Magnera - 10-Q quarterly report FY2012 Q1

P. H. Glatfelter Company and subsidiaries (“Glatfelter”) is a manufacturer of specialty papers and fiber-based engineered materials. Headquartered in York, Pennsylvania, our manufacturing facilities are located in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania; Chillicothe and Freemont, Ohio; Gatineau, Quebec, Canada; Gloucestershire (Lydney), England; Caerphilly, Wales, Gernsbach and Falkenhagen, Germany; Scaër, France; and the Philippines. Our products are marketed worldwide, either through wholesale merchants, brokers and agents or directly to customers.

Basis of Presentation The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements (“financial statements”) include the accounts of Glatfelter and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.

We prepared these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“generally accepted accounting principles” or “GAAP”). In our opinion, the financial statements reflect all normal, recurring adjustments needed to present fairly our results for the interim periods. When preparing these financial statements, we have assumed that you have read the audited consolidated financial statements included in our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K (“2011 Form 10-K”).

Accounting Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingencies as of the balance sheet date and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Management believes the estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of these financial statements are reasonable, based upon currently available facts and known circumstances, but recognizes that actual results may differ from those estimates and assumptions.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements In June 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income.” This ASU is designed to improve the comparability and transparency of other comprehensive income components. The guidance provides an option to present total comprehensive income, the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income in a single continuous statement or two separate but consecutive statements. This ASU eliminates the option to present other comprehensive income components as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity. The provisions of this ASU are required to be applied retrospectively. We have adopted this standard by presenting a separate consecutive statement of comprehensive income beginning in the first quarter of 2012.

In September 2011, the FASB updated ASC 350, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other to provide an entity the option, when evaluating goodwill and other assets for possible impairment, to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after completing this assessment, an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. This update became effective for us beginning January 1, 2012.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS,” which provides common requirements for measuring fair value and disclosing information about fair value measurements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. We adopted this standard in the first quarter of 2012 and it did not have a material impact on us.

During the first quarters of 2012 and 2011, we completed sales of assets as summarized in the following table:

The following table sets forth the details of basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS):

The following table sets forth potential common shares outstanding for stock options and restricted stock units that were not included in the computation of diluted EPS for the period indicated, because their effect would be anti-dilutive:

Income taxes are recognized for the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year and deferred tax liabilities and assets for the future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in our consolidated financial statements or tax returns. The effects of income taxes are measured based on enacted tax laws and rates.

As of both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $29.7 million of gross unrecognized tax benefits. As of March 31, 2012, if such benefits were to be recognized, approximately $29.7 million would be recorded as a component of income tax expense, thereby affecting our effective tax rate.

We, or one of our subsidiaries, file income tax returns with the United States Internal Revenue Service, as well as various state and foreign authorities. The following table summarizes, by major jurisdiction, tax years that remain subject to examination:

The amount of income taxes we pay is subject to ongoing audits by federal, state and foreign tax authorities, which often result in proposed assessments. Management performs a comprehensive review of its global tax positions on a quarterly basis and accrues amounts for uncertain tax positions. Based on these reviews and the result of discussions and resolutions of matters with certain tax authorities and the closure of tax years subject to tax audit, reserves are adjusted as necessary. However, future results may include favorable or unfavorable adjustments to our estimated tax liabilities in the period the assessments are determined or resolved or as such statutes are closed. Due to potential for resolution of federal, state and foreign examinations, and the expiration of various statutes of limitation, it is reasonably possible our gross unrecognized tax benefits balance may decrease within the next twelve months by a range of zero to $4.8 million. Substantially all of this range relates to tax positions taken in the U.S. and the U.K.

We recognize interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as income tax expense. We recorded interest expense of $0.1 million during the first quarter of 2012, and $0.3 of interest expense in the first quarter of 2011. As of March 31, 2012, we had recognized a liability for interest of $1.9 million, and as of December 31, 2011, accrued interest payable was $1.7 million. We did not record any penalties associated with uncertain tax positions during the first quarters of 2012 or 2011.

The P. H. Glatfelter Amended and Restated Long Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”) provides for the issuance of up to 5,500,000 shares of Glatfelter common stock to eligible participants in the form of restricted stock units, restricted stock awards, non-qualified stock options, performance shares, incentive stock options and performance units.

Since the approval of the LTIP, we have issued to eligible participants restricted stock units, performance share awards and stock only stock appreciation rights (“SOSARs”).

