UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

     (Mark(Mark One)

þx      Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the quarterly period ended:May August 31, 2004

or

o      Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the transition period from                   to                   

Commission File Number 1-1520

GenCorp Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
   
Ohio
34-0244000
(State of Incorporation) 34-0244000
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
   
Highway 50 and Aerojet Road
Rancho Cordova, California
95670
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) 95670
(Zip Code)
   
P.O. Box 537012
Sacramento, California
95853-7012
(Mailing Address) 95853-7012
(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (916) 355-4000

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yesþx Noo

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yesþx Noo

     As of JuneSeptember 30, 2004, there were 44,822,47645,322,909 outstanding shares of our Common Stock, $0.10 par value.



 


GenCorp Inc.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
For the Quarterly Period Ended MayAugust 31, 2004

Table of Contents

             
Item        
Number
   Page
    
    
 1    1     
 2    38     
 3    49     
 4    50     
    
 1    51     
 2    51     
 3    52     
 4    52     
 5    52     
 6    52     
    
      54     
    
      55     
 EX-31.1 CEO 302 CERTIFICATION
 EX-31.2 CFO 302 CERTIFICATION
 EX-32.1 906 CERTIFICATION
         
Item    
Number
   Page
        
 1    1 
 2    41 
 3    55 
 4    56 
        
 1    57 
 2    58 
 3    58 
 4    58 
 5    58 
 6    58 
        
      61 
        
      62 
 EX-2.3 Second Amendment to Stock and Asset Agreement
 EX-10.2 Amendment #5 to Amended Credit Agreement
 EX-31.1 302 Certifications
 EX-31.2 302 Certifications
 EX-32.1 906 Certifications

 


Part I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

GenCorp Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
(Unaudited)
                            
 Three months ended Six months ended Three months ended Nine months ended
 May 31,
 May 31
 August 31,
 August 31
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 (Dollars in millions, except per share amounts) (Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)
Net Sales
 $136 $101 $260 $181  $116 $98 $350 $245 
Costs and Expenses
  
Cost of products sold 115 78 224 137  114 71 319 189 
Selling, general and administrative 15 10 28 19  11 5 34 20 
Depreciation and amortization 10 8 20 17  8 7 25 20 
Interest expense 8 5 16 9  9 5 25 13 
Other income, net    (1)  (3)
Unusual items, net  2  2 
Other (income) expense, net  (14) 1  (14)  (3)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes  (12)   (27) 2   (12) 7  (39) 4 
Income tax benefit (provision)  (24) 1  (18)  
Income tax provision 3 2 33 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations  (36) 1  (45) 2   (15) 5  (72) 3 
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax  (276) 9  (286) 11   (32)  (8)  (306) 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) $(312) $10 $(331) $13  $(47) $(3) $(378) $10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Earnings (Loss) Per Share of Common Stock
  
Basic and Diluted:  
Income (loss) per share from continuing operations $(0.81) $0.02 $(1.03) $0.06  $(0.33) $0.11 $(1.63) $0.08 
Income (loss) per share from discontinued operations  (6.25) 0.20  (6.48) 0.24   (0.72)  (0.18)  (6.91) 0.15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) per share $(7.06) $0.22 $(7.51) $0.30 
Income (loss) per share $(1.05) $(0.07) $(8.54) $0.23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic and Diluted: 
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding 44.2 43.2 44.0 43.1  44.5 43.5 44.2 43.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding, assuming dilution 44.5 43.6 44.2 43.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dividends Declared Per Share of Common Stock
 $0.03 $0.03 $0.06 $0.06  $ $0.03 $0.06 $0.09 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

1


GENCORP INC.

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(Unaudited)
        
 May 31, November 30,      
 2004
 2003
 August 31, November 30,
 (Dollars in millions, 2004
 2003
 except per share amounts) (Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)
ASSETS
ASSETS
 
Current Assets
  
Cash and cash equivalents $51 $64  $31 $64 
Restricted cash 16  
Accounts receivable 91 92  89 88 
Inventories, net 197 170  165 142 
Recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs 32 37  36 37 
Current deferred income taxes  2   2 
Prepaid expenses and other 8 14  4 13 
Assets of discontinued operations 319 571  105 663 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Current Assets 698 950  446 1,009 
Noncurrent Assets
  
Restricted cash 54  
Property, plant and equipment, net 211 217  140 148 
Recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs 176 183  208 183 
Deferred income taxes  17   17 
Prepaid pension asset 302 320  290 320 
Goodwill 103 100  103 100 
Other noncurrent assets, net 107 120  114 120 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Noncurrent Assets 899 957  909 888 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Assets $1,597 1,907  $1,355 $1,897 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
 
Current Liabilities
  
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt $28 $52  $16 $52 
Accounts payable 29 41  29 37 
Reserves for environmental remediation 47 53  53 53 
Income taxes payable 41 23  31 23 
Deferred income taxes 1  
Other current liabilities 158 181  143 166 
Liabilities of discontinued operations 154 160  23 169 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Current Liabilities 457 510  296 500 
Noncurrent Liabilities
  
Senior subordinated notes 150 150  150 150 
Convertible subordinated notes 150 150  150 150 
Contingent convertible subordinated notes 125   125  
Other long-term debt, net of current portion 142 186  127 186 
Reserves for environmental remediation 250 262  264 262 
Postretirement benefits other than pensions 148 148  143 148 
Other noncurrent liabilities 76 73  75 73 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Noncurrent Liabilities 1,041 969  1,034 969 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Liabilities 1,498 1,479  1,330 1,469 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities
  
Shareholders’ Equity
  
Preference stock, par value of $1.00; 15 million shares authorized; none issued or outstanding      
Common stock, par value of $0.10; 150 million shares authorized; 44.8 million shares issued, 44.3 million outstanding as of May 31, 2004; 44.3 million shares issued, 43.8 million shares outstanding as of November 30, 2003 4 4 
Common stock, par value of $0.10; 150 million shares authorized; 45.2 million shares issued, 44.7 million outstanding as of August 31, 2004; 44.3 million shares issued, 43.8 million shares outstanding as of November 30, 2003 5 4 
Other capital 25 19  29 19 
Retained earnings 39 373 
Accumulated other comprehensive income, net of income taxes 31 32 
(Accumulated deficit) retained earnings  (8) 373 
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes  (1) 32 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Shareholders’ Equity 99 428  25 428 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity $1,597 $1,907  $1,355 $1,897 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

2


GenCorp Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Unaudited)
               
 Six months ended
 Nine months ended
 May 31,
 May 31,
 August 31,
 August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 (Dollars in millions) (Dollars in millions)
Operating Activities
  
Income (loss) from continuing operations $(45) $2  $(72) $3 
Adjustments to reconcile income (loss) to net cash used in continuing operations:  
Foreign currency gain   (4)   (2)
Depreciation and amortization 20 17  25 20 
Deferred income taxes 19 10  19 4 
Changes in assets and liabilities:  
Current assets  (15)  (19)  (17)  (14)
Noncurrent assets 36 4  4 3 
Current liabilities  (24)  (13)  (32)  (9)
Noncurrent liabilities  (9)  (20) 4  (29)
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Net cash used in continuing operations  (18)  (23)  (69)  (24)
Net cash (used in) provided by discontinued operations  (18) 22   (21) 44 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Net Cash Used in Operating Activities  (36)  (1)
Net Cash (Used in) Provided by Operating Activities  (90) 20 
Investing Activities
  
Capital expenditures  (9)  (4)  (11)  (6)
Proceeds from business disposition 140  
Restricted cash  (70)  (95)
Investing activities of discontinued operations  (21)  (10)  (37)  (23)
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Net Cash Used in Investing Activities  (30)  (14)
Net Cash (Used in) Provided by Investing Activities 22  (124)
Financing Activities
  
Proceeds from issuance of contingent convertible subordinated notes 125  
Proceeds from issuance of debt 125 150 
Repayments on revolving credit facility  (30)    (30)  (45)
Borrowings (repayments) of short-term debt  (15) 11   (28) 21 
Proceeds from the issuance of other long-term debt 2 9  2 6 
Repayments of other long-term debt  (26)  (11)
Repayments of long-term debt  (39)  (14)
Debt issuance costs  (5)    (5)  (5)
Dividends paid  (2)  (3)  (2)  (4)
Other equity transactions 5 2  9 4 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities 54 8  32 113 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents  (1) 5  3 4 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Net Decrease in Cash and Cash Equivalents
  (13)  (2)
Net (Decrease) Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents
  (33) 13 
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period 64 48  64 48 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period $51 $46  $31 $61 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

3


GenCorp Inc.
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

1. Basis of Presentation and Nature of Operations

     We have prepared the accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, including our accounts and the accounts of our wholly-ownedwholly owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and therefore do not include all of the information and notes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and accompanying notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Unless otherwise indicated or required by the context, as used in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the terms “we,” “our,”“our” and “us” refer to GenCorp Inc. and all of our subsidiaries that are consolidated under GAAP.

     We believe the accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring accruals, necessary for a fair presentation of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In addition, our operating results for interim periods may not be indicative of the results of operations for a full year.

     Certain amounts in the prior year financial statements and notes thereto have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

We are a multinational technology-based companymanufacturer operating primarily in North America. Our continuing operations are organized into threetwo segments: Aerospace and Defense Fine Chemicals and Real Estate. The Aerospace and Defense segment includes the operations of Aerojet-General Corporation (Aerojet), which develops and manufactures propulsion systems for space and defense applications, armament systems for precision tactical weapon systems and munitions applications, and advanced airframe structures. Primary customers served include major prime contractors to the U.S. government, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Fine Chemicals segment consists of the operations of Aerojet Fine Chemicals LLC (AFC), sales of which are primarily from custom manufactured active pharmaceutical ingredients and advanced/registered intermediates to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The Real Estate segment includes activities related to the development, sale and leasing of our real estate assets. Information on our operations by segment is provided in Note 16.15.

     During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, we classified the GDX Automotive (GDX) operating segment as a discontinued operationsoperation as a result of our announcedplans to sell the business. During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we signed a definitive agreement to sell GDX, including substantially all of the assets of GenCorp Inc. that were used in the GDX business and substantially all of GenCorp Inc.’s worldwide subsidiaries that were engaged in the GDX business, to Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. (Cerberus) for $147 million, subject to adjustment, of which $140 million has been received as of August 31, 2004. We closed the transaction on August 31, 2004. During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we classified the Fine Chemicals segment as a discontinued operation as a result of our plans to sell the business. See additional discussion in Note 15.14. For all periods presented, we have classified the results of GDX and Fine Chemicals as discontinued operations in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. The assets and liabilities of GDX have been

4


classified as Assets of Discontinued Operations and Liabilities of Discontinued Operations in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of November 30, 2003. The assets and liabilities of the Fine Chemicals segment have been classified as Assets of Discontinued Operations and Liabilities of Discontinued Operations in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of MayAugust 31, 2004 and November 30, 2003.

     On October 17, 2003, Aerojet completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets of the propulsion business of Atlantic Research Corporation (ARC), a subsidiary of Sequa Corporation (Sequa), for a purchase price of $144 million, comprised of $133 million in cash and estimated direct

4


acquisition costs and purchase price adjustments of $11 million. In March 2004, Sequa proposed purchase price adjustments which would require that Aerojet make an additional payment. The two parties have been negotiating the proposed adjustments and have reached a mutual understanding on several matters. On other matters, the parties are in disagreement and are preparing for binding arbitration. Management does not believe the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on our financial condition.

2. Earnings (Loss) Per Share of Common Stock

     A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used to calculate basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share of common stock (EPS) is presented in the following table (dollars in millions, except per share amounts and shares in thousands):

             
                 Three months ended Nine months ended
 Three months ended May 31,
 Six months ended May 31,
 August 31,
 August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Numerator for Basic and Diluted EPS
  
Income (loss) from continuing operations $(36) $1 $(45) $2  $(15) $5 $(72) $3 
Income (loss) from discontinued operations  (276) 9  (286) 11   (32)  (8)  (306) 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders $(312) $10 $(331) $13  $(47) $(3) $(378) $10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denominator for Basic EPS
  
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding 44,193 43,226 44,044 43,115  44,516 43,478 44,208 43,234 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denominator for Diluted EPS
  
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding 44,193 43,226 44,044 43,115  44,516 43,478 44,208 43,234 
Employee stock options and other  22  27   104  43 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44,193 43,248 44,044 43,142  44,516 43,582 44,208 43,277 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic and Diluted:
  
Income (loss) per share from continuing operations $(0.81) $0.02 $(1.03) $0.06  $(0.33) $0.11 $(1.63) $0.08 
Income (loss) per share from discontinued operations  (6.25) 0.20  (6.48) 0.24  $(0.72) $(0.18) $(6.91) $0.15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) per share $(7.06) $0.22 $(7.51) $0.30 
Income (loss) per share $(1.05) $(0.07) $(8.54) $0.23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

     The effect of a conversion of our $150 million aggregate principal amount of 5.75% Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2007 issued in April 2002 (5.75% Notes) into common stock was not included in the computation of diluted earnings (loss) per share for the three and sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 and MayAugust 31, 2003 because the effect would behave been antidilutive for these periods. Our $125 million aggregate principal amount of 4% Contingent Convertible Subordinated

5


Notes due 2024, issued in January 2004 (4% Notes) were not convertible into common stock as of MayAugust 31, 2004,2004; accordingly, the 4% Notes were not included in the computation of diluted earnings (loss) per share for the three and sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004. The 5.75% Notes are convertible at an initial conversion rate of 54.29 shares per $1,000 outstanding. The 4% Notes are convertible at an initial conversion rate of 64.8088 shares per $1,000 outstanding. Potentially dilutive securities that were not included in the diluted EPS calculation because they would have been antidilutive also include 3,278,0053,044,673 and 3,249,0003,644,518 employee stock options for the three months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and 3,278,0053,044,673 and 3,209,0002,947,089 employee stock options for the sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

5


3. Stock Based Compensation

     As permitted by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123,Accounting for Stock-Based Compensationand SFAS No. 148,Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure, we apply the existing accounting rules under APB Opinion No. 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,which provides that no compensation expense is charged for options granted at an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant. Had compensation expense for our stock option plans been determined based upon the fair value at the grant date for awards under these plans using market-based option valuation models, net income (loss) and the effect on net income (loss) per share would have been as follows (dollars in millions, except per share amounts):

                
                 Three months ended Nine months ended
 Three months ended May 31,
 Six months ended May 31,
 August 31,
 August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Net income (loss), as reported $(312) $10 $(331) $13  $(47) $(3) $(378) $10 
Add: Stock based compensation expense reported, net of related tax effects     (1)
Add: stock based compensation expense reported, net of related tax effects     (1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss), pro forma $(312) $10 $(331) $12  $(47) $(3) $(378) $9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Earnings (loss) per share:  
As reported  
Basic and Diluted $(7.06) $0.22 $(7.51) $0.30  $(1.05) $(0.07) $(8.54) $0.23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pro forma ��  
Basic and Diluted $(7.06) $0.22 $(7.52) $0.28  $(1.05) $(0.07) $(8.54) $0.21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

     Option valuation models require the input of highly subjective assumptions including the expected stock price volatility. Because our employee stock options have characteristics significantly different from those of traded options and because changes in the input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate, it is our opinion that the existing models do not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of the employee stock options. The discontinuedDiscontinued operations earnings (loss) per share would not have changed as a result of stock based compensation expense.

4. Inventories, Net

         
  May 31, November 30,
  2004
 2003
  (dollars in millions)
Raw materials and supplies $14  $11 
Work-in-process  11   12 
Finished goods  4   2 
   
 
   
 
 
Approximate replacement cost of inventories  29   25 
Long-term contracts at average cost  219   206 
Progress payments  (51)  (61)
   
 
   
 
 
Inventories, net $197  $170 
   
 
   
 
 

6


4. Inventories, Net

         
  August 31, November 30,
  2004
 2003
  (dollars in millions)
Long-term contracts at average cost $216  $196 
Raw materials and supplies  8   7 
Progress payments  (59)  (61)
   
 
   
 
 
Inventories, net $165  $142 
   
 
   
 
 

     During the third quarter of 2004, Aerojet recorded an inventory write-down of $16 million on a contract to design, develop and produce a solid rocket motor for Lockheed Martin’s Atlas® V program. This write-down relates to unanticipated transition costs from the development phase to the production phase of the contract and the value of materials rendered obsolete by a decision to proceed with qualification and production of an enhanced motor configuration. In management’s judgment, these costs will not be recoverable on the contract.

     The current contract provides for production of 44 motors over a number of years and for the order of an additional 52 motors at Lockheed Martin’s option. At August 31, 2004, the Atlas V inventory balance was $128 million. Full recovery of this investment is subject to uncertainties, including: (i) Aerojet’s ability to produce motors at its estimated average unit price, (ii) final pricing of the enhanced motor configuration, and (iii) a satisfactory renegotiation of contract terms with Lockheed Martin. Aerojet believes its Atlas V contract will be restructured during 2005 when launch services contracts between launch vehicle manufacturers and the U.S. government are modified to reflect cost pressures resulting from continued low commercial launch activity. Details of the form and terms of the anticipated changes are unknown at this time.

     Aerojet management believes that continued improvements in operational efficiency and renegotiation of contract terms will permit recovery of inventoried development and production costs. However, if management’s efforts are unsuccessful, Aerojet may be required to recognize additional material losses.

5. Property, Plant and Equipment, Net

                
 May 31, November 30, August 31, November 30,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 (dollars in millions) (dollars in millions)
Land $29 $29  $29 $29 
Buildings and improvements 166 162  124 119 
Machinery and equipment 393 393  327 327 
Construction-in-progress 19 12  16 11 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 607 596  496 486 
Less: accumulated depreciation  (396)  (379)  (356)  (338)
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Property, plant and equipment, net $211 $217  $140 $148 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

7


6. Goodwill

     The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 were as follows (dollars in millions):

        
Goodwill balance at November 30, 2003 $100  $100 
Purchase accounting adjustments 3  3 
 
 
  
 
 
Goodwill balance at May 31, 2004 $103 
Goodwill balance at August 31, 2004 $103 
 
 
  
 
 

     Our goodwill balance at MayAugust 31, 2004 and November 30, 2003 relates to our Aerospace and Defense segment. During the first sixnine months of fiscal 2004, goodwill of $3 million was recorded as a result of corrections to the valuation of assets and liabilities associated with the ARC acquisition completed in October 2003 and the acquisition of the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Space Propulsion and Fire Suppression business (Redmond, Washington operations) completed in October 2002. The adjustments reflect the use of more accurate data in valuing certain operations acquired as part of the transaction with Sequa Corporation which were required to be disposed of by the Federal Trade Commission as a condition to approving the ARC acquisition and in recording our post-retirement obligation associated with our acquired Redmond, Washington operationsoperation’s employees.

