Business News
Graham Packaging Releases Third Quarter 2009 Results
Tuesday 03. November 2009 - Graham Packaging Holdings Company (the "Company" or "Graham Packaging"), parent company of Graham Packaging Company, L.P., today announced results for the third quarter.
Net sales for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, were $588.8 million compared to $659.1 million for the same quarter last year, a decrease of 10.7%. Unit volumes increased 5.4% in the quarter, but were offset by lower resin costs, which are passed through to customers, and the effect of foreign exchange rates. The market price per pound of PET resin in the U.S. averaged $0.77 in the third quarter of 2009 compared to $0.96 in the third quarter of 2008, and the market price per pound of HDPE resin in the U.S. averaged $0.69 in the third quarter of 2009 compared to $1.01 in the third quarter of 2008. The effect of exchange rates reduced sales by $23.6 million.
In North America, sales decreased $61.7 million, or 11.0%, due to a combination of lower resin costs and the impact of exchange rates, partially offset by an increase in unit volume. In Europe, sales decreased $9.4 million, or 13.3%, primarily due to the impact of exchange rates of $7.8 million and lower resin costs. In South America, sales increased $0.8 million, or 3.0%, primarily due to an increase in unit volumes, partially offset by the impact of exchange rates of $3.7 million.
Operating income for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, increased to $71.6 million from $51.4 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2008. The increase was driven by continued productivity initiatives and an increase in unit volume, along with lower depreciation and amortization expense and asset impairment charges versus the prior year. This was partially offset by the negative impact of exchange rates.
Interest expense for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, increased to $50.2 million from $42.2 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2008, an increase of 19.0%. The increase was due to higher interest rates on the portion of the Company’s term loan which was extended in May 2009.
Income tax expense increased by $4.5 million primarily due to a tax benefit recognized in the third quarter of 2008 for an asset tax credit carryforward in Mexico.
As of the end of the third quarter, the Company had made a decision to sell a European subsidiary. Accordingly, the Company has reported the results of this subsidiary’s operations as discontinued operations for all years reported.
Primarily as a result of the factors discussed above, net income for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, increased to $12.8 million from $5.7 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2008.
Mark Burgess, CEO of Graham, commented on the Company’s performance. “I am pleased with our performance in the third quarter. Our sales improvement program and strengthening market volumes drove unit volume gains that, along with continued productivity initiatives and cost containment, led to increased covenant compliance EBITDA. These results, when combined with our working capital management and disciplined approach to capital spending, translated into strong cash flow performance. While sales volumes have shown improvement, we are still cautious about the overall economic environment, and will remain focused on implementing productivity initiatives, controlling expenses and managing working capital.”
For the nine months ended September 30, 2009, net sales decreased 13.3% to $1,736.4 million from $2,003.4 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2008. Operating income over the same periods increased 14.3% to $210.3 million from $184.0 million and net income increased to $66.5 million from $37.8 million.
Covenant compliance EBITDA* (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) totaled $471.0 million for the four quarters ended September 30, 2009.
Reconciliation of loss from continuing operations to EBITDA
Four Quarters
Ended
September 30,
2009
——–
(In millions)
Loss from continuing operations $(15.8)
Interest income (1.1)
Interest expense 172.0
Income tax provision 18.7
Depreciation and amortization 161.9
—–
EBITDA $335.7
======
Reconciliation of EBITDA to covenant compliance EBITDA
Four Quarters
Ended
September 30,
2009
——–
(In millions)
EBITDA $335.7
Asset impairment charges 98.4
Other non-cash charges (a) 6.6
Fees related to monitoring agreements (b) 5.0
Gain on debt extinguishment (0.8)
Non-recurring items (c) 26.1
—-
Covenant compliance EBITDA $471.0
======
(a) Represents the net loss on disposal of fixed assets and stock-based
compensation expense.
(b) Represents annual fees paid to Blackstone Management Partners III
L.L.C. and a limited partner of the Company under certain agreements.
(c) The Company is required to adjust EBITDA, as defined above, for the
following non-recurring items as defined in its credit agreement:
Four Quarters
Ended
September 30,
2009
——–
(In millions)
Reorganization and other costs (i) $14.0
Project startup costs (ii) 12.1
—-
$26.1
=====
(i) Represents non-recurring costs related to employee severance, plant
closures, the hurricanes of Gustav and Ike, professional fees
associated with an aborted transaction and other costs defined in
the Company’s credit agreement.
(ii) Represents costs associated with startups of manufacturing lines to
produce new products.
*Covenant compliance EBITDA is defined as EBITDA (i.e., earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) further adjusted to exclude non-recurring items, non-cash items and other adjustments required in calculating covenant compliance under the Company’s credit agreement and its indentures. Covenant compliance EBITDA is not intended to represent cash flow from operations as defined by generally accepted accounting principles and should not be used as an alternative to net income as an indicator of operating performance or to cash flow as a measure of liquidity. The Company believes that the inclusion of covenant compliance EBITDA is appropriate to provide additional information to investors about the calculation of certain financial covenants in the Company’s credit agreement and its indentures. Because not all companies use identical calculations, these presentations of covenant compliance EBITDA may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies.