UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002OR[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission file number: 0-25245
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
10 BURTON HILLS BLVD., NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37215(Address and zip code of principal executive office)
REGISTRANT’S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE: (615) 263-3000
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT: NONE
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ]
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 the registrant’s 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. [ ]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes [X] No [ ]
The aggregate market value of the shares of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $461,141,586 as of June 28, 2002, based on the closing price of such shares on the New York Stock Exchange on that day. The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on March 18, 2003 was 28,103,110.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled to be held on May 15, 2003, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICAFORM 10-KFor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDINGFORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This annual report on Form 10-K contains statements that are forward-looking statements as defined within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give our current expectations of forecasts of future events. All statements other than statements of current or historical fact contained in this annual report, including statements regarding our future financial position, business strategy, budgets, projected costs and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “projects,” “will,” and similar expressions, as they relate to us, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are based on our current plans and actual future activities, and our results of operations may be materially different from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. In particular, these include, among other things, statements relating to:
Any or all of our forward-looking statements in this annual report may turn out to be inaccurate. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. They can be affected by inaccurate assumptions we might make or by known or unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in “Risk Factors.”
In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this annual report may not occur and actual results could differ materially from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements. When you consider these forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind these risk factors and other cautionary statements in this annual report, including in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business.”
Our forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained in this annual report.
4
PART I.
ITEM 1. BUSINESS.
Overview
We are the nation’s largest owner and operator of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States behind only the federal government and four states. At December 31, 2002, we owned 40 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities, three of which we lease to other operators, and one additional facility which is not yet in operation. At December 31, 2002, we operated 60 facilities, including 37 facilities that we owned, with a total design capacity of approximately 59,000 beds in 21 states and the District of Columbia.
We specialize in owning, operating and managing prisons and other correctional facilities and providing inmate residential and prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies. In addition to providing the fundamental residential services relating to inmates, our facilities offer a variety of rehabilitation and educational programs, including basic education, religious services, life skills and employment training and substance abuse treatment. These services are intended to help reduce recidivism and to prepare inmates for their successful reentry into society upon their release. We also provide health care (including medical, dental and psychiatric services), food services and work and recreational programs.
Our website address is www.correctionscorp.com. We make our Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, and Form 8-K reports available on our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Information contained on our website is not part of this report.
Operations
Management and Operation of Facilities. Our customers consist of local, state and federal correctional and detention authorities. For the year ended December 31, 2002, federal correctional and detention authorities represented approximately 32% of our total revenue. Federal correctional and detention authorities consist of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”), the United States Marshals Service (the “USMS”) and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the “INS”). Effective March 1, 2003, the INS was integrated with the Department of Homeland Security, and is now known as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Our management services contracts typically have terms of one to five years, and contain multiple renewal options. Most of our facility contracts also contain clauses that allow the government agency to terminate the contract at any time without cause, and our contracts are generally subject to annual or bi-annual legislative appropriation of funds.
We are compensated for operating and managing facilities at an inmate per-diem rate based upon actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. Occupancy rates for a particular facility are typically low when first opened or when expansions are first available. However, beyond the start-up period, which typically ranges from 90 to 180 days, the occupancy rate tends to stabilize. For 2002 and 2001, the average compensated occupancy, based on rated capacity, of our facilities was 89.6% and 88.4%, respectively, for all of the facilities we owned or managed exclusive of those discontinued. From a capacity perspective, we currently have two facilities that are substantially vacant and provide us with approximately 3,000 available beds. These beds can be brought on-line with only minimal capital outlays.
5
Our contracts generally require us to operate each facility in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. We are required by our contracts to maintain certain levels of insurance coverage for general liability, workers’ compensation, vehicle liability and property loss or damage. We are also required to indemnify the contracting agencies for claims and costs arising out of our operations and, in certain cases, to maintain performance bonds and other collateral requirements. Approximately 80% of the facilities we operate are accredited by the American Correctional Association Commission on Accreditation. The American Correctional Association, or the ACA, is an independent organization comprised of professionals in the corrections industry that establish standards by which a correctional institution may gain accreditation.
Operating Procedures. Pursuant to the terms of our management contracts, we are responsible for the overall operation of our facilities, including staff recruitment, general administration of the facilities, facility maintenance, security and supervision of the offenders. We also provide a variety of rehabilitative and educational programs at our facilities. Inmates at most facilities we manage may receive basic education through academic programs designed to improve inmate literacy levels and the opportunity to acquire General Education Development, or GED, certificates. We also offer vocational training to inmates who lack marketable job skills. In addition, we offer life skills transition planning programs that provide inmates with job search skills, health education, financial responsibility training, parenting and other skills associated with becoming productive citizens. At several of our facilities, we also offer counseling, education and/or treatment to inmates with alcohol and drug abuse problems through our LifeLine™ program. We believe these programs reduce recidivism.
We operate each facility in accordance with company-wide policies and procedures and the standards and guidelines established by the ACA. The ACA believes its standards safeguard the life, health and safety of offenders and personnel and, accordingly, these standards are the basis of the accreditation process and define policies and procedures for operating programs. The ACA standards, which are the industry’s most widely accepted correctional standards, describe specific objectives to be accomplished and cover such areas as administration, personnel and staff training, security, medical and health care, food services, inmate supervision and physical plant requirements. We have sought and received ACA accreditation for 47 of the facilities we currently manage, and we intend to apply for ACA accreditation for all of our eligible facilities. The accreditation process is usually completed 18 to 24 months after a facility is opened.
We devote considerable resources to monitoring compliance with contractual and other requirements and to maintain a high level of quality assurance at each facility through a system of formal reporting, corporate oversight, site reviews and inspection by on-site facility administrators.
Under our management contracts, we usually provide the contracting government agency with the services, personnel and material necessary for the operation, maintenance and security of the facility and the custody of inmates. We offer full logistical support to the facilities we manage, including security, health care services, transportation, building and ground maintenance, education, treatment and counseling services and food services.
Our operations department, in conjunction with our legal department, supervises compliance of each facility with operational standards contained in the various management contracts as well as those of professional and government agencies. These responsibilities include developing specific policies and procedures manuals, monitoring all management contracts, ensuring compliance with applicable labor and affirmative action standards, training and administration of personnel, purchasing supplies and developing educational, vocational, counseling and life skills inmate programs. We provide
6
meals for inmates at the facilities we operate in accordance with regulatory, client and nutritional requirements. These catering responsibilities include hiring and training staff, monitoring food operations, purchasing food and supplies, and maintaining equipment, as well as adhering to all applicable safety and nutritional standards and codes.
Facility Portfolio
General. Our facilities can generally be classified according to the level(s) of security at such facility. Minimum-security facilities are facilities having open housing within an appropriately designed and patrolled institutional perimeter. Medium-security facilities are facilities having either cells, rooms or dormitories, a secure perimeter and some form of external patrol. Maximum-security facilities are facilities having single occupancy cells, a secure perimeter and external patrol. Multi-security facilities are facilities with various areas encompassing either minimum, medium or maximum security. Non-secure facilities are juvenile facilities having open housing that inhibit movement by their design. Secure facilities are juvenile facilities having cells, rooms, or dormitories, a secure perimeter and some form of external patrol.
Our facilities can also be classified according to their primary function. The primary functional categories are:
Facilities and Facility Management Contracts. At December 31, 2002, we owned 40 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities in 14 states and the District of Columbia, three of which we lease to other operators, and one additional facility which is not yet in operation. We also own two corporate office buildings. We have pledged each of the properties we own to secure borrowings under our senior bank credit facility. At December 31, 2002, we leased one of these facilities to a government agency and two of these facilities to private operators. Subsequent to December 31, 2002, we purchased the Crowley County Correctional Facility, a 1,200-bed medium security adult male prison facility located in Olney Springs, Colorado. Additionally, at December 31, 2002, we managed 23 correctional and detention facilities owned by government agencies. Subsequent to year-end our contracts to manage the Okeechobee Juvenile Offender Correctional Center, a 96-bed juvenile facility located in Okeechobee, Florida, and the Lawrenceville Correctional Center, a 1500-bed correctional center located in Lawrenceville, Virginia, were terminated. The following table sets forth all of the facilities we currently (i) own and manage, (ii) own, but are leased to another
7
operator, and (iii) manage but are owned by a government authority. The table includes certain information regarding each facility, including the term of the primary management contract related to such facility, or, in the case of facilities we own but lease to another operator, the term of such lease. As set forth in the following table, we have numerous management contracts that expire, or have expired, during 2003 with no remaining renewal options. We have continued, and expect to continue, to manage or lease these facilities, although we can provide no assurance that we will maintain our contracts to manage these facilities.
8
9
10
11
Facilities Under Construction or Development. In addition to owning and/or managing the facilities listed in the preceding table, we own the Stewart County Detention Center located in Stewart County, Georgia. The 297,550 square foot medium security facility will have a design capacity of 1,524 beds and is partially complete. We estimate that the facility could be completed with approximately $20.0 million of capital expenditures. At this time, there are no plans to complete this project.
The Corrections and Detention Industry
Growth of the United States Prison Population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the BJS, the United States prison population, along with incarceration rates, has increased since 1925, independent of economic cycles. The number of inmates housed in United States federal and state prisons and local jail facilities increased from 1,148,702 at December 31, 1990 to 1,962,220 at December 31, 2001, the latest date such information is available from the BJS. Although the average annual growth rate decreased to 1.3% between December 2000 and December 2001, the average annual growth rate for the federal inmate population remained strong at 7.0%, while the average annual growth rate for state and local inmate populations were 0.4% and 1.6%, respectively.
The average annual growth rate of the prison population in the United States between December 1995 and December 2001 was 3.6%. During this time period, federal, state, and local inmate populations increased 8.2%, 3.0%, and 3.7%, respectively. Federal agencies are collectively our largest customer and accounted for approximately 33% of total management revenue (when aggregating all of our federal contracts) for the year ended December 31, 2002.
Prison Overcrowding. The significant growth of the prison population in the United States has led to overcrowding in the state and federal prison systems. At least 22 states and the federal prison system reported operating at 100% or more of their highest capacity in 2001, with the federal prison system operating at 31% above capacity at December 31, 2001.
Further, we believe the moderation in growth rates for state and local inmate populations represent short-term declines resulting from budget difficulties currently experienced by state and local governments, which have utilized alternative sentencing, such as early release programs, parole and half-way houses, in an attempt to manage their budget constraints. However, we do not believe these temporary decisions represent long-term solutions to the prison overcrowding problem.
12
Benefits of Privatization. The growth of the overall prison population in the United States and the lack of available bed space have led to growth in the private corrections and detention sector since its inception. The prisoner population housed in privately managed facilities in the United States at the end of December 2001 was 91,828, which represented a 5.1% increase over numbers at December 31, 2000. At December 31, 2001, 12.3% of all federal inmates and 5.8% of all state inmates were held in private facilities. Seven states and the District of Columbia, all of which are our customers, housed at least 20% of their prison population in private facilities as of December 31, 2001 — New Mexico (44%), Alaska (32%), Montana (33%), Oklahoma (29%), Idaho (22%), Hawaii (23%), Wyoming (28%), and the District of Columbia (36%).
We believe the outsourcing of prison management services to private operators allows governments to manage increasing inmate populations while simultaneously controlling correctional costs and improving correctional services. The use of facilities owned and managed by private operators allows governments to expand prison capacity without incurring large capital commitments required to increase correctional capacity. In addition, contracting with a private operator allows governmental agencies to add beds without incurring new debt. We believe these advantages translate into significant cost savings for the government end-user.
Continued Demand for Our Services. Despite the slower growth rate of the overall prison population and the state prison population in recent years, we believe that a number of factors will cause this growth rate, and the demand for private prison beds, to increase. As described above, there is a general shortage of available beds in United States correctional and detention facilities, particularly in the federal system. We expect this overcrowding to continue in the future as a result of stricter sentencing guidelines, longer prison sentences and prison terms for juvenile offenders, as well as demographic changes. In addition, state budgeting problems can be expected to result in a curtailment of the construction of new facilities, restricting the public supply of available beds. Industry reports indicate that inmates convicted of violent crimes generally serve approximately one-half of their sentence, with the majority of them being repeat offenders. In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau now projects a steady rise in the number of males between the ages of 18 and 24 years of age. Males between 18 and 24 years of age have demonstrated the highest propensity for criminal behavior and the highest rates of arrest, conviction and incarceration.
As the result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the protection and security of the United States has become a priority for the federal government. As a result, we believe that recently proposed initiatives by the federal government in connection with homeland security should cause the demand for prison beds, including privately managed beds, to increase. The final funding levels for the President’s fiscal 2003 budget included an increase of $27.5 million, or 4.1%, for the USMS, and more than $1.4 billion, or 29.7% for the INS, two of our largest customers. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 includes a proposal for $35 billion for homeland security, excluding the department of defense, an increase of $2.5 billion, or 7.6%. If enacted at these levels, spending would have more than doubled from pre-September 11, 2001 levels. This proposed funding is intended to support the agencies’ efforts to prevent illegal entry into the United States and target persons that are a threat to homeland security. We believe that these efforts will likely result in more incarceration and detention, particularly of illegal immigrants, and increased supervision of persons on probation and parole.
13
Business Development
General
We are currently the nation’s largest provider of outsourced correctional management services. We manage approximately 50% of all beds under contract with private operators of correctional and detention facilities in the United States.
Under the direction of our business development department and our senior management and with the aid, where appropriate, of certain independent consultants, we market our services to government agencies responsible for federal, state and local correctional facilities in the United States. Recently, the industry has experienced greater opportunities at the federal level, as needs are increasing within the BOP, the USMS and the INS. The BOP and the USMS were our only customers that accounted for 10.0% or more of our total revenue in 2002 and 2001. During the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, the BOP generated 14% and 13%, respectively, of our total revenue, while the USMS generated 11% and 9% of total revenue during the same time periods. Contracts at the federal level generally offer more favorable contract terms. For example, many federal contracts contain “take-or-pay” clauses that guarantee us a certain percentage of management revenue, regardless of occupancy levels.
We believe that we can further develop our business by, among other things:
We generally receive inquiries from or on behalf of government agencies that are considering outsourcing the management of certain facilities or that have already decided to contract with private enterprise. When we receive such an inquiry, we determine whether there is an existing need for our services and whether the legal and political climate in which the inquiry party operates is conducive to serious consideration of outsourcing. Based on the findings, an initial cost analysis is conducted to further determine project feasibility.
We pursue our business opportunities primarily through Request for Proposals, or RFPs, and Request for Qualifications, or RFQs. RFPs and RFQs are issued by government agencies and are solicited for bid.
Generally, government agencies responsible for correctional and detention services procure goods and services through RFPs and RFQs. Most of our activities in the area of securing new business are in the form of responding to RFPs. As part of our process of responding to RFPs, members of our management team meet with the appropriate personnel from the agency making the request to best determine the agency’s needs. If the project fits within our strategy, we submit a written response to the RFP. A typical RFP requires bidders to provide detailed information, including, but not limited to, the service to be provided by the bidder, its experience and qualifications, and the price at which the bidder is willing to provide the services (which services may include the renovation, improvement or expansion of an existing facility or the planning, design and construction of a new facility). Based on the proposals received in response to an RFP, the agency will award a contract to the successful bidder. In addition to issuing formal RFPs, local jurisdictions may issue an RFQ. In
14
the RFQ process, the requesting agency selects a firm believed to be most qualified to provide the requested services and then negotiates the terms of the contract with that firm, including the price at which its services are to be provided.
In January 2003, we announced the hiring of Kenneth A. Bouldin as our chief development officer and an executive vice president. In his capacity as chief development officer, Mr. Bouldin will oversee all business development activities, including oversight of existing federal, state and local government corrections contracts. He will also lead efforts to expand our corrections management services, including our newly formed local customer relations department, which will target expanding business opportunities in the local jail markets, in addition to overseeing our federal customer relations, state customer relations, and marketing and communications departments. Mr. Bouldin’s background is further described under “Information Concerning Our Executive Officers” in Item 10 herein.
Competitive Strengths
We believe that we have and will benefit from the following competitive business and operating strengths:
We are the largest and most recognized private prison operator. Currently, as the owner of 41 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities and the manager of 59 facilities throughout the United States, we are the largest and the most recognized private prison operator in the United States. We manage approximately 50% of all privately managed prison beds in the United States. We pioneered modern-day private prisons with a list of notable accomplishments, including being the first company to design, build and operate a private prison and the first company to manage a private maximum-security facility under a direct contract with the federal government.
Available beds within our existing facilities provide us the opportunity to increase cash flow. We currently have two facilities, our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center and Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, that are substantially vacant and provide us with approximately 3,000 available beds. We believe, depending on the customers’ needs, we can put these beds in operation with modest capital outlays. We also have an additional facility located in Stewart County, Georgia which is partially complete. This facility could bring approximately 1,500 additional beds on-line with approximately $20 million of additional capital expenditures. As an alternative to filling these beds, we would consider selling these facilities. In addition to these three facilities, as of December 31, 2002, we had a total of seven facilities that had 200 or more beds available at each facility, which we believe provides further potential for increased cash flow.
Our facilities generate revenues from a diverse, high quality customer base.We provide services under management contracts with a diverse base of state and federal agencies that generally have credit ratings of single-A or better. In addition, we have management contracts with approximately 50 different customers, with only two customers, the BOP and the USMS, accounting for more than 10% of our total revenues during 2002. In addition, with average lengths of stay between three and five years, prison occupancy is relatively predictable and stable.
Proven senior management team. Beginning in August 2000, we appointed a new senior management team. Our senior management team has accomplished a number of high priority company initiatives, including: (1) completing a restructuring of the Company during the fourth quarter of 2000, converting from a real estate investment trust to an operating company, as further described under “General Development of Business”; (2) reducing our senior debt by over $189.0 million during 2001 and refinancing our senior indebtedness during the second quarter of 2002; (3) securing 3,300-bed contracts with the BOP at our California City, California and Cibola County, New Mexico facilities, and the 1,500-bed contract with the BOP pursuant to the Criminal Alien Requirement Phase II Solicitation, or CAR II, the three largest contracts in our history; (4) selling four assets for proceeds
15
of $138.7 million; (5) settling all of our pending stockholder litigation as well as several other material contingencies, including a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, with respect to our predecessor’s 1997 federal income tax return, on terms we believe were favorable; and (6) acquiring a 1,200-bed correctional facility located in Olney Springs, Colorado at a cost that we believe will provide favorable investment returns, expanding our bed capacity in a state where projections call for significant inmate growth over the next several years.
Business Strategy
Our primary business strategy is to provide quality corrections services, increase occupancy and revenue, control operating costs and continue to reduce our debt, while maintaining our position as the leading owner, operator and manager of privatized correctional and detention facilities. We will also consider opportunities for growth, including potential acquisitions of businesses within our line of business and those that provide complementary services, provided we believe such opportunities will broaden our market and/or increase the services we can provide to our customers.
We own and operate high quality correctional and detention facilities.Approximately 80% of our facilities are accredited by the ACA, which we believe compares favorably to government sector. The quality of our operations is further illustrated by the fact that, according to “The 2001 Corrections Yearbook” published by the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., for the three years ended December 31, 2001, we had an escape ratio at our adult prison facilities that was less than two-thirds of the national average for adult prisons, while our facilities also experienced lower mortality and suicide rates than public sector prisons. We have experienced wardens managing our facilities, with an average of over 23 years of corrections experience and an average tenure of almost eight years with us.
We are focused on increasing our occupancy rate. We are typically compensated based on the number of inmates held in our facilities. We are pursuing a number of initiatives intended to increase occupancy. We are in discussions with the federal government and a number of states, including states that have not previously outsourced their correctional management services, regarding the placement of additional inmates in our facilities. We also are focused on renewing and enhancing the terms of our existing contracts. Given our significant number of available beds, we believe we can increase operating cash flow from increased occupancy without incurring significant capital expenditures. Our primary goal is to obtain contracts to fill our existing inventory of empty beds.
In addition, with lender consent, we will consider the expansion of existing facilities or the development or purchase of new prison facilities that we believe have favorable investment returns and increase value to our stockholders. In considering the decision to add additional capacity, we consider a number of factors including the targeted customer’s inmate populations versus capacity and projections for future inmate growth. Our goal is to have a contract in place prior to commitment for the construction or purchase of additional beds.
We intend to maintain effective cost controls. An important component of our strategy is to position our company as a cost effective, high quality provider of corrections management services. We are focused on improving operating performance and efficiency through the following key operating initiatives: (1) standardizing supply and service purchasing practices and usage; (2) outsourcing the purchase of food products and services nationwide; (3) improving inmate management, resource consumption and reporting procedures through the utilization of numerous technology initiatives; and (4) improving productivity and reducing employee turnover. We intend to continue to implement a wide variety of specialized services that address the unique needs of various segments of the inmate population. Because the facilities we operate differ with respect to security levels, ages, genders and
16
cultures of inmates, we focus on the particular needs of an inmate population and tailor our services based on local conditions and our ability to provide services on a cost-effective basis.
We intend to continue our trend of reducing debt. In 2001, we reduced indebtedness by $189 million with the proceeds of asset sales and through cash flow generated from operations. We believe this reduction in indebtedness assisted us in our ability to refinance our senior indebtedness on favorable terms during May 2002. We believe that our anticipated capital expenditures and the benefit of our net operating loss carryforwards will allow us to generate free cash flow and enable us to continue to reduce our debt. In addition, we may sell additional assets, the proceeds of which we would also use to repay debt.
General Development of Business
The Company
We are a Maryland corporation formerly known as Prison Realty Trust, Inc., also referred to herein as New Prison Realty, which commenced operations as Prison Realty Corporation on January 1, 1999, following its mergers with each of the former Corrections Corporation of America, a Tennessee corporation, also referred to herein as Old CCA, on December 31, 1998, and CCA Prison Realty Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust, also referred to herein as Old Prison Realty, on January 1, 1999. These mergers are referred to collectively herein as the 1999 merger and we are referred to as New Prison Realty for the period following the 1999 merger and prior to the completion of our restructuring discussed further herein under “ — The 2000 Restructuring and Related Transactions”.
Prior to the 1999 merger, Old Prison Realty had been a publicly traded entity operating as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, which was primarily in the business of owning and leasing prison facilities to private prison management companies and certain government entities. Prior to the 1999 merger, Old CCA was also a publicly traded entity engaged primarily in the business of owning, operating and managing prisons on behalf of government entities. Additionally, Old CCA, which was the largest developer and manager of private correctional and detention facilities worldwide, had been Old Prison Realty’s primary tenant.