7. Other Noncurrent Assets, Net

              
 May 31, November 30, August 31, November 30,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 (dollars in millions) (dollars in millions)
Intangible assets $29 $30  $28 $30 
Notes receivable  20 
Note receivable  20 
Deferred financing costs 22 20  20 20 
Real estate held for development and leasing 22 14  25 19 
Other 34 36  41 31 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Other noncurrent assets, net $107 $120  $114 $120 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

78. Other Current Liabilities

         
  August 31, November 30,
  2004
 2003
  (dollars in millions)
Accrued goods and services $22  $25 
Contract loss provisions  8   14 
Advanced payments on contracts  9   14 
Accrued compensation and employee benefits  34   34 
Postretirement benefits, other than pension  24   29 
Interest payable  6   7 
Other  40   43 
   
 
   
 
 
Other current liabilities $143  $166 
   
 
   
 
 

8


8. Other Current Liabilities

         
  May 31, November 30,
  2004
 2003
  (dollars in millions)
Accrued goods and services $62  $67 
Advanced payments on contracts  9   14 
Accrued compensation and employee benefits  26   30 
Postretirement benefits, other than pension  25   29 
Other  36   41 
   
 
   
 
 
Other current liabilities $158  $181 
   
 
   
 
 

9. Long-term Debt

              
 May 31, November 30, August 31, November 30,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 (dollars in millions) (dollars in millions)
Senior Credit Facility:  
Revolving Credit Facility $ $30  $ $30 
Term Loan A 28 52  28 52 
Term Loan B 114 114  113 114 
Senior Subordinated Notes (9.50% Notes) 150 150  150 150 
Convertible Subordinated Notes (5.75% Notes) 150 150  150 150 
Contingent Convertible Subordinated Notes (4% Notes) 125   125  
Foreign Credit Facilities and Other Debt 28 42  2 42 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Total debt 595 538  568 538 
Less: Amounts due within one year  (28)  (52)
Less: amounts due within one year  (16)  (52)
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Long-term debt $567 $486  $552 $486 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

     As of MayAugust 31, 2004, the borrowing limit under our Revolving Credit Facilityrevolving credit facility was $137 million.million, subject to certain restrictions described below. We had no borrowings and letters of credit of $56 million and no borrowings outstanding under that facility as of MayAugust 31, 2004. The average interest rate on the outstanding balance of long term debt was 6.26%6.34% as of May 31, 2004, compared to 5.33% as of May 31, 2003. As of May 31, 2004, we also had borrowing limits totaling $20 million on additional credit facilities in Europe and Canada related to our discontinued operations, under which $12 million was outstanding. The outstanding borrowings are included in Foreign Credit Facilities and Other Debt in the table above. Availability under our various credit facilities totaled $89 million as of MayAugust 31, 2004.

     The charge recorded as a resultEffective August 30, 2004, we entered into an amendment, consent and waiver (Amendment) with the lenders of adjustingour senior credit facilities that allows the net proceeds from the sale of the GDX Automotive to management’s estimate of proceedsbusiness to be receivedmade available to us and applied as follows: (i) to repay any of our outstanding revolving loans without a permanent reduction in the revolver commitment, and (ii) to deposit $70 million in a designated account with one of our lenders. We are required to obtain senior lender approval for the use of the net proceeds from the sale of GDX on disposition less costsor prior to sell (see Note 15) has caused usMarch 1, 2005, unless these proceeds are used to be outrepay loans. The Amendment also provides that as long as we have $50 million or more of compliancecash on hand (including cash in the designated account), we cannot borrow from our revolver, except that we can issue letters of credit in accordance with our consolidatedthe terms of the senior credit facilities. The Amendment also relaxed certain financial covenants contained in the credit agreement going forward. Our interest coverage ratio was reduced to 2.25 to 1.00 for the quarter ended August 31, 2004, to 1.50 to 1.00 for the quarter ending November 30, 2004 and to 1.65 to 1.00 for the quarter ending February 28, 2005. The maximum leverage ratio was increased to 7.00 to 1.00 for the quarter ended August 31, 2004, and 8.25 to 1.00 for the quarters ending November 30, 2004 and February 28, 2005. The fixed charge coverage ratio was reduced to 0.90 to 1.00 for the quarter ended August 31, 2004, and 0.65 to 1.00 for the quarters ending November 30, 2004 and February 28, 2005. The minimum net worth covenant relatedwas waived through the period ending February 28, 2006. In addition, certain other consents and waivers were issued to permit the sale of the GDX business, including the release of all collateral associated with the GDX business, the release of two subsidiary guarantors and the release of the security interests in the subsidiaries being sold. Under the Amendment, the approval necessary for the consummation by us or any of our Senior Credit Facility assubsidiaries of May 31, 2004, for whichan acquisition involving total consideration given and indebtedness assumed in excess of $50 million was increased from 51% of the senior lenders have granted us a waiver through May 31, 2005.to 100% of the lenders.

     We were in compliance with our other debt covenants as of MayAugust 31, 2004.

     In connection with the anticipated sale of GDX Automotive, we will be seeking the consent of the lenders under our senior credit facilities to permit the sale of GDX Automotive and to amend and waive certain covenants therewith.

8


4% Contingent Convertible Subordinated Notes

9


     In January 2004, we issued $125 million aggregate principal amount of our 4% Contingent Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2024 (4% Notes) in a private placement pursuant to Section 4(2) and Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933. The 4% Notes will mature in January 2024. Interest on the notes accrues at a rate of 4% per annum and is payable on January 16 and July 16, beginning July 16, 2004. In addition, contingent interest will be paid during any six-month period, commencing with the six-month period, beginning January 16, 2008, if the average market price of a 4% Note for the five trading days ending on the third trading day immediately preceding the relevant six-month period equals 120% or more of the principal amount of the notes.

     Each $1,000 principal amount of the 4% Notes is convertible at each holder’s option into 64.8088 shares of our common stock (subject to adjustment as provided in the indenture governing the 4% Notes) only if: (i) during any calendar quarter if the closing price of the common stock for at least 20 trading days in the 30 trading-day period ending on the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter exceeds 120% of the conversion price on that 30th trading day; (ii) we have called the notes for redemption and redemption has not yet occurred; (iii) during the five trading day period after any five consecutive trading day period in which the average trading price of the notes for each day of such five-day period is less than 95% of the product of the common stock price on that day multiplied by the number of shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of $1,000 principal amount of the notes; or (iv) certain corporate events have occurred. The conversion rate of 64.8088 shares for each $1,000 principal amount of the 4% Notes is equivalent to an initial conversion price of $15.43 per share of our common stock. None of these events have occurred subsequent to the issuance of the notes.

     We may redeem some or all of our 4% Notes for cash on or after January 19, 2010. In addition, we may redeem some or all of our notes for cash on or after January 19, 2008 if the closing price of our common stock for at least 20 trading days in the 30 trading-day period ending on the last trading day of the preceding calendar month is more than 125% of the conversion price of $15.43. Each holder may require us to repurchase for cash all or a portion of its notes on January 16, 2010, 2014, and 2019, or, subject to certain exceptions, upon a change of control. In all cases for either redemption of the notes or repurchase of the notes at the option of the holder, the price is equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest, including contingent interest and liquidated damages, if any.

     The 4% Notes are general, unsecured obligations and rank equal in right of payment to all of our other existing and future subordinated indebtedness, including the 5.75% Notes, and junior in right of payment to all of our existing and future senior indebtedness, including all of our obligations under our Senior Credit Facilitiessenior credit facilities and all of our existing and future senior subordinated indebtedness, including our outstanding 9.50% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2013 (9.50% Notes). In addition, the 4% Notes are effectively subordinated to any of our secured debt and to any and all debt and liabilities, including trade debt of our subsidiaries.

     The indenture governing the 4% Notes limits our ability to, among other things, consolidate with or merge into any other person, or convey, transfer or lease our properties and assets substantially as an entirety to any other person unless certain conditions are satisfied. The indenture also contains customary events of default, including failure to pay principal or interest when due, cross-acceleration to other specified indebtedness, failure to deliver shares of common stock as required, failure to comply with covenants and certain events of bankruptcy, insolvency and reorganization, subject in some cases to notice and applicable grace periods.

910


     Issuance of the 4% Notes generated net proceeds of approximately $120 million, which were first used to repay $40 million of outstanding borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility,revolving credit facility, and, second, to prepay the next 12 months of scheduled principal amortization under the Term Loan A in the amount of $19 million. The remaining net proceeds arewere available to be used for general corporate purposes. Amounts repaid under

Foreign Credit Facilities and Other Debt

     Prior to the Revolving Credit Facilty may be reborrowed at any timesale of the GDX, we had credit facilities in Europe and Canada, as well as other bank loans and capitalized leases relating to our discontinued operations. With the sale of GDX effective August 31, 2004, the outstanding debt was paid in full or assumed by Cerberus and the borrowings may be usedforeign credit facilities were terminated. The remaining balance of other debt of $2 million as of August 31, 2004, represents a capitalized equipment lease for any purpose, subject only to the limitations contained in the agreements governing that facility.continuing operations.

Interest Rate Swaps

     Effective January 2003, we entered into interest rate swap agreements on $100 million of our variable rate term loan debt for a two-year period. Under the swap agreements, we make payments based on a fixed rate of 6.02% and receive a London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) based variable rate (4.89%(5.34% as of MayAugust 31, 2004). We account for the interest rate swaps pursuant to SFAS No. 133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,and there was no material ineffectiveness recognized in earnings. As of MayAugust 31, 2004, the fair value of these swaps resulted in a liability of less than $1 million, which has been included in other current liabilities with an offsetting amount recorded as an unrealized loss in other comprehensive income.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

     a. Legal proceedings

     From time to time, as discussed in our Annual Report to the SEC on Form 10-K, we and our subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings, including litigation in federal and state courts, which arise out of, and are incidental to, the ordinary course of business. We are also subject to governmental investigations by state and federal agencies. While we cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings with any degree of certainty, the potential liabilities that may result could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or the results of operations.

Groundwater Cases

     Along with other industrial Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and area water purveyors, Aerojet was sued in three cases by approximately 500 individual plaintiffs residing in the vicinity of Aerojet’s facilities near Sacramento, California (the Sacramento cases). The Sacramento Superior Court through the initial pleading stage had reduced the number of plaintiffs in the Sacramento cases to approximately 300. On or about May 28, 2004 and July 23, 2004, the Sacramento Superior Court dismissed, without leave to amend, 204nearly 250 plaintiffs, leaving the number of plaintiffs at 88.53. The remaining individual plaintiffs in the Sacramento cases generally seek damages for illness (in some cases death) and economic injury allegedly caused by their ingestion of groundwater contaminated or served by defendants, without specifying actual damages. Discovery in the Sacramento cases has commenced and trial has been set for July 2005. Aerojet has retained outside

11


counsel and is vigorously defending these actions.

     Aerojet was also sued in 14 cases by approximately 1,100 individual plaintiffs residing in the vicinity of Aerojet’s former facility in Azusa, California (the San Gabriel Valley cases). In the San Gabriel Valley cases, the number of plaintiffs has been reduced to approximately 500. The San Gabriel Valley cases, coordinated for trial in Los Angeles, California, are proceeding under two

10


master complaints and pretrial discovery is in process. The remaining individual plaintiffs in the San Gabriel Valley cases generally seek damages for illness (in some cases death) and economic injury allegedly caused by their ingestion of groundwater contaminated or served by defendants, without specifying actual damages. Aerojet and other industrial defendants involved in the cases are required to carry on certain investigations by order of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

     The trial court in the San Gabriel Valley cases has ruled that regulated water entity defendants will only be held accountable based on quantitative or numerical standards such as “maximum contaminant levels” (MCL) or “action levels.” The trial court also ruled that a single exceedance of a numerical standard does not constitute a violation. Rather, a violation requires a “failure to comply with the regulatory scheme, and not merely by exceedances of the MCL.” Thus, an exceedance of an action level, by itself, does not give rise to a cause of action. Plaintiffs have sought to overturn these rulings, but a final determination has not yet been made. The next step in these cases will be proceedings regarding whether any ofcourt also determined that the Public Utility Commission regulated water entity defendants serveddid not serve water in violation of the state and federal standards. If it is determined that theAccordingly, such regulated water purveyors served water not in violation of drinking water standards, the regulated water purveyor defendants will beentities were dismissed from the litigation, potentially leaving us and other industrial defendants that are not regulated water purveyors as the remaining party-defendants.litigation. Several defendants, including San Gabriel Water Company,some industrial defendants, have settled with the plaintiffs. Currently, 162 of the remaining approximately 500 San Gabriel Valley plaintiffs are subject to early trial — most likely in 2005. Aerojet has notified its insurers, retained outside counsel and is vigorously defending thethese actions.

McDonnell Douglas Environmental Remediation Cost Recovery Dispute

     Aerojet and McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC), an operating unit of The Boeing Company, are engaged in a dispute in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California regarding the final allocation of liability for the environmental contamination of the Inactive Rancho Cordova Test Site (IRCTS). In 1961, IRCTS was transferred by Aerojet to a predecessor of MDC and was subsequently reacquired by Aerojet in 1984. An initial federal lawsuit filed by Aerojet against MDC in 1994 was settled in 1999 (1999 Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the 1999 Settlement Agreement, Aerojet agreed to participate with MDC in the interim funding of certain remediation efforts at IRCTS, subject to a final cost allocation.

     In 2001, a disagreement between Aerojet and MDC arose regarding the interpretation of the 1999 Settlement Agreement. In December 2001, MDC filed a second lawsuit in federal court alleging that Aerojet breached the 1999 Settlement Agreement.McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Aerojet-General Corporation,Case No. CIV-01-2245, U.S. District Court, E.D. CA. Under that lawsuit, MDC sought to have Aerojet bear a 50 percent interim share (rather than the 10 percent interim share accepted by Aerojet) of the costs of investigating and remediating offsite perchlorate groundwater contamination, allegedly associated with activities on IRCTS.

     In November 2002, Aerojet and MDC entered into discussions to settle the second lawsuit by renegotiating the temporary allocation of certain costs associated with the environmental contamination at IRCTS. The partieshave reached an agreement in principlerelating to settle the interim allocation dispute relating toof costs associated with the environmental contamination at IRCTS, and expect to formalize the agreement this summer.second lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice. The parties have agreed that a final cost allocation will be determined through binding arbitration at an undetermined future date.

1112


Air Pollution Toxic Tort Cases

     Aerojet and several other defendants have been sued by private homeowners residing in the vicinity of Chino and Chino Hills, California. The cases have been consolidated and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.Baier, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. EDCV 00 618VAP (RNBx) CA;Kerr, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No. EDCV 01-19VAP (SGLx); andTaylor, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. EDCV 01-106 VAP (RNBx). Plaintiffs generally allege that defendants released hazardous chemicals into the air at their manufacturing facilities, which allegedly caused illness, death, and economic injury. Various motions have reduced the number of plaintiffs from 80 to 49. Discovery is proceeding in the cases. Trial is likely to be scheduled for 2005. Aerojet has notified its insurers and is vigorously defending the actions.

Water Entity Cases

     In October 1999, Aerojet was sued by American States Water Company (ASWC), a local water purveyor, for damages, including unspecified past costs, future damages and replacement water for contaminated drinking water wells near Aerojet’s Sacramento, California manufacturing facility.American States Water Company, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 99AS05949, Sacramento County Superior Court. Weeks before the scheduled trial, Aerojet and ASWC initiated mediation to resolve the dispute. As a result,Subsequently, Aerojet and ASWC have entered intoexecuted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to settle this matter. Although thefinal settlement agreement has not yet been finalized, the trial court has ruled that the MOU is binding and the trial date has been vacated. Any disputes arising in subsequent negotiations with respect to the settlement agreement are to be resolved by arbitration subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court for enforcement or ancillary purposes.ending this litigation.

     Aerojet’s 2003 agreement with the Sacramento County Water Agency (the County) in which Aerojet agreed to transfer all of its remediated groundwater to the County is anticipated to satisfy Aerojet’s water replacement obligations in eastern Sacramento County. Subject to various provisions of the County agreement, including approval under the California Environmental Quality Act, the County will assume Aerojet’s responsibility for providing replacement water to ASWC and other impacted water purveyors up to the amount of remediated water Aerojet transfers to the County. Aerojet has also agreed to pay the County approximately $13 million over several years toward the cost of constructing a replacement water supply project. If the amount of Aerojet’s transferred water is in excess of the replacement water provided to the impacted water purveyors, the County has committed to make such water available for the development of Aerojet’s land in an amount equal to the excess.

     In October 2002, Aerojet, along with approximately 65 other individual and corporate defendants, was served with four civil suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that seek recovery of costs allegedly incurred in response to the contamination present at the South El Monte Operable Unit (SEMOU) of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site. The cases are denominated as follows:The City of Monterey Park v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., (CV-02-5909 ABC (RCx));San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., (CV-02-4565 ABC (RCx));San Gabriel Valley Water Company v. Aerojet-

12


GeneralAerojet-General Corporation, et al., (CV-02-6346 ABC (RCx)) andSouthern California Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., (CV-02-6340 ABC (RCx)). The cases have been coordinated for ease of administration by the court. The plaintiffs’ claims are based upon allegations of discharges from a former site in the El Monte area, as more fully discussed below under the headings “San Gabriel Valley Basin, California — South El Monte Operable Unit.” Aerojet is vigorously defending the actions as its investigations do not identify a credible connection between

13


the contaminants identified by the water entities in the SEMOU and those detected at Aerojet’s former facility located in El Monte, California, near the SEMOU (East Flair Drive site). Aerojet has notified its insurers of these claims. Discovery is ongoing and a trial is likely to be scheduled for early 2005. The EPA has retained the services of a professional mediator to assist the recipients of its Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) for groundwater investigation and remediation to form a group and negotiate with the EPA and the water entities. The cost estimates to implement projects under the UAO prepared by EPA and the water entities range from $77 million to $127is approximately $90 million.

Wotus, et al. v. GenCorp Inc. and OMNOVA Solutions Inc.

     In October 2000, a group of hourly retirees filed a federal lawsuit against GenCorp Inc. (GenCorp) and OMNOVA Solutions Inc. (OMNOVA) disputing certain retiree medical benefits.Wotus, et al. v. GenCorp Inc., et al., U.S.D.C., N.D. OH (Cleveland, OH), Case No. 5:00-CV-2604. The retirees seek rescission of the then current Hourly Retiree Medical Plan established in the spring of 1994, and the reinstatement of the prior plan terms. The crux of the dispute relates to union and GenCorp negotiated modifications to retiree benefits that, in exchange for other consideration, now require retirees to make benefit contributions as a result of caps on company-paid retiree medical costs implemented in late 1993. A retiree’s failure to pay contributions results in a termination of benefits. We prevailed in similar litigation filed in 1995 involving salaried employees arising at our Wabash, Indiana location.Divine, et al. v. GenCorp Inc., U.S.D.C., N.D. IN (South Bend, IN), Case No. 96-CV-0394-AS.