Restricted Stock Units (“RSU”) and Performance Share Awards (“PSAs”) Awards of RSUs and PSAs are made under our LTIP. The vesting of RSUs is based solely on the passage of time, generally on a graded scale over a three, four, and five-year period. PSAs were first issued in March 2011 and cliff vest three years from the grant date assuming the achievement of predetermined, three-year cumulative performance targets. The performance measures include a minimum, target and maximum performance level providing the grantees an opportunity to receive more or less shares than targeted depending on actual financial performance. For both RSUs and PSAs, the grant date fair value of the awards is used to determine the amount of expense to be recognized over the applicable service period, and, with respect to PSAs, adjusted to give effect to estimated level of target to be achieved. Settlement of RSUs and PSAs will be made in shares of our common stock. The following table summarizes RSU and PSA activity during the first three months of 2012 and 2011:

The amount granted in 2012 and 2011 includes PSAs of 161,083 and 96,410, respectively, exclusive of reinvested dividends. The following table sets forth aggregate RSU and PSA compensation expense for the periods indicated:

Stock Only Stock Appreciation Rights (SOSARs) Under terms of the SOSAR, a recipient receives the right to a payment in the form of shares of common stock equal to the difference, if any, in the fair market value of one share of common stock at the time of exercising the SOSAR and the strike price. The SOSARs vest ratably over a three year period and have a term of ten years.

The following table sets forth information related to outstanding SOSARS.

The following table sets forth SOSAR compensation expense for the periods indicated:

The following table provides information with respect to the net periodic costs of our pension and post retirement medical benefit plans.

Inventories, net of reserves, were as follows:

Long-term debt is summarized as follows:

On November 21, 2011, we entered into an amendment to our revolving credit agreement with a consortium of banks (the “Revolving Credit Facility”) which increased the amount available for borrowing to $350 million, extended the maturity of the facility to November 21, 2016, and instituted a lower interest rate pricing grid.

For all U.S. dollar denominated borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility, the borrowing rate is, at our option, (a) the bank’s base rate which is equal to the greater of i) the prime rate; ii) the federal funds rate plus 50 basis points plus an applicable spread ranging from 25 basis points to 125 basis points based on our corporate credit ratings determined by Standard & Poor’s Rating Services and Moody’s Investor Service, Inc. (the “Corporate Credit Rating”); or iii) the daily Euro-rate plus 100 basis points; or (b) the daily Euro-rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 125 basis points to 225 basis points based on the Corporate Credit Rating. For non-US dollar denominated borrowings, interest is based (b) above.

The Revolving Credit Facility contains a number of customary covenants for financings of this type that, among other things, restrict our ability to dispose of or create liens on assets, incur additional indebtedness, repay other indebtedness, limits certain intercompany financing arrangements, make acquisitions and engage in mergers or consolidations. We are also required to comply with specified financial tests and ratios including: i) maximum net debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) ratio; ii) a consolidated EBITDA to interest expense ratio; and iii) beginning December 31, 2015, a minimum liquidity ratio. A breach of these requirements would give rise to certain remedies under the Revolving Credit Facility, among which are the termination of the agreement and accelerated repayment of the outstanding borrowings plus accrued and unpaid interest under the credit facility.

On April 28, 2006 we completed an offering of $200.0 million aggregate principal amount of our 7 ¹/8% Senior Notes due 2016 (“7 ¹/8% Notes”). Net proceeds from this offering totaled approximately $196.4 million, after deducting the commissions and other fees and expenses relating to the offering. The proceeds were primarily used to redeem $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of our then outstanding notes plus the payment of applicable redemption premium and accrued interest.

Interest on the 7 ¹/8% Notes is payable semiannually in arrears on May 1 and November 1.

The 7 ¹/8% Notes contain cross default provisions that could result in all such notes becoming due and payable in the event of a failure to repay debt outstanding under the Revolving Credit Agreement at maturity or a default under the Revolving Credit Agreement that accelerates the debt outstanding thereunder. As of December 31, 2011, we met all of the requirements of our debt covenants.

P. H. Glatfelter Company guarantees all debt obligations of its subsidiaries. All such obligations are recorded in these consolidated financial statements.

As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $4.6 million of letters of credit issued to us by certain financial institutions. Such letters of credit reduce amounts available under the Revolving Credit Facility. The letters of credit outstanding primarily provide financial assurances for the benefit of certain state workers compensation insurance agencies in conjunction with our self-insurance program. We bear the credit risk on this amount to the extent that we do not comply with the provisions of certain agreements. No amounts are outstanding under the letters of credit.

