Alcoa Corp 10-Q 2011
Documents found in this filing:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2011
Commission File Number 1-3610
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Investor Relations 212-836-2674
Office of the Secretary 212-836-2732
(Registrants telephone number including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes ü No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes ü No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes No ü
As of July 15, 2011, 1,064,183,062 shares of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of the registrant were outstanding.
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Alcoa and subsidiaries
Statement of Consolidated Operations (unaudited)
(in millions, except per-share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Alcoa and subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheet (unaudited)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Alcoa and subsidiaries
Statement of Consolidated Cash Flows (unaudited)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Alcoa and subsidiaries
Statement of Changes in Consolidated Equity (unaudited)
(in millions, except per-share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Alcoa and subsidiaries
Statement of Changes in Consolidated Equity (unaudited), continued
(in millions, except per-share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Alcoa and subsidiaries
Statement of Consolidated Comprehensive Income (Loss) (unaudited)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Alcoa and subsidiaries
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)
(dollars in millions, except per-share amounts)
A. Basis of Presentation The interim Consolidated Financial Statements of Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiaries (Alcoa or the Company) are unaudited. These Consolidated Financial Statements include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary by management to fairly state the Companys results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. The results reported in these Consolidated Financial Statements are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year. The 2010 year-end balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements but does not include all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). This Form 10-Q report should be read in conjunction with Alcoas Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, which includes all disclosures required by GAAP.
B. Recently Adopted and Recently Issued Accounting Guidance
On January 1, 2011, Alcoa adopted changes issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to revenue recognition for multiple-deliverable arrangements. These changes require separation of consideration received in such arrangements by establishing a selling price hierarchy (not the same as fair value) for determining the selling price of a deliverable, which will be based on available information in the following order: vendor-specific objective evidence, third-party evidence, or estimated selling price; eliminate the residual method of allocation and require that the consideration be allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method, which allocates any discount in the arrangement to each deliverable on the basis of each deliverables selling price; require that a vendor determine its best estimate of selling price in a manner that is consistent with that used to determine the price to sell the deliverable on a standalone basis; and expand the disclosures related to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. The adoption of these changes had no impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements, as Alcoa does not currently have any such arrangements with its customers.
On January 1, 2011, Alcoa adopted changes issued by the FASB to the classification of certain employee share-based payment awards. These changes clarify that there is not an indication of a condition that is other than market, performance, or service if an employee share-based payment awards exercise price is denominated in the currency of a market in which a substantial portion of the entitys equity securities trade and differs from the functional currency of the employer entity or payroll currency of the employee. An employee share-based payment award is required to be classified as a liability if the award does not contain a market, performance, or service condition. Prior to this guidance, Alcoa did not consider the difference between the currency denomination of an employee share-based payment awards exercise price and the functional currency of the employer entity or payroll currency of the employee in determining the proper classification of the share-based payment award. The adoption of these changes had no impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements.
On January 1, 2011, Alcoa adopted changes issued by the FASB to disclosure requirements for fair value measurements. Specifically, the changes require a reporting entity to disclose, in the reconciliation of fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), separate information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements (that is, on a gross basis rather than as one net number). These changes were applied to the disclosures in the Derivatives section of Note P to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
On January 1, 2011, Alcoa adopted changes issued by the FASB to the testing of goodwill for impairment. These changes require an entity to perform all steps in the test for a reporting unit whose carrying value is zero or negative if it is more likely than not (more than 50%) that a goodwill impairment exists based on qualitative factors. This will result in the elimination of an entitys ability to assert that such a reporting units goodwill is not impaired and additional testing is not necessary despite the existence of qualitative factors that indicate otherwise. Based on the most recent impairment review of Alcoas goodwill (2010 fourth quarter), the adoption of these changes had no impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements.
On January 1, 2011, Alcoa adopted changes issued by the FASB to the disclosure of pro forma information for business combinations. These changes clarify that if a public entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. Also, the existing supplemental pro forma disclosures
were expanded to include a description of the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The adoption of these changes had no impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In May 2011, the FASB issued changes to conform existing guidance regarding fair value measurement and disclosure between GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. These changes both clarify the FASBs intent about the application of existing fair value measurement and disclosure requirements and amend certain principles or requirements for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The clarifying changes relate to the application of the highest and best use and valuation premise concepts, measuring the fair value of an instrument classified in a reporting entitys shareholders equity, and disclosure of quantitative information about unobservable inputs used for Level 3 fair value measurements. The amendments relate to measuring the fair value of financial instruments that are managed within a portfolio; application of premiums and discounts in a fair value measurement; and additional disclosures concerning the valuation processes used and sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs for those items categorized as Level 3, a reporting entitys use of a nonfinancial asset in a way that differs from the assets highest and best use, and the categorization by level in the fair value hierarchy for items required to be measured at fair value for disclosure purposes only. These changes become effective for Alcoa on January 1, 2012. Management is currently evaluating the potential impact of these changes on the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In June 2011, the FASB issued changes to the presentation of comprehensive income. These changes give an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements; the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders equity was eliminated. The items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income were not changed. Additionally, no changes were made to the calculation and presentation of earnings per share. These changes become effective for Alcoa on January 1, 2012. Management is currently evaluating these changes to determine which option will be chosen for the presentation of comprehensive income. Other than the change in presentation, management has determined these changes will not have an impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements.
C. Discontinued Operations and Assets Held for Sale For the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, there were no active businesses classified as discontinued operations. Activity of discontinued operations in all periods presented represents post-closing and other adjustments related to divested businesses previously classified as discontinued operations.
The following table details selected financial information of discontinued operations:
In the 2011 second quarter and six-month period, discontinued operations included an additional loss of $3 ($5 pretax) related to the wire harness and electrical portion (divested in June 2009) of the Electrical and Electronic Solutions (EES) business as a result of a negotiated preliminary settlement related to claims filed in 2010 against Alcoa by Platinum Equity in an insolvency proceeding in Germany. The 2011 second quarter and six-month period also included an additional loss of $1 ($1 pretax) and $2 ($2 pretax), respectively, related to both the wire harness and electrical portion and the electronics portion (divested in December 2009) of the EES business for a number of small post-closing and other adjustments. In the 2010 second quarter and six-month period, discontinued operations included an additional loss of $1 ($1 pretax) and $2 ($4 pretax), respectively, related to the electronics portion of the EES business for the settling of working capital, which was not included in the divestiture transaction. The 2010 six-month period also included an additional loss of $6 ($9 pretax) related to the wire harness and electrical portion of the EES business as a result of a contract settlement with a former customer of this business.
For both periods presented in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet, the assets and liabilities of operations classified as held for sale included the Global Foil business (one remaining plant located in Brazil), the electronics portion of the EES business (working capital components), and the Hawesville, KY automotive casting facility.
The major classes of assets and liabilities of operations held for sale were as follows:
D. Restructuring and Other Charges In the second quarter and six-month period of 2011, Alcoa recorded Restructuring and other charges of $34 ($16 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) and $40 ($21 after-tax and noncontrolling interests), respectively.
Restructuring and other charges in the 2011 second quarter included $20 ($8 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) for a litigation matter related to the former St. Croix location (see the Litigation section of Note H); $8 ($4 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) for the layoff of approximately 120 employees (70 in the Primary Metals segment, 30 in the Engineered Products and Solutions segment, and 20 in the Alumina segment); a $6 ($4 after-tax) charge for an adjustment to the fair value of the one remaining foil location classified as held for sale due to foreign currency movements; a net charge of $2 ($2 after-tax) for other various items; and $2 ($2 after-tax) for the reversal of a number of small, previously recorded layoff reserves.
In the 2011 six-month period, Restructuring and other charges included the previously mentioned $20 ($8 after-tax and noncontrolling interests); $13 ($8 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) for the layoff of approximately 480 employees (350 in the Flat-Rolled Products segment, 70 in the Primary Metals segment, 30 in the Alumina segment, and 30 in the Engineered Products and Solutions segment); an $8 ($5 after-tax) charge for an adjustment to the fair value of the one remaining foil location classified as held for sale due to foreign currency movements; a net charge of $3 ($3 after-tax) for other various items; and $4 ($3 after-tax) for the reversal of a number of small, previously recorded layoff reserves.
In the second quarter and six-month period of 2010, Alcoa recorded Restructuring and other charges of $30 ($20 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) and $217 ($139 after-tax and noncontrolling interests), respectively.
Restructuring and other charges in the 2010 second quarter included $28 ($19 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) for the layoff of approximately 600 employees (460 in the Engineered Products and Solutions segment; 60 in the Primary Metals segment; 10 in the Alumina segment; and 70 in Corporate); $8 ($5 after-tax) in net charges related to divested businesses (Automotive Castings, Transportation Products Europe, and Global Foil) for, among other items, the settlement of a contract with a former customer, foreign currency movements, and working capital adjustments; $1 ($1 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) in net charges for various other exit costs (includes a $1 reversal related to the asset impairment charges recognized in the 2010 first quarter for five U.S. locations see below); and $7 ($5 after-tax) for the reversal of previously recorded layoff reserves.
In the 2010 six-month period, Restructuring and other charges included $128 ($81 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) in asset impairments and $46 ($29 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) in other exit costs related to the permanent shutdown and planned demolition of certain idled structures at five U.S. locations (see below); $36 ($24 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) for the layoff of approximately 800 employees (625 in the Engineered Products and Solutions segment; 60 in the Primary Metals segment; 25 in the Flat-Rolled Products segment; 10 in the Alumina segment; and 80 in Corporate); $15 ($10 after-tax) in net charges related to divested and to be divested businesses (Automotive Castings, Transportation Products Europe, and Global Foil) for, among other items, the settlement of a contract with a former customer, foreign currency movements, and working capital adjustments; $7 ($5 after-tax) in net charges for various other exit costs; and $15 ($10 after-tax) for the reversal of previously recorded layoff reserves.
In the 2010 first quarter, management approved the permanent shutdown and demolition of the following structures, each of which was previously temporarily idled for different reasons: the Eastalco smelter located in Frederick, MD (capacity of 195 kmt-per-year); the smelter located in Badin, NC (capacity of 60 kmt-per-year); an aluminum fluoride plant in Point Comfort, TX; a paste plant and cast house in Massena, NY; and one potline at the smelter in Warrick, IN (capacity of 40 kmt-per-year). This decision was made after a comprehensive strategic analysis was performed to determine the best course of action for each facility. Factors leading to this decision included then-current market fundamentals, cost competitiveness, other existing idle capacity, required future capital investment, and restart costs, as well as the elimination of ongoing holding costs. The asset impairments of $128 represent the write off of the remaining book value of properties, plants, and equipment related to these facilities. Additionally, remaining inventories, mostly operating supplies, were written down to their net realizable value resulting in a charge of $8 ($5 after-tax and noncontrolling interests), which was recorded in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. The other exit costs of $46 represent $30 ($19 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) in asset retirement obligations and $14 ($9 after-tax) in environmental remediation, both triggered by the decision to permanently shutdown and demolish these structures, and $2 ($1 after-tax and noncontrolling interests) in other related costs.
Alcoa does not include Restructuring and other charges in the results of its reportable segments. The pretax impact of allocating such charges to segment results would have been as follows:
As of June 30, 2011, approximately 50 of the 480 employees associated with 2011 restructuring programs, approximately 740 of the 880 employees associated with 2010 restructuring programs, and approximately 5,600 of the 6,000 employees associated with 2009 restructuring programs were terminated. The remaining terminations for all of these restructuring programs are expected to be completed by the end of 2011. In the 2011 second quarter and six-month period, cash payments of $2 and $3, respectively, were made against the layoff reserves related to the 2011 restructuring programs; $1 and $4, respectively, were made against the layoff reserves related to the 2010 restructuring programs; and $4 and $9, respectively, were made against the layoff reserves related to the 2009 restructuring programs.
Activity and reserve balances for restructuring charges were as follows:
The remaining reserves are expected to be paid in cash during 2011, with the exception of approximately $55 to $60, which is expected to be paid over the next several years for ongoing site remediation work, special termination benefit payments, and lease termination costs.
E. Acquisitions and Divestitures On March 9, 2011, Alcoa completed an acquisition of the aerospace fastener business of TransDigm Group Inc. for $240. This business is a leading global designer, producer, and supplier of highly engineered aircraft components, with three locations (one in the state of California and two in the United Kingdom) that employ a combined 400 people. Specifically, this business provides a wide variety of high-strength, high temperature nickel alloy specialty engine fasteners, airframe bolts, and slotted entry bearings. In 2010, this business generated sales of $61. The assets and liabilities of this business were included in the Engineered Products and Solutions segment as of March 31, 2011; this business results of operations were included in this segment beginning March 9, 2011. Based on the preliminary purchase price allocation, goodwill of $213 was recorded for this transaction (amount deductible for income tax purposes is yet to be determined). In the second quarter of 2011, the initial goodwill amount was reduced by $53 due to purchase price allocation adjustments of the estimated fair value of the acquired business. The final allocation of the purchase price will be based on valuation and other studies, including environmental and other contingent liabilities, which are expected to be completed by the end of 2011. Other intangible assets may be identified as a result of the final valuation. This acquisition is part of a strategic plan to accelerate the growth of Alcoas fastener business, while adding efficiencies, broadening the existing technology base, and expanding product offerings to better serve customers and increase shareholder value. Pro forma results of Alcoa, assuming this acquisition was made at the beginning of the earliest period presented, would not have been materially different from the results reported.
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the total amount of inventories valued on a last in, first out (LIFO) basis was 35% and 36%, respectively. If valued on an average-cost basis, total inventories would have been $820 and $742 higher at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.
G. Debt In April 2011, Alcoa completed a public debt offering under its existing shelf registration statement (dated February 18, 2011) for $1,250 of 5.40% Notes due 2021 (the 2021 Notes). Alcoa received $1,241 in net proceeds from the public debt offering reflecting an original issue discount and payment of financing costs. The net proceeds were used for the early retirement of $881 in outstanding notes (see below), early repayment of $101 in outstanding loans related to the bauxite mine development in Brazil, and the remainder was used for general corporate purposes. The original issue discount and financing costs were deferred and are being amortized to interest expense over the term of the 2021 Notes. Interest on the 2021 Notes will be paid semi-annually in April and October, commencing October 2011. Alcoa has the option to redeem the 2021 Notes, as a whole or in part, at any time or from time to time, on at least 30 days, but not more than 60 days, prior notice to the holders of the 2021 Notes at a redemption price specified in the 2021 Notes. The 2021 Notes are subject to repurchase upon the occurrence of a change in control repurchase event (as defined in the 2021 Notes) at a repurchase price in cash equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Notes repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest on the 2021 Notes repurchased. The 2021 Notes rank pari passu with Alcoas other unsecured senior unsubordinated indebtedness.
In May 2011, Alcoa completed the following tender offers: (i) any and all of its 5.375% Notes due 2013 (the 5.375% Notes) and (ii) up to $400 of its 6.00% Notes due 2013 (the 6.00% Notes and collectively with the 5.375% Notes, the Notes). Upon expiration of the tender offers, $269 and $328 of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the 5.375% Notes and 6.00% Notes, respectively, were validly tendered and accepted. Additionally in May 2011, subsequent to the expiration of the tender offer for the 5.375% Notes, Alcoa elected to call for redemption the remaining outstanding principal of $284 under the provisions of the 5.375% Notes. The total cash paid to the holders of the tendered 5.375% Notes and 6.00% Notes and the called 5.375% Notes was $972, which consisted of $881 in debt
principal, $74 in purchase premiums, and $17 in accrued and unpaid interest from the respective last interest payment dates up to, but not including, the respective settlement dates. The $74 was recorded in Interest expense on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. The 6.00% Notes have a remaining outstanding principal of $422.
In conjunction with the early retirement of the 5.375% Notes, Alcoa terminated interest rate swaps with a notional amount totaling $550. These swaps were accounted for as fair value hedges and were used to convert the stated interest rate of the 5.375% Notes from fixed to floating. At the time of termination, the swaps were in-the-money resulting in a gain of $33, which was recorded in Interest expense on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations.
H. Commitments and Contingencies
On February 27, 2008, Alcoa Inc. received notice that Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) had filed suit against Alcoa Inc. and Alcoa World Alumina LLC (collectively, Alcoa), and others, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the Court), Civil Action number 08-299, styled Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. v. Alcoa Inc., Alcoa World Alumina LLC, William Rice, and Victor Phillip Dahdaleh. The complaint alleges that certain Alcoa entities and their agents, including Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, have engaged in a conspiracy over a period of 15 years to defraud Alba. The complaint further alleges that Alcoa and its employees or agents (1) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba in order to force Alba to purchase alumina at excessively high prices, (2) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba and issued threats in order to pressure Alba to enter into an agreement by which Alcoa would purchase an equity interest in Alba, and (3) assigned portions of existing supply contracts between Alcoa and Alba for the sole purpose of facilitating alleged bribes and unlawful commissions. The complaint alleges that Alcoa and the other defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed fraud. Alba's complaint seeks compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages, rescission of the 2005 alumina supply contract, and attorneys fees and costs. Alba seeks treble damages with respect to its RICO claims.
On February 26, 2008, Alcoa Inc. had advised the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it had recently become aware of these claims, had already begun an internal investigation, and intended to cooperate fully in any investigation that the DOJ or the SEC may commence. On March 17, 2008, the DOJ notified Alcoa that it had opened a formal investigation and Alcoa has been cooperating with the government.
In response to a motion filed by the DOJ on March 27, 2008, the Court ordered the suit filed by Alba to be administratively closed and that all discovery be stayed to allow the DOJ to fully conduct an investigation without the interference and distraction of ongoing civil litigation. The Court further ordered that the case will be reopened at the close of the DOJs investigation. The Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependants of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of September 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009.
On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing plaintiffs lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things, a declaration that plaintiffs retiree benefits are vested subject to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to 2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for award of attorneys fees and expenses. Alcoa filed its opposition to both motions on April 11, 2011. The time for plaintiffs to appeal from the courts March 9, 2011 judgment will not begin until the court disposes of these motions.
On April 23, 2004, St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P. (SCRG), Brownfield Recovery Corp., and Energy Answers Corporation of Puerto Rico (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) filed a suit against St. Croix Alumina L.L.C. and Alcoa World Alumina, LLC (collectively referred to as Alcoa) in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix for claims related to the sale of Alcoas former St. Croix alumina refinery to Plaintiffs. Alcoa thereafter removed the case to federal court and after a several year period of discovery and motion practice, a jury trial on the matter took place in St. Croix from January 11, 2011 to January 20, 2011. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded damages as described: on a claim of breaches of warranty, the jury awarded $13; on the same claim, the jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of $6; and on a negligence claim for property damage, the jury awarded $10. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking pre-judgment interest on the jury award. On February 17, 2011, Alcoa filed post-trial motions seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. On May 31, 2011, the court granted Alcoas motion for judgment regarding Plaintiffs $10 negligence award and denied the remainder of Alcoa's motions. Additionally, the court awarded Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest of $2 on the breach of warranty award. As a result of the courts post-trial decisions, Alcoa recorded a charge of $20 in the 2011 second quarter (See Note D). On June 14, 2011, Alcoa filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Alcoas denied post-trial motions. On June 22, 2011, SCRG filed a notice of cross appeal with the Third Circuit Court related to certain pre-trial decisions of the court and of the courts post-trial ruling on the negligence claim.
In addition to the litigation discussed above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against Alcoa, including those pertaining to environmental, product liability, and safety and health matters. While the amounts claimed may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot now be determined because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. Therefore, it is possible that the Companys financial position, liquidity, or results of operations in a particular period could be materially affected by certain contingencies. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that the disposition of matters that are pending or asserted will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the financial position, liquidity, or the results of operations of the Company.
European Commission Matters
In July 2006, the European Commission (EC) announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether an extension of the regulated electricity tariff granted by Italy to some energy-intensive industries complies with European Union (EU) state aid rules. The Italian power tariff extended the tariff that was in force until December 31, 2005 through November 19, 2009 (Alcoa has been incurring higher power costs at its smelters in Italy subsequent to the tariff end date). The extension was originally through 2010, but the date was changed by legislation adopted by the Italian Parliament effective on August 15, 2009. Prior to expiration of the tariff in 2005, Alcoa had been operating in Italy for more than 10 years under a power supply structure approved by the EC in 1996. That measure provided a competitive power supply to the primary aluminum industry and was not considered state aid from the Italian Government. The ECs announcement expressed concerns about whether Italys extension of the tariff beyond 2005 was compatible with EU legislation and potentially distorted competition in the European market of primary aluminum, where energy is an important part of the production costs.
On November 19, 2009, the EC announced a decision in this matter stating that the extension of the tariff by Italy constituted unlawful state aid, in part, and, therefore, the Italian Government is to recover a portion of the benefit Alcoa received since January 2006 (including interest). The amount of this recovery will be based on a calculation that is being prepared by the Italian Government. Pending formal notification from the Italian Government, Alcoa estimates that a payment in the range of $300 to $500 will be required (the timing of such payment is uncertain). In late 2009, after discussions with legal counsel and reviewing the bases on which the EC decided, including the different considerations cited in the EC decision regarding Alcoas two smelters in Italy, Alcoa recorded a charge of $250, including $20 to write off a receivable from the Italian Government for amounts due under the now expired tariff structure. On
April 19, 2010, Alcoa filed an appeal of this decision with the General Court of the EU. Alcoa will pursue all substantive and procedural legal steps available to annul the ECs decision. On May 22, 2010, Alcoa also filed with the General Court a request for injunctive relief to suspend the effectiveness of the decision, but, on July 12, 2010, the General Court denied such request. On September 10, 2010, Alcoa appealed the July 12, 2010 decision to the European Court of Justice (ECJ); a judgment by that Court is expected in 2011.
On March 23, 2011, the EC announced that it has decided to refer the Italian Government to the ECJ for failure to comply with the ECs November 19, 2009 decision.
As a result of the ECs November 19, 2009 decision, management had contemplated ceasing operations at its Italian smelters due to uneconomical power costs. In February 2010, management agreed to continue to operate its smelters in Italy for up to six months while a long-term solution to address increased power costs could be negotiated.
Also in February 2010, the Italian Government issued a decree, which was converted into law by the Italian Parliament in March 2010, to provide interruptibility rights to certain industrial customers who were willing to be subject to temporary interruptions in the supply of power (i.e. compensation for power interruptions when grids are overloaded) over a three-year period. Alcoa applied for and was granted such rights (expiring on December 31, 2012) related to its Portovesme smelter. In May 2010, the EC stated that, based on their review of the validity of the decree, the interruptibility rights should not be considered state aid. On July 29, 2010, Alcoa executed a new power agreement effective September 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012 for the Portovesme smelter, replacing the short-term, market-based power contract that was in effect since early 2010.
Additionally in May 2010, Alcoa and the Italian Government agreed to a temporary idling of the Fusina smelter. As of June 30, 2010, the Fusina smelter was fully curtailed (44 kmt-per-year).
Separately, on November 29, 2006, Alcoa filed an appeal before the General Court (formerly the European Court of First Instance) seeking the annulment of the ECs decision to open an investigation alleging that such decision did not follow the applicable procedural rules. On March 25, 2009, the General Court denied Alcoas appeal. On May 29, 2009, Alcoa appealed the March 25, 2009 ruling before the ECJ. The hearing of the May 29, 2009 appeal was held on June 24, 2010. On July 21, 2011, the ECJ denied Alcoas appeal.
In January 2007, the EC announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether the regulated electricity tariffs granted by Spain comply with EU state aid rules. At the time the EC opened its investigation, Alcoa had been operating in Spain for more than nine years under a power supply structure approved by the Spanish Government in 1986, an equivalent tariff having been granted in 1983. The investigation is limited to the year 2005 and is focused both on the energy-intensive consumers and the distribution companies. The investigation provided 30 days to any interested party to submit observations and comments to the EC. With respect to the energy-intensive consumers, the EC opened the investigation on the assumption that prices paid under the tariff in 2005 were lower than a pool price mechanism, therefore being, in principle, artificially below market conditions. Alcoa submitted comments in which the company provided evidence that prices paid by energy-intensive consumers were in line with the market, in addition to various legal arguments defending the legality of the Spanish tariff system. It is Alcoa's understanding that the Spanish tariff system for electricity is in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, and therefore no state aid is present in the tariff system. While Alcoa does not believe that an unfavorable decision is probable, management has estimated that the total potential impact from an unfavorable decision could be approximately $100 (70) pretax. Also, while Alcoa believes that any additional cost would only be assessed for the year 2005, it is possible that the EC could extend its investigation to later years. A decision by the EC is expected in 2011. If the ECs investigation concludes that the regulated electricity tariffs for industries are unlawful, Alcoa will have an opportunity to challenge the decision in the EU courts.
