For 2007, the payout opportunities for achievement at the target
EBITDAR level ranged from 12% to 200% of the participants
annual base salaries as of March 1, 2006, depending upon
their responsibilities. The payout opportunities for the named
executive officers at the target level were: for Mr. Burns,
200% of his salary; for Mr. Miller, 120% of his salary;
Mr. Stone, 120% of his salary and Mr. Goettel, 100% of
his salary. The payout opportunities for the named executive
officers at the threshold level were 50% of the target payouts
and the payout opportunities for superior performance were 200%
of the target payouts. Under the plan, the Compensation
Committee could make discretionary adjustments to any full-year
awards payable to critical leaders or key leaders based on the
achievement of pre-established individual performance goals, and
Mr. Burns had the same authority to make discretionary
adjustments to full-year awards payable to Dana leaders,
provided that all such discretionary adjustments in any plan
year were within the Boards total incentive compensation
budget for the plan for the year.
Executive
Incentive Compensation
As part of the amendment to the executive agreements (as
described below under the heading Executive
Agreements), Dana also instituted an Executive Incentive
Compensation (EIC) plan. Under the EIC, the participant is
eligible to receive payments with respect to 2007 and 2008 upon
the achievement of certain EBITDAR targets. The material terms
of the EBITDAR targets are described under the heading
Grants of Plan-Based Awards. As described under
Executive Agreements, the amendment to the executive
agreements providing for EIC awards was authorized by the
Bankruptcy Court.
Long-Term Equity
Compensation
In February 2004, the prior Compensation Committee determined
that grants of long-term equity incentive should consist of
(i) stock options (50% of the target value) that were to
vest over a four-year period and expire in 10 years;
(ii) service-based restricted shares (20% of the target
value) that were to vest in five years; and
(iii) performance shares (30% of the target value) that
would vest if we achieved a cumulative absolute earnings per
share performance goal
and/or a
relative ROIC performance goal compared to our peer group
companies over a three-year period
(2004-2006).
When they joined Dana, in 2004, the prior Board approved
long-term equity incentives for Mr. Burns and the prior
Compensation Committee approved long-term equity incentives for
Mr. Miller. Mr. Burns received the following long-term
equity grants in 2004 under his employment agreement (some of
which were replacement grants designed to make up for
compensation from his prior employer that was forfeited when he
joined Dana): (i) 510,000 stock options
151
(including 360,000 replacement options) that were to vest over a
four-year period and expire in 10 years, (ii) 18,432
performance shares for the
2004-2006
performance period at the threshold payout level, and
(iii) 165,687 restricted stock units, 141,110 of which had
a three-year restricted period and had vested and 24,577 of
which had a five-year restricted period and would have vested in
2009. Mr. Miller received (i) 83,403 stock options
that were to vest over a four-year period and expire in
10 years, (ii) 5,151 restricted shares with a
three-year restricted period that had vested, (iii) 15,187
restricted shares with a five-year restricted period, and
(iv) 3,888 performance shares at the threshold payout level
for the
2004-2006
performance period.
In February 2005, the prior Compensation Committee determined to
continue the same formula for long-term equity incentives as in
the prior year and granted senior executives (including
Messrs. Burns, Miller and Goettel) (i) stock
options (50% of the target value) that were to vest over a
four-year period and expire in 10 years;
(ii) service-based restricted shares (20% of the target
value) that were to vest in five years; and (iii) and
performance shares (30% of the target value) that were to vest
if we achieved a cumulative absolute earnings per share
performance goal
and/or a
relative ROIC performance goal compared to our peer group
companies over a three-year period
(2005-2007).
Subsequently, when Mr. Stone joined Dana, the prior
Compensation Committee approved the following long-term equity
incentives for him: (i) 36,971 stock options that were to
vest over a four-year period and expire in 10 years,
(ii) 6,354 restricted shares which had a three-year
restricted period and five-year vesting period, and
(iii) 4,765 performance shares for the
2005-2007
performance period.
In February 2006, the prior Compensation Committee determined
that short-term cash incentives were more appropriate than
long-term equity incentives given our financial position.
Consequently, long-term equity-based grants were suspended in
2006. However, in determining the amounts of the 2006 and 2007
cash award opportunities to be granted to Critical and Key
Leaders under the AIP, the Committee factored in a portion of
the value of long-term equity-based awards that would have been
granted under past practices.
The prior Compensation Committee reviewed our results for the
2004-2006
performance period and determined that the performance goals for
the
2004-2006
were not achieved. Consequently, all performance shares granted
for the
2004-2006
period were forfeited. Moreover, based on our results for the
2005-2007
performance period, the prior Compensation Committee determined
that the performance goals for the
2005-2007
period were not achieved. Consequently, the performance shares
for the
2005-2007
period were forfeited.
As a result of our emergence from bankruptcy on January 31,
2008, all unexercised Dana stock options, unvested restricted
shares and restricted stock units, and unvested equity incentive
plan awards were cancelled with no consideration.
Executive
Agreements
Prior to our bankruptcy filing, Mr. Burns had built a core
management team consisting of, among others,
Messrs. Miller, Stone and Goettel. Following our bankruptcy
filing, the prior Compensation Committee was charged with
determining how best to motivate Mr. Burns and this team to
achieve an expedient and successful reorganization and
compensate them appropriately for their efforts during the
demanding reorganization process. During our Chapter 11
process, in addition to their business responsibilities, this
team negotiated with our bondholders, creditors, customers,
vendors, labor unions, and retirees which
constituencies, at times, had conflicting interests and agenda
for the reorganized Dana and developed a plan of
reorganization for the Debtors.
The prior Compensation Committee prepared a proposal for the
terms under which Mr. Burns and the other members of his
core management team were to be compensated during the
reorganization proceedings. In developing the proposal, the
prior Compensation Committee, through its Chairman,
Mr. Priory, considered the individuals
responsibilities, their prepetition compensation arrangements,
and the range of reasonableness for our industry peers and
similar Chapter 11 debtors (based on relevant compensation
data developed by Mercer) and reviewed its proposal with its
independent advisor, Cook.
152
Following extensive negotiations with the Creditors
Committee and other of the Debtors constituencies on the
original proposal and subsequent revisions, as well as court
hearings on the matter, on December 18, 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court authorized us to enter into an amendment to
Mr. Burns 2004 employment agreement and executive
agreements with Messrs. Miller and Stone and an executive
bonus agreement with Mr. Goettel, on the terms discussed
under the caption Executive Agreements.
Perquisites
We offer the following perquisites to approximately 50 active
executives (which included Mr. Burns and the other named
executive officers, except Mr. Hiltz):
|
|
|
|
|
a vehicle allowance;
|
|
|
|
life insurance with a policy value of three times salary or a
monthly allowance to purchase life insurance with a policy value
of three times salary;
|
|
|
|
accidental death and dismemberment insurance;
|
|
|
|
professional financial, tax and estate planning services;
|
|
|
|
reimbursement for taxes payable by the executives on the value
of certain perquisites (other than for the vehicle allowance or
accidental death and dismemberment insurance); and
|
|
|
|
contributions to Danas SavingsWorks Plan 401(k) account
|
In addition, we pay the system monitoring costs for
Messrs. Burns and Millers company-provided home
security systems. We also reimburse Messrs. Burns, Stone
and Miller for the costs of home Internet access.
Retirement
Benefits
To determine total compensation for our senior executives, the
prior Compensation Committee factored in the retirement benefits
provided by Dana. The retirement benefits which were made
available to Mr. Burns and the other named executive
officers are discussed under Pension Benefits.
Change in Control
Arrangements
Our Chief Executive Officer and a limited number of senior
executives had individual agreements with Dana providing for
severance payments and other benefits in the event of a change
in control of the company. These change in control agreements
were terminated in 2007.
Adjustment of
Performance-Based Compensation
We have had a policy regarding adjustment of performance-based
compensation in the event of a restatement of our financial
results that provides for the Compensation Committee to review
all bonuses and other compensation paid or awarded to our
executive officers based on the achievement of corporate
performance goals during the period covered by a restatement. If
the amount of such compensation paid or payable to any executive
officer based on the originally reported financial results
differs from the amount that would have been paid or payable
based on the restated financial results, the Compensation
Committee makes a recommendation to the independent members of
the Board about whether to seek recovery from the officer of any
compensation exceeding that to which he or she would have been
entitled based on the restated results or to pay to the officer
additional amounts to which he or she would have been entitled
based on the restated results, as the case may be.
Pursuant to such policy, following the restatement of our
financial statements for the first and second quarters of 2005
and fiscal years 2002 through 2004, the prior Compensation
Committee reviewed the performance-based compensation that had
been paid or awarded to our executive officers based on the
achievement of corporate performance goals during the periods
covered by these restatements. Based on that review, the prior
Compensation Committee determined that the restatements affected
award payments under our equity-based plans in only one year,
and in an immaterial amount in that year. Consequently, the
153
prior Compensation Committee recommended that there be no
adjustments to the performance-based compensation of the
executive officers and the independent Board members concurred
with this recommendation.
Impact of
Accounting and Tax Treatments
Deductibility of Executive Compensation. It is
a tenet of our executive compensation philosophy that
performance-based compensation provided to our Chief Executive
Officer and other senior managers who are covered
employees under Section 162(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code (the Code) should comply with the Code requirements
that qualify such compensation as tax-deductible for Dana,
unless the Compensation Committee determines that it is in
Danas best interests in individual circumstances to
provide compensation that is not tax-deductible. From time to
time, the Compensation Committee approves compensation that does
not meet the Section 162(m) requirements in order to ensure
competitive levels of compensation for our senior executives.
For 2007, the amount of base salary shown in the Summary
Compensation Table for Mr. Burns in excess of $1,000,000
and all or some of the incentive compensation under the AIP for
the named executive officers were not deductible for federal
income tax purposes.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. We
account for stock-based payments under our equity-based plans in
accordance with the requirements of SFAS No. 123(R).
There is more information about this accounting treatment in
Note 13 to our consolidated financial statements in
Item 8.
Compensation
Committee Report
The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has
reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation
Discussion and Analysis included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. Based on such
review and discussions, the Compensation Committee has
recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and
Analysis be included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.
Compensation
Committee
Stephen J. Girsky, Chairman
Mark A. Schulz
Jerome B. York
March 14, 2008
154
The following table shows the compensation for the last two
completed fiscal years earned by or paid to our principal
executive officer, our principal financial officer, and our
three other most highly compensated executive officers serving
at the end of the year (collectively, the named executive
officers) for services rendered during the year in all
capacities to Dana and our subsidiaries. None of our named
executive officers received Dana stock awards or stock options
in 2007 or 2006.
Summary
Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonqualified
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
Option
|
|
Incentive Plan
|
|
Compensation
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Name
and
|
|
|
|
Salary
|
|
Awards
|
|
Awards
|
|
Compensation(6)
|
|
Earnings
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Total
|
Principal
Position(1)
|
|
Year
|
|
($)
|
|
($)(4)
|
|
($)(5)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)(12)
|
|
($)
|
|
Michael J. Burns
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
1,035,000
|
|
|
|
352,780
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
5,500,000
|
|
|
|
558,781
|
(7)
|
|
|
38,516
|
|
|
|
7,485,077
|
|
Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
1,035,000
|
|
|
|
737,655
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
1,035,000
|
|
|
|
597,222
|
|
|
|
221,778
|
|
|
|
3,626,655
|
|
Kenneth A. Hiltz
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
0
|
(3)
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
(8)
|
|
|
7,528
|
|
|
|
7,528
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
3,694
|
|
|
|
3,694
|
|
Thomas R. Stone
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
440,000
|
|
|
|
18,160
|
|
|
|
11,860
|
|
|
|
1,465,733
|
|
|
|
133,610
|
(9)
|
|
|
34,478
|
|
|
|
2,103,841
|
|
President Light Axle Products Group, Automotive
Systems Group
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
440,000
|
|
|
|
18,160
|
|
|
|
11,860
|
|
|
|
264,000
|
|
|
|
121,341
|
|
|
|
35,333
|
|
|
|
890,694
|
|
Ralf
Goettel(2)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
445,446
|
|
|
|
13,647
|
|
|
|
2,024
|
|
|
|
1,333,127
|
|
|
|
25,995
|
(10)
|
|
|
35,289
|
|
|
|
1,855,528
|
|
President Europe & Sealing
& Thermal Products Group
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
438,724
|
|
|
|
13,647
|
|
|
|
6,940
|
|
|
|
222,723
|
|
|
|
106,462
|
|
|
|
35,288
|
|
|
|
823,784
|
|
Paul E. Miller
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
375,000
|
|
|
|
105,227
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
1,529,220
|
|
|
|
206,227
|
(11)
|
|
|
31,445
|
|
|
|
2,247,119
|
|
Vice President Purchasing
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
375,000
|
|
|
|
125,448
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
187,738
|
|
|
|
49,300
|
|
|
|
962,486
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Except for Mr. Burns who resigned as Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company on January 31,
2008, the current position held by the named executive officer
as of March 14, 2008 is set forth in the table. |
|
(2) |
|
Mr. Goettel is a citizen of Germany who is employed
full-time in Europe. Mr. Goettels compensation is
paid in Euros. As a result, we have converted
Mr. Goettels compensation in this table as well as
each table below into U.S. Dollars based on the Euro conversion
rate on December 31, 2007 which was 1.460. |
|
(3) |
|
Mr. Hiltz is a temporary Dana employee and did not receive
a salary from Dana in 2007. He is serving as our Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to an agreement between Dana and APServices LLP
(APS) under which APS is providing his services in that capacity
for a monthly fee of $125,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses. |
|
(4) |
|
This column shows the dollar amounts recognized in 2007 and
2006, respectively, for financial statement reporting purposes
for the aggregate fair value of restricted stock and restricted
stock units granted to each of the named executive officers in
prior fiscal years (none were granted in 2007 or 2006), in
accordance with SFAS 123R. The amounts recognized by the
company in 2006 were reported in our financial statements that
year, however, were not included in the Summary Compensation
Table in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006. As a result, the
total column of the Summary Compensation Table for that year
correspondingly increased as reported above. For additional
information on the assumptions used in determining fair value
for share-based compensation in 2006, refer to notes 1 and
14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in
Danas Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006. For additional
information on the assumptions used in determining fair value
for share-based compensation in 2007, refer to notes 1 and
13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item
8 of Part II. The amounts included in this column reflect the
companys accounting expense for these awards and do not
correspond to the actual value that could be recognized by the
named executive officers. See the Outstanding Equity
Awards at Fiscal Year-End table for information on the
market value of shares not vested as of December 31, 2007. |
155