UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

 

 

Commission file number 1-1520

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

(916) 355-4000

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes  o      No  þ

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes  o      No  þ

 

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.  Yes  þ      No  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes  o      No  o  The registrant is not yet subject to this requirement.

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.   þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act.) o Yes þ No

 

The aggregate market value of the voting common equity held by nonaffiliates of the registrant as of May 31, 2009 was approximately $118 million.

 

As of January 20, 2010, there were 58.5 million outstanding shares of the Company’s Common Stock, including redeemable common stock, $0.10 par value.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the 2009 Proxy Statement of GenCorp Inc. relating to its annual meeting of shareholders scheduled to be held on March 24, 2010 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.

 

 

GENCORP INC.

Annual Report on Form 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended November 30, 2009

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

 

amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. We also make available on our Internet web site our corporate governance guidelines and the charters for each of the following committees of our Board of Directors: Audit; Corporate Governance & Nominating; and Organization & Compensation. Our corporate governance guidelines and such charters are also available in print to anyone who requests them.

 

Aerospace and Defense

 

For over 60 years, Aerojet has been an industry leader and pioneer in the development of critical products and technologies that have strengthened the U.S. military and enabled the exploration of space. Aerojet focuses on developing military, civil, and commercial systems and components that address the needs of the aerospace and defense industry markets. Due to the diversity of its propulsion technologies and the synergy of its product lines, we believe Aerojet is in a unique competitive position to offer its customers the most innovative and advanced solutions available in the domestic propulsion market. Aerojet has been able to capitalize on its strong technical capabilities to become a critical provider of components and systems for major propulsion programs. Aerojet propulsion systems have flown on human and robotic missions for NASA since the inception of the U.S. Space Program, and Aerojet has been a major supplier of propulsion products to the DoD since the founding of Aerojet. Principal customers include the DoD, NASA, Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”), Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed Martin”), United Launch Alliance (“ULA”), and The Boeing Company (“Boeing”).

 

 

Industry Overview

 

Broad support continues for DoD and NASA funding in the Government Fiscal Year ending September 30 (“GFY”), 2010 and beyond. However, these federal department/agency budgets are under severe pressure due to the cost impacts of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a rising U.S. federal deficit. As a result, both the DoD and NASA budgets are expected to grow at modest levels through 2012.

 

Department of Defense

 

Overall, U.S. defense appropriations have increased substantially since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and ensuing military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Defense appropriations have risen to over $508 billion in GFY 2010 from $487 billion in GFY 2009. The DoD budget continues to increase, the overall real rate of growth is expected to be approximately 2% per year. Although the ultimate distribution of the DoD budget remains uncertain, we believe Aerojet is well positioned to benefit from DoD investment in: high-priority, transformational systems that address current war fighting requirements; the re-capitalization of weapon systems and equipment expended during combat deployments; and systems that meet new threats world-wide.

 

The Obama Administration (“Administration”) has indicated a commitment to maintain adequate funding for the DoD and building defense capabilities for the 21st century. Areas that impact Aerojet products include: fully equipping U.S forces for the missions they face; preserving air supremacy; maintaining at sea; protecting the U.S. in cyberspace; ensuring freedom of space; and a pragmatic and cost-effective development of missile defense. Congress is working closely with the Administration on these focus areas.

NASA

 

In the Administration’s submitted GFY 2010 budget, the President has indicated that NASA’s GFY 2009 plans for the future of human spaceflight may be modified. A panel of experts, called the Augustine Committee, was commissioned to review current space programs, alternatives and issues for moving forward. The Augustine Committee report indicated that significant additional funding for human spaceflight is needed if the U.S. is to maintain its leadership. The Administration is evaluating the human space flight program based on the Augustine Committee’s report. Until the Administration announces its new plans, the future direction of NASA’s human spaceflight program remains unclear. However, regardless of the future direction, Aerojet is well positioned to succeed because of its diverse offerings, innovative technologies and its existing contracts with both traditional and emerging launch providers.

 

Overall, continued strong support from the Administration for science, particularly Earth science, aeronautics and education programs at NASA is expected. We project steady funding with modest growth for NASA.

 

Competition

 

As the only domestic supplier of all four propulsion types — solid, liquid, air-breathing, and electric — we believe that Aerojet is in a unique competitive position. The basis on which Aerojet competes in the Aerospace and Defense industry varies by program, but generally is based upon technology, quality, service, and price. Although market competition is intense, we believe Aerojet possesses innovative and advanced propulsion solutions, combined with adequate resources to continue to compete successfully.

 

Participation in the defense and space propulsion market can be capital intensive requiring long research and development periods that represent significant barriers to entry. Aerojet may partner on various programs with its major customers or suppliers, some of whom are, from time to time, competitors on other programs.

 

The table below lists primary participants in the propulsion market:

 

 

The domestic solid and liquid propulsion markets remained unchanged in fiscal 2009 with Aerojet in the number two position in both markets, second to Alliant Techsystems in solid propulsion (“solids”) and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne in liquid propulsion (“liquids”).

 

Major Customers

 

As a merchant supplier to the Aerospace and Defense industry, we do not align ourselves with any single prime contractor except on a project-by-project basis. We believe that our position as a merchant supplier has helped us become a trusted partner to our customers, enabling us to maintain strong long-term relationships with a variety of prime contractors. Under each of our contracts, we act either as a subcontractor, where we sell our products to other prime contractors, or as a prime contractor, where we sell directly to the end user.

The principal end user customers of our products and technology are agencies of the U.S. government and U.S. prime contractors. Since a majority of Aerojet’s sales are, directly or indirectly, to the U.S. government, funding for the purchase of Aerojet’s products and services generally follows trends in U.S. defense spending. However, individual government agencies, which include the military services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, NASA, the Missile Defense Agency (“MDA”), and the prime contractors that serve these agencies, exercise independent purchasing power within “budget top-line” limits. Therefore, sales to the U.S. government are not regarded as sales to one customer, but rather each contracting agency is viewed as a separate customer.

 

Customers that represented more than 10% of net sales for the fiscal years presented are as follows:

 

 

Direct sales to the U.S. government and its agencies, or government customers, and indirect sales to U.S. government customers via direct sales to prime contractors accounted for a total of approximately 88% of sales, or approximately $701.3 million, in fiscal 2009. The following are percentages of net sales by principal end user in fiscal 2009:

 

 

Major Programs

 

Defense Systems — Aerojet maintained a strong position in the defense market segment in fiscal 2009 with key new and follow-on awards. Significant new wins included the propulsion system for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (“JAGM”), the Critical Path Divert and Attitude Control System (“CPDACS”), Patriot #2, Stinger, and other controllable solids programs. Important follow-on awards were received on the propulsion system for the Ground Based Midcourse Defense Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle Divert and Attitude Controls System (“GMD EKV DACS”), Standard Missile 3, and Standard Missile 3 Throttling Divert Attitude Control System. These successes continue to strengthen our position as a propulsion leader in missile defense and tactical systems. We believe Aerojet is in a unique competitive position due to the diversity of propulsion technologies, complete warhead capabilities, composites and metallic structures expertise, and the synergy of its product lines to offer defense customers the most innovative and advanced solutions available in the domestic market.

A subset of our key defense systems programs are listed below:

 

 

Space Systems  — In fiscal 2009, Aerojet maintained its strong market position in space systems by continued performance on existing contracts and capturing important new propulsion contracts, the most significant new award was the Taurus 2 program with Orbital Sciences. The current financial crisis adversely impacted some of our programs through restructuring and/or delays.

 

Aerojet’s commitment to quality and excellence in its space systems programs was reflected in success on several space exploration and other critical missions during fiscal 2009 using Aerojet’s products, including Mercury Messenger Flyby; H-2 Transfer Vehicle (“HTV”) successful first mission; and launches of Delta II, Delta IV, Atlas V, and space shuttle.

 

These continued space program successes strengthen our legacy of supplying mission critical propulsion systems to the DoD and NASA as we have since the inception of the U.S. civil and military space programs and support our position as a critical supplier to our space systems customers.

A subset of our key space system programs is listed below:

 

 

Contract Types

 

Under each of its contracts, Aerojet acts either as a prime contractor, where it sells directly to the end user, or as a subcontractor, selling its products to other prime contractors. Research and development contracts are awarded during the inception stage of a program’s development. Production contracts provide for the production and delivery of mature products for operational use. Aerojet’s contracts are primarily categorized as either “fixed-price” or “cost-reimbursable.” During fiscal 2009, approximately 51% of our net sales were from fixed-price contracts, 37% from cost-reimbursable contracts, and 12% from other sales including commercial contracts and real estate activities.

 

Fixed-price contracts are typically (i) fixed-price, (ii) fixed-price-incentive fee, or (iii) fixed-price level of effort contracts. For fixed-price contracts, Aerojet performs work for a fixed price and realizes all of the profit or loss resulting from variations in costs of performance. For fixed-price-incentive contracts, Aerojet receives increased or decreased fees or profits based upon actual performance against established targets or other criteria. For fixed-price level of effort contracts, Aerojet generally receives a structured fixed price per labor hour, dependent

upon the customer’s labor hour needs. All fixed-price contracts present the risk of unreimbursed cost overruns potentially resulting in losses.

 

Cost-reimbursable contracts are typically (i) cost plus fixed fee, (ii) cost plus incentive fee, or (iii) cost plus award fee contracts. For cost plus fixed fee contracts, Aerojet typically receives reimbursement of its costs, to the extent the costs are allowable under contractual and regulatory provisions, in addition to receiving a fixed fee. For cost plus incentive fee contracts and cost plus award fee contracts, Aerojet receives adjustments to the contract fee, within designated limits, based on actual results as compared to contractual targets for factors such as cost, performance, quality, and schedule.