During 2008, we recorded $11.5 million representing the estimated fair value of asset retirement obligations related to the legal requirement to close several lagoons at the Spring Grove, PA facility. Historically, the lagoons were used to dispose of residual waste material. Closure of the lagoons will be accomplished by filling the lagoons, and installing a non-permeable liner which will be covered with soil to construct the required cap over the lagoons. The amount referred to above, in addition to the upward revisions in 2009 and 2011, was accrued with a corresponding increase in the carrying value of the property, equipment and timberlands caption on the consolidated balance sheet. The amount capitalized is being amortized as a charge to operations on the straight-line basis over the expected closure period. Following is a summary of activity recorded during the first quarters of 2012 and 2011:

Of the total liability at March 31, 2012, $1.5 million is recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet, under the caption “Other current liabilities” and $8.1 million is recorded under the caption “Other long-term liabilities.”

The amounts reported on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and short-term debt approximate fair value. The following table sets forth carrying value and fair value of long-term debt:

As of March 31, 2012, and December 31, 2011, we had $200.0 million of 7 ¹/8% fixed rate debt. These bonds are publicly registered, but thinly traded. Accordingly, the values set forth above are based on debt instruments with similar characteristics (Level – 2). The fair value of financial derivatives is set forth below in Note 12.

As part of our overall risk management practices, we enter into financial derivatives primarily designed to either i) hedge foreign currency risks associated with forecasted transactions – “cash flow hedges”; or ii) mitigate the impact that changes in currency exchange rates have on intercompany financing transactions and foreign currency denominated receivables and payables – “foreign currency hedges.”

Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments – Cash Flow Hedges We use currency forward contracts as cash flow hedges to manage our exposure to fluctuations in the currency exchange rates on certain forecasted production costs expected to be incurred over a maximum of twelve months. Currency forward contracts involve fixing the EUR-USD exchange rate or USD-CAD for delivery of a specified amount of foreign currency on a specified date.

We designate certain currency forward contracts as cash flow hedges of forecasted raw material purchases or certain production labor costs with exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated and that qualify as cash flow hedges of foreign exchange risk is deferred as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet and is subsequently reclassified into costs of products sold in the period that inventory produced using the hedged transaction affects earnings. The ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivative is recognized directly to earnings

and reflected in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of income as non-operating income (expense) under the caption “Other-net.”

We had the following outstanding derivatives that were used to hedge foreign exchange risks associated with forecasted transactions and designated as hedging instruments:

These contracts have maturities of twelve months or less.

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments – Foreign Currency Hedges We also enter into forward foreign exchange contracts to mitigate the impact changes in currency exchange rates have on balance sheet monetary assets and liabilities. None of these contracts are designated as hedges for financial accounting purposes and, accordingly, changes in value of the foreign exchange forward contracts and in the offsetting underlying on-balance-sheet transactions are reflected in the accompanying statement of operations under the caption “Other – net.”

These contracts have maturities of one month from the date originally entered into.

Fair Value Measurements The following table summarizes the fair values of derivative instruments for the period indicated and the line items in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet where the instruments are recorded:

The amounts set forth in the table above represent the net asset or liability giving effect to rights of offset with each counterparty.

The following table summarizes the amount of income or loss from derivative instruments recognized in our results of operations for the periods indicated and the line items in the accompanying consolidated statements of income where the results are recorded:

The impact of activity not designated as hedging was substantially all offset by the remeasurement of the underlying on-balance sheet item.

The fair value hierarchy consists of three broad levels, which gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3).

The fair values of the foreign exchange forward contracts are considered to be Level 2. Foreign currency forward contracts are valued using foreign currency forward and interest rate curves. The fair value of each contract is determined by comparing the contract rate to the forward rate and discounting to present value. Contracts in a gain position are recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Prepaid and other current assets” and the value of contracts in a loss position is recorded under the caption “Other current liabilities.”

A rollforward of fair value amounts recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income is as follows:

We expect substantially all of the amounts recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income will be realized in results of operations within the next twelve months and the amount ultimately recognized will vary depending on actual market rates.

Credit risk related to derivative activity arises in the event a counterparty fails to meet its obligations to us. This exposure is generally limited to the amounts, if any, by which the counterparty’s obligations exceed our obligation to them. Our policy is to enter into contracts only with financial institutions which meet certain minimum credit ratings.