     The initial plaintiffs consistconsisted of four hourly retirees from the Jeannette, Pennsylvania facility of OMNOVA, the company spun-off from GenCorp on October 1, 1999, two hourly retirees from OMNOVA’s former Newcomerstown, Ohio facility, and three hourly retirees from our former tire plants in Akron, Ohio; Mayfield, Kentucky; and Waco, Texas. The plaintiffs sought class certification seeking to represent all eligible hourly retirees formerly represented by the unions URW or USWA. The unions are not party to the suit and have agreed not to support such litigation pursuant to an agreement negotiated with us. In December 2003, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification. The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking reconsideration, and that motion was denied. Plaintiffs petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals) for the right to seek an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of class certification. We filed our opposition withThe Court of Appeals denied that petition in August 2004.

     Following the Court of Appeals ruling on March 16, 2004.

     In addition, OMNOVA has filed a motion to be dismissed alleging that it is “not a party” to the agreements giving rise to the dispute. Plaintiffs have filed a brief in opposition to OMNOVA’s motion, and a decision byinterlocutory appeal, the trial court lifted the stay on the Wotus case and denied a pending motion filed on behalf of 241 individuals who sought to intervene in the Wotus case. The result of these rulings is pending.that that the Wotus case will move forward with the seven remaining individual plaintiffs. Extensive discovery has already occurred in this case. We have given notice to our insurance carriers and are receiving reimbursement for portions of our defense fees and costs. We are vigorously defending these claims. A trial in the Ohio federal court is not expected until sometime after the summer of 2005.

     OMNOVA had requested defense and indemnification from us regarding this matter. We denied this request and the party-defendants engaged in arbitration as required pursuant to the 1999

13


GenCorp-OMNOVA spin-off agreements. On May 26, 2004, the arbitrator issued his decision holding that we are required to defend and indemnify OMNOVA in the Wotus matter. As currently written, the arbitrator’s ruling could be read to also cover the Baumgardner case discussed below. However, becauseBecause we believe that the arbitrator’s ruling was overbroad and exceeded the scope of the arbitration, we intend to seekhave sought clarification, and possible modification, of the ruling in Ohio state court.

     As a result of the denial of class certification in the Wotus case and pending the decision on the interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeals, an additional 238 individuals filed a motion to intervene in the Wotus case. The trial court stayed all proceedings in the Wotus case, including ruling on the motion to intervene, pending the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding whether to accept the plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal.

     Baumgardner et al. v. GenCorp Inc. and OMNOVA Solutions Inc.

14


     On or about July 8, 2004, the 238241 individuals who are seekingsought to intervene in the Wotus matter filed a separate lawsuit against GenCorp and OMNOVA, also in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, seeking the same claims and relief (other than class certification) as in the Wotus matter.Baumgardner, et al. v. GenCorp Inc. et al., U.S.D.C., N.D. OH (Cleveland, OH), Case No. 1:04 CV 1278. If (i)The number of plaintiffs in the Baumgardner case was subsequently increased to 294. After the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Wotus plaintiffs are successful in obtainingplaintiffs’ petition for an interlocutory appeal, and ifdenied the Court of Appeals overturns the trial court and orders that a class be certified, or (ii) the Wotus trial court allows the 238 Baumgardner plaintiffsplaintiffs’ motion to intervene in the Wotus case, the Baumgardner plaintiffs have indicatedtrial court ruled that they would likely voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. We have not yet responded tojoinder of the 294 individuals in the Baumgardner claims but we intendcase was improper. As a result of that decision, the trial court dismissed the Baumgardner case and gave each of the 294 individuals until October 31, 2004 to vigorously defend against suchfile individual claims.

GenCorp Inc. v. Olin Corporation

     In August 1991, Olin Corporation (Olin) advised us that under a 1962 manufacturing agreement with Olin (the 1962 Agreement), it believed GenCorp to be jointly and severally liable for certain Superfund remediation costs, estimated by Olin to be $70 million. The costs are associated with a former Olin manufacturing facility and its waste disposal sites in Ashtabula County, Ohio. In 1993, we sought a declaratory judgment in federal court (the Ohio Court) that we are not responsible for such environmental remediation costs.GenCorp Inc. v. Olin Corporation, Case No. 5:93CV2269, U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio. Olin counterclaimed seeking a judgment that we are liable for a share of remediation costs. We argued that we are not derivatively or directly liable as an arranger for disposal of waste at the “Big D Campground” landfill (Big D site), both as a matter of fact and law. As a defense to Olin’s counterclaim, we asserted that under the terms of the 1962 Agreement, Olin had a contractual obligation to insure against environmental and other risks and that its failure to protect such insurance payments under these policies precluded Olin from recovery against us for these remediation costs. Further, we claim that any failure on Olin’s part to comply with the terms of such insurance policies would result in our being entitled to breach of contract remedies resulting in a reduction in any CERCLA liability amounts determined to be owed to Olin that would have otherwise been recovered from Olin’s insurance carriers (the Reduction Claims).

     In 1999, the Ohio Court rendered an interim decision on CERCLA liability. The Ohio Court found GenCorp 30 percent liable and Olin 70 percent liable for remediation costs at the Big D site. The Ohio Court also found GenCorp 40 percent40% liable and Olin 60 percent60% liable for remediation

14


costs, including costs for off-site disposal (other than the Big D site) and costs attributable to contamination at the Olin TDI facility, a plant built and operated by Olin on GenCorp property near the Big D site. However, the trial court did not rule on our Reduction Claims and determined it would hold these claims in abeyance.

     In a related case, on August 27, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the NY Court) ruled that Olin failed to protect its right to payments under its insurance policies for the Big D site. The NY Court based its ruling on the fact that Olin had failed to timely notify its insurance carriers of its claims. Given Olin’s contractual obligations and the NY Court’s finding that Olin failed to give proper notice of a claim under these insurance policies, management could not then, or at this time, estimate the possible amount of liability arising from this case, if any.

     Olin appealed the NY Court’s ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the NY Court’s decision with respect to Olin’s excess

15


insurance carriers. While the appeals court upheld the dismissal as to the primary carriers, it held the trial court failed to make a record sufficient to dismiss the excess carriers. Thus, the court returned the case to the NY Court for further proceedings holding that the decision could not be upheld on the basis of the facts as outlined in the NY Court’s decision. On further review, the NY Court may still decide that Olin’s notice to the excess insurance carriers remains untimely or could decide it was timely. If the NY Court decides Olin’s notice was untimely, the Ohio Court could rule inGenCorp Inc. v. Olin Corporationthat Olin’s late notice constituted a breach of its obligation under the 1962 Agreement to protect the insurance; or it could conclude that Olin’s conduct does not support our Reduction Claims and thus does not reduce our liability. If the Ohio Court rules that Olin’s late notice is a breach of the 1962 Agreement, then it must determine the damages suffered by us as a result of the breach. We have argued that the proper measure of damages is the coverage limits of the policies that Olin forfeited — an amount in this case that is more than sufficient to cover our entire liability.

     Nonetheless, on November 21, 2002, the Ohio Court issued a memorandum opinion and judgment entering “final” judgment in favor of Olin in the amount of approximately $19 million plus prejudgment interest in the amount of approximately $10 million. At that time, the Ohio Court did not decide our Reduction Claims against Olin. The Ohio Court held that our Reduction Claims “are held in abeyance pending the resolution of [Olin’s] appeal in the New York insurance litigation.”

     On January 22, 2003, the Ohio Court issued a judgment order stating the case was “terminated” on the Ohio Court’s docket. However, in its memorandum opinion and order of the same date, the Ohio Court stated “[w]hether there was an insurable event upon which Olin would have been entitled to recovery had it provided its insurers with timely notice... and... whether GenCorp is entitled to credit based upon Olin’s omission which foreclosed insurance recovery for Big D, remain unresolved.” Management believes that a recovery on our Reduction Claims could range from a nominal amount to an amount sufficient to reduce the judgment against us in its entirety.

     We have appealed our CERCLA contribution liability to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Court of Appeals).GenCorp Inc. v. Olin Corporation, Docket Nos. 03-3019; 03-3211, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. We believe that we are not directly or indirectly liable as an arranger for Olin’s waste disposal at the Big D site and that we did not either actively control Olin’s waste disposal choices or operate the plant on a day-to-day basis. The Court of Appeals

15


heard oral arguments on June 11, 2004. A decision is not expected until late 2004 or 2005. Management believes it will prevail on appeal.

     Our Reduction Claims portion of the case is on hold pending final resolution of the NY Court’s determination as to whether Olin’s notice to its insurance carriers was or was not timely. Irrespective of the outcome of its appeal, we believe we have contractual protection against Olin’s claims by virtue of Olin’s obligations to procure and protect insurance. The Ohio Court had previously stated that pursuant to the terms of the 1962 Agreement, it was Olin’s contractual obligation to obtain insurance coverage and the evidence adduced during the litigation showed that Olin had in place insurance coverage during the period in question in the amount of $40 million to $50 million.

     In summary, while the Ohio Court has found us liable to Olin for a CERCLA contribution payment, we have concluded it is not appropriate to accrue any additional amount related to that

16


finding because: (a) we previously accrued the entire amount of our estimated potential liability for contamination at the Olin TDI facility and related offsite contamination, except for disposal at the Big D site; (b) we believe we will prevail on appeal on the basis that we are not derivatively or directly liable as an arranger for disposal at the Big D site, both as a matter of fact and law; and (c) irrespective of whether, upon exhausting all avenues of appeal, there is a finding of CERCLA liability, we believe that: (i) if Olin prevails in its appeal of the NY Court ruling, we will ultimately benefit from available insurance proceeds and may make no payment to Olin; or (ii) if Olin fails in its appeal, that Olin’s breach of its contractual obligations to provide insurance will result in a reduction in, or elimination of, some or all of such liability. In any event, the possible amount of additional liability arising from this case or any reduction in our liability, if any, cannot be established at this time.

Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Cases

     Between the early 1950s and 1985, we produced polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin at our former Ashtabula, Ohio facility. PVC is the most common form of plastic currently on the market. A building block compound of PVC is vinyl chloride (VC), now listed as a known carcinogen by several governmental agencies. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has strictly regulated workplace exposure to VC since 1974.

     Since the mid-1990s, we have been named in 3844 toxic tort cases involving alleged exposure to VC. With the exception of one case brought by the family of a former Ashtabula employee, we are alleged to be a “supplier/manufacturer” of PVC and/or a civil co-conspirator with other VC and PVC manufacturers. Plaintiffs generally allege that we suppressed information about the carcinogenic risk of VC to industry workers, and placed VC or PVC into commerce without sufficient warnings. Of these 3844 cases, 18 have been settled or dismissed on terms favorable to us, including the case where we were the employer and the cases that allege VC exposure through various aerosol consumer products. In these “aerosol” cases, it was alleged that VC had been used as an aerosol propellant during the 1960s. Defendants in these cases include numerous consumer product manufacturers and more than 30 chemical manufacturers. We used VC internally, but never supplied VC for aerosol or any other use.

     The 2026 pending cases involve employees at VC or PVC facilities that had no connection to us. One of the pending cases is a class action seeking a medical monitoring program for former

16


employees at a PVC facility in New Jersey. The complaints in each of these cases assert that our involvement in the alleged conspiracy stems from our membership in trade associations.

     Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against us, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued for such contingencies. We are vigorously defending against all claims in these cases.

Asbestos Litigation

     Over the years, we and our subsidiary Aerojetsubsidiaries have from time to time been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials or in manufacturing operations. The majority have been filed in Madison County, Illinois and San Francisco, California. Since 1998, more than 80 of these asbestos lawsuits have been resolved, with

17


the majority being dismissed and many being settled for less than $0.1 million each. As of MayAugust 31, 2004, there were 3849 asbestos cases pending, including theGoedecase described below.

     In November 2002, a jury verdict against Aerojet in the amount of approximately $5 million in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, led to a judgment of approximately $2 million after setoff based on plaintiffs’ settlements with other defendants, which we have accrued.Goede et al. v. A. W. Chesterton Inc. et al., Case No. 012-9428, Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, MO. The $3 million setoff was based on plaintiffs’ settlements with other defendants. Post-trial motions filed by Aerojet and the plaintiffs were denied by the trial court. Aerojet appealed the decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District (the Appellate Court) and asked the Appellate Court to vacate the judgment and order a new trial based on, among other things, the trial court’s actions during trial that denied Aerojet the opportunity to introduce testimony from certain witnesses and to introduce certain evidence at trial, and based on the trial court’s application of Missouri law rather than California law. The appellate court heard oral arguments on December 9, 2003. In an opinion dated May 11, 2004, the Appellate Court denied Aerojet’s appeal and affirmed the trial court’s opinion. Aerojet has filed with the Appellate Court a motion for a rehearing and a petition to transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri. A ruling onOn September 28, 2004, the Missouri Supreme Court denied our petition to transfer the matter effectively ending Aerojet’s appellate rights in this matter.

     In July 2004, counsel for PCC Flow Technologies, Inc. (PCC), a subsidiary of Precision Castparts Corp., sent a demand letter to Aerojet seeking indemnification for approximately fifty seven pending asbestos cases, and forty two settled or closed asbestos cases. PCC claims that motionit is expected laterthe successor to the business of Johnston Pump Company, a business operated by a subsidiary of Aerojet. In 1984, Johnston Pump Company sold certain assets relating to the Johnston Pump and valve business. PCC contends that the purchase agreement provided that the seller would retain liability for product liability claims arising out of products manufactured prior to the closing date in 1984 and would indemnify and defend the buyer from such claims. PCC also contends that Aerojet guaranteed the seller’s alleged indemnity obligations contained in the purchase agreement. We are in the process of obtaining documentation from PCC to understand how it is the successor to this year.business. We are exploring a number of potential defenses to the tender of these claims including failure to comply with the 1984 purchase agreement and late notice. While we may have certain defenses available to us, we may face some exposure with respect to these tendered cases. We have signed a standstill and tolling agreement with PCC and are working with PCC to determine what liabilities we may have for these cases.

     Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against us and our subsidiaries, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued for such contingencies.

Other Legal Matters

     We are subject to other legal actions, governmental investigations and proceedings relating to a wide range of matters in addition to those discussed above. While there can be no certainty regarding the outcome of any litigation, investigation or proceeding, in the opinion of our management, after reviewing the information that is currently available with respect to such matters, any liability that may ultimately be incurred with respect to these matters is not expected to materially affect our consolidated financial condition. The effect of the resolution of these matters

18


on our financial condition and results of operations, our liquidity and available financial resources cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on both future results of operations, liquidity position and available financial resources, and the amount and timing of the resolution of such

17


matters. In addition, it is possible that amounts could be significant in any particular reporting period.

b. Environmental Matters

Sacramento, California

     In 1989, a federal district court in California approved a Partial Consent Decree (Decree) requiring Aerojet to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of a portion of Aerojet’s Sacramento site. The Decree required Aerojet to prepare a RI/FS report on specific environmental conditions present at the site and alternatives available to remediate such conditions. Aerojet also is required to pay for certain governmental oversight costs associated with Decree compliance. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the State of California expanded its surveillance of perchlorate and nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Under the RI/FS, traces of these chemicals were detected using new testing protocols in public water supply wells near Aerojet’s Sacramento site.

     Aerojet has substantially completed its efforts under the Decree to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Sacramento site. Aerojet has preliminarily identified the technologies that will likely be used to remediate the site and has estimated costs using generic remedial costs from Superfund remediation databases. Aerojet will continue to conduct feasibility studies to refine technical approaches and costs to remediate the site. The remediation costs are principally for design, construction, enhancement and operation of groundwater and soil treatment facilities, ongoing project management and regulatory oversight, and are expected to be incurred over a period of approximately 15 years. Aerojet is also addressing groundwater contamination both on and off its facilities through the development of operable unit feasibility studies. On August 19, 2002, the EPA issued an administrative order requiring Aerojet to implement the EPA approved remedial action for the Western Groundwater Operable Unit. A nearly identical order was issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley (Central Valley RWQCB). Aerojet has discovered a zone of previously unidentified NDMA contaminated groundwater located to the north and west of the Western Groundwater Operable Unit boundaries. The source and extent of the contamination is under investigation. This groundwater zone will most likely be incorporated into the Western Groundwater Operable Unit remediation plan. Aerojet believes that no municipal drinking water wells are threatened by this finding. A discussion of Aerojet’s efforts to estimate these costs is contained below under the heading “Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries.”

     On April 15, 2002, the United States District Court approved and entered a Stipulation and Order Modifying the Partial Consent Decree (Stipulation and Order). Among other things, the Stipulation and Order removed approximately 2,600 acres of Aerojet’s property from the requirements of the Decree and from the Superfund site designation, enabling us to put the 2,600 acres to more productive use. The Stipulation and Order (i) requires us to provide a guarantee of up to $75 million (in addition to a prior $20 million guarantee) to assure that remediation activities at the Sacramento site are fully funded; (ii) requires Aerojet to provide a short-term and long-term plan to replace lost water supplies; and (iii) divides the Superfund site into “Operable Units” to allow Aerojet and the regulatory agencies to more efficiently address and restore priority areas. For the

19


first three years of the Stipulation and Order, the new guarantee is partially offset by financial assurances provided in conjunction with the Baldwin Park Operable Unit (BPOU) agreement (discussed below). Obligations under the $75 million aggregate guarantee are limited to $10 million

18


in any year. Both the $75 million aggregate guarantee and the $10 million annual limitation are subject to adjustment annually for inflation.

     On August 27, 2003, Aerojet entered into an agreement with the Sacramento County Water Agency (the County) whereby it agreed to transfer all of its remediated groundwater to the County. Subject to various provisions of the County agreement including approval under California Environmental Quality Act, the County will assume responsibility for providing replacement water to ASWC and other impacted water purveyors up to the amount of remediated water Aerojet transfers to the County. Aerojet has also agreed to pay to the County approximately $13 million over several years towardtowards the cost of constructing a replacement water supply project. If the amount of Aerojet’s transferred water is in excess of the replacement water provided to the impacted water purveyors, the County has committed to make water available for the development of Aerojet’s land in an amount equal to the excess. In December 2003 and January 2004, Aerojet entered into certain agreements with ASWC which, when combined with Aerojet’s agreement with the County are anticipated to satisfy Aerojet’s obligations under EPA and RWQCB Orders to provide replacement water in eastern Sacramento County.

