Internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, no matter how designed, have limitations. It is the Company’s intent that the internal controls be conceived to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of the controls are met. Management plans to continue its review of internal controls and disclosure procedures on an ongoing basis.
The Company initiated a detailed review of internal controls over financial reporting in the third and fourth quarters of 2002. The review included evaluation of the Company’s contracting policies and procedures relating to bidding and estimating practices. Among other things, these reviews included evaluation of the Company’s reserving practices for bad debts and uncollectible accounts receivables, warranty costs, change orders and claims. Management, with approval of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, enhanced its policies and established more formalized and higher level approvals for setting and releasing project contingencies and reserves, establishing claims and change orders, and requires that all claims to be recorded in excess of $500 be reviewed and approved in advance by the Company’s chief financial officer.
Management strengthened the Company’s financial controls and supplemented its financial and management expertise in 2002 and 2003. This included expanding the scope of the internal audit function.
The Company outsourced its internal audit function to Deloitte & Touche LLP in the fourth quarter of 2002. Outsourcing internal audit allowed access to a world-class organization with skilled professionals and the latest information technology audit resources. Key objectives of the revised internal audit function include:
The Company formed a disclosure review committee in the first quarter of 2003. The purpose of the committee is to evaluate, review and modify as necessary the disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Company’s periodic reports is recorded, processed, summarized and reported accurately in all material respects within the time periods required by the SEC’s rules and forms.
Management also amended the composition of the boards of directors of the major operating companies to include at least three corporate executives. One of the corporate executives is also chairman of the disclosure committee. The Company believes that these changes in corporate governance will enhance the disclosure controls because critical operating information and strategic actions authorized will now involve the chairman of the disclosure committee. Internal controls have been enhanced by these corporate governance changes.
Management began the formal documentation of the Company’s worldwide internal controls in 2003 as part of new requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. This process has moved to the testing phase, which will continue throughout 2004.
The Company’s financial reporting requirements increased significantly as a result of the SEC requirements relating to the security interest granted to the Senior Note holders in August 2002, and from the financial reporting requirements relating to the proposed exchange offer and restructuring process. Nine additional sets of audited financial statements for subsidiary companies (including three years comparable results) were required for 2002 and the first nine months of 2003. The additional year-end financial statements were erroneously omitted from the Company’s 2002 10-K filing as the result of an oversight. The Company had a process in place both internally and externally whereby this evaluation was made and an error occurred in the evaluation process. The preparation of these additional financial statements began near the end of the third quarter of 2003 in connection with the preparation of the amended 2002 10-K, which was filed on December 19, 2003. In addition, the Company’s accounting workload increased due to its operational restructuring and certain potential divestitures pursued in the second half of 2003, which were later discontinued. Early in the fourth quarter of 2003, a key financial officer responsible for the preparation of the nine sets of subsidiary financial statements resigned. As a result of all of these factors taken together, during the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company’s remaining permanent corporate accounting staff was not structured to address this increased workload under the deadlines required. The Company hired temporary professional personnel to assist with the process. Because the temporary personnel were unfamiliar with the Company’s operations, this resulted in inefficiencies in the financial reporting process. The external auditors notified the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors on December 16, 2003 that they believed the insufficient staffing levels in the corporate accounting department represented a “material weakness” in the preparation of the subsidiary financial statements, but noted that this did not constitute a material weakness for the Company’s consolidated financial statements. A material weakness is defined as “a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.” The Company has assigned the highest priority to the assessment of this internal control deficiency and has taken actions it believes necessary to address this material weakness, but the Company believes additional time must pass in order for the additional staff to become fully trained and integrated into its operations and to evidence that the additional staff is performing as intended.
The initiatives associated with implementation of the Sarbanes Oxley legislation require the Company to increase the quantity and quality of its financial professionals throughout the world. This is a management objective for 2004.
On March 3, 2004, in connection with its audit of the Company’s financial statements for fiscal 2003, the Company’s external auditors notified the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors that they believed the lack of formal process in place for senior financial management to review assumptions and check calculations on a timely basis relating to the Company’s asbestos liability and asset balances represented a “material weakness” in the internal controls for the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for 2003. In order to meet the accelerated deadline for filing its 10-K, in connection with the preparation of its 2003 consolidated financial statements, the Company submitted its calculations and assumptions relating to asbestos liability and related assets to the external auditors for their review prior to being fully reviewed by senior management. As a result, the external auditors noted a proposed change in an assumption used to calculate liability that had not been approved by senior management and also noted a mechanical error in calculating the number of open claims. Prior to December 26, 2003, the Company followed an informal process whereby its senior management reviewed asbestos assumptions and calculations after they were prepared by the Company’s internal asbestos matters team. Until his retirement at the end of fiscal 2003, the Company’s General Counsel, a member of senior management, led this process. Following his retirement, as well as the departure in January of 2004 of the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, as discussed above this process was not followed. In response, the Company corrected the mechanical error in its calculation and determined not to make the proposed change in the assumption.
Estimating the Company’s obligations arising from asbestos litigation, and the amounts of related insurance recoveries is a complex process involving many different assumptions about future events extending well into the future. These assumptions are developed by management together with its internal and external asbestos litigation team based on historical data regarding asbestos claims made against the Company, recoveries sought and settlement and trial resolution data. As these factors vary over any given period, the assumptions about future periods used to calculate the Company’s asbestos liabilities are adjusted correspondingly. The Company’s process of having its senior management review these assumptions was not followed in connection with the preparation of the 2003 financial statements. In their March 3, 2004 letter, the external auditors recommended that the assumptions and calculations prepared by members of the Company’s asbestos litigation team be reviewed carefully by the Chief Accounting Officer of the Company and that all significant assumptions and estimates, including changes thereof, be approved by the Chief Financial and Chief Executive Officers of the Company prior to the asbestos calculations being submitted to the external auditor. The Company agreed with these suggestions and has adopted them both in connection with the 2003 audit and going forward. All asbestos estimates and assumptions included in the accompanying financial statements for the first three months of 2004 have been subjected to appropriate review by senior management.
86
The Company has taken a series of actions it believes will address the material weaknesses described above. In the second quarter of 2004, the Company has hired additional permanent staff to address the identified material weaknesses, but believes additional time must pass in order for the additional staff to become fully trained and integrated into the Company’s operations and to evidence that the additional staff and controls are performing as intended. If the Company is unable to successfully address the identified material weaknesses in its internal controls, its ability to report financial results on a timely and accurate basis may be adversely affected.
Although the foregoing material weaknesses were identified, the Company’s management concluded that its disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of fiscal 2003 and the first fiscal quarter of 2004. Prior to reaching this conclusion, management through its Disclosure Committee, undertook a review of its disclosure controls and procedures. The review identified what management believed to be evidence of a comprehensive disclosure control structure. Management also carefully evaluated the two material weaknesses as well as the error that caused the omission of the additional subsidiary financial statements in the initial filing of the 2002 Form 10-K during the first quarter of 2003 as discussed above. Management concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective on the evaluation dates at the end of each quarterly period during 2003 based on its belief that although an error had occurred which resulted in the additional subsidiary financial statements being omitted from the 2002 10-K, the design of its disclosure controls and procedures taken as a whole were effective. Management viewed the omission as an isolated error not a systemic problem. With respect to the staffing issue, management noted that the issue was raised prior to the end of the fiscal 2003 and before the audit process for the year had begun, and that the process for preparing the additional sets of financial statements had been changed prior to year-end. The revised process included a thorough review by experienced accounting and tax personnel of the Company of the work prepared by temporary staff, prior to submission to the external auditors. Management concluded the necessary actions had been taken to eliminate the staffing material weakness, although more time is needed to train and integrate these new employees. With respect to the material weakness identified in the Company’s asbestos calculation process, management took note of the informal process followed in prior periods. Management noted that this process was used in prior periods and that its external auditors did not note it as a reportable condition or material weakness during those periods. Management noted that the fact that the process was not followed led to the material weakness. The Company agreed to formalize the process, in accordance with its external auditor’s suggestion. However, management also believed that the process itself would have been sufficient had it been followed. The Company’s management believes that a control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. With this in mind, and looking at the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as a whole, management concluded, notwithstanding the material weaknesses described above and after taking into account the remedial measures taken as of the end of fiscal 2003 and the first fiscal quarter of 2004, that they were effective on such dates.
As of March 26, 2004, the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms. However, subsequent to these initial conclusions reached by these officers, new information relating to the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures came to such officers’ attention. Although the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer believe that when the 10-Q relating to the quarter ended March 26, 2004 was originally filed, and later when it was amended, that they had reasonable grounds to conclude that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of such quarter, they have determined that their original conclusions needed to be revised. Based on this new information, which is described below, these officers have concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of March 26, 2004.
87
One of the Company's foreign subsidiaries is a party to a project-specific, Euro-denominated performance bonding facility, which as of March 26, 2004 had the equivalent of approximately $40 million of performance bonds (none of which has been drawn) outstanding. This bonding facility prohibits the subsidiary from making any dividends or other restricted payments unless it maintains a minimum equity ratio (calculated by dividing equity by total assets (each as defined in the facility)). In addition, the facility requires the subsidiary to maintain a minimum equity ratio, compliance with which is tested quarterly. As a result of operating losses at the subsidiary during the second quarter of 2004, the subsidiary's equity ratio fell below the required minimum, breaching the equity ratio covenant under the facility. On August 6, 2004, the Company obtained a waiver from each of the institutions party thereto that provides that the remedy for falling below the minimum equity ratio is the agreement on the subsidiary's part that, for so long as the facility is in place, it will not make any dividends or other restricted payments until the equity ratio has returned to the required minimum. The ability to make these payments was already restricted by an existing covenant in the facility, and is therefore already included in the Company’s liquidity analysis. The Company believes that this restriction on dividends and other restricted payments to the Company by this subsidiary will not have an adverse impact on its forecasted liquidity. See "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -Liquidity" for further discussion of the Company's liquidity.
In early August, in connection with its review of the performance bonding facility described above, the Company became aware for the first time that that same subsidiary was also in breach under a minimum equity ratio covenant contained in a separate performance bonding facility with one of the same financial institutions. This facility had the equivalent of approximately $12 million of performance bonds (none of which has been drawn) outstanding as of March 26, 2004 and is used for general purposes. The equity ratio covenant contained in this facility requires the subsidiary to maintain a minimum equity ratio (calculated by dividing equity by total assets (each as defined in the facility)). As a result of operating losses at the subsidiary during the second quarter of 2004, the subsidiary's equity ratio fell below the required minimum, breaching the equity ratio covenant under the facility. On August 9, the subsidiary obtained a waiver of this covenant through October 31, 2004 from the financial institution that is a party to the agreement in question. After October 31, 2004, the subsidiary will be required to have its equity ratio return to the required minimum or to obtain a further waiver. The Company plans to negotiate to obtain a further waiver or amendment prior to October 31, 2004. In the event that the Company is unable to obtain a further waiver or amendment, it will pursue a replacement for this bonding facility. In addition, the subsidiary has sufficient cash on hand to collateralize the obligations supported by the performance bonds in the event it is unable to obtain a waiver or an alternative bonding facility. Therefore, the Company believes that this matter will not have an adverse impact on its forecasted liquidity. See "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations –Liquidity" for further discussion of the Company's liquidity.
88
In response to its discovery of this breach at such a late date, the Company undertook a review of its procedures relating to the monitoring of, and reporting of defaults under, its subsidiaries financial covenants globally. Although the management of the subsidiary in question was aware of the covenant’s existence, it did not fully understand its implications. As a consequence, it did not notify the corporate center of the Company on a timely basis of the breach of the covenant. Further, the corporate center of the Company did not independently detect the breach on a timely basis. Management concluded that the failure to detect the covenant breach on a timely basis was the result of a deficiency in its disclosure controls and procedures, which are intended to be designed to ensure that this type of breach is detected on a timely basis. After reviewing its controls and procedures relating to covenant monitoring and reporting as of the end of fiscal 2003 and each of the two fiscal quarters in 2004, management concluded that the deficiency arose in February of 2004. Prior to February 2004, the Company’s treasurer maintained an inventory of, and actively tested and analyzed, the financial covenants and the potential consequences to the Company and its subsidiaries of a failure to comply with such covenants. As of the end of fiscal 2003, this covenant inventory included both of the covenants in the performance bonding facilities discussed above. However, the Company’s treasurer left the Company at the end of January 2004. Following his departure, although the Company fully tested and analyzed its domestic financial covenants, the covenant inventory that included the foreign subsidiary’s covenants was not fully tested and analyzed against the quarter’s financial results by the Company at the corporate center level. Management believes that had the compensating control of the corporate center’s covenant monitoring process been continued in the first two quarters of 2004, the breach would have been detected by the Company on a timely basis.
