|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
These excerpts taken from the HBI 10-K filed Feb 19, 2008. Goodwill
As of December 29, 2007, we had $310 million of
goodwill. We do not amortize goodwill, but we assess for
impairment at least annually and more often as triggering events
occur. During the third quarter of the year ended
December 29, 2007, we changed the timing of our annual
goodwill impairment testing to the first day of the third fiscal
quarter. Prior to year ended December 29, 2007, our policy
was to perform the test at the end of the second fiscal quarter
which coincided with Sara Lee’s policy before the spin off.
The change in the annual goodwill impairment testing date was
made following the change in our fiscal year-end from the
Saturday closest to June 30 to the Saturday closest to December
31 and results in the testing continuing to be performed in the
middle of our fiscal year. In addition, this change in
accounting principle better aligns the annual goodwill
impairment test with the timing of our annual long range
planning cycle. The change in accounting principle does not
delay, accelerate or avoid an impairment charge. Accordingly, we
believe that the change in accounting principle described above
is preferable under the circumstances.
In evaluating the recoverability of goodwill, we estimate the
fair value of our reporting units. We have determined that our
reporting units are at the operating segment level. We rely on a
number of factors to determine the fair value of our reporting
units and evaluate various factors to discount anticipated
future cash flows, including operating results, business plans,
and present value techniques. As discussed above under
“Trademarks and Other Identifiable Intangibles,” there
are inherent uncertainties related to these factors, and our
judgment in applying them and the assumptions underlying the
impairment analysis may change in such a manner that impairment
in value may occur in the future. Such impairment will be
recognized in the period in which it becomes known.
Table of Contents
We evaluate the recoverability of goodwill using a two-step
process based on an evaluation of reporting units. The first
step involves a comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value
to its carrying value. In the second step, if the reporting
unit’s carrying value exceeds its fair value, we compare
the goodwill’s implied fair value and its carrying value.
If the goodwill’s carrying value exceeds its implied fair
value, we recognize an impairment loss in an amount equal to
such excess.
Goodwill As of December 29, 2007, we had $310 million of goodwill. We do not amortize goodwill, but we assess for impairment at least annually and more often as triggering events occur. During the third quarter of the year ended December 29, 2007, we changed the timing of our annual goodwill impairment testing to the first day of the third fiscal quarter. Prior to year ended December 29, 2007, our policy was to perform the test at the end of the second fiscal quarter which coincided with Sara Lee’s policy before the spin off. The change in the annual goodwill impairment testing date was made following the change in our fiscal year-end from the Saturday closest to June 30 to the Saturday closest to December 31 and results in the testing continuing to be performed in the middle of our fiscal year. In addition, this change in accounting principle better aligns the annual goodwill impairment test with the timing of our annual long range planning cycle. The change in accounting principle does not delay, accelerate or avoid an impairment charge. Accordingly, we believe that the change in accounting principle described above is preferable under the circumstances. In evaluating the recoverability of goodwill, we estimate the fair value of our reporting units. We have determined that our reporting units are at the operating segment level. We rely on a number of factors to determine the fair value of our reporting units and evaluate various factors to discount anticipated future cash flows, including operating results, business plans, and present value techniques. As discussed above under “Trademarks and Other Identifiable Intangibles,” there are inherent uncertainties related to these factors, and our judgment in applying them and the assumptions underlying the impairment analysis may change in such a manner that impairment in value may occur in the future. Such impairment will be recognized in the period in which it becomes known.
Table of ContentsWe evaluate the recoverability of goodwill using a two-step process based on an evaluation of reporting units. The first step involves a comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value to its carrying value. In the second step, if the reporting unit’s carrying value exceeds its fair value, we compare the goodwill’s implied fair value and its carrying value. If the goodwill’s carrying value exceeds its implied fair value, we recognize an impairment loss in an amount equal to such excess. This excerpt taken from the HBI 10-Q filed Nov 5, 2007. Goodwill
During the third quarter of fiscal 2007, we changed the timing
of our annual goodwill impairment testing to the first day of
the third fiscal quarter. Prior to fiscal 2007, our policy was
to perform the test at the end of the second fiscal quarter
which coincided with Sara Lee’s policy before the spin off.