The 1999 Merger
During the first quarter of 1998, Old Prison Realty and Old CCA proposed a strategic combination whereby the companies would be merged to create the nation’s leading company in the private corrections industry. Pursuant to the terms of an amended and restated agreement and plan of merger dated September 29, 1998, each of Old CCA and Old Prison Realty agreed to merge with and into New Prison Realty, with New Prison Realty as the surviving company. The companies also agreed to complete a series of transactions to enable New Prison Realty to operate so as to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes following the 1999 merger.
Effective January 1, 1999, New Prison Realty elected to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with its taxable year ended December 31, 1999. In order for New Prison Realty to quality as a REIT, New Prison Realty’s income generally could not include income from the operation and management of correctional and detention facilities, including those facilities operated and managed by Old CCA. Accordingly, immediately prior to the 1999 merger, Old CCA sold all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of certain of its wholly-owned corporate subsidiaries, certain management contracts and certain other non-real estate assets related thereto, to a newly formed entity, Correctional Management Services Corporation, a privately-held Tennessee
17
corporation which operated under the “Corrections Corporation of America” name, which is referred to herein as Operating Company. Also immediately prior to the 1999 merger, Old CCA sold certain management contracts and other assets and liabilities relating to government owned adult facilities to Prison Management Services, LLC, or PMS, LLC (subsequently merged with Prison Management Services, Inc., or PMSI) and sold certain management contracts and other assets and liabilities relating to government owned jails and juvenile facilities to Juvenile and Jail Facility Management Services, LLC, or JJFMS, LLC (subsequently merged with Juvenile and Jail Facility Management Services, Inc., or JJFMSI). PMS, LLC and JJFMS, LLC were two privately-held Delaware limited liability companies formed in connection with the 1999 merger.
The 2000 Restructuring and Related Transactions
Following the 1999 merger, Operating Company, PMSI and JJFMSI assumed the business of operating correctional and detention facilities, with Operating Company being the lessee of a substantial number of New Prison Realty’s facilities.
In order to address liquidity constraints facing New Prison Realty, Operating Company, PMSI and JJFMSI, and to provide a simplified and more stable corporate and financial structure that allows us to retain earnings for capital purposes and to reduce debt, we merged with Operating Company, PMSI, and JJFMSI during the fourth quarter of 2000. In connection with the consummation of these mergers, we resumed operations under the “Corrections Corporation of America” name and ceased operating as a REIT.
In connection with our corporate restructuring, we completed a restructuring of our board of directors and executive management, including the appointment of John D. Ferguson as our new chief executive officer and president and William F. Andrews as the chairman of our board of directors. Further, during the fourth quarter of 2000, and the first quarter of 2001, respectively, we appointed Irving E. Lingo, Jr. as our chief financial officer, and G. A. Puryear IV as our general counsel. In addition, at our 2000 annual meeting of stockholders, our stockholders elected a newly constituted nine-member board of directors, including six independent directors. All of these board members have been subsequently re-elected at our annual meetings of stockholders, with the exception of Jean-Pierre Cuny, who resigned from the board effective May 21, 2001. See “Our Directors and Executive Officers” for further information regarding our current directors and executive officers.
We believe the combination of these various changes led to significant improvement in our financial performance and condition, including a reduction of over $189 million of our senior debt in 2001 and the refinancing of our senior indebtedness during the second quarter of 2002.
Capital Strategy
As a result of our highly leveraged capital structure that existed upon completion of the restructuring in 2000, we have completed various transactions that we believe have improved our financial condition and positioned us for increased cash flow and future growth. In addition, while we have made significant progress, we continue to evaluate our capital structure in order to enhance our financial condition. The following information describes our debt and equity capital structure and, where applicable, certain steps we have taken to date and intend to take in the future in connection with our capital strategy.
18
Debt Structure
As of December 31, 2002, we had $956.0 million of outstanding indebtedness, consisting of $624.5 million outstanding under our senior bank credit facility due 2008, $250.0 million of 9.875% senior notes due 2009, $10.8 million of 12% senior notes due 2006, $40.0 million of 10% convertible subordinated notes due 2008, $30.0 million of 8% convertible subordinated notes due 2005, and $0.7 million of other debt.
Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. During 1999, in an attempt to address its liquidity constraints at that time, New Prison Realty obtained an amendment to its then existing senior secured bank credit facility, referred to herein as the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, to increase the capacity from $650.0 million to $1.0 billion. The Old Senior Bank Credit Facility consisted of up to $600.0 million of term loans maturing on December 31, 2002, and up to $400.0 million in revolving loans maturing on January 1, 2002.
During the first quarter of 2000, the ratings on New Prison Realty’s bank indebtedness, senior unsecured indebtedness and series A preferred stock were lowered. As a result of these reductions, the interest rate applicable to outstanding amounts under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility for revolving loans was increased by 0.5%, to 1.5% over the base rate and to 3.0% over the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR; the spread for term loans remained unchanged at 2.5% for base rate loans and 4.0% for LIBOR rate loans.
During June 2000, New Prison Realty obtained a waiver and amendment to the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility that waived or addressed all then existing events of default under the provisions of the facility that resulted from: (i) the financial condition of New Prison Realty and Operating Company; (ii) certain transactions undertaken by New Prison Realty and Operating Company in an attempt to resolve the liquidity issues of New Prison Realty and Operating Company; and (iii) agreements entered into with respect to certain previously announced restructuring transactions. As a result of the then existing defaults, New Prison Realty was subject to the default rate of interest, or 2.0% higher than the rates discussed above, effective from January 25, 2000 until June 9, 2000, and under terms of the June 2000 waiver and amendment, the interest rate spreads applicable to outstanding borrowings under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility were increased by 0.5%. As a result, the range of the spread for the revolving loans became 1.0% to 2.75% for base rate loans and 2.5% to 4.25% for LIBOR rate loans. The resulting range of the spread for the term loans became 2.75% to 3.0% for base rate loans and 4.25% to 4.5% for LIBOR rate loans. Based on our credit rating at that time, the range of the spread for revolving loans was 2.75% for base rate loans and 4.25% for LIBOR rate loans, while the range of the spread for term loans was 3.0% for base rate loans and 4.5% for LIBOR rate loans.
During the third and fourth quarters of 2000, we were not in compliance with certain applicable financial covenants contained in the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, including (i) debt service coverage ratio; (ii) interest coverage ratio; (iii) leverage ratio; and (iv) net worth. As a result, in November 2000, we obtained the consent of our senior lenders to replace previously existing financial covenants with amended financial covenants.
As a result of the November 2000 consent and amendment, the interest rate applicable to our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility remained unchanged from the rate stipulated in the June 2000 waiver and amendment. This applicable rate, however, was subject to (i) an increase of 25 basis points (0.25%) on July 1, 2001 if we had not prepaid $100.0 million of the outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility by such date, and (ii) an increase of 50 basis points (0.50%) on October 1, 2001
19
if we had not prepaid an aggregate of $200.0 million of the loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility by such date.
We satisfied the condition to prepay, prior to July 1, 2001, $100.0 million of outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility through the application of proceeds from the sales of the Mountain View Correctional Facility for approximately $24.9 million, the Pamlico Correctional Facility for approximately $24.0 million, through the sale of all of the outstanding capital stock of Agecroft Properties, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, for approximately $65.7 million, and through the lump sum pay-down of $35.0 million of outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility with cash on hand. Although we applied additional proceeds of approximately $24.1 million from the sale of the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility to further pay-down the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, we did not satisfy the condition to prepay, prior to October 1, 2001, $200.0 million of outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. As a result, the interest rates under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility were increased by 0.50% until December 2001, when we completed an amendment and restatement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. As part of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, the existing $269.4 million revolving portion of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, which was scheduled to mature on January 1, 2002, was replaced with a term loan of the same amount maturing on December 31, 2002, to coincide with the maturity of the other $524.7 million of term loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility.
Pursuant to terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, interest on all loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility was payable at a variable rate of 5.5% over LIBOR, or 4.5% over the base rate, at our option. As a result of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, certain financial and non-financial covenants were amended, including the removal of prior restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears. Accordingly, during the first quarter of 2002, we paid an aggregate of $12.9 million to holders of the series A preferred stock in satisfaction of all dividends then in arrears and the dividend for the then current quarter.
After completing the amendment and restatement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility in December 2001, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded the rating on our senior secured debt to “B2” from “B3”, our senior unsecured debt to “B3” from “Caa1”, and our preferred stock to “Caa2” from “Ca”.
Comprehensive Refinancing. We believed, and continue to believe, that a short-term extension of the revolving portion of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility was in our best interest for a longer-term financing strategy, particularly due to difficult market conditions for the issuance of debt securities following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and during the fourth quarter of 2001. Additionally, we believed that certain terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, including primarily the removal of prior restrictions to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears, resulted in an improvement to our credit ratings, enhancing the terms of a more comprehensive refinancing.
On May 3, 2002, we completed a comprehensive refinancing of our senior indebtedness through the refinancing of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility and the sale and issuance of $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of 9.875% unsecured senior notes due 2009, referred to herein as the 9.875% Senior Notes. The proceeds of the offering of the 9.875% Senior Notes were used to repay a portion of amounts outstanding under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, to redeem approximately $89.2 million of our existing $100.0 million 12% Senior Notes due 2006, referred to herein as the 12% Senior Notes, pursuant to a tender offer and consent solicitation more fully described below, and to pay related fees and expenses.
20
New Senior Bank Credit Facility. As part of the refinancing, we obtained a new $715.0 million senior secured bank credit facility, referred to herein as the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, which replaced the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. serves as administrative agent under the new facility, which is comprised of a $75.0 million revolving loan with a term of approximately four years, referred to herein as the Revolving Loan, a $75.0 million term loan with a term of approximately four years, referred to herein as the Term Loan A Facility, and a $565.0 million term loan with a term of approximately six years, referred to herein as the Term Loan B Facility. As further discussed below, the Term Loan B Facility was increased by $30.0 million in connection with the acquisition of the Crowley County Correctional Facility in January 2003. All borrowings under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility initially bear interest at a base rate plus 2.5%, or LIBOR plus 3.5%, at our option. The applicable margin for the Revolving Loan and the Term Loan A Facility is subject to adjustment based on our leverage ratio. We are also required to pay a commitment fee on the difference between committed amounts and amounts actually utilized under the Revolving Loan equal to 0.50% per year subject to adjustment based on our leverage ratio.
We may use the Revolving Loan, which currently has no amounts outstanding, for working capital and general corporate needs.
Prepayments of loans outstanding under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility are permitted at any time without premium or penalty, upon the giving of proper notice. In addition, we are required to prepay amounts outstanding under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility in an amount equal to: (i) 50% of the net cash proceeds from any sale or issuance of equity securities by us or any of our subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions; (ii) 100% of the net cash proceeds from any incurrence of additional indebtedness (excluding certain permitted debt), subject to certain exceptions; (iii) 100% of the net cash proceeds from any sale or other disposition by us, or any of our subsidiaries, of any assets, subject to certain exclusions and reinvestment provisions and excluding certain dispositions in the ordinary course of business; and (iv) 50% of our “excess cash flow” (as such term is defined in the New Senior Bank Credit Facility) for each fiscal year.
The credit agreement governing the New Senior Bank Credit Facility requires us to meet certain financial covenants, including, without limitation, a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, a maximum leverage ratio and a minimum interest coverage ratio. In addition, the New Senior Bank Credit Facility contains certain covenants which, among other things, limit the incurrence of additional indebtedness, investments, payment of dividends, transactions with affiliates, asset sales, acquisitions, capital expenditures, mergers and consolidations, prepayments and modifications of other indebtedness, liens and encumbrances and other matters customarily restricted in such agreements. In addition, the New Senior Bank Credit Facility is subject to certain cross-default provisions with terms of our other indebtedness.
In connection with the refinancing, we terminated an interest rate swap agreement at a price of approximately $8.8 million. The swap agreement, which fixed LIBOR at 6.51% on outstanding balances of $325.0 million through its expiration on December 31, 2002, had been entered into in order to satisfy a requirement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. In addition, in order to satisfy a requirement of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility and in order to reduce our exposure to an increase in variable interest rates on a significant portion of our debt, we purchased an interest rate cap agreement, capping LIBOR at 5.0% on outstanding balances of $200.0 million through the expiration of the cap agreement on May 20, 2004, for a price of $1.0 million. While the current interest rate environment is very favorable with interest rates remaining at historic lows, we continue to monitor external factors that could cause interest rates to rise. Accordingly, we may enter into
21
additional interest rate protection agreements in the future to mitigate our exposure to increases in interest rates.
9.875% Senior Notes. Interest on the 9.875% Senior Notes accrues at the stated rate, and is payable semi-annually in arrears on May 1 and November 1 of each year. The 9.875% Senior Notes mature on May 1, 2009. At any time before May 1, 2005, we may redeem up to 35% of the notes with the net proceeds of certain equity offerings, as long as 65% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes remains outstanding after the redemption. We may redeem all or a portion of the 9.875% Senior Notes on or after May 1, 2006. Redemption prices are set forth in the indenture governing the 9.875% Senior Notes. The 9.875% Senior Notes are guaranteed on an unsecured basis by all of our domestic subsidiaries.
The indenture governing the 9.875% Senior Notes contains certain customary covenants that, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, restrict our ability to, among other things: make restricted payments; incur additional debt or issue certain types of preferred stock; create or permit to exist certain liens; consolidate, merge or transfer all or substantially all of our assets; and enter into transactions with affiliates. In addition, if we sell certain assets (and generally do not use the proceeds of such sales for certain specified purposes) or experience specific kinds of changes in control, we must offer to repurchase all or a portion of the 9.875% Senior Notes. The offer price for the 9.875% Senior Notes in connection with an asset sale would be equal to 100% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes repurchased plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated damages, if any, on the notes repurchased to the date of purchase. The offer price for the 9.875% Senior Notes in connection with a change in control would be 101% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes repurchased plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated damages, if any, on the notes repurchased to the date of purchase. The 9.875% Senior Notes are also subject to certain cross-default provisions with the terms of our other indebtedness.
Tender Offer and Consent Solicitation for 12% Senior Notes. Pursuant to the terms of a tender offer and consent solicitation which expired on May 16, 2002, in connection with the refinancing, in May 2002, we redeemed approximately $89.2 million in aggregate principal amount of our 12% Senior Notes with proceeds from the issuance of the 9.875% Senior Notes. The notes were redeemed at a price of 110% of par, which included a 3% consent payment, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the payment date. In connection with the tender offer and consent solicitation, we received sufficient consents and amended the indenture governing the 12% Senior Notes to delete substantially all of the restrictive covenants and events of default contained therein.
We are required to pay interest semi-annually and principal upon maturity on the remaining 12% Senior Notes outstanding, in accordance with the original terms of such notes.
Upon completion of the comprehensive refinancing in May 2002, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded its rating of our senior secured debt to “B1” from “B2”, our senior unsecured debt to “B2” from “B3”, and our preferred stock to “Caa1” from “Caa2”, and Standard & Poor’s upgraded our corporate credit rating and its rating of our senior secured debt to “B+” from “B” and our senior unsecured debt to “B-” from “CCC+”.
$40.0 Million Convertible Subordinated Notes. In addition to the indebtedness referred to above, we have $40.0 million in convertible subordinated notes outstanding at December 31, 2002. During the first and second quarters of 2000, certain existing or potential events of default arose under the provisions of the note purchase agreement relating to $40.0 million in convertible subordinated notes, as a result of our financial condition and a “change of control” arising from our execution of the securities purchase agreements with respect to certain proposed restructurings. This “change of
22
control” gave rise to the right of the holders of such notes, MDP Ventures IV LLC and certain affiliated purchasers, referred to herein as MDP, to require us to repurchase the notes at a price of 105% of the aggregate principal amount of such notes within 45 days after the provision of written notice by such holders to us. In addition, our defaults under the provisions of the note purchase agreement gave rise to the right of the holders of such notes to require us to pay an applicable default rate of interest of 20.0%. In addition to the default rate of interest, as a result of the events of default, we were obligated, under the original terms of the notes, to pay the holders of the notes contingent interest sufficient to permit the holders to receive a 15.0% rate of return (increased by 0.5%, as further discussed below), excluding the effect of the default rate of interest, on the $40.0 million principal amount. The contingent interest is payable upon each of December 31, 2003 and upon repayment of the notes unless the holders of the notes elect to convert the notes into our common stock under the terms of the note purchase agreement or unless the price of our common stock meets or exceeds a “target price” as defined in the note purchase agreement. Such contingent interest was retroactive to the date of issuance of the notes.
In order to address the events of default discussed above, on June 30, 2000, we obtained a waiver and amendment to the provisions of the note purchase agreement governing the notes. This waiver and amendment provided for a waiver of all existing events of default under the provisions of the note purchase agreement. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement amended the economic terms of the notes to increase the applicable interest rate of the notes by 0.5% per annum from 9.5% to 10.0%, and adjusted the conversion price of the notes to a price equal to 125% of the average high and low sales price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, for a period of 20 trading days immediately following the earlier of (i) October 31, 2000 or (ii) the closing date of the Operating Company merger. The waiver and amendment also increased the contingent interest rate to 15.5% retroactive to the date of issuance of the notes. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement provided for the replacement of financial ratios applicable to us. The conversion price for the notes has been established at $11.90, subject to adjustment in the future upon the occurrence of certain events, including the payment of dividends and the issuance of stock at below market prices. Under the terms of the waiver and amendment, the distribution of our series B preferred stock during the fourth quarter of 2000 did not cause an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes. In addition, we do not believe that the distribution of shares of our common stock in connection with the settlement of all outstanding stockholder litigation against us causes an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes. MDP, however, has indicated its belief that such an adjustment is required. At an adjusted conversion price of $11.90, we estimate that the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes are convertible into approximately 3.4 million shares of common stock.
$30.0 Million Convertible Subordinated Notes. We also have $30.0 million in convertible subordinated notes outstanding at December 31, 2002. In late 1999 and early 2000 certain existing or potential events of default arose under the provisions of the note purchase agreement relating to the notes as a result of our financial condition and as a result of the proposed restructurings. However, on June 30, 2000, we obtained a waiver and amendment to the provisions of the note purchase agreement governing the notes. This waiver and amendment provided for a waiver of all existing events of default under the provisions of the note purchase agreement. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement amended the economic terms of the notes to increase the applicable interest rate of the notes by 0.5% per annum, from 7.5% to 8.0%, and adjusted the conversion price of the notes to a price equal to 125% of the average closing price of our common stock on the NYSE for a period of 30 trading days immediately following the earlier of (i) October 31, 2000 or (ii) the closing date of the Operating Company merger. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement provided for the replacement of certain financial ratios.
23
The conversion price for the notes has been established at $10.68, subject to adjustment in the future upon the occurrence of certain events, including the payment of dividends and the issuance of stock at below market prices. Under the terms of the waiver and amendment, the distribution of our series B preferred stock during the fourth quarter of 2000 did not cause an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes. However, the distribution of shares of our common stock in connection with the settlement of all outstanding stockholder litigation against us will cause an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes in an amount to be determined at the time all shares of our common stock are distributed pursuant to the settlement. However, the ultimate adjustment to the conversion ratio will depend on the number of shares of our common stock outstanding on the date of issuance of the shares pursuant to the stockholder litigation settlement. In addition, since all of the shares are not issued simultaneously, multiple adjustments to the conversion ratio will be required. We currently estimate that the $30.0 million convertible subordinated notes will be convertible into approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock once all of the shares under the stockholder litigation settlement have been issued.
At any time after February 28, 2004, we may require the holder of the notes to convert all or a portion of the principal amount of the indebtedness into shares of common stock if, at such time, the current market price of the common stock has equaled or exceeded 150% of the conversion price for 45 consecutive trading days.
Equity Structure
Common Stock. As of December 31, 2002, we had 28.0 million shares of common stock outstanding. In connection with the restructuring and related transactions completed in the fourth quarter of 2000, we engaged in a series of transactions which resulted in the issuance of shares of common stock and securities convertible into shares of common stock. These transactions are further discussed below. The common stock prices and shares discussed in this section have been adjusted to reflect our one-for-ten reverse stock split in May 2001.
24
Series A Preferred Stock. As of December 31, 2002, we had 4.3 million shares of series A preferred stock outstanding. In connection with the June 2000 waiver and amendment, we were prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends with respect to shares of our series A preferred stock until such time as we raised at least $100 million in equity. Dividends with respect to the series A preferred stock continued to accrue under the terms of our charter until such time as payment of such dividends was permitted under the terms of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility.
During the third quarter of 2001, we received a consent and waiver to the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, which allowed us to declare a one-time quarterly dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock. Accordingly, on September 28, 2001, our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the first quarter of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on October 15, 2001 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on October 5, 2001. As a result of this declaration, the holders of our series A preferred stock were entitled to receive $0.50 per share for every share of series A preferred stock they held on the record
25
date. The cash paid as the dividend was based on a dividend rate of 8.0% per year of the stock’s stated value ($25.00). Approximately $2.2 million was paid on October 15, 2001 as a result of this dividend.
In connection with the December 2001 amendment and restatement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, certain financial and non-financial covenants were amended, including the removal of prior restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock. Under the terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, we are permitted to pay quarterly dividends on the shares of our series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears.
On December 13, 2001, our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the fourth quarter of 2001 and all five quarters of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on January 15, 2002 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on December 31, 2001. As a result of this declaration, the holders of our series A preferred stock were entitled to receive $3.00 per share for every share of series A preferred stock they held on the record date. The cash paid as the dividend was based on a dividend rate of 8.0% per year of the stock’s stated value. Approximately $12.9 million was paid on January 15, 2002 as a result of this dividend. We have continued to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock outstanding each quarter thereafter based on a dividend rate of 8.0% per year of the stock’s stated value.
The shares of series A preferred stock are redeemable at any time on or after January 31, 2003 at $25.00 per share, plus dividends accrued and unpaid to the redemption date.
Series B Preferred Stock. As of December 31, 2002, we had 4.4 million shares of series B preferred stock outstanding. In order to satisfy the REIT distribution requirements with respect to our 1999 taxable year, we issued approximately 7.5 million shares of a newly created series B preferred stock to shareholders of our common stock, as a stock dividend. The series B preferred stock was distributed September 22, 2000 to common stockholders of record on September 14, 2000, in the amount of five shares of series B preferred stock for every 100 shares of common stock held by the stockholder, and on November 13, 2000 to common stockholders of record on November 6, 2000, in the amount of one share of series B preferred stock for every 100 shares of common stock held by the stockholder. The series B preferred stock was convertible into shares of common stock during two separate conversion periods during the fourth quarter of 2000, the last of which expired on December 20, 2000, at a conversion price based on the average closing price of our common stock on the NYSE during the ten trading days prior to the first day of each applicable conversion period, subject to a floor of $10.00. During the two conversion periods, approximately 4.2 million shares of series B preferred stock were converted into approximately 9.5 million shares of common stock. The shares of series B preferred stock currently outstanding, as well as any additional shares issued as dividends, are not and will not be convertible into shares of our common stock.