The Company has given this issue the highest priority and is in the process of updating its disclosure controls and procedures relating to covenant compliance. In order to address this issue, the Company intends to:
• comprehensively review and update its covenant inventory;
• upgrade the reporting procedure at the subsidiary level on a global basis; and
• ensure the quarterly global covenant monitoring process by its corporate center is properly implemented.
The Company expects that it will have these actions completed well before the end of the third quarter.
Based on an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that, based on the deficiency in the Company’s covenant compliance disclosure controls described above, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were not effective as of March 26, 2004 to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms. In addition, in light of the new information that has come to their attention as a result of the Company’s review of its disclosure controls and procedures undertaken in connection with its second fiscal quarter, the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have revised their previous conclusions and have concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the first fiscal quarter in 2004 were not effective for the reasons described above. However, the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer noted that the Company is actively seeking to remedy this deficiency and did not note any other material deficiencies in the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures during their evaluation.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, other sections of this Report on Form 10-Q and other reports and oral statements made by representatives of the Company from time to time may contain forward-looking statements that are based on management’s assumptions, expectations and projections about the Company and the various industries within which the Company operates. These include statements regarding the Company’s expectation regarding revenues (including as expressed by its backlog), its liquidity, the outcome of litigation and legal proceedings and recoveries from customers for claims, and the costs of current and future asbestos claims and the amount and timing of insurance recoveries. Such forward-looking statements by their nature involve a degree of risk and uncertainty. The Company cautions that a variety of important factors could cause business conditions and results to differ materially from what is contained in forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following:
| • | changes in the rate of economic growth in the United States and other major international economies; |
| | |
| • | changes in investment by the power, oil & gas, pharmaceutical, chemical/petrochemical and environmental industries; |
| | |
| • | changes in the financial condition of our customers; |
| | |
| • | changes in regulatory environment; |
89
Back to Contents
| | |
| • | changes in project design or schedules; |
| | |
| • | changes in estimates made by the Company of costs to complete projects; |
| | |
| • | changes in trade, monetary and fiscal policies worldwide; |
| | |
| • | war and/or terrorist attacks on facilities either owned or where equipment or services are or may be provided; |
| | |
| • | outcomes of pending and future litigation, including litigation regarding the Company’s liability for damages and insurance coverage for asbestos exposure; |
| | |
| • | protection and validity of patents and other intellectual property rights; |
| | |
| • | increasing competition by foreign and domestic companies; |
| | |
| • | compliance with debt covenants; |
| | |
| • | monetization of certain Power System facilities; |
| | |
| • | implementation of its restructuring plan; |
| | |
| • | recoverability of claims against customers; and |
| | |
| • | changes in estimates used in its critical accounting policies. |
Other factors and assumptions not identified above were also involved in the formation of these forward-looking statements and the failure of such other assumptions to be realized as well as other factors may also cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Most of these factors are difficult to predict accurately and are generally beyond the control of the Company. The reader should consider the areas of risk described above in connection with any forward-looking statements that may be made by the Company.
The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. The reader is advised, however, to consult any additional disclosures the Company makes in proxy statements, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, annual reports on Form 10-K and current reports on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
90
Back to Contents
PART II.
OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
Refer to Note 3 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements presented in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for a discussion of legal proceedings, which is incorporated by reference in this Part II.