Alcoa continues to participate in environmental assessments and cleanups at a number of locations (more than 100). These include owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, previously owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, and waste sites, including Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)) sites. A liability is recorded for environmental remediation when a cleanup program becomes probable and the costs or damages can be reasonably estimated.
As assessments and cleanups proceed, the liability is adjusted based on progress made in determining the extent of remedial actions and related costs and damages. The liability can change substantially due to factors such as the nature and extent of contamination, changes in remedial requirements, and technological changes, among others.
Alcoas remediation reserve balance was $332 and $333 at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 (of which $26 and $31 was classified as a current liability), respectively, and reflects the most probable costs to remediate identified environmental conditions for which costs can be reasonably estimated. In the 2011 second quarter and six-month period, the remediation reserve was increased by $2 and $4, respectively, associated with a number of sites. The changes to the remediation reserve were recorded in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $3 and $8 in the 2011 second quarter and six-month period, respectively. These amounts include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. In the 2011 second quarter and six-month period, the change in the reserve also reflects an increase of $1 and $3, respectively, due to the effects of foreign currency translation.
Included in annual operating expenses are the recurring costs of managing hazardous substances and environmental programs. These costs are estimated to be approximately 2% of cost of goods sold.
The following discussion provides details regarding the current status of certain significant reserves related to current or former Alcoa sites. It is possible that Alcoa's financial position, liquidity, or results of operations, in a particular period, could be materially affected by matters relating to these sites. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that adequate reserves have been provided and that the disposition of these matters will not have a materially adverse effect on the financial position, liquidity, or the results of operations of the Company.
Massena West, NY Alcoa has been conducting investigations and studies of the Grasse River, adjacent to Alcoas Massena plant site, under a 1989 order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued under CERCLA. Sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Alcoa submitted various Analysis of Alternatives Reports to the EPA starting in 1998 through 2002 that reported the results of river and sediment studies, potential alternatives for remedial actions related to the PCB contamination, and additional information requested by the EPA.
In June 2003, the EPA requested that Alcoa gather additional field data to assess the potential for sediment erosion from winter river ice formation and breakup. The results of these additional studies, submitted in a report to the EPA in April 2004, suggest that this phenomenon has the potential to occur approximately every 10 years and may impact sediments in certain portions of the river under all remedial scenarios. The EPA informed Alcoa that a final remedial decision for the river could not be made without substantially more information, including river pilot studies on the effects of ice formation and breakup on each of the remedial techniques. Alcoa submitted to the EPA, and the EPA approved, a Remedial Options Pilot Study (ROPS) to gather this information. The scope of this study included sediment removal and capping, the installation of an ice control structure, and significant monitoring.
From 2004 through 2008, Alcoa completed the work outlined in the ROPS. In November 2008, Alcoa submitted an update to the EPA incorporating the new information obtained from the ROPS related to the feasibility and costs associated with various capping and dredging alternatives, including options for ice control. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by $40 for the estimated costs of a proposed ice control remedy and for partial settlement of potential damages of natural resources.
In late 2009, the EPA requested that Alcoa submit a complete revised Analysis of Alternatives Report in March 2010 to address questions and comments from the EPA and various stakeholders. On March 24, 2010, Alcoa submitted the revised report, which included an expanded list of proposed remedial alternatives, as directed by the EPA. Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by $17 to reflect an increase in the estimated costs of the Companys recommended capping alternative as a result of changes in scope that occurred due to the questions and comments from the EPA and various stakeholders. While the EPA reviews the revised report, Alcoa will continue with its on-going monitoring and field studies activities. In late 2010, Alcoa increased the reserve by $2 based on the most recent estimate of costs expected to be incurred for on-going monitoring and field studies activities as the EPA continues its review during 2011.
The ultimate selection of a remedy may result in additional liability. Alternatives analyzed in the most recent Analysis of Alternatives report that are equally effective as the recommended capping remedy range in additional estimated costs between $20 and $100. As such, Alcoa may be required to record a subsequent reserve adjustment at the time the EPAs Record of Decision is issued, which is expected in 2011 or later.
Sherwin, TX In connection with the sale of the Sherwin alumina refinery, which was required to be divested as part of the Reynolds merger in 2000, Alcoa agreed to retain responsibility for the remediation of the then existing environmental conditions, as well as a pro rata share of the final closure of the active waste disposal areas, which remain in use. Alcoas share of the closure costs is proportional to the total period of operation of the active waste disposal areas. Alcoa estimated its liability for the active disposal areas by making certain assumptions about the period of operation, the amount of material placed in the area prior to closure, and the appropriate technology, engineering, and regulatory status applicable to final closure. The most probable cost for remediation was reserved.
East St. Louis, IL In response to questions regarding environmental conditions at the former East St. Louis operations, Alcoa and the City of East St. Louis, the owner of the site, entered into an administrative order with the EPA in December 2002 to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study of an area used for the disposal of bauxite residue from historic alumina refining operations. A draft feasibility study was submitted to the EPA in April 2005. The feasibility study included remedial alternatives that ranged from no further action to significant grading, stabilization, and water management of the bauxite residue disposal areas. As a result, Alcoa increased the environmental reserve for this location by $15 in 2005. The EPAs ultimate selection of a remedy could result in additional liability. Alcoa may be required to record a subsequent reserve adjustment at the time the EPAs Record of Decision is issued, which is expected in 2011 or later.
Fusina and Portovesme, Italy In 1996, Alcoa acquired the Fusina smelter and rolling operations and the Portovesme smelter, both of which are owned by Alcoas subsidiary Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l., from Alumix, an entity owned by the Italian Government. At the time of the acquisition, Alumix indemnified Alcoa for pre-existing environmental contamination at the sites. In 2004, the Italian Ministry of Environment (MOE) issued orders to Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Alumix for the development of a clean-up plan related to soil contamination in excess of allowable limits under legislative decree and to institute emergency actions and pay natural resource damages. Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. appealed the orders and filed suit against Alumix, among others, seeking indemnification for these liabilities under the provisions of the acquisition agreement. In 2009, Ligestra S.r.l., Alumixs successor, and Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. agreed to a stay on the court proceedings while investigations were conducted and negotiations advanced towards a possible settlement. In December 2009, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Ligestra S.r.l. reached an agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina while negotiations continue related to Portovesme. The agreement outlines an allocation of payments to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages and the scope and costs for a proposed soil remediation project, which was formally presented to the MOE in mid-2010. The agreement is contingent upon final acceptance of the remediation project by the MOE. As a result of entering into this agreement, Alcoa increased the reserve by $12 for Fusina. Additionally, due to new information derived from the site investigations conducted at Portovesme, Alcoa increased the reserve by $3 in 2009.