The shares of series B preferred stock provide for cumulative dividends payable at a rate of 12% per year of the stock’s stated value of $24.46. The dividends are payable quarterly in arrears, in additional shares of series B preferred stock through the third quarter of 2003, and in cash thereafter, provided that all accrued and unpaid cash dividends have been made on our series A preferred stock.
During 2002 and 2001, we issued approximately 484,000 and 452,000 shares, respectively, of series B preferred stock in satisfaction of the regular quarterly distributions. We may call the shares of series B preferred stock at a price per share equal to the stated value of $24.46, plus any accrued dividends, at anytime after six months following the later of (i) three years following the date of issuance or (ii) the 91st day following the redemption of our 12% Senior Notes, due 2006.
26
Recent Developments
Since completing the refinancing of our senior debt in May 2002, we have achieved the following significant accomplishments:
27
While the refinancing of our senior debt completed in May 2002 lowered our overall borrowing costs thereby increasing our cash flow, lengthened debt maturities, and provided more flexible covenants, we expect these recent developments to further contribute to an increase in profitability and cash flow in the future. We remain committed to improving our operations and continue to explore potential transactions to further enhance our capital structure.
Financial Information About Industry Segments
We are currently engaged primarily in the business of owning, operating and managing correctional and detention facilities, as well as providing prisoner transportation services for government agencies. As of December 31, 2002, we owned and managed 37 correctional and detention facilities, and managed an additional 23 correctional and detention facilities owned by governmental agencies. During the second quarter of 2001, we began viewing our operating results in two reportable segments: owned and managed correctional and detention facilities and managed-only correctional and detention facilities. The accounting policies of the reportable segments are the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting policies in the notes to consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report. Owned and managed facilities include the operating results of those facilities we own and manage. Managed-only facilities include the operating results of those facilities owned by a third party and managed by us. We measure the operating performance of each facility within the above two reportable segments, without differentiation, based on facility contribution. We define facility contribution as a facility’s operating income or loss from operations before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Since each of our facilities within the two reportable segments exhibit similar economic characteristics, provide similar services to governmental agencies, and operate under a similar set of operating procedures and regulatory guidelines, the facilities within the identified segments have been aggregated and reported as one reportable segment. The financial information and disclosures required under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 131, “Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information,” are included in this annual report as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000, referred to in the index to financial statements commencing on page F-1.
Government Regulation
Environmental Matters. Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. As an owner of correctional and detention facilities,
28
we have been subject to these laws, rules, ordinances and regulations. In addition, we are also subject to these laws, ordinances and regulations as the result of our, and our subsidiaries’, operation and management of correctional and detention facilities. The cost of complying with environmental laws could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Phase I environmental assessments have been obtained on substantially all of the facilities we currently own. The purpose of a Phase I environmental assessment is to identify potential environmental contamination that is made apparent from historical reviews of such facilities, review of certain public records, visual investigations of the sites and surrounding properties, toxic substances and underground storage tanks. The Phase I environmental assessment reports do not reveal any environmental contamination that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets, results of operations or liquidity, nor are we aware of any such liability. Nevertheless, it is possible that these reports do not reveal all environmental liabilities or that there are material environmental liabilities of which we are unaware. In addition, environmental conditions on properties we own may affect the operation or expansion of facilities located on the properties.
Business Regulations. The industry in which we operate is subject to extensive federal, state and local regulations, including educational, health care and safety regulations, which are administered by many regulatory authorities. Some of the regulations are unique to the corrections industry, and the combination of regulations we face is unique. Facility management contracts typically include reporting requirements, supervision and on-site monitoring by representatives of the contracting governmental agencies. Corrections officers and juvenile care workers are customarily required to meet certain training standards and, in some instances, facility personnel are required to be licensed and subject to background investigation. Certain jurisdictions also require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract with businesses owned by members of minority groups. Our facilities are also subject to operational and financial audits by the governmental agencies with which we have contracts. We may not always successfully comply with these regulations, and failure to comply can result in material penalties or non-renewal or termination of facility management contracts.
In addition, private prison managers are increasingly subject to government legislation and regulation attempting to restrict the ability of private prison managers to house certain types of inmates. Legislation has been enacted in several states, and has previously been proposed in the United States House of Representatives, containing such restrictions. Although we do not believe that existing legislation will have a material adverse effect on us, there can be no assurance that future legislation would not have such an effect.
Americans with Disabilities Act. The correctional and detention facilities we operate and manage are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” but generally requires that public facilities such as correctional and detention facilities be made accessible to people with disabilities. These requirements became effective in 1992. We continue to monitor our facilities for compliance with the ADA in order to conform to its requirements. Compliance with the ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and other modifications or capital improvements at the facilities. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Although we believe we are in compliance, any additional expenditures incurred in order to comply with the ADA at our facilities, if required, would not have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.
29
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. In 1996, Congress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. HIPAA is designed to improve the portability and continuity of health insurance coverage and simplify the administration of health insurance. Certain regulations promulgated by HIPAA become effective in April 2003 and require health care providers to institute physical and procedural safeguards to protect the health records of patients and insureds. Examples of mandated safeguards include requirements that notices of the entity’s privacy practices be sent and that patients and insureds be given the right to access and request amendments to their records. Authorizations are required before a provider, insurer or clearinghouse can use health information for marketing and certain other purposes. Additionally, health plans are required to electronically transmit and receive standardized healthcare information. These regulations will require the implementation of compliance training and awareness programs for our healthcare service providers associated with healthcare we provide to inmates, and selected other employees primarily associated with our employee medical plans.
Insurance
We maintain a general liability insurance policy of $5.0 million for each facility we operate, as well as insurance in amounts we deem adequate to cover property and casualty risks, workers’ compensation and directors and officers liability. In addition, each of our leases with third-parties provides that the lessee will maintain insurance on each leased property under the lessee’s insurance policies providing for the following coverages: (i) fire, vandalism and malicious mischief, extended coverage perils, and all physical loss perils; (ii) comprehensive general public liability (including personal injury and property damage); and (iii) workers’ compensation. Under each of these leases, we have the right to periodically review our lessees’ insurance coverage and provide input with respect thereto.
Insurance expense represents a significant component of our operating expenses. Each of our management contracts and the statutes of certain states require the maintenance of insurance. We maintain various insurance policies including employee health, workers’ compensation, automobile liability and general liability insurance. Because we are significantly self-insured for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile liability insurance, the amount of our insurance expense is dependent on claims experience and our ability to control our claims experience. Our insurance policies contain various deductibles and stop-loss amounts intended to limit our exposure for individually significant occurrences. However, the nature of our self-insurance policies provides little protection for a deterioration in overall claims experience in general. We continue to incur increasing insurance expense due to adverse claims experience. We are developing a strategy to improve the management of our future loss claims but can provide no assurance that this strategy will be successful. Additionally, general liability insurance costs have risen substantially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Unanticipated additional insurance expenses resulting from adverse claims experience or a continued increasing cost environment for general liability insurance could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows.
Employees
As of December 31, 2002, we employed 13,350 employees. Of such employees, 194 were employed at our corporate offices and 13,156 were employed at our facilities and in our inmate transportation business. We employ personnel in the following areas: clerical and administrative, including facility administrators/wardens, security, food service, medical, transportation and scheduling, maintenance, teachers, counselors and other support services.
30
Each of the correctional and detention facilities we currently operate is managed as a separate operational unit by the facility administrator or warden. All of these facilities follow a standardized code of policies and procedures.
We have not experienced a strike or work stoppage at any of our facilities. Approximately 1,100 employees at seven of our facilities are represented by labor unions. This number includes approximately 600 employees at two facilities who, during the first half of 2002 elected to be represented by a union. At this time, negotiations with these unions are ongoing. In the opinion of management, overall employee relations are generally considered good.
Competition
The correctional and detention facilities we operate and manage, as well as those facilities we own and are managed by other operators, are subject to competition for inmates from other private prison managers. We compete primarily on the basis of the quality and range of services offered, our experience in the operation and management of correctional and detention facilities and our reputation. We compete with government agencies that are responsible for correctional facilities and a number of privatized correctional service companies including, but not limited to, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, and Cornell Companies, Inc. Other potential competitors may in the future enter into businesses competitive with us without a substantial capital investment or prior experience. Competition by other companies may adversely affect the number of inmates at our facilities, which could have a material adverse effect on the operating revenue of our facilities. In addition, revenue derived from our facilities will be affected by a number of factors, including the demand for inmate beds, general economic conditions and the age of the general population.
Risk Factors
As the owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities, we are subject to certain risks and uncertainties associated with, among other things, the corrections and detention industry and pending or threatened litigation involving us. In addition, we are also currently subject to certain tax related risks, and risks associated with our indebtedness. These risks and uncertainties set forth below could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements contained herein and elsewhere. The risks described below are not the only risks facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or those we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business operations. Any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
We Are Subject to Risks Associated with the Corrections and Detention Industry
General. We currently operate 59 correctional and detention facilities, including 38 that we own. The facilities we manage have a total design capacity of approximately 59,000 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Accordingly, we are subject to the operating risks associated with the corrections and detention industry, including those set forth below.
We are subject to fluctuations in occupancy levels. While a substantial portion of our cost structure is fixed, a substantial portion of our revenues is generated under facility management contracts that specify per-diem payments based upon occupancy. Under a per-diem rate structure, a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenue and profitability. Average compensated occupancy for our facilities in operation for 2002 and 2001 was 89.6% and 88.4%, respectively, for
31
all of the facilities we owned or managed, exclusive of those discontinued. Occupancy rates may, however, decrease below these levels in the future.
We are subject to the termination or non-renewal of our government contracts.We typically enter into facility management contracts with governmental entities for terms of up to five years, with additional renewal periods at the option of the contracting governmental agency. Notwithstanding any contractual renewal option of a contracting governmental agency, 37 of the facility management contracts with our primary customers are currently scheduled to expire on or before December 31, 2003. See “Business — Facility Portfolio — Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” One or more of these contracts may not be renewed by the corresponding governmental agency. In addition, these and any other contracting agencies may determine not to exercise renewal options with respect to any of our contracts in the future. Governmental agencies typically may also terminate a facility contract at any time without cause. In the event any of our management contracts are terminated or are not renewed on favorable terms or otherwise, we may not be able to obtain additional replacement contracts. The non-renewal or termination of any of our contracts with governmental agencies could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity, including our ability to secure new facility management contracts from others.
Competition for inmates may adversely affect the profitability of our business.We compete with government entities and other private operators on the basis of cost, quality and range of services offered, experience in managing facilities and reputation of management and personnel. While there are barriers to entering the market for the management of correctional and detention facilities, these barriers may not be sufficient to limit additional competition. In addition, our government customers may assume the management of a facility currently managed by us upon the termination of the corresponding management contract or, if such customers have capacity at their facilities, may take inmates currently housed in our facilities and transfer them to government run facilities. Since we are paid on a per-diem basis with no minimum guaranteed occupancy under certain of our contracts, the loss of such inmates and resulting decrease in occupancy would cause a decrease in our revenues and profitability. Further, many of our state customers are currently experiencing budget difficulties. These budget difficulties could result in decreases to our per-diem rates, which could cause a decrease in our revenues and profitability.
We are dependent on government appropriations. Our cash flow is subject to the receipt of sufficient funding of and timely payment by contracting governmental entities. If the appropriate governmental agency does not receive sufficient appropriations to cover its contractual obligations, it may terminate our contract or delay or reduce payment to us. Any delays in payment, or the termination of a contract, could have an adverse effect on our cash flow and financial condition. In addition, as a result of, among other things, recent economic developments, federal, state and local governments have encountered, and may encounter, unusual budgetary constraints. As a result, a number of state and local governments are under pressure to control additional spending or reduce current levels of spending. Accordingly, we may be requested in the future to reduce our existing per-diem contract rates or forego prospective increases to those rates. In addition, it may become more difficult to renew our existing contracts on favorable terms or otherwise.
Public resistance to privatization of correctional and detention facilities could result in our inability to obtain new contracts or the loss of existing contracts. The operation of correctional and detention facilities by private entities has not achieved complete acceptance by either governments or the public. The movement toward privatization of correctional and detention facilities has also encountered resistance from certain groups, such as labor unions and others that believe that correctional and detention facilities should only be operated by governmental agencies.
32
Moreover, negative publicity about an escape, riot or other disturbance or perceived poor conditions at a privately managed facility may result in publicity adverse to the private corrections industry and us in general. Any of these occurrences or continued trends may make it more difficult for us to renew or maintain existing contracts or to obtain new contracts, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our ability to secure new contracts to develop and manage correctional and detention facilities depends on many factors outside our control. Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. This depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates and sentencing patterns in various jurisdictions and acceptance of privatization. The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the legal decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.
Moreover, certain jurisdictions recently have required successful bidders to make a significant capital investment in connection with the financing of a particular project, a trend that will require us to have sufficient capital resources to compete effectively. We may not be able to obtain these capital resources when needed. Additionally, our success in obtaining new awards and contracts may depend, in part, upon our ability to locate land that can be leased or acquired under favorable terms. Otherwise desirable locations may be in or near populated areas and, therefore, may generate legal action or other forms of opposition from residents in areas surrounding a proposed site.
Failure to comply with unique and increased governmental regulations could result in material penalties or non-renewal or termination of our contracts to manage correctional and detention facilities. The industry in which we operate is subject to extensive federal, state and local regulations, including educational, health care and safety regulations, which are administered by many regulatory authorities. Some of the regulations are unique to the corrections industry, and the combination of regulations we face is unique. Facility management contracts typically include reporting requirements, supervision and on-site monitoring by representatives of the contracting governmental agencies. Corrections officers and juvenile care workers are customarily required to meet certain training standards and, in some instances, facility personnel are required to be licensed and subject to background investigation. Certain jurisdictions also require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract with businesses owned by members of minority groups. Our facilities are also subject to operational and financial audits by the governmental agencies with which we have contracts. We may not always successfully comply with these regulations, and failure to comply can result in material penalties or non-renewal or termination of facility management contracts.
In addition, private prison managers are increasingly subject to government legislation and regulation attempting to restrict the ability of private prison managers to house certain types of inmates, such as inmates from other jurisdictions or inmates at medium or higher security levels. Legislation has been enacted in several states, and has previously been proposed in the United States House of Representatives, containing such restrictions. Although we do not believe that existing legislation will have a material adverse effect on us, future legislation may have such an effect on us.
33
Governmental agencies may investigate and audit our contracts and, if any improprieties are found, we may be required to refund revenues we have received, or to forego anticipated revenues and we may be subject to penalties and sanctions, including prohibitions on our bidding in response to RFPs.Certain of the governmental agencies we contract with have the authority to audit and investigate our contracts with them. As part of that process, government agencies may review our performance of the contract, our pricing practices, our cost structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. For contracts that actually or effectively provide for certain reimbursement of expenses, if an agency determines that we have improperly allocated costs to a specific contract, we may not be reimbursed for those costs, and we could be required to refund the amount of any such costs that have been reimbursed. If a government audit asserts improper or illegal activities by us, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeitures of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or disqualification from doing business with certain governmental entities. Any adverse determination could adversely impact our ability to bid in response to RFPs in one or more jurisdictions.
We depend on a limited number of governmental customers for a significant portion of our revenues. We currently derive, and expect to continue to derive, a significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of governmental agencies. The loss of, or a significant decrease in, business from the BOP, INS or USMS or various state agencies could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. The three federal governmental agencies with correctional and detention responsibilities, the BOP, INS and USMS, accounted for approximately 32% of our total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, with the BOP and the USMS accounting for approximately 14% and 11%, respectively, of our total revenues for such period. We expect to continue to depend upon these federal agencies, and a relatively small group of other governmental customers, for a significant percentage of our revenues.
We are dependent upon our senior management and our ability to attract and retain sufficient qualified personnel.
We are dependent upon the continued service of each member of our senior management team, including John D. Ferguson, our President and Chief Executive Officer. The unexpected loss of any of these persons could materially adversely affect our business and operations.
In addition, the services we provide are labor-intensive. When we are awarded a facility management contract or open a new facility, we must hire operating management, correctional officers and other personnel. The success of our business requires that we attract, develop and retain these personnel. Our inability to hire sufficient qualified personnel on a timely basis or the loss of significant numbers of personnel at existing facilities could adversely affect our business and operations.
We are subject to necessary insurance costs.
Workers’ compensation, employee health and general liability insurance represent significant costs to us. We continue to incur increasing insurance costs due to adverse claims experience and rising healthcare costs in general. In addition, since the events of September 11, 2001, and due to concerns over corporate governance and recent corporate accounting scandals, liability and other types of insurance have become more difficult and costly to obtain. Unanticipated additional insurance costs could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows, and the failure to obtain or maintain any necessary insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on us.
34
We may be adversely affected by inflation.
Many of our facility management contracts provide for fixed management fees or fees that increase by only small amounts during their terms. If, due to inflation or other causes, our operating expenses, such as wages and salaries of our employees, and insurance, medical and food costs, increase at rates faster than increases, if any, in our management fees, then our profitability would be adversely affected. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Inflation”.
We are subject to legal proceedings associated with owning and managing correctional and detention facilities.
Our ownership and management of correctional and detention facilities, and the provision of inmate transportation services by a subsidiary, expose us to potential third party claims or litigation by prisoners or other persons relating to personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with a facility, its managers, personnel or other prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner’s escape from, or a disturbance or riot at, a facility we own or manage, or from the misconduct of our employees. To the extent the events serving as a basis for any potential claims are alleged or determined to constitute illegal or criminal activity, we could also be subject to criminal liability. Such liability could result in significant monetary fines and could affect our ability to bid on future contracts and retain our existing contracts. In addition, as an owner of real property, we may be subject to a variety of proceedings relating to personal injuries of persons at such facilities. The claims against our facilities may be significant and may not be covered by insurance. Even in cases covered by insurance, our deductible may be significant.
We are subject to tax related risks.
The IRS has recently completed auditing our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 2000. The IRS has proposed an adjustment to the 2000 tax return that, if ultimately upheld by the Appeals Office of the IRS, would require us to make cash payments to the IRS in excess of $56.0 million, not including penalties and interest. See “Legal Proceedings — Income Tax Contingencies” for a further description of this matter. While we believe that we have sufficient liquidity available to satisfy any payments required to be made, in the event we are required to make payments in connection with such claim, the payments would reduce our working capital available to satisfy amounts due under the terms of our indebtedness. Any adjustment would also substantially eliminate our net operating loss carryforward, and would result in increased cash tax liabilities on taxable income thereafter.
On October 24, 2002, we entered into a definitive settlement with the IRS in connection with the IRS’s audit of our predecessor’s 1997 federal income tax return. Under the terms of the settlement, in consideration for the IRS’s final determinations with respect to the 1997 tax year, in December 2002 we paid approximately $52.2 million in cash to satisfy federal and state taxes and interest.
Due to a change in tax law created by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, which was signed into law in March 2002, the settlement created an opportunity to utilize any 2002 tax losses to claim a refund of a portion of the taxes paid. We experienced tax losses during 2002 primarily resulting from a cumulative effect of accounting change in depreciable lives for tax purposes. Under terms of the new law, we utilized our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997, which was increased substantially in connection with the settlement with the IRS. As a result of the tax law change in 2002, combined with the adoption of an accounting change in the depreciable lives of certain tax assets, we will be due an income tax refund of approximately $32.1
35
million. The IRS could challenge the deduction associated with the change in depreciable lives of certain tax assets. The disallowance of all or a substantial portion of this deduction by the IRS would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and expected cash flows.
In addition, although the IRS has concluded its audit of our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 1999, the statute of limitations for such taxable year still has not expired. Thus, our election of REIT status for 1999 remains subject to review by the IRS generally until the expiration of three years from the date of filing of our 1999 federal tax return. Should the IRS subsequently disallow our election to be taxed as a REIT for the 1999 taxable year, we would be subject to income taxes and interest on our 1999 taxable income and possibly could be subject to penalties, which would have an adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to risks associated with ownership of real estate.
Our ownership of correctional and detention facilities subjects us to risks typically associated with investments in real estate. Investments in real estate, and in particular, correctional and detention facilities, are relatively illiquid and, therefore, our ability to divest ourselves of one or more of our facilities promptly in response to changed conditions is limited. Investments in correctional and detention facilities, in particular, subject us to risks involving potential exposure to environmental liability and uninsured loss. Our operating costs may be affected by the obligation to pay for the cost of complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future legislation. In addition, although we maintain insurance for many types of losses, there are certain types of losses, such as losses from earthquakes, riots and acts of terrorism, which may be either uninsurable or for which it may not be economically feasible to obtain insurance coverage, in light of the substantial costs associated with such insurance. As a result, we could lose both our capital invested in, and anticipated profits from, one or more of the facilities we own. Further, it is possible to experience losses which exceed the limits of insurance coverage.
Certain of our facilities are subject to options to purchase and reversions.Ten of our facilities are or will be subject to an option to purchase by governmental agencies. Such options are exercisable by the corresponding contracting governmental entity generally at any time during the term of the respective facility management contract. See “Business — Facility Portfolio — Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” If any of these options are exercised, there exists the risk that we will be unable to invest the proceeds from the sale of the facility in one or more properties that yield as much cash flow as the property acquired by the government entity. In addition, in the event any of these options are exercised, there exists the risk that the contracting governmental agency will terminate the management contract associated with such facility. For the year ended December 31, 2002, the facilities subject to these options generated approximately $172.4 million in revenue and incurred approximately $136.8 million in operating expenses.
In addition, ownership of three of our facilities (including two of which also are subject to options to purchase) will, upon the expiration of certain ground leases with remaining terms generally ranging from 13 to 15 years, revert to the respective governmental agency contracting with us. See “Business — Facility Portfolio — Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” At the time of such reversion, there exists the risk that the contracting governmental agency will terminate the management contract associated with such facility. For the year ended December 31, 2002, the facilities subject to reversion generated approximately $60.6 million in revenue and incurred approximately $51.8 million in operating expenses.
36
We are subject to risks associated with our indebtedness.
Our substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under our debt securities or the terms of our preferred stock. We have a significant amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2002, we had total indebtedness of approximately $956.0 million, which was increased by $30.0 million in January 2003 in connection with the acquisition of the Crowley County Correctional Facility. Our substantial indebtedness could have important consequences to you. For example, it could:
Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and other debt instruments have restrictive covenants that could affect our financial condition. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and 9.875% Senior Notes contain financial and other restrictive covenants that limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term best interests. Our ability to borrow under our New Senior Bank Credit Facility is subject to financial covenants, including leverage, interest rate and fixed charge coverage ratios. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility limits our ability to effect mergers, asset sales and change of control events. These covenants also contain restrictions regarding our ability to make capital expenditures in the future. The indenture related to the 9.875% Senior Notes also contain limitations on our ability to effect mergers and change of control events, as well as other limitations, including:
Our failure to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default which, if not cured or waived, could result in the acceleration of all of our debts. We do not have sufficient working capital to satisfy our debt obligations in the event of an acceleration of all or a significant portion of our outstanding indebtedness.