91
Back to Contents
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K |
Exhibit No. | | Exhibits |
| |
|
10.1 | | Financing Agreement, dated as of January 26, 2004, between by and among the parties therein referred to as Borrowers, the parties therein referred to as Guarantors, the other parties named therein, the financial institutions from time to time party thereto referred to therein as lenders, Saberasu Japan Investments II B.V., as collateral agent for the Lenders, Saberasu Japan Investments II B.V., as administrative agent for the Lenders. (Filed as Exhibit 99.1 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 8-K filed on January 28, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.2 | | Deed of Charge, dated as of January 26, 2004, between Foster Wheeler (QLD) Pty Limited and Saberasu Japan Investments II B.V. (Filed as Exhibit 99.2 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 8-K filed on January 28, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.3 | | Deed of Charge, dated as of January 26, 2004, between Foster Wheeler (QLD) Pty Limited and Saberasu Japan Investments II B.V. (Filed as Exhibit 99.3 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 8-K filed on January 28, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.4 | | Security Agreement, dated as of January 26, 2004, between the companies identified therein in Schedule 1 and Saberasu Japan Investments II B.V. (Filed as Exhibit 99.4 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 8-K filed on January 28, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.5 | | Standard Security Agreement, dated as of January 26, 2004, between Foster Wheeler Energy Limited and Saberasu Japan Investments II B.V. (Filed as Exhibit 99.6 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 8-K filed on January 28, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.6 | | Employment Agreement between Foster Wheeler Ltd. and John T. La Duc dated as of April 14, 2004. (Filed as Exhibit 99.2 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 8-K filed on April 15, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.7 | | Change of Control Employment Agreement between Foster Wheeler Inc. and John T. La Duc dated as of April 14, 2004. (Filed as Exhibit 99.3 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 8-K filed on April 15, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.8 | | Employment Agreement between Foster Wheeler Ltd. and Brian K. Ferraioli dated as of April 27, 2004 and effective as of December 1, 2003. (Filed as Exhibit 10.8 to Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 26, 2004, filed on May 5, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
10.9 | | Change of Control Employment Agreement between Foster Wheeler Inc. and Brian K. Ferraioli effective as of December 1, 2003. (Filed as Exhibit 10.9 to Foster Wheeler Ltd’s. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 26, 2004, filed on May 5, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference). |
12.1 | | Statement of Computation of Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |
31.1 | | Section 302 Certification of Raymond J. Milchovich |
31.2 | | Section 302 Certification of John T. La Duc |
32.1 | | Certification of Raymond J. Milchovich Pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
32.2 | | Certification of John T. La Duc Pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
92
Back to Contents
Report Date | | Description |
| |
|
January 26, 2004 | | Certain subsidiaries of the Company executed financing and security agreements (Items 5 and 7). |
| | |
January 28, 2004 | | The Company announced the appointment of principal financial positions, including Acting Chief Financial Officer and Vice President and Treasurer (Items 5 and 7). |
| | |
February 5, 2004 | | The Company announced a commitment to provide $120 million of new financing from institutional investors and the discontinuance of a plan to divest European assets (Items 5 and 7). |
| | |
March 15, 2004 | | The Company announced its financial results for the Fourth Quarter of 2003 (Items 7, 9, and 12). |
| | |
March 16, 2004 | | The Company posted its Fourth Quarter 2003 conference call script (Items 7, 9, and 12). |
| | |
April 9, 2004 | | The Company, filed in contemplation of its proposed exchange offer and related registration statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-107054), revised financial statements due to Foster Wheeler LLC’s plans to issue 10.5% Senior Secured Notes due 2011, Series A (Item 5). |
| | |
April 14, 2004 | | The Company announced that its Annual General Meeting of Shareholders would be held later in the year, pending consummation of the Company’s recently announced proposed equity for debt exchange offer (Items 5 and 7). |
| | |
April 14, 2004 | | The Company announced the appointment of John T. La Duc as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and filed an Employment and Change of Control Agreement (Items 5 and 7). |
94
Back to Contents
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.
| FOSTER WHEELER LTD. (Registrant) |
| | | |
Date: August 13, 2004 | BY: | | /s/ RAYMOND J. MILCHOVICH |
| | |
|
| | | Raymond J. Milchovich Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
| | | |
Date: August 13, 2004 | BY: | | /s/ JOHN T. LA DUC |
| | |
|
| | | John T. La Duc Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
95