(a) Disclosure controls and procedures.
The principal executive officers and principal financial officer, based on their evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, have concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective for ensuring that information required to be disclosed in the reports that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures, include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in filed or submitted reports 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.
(b) Changes in internal control over financial reporting.
There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
PART II – OTHER INFORMATION
| |
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | |
Albany International Corp. (“Albany”) is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured by Albany. Albany produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.
Albany was defending against 20,246 claims as of August 4, 2006. This compares with 20,726 such claims as of April 21, 2006, 24,451 claims as of December 31, 2005, 24,406 claims as of October 21, 2005, 29,411 claims as of December 31, 2004, 28,838 claims as of December 31, 2003, 22,593 claims as of December 31, 2002, 7,347 claims as of December 31, 2001, 1,997 claims as of December 31, 2000, and 2,276 claims as of December 31, 1999. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Albany.
Albany anticipates that additional claims will be filed against it and the related companies in the future but is unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. These suits typically involve claims against from twenty to over two hundred defendants, and the complaints usually fail to identify the plaintiffs’ work history or the nature of the plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to Albany’s products. Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill exposure in less than 10% of total claims reported; and only a portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill to which Albany is believed to have supplied asbestos-containing products.
As of August 4, 2006, approximately 13,641 of the claims pending against Albany are pending in Mississippi, in either State of Federal courts. This compares to 19,166 claims as of July 22, 2005, 24,865 claims as of July 23, 2004, and approximately 24,646 claims as of August 1, 2003.
A Mississippi Supreme Court decision rendered in 2004 resulted in the dismissal of a number of claims pending against Albany in Mississippi and may continue to impact the remaining claims. In that decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled on the practice of filing multi-plaintiff asbestos cases against numerous defendants. As a result, State courts in counties throughout Mississippi began to issue orders severing the individual claims of plaintiffs in mass joinder asbestos cases. Once severed, the plaintiffs were ordered to file amended complaints with more detailed information regarding their allegations of asbestos exposure to establish proper jurisdiction and venue, with the stated intention that any improperly filed claim would be dismissed or transferred. As a consequence, a number of plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims and others were dismissed by Court order. In cases where plaintiffs filed amended complaints, their cases were transferred to the proper counties within Mississippi. In approximately 2,582 cases the plaintiffs arranged for the removal of their cases to Federal court, either with or without filing amended complaints. As of August 4, 2006, approximately 7,466 of the claims against Albany pending in Mississippi are now in Federal court, either through removal or original jurisdiction.
Those Federal Court claims are before the Federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Panel for asbestos cases. A number of procedural challenges have been made at the MDL, but the Company cannot predict the outcomes of those challenges. The Company does expect that a small number of the remaining claims pending in Mississippi State courts could yet be dismissed, or transferred as the Mississippi Supreme Court ruling continues to be implemented, though not at the rates previously seen. At that point the only claimants remaining in Mississippi State courts will be those who are residents of, or who allege exposure to asbestos in, that State, and whose amended complaints satisfy the requirement for specific information regarding their exposure claims. The Company expects that only a portion of these remaining claimants will be able to
41
demonstrate time spent in a paper mill to which Albany supplied asbestos-containing products during a period in which Albany’s asbestos-containing products were in use. Based on past experience, communications from certain plaintiffs’ counsel and the advice of the Company’s Mississippi counsel, the Company expects the percentage of claimants with paper mill exposure in the Mississippi proceedings to be considerably lower than the total number of claims previously asserted. However, due to the fact that the effects of the mandate of the Mississippi Supreme Court are taking time to be fully realized, the Company does not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the expected reduction in claims or the range of possible loss with respect to the remaining claims.
It is the position of Albany and the other paper machine clothing defendants that there was insufficient exposure to asbestos from any paper machine clothing products to cause asbestos-related injury to any plaintiff. Furthermore, asbestos contained in Albany’s synthetic products was encapsulated in a resin-coated yarn woven into the interior of the fabric, further reducing the likelihood of fiber release. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims, it has settled certain of these cases for amounts it considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. The Company’s insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of August 4, 2006, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 19,648 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $6,671,000. Of this amount, $6,636,000, or 99%, was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. The Company has approximately $130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access.
Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.
Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. (“Brandon”), a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 9,399 claims as of August 4, 2006. This compares with 9,753 such claims as of April 21, 2006, 9,566 claims as of December 31, 2005, 9,608 claims as of October 21, 2005, 9,985 claims as of December 31, 2004, 10,242 claims as of December 31, 2003, 11,802 claims as of December 31, 2002, 8,759 claims as of December 31, 2001, 3,598 claims as of December 31, 2000, and 1,887 claims as of December 31, 1999. The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills (“Abney”), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which, among other things, had sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon harmless from any actions or claims on account of products manufactured by Abney and its related corporations prior to the date of the sale, whether or not the product was sold subsequent to the date of the sale. It appears that Abney has since been dissolved. Nevertheless, a representative of Abney has been notified of the pendency of these actions and demand has been made that it assume the defense of these actions. Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of, Abney with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. In some instances, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed claims against it, while in others it has entered into what it considers to be reasonable settlements. As of August 4, 2006, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 7,945 claims for a total of $152,499. Brandon’s insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon’s
42
insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings.
Mount Vernon
In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the “successor in interest” to Mount Vernon Mills (“Mount Vernon”). The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions.
While the Company does not believe, based on currently available information and for the reasons stated above, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on its understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, its recent settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the defenses available, the Company currently does not anticipate any material liability relating to the resolution of the aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance limits. Consequently, the Company currently does not anticipate, based on currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. Although the Company cannot predict the number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in claims against it to date, the Company does not anticipate that additional claims likely to be filed against it in the future will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the Company is aware that litigation is inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by juries. The Company is also aware that numerous other defendants in asbestos cases, as well as others who claim to have knowledge and expertise on the subject, have found it difficult to anticipate the outcome of asbestos litigation, the volume of future asbestos claims and the anticipated settlement values of those claims. For these reasons, there can be no assurance that the foregoing conclusions will not change.
Legislation has again been introduced in the United States Senate that is intended to address asbestos litigation by creating a privately funded trust to provide compensation to persons injured as the result of exposure to asbestos. The Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act Of 2006 (“Fair Act”) was introduced by Senators Leahy and Specter on May 25, 2006. If enacted into law, the Company would be required to make payments of up to $1, 000,000 per year for up to 30 years to the privately funded, publicly administered trust fund. The payments would not be covered by any of the Company’s insurance policies. The Company cannot predict whether the Fair Act, or any asbestos legislation, will ultimately be enacted into law.
43
There have been no material changes in risks since December 31, 2005. For discussion of risk factors, refer to Item 1A of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
| |
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds | |
In December 2005, the Board of Directors increased the number of shares of the Company’s Class A Common Stock that could be purchased to 3,500,000. The Board’s action authorized management to purchase shares from time to time, in the open market or otherwise, whenever it believes the available price makes such purchase advantageous to the Company’s shareholders.
In May 2006, the Company announced that it had adopted a written trading plan under Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to facilitate the repurchase of its Class A Common Stock. During May and June 2006, the Company purchased a total of 758,720 shares under the Rule 10b5-1 plan. Although the 10b-5 plan expires on October 25, 2006, management is not authorized to purchase any additional shares of its Class A Common Stock.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|
Period | | Total number of shares purchased | | Average price paid | | Total number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced plans or programs | | Maximum number of shares that may yet be purchased under the plans or programs | |
| | | | | | | | | |
January 1 to 31, 2006 | | | 663,700 | | $ | 36.20 | | | | 0 | | | | | 0 | | |
March 1 to 31, 2006 | | | 2,077,580 | | | 37.10 | | | | 0 | | | | | 0 | | |
May 1 to 31, 2006 | | | 358,700 | | | 39.72 | | | | 358,700 | | | | | 0 | | |
June 1 to 30, 2006 | | | 400,020 | | | 40.37 | | | | 400,020 | | | | | 0 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
Item 3. | Defaults Upon Senior Securities |
| None |
44
| |
Item 4. | Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
| None |
At the annual meeting of shareholders held May 12, 2006, the only items subject to a vote of security holders were the election of nine directors and the approval of the Directors’ Annual Retainer Plan.
In the vote for the election of nine members of the Board of Directors of the Company, the number of votes cast for, and the number of votes withheld from, each of the nominees were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Number of Votes For | | Number of Votes Withheld | | Broker Nonvotes | |
| | | | | | | |
Nominee | | Class A | | Class B | | Class A | | Class B | | Class A | | Class B | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Frank R. Schmeler | | | 14,434,613 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 10,086,857 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Joseph G. Morone | | | 13,498,598 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 11,022,872 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Thomas R. Beecher Jr. | | | 13,185,985 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 11,335,485 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Christine L. Standish | | | 9,953,466 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 14,568,005 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Erland E. Kailbourne | | | 21,561,631 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 2,959,840 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
John C. Standish | | | 13,188,189 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 11,333,881 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Juhani Pakkala | | | 21,803,825 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 2,717,645 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Paula H. J. Cholmondeley | | | 21,404,363 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 3,117,107 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
John F. Cassidy, Jr. | | | 22,437,353 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 2,084,117 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
In the vote taken at the 2006 Annual Meeting on the resolution to approve the Directors’ Annual Retainer Plan, the number of votes cast for, the number cast against, and the number of votes abstaining with respect to such resolution were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Number of Votes For | | Number of Votes Against | | Number of Votes Abstaining | | Broker Nonvotes | |
| | | | | | | |
Class A | | Class B | | Class A | | Class B | | Class A | | Class B | | Class A | | Class B | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 21,125,401 | | | 32,359,940 | | | 811,904 | | | — | | | 360,614 | | | — | | | 2,223,550 | | | — | |
| |
Item 5. | Other Information |
| None |
45
Item 6. Exhibits
| | |
Exhibit No. | | Description |
| | |
31.1 | | Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Exchange Act. |
| | |
31.2 | | Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Exchange Act. |
| | |
32.1 | | Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) |
| | |
99.1 | | Quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risks as reported at December 31, 2005. |
46
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.
| | |
| ALBANY INTERNATIONAL CORP. | |
| | |
| (Registrant) | |
| | | |
Date: August 7, 2006 | | | |
| | | |
| By | /s/ Michael C. Nahl | |
| | | |
| | Michael C. Nahl |
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| | (Principal Financial Officer) |
47