37
Despite current indebtedness levels, we may still incur more debt. This could further exacerbate the risks described above. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and 9.875% Senior Notes restrict our ability to incur significant additional indebtedness in the future. However, in the future we may refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness, including our New Senior Bank Credit Facility, and incur more indebtedness as a result. If new debt is added to our and our subsidiaries’ current debt levels, the related risks that we and they now face could intensify. As of December 31, 2002, we had $58.0 million available for borrowing under the $75.0 million revolving portion of our New Senior Bank Credit Facility (due to $17.0 million of letters of credit outstanding under a sub-facility of the revolving portion of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility).
Servicing our indebtedness will require a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control. Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness, and to fund planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control.
The risk exists that our business will be unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will not be available to us under our New Senior Bank Credit Facility in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness, or to fund our other liquidity needs. We may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. We may not, however, be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all.
Because portions of our indebtedness have floating rates, a general increase in interest rates will adversely affect cash flows. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility bears interest at a variable rate. To the extent our exposure to increases in interest rates is not eliminated through interest rate protection or cap agreements, such increases will adversely affect our cash flows. In accordance with terms of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, we have entered into an interest rate cap agreement capping LIBOR at 5.0% (prior to the applicable spread) on outstanding balances of $200.0 million through expiration of the cap agreement on May 20, 2004. There can be no assurance that these interest rate protection provisions will be effective, or that once the interest rate protection agreement expires, we will enter into additional interest rate protection agreements. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for a further discussion of our exposure to interest rate increases.
Our former independent public accountant, Arthur Andersen LLP, has been found guilty of federal obstruction of justice charges and you are unlikely to be able to exercise effective remedies against them in any legal action.
Our combined and consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2000, and for the year then ended were audited by Arthur Andersen. On March 14, 2002, Arthur Andersen was indicted on federal obstruction of justice charges arising from the federal government’s investigation of Enron Corporation. On June 15, 2002, a jury returned with a guilty verdict against Arthur Andersen following a trial. In light of the jury verdict and the underlying events, on August 31, 2002 Arthur Andersen ceased practicing before the SEC. However, we are including in Part IV of this Annual Report on Form 10-K the combined and consolidated financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen as of December 31, 2000, and for the year then ended. Arthur Andersen has not performed any procedures in connection with this Annual Report and has not consented to the inclusion of its report herein.
38
In reliance on Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), we have not filed a consent of Arthur Andersen to the inclusion in this Annual Report of their report regarding our financial statements. Because Arthur Andersen has not consented to the inclusion of its report herein, you will not be able to recover against Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions to state a material fact required to be stated therein. Furthermore, relief in connection with claims that may be available to stockholders under the federal securities laws against auditing firms may not be available to stockholders as a practical matter against Arthur Andersen because it no longer operates as an accounting firm.
Moreover, as a public company, we are required to file with the SEC periodic financial statements audited or reviewed by an independent public accountant. The SEC has said that it will continue accepting financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen on an interim basis so long as a reasonable effort is made to have Arthur Andersen reissue its reports and to obtain a manually signed accountant’s report from Arthur Andersen. Arthur Andersen has informed us that it is no longer able to reissue its audit reports because both the partner and the audit manager who were assigned to our account have left the firm. In addition, Arthur Andersen is unable to perform procedures to assure the continued accuracy of its report on our audited financial statements included in this Annual Report. Arthur Andersen will also be unable to perform such procedures or to provide other information or documents that would customarily be received by us or underwriters in connection with financings or other transactions, including consents and “comfort” letters. As a result, we may encounter delays, additional expense and other difficulties in future financings. Any resulting delay in accessing or inability to access the public capital markets could have a material adverse effect on us.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.
The properties we owned at December 31, 2002 are described under Item 1. and in Note 6 of the Notes to the Financial Statements contained in this annual report.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The nature of our business results in claims and litigation alleging that we are liable for damages arising from the conduct of our employees or others. In the opinion of management, other than the litigation matters discussed below, there are no pending legal proceedings that would have a material effect on our consolidation financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Adversarial proceedings and litigation are, however, subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable decisions and rulings could occur which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which such decisions and rulings occur, or future periods. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to our Business — We are subject to legal proceedings associated with owning and managing correctional and detention facilities” and “-We are subject to tax related risks.”
39
Litigation
During the second quarter of 2002, we completed the settlement of certain claims made against us as the successor to U.S. Corrections Corporation, or USCC, a privately-held owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities which was acquired by a predecessor of ours in April 1998, by participants in USCC’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan, referred to herein as the ESOP. As a result of the settlement, we made a cash payment of $575,000 to the plaintiffs in the action. As described below, we are currently in litigation with USCC’s insurer seeking to recover all or a portion of this settlement amount. The USCC ESOP litigation, entitled Horn v. McQueen, continued to proceed, however, against two other defendants, Milton Thompson and Robert McQueen, both of whom were stockholders and executive officers of USCC and trustees of the ESOP prior to our acquisition of USCC. In theHorn litigation, the ESOP participants allege numerous violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including breaches of fiduciary duties to the ESOP by causing the ESOP to overpay for employer securities. The plaintiffs in the action are seeking damages in excess of $30.0 million plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, although expert testimony in the litigation has indicated actual damages of significantly less than that. On July 29, 2002, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky found that McQueen and Thompson had breached their fiduciary duties to the ESOP, but made no determination as to the amount of any damages. It is not known when the Court will make a finding with respect to damages.
In or about the second quarter of 2001, Northfield Insurance Co., the issuer of the liability insurance policy to USCC and its directors and officers, filed suit against McQueen, Thompson and us seeking a declaration that it did not owe coverage under the policy for any liabilities arising from the Horn litigation. Among other things, Northfield claimed that it did not receive timely notice of the litigation under the terms of the policy. McQueen and Thompson subsequently filed a cross-claim in the Northfield litigation against us, claiming that, as the result of our failure to timely notify the insurance carrier of the Horn case on their behalf, they were entitled to indemnification or contribution from us for any loss incurred by them as a result of the Hornlitigation if there were no insurance available to cover the loss, if any. On September 30, 2002, the Court in the Northfield litigation found that Northfield was not obligated to cover McQueen and Thompson or us. Though it did not resolve the cross-claim, the Court did note that there was no basis for excusing McQueen and Thompson from their obligation to provide timely notice to the carrier because of our alleged failure to provide timely notice to the carrier. Upon the entry of a final order by the Court, we intend to appeal the Court’s decision that Northfield is not obligated to provide coverage, and we intend to continue to defend our position that coverage is required.
We cannot currently predict whether or not we will be successful in recovering all or a portion of the amount we have paid in settlement of the Hornlitigation. With respect to the cross-claim of McQueen and Thompson, we believe that such cross-claim is without merit and that we will be able to defend ourselves successfully against such claim and/or any additional claims of such nature that may be brought in the future. No assurance can be given, however, that McQueen and Thompson will not prevail in any such claims.
Income Tax Contingencies
In connection with the merger with Old CCA on December 31, 1998, we assumed the tax obligations of Old CCA. The IRS has completed field audits of Old CCA’s federal tax returns for the taxable years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, and has also completed auditing our federal tax return for the taxable years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999. In addition, the IRS has recently commenced an audit of our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 2001.
40
The IRS agent’s report related to 1998 and 1997 included a determination by the IRS to increase taxable income by approximately $120.0 million. We appealed the IRS’s findings with the Appeals Office of the IRS. On October 24, 2002 we entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the IRS in connection with the IRS’s audit of Old CCA’s 1997 federal income tax return. Under the terms of the settlement, in consideration for the IRS’s final determinations with respect to the 1997 tax year, in December 2002 we paid approximately $52.2 million in cash to satisfy federal and state taxes and interest.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the audit adjustments agreed to for the 1997 tax year did not trigger any additional distribution requirements in order to preserve our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes for 1999. The adjustments will, however, serve to increase our accumulated earnings and profits in 2002 and therefore will affect the taxability of dividends paid on our Series A and Series B Preferred Stock in 2002 and later years.
We are continuing to appeal the IRS’s findings with respect to the IRS’s audit of Old CCA’s 1998 federal income tax return. Although we can provide no assurance, we do not currently expect that the resolution of the 1998 audit will have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or results of operations.
In connection with the IRS’s audit of our 2000 federal tax return, the IRS has proposed the disallowance of a loss we claimed as the result of our forgiveness in September 2000 of certain indebtedness of Operating Company. This finding is currently being protested with the Appeals Office of the IRS. In the event that, after we seek all available remedies, the IRS prevails, we would be required to pay the IRS in excess of $56.0 million in cash plus penalties and interest. This adjustment would also substantially eliminate our net operating loss carryforward, and would result in increased cash tax liabilities on taxable income thereafter. We believe that we have meritorious defenses of our positions. We have not established a reserve for this matter. However, the IRS may make such an assessment and prevail in any such claim against us.
Because the audit of our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 2001 has only recently commenced, it is too early to predict the outcome of such audit.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
None.
PART II.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR OUR COMMON STOCK AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.
Market Price of and Distributions on Capital Stock
Our common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “CXW,” our series A preferred stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “CXW PrA,” and our series B preferred stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “CXW PrB.” On March 18, 2003, the last reported sale price of our common stock was $18.30 per share and there were approximately 5,800 registered holders and approximately 28,000 beneficial holders, respectively, of our common stock.
41
The following table sets forth, for the fiscal quarters indicated, the range of high and low sales prices of the common stock, the series A preferred stock, and the series B preferred stock on the NYSE, and the amount of cash distributions or dividends paid per share.
Common Stock
Series A Preferred Stock
Series B Preferred Stock
Dividend Policy
Pursuant to the terms of our New Senior Bank Credit Facility, we are restricted from declaring or paying cash dividends with respect to outstanding shares of our common stock. Moreover, even if such restriction is ultimately removed, we do not intend to pay dividends with respect to shares of our common stock in the future.
42
Our series A preferred stock provides for quarterly cash dividends at a rate of 8.0% per year, based on a liquidation price of $25.00 per share. We are permitted to pay these dividends under the terms of our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and our other indebtedness. Under the terms of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, however, prior to the third quarter of 2001, we were prohibited from paying any dividends with respect to the series A preferred stock until such time as we had raised $100.0 million in equity.
During the third quarter of 2001, we received a consent and waiver to our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility which allowed us to declare a one-time quarterly dividend on shares of series A preferred stock. Accordingly, on September 28, 2001, our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the first quarter of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on October 15, 2001 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on October 5, 2001.
Subsequently, on December 7, 2001, we completed an amendment and restatement of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. In connection with this amendment and restatement, certain financial and non-financial covenants were amended, including the removal of the prior restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock. Under the terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, we were permitted to pay quarterly dividends on the series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears. Accordingly, following the December 2001 amendment and restatement, on December 13, 2001 our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the fourth quarter of 2001 and all five quarters of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on January 15, 2002 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on December 31, 2001. The dividend was paid on January 15, 2002. We have since declared and paid a cash dividend each quarter at a rate of 8% per year, based on the liquidation price of $25.00 per share.
Our shares of series B preferred stock provide for quarterly dividends at a rate of 12.0% per year, based on a stated value of $24.46 per share. The dividends are payable quarterly in arrears, in additional shares of series B preferred stock through the third quarter of 2003, and in cash thereafter, provided that all accrued and unpaid cash dividends have been made on our series A preferred stock.
Sale of Unregistered Securities and Use of Proceeds from Sale of Registered Securities
Sale of Unregistered Securities
The following description sets forth our sales or other issuances of unregistered securities during the past three years. Unless otherwise indicated, all securities were issued and sold in private placements pursuant to the exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, contained in Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. Except for the issuance of the 9.875% Senior Notes described below, no underwriters were engaged in connection with the issuances of securities described below.
9.875% Senior Notes. In connection with the comprehensive refinancing of our senior indebtedness in May 2002, we issued $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of 9.875% senior notes due 2009 in a private placement to a group of initial purchasers. The proceeds of the offering were used to repay a portion of amounts outstanding under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, to redeem approximately $89.2 million of our 12% Senior Notes pursuant to a tender offer and consent solicitation, and to pay related fees and expenses. See “Business — Capital Strategy” for further information regarding the refinancing.
43
On July 18, 2002, pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Registration Rights Agreement dated as of May 3, 2002, we filed a registration statement with the SEC relating to an offer to exchange the 9.875% Senior Notes and related guarantees that were originally issued in the private placement for publicly tradable notes and guarantees on substantially identical terms. The Registration Rights Agreement required us to cause the registration statement to be declared effective by the SEC within 180 days from the date of the original issuance of the 9.875% Senior Notes. The SEC declared the registration statement effective January 3, 2003, and the exchange offer was completed on February 8, 2003. As a result, of the delay, we paid $0.1 million in liquidated damages to the holders of the notes.
MDP Convertible Subordinated Notes. Pursuant to the terms of a note purchase agreement, dated as of December 31, 1998, with MDP, we issued the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes. The first $20.0 million tranche closed on December 31, 1998, and the second $20.0 million tranche closed on January 29, 1999, resulting in aggregate proceeds of $40.0 million. See “Business — Capital Strategy” for a description of the conversion rate applicable to the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes.
In connection with the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement governing the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes, on June 30, 2000 we also issued, on a pro-rata basis to the holders of the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes, additional convertible subordinated notes in the aggregate principal amount of $1.1 million, which amount represented all accrued but unpaid interest upon the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes, at an applicable default rate of interest, through June 30, 2000. Under the terms of these additional notes, in January 2002, MDP elected to convert the $1.1 million convertible subordinated notes into approximately 0.1 million shares of common stock.
Issuance and Conversion of Series B Preferred Stock. On September 22, 2000, we issued an aggregate of approximately 5.9 million shares of series B preferred stock as a taxable dividend, exempt from registration under the Securities Act, on shares of our common stock in connection with our election to be taxed as a REIT for federal income tax purposes with respect to our 1999 taxable year. On November 13, 2000, we issued an additional 1.6 million shares of series B preferred stock as a taxable dividend, exempt from registration under the Securities Act, in further satisfaction of our 1999 REIT distribution requirements. An aggregate of 4.2 million shares of series B preferred stock were converted into approximately 9.5 million shares of our common during the following two conversion periods: (i) October 2, 2000 through October 12, 2000; and (ii) December 7, 2000 through December 20, 2000. During 2002 and 2001, we issued approximately 484,000 and 452,000 shares, respectively, of series B preferred stock in satisfaction of the regular quarterly paid-in-kind dividends on the series B preferred stock.
On May 22, 2001, we issued 0.2 million shares of series B preferred stock under two series B preferred stock restricted stock plans, which were valued at $2.0 million on the date of the award. The restricted shares of series B preferred stock were granted to certain of our key employees and wardens. Under the terms of the series B preferred stock restricted stock plans, the shares in the key employee plan vest in equal intervals over a three-year period expiring in May 2004, while the shares in the warden plan vest all at one time in May 2004.
Assumption of Operating Company Warrants. As a result of the corporate restructuring completed during the fourth quarter of 2000, effective October 1, 2000, we assumed Operating Company’s obligation to issue shares of its Class A common stock upon the exercise of certain common stock purchase warrants, dated as of December 31, 1998. As a result of this assumption, we became obligated to issue, upon exercise of the warrants, an aggregate of: (i) approximately 50,046
44
shares of our common stock to G.E. Capital Corporation and (ii) an aggregate of approximately 25,023 shares of our common stock to Bank of America. The warrants, which have an exercise price of $33.30 per share, expire December 31, 2008.
Service Company Mergers. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and plan of merger with each of PMSI and JJFMSI, we issued an aggregate of approximately 0.3 million shares of our common stock to the employee shareholders of PMSI and JJFMSI at the time of the completion of the service company mergers.
Issuances to Directors. On October 2, 2000, we issued approximately 3,111 shares of common stock to one of our directors in connection with such director’s service on the special committee of our board of directors. These shares of common stock were valued based on then existing market prices of the common stock on the NYSE. We received no cash proceeds from the issuance of these shares of common stock.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.
The following selected financial data for the five years ended December 31, 2002, were derived from our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto. Our audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000 are included in this annual report. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Overview” for a discussion of the factors that affect the comparability of the following financial data.
45
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIESSELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION(in thousands, except per share data)
46
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIESSELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION(in thousands, except per share data)(continued)
47
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not limited to, those described under “Risk Factors” and included in other portions of this report.
OVERVIEW
We are the nation’s largest owner and operator of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States, behind only the federal government and four states. As of December 31, 2002, we owned 40 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities, three of which we lease to other operators, and one additional facility which is not yet in operation. As of December 31, 2002, we operated 60 facilities (including 37 facilities that we owned), with a total design capacity of approximately 59,000 beds in 21 states and the District of Columbia.
We specialize in owning, operating and managing prisons and other correctional facilities and providing inmate residential and prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies. In addition to providing the fundamental residential services relating to inmates, our facilities offer a variety of rehabilitation and education programs, including basic education, religious services, life skills and employment training and substance abuse treatment. These services are intended to reduce recidivism and to prepare inmates for their successful re-entry into society upon their release. We also provide health care (including medical, dental and psychiatric services), food services and work and recreational programs.
Our website address is www.correctionscorp.com. We make our Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, and Form 8-K reports available on our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are filed with or furnished to the SEC. Information contained on our website is not part of this report.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. As such, we are required to make certain estimates, judgments and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based upon the information available. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. A summary of our significant accounting policies is described in Note 4 to our financial statements. The significant accounting policies and estimates which we believe are the most critical to aid in fully understanding and evaluating our reported financial results include the following:
Accounts receivable. As of December 31, 2002, accounts receivable included $13.8 million due from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, classified as current assets of discontinued operations due to the termination of our contracts to manage three facilities in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico during the second and third quarters of 2002. In February 2003, we entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico regarding the payment and resolution of the balance of the receivable. The agreement specifies payment dates for $11.3 million, of which $4.7 million has been
48
collected, with the balance to be paid upon reconciliation of invoices presented. We currently expect to collect the balance of the receivable and, therefore, no allowance for doubtful accounts has been established for the accounts receivable balance. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing and ultimate collectibility of the remaining amounts due.
Asset impairments. As of December 31, 2002, we had approximately $1.6 billion in long-lived assets. We evaluate the recoverability of the carrying values of our long-lived assets, other than intangibles, when events suggest that an impairment may have occurred. In these circumstances, we utilize estimates of undiscounted cash flows to determine if an impairment exists. If an impairment exists, it is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the estimated fair value of the asset.
Goodwill impairments. Effective January 1, 2002, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” or SFAS 142, which established new accounting and reporting requirements for goodwill and other intangible assets. Under SFAS 142, all goodwill amortization ceased effective January 1, 2002 and goodwill attributable to each of our reporting units was tested for impairment by comparing the fair value of each reporting unit with its carrying value. Fair value was determined using a collaboration of various common valuation techniques, including market multiples, discounted cash flows, and replacement cost methods. These impairment tests are required to be performed at adoption of SFAS 142 and at least annually thereafter. On an ongoing basis (absent any impairment indicators), we expect to continue to perform our impairment tests during the fourth quarter, in connection with our annual budgeting process.
Based on our initial impairment tests, we recognized an impairment of $80.3 million to write-off the carrying value of goodwill associated with our locations included in the owned and managed reporting segment during the first quarter of 2002. This goodwill was established in connection with the acquisition of Correctional Management Services Corporation, referred to herein as Operating Company. The remaining goodwill, which is associated with the facilities we manage but do not own, was deemed to be not impaired, and remains recorded on the balance sheet. This remaining goodwill was established in connection with the acquisitions of Prison Management Services, Inc., or PMSI, and Juvenile and Jail Facility Management Services, Inc., or JJFMSI, both of which were privately-held service companies, referred to herein as the Service Companies, that managed certain government-owned adult and juvenile prison and jail facilities. The implied fair value of goodwill of the locations included in the owned and managed reporting segment did not support the carrying value of any goodwill, primarily due to the highly leveraged capital structure. No impairment of goodwill allocated to the locations included in the managed-only reporting segment was deemed necessary, primarily because of the relatively minimal capital expenditure requirements, and therefore indebtedness, in connection with obtaining such management contracts. Under SFAS 142, the impairment recognized at adoption of the new rules was reflected as a cumulative effect of accounting change in our statement of operations for the first quarter of 2002. Impairment adjustments recognized after adoption, if any, are required to be recognized as operating expenses.
Income taxes. As of December 31, 2002, we had approximately $141.4 million in gross deferred tax assets. Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Realization of the future tax benefits related to deferred tax assets is dependent on many factors, including our ability to generate taxable income within the net operating loss carryforward period. Since the change in tax status in connection with the restructuring in 2000, and as of December 31, 2002, we have provided a valuation allowance to substantially reserve the deferred tax
49
assets in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” or SFAS 109. The valuation allowance is recognized based on the weight of available evidence indicating that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized. This evidence primarily consists of, but is not limited to, recurring operating losses for federal tax purposes.
Our assessment of the valuation allowance could change in the future based upon our actual and projected taxable income. Removal of the valuation allowance in whole or in part would result in a non-cash reduction in income tax expense during the period of removal. In addition, because a portion of the valuation allowance as of December 31, 2002 was established to reserve certain deferred tax assets upon the acquisitions of PMSI and JJFMSI, in accordance with SFAS 109, removal of the valuation allowance would result in a reduction to any remaining goodwill recorded in connection with such acquisitions to the extent the reversal relates to the valuation allowance applied to deferred tax assets existing at the date PMSI and JJFMSI were acquired. If the valuation allowance as of December 31, 2002 were to be removed in its entirety, the reduction to goodwill would amount to approximately $4.5 million. To the extent no valuation allowance is established for our deferred tax assets, future financial statements would reflect a provision for income taxes at the applicable federal and state tax rates on income before taxes.
On October 24, 2002, we entered into a definitive settlement with the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, in connection with the IRS’s audit of our predecessor’s 1997 federal income tax return. Under the terms of the settlement, in consideration for the IRS’s final determinations with respect to the 1997 tax year, in December 2002 we paid approximately $52.2 million in cash to satisfy federal and state taxes and interest.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the audit adjustments agreed to for the 1997 tax year did not trigger any additional distribution requirements by us in order to preserve our status as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax purposes for 1999. The adjustments will, however, serve to increase our accumulated earnings and profits in 2002 and therefore will affect the taxability of dividends paid on our Series A and Series B Preferred Stock in 2002 and later years.
