Magnera - 10-Q quarterly report FY2012 Q2

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.

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 June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $30.5 million and $29.7 million, respectively, of gross unrecognized tax benefits. As of June 30, 2012, if such benefits were to be recognized, approximately $30.5 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.

non-refundable cellulosic biofuel credit and intend to amend our 2009 federal income tax return to claim the credit for a portion of the black liquor gallons produced in 2009. The conversion to the cellulosic biofuel credit resulted in a net benefit for income taxes in the second quarter of 2012 of $4.4 million. The amount of cellulosic biofuel credits recognized is based on numerous assumptions and estimates about future taxable income. Although we believe our assumptions are reasonable, actual results may differ from these assumptions and estimates and such differences may have a significant impact on the amount of credits recognized. In addition, while we do not intend to convert additional credits, if facts and circumstances change, we could further amend our 2009 tax return and claim additional credits.

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 (“RSUs”) and Performance Share Awards (“PSAs”) Awards of RSUs and PSAs are made under our LTIP. The RSUs vest 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 target 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. 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 six months of the indicated periods:

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

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 May 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.

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 June 30, 2012, we met all of the requirements of our debt covenants.

As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $4.6 million, respectively, of letters of credit issued to us by certain financial institutions. Such letters of credit reduce amounts available under our revolving credit facility. The letters of credit 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.

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 and certain other identified manufacturing cost 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 consolidated balance sheet and is subsequently reclassified into cost 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 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

The impact on our results of operations of marking-to-market 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 consolidated balance sheet 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 will vary depending on 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.

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.

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 Company (“WTM I”). 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),

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

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. On July 3, 2012, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law awarding us approximately $4.25 million in claimed past costs associated with the work of the “Fox River Group,” subject to an unresolved insurance coverage settlement off-set. The court also found that the sale of production scrap known as “broke” from NCR’s predecessor Appleton Coated Paper Company to recyclers did not constitute “arranging” for disposal of the PCBs coated on that broke and therefore did not render NCR liable on that basis for costs we had incurred in OU1, a decision with which we disagree. Further motions are now pending to determine whether NCR or API may be responsible for our costs in OU1 on any other theory. An appeal of the court’s February 28, 2011, September 30, 2011, and July 3, 2012, decisions is not yet ripe for any party.

Reserves for the Site. As of June 30, 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

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 and 2012 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, February 28, 2011, and July 3, 2012, 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.

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.