The change in the annual goodwill impairment testing date was
made following the change in our fiscal year-end from the
Saturday closest to June 30 to the Saturday closest to December
31 and results in the testing continuing to be performed in the
middle of our fiscal year. In addition, this accounting change
better aligns the annual goodwill impairment test with the
timing of our annual long range planning cycle. The change in
accounting principle does not delay, accelerate or avoid an
impairment charge. Accordingly, we believe that the accounting
change described above is preferable under the circumstances.
This excerpt taken from the HBI 8-K filed Nov 29, 2006. Goodwill
As of July 1, 2006, we had $278.7 million of goodwill.
We do not amortize goodwill, but we assess for impairment at
least annually and more often as triggering events occur.
Historically, we have performed our annual review in the second
quarter of each year.
In evaluating the recoverability of goodwill, we estimate the
fair value of our reporting units. Reporting units are business
components one level below the operating segment level for which
discrete information is available and reviewed by segment
management. We rely on a number of factors to determine the fair
value of our reporting units and evaluate various factors to
discount anticipated future cash flows, including operating
results, business plans, and present value techniques. As
discussed above under “Trademarks and Other Identifiable
Intangibles,” there are inherent uncertainties related to
these factors, and our judgment in applying them and the
assumptions underlying the impairment analysis may change in
such a manner that impairment in value may occur in the future.
Such impairment will be recognized in the period in which it
becomes known.
We evaluate the recoverability of goodwill using a two-step
process based on an evaluation of reporting units. The first
step involves a comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value
to its carrying value. In the second step, if the reporting
unit’s carrying value exceeds its fair value, we compare
the goodwill’s implied fair value
and its carrying value. If the goodwill’s carrying value
exceeds its implied fair value, we recognize an impairment loss
in an amount equal to such excess.
This excerpt taken from the HBI 10-K filed Sep 28, 2006. Goodwill
As of July 1, 2006, we had $278.7 million of goodwill.
We do not amortize goodwill, but we assess for impairment at
least annually and more often as triggering events occur.
Historically, we have performed our annual review in the second
quarter of each year.
In evaluating the recoverability of goodwill, we estimate the
fair value of our reporting units. Reporting units are business
components one level below the operating segment level for which
discrete information is available and reviewed by segment
management. We rely on a number of factors to determine the fair
value of our reporting units and evaluate various factors to
discount anticipated future cash flows, including operating
results, business plans, and present value techniques. As
discussed above under “Trademarks and Other Identifiable
Intangibles,” there are inherent uncertainties related to
these factors, and our judgment in applying them and the
assumptions underlying the impairment analysis may change in
such a manner that impairment in value may occur in the future.
Such impairment will be recognized in the period in which it
becomes known.
We evaluate the recoverability of goodwill using a two-step
process based on an evaluation of reporting units. The first
step involves a comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value
to its carrying value. In the second step, if the reporting
unit’s carrying value exceeds its fair value, we compare
the goodwill’s implied fair value
Table of Contents
and its carrying value. If the goodwill’s carrying value
exceeds its implied fair value, we recognize an impairment loss
in an amount equal to such excess.
This excerpt taken from the HBI 8-K filed Sep 5, 2006. Goodwill Goodwill and the changes in those amounts during the period are as follows:
There was no impairment of goodwill in any of the years presented.
Due to the historical relationship between Sara Lee and the Company, there are various contracts under which Sara Lee has guaranteed certain third-party obligations relating to the Company’s business. Typically, these obligations arise from third-party credit facilities guaranteed by Sara Lee and as a result of contracts entered into by the Company’s entities and authorized by Sara Lee, under which Sara Lee agrees to indemnify a third-party against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to such matters as title to assets sold, the collectibility of receivables, specified environmental matters, lease obligations and certain tax matters. In each of these circumstances, payment by Sara Lee is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the contract, which procedures allow Sara Lee to challenge the other party’s claims. In addition, Sara Lee’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some cases Sara Lee or the related entities may have recourse against third-parties for certain payments made by Sara Lee. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under certain of these agreements, due to the conditional nature of Sara Lee’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by Sara Lee under these agreements have not been material, and no amounts are accrued for these items on the Combined and Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of July 2, 2005, these contracts included the guarantee of credit limits with third-party banks and guarantees over supplier purchases. The Company had not guaranteed or undertaken any obligation on behalf of Sara Lee or any other related entities as of July 2, 2005.
F-28
Table of ContentsHANESBRANDS Notes to Combined and Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued) (dollars in thousands, except per share data)
| EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
|
| |||||||
