adjustments in 2004 primarily related to lower than expected spending in Europe. The favorable adjustments in 2005 primarily related to government regulations in Venezuela that prohibited us from terminating employees, as well as lower than expected spending in Europe. There was no remaining liability at December 31, 2005.
We are a defendant in an action commenced in 1975 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by Sheldon Solow d/b/a Solow Building Company (“Solow”), the landlord of our former headquarters in New York City. Solow alleges that we misappropriated the name of our former headquarters building and seeks damages based on a purported value of one dollar per square foot of leased space over the term of the lease. A trial of this action took place in May 2005 and, in January 2006, the judge issued a decision in our favor. The plaintiff has not yet indicated whether he intends to appeal the decision of the trial judge. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, management believes that there are meritorious defenses to the claims asserted and that this action should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. This action is being vigorously contested.
In December 2002, our Brazilian subsidiary received a series of excise and income tax assessments from the Brazilian tax authorities asserting that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in that country was done without a valid business purpose. The assessments assert tax deficiencies during portions of the years 1997 and 1998 of approximately $89.0 at the exchange rate on December 31, 2005, plus penalties and accruing interest totaling approximately $163.0 at the exchange rate on December 31, 2005. In July 2003, a first-level appellate body rejected the basis for income tax assessments representing approximately 77% of the total assessment, or $194.0 (including interest). In March 2004, that rejection was confirmed in a mandatory second-level appellate review. The remaining assessments relating to excise taxes (approximately $57.0) were not affected. In December 2003, an additional assessment was received in respect of excise taxes for the balance of 1998, totaling approximately $106.0 at the exchange rate on December 31, 2005, and asserting a different theory of liability based on purported market sales data. In January 2005, an unfavorable first administrative level decision was received with respect to the appeal of that assessment and a further appeal has been taken. In December 2004, an additional assessment was received in respect of excise taxes for the period from January 1999 to December 2001, totaling approximately $228.0 at the exchange rate on December 31, 2005, and asserting the same theory of liability as in the December 2003 assessment. We appealed that assessment. In September 2005, an unfavorable first administrative level decision was received with respect to the appeal of the December 2004 assessment, and a further appeal is being taken. In the event that assessments are upheld in the earlier stages of review, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals, which, depending on the circumstances, may result in a charge to income. It is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of expense that could result from an unfavorable outcome in respect of these or any additional assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by many companies in Brazil, and we believe that it is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the assessments are unfounded. This matter is being vigorously contested and in the opinion of our outside counsel the
Avon Products, Inc.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statementslikelihood that the assessments ultimately will be upheld is remote. Management believes that the likelihood that the assessments will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows is correspondingly remote.
Scheufler v. Estee Lauder, Inc.,et al., a purported class action, was commenced in February 2005 in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. The action initially named Avon and other defendants and sought injunctive relief and restitution for alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law, and for negligent and intentional misrepresentation. The purported class included individuals “who have purchased skin care products from defendants that have been falsely advertised to have an ‘anti-aging’ or youth inducing benefit or effect”. We filed a demurer to the complaint asserting that the complaint did not state a viable cause of action. In October 2005 the court sustained our demurrer but granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to, among other things, assert Avon-specific allegations. An amended complaint was filed, but we were not named in the complaint.
Roqueta v. Avon Products, Inc.,et al. is a purported class action commenced in April 2005 in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The action seeks general damages, special damages and punitive damages for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida statutes regarding misleading advertisements, and for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. The purported class includes “all persons who have purchased skin care products from the Defendant that have been falsely advertised to have an ‘anti-cellulite’ or cellulite reducing effect.” We removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In August 2005 the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, with prejudice. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s remaining claims but granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, which she has done. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, management believes that there are meritorious defenses to the claims asserted and that this action should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. This action is being vigorously contested.
In August 2005, we reported the filing of class action complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities laws in actions entitledNilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al. andMichael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al., respectively, which subsequently have been consolidated. A consolidated amended class action complaint for alleged violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the consolidated action in December 2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master File Number 05-CV-06803) under the captionIn re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation naming Avon, an officer and two officer/directors. The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between February 3, 2004 and September 20, 2005, seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements “concerning Avon’s operations and performance in China, the United States . . . and Mexico.” The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the class period certain officers and directors sold shares of our common stock.
In August 2005, we reported the filing of a complaint in a shareholder derivative action purportedly brought on behalf of Avon entitledRobert L. Garber, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung et al. as defendants, and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant. An amended complaint was filed in this action in December 2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master File Number 05-CV-06803) under the captionIn re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation naming certain of our officers and directors. The amended complaint alleges that defendants’ violations of state law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, between February 2004 and the present, have caused losses to Avon.