In April 2011, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program for up to $50.0 million, exclusive of commissions, of our outstanding common stock, all of which was used by January 2012. The following table summarizes share repurchases under this program:

During the first quarter of 2012, we repurchased 82,533 shares at a cost of $1.2 million.

Fox River – Neenah, Wisconsin

Background We have significant uncertainties associated with environmental claims arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay Wisconsin (“Site”). As part of our 1979 acquisition of the Bergstrom Paper Company, we acquired a facility located at the Site (the “Neenah Facility”). The Neenah Facility used wastepaper as a source of fiber. Discharges to the lower Fox River from the Neenah Facility that may have contained PCBs from wastepaper may have occurred from 1954 to the late 1970s. We believe that any PCBs that the Neenah Facility may have discharged into the lower Fox River resulted from the presence of PCBs in NCR^®-brand carbonless copy paper in the wastepaper that was recycled at the Neenah Facility. We closed the Neenah Facility in June 2006.

The United States, the State of Wisconsin and various state and federal governmental agencies (collectively, the “Governments”), as well as other entities (including local Native American tribes), have found PCBs in sediments in the bed of the Fox River, apparently from a number of sources at municipal and industrial facilities along the upstream and downstream portions of the Site. The

Governments have identified manufacturing and recycling of NCR^®-brand carbonless copy paper as the principal source of that contamination.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has divided the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay site into five “operable units” (the “OUs”), including the most upstream (“OU1”) and four downstream reaches of the river and bay (“OU2-5”). OU1 extends from primarily Lake Winnebago to the dam at Appleton, and is comprised of Little Lake Butte des Morts. The Neenah Facility discharged its wastewater into OU1.

Our liabilities, if any, for this contamination primarily arise under the federal Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), pursuant to which the Governments have sought to recover “response actions” or “response costs,” which are the costs of studying and cleaning up contamination. Other agencies and natural resource trustee agencies (collectively, the “Trustees”) have sought to recover natural resource damages (“NRDs”), including natural resource damage assessment costs.

We are one of eight entities that have been formally notified that they are potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) under CERCLA for response costs or NRDs. Others, including the United States and the State of Wisconsin, may also be liable for some or all of the costs of NRD at this Site.

We are engaged in litigation to allocate costs and NRDs among the parties responsible for this site. The Governments have sought to recover response actions, response costs, and NRDs from us through three principal enforcement actions.

OU1 CD. On October 1, 2003, the United States and the State of Wisconsin commenced an action captioned United States v. P .H. Glatfelter Co. against us and WTM I Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and simultaneously lodged a consent decree (“OU1 CD”) that the court entered on April 12, 2004. Under that OU1 CD, and an amendment dated August 2008, we and WTM I, with a limited fixed contribution from Menasha Corp. and funds provided by the United States from an agreement with others, have implemented the remedy for OU1. We have also resolved claims for all Governmental response costs in OU1 after July 2003 and made a payment on NRDs. That remedy is complete. We have continuing operation and maintenance obligations that we expect to fund from contributions we and WTM I have already made to an escrow account for OU1 under the OU1 CD.

OU2-5 UAO. In November 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an administrative order for remedial action (“UAO”) to Appleton Papers Inc. (“API”), CBC Coating, Inc. (formerly known as Riverside Paper Corporation), Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. (formerly known as Fort James Operating Company), Menasha Corporation, NCR Corporation, Glatfelter, U.S. Paper Mills Corp., and WTM I Company (“WTM I”) directing those respondents to implement the remedy in OU2-5. Shortly following issuance of the UAO, API and NCR commenced litigation against us and others, as described below. Accordingly, we have no vehicle for complying with the UAO’s overall requirements other than answering a judgment in the litigation, and we have so informed EPA, but, to minimize disruptions, have paid certain de minimis amounts to EPA for oversight costs under the UAO.