     Aerojet leased the southern portion of the Sacramento site to Douglas Aircraft for rocket assembly and testing from 1957 to 1961 and sold approximately 3,800 acres, including the formerly leased portion, to Douglas Aircraft in 1961. Aerojet reacquired the property known as IRCTS from MDC, the successor to Douglas Aircraft and now an operating unit of The Boeing Company, in 1984. Both MDC and Aerojet were ordered to investigate and remediate environmental contamination by certain orders issued in 1991 and 1994 by the California Department of Toxic SubstanceSubstances Control (DTSC) and a similar 1997 order of the Central Valley RWQCB.

     The California Department of Toxic Substances,In early 2004, the DTSC, through the California Attorney General’s Office, recently proposed certain penalties against us relating to its findings in connection with audits for 2000, 2002 and 2003 at our Sacramento, California facility. After discussing such matters with the Attorney General’s Office, we entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment with the DTSC and agreed to pay penalties of approximately $1 million.

     In March 2004, the California officeOffice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established a perchlorate Public Health Goal at 6 parts per billion (ppb). The California Department of Health Services immediately established an Action Level for perchlorate at 6 ppb. The previous Action Level was 4 ppb. California may change the Public Health Goal and Action Level after the federal National academy of Sciences completes its reference dose assessment, which is anticipated to occur in the fall of 2004. Aerojet is evaluating the impact, if any, of the new standards on its remediation efforts.

San Gabriel Valley Basin, California

Baldwin Park Operable Unit

     Aerojet, through its former Azusa, California site, was named by the EPA as a PRP in the portion of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site known as the Baldwin Park Operable Unit (BPOU). A

20


Record of Decision (ROD) regarding regional groundwater remediation was issued and Aerojet and 18 other PRPs received Special Notice Letters requiring groundwater remediation. All of the Special Notice Letter PRPs are alleged to have been a source of volatile organic compounds

19


(VOCs). Aerojet’s investigation demonstrated that the groundwater contamination by VOCs is principally upgradient of Aerojet’s former property and that lower concentrations of VOC contaminants are present in the soils of Aerojet’s former property. The EPA contends that of the 19 PRPs identified by the EPA, Aerojet is one of the four largest sources of VOC groundwater contamination at the BPOU. Aerojet contests the EPA’s position regarding the source of contamination and the number of responsible PRPs.

     In May 1997, as a result of the development of more sensitive measuring methods, perchlorate was detected in wells in the BPOU. NDMA was also detected using newly developed measuring methods. Suspected sources of perchlorate include Aerojet’s solid rocket development and manufacturing activities in the 1940s and 1950s, military ordnance produced by another company at a facility adjacent to the Aerojet facilities in the 1940’s,1940s, the burning of confiscated fireworks by local fire departments, and fertilizer used in agriculture. NDMA is a suspected byproduct of Aerojet’s liquid rocket fuel activities in the same time period. NDMA is also a contaminant in cutting oils used by many businesses and is found in many foods. In addition, a chemical known as 1,4 dioxane is present and is being treated at the BPOU. Aerojet may be a minor contributor of this chemical.

     On November 23, 1999, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles RWQCB) issued orders to Aerojet and other PRPs to conduct groundwater investigations on their respective sites. As a result, the Los Angeles RWQCB ordered Aerojet to conduct limited soil gas extraction, which Aerojet is implementing, and to evaluate remedies for perchlorate contamination in soils.

     On June 30, 2000, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) ordering the PRPs to implement a remedy consistent with the ROD, but still encouraging the PRPs to attempt to negotiate an agreement with the local purveyors. The PRPs agreed to comply.

     Following extended negotiations, Aerojet, along with seven other PRPs (the Cooperating Respondents) signed a Project Agreement in late March 2002 with the Water Quality Authority, Watermaster, Valley County Water District, La Puente Valley Water District, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Suburban Water Systems and California Domestic Water Company (the Water Entities). The Project Agreement became effective on May 9, 2002.

     The basic structure of the Project Agreement is for the Cooperating Respondents to fund and financially assure (in the form of cash or letters of credit) the cost of certain treatment and water distribution facilities to be owned and operated by the Water Entities. Actual funding would be provided by funds placed in escrow at the start of each three-month period to cover anticipated costs for the succeeding quarter.

2021


     The Cooperating Respondents will also fund operation and maintenance of treatment facilities (not including ordinary operating expenses of the Water Entities, certain costs for replacement water that may be incurred by such Water Entities and related administrative costs, (O&M Costs)). The Cooperating Respondents are required to maintain sufficient financial assurance to cover the estimated O&M Costs for two years. Actual payments for O&M Costs would be made at the start of each three-month period to cover anticipated costs for the succeeding six-month period. When fully constructed, six treatment facilities will be treating in excess of 25,000 gallons per minute for the purposes of ROD implementation and providing a potable water supply. The Project Agreement has a term of 15 years. The Project Agreement also settles the past environmental claims of the Water Entities.

     Aerojet and the other Cooperating Respondents have entered into an interim allocation agreement that establishes the interim payment obligations of Aerojet and the remaining Cooperating Respondents for the costs of the Project Agreement. Under the interim allocation, Aerojet is responsible for approximately two-thirds of all project costs, pending completion of any allocation proceeding. All project costs are subject to reallocation among the Cooperating Respondents.

     A significant amount of public funding is available to offset project costs. To date, Congress has appropriated approximately $47$56 million (so called Title 16 or Dreier funds), which is potentially available for payment of project costs. All such funding will require Water Quality Authority (WQA) action to allocate funds to the project, which the WQA is currently considering. Approximately $28$34 million of the funding has been allocated to the project and additional funds may follow in later years.

     As part of Aerojet’s sale of its Electronics and Information Systems (EIS) business to Northrop Grumman Corporation (Northrop) in October 2001, the EPA approved a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with Northrop to absolve it of pre-closing liability for contamination caused by the Azusa facility, which liability will remain with Aerojet. As part of that agreement, Aerojet agreed to put $40 million into an irrevocable escrow for the BPOU project to fund Aerojet’s obligations under the Project Agreement. In addition, GenCorp agreed to provide a $25 million guarantee of Aerojet’s obligations under the Project Agreement. During the first three years of the Project Agreement, the GenCorp guarantee is partially offset by other financial assurances provided in conjunction with the Project Agreement.

     Also as part of the EIS sale to Northrop, Aerojet paid the EPA $9 million which was an amount to be offset against Aerojet’s share of the EPA’s total claimed past costs (the EPA now claims total past costs attributable to various parties are approximately $28 million). A very substantial shareAerojet and the EPA have agreed to a final settlement for Aerojet’s portion of the EPA’ssuch past costs relate to the period prior to 1997 when the sole contamination being considered involved VOCs. Aerojet believes that it is responsible for less than 10 percent of these costs.and are negotiating a consent decree. Unresolved at this time is the issue of California’s past costs which were last estimated at approximately $4 million.

     Aerojet intends to continue to defend itself vigorously to assure that it is appropriately treated with other PRPs and that costs of any remediation are properly allocated among all PRPs. Aerojet has notified its insurers and is pursuing claims under its insurance policies.

2122


South El Monte Operable Unit (SEMOU)

     On December 21, 2000, Aerojet received an order from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quarter Control Board (RWQCB) requiring a work plan for investigation of Aerojet’s former El Monte facility. On January 22, 2001, Aerojet filed an appeal of the order with the Los Angeles RWQCB asserting selective enforcement. The appeal had been held in abeyance pending negotiations with the Los Angeles RWQCB, but due to a two-year limitation on the abeyance period, the appeal was dismissed without prejudice. In March 2001, Aerojet submitted a limited work plan to the Los Angeles RWQCB. On February 21, 2001, Aerojet received a General Notice Letter from the EPA Region IX naming Aerojet as a PRP to the SEMOU of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site.

     Aerojet continues to negotiate with the Los Angeles RWQCB for a limited investigation of this former facility. The RWQCB recently agreed to allow Aerojet to conduct less than the RWQCB’s demanded scope of work in order to take advantage of site access during building renovations at the site. In the event the RWQCB demands further site investigation, Aerojet may re-file its appeal.

     On April 1, 2002, Aerojet received a special notice letter from the EPA (dated March 28, 2002) that requested Aerojet to enter into negotiations with the EPA regarding the performance of a remedial design and remedial action for the SEMOU. In light of this letter, Aerojet performed a limited site investigation of the East Flair Drive Site. The data collected and summarized in the Field Investigation Report showed that chemicals including TCE and PCE were present in the soil and groundwater at and near the East Flair Drive Site. The Field Investigation Report also showed that the hydraulic gradient at the East Flair Drive Site is oriented toward the northeast. This finding indicates that the site is not a likely source of contamination at the SEMOU, as the groundwater flow at the site is away from the SEMOU and not toward it. Given the data indicating that the East Flair Drive Site is not a source of the contamination at the SEMOU, Aerojet requested that the EPA reconsider its issuance of the SEMOU special notice letter.

     On August 29, 2003, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) against Aerojet and approximately 40 other parties requiring them to conduct the remedial design and remedial action in the SEMOU. The impact of the UAO on the recipients is not clear as much of the remedy is already being implemented by the water entities. The cost estimate to implement projects under the UAO prepared by the EPA and the water entities is approximately $90 million.

     The UAO requires the implementation of the Interim Record of Decision (IROD). The EPA extended the deadline for compliance with the UAO to allow the PRPs to resolve their liabilities with respect to SEMOU. In return, the EPA required the submission of a Good Faith Offer to implement the IROD. We have been working closely with the other PRPs to resolve this matter and submitted a Good Faith Offer to the EPA that was rejected on May 20, 2004. The EPA alleges that we, along with the other UAO recipients, have failed to transmit a Good Faith Offer in compliance with our obligations under the UAO. We are working diligently with the EPA and the other PRPs to resolve this matter and insure compliance with the UAO.

     Aerojet has been served with civil suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by four public and private water companies. The suits seek recovery of costs allegedly incurred in response to the contamination present in the SEMOU. Plaintiffs allege that groundwater in the SEMOU is contaminated with chlorinated solvents and ammonium perchlorate that were released into the environment by Aerojet and other parties causing plaintiffs to incur unspecified

2223


response costs and other damages. Aerojet’s investigations to date have not identified a credible connection between the contaminants identified by the water entities in the SEMOU and those detected at Aerojet’s former facility located at 9100 &and 9200 East Flair Drive, El Monte, California, which lies in or near the SEMOU.

     Aerojet was successful in its efforts to eliminate several of the claims initially raised by the water entities. However, other claims remain. Discovery is ongoing.

     Aerojet recentlyhas filed third-party complaints against several water entities on the basis that they introduced perchlorate-containing Colorado River water to the basin. Responsive pleadings from theSuch water entities have not yet been filed.filed motions to dismiss Aerojet’s complaints. A hearing on such matters is scheduled for December 2004.

Other Sites

     We have studied remediation alternatives for our closed Lawrence, Massachusetts facility, which was primarily contaminated with PCBs,polychlorinated biphenyls, and have begun site remediation and off-site disposal of debris. As part of these remediation efforts, we are working with local, state and federal officials and regulatory agencies to return the property to a beneficial use. The time frame for the remediation and redevelopment project is currently estimated to range from two to three years.

     We are also currently involved, together with other companies, in approximately 2731 other Superfund and non-Superfund remediation sites. In many instances, our liability and proportionate share of costs have not been determined largely due to uncertainties as to the nature and extent of site conditions and our involvement. While government agencies frequently claim PRPs are jointly and severally liable at such sites, in our experience, interim and final allocations of liability costs are generally made based on relative contributions of waste. In our previous experience, our allocated share has frequently been minimal, and in many instances, has been less than one percent. Also, we are seeking recovery of our costs from our insurers.

24


Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries

Reserves

     We continually review estimated future remediation costs that we could incur, which take into consideration the investigative work and analysis of our engineers and the advice of our legal staff regarding the status and anticipated results of various administrative and legal proceedings. In most cases only a range of reasonably possible costs can be estimated. In establishing our reserves, the most probable estimated amount is used when determinable and the minimum is used when no single amount is more probable. The timing of payment for estimated future environmental costs is subject to variability and depends on the timing of regulatory approvals for planned remedies and the construction and completion of the remedies.

     During 2002, we completed aOur review of estimated future environmental costs which incorporated, but was not limited to the following: (i) status of work completed since the last estimate; (ii) expected cost savings related to the substitution of new remediation technology and to information not available previously; (iii) obligations for reimbursement of regulatory agency service costs; (iv) updated BPOU cost estimates; (v) costs of complying with the Western Groundwater Administrative Order, including replacement water and remediation upgrades;

23


(vi) estimated costs related to IRCTS and Aerojet’s Sacramento site; (vii) new information related to the extent and location of previously identified contamination; and (viii) additional construction contingencies. This re-examinationOur review of estimated future remediation costs resulted in a netan increase into our environmental reserves of $107 million.$24 million as of August 31, 2004.

     The effect of the final resolution of environmental matters and our obligations for environmental remediation and compliance cannot be accurately predicted due to the uncertainty concerning both the amount and timing of future expenditures. We believe, on the basis of presently available information, that the resolution of environmental matters and our obligations for environmental remediation and compliance will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. We will continue our efforts to mitigate past and future costs through pursuit of claims for recoveries formfrom insurance coverage and other PRPs and continued investigation of new and more cost effective remediation alternatives and associated technologies.

     A summary of our environmental reserve activity is shown below (dollars in millions):

                           
 November 30, 2003 May 31, 2004 November 30, 2003 August 31, 2004
 Reserve
 Expenditures
 Reserve
 Reserve
 Additions
 Expenditures
 Reserve
Aerojet $298 $(16) $282  $298 $22 $(21) $299 
Other Sites 17  (2) 15  17 2  (1) 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total $315 $(18) $297  $315 $24 $(22) $317 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

     As of MayAugust 31, 2004, the Aerojet reserves include $170$180 million for the Sacramento site, and $100$101 million for BPOU.BPOU, and $18 million for other Aerojet sites. The reserves for the other sites include $8 million for the Lawrence, Massachusetts site.site and $10 million for various other sites.

25


Estimated Recoveries

     On January 12, 1999, Aerojet and the U.S. government implemented the October 1997 Agreement in Principle (Global Settlement) resolving certain prior environmental and facility disagreements, with retroactive effect to December 1, 1998. The Global Settlement covered all environmental contamination at the Sacramento and Azusa sites. Under the Global Settlement, Aerojet and the U.S. government resolved disagreements about an appropriate cost-sharing ratio. The Global Settlement provides that the cost-sharing ratio will continue for a number of years.

     Pursuant to the Global Settlement covering environmental costs associated with Aerojet’s Sacramento site and its former Azusa site, Aerojet can recover up to 88 percent of its environmental remediation costs for these sites through the establishment of prices for Aerojet’s products and services sold to the U.S. government. Allowable environmental costs are charged to these contracts as the costs are incurred. Aerojet’s mix of contracts can affect the actual reimbursement made by the U.S. government. Because these costs are recovered through forward-pricing arrangements, the ability to continue recovering these costs depends on Aerojet’s sustained business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business.

24


     In conjunction with the sale of EIS, Aerojet entered into an agreement with Northrop Grumman (Northrop) whereby Aerojet will be reimbursed by Northrop for a portion of environmental expenditures eligible for recovery under the Global Settlement. Amounts reimbursed are subject to annual limitations, with excess amounts carrying over to subsequent periods, the total of which will not exceed $190 million over the term of the agreement, which ends in 2028. As of MayAugust 31, 2004, $163$161 million in potential future reimbursements was available over the remaining life of the agreement.

     In conjunction with the review of our environmental reserves discussed above, we revised our estimate of costs that will be recovered under the Global Settlement based on business expected to be conducted under contracts with the U.S. government and its agencies in the future. The adjustments to the environmental remediation reserves and estimated future cost recoveries did not affect operating results in fiscal 2002 as the impact of increases to the reserves of $107 million was offset by increased estimated future recoveries.

     As part of the acquisition of the ARC propulsion business, Aerojet entered into an agreement with ARC pursuant to which Aerojet is responsible for up to $20 million of costs (Pre-Close Environmental Costs) associated with environmental issues that arose prior to Aerojet’s acquisition of the ARC propulsion business. Pursuant to a separate agreement with the U.S. government which was entered into prior to closing of the ARC acquisition, these Pre-Close Environmental Costs will be treated as allowable overhead costs combined with Aerojet’s environmental costs under the Global Settlement, and will be recovered through the establishment of prices for Aerojet’s products and services sold to the U.S. government. These costs will be allocated to all Aerojet operations (including the previously excluded Redmond, Washington operations) beginning in 2005.

     As a result of the ARC acquisition, Aerojet has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. government agreeing to key assumptions and conditions that will preserve the original methodology to be used in recalculating the percentage split between Aerojet and Northrop. Aerojet presented a proposal to the U.S. government based on the Memorandum of Understanding and expects to complete an agreement in the near term.

     In conjunction with our review of the environmental reserves discussed above, we revised our estimate of costs that will be recovered under the Global Settlement based on business expected to be conducted under contracts with the U.S. government and its agencies in the future. In fiscal 2003, due to the Global Settlement and Memorandum of Understanding with the government, discussed above, which allow for costs to be allocated to all Aerojet operations beginning in 2005 and decrease the costs allocated to Northrop annually, Aerojet increased its environmental reserves

26


by $12 million and estimated recoveries by $13 million, which resulted in a net $1 million of other income in our statement of operations. The recovery of costs under the Global Settlement is based, in part, on the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business base, which has historically included the Fine Chemicals operating segment because it was previously a division of Aerojet. As a result of our plan to sell Fine Chemicals, Aerojet revised its estimated recovery of costs under the Global Settlement during the third quarter of 2004. As a result, Aerojet increased its estimated recoveries by $39 million and recorded $17 million of other income (expense), net in the third quarter of fiscal 2004.

11. Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risk

     As of MayAugust 31, 2004, obligations required to be disclosed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 45 (FIN 45),Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of the Indebtedness of Othersconsisted of:

 $56 million in outstanding commercial letters of credit expiring in 2004 and 2005 securing obligations for environmental remediation, insurance coverage and litigation.
 
 Up to $120 million aggregate in guarantees by usGenCorp Inc. of Aerojet’s obligations to government agencies for environmental remediation activities, subject to partial offsets for other financial assurances provided in conjunction with these obligations.
 
Up to $28 million in guarantees of bank loans, accounts receivable and lines of credit for our discontinued operations.
 Guarantees, jointly and severally, by our material domestic subsidiaries including certain

25


subsidiaries classified as discontinued operations, of our obligations under our bank credit agreements and our $150 million 9.5% Notes.

12. Shareholders’ Equity

     On May 12, 2004, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of three cents per share on our common stock. The dividends were paid on May 28, 2004.

13. Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Income Taxes

     Comprehensive income (loss) encompasses net income (loss) and other comprehensive income (loss) items, which includes all other non-owner transactions and events that change shareholders’ equity. Our other comprehensive income (loss) includes the effects of foreign currency translation adjustments, changes in the minimum funding liability for pension obligations, and changes in the fair value of certain derivative financial instruments. The effects of foreign currency translation adjustments are primarily associated with our discontinued operations.GDX business which was divested during the third quarter of fiscal 2004 (see Note 14).