Alcoa has an investment in a joint venture for the development, construction, ownership, and operation of an integrated aluminum complex (bauxite mine, alumina refinery, aluminum smelter, and rolling mill) in Saudi Arabia. The joint venture is owned 74.9% by the Saudi Arabian Mining Company (known as Maaden) and 25.1% by Alcoa and consists of three separate companies as follows: one each for the mine and refinery, the smelter, and the rolling mill. Alcoa accounts for its investment in the joint venture under the equity method. Capital investment in the project is expected to total approximately $10,800 (SAR 40.5 billion). Alcoas equity investment in the joint venture will be approximately $1,100 over a four-year period, and Alcoa will be responsible for its pro rata share of the joint ventures project financing. Alcoa has contributed $311, including $74 and $152 in the 2011 second quarter and six-month period, respectively, towards the $1,100 commitment. As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the carrying value of Alcoas investment in this project was $447 and $285, respectively.
In late 2010, the smelting and rolling mill companies entered into project financing totaling $4,000. Alcoa issued guarantees on behalf of the smelting and rolling mill companies to the lenders for $1,004 (the equivalent of Alcoas 25.1% interest in the smelting and rolling mill companies) of the financed amount in the event that such companies default on their debt service requirements over a defined period of time (Maaden issued similar guarantees for its 74.9% ownership). Alcoas guarantees for the smelting and rolling mill companies expire in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and will cover total debt service requirements of $108 in principal and up to a maximum of approximately $50 in interest per year (based on projected interest rates). At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of the guarantees was $8 and was included in Other noncurrent liabilities and deferred credits on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. Under the project financing, a downgrade of Alcoas credit ratings below investment grade by at least two agencies would require Alcoa to provide a letter of credit or fund an escrow account for a portion or all of Alcoas remaining equity commitment to the joint venture project in Saudi Arabia.
Alcoa Alumínio (Alumínio), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcoa, is a participant in several hydroelectric power construction projects in Brazil for purposes of increasing its energy self-sufficiency and providing a long-term, low-cost source of power for its facilities. Two of these projects, Machadinho and Barra Grande, were completed in 2002 and 2006, respectively.
Alumínio committed to taking a share of the output of the Machadinho and Barra Grande projects each for 30 years at cost (including cost of financing the project). In the event that other participants in either one of these projects fail to fulfill their financial responsibilities, Alumínio may be required to fund a portion of the deficiency. In accordance with the respective agreements, if Alumínio funds any such deficiency, its participation and share of the output from the respective project will increase proportionately.
With Machadinho and Barra Grande, Alumínios current power self-sufficiency is approximately 40% (will be approximately 70% once the hydroelectric power projects described below are completed and operating at full capacity), to meet a total energy demand of approximately 690 megawatts from Brazilian primary plants. Alumínio accounts for the Machadinho and Barra Grande hydroelectric projects as equity method investments. Alumínios investment participation in these projects is 30.99% for Machadinho and 42.18% for Barra Grande. Its total investment in these projects was $305 (R$480) and $274 (R$461) at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Alcoas maximum exposure to loss on these completed projects is approximately $360 (R$560), which represents Alumínios investments in both projects and guarantee of debt for Machadinho only as of June 30, 2011.
In early 2006, Alumínio acquired an additional 6.41% share in the Estreito hydroelectric power project, reaching 25.49% of total participation in the consortium. This additional share entitles Alumínio to 38 megawatts of assured energy. Alumínios share of the project is estimated to have installed capacity of approximately 280 megawatts and assured power of approximately 150 megawatts. In December 2006, the consortium obtained the environmental installation license, after completion of certain socioeconomic and cultural impact studies as required by a governmental agency. Construction began in early 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2012 (start-up of the facility began in April 2011 with full capacity expected to be reached in 2012). In early 2010, the consortium approved an increase of approximately $720 (R$1,300) in estimated costs to complete the Estreito project as a result of currency, inflation, and the price and scope of construction, among other factors. Total estimated project costs are approximately $3,100 (R$4,900) and Alumínios share is approximately $790 (R$1,250). As of June 30, 2011, approximately $710 (R$1,100) of Alumínios commitment was expended on the project.
Construction began on the Serra do Facão hydroelectric power project in early 2007 and was completed in the first half of 2011 (this facility is operating at full capacity). Alumínios share of the Serra do Facão project is 34.97% and entitles Alumínio to approximately 65 megawatts of assured power. Total estimated project costs are approximately $650 (R$1,000) and Alumínios share is approximately $230 (R$350). Through March 31, 2009, the participants in the consortium were required to provide capital for their respective share of the project costs. In April 2009, the consortium obtained long-term financing for the estimated remaining costs of construction. At that time, the participants in this project were no longer required to provide capital for their share of the project costs. Instead, the participants were each required to guarantee (expires 2027) a portion of the consortiums debt. In mid-2010, the capacity under the long-term financing arrangement was exhausted; therefore, the participants were once again required to begin providing capital for their share of the remaining costs. As of June 30, 2011, approximately $210 (R$330) of Alumínios commitment was expended on the project (includes both funds provided by Alumínio and Alumínios share of the long-term financing). Alumínio accounts for the Serra do Facão hydroelectric power project as an equity method investment and its total investment in this project was $122 (R$192) and $116 (R$195) at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Alcoas maximum exposure to loss on this project is approximately $260 (R$410), which represents Alumínios investment and guarantee of debt as of June 30, 2011.
In 2004, Alcoa acquired a 20% interest in a consortium, which subsequently purchased the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP) in Western Australia, in exchange for an initial cash investment of $17 (A$24). The investment in the DBNGP was made in order to secure a competitively priced long-term supply of natural gas to Alcoas refineries in Western Australia. This investment was classified as an equity investment. Alcoa has made additional contributions of $141 (A$176), including $1 (A$1) in the 2011 second quarter and $16 (A$16) in the 2011 six-month period, and committed to invest an additional $10 (A$9) to be paid as the pipeline expands through 2011. In addition to its equity ownership, Alcoa has an agreement to purchase gas transmission services from the DBNGP. Alcoas maximum exposure to loss on the investment and the related contract is approximately $520 (A$490) as of June 30, 2011.
I. Other (Income) Expenses, Net
In the second quarter and six-month period of 2011, equity income included higher earnings from an investment in a natural gas pipeline in Australia due to the recognition of a discrete income tax benefit by the consortium (Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals share of the benefit was $24).
J. Segment Information The operating results of Alcoas reportable segments were as follows (differences between segment totals and consolidated totals are in Corporate):
The following table reconciles total segment ATOI to consolidated net income (loss) attributable to Alcoa:
Items required to reconcile total segment ATOI to consolidated net income (loss) attributable to Alcoa include: the impact of LIFO inventory accounting; interest expense; noncontrolling interests; corporate expense (general administrative and selling expenses of operating the corporate headquarters and other global administrative facilities, along with depreciation and amortization on corporate-owned assets); restructuring and other charges; discontinued operations; and other items, including intersegment profit eliminations and other metal adjustments, differences between tax rates applicable to the segments and the consolidated effective tax rate, the results of the soft alloy extrusions business in Brazil, and other nonoperating items such as foreign currency transaction gains/losses and interest income.
The following table details segment assets:
K. Preferred and Common Stock On January 24, 2011, Alcoa contributed 36,518,563 newly issued shares of its common stock to a master trust that holds the assets of certain U.S. defined benefit pension plans in a private placement transaction. These shares were valued at $16.43 per share (the closing price of Alcoas common stock on January 24, 2011), or $600 in the aggregate, and were issued to satisfy the estimated minimum required funding and to provide additional funding towards maintaining an approximately 80% funded status of Alcoas U.S. pension plans. On January 25, 2011, the 36,518,563 shares were registered under Alcoas then-current shelf registration statement dated March 10, 2008 (replaced by shelf registration statement dated February 18, 2011) for resale by the master trust, as selling stockholder. Alcoa is authorized to issue up to 1.8 billion shares of common stock. As of June 30, 2011, there were 1,177,906,557 common shares issued and 1,064,103,706 common shares outstanding.
L. Earnings Per Share Basic earnings per share (EPS) amounts are computed by dividing earnings, after the deduction of preferred stock dividends declared and dividends and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted EPS amounts assume the issuance of common stock for all potentially dilutive share equivalents outstanding not classified as participating securities.
The information used to compute basic and diluted EPS attributable to Alcoa common shareholders was as follows (shares in millions):
Participating securities are defined as unvested share-based payment awards that contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) and are included in the computation of earnings per share pursuant to the two-class method. Prior to January 1, 2010, under Alcoas stock-based compensation programs, certain employees were granted stock and performance awards, which entitle those employees to receive nonforfeitable dividends during the vesting period on a basis equivalent to the dividends paid to holders of Alcoas common stock. As such, these unvested
stock and performance awards met the definition of a participating security. Under the two-class method, all earnings, whether distributed or undistributed, are allocated to each class of common stock and participating securities based on their respective rights to receive dividends. At June 30, 2011 and 2010, there were 2 million and 5 million such participating securities outstanding, respectively. None of the loss from continuing operations in the 2010 six-month period was allocated to these participating securities because these awards do not share in any loss generated by Alcoa.
Effective January 1, 2010, new grants of stock and performance awards do not contain a nonforfeitable right to dividends during the vesting period. As a result, an employee will forfeit the right to dividends accrued on unvested awards if that person does not fulfill their service requirement during the vesting period. As such, these awards are not treated as participating securities in the EPS calculation as the employees no longer have equivalent dividend rights as common shareholders. These awards are included in the EPS calculation utilizing the treasury stock method similar to stock options. At June 30, 2011 and 2010, there were 7 million and 3 million such awards outstanding, respectively.
In the 2010 six-month period, basic average shares outstanding and diluted average shares outstanding were the same because the effect of potential shares of common stock was anti-dilutive since Alcoa generated a loss from continuing operations. As a result, 89 million share equivalents related to convertible notes, 25 million stock options, and 3 million stock and performance awards were not included in the computation of diluted EPS. Had Alcoa generated sufficient income from continuing operations in the 2010 six-month period, 89 million and 7 million potential shares of common stock related to the convertible notes and stock options and awards, respectively, would have been included in diluted average shares outstanding.
Options to purchase 19 million and 32 million shares of common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $28.61 and $27.50 per share were outstanding as of June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted EPS because they were anti-dilutive, as the exercise prices of the options were greater than the average market price of Alcoas common stock.
M. Income Taxes The effective tax rate for the second quarter of 2011 and 2010 was 26.3% and 25.0%, respectively.
The rate for the 2011 second quarter differs from the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to foreign income taxed in lower rate jurisdictions.
The rate for the 2010 second quarter differs from the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to a $24 discrete income tax benefit related to a Canadian provincial tax law change permitting a tax return to be filed in U.S. dollars and a $10 favorable impact for operational losses in certain foreign jurisdictions that are excluded from the estimated annual effective tax rate calculation (impact reversed by the end of 2010), partially offset by an $18 discrete income tax charge based on settlement discussions of several matters with international taxing authorities (this amount represents a decrease to Alcoas unrecognized tax benefits).
The effective tax rate for the 2011 and 2010 six-month periods was 26.9% and 100.7%, respectively.
The rate for the 2011 six-month period differs from the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to foreign income taxed in lower rate jurisdictions.
The rate for the 2010 six-month period differs from the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to a $79 discrete income tax charge as a result of a change in the tax treatment of federal subsidies received related to prescription drug benefits provided under certain retiree health care benefit plans that were determined to be actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D; the $18 discrete income tax charge mentioned above; a $12 unfavorable impact for operational losses in certain foreign jurisdictions that are excluded from the estimated annual effective tax rate calculation (impact reversed by the end of 2010); a $6 discrete income tax charge for interest paid to the Internal Revenue Service on a previously deferred gain associated with the 2007 formation of the former soft alloy extrusions joint venture; and a $4 discrete income tax charge for a change in the anticipated structure of the sale of the Transportation Products Europe business (sold in April 2010); slightly offset by the $24 discrete income tax benefit mentioned above.
N. Accounts Receivables Alcoa has two arrangements with third parties to sell certain customer receivables outright without recourse on a continuous basis. As of June 30, 2011, $209 of the sold receivables remain uncollected. Alcoa is servicing the customer receivables for the third parties at market rates; therefore, no servicing asset or liability was recorded.
O. Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits The components of net periodic benefit cost were as follows:
On January 24, 2011, Alcoa contributed newly issued shares (see Note K) of its common stock (valued at $600) to a master trust that holds the assets of certain U.S. defined benefit pension plans in a private placement transaction. These shares were issued to satisfy the estimated minimum required funding and to provide additional funding towards maintaining an approximately 80% funded status of Alcoas U.S. pension plans.
P. Derivatives and Other Financial Instruments
Alcoa is exposed to certain risks relating to its ongoing business operations, including financial, market, political, and economic risks. The following discussion provides information regarding Alcoas exposure to the risks of changing commodity prices, interest rates, and foreign currency exchange rates.
Alcoas commodity and derivative activities are subject to the management, direction, and control of the Strategic Risk Management Committee (SRMC). The SRMC is composed of the chief executive officer, the chief financial officer, and other officers and employees that the chief executive officer selects. The SRMC reports to the Board of Directors on the scope of its activities.
The aluminum, energy, interest rate, and foreign exchange contracts are held for purposes other than trading. They are used primarily to mitigate uncertainty and volatility, and to cover underlying exposures. Alcoa is not involved in trading activities for energy, weather derivatives, or other nonexchange commodity trading activities.
The fair values of outstanding derivative contracts recorded as assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet were as follows:
The fair values of outstanding derivative contracts recorded as liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet were as follows:
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy distinguishes between (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from independent sources (observable inputs) and (2) an entitys own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available in the circumstances (unobservable inputs). The fair value hierarchy consists of three broad levels, which gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:
The following section describes the valuation methodologies used by Alcoa to measure derivative contracts at fair value, including an indication of the level in the fair value hierarchy in which each instrument is generally classified. Where appropriate, the description includes details of the valuation models, the key inputs to those models, and any significant assumptions.
Derivative contracts are valued using quoted market prices and significant other observable and unobservable inputs. Such financial instruments consist of aluminum, energy, interest rate, and foreign exchange contracts. The fair values for the majority of these derivative contracts are based upon current quoted market prices. These financial instruments are typically exchange-traded and are generally classified within Level 1 or Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy depending on whether the exchange is deemed to be an active market or not.
For certain derivative contracts whose fair values are based upon trades in liquid markets, such as interest rate swaps, valuation model inputs can generally be verified and valuation techniques do not involve significant management judgment. The fair values of such financial instruments are generally classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
Alcoa has other derivative contracts that do not have observable market quotes. For these financial instruments, management uses significant other observable inputs (e.g., information concerning time premiums and volatilities for certain option type embedded derivatives and regional premiums for aluminum contracts). For periods beyond the term of quoted market prices for aluminum, Alcoa uses a model that estimates the long-term price of aluminum based on anticipated changes in worldwide supply and demand. For periods beyond the term of quoted market prices for energy, management has developed a forward curve based on independent consultant market research. Where appropriate, valuations are adjusted for various factors such as liquidity, bid/offer spreads, and credit considerations. Such adjustments are generally based on available market evidence (Level 2). In the absence of such evidence, managements best estimate is used (Level 3).
The following table presents Alcoas derivative contract assets and liabilities that are measured and recognized at fair value on a recurring basis classified under the appropriate level of the fair value hierarchy (there were no transfers in or out of Levels 1 and 2 during the periods presented):
Financial instruments classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy represent derivative contracts in which management has used at least one significant unobservable input in the valuation model. The following table presents a reconciliation of activity for such derivative contracts on a net basis:
As reflected in the table above, the net unrealized loss on derivative contracts using Level 3 valuation techniques was $796 as of June 30, 2011. This loss was mainly attributed to embedded derivatives in power contracts that index the price of power to the London Metal Exchange (LME) price of aluminum. These embedded derivatives are primarily valued using observable market prices. However, due to the length of the contracts, the valuation model also requires management to estimate the long-term price of aluminum based upon anticipated changes in worldwide supply and demand. The embedded derivatives have been designated as hedges of forward sales of aluminum and their realized gains and losses were included in Sales on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations.
Also, included within Level 3 measurements are derivative financial instruments that hedge the cost of electricity. Transactions involving on-peak power are observable as there is an active market. However, there are certain off-peak times when there is not an actively traded market for electricity. Therefore, management utilizes market prices, historical relationships, and various forecast services to determine the fair value. Management utilizes these same valuation techniques for an existing power contract associated with a smelter in the U.S. that no longer qualified for the normal purchase normal sale exception under derivative accounting in late 2009. Unrealized gains and losses for this physical power contract were included in Other (income) expenses, net on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations, while realized gains and losses were included in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. Additionally, a financial contract related to the same U.S. smelter utilized by management to hedge the price of electricity of the aforementioned power contract no longer qualified for cash flow hedge accounting near the end of 2009. Realized gains and losses of this financial contract were included in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations, while unrealized gains and losses were included in Other (income) expenses, net on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. Both the physical power contract and the financial contract related to this U.S. smelter expire in September 2011.
Additionally, Alcoa has contracts to hedge the anticipated power requirements at two smelters in Australia. These derivatives hedge forecasted power purchases through December 2036. Beyond the term where market information is available, management has developed a forward curve, for valuation purposes, based on independent consultant market research. The effective portion of gains and losses on these contracts were recorded in Other comprehensive income on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet until the designated hedge periods begin in 2014 and 2016. Once the hedge periods begin, realized gains and losses will be recorded in Cost of goods sold.
Furthermore, an embedded derivative in a power contract that indexes the difference between the long-term debt ratings of Alcoa and the counterparty from any of the three major credit rating agencies is included in Level 3. Management uses market prices, historical relationships, and forecast services to determine fair value. Realized gains and losses for this embedded derivative were included in Other (income) expenses, net on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations.
Fair Value Hedges
For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the loss or gain on the hedged item attributable to the hedged risk are recognized in current earnings. The gain or loss on the hedged items are included in the same line items as the loss or gain on the related derivative contracts as follows (there were no contracts that ceased to qualify as a fair value hedge in any of the periods presented):