 

Many programs under contract have product life cycles exceeding 10 years, such as the Standard Missile, TOW, and Tomahawk programs. It is typical for U.S. government propulsion contracts to be relatively small during development phases that can last from two to five years, followed by low-rate and then full-rate production, where annual funding can grow as high as approximately $30 million to $60 million per year over many years.

 

Government Contracts and Regulations

 

Our sales are driven by pricing based on costs incurred to produce products or perform services under contracts with the U.S. government. U.S. government contracts generally are subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), agency-specific regulations that implement or supplement FAR, such as the DoD’s Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (“DFAR”) and other applicable laws and regulations. These regulations impose a broad range of requirements, many of which are unique to government contracting, including various procurement, import and export, security, contract pricing and cost, contract termination and adjustment, and audit requirements. A contractor’s failure to comply with these regulations and requirements could result in reductions of the value of contracts, contract modifications or termination, and the assessment of penalties and fines and could lead to suspension or debarment from government contracting or subcontracting for a period of time. In addition, government contractors are also subject to routine audits and investigations by U.S. government agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”). These agencies review a contractor’s performance, cost structure, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards. The DCAA also reviews the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, compensation, and information systems.

 

 

Total backlog includes both funded backlog (the amount for which money has been directly appropriated by the U.S. Congress, or for which a purchase order has been received from a commercial customer) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding has not been appropriated). Indefinite delivery and quantity contracts and unexercised options are not reported in total backlog. Backlog is subject to funding delays or program restructurings/cancellations which are beyond our control. Of our November 30, 2009 total contract backlog, approximately 53% is not expected to be filled within one year.

 

Research and Development

 

We view research and development efforts as critical to maintaining our leadership position in markets in which we compete. We maintain an active research and development effort supported primarily by customer funding. Customer-funded research and development expenditures are funded under contract specifications, typically research and development contracts, several of which we believe may become key programs in the

future. We believe customer-funded research and development activities are vital to our ability to compete for contracts and to enhance our technology base.

 

Aerojet’s company-funded research and development efforts include expenditures for technical activities that are vital to the development of new products, services, processes or techniques, as well as those expenses for significant improvements to existing products or processes.

 

The following table summarizes Aerojet’s research and development expenditures during the past three fiscal years:

 

 

Suppliers, Raw Materials and Seasonality

 

The national aerospace supply base continues to consolidate due to economic, environmental, and marketplace circumstances beyond Aerojet’s control. The loss of key qualified suppliers of technologies, components, and materials can cause significant disruption to Aerojet program performance and cost.

 

Availability of raw materials and supplies to Aerojet is generally sufficient. Aerojet is sometimes dependent, for a variety of reasons, upon sole-source or flight qualified suppliers and has in some instances in the past experienced difficulties meeting production and delivery obligations because of delays in delivery or reliance on such suppliers. We closely monitor sources of supply to ensure adequate raw materials and other supplies needed in our manufacturing processes are available. As a U.S. government contractor, we are frequently limited to procuring materials and components from sources of supply that meet rigorous customer and/or government specifications or socio-economic criteria. In addition, as business conditions, DoD budgets, and Congressional allocations change, suppliers of specialty chemicals and materials sometimes consider dropping low-volume items from their product lines. This may require us to qualify new suppliers for raw materials on key programs. To date, Aerojet has been successful in mitigating any impacts that could occur through requalifying replacement materials and suppliers. We continue to monitor this situation carefully and in our engineering processes, where we have the opportunity, we are defining materials that are known to be more sustainable and hence, less prone to obsolescence or disruption.

 

We are also impacted, as is the rest of the industry, by increases in the prices and lead-times of raw materials used in production on various fixed-price contracts. Recently, prices and lead times for certain commodity metals, alloy steels, titanium and some aluminum grades have become more competitive due to available production capacity world-wide. Unfortunately, prices and lead times for some chemicals used in solid rocket motor propellants have seen significant increases in recent years. These are highly specialized chemicals such as ammonium perchlorate and LX-14 for example. We have been able to mitigate some of these impacts through the establishment of long term volume agreements that provide for a steady throughput with a corresponding price benefit to Aerojet. In addition, where appropriate, we work closely with suppliers to schedule purchases far enough in advance and in the most economical means possible to minimize program impact.

 

Aerojet’s business is not subject to predictable seasonality. Primary factors affecting the timing of Aerojet’s sales include the timing of government awards, the availability of U.S. government funding, contractual product delivery requirements, customer acceptances, and regulatory issues.

 

Intellectual Property

 

Where appropriate, Aerojet obtains patents in the U.S. and other countries covering various aspects of the design and manufacture of its products. We consider these patents to be important to Aerojet as they illustrate Aerojet’s innovative design ability and product development capabilities. We do not believe the loss or expiration of

any single patent would have a material adverse effect on the business or financial results of Aerojet or on our business as a whole.

 

Real Estate

 

We own approximately 12,200 acres of land in the Sacramento metropolitan area which we refer to as the Sacramento Land. Acquired in the early 1950s for our aerospace and defense operations, there are large portions used solely to provide safe buffer zones. Modern changes in propulsion technology coupled with the relocation of certain of our propulsion operations led us to determine large portions of the Sacramento Land were no longer needed for operations in Sacramento. Consequently, our plan has been to reposition this excess Sacramento Land to optimize its value.

 

Approximately 6,000 acres have been deemed excess, and is the land we are in the process of entitling for new development opportunities under the brand name Easton.

 

Within Easton, we currently have approximately 1,450 acres entitled, and are seeking entitlements on an additional 4,600 acres. Easton is located 15 miles east of downtown Sacramento, California along U.S. Highway 50, a key growth corridor in the region. We believe Easton has several competitive advantages over other areas, including several miles of freeway accessible frontage, one of the largest single-owner land tracts suitable for development in the Sacramento region, and desirable “in-fill” location surrounded by residential and business properties. The master plan reflects our efforts to make Easton one of the finest master-planned communities in the U.S. Easton will include a broad range of housing, office, industrial, retail, and recreational uses. The broad range of land uses will ensure long-term value enhancement of our excess land.

 

In 2009, we formed a new wholly-owned subsidiary, Easton Development Company, LLC, to continue to execute these entitlement and pre-development activities, and to explore how to maximize value from Easton. Value enhancement may include outright sales, and/or joint ventures with real estate developers, residential builders, and/or other third parties. Those parcels of land that have obtained the necessary entitlements for development or are otherwise suitable for sale were transferred to this new subsidiary. Additional land may be transferred in the future as these or other requirements are achieved.

 

The housing market in the Sacramento region continued to struggle in 2009. However, we believe that this downturn does not change the long-term prospects for the Sacramento region, which we believe still remains an attractive and affordable alternative to the San Francisco Bay Area and other large metropolitan areas of California. We believe the Sacramento area demographic and real estate market supports our objective of creating value through new entitlements and the creation of Easton. The term “entitlements” is generally used to denote the set of regulatory approvals required to allow land to be zoned for requested uses. Required regulatory approvals vary with each land zoning proposal and may include permits, land use master plans, zoning designations, state and federal environmental documentation, and other regulatory approvals unique to the land. The entitlement process in California is long and uncertain with approvals required from various authorities, including local jurisdictions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), and the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”).

 

Our real estate activities are of long-term nature and involve significant risks, including the following: (i) we may be unable to obtain, or suffer delays in obtaining, necessary re-zoning, land use, building, occupancy, and other required governmental permits and authorizations, which could result in increased costs or our abandonment of these projects; (ii) we may be unable to complete environmental remediation or to have state and federal environmental restrictions on our property lifted, which could cause a delay or abandonment of these projects; (iii) we may be unable to obtain sufficient water sources to service our projects, which may prevent us from executing our plans; (iv) our real estate activities require significant capital expenditures and we may not be able to obtain financing on favorable terms, which may render us unable to proceed with our plans; (v) economic and political uncertainties could have an adverse effect on consumer buying habits, construction costs, availability of labor and materials and other factors affecting us and the real estate industry in general; (vi) our property is subject to federal, state, and local regulations and restrictions that may impose significant limitations on our plans; (vii) much of our property is raw land that includes the natural habitats of various endangered or protected wildlife species requiring mitigation; (viii) if our land use plans are approved by the appropriate governmental authorities,

we may face lawsuits from those who oppose such plans; and (ix) the time frame required for approval of our plans means that we may have to wait years for a significant cash return.

 

The Sacramento Land, including Easton, is summarized below (in acres):

 

 

 

 

Additional information concerning significant Easton projects is set forth below.

 

Glenborough at Easton and Easton Place

 

In 2004, we filed an application with the County for a general plan amendment and request for re-zoning of an approximate 1,400 acre master-planned community called Glenborough at Easton and Easton Place.

 

In January 2009, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (“County”) unanimously approved the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), County General Plan Amendments, Large and Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Maps, and the Land Use Master Plans for the Glenborough at Easton and Easton Place project. In 2010, we will continue our efforts to obtain the necessary federal permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and complete the major backbone infrastructure design plans for the first phases of Glenborough at Easton and Easton Place.

 

Approximately 350 acres in Glenborough at Easton are subject to federal environmental restrictions. We believe the timing on removal of these restrictions should not adversely affect the projected phasing of the overall project.

 

Rio Del Oro at Easton

 

In 2002, we filed an application with the County for a general plan amendment and request for re-zoning of a project called Rio del Oro in conjunction with Elliott Homes (“Elliott”). In 2003, this application was transferred to the newly incorporated City of Rancho Cordova (“Rancho Cordova”). Elliott is obligated to pay the costs associated with seeking entitlement for the entire Rio del Oro project, pursuant to our agreement. The Rio del Oro project is

approximately 3,800 acres, of which Elliott owns approximately 1,500 acres and we own approximately 2,300 acres.