In October 2005, we reported the filing of class action complaints for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) in actions entitledJohn Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al. andCarolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al., respectively, which subsequently have been consolidated. A consolidated class action complaint for alleged violations of ERISA was filed in the consolidated action in December 2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master File Number 05-CV-06803) under the captionIn re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation naming Avon, certain officers, Avon’s Retirement Board and others. The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the Avon Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon Products, Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan (collectively the “Plan”) and on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan “for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon Products, Inc. . . . common stock from February 20, 2004 to the present.” The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out of, inter alia, alleged false
33
Avon Products, Inc.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
and misleading public statements regarding Avon’s business made during the class period and investments in Avon stock by the Plan and Plan participants.
It is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation and it is reasonably possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in the In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation(derivative action)andIn re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation matters. Management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from unfavorable outcomes but, under some circumstances, adverse awards could be material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Various other lawsuits and claims, arising in the ordinary course of business or related to businesses previously sold, are pending or threatened against Avon. In management’s opinion, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving such other contingencies at December 31, 2005, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
15. Supplemental Income Statement Information
For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, the components of other expense, net were as follows:
| | 2005 | | | 2004 | | | 2003 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange losses, net | $ | 5.8 | | $ | 9.5 | | $ | 15.9 | |
Net (gains) losses on available-for-sale securities (Note 5) | | (2.5 | ) | | 13.7 | | | - | |
Amortization of debt issue costs and other financing | | 8.9 | | | 7.0 | | | 14.1 | |
Gain on de-designated treasury lock agreement | | (2.5 | ) | | - | | | - | |
Other | | (1.7 | ) | | (1.9 | ) | | (1.4 | ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net | $ | 8.0 | | $ | 28.3 | | $ | 28.6 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
16. Other Information
In January 2003, we announced that we agreed with J.C. Penney to end the business relationship, which began in 2001, pursuant to which ourbeComing line of products had been carried in approximately 90 J.C. Penney stores. For the year ended December 31, 2003, costs associated with ending this business relationship were $18.3, including severance costs ($4.1), asset and inventory write-downs ($12.1) and other related expenses ($2.1) . These costs, which were incurred in the first and second quarters, were included in the Consolidated Statements of Income in marketing, distribution and administrative expenses ($10.5) and in cost of sales ($7.8) .
17. Goodwill and Intangible Assets
On October 18, 2005, we purchased the Avon direct-selling business of our licensee in Colombia for approximately $154.0 in cash, pursuant to a share purchase agreement that Avon International Holdings Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into with Sarastro Ltd. Ldc. on October 7, 2005. The acquired business is being operated by a new wholly-owned subsidiary under the name “Avon Colombia” and is included in our Latin America operating segment. We had a pre-existing license arrangement with the acquired business. The negotiated terms of the license agreement were considered to be at market rates; therefore, no settlement gain or loss was recognized upon acquisition. The preliminary purchase price allocation resulted in goodwill of $94.8, licensing agreement of $32.0 (four-year useful life), customer relationships of $35.1 (seven-year weighted-average useful life), and a noncompete agreement of $3.9 (three-year useful life). We are in the process of gathering sufficient data to support certain assumptions for the final valuation; therefore, the allocation of the purchase price is subject to adjustment.
In June 2004, we purchased 20% of the outstanding shares in our two subsidiaries in China from a minority interest shareholder for $45.6, including transaction costs. We previously owned 73.845% of these subsidiaries and consolidated their results, while recording minority interest for the portion not owned. As a result of this transaction, we reduced the minority interest in the net assets of these subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004. The purchase of these
34
Avon Products, Inc.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statementsshares did not have a material impact on our consolidated net income. Avon China is included in our Asia Pacific operating segment. We allocated $5.7 of the purchase price to customer relationships and approximately $30.5 to goodwill.
In the second quarter of 2003, we purchased the outstanding 50% of shares of our Turkish business, Eczacibasi Avon Kozmetik (EAK) from our partner, Eczacibasi Group, for $18.4, including transaction costs. As a result of the acquisition agreement, we consolidated the remaining 50% of our Turkish joint venture business in the second quarter of 2003. Prior to the second quarter of 2003, the investment was accounted for under the equity method. The impact on net sales and operating profit in 2003 was $47.2 and $14.6, respectively. Avon Turkey is included in ourEuropean operating segment. We allocated approximately $17.0 of the purchase price to goodwill.
Goodwill | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Europe | | | Latin America | | | Asia Pacific | | | Total | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004 | $ | 34.4 | | $ | .9 | | $ | 41.2 | | $ | 76.5 | |
Goodwill acquired during the year | | - | | | 94.8 | | | - | | | 94.8 | |
Impairment losses | | - | | | - | | | (.4 | ) | | (.4 | ) |
Foreign exchange | | (1.1 | ) | | - | | | 2.2 | | | 1.1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005 | $ | 33.3 | | $ | 95.7 | | $ | 43.0 | | $ | 172.0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The impairment losses relate to the write-off of goodwill associated with the closure of unprofitable operations in Asia Pacific as a result of the implementation of certain restructuring initiatives (see Note 13, Restructuring Initiatives).
