|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
This excerpt taken from the HSY 10-K filed Mar 7, 2005. 5. COMMITMENTS The Company has entered into certain obligations for the purchase of raw materials. Purchase obligations primarily reflect forward contracts for the purchase of raw materials from third-party brokers and dealers to minimize the effect of future price fluctuations. Total obligations for each year are comprised of fixed price contracts for the purchase of commodities and unpriced contracts that have been valued using market prices as of December 31, 2004. The cost of commodities associated with the unpriced contracts is variable as market prices change over future periods. However, the variability of such costs is mitigated to the extent of the Company’s futures price cover for those periods. Accordingly, increases or decreases in market prices will be offset by gains or losses on commodity futures contracts to the extent that the unpriced contracts are hedged as of December 31, 2004 and in future periods. Taking delivery of the specific commodities for use in the manufacture of finished goods satisfies these obligations. For each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004, such obligations were fully satisfied by taking delivery of and making payment for the specific commodities. As of December 31, 2004, the Company had entered into purchase agreements with various suppliers. Subject to the Company’s quality standards being met, the purchase obligations covered by these agreements aggregated approximately $796.5 million in 2005, $291.7 million in 2006, $33.1 million in 2007, $7.5 million in 2008 and $3.7 million in 2009. As previously discussed in Note 2, Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change, the Company adopted Interpretation No. 46 as of June 30, 2003, resulting in the consolidation of the three off-balance sheet arrangements with SPTs. The consolidation of these entities resulted in an adjustment to record the cumulative effect of the accounting change of approximately $7.4 million, or $.03 per share-diluted, in the third quarter of 2003, reflecting the after-tax effect of accumulated depreciation for these facilities from lease inception through June 29, 2003. Additionally, the consolidation of these entities resulted in a net increase to property, plant and equipment of approximately $107.7 million, with a corresponding increase to long-term debt of $115.5 million and to other long-term liabilities of $4.4 million, reflecting the third party equity interest associated with the lease arrangements. Prior to June 30, 2003, expenses associated with the lease arrangements were classified as rent expense and included in cost of sales in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Subsequent to the consolidation of these entities, expenses were classified as interest expense associated with the corresponding long-term debt. An increase in 50
During 1999 and 2000 the Company entered into off-balance sheet arrangements for the leasing of certain warehouse and distribution facilities. These off-balance sheet arrangements enabled the Company to lease these facilities under more favorable terms than other leasing alternatives. The lease arrangements are with SPTs whereby the Company leases warehouse and distribution facilities in Redlands, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Hershey, Pennsylvania, as discussed below. The SPTs were formed to facilitate the acquisition and subsequent leasing of the facilities to the Company. The SPTs financed the acquisition of the facilities by issuing notes and equity certificates to independent third-party financial institutions. The independent third-party financial institutions that hold the equity certificates are the owners of the SPTs. The owners of the SPTs have made substantive residual equity capital investments in excess of 3%, which will be at risk during the entire term of each lease. Accordingly, the Company did not consolidate the SPTs prior to June 30, 2003 because not all of the conditions for consolidation had been met. In December 2000, the Company entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the warehouse and distribution facility in Redlands, California. The lease term was approximately ten years, with occupancy to begin upon completion of the facility. The lease agreement contained an option for the Company to purchase the facility. In January 2002, the Company assigned its right to purchase the facility to an SPT that in turn purchased the completed facility and leased it to the Company under a new lease agreement. The lease term is five years, with up to four renewal periods of five years each with the consent of the lessor. The cost incurred by the SPT to acquire the facility, including land, was $40.1 million. In October 2000, the Company entered into a lease agreement with an SPT for the leasing of a warehouse and distribution facility near Atlanta, Georgia. The lease term is five years, with up to four renewal periods of five years each with the consent of the lessor. The cost incurred by the SPT to acquire the facility, including land, was $18.2 million. In July 1999, the Company entered into a lease agreement with an SPT for the construction and leasing of a warehouse and distribution facility located on land owned by the Company near Hershey, Pennsylvania. Under the agreement, the lessor paid construction costs totaling $61.7 million. The lease term is six years, including the one-year construction period, with up to four renewal periods of five years each with the consent of the lessor. Aside from the residual guarantees and instrument guarantees associated with the individual leasing arrangements, as discussed below, the Company has provided no other guarantees or capitalization of these entities. The Company has not collateralized the obligations in connection with these leases. The Company has no obligations with respect to refinancing of the lessor’s debt, would incur no significant penalties that would result in the reasonable assurance of continuation of the leases and has no significant guarantees other than the residual and instrument guarantees discussed below. There are no other material commitments or contingent liabilities associated with the leasing arrangements. The Company’s transactions with the SPTs are limited to the lease agreements. The Company does not anticipate entering into any other arrangements involving SPEs. The leases include substantial residual guarantees by the Company for a significant amount of the financing and options to purchase the facilities at original cost. Pursuant to instrument guarantees, in the event of a default under the lease agreements, the Company guaranteed to the note holders and certificate holders payment in an amount equal to all sums then due under the leases. There are no penalties or other disincentives under the lease agreements if the Company decides not to renew any of the three leases. The terms for each renewal period under each of the three lease arrangements are identical to the initial terms and do not represent bargain lease terms. If the Company were to exercise its options to purchase the three facilities at original cost at the end of the respective initial lease terms, the Company could purchase the facilities for a total of approximately $120.0 million, $79.9 million for the Pennsylvania and Georgia facilities in 2005 and 51 $40.1 million for the California facility in 2007. If the Company chooses not to renew the leases or purchase the assets at the end of the lease terms, the Company is obligated under the residual guarantees for approximately $103.2 million in total for the three leases. Additionally, the Company is obligated to re-market each property on the lessor’s behalf and, upon sale, distribute a portion of the proceeds to the note holders and certificate holders up to an amount equal to the remaining debt and equity certificates and to pay closing costs. If the Company chooses not to renew or purchase the assets at the end of the lease terms, the Company does not anticipate a material disruption to operations, since such facilities are not unique, facilities with similar racking and storage capabilities are available in each of the areas where the facilities are located, there are no significant leasehold improvements that would be impaired, there would be no adverse tax consequences, the financing of replacement facilities would not be material to the Company’s cash flows and costs related to relocation would not be significant to income. The facility located near Hershey, Pennsylvania was constructed on land owned by the Company. The Company entered into a ground lease with the lessor, an SPT. The initial term of the ground lease extends to the date that is the later of (i) the date the facility lease is no longer in effect, or (ii) the date when the Company satisfies the residual guarantee associated with the lease. An additional term for the ground lease begins upon the end of the initial ground lease term and ends upon the later of the date all sums required to be paid under the lease agreement are paid in full and the 75th anniversary of the ground lease commencement date. If the Company chooses not to renew the building lease or purchase the building, it must re-market the building on the lessor’s behalf subject to the ground lease, which will continue in force until the earlier of the date all sums required to be paid under the lease agreement are paid in full and the 75th anniversary of the ground lease inception date. The lease of the warehouse and distribution facility does not include any provisions that would require the Company to sell the land to the SPT. Rent expense was $29.1 million, $32.6 million and $34.6 million for 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Rent expense pertains to all operating leases, which were principally related to certain administrative buildings, warehouse and distribution facilities and transportation equipment. Future minimum rental payments under non-cancelable operating leases with a remaining term in excess of one year as of December 31, 2004, totaled $61.4 million (2005—$12.6 million; 2006—$12.2 million; 2007—$11.3 million; 2008—$8.7 million; 2009—$5.0 million; 2010 and beyond—$11.6 million).
The Company adopted SFAS No. 133, as amended, as of January 1, 2001. SFAS No. 133, as amended, requires the Company to recognize all derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities in the balance sheet at fair value. The accounting for the change in fair value of the derivative depends on whether the instrument qualifies for and has been designated as a hedging relationship and on the type of hedging relationship. There are three types of hedging relationships: a cash flow hedge, a fair value hedge and a hedge of foreign currency exposure of a net investment in a foreign operation. The designation is based upon the exposure being hedged. All derivative instruments currently utilized by the Company are designated and accounted for as cash flow hedges. |
| |||||||