 

The Rancho Cordova staff and its consultants continue work on the EIR and Environmental Impact Statement. We continue to negotiate with Rancho Cordova on total fee burdens, affordable housing obligations, traffic mitigation, and other related items.

 

In 2008, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (“DTSC”) released approximately 2,300 acres that were formally restricted under the DTSC’s environmental orders regarding soil contamination. The remaining 500 acres remain subject to the DTSC orders and will be released once the soil remediation has been completed. We believe the timing on removal of the remaining restrictions should not adversely affect the projected phasing of the project.

 

Westborough at Easton

 

In 2004, we filed an application with Rancho Cordova for a general plan amendment for an approximate 1,700 acre project named Westborough at Easton. We expect the Westborough project to be completed in two phases. In June 2005, we submitted an updated general plan amendment and a re-zoning application for approximately 1,100 acres as the first phase of Westborough. The second phase consisting of approximately 550 acres lies partially within the jurisdiction of Rancho Cordova and partially within the jurisdiction of the County. Consequently, over the next few years, we will work with Rancho Cordova and the County to reach agreement on the terms and conditions for annexation of the County land by Rancho Cordova. Once an agreement is achieved, we will file a similar application for the second phase with Rancho Cordova.

 

Rancho Cordova continues to work on the various technical studies necessary for the EIR for the first phase of this project. We are also working with the USACE to obtain the necessary permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

 

In addition, in 2004, we entered into an agreement with Elliott to sell 100 acres of the Westborough property for $3.1 million. This transaction is expected to close in fiscal 2010. The purchase price will be paid at the time of closing.

 

Hillsborough at Easton

 

The Company and other land owners that together control approximately 3,500 acres within the City of Folsom’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) are working with the City of Folsom (“Folsom”) to develop a land use plan. Folsom has begun work on the EIR and various related technical studies. Our Hillsborough project is within this acreage. The proposed land uses include residential, office, and retail. The annexation process of the SOI acreage by Folsom is expected to be complex and lengthy. The water source for the entire SOI will be addressed by Folsom as part of the annexation process.

 

Water Supply for Rio del Oro and Westborough

 

In California, all applications for a change in land use must identify a source of water to serve the proposed project. We initially addressed this issue for both the Rio del Oro and Westborough projects with our 2003 water agreement (“Aerojet/SCWA Agreement”) with the Sacramento County Water Agency (“SCWA”). Under the Aerojet/SCWA Agreement, we transferred certain amounts of remediated groundwater from the Sacramento Land to SCWA (“Transferred Water”). Subject to conditions and limitations in the agreement, including all required approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), SCWA assumed the responsibility for providing replacement water to those water purveyors who lost wells as a result of groundwater contamination (“Replacement Water”), and committed to supply water to us for development of our Sacramento Land in an amount equal to the difference between the Transferred Water and the Replacement Water. In 2008, SCWA terminated the Aerojet/SCWA Agreement. We are negotiating with SCWA on water supply issues and we believe that these discussions will lead to a resolution and a new agreement. See additional discussion on the Aerojet/SCWA Agreement and the related legal complaint filed against us by SCWA in Note 7(c) in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Golden State Water Company (“GSWC”) has filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) seeking approval to provide water service to the Westborough project. Westborough is contiguous to GSWC’s service territory in Eastern Sacramento County. SCWA filed a letter of protest with the PUC with respect to GSWC’s request to serve the Westborough project principally on the basis that the Aerojet/SCWA Agreement had terminated along with an agreement GSWC had entered with SCWA in 2003. We believe that the ongoing discussions between us, GSWC, and SCWA will lead to a resolution and agreement to provide water service to the Westborough project.

 

Leasing & Other Real Estate

 

We currently lease to third parties approximately 300,000 square feet of office space in Sacramento. These leasing activities generated $6.4 million in revenue in fiscal 2009.

 

We own approximately 580 acres of land in Chino Hills, California. This property was used for the manufacture and testing of ordnance. With the sale of our ordnance business in the mid-1990s, we closed this facility and commenced clean-up of the site. We continue to work with state regulators and the City of Chino Hills to complete those efforts. Once the remediation is complete, we will work to maximize the value of the property.

 

Environmental Matters

 

Our current and former business operations are subject to, and affected by, federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations relating to the discharge, treatment, storage, disposal, investigation, and remediation of certain materials, substances, and wastes. Our policy is to conduct our business with due regard for the preservation and protection of the environment. We continually assess compliance with these regulations and management of environmental matters. We believe our current operations are in compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.

 

Operation and maintenance costs associated with environmental compliance and management of contaminated sites are a normal, recurring part of our operations. Most of such costs are incurred by our Aerospace and Defense segment and are generally allowable costs under contracts with the U.S. government.

 

Under existing U.S. environmental laws, a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) is jointly and severally liable, and therefore we are potentially liable to the government or third parties for the full cost of remediating the contamination at our facilities or former facilities or at third-party sites where we have been designated as a PRP by the Environmental Protection Agency or a state environmental agency. The nature of environmental investigation and cleanup activities often makes it difficult to determine the timing and amount of any estimated future costs that may be required for remediation measures. However, we review these matters and accrue for costs associated with environmental remediation when it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability, usually based on proportionate sharing, can be reasonably estimated. These liabilities have not been discounted to their present value as the timing of cash payments is not fixed or reliably determinable. See Management’s Discussion and Analysis in Part II, Item 7 of this Report for additional information.

 

Employees

 

As of November 30, 2009, 13% of our 3,071 employees were covered by collective bargaining agreements, which are due to expire in 2011 and 2012. We believe that our relations with our employees are good.

 

We have a substantial amount of debt. Our ability to operate and our financial flexibility is limited by the agreements governing our debt.

 

We have a substantial amount of debt for which we are required to make interest and principal payments. As of November 30, 2009, we had $438.6 million of debt. Subject to the limits contained in some of the agreements governing our outstanding debt, we may incur additional debt in the future.

 

Our level of debt places significant demands on our cash resources, which could:

 

 

If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow to service our debt and fund our operating costs, our liquidity may be adversely affected.

 

See Note 15 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion on recent changes to the Company’s capital structure.

 

We are obligated to comply with financial and other covenants outlined in our debt indentures and agreements that could restrict our operating activities. A failure to comply could result in a default under our $280.0 million senior credit facility (“Senior Credit Facility”) which would, if not waived by the lenders, accelerate the payment of our debt. A payment default under the Senior Credit Facility could result in cross defaults on our 4% Contingent Convertible Notes (“4% Notes”), 2 1 / 4 % Convertible Subordinated Debentures (“2 1 / 4 % Debentures”), and 9 1 / 2 % Senior Subordinated Notes (“9 1 / 2 % Notes”).

 

Our debt instruments generally contain various restrictive covenants which include, among others, provisions restricting our ability to:

 

 

Our secured debt also contains other customary covenants, including, among others, provisions:

 

 

In addition, certain covenants in our bank facility require that we maintain certain financial ratios, including a leverage ratio that becomes more restrictive over time.

 

Based on our existing debt agreements, we were in compliance with our financial and non-financial covenants as of November 30, 2009. Any of the covenants described in this risk factor may restrict our operations and our ability to pursue potentially advantageous business opportunities. Our failure to comply with these covenants could also result in an event of default that, if not cured or waived, could result in the acceleration of the Senior Credit Facility, 4% Notes, 2 1 / 4 % Debentures, and 9 1 / 2 % Notes. In addition, our failure to pay principal and interest when due is a default under the Senior Credit Facility, and in certain cases, would cause cross defaults on the 4% Notes, 2 1 / 4 % Debentures, and 9 1 / 2 % Notes. Our indebtedness under the Senior Credit Facility is collateralized by substantially all of our assets, leaving us with limited collateral for additional financing.

 

See Note 15 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion on recent changes to the Company’s capital structure.

 

If our operating subsidiaries do not generate sufficient cash flow or if they are not able to pay dividends or otherwise distribute their cash to us, or if we have insufficient funds on hand, we may not be able to service our debt.

 

All of the operations of our Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate segments are conducted through subsidiaries. Consequently, our cash flow and ability to service our debt obligations will be largely dependent upon the earnings and cash flows of our operating subsidiaries and the distribution of those earnings to us, or upon loans, advances or other payments made by these subsidiaries to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other payments or advances to us will depend upon their operating results and cash flows and will be subject to applicable laws and any contractual restrictions contained in the agreements governing their debt, if any.

 

Our pension plan is currently underfunded and we expect to be required to make cash contributions, which may reduce the cash available for our businesses.

 

The Pension Protection Act (“PPA”), enacted in August 2006, requires underfunded pension plans to improve their funding ratios within prescribed intervals based on the funded status of the plan as of specified measurement dates. Our funded ratio as of November 30, 2008 under the PPA for our defined benefit pension plan was above the ratio required under the PPA, as amended in 2008. The funded ratio as of November 30, 2008, under the PPA for our defined benefit pension plan was 93% which was above the 92% ratio required under the PPA, as amended. The required ratio to be met as of our November 30, 2009 measurement date is 94%. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, we made a voluntary contribution of $4.4 million to improve the plan’s PPA funded status as of November 30, 2009, although there can be no assurance that the amount of this contribution will be sufficient to meet the required ratio. The final calculated PPA funded ratio as of November 30, 2009 is expected to be completed in the second half of 2010. On November 25, 2008, we decided to amend our defined benefit pension and benefits restoration plans to freeze future accruals under such plans. Effective February 1, 2009 and July 31, 2009, future benefit accruals for all current salaried employees and collective bargaining unit employees were discontinued, respectively.