Intangible assets
| | 2005 | | | 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Carrying | | | Accumulated | | | Carrying | | | Accumulated | |
| | Amount | | | Amortization | | | Amount | | | Amortization | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized Intangible Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Customer relationships | $ | 40.8 | | $ | (3.3 | ) | $ | 5.7 | | $ | - | |
Licensing agreements | | 32.0 | | | (1.6 | ) | | - | | | - | |
Noncompete agreements | | 9.2 | | | (3.4 | ) | | 5.2 | | | (2.7 | ) |
Total | $ | 82.0 | | $ | (8.3 | ) | $ | 10.9 | | $ | (2.7 | ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate Amortization Expense: | | | |
2005 | $ | 5.4 | |
2004 | | 3.4 | |
2003 | | .7 | |
| | | |
| | | |
Estimated Amortization Expense: | | | |
2006 | $ | 17.7 | |
2007 | | 15.2 | |
2008 | | 14.9 | |
2009 | | 13.9 | |
2010 | | 5.3 | |
35
Avon Products, Inc.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
18. Results of Operations by Quarter (Unaudited)
2005 | | First | | | Second | | | Third | | | Fourth | | | Year | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Net sales | $ | 1,860.9 | | $ | 1,963.9 | | $ | 1,865.7 | | $ | 2,374.7 | | $ | 8,065.2 | |
Other revenue | | 20.2 | | | 20.4 | | | 20.3 | | | 23.5 | | | 84.4 | |
Gross profit | | 1,182.9 | | | 1,253.9 | | | 1,161.5 | | | 1,417.6 | | | 5,015.9 | |
Operating profit | | 260.5 | | | 344.0 | | | 247.1 | | | 297.4 | | | 1,149.0 | |
Income before taxes and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
minority interest | | 253.7 | | | 340.8 | | | 242.1 | | | 287.6 | | | 1,124.2 | |
Income before minority interest | | 173.9 | | | 330.5 | | | 165.1 | | | 185.0 | | | 854.5 | |
Net income | | 172.0 | | | 328.6 | | | 163.8 | | | 183.2 | | | 847.6 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Earnings per share | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic | $ | .36 | | | $ .70 | | | $ .35 | | | .40 | | | 1.82 | (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Diluted | $ | .36 | | | $ .69 | | | $ .35 | | | .40 | | | 1.81 | (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2004 | | First | | | Second | | | Third | | | Fourth | | | Year | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Net sales | $ | 1,741.4 | | $ | 1,844.4 | | $ | 1,784.7 | | $ | 2,285.7 | | $ | 7,656.2 | |
Other revenue | | 23.4 | | | 21.9 | | | 21.5 | | | 24.8 | | | 91.6 | |
Gross profit | | 1,098.6 | | | 1,192.5 | | | 1,126.4 | | | 1,397.8 | | | 4,815.3 | |
Operating profit | | 229.4 | | | 325.5 | | | 262.8 | | | 411.3 | | | 1,229.0 | |
Income before taxes and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
minority interest | | 224.6 | | | 315.5 | | | 258.0 | | | 389.4 | | | 1,187.5 | |
Income before minority interest | | 150.7 | | | 236.1 | | | 178.8 | | | 291.3 | | | 856.9 | |
Net income | $ | 148.1 | | $ | 232.3 | | $ | 176.9 | | $ | 288.8 | | $ | 846.1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Earnings per share | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic | $ | .31 | | $ | .49 | | $ | .37 | | $ | .61 | | $ | 1.79 | (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Diluted | $ | .31 | | $ | .49 | | $ | .37 | | $ | .61 | | $ | 1.77 | (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(1) | The sum of per share amounts for the quarters does not necessarily equal that for the year because the computations were made independently. |
Fourth quarter 2005 includes costs to implement restructuring initiatives of $56.5 of which $8.4 is reflected in cost of sales and $48.1 is reflected in marketing, distribution and administrative expenses.
During the fourth quarter of 2004, we recorded a write-down of $13.7 ($12.2 after tax) resulting from declines in the fair values of investments in equity securities below their cost bases that were judged to be other-than-temporary. These equity securities are available to fund select benefit plan obligations.
19. Subsequent Events
On January 26, 2006, we announced an increase in our quarterly cash dividend to $.175 per share from $.165 per share. The first dividend at the new rate will be paid on March 1, 2006, to shareholders of record on February 14, 2006. With this increase, the indicated annual dividend rate is $.70 per share.
In January 2006, we issued in a public offering $500.0 principal amount of notes payable that mature on January 15, 2011, and bear interest, payable semi-annually, at a per annum rate equal to 5.125%. The net proceeds from the offering were used for general corporate purposes, including the repayment of short-term debt.
In January 2006, we entered into a five-year $1,000.0 revolving credit and competitive advance facility (the “new credit facility”), and simultaneously terminated the old credit facility. The new credit facility may be used for general corporate purposes. The interest rate on borrowings under the new credit facility is based on LIBOR or on the higher of prime or 1/2% plus the federal funds rate.
36