In addition, due to a change in tax law created by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, which was signed into law in March 2002, the settlement created an opportunity to utilize any 2002 tax losses to claim a refund of a portion of the taxes paid. We experienced tax losses during 2002 primarily resulting from a cumulative effect of accounting change in depreciable lives for tax purposes. Under terms of the new law, we utilized our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997, which was increased substantially in connection with the settlement with the IRS. As a result of the tax law change in 2002, combined with the adoption of an accounting change in the depreciable lives of certain tax assets, we will be due an income tax refund of approximately $32.1 million. While we do not currently expect the IRS to challenge the deduction associated with the change in depreciable lives of certain tax assets, the disallowance of all or a substantial portion of this deduction by the IRS would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and expected cash flows.
The cumulative effect of accounting change in tax depreciation resulted in the establishment of a significant deferred tax liability for the tax effect of the book over tax basis of certain assets. The creation of such a deferred tax liability, and the significant improvement in our tax position since the original valuation allowance was established to reserve our deferred tax assets, resulted in the reduction of the valuation allowance, generating an income tax benefit of approximately $30.3 million during the fourth quarter of 2002, as we determined that substantially all of these deferred tax liabilities will be utilized to offset the reversal of deferred tax assets during the net operating loss
50
carryforward periods. We continue to evaluate additional tax strategies to maximize the opportunities created by the new law, which could result in an additional income tax refund and income tax benefits, although we can provide no assurance that any such tax strategies will come to fruition.
The IRS has recently completed auditing our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 2000. The IRS has proposed the disallowance of a loss we claimed as the result of our forgiveness in September 2000 of certain indebtedness of Operating Company. This finding is currently being protested with the Appeals Office of the IRS. In the event that, after we seek all available remedies, the IRS prevails, we would be required to pay the IRS in excess of $56.0 million in cash plus penalties and interest. This adjustment would also substantially eliminate our net operating loss carryforward. We believe that we have meritorious defenses of our positions. We have not established a reserve for this matter. However, no assurance can be given that the IRS will not make such an assessment and prevail in any such claim against us.
Self-funded insurance reserves. As of December 31, 2002, we had approximately $25.6 million in accrued liabilities for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile insurance. We are significantly self-insured for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile liability insurance. As such, our insurance expense is largely dependent on claims experience and our ability to control our claims. We have consistently accrued the estimated liability for employee health insurance based on our history of claims experience and time lag between the incident date and the date the cost is paid by us. We have accrued the estimated liability for workers’ compensation and automobile insurance based on a third-party actuarial valuation of the outstanding liabilities. These estimates could change in the future.
Legal reserves. As of December 31, 2002, we had approximately $20.7 million in accrued liabilities for litigation for certain legal proceedings in which we are involved. We have accrued our estimate of the probable costs for the resolution of these claims based on a range of potential outcomes. In addition, we are subject to current and potential future legal proceedings for which little or no accrual has been reflected because our current assessment of the potential exposure is nominal. These estimates have been developed in consultation with our General Counsel’s office and, as appropriate, outside counsel handling these matters, and are based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. It is possible, however, that future cash flows and results of operations could be materially affected by changes in our assumptions, new developments, or by the effectiveness of our strategies.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Our principal capital requirements are for working capital, capital expenditures and debt service payments. Capital requirements may also include cash expenditures associated with our outstanding commitments and contingencies, as further described in the notes to our financial statements. In addition, we may incur capital expenditures to expand the design capacity of our facilities in order to retain management contracts, or when the economics of an expansion are compelling. In addition, with lender consent, we may acquire additional correctional facilities that we believe have favorable investment returns and increase value to our stockholders. We have financed, and intend to continue to finance, the working capital and capital expenditure requirements with existing cash balances and net cash provided by operations, although we may also utilize our senior bank credit facility, as further described below. We may also sell non-strategic assets and apply the net proceeds to pay-down our outstanding indebtedness.
51
As of December 31, 2002, our liquidity was provided by cash on hand of approximately $65.4 million and $58.0 million available under the $75.0 million revolving portion of our senior bank credit facility. During the year ended December 31, 2002, we generated $101.4 million in cash through operating activities, and as of December 31, 2002, we had net working capital of $68.4 million, including an income tax refund receivable of $32.1 million, which we expect to receive during the second quarter of 2003. We currently expect to be able to meet our cash expenditure requirements for the next year.
During the fourth quarter of 2000, as a result of our financial condition existing at that time, including: (i) the pending maturity of the loans under the then existing senior secured bank credit facility, referred to herein as the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility; (ii) our negative working capital position; and (iii) our highly leveraged capital structure, our new management conducted strategic assessments; developed revised financial projections; evaluated the utilization of existing facilities, projects under development and excess land parcels; identified certain of these non-strategic assets for sale; and identified various potential transactions that could improve our financial position.
During 2001, we were successful in repositioning our capital structure for a comprehensive refinancing of our senior indebtedness, including primarily the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. We paid-down $189.0 million in total debt through a combination of $138.7 million in cash generated from asset sales and internally generated cash. We improved operating margins, increased occupancy rates, and settled a number of significant outstanding legal matters on terms we believe were favorable.
In May 2001, we completed a one-for-ten reverse stock split of our common stock, which satisfied a condition of continued listing of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE. During December 2001, we completed an amendment and restatement of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. As part of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, the existing $269.4 million revolving portion of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, which was to mature on January 1, 2002, was replaced with a term loan of the same amount maturing on December 31, 2002, to coincide with the maturity of the other loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. Pursuant to terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, all loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility accrued interest at a variable rate of 5.5% over LIBOR, or 4.5% over the base rate, at our option.
As a result of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, certain financial and non-financial covenants of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility were amended, including the removal of prior restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our Series A Preferred Stock. Under the terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, we were permitted to pay quarterly dividends, when declared by the board of directors, on the shares of Series A Preferred Stock, including all dividends in arrears. On December 13, 2001, our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of Series A Preferred Stock for the fourth quarter of 2001, and for all five quarters then unpaid and in arrears, payable on January 15, 2002 to the holders of record of Series A Preferred Stock on December 31, 2001. As a result of the board’s declaration, we paid an aggregate of $12.9 million to holders of the Series A Preferred Stock in January 2002.
We believed, and continue to believe, that a short-term extension of the revolving portion of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility was in our best interest for a longer-term financing strategy, particularly due to difficult market conditions for the issuance of debt securities following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and during the fourth quarter of 2001. Additionally, we believed that certain terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, including primarily the removal of prior restrictions to pay cash dividends on our shares of Series A Preferred Stock, including all dividends
52
in arrears, would result in an improvement to our credit ratings, thereby enhancing the terms of a more comprehensive refinancing.
On May 3, 2002, we completed a comprehensive refinancing of our senior indebtedness through the refinancing of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility and the sale and issuance of $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of 9.875% unsecured senior notes due 2009, referred to herein as the 9.875% Senior Notes. The proceeds from the sale of the 9.875% Senior Notes were used to repay a portion of amounts outstanding under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, to redeem approximately $89.2 million of our existing $100.0 million 12% unsecured senior notes due 2006, referred to herein as the 12% Senior Notes, pursuant to a tender offer and consent solicitation, and to pay related fees and expenses. Upon the completion of the refinancing, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded its rating of our senior secured debt to “B1” from “B2”, our senior unsecured debt to “B2” from “B3”, and our preferred stock to “Caa1” from “Caa2”, and Standard & Poor’s upgraded our corporate credit rating and its rating of our senior secured debt to “B+” from “B” and our senior unsecured debt to “B-” from “CCC+”.
Interest on the 9.875% Senior Notes accrues at the stated rate, and is payable semi-annually in arrears on May 1 and November 1 of each year. The 9.875% Senior Notes mature on May 1, 2009. At any time before May 1, 2005, we may redeem up to 35% of the notes with the net proceeds of certain equity offerings, as long as 65% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes remains outstanding after the redemption. We may redeem all or a portion of the 9.875% Senior Notes on or after May 1, 2006. Redemption prices are set forth in the indenture governing the 9.875% Senior Notes. The 9.875% Senior Notes are guaranteed on an unsecured basis by all of our domestic subsidiaries (other than our Puerto Rican subsidiary).
As part of the refinancing, we obtained a new $715.0 million senior secured bank credit facility, referred to herein as the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, which replaced the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. serves as administrative agent under the new facility, which is comprised of a $75.0 million revolving loan with a term of approximately four years, referred to herein as the Revolving Loan, a $75.0 million term loan with a term of approximately four years, referred to herein as the Term Loan A Facility, and a $565.0 million term loan with a term of
53
approximately six years, referred to herein as the Term Loan B Facility. All borrowings under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility initially bear interest at a base rate plus 2.5%, or LIBOR plus 3.5%, at our option. The applicable margin for the Revolving Loan and the Term Loan A Facility is subject to adjustment based on our leverage ratio. We are also required to pay a commitment fee on the difference between committed amounts and amounts actually utilized under the Revolving Loan equal to 0.50% per year subject to adjustment based on our leverage ratio.
The Term Loan A Facility is repayable in quarterly installments, which commenced on June 30, 2002, in an aggregate principal amount for each year as follows: $15.0 million in year one, $18.0 million in year two, $21.0 million in year three, and $21.0 million in year four. The Term Loan B Facility is repayable in nominal quarterly installments of approximately $1.4 million, which commenced on June 30, 2002, for the first five years and in substantial quarterly installments during the final year.
On January 17, 2003, after obtaining consent of the lenders under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, we purchased the Crowley County Correctional Facility, a 1,200-bed medium security adult male prison facility located in Olney Springs, Colorado, for a purchase price of approximately $47.5 million. We financed the purchase price through $30.0 million in borrowings under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility pursuant to an expansion of the Term Loan B Facility, with the balance of the purchase price satisfied with cash on hand. As a result of the expansion of the Term Loan B Facility, the quarterly principal installments required under its terms were increased by $75,000, with the remaining balance due in the final year.
Prepayments of loans outstanding under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility are permitted at any time without premium or penalty, upon the giving of proper notice. In addition, we are required to prepay amounts outstanding under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility in an amount equal to: (i) 50% of the net cash proceeds from any sale or issuance of our equity securities or any equity securities of our subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions; (ii) 100% of the net cash proceeds from any incurrence of additional indebtedness (excluding certain permitted debt), subject to certain exceptions; (iii) 100% of the net cash proceeds from any sale or other disposition by us, or any of our subsidiaries, of any assets, subject to certain exclusions and reinvestment provisions and excluding certain dispositions in the ordinary course of business; and (iv) 50% of our “excess cash flow” (as such term is defined in the New Senior Bank Credit Facility) for each fiscal year.
The credit agreement governing the New Senior Bank Credit Facility requires us to meet certain financial covenants, including, without limitation, a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, a maximum leverage ratio and a minimum interest coverage ratio. In addition, the New Senior Bank Credit Facility contains certain covenants which, among other things, limit the incurrence of additional indebtedness, investments, payment of dividends, transactions with affiliates, asset sales, acquisitions, capital expenditures, mergers and consolidations, prepayments and modifications of other indebtedness, liens and encumbrances and other matters customarily restricted in such agreements. In addition, the New Senior Bank Credit Facility contains cross-default provisions with our other indebtedness.
The loans and other obligations under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility are guaranteed by each of our domestic subsidiaries. Our obligations under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility and the guarantees are secured by: (i) a perfected first priority security interest in substantially all of our tangible and intangible assets and substantially all of the tangible and intangible assets of our subsidiaries; and (ii) a pledge of all of the capital stock of our domestic subsidiaries and 65% of the capital stock of certain of our foreign subsidiaries.
54
Pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned tender offer and consent solicitation which expired on May 16, 2002, in connection with the refinancing, in May 2002, we redeemed approximately $89.2 million in aggregate principal amount of our 12% Senior Notes with proceeds from the issuance of the 9.875% Senior Notes. The notes were redeemed at a price of 110% of par, which included a 3% consent payment, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the payment date. In connection with the tender offer and consent solicitation, we received sufficient consents and amended the indenture governing the 12% Senior Notes to delete substantially all of the restrictive covenants and events of default contained therein.
We are required to pay interest and principal upon maturity on the remaining 12% Senior Notes outstanding, in accordance with the original terms of such notes.
In connection with the refinancing, we also terminated an interest rate swap agreement at a price of approximately $8.8 million. The swap agreement, which fixed LIBOR at 6.51% on outstanding balances of $325.0 million through its expiration on December 31, 2002, had been entered into in order to satisfy a requirement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. In addition, in order to satisfy a requirement of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, we purchased an interest rate cap agreement, capping LIBOR at 5.0% on outstanding balances of $200.0 million through the expiration of the cap agreement on May 20, 2004, for a price of $1.0 million. The termination of the swap agreement and the purchase of the cap agreement were funded with cash on hand.
As a result of the early extinguishment of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility and the redemption of substantially all of our 12% Senior Notes, we recorded an extraordinary loss of approximately $36.7 million during the second quarter of 2002, which included the write-off of existing deferred loan costs, certain bank fees paid, premiums paid to redeem the 12% Senior Notes, and certain other costs associated with the refinancing.
Operating Activities
Our net cash provided by operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2002, was $101.4 million, compared with $92.8 million for the same period in the prior year. (As further discussed under “Results of Operations” below, we do not believe the cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2000, are comparable to the cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2001 or 2002.) Cash provided by operating activities represents the year to date net income or loss plus depreciation and amortization, changes in various components of working capital, adjustments for various non-cash charges, including primarily the cumulative effect of accounting change in 2002 and the change in fair value of the interest rate swap agreement, and the extraordinary charge related to the comprehensive refinancing completed on May 3, 2002. Income tax refunds of $30.6 million during the first quarter of 2001 and $32.2 million during the second quarter of 2002 contributed to the cash generated from operating activities in both years. As previously described herein, we also expect to receive an additional income tax refund of approximately $32.1 million during the second quarter of 2003. The increase in cash provided by operating activities was also due to a significant reduction in interest, primarily resulting from the pay-down of debt balances, the successful refinancing completed in May 2002, and due to lower market interest rates. These increases in cash provided by operating activities were partially offset by the payment of $52.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2002 in full satisfaction of the aforementioned settlement with the IRS with respect to our predecessor’s 1997 federal income tax return.
55
Investing Activities
Our cash flow used in investing activities was $9.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2002, and was primarily attributable to capital expenditures during the period of $17.1 million, net of proceeds received from the sale of our interest in a juvenile facility located in Dallas, Texas, on June 28, 2002, for $4.3 million. Capital expenditures during 2002 included $4.8 million for development and redevelopment activities, including primarily expenditures for our McRae Correctional Facility to meet specifications required by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, in connection with a new contract award, and $12.3 million for maintenance capital expenditures incurred for the betterment, renewal or significant repairs that extended the useful life of our correctional facilities, or for new furniture, fixtures and equipment. In addition, we received refunds of restricted cash totaling approximately $5.2 million primarily used as collateral for workers’ compensation claims. We elected to post letters of credit from the sub-facility under the revolving portion of our New Senior Bank Credit Facility to replace the cash collateral on such claims. Our cash flow provided by investing activities was $130.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2001, and was primarily attributable to the proceeds received from the sales of our Mountain View Correctional Facility, located in Spruce Pine, North Carolina, on March 16, 2001, our Agecroft facility, located in Salford, England, on April 10, 2001, our Pamlico Correctional Facility, located in Bayboro, North Carolina, on June 28, 2001, and our Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Center, located in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 3, 2001.
Financing Activities
Our cash flow used in financing activities was $72.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2002, compared with $198.3 million for the same period in the prior year. Proceeds from the issuance on May 3, 2002 of the 9.875% Senior Notes and the New Senior Bank Credit Facility were largely offset by the repayment of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility and the redemption of substantially all of the 12% Senior Notes. However, we also paid debt issuance costs of $37.5 million in connection with this comprehensive refinancing, and an additional $8.8 million to terminate the interest rate swap agreement. Further, during the first quarter of 2002, we paid cash dividends of $12.9 million on our Series A Preferred Stock for the fourth quarter of 2001 and for all five quarters then in arrears, as permitted under the terms of an amendment to our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility obtained in December 2001. Additionally, we paid $2.2 million in cash dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock during each of the second, third and fourth quarters of 2002. Net payments on debt during 2001 totaled $189.0 million and primarily consisted of the net cash proceeds received from the sale of the Mountain View Correctional Facility, the Agecroft facility, the Pamlico Correctional Facility, and the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Center that were immediately applied to amounts outstanding under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. Net payments on debt also included a lump sum payment of $35.0 million on the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility with cash on hand.
Contractual Obligations
The following schedule summarizes our contractual cash obligations by the indicated period as of December 31, 2002 (in thousands):
56
As the result of a default during 2000 under the terms of our $40.0 Million Convertible Subordinated Notes, we are required to pay the holders of the notes contingent interest sufficient to permit the holders to receive a 15.5% rate of return on such notes, retroactive to the date of issuance of the notes. The contingent interest is payable upon each of December 31, 2003 and upon repayment of the notes, unless the holders of the notes elect to convert the notes into common stock under the terms of the note purchase agreement or unless the price of our common stock meets or exceeds a “target price” as defined in the note purchase agreement.
We had $17.3 million of letters of credit outstanding at December 31, 2002 primarily to support our requirement to repay fees under our workers’ compensation plan in the event we do not repay the fees due in accordance with the terms of the plan. The letters of credit are renewable annually. The Company did not have any draws under any outstanding letters of credit during 2002, 2001 or 2000.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
We do not believe the comparison between our results of operations or cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001 with the year ended December 31, 2000 is meaningful because the 2000 results of operations and cash flows reflect real estate activities between Operating Company and us for the period from January 1, 2000 through September 30, 2000 during a period of severe liquidity problems, and as of October 1, 2000, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows include the operations of the correctional and detention facilities previously leased to and managed by Operating Company. In addition, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000 also include the operations of the Service Companies as of December 1, 2000 (acquisition date) on a consolidated basis. For the period January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2000, the investments in the Service Companies were accounted for and were presented under the equity method of accounting. For the period from September 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000, the investments in the Service Companies were accounted for on a combined basis due to the repurchase by the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Service Companies of the non-management, outside stockholders’ equity interest in the Service Companies during September 2000. The resulting increase in our assets and liabilities as of September 1, 2000 as a result of combining the balance sheets of PMSI and JJFMSI has been treated as a non-cash transaction in the combined statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2000, with the September 1, 2000 combined cash balances of PMSI and JJFMSI ($22.0 million) included in “cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year.” The economic interests in each of PMSI and JJFMSI are presented under the equity method for all periods prior to September 1, 2000. For the entire years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, our consolidated results of operations and cash flows reflect our results as a business specializing in owning, operating and managing prisons and other correctional facilities and providing prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies.
Our 2002 and 2001 results of operations were impacted by, and the following table sets forth for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, the number of facilities we owned and managed, the
57
number of facilities we managed but did not own, the number of facilities we leased to other operators, and the facilities we owned that were not yet in operation.
Year Ended December 31, 2002 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2001
We incurred a net loss available to common stockholders of $28.9 million, or $0.52 per diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2002, compared with net income available to common stockholders of $5.7 million, or $0.23 per diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2001.
The net loss in 2002 resulted from the combined effects of a non-cash charge for the cumulative effect of accounting change for goodwill of $80.3 million, or $2.26 per diluted share, related to the adoption of SFAS 142 during the first quarter of 2002 and the extraordinary charge of $36.7 million, or $1.03 per diluted share, incurred in connection with the comprehensive refinancing completed during the second quarter of 2002. Offsetting these charges in 2002 was an aggregate income tax benefit of $63.3 million, which included a cash income tax benefit of $32.2 million recognized during the first quarter of 2002 related to a change in tax law that became effective in March 2002, which enabled us to utilize certain of our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997 and 1996. In addition, approximately $30.3 million of the income tax benefit in 2002 was due to the reduction of the tax valuation allowance applied to certain deferred tax assets arising primarily as a result of 2002 tax deductions based on a cumulative effect of accounting change for tax depreciation to be reported on our 2002 federal income tax return. Additionally, net interest expense decreased approximately $38.8 million during 2002 compared with 2001 due to the comprehensive refinancing completed in May of 2002, as well as the reduction of debt balances outstanding through the sale of fixed assets and internally generated cash, and lower market interest rates.
58
The net income available to common stockholders during 2001 included a loss from continuing operations after preferred stock distributions of $2.0 million, or $0.08 per diluted share, while income from discontinued operations was $7.6 million, or $0.31 per diluted share. Contributing to the net income attributable to common stockholders during 2001 was a non-cash gain of $25.6 million related to the extinguishment of a $26.1 million promissory note issued in connection with our federal stockholder litigation settlement, as further discussed below under the caption “change in fair value of derivative instruments.” Results for 2001 also included the non-cash effect of an $11.1 million charge associated with the accounting for an interest rate swap agreement required under prior terms of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility.
Facility Operations
A key performance indicator we use to measure the revenue and expenses associated with the operation of the facilities we own or manage is expressed in terms of a compensated man-day, and represents the revenue we generate and expenses we incur for one inmate for one calendar day. Revenue and expenses per compensated man-day are computed by dividing facility revenue and expenses by the total number of compensated man-days during the period. A compensated man-day represents a calendar day for which we are paid for the occupancy of an inmate. We believe the measurement is useful because we are compensated for operating and managing facilities at an inmate per-diem rate based upon actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. We also measure our ability to contain costs on a per-compensated man-day basis, which is largely dependent upon the number of inmates we accommodate. Further, per man-day measurements are also used to estimate our potential profitability based on certain occupancy levels relative to design capacity. Revenue and expenses per compensated man-day for all of the facilities we owned or managed, exclusive of those discontinued (see further discussion below regarding discontinued operations), were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001:
Management and other revenue consists of revenue earned from the operation and management of adult and juvenile correctional and detention facilities we own or manage and from our inmate transportation subsidiary, which, for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, totaled $959.1 million and $930.6 million, respectively. Business from our federal customers, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or the BOP, the United States Marshals Service, or the USMS, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the INS, remains strong, while many of our state customers are currently experiencing budget difficulties. Our federal customers generated approximately 33% of our total management revenue during 2002, compared with approximately 29% during 2001. While the budget difficulties experienced by our state customers present short-term challenges with respect to our per-diem rates resulting in pressure on our management revenue in future quarters, these governmental entities are also constrained with respect to funds available for
59
prison construction. As a result, because we believe inmate populations will continue to rise, we currently expect the lack of new bed supply to lead to higher occupancies in the long-term. In addition, where customers have requested a reduction in per-diem rates, we have been somewhat successful in mitigating the reduction in revenue by obtaining the flexibility to reduce our operating expenses, such as through the reduction in the use of our various program services or through the consolidation of inmates into fewer facilities.