 

The funded status of the pension plan may be adversely affected by the investment experience of the plan’s assets, by any changes in U.S. law and by changes in the statutory interest rates used by “tax-qualified” pension plans in the U.S. to calculate funding requirements. Accordingly, if the performance of our plan’s assets does not meet our assumptions, if there are changes to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service regulations or other applicable law or if other actuarial assumptions are modified, our future contributions to our underfunded pension plan could be higher than we expect. In addition, changes to the discount rate used to measure pension liabilities could adversely affect the funded status of the plan. Significant cash contribution requirements to our pension plan may adversely affect our ability to meet certain covenants for our Senior Credit Facility which, absent an amendment or

refinancing, would result in a default under our Senior Credit Facility and cross defaults on our other debt instruments.

 

The level of returns on retirement benefit plan assets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation, and other factors could affect our financial results.

 

Our earnings may be positively or negatively impacted by the amount of expense or income we record for our employee retirement benefit plans. We calculate the expense for the plans based on actuarial valuations. These valuations are based on assumptions that we make relating to financial market and other economic conditions. Changes in key economic indicators can result in changes in the assumptions we use. The key assumptions used to estimate retirement benefit plan expense for the following year are: the discount rate and the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets. Our pension expense/income can also be affected by legislation and other government regulatory actions.

 

Economic conditions could materially adversely affect our ability to amend our Senior Credit Facility, and we face the risks of either not being able to do so, or doing so at higher interest expense.

 

We inadvertently failed to register with the SEC the issuance of certain of our common shares under our defined contribution 401(k) employee benefit plan, or the Plan. As a result, certain purchasers of securities pursuant to the Plan may have the right to rescind their purchases for an amount equal to the purchase price paid for the securities (or if such security has been disposed of, to receive damages with respect to any loss on such disposition) plus interest from the date of purchase. We expect to make a registered rescission offer to eligible Plan participants, which could result in our purchase of up to 0.6 million shares of our common stock. Accordingly, we may need to amend our Senior Credit Facility in connection with the rescission offer. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the consent of lenders under our Senior Credit Facility or that, as a condition to consent, the lenders will not require that the terms of the Senior Credit Facility be amended in a manner that is unfavorable to us, including a possible increase in interest, fees, reduction in the amount of the funds available and covenant changes. Furthermore, the current financial turmoil affecting the banking system and financial markets and the possibility that financial institutions may consolidate or go out of business have resulted in a tightening in the credit markets, a low level of liquidity in many financial markets, and extreme volatility in fixed income, credit, currency and equity markets.

 

Our operations and properties are currently the subject of significant environmental liabilities, and the numerous environmental and other government requirements to which we are subject may become more stringent in the future.

 

We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that, among other things, require us to obtain permits to operate and install pollution control equipment and regulate the generation, storage, handling, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and solid wastes. These requirements may become more stringent in the future. We may also be subject to fines and penalties relating to the operation of our existing and formerly owned businesses. We are subject to toxic tort and asbestos lawsuits as well as other third-party lawsuits, due to either our past or present use of hazardous substances or the alleged on-site or off-site contamination of the environment through past or present operations. We may incur material costs in defending these claims and lawsuits and any similar claims and lawsuits that may arise in the future. Contamination at our major current and former properties is subject to investigation and remediation requirements under the Superfund and other cleanup programs, and the full extent of the required remediation has not yet been determined. Any adverse judgment or cash outlay could have a significant adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

Although some of our environmental costs may be recoverable and we have established reserves, given the many uncertainties involved in assessing liability for environmental claims, our reserves may not be sufficient, which could adversely affect our financial results.

 

As of November 30, 2009, the aggregate range of our environmental costs was $222.7 million to $428.9 million and the accrued amount was $222.7 million, of which $211.1 million relates to Aerojet sites and $11.6 million relates to non-Aerojet sites. We believe the accrued amount for future remediation costs represents the costs that

could be incurred by us over the contractual term, if any, or the next fifteen years of the estimated remediation, to the extent they are probable and reasonably estimable. However, in many cases the nature and extent of the required remediation has not yet been determined. Given the many uncertainties involved in assessing liability for environmental claims, our reserves may prove to be insufficient. We evaluate the adequacy of those reserves on a quarterly basis, and they could change. In addition, the reserves are based only on known sites and the known contamination at those sites. It is possible that additional sites needing remediation may be identified or that unknown contamination at previously identified sites may be discovered. It is also possible that the regulatory agencies may change clean-up standards for chemicals of concern such as ammonium perchlorate and trichloroethylene. This could lead to additional expenditures for environmental remediation in the future and, given the uncertainties involved in assessing liability for environmental claims, our reserves may prove to be insufficient.

 

Under an agreement with the U.S. government, our environmental expenses related to our Aerojet Sacramento and former Azusa sites are allowable for reimbursement through our government contracts up to 88% of environmental expenses (the “Global Settlement”). Environmental expenses at other Aerojet sites are eligible for reimbursement and treated under the normal rules of cost allowability. 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, our ability to continue recovering these costs from the U.S. government depends on Aerojet’s sustained business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business. Additionally, in conjunction with the sale of the Electronics and Information Systems business in 2001, Aerojet entered into an agreement with Northrop (“Northrop Agreement”) whereby Aerojet is reimbursed by Northrop for a portion of environmental expenditures eligible for recovery under the Global Settlement subject to annual and cumulative limitations. We believe that we may reach the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement within the next twelve (12) months. While we are seeking an arrangement with the U.S. government to recover environmental expenditures in excess of the current reimbursement ceiling identified in the Northrop Agreement, there can be no assurances that such a recovery will be obtained, or if not obtained, that such unreimbursed environmental expenditures will not have a materially adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows. See Note 7(d) in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

 

Our environmental expenses related to non-Aerojet sites are generally not recoverable and a significant increase in these estimated environmental expenses could have a significant adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

We are from time to time subject to significant litigation, the outcome of which could adversely affect our financial results.

 

We and our subsidiaries are subject to material litigation. We may be unsuccessful in defending or pursuing these lawsuits or claims. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can be very costly and can divert management’s efforts. Adverse outcomes in litigation, including toxic tort claims pending against Aerojet, product liability claims by former customers of our GDX Automotive business and the appeals of the unfair labor claims brought by former employees of our Snappon SA subsidiary in France, could have a significant adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

The cancellation or material modification of one or more significant contracts could adversely affect our financial results.

 

Sales, directly and indirectly, to the U.S. government and its agencies accounted for approximately 88% of our total net sales in fiscal 2009. Our contracts typically permit the U.S. government to unilaterally modify or terminate a contract or to discontinue funding for a particular program at any time. The cancellation of one or more significant contracts and/or programs could have a material adverse effect on our ability to realize anticipated sales and profits. The cancellation of a contract, if terminated for cause, could also subject us to liability for the excess costs incurred by the U.S. government in procuring undelivered items from another source. If terminated for convenience, our recovery of costs would be limited to amounts already incurred or committed, and our profit would be limited to work completed prior to termination.

Future reductions or changes in U.S. government spending could adversely affect our financial results.

 

Our primary aerospace and defense customers include the DoD, and its agencies, the government prime contractors that supply products to these customers, and NASA. As a result, we rely on particular levels of U.S. government spending on propulsion systems for defense and space applications and armament systems for precision tactical weapon systems and munitions applications, and our backlog depends, in a large part, on continued funding by the U.S. government for the programs in which we are involved. These spending levels are not generally correlated with any specific economic cycle, but rather follow the cycle of general political support for this type of spending. Moreover, although our contracts often contemplate that our services will be performed over a period of several years, Congress usually must approve funds for a given program each government fiscal year and may significantly reduce or eliminate funding for a program. A decrease in U.S. DoD and/or NASA expenditures, or the elimination or curtailment of a material program in which we are involved, could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

If we experience cost overruns on our contracts, we would have to absorb the excess costs which could adversely affect our financial results and our ability to win new contracts.

 

In fiscal 2009, approximately 51% of our net sales were from fixed-price contracts. Under fixed-price contracts, we agree to perform specified work for a fixed price and realize all of the profit or loss resulting from variations in the costs of performing the contract. As a result, all fixed-price contracts involve the inherent risk of unreimbursed cost overruns. To the extent we were to incur unanticipated cost overruns on a program or platform subject to a fixed-price contract, our profitability would be adversely affected. Future profitability is subject to risks including the ability of suppliers to deliver components of acceptable quality on schedule and the successful implementation of automated tooling in production processes.

 

In fiscal 2009, approximately 37% of our net sales were from cost reimbursable contracts. Under cost reimbursable contracts, we agree to be reimbursed for allowable costs and be paid a fee. If our costs are in excess of the final target cost, fees may be adversely affected. If our costs exceed authorized contract funding or they do not qualify as allowable costs under applicable regulations, we will not be reimbursed for those costs. Cost overruns may adversely affect our financial performance and our ability to win new contracts.

 

If our subcontractors or suppliers fail to perform their contractual obligations, our contract performance and our ability to win new contracts may be adversely affected.

 

We rely on subcontractors to perform a portion of the services we agree to provide our customers and on suppliers to provide raw materials and component parts for our contract performance. A failure by one or more of our subcontractors or suppliers to satisfactorily provide on a timely basis the agreed-upon services or supplies may affect our ability to perform our contractual obligations. Deficiencies in the performance of our subcontractors and suppliers could result in our customer terminating our contract for default. A termination for default could expose us to liability and adversely affect our financial performance and our ability to win new contracts.