     Prior to the sale of substantially all of the GDX business, we had an accumulated foreign currency translation gain of $35 million and an accumulated minimum pension liability loss of $2 million that were reflected as a net increase of consolidated shareholders’ equity and related solely to the GDX business. In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 52,Foreign Currency Translation, this amount has been included in the determination of the loss on sale of GDX and in accordance with SFAS No. 130,Reporting Comprehensive Income, an equal amount is reported as a reclassification adjustment.

27


     The components of other comprehensive income (loss) and the related income tax effects are presented in the following table (dollars in millions):

                            
 Three months ended May 31,
 Six months ended May 31,
 Three months ended August 31,
 Nine months ended August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Net income (loss) $(312) $10 $(331) $13  $(47) $(3) $(378) $10 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes:  
Effects of foreign currency translation adjustments  (9) 22  (1) 40   (34)  (16)  (35) 24 
Change in minimum pension liability 2  2  
Change in fair value of interest rate swap   (1)   (2)  1 1  (1)
Reclassification adjustment 33  33  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total comprehensive income (loss) $(321) $31 $(332) $51  $(46) $(18) $(377) $33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

26


14.13. Employee Pension and Postretirement Plans

     We provide substantially all employees in North America with pension benefits and provide certain healthcare and life insurance benefits (postretirement benefits) to most U.S. retired employees with varied coverage by employee groups. Aerojet employees hired after January 1, 1997 are not eligible for postretirement healthcare and life insurance benefits. All other employees hired after January 1, 1995 are not eligible for postretirement healthcare benefits.

     Our U.S. pension plans remain overfunded and we do not expect to make any net cash contributions during the second halffourth quarter of fiscal 2004.

28


     The components of periodic cost for pension benefits and other postretirement benefits for the three and sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 and 2003 were comprised of (dollars in millions):

                             
 Other Other
 Defined Benefit Postretirement Defined Benefit Postretirement
 Pension Plans
 Benefit Plans
 Pension Plans
 Benefit Plans
 Three months ended May 31,
 Three months ended August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Service cost for benefits earned during the year $3 $3 $ $  $3 $3 $ $ 
Interest cost on benefit obligation 28 27 3 3  28 27 3 3 
Assumed return on plan assets  (34)  (36)     (34)  (36)   
Amortization of unrecognized: — prior service cost    (1)  (1)
— net losses 13 3   
Amortization of unrecognized: - prior service cost    (1)  (1)
- net losses 13 3   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retirement plan (benefit) expense $10 $(3) $2 $2  $10 $(3) $2 $2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                              
 Other Other
 Defined Benefit Postretirement Defined Benefit Postretirement
 Pension Plans
 Benefit Plans
 Pension Plans
 Benefit Plans
 Six months ended May 31,
 Nine months ended August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Service cost for benefits earned during the yearService cost for benefits earned during the year $6 $5 $ $  $9 $7 $ $ 
Interest cost on benefit obligationInterest cost on benefit obligation 56 54 5 6  84 81 8 9 
Assumed return on plan assetsAssumed return on plan assets  (67)  (71)     (101)  (106)   
Amortization of unrecognized: — prior service cost 1 1  (2)  (2)
 — net losses 25 6 1  
 — transition obligation  (1)  (1)   
Amortization of unrecognized: - prior service cost 1 1  (3)  (3)
- net losses 37 9 1  
- transition obligation  (1)  (1)   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retirement plan (benefit) expenseRetirement plan (benefit) expense $20 $(6) $4 $4  $29 $(9) $6 $6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

     During the three and sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004, discontinued operations incurred $3$12 million and $7$19 million, respectively, relating to pension and postretirement benefit expense.expense including $10 million related to the curtailment and settlement expenses from the completion of the sale of the GDX business. Additionally, during the three and sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2003, discontinued operations incurred $1 million and $3$4 million, respectively, relating to pension and postretirement benefit expense.

15.14. Discontinued Operations

     During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, we announced plans to sell the GDX Automotive business. This decision was a result of declining volumes and continued challenges in this market environment including increased material costs, high development and start-up costs, anticipated working capital requirements as well as adverse customer pricing pressures. In accordance with our plan to sell the GDX Automotive business, we have classified our GDX Automotive operating segment as a discontinued operations.operation during the second quarter of fiscal 2004. During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we signed a definitive agreement to sell GDX, including substantially all of the assets of GenCorp Inc. that were used in the GDX business and substantially all of GenCorp Inc.’s worldwide subsidiaries that were engaged in the GDX business, to Cerberus for $147 million, subject to adjustment, of which $140 million has been received as of August 31, 2004. We closed the transaction on August 31, 2004. For operating segment reporting, prior to the second quarter of fiscal 2004, GDX Automotive was previously reported as a separate operating segment.

27


     The     During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, the GDX Automotive operating segment net assets were adjusted to management’s estimate of proceeds to be received on disposition less costs to sell. The resulting loss recognized on this adjustment ofsell that resulted in

29


a $261 million has beenloss being recorded. An additional loss of $18 million was recorded as a component of Income (Loss) From Discontinued Operations in the third quarter ended Mayof fiscal 2004 to reflect the net assets of the GDX business as of August 31, 2004.2004 and management’s estimate of the proceeds from the sale of the GDX business to Cerberus.

     In accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) 87-24,Allocation of Interest to Discontinued Operations, we allocated interest to discontinued operations based upon interest on debt that would be required to be repaid using estimated proceeds to be received from the anticipated sale of the GDX Automotive.business. This resulted in an interest allocation of approximately $1 million and $2 million, respectively, for the three and six months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 and 2003. Interest allocation for the first nine months of fiscal 2004 and fiscal 2003 was $4 million and $3 million, respectively.

     In November 2003, we announced we were closing a GDX manufacturing facility in Chartres, France. The decision resulted primarily from declining sales volumes with French automobile manufacturers. In June 2004, we completed the legal process for closing the facility and establishing a social plan. As a result, we recorded pre-tax expense of approximately $11 million during the third quarter of fiscal 2004 primarily related to employee social costs in accordance with SFAS No. 146,Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities. The charge is included as a component of discontinued operations. We have not yet recorded expenses associated with certain social benefits due to the uncertainty of the benefit amount. These additional social costs are expected to result in additional pre-tax expense of $3 million to $6 million and are anticipated to be incurred over the next two years. In accordance with SFAS No. 146, we will recognize the related costs once they are certain.

     During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we classified the Fine Chemicals segment as a discontinued operation as a result of our plans to sell the business. This plan was a result of management’s decision to focus our capital and resources on our Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate operating segments. For operating segment reporting, Fine Chemicals business was previously reported as a separate operating segment.

     Summarized financial information for the GDX Automotiveand Fine Chemicals operations (discontinued operations) is set forth below (dollars in millions):

          
                 Three months ended Nine months ended
 Three months ended May 31,
 Six months ended May 31,
 August 31,
 August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Net sales $204 $214 $388 $405  $191 $185 $605 $625 
Income (loss) before income taxes  (259) 15  (275) 19   (33)  (14)  (308) 9 
Income tax provision  (17)  (6)  (11)  (8)
Income tax benefit (provision) 1 6 2  (2)
Net income (loss) from discontinued operations  (276) 9  (286) 11   (32)  (8)  (306) 7 

30


     The major components of assets and liabilities of discontinued operations in the condensed consolidated balance sheets are as follows (dollars in millions):

              
 May 31, November 30, August 31, November 30,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Accounts receivable $86 $88  $15 $92 
Inventories, net 42 43  20 61 
Other assets 48 141  1 141 
Property and equipment, net 143 299 
Property, plant and equipment, net 69 369 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Assets of discontinued operations $319 $571  $105 $663 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Accounts payable $75 $73  $7 $77 
Other liabilities 79 87  16 92 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Liabilities of discontinued operations $154 $160  $23 $169 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

28


16.15. Operating Segments and Related Disclosures

     Our continuing operations are organized into threetwo segments based on different products and customer bases: Aerospace and Defense Fine Chemicals and Real Estate. See Note 1 for additional information related to our operating segments.

     During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, we classified our GDX Automotive operating segment as a discontinued operations.operation. During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we classified our Fine Chemicals operating segment as a discontinued operation. See Note 1514 for additional information about our discontinued operations.

     We evaluate our operating segments based on several factors, of which the primary financial measure is segment performance. Segment performance represents net sales less applicable costs, expenses and provisions for restructuring and unusual items relating to operations. Segment performance excludes corporate income and expenses, interest expense, income taxes and discontinued operations and minority interest.operations.

2931


     Selected financial information for each reportable segment is as follows (dollars in millions):

        
                 Three Months ended Nine Months ended
 Three Months ended May 31,
 Six Months ended May 31,
 August 31,
 August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Net Sales:
  
Aerospace and Defense $125 $82 $238 $144  $116 $83 $354 $226 
Fine Chemicals 13 17 26 34 
Real Estate 2 2 3 3  2 17 4 20 
Intersegment sales elimination  (4)   (7)    (2)  (2)  (8)  (1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total $136 $101 $260 $181  $116 $98 $350 $245 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Segment Performance:
  
Aerospace and Defense $15 $9 $26 $16  $18 $9 $44 $25 
Unusual items   (2)   (2)
Retirement benefit plan (expense) income  (7) 1  (14) 2   (7) 1  (21) 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aerospace and Defense Total
 8 10 12 18  11 8 23 26 
Fine Chemicals  4  6 
Retirement benefit plan (expense)     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fine Chemicals Total
  4  6 
Leasing and other activities and expenses 1 1 2 2 
Retirement benefit plan (expense)     
Real Estate 1 11 3 13 
Retirement benefit plan (expense) income     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Real Estate Total
 1 1 2 2  1 11 3 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
 $9 $15 $14 $26  $12 $19 $26 $39 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           
                 Three Months ended Nine Months ended
 Three Months ended May 31,
 Six Months ended May 31,
 August 31,
 August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Reconciliation of segment performance to continuing income (loss) before income taxes:
  
Segment performance $9 $15 $14 $26  $12 $19 $26 $39 
Interest expense  (8)  (5)  (16)  (9)  (9)  (5)  (25)  (13)
Corporate retirement benefit plan expense  (5)   (10)    (5)   (14)  
Corporate and other expenses  (8)  (10)  (15)  (15)  (10)  (7)  (26)  (22)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
 $(12) $ $(27) $2  $(12) $7 $(39) $4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 May 31, November 30, August 31, November 30,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Total Assets:
  
Aerospace and Defense $947 $950  $967 $940 
Fine Chemicals 97 102 
Real Estate 33 49  35 49 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Identifiable assets 1,077 1,101  1,002 989 
Assets of discontinued operations 319 571  105 663 
Corporate 201 235  248 245 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Assets $1,597 $1,907 
Total Assets $1,355 $1,897 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

3032


17.16. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information

     We are providing condensed consolidating financial information for our material domestic subsidiaries that have guaranteed the 9.50% Notes and for those subsidiaries that have not guaranteed the 9.50% Notes. These 100% owned subsidiary guarantors have, jointly and severally, fully and unconditionally guaranteed the 9.50% Notes. The subsidiary guarantees are senior subordinated obligations of each subsidiary guarantor and rank (i) prior in right of payment with all senior indebtedness, (ii) equal in right of payment with all senior subordinated indebtedness and (iii) senior in right of payment to all subordinated indebtedness, in each case, of that subsidiary guarantor. The subsidiary guarantees will also be effectively subordinated to any secured indebtedness of the subsidiary guarantor with respect to the assets securing that indebtedness. Absent both default and notice as specified in our Senior Credit Facilities and agreements governing our outstanding convertible notes and the 9.50% Notes, there are no restrictions on our ability to obtain funds from our subsidiary guarantors by dividend or loan. Certain subsidiary guarantors are included in discontinued operations and the guarantees will beoperations. Two subsidiary guarantors were released in accordance with the indenture upon completion of the sale of the GDX Automotivebusiness (see Note 15)14).

     We have not presented separate financial and narrative information for each of the subsidiary guarantors because we believe that such financial and narrative information would not provide investors with any additional information that would be material in evaluating the sufficiency of the guarantees. Therefore, the following condensed consolidating financial information summarizes the financial position, and results of operations and cash flows for our guarantor and non-guarantor subsidiaries.

3133


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Income

Three Months Ended MayAugust 31, 2004 (dollars in millions):

                                   
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor 
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Net sales $ $136 $ $ $136  $ $116 $ $ $116 
Cost of products sold  115   115   114   114 
Selling, general and administrative 10 5   15  7 4   11 
Depreciation and amortization 1 9   10  2 6   8 
Interest expense 8    8  9    9 
Other, (income) expense, net  (1) 1     2  (16)    (14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes  (18) 6    (12)  (20) 8    (12)
Income tax provision  (7)  (17)    (24)   (4) 1   (3)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss from continuing operations  (25)  (11)    (36)  (20) 4 1   (15)
Loss from discontinued operations  (62)  (26)  (188)   (276)  (5) 4  (31)   (32)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss before equity earnings  (87)  (37)  (188)   (312)  (25) 8  (30)   (47)
Equity (losses) earnings of subsidiaries  (225)   225    (22)   22  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) $(312) $(37) $(188) $225 $(312) $(47) $8 $(30) $22 $(47)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Three Months Ended MayAugust 31, 2003 (dollars in millions):

                                   
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor 
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Net sales $ $101 $ $ $101  $ $100 $ $(2) $98 
Cost of products sold  78   78   73   (2) 71 
Selling, general and administrative 7 3   10  3 2   5 
Depreciation and amortization 1 7   8  1 6   7 
Interest expense 5    5  5    5 
Unusual items, net  2   2 
Other income, net       1    1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes  (13) 13      (10) 17   7 
Income tax benefit (provision) 4  (3)   1  2  (4)    (2)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations  (9) 10   1   (8) 13   5 
Income (loss) from discontinued operations  (4) 1 12  9 
Loss from discontinued operations  (6)   (2)   (8)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before equity earnings  (13) 11 12  10   (14) 13  (2)   (3)
Equity (losses) earnings of subsidiaries 23    (23)   11    (11)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) $10 $11 $12 $(23) $10  $(3) $13 $(2) $(11) $(3)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3234


SixNine Months Ended MayAugust 31, 2004 (dollars in millions):

                                    
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor 
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Net sales $ $260 $ $ $260  $ $350 $ $ $350 
Cost of products sold  224   224   319   319 
Selling, general and administrative 19 9   28  25 9   34 
Depreciation and amortization 3 17   20  5 20   25 
Interest expense 16    16  24 1   25 
Other income, net  (1)     (1) 1  (15)    (14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes  (37) 10    (27)  (55) 16    (39)
Income tax benefit (provision) 1  (19)    (18)   (33)    (33)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss from continuing operations  (36)  (9)    (45)  (55)  (17)    (72)
Loss from discontinued operations  (66)  (27)  (193)   (286)  (72)  (11)  (223)   (306)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss before equity earnings  (102)  (36)  (193)   (331)  (127)  (28)  (223)   (378)
Equity (losses) earnings of subsidiaries  (229)   229    (251)   251  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) $(331) $(36) $(193) $229 $(331) $(378) $(28) $(223) $251 $(378)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SixNine Months Ended MayAugust 31, 2003 (dollars in millions):

                                    
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor 
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Net sales $ $181 $ $ $181  $ $247 $ $(2) $245 
Cost of products sold 1 136   137   191   (2) 189 
Selling, general and administrative 12 7   19  15 5   20 
Depreciation and amortization 3 14   17  4 16   20 
Interest expense 9    9  13    13 
Unusual items, net  2   2 
Other income, net  (4) 1    (3)  (3)     (3)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes  (21) 23   2   (29) 33   4 
Income tax benefit (provision) 6  (6)     7  (8)    (1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations  (15) 17   2   (22) 25   3 
Income (loss) from discontinued operations  (4) 1 14  11   (10) 4 13  7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before equity earnings  (19) 18 14  13   (32) 29 13  10 
Equity (losses) earnings of subsidiaries 32    (32)  
Equity earnings of subsidiaries 42    (42)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) $13 $18 $14 $(32) $13  $10 $29 $13 $(42) $10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3335


Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets

                                   
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor    
May 31, 2004 (dollars in millions)
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
August 31, 2004 (dollars in millions)
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Cash $5 $11 $35 $ $51  $27 $3 $1 $ $31 
Restricted cash 16    16 
Accounts receivable 2 89   91  5 84   89 
Inventories, net  197   197   165   165 
Recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs  32   32   36   36 
Prepaid expenses and other 2 6   8   4   4 
Assets of discontinued operations 34 30 255  319   104 1  105 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total current assets 43 365 290  698  48 396 2  446 
Restricted cash 54    54 
Property, plant and equipment, net 1 210   211  1 139   140 
Recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs  176   176   208   208 
Prepaid pension asset 132 170   302  127 163   290 
Goodwill 1 102   103   103   103 
Intercompany, net  (234) 396  (162)     (380) 382  (2)   
Other noncurrent assets, net 922 107 10  (932) 107  946 92 9  (933) 114 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total assets $865 $1,526 $138 $(932) $1,597  $796 $1,483 $9 $(933) $1,355 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt $11 $ $17 $ $28  $16 $ $ $ $16 
Accounts payable 3 26   29  8 21   29 
Reserves for environmental remediation 6 41   47  8 45   53 
Income taxes payable  31 10  41  21 10   31 
Other current liabilities 39 119   158  37 107   144 
Liabilities of discontinued operations 28 11 115  154   11 12  23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total current liabilities 87 228 142  457  90 194 12  296 
Long-term debt, net of current portion 561  6  567  552    552 
Reserves for environmental remediation 10 240   250  10 254   264 
Postretirement benefits other than pensions 96 52   148  91 52   143 
Other noncurrent liabilities 12 64   76  12 63   75 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total liabilities 766 584 148  1,498  755 563 12  1,330 
Total shareholders’ equity 99 942  (10)  (932) 99  41 920  (3)  (933) 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $865 $1,526 $138 $(932) $1,597  $796 $1,483 $9 $(933) $1,355 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3436


                                     
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor    
November 30, 2003 (dollars in millions)
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Cash $9 $3 $52 $ $64  $9 $3 $52 $ $64 
Accounts receivable 3 89   92  3 85   88 
Inventories, net  170   170   142   142 
Recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs  37   37   37   37 
Prepaid expenses and other 13 3   16  13 2   15 
Assets of discontinued operations 88 52 431  571  88 144 431  663 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total current assets 113 354 483  950  113 413 483  1,009 
Property, plant and equipment, net  217   217   148   148 
Recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs  183   183   183   183 
Prepaid pension asset 125 195   320  135 185   320 
Goodwill 1 99   100  1 99   100 
Intercompany, net  (271) 408  (137)     (281) 418  (137)   
Other noncurrent assets, net 1,160 142 10  (1,175) 137  1,160 142 10  (1,175) 137 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total assets $1,128 $1,598 $356 $(1,175) $1,907  $1,128 $1,588 $356 $(1,175) $1,897 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt $22 $ $30 $ $52  $22 $ $30 $ $52 
Accounts payable 5 36   41  5 32   37 
Reserves for environmental remediation 6 47   53  6 47   53 
Income taxes payable  (13) 26 10  23   (13) 26 10  23 
Other current liabilities 44 137   181  44 122   166 
Liabilities of discontinued operations 38 8 114  160  38 17 114  169 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total current liabilities 102 254 154  510  102 244 154  500 
Long-term debt, net of current portion 479  7  486  479  7  486 
Reserves for environmental remediation 11 251   262  11 251   262 
Postretirement benefits other than pensions 94 54   148  94 54   148 
Other noncurrent liabilities 14 59   73  14 59   73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total liabilities 700 618 161  1,479  700 608 161  1,469 
Total shareholders’ equity 428 980 195  (1,175) 428  428 980 195  (1,175) 428 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $1,128 $1,598 $356 $(1,175) $1,907  $1,128 $1,588 $356 $(1,175) $1,897 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3537


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows

SixNine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 (dollars in millions):

                                     
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor    
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $(44) $ $8 $ $(36) $(43) $(27) $(20) $ $(90)
Cash flows from investing activities:  
Capital expenditures   (9)    (9)   (11)    (11)
Proceeds from business disposition 140    140 
Other investing activities  (6)  (2)  (13)   (21)  (79)  (8)  (20)   (107)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash used in investing activities  (6)  (11)  (13)   (30) 61  (19)  (20)  22 
Cash flows from financing activities:  
Net transfers (to) from parent  (30) 19 11     (74) 46 28   
Borrowings (repayments) on notes payable and long-term debt, net 66   (15)  51  59   (34)  25 
Other financing activities 10   (7)  3  14   (7)  7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash provided by financing activities 46 19  (11)  54  (1) 46  (13)  32 
Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents    (1)   (1)   3  3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  (4) 8  (17)   (13) 17   (50)   (33)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 9 3 52  64  9 3 52  64 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $5 $11 $35 $ $51  $26 $3 $2 $ $31 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SixNine months ended MayAugust 31, 2003 (in(dollars in millions)

                                     
 Guarantor Non-guarantor     Guarantor Non-guarantor    
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
 Parent
 Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries
 Eliminations
 Consolidated
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $(16) $8 $7 $ $(1) $(22) $38 $4 $ $20 
Cash flows from investing activities:  
Capital expenditures   (4)    (4)   (6)    (6)
Other investing activities  (4)  (1)  (5)   (10)  (102)  (3)  (13)   (118)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash used in investing activities  (4)  (5)  (5)   (14)  (102)  (9)  (13)   (124)
Cash flows from financing activities:  
Net transfers (to) from parent 21  (8)  (13)    49  (36)  (13)   
Borrowings (repayments) on notes payable and long-term debt, net  (1)  10  9  93  20  113 
Other financing activities  (1)     (1)      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash provided by financing activities 19  (8)  (3)  8  142  (36) 7  113 
Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents   5  5    4  4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  (1)  (5) 4   (2) 18  (7) 2  13 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 1 12 35  48   13 35  48 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ $7 $39 $ $46  $18 $6 $37 $ $61 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3638


18.17. New Accounting Pronouncements

     In December 2003, the FASB issued a revised SFAS No. 132,Employers’ Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits. The revision requires additional annual disclosures relating to the types of plan assets, investment strategy, measurement dates, plan obligations and cash flows, and interim disclosures of the components of net periodic benefit cost of defined benefit pension plans and other defined benefit postretirement plans, as well as estimated cash flows if materially different from previously discussed amounts. The disclosure requirements are effective beginning this quarter (see Note 14).

     In MayAugust 2004, the FASB issued Staff Position No. 106-2 (FSP 106-2),Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003(the Act). The Act introduces a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of post-retirement health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. When adopted, FSP 106-2 will supersede FSP 106-1,Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which was issued in January 2004 and permitted a sponsor of a post-retirement health care plan that provides a prescription drug benefit to make a one-time election to defer accounting for the effects of the Act until more authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy was issued. We elected the one-time deferral allowed under FSP 106-1 and as a result any measures of the accumulated postretirement benefit obligation or net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the financial statements or accompanying notes do not reflect the effects of the Act on postretirement health care benefit plans. FSP 106-2 provides authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy and specifies the disclosure requirements for employers who have adopted FSP 106-2, including those who are unable to determine whether benefits provided under its plan are actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. FSP 106-2 is effective for our fourth quarter of fiscal 2004. We anticipate that the adoption of FSP 106-2 will reduce our accumulated plan benefit obligation by $3 million related to the Act.

     In September 2004, Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) reached a consensus on EITF Issue No. 04-08 (EITF 04-08),The Effect of Contingently Convertible Debt on Diluted Earnings per Share. Under current interpretations of FASB No. 128,Earnings per Share, issuers of contingently convertible debt instruments (Co-Cos) generally exclude the potential common shares underlying the Co-Cos from the calculation of diluted earnings per share until the underlying common stock achieves a specified price target, or other contingency is met. EITF 04-08 requires that Co-Cos should be included in diluted earnings per share computations, if dilutive, regardless of whether the market price trigger has been met. We will adopt the requirements of EITF 04-08 beginning with the quarter ending February 28, 2005. The application of EITF 04-08 will require us to include our 4% Contingent Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2024 (4% Notes) which were issued in January 2004 (see Note 9) in our calculation of diluted earnings per share, if dilutive. The diluted earnings per share computations for the first three quarters of fiscal 2004 would exclude the impact of the 4% Notes as the effect would be antidilutive.

     On October 13, 2004, the FASB concluded that Statement 123R,Share-Based Payment, which would require all companies to measure compensation cost for all share-based payments (including employee stock options) at fair value, would be effective for public companies for interim or annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005. We could adopt the new standard in one of two ways — the modified prospective transition method or the modified retrospective transition method. We will adopt Statement 123R in our fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 and are currently evaluating the effect that the adoption of FSP 106-2Statement 123R will have on our financial position and results of operations and financial condition.operations.

19.39


18. Subsequent Events

     In November 2003, we announced we were closing a GDX manufacturing facility in Chartres, France. The decision resulted primarily from declining sales volumes with French automobile manufacturers. In JuneOn October 1, 2004, we completed the legal process withsale of the Works’ Councilformer Atlantic Research Corporation (ARC) in-space propulsion business to American Pacific Corporation for closing$4 million in cash and the facility and establishing a social plan.assumption of certain liabilities. In October 2003, we acquired the ARC propulsion business. As a result,condition to the Federal Trade Commission’s approval of that transaction, we expectwere directed to record a pre-tax expense ranging from approximately $10 million to $15 million during the third quarter of 2004 primarily related to employee severance costs in accordance with SFAS No. 146,Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities. This expense will be recorded as a component of discontinued operations.divest ARC’s in-space propulsion business.

3740


Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

     The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In addition, our operating results for interim periods may not be indicative of the results of operations for a full year. This section contains a number of forward–looking statements, all of which are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties including those described in this Quarterly Report under the heading “Forward-Looking Statements.” Actual results may differ materially. This section should be read in conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003, and periodic reports subsequently filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Overview

     We are a multinational technology-based companymanufacturer operating primarily in North America. Our continuing operations are organized into threetwo segments: Aerospace and Defense Fine Chemicals and Real Estate. The Aerospace and Defense segment includes the operations of Aerojet-General Corporation (Aerojet), which develops and manufactures propulsion systems for space and defense applications, armament systems for precision tactical weapon systems and munitions applications, and advanced airframe structures. Primary customers served include major prime contractors to the U.S. government, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Fine Chemicals segment consists of the operations of Aerojet Fine Chemicals LLC (AFC), sales of which are primarily from custom manufactured active pharmaceutical ingredients and advanced/registered intermediates to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The Real Estate segment includes activities related to the development, sale and leasing of our real estate assets.

     During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, we announced plans to sell the GDX Automotive (GDX) business. This decision was a result of declining volumes and continued challenges in this market environment including increased material costs, high development and start-up costs, anticipated working capital requirements as well as adverse customer pricing pressures. In accordance with our plan to sell the GDX Automotive business, we have classified our GDX Automotive operating segment as a discontinued operations. See additional discussionoperation in Note 15.

     On October 17, 2003, Aerojet completed the acquisitionsecond quarter of fiscal 2004. During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we signed a definitive agreement to sell GDX, including substantially all of the assets of GenCorp Inc. that were used in the propulsionGDX business and substantially all of Atlantic Research Corporation (ARC),GenCorp Inc.’s worldwide subsidiaries that were engaged in the GDX business, to Cerberus Capital Management L.P. (Cerberus) for $147 million, subject to adjustment, of which $140 million has been received as of August 31, 2004. We closed the transaction on August 31, 2004. See additional discussion in Note 14 of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

     During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we classified the Fine Chemicals segment as a subsidiarydiscontinued operation as a result of Sequa Corporation, forour plans to sell this business. This plan was a purchase priceresult of $144 million, comprisedmanagement’s decision to focus our capital and resources on our Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate businesses. For operating segment reporting, Fine Chemicals was previously reported as a separate operating segment. See additional discussion in Note 14 of $133 million in cash and estimated direct acquisition costs and purchase price adjustments of $11 million. In March 2004, Sequa proposed purchase price adjustments which would require that Aerojet make an additional payment. The two parties have been negotiating the proposed adjustments and have reached a mutual understanding on several matters. On other matters, the parties are in disagreement and are preparing for bindingNotes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

3841


arbitration. Management does not believe the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on our financial position.

Results of Operations

     The following section pertains to activity included in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income, which are contained in Part I, Item 1 of this Report. Refer to Note 16 for financial results for each of our operating segments.Net Sales:

                         
  Three months ended
 Six months ended
  May 31,
 May 31,
     May 31,
 May 31,
  
          Increase/         Increase/
  2004
 2003
 (Decrease)
 2004
 2003
 (Decrease)
  (Dollars in millions,)
Net sales
 $136  $101  $35  $260  $181  $79 
Costs and expenses
                        
Cost of products sold  115   78   37   224   137   87 
Selling, general and administrative  15   10   5   28   19   9 
Depreciation and amortization  10   8   2   20   17   3 
Interest expense  8   5   3   16   9   7 
Other income, net           (1)  (3)  2 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
  (12)     (12)  (27)  2   (29)
Income tax provision  (24)  1   (25)  (18)     (18)
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations
  (36)  1   (37)  (45)  2   (47)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
  (276)  9   (285)  (286)  11   (297)
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 
Net income (loss)
 $(312) $10  $(322) $(331) $13  $(344)
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 
                                 
  Three months ended         Nine months ended      
  August 31,
     Percentage August 31,
     Percentage
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 Change
 2004
 2003
 Change**
 Change
Net sales $116  $98  $18   18% $350  $245  $105   43%

     Net sales increased 35% to $136 million in the second quarter 2004 compared to $101 million in the corresponding 2003 quarter. For the first half of 2004, total net sales increased 44% to $260 million from $181 million reported* Primary reason for the comparable 2003 period. change.The increase in sales was primarily reflects additionaldue to $45 million of sales contributed by the propulsion business of ARC, which was acquired by Aerojet in October 2003,2003. The increase in sales was partially offset by a decrease of $15 million in real estate sales and fewer deliveries on the ATLAS V program. During the third quarter of fiscal 2003, our real estate segment sold an office complex in Sacramento, California for $15 million.

** Primary reason for change.The increase in sales was primarily due to $127 million of sales contributed by the propulsion business of ARC, which was acquired in October 2003. The increase in sales was partially offset by a decrease of $16 million in real estate sales and fewer deliveries on the ATLAS V program. During the third quarter of fiscal 2003, our real estate operating segment sold an office complex in Sacramento, California for $15 million.

     Please refer to the “Operating Segment Information” section below for further discussions with respect to net sales atand operating results for each of our Fine Chemicals Segment.operating segments.

Cost of products sold increased 47% to $115 millionProducts Sold:

                         
  Three months ended     Nine months ended  
  August 31,
     August 31,
  
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 2004
 2003
 Change*
Cost of Products Sold $114  $71  $43  $319  $189  $130 
Percentage of net sales  98%  72%      91%  77%    

* Primary reason for change.The increase in the second quarter 2004 compared to $78 million in the second quarter of 2003. For the first half of 2004, cost of products sold increased 64% from the comparable 2003 period. Cost of products sold as a percentage of revenues increasednet sales was due to 85% and 86%the following: (i) higher margin real estate sales recorded in the secondthird quarter 2004 and first half of 2004, respectively, compared to 77% and 76%fiscal 2003, (ii) increase in comparable 2003 periods. The percentage increase was attributable primarily to increases in our retirement benefit plan expenseexpenses of $8 million and $16$24 million in the second quarterthree and first halfnine months of fiscal 2004, respectively, as compared to(iii) lower margin sales from the correspondingpropulsion business of ARC which was acquired in October 2003, periods.

     Selling, general and administrative expense (SG&A) was $15(iv) $16 million or 11%write-down of net sales forinventory associated with the secondAtlas V program in the third quarter of 2004 as compared to $10 million, or 10% of net sales for the second quarter of 2003. For the first half of 2004, SG&A expense was $28 million, or 11% of sales compared to $19 million, or 10% of sales for the first half of 2003. The increase in SG&A expense is primarily afiscal 2004.

3942


Selling, General and Administrative:

                         
  Three months ended     Nine months ended  
  August 31,
     August 31,
  
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 2004
 2003
 Change*
Selling, general and administrative $11  $5  $6  $34  $20  $14 
Percentage of net sales  9%  5%      10%  8%    

* Primary reason for change.The increase is primarily a result of an increase of $5 million and $10$14 million in non-cash retirement benefit plan expense in the secondthird quarter and first halfnine months of fiscal 2004, respectively, as compared to corresponding 2003 periods.respectively.

Depreciation and amortization increased $2 million and $3 million in the second quarter and first half of 2004, respectively, compared to the corresponding 2003 periods. Amortization:

                         
  Three months ended     Nine months ended  
  August 31,
     August 31,
  
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 2004
 2003
 Change*
Depreciation and amortization $8  $7  $1  $25  $20  $5 
Percentage of net sales  7%  7%      7%  8%    

* Primary reason for change.The increase primarily is the result of depreciation related to the assets acquired in connection with the ARC acquisition and increased amortization of deferred financing costs incurred in connection with recent debt offerings.acquisition.

Interest Expense:

                         
  Three months ended     Nine months ended  
  August 31,
     August 31,
  
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 2004
 2003
 Change*
Interest expense $9  $5  $4  $25  $13  $12 

     Interest expense increased to $8 million in the second quarter 2004 from $5 million in the second quarter of 2003. Interest expense increased to $16 million in the first six months of 2004 from $9 million in the first six months of 2003. * Primary reason for change.The increase in both periods is primarily due tothe result of higher debt levels and higher average interest rates.levels. Additional debt includes amounts incurred to finance the ARC acquisition.acquisition and to fund working capital.

Unusual Items, Net:

                         
  Three months ended     Nine months ended  
  August 31,
     August 31,
  
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 2004
 2003
 Change*
Unusual items, net: $  $2  $(2) $  $2  $(2)

     * Primary reason for change.During the third quarter of fiscal 2003, we incurred a $2 million charge related to the settlement of an environmental legal matter.

43


Other (Income) Expense, Net:

                         
  Three months ended     Nine months ended  
  August 31,
     August 31,
  
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 2004
 2003
 Change*
Other (income) expense, net: $(14) $1  $(15) $(14) $(3) $(11)

* Primary reason for change.During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we reviewed our environmental reserve liability and associated cost recovery calculations, including assumptions related to the anticipated sale of our Fine Chemicals operating segment. In conjunction with the review coupled with prospective changes in the allocation methodology, we recorded $17 million of other income. See additional discussion in Note 10(b) of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. The $17 million of other income net includedrecorded in the third quarter of fiscal 2004 was offset by a $2 million environmental remediation charge related to a former operating site. During the first nine months of fiscal 2003, we had foreign currency transaction gains in 2003 of $3 million.

Income Tax Provision:

                         
  Three months ended     Nine months ended  
  August 31,
     August 31,
  
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 2004
 2003
 Change*
Income tax provision: $3  $2  $1  $33  $1  $32 

* Primary reason for change.An income tax provision relating to continuing operations of $24$3 million for the secondthird quarter of fiscal 2004 and $18$33 million for the first sixnine months of fiscal 2004 was recorded to reflect the uncertainty of realizing the deferred tax benefits, given historical losses. Similarly, no tax benefit has been included in the charge related to the classification of the GDX Automotive business, as a discontinued operations, as realization is also uncertain. The loss carryforward for U.S. federal tax purposes generated year to date 2004 is approximately $214 million. Such loss carryforward resulted primarily from the disposition of the GDX business.

Discontinued Operations:

     During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, the GDX Automotive operating segment net assets were adjusted to management’s estimate of proceeds to be received on disposition less costs to sell. During the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we signed a definitive agreement to sell GDX, including substantially all of the assets of GenCorp Inc. that were used in the GDX business and substantially all of GenCorp Inc.’s worldwide subsidiaries that were engaged in the GDX business, to Cerberus for $147 million, subject to adjustment, of which $140 million has been received as of August 31, 2004. We closed the transaction on August 31, 2004. The resulting loss recognized on this adjustmentthe sale of the GDX business during the first nine months of fiscal 2004 was $261$279 million. NetDuring the third quarter of fiscal 2004, we classified the Fine Chemicals business as a discontinued operation as a result of our plans to sell the business. This plan was a result of management’s decision to focus our capital and resources on our Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate operating segments. The net loss from discontinued operations for the three and sixnine months ended MayAugust 31, 2004 was $276$32 million and $286$306 million, respectively.

44


     In November 2003, we announced we were closing a GDX manufacturing facility in Chartres, France. The decision resulted primarily from declining sales volumes with French automobile manufacturers. In June 2004, we completed the legal process for closing the facility and establishing a social plan. As a result, we recorded a pre-tax expense of approximately $11 million during the third quarter of fiscal 2004 primarily related to employee social costs in accordance with SFAS No. 146. The charge is included as a component of discontinued operations. We have not yet recorded expenses associated with certain social benefits due to the uncertainty of the benefit amount. These additional social costs are expected to result in an additional pre-tax expense of $3 million to $6 million and are anticipated to be incurred over the next two years. In accordance with SFAS No. 146, we will recognize the related costs once they are certain.

     Summarized financial information for the GDX Automotiveand Fine Chemicals operations (discontinued operations) is set forth below (dollars in millions):

          
                 Three months ended Nine months ended
 Three months ended May 31,
 Six months ended May 31,
 August 31,
 August 31,
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
 2004
 2003
Net sales $204 $214 $388 $405  $191 $185 $605 $625 
Income (loss) before income taxes  (259) 15  (275) 19   (33)  (14)  (308) 9 
Income tax provision  (17)  (6)  (11)  (8)
Income tax benefit (provision) 1 6 2  (2)
Net income (loss) from discontinued operations  (276) 9  (286) 11   (32)  (8)  (306) 7 

Results of Operating SegmentsSegment Information:

     Our continuing operations are organized into threetwo segments based on different products and customer bases: Aerospace and Defense Fine Chemicals and Real Estate. We evaluate our operating segments based on several factors, of which the primary financial measure is segment performance. Segment performance represents net sales less applicable costs, expenses and provisions for restructuring and unusual items relating to operations. Segment performance excludes corporate income and expenses, interest expense, income taxes, discontinued operations and minority interest.

40Aerospace and Defense Segment

                                 
  Three months ended         Nine months ended      
  August 31,
     Percentage August 31,
     Percentage
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 Change
 2004
 2003
 Change*
 Change
Net sales $116  $83  $33   40% $354  $226  $128   57%
Operating Income $11  $8  $3   38% $23  $26  $(3)  (12)%

* Primary reason for change.Sales improvements primarily reflect increased volume related to the acquired business and increases in Missile Defense Program sales including the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Program offset by fewer deliveries on the ATLAS V program. Operating performance reflects increased deliveries, results from the acquired business and a $17 million of other income related to the recovery of environmental remediation costs as discussed in Note 10(b) of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, offset by an inventory write-down of $16 million associated with the Atlas V program, lower margin sales from

45


Aerospacethe propulsion business of ARC, which was acquired in October 2003, and Defense Segment

     Second quarter 2004 sales were $125 million compared to $82 millionan increase in the second quarter of 2003. The increase primarily reflects $42 million in sales from the ARC business. Sales for the first six months of 2004 were $238 million compared to $144 million for the first six months of 2003. The increase primarily reflects $81 million in additional sales generated by the ARC business.

     Second quarter segment performance in 2004 was $8 million compared to $10 million in 2003. Excluding the effect of employee retirement benefit plan income or expense, second quarter segment performanceexpenses.

     Contract backlog was $15$867 million in 2004 compared to $9 million in 2003. For the first six months of 2004, segment performance was $12 million compared to $18 million in the comparable 2003 period. Excluding the effect of employee retirement plan income or expense, segment performance for the first six months was $26 million in 2004 compared to $16 million in 2003. For both the second quarter and the first six months, the increase reflects the impact of higher sales, favorable contract performance, and net positive changes in our program mix.

     Aerojet has experienced certain production difficulties and cost overruns related to its contract to produce a solid rocket motor for Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V program. Current contract provisions provide for the production of 44 motors and for the order of an additional 52 motors at Lockheed’s option. Through MayAugust 31, 2004 Aerojet has delivered two motors which have been used in successful launches, and management expects to deliver five additional motors in the second half of 2004. At May 31, 2004, development and production costs of $131 million relating to this contract have been included in inventories. In 2004, Lockheed contracted with Aerojet to make certain engineering enhancements to the existing motor design. The pricing for the redesigned motors has not yet been established. In addition, Aerojet management believes launch service contracts between industry and the U.S. government will be modified to reflect cost pressures resulting from continued low commercial launch activity. Management believes it is probable that, during the next year, increased pricing sufficient to offset the historical development and production cost overruns will be successfully negotiated. However, if negotiations are unsuccessful; Aerojet may be required to recognize material losses with respect to this contract.

     As of May 31, 2004, Aerojet’s contract backlog was $876 millionas compared to $830 million as of November 30, 2003. Funded backlog, which includes only the amount of those contracts for which money has been directly authorized by the U.S. Congress, or for which a firm purchase order has been received by a commercial customer, was approximately $504$503 million as of Mayat August 31, 2004 compared to $425 million as of November 30, 2003.

Fine Chemicals Segment

     Second quarter 2004 sales were $13 million compared to $17 million Overall, backlog growth for the secondfirst nine months of fiscal 2004 reflects contract awards in excess of sales on both production and development programs.

     For the third quarter 2003.and first nine months of fiscal 2004, three customers accounted for more than 10% of our Aerospace and Defense net sales. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing accounted for 35%, 17% and 10%, respectively, of Aerospace and Defense net sales for the third quarter of fiscal 2004. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing accounted for 31%, 16% and 11%, respectively, of net sales for the first nine months of fiscal 2004. For the third quarter of fiscal 2003, Lockheed Martin and Boeing accounted for 27% and 20%, respectively, of our Aerospace and Defense net sales. For the first sixnine months of fiscal 2003, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon accounted for 31%, 15% and 12%, respectively, of Aerospace and Defense net sales. Net sales were $26 million in 2004 compareddirectly and indirectly to $34 million in 2003. The decrease reflects the timingU.S. government and its agencies represented 85% of Aerospace and Defense net sales of large production orders with extended manufacturing schedules. Currently, Fine Chemicals is expected to run at full capacity for the remainderthird quarter and first nine months of fiscal 2004 which includes a portion of the fiscal year,sales to our significant customers discussed above. Net sales directly and is expectedindirectly to have improved segment performancethe U.S. government and its agencies represented 79% and 81% of Aerospace and Defense net sales for the last two quartersthird quarter and first nine months of 2004.fiscal 2003 which includes a portion of the sales to our significant customers discussed above.

     SecondDuring the third quarter segment performance inof 2004, was break-even comparedAerojet recorded an inventory write-down of $16 million on a contract to $4 million indesign, develop and produce a solid rocket motor for Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V program. This write-down relates to unanticipated transition costs from the prior year period. Segment performance was also break-evendevelopment phase to the production phase of the contract and the value of materials rendered obsolete by a decision to proceed with qualification and production of an enhanced motor configuration. In management’s judgment, these costs will not be recoverable on the contract.

     The current contract provides for production of 44 motors over a number of years and for the first six months, comparedorder of an additional 52 motors at Lockheed Martin’s option. At August 31, 2004, the Atlas V inventory balance was $128 million. Full recovery of this investment is subject to $6 millionuncertainties, including: (i) Aerojet’s ability to produce motors at its estimated average unit price, (ii) final pricing of the enhanced motor configuration, and (iii) a satisfactory renegotiation of contract terms with Lockheed Martin. Aerojet believes its Atlas V contract will be restructured during 2005 when launch services contracts between launch vehicle manufacturers and the U.S. government are modified to reflect cost pressures resulting from continued low commercial launch activity. Details of the form and terms of the anticipated changes are unknown at this time.

     Aerojet management believes that continued improvements in the first six monthsoperational efficiency and renegotiation of 2003. The decrease reflects lower product deliveries, as well ascontract terms will permit recovery of inventoried development and production costs. However, if management’s efforts are unsuccessful, Aerojet may be required to recognize additional material losses.

4146


changes in product mix and production delays caused by the late receipt of customer furnished material.

     As of May 31, 2004, Fine Chemicals’ backlog was $48 million compared to $57 million as of November 30, 2003. Currently, Fine Chemicals is expected to run at full capacity for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Real Estate Segment

                                 
  Three months ended         Nine months ended      
  August 31,
     Percentage August 31,
     Percentage
  2004
 2003
 Change*
 Change
 2004
 2003
 Change**
 Change
Net sales $2  $17  $(15)  (88)% $4  $20  $(16)  (80)%
Operating Income $1  $11  $(10)  (91)% $3  $13  $(10)  (77)%

     We did not sell any* Primary reason for change.The decrease in sales and operating performance is a result of the Real Estate segment having completed no real estate assets in either the second quarter orasset sales during the first halfnine months of bothfiscal 2004 and 2003, although additional unused portionscompared to the Real Estate segment’s sale of our headquarters property were successfully leased at market rates inan office complex for $15 million during the secondthird quarter of 2004. Segment performance was $1 million in both second-quarter periods, and $2 million in both six-month periods. The performance primarily consists of income from leasing activities.fiscal 2003.

Other Information

Environmental Matters

     Our policy is to conduct our businesses with due regard for the preservation and protection of the environment. We devote a significant amount of resources and management attention to environmental matters and actively manage ongoing processes to comply with environmental laws and regulations. We are involved in the remediation of environmental conditions that resulted from generally accepted manufacturing and disposal practices in the 1950s and 1960s followed at certain plants. In addition, we have been designated a PRP with other companies at third party sites undergoing investigation and remediation.

     Estimating environmental remediation costs is difficult due to the significant uncertainties inherent in these activities, including the extent of the remediation required, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, evolving technologies and the long periods of time over which most remediation efforts take place. In accordance with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Statement of Position 96-1 (SOP 96-1),Environmental Remediation Liabilitiesand Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 92 (SAB 92),Accounting and Disclosure Relating to Loss Contingencies,we:

accrue for costs associated with the remediation of environmental pollution when it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred, and when our proportionate share of the costs can be reasonably estimated. In some cases, only a range of reasonably possible costs can be estimated. In establishing our reserves, the most probable estimate is used when determinable and the minimum estimate is used when no single amount is more probable; and

record related estimated recoveries when such recoveries are deemed probable.
accrue for costs associated with the remediation of environmental pollution when it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred, and when our proportionate share of the costs can be reasonably estimated. In some cases, only a range of reasonably possible costs can be estimated. In establishing our reserves, the most probable estimate is used when determinable and the minimum estimate is used when no single amount is more probable; and
record related estimated recoveries when such recoveries are deemed probable.

Key Accounting Policies and Estimates

     Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP; GAAP offers acceptable alternative methods for accounting for certain items affecting our financial results, such as determining inventory cost, depreciating long-lived assets and recognizing revenues.

4247


The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires the use of estimates, assumptions, judgments and interpretations that can affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and other supplemental disclosures. The development of accounting estimates is the responsibility of our management. Management discusses those areas that require significant judgments with the audit committee of our board of directors. The audit committee has reviewed all financial disclosures in our filings with the SEC. Although we believe that the positions we have taken with regard to uncertainties are reasonable, others might reach different conclusions and our positions can change over time as more information becomes available. If an accounting estimate changes, its effects are accounted for prospectively.

     The areas most affected by our accounting policies and estimates are revenue recognition/recognition for long-term contracts, goodwill and other long-lived assets, employee pension and postretirement benefit obligations, litigation, environmental remediation costs and income taxes. Except for income taxes, which are not allocated to our business segments, these areas affect the financial results of our business segments.segment.

     These areas are discussed in more detail in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003. There have been no significant changes in our key accounting policies during the first halfnine months of fiscal 2004.

Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risk

     As of August 31, 2004, obligations required to be disclosed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 45 (FIN 45),Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of the Indebtedness of Othersconsisted of:

$56 million in outstanding commercial letters of credit expiring in 2004 and 2005 securing obligations for environmental remediation, insurance coverage and litigation.
Up to $120 million aggregate in guarantees by GenCorp Inc. of Aerojet’s obligations to government agencies for environmental remediation activities, subject to partial offsets for other financial assurances provided in conjunction with these obligations.
Guarantees, jointly and severally, by our material domestic subsidiaries of our obligations under our bank credit agreements and our $150 million 9.5% Notes.

New Accounting Pronouncements

     In December 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a revised SFAS No. 132,Employers’ Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits. The revision requires additional annual disclosures relating to the types of plan assets, investment strategy, measurement dates, plan obligations and cash flows, and interim disclosures of the components of net periodic benefit cost of defined benefit pension plans and other defined benefit postretirement plans, as well as estimated cash flows if materially different from previously discussed amounts. These disclosure requirements are effective this quarter and all future quarterly and annual reports (see Note 14).

     In MayAugust 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 106-2 (FSP 106-2),Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003(the Act). The Act introduces a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of post-retirement health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. When adopted, FSP 106-2 will supersede FSP 106-1,Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which was issued in January 2004 and permitted a sponsor of a post-retirement health care plan that provides a

48


prescription drug benefit to make a one-time election to defer accounting for the effects of the Act until more authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy was issued. We elected the one-time deferral allowed under FSP 106-1, and, as a result, any measures of the accumulated postretirement benefit obligation or net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the financial statements or accompanying notes do not reflect the effects of the Act on postretirement health care benefit plans. FSP 106-2 provides authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy and specifies the disclosure requirements for employers who have adopted FSP 106-2, including

43


those who are unable to determine whether benefits provided under its plan are actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. FSP 106-2 is effective for our fourth quarter of fiscal 2004. We anticipate that the adoption of FSP 106-2 will reduce our accumulated plan benefit obligation by $3 million related to the Act.

     In September 2004, Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) reached a consensus on EITF Issue No. 04-08 (EITF 04-08),The Effect of Contingently Convertible Debt on Diluted Earnings per Share. Under current interpretations of FASB No. 128,Earnings per Share, issuers of contingently convertible debt instruments (Co-Cos) generally exclude the potential common shares underlying the Co-Cos from the calculation of diluted earnings per share until the underlying common stock achieves a specified price target, or other contingency is met. EITF 04-08 requires that Co-Cos should be included in diluted earnings per share computations, if dilutive, regardless of whether the market price trigger has been met. We will adopt the requirements of EITF 04-08 beginning with the quarter ending February 28, 2005. The application of EITF 04-08 will require us to include our 4% Contingent Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2024 (4% Notes) which were issued in January 2004 in our calculation of diluted earnings per share, if dilutive. The diluted earnings per share computations for the first three quarters of fiscal 2004 would exclude the impact of the 4% Notes as the effect would be antidilutive.

     On October 13, 2004, the FASB concluded that Statement 123R,Share-Based Payment, which would require all companies to measure compensation cost for all share-based payments (including employee stock options) at fair value, would be effective for public companies for interim or annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005. We could adopt the new standard in one of two ways - the modified prospective transition method or the modified retrospective transition method. We will adopt Statement 123R in our fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 and are currently evaluating the effect that the adoption of FSP 106-2Statement 123R will have on our financial position and results of operations and financial condition.operations.

49


Liquidity and Capital Resources

     We broadly define liquidity as our ability to generate sufficient operating cash flows, as well as our ability to obtain debt and equity financing and to convert to cash those assets that are no longer required to meet our strategic financial objectives. Changes in net cash provided by operating activities generally reflect earnings plus depreciation and amortization and other non-cash charges and the effect of changes in working capital. Changes in working capital generally are the result of timing differences between the collection of customer receivables and payment for materials and operating expenses.

     As of MayAugust 31, 2004, our cash and cash equivalents totaled $51$31 million, and the ratio of current assets to current liabilities, or current ratio, was 1.53.1.51. As of November 30, 2003, our cash and cash equivalents totaled $64 million, and the current ratio was 1.86.2.02. The change in the current ratio as of MayAugust 31, 2004 compared to November 30, 2003 reflects the changes in current assets and liabilities, including the repayment of the current portion of long-term debt as a result of the issuance of the 4% Contingent Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2024 (see Note 9)9 of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements) and the classification of the GDX Automotiveand Fine Chemicals businesses as discontinued operations (see Note 15)14 of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements).

     Cash and cash equivalents decreased by $13$33 million during the first halfnine months of fiscal 2004. The change in cash and cash equivalents is as follows (dollars in millions):

         
  Six months ended
  May 31, 2004
 May 31, 2003
Net cash used in operating activities $(36) $(1)
Net cash used in investing activities  (30)  (14)
Net cash provided by financing activities  54   8 
Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents  (1)  5 
   
 
   
 
 
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents $(13) $(2)
   
 
   
 
 
         
  Nine months ended
  August 31, 2004
 August 31, 2003
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities $(90) $20 
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities  22   (124)
Net cash provided by financing activities  32   113 
Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents  3   4 
   
 
   
 
 
(Decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents $(33) $13 
   
 
   
 
 

     Our liquidity is supplemented by borrowings from time to time under our credit facilities to meet working capital requirements and to finance capital expenditures. In January 2004, we issued $125 million aggregate principal amount of the 4% Contingent Convertible Subordinated Notes, (4% Notes), generating net proceeds of approximately $120 million (see Note 9)9 of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements).

     On December 31, 2003,Effective August 30, 2004, we entered into an amendment, consent and waiver (Amendment) with the lenders underof our Senior Credit Facilities which permitted the issuance of the 4% Notes, excludedsenior credit facilities that allows the net proceeds from the mandatory prepayment provisionssale of the Senior Credit Facilities,GDX business to be made available to us and allowedapplied as follows: (i) to repay any of our outstanding revolving loans without a permanent reduction in the revolver commitment, and (ii) to deposit $70 million in a designated account with one of our lenders. We are required to obtain senior lender approval for the use of the net proceeds from the sale of GDX on or prior to March 1, 2005, unless these proceeds are used to repay the outstanding borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility and to prepay the next 12 monthsloans. The Amendment also provides that as long as we have $50 million or more of scheduled principal amortization under the Term Loan Acash on hand (including cash in the amountdesignated account), we cannot borrow from our revolver, except that we can issue letters of $19 million.credit in accordance with the terms of the senior credit facilities. The remaining net proceeds may be used for general corporate purposes. The amendment and waiverAmendment also relaxed certain of the financial covenants contained in our Senior Credit Facilitiesthe credit agreement going forward. For example, for 2004 the minimumOur interest coverage ratio was reduced to 3.402.25 to 1.00 for the quarter

4450


1.00 for the quarter ended February 29, 2004, to 2.60 to 1.00 for the quarters ending May 31 and August 31, 2004, and to 2.501.50 to 1.00 for the quarter ending November 30, 2004.2004 and to 1.65 to 1.00 for the quarter ending February 28, 2005. The maximum leverage ratio was increased to 5.007.00 to 1.00 for the quarter ended February 29,August 31, 2004, and 5.508.25 to 1.00 for the second quarter ofquarters ending November 30, 2004 and each ofFebruary 28, 2005. The fixed charge coverage ratio was reduced to 0.90 to 1.00 for the two remainingquarter ended August 31, 2004, and 0.65 to 1.00 for the quarters of 2004.ending November 30, 2004 and February 28, 2005. The minimum net worth covenant was waived through the period ending February 28, 2006. In addition, certain other covenants, including the covenants limiting asset salesconsents and loans,waivers were amended to permit us to close the manufacturing facility located in Chartres, France, to dispose of the assets related to this facility closure, and to take other related actions.

     The charge recorded as a result of adjusting GDX Automotive to management’s estimate of proceeds to be received on disposition less costs to sell (see Note 15) has caused us to be out of compliance with our consolidated net worth covenant related to our Senior Credit Facility as of May 31, 2004, for which the senior lenders have granted us a waiver through May 31, 2005. We were in compliance with our other debt covenants as of May 31, 2004.

     We will be seeking the consent of the lenders under our Senior Credit Facilitiesissued to permit the sale of the GDX Automotivebusiness, including the release of all collateral associated with the GDX business, the release of two subsidiary guarantors and the release of the security interests in the subsidiaries being sold. Under the Amendment, the approval necessary for the consummation by us or any of our subsidiaries of an acquisition involving total consideration given and indebtedness assumed in excess of $50 million was increased from 51% of the lenders to amend and waive certain covenants therewith.100% of the lenders.

Net cash used in(used in) provided by operating activities

     Net cash used in operating activities for the first sixnine months of fiscal 2004 was $36$90 million compared with $1$20 million of cash generated from operating activities in the first sixnine months of fiscal 2003. NetThe net cash used in operating activities in the first nine months of fiscal 2004 included $21 million for discontinued operations and reflects the operating losses recognized in our GDX business. The cash used in continuing operations of $69 million primarily reflects increased working capital needs for certain program requirements, including Atlas V, at Aerojet and increased interest costs from higher debt levels and higher average interest rates in the first six months offiscal 2004, for Aerojet, Fine Chemicals and discontinued operations, partially offset by the full payment of an outstanding receivable in the amount of $20 million. Increased working capital needs are driven primarilyThe cash generated from operating activities in fiscal 2003 included $13 million from the sale of a building complex and $44 million from discontinued operations, offset by certain program requirements at Aerojet, production timing at Fine Chemicals, and payment of certain current liabilities.

Net cash used in other continuing operations.

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

     Cash provided from investing activities for the first nine months of fiscal 2004 included $140 million received from the sale of the GDX business less $70 million of the proceeds held as restricted cash. Cash used in investing activities in fiscal 2003 included $95 million of restricted cash from the net proceeds of the 9.5% Notes issued in August 2003 and used for the ARC acquisition completed in October 2003.

     Investment activities included capital expenditures of $9$11 million for the first halfnine months of fiscal 2004 as compared to $4$6 million for the comparable fiscal 2003 period. Investing activities of discontinued operations during the first sixnine months of fiscal 2004 and 2003 were $21$37 million and $10$23 million, respectively. Capital expenditures directly support our contract and customer requirements and are primarily made for asset replacement, capacity expansion, development of new projects, cost reduction initiatives, and safety and productivity improvements.

Net cash provided by financing activities

     Net cash provided by financing activities for the first sixnine months of fiscal 2004 was $54$32 million compared with $8$113 million for the first sixnine months of fiscal 2003. Cash flow related to financing activities in both periods relate primarily to activities involving our borrowings, net of repayments. In January 2004, we issued $125 million aggregate principal amount of the 4% Notes, generating net proceeds of approximately $120 million. The net proceeds were used first to repay outstanding borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility, and second, to prepay the next 12twelve months of

51


scheduled principal amortization under the Term Loan A. The remaining net proceeds are available to use for general corporate purposes.

     In August 2003, we issued $150 million aggregate principal amount of the 9.5% Notes, generating net proceeds of $145 million. The net proceeds were used first to repay borrowings under the revolving credit facility. The remaining net proceeds were held in a restricted cash account for use in the ARC acquisition, which was completed in October 2003.

Outlook

     As disclosed in Note 10 of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, we have exposure for certain legal and tax matters. We believe that it is currently not possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have on our financial position or cash flows.

45


     We currently believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents, forecasted operating cash flows, anticipated proceeds from the sale of our Fine Chemicals business, and borrowings available under our credit facilitiesability to access capital markets for debt or equity financing will provide sufficient funds to meet our operating plan for the next twelve months. The operating plan for this period provides for full operation of our business and interest and principal payments on our debt and anticipated dividend payments.

debt. We may also access capital markets to raise debt or equity financing to fund strategic acquisitions. The timing, terms, size and pricing of any such financing will depend on investor interest and market conditions, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain any such financing.

     If we experience adverse economic developments and are not able to raise debt or equity financing in the capital markets or to obtain bank borrowings, we believe that we can generate additional funds to meet our liquidity requirements for the next twelve months by reducing working capital requirements, deferring capital expenditures, implementing cost reduction initiatives in addition to those already included in our operating plan, selling assets or through a combination of these means.

     Major factors that could adversely impact our forecasted operating cash and our financial condition are described in “Forward-Looking Statements.” In addition, our liquidity and financial condition will continue to be affected by changes in prevailing interest rates on the portion of debt that bears interest at variable interest rates.

4652


Forward-Looking Statements

     Certain information contained in this report should be considered “forward-looking statements” as defined by Section 21E of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements in this report other than historical information may be deemed forward-looking statements. These statements present (without limitation) the expectations, beliefs, plans and objectives of management and future financial performance and assumptions underlying, or judgments concerning, the matters discussed in the statements. The words “believe,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “project” and “expect,” and similar expressions, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve certain risks, estimates, assumptions and uncertainties, including with respect to future sales and activity levels, cash flows, contract performance, the outcome of litigation and contingencies, environmental remediation and anticipated costs of capital. A variety of factors could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expected and expressed in our forward-looking statements. Some important risk factors that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ from those expressed in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the following:

  legal and regulatory developments that may have an adverse impact on us or our segments. For example: 1) our operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted if the judgment order in the amount of approximately $29 million entered November 21, 2002 against GenCorp inGenCorp Inc. v. Olin Corporation(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division), which is described in more detail in Note 11 in Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003, is upheld on appeal and the offsets to which we believe we are entitled are not realized; 2) restrictions on real estate development that could delay our proposed real estate development activities; 3) aan adverse change in toxic tort or asbestos litigation trends that is adverse to us; ortrends; and 4) unfavorable changes in international tax laws or currency controls;
 
  changes in company-wideCompany-wide or business segment strategies, such as our recent decisions to divest ourself of GDX and Fine Chemicals, which may result in changes in the types or mix of business in which we are involved or chooses to invest;
 
  changes in U.S., global or regional economic conditions whichthat may affect, among other things,things: 1) customer funding for the purchase of aerospace and defense products, which may impact the Aerospace and Defense segment’s business base and, as a result, impact its ability to recover environmental costs; 2) healthcare spending and demand for the pharmaceutical ingredients produced by theour Fine Chemicals segment;discontinued operations; 3) our ability to successfully complete our real estate activities; and 4) the funded status and costs related to our employee retirement benefit plans;
 
  risks associated with our Aerospace and Defense segment’s role as a defense contractor including: 1) the right of the U.S. government to terminate any contract for convenience; 2) modification or termination of U.S. government contracts due to lack of congressional funding; and 3) the lack of assurance that bids for new programs will be successful, or that customers will exercise contract options or seek or follow-on contracts with us due to the competitive marketplace in which we compete;
 
  changes in U.S. and global financial and equity markets, including market disruptions and

53


significant currency or interest rate fluctuations, that may impede our access to, or increase the cost of, external financing for our operations and investments or materially affect our results of operations and cash flows;

47


  increased competitive pressures, which may, among other things, affect the performance of our Aerospace and Defense andsegment , and/or the Fine Chemicals segments, as well as the GDX Automotive discontinued operations;
 
  labor disputes, which may lead to increased costs or disruption of operations in our Aerospace and Defense andsegment and/or the Fine Chemicals segments, as well as the GDX Automotive discontinued operations;
 
  technological developments or patent infringement claims, which may impact the use of critical technologies in our Aerospace and Defense andsegment and/or the Fine Chemicals segments, as well as our GDX Automotive discontinued operations, leading to reduced sales or increased costs;
 
  an unexpected adverse result or required cash outlay in the toxic tort cases, environmental proceedings or other litigation, or change in proceedings or investigations pending against us;
 
  other risks associated with the GDX AutomotiveFine Chemicals discontinued operations, such as 1) changes in U.S., global or regional economic conditions, which may affect, among other things, consumerhealthcare spending on new vehicles thereby reducing demand for products made by the GDX Automotive business; 2) increased outsourcing of production of key vehicle sub-assemblies requiring industry suppliers, such as the GDX Automotive business, to demonstrate the ability to be a reliable supplier of integrated components to maintain and increase market share; and 3) changes in product mix, which may affect automotive vehicle preferences and demand for GDX Automotive’s products;the pharmaceutical ingredients produced by the Fine Chemicals discontinued operations; and
 
  risks and uncertainties relating to the ongoing discussions with respect to the terms, purchase price and timing of the proposed disposition and market conditions. The discussions relatingattendant to the sale of the GDX AutomotiveFine Chemicals operations, including our ability to identify a buyer for the business may not be successfulas well as the timing and a definitive agreement to sell the GDX Automotive business may not be reached. Even if a definitive agreement is reached, there can be no assurance that a sale will be actually completed or as to the purchase price, the other terms of any proposed sale or the timing.and its ultimate consummation.

     This list of factors that may affect future performance and the accuracy of forward-looking statements is illustrative, but by no means exhaustive. These and other factors are described in more detail in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003 and its subsequent filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Additional risk factorsrisks may be described from time to timetime-to-time in ourfuture filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, all forward-looking statements should be evaluated with the understanding of their inherent uncertainty. All such risk factors are difficult to predict, contain material uncertainties that may affect actual results and may be beyond ourthe Company’s control.

4854


Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

     There have been no material changes to our disclosures related to certain market risks as reported under Part II, Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” in the Annual Report of GenCorp to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003, except as noted below.

Interest Rate Risk

     We are exposed to market risk principally due to changes in domestic interest rates. Debt with interest rate risk includes borrowings under our credit facilities.

     We use interest rate swaps and a combination of fixed and variable rate debt to reduce our exposure to interest rate risk. As of MayAugust 31, 2004, our long-term debt totaled $595$568 million, of which $560$539 million, or 94%95% was at an average fixed rate of 6.39%6.43%, and $35$29 million, or 6%5% was at an average variable rate of 4.03%4.63%.

     Effective January 2003, we entered into swaps on $100 million of Term Loan variable rate debt for a two-year period as required by our Senior Credit Facility.senior credit facilities. Our fixed interest rate under these swaps including the Eurocurrency margin is 6.02% for the two-year period. As of MayAugust 31, 2004, the fair value of these swaps was a liability of less than $1 million included in other noncurrent liabilities with an offsetting amount recorded as an unrealized loss in other comprehensive income/loss.

     The estimated fair value of our long-term debt was $599$584 million as of MayAugust 31, 2004 compared to a carrying value of $595$568 million. The fair value of theour 4% Notes, theour 5.75% ConvertiblesConvertible Subordinated Notes due 2007 and theour Senior Subordinated 9.50% Notes due 2013 were determined based on quoted market prices as of MayAugust 31, 2004. The fair value of the remaining long-term debt was determined to approximate carrying value as the interest rates are generally variable based on market interest rates and reflect current market rates available to us.

Forward Currency Exchange Risk

     We periodically use foreign currency forward contracts to reduce our exposure to exchange rate fluctuations on intercompany loans denominated in foreign currencies. As of May 31, 2004, we have three forward contracts outstanding totaling 11 million Euro with 1.5 million Euro maturing on June 28, 2004, 6.0 million Euro maturing July 26, 2004 and 3.5 million Euro maturing September 8, 2004. Forward contracts are marked-to-market each period and unrealized gains or losses are included in other income and expense and offset the gains or losses on the underlying debt. The remaining foreign currency denominated debt is not material to our consolidated financial statements.

4955


Item 4. Controls and Procedures

     Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as of the end of the period covered by this report (the Evaluation Date). Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded as of the Evaluation Date that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective such that the information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, required to be disclosed in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reports (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and (ii) is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. There have not been any changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

5056


PART II OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

     Except as disclosed in Note 10 in Part I, which is incorporated herein by reference, there have been no material developments in the pending legal proceedings as previously reported in the Annual Report of GenCorp Inc. to the SEC on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003. Reference is made to Item 3, Legal Proceedings in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003 and Note 10(a) and 10(b) in the Notes to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterquarters ended February 29, 2004 and May 31, 2004.

     The following tables set forth information related to our historical product liability costs associated with our vinyl chloride litigation cases.

Vinyl Chloride Cases

         
             Nine Months Year Year
 Six Months Ended Year Ended Year Ended Ended Ended Ended
 May 31, 2004
 Nov. 30, 2003
 Nov. 30, 2002
 August 31, 2004
 Nov. 30, 2003
 Nov. 30, 2002
 (dollars in thousands) (dollars in thousands)
Claims filed 5 11 12  11 11 12 
Claims dismissed 4 4 1  4 4 1 
Claims settled  2 2   2 2 
Claims pending 20 19 14  26 19 14 
Aggregate settlement costs $ $55 $58  $ $55 $58 
Average settlement costs $ $27 $29  $ $27 $29 

     Legal and administrative fees for the VC cases for the first sixnine months of fiscal 2004 were approximately $0.1$0.3 million. Legal and administrative fees for the VC cases for fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002 were approximately $0.4 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

     The following tables set forth information related to our asbestos litigation cases.

Asbestos Cases

          
             Nine Months Year Year
 Six Months Ended Year Ended Year Ended Ended Ended Ended
 May 31, 2004
 Nov. 30, 2003
 Nov. 30, 2002
 August 31, 2004
 Nov. 30, 2003
 Nov. 30, 2002
 (dollars in thousands) (dollars in thousands)
Claims filed 12 40 14  31 40 14 
Claims dismissed 13 21 16  18 21 16 
Claims settled 3 6 7  6 6 7 
Claims pending 38 42 29 
Claims pending* 49 42 29 
Aggregate settlement costs $955 $226 $232  $1,003 $226 $232 
Average settlement costs $318 $38 $33  $167 $38 $33 

* Does not include the 57 cases for which PCC Flow Technologies, Inc. has requested indemnification by us as discussed in Note 10 of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

     Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first sixnine months of fiscal 2004 were approximately $0.8$0.9 million. Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal 2003 and

57


fiscal 2002 were approximately $1.4 million and $0.7 million, respectively. Fees for fiscal 2002 include costs associated with the litigation of theGoede et al. v. A. W. Chesterton Inc. et al.matter. However, aggregate settlement costs and average settlement costs for fiscal 2002 do not include theGoedematter.

Item 2. Changes in Securities, Use of Proceeds and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

     None.

51


Item 3. Defaults upon Senior Securities

     None.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

     At our Annual Meeting of Shareholders on March 31, 2004, holders of GenCorp Common Stock elected J. Robert Anderson, Terry L. Hall and Robert A. Wolfe as directors to serve three-year terms expiring in 2007. Shareholders also ratified the Audit Committee’s appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent auditors for 2004.

     Following is the final result of the votes cast:

     A) Election of Directors:

                 
Nominee
 For
 Withheld
 Abstain
 Total
J. Robert Anderson  30,234,777   11,201,804   546,650   41,983,231 
               
 
 
Terry L. Hall  26,549,227   14,887,354   4,232,200   45,668,781 
               
 
 
Robert A. Wolfe  26,185,377   15,251,204   4,596,050   46,032,631 
               
 
 

     B) Ratification of the Audit Committee’s appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors:

     
For: Against: Abstain:
     
39,904,078 1,248,041 248,462
None.

Item 5. Other Information

     None.

Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

5258


A) Exhibits

   
No.
 Description
2.1Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement by and between GDX Holdings LLC and GenCorp Inc. dated as of July 16, 2004 (filed as Exhibit 2.1 to GenCorp Inc.’s Current Report on 8-K dated August 31, 2004 (File No. 1-1520) and incorporated herein by reference)
2.2First Amendment to Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement by and between GenCorp Inc. and GDX LLC dated as of August 31, 2004 (filed as Exhibit 2.2 to GenCorp Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated August 31, 2004 (File No. 1-1520) and incorporated herein by reference)
2.3Second Amendment to Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement by and between GenCorp Inc. and GDX LLC dated as of October 14, 2004.*
10.1Amendment No. 4 to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, Consent and Waiver dated as of August 30, 2004 by and among GenCorp Inc., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, for itself, as a Lender, and as Administrative Agent for the Lenders, and the other Lenders signatory thereto (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to GenCorp Inc.���s Current Report on Form 8-K dated August 31, 2004 (File No. 1-1520) and incorporated herein by reference)
10.2Amendment No. 5 to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, Consent and Waiver dated October 13, 2004 and effective as of August 30, 2004 by and among GenCorp Inc., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, for itself, as a Lender, and as Administrative Agent for the Lenders, and the other Lenders signatory thereto.*
31.1Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.*
31.2Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.*
32.1Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.*

*Filed herewith. All other exhibits have been previously filed.

     B) Reports on Form 8-K

     On July 15, 2004, we filed a Form 8-K, dated July 15, 2004, to furnish under Item 9 (Regulation FD Disclosure) and Item 12 (Results of Operations and Financial Condition) incorporating our press release dated July 15, 2004, in which we reported financial results for the second quarter ended May 31, 2004.

     On July 16, 2004, we filed a Form 8-K, dated July 12, 2004, under Item 2 (Acquisition or Disposition of Assets) announcing that we were in negotiations regarding the sale of our GDX business, and that, for that reason, we were rescheduling our fiscal 2004 second quarter earnings release and conference call to July 15, 2004.

     On July 21, 2004, we filed a Form 8-K, dated July 19, 2004, under Item 5 (Other Events) incorporating our press release dated July 19, 2004, in which we announced that we had signed a

59


definitive agreement to sell our GDX business to Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., a New York based investment firm.

60


Signatures

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

GenCorp Inc.
Date: October 15, 2004By:/s/ Yasmin R. Seyal

Yasmin R. Seyal
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
Date: October 15, 2004By:/s/ Terry L. Hall

Terry L. Hall
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

61


EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.
Exhibit Description
2.3Second Amendment to Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement by and between GenCorp Inc and GDX LLC dated as of October 14, 2004.
10.2Amendment No. 5 to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, Consent and Waiver dated October 13, 2004 and effective as of August 30, 2004 by and among GenCorp Inc., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, for itself, as a Lender, and as Administrative Agent for the Lenders, and the other Lenders signatory thereto.
31.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
   
31.2 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
   
32.1 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

     B) Reports on Form 8-K

     On March 31, 2004, we filed a Form 8-K to furnish under Item 9 (Regulation FD disclosure) and Item 12 our press release dated March 31, 2004, in which we reported financial results for the first quarter ended February 29, 2004.

     On May 7, 2004, we filed a Form 8-K under Item 5 thereof incorporating our press release dated May 6, 2004, in which we announced that Gregory Kellam Scott, Senior Vice President, Law; General Counsel and Secretary had resigned.

5362


Signatures

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
GenCorp Inc.
Date: July 15, 2004 By:  /s/ Yasmin R. Seyal  
Yasmin R. Seyal 
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer)
Date: July 15, 2004 By:  /s/ Terry L. Hall  
Terry L. Hall 
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 

54


EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.
Exhibit Description
31.1Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.2Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

55