Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents. International Coal Group, Inc. (1320934) 10-Q published on May 06, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Reporting Period: Mar 30, 2011
In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update 2009-13, Revenue Recognition (“ASU 2009-13”). ASU 2009-13 provides amendments to the criteria in Accounting Standards Codification Subtopic 605-24 for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. It establishes a hierarchy of selling prices to determine the selling price of each specific deliverable, which includes vendor-specific objective evidence if available, third-party evidence if vendor-specific objective evidence is not available or estimated selling price if neither of the first two are available. ASU 2009-13 also eliminates the residual method for allocating revenue between the elements of an arrangement and requires that arrangement consideration be allocated at the inception of the arrangement and expands the disclosure requirements regarding a vendor’s multiple-deliverable revenue arrangement. ASU 2009-13 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. Adoption of ASU 2009-13 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The 2017 Convertible Notes became convertible at the option of holders beginning April 1, 2011 because the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange exceeded $7.55 (130% of the conversion price of $5.81 per share) for each of 20 or more trading days in the period of 30 consecutive trading days ending on March 31, 2011. As a result, the Company has included the 2017 Convertible Notes in the current portion of long-term debt in its consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2011. Additionally, the Company has included debt issuance costs related to the 2017 Convertible Notes totaling $2,554 as a current asset in prepaid expenses and other in its consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2011. The Company will reassess the convertibility of the 2017 Convertible Notes, and the related balance sheet classification, on a quarterly basis. In the event that a holder exercises the right to convert its 2017 Convertible Notes, the Company will write-off a ratable portion of the associated debt issuance costs. In the event that a holder elects to convert its Convertible Note, the Company expects to fund any cash settlement of any such conversion from cash on hand.
Allegheny Energy Supply (“Allegheny”), the sole customer of coal produced at the Company’s subsidiary Wolf Run Mining Company’s (“Wolf Run”) Sycamore No. 2 mine, filed a lawsuit against Wolf Run, Hunter Ridge Holdings, Inc. (“Hunter Ridge”), and the Company in state court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on December 28, 2006, and amended its complaint on April 23, 2007. Allegheny claimed that Wolf Run breached a coal supply contract when it declared force majeure under the contract upon idling the Sycamore No. 2 mine in the third quarter of 2006, and that Wolf Run continued to breach the contract by failing to ship in volumes referenced in the contract. The Sycamore No. 2 mine was idled after encountering adverse geologic conditions and abandoned gas wells that were previously unidentified and unmapped. After extensive searching for gas wells and rehabilitation of the mine, it was re-opened in 2007, but with notice to Allegheny that it would necessarily operate at reduced volumes in order to safely and effectively avoid the many gas wells within the reserve. The amended complaint also alleged that the production stoppages constitute a breach of the guarantee agreement by Hunter Ridge and breach of certain representations made upon entering into the contract in early 2005. Allegheny voluntarily dropped the breach of representation claims later. Allegheny claimed that it will incur costs in excess of $100,000 to purchase replacement coal over the life of the contract. The Company, Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge answered the amended complaint on August 13, 2007, disputing all of the remaining claims. On November 3, 2008, the Company, Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge filed an amended answer and counterclaim against the plaintiffs seeking to void the coal supply agreement due to, among other things, fraudulent inducement and conspiracy. On September 23, 2009, Allegheny filed a second amended complaint alleging several alternative theories of liability in its effort to extend contractual liability to the Company, which was not a party to the original contract and did not exist at the time Wolf Run and Allegheny entered into the contract. No new substantive claims were asserted. The Company answered the second amended complaint on October 13, 2009, denying all of the new claims. The Company’s counterclaim was dismissed on motion for summary judgment entered on May 11, 2010. Allegheny’s claims against International Coal Group, Inc. were also dismissed by summary judgment, but the claims against Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge were not. The court conducted a non-jury trial of this matter beginning on January 10, 2011 and concluding on February 1, 2011. At the trial, Allegheny presented its evidence for breach of contract and claimed that it is entitled to past and future damages in the aggregate of between $228,000 and $377,000. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge presented their defense of the claims, including evidence with respect to the existence of force majeure conditions and excuse under the contract and applicable law. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge presented evidence that Allegheny’s damages calculations were significantly inflated because it did not seek to determine cover as of the time of the breach and in some instances artificially assumed future non-delivery or did not take into account the apparent requirement to supply coal in the future. On May 2, 2011, the trial court entered a Memorandum and Verdict determining that Wolf Run had breached the coal supply contract and that the performance shortfall was not excused by force majeure. The trial court awarded total damages and interest in the amount of $104,104. The Company expects to pursue motions for reconsideration and other post-verdict motions in the trial court, after which the Company expects to appeal to the Pennsylvania appellate court, if necessary. No appeal bond is necessary while post-verdict motions are pending with the trial court, but an appeal bond equal to the damages assessed may have to be posted in the future. The verdict is not expected to adversely impact the merger transaction with Arch Coal, Inc.
On May 2, 2011, we received an adverse trial court ruling in the action filed by Allegheny Energy Supply and Monongahela Power Company (“Allegheny”) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In its ruling, the trial court judge held that our Wolf Run Mining Company subsidiary breached its coal supply agreement with Allegheny and is liable for past and future damages and interest in the total amount of approximately $104.1 million. We intend to avail ourselves of post-verdict remedies and to appeal the ruling, if necessary. In the event of an appeal, we intend to post a bond in the amount of the ruling using cash on hand and available credit capacity.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts. These estimates and assumptions are based on information available as of the date of the financial statements. Accounting measurements at interim dates inherently involve greater reliance on estimates than at year-end. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of results that can be expected for the full year. Please refer to the section entitled “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” of Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 for a discussion of our critical accounting policies and estimates.