 

Our success and growth in our Aerospace and Defense segment depends on our ability to secure contracts.

 

We encounter intense competition in bidding for contracts. Many of our competitors have financial, technical, production, and other resources substantially greater than ours. Although the downsizing of the defense industry in the early 1990s resulted in a reduction in the aggregate number of competitors, the consolidation has also strengthened the capabilities of some of the remaining competitors resulting in an increasingly competitive environment. The U.S. government also has its own manufacturing capabilities in some areas. We may be unable to compete successfully with our competitors and our inability to do so could result in a decrease in sales, profits, and cash flows that we historically have generated from certain contracts. Further, the U.S. government may open to competition programs on which we are currently the sole supplier, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

Our Aerospace and Defense segment is subject to procurement and other related laws and regulations inherent in contracting with the U.S. government, non-compliance with which could adversely affect our financial results.

 

In the performance of contracts with the U.S. government, we are subject to complex and extensive procurement and other related laws and regulations. Possible consequences of a failure to comply, even inadvertently, with these laws and regulations include civil and criminal fines and penalties including, in some cases, double or triple damages, and suspension or debarment from future government contracts and exporting of goods for a specified period of time.

 

These laws and regulations provide for ongoing audits and reviews of incurred costs as well as contract procurement, performance and administration. The U.S. government may, if it deems appropriate, conduct an investigation into possible illegal or unethical activity in connection with these contracts. Investigations of this nature are common in the aerospace and defense industry, and lawsuits may result. In addition, the U.S. government and its principal prime contractors periodically investigate the financial viability of its contractors and subcontractors as part of its risk assessment process associated with the award of new contracts. If the U.S. government or one or more prime contractors were to determine that we were not financially viable, our ability to continue to act as a government contractor or subcontractor would be impaired.

 

Our inability to adapt to rapid technological changes could impair our ability to remain competitive.

 

The aerospace and defense industry continues to undergo rapid and significant technological development. Our competitors may implement new technologies before us, allowing them to provide more effective products at more competitive prices. Future technological developments could:

 

 

We may experience warranty claims for product failures, schedule delays or other problems with existing or new products and systems.

 

Many of the products we develop and manufacture are technologically advanced systems that must function under demanding operating conditions. Even though we believe that we employ sophisticated and rigorous design, manufacturing and testing processes and practices, we may not be able to successfully launch or manufacture our products on schedule or our products may not perform as intended.

 

If our products fail to perform adequately, some of our contracts require us to forfeit a portion of our expected profit, receive reduced payments, provide a replacement product or service or reduce the price of subsequent sales to the same customer. Performance penalties may also be imposed if we fail to meet delivery schedules or other measures of contract performance. We do not generally insure against potential costs resulting from any required remedial actions or costs or loss of sales due to postponement or cancellation of scheduled operations or product deliveries.

 

The release or explosion of dangerous materials used in our business could disrupt our operations and could adversely affect our financial results.

 

Our business operations involve the handling and production of potentially explosive materials and other dangerous chemicals, including materials used in rocket propulsion and explosive devices. Despite our use of specialized facilities to handle dangerous materials and intensive employee training programs, the handling and production of hazardous materials could result in incidents that temporarily shut down or otherwise disrupt our manufacturing operations and could cause production delays. It is possible that a release of these chemicals or an

explosion could result in death or significant injuries to employees and others. Material property damage to us and third parties could also occur. The use of these products in applications by our customers could also result in liability if an explosion or fire were to occur. Any release or explosion could expose us to adverse publicity or liability for damages or cause production delays, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

Disruptions in the supply of key raw materials, difficulties in the supplier qualification process or increases in prices of raw materials could adversely affect our financial results.

 

We closely monitor sources of supply to assure that adequate raw materials and other supplies needed in our manufacturing processes are available. As a U.S. government contractor, we are frequently limited to procuring materials and components from sources of supply that meet rigorous customer and/or government specifications. In addition, as business conditions, DoD budgets, and Congressional allocations change, suppliers of specialty chemicals and other materials sometimes consider dropping low-volume items from their product lines, which may require us to qualify new suppliers for raw materials on key programs.

 

Current suppliers of some raw materials used in the manufacturing of rocket nozzles, composite cases and explosives have announced plans to relocate, close, and/or discontinue certain product lines. These materials, which include TPB/Flexzone, iron oxide lacquer and other constituents, are used industry-wide and are key to many of our motor and warhead programs. In some situations, increased costs related to new suppliers may not be recoverable under our contracts. In addition, some of these materials may have to be procured from offshore suppliers.

 

The supply of ammonium perchlorate, a principal raw material used in solid propellant, is limited to a single source that supplies the entire domestic solid propellant industry with actual pricing based on the total industry demand. Significant reductions in the total national demand, including as a result of the termination of the space shuttle program, will likely result in significant unit price increases.

 

The industry also currently relies on one primary supplier for carbon fiber, which is used in the production of composite materials. This supplier has multiple manufacturing lines for such material. Although other sources of carbon fiber exist, the addition of a new supplier would require us to qualify the new source for use. The Japanese government has imposed export restrictions on materials that are to be used in offensive weapons systems, which has increased the lead times associated with the product as its export has to be approved by the Japanese Defense Ministry.

 

We are also impacted, as is the rest of the industry, by increases in the prices and lead-times of raw materials used in production on various fixed-price contracts. We continue to experience increases in the price and lead-times of certain commodity metals, primarily steel and aluminum. The schedules and pricing of titanium mill products remain well above historical levels. Additionally, we may not be able to continue to negotiate with our customers economic and/or price adjustment clauses tied to commodity indices to reduce program impact. The DoD has begun to rigorously enforce the provisions of the “Berry Amendment” (DFARS 225-7002, 252.225-7014) which imposes a requirement to procure certain strategic materials critical to national security only from U.S. sources. Due to the limited U.S. supply of these metals and the requirement to use domestic sources, lead times and cost impacts have been significant to our defense programs.

 

Prolonged disruptions in the supply of any of our key raw materials, difficulty qualifying new sources of supply, implementing use of replacement materials or new sources of supply, and/or a continuing increase in the prices of raw materials could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

The real estate market is inherently risky, which could adversely affect our financial results.

 

Our real estate activities involve significant risks, which could adversely affect our financial results. We are subject to various risks, including the following:

 

 

 

Substantially all of our excess real estate, that we are in the process of entitling for new opportunities, is located in Sacramento County, California making us vulnerable to changes in economic and other conditions in that particular market.

 

As a result of the geographic concentration of our properties, our long-term real estate performance and the value of our properties will depend upon conditions in the Sacramento region, including:

 

 

If unfavorable economic or other conditions occur in the region, our plans and business strategy could be adversely affected.

 

We may expand our operations through acquisitions, which may divert management’s attention and expose us to unanticipated liabilities and costs. We may experience difficulties integrating any acquired operations, and we may incur costs relating to acquisitions that are never consummated.

 

Our business strategy may lead us to expand our Aerospace and Defense segment through acquisitions. However, our ability to consummate any future acquisitions on terms that are favorable to us may be limited by the number of attractive acquisition targets, internal demands on our resources and our ability to obtain financing. Our success in integrating newly acquired businesses will depend upon our ability to retain key personnel, avoid diversion of management’s attention from operational matters, integrate general and administrative services and key information processing systems and, where necessary, re-qualify our customer programs. In addition, future acquisitions could result in the incurrence of additional debt, costs, and contingent liabilities. We may also incur costs and divert management attention to acquisitions that are never consummated. Integration of acquired operations may take longer, or be more costly or disruptive to our business, than originally anticipated.

 

Although we undertake a due diligence investigation of each business that we have acquired or may acquire, there may be liabilities of the acquired companies that we fail to, or are unable to, discover during the due diligence investigation and for which we, as a successor owner, may be responsible. In connection with acquisitions, we

generally seek to minimize the impact of these types of potential liabilities through indemnities and warranties from the seller. However, these indemnities and warranties, if obtained, may not fully cover the liabilities due to limitations in scope, amount or duration, financial limitations of the indemnitor or warrantor, or other reasons.

 

We may incur additional costs related to divestitures, which could adversely affect our financial results.

 

In connection with our divestitures of the Fine Chemicals and GDX Automotive businesses in fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2004, respectively, we have incurred and may incur additional costs, including costs related to the closure of a manufacturing facility in Chartres, France. As part of these and other divestitures, we have provided customary indemnification to the purchasers for such matters as claims arising from the operation of the businesses prior to disposition, including warranty and income tax matters, and liability to investigate and remediate environmental contamination existing prior to disposition. These additional costs and the indemnification of the purchasers of our former businesses may require additional cash expenditures, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

A strike or other work stoppage, or our inability to renew collective bargaining agreements on favorable terms, could adversely affect our financial results.

 

As of November 30, 2009, 13% of our 3,071 employees were covered by collective bargaining agreements, which are due to expire in 2011 and 2012. If we are unable to negotiate acceptable new agreements with the unions, upon expiration of the existing contracts, we could experience a strike or work stoppage. Even if we are successful in negotiating new agreements, the new agreements could call for higher wages or benefits paid to union members, which would increase our operating costs and could adversely affect our profitability. If our unionized workers were to engage in a strike or other work stoppage, or other non-unionized operations were to become unionized, we could experience a significant disruption of operations at our facilities or higher ongoing labor costs. A strike or other work stoppage in the facilities of any of our major customers or suppliers could also have similar effects on us.

 

In order to be successful, we must attract and retain key employees.