Government Action. On October 14, 2010, the United States and the State of Wisconsin filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin captioned United States v. NCR Corp. (the “Government Action”) against 12 parties, including us. The Government Action seeks to recover from each of the defendants, jointly and severally, all of the governments’ past costs of response, which are approximately $17 million to date, a declaration as to liability for all of the governments’ future costs of response, and compensation for natural resource damages, as well as a declaration as to liability for compliance with the UAO for OU2-5. The United States twice sought a preliminary injunction in 2011 to obtain “full-scale remediation” from NCR or API, and those motions were denied. NCR implemented less than a full season of work in 2011. On March 19, 2012, the United States again moved for a preliminary injunction to require NCR and API to conduct “full-scale” remediation – defined as dredging of 660,000 cubic yards of sediment – in 2012. On April 10, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to API, holding that API was not a successor to the Appleton Coated Papers Division of NCR Corporation. On April 12, 2012, the court held a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction directed solely at NCR, but the court has not yet ruled on that motion. Active litigation of the United States’ claim for a declaratory judgment or permanent injunctive relief against all recipients of the UAO for OU2-5, including us, began with the issuance of a case management order on March 22, 2012. The court has indicated that it may wish to accelerate the schedule for disposition of that claim so that a trial would begin as early as December 3, 2012. Among other issues, disposition of that claim will require litigation of challenges to the United States’ selection of the remedy for this Site and will also require disposition of various parties’ asserted defenses that liability for some or all of this Site is not joint and several and may be apportioned.

Whiting Litigation. On January 7, 2008, NCR and API commenced litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin captioned Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., seeking to reallocate costs and damages allegedly incurred or paid or to be incurred or paid by NCR or API (the “Whiting Litigation”). The case involves allocation claims among the two plaintiffs and 28 defendants including us. We and other defendants counterclaimed against NCR and API. Some of the claims have since been resolved as described below.

Claims against governments. The Whiting Litigation involves claims by certain parties against federal agencies who are responsible parties for this site. In the Government Action many defendants, including us, asserted counterclaims against the United States and the State of Wisconsin.

Settlements. Certain parties have resolved their liability to the United States affording them contribution protection. These settlements are embodied in consent decrees. Notably, we entered into the OU1 CD. Also, in a case captioned United States v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., the district court entered two consent decrees under which 13de minimis defendants in the Whiting Litigation settled with the United States and Wisconsin. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied an appeal of these settlements by NCR and API on May 4, 2011. Further, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, has entered into a consent decree resolving its liability for NRDs and a separate consent decree in the Government Action that resolves all of its liabilities except for the downstream portion of the OU4 remedy. Finally, the United States has lodged a consent decree that would resolve the liability of itself and two municipalities. The United States moved for entry of that consent decree, but later withdrew that motion due to a ruling by the court adverse to the government in a related case captioned Menasha Corp. v. United States Department of Justice, seeking disclosure of certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act. We oppose entry of that consent decree, which the district court must approve. The United States or the State of Wisconsin may enter into settlements with us or with other parties that would affect our ultimate obligations because settling parties may become unavailable to pay any share other than their settlement amount, depending upon the terms of the settlement and the court’s order entering any consent decree.

Cleanup Decisions. The extent of our exposure depends, in large part, on the decisions made by EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”) as to how the Site will be cleaned up and the costs and timing of those response actions. The nature of

the response actions has been highly controversial. Between 2002 and 2008, the EPA issued records of decision (“RODs”) regarding required remedial actions for the OUs. Some of those RODs have been amended. We contend that the remedy for OU2-5 is arbitrary and capricious. We and others have begun to litigate that issue in the Government Action. If we were to be successful in modifying any existing selected remedy, our exposure could be reduced materially.

NRD Assessment. We are engaged in disputes as to (i) whether various documents prepared by the Trustees taken together constitute a sufficient NRD assessment under applicable regulations; and (ii) on a number of legal grounds, whether the Trustees may recover from us on the specific NRD claims they have made.

Cost estimates. Estimates of the Site remediation change over time as we, or others, gain additional data and experience at the Site. In addition, disagreement exists over the likely costs for some of this work. Based upon estimates made by the Governments and independent estimates commissioned by various potentially responsible parties, we have no reason to disagree with the Governments’ assertion that total past and future costs and NRDs at this site may exceed $1 billion and that $1.5 billion is a reasonable “outside estimate.”

NRDs. Of that amount, the Trustees’ assessment documents claimed that we are jointly and severally responsible for NRDs with a value between $176 million and $333 million. They now claim that this range should be inflated to 2009 dollars and then certain unreimbursed past assessment costs should be added, so that the range of their claim would be $287 million to $423 million. We deny liability for most of these NRDs and believe that even if anyone is liable, that we are not jointly and severally liable for the full amount. Moreover, we believe that the Trustees may not legally pursue this claim at this late date, as the limitations period for NRD claims is three years from discovery.

Allocation and Divisibility. We contend that we are not jointly and severally liable for costs or damages arising from the presence of PCBs downstream of OU1. In addition, we contend that NCR or other sources of NCR^®-brand carbonless copy paper that our Neenah Mill recycled bear most, if not all, of the responsibility for costs and damages arising from the presence of PCBs in OU1 and downstream.

On December 16, 2009, the court granted motions for summary judgment in our favor in the Whiting Litigation holding that neither NCR nor API may seek contribution from us or other recyclers under CERCLA. The Court made no ruling as to any other allocation, the liability of NCR or API to us for costs we have incurred, or our liability to the Governments or Trustees. NCR and API have stated their intention to appeal, but an appeal is not yet timely because the court has not entered a final judgment.

We also filed counterclaims against NCR and API to recover the costs we have incurred and may later incur and the damages we have paid and may later pay in connection with the Site. Other defendants have similar claims. On February 28, 2011, the district court granted our summary judgment motions on those counterclaims in part and denied them in part. The court granted a declaration that NCR and API are liable to us (and to others) in contribution for 100% of any costs of response (that is, clean up) that we may be required to pay for work in OU2-5 in the future. On September 30, 2011, the court clarified its ruling with respect to NRDs and natural resource damage assessment costs, holding that NCR and API owe full contribution to us (and others) for NRDs or natural resource damage assessment costs that we have paid or may be required to pay in the future. The court required further proceedings to decide whether or to what extent NCR and API owe contribution to us and others for costs that we and others incurred in the past and costs that we and others incurred in connection with OU1. In addition, NCR and API contended that some of the costs we claim are not recoverable and that our insurance coverage settlements ought to be set off against any recovery in whole or in part. Those issues were tried to the court in February 2012. Post-trial submissions are not yet complete and the court has not yet issued its decision. We expect that decision to determine the precise amounts due us on our counterclaims with respect to costs and damages we have already paid.

Reserves for the Site. As of March 31, 2012, our reserve for our claimed liability at the Site, including our remediation and ongoing monitoring obligations at OU1, our claimed liability for the remediation of the rest of the Site, our claimed liability for NRDs associated with PCB contamination at the Site and all pending, threatened or asserted and unasserted claims against us relating to PCB contamination at the Site totaled $16.5 million. Of our total reserve for the Fox River, $0.3 million is recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Environmental liabilities” and the remainder is recorded under the caption “Other long term liabilities.”

Although we believe that amounts already funded by us and WTM I to implement the OU1 remedy are adequate and no payments have been required since January 2009, there can be no assurance that these amounts will in fact suffice. WTM I has filed a bankruptcy petition in the Bankruptcy Court in Richmond; accordingly, there can be no assurance that WTM I will be able to fulfill its obligation to pay half of any additional costs, if required.

We believe that we have strong defenses to liability for further remediation downstream of OU1, including the existence of ample data that indicate that PCBs did not leave OU1 in concentrations that could have caused or contributed to the need for additional cleanup downstream. Others, including the EPA and other PRPs, disagree with us and, as a result, the EPA has issued a UAO to us and to others to perform the additional remedial work, and filed the Government Action seeking, in part, the same relief. NCR and API commenced the Whiting Litigation and joined us and others as defendants, but, to this point, have not prevailed.

Even if we are not successful in establishing that we have no further remediation liability, we do not believe that we would be allocated a significant percentage share of liability in any equitable allocation of the remediation costs and natural resource damages. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include reserves for defense costs for the Whiting Litigation, the Government Action, or any future defense costs related to our involvement at the Site, which could be significant.

In setting our reserve for the Site, we have assessed our legal defenses, including our successful defenses to the allegations made in the Whiting Litigation, and assumed that we will not bear the entire cost of remediation or damages to the exclusion of other known PRPs at the Site, who are also potentially jointly and severally liable. The existence and ability of other PRPs to participate has also been taken into account in setting our reserve, and is generally based on our evaluation of recent publicly available financial information on certain of the PRPs and any known insurance, indemnity or cost sharing agreements between PRPs and third parties. In addition, our assessment is based upon the magnitude, nature, location and circumstances associated with the various discharges of PCBs to the river and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination. We will continue to evaluate our exposure and the level of our reserves, including, but not limited to, our potential share of the costs and NRDs, if any, associated with the Site.

The amount and timing of future expenditures for environmental compliance, cleanup, remediation and personal injury, NRDs and property damage liabilities cannot be ascertained with any certainty due to, among other things, the unknown extent and nature of any contamination, the response actions that may ultimately be required, the availability of remediation equipment, and landfill space, and the number and financial resources of any other PRPs.

Other Information. The Governments have published studies estimating the amount of PCBs discharged by each identified PRP’s facility to the lower Fox River and Green Bay. These reports estimate the Neenah Facility’s share of the mass of PCBs discharged to be as high as 27%. We do not believe the discharge mass estimates used in these studies are accurate because (a) the studies themselves disclose that they are not accurate and (b) the PCB mass estimates contained in the studies are based on assumptions that are unsupported by existing data on the Site. We believe that the Neenah Facility’s absolute and relative contribution of PCB mass is significantly lower than the estimates set forth in these studies.

In any event, based upon the court’s December 16, 2009, and February 28, 2011, rulings in the Whiting Litigation, statements in the court’s disposition of the United States’ 2011 motions for a preliminary injunction in the Government Action, as well as certain other procedural orders, we continue to believe that an allocation in proportion to mass of PCBs discharged would not constitute an equitable allocation of the potential liability for the contamination at the Fox River. We contend that other factors, such as the location of contamination, the location of discharge, and a party’s role in causing discharge, must be considered in order for the allocation to be equitable.

We previously entered into interim cost-sharing agreements with six of the other PRPs, which provided for those PRPs to share certain costs relating to scientific studies of PCBs discharged at the Site (“Interim Cost Sharing Agreements”). These Interim Cost Sharing Agreements do not establish the final allocation of remediation costs incurred at the Site. Based upon our evaluation of the Court’s December 16, 2009, and February 28, 2011 rulings in the Whiting Litigation as well as the volume, nature and location of the various discharges of PCBs at the Site and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination, we believe our allocable share of liability at the Site is less than our share of costs under the Interim Cost Sharing Agreements.

Range of Reasonably Possible Outcomes. Our analysis of the range of reasonably possible outcomes is derived from all available information, including but not limited to official documents such as RODs, discussions with the United States and other PRPs, as well as legal counsel and engineering consultants. Based on our analysis of the current RODs and cost estimates for work to be performed at the Site, we believe that it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter may exceed our cost estimates and the aggregate amounts accrued for the Fox River matter by amounts that are insignificant or that could range up to $265 million over an undeterminable period that could range beyond 10 years. We believe that the likelihood of an outcome in the upper end of the monetary range is significantly less than other possible outcomes within the range and that the possibility of an outcome in excess of the upper end of the monetary range is remote. The two summary judgments in our favor in the Whiting Litigation, if sustained on appeal, suggest that outcomes in the upper end of the monetary range have become somewhat less probable, while increases in cost estimates for some of the work may make an outcome in the upper end of the range more likely.

Summary. Our current assessment is that we will be able to manage this environmental matter without a long-term, material adverse impact on the Company. This matter could, however, at any particular time or for any particular year or years, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and/or results of operations or could result in a default under our debt covenants. Moreover, there can be no assurance that our reserves will be adequate to provide for future obligations related to this matter, that our share of costs and/or damages will not exceed our available resources, or that such obligations will not have a long-term, material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Should a court grant the United States or the State of Wisconsin relief which requires us either to perform directly or to contribute significant amounts towards remedial action downstream of OU1 or to natural resource damages, those developments could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and might result in a default under our loan covenants.

Results of individual business units are presented based on our management accounting practices and management structure. There is no comprehensive, authoritative body of guidance for management accounting equivalent to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; therefore, the financial results of individual business units are not necessarily comparable with similar information for any other company. The management accounting process uses assumptions and allocations to measure performance of the business units. Methodologies are refined from time to time as management accounting practices are enhanced and businesses change. The costs incurred by support areas not directly aligned with the business unit are allocated primarily based on an estimated utilization of support area services or are included in “Other and Unallocated” in the Business Unit Performance table.

Management evaluates results of operations of the business units before pension income or expense, alternative fuel mixture credits, debt redemption costs, restructuring related charges, certain corporate level costs, and the effects of asset dispositions. Management believes that this is a more meaningful representation of the operating performance of its core businesses, the profitability of business units and the extent of cash flow generated from these core operations. Such amounts are presented under the caption “Other and Unallocated.” This presentation is aligned with the management and operating structure of our company. It is also on this basis that the Company’s performance is evaluated internally and by the Company’s Board of Directors.