Operating expenses totaled $744.1 million and $721.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the operation and management of adult and juvenile correctional and detention facilities, and for our inmate transportation subsidiary.
Salaries and benefits represent the most significant component of fixed operating expenses and was the primary cause of the increase in fixed expenses per compensated man-day. During 2002 and 2001, we have incurred wage increases due to tight labor markets for correctional officers and benefit increases due to surging healthcare costs. The increase in salaries and benefits contributed approximately $0.51 per compensated man-day to the increase in fixed expenses per compensated man-day from $27.28 during 2001 to $27.72 during 2002. Further, the turnover rate for correctional officers for our company, and for the corrections industry in general, also remains high. We are developing strategies to reduce our turnover rate, but we can provide no assurance that these strategies will be successful. In addition, ten of our facilities currently have contracts with the federal government requiring that our wage and benefit rates comply with wage determination rates set forth, and as adjusted from time to time, under the Service Contract Act of the U.S. Department of Labor. Our contracts generally provide for reimbursement of a portion of the increased costs resulting from wage determinations in the form of increased per-diems, thereby mitigating the effect of increased salaries and benefits expenses at those facilities. We may also be subject to adverse claims, or government audits, relating to alleged violations of wage and hour laws applicable to us, which may result in adjustments to amounts previously paid as wages and, potentially interest and/or monetary penalties.
We also experienced a trend of increasing insurance expense during 2002 compared with 2001. Because we are significantly self-insured for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile liability insurance, our insurance expense is dependent on claims experience and our ability to control our claims. Our insurance policies contain various deductibles and stop-loss amounts intended to limit our exposure for individually significant occurrences. However, the nature of our self-insurance provides little protection for a deterioration in claims experience or increasing employee medical costs in general. We continue to incur increasing insurance expense due to adverse claims experience primarily resulting from rising healthcare costs throughout the country. We continue to develop new strategies to improve the management of our future loss claims, but can provide no assurance that these strategies will be successful. Additionally, general liability insurance costs have risen substantially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and other types of insurance, such as directors and officers liability insurance, are currently expected to increase due to several recent high profile business failures and concerns about corporate governance and accounting in the marketplace. Unanticipated additional insurance expenses resulting from adverse claims experience or a continued increasing cost environment for general liability and other types of insurance could result in increasing expenses in the future.
During the first quarter of 2001, we hired a General Counsel to manage our existing legal matters and to develop procedures to minimize the incidence of litigation in the future. We have been able to settle numerous cases on terms we believe are favorable. However, variable operating expenses included $4.9 million during 2002, compared with $0.3 million during 2001, for an overall increase
60
in potential exposure for certain legal proceedings, none of which was individually significant. This increase of $4.6 million contributed approximately $0.24 per compensated man-day to the increase in variable expenses per compensated man-day from $9.82 during 2001 to $10.30 during 2002. Further, it is possible that future cash flows and results of operations could be materially affected by changes in our assumptions, new developments, or by the effectiveness of our litigation and settlement strategies.
The operation of the facilities we own carries a higher degree of risk associated with a management contract than the operation of the facilities we manage but do not own because we incur significant capital expenditures to construct or acquire facilities we own. Additionally, correctional and detention facilities have a limited or no alternative use. Therefore, if a management contract is terminated with respect to a facility we own, we continue to incur certain operating expenses, such as real estate taxes, utilities, and insurance, that we would not incur if a management contract was terminated for a managed-only facility. As a result, revenue per compensated man-day is typically higher for facilities we own and manage than for managed-only facilities. Because we incur higher expenses, such as repairs and maintenance, real estate taxes, and insurance, with respect to the facilities we own and manage, our cost structure for facilities we own and manage is also higher than the cost structure for the managed-only facilities. The following tables display the revenue and expenses per compensated man-day for the facilities we own and manage and for the facilities we manage but do not own:
Owned and Managed Facilities
On May 30, 2002, we were awarded a contract by the BOP to house 1,524 federal detainees at our McRae Correctional Facility located in McRae, Georgia. The three-year contract, awarded as part of the Criminal Alien Requirement Phase II Solicitation, or CAR II, also provides for seven one-year renewals. The contract with the BOP guarantees at least 95% occupancy on a take-or-pay basis, and commenced full operations in December of 2002, resulting in an increase in management and other
61
revenue upon commencement. However, start-up expenses were incurred prior to the commencement of the contract, including but not limited to, salaries, utilities, medical and food supplies and clothing, which resulted in additional operating expenses before any revenue was generated, resulting in a reduction in net income during the third and fourth quarters of 2002.
During 2001, we provided correctional services for the State of Wisconsin at four of our facilities. During the fourth quarter of 2001, due to a short-term decline in the State of Wisconsin’s inmate population, the State transferred approximately 675 inmates out of our 1,536-bed Whiteville Correctional Facility, located in Whiteville, Tennessee, to the State’s correctional system, reducing the population of Wisconsin inmates in our facilities to approximately 3,400. Although the State of Wisconsin continued transferring inmates out of our facilities during the first quarter of 2002, our population of Wisconsin inmates has gradually increased, primarily at our 1,338-bed Prairie Correctional Facility, located in Appleton, Minnesota. Total management and other revenue at the Whiteville facility decreased $8.9 million, or 39.9%, during 2002 compared with 2001.
During September 2002, we announced a contract award from the State of Wisconsin to house up to a total of 5,500 medium security Wisconsin inmates. The new contract replaced the existing contract with the State of Wisconsin on December 22, 2002. As of December 31, 2002, we managed approximately 3,500 Wisconsin inmates under the contract.
During October 2002, we entered into a new agreement with Hardeman County, Tennessee, with respect to the management of up to 1,536 medium security inmates from the State of Tennessee in the Whiteville Correctional Facility. We have begun to receive Tennessee inmates at the facility, and expect to continue receiving inmates under this contract through the first quarter of 2003. We expect this contract to contribute to an increase in management revenue during 2003.
Due to an increase in population at our 2,304-bed Central Arizona Detention Center, located in Florence, Arizona, and at our 910-bed Torrance County Detention Facility, located in Estancia, New Mexico, primarily from the USMS and the INS, management and other revenue increased $8.6 million and $6.8 million, respectively, at these facilities during 2002 compared with 2001.
The aforementioned acquisition in January 2003 of the Crowley County Correctional Facility, located in Olney Springs, Colorado, is expected to provide favorable investment returns contributing to an increase in our management revenue during 2003, while adding capacity in a state where projections call for significant inmate growth over the next several years.
During the second quarter of 2001, we were informed that our contract with the District of Columbia to house its inmates in our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, which expired September 8, 2001, would not be renewed due to a new law that mandated that the BOP assume jurisdiction of all District of Columbia offenders by the end of 2001. The Northeast Ohio Correctional Center is a 2,016-bed medium security prison. The District of Columbia began transferring inmates out of the facility during the second quarter of 2001 and completed the process in July 2001. Total management and other revenue at this facility was approximately $6.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2001. The related operating expenses at this facility were $12.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2001. While no revenue was generated from this facility during 2002, we incurred approximately $2.9 million of operating expenses during the year ended December 31, 2002 for real estate taxes, utilities, insurance and other necessary expenses associated with owning the facility. Overall, our occupancy decreased by approximately 1,300 inmates at our facilities as a result of this mandate. We have engaged in discussions with the BOP regarding a sale of the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center to the BOP, and are also continually exploring opportunities to
62
reopen the facility; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to reach agreements on a sale or to reopen this facility.
Managed-Only Facilities
During the fourth quarter of 2001, we committed to a plan to terminate our management contract at the Southwest Indiana Regional Youth Village, a 188-bed juvenile facility located in Vincennes, Indiana. During the first quarter of 2002, we entered into a mutual agreement with Children and Family Services Corporation, or CFSC, to terminate our management contract at the facility, effective April 1, 2002, prior to the contract’s expiration date in 2004. In connection with the mutual agreement to terminate the management contract, CFSC also paid in full an outstanding note receivable totaling approximately $0.7 million, which was previously considered uncollectible and was fully reserved. The termination of this management contract has not had a material impact on our financial statements. Because management committed to the termination of this management contract prior to the effective date of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” or SFAS 144, the results of operations were not reported in discontinued operations.
On June 28, 2002, we received notice from the Mississippi Department of Corrections terminating our contract to manage the 1,016-bed Delta Correctional Facility located in Greenwood, Mississippi, due to the non-appropriation of funds. We ceased operations of the facility in October 2002. However, the State of Mississippi agreed to expand the management contract at the Wilkinson County Correctional Facility located in Woodville, Mississippi to accommodate an additional 100 inmates. As a result, the results of operations of the Delta Correctional Facility are not reported in discontinued operations. These events are not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.
During July 2002, we renewed our contract with Tulsa County, Oklahoma, for the management of inmates at the David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center. The contract renewal included an increase in the per-diem rate, and also shifted to Tulsa County, the burden of certain utility expenses, resulting in a modest improvement in profitability for the management of this facility during 2002, compared with 2001.
During the fourth quarter of 2002, we were informed by the State of Florida of its intention to terminate our contract to manage the 96-bed Okeechobee Juvenile Offender Correctional Center located in Okeechobee, Florida, upon the expiration of a short-term extension to the existing management contract, which expired in December 2002. This termination, which occurred February 28, 2003, is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements. During 2002, this facility generated total revenue and total operating expenses of $4.8 million and $4.0 million, respectively.
On March 18, 2003, we were notified by the Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Virginia of its intention to terminate our contract to manage the 1,500-bed Lawrenceville Correctional Center located in Lawrenceville, Virginia, upon the expiration of the contract on March 22, 2003. This termination, which occurred on March 22, 2003, is not expected to have a material effect on our financial statements. During 2002, this facility generated total revenue and total operating expenses of $20.3 million and $18.7 million, respectively.
63
Rental revenue
Rental revenue was $3.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2002, compared with $5.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2001. Rental revenue was generated from leasing correctional and detention facilities to governmental agencies and other private operators. On March 16, 2001, we sold the Mountain View Correctional Facility, and on June 28, 2001, we sold the Pamlico Correctional Facility, two facilities that had been leased to governmental agencies. Therefore, no further rental revenue has been received for these facilities during the year ended December 31, 2002. For the year ended December 31, 2001, rental revenue for these facilities totaled $2.0 million.
General and administrative expense
For the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, general and administrative expenses totaled $36.9 million and $34.6 million, respectively. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees and other administrative expenses, and increased from 2001 primarily due to an increase in professional fees incurred in connection with the implementation of tax strategies to maximize opportunities created by a change in tax law in March 2002 and the aforementioned settlement with the IRS with respect to our predecessor’s 1997 federal income tax return. This increase was partially offset by a reduction in salaries and benefits, including incentive compensation.
Depreciation and amortization
For the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, depreciation and amortization expense totaled $51.9 million and $53.3 million, respectively. Amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2001 included approximately $7.6 million for goodwill and $1.2 million for amortization of workforce values, both of which were established in connection with acquisitions occurring in 2000. Workforce values were classified into goodwill, and goodwill was no longer subject to amortization effective January 1, 2002, in accordance with a new accounting pronouncement, as further discussed under “Recent Accounting Pronouncements” herein. Amortization expense during the year ended December 31, 2001 is also net of a reduction to amortization expense of $8.5 million for the amortization of a liability relating to contract values established in connection with the mergers completed in 2000. Due to certain of these liabilities becoming fully amortized during 2001, the reduction to amortization expense during the year ended December 31, 2002 was $2.1 million, resulting in a net increase in depreciation and amortization expense of $6.4 million from 2001 to 2002.
Interest expense, net
Interest expense, net, is reported net of interest income for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. Gross interest expense was $91.9 million and $133.7 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. Gross interest expense is based on outstanding convertible subordinated notes payable balances, borrowings under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, the 9.875% Senior Notes, the 12% Senior Notes, net settlements on an interest rate swap, and amortization of loan costs and unused facility fees. The decrease in gross interest expense from the prior year is primarily attributable to lower average outstanding indebtedness, the comprehensive refinancing completed on May 3, 2002, which decreased the interest rate spread on the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, the termination of the interest rate swap agreement, lower amortization of loan costs, and a lower interest rate environment. During 2001, we paid-down $189.0 million in total debt through a combination of $138.7 million in cash generated from asset sales and internally generated cash.
64
Gross interest income was $4.4 million and $7.5 million, respectively, for years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. Gross interest income is earned on cash collateral requirements, direct financing leases, notes receivable and investments of cash and cash equivalents. On October 3, 2001, we sold our Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility, which had been accounted for as a direct financing lease. Therefore, no interest income was received on this lease during 2002. For the year ended December 31, 2001, interest income for this lease totaled $0.9 million. Subsequent to the sale, we continue to manage the facility pursuant to a contract with the State of Nevada.
Change in fair value of derivative instruments
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” or SFAS 133, as amended, we have reflected in earnings the change in the estimated fair value of our interest rate swap agreement during the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. We estimated the fair value of the interest rate swap agreement using option-pricing models that value the potential for the interest rate swap agreement to become in-the-money through changes in interest rates during the remaining term of the agreement. A negative fair value represented the estimated amount we would have to pay to cancel the contract or transfer it to other parties.
Our swap agreement fixed LIBOR at 6.51% (prior to the applicable spread) on outstanding balances of at least $325.0 million through its expiration on December 31, 2002. In accordance with SFAS 133, we recorded a $2.2 million non-cash gain and an $11.1 million non-cash charge, respectively, for the change in fair value of the swap agreement for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. These amounts included $2.5 million for amortization of the transition adjustment, or the cumulative reduction in the fair value of the swap from its inception to the date we adopted SFAS 133 on January 1, 2001, during each year. We were no longer required to maintain the existing interest rate swap agreement due to the early extinguishment of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. During May 2002, we terminated the swap agreement prior to its expiration at a price of approximately $8.8 million. In accordance with SFAS 133, we continued to amortize the unamortized portion of the transition adjustment as a non-cash expense through December 31, 2002.
The New Senior Bank Credit Facility required us to hedge at least $192.0 million of the term loan portions of the facility within 60 days following the closing of the loan. In May 2002, we entered into an interest rate cap agreement to fulfill this requirement, capping LIBOR at 5.0% (prior to the applicable spread) on outstanding balances of $200.0 million through the expiration of the cap agreement on May 20, 2004. We paid a premium of $1.0 million to enter into the interest rate cap agreement. We expect to amortize this premium as the estimated fair values assigned to each of the hedged interest payments expire throughout the term of the cap agreement, amounting to $0.4 million in 2003 and $0.6 million in 2004. We have met the hedge accounting criteria under SFAS 133 and related interpretations in accounting for the interest rate cap agreement. As a result, the estimated fair value of the interest rate cap agreement of $36,000 as of December 31, 2002 was included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheet, and the change in the fair value of the interest rate cap agreement of $964,000 during the year ended December 31, 2002 was reported through other comprehensive income in the statement of stockholders’ equity. There can be no assurance that the interest rate cap agreement will be effective in mitigating our exposure to interest rate risk in the future, or that we will be able to continue to meet the hedge accounting criteria under SFAS 133.
On December 31, 2001, we issued approximately 2.8 million shares of common stock, along with a $26.1 million subordinated promissory note, in conjunction with the final settlement of the federal court portion of our stockholder litigation settlement. Under the terms of the promissory note, the
65
note and accrued interest became extinguished in January 2002 once the average closing price of the common stock exceeded a “termination price” equal to $16.30 per share for fifteen consecutive trading days following the issuance of such note. The terms of the note, which allowed the principal balance to fluctuate dependent on the trading price of our common stock, created a derivative instrument that was valued and accounted for under the provisions of SFAS 133. As a result of the extinguishment, we estimated the fair value of this derivative to approximate the face amount of the note, resulting in an asset being recorded during the fourth quarter of 2001. The derivative asset offsets the face amount of the note in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2001. Since the estimated fair value of the derivative asset was equal to the face amount of the note as of December 31, 2001, the extinguishment had no financial statement impact in 2002.
While the state court portion of the stockholder litigation settlement has also been settled, the payment of the settlement proceeds to the state court plaintiffs has not yet been completed; however, the settlement payment is expected to result in the issuance of approximately 0.3 million additional shares of common stock and a $2.9 million subordinated promissory note, which may also be extinguished if the average closing price of our common stock meets or exceeds $16.30 per share for fifteen consecutive trading days following the note’s issuance and prior to its maturity in 2009. Additionally, to the extent our common stock price does not meet the termination price, the note will be reduced by the amount that the shares of common stock issued to the plaintiffs appreciate in value in excess of $4.90 per share, based on the average trading price of the stock following the date of the note’s issuance and prior to the maturity of the note. If the remaining promissory note is issued under the current terms, in accordance with SFAS 133, as amended, we will reflect in earnings the change in the estimated fair value of the written option embedded in the promissory note from quarter to quarter. Since we have reflected the maximum obligation of the contingency associated with the state court portion of the stockholder litigation in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, the issuance of the note is currently expected to have a favorable impact on our consolidated financial position and results of operations initially; thereafter, the financial statement impact will fluctuate based on changes in our stock price. However, the impact cannot be determined until the promissory note is issued and an estimated fair value of the derivative included in the promissory note is determined. The note is currently expected to be issued during 2003.
Income tax benefit
We generated income tax benefits of approximately $63.3 million and $3.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The increase in the income tax benefit during the year ended December 31, 2002, primarily resulted from the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 which was signed into law on March 9, 2002. Among other changes, the tax law extends the net operating loss carryback period to five years from two years for net operating losses arising in tax years ending in 2001 and 2002, and allows use of net operating loss carrybacks and carryforwards to offset 100% of the alternative minimum taxable income. We experienced net operating losses during 2001 resulting primarily from the sale of assets at prices below the tax basis of such assets. Under terms of the new law, we utilized certain of our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997 and 1996. As a result of this tax law change in 2002, we reported an income tax benefit and claimed a refund of approximately $32.2 million during the first quarter of 2002, which was received in April 2002.
66
Due to the change in tax law in March 2002, the settlement created an opportunity to utilize any 2002 tax losses to claim a refund of a portion of the taxes paid. We experienced tax losses during 2002 primarily resulting from a cumulative effect of accounting change in depreciable lives for tax purposes. Under terms of the new law, we utilized our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997, which was increased substantially in connection with the settlement with the IRS. As a result of the tax law change in 2002, combined with the adoption of an accounting change in the depreciable lives of certain tax assets, we will be due an income tax refund of approximately $32.1 million.
The cumulative effect of accounting change in tax depreciation resulted in the establishment of a significant deferred tax liability for the tax effect of the book over tax basis of certain assets. The creation of such a deferred tax liability, and the significant improvement in our tax position since the original valuation allowance was established to reserve our deferred tax assets, resulted in the reduction of the valuation allowance, generating an income tax benefit of approximately $30.3 million during the fourth quarter of 2002, as we determined that substantially all of these deferred tax liabilities will be utilized to offset the reversal of deferred tax assets during the net operating loss carryforward periods. We continue to evaluate additional tax strategies to maximize the opportunities created by the new law, which could result in an additional income tax refund and income tax benefits, although we can provide no assurance that any such tax strategies will come to fruition.
As of December 31, 2002, our gross deferred tax assets totaled approximately $141.4 million. Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Realization of the future tax benefits related to deferred tax assets is dependent on many factors, including our ability to generate taxable income within the net operating loss carryforward period. Since the change in tax status in connection with the restructuring in 2000, and as of December 31, 2002, we have provided a valuation allowance to substantially reserve the deferred tax assets in accordance with SFAS 109. The valuation allowance is recognized based on the weight of available evidence indicating that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized. This evidence primarily consists of, but is not limited to, recurring operating losses for federal tax purposes.
Discontinued Operations
In late 2001 and early 2002, we were provided notice from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of its intention to terminate the management contracts at the 500-bed multi-security Ponce Young Adult Correctional Facility and the 1,000-bed medium-security Ponce Adult Correctional Facility, located
67
in Ponce, Puerto Rico, upon the expiration of the management contracts in February 2002. Attempts to negotiate continued operation of these facilities were unsuccessful. As a result, the transition period to transfer operation of the facilities to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ended May 4, 2002, at which time operation of the facilities was transferred to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. During 2002, these facilities generated total revenue of $7.9 million and operating expenses of $7.4 million, respectively. We recorded a non-cash charge as discontinued operations of approximately $1.8 million during the second quarter of 2002 for the write-off of the carrying value of assets associated with these terminated management contracts. During 2001, these facilities generated total revenue of $22.6 million and operating expenses of $19.3 million.
During the fourth quarter of 2001, we obtained an extension of our management contract with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the operation of the 1,000-bed Guayama Correctional Center located in Guayama, Puerto Rico, through December 2006. However, on May 7, 2002, we received notice from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico terminating our contract to manage this facility, which occurred on August 6, 2002. During 2002, this facility generated total revenue of $12.3 million and operating expenses of $9.9 million, respectively. During 2001, this facility generated total revenue of $21.1 million and operating expenses of $12.7 million.
On June 28, 2002, we sold our interest in a juvenile facility located in Dallas, Texas for approximately $4.3 million. The facility, which was designed to accommodate 900 at-risk juveniles, was leased to an independent third party operator pursuant to a lease expiring in 2008. Net proceeds from the sale were used for working capital purposes. This facility generated rental income of $0.4 million and $0.7 million during 2002 and 2001, respectively.
During 2002, depreciation and amortization, interest income, and income tax expense totaled $2.5 million, $0.6 million, and $0.6 million, respectively, for these facilities. During 2001, depreciation and amortization, interest income, and income tax expense totaled $0.9 million, $0.6 million, and $4.5 million, respectively, for these facilities.
Due to the sale of the juvenile facility, and due to the termination of the contracts to manage the three facilities in Puerto Rico, in accordance with SFAS 144, the operations of these facilities, net of taxes, were reported as discontinued operations during 2002 and 2001. The reclassification was not made for 2000, however, as the discontinued operations were not material in that year, and because the 2000 financial statements are not comparable to the 2001 and 2002 financial statements, as previously discussed herein.
Year Ended December 31, 2000
Management revenue
Management revenue consisted of revenue earned from the operation and management of adult and juvenile correctional and detention facilities for the year ended December 31, 2000, totaling $182.5 million, which, beginning as of October 1, 2000 and December 1, 2000, included management revenue previously earned by Operating Company and the Service Companies, respectively. Also included was the management revenue earned by the Service Companies from the operation and management of adult prisons and jails and juvenile detention facilities on a combined basis for the period September 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000, totaling $79.3 million.
68
Net rental revenue was $40.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2000 and was generated from leasing correctional and detention facilities to Operating Company, governmental agencies and other private operators. For the year ended December 31, 2000, we reserved $213.3 million of the $244.3 million of gross rental revenue due from Operating Company through September 30, 2000 due to the uncertainty regarding the collectibility of the payments. During September 2000, we forgave all unpaid rental payments due from Operating Company as of August 31, 2000 (totaling $190.8 million). The forgiveness did not impact our financial statements at that time as the amounts forgiven had been previously reserved. The remaining $22.5 million in unpaid rentals from Operating Company was fully reserved in September 2000. The leases with Operating Company were cancelled in connection with the merger acquisition of Operating Company.
Licensing fees from affiliates
Licensing fees from affiliates were $7.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2000. Licensing fees were earned as a result of a trade name use agreement between us and Operating Company, which granted Operating Company the right to use the name “Corrections Corporation of America” and derivatives thereof subject to specified terms and conditions therein. The licensing fee was based upon gross rental revenue of Operating Company, subject to a limitation based on our gross revenue. All licensing fees were collected from Operating Company.
Operating expenses
Operating expenses included the operating expenses of the Service Companies on a combined basis for the period September 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000, totaling $64.5 million. Also included were the operating expenses we incurred for the year ended December 31, 2000, totaling $152.8 million, which, beginning as of October 1, 2000 and December 1, 2000, included the operating expenses incurred by Operating Company and the Service Companies, respectively. Operating expenses consisted of those expenses incurred in the operation and management of prisons and other correctional facilities. Also included in operating expenses were our realized losses on foreign currency transactions of $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2000. These losses resulted from a detrimental fluctuation in the foreign currency exchange rate upon the collection of certain receivables denominated in British pounds. See “Unrealized foreign currency transaction loss” for further discussion of these receivables.
For the year ended December 31, 2000, general and administrative expense was $45.5 million. During the fourth quarter of 1999, we entered into a series of agreements concerning a proposed restructuring led by a group of institutional investors consisting of an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group LLC and affiliates of The Blackstone Group. In April 2000, the securities purchase agreement by and among the parties was terminated when Fortress/Blackstone elected not to match the terms of a subsequent proposal by Pacific Life Insurance Company. In June 2000, our securities purchase agreement with Pacific Life was mutually terminated by the parties after Pacific Life was unwilling to confirm that the June 2000 waiver and amendment to our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility satisfied the terms of the agreement with Pacific Life. In connection with the proposed restructuring transactions with Fortress/Blackstone and Pacific Life and the completion of the restructuring, including the Operating Company merger, we terminated the services of one of our financial advisors during the third quarter of 2000. For the year ended December 31, 2000, we accrued expenses of
69
approximately $24.3 million in connection with existing and potential litigation associated with the termination of the aforementioned agreements. All disputes with these parties have since been settled or otherwise resolved.
General and administrative expenses incurred by the Service Companies on a combined basis for the period September 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000 totaled $0.6 million. Additional general and administrative expenses incurred for the year ended December 31, 2000 totaled $20.6 million, which, beginning as of October 1, 2000 and December 1, 2000, included the general and administrative expenses incurred by Operating Company and the Service Companies, respectively. These additional general and administrative expenses consisted primarily of corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees and other administrative expenses. Effective October 1, 2000, as a result of the Operating Company merger, corporate management salaries and benefits also contained the former corporate employees of Operating Company. Also included in these additional general and administrative expenses were $2.0 million in severance payments to our former chief executive officer and secretary and $1.3 million in severance payments to various other company employees.
For the year ended December 31, 2000, depreciation and amortization expense was $59.8 million, including depreciation and amortization expense for the Service Companies from the operation and management of adult prisons and jails and juvenile detention facilities on a combined basis for the period September 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000, totaling $3.9 million.
License fees to Operating Company
Licensing fees to Operating Company were recognized under the terms of a trade name use agreement between Operating Company and each of the Service Companies, which were assumed as a result of the Operating Company merger. Under the terms of the trade name use agreement, the Service Companies were required to pay to Operating Company 2.0% of gross management revenue for the use of the Corrections Corporation of America name and derivatives thereof. The Service Companies incurred expenses of $0.5 million under this agreement for the month of September 2000. The October and November expenses incurred under this agreement were eliminated in combination, subsequent to the Operating Company merger. The trade name use agreement was cancelled upon the acquisitions of the Service Companies.
Administrative services fee to Operating Company
Operating Company and each of the Service Companies were parties to an administrative services agreement whereby Operating Company would charge a fee to manage and provide general and administrative services to each of the Service Companies. We assumed this agreement as a result of the Operating Company merger. The Service Companies recognized expenses of $0.9 million under this agreement for the month of September 2000. The October and November expenses incurred under this agreement were eliminated in combination, subsequent to the Operating Company merger. The administrative services agreement was cancelled upon the acquisitions of the Service Companies.
Write-off of amounts under lease arrangements
During 2000, we opened or expanded five facilities that were operated and leased by Operating Company prior to the Operating Company merger. Based on Operating Company’s financial condition, as well as the proposed merger with Operating Company and the proposed termination of
70
the Operating Company leases in connection therewith, we wrote-off the accrued tenant incentive fees due Operating Company in connection with opening or expanding the five facilities, totaling $11.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2000.
Impairment losses
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 121, “Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed Of,” or SFAS 121, required impairment losses to be recognized for long-lived assets used in operations when indications of impairment were present and the estimate of undiscounted future cash flows was not sufficient to recover asset carrying amounts.
Following the completion of the Operating Company merger and the acquisitions of PMSI and JJFMSI, during the fourth quarter of 2000, after considering our financial condition, our new management developed a strategic operating plan to improve our financial position, and developed revised projections to evaluate various potential transactions. Management also conducted strategic assessments and evaluated our assets for impairment. Further, management evaluated the utilization of existing facilities, projects under development, excess land parcels, and identified certain of these non-strategic assets for sale.
In accordance with SFAS 121, we estimated the undiscounted net cash flows for each of our properties and compared the sum of those undiscounted net cash flows to our investment in each property. Through these analyses, we determined that eight of our correctional and detention facilities and the long-lived assets of the transportation business had been impaired. For these properties, we reduced the carrying values of the underlying assets to their estimated fair values, as determined based on anticipated future cash flows discounted at rates commensurate with the risks involved. The resulting impairment loss totaled $420.5 million.
During the fourth quarter of 2000, as part of management’s strategic assessment, we committed to a plan of disposal for certain of our long-lived assets. In accordance with SFAS 121, we recorded losses on these assets based on the difference between the carrying value and the estimated net realizable value of the assets. We estimated the net realizable values of certain facilities and direct financing leases held for sale based on outstanding offers to purchase, appraisals, as well as utilizing various financial models, including discounted cash flow analyses, less estimated costs to sell each asset. The resulting impairment loss for these assets totaled $86.1 million.
Included in property and equipment were costs associated with the development of potential facilities. Based on our strategic assessment during the fourth quarter of 2000, we decided to abandon further development of these projects and expense any amounts previously capitalized. The resulting expense totaled $2.1 million.
During the third quarter of 2000, we determined either not to pursue further development or to reconsider the use of certain parcels of property in California, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Accordingly, we reduced the carrying values of the land to their estimated net realizable value, resulting in an impairment loss totaling $19.2 million.
Equity in loss and amortization of deferred gains, net
For the year ended December 31, 2000, equity in losses and amortization of deferred gains, net, was $11.6 million. We recognized equity in losses of PMSI and JJFMSI of approximately $12,000 and $870,000, respectively through August 31, 2000. In addition, we recognized equity in losses of
71
Operating Company of approximately $20.6 million. For 2000, the amortization of the deferred gain on the sales of contracts to PMSI and JJFMSI was approximately $6.5 million and $3.3 million, respectively. Deferred gains were generated as a result of the sale of certain management contracts to PMSI and JJFMSI. These deferred gains were to be amortized over a five-year period commencing January 1, 1999, which represented the average remaining lives of the contracts sold to PMSI and JJFMSI, plus any contractual renewal options. Effective with the acquisitions of PMSI and JJFMSI, the unamortized balances of the deferred gains on sales of contracts were applied in accordance with the purchase method of accounting.
Interest expense, net, was reported net of interest income and capitalized interest for the year ended December 31, 2000. Gross interest expense was $145.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2000. Gross interest expense was based on outstanding convertible subordinated notes payable balances, borrowings under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, the Operating Company revolving credit facility, the 12% Senior Notes, and amortization of loan costs and unused facility fees. Interest expense was reported net of capitalized interest on construction in progress of $8.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2000.
Gross interest income was $13.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2000. Gross interest income was earned on cash used to collateralize letters of credit for certain construction projects, direct financing leases and investments of cash and cash equivalents.
Other income
Other income for the year ended December 31, 2000 totaled $3.1 million. In September 2000, we received approximately $4.5 million in final settlement of amounts held in escrow related to the 1998 acquisition of the outstanding capital stock of U.S. Corrections Corporation. The $3.1 million represented the proceeds, net of miscellaneous receivables, arising from claims against the escrow.
Loss on disposals of assets
We incurred a loss on sales of assets during 2000 of approximately $1.7 million. During the fourth quarter of 2000, JJFMSI sold its 50% interest in CCA Australia resulting in a $3.6 million loss. This loss was offset by a gain of $0.6 million resulting from the sale of a correctional facility located in Kentucky, a gain of $1.6 million on the sale of JJFMSI’s 50% interest in U.K. Detention Services Limited and a loss of $0.3 million resulting from the abandonment of a project under development.
Unrealized foreign currency transaction loss
In connection with the construction and development of the Agecroft facility, located in Salford, England, we extended a working capital loan to the operator of the facility. This loan, along with various other short-term receivables, are denominated in British pounds; consequently, we adjust these receivables to the current exchange rate at each balance sheet date, and recognize the currency gain or loss in current period earnings. Due to negative fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates between the British pound and the U.S. dollar, we recognized net unrealized foreign currency transaction losses of $8.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2000.
72
Stockholder litigation settlement
In February 2001, we received court approval of the revised terms of the definitive settlement agreements regarding the settlement of all outstanding stockholder litigation against us and certain of our existing and former directors and executive officers. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, we agreed to issue to the plaintiffs an aggregate of 4.7 million shares of common stock and a subordinated promissory note in the aggregate principal amount of $29.0 million.
As of December 31, 2000, we had accrued the estimated obligation of the contingency associated with the stockholder litigation, amounting to approximately $75.4 million.
Income taxes
In connection with the corporate restructuring in 2000, on September 12, 2000, our stockholders approved an amendment to our charter to remove provisions that required us to elect to qualify and be taxed as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax purposes effective January 1, 2000. As a result of the amendment to our charter, we have been taxed as a taxable subchapter C corporation beginning with our taxable year ended December 31, 2000. In accordance with the provisions of SFAS 109, we were required to establish current and deferred tax assets and liabilities in our financial statements in the period in which a change of tax status occurred. As such, our benefit for income taxes for the year ended December 31, 2000 included the provision associated with establishing the deferred tax assets and liabilities in connection with the change in tax status during the third quarter of 2000, net of a valuation allowance applied to certain deferred tax assets.
RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
Effective January 1, 2002, we adopted SFAS 142, which establishes new accounting and reporting requirements for goodwill and other intangible assets. Under SFAS 142, all goodwill amortization ceased effective January 1, 2002 and goodwill attributable to each of our reporting units was tested for impairment by comparing the fair value of each reporting unit with its carrying value. Fair value was determined using a collaboration of various common valuation techniques, including market multiples, discounted cash flows, and replacement cost methods. These impairment tests are required to be performed at adoption of SFAS 142 and at least annually thereafter. On an ongoing basis (absent any impairment indicators), we expect to perform our impairment tests during our fourth quarter, in connection with our annual budgeting process.
Based on our initial impairment tests, we recognized an impairment of $80.3 million to write-off the carrying value of goodwill associated with our locations included in the owned and managed facilities during the first quarter of 2002. This goodwill was established in connection with the acquisition of Operating Company. The remaining goodwill, which is associated with the facilities we manage but do not own, was deemed to be not impaired, and remains recorded on the balance sheet. This remaining goodwill was established in connection with the acquisitions of PMSI and JJFMSI. The implied fair value of goodwill of the locations included in the owned and managed reporting segment did not support the carrying value of any goodwill, primarily due to the highly leveraged capital structure. No impairment of goodwill allocated to the locations included in the managed-only reporting segment was deemed necessary, primarily because of the relatively minimal capital expenditure requirements, and therefore indebtedness, in connection with obtaining such management contracts. Under SFAS 142, the impairment recognized at adoption of the new rules was reflected as a cumulative effect of accounting change in our statement of operations for the first
73
quarter of 2002. Impairment adjustments recognized after adoption, if any, are required to be recognized as operating expenses.
In August 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued SFAS 144. SFAS 144 addresses financial accounting and reporting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets and supersedes SFAS 121, and the accounting and reporting provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 30, “Reporting the Results of Operations — Reporting the Effects of Disposal of a Segment of a Business, and Extraordinary, Unusual, and Infrequently Occurring Events and Transactions,” or APB 30, for the disposal of a segment of a business (as previously defined in that Opinion). SFAS 144 retains the fundamental provisions of SFAS 121 for recognizing and measuring impairment losses on long-lived assets held for use and long-lived assets to be disposed of by sale, while also resolving significant implementation issues associated with SFAS 121. Unlike SFAS 121, however, an impairment assessment under SFAS 144 will never result in a write-down of goodwill. Rather, goodwill is evaluated for impairment under SFAS 142. SFAS 144 also broadens the scope of defining discontinued operations. The provisions of SFAS 144 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Under the provisions of SFAS 144, the identification and classification of a facility as held for sale, or the termination of any of our management contracts for a managed-only facility, by expiration or otherwise, would result in the classification of the operating results of such facility, net of taxes, as a discontinued operation, so long as the financial results can be clearly identified, and so long as we do not have any significant continuing involvement in the operations of the component after the disposal or termination transaction. We adopted SFAS 144 on January 1, 2002.
Due to the sale of our interest in a juvenile facility during the second quarter of 2002, as well as the termination of our management contracts during the second quarter of 2002 for the Ponce Young Adult Correctional Facility and the Ponce Adult Correctional Facility and the termination of our management contract during the third quarter of 2002 for the Guayama Correctional Center, in accordance with SFAS 144, the operations of these facilities, net of taxes, have been reported as discontinued operations on our statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. The reclassification was not made to the statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2000, as the discontinued operations are not material in that year, and because the 2000 financial statements are not comparable to the 2001 and 2002 financial statements, as previously discussed under “Results of Operations” herein.
In April 2002, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 145, “Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections,” or SFAS 145. SFAS 145 rescinds Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, “Reporting Gains and Losses from Extinguishment of Debt,” which required all gains and losses from extinguishment of debt to be aggregated and, if material, classified as an extraordinary item, net of the related income tax effect. As a result, the criteria in APB 30 will now be used to classify those gains and losses. SFAS 145 amends Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 13, “Accounting for Leases,” to require that certain lease modifications that have economic effects similar to sale-leaseback transactions be accounted for in the same manner as sale-leaseback transactions. SFAS 145 also makes technical corrections to existing pronouncements. While those corrections are not substantive in nature, in some instances, they may change accounting practice. The provisions of SFAS 145 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after May 15, 2002, and interim periods within those fiscal years.
During the second quarter of 2002, prior to the required adoption of SFAS 145, we reported an extraordinary charge of approximately $36.7 million associated with the refinancing of our senior debt in May 2002. Under SFAS 145, any gain or loss on extinguishment of debt that was classified
74
as an extraordinary item in prior periods that does not meet the criteria in APB 30 for classification as an extraordinary item shall be reclassified. We plan to adopt SFAS 145 on January 1, 2003. Accordingly, in financial reporting periods after adoption, the extraordinary charge reported in the second quarter of 2002 will be reclassified.
In June 2002, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 146, “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities,” or SFAS 146. SFAS 146 addresses financial accounting and reporting for costs associated with exit or disposal activities and nullifies Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 94-3, “Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring),” or Issue 94-3. SFAS 146 requires that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred. Under Issue 94-3, a liability for an exit cost as generally defined in Issue 94-3 was recognized at the date of an entity’s commitment to an exit plan. The provisions of SFAS 146 are effective for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002, with early application encouraged. Adoption of SFAS 146 is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.
In November 2002, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 45, “Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others,” or FIN 45. FIN 45 requires that the guarantor recognize, at the inception of certain guarantees, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing such guarantees. FIN 45 also requires additional disclosure requirements about the guarantor’s obligations under certain guarantees that it has issued. The initial recognition and measurement provisions of this interpretation are applicable on a prospective basis to guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002 and the disclosure requirements are effective for financial statement periods ending after December 15, 2002. Through December 31, 2002, adoption of FIN 45 has not had a material effect on our financial statements. The future effect of FIN 45 on our financial statements will depend on whether we enter into new or modify existing guarantees.
On December 31, 2002, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation — Transition and Disclosure,” or SFAS 148. SFAS 148 amends FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” or SFAS 123, to provide alternative methods of transition to SFAS 123’s fair value method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. SFAS 148 also amends the disclosure provisions of SFAS 123 and Accounting Principles Board, or APB, Opinion No. 28, “Interim Financial Reporting,” to require disclosure in the summary of significant accounting policies of the effects of an entity’s accounting policy with respect to stock-based employee compensation on reported net income and earnings per share in annual and interim financial statements. While SFAS 148 does not amend SFAS 123 to require companies to account for employee stock options using the fair value method, the disclosure provisions of SFAS 148 are applicable to all companies with stock-based employee compensation, regardless of whether they account for that compensation using the fair value method of SFAS 123 or the intrinsic value method of APB No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.”
INFLATION
We do not believe that inflation has had or will have a direct adverse effect on our operations. Many of our management contracts include provisions for inflationary indexing, which mitigates an adverse impact of inflation on net income. However, a substantial increase in personnel costs, workers’ compensation or food and medical expenses could have an adverse impact on our results of operations in the future to the extent that these expenses increase at a faster pace than the per diem or fixed rates we receive for our management services.
75
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.
Our primary market risk exposure is to changes in U.S. interest rates and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the British pound. We are exposed to market risk related to our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and certain other indebtedness. The interest on the New Senior Bank Credit Facility and such other indebtedness is subject to fluctuations in the market. We were also exposed to market risk related to our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility prior to its refinancing in May 2002. If the interest rate for our outstanding indebtedness under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility and the New Senior Bank Credit Facility was 100 basis points higher or lower during the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, our interest expense, net of amounts capitalized, would have been increased or decreased by approximately $5.9 million, $5.5 million and $6.0 million, respectively, including the effects of our interest rate swap arrangements discussed below.
As of December 31, 2002, we had outstanding $250.0 million of senior notes with a fixed interest rate of 9.875%, $10.8 million of senior notes with a fixed interest rate of 12%, $40.0 million of convertible subordinated notes with a fixed interest rate of 10%, $30.0 million of convertible subordinated notes with a fixed interest rate of 8%, $107.5 million of series A preferred stock with a fixed dividend rate of 8% and $107.8 million of series B preferred stock with a fixed dividend rate of 12%. Because the interest and dividend rates with respect to these instruments are fixed, a hypothetical 10% increase or decrease in market interest rates would not have a material impact on our financial statements.
The Old Senior Bank Credit Facility required us to hedge $325.0 million of our floating rate debt. We entered into certain swap arrangements fixing LIBOR at 6.51% (prior to the applicable spread) on outstanding balances of at least $325.0 million through December 31, 2002. The difference between the floating rate and the swap rate was recognized in interest expense each period. Effective January 1, 2001, the change in the fair value of the swap agreement from period to period was reflected in earnings and was largely due to changing interest rates and the reduction in the remaining life of the swap during the reporting period.
In May 2002, we terminated the interest rate swap agreement at a price of approximately $8.8 million. In addition, in order to satisfy a requirement of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility we purchased an interest rate cap agreement, capping LIBOR at 5.0% (prior to the applicable spread) on outstanding balances of $200.0 million through the expiration of the cap agreement on May 20, 2004, for a price of $1.0 million.
We may, from time to time, invest our cash in a variety of short-term financial instruments. These instruments generally consist of highly liquid investments with original maturities at the date of purchase between three and twelve months. While these investments are subject to interest rate risk and will decline in value if market interest rates increase, a hypothetical 10% increase or decrease in market interest rates would not materially affect the value of these investments.
Our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate risk relates to our construction, development and leasing of our Agecroft facility located in Salford, England, which was sold in April 2001. We extended a working capital loan to the operator of this facility. Such payments to us are denominated in British pounds rather than the U.S. dollar. As a result, we bear the risk of fluctuations in the relative exchange rate between the British pound and the U.S. dollar. At December 31, 2002, the receivables due us and denominated in British pounds totaled 4.3 million British pounds. A
76
hypothetical 10% increase in the relative exchange rate would have resulted in an increase of $0.7 million in the value of these receivables and a corresponding unrealized foreign currency transaction gain, and a hypothetical 10% decrease in the relative exchange rate would have resulted in a decrease of $0.7 million in the value of these receivables and a corresponding unrealized foreign currency transaction loss.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.
The financial statements and supplementary data required by Regulation S-X are included in this annual report on Form 10-K commencing on page F-1.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
On May 14, 2002, we dismissed our independent public accountant, Arthur Andersen LLP, and engaged the services of Ernst & Young LLP, as our new independent auditors for our fiscal year ending December 31, 2002. The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and our Board of Directors authorized the dismissal of Arthur Andersen and the immediate engagement of Ernst & Young.
Arthur Andersen’s reports on our consolidated financial statements for each of the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 did not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles, except to the extent that Arthur Andersen’s report for each of the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 contained explanatory statements regarding our pending debt maturities under the terms of our then existing senior bank credit facility.
During the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the subsequent interim period through the date of Arthur Andersen’s dismissal, there were no disagreements with Arthur Andersen on any matters of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure which disagreement, if not resolved to Arthur Andersen’s satisfaction, would have caused it to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement in connection with its report on our consolidated financial statements for such years; and there were no reportable events as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.
We provided Arthur Andersen with a copy of the foregoing disclosures, and requested that Arthur Andersen furnish us with a letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether or not Arthur Andersen agreed with such statements. Arthur Andersen’s letter, dated May 15, 2002, which is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 16.1 to our Form 8-K dated May 15, 2002, affirmed its agreement with such statements.
During the two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the subsequent interim period through May 13, 2002, we did not consult with Ernst & Young regarding any of the matters or events set forth in Item 304(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of Regulation S-K. Notwithstanding the foregoing, during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and during the first quarter of 2001, Ernst & Young and/or an affiliate thereof provided us with certain management consulting services as required under the terms of our then existing senior bank credit facility. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2001 and to May 13, 2002, an affiliate of Ernst & Young provided a subsidiary of ours with certain management consulting services.
77
PART III.
ITEM 10. OUR DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.
Set forth below is certain information regarding our directors and executive officers. Additional information required by this Item 10 is hereby incorporated by reference from the information under the headings “Proposal I-Election of Directors-Directors Standing for Election,”“ — Information Concerning Executive Officers Who Are Not Directors” and “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management — Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in our definitive proxy statement for the 2003 annual meeting of stockholders, which will be filed with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A no later than April 30, 2003.
As a part of our comprehensive Corporate Compliance Manual, our Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applicable to the members of our Board of Directors and our officers, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The Code of Ethics and Business Conduct included in our Corporate Compliance Manual is posted on our website at www.correctionscorp.com.
Information Concerning Our Executive Officers
The following sets forth certain information regarding our executive officers (ages are given as of the date of this annual report).
John D. Ferguson, age 57, currently serves as a director of the Company and as our Chief Executive Officer, President and Vice-Chairman of the board of directors of the Company (the “Board”), positions he has held since August 2000. Mr. Ferguson also serves as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Ferguson served as the Commissioner of Finance for the State of Tennessee from June 1996 to July 2000. As Commissioner of Finance, Mr. Ferguson served as the State’s chief corporate officer and was responsible for directing the preparation and implementation of the State’s $17.2 billion budget. From 1990 to February 1995, Mr. Ferguson served as the chairman and chief executive officer of Community Bancshares, Inc., the parent corporation of The Community Bank of Germantown (Tennessee). Mr. Ferguson is a former member of the State of Tennessee Board of Education and served on the Governor’s Commission on Practical Government for the State of Tennessee. Mr. Ferguson graduated from Mississippi State University in 1967.
Kenneth A. Bouldin, age 60, currently serves as an Executive Vice President and as the Chief Development Officer of the Company. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Bouldin was the President of KAB Associates, Inc., a management consulting company. Mr. Bouldin established Econotech, an information technology staffing firm, in 1995, which achieved revenues of $15 million per annum and was sold in 2000. Mr. Bouldin served as vice president of Comdisco, Inc. and manager of its Federal Marketing Group from 1993 to 1995. Mr. Bouldin also served as president and chief operating officer of the Computer Dealers and Lessors Association, which he had previously helped form and served as chairman of its board of directors. Mr. Bouldin also co-founded Econocom, a business that sold and leased new and used data processing equipment. Mr. Bouldin has also had a lengthy military career, rising to the rank of Major General and serving as a commanding general of the 125th Army Reserve Command during Desert Storm. Mr. Bouldin graduated cum laude from the University of Tennessee with a B.S. degree in electrical engineering.
Irving E. Lingo, Jr., age 51, currently serves as an Executive Vice President and as the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of the Company, positions he has held since December
78
2000. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Lingo was chief financial officer for Bradley Real Estate, Inc., a NYSE-listed REIT headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, where he was responsible for financial accounting and reporting, including Securities and Exchange Commission compliance, capital markets and mergers and acquisitions from September 1995 to September 2000. Prior to joining Bradley Real Estate, Inc., Mr. Lingo held positions as chief financial officer, chief operating officer and vice president, finance for several public and private companies, including Lingerfelt Industrial Properties, CSX Corporation and Goodman Segar Hogan, Inc. In addition, he was previously an audit manager at Ernst & Young LLP. Mr. Lingo graduated summa cum laude from Old Dominion University where he received a B.S. degree in Business Administration.
G. A. Puryear IV, age 34, currently serves as an Executive Vice President and as the General Counsel and Secretary of the Company, positions he has held since January 2001. Prior to joining the Company, from 1998 to 2001 Mr. Puryear served as legislative director and counsel for U.S. Senator Bill Frist, where he worked on legislation and other policy matters. During that time, he also took a leave of absence to serve as a debate advisor to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. In addition, from 1997 to 1998, Mr. Puryear was counsel to the special investigation of campaign finance abuses during the 1996 elections conducted by the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which was chaired by U.S. Senator Fred Thompson. Prior to his career on Capitol Hill, Mr. Puryear practiced law with Farris, Warfield & Kanaday, PLC (now Stites & Harbison, PLLC) in Nashville in the commercial litigation section. Mr. Puryear graduated from Emory University with a major in Political Science in 1990 and received his J.D. from the University of North Carolina in 1993.
James A. Seaton, age 53, currently serves as an Executive Vice President and as the Chief Operating Officer of the Company, positions he has held since July 2002. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Seaton managed his own consulting/contracting CEO firm, serving as Interim Presidents for AMCAS (a subsidiary of Questcom, Inc.), Treats and Eats, and APT Image. From 1998 to 2000, Mr. Seaton served as President-School Services Division of Sodexho Marriott Services, based in Maryland, where he was responsible for management and growth of the $420 million division and 8,500 associates. From 1972 to 1998, he served in various leadership roles for Marriott International in Washington, D.C., including Senior Vice President-Corporate Services. He is a graduate of New Mexico State University.
David M. Garfinkle, age 35, currently serves as the Vice President, Finance of the Company, a position he has held since February 2001. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Garfinkle was the vice president and controller for Bradley Real Estate, Inc. since 1996. Prior to joining Bradley Real Estate, Inc., Mr. Garfinkle was a senior audit manager at KPMG Peat Marwick LLP. Mr. Garfinkle graduated summa cum laude from St. Bonaventure University in 1989 with a B.B.A. degree.
Todd J. Mullenger, age 44, currently serves as the Vice President, Treasurer of the Company, a position he has held since January 2001. Mr. Mullenger served as the Vice President, Finance of the Company from August 2000 to January 2001. Mr. Mullenger served as vice president, finance of Operating Company from January 1, 1999 through the completion of the Company’s restructuring. Mr. Mullenger also previously served as the vice president of Old CCA from August 1998 until the completion of its merger with the Company. From September 1996 to July 1998, Mr. Mullenger served as assistant vice president-finance of Service Merchandise Company, Inc., a former publicly traded retailer headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Prior to September 1996, Mr. Mullenger served as an audit manager with Arthur Andersen LLP. Mr. Mullenger graduated from the University of Iowa in 1981 with a B.B.A. degree. He also received an M.B.A. from Middle Tennessee State University.
79
Jimmy Turner, age 43, currently serves as the Vice President, Operations of the Company, a position he has held since the completion of the Company’s restructuring. From August 1999 through the completion of the Company’s restructuring, Mr. Turner served as vice president of operations of Operating Company. A 22-year corrections professional, Mr. Turner served as warden of the Company’s Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio from March 1998 to his promotion to vice president of Operating Company in 1999. Mr. Turner joined Old CCA in 1989 as assistant warden of the Company’s Silverdale Facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He also served as assistant warden at the Company’s Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana and the Company’s Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility in Nashville, Tennessee, where he ultimately was promoted to warden. Mr. Turner also served as a senior divisional director of Old CCA. Mr. Turner attended Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas from 1980 to 1982.
Information Concerning Our Board of Directors
The following sets forth certain information regarding each member of our board of directors, with the exception of John D. Ferguson (ages are given as of the date of this annual report).
William F. Andrews, age 71, currently serves as a director of the Company and as the Chairman of our Board, positions he has held since August 2000. Mr. Andrews also serves as a member of the Executive Committee of the Board. Mr. Andrews has been a principal of Kohlberg & Company, a private equity firm specializing in middle market investing, since 1995 and is currently the chairman of the board of directors of Katy Industries, Inc., a publicly-traded manufacturer and distributor of consumer electric corded products and maintenance cleaning products, among other product lines. Mr. Andrews served as a director of JJFMSI from its formation in 1998 to July 2000 and served as a member of the board of directors of Old CCA from 1986 to May 1998. Mr. Andrews has served as the chairman of Scovill Fasteners Inc., a manufacturing company, from 1995 to 2001 and has served as the chairman of Northwestern Steel and Wire Company, a manufacturing company, from 1998 to 2001. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Andrews served as chairman of Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. and has also served on the board of directors of Navistar International Corporation. Mr. Andrews also currently serves as a director of Black Box Corporation and Trex Corporation. Mr. Andrews is a graduate of the University of Maryland and received his M.B.A. from Seton Hall University.
Lucius E. Burch, III, age 61, currently serves as a director of the Company and as a member of the Audit Committee of the Board, positions he has held since December 2000. Mr. Burch also serves as a member of the Executive Committee of the Board. Mr. Burch currently serves as chairman and chief executive officer of Burch Investment Group, a private venture capital firm located in Nashville, Tennessee, formerly known as Massey Burch Investment Group, Inc., a position he has held since October 1989. Mr. Burch served as a member of the board of directors of Old CCA from May 1998 through the completion of its merger with the Company, and as the chairman of the board of directors of Operating Company from January 1999 through the completion of the Company’s restructuring. Mr. Burch has served on a number of public and private boards of directors, including seven NYSE companies. Mr. Burch graduated from the University of North Carolina where he received a B.A. degree in 1963.
John D. Correnti, age 55, currently serves as a director of the Company and as a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board, positions he has held since December 2000. From December 1999 through December 2002, Mr. Correnti served as the chairman of the board of directors and as the chief executive officer of Birmingham Steel Corporation, a publicly-traded steel manufacturing company acquired by Nucor Corporation, a publicly-traded mini-mill manufacturer of steel products, in December 2002. Mr. Correnti served as the president, chief executive officer and
80
vice chairman of Nucor Corporation from 1996 to 1999 and as its president and chief operating officer from 1991 to 1996. Mr. Correnti also serves as a director of Navistar International Corporation. Mr. Correnti holds a B.S. degree in civil engineering from Clarkson University.
John R. Horne, age 65, currently serves as a director of the Company, a position he has held since December 2001. Since February 2002, Mr. Horne has also served as a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board. Mr. Horne also currently serves as chairman of Navistar International Corporation, a publicly-traded truck and engine manufacturer, a position he has held since April 1996. From March 1995 to February 2003, Mr. Horne also served as Navistar’s president and chief executive officer after having served as the company’s chief operating officer for more than four years. Mr. Horne also currently serves on the board of directors of Intermet Corporation, the National Association of Manufacturers and Junior Achievement of Chicago, as well as the board of trustees of Manufacturer’s Alliance/MAPI. Mr. Horne received his M.S. degree in mechanical engineering from Bradley University in 1964, a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University in 1960, which also awarded him an Honorary Doctor of Engineering degree on May 17, 1998, and is a graduate of the management program at Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.
C. Michael Jacobi, age 61, currently serves as a director of the Company and as the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Board, positions he has held since December 2000. Mr. Jacobi is currently the president, chief executive officer and board member of Katy Industries, Inc., a publicly-traded manufacturer and distributor of consumer electric corded products and maintenance cleaning products, among other product lines. Mr. Jacobi currently serves as a member of the board of directors of Webster Financial Corporation, a publicly-held bank headquartered in Waterbury, Connecticut, and as a member of the board of directors of Innotek, Inc., a privately-held company located in Garrett, Indiana engaged in the manufacture of electronic pet containment systems. Mr. Jacobi served as the president and chief executive officer of Timex Corporation from December 1993 to August 1999 and as a member of its board of directors from 1992 to 2000. Mr. Jacobi is a certified public accountant and holds a B.S. degree from the University of Connecticut.
Thurgood Marshall, Jr., age 46, currently serves as a director of the Company, a position he has held since December 2002. Mr. Marshall also serves as a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board. Mr. Marshall is a partner in the law firm of Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman in Washington, D.C. Previously, he has held political appointments in several branches of the federal government, including Cabinet Secretary to President Clinton, and Director of Legislative Affairs and Deputy Counsel to Vice President Al Gore. In his role under President Clinton, Mr. Marshall was the chief liaison between the President and the agencies of the Executive Branch. In his current legal career, he practices in the firm’s Government Affairs Group and represents clients appearing before federal agencies and Congress. Mr. Marshall, the son of the historic Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, earned a B.A. in 1978 and a J.D. in 1981 from the University of Virginia, after which he clerked for the United States District Judge Barrington D. Parker. He chairs the American Bar Association Election Law Committee, and serves as a board member of the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and the Supreme Court Historical Society. He also serves as the Vice Chair of the Ethics Oversight Committee of the United States Olympic Committee.
Charles L. Overby, age 56, currently serves as a director of the Company, a position he has held since December 2001. Since February 2002, Mr. Overby has served as a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. Mr. Overby has also served as the Chairman of the Board’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee since the committee’s establishment in December 2002. Mr. Overby also serves as chairman and chief executive officer of The Freedom Forum, an independent,
81
non-partisan foundation dedicated to the First Amendment and media issues, and two of the foundation’s affiliate organizations: the Newseum and The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center. Mr. Overby is a former Pulitzer Prize-winning editor in Jackson, Mississippi. He worked for 16 years as reporter, editor and corporate executive for Gannett Company, the nation’s largest newspaper company. He was vice president for news and communications for Gannett and served on the management committees of Gannett and USA TODAY. Mr. Overby serves on the board of the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Board of Regents of Baylor University, and the board of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Foundation. He is a member of the foundation board of the University of Mississippi, his alma mater.
John R. Prann, Jr., age 52, currently serves as a director of the Company and as a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board, positions he has held since December 2000. Mr. Prann served as the president and chief executive officer of Katy Industries, Inc. from 1993 to February 2001. From 1991 to 1995, Mr. Prann served as the president and chief executive officer of CRL, Inc., an equity and real estate investment company that held a 25% interest in Katy Industries, Inc. A former partner with the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche, Mr. Prann graduated from the University of California, Riverside in 1974 and obtained his M.B.A. from the University of Chicago in 1979.
Joseph V. Russell, age 62, currently serves as a director of the Company, a position he has held since the Company’s merger with Old Prison Realty and Old CCA. Mr. Russell also serves as the Chairman of the Compensation Committee of the Board, as a member of the Executive Committee and of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board. Prior to the Company’s merger with Old Prison Realty, Mr. Russell served as an independent trustee of Old Prison Realty. Mr. Russell is the president and chief financial officer of Elan-Polo, Inc., a Nashville-based, privately-held, world-wide producer and distributor of footwear. Mr. Russell is also the vice president of, and a principal in, RCR Building Corporation, a Nashville-based, privately-held builder and developer of commercial and industrial properties. He also serves on the boards of directors of Community Care Corp., the Footwear Distributors of America Association and US Auto Insurance Company. Mr. Russell graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1963 with a B.S. in Finance.
Henri L. Wedell, age 61, currently serves as a director of the Company and as a member of the Audit Committee of the Board, positions he has held since December 2000. Mr. Wedell currently is a private investor in Memphis, Tennessee. Prior to Mr. Wedell’s retirement in 1999, he served as the senior vice president of sales of The Robinson Humphrey Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Smith-Barney, Inc., an investment banking company with which he was employed for over 24 years. From 1990 to 1996, he served as a member of the board of directors of Community Bancshares, Inc., the parent corporation to The Community Bank of Germantown (Tennessee). Mr. Wedell graduated from the Tulane University Business School, where he received a B.B.A. in 1963.
Information Concerning Our Audit Committee
Consistent with Section 10A(i)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as added by Section 202 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we are responsible for listing the non-audit services approved by our Audit Committee to be performed by Ernst & Young LLP, our external auditor. The non-audit services, as defined by the SEC, approved by the Audit Committee in the fourth quarter of 2002 are listed below. Each of the services has been approved in accordance with a pre-approval from the Audit Committee or the Committee’s Chairman pursuant to delegated authority by the Committee.
82
During the fourth quarter of 2002, the Audit Committee approved new or recurring engagements of Ernst & Young for the following non-audit services: (1) business risk assessment; (2) information technology security review; (3) tax compliance; and (4) tax consultations. In addition to these non-audit services, the Audit Committee approved the following audit and audit-related services, as defined by the SEC: (1) assistance with reviewing reports filed with the SEC; (2) a re-audit of our 2001 financial statements; and (3) the audit of our 2002 financial statements.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
The information required by this Item 11 will appear in, and is hereby incorporated by reference from, the information under the headings “Proposal I-Election of Directors,” “Corporate Governance-Director Compensation,” “Executive Compensation,” and “Performance Graph” in our definitive proxy statement for the 2003 annual meeting of stockholders, which will be filed with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A no later than April 30, 2003.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.
The information required by this Item 12 will appear in, and is hereby incorporated by reference from, the information under the heading “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management-Ownership of Common Stock” and “-Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans” in our definitive proxy statement for the 2003 annual meeting of stockholders, which will be filed with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A no later than April 30, 2003.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS.
The information required by this Item 13 will appear in, and is hereby incorporated by reference from, the information under the heading “Corporate Governance-Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” in our definitive proxy statement for the 2003 annual meeting of stockholders, which will be filed with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A no later than April 30, 2003.
ITEM 14. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.
As of March 18, 2003, an evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the participation of our senior management, including the CEO and CFO, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rules 13a-14(c) and 15d-14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Based on that evaluation, our senior management, including the CEO and CFO, concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective in causing material information relating to us (including our consolidated subsidiaries) to be recorded, processed, summarized and reported by management on a timely basis and to ensure that the quality and timeliness of our public disclosures complies with SEC disclosure obligations. There have been no significant changes in our internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to March 18, 2003.
83
PART IV.
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K.
84
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Annual Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
85
CERTIFICATIONS
CERTIFICATION OF THE CEO PURSUANT TOSECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, John D. Ferguson, certify that:
86
87
CERTIFICATION OF THE CFO PURSUANT TOSECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Irving E. Lingo, Jr., certify that:
88
89
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibits marked with an * are filed herewith. Other exhibits have previously been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) and are incorporated herein by reference.
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Combined and Consolidated Financial Statements of Corrections Corporation of America and Subsidiaries
F-1
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders ofCorrections Corporation of America:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Corrections Corporation of America and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. The combined and consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders’ equity of Corrections Corporation of America for the year ended December 31, 2000 were audited by other auditors, who have ceased operations. Those auditors expressed an unqualified opinion, including an emphasis-of-matter paragraph referring to the Company’s near-term debt maturities and management’s plans to address the Company’s liquidity concerns and an explanatory paragraph that disclosed the change in the Company’s method of accounting for derivative financial instruments, on those financial statements in their report dated February 11, 2002, except with respect to the matter discussed in the last paragraph of Note 16 of those financial statements, as to which the date was March 9, 2002.
We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the 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. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As discussed in Note 14 to the financial statements, during the second quarter of 2002, the Company completed a comprehensive refinancing of its debt which originally was maturing in December 2002. This successful refinancing significantly reduced the concerns that existed at December 31, 2001 regarding the Company’s ability to generate or obtain sufficient working capital resources to satisfy its maturing debt obligations and address its liquidity issues. Accordingly, we have not included an explanatory paragraph in our report regarding the Company’s near-term debt maturities and liquidity concerns that existed at December 31, 2001.
In our opinion, the 2002 and 2001 consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Corrections Corporation of America and Subsidiaries at December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
As discussed in Notes 4 and 16 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended, effective January 1, 2001. As discussed in Notes 4 and 17 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” effective January 1, 2002.
As discussed above, the combined and consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders’ equity of Corrections Corporation of America for the year ended December 31, 2000 were audited by other
F-2
auditors, who have ceased operations. As described in Note 4, these financial statements have been revised to include the transitional disclosures required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” which was adopted by the Company as of January 1, 2002. Our audit procedures with respect to the disclosures in Note 4 with respect to 2000 included (a) agreeing the previously reported net income to the previously issued financial statements and the adjustments to reported net income representing amortization expense (including any related tax effects) recognized in those periods related to goodwill to the Company’s underlying records obtained from management, and (b) testing the mathematical accuracy of the reconciliation of adjusted net income to reported net income and the related earnings-per-share amounts. In our opinion, the disclosures for 2000 in Note 4 are appropriate. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2000 financial statements of the Company other than with respect to such disclosures and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the 2000 financial statements taken as a whole.
/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Nashville, TennesseeFebruary 7, 2003 (except with respect to the matters discussed in the last two paragraphs of Note 24, as to which the date is March 22, 2003)
F-3
The below report is a copy of the report previously issued by Arthur Andersen LLP in conjunction with its audits of Corrections Corporation of America and Subsidiaries as of, and for the three-year period ended, December 31, 2001. Note references in this report refer to the financial statements issued by Corrections Corporation of America as of, and for the three-year period ended December 31, 2001. A copy of this report has been provided as required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Interpretation of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 58, Reports on Audited Financial Statements, and guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to the indictment of Arthur Andersen LLP in March 2002. During 2002, Arthur Andersen LLP substantially ceased operations, including providing auditing and accounting services to public companies, and, as such, has not reissued this report. Additionally, Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the use of this audit report. Accordingly, limitations may exist on a) investors’ rights to sue Arthur Andersen LLP under Section 11 of the Securities Act for false and misleading financial statements, if any, and the effect, if any, on the due diligence defense of directors and officers, and b) investors’ legal rights to sue and recover damages from Arthur Andersen LLP for material misstatements or omissions, if any, in any registration statements and related prospectuses that include, or incorporate by reference, financial statements previously audited by Arthur Andersen LLP.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
To Corrections Corporation of America:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (a Maryland corporation) AND SUBSIDIARIES as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related combined and consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders’ equity for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As discussed in Notes 2 and 15, as of December 31, 2001, the Company has $963.6 million of debt outstanding, including $791.9 million outstanding under the Company’s senior bank credit facility, which matures on December 31, 2002. Although management has developed plans for addressing the December 31, 2002 debt maturity as discussed in Notes 2 and 15, there can be no assurance that management’s plans will be successful and there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to refinance or renew its debt obligations maturing on December 31, 2002.
In our opinion, the combined and consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Corrections Corporation of America and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
As explained in Note 17, upon adoption of a new accounting pronouncement effective January 1, 2001, the Company changed its method of accounting for derivative financial instruments.
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Nashville, TennesseeFebruary 11, 2002 (except with respect to the matter discussed in the last paragraph of Note 16, as to which the date is March 9, 2002)
F-4
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIESCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these combined and consolidated financial statements.
F-5
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIESCOMBINED AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Continued)
F-6
F-7
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIESCOMBINED AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
F-8
F-9
F-10
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIESCONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITYFOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002, 2001 AND 2000
F-11
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIESCONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITYFOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002, 2001, AND 2000
F-12
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO COMBINED AND CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2002, 2001 AND 2000
F-13
F-14
F-15
F-16
F-17
F-18
F-19
F-20
F-21
F-22
F-23
F-24
F-25
F-26
F-27
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-32
F-33
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-40
F-41
F-42
F-43
F-44
F-45
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51
F-52
F-53
F-54
F-55
F-56
F-57
F-58
F-59
F-60
F-61
F-62
F-63
F-64
F-65
F-66
F-67
F-68
F-69
F-70
F-71
F-72