 

Our business has a continuing need to attract large numbers of skilled personnel, including personnel holding security clearances, to support the growth of the enterprise and to replace individuals who have terminated employment due to retirement or for other reasons. To the extent that the demand for qualified personnel exceeds supply, we could experience higher labor, recruiting, or training costs in order to attract and retain such employees, or could experience difficulties in performing under our contracts if our needs for such employees were unmet.

 

Due to the nature of our business, our sales levels may fluctuate causing our quarterly operating results to fluctuate.

 

Changes in our operating results from quarter to quarter may result in volatility in the market price of our common stock. Our quarterly and annual sales are affected by a variety of factors that may lead to significant variability in our operating results. In our Aerospace and Defense segment, sales earned under long-term contracts are recognized either on a cost basis, when deliveries are made, or when contractually defined performance milestones are achieved. The timing of deliveries or milestones may fluctuate from quarter to quarter. In our Real Estate segment, sales of property may be made from time to time, which may result in variability in our operating results and cash flows.

 

We face certain significant risk exposures and potential liabilities that may not be adequately covered by indemnity or insurance.

 

A significant portion of our business relates to developing and manufacturing propulsion systems for defense and space applications, armament systems for precision tactical weapon systems and munitions applications. New technologies may be untested or unproven. In addition, we may incur significant liabilities that are unique to our products and services. In some, but not all, circumstances, we may receive indemnification from the U.S. government. While we maintain insurance for certain risks, the amount of our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all claims or liabilities, and it is not possible to obtain insurance to protect against all operational risks and

liabilities. Accordingly, we may be forced to bear substantial costs resulting from risks and uncertainties of our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

We use estimates in accounting for most of our programs. Changes in our estimates could affect our future financial results.

 

Contract accounting requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract sales and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of many of our contracts, the estimation of total sales and cost at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. For example, assumptions have to be made regarding the length of time to complete the contract because costs also include expected increases in wages and prices for materials. Similarly, assumptions have to be made regarding the future impacts of efficiency initiatives and cost reduction efforts. Incentives or penalties related to performance on contracts are considered in estimating sales and profit rates, and are recorded when there is sufficient information for us to assess anticipated performance. Estimates of award and incentive fees are also used in estimating sales and profit rates based on actual and anticipated awards. Because of the significance of the judgments and estimation processes described above, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if we used different assumptions or if the underlying circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances, or estimates may adversely affect our future period operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

 

New accounting standards could result in changes to our methods of quantifying and recording accounting transactions, and could affect our financial results.

 

Changes to generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America arise from new and revised standards, interpretations and other guidance issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), the SEC, and others. In addition, the U.S. government may issue new or revised Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) or Cost Principles. The effects of such changes may include prescribing an accounting method where none had been previously specified or prescribing a single acceptable method of accounting from among several acceptable methods that currently exist. Such changes could result in unanticipated effects on our operating results, financial condition and/or cash flows. In addition, should legislation and CAS alignment related to the PPA not occur, some of our cash contributions required under the PPA to our defined benefit pension plan may not be immediately recoverable, which could result in material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows. Further, our current Forward Pricing Rates (“FPRs”), did not yet reflect the full effect of the PPA requirements at November 30, 2009. The PPA funding requirements are expected to be incorporated into our FPRs when the CAS Board revises the applicable standards, as is required by the PPA.

 

The accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash is the subject of recent changes that could have a material effect on our reported financial results.

 

In May 2008, the FASB issued authoritative guidance which applies to convertible debt securities that, upon conversion, may be settled by the issuer fully or partially in cash. Under this new guidance, an entity must separately account for the liability and equity components of convertible debt securities that may be settled entirely or partially in cash upon conversion in a manner that reflects the issuer’s economic interest cost. The effect of the new guidance on the accounting for convertible debt securities that are affected is that the equity component would be included in the additional paid-in capital section of shareholders’ deficit on our consolidated balance sheets and the value of the equity component would be treated as original issue discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of convertible debt securities. We will adopt this guidance in the first quarter of fiscal 2010. Going forward, we expect to report a significant increase in non-cash interest expense in our financial results because this guidance requires interest to include both the current period’s amortization of the debt discount in addition to the instrument’s coupon interest.

 

Failure to maintain effective internal controls in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could negatively impact the market price of our common stock.

 

If, in the future, we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, as such standards are modified, supplemented or amended from time to time, we may not be able to ensure that we can conclude on an ongoing basis

that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could negatively impact the market price of our common stock.

 

 

 

Groundwater Cases

 

South El Monte Operable Unit (“SEMOU”) Related Cases

 

In October 2002, Aerojet and approximately 65 other individual and corporate defendants were 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 or to be incurred in response to the contamination present at the South El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site. The cases are denominated as follows:

 

San Gabriel Valley Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al. , Case No. CV-02-6346 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA, served October 30, 2002.

 

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al. , Case No. CV-02-4565 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA, served October 30, 2002.

 

Southern California Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al. , Case No. CV-02-6340 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA, served October 30, 2002.

 

The City of Monterey Park v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al. , Case No. CV-02-5909 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA, served October 30, 2002.

 

The cases have been coordinated for ease of administration by the court. The plaintiffs’ claims against Aerojet are based upon allegations of discharges from a former site in the El Monte area. The total cost estimate to implement projects under a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) prepared by the EPA and the water entities is approximately $90 million. Aerojet investigations do not identify a credible connection between the contaminants identified by the plaintiff 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 filed third-party complaints against several water entities on the basis that they introduced perchlorate-containing Colorado River water to the basin. Those water entities have filed motions to dismiss Aerojet’s complaints. The motions as well as discovery have been stayed, pending efforts to resolve the litigation through mediation. During the period in which the litigation has been stayed, EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the plaintiff water entities have reached settlements through the mediation process with various of the parties sued, which have been brought to the Federal District Court for approval. Certain of the settlements have been challenged by Aerojet and other defendants and are not finally resolved.

 

Aerojet has recently received correspondence from EPA on behalf of itself, the DTSC and the Water Entities regarding settlement. Aerojet intends to try to reach a good faith settlement with EPA, DTSC and the Water Entities to resolve claims. If settlement negotiations fail, the litigation stay is likely to be lifted and EPA may refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation, seeking to hold Aerojet liable for past and future costs, to recover costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and as to any accrued interest, penalties or statutory damages. Should settlement not be reached, Aerojet intends to vigorously defend itself.

 

Sacramento Cases

 

In December 2007, Aerojet was named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by six individuals who allegedly resided in the vicinity of Aerojet’s Sacramento facility. The case is entitled Caldwell et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation , Case No. 34-2000-00884000CU-TT-GDS, Sacramento County (CA) Superior Court and was served April 3, 2008. Plaintiffs allege that Aerojet contaminated groundwater to which plaintiffs were exposed and which caused plaintiffs illness and economic injury. Plaintiffs filed two subsequent amended complaints, naming additional plaintiffs. Aerojet filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint, which was denied by the trial court in December 2008. The court held that the issue as to whether the plaintiffs were on actual notice of the potential source of their injuries is an issue of fact for trial that cannot be resolved on demurrer. Aerojet’s subsequent Petition for a Writ of Mandate filed with the California Court of Appeal Third District, seeking reversal of the court’s ruling on the demurrer was denied without comment. Aerojet will continue to seek dismissal of those claims at the trial court level. On December 29, 2009, plaintiffs served a Third Amended Complaint, adding four additional plaintiffs to the action, which brings the total number of individuals on whose behalf suit has been filed to eighteen.

Aerojet will file an answer to the third amended complaint, denying liability. Discovery is continuing. The Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of these claims.

 

In August 2003, the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento County Water Agency (collectively, “SCWA”) and Aerojet entered into a water agreement (“Agreement”). Under the Agreement, Aerojet agreed to transfer remediated groundwater to SCWA. This was anticipated to satisfy Aerojet’s water replacement obligations in eastern Sacramento County. Subject to various provisions of the Agreement, including approval under the California Environmental Quality Act, SCWA assumed Aerojet’s responsibility for providing replacement water to American States Water Company and other impacted water purveyors up to the amount of remediated water Aerojet transfers to the County of Sacramento (“County”). Aerojet also agreed to pay SCWA approximately $13 million over several years toward the cost of constructing a replacement water supply project. If the amount of Aerojet’s transferred water was in excess of the replacement water provided to the impacted water purveyors, SCWA committed to make such water available for the entitlement of Aerojet’s land in an amount equal to the excess.

 

In April 2008, SCWA unilaterally terminated the Agreement. Subsequent to this unilateral termination of the Agreement, the Company and The Boeing Company (“Boeing,” successor to the McDonnell Douglas Corporation (“MDC”)), the former owner of the Inactive Rancho Cordova Test Site (“IRCTS”) entered into negotiations with SCWA in an attempt to resolve matters and reach a new agreement. Additionally, SCWA and Aerojet entered into a Tolling Agreement through June 30, 2009 tolling any suits or claims arising from environmental contamination or conditions on the former IRCTS property.

 

On June 30, 2009, SCWA notified Aerojet and Boeing that it was not prepared to extend the tolling period and intended to file suit. On July 1, 2009, the County and SCWA filed a complaint against Aerojet and Boeing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Sacramento, County of Sacramento; Sacramento County Water Agency v. Aerojet-General Corporation and The Boeing Corporation [sic], Civ. No. 2:09-at-1041. In the complaint, the County and SCWA alleged that because groundwater contamination from various sources including Aerojet, Boeing/MDC, and the former Mather Air Force Base, was continuing, the County and SCWA should be awarded unspecified monetary damages as well as declaratory and equitable relief. The complaint was served, but the parties entered into a joint stipulation on August 27, 2009, to stay all proceedings until May 30, 2010, pending settlement discussions. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding with any certainty at this time.

 

Vinyl Chloride Litigation

 

Between the early 1950s and 1985, the Company produced polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) resin at its former Ashtabula, Ohio facility. PVC is one of the most common forms 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”) have regulated workplace exposure to VC since 1974.

 

Since the mid-1990s, the Company has been named in numerous cases involving alleged exposure to VC. In the majority of such cases, the Company is alleged to be a “supplier/manufacturer” of PVC and/or a civil co-conspirator with other VC and PVC manufacturers as a result of membership in a trade association. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Company and other defendants suppressed information about the carcinogenic risk of VC to industry workers, and placed VC or PVC into commerce without sufficient warnings. A few of these cases alleged VC exposure through various aerosol consumer products, in that VC had been used as an aerosol propellant during the 1960s. Defendants in these “aerosol” cases included numerous consumer product manufacturers, as well as the more than 30 chemical manufacturers. The Company used VC internally, but never supplied VC for aerosol or any other use.

 

As of November 30, 2009, there was one vinyl chloride case pending against the Company which involved an employee at a facility owned or operated by others.

The following table sets forth information related to vinyl chloride litigation:

 

 

Legal and administrative fees for the vinyl chloride cases for fiscal years 2008 and 2007 were $0.3 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

 

Asbestos Litigation

 

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases have been filed in Madison County, Illinois and San Francisco, California. There were 134 cases pending as of November 30, 2009.

 

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

 

The following table sets forth information related to asbestos litigation:

 

 

 

 

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007 were $0.4 million, $0.5 million, and $0.9 million, respectively.

 

Snappon SA Wrongful Discharge Claims

 

In November 2003, the Company announced the closing of a manufacturing facility in Chartres, France owned by Snappon SA, a subsidiary of the Company, previously involved in the automotive business. In accordance with French law, Snappon SA negotiated with the local works’ council regarding the implementation of a social plan for the employees. Following the implementation of the social plan, approximately 188 of the 249 former Snappon employees sued Snappon SA in the Chartres Labour Court alleging wrongful discharge. The claims were heard in two groups. On February 19, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 2 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded damages of €1.9 million (approximately $2.7 million) plus interest. On April 7, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 1 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded damages of €1.0 million (approximately $1.4 million) plus interest. During the second quarter of

fiscal 2009, Snappon SA filed for declaration of suspensions of payments with the clerk’s office of the Paris Commercial Court, and the claims will likely be discharged through those proceedings.

 

Other Legal Proceedings

 

On August 31, 2004, the Company completed the sale of its GDX business to an affiliate of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. (“Cerberus”). In accordance with the divestiture agreement, the Company provided customary indemnification to Cerberus for certain liabilities accruing prior to the closing of the transaction (“the Closing”). Cerberus notified the Company of a claim by a GDX customer that alleges that certain parts manufactured by GDX prior to the Closing failed to meet customer specifications. The Company has assumed the defense of this matter and based on its investigation of the facts and defenses available under the contract and local law, and in November 2008 denied all liability for this claim. On January 23, 2009, GenCorp received correspondence from the GDX customer requesting that the Company provide it with a settlement proposal by February 6, 2009, threatening that it would initiate legal proceedings otherwise. GenCorp neither responded nor otherwise tolled the statute of limitations with negotiations. Nothing further has been received since then and no legal proceedings have been initiated.

 

In August 2007, the Company, along with numerous other companies, received from the USFWS a notice of a Natural Resource Damage (“NRD”) Assessment Plan for the Ottawa River and Northern Maumee Bay. The Company previously manufactured products for the automotive industry at a Toledo, Ohio site, which was adjacent to the Ottawa River. This facility was divested in 1990 and the Company indemnified the buyer for claims and liabilities arising out of certain pre-divestiture environmental matters. A group of PRPs, including GenCorp, was formed to respond to the NRD assessment and to pursue funding from the Great Lakes Legacy Act for primary restoration. The group has undertaken a restoration scoping study. Early data collection indicates that the primary restoration project total cost may be in the range of $47 to $49 million. The group has received a commitment for matching federal funds for the restoration project, which will consist of river dredging and land-filling river sediments. Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances with counsel, management has provided for what is believed to be a reasonable estimate of the loss exposure for this matter. Still unresolved at this time is the actual Natural Resource Damage Assessment itself. It is not possible to predict the outcome or timing of these types of assessments, which are typically lengthy processes lasting several years, or the amounts of or responsibility for these damages.

 

In 2008, Textileather, Inc. (“Textileather”), the current owner of the former Toledo, Ohio site, filed a lawsuit against the Company claiming, among other things, that the Company failed to indemnify and defend Textileather for certain contractual environmental obligations. A second suit related to past and future RCRA closure costs was filed in late 2009. A trial is scheduled for spring 2010. The Company is vigorously defending against both actions.

 

On January 6, 2010, the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service of the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD requesting that the Company produce a variety of documents pertaining to the allowability of certain costs under its contracts with the DoD from October 1, 2003 to the present. The Company is currently unable to predict what the outcome of the investigation will be or the impact, if any, the investigation may have on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the investigation and is preparing its response to the subpoena.

 

The Company and its subsidiaries 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, after reviewing the information that is currently available with respect to such matters, we believe that any liability that may ultimately be incurred with respect to these matters is not expected to materially affect our consolidated financial condition. It is possible that amounts incurred could be significant to our results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

 

 

Stock Performance Graph

 

The following graph compares the cumulative total shareholder returns on $100 invested in November 2004 assuming reinvestment of dividends of our Common Stock with the cumulative total return, assuming reinvestment of dividends, of (i) the Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite Stock Price Index (“S&P 500 Index”), and (ii) the Standard & Poor’s 500 Aerospace & Defense Index. The stock price performance shown on the graph is not necessarily indicative of future performance.

 

 

The following selected financial data is qualified by reference to and should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements, including the Notes thereto in Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, and Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

 

 

Unless otherwise indicated or required by the context, as used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms “we,” “our” and “us” refer to GenCorp Inc. and all of its subsidiaries that are consolidated in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

 

We begin Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations with an overview of our business and operations, followed by a discussion of our business outlook and results of operations, including results of our operating segments, for the past two fiscal years. We then provide an analysis of our liquidity and capital resources, including discussions of our cash flows, debt arrangements, sources of capital, and financial commitments. In the next section, we discuss the critical accounting policies that we believe are important to understanding the assumptions and judgments incorporated in our reported financial results.

 

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the other sections of this Report, including the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto appearing in Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Report, the risk factors appearing in Item 1A. Risk Factors of this Report and the disclaimer regarding forward-looking statements appearing at the beginning of Item 1. Business of this Report. Historical results set forth in Item 6. Selected Financial Data and Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Report should not be taken as indicative of our future operations.

 

Overview

 

We are a manufacturer of aerospace and defense systems with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and leasing of our excess real estate assets. Our continuing operations are organized into two segments:

 

Aerospace and Defense  — includes the operations of Aerojet which develops and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space applications, armament systems for precision tactical weapon systems and munitions applications. We are one of the largest providers of such propulsion systems in the U.S. Primary customers served include major prime contractors to the U.S. government, the DoD, and NASA.

 

Real Estate  — includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and leasing of our excess real estate assets. We own approximately 12,200 acres of Sacramento Land. We are currently in the process of seeking zoning changes, removal of environmental restrictions and other governmental approvals on a portion of the Sacramento Land to optimize its value. We have filed applications with and submitted information to governmental and regulatory authorities for approvals necessary to re-zone approximately 6,000 acres of the Sacramento Land. We also own approximately 580 acres in Chino Hills, California. We are currently seeking removal of environmental restrictions on the Chino Hills property to optimize the value of such land.

 

On August 31, 2004, we completed the sale of our GDX Automotive business. On November 30, 2005, we completed the sale of our Fine Chemicals business. The remaining subsidiaries after the sale of GDX Automotive, including Snappon SA, and the Fine Chemicals business are classified as discontinued operations in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

Business Outlook

 

Retirement Benefits  — We estimate that our non-cash net periodic benefit expense will be approximately $42 million in fiscal 2010 compared to income of $11.9 million in fiscal 2009. The significant increase in net periodic benefit expense is primarily due to a higher benefit obligation at November 30, 2009 and lower investment returns. The increased retirement benefit obligation was primarily related to a decrease in the discount rate used to determine that liability.

 

New Accounting Guidance on Convertible Debt Securities  — During the first quarter of fiscal 2010, we will adopt new authoritative guidance which applies to convertible debt securities that, upon conversion, may be settled by the issuer fully or partially in cash. Under this new guidance, an entity must separately account for the liability and equity components of convertible debt securities that may be settled entirely or partially in cash upon conversion in a manner that reflects the issuer’s economic interest cost. The effect of the new guidance on the

accounting for convertible debt securities that are affected is that the equity component would be included in the additional paid-in capital section of shareholders’ deficit on our consolidated balance sheets and the value of the equity component would be treated as original issue discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of convertible debt securities. We expect to report a significant increase in non-cash interest expense beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2010 because this guidance requires interest to include both the current period’s amortization of the debt discount and the instrument’s coupon interest.

 

 

Customers that represented more than 10% of net sales for the fiscal years presented are as follows:

 

 

Sales in fiscal 2009, 2008, and 2007 directly and indirectly to the U.S. government and its agencies, including sales to our significant customers discussed above, totaled $701.3 million, $641.7 million, and $665.9 million, respectively. The demand for certain of our services and products is directly related to the level of funding of government programs.

 

During fiscal 2009, approximately 51% of our net sales were from fixed-price contracts, 37% from cost reimbursable contracts, and 12% from other sales including commercial contracts and real estate activities.

