For discussion of the Company’s exposure to market risk, refer to “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” under Item 7A of form 10-K, which is included as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q.
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.
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 18,791 claims as of October 19, 2007. This compares with 18,813 such claims as of July 27, 2007, 19,120 claims as of April 27, 2007, 19,388 claims as of February 16, 2007, 19,416 claims as of December 31, 2006, 19,283 claims as of October 27, 2006, 24,451 claims as of December 31, 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 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 more than 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 October 19, 2007, approximately 12,612 of the claims pending against Albany are pending in Mississippi. Of these, approximately 12,031 are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel (“MDL”), either through removal or original jurisdiction. (In addition to the 12,031 Mississippi claims pending against the Company at the MDL, there are approximately 850 claims pending against the Company at the MDL removed from various United States District Courts in other states.)
The MDL’s past practice was to place all nonmalignant claims on an inactive docket until such time as the plaintiff developed a malignant disease. The MDL would also administratively dismiss, without prejudice, the claims of plaintiffs resulting from mass-screenings who had not otherwise demonstrated that they suffered from an asbestos-related disease. Because the court continued to exercise jurisdiction over these claims, it would allow the claims to be reinstated following the diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease. Any such administratively dismissed claims are included in the total number of pending claims reported.
On May 31, 2007 the MDL issued a new order that requires each plaintiff to provide detailed information regarding, among other things, alleged asbestos-related medical diagnoses. The order does not require exposure information with this initial filing. The first set of plaintiffs were required to submit their filings with the Court by August 1, 2007, with deadlines for additional sets of plaintiffs monthly thereafter until December 1, 2007, by which time all plaintiffs were initially required to be compliant, although a number of extensions have been requested. The order states that the Court may dismiss the claims of any plaintiff who fails to comply.
Because the order of the MDL does not require the submission of alleged exposure information, the Company cannot predict if any dismissals will result from these initial filings. The MDL will at some point begin conducting settlement conferences, at which time the plaintiffs will be required to submit short position statements setting forth exposure information. The Company does not expect the MDL to begin the process of
46
scheduling the settlement conference for several months. Consequently, the Company believes that the effects of the new order will not be fully known or realized for some time.
Based on past experience, communications from certain plaintiffs’ counsel, and the advice of the Company’s Mississippi counsel, the Company expects the percentage of Mississippi claimants able to 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 to be considerably lower than the total number of pending claims. However, due to the large number of inactive claims pending in the MDL and the lack of alleged exposure information, the Company does not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these 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 October 19, 2007, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 21,613 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $6,706,000. Of this amount, $6,671,000, 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., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 8,741 claims as of October 19, 2007. This compares with 9,023 such claims as of July 27, 2007, 9,089 claims as of April 27, 2007, 9,189 claims as of February 16, 2007, 9,114 claims as of December 31, 2006, 8,992 claims as of October 27, 2006, 9,566 claims as of December 31, 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 had sold, among other things, 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 October 19, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 8,822 claims for a total of
47
$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 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. 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.
48
Item 1A. Risk Factors
There have been no material changes in risks since December 31, 2006. 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, 2006.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
Management made no share purchases during the first and second quarters of 2007. Management remains authorized by the Board of Directors to purchase up to 2,000,000 shares of its Class A Common Stock.
Item 3. | | Defaults Upon Senior Securities None |
Item 4. | | Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders None |
Item 5. | | Other Information None |
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, 2006. |
49
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: November 7, 2007
By | | /s/ Michael C. Nahl Michael C. Nahl Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
50