 

 

 

 

 

The factors discussed above were partially offset by the following:

 

 

 

 

The factors discussed above were partially offset by the following:

 

 

 

Depreciation and amortization

 

 

 

 

Other expense (income), net

 

 

 

 

Unusual Items

 

 

 

 

In fiscal 2009, we recorded a charge of $1.3 million for realized losses and interest associated with our failure to register with the SEC the issuance of certain of our common shares under our defined contribution 401(k) employee benefit plan. During fiscal 2009, we also incurred a charge of $3.1 million associated with executive severance agreements. Additionally, we recorded costs of $0.2 million related to a bank amendment.

 

On November 25, 2008, we decided to amend our defined benefit pension and benefits restoration plans to freeze future accruals under such plans. Effective February 1, 2009, we discontinued future benefit accruals for all current salaried employees. No employees lost their previously earned pension benefit. As a result of the defined benefit pension plan amendment and freeze, we incurred a curtailment charge of $14.6 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 primarily due to the immediate recognition of unrecognized prior service costs.

 

On March 5, 2008, we entered into a second amended and restated shareholder agreement (“Shareholder Agreement”) with respect to the election of Directors for the 2008 Annual Meeting and certain other related matters which resulted in a charge of $13.8 million in the first half of fiscal 2008. Additionally, during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, we incurred a charge of $3.0 million associated with two executive severance agreements. The charges were comprised of the following (in millions):

 

 

As a result of the Shareholder Agreement, the executive severance agreements required us to fund into a grantor trust on March 12, 2008, an amount equal to $34.8 million, which represents liabilities associated with the Benefits Restoration Plan Pension and Savings Plans (“BRP”) and amounts payable to certain officers party to executive severance agreements in the event of qualifying terminations of employment following a change in control (as defined in the BRP and the executive severance agreements). In addition, as a result of the resignation of three additional Board members on May 16, 2008, we were required to fund $0.4 million into a grantor trust on May 22, 2008, which primarily represents the amount payable to an officer party to an executive severance agreement in the event of a qualifying termination of employment.

 

In fiscal 2008, we recorded a charge of $2.9 million related to the estimated unrecoverable costs of legal matters, including $1.7 million associated with the failure to register with the SEC the issuance of certain of our common shares under our defined contribution 401(k) employee benefit plan and $1.2 million related to a legal settlement and other legal matters. We also recorded a $1.2 million gain related to an insurance settlement for an environmental claim.

 

In fiscal 2007, we recorded an expense of $3.8 million related to estimated costs associated with environmental toxic tort legal matters. We recorded an expense of $2.3 million for tax refunds that were repaid to our defense customers. We also recorded a gain of $6.0 million related to an adjustment of reserves for the allocation of pension benefit costs to U.S. government contracts. We incurred a charge of $0.6 million associated with the replacement of the previous credit facility.

 

Interest expense

 

 

 

 

Interest income

 

 

 

 

Income tax (benefit) provision

 

 

The income tax benefit of $17.6 million in fiscal 2009 was primarily related to new guidance that was published by the Chief Counsel’s Office of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in December 2008 clarifying which costs qualify for ten-year carryback of tax net operating losses for refund of prior years’ taxes. As a result of the clarifying language, during the first quarter of fiscal 2009, we recorded an income tax benefit of $19.7 million, of which $14.5 million was for the release of the valuation allowance associated with the utilization of the qualifying tax net operating losses and $5.2 million was for the recognition of affirmative claims related to previous uncertain tax positions associated with prior years refund claims related to the qualifying costs.

 

In fiscal 2008, although we generated $2.5 million in income from continuing operations, we had a tax loss primarily related to the impact of a fiscal 2008 change in tax method of accounting adopted for unbilled receivables. The new tax method of accounting adopted in fiscal 2008 in accordance with guidance published by the IRS defers such revenue until the all events test is met for tax purposes. The fiscal 2008 tax net operating loss from continuing operations resulted in an income tax benefit of $9.5 million for carryback to prior years and a refund of previously paid taxes. Due to the tightening of the credit market in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, a tax planning strategy relied on for realizability of a portion of the deferred tax assets ceased to be prudent and feasible, resulting in a charge to deferred income tax expense of $8.0 million and a corresponding increase to the valuation allowance.

 

Our income tax benefit in fiscal 2007 reflects a $6.3 million benefit from continuing operations for the carryback of current and prior year losses resulting in refunds of previously paid taxes and a $12.2 million benefit primarily from U.S. federal and state income tax settlements including research and development credit claim benefits, manufacturer’s investment credit claim benefits, and certain statute expirations, which was partially offset by $0.4 million of current state tax expense.

 

The year of expiration for our state and U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards as of November 30, 2009 is as follows:

 

Approximately $9.2 million of the net operating loss carryforward relates to the exercise of stock options, the benefit of which will be credited to equity when realized. In addition, we also have U.S. federal and state capital loss carryforwards of approximately $7.8 million and $0.2 million, respectively, which will begin to expire in fiscal 2010. The decrease in capital loss carryforwards from the previous fiscal year was the result of:

 

 

We also have a U.S. federal research credit carryforward of $7.2 million which begins expiring in fiscal 2021, and a California research credit carryforward of $4.1 million which has an indefinite carryforward period. Additionally, we have a California manufacturing investment credit carryforward of $0.6 million which will begin to expire in fiscal 2011; and a foreign tax credit carryforward of $5.9 million which will begin to expire in fiscal 2010, if not utilized. These tax carryforwards are subject to examination by the tax authorities.

 

Discontinued Operations:

 

In November 2003, we announced the closing of a GDX manufacturing facility in Chartres, France owned by Snappon SA, a subsidiary of the Company. 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. In fiscal 2004, an expense of approximately $14.0 million related to employee social costs was recorded. An expense of $1.0 million was recorded during fiscal 2005 primarily related to employee social costs that became estimable in fiscal 2005. During fiscal 2009, an expense of approximately $4.1 million (€2.9 million) was recorded related to legal judgments rendered against Snappon SA under French law, related to wrongful discharge claims by certain former employees of Snappon SA. During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, Snappon SA filed for declaration of suspensions of payments with the clerk’s office of the Paris Commercial Court (see Note 7(b) in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).

 

During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we entered into an earn-out and seller note repayment agreement (“Repayment Agreement”) with American Pacific Corporation (“AMPAC”) under which AMPAC was required to pay $29.7 million in consideration for the early retirement of the seller note (including interest due thereunder), the full payment of the earn-out amount and the release of certain liabilities related to the sale of our Fine Chemicals business on November 30, 2005. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we recorded a gain from discontinued operations of $31.2 million as a result of receiving $29.7 million of cash from AMPAC and being released from certain liabilities in accordance with the Repayment Agreement.

 

Summarized financial information for discontinued operations is set forth below:

 

 

Operating Segment Information:

 

We evaluate our operating segments based on several factors, of which the primary financial measure is segment performance. Segment performance, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, represents net sales from continuing operations less applicable costs, expenses and provisions for unusual items relating to the segment. Excluded from segment performance are: corporate income and expenses, interest expense, interest income, income taxes, legacy income or expenses, and provisions for unusual items not related to the segment. We believe that segment performance provides information useful to investors in understanding our underlying operational

performance. Specifically, we believe the exclusion of the items listed above permits an evaluation and a comparison of results for ongoing business operations, and it is on this basis that management internally assesses operational performance.

 

 

 

 

The increase in segment performance in fiscal 2009 as compared to fiscal 2008 was primarily the result of: (i) a decrease of $23.6 million in non-cash retirement benefit plan expense in fiscal 2009; (ii) decrease of $15.2 million in unusual charges in fiscal 2009 primarily related to the freeze of the defined benefit pension plan in fiscal 2008; (iii) a decrease of $4.3 million for estimated future environmental remediation obligations in fiscal 2009; and (iv) favorable contract performance on higher net sales and other in fiscal 2009 resulting in a $6.4 million increase in segment performance.

 

 

The decrease in segment performance in fiscal 2008 compared to fiscal 2007 was primarily the result of: (i) the favorable performance on the close-out of the Titan program in fiscal 2007; (ii) an unusual charge in fiscal 2008 related to the freeze of the defined benefit pension plan; and (iii) higher estimated environmental remediation costs in fiscal 2008; partially offset by decreased retirement benefit plan expense in fiscal 2008.

 

 

 

 

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 our 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 at certain plants in the 1950s and 1960s. In addition, we have been designated a potentially responsible party 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 remediation required, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, evolving technologies and the long period of time over which most remediation efforts take place. We:

 

 

In addition to the costs associated with environmental remediation discussed above, we incur expenditures for recurring costs associated with managing hazardous substances or pollutants in ongoing operations which totaled $8.4 million in fiscal 2009, $13.5 million in fiscal 2008, and $6.3 million in fiscal 2007.

 

Reserves

 

We review on a quarterly basis estimated future remediation costs that could be incurred over the contractual term or next fifteen years of the expected remediation. We have an established practice of estimating environmental remediation costs over a fifteen year period, except for those environmental remediation costs with a specific contractual term. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs increases, the reliability of such estimates decrease. These estimates consider the investigative work and analysis of engineers, outside environmental consultants, and the advice of 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 estimate is used when determinable; otherwise, the minimum amount is used when no single amount in the range is more probable. Accordingly, such estimates can change as we periodically evaluate and revise such estimates as new information becomes available. We cannot predict whether new information gained as projects progress will affect the estimated liability accrued. The timing of payment for estimated future environmental costs is influenced by a number of factors such as the regulatory approval process, the time required to design the process, the time to construct the process, and the time required to conduct the remedy itself.

 

A summary of our environmental reserve activity is shown below: