ITEM 1. BUSINESS
Our Company
Cott Corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries (“Cott,” “the Company,” “our Company,” “Cott Corporation,” “we,” “us,” or “our”), is one of the world’s largest producers of beverages on behalf of retailers, brand owners and distributors. Our product lines include carbonated soft drinks (“CSDs”), 100% shelf stable juice and juice-based products, clear, still and sparkling flavored waters, energy products, sports products, new age beverages, and ready-to-drink teas, as well as alcoholic beverages for brand owners. Our business operates through five reporting segments-North America (which includes our U.S. operating segment and Canada operating segment), United Kingdom (“U.K.”) (which includes our United Kingdom reporting unit and our Continental European reporting unit), Mexico, Royal Crown International (“RCI”) and All Other.
We incorporated in 1955 and are governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act. Our registered Canadian office is located at 333 Avro Avenue, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada H9R 5W3 and our principal executive offices are located at 5519 W. Idlewild Avenue, Tampa, Florida, United States 33634 and 6525 Viscount Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L4V 1H6.
Competitive Strengths
We believe that our competitive strengths will enable us to maintain our position as one of the world’s largest beverage companies on behalf of retailers, brand owners and distributors and will allow us to capitalize on future opportunities to drive sustainable and profitable growth.
Leading Producer of Private-Label Beverages with Diverse Product Portfolio and Contract Manufacturing Capabilities
We currently have the leading private-label market share in each of the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom by annual volume of cases produced. We also manufacture beverages on a contract basis for certain customers. Our product lines include CSDs, 100% shelf stable juice and juice-based products, clear, still and sparkling flavored waters, energy products, sports products, new age beverages, and ready-to-drink teas, as well as alcoholic beverages for brand owners. We believe our proven ability to innovate and develop our product portfolio to meet changing consumer demand will position us well to continue to serve our customers and their consumers. During 2012, we launched more than 100 new product stock keeping units (“SKUs”), including new flavor profiles, new package types and new product category introductions for our customers.
We market or supply over 500 retailer, licensed and Company-owned brands in our four core geographic segments. We sell CSD concentrates and non-carbonated concentrates in over 50 countries. We believe that our leadership position, our broad portfolio offering and our existing infrastructure will enable us to continue to penetrate the private-label and contract manufacturing markets, whether it is winning new customers, launching new product SKUs with existing customers, or supplying retailers who currently self-manufacture.
Extensive, Flexible Manufacturing Capabilities
Our business is supported by our extensive manufacturing network and flexible production capabilities. Our manufacturing footprint encompasses 33 strategically located beverage manufacturing and fruit processing facilities, including 20 in the United States, five in Canada, six in the United Kingdom and one in Mexico, as well as one vertically-integrated global concentrate manufacturing facility in Columbus, Georgia.
We are the only dedicated beverage company producing on behalf of retailers, brand owners and distributors with a manufacturing footprint across North America. Manufacturing flexibility is one of our core competencies and is critical to our success, as our products will typically feature customized packaging, design and graphics for our key customers. Our ability to produce multiple SKUs and packages on our production lines and manage complexities through quick-line changeover processes differentiates us from our competition.
High Levels of Customer Service and Strong Customer Integration
Our business requires a high level of coordination with our customers in areas such as supply chain, product development and customer service. In addition to efficiently managing complex product manufacturing, we have a proven track record of maintaining high service levels across our customer base. We also partner closely with customers on supply chain planning and execution to minimize freight costs, reduce working capital requirements and increase in-store product availability. We work as partners with our customers on new product development and packaging designs. Our role includes providing market expertise as well as knowledge of category trends that may present opportunities for our customers. A high level of customer integration and partnership coupled with a nationwide manufacturing footprint is critical for the development of successful beverage programs for our customers.
Strategic Importance to Our Customers
We have longstanding partnerships with many of the world’s leading retailers in the grocery, mass-merchandise and drug store channels, as well as customers for whom we manufacture beverages on a contract basis, giving our customers access to high-quality, affordable beverages. Our competitive advantages include:
•
beverage manufacturing expertise;
•
vertically integrated, low-cost production platform;
•
one-stop sourcing;
•
category insights and marketing expertise;
•
supply chain and high quality consistency in products; and
•
product innovation and differentiation.
For 2012, our top 10 customers accounted for 54.2% of total revenue. Walmart was the only customer that accounted for more than 10% of our total revenue for the period. We have established long-standing relationships with most of our top 10 customers. As a result of our high product quality and commitment to service, coupled with a national manufacturing footprint, we believe we will continue to play a meaningful role in helping our customers develop strategies to build loyalty with consumers.
Business Strategy
Our primary goal is to maintain long-term profitability and enhance our position as the market leader and preferred supplier of beverages on behalf of retailers, brand owners, and distributors in the markets where we operate. Continued leadership in our core markets will enable us to sustain and grow profitability as we drive for increased penetration and share growth within our core product categories. We believe that the following strategies will help us to achieve our goal.
Maintain Customer Focus
Customer relationships are important for any business, but at Cott, where many of our products bear our customers’ brand names, we must maintain particularly close partnerships with our customers. We will continue to provide our customers with high quality products and service at an attractive value that will help them provide quality, value-oriented products to their consumers.
We will continue to focus on our high levels of customer service, as well as innovations through the introduction of new packages, flavors and varieties of beverages. We believe our focus on our customers will enable us to leverage our existing relationships and to develop new ones in existing and new markets. As a fast follower of innovative products, our goal is to identify new products that are succeeding in the marketplace and develop similar products of high quality for our customers to offer their consumers at a better value.
Control Operating Costs
We understand that our long-term success will be closely tied to our ability to remain a low-cost supplier. Effective management of our operating costs is critical to our success. As part of our ongoing management of costs, we enter into contract commitments with suppliers of key raw materials such as aluminum sheet metal, high fructose corn syrup (“HFCS”), polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) bottles, caps and preforms, fruit and fruit concentrates. On an ongoing basis we review our fixed overhead and manufacturing costs for opportunities for further reductions. In 2010, we implemented modest cost reductions as we continued to reduce overhead costs, consistent with the cost reduction program implemented in 2009. In 2011, we transformed the Company’s information technology function from a nearly 100% outsourced, single vendor relationship to a combination of in-house resources and multi-vendor strategy, significantly reducing our total information technology spending. In 2012, we began to vertically integrate our manufacturing capabilities in order to manufacture our products with increased efficiency and at a lower cost.
Control Capital Expenditures and Rigorously Manage Working Capital
Consistent with our status as a low-cost supplier, we leverage our existing manufacturing capacity to maintain an efficient supply chain. We are committed to carefully prioritizing our capital investments that provide the best financial returns for Cott and for our customers, while maintaining safety, efficiency and superior product quality. Our manufacturing facilities operate according to the highest standards of safety and product quality. We perform regular third-party audits of our facilities and are subject to quality audits on behalf of our customers. We will continue to evaluate growth and other opportunities, while remaining mindful of our total capital expenditure targets.
In 2012, our capital expenditures were devoted primarily to maintaining existing beverage production facilities, making equipment upgrades and expansion in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada and expenditures related to vertically integrating our manufacturing capabilities.
Cash Flow Management
We believe that a strong financial position will enable us to capitalize on opportunities in the marketplace. As a result, we continuously review and improve the effectiveness of our cash management processes. We strive to achieve the most optimal working capital level, rationalize our capital expenditures and continuously drive operating cost improvements to enhance cash flow.
Pursue Select Acquisitions
We believe that opportunities exist for us to enhance our scale, reduce fixed manufacturing costs and broaden our product portfolio. In August 2010, we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Cliffstar Corporation (“Cliffstar”) and its affiliated companies (the “Cliffstar Acquisition”) for an aggregate purchase price of $552.8 million, which provided us with a foothold in the North America private-label juice market. In March of 2012, our U.K. reporting segment acquired a beverage and wholesale business based in Scotland for approximately $5.0 million. The business acquisition provided increased product offerings, logistical synergies and access to an additional production line. We intend to continue to evaluate and pursue strategic opportunities to enhance our industry position, strengthen our business and build value for our shareholders.
Principal Markets and Products
We estimate that as of the end of 2012, we produced (either directly or through third party manufacturers with whom we have co-packing agreements) a majority of all retailer brand CSDs and juice sold in the United States, as well as a majority of all retailer brand CSDs and sports and energy products sold in the United Kingdom.
We have a diversified product portfolio across major beverage categories, including beverages that are on-trend with consumer demand. In 2012, CSDs, juice, concentrate, and all other products represented 39.1%, 24.2%, 1.9% and 34.8% as a percentage of revenue, respectively. In 2011, CSDs, juice, concentrate, and all other products represented 40.7%, 25.8%, 1.6% and 31.9% as a percentage of revenue, respectively. In 2010, CSDs, juice, concentrate, and all other products represented 50.4%, 13.1%, 2.2% and 34.3% as a percentage of revenue, respectively.
We believe that opportunities exist to increase sales of beverages in our core markets by leveraging existing customer relationships, capitalizing on cross-selling and up-selling opportunities, obtaining new customers, manufacturing beverages (including alcoholic beverages) on a contract basis for new and existing customers, exploring new channels of distribution and introducing new products.
Restructuring Initiatives
In 2007, we implemented the North American Realignment and Cost Reduction Plan (the “North American Plan”) to consolidate the management of our Canadian and U.S. businesses to a North American basis, among other objectives. In 2010, we paid the remaining lease termination costs incurred in connection with the North American Plan.
We did not incur any restructuring charges in 2012 or 2011, and we do not anticipate incurring any additional restructuring charges related to the North American Plan in the future.
Financial Information about Segments
For financial information about reporting segments and geographic areas, see Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Manufacturing and Distribution Network
Substantially all of our beverages are manufactured in facilities that we, or third-party manufacturers with whom we have long-term co-packing agreements, either own or lease. We rely on third parties to produce and distribute products in areas or markets where we do not have our own production facilities, such as in continental Europe, or when additional production capacity is required.
Our products are either picked up by our customers at our facilities or delivered by us, a common carrier, or third-party distributors to our customers’ distribution centers or to retail locations.
Ingredient and Packaging Supplies
In addition to water, the principal raw materials required to produce our products are aluminum cans and ends, PET bottles, caps and preforms, labels, cartons and trays, sweeteners, such as HFCS and sugar, fruit concentrates and fruit. The cost of these raw materials can fluctuate substantially over time.
Under many of our supply arrangements for these raw materials, the price we pay fluctuates along with certain changes in underlying commodity costs, such as aluminum in the case of cans and ends, resin in the case of PET bottles, caps and preforms, corn in the case of HFCS, fruit and fruit concentrates. We believe that we will be able to either renegotiate contracts with these suppliers when they expire or find alternative sources for supply. We also believe there is adequate supply of the ingredient and packaging materials used to produce and package our products.
Generally, we bear the risk of increases in the costs of the ingredient and packaging materials used to produce our products, including the underlying costs of the commodities used to manufacture them and, to some extent, the costs of converting those commodities into the materials we purchase.
Aluminum for cans and ends, resin for PET bottles, caps and preforms, corn for HFCS, sugar, fruit and fruit concentrates are examples of underlying commodities for which we bear the risk of increases in costs. In addition, the contracts for certain of our ingredient and packaging materials permit our suppliers to increase the costs they charge us based on increases in their cost of converting the underlying commodities into the materials we purchase. In certain cases those increases are subject to negotiated limits. Changes in the prices we pay for ingredient and packaging materials occur at times that vary by product and supplier, and take place, on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis.
Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. (“CCS”) supplies us with aluminum cans and ends under a contract entered into in 2010 with a multi-year term. The contract provides that CCS will supply our aluminum cans and ends requirements worldwide, subject to certain exceptions. The contract contains pricing mechanisms for certain materials and representations, warranties, indemnities and termination events (including termination events related to bankruptcy or insolvency of either party) that we believe to be customary. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for a majority of our forecasted aluminum requirements for 2012 and entered into fixed price commitments for a majority of our aluminum requirements for 2013 and a portion of our aluminum requirements for 2014.
PET resin prices have fluctuated significantly in recent years as the price of oil has fluctuated and demand for synthetic fibers has increased. Because PET resin is not a traded commodity, no fixed price mechanism has been implemented, and we expect to pay prevailing market prices for our PET resin needs. Although PET resin is not a traded commodity, at times we are able to enter into short-term fixed price commitments. During 2012, we entered into fixed price commitments for a portion of our PET resin requirements for the second and third quarter of the year.
Corn has a history of volatile price changes. We expect that corn market prices will continue to fluctuate as a result of an increase in the demand for corn-related products such as ethanol. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for all of our HFCS requirements for 2012 and entered into fixed price commitments for all of our HFCS requirements for 2013. We do not have volume commitments for HFCS.
The sugar market is susceptible to volatility as well. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for all of our sugar requirements for 2012 and entered into fixed price commitments for all of our sugar requirements for 2013.
Fruit and fruit concentrate prices have been, and we expect them to continue to be, subject to significant volatility. While fruit is available from numerous independent suppliers, these raw materials are subject to fluctuations in price attributable to, among other things, changes in crop size and federal and state agricultural programs. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for a majority of our fruit concentrate and fruit requirements for 2012 and entered into fixed price commitments for a portion of our fruit concentrate and fruit requirements for 2013.
Trade Secrets, Copyrights, Trademarks and Licenses
We sell the majority of our beverages under retailer brands to customers who own the trademarks associated with those products. We also own registrations, or applications to register, various trademarks that are important to our worldwide business, including Cott®, Red Rain® and Orient Emporium Tea Co.™ in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, Stars & Stripes®, Vess®, Vintage®, So Clear®, Shanstar®, Harvest Classic®, Chadwick Bay® and Golden Crown® in the United States, Emerge®, Red Rooster®, MacB®, Carters®, and Ben Shaws® in the United Kingdom, Stars & Stripes® in Mexico, and RC® in more than 100 countries and territories outside of North America. Moreover, we are licensed to use certain trademarks such as Old Jamaica Ginger Beer™ and Ting™ in the United Kingdom. The licenses to which we are a party are of varying terms, including some that are perpetual. Trademark ownership is generally of indefinite duration when marks are properly maintained in commercial use.
Our success depends in part on our intellectual property, which includes trade secrets in the form of concentrate formulas for our beverages and trademarks for the names of the beverages we sell. To protect this intellectual property, we rely principally on registration of trademarks, contractual responsibilities and restrictions in agreements (such as indemnification, nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements) with employees, consultants and customers, and on the common law and/or statutory protections afforded to trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and proprietary “know-how.” We also closely monitor the use of our trademarks and when necessary vigorously pursue any party that infringes on our trademarks, using all available legal remedies.
Seasonality of Sales and Working Capital
The beverage market is subject to some seasonal variations. Our beverage sales are generally higher during the warmer months and also can be influenced by the timing of holidays and weather fluctuations. Our purchases of raw materials and related accounts payable fluctuate based upon the demand for our products as well as the timing of the fruit growing seasons. The seasonality of our sales volume combined with the seasonal nature of fruit growing causes our working capital needs to fluctuate throughout the year, with inventory levels increasing in the first half of the year in order to meet high summer demand, and with fruit inventories peaking during the last quarter of the year when purchases are made after the growing season. In addition, our accounts receivable balances decline in the fall as customers pay their higher-than-average outstanding balances from summer deliveries.
Customers
A significant portion of our revenue is concentrated in a small number of customers. Our customers include many large national and regional grocery, mass-merchandise, drugstore, wholesale and convenience store chains, as well as customers for whom we manufacture beverages on a contract basis. For 2012, sales to Walmart accounted for 31.0% (2011-31.6%, 2010-31.0%) of our total revenue, 36.3% of our North America reporting segment revenue (2011-35.9%, 2010-35.3%), 14.9% of our U.K. reporting segment revenue (2011-14.6%, 2010-16.6%) and 21.6% of our Mexico reporting segment revenue (2011-44.7%, 2010-38.9%). Walmart was the only customer that accounted for more than 10% of our total revenue in those periods. Sales to our top ten customers in 2012, 2011 and 2010 accounted for 54.2%, 55.1% and 55.4%, respectively, of our total revenue. We expect that sales of our products to a limited number of customers will continue to account for a high percentage of revenue for the foreseeable future. The loss of any customers that individually or in the aggregate represent a significant portion of our revenue, or a decline in sales to these customers, would have a material adverse effect on our operating results and cash flow.
We supply Walmart and its affiliated companies, under annual non-exclusive supply agreements, with a variety of products in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Mexico, including CSDs, clear, still and sparkling flavored waters, 100% shelf stable juice, juice-based products, bottled water, energy products, sports products, new age beverages, and ready-to-drink teas. In 2012, we supplied Walmart with all of its private-label CSDs in the United States. In the event Walmart were to utilize additional suppliers to fulfill a portion of its requirements for CSDs, our operating results could be materially adversely affected.
Research and Development
We engage in a variety of research and development activities. These activities principally involve the development of new products, improvement in the quality of existing products, improvement and modernization of production processes, and the development and implementation of new technologies to enhance the quality and value of both current and proposed product lines. Consumer research is excluded from research and development costs and included in other marketing costs. Research and development costs were $2.8 million in 2012, $2.5 million in 2011 and $3.1 million in 2010 and are included as a component of selling, general and administrative expenses.
Competition
We compete against a wide range of companies that produce, directly and on a contract basis, and sell beverages including CSDs, 100% shelf stable juice and juice-based products, clear, still and sparkling flavored waters, energy products, sports products, new age beverages, and ready-to-drink teas, and alcoholic beverages. While CSDs and CSD concentrate accounted for 63.0% of our 2012 case volume, they accounted for 41.1% of our 2012 revenue. The non-CSD products generated 37.0% of our 2012 case volume and 58.9% of our 2012 revenue.
We compete principally in the non-alcoholic beverages category, which is highly competitive in each region in which we operate. Competition for incremental volume is intense. The brands owned by the four major national soft drink companies, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestle Waters North America and Dr. Pepper Snapple (formerly Cadbury Schweppes), control 69% of the total CSD and alternative beverage category within the United States. These companies have significant financial resources and spend heavily on promotional programs. They also have direct store delivery systems in North America, which enable their personnel to visit retailers frequently to promote new items, stock shelves and build displays. We also face competition in the juice category from juice brands such as Welch’s, Ocean Spray and Mott’s.
In addition, we face competition in North America, the United Kingdom and Mexico from regional beverage manufacturers who sell aggressively-priced brands and, in many cases, also supply retailer brand products. A few larger U.S. retailers also self-manufacture products for their own needs and continually approach other retailers seeking additional business.
We seek to differentiate ourselves from our competitors by offering our customers efficient distribution methods, high-quality products, category management strategies, packaging and marketing strategies, and superior service.
Government Regulation and Environmental Matters
The production, distribution and sale in the United States of many of our products are subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Lanham Act, state consumer protection laws, federal, state and local workplace health and safety laws, various federal, state and local environmental protection laws and various other federal, state and local statutes and regulations applicable to the production, transportation, sale, safety, advertising, labeling and ingredients of such products. Outside the United States, the production, distribution and sale of our many products and related operations are also subject to numerous similar and other statutes and regulations.
A number of states have passed laws setting forth warning or labeling requirements relating to products made for human consumption. For example, the California law known as “Proposition 65” requires that a specific warning appear on any product sold in California containing a substance listed by that state as having been found to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. This law, and others like it, exposes all food and beverage producers to the possibility of having to provide warnings on their products. The detection of even a trace amount of a listed substance can subject an affected product to the requirement of a warning label, although products containing listed substances that occur naturally or that are contributed to such products solely by a municipal water supply are generally exempt from the warning requirement. From time to time over the past several years, certain of our customers have received notices alleging that the labeling requirements of the relevant state regulation would apply to products manufactured by us and sold by them. There can be no assurance that we will not be adversely affected by actions against our customers or us relating to Proposition 65 or similar “failure to warn” laws.
We currently offer and use non-refillable recyclable containers in the United States and other countries around the world. We also offer and use refillable containers, which are also recyclable. Legal requirements apply in various jurisdictions in the United States and other countries requiring that deposits or certain ecotaxes or fees be charged for the sale, marketing and use of certain non-refillable beverage containers. The precise requirements imposed by these measures vary. Other types of beverage container-related deposit, recycling, ecotax and/or product stewardship statutes and regulations also apply in various jurisdictions in the United States and overseas. We anticipate that additional, similar legal requirements may be proposed or enacted in the future at local, state and federal levels, both in the United States and elsewhere.
All of our beverage production facilities and other operations are subject to various environmental protection statutes and regulations, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which pertain to the use of water resources and the discharge of waste water. Failure to comply with these regulations can have serious consequences, including civil and administrative penalties. Compliance with these provisions has not had, and we do not expect such compliance to have, any material adverse effect on our Company’s capital expenditures, net income or competitive position. However, as discussed below, changes in how the Ontario Ministry of the Environment enforces the Ontario Environmental Protection Act could result in our having to make material expenditures for environmental compliance.
Subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable policies, we have coverage for product recalls and product liability claims that could result from the injury, illness or death of consumers using our products, contamination of our products, or damage to or mislabeling of our products.
The Ontario Environmental Protection Act (“OEPA”)
OEPA regulations provide that a minimum percentage of a bottler’s soft drink sales within specified areas in Ontario must be made in refillable containers. The penalty for non-compliance is a fine of $50,000 per day beginning upon when the first offense occurs and continues until the first conviction, and then increasing to $100,000 per day for each subsequent conviction. These fines may be increased to equal the amount of monetary benefit acquired by the offender as a result of the commission of the offense.
We, and we believe other industry participants, are currently not in compliance with the requirements of the OEPA. To comply with these requirements we, and we believe many other industry participants, would have to significantly increase sales in refillable containers to a minimum refillable sales ratio of 30%. We do not expect to be in compliance with these regulations in the foreseeable future. Ontario is not enforcing the OEPA at this time, despite the fact that it is still in effect and not amended, but if it chooses to enforce it in the future, we could incur fines for non-compliance and the possible prohibition of sales of soft drinks in non-refillable containers in Ontario. We estimate that approximately 3% of our Canada operating segment sales would be affected by the possible limitation of sales of soft drinks in non-refillable containers in Ontario if the Ontario Ministry of the Environment initiated an action to enforce the provisions of the OEPA against us. Moreover, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment released a report in 1997 stating that these OEPA regulations are “outdated and unworkable.” However, despite the “unworkable” nature of the OEPA regulations, they have not yet been revoked.
We believe that the magnitude of the potential fines that we could incur if the Ontario Ministry of the Environment chose to enforce these regulations is such that the costs to us of non-compliance could be, although are not contemplated to be, material. However, our management believes that probability of such enforcement is remote.
Employees
As of December 29, 2012, we had 3,960 employees, of whom 2,731 were in the North America reporting segment, 937 were in the U.K. reporting segment, 277 were in the Mexico reporting segment and 15 were in the combined RCI/All Other reporting segments. We have entered into collective bargaining agreements covering 826 employees in the United States, Canada and Mexico that contain terms that we believe are typical in the beverage industry. As these agreements expire, we believe that they can be renegotiated on terms satisfactory to us. We consider our relations with employees to be generally good.
Availability of Information and Other Matters
We are required to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC and Canadian securities regulatory authorities. The public may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Information in the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-551-8090. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file with the SEC at www.sec.gov. Information filed with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities is available at www.sedar.com.
Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are also available free of charge on our website at www.cott.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The information found on our website is not part of this or any other report that we file with, or furnish to, the SEC or to Canadian securities regulatory authorities.
We are responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as required by the SEC. See “Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting” in Item 9A.
ITEM 1A.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
In addition to the other information set forth in this report, you should carefully consider the following factors, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. The risks described below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We may be unable to compete successfully in the highly competitive beverage category.
The markets for our products are extremely competitive. In comparison to the major national brand beverage manufacturers, we are a relatively small participant in the industry. We face competition from the national brand beverage manufacturers in all of our markets, from other retailer brand beverage manufacturers and from other contract beverage manufacturers. If our competitors reduce their selling prices, increase the frequency of their promotional activities in our core market or enter into the production of private-label products or expand their contract manufacturing efforts, or if our customers do not allocate adequate shelf space for the beverages we supply, we could experience a decline in our volumes, be forced to reduce pricing, forgo price increases required to offset increased costs of raw materials and fuel, increase capital and other expenditures, or lose market share, any of which could adversely affect our profitability.
We may not be able to respond successfully to consumer trends related to our products.
Consumer trends with respect to the products we sell are subject to change. Consumers are seeking increased variety in their beverages, and there is a growing interest among consumers, public health officials and government officials regarding the ingredients in our products, the attributes of those ingredients and health and wellness issues generally. In addition, some researchers, health advocates and dietary guidelines are encouraging consumers to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including those sweetened with HFCS or other nutritive sweeteners. As a result, consumer demand has declined for full-calorie CSDs and consumer demand has increased for products associated with health and wellness, such as reduced-calorie CSDs, water, enhanced water, teas and certain other non-carbonated beverages. Consumer preferences may change due to a variety of other factors, including the aging of the general population, changes in social trends, the real or perceived impact that the manufacturing of our products has on the environment, changes in consumer demographics, changes in travel, vacation or leisure activity patterns, negative publicity resulting from regulatory action or litigation against companies in the industry, or a downturn in economic conditions. Any of these changes may reduce consumers’ demand for our products. There can be no assurance that we can develop or be a “fast follower” of innovative products that respond to consumer trends. Our failure to develop innovative products could put us at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace and our business and financial results could be adversely affected.
Because a small number of customers account for a significant percentage of our sales, the loss of or reduction in sales to any significant customer could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
A significant portion of our revenue is concentrated in a small number of customers. Our customers include many large national and regional grocery, mass-merchandise, drugstore, wholesale and convenience store chains in our core markets of North America, the United Kingdom and Mexico, as well as customers for whom we manufacture beverages on a contract basis. Sales to Walmart, our top customer in 2012, 2011 and 2010 accounted for 31.0%, 31.6% and 31.0%, respectively, of our total revenue. Sales to our top ten customers in 2012, 2011 and 2010 accounted for 54.2%, 55.1% and 55.4%, respectively, of our total revenue. We expect that sales of our products to a limited number of customers will continue to account for a high percentage of our revenue for the foreseeable future.
The loss of Walmart or any significant customer, or customers that in the aggregate represent a significant portion of our revenue, or a material reduction in the amount of business we undertake with any such customer or customers, could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and cash flows. Furthermore, we could be adversely affected if Walmart or any significant customer reacts unfavorably to any pricing of our products or decides to de-emphasize or reduce their product offerings in the categories with which we supply them. At December 29, 2012, we had $225.0 million of customer relationships recorded as an intangible asset. The permanent loss of any customer included in the intangible asset would result in impairment in the value of the intangible asset or accelerated amortization and could lead to an impairment of fixed assets that were used to service that client.
Our ingredients, packaging supplies and other costs are subject to price increases and we may be unable to effectively pass rising costs on to our customers.
We typically bear the risk of changes in prices on the ingredient and packaging in our products. The majority of our ingredient and packaging supply contracts allow our suppliers to alter the prices they charge us based on changes in the costs of the underlying commodities that are used to produce them. Aluminum for cans and ends, resin for PET bottles, caps and preforms, corn for HFCS, sugar, fruit and fruit concentrates are examples of these underlying commodities. In addition, the contracts for certain of our ingredient and packaging materials permit our suppliers to increase the costs they charge us based on increases in their cost of converting those underlying commodities into the materials that we purchase. In certain cases those increases are subject to negotiated limits. These changes in the prices we pay for ingredient and packaging materials occur at times that vary by product and supplier, and take place, on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis.
We are at risk with respect to fluctuating aluminum prices. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for a majority of our forecasted aluminum requirements for 2012, and entered into fixed price commitments for a majority of our aluminum requirements for 2013 and a portion of our requirements for 2014. Because PET resin is not a traded commodity, no fixed price mechanism has been implemented, and we are accordingly also at risk with respect to changes in PET prices. Corn, and thus HFCS, has a history of volatile price changes. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for all of our HFCS requirements for 2012, and entered into fixed price commitments for all our HFCS requirements for 2013. Sugar also has a history of volatile price changes. We entered into fixed price commitments for all of our sugar requirements for 2012 and 2013. Fruit and fruit concentrate prices have been, and we expect them to continue to be, subject to significant volatility. While they are available from numerous independent suppliers, these raw materials are subject to fluctuations in price attributable to, among other things, changes in crop size and federal and state agricultural programs. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for a majority of our fruit concentrate and fruit requirements for 2012 and have entered into fixed price commitments for a portion of our fruit concentrate and fruit requirements for 2013. If the cost of commodities for which we have entered into fixed price commitments decreases, we will not be able to take advantage of such decreased costs.
Accordingly, we bear the risk of fluctuations in the costs of these ingredient and packaging materials, including the underlying costs of the commodities used to manufacture them and, to some extent, the costs of converting those commodities into the materials we purchase. We currently do not use derivatives to manage this risk. If the cost of these ingredients or packaging materials increases, we may be unable to pass these costs along to our customers through adjustments to the prices we charge. If we cannot pass on these increases to our customers on a timely basis, they could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. If we are able to pass these costs on to our customers through price increases, the impact those increased prices could have on our volumes is uncertain.
Our beverage and concentrate production facilities use a significant amount of electricity, natural gas and other energy sources to operate. Fluctuations in the price of fuel and other energy sources for which we have not locked in long-term pricing commitments or arrangements would affect our operating costs, which could impact our profitability.
If we fail to manage our operations successfully, our business and financial results may be materially and adversely affected.
In recent years, we have grown our business and beverage offerings primarily through the acquisition of other companies, development of new product lines and growth with key customers. We believe that opportunities exist to increase sales of beverages in our markets by leveraging existing customer relationships, obtaining new customers, exploring new channels of distribution, introducing new products or identifying appropriate acquisition or strategic alliance candidates. The success of this strategy with respect to acquisitions depends on our ability to manage and integrate acquisitions and alliances into our existing business. Furthermore, the businesses or product lines that we acquire or align with may not be integrated successfully into our business or prove profitable. In addition to the foregoing factors, our ability to expand our business in foreign countries is also dependent on, and may be limited by, our ability to comply with the laws of the various jurisdictions in which we may operate, as well as changes in local government regulations and policies in such jurisdictions. If we fail to manage the geographic allocation of production capacity surrounding customer demand in North America, we may lose certain customer product volume or have to utilize co-packers to fulfill our customer capacity obligations, either of which could negatively impact our financial results.
Our geographic diversity subjects us to the risk of currency fluctuations.
We conduct operations in many areas of the world, involving transactions denominated in a variety of currencies. We are subject to currency exchange rate risk to the extent that our costs are denominated in currencies other than those in which we earn revenues. In addition, because our financial statements are denominated in U.S. dollars, changes in currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and other currencies have had, and will continue to have, an impact on our results of operations. While we may enter into financial transactions to address these risks, there can be no assurance that currency exchange rate fluctuations will not adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In addition, while the use of currency hedging instruments may provide us with protection from adverse fluctuations in currency exchange rates, by utilizing these instruments we potentially forego the benefits that might result from favorable fluctuations in currency exchange rates.
If we are unable to maintain relationships with our raw material suppliers, we may incur higher supply costs or be unable to deliver products to our customers.
In addition to water, the principal raw materials required to produce our products are aluminum cans and ends, PET bottles, caps and preforms, labels, cartons and trays, sweeteners, such as HFCS and sugar, fruit and fruit concentrates. We rely upon our ongoing relationships with our key suppliers to support our operations.
We typically enter into annual or multi-year supply arrangements with our key suppliers, meaning that our suppliers are obligated to continue to supply us with materials for one-year or multi-year periods, at the end of which we must either renegotiate the contracts with those suppliers or find alternative sources for supply. There can be no assurance that we will be able to either renegotiate contracts (with similar or more favorable terms) with these suppliers when they expire or, alternatively, if we are unable to renegotiate contracts with our key suppliers, there can be no assurance that we could replace them. We could also incur higher ingredient and packaging supply costs in renegotiating contracts with existing suppliers or replacing those suppliers, or we could experience temporary disruptions in our ability to deliver products to our customers, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
With respect to some of our key packaging supplies, such as aluminum cans and ends, and some of our key ingredients, such as sweeteners, we have entered into long-term supply agreements, the remaining terms of which range from 12 to 60 months, and therefore we are assured of a supply of those key packaging supplies and ingredients during such terms. CCS supplies aluminum cans and ends under a contract with a multi-year term. The contract provides that CCS will supply our aluminum can and end requirements worldwide, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, the supply of specific ingredient and packaging materials could be adversely affected by many factors, including industry consolidation, energy shortages, governmental controls, labor disputes, natural disasters, transportation interruption, political instability, acts of war or terrorism and other factors.
We have a significant amount of outstanding debt, which could adversely affect our financial health and future cash flows may not be sufficient to meet our obligations.
As of December 29, 2012, our total debt was $605.8 million. Our present debt and any future borrowings could have important adverse consequences to us and our investors, including:
•
requiring a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to make interest payments on this debt;
•
making it more difficult to satisfy debt service and other obligations;
•
increasing the risk of a future credit ratings downgrade of our debt, which would increase future debt costs;
•
increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
•
reducing the cash flow available for share repurchases, to pay dividends, and to fund capital expenditures and other corporate purposes and to grow our business;
•
limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry;
•
placing us at a competitive disadvantage to our competitors that may not be as highly leveraged; and
•
limiting our ability to borrow additional funds as needed or take advantage of business opportunities, such as acquisitions, as they arise, pay cash dividends or repurchase common stock.
To the extent we become more leveraged, the risks described above would increase. In addition, our actual cash requirements in the future may be greater than expected. We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, or that future borrowings will be available to us in amounts sufficient to enable us to pay our debt or to fund our other liquidity needs.
If we fail to generate sufficient cash flow from future operations to meet our debt service obligations, we may need to refinance all or a portion of our debt on or before maturity. We cannot assure you that we will be able to refinance any of our debt on attractive terms, commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we cannot service or refinance our indebtedness, we may have to take actions such as selling assets, seeking additional equity or reducing or delaying capital expenditures, strategic acquisitions, investments and alliances, any of which could impede the implementation of our business strategy, prevent us from entering into transactions that would otherwise benefit our business and/or have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Our future operating performance and our ability to service or refinance our debt will be subject to future economic conditions and to financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.
Our asset-based lending (“ABL”) facility, the indenture governing the 2017 Notes, and the indenture governing the 2018 Notes each contain various covenants limiting the discretion of our management in operating our business, which could prevent us from capitalizing on business opportunities and taking some corporate actions.
Our ABL facility, the indenture governing the $215.0 million of senior notes that are due on November 15, 2017 (the “2017 Notes”), and the indenture governing the $375.0 million of senior notes that are due on September 1, 2018 (the “2018 Notes”) each impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions will limit or restrict, among other things, our ability and the ability of our restricted subsidiaries to:
•
incur additional indebtedness;
•
make restricted payments (including paying dividends on, redeeming, repurchasing or retiring our capital stock);
•
make investments;
•
create liens;
•
sell assets;
•
enter into agreements restricting our subsidiaries’ ability to pay dividends, make loans or transfer assets to us;
•
engage in transactions with affiliates; and
•
consolidate, merge or sell all or substantially all of our assets.
These covenants are subject to important exceptions and qualifications. In addition, our ABL facility also requires us, under certain circumstances, to maintain compliance with certain financial covenants as described in the “Covenant Compliance” section in Item 7. Our ability to comply with this covenant may be affected by events beyond our control, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section. A breach of any of the covenants contained in our ABL facility, including our inability to comply with the financial covenant, could result in an event of default, which would allow the lenders under our ABL facility to declare all borrowings outstanding to be due and payable, which would in turn trigger an event of default under the indenture governing the 2017 Notes and the indenture governing the 2018 Notes and, potentially, our other debt. At maturity or in the event of an acceleration of payment obligations, we would likely be unable to pay our outstanding debt with our cash and cash equivalents then on hand. We would, therefore, be required to seek alternative sources of funding, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, terms as favorable as our current agreements or at all, or face bankruptcy. If we are unable to refinance our debt or find alternative means of financing our operations, we may be required to curtail our operations or take other actions that are inconsistent with our current business practices or strategy. For additional information about our ABL facility, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Liquidity and Capital Resources.”
A portion of our debt may be variable rate debt, and changes in interest rates could adversely affect us by causing us to incur higher interest costs with respect to such variable rate debt.
Our ABL facility subjects us to interest rate risk. The rate at which we pay interest on amounts borrowed under such facility fluctuates with changes in interest rates and our debt leverage. Accordingly, with respect to any amounts from time to time outstanding under our ABL facility, we are and will be exposed to changes in interest rates. If we are unable to adequately manage our debt structure in response to changes in the market, our interest expense could increase, which would negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations. As of December 29, 2012 we had no variable rate debt.
Our financial results may be negatively impacted by global financial events.
In recent years, global financial events have resulted in the consolidation, failure or near failure of a number of institutions in the banking, insurance and investment banking industries and have substantially reduced the ability of companies to obtain financing. These events also adversely affected the financial markets. These events could continue to have a number of different effects on our business, including:
•
a reduction in consumer spending, which could result in a reduction in our sales volume;
•
a negative impact on the ability of our customers to timely pay their obligations to us or our vendors to timely supply materials, thus reducing our cash flow;
•
an increase in counterparty risk;
•
an increased likelihood that one or more members of our banking syndicate may be unable to honor its commitments under our ABL facility; and
•
restricted access to capital markets that may limit our ability to take advantage of business opportunities, such as acquisitions.
Other events or conditions may arise or persist directly or indirectly from the global financial events that could negatively impact our business.
We may not fully realize the expected cost savings and/or operating efficiencies from our restructuring activities.
We have in the past implemented, and may in the future implement, restructuring activities to support the implementation of key strategic initiatives designed to achieve long-term sustainable growth. These activities are intended to maximize our operating effectiveness and efficiency and to reduce our costs. We cannot be assured that we will achieve or sustain the targeted benefits under these programs or that the benefits, even if achieved, will be adequate to meet our long-term growth expectations. In addition, the implementation of key elements of these activities may have an adverse impact on our business, particularly in the near-term.
Substantial disruption to production at our beverage concentrates or other beverage production facilities could occur.
A disruption in production at our beverage concentrates production facility, which manufactures almost all of our concentrates, could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, a disruption could occur at any of our other facilities or those of our suppliers, bottlers or distributors. The disruption could occur for many reasons, including fire, natural disasters, weather, manufacturing problems, disease, strikes, transportation interruption, government regulation or terrorism. Alternative facilities with sufficient capacity or capabilities may not be available, may cost substantially more or may take a significant time to start production, each of which could negatively affect our business and financial performance.
Our success depends, in part, on our intellectual property, which we may be unable to protect.
We possess certain intellectual property that is important to our business. This intellectual property includes trade secrets, in the form of the concentrate formulas for most of the beverages that we produce, and trademarks for the names of the beverages that we sell. While we own certain of the trademarks used to identify our beverages, other trademarks are used through licenses from third parties or by permission from our customers. Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect our intellectual property.
To protect this intellectual property, we rely principally on registration of trademarks, contractual responsibilities and restrictions in agreements (such as indemnification, nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements) with employees, consultants and customers, and on common law and statutory protections afforded to trademarks, trade secrets and proprietary “know-how.” In addition, we vigorously protect our intellectual property against infringements using any and all legal remedies available. Notwithstanding our efforts, we may not be successful in protecting our intellectual property for a number of reasons, including:
•
our competitors may independently develop intellectual property that is similar to or better than ours;
•
employees, consultants or customers may not abide by their contractual agreements and the cost of enforcing those agreements may be prohibitive, or those agreements may prove to be unenforceable or more limited than anticipated;
•
foreign intellectual property laws may not adequately protect our intellectual property rights; and
•
our intellectual property rights may be successfully challenged, invalidated or circumvented.
If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, our competitive position would weaken and we could face significant expense to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights. At December 29, 2012, we had $45.0 million of rights and $5.5 million of trademarks recorded as intangible assets.
Occasionally, third parties may assert that we are, or may be, infringing on or misappropriating their intellectual property rights. In these cases, we intend to defend against claims or negotiate licenses when we consider these actions appropriate. Intellectual property cases are uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. If we become involved in this type of litigation, it could consume significant resources and divert our attention from business operations.
If we are found to infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, we could incur significant damages, be enjoined from continuing to manufacture, market or use the affected product, or be required to obtain a license to continue manufacturing or using the affected product. A license could be very expensive to obtain or may not be available at all. Similarly, changing products or processes to avoid infringing the rights of others may be costly or impracticable.
Our products may not meet health and safety standards or could become contaminated and we could be liable for injury, illness or death caused by consumption of our products.
We have adopted various quality, environmental, health and safety standards. However, our products may still not meet these standards or could otherwise become contaminated. A failure to meet these standards or contamination could occur in our operations or those of our bottlers, distributors or suppliers. This could result in expensive production interruptions, recalls and liability claims. We may be liable to our customers if the consumption of any of our products causes injury, illness or death. Moreover, negative publicity could be generated from false, unfounded or nominal liability claims or limited recalls. Any of these failures or occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows.
Litigation or legal proceedings could expose us to significant liabilities and damage our reputation.
We are party to various litigation claims and legal proceedings. We evaluate these claims and proceedings to assess the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes and estimate, if possible, the amount of potential losses. We may establish a reserve as appropriate based upon assessments and estimates in accordance with our accounting policies. We base our assessments, estimates and disclosures on the information available to us at the time and rely on legal and management judgment. Actual outcomes or losses may differ materially from assessments and estimates. Actual settlements, judgments or resolutions of these claims or proceedings may negatively affect our business and financial performance. For more information, see “Item 3. Legal Proceedings.”
Changes in the legal and regulatory environment in the jurisdictions in which we operate could increase our costs or reduce our revenues, adversely affect demand for our products or result in litigation.
As a producer of beverages, we must comply with various federal, state, provincial, local and foreign laws relating to production, packaging, quality, labeling and distribution, including, in the United States, those of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and California Proposition 65. We are also subject to various federal, state, provincial, local and foreign environmental laws and workplace regulations. These laws and regulations include, in the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Unfair Labor Standards Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act, laws governing equal employment opportunity, customs and foreign trade laws and regulations, laws relating to the maintenance of fuel storage tanks, laws relating to water consumption and treatment, and various other federal statutes and regulations. These laws and regulations may change as a result of political, economic, or social events. Such regulatory changes may include changes in food and drug laws, laws related to advertising, accounting standards, taxation requirements, competition laws and environmental laws, including laws relating to the regulation of water rights and treatment. Changes in laws, regulations or government policy and related interpretations may alter the environment in which we do business, which may impact our results or increase our costs or liabilities.
A number of states have passed laws setting forth warning or labeling requirements relating to products made for human consumption. For example, the California law known as Proposition 65 requires that a specific warning appear on any product sold in California containing a substance listed by that state as having been found to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. This law, and others like it, exposes all food and beverage producers to the possibility of having to provide warnings on their products. The detection of even a trace amount of a listed substance can subject an affected product to the requirement of a warning label, although products containing listed substances that occur naturally or that are contributed to such products solely by a municipal water supply are generally exempt from the warning requirement. From time to time over the past several years, certain of our customers have received notices alleging that the labeling requirements of the relevant state regulation would apply to products manufactured by us and sold by them. There can be no assurance that we will not be adversely affected by actions against our customers or us relating to Proposition 65 or similar “failure to warn” laws: were any such claim to be pursued or succeed, we might in some cases be required to indemnify our customers for damages, and our products might be required to bear warning labels in order to be sold in certain states. Any negative media attention, adverse publicity or action arising from allegations of violations could adversely impact consumer perceptions of our products and harm our business.
Proposed taxes on CSDs and other drinks could have an adverse effect on our business.
Federal, state, local and foreign governments have considered imposing taxes on soda and other sugary drinks, as well as energy products. Any such taxes could negatively impact consumer demand for our products and have an adverse effect on our revenues.
We are not in compliance with the requirements of the OEPA and, if the Ontario government seeks to enforce those requirements or implements modifications to them, we could be adversely affected.
Certain regulations under the OEPA provide that a minimum percentage of a bottler’s soft drink sales within specified areas in Ontario must be made in refillable containers. The penalty for non-compliance is a fine of $50,000 per day beginning when the first offense occurs and continuing until the first conviction, and then increasing to $100,000 per day for each subsequent conviction. These fines may be increased to equal the amount of monetary benefit acquired by the offender as a result of the commission of the offense. We, and we believe other industry participants, are currently not in compliance with the requirements of the OEPA. We do not expect to be in compliance with these regulations in the foreseeable future. Ontario is not enforcing the OEPA at this time, but if it chose to enforce the OEPA in the future, we could incur fines for non-compliance and the possible prohibition of sales of soft drinks in non-refillable containers in Ontario. We estimate that approximately 3% of our Canada operating segment sales would be affected by the possible limitation on sales of soft drinks in non-refillable containers in Ontario if the Ontario Ministry of the Environment initiated an action to enforce the provisions of the OEPA.
Adverse weather conditions could affect our supply chain and reduce the demand for our products.
Severe weather conditions and natural disasters, such as freezes, frosts, floods, hurricanes, tornados, droughts or earthquakes and crop diseases may affect our facilities and our supply of raw materials such as fruit. If the supply of any of our raw materials is adversely affected by weather conditions, it may result in increased raw material costs and there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain sufficient supplies from other sources. In addition, the sales of our products are influenced to some extent by weather conditions in the markets in which we operate. Unusually cold or rainy weather during the summer months may reduce the demand for our products and contribute to lower revenues, which could negatively impact our profitability.
Global or regional catastrophic events could impact our operations and financial results.
Our business can be affected by large-scale terrorist acts, especially those directed against the United States or other major industrialized countries in which we do business, major natural disasters, or widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases. Such events could impair our ability to manage our business, could disrupt our supply of raw materials, and could impact production, transportation and delivery of products. In addition, such events could cause disruption of regional or global economic activity, which can affect consumers’ purchasing power in the affected areas and, therefore, reduce demand for our products.
Our success depends in part upon our ability to recruit, retain and prepare succession plans for our CEO, CFO, senior management and key employees.
The performance of our CEO, CFO, senior management and other key employees is critical to our success. We plan to continue to invest time and resources in developing our senior management and key employee teams. Our long-term success will depend on our ability to recruit and retain capable senior management and other key employees, and any failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on our future operating results and financial condition. Further, if we fail to adequately plan for the succession of our CEO, CFO, senior management and other key employees, our operating results could be adversely affected.
Changes in future business conditions could cause business investments and/or recorded goodwill, indefinite life intangible assets or other intangible assets to become impaired, resulting in substantial losses and write-downs that would negatively impact our results of operations.
As part of our overall strategy, we will, from time to time, make investments in other businesses. These investments are made upon careful target analysis and due diligence procedures designed to achieve a desired return or strategic objective. These procedures often involve certain assumptions and judgment in determining investment amount or acquisition price. After acquisition or investment, unforeseen issues could arise that adversely affect anticipated returns or that are otherwise not recoverable as an adjustment to the purchase price. Even after careful integration efforts, actual operating results may vary significantly from initial estimates. Goodwill accounted for $130.3 million of our recorded total assets as of December 29, 2012. We evaluate the recoverability of recorded goodwill amounts annually, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. The annual impairment test is based on several factors requiring judgment and certain underlying assumptions. Our only intangible asset with an indefinite life relates to the 2001 acquisition of intellectual property from Royal Crown Company, Inc., including the right to manufacture our concentrates, with all related inventions, processes, technologies, technical and manufacturing information, know-how and the use of the Royal Crown brand outside of North America and Mexico (the “Rights”). This asset, which has a net book value of $45.0 million, is more fully described in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
As of December 29, 2012, other intangible assets were $270.4 million, which consisted principally of $225.0 million of customer relationships that arose from acquisitions, $13.3 million of financing costs, $15.0 million of information technology assets, and trademarks of $5.5 million. Customer relationships are amortized on a straight-line basis for the period over which we expect to receive economic benefits, which is up to 15 years. We review the estimated useful life of these intangible assets annually, taking into consideration the specific net cash flows related to the intangible asset, unless it is required more frequently due to a triggering event such as the loss of a customer. The permanent loss of any customer included in the intangible asset would result in impairment in the value of the intangible asset or accelerated amortization and could lead to an impairment of fixed assets that were used to service that client. Principally, a decrease in expected reporting segment cash flows, changes in market conditions, loss of key customers and a change in our imputed cost of capital may indicate potential impairment of recorded goodwill or the Rights. For additional information on accounting policies we have in place for goodwill impairment, see our discussion under “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 1, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies,” in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
We may not be able to renew collective bargaining agreements on satisfactory terms, or we could experience strikes.
As of December 29, 2012, 826 of our employees were covered by collective bargaining agreements in the United States, Canada and Mexico. These agreements typically expire every three to five years at various dates. We may not be able to renew our collective bargaining agreements on satisfactory terms or at all. This could result in strikes or work stoppages, which could impair our ability to manufacture and distribute our products and result in a substantial loss of sales. The terms of existing or renewed agreements could also significantly increase our costs or negatively affect our ability to increase operational efficiency.
We depend on key information systems and third-party service providers.
We depend on key information systems to accurately and efficiently transact our business, provide information to management and prepare financial reports. We have typically relied on third-party providers for the majority of our key information systems and business processing services, including hosting our primary data center. In particular, we are in the process of implementing a new SAP software platform to assist us in the management of our business and have also reorganized certain processes within our finance and accounting departments. As a part of the reorganization, we have outsourced certain back office transactional finance processes. If we fail to successfully implement these projects or if the projects do not result in increased operational efficiencies, our operations may be disrupted and our operating expenses could increase, which could adversely affect our financial results.
In addition, these systems and services are vulnerable to interruptions or other failures resulting from, among other things, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, software, equipment or telecommunications failures, processing errors, computer viruses, hackers, other security issues or supplier defaults. Security, backup and disaster recovery measures may not be adequate or implemented properly to avoid such disruptions or failures. Any disruption or failure of these systems or services could cause substantial errors, processing inefficiencies, security breaches, inability to use the systems or process transactions, loss of customers or other business disruptions, all of which could negatively affect our business and financial performance.
Our stock price may be volatile.
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) and Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”). The market price of our common stock has fluctuated substantially in the past and could fluctuate substantially in the future, based on a variety of factors, including future announcements covering us or our key customers or competitors, government regulations, litigation, changes in earnings estimates by analysts, fluctuations in quarterly operating results or general conditions in our industry. Furthermore, stock prices for many companies fluctuate widely for reasons that may be unrelated to their operating results. Those fluctuations and general economic, political and market conditions, such as recessions or international currency fluctuations and demand for our services, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
We also face other risks that could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition, which include:
•
any requirement to restate financial results in the event of inappropriate application of accounting principles or otherwise;
•
any event that could damage our reputation;
•
failure of our processes to prevent and detect unethical conduct of employees;
•
a significant failure of internal controls over financial reporting;
•
failure of our prevention and control systems related to employee compliance with internal policies and regulatory requirements; and
•
failure of corporate governance policies and procedures.
ITEM 1B.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
Our business is supported by our extensive manufacturing network and flexible production capabilities. Our manufacturing footprint encompasses 33 strategically located beverage manufacturing and fruit processing facilities, including 20 in the United States, five in Canada, six in the United Kingdom and one in Mexico, as well as one vertically-integrated global concentrate manufacturing facility in Columbus, Georgia.
Total square footage of our beverage production facilities is approximately 3.6 million square feet in the United States; 0.9 million square feet in Canada; 0.9 million square feet in the United Kingdom; and 0.1 million square feet in Mexico. This square footage does not include 32 separate leased warehouses and four owned warehouses that comprise 2.9 million square feet and six leased office spaces and two owned office spaces that comprise 0.2 million square feet. Lease terms for non-owned beverage production facilities expire between 2013 and 2020.
The beverage production facilities and square footage amounts noted above do not include vacant or underutilized properties.
ITEM 3.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
We are subject to various claims and legal proceedings with respect to matters such as governmental regulations, income taxes, and other actions arising out of the normal course of business. Management believes that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results from operations.
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not Applicable.
SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM PART I. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The following is a list of names, ages, offices and backgrounds of all of our executive officers as of February 27, 2013. Our officers do not serve for a set term.
•
Jerry Fowden was appointed Chief Executive Officer in February 2009. Prior to this appointment, he served as President of our international operating segments and Interim President, North America from May 2008 to February 2009, and as Interim President of our U.K. operating segment from September 2007 to May 2008. He served as Chief Executive Officer of Trader Media Group Ltd., a media company, and as a member of its parent Guardian Media Group plc’s Board of Directors from 2005 until 2007. From 2001 until 2004, he served in a variety of roles with AB InBev S.A. Belgium, an alcoholic beverage company, including President, European Zone, Western, Central and Eastern Europe from 2003 to 2004, Global Chief Operating Officer from 2002 to 2003 and Chief Executive Officer of Bass Brewers Ltd., a subsidiary of AB InBev S.A. Belgium, from 2001 to 2002. Mr. Fowden was a director of Chesapeake Corporation (now known as Canal Corporation) when it filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the United States on December 29, 2008. On May 12, 2009, Chesapeake’s operating businesses were sold to a group of investors and Mr. Fowden resigned from his position as a director. Mr. Fowden currently serves on the board of directors of Constellation Brands, Inc., a premium wine company. Mr. Fowden has served on our board since March 2009.
•
Jay Wells was appointed Vice President, Chief Financial Officer in March 2012. Prior to joining Cott, Mr. Wells held various senior finance positions with Molson Coors from May 2005 to March 2012, including Chief Financial Officer of Molson Coors Canada, a subsidiary of Molson Coors Brewing Company, and Global Vice President, Treasury, Tax, and Strategic Finance of Molson Coors Brewing Company. From September 1990 to April 2005, Mr. Wells held several positions within Deloitte and Touche LLP., including partner.
•
Michael Creamer was appointed Vice President of Human Resources for International and Tampa, Florida in April 2007 and promoted to Vice President of Human Resources for Cott in August 2008. Mr. Creamer currently serves as our Corporate Human Resources Vice President. Prior to joining Cott, Mr. Creamer was Senior Director of Human Resource Operations and International for Avanade Corporation, a global IT consultancy formed as a joint venture between Accenture and Microsoft Corporation. From 1990 to 2004, Mr. Creamer held several positions within Microsoft, including senior global human resources positions.
•
Marni Morgan Poe was appointed Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary in February 2010. Prior to her appointment, she served as Corporate Counsel of the Company from September 2008 until her appointment. Prior to joining the Company, Ms. Poe was the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Let’s Eat Dinner, Inc., a franchisor of dinner preparation kitchens, from 2006 to 2008. From 2000 to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP and an associate of the law firm from 1995 to 2000.
•
Mike Gibbons was appointed President of Cott’s U.S. business unit in October 2010. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Gibbons held several positions with Cott from 2004 to 2010, including General Manager of Cott’s U.S. business unit, Senior Vice President / General Manager of Cott’s Canadian business unit, and Vice President of Sales of Cott’s Canadian business unit. Prior to joining Cott, he served as Director of Sales for ConAgra from August 1998 to October 2003. On February 21, 2013, Cott determined to appoint Mr. Gibbons as Chief Commercial and Business Development Officer for Cott’s U.S. business unit, effective March 4, 2013. Mr. Gibbons will cease to be an executive officer as of such date.
•
Gregory Leiter was appointed Vice President, Corporate Controller and Assistant Secretary of Cott in November 2007, and appointed Senior Vice President and Controller in April 2008. Mr. Leiter took on the additional role of Chief Accounting Officer in January 2010. Mr. Leiter currently serves as our Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Assistant Secretary. Prior to joining Cott, he served from October 2006 to October 2007 as Practice Manager-Governance, Risk & Compliance with the international software firm SAP America. From January 2003 to September 2006, he held two positions with Graham Packaging Company, an international manufacturer of custom blow-molded plastic containers. From February 2006 to September 2006, he served as Graham Packaging’s Vice President-Global Business Process and from January 2003 to February 2006 as Director of Internal Audit.
•
Carlos Baila was appointed Chief Procurement Officer in February 2013. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Baila worked for PepsiCo Inc. as Vice President of Global Procurement from 2005 to 2012. From 1998 to 2005, Mr. Baila worked as a Supply Chain Executive at Accenture Ltd. where he provided clients with supply chain and strategic sourcing experience including procurement transformations, contract structuring and negotiations, financial valuations, and supply chain optimizations. Mr. Baila has been involved in multinational projects across the Americas and Europe; and, in Argentina, held several positions in operations at Keystone Foods from 1995 to 1997 and Quilmes Brewery from 1992 to 1995.
Change in U.S. Business Unit Leadership
Effective March 4, 2013, Steven Kitching, age 49, will become President of the Company’s U.S. business unit, succeeding Mr. Gibbons in that role. Mr. Kitching will become an executive officer as of such date. Since 2008, Mr. Kitching has served as Managing Director of Cott’s United Kingdom/Europe business unit. From 2005 to 2008, he held several positions with InBev UK, including Managing Director - On Trade Sales and Managing Director - Commercial and Field Operations. Prior to that, Mr. Kitching held several positions with Interbrew and Whitbread Beer Company from 1986 to 2005, including General Manager Netherlands of Interbrew from 2004 to 2005.
PART II
ITEM 5.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED SHAREOWNER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF SECURITIES
Our common shares are listed on the TSX under the ticker symbol “BCB,” and on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “COT.”
The tables below show the high and low reported per share sales prices of common shares on the TSX (in Canadian dollars) and the NYSE (in U.S. dollars) for the indicated periods for 2012 and 2011.
Toronto Stock Exchange (C$)
New York Stock Exchange (U.S.$)
As of February 19, 2013, we had 1,050 shareowners of record. This number was determined from records maintained by our transfer agent and does not include beneficial owners of securities whose securities are held in the names of various dealers or clearing agencies. The closing sale price of our common shares on February 19, 2013 was C$9.52 on the TSX and $9.39 on the NYSE.
No dividend payments were made during 2011 or the first nine months of 2012. On October 31, 2012, the board of directors declared a dividend of C$0.06 per share on common shares, which was paid in cash on December 20, 2012 to shareowners of record at the close of business on December 4, 2012. Cott intends to pay a regular quarterly dividend on its common shares subject to, among other things, the best interests of its shareowners, Cott’s results of operations, cash balances and future cash requirements, financial condition, statutory regulations and covenants set forth in the ABL facility and indentures governing the 2017 Notes and 2018 Notes, as well as other factors that the board of directors may deem relevant from time to time.
Dividends to shareowners who are non-residents of Canada will generally be subject to Canadian withholding tax. Under current Canadian tax law, dividends paid by a Canadian corporation to a nonresident shareowner are generally subject to Canadian withholding tax at a 25% rate. Under the current tax treaty between Canada and the United States, U.S. residents who are entitled to treaty benefits are generally eligible for a reduction in this withholding tax rate to 15% (and to 5% for a shareowner that is a corporation and is the beneficial owner of at least 10% of our voting stock). Accordingly, under current tax law, our U.S. resident shareowners who are entitled to treaty benefits will generally be subject to a Canadian withholding tax at a 15% rate on dividends paid by us, provided that they have complied with applicable procedural requirements to claim the benefit of the reduced rate under the tax treaty. The fifth protocol to the tax treaty between Canada and the U.S. places additional restrictions on the ability of U.S. residents to claim these reduced rate benefits. U.S. residents generally will be entitled on their U.S. federal income tax returns to claim a foreign tax credit, or a deduction, for Canadian withholding tax that applies to them, subject to certain applicable limitations. U.S. investors should consult their tax advisors with respect to the tax consequences and requirements applicable to them, based on their individual circumstances.
There are certain restrictions on the payment of dividends under our ABL facility and under the indentures governing the 2017 Notes and 2018 Notes. The ABL facility and the indentures governing the 2017 Notes and 2018 Notes are discussed in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7.
For information on securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans, see Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareowner Matters.”
During 2010, 2011 and 2012, no equity securities of the Company were sold by the Company that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Calculation of aggregate market value of non-affiliate shares
For purposes of calculating the aggregate market value of common shares held by non-affiliates as shown on the cover page of this report, it was assumed that all of the outstanding shares were held by non-affiliates except for outstanding shares held or controlled by our directors and executive officers. This should not be deemed to constitute an admission that any of these persons are, in fact, affiliates of us, or that there are not other persons who may be deemed to be affiliates. For further information concerning shareholdings of officers, directors and principal stockholders see Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareowner Matters.”
Shareowner return performance graph
The following graph shows changes over our past five fiscal years in the value of C$100, assuming reinvestment of dividends, invested in: (i) our common shares; (ii) the Toronto Stock Exchange’s S&P/TSX Composite Index; and (iii) a peer group of publicly-traded companies in the bottling industry comprised of Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, National Beverage Corp., Pepsi Bottling Group Inc. and PepsiAmericas Inc. The closing price of Cott’s common shares as of December 29, 2012 on the TSX was C$7.90 and on the NYSE was $7.90. The following table is in Canadian dollars.
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
ASSUMES $100 (CANADIAN) INVESTED ON JAN. 01, 2008
ASSUMES DIVIDEND REINVESTED
FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 29, 2012
Common Share Repurchase Program
On May 1, 2012, our board of directors authorized the repurchase of up to $35.0 million of our common shares in the open market or through privately negotiated transactions over a 12-month period through either a 10b5-1 automatic trading plan or at management’s discretion in compliance with regulatory requirements, and given market, cost and other considerations. We are unable to predict the number of shares that will be repurchased under the share repurchase program, or the aggregate dollar amount of the shares actually purchased. We may discontinue purchases at any time, subject to compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. During the second quarter of 2012, we repurchased 35,272 common shares for approximately $0.3 million through open market transactions. No additional repurchases were made under the program through December 29, 2012.
The following is a summary of share repurchase activity under our share repurchase program during the year ended December 29, 2012.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
The following table contains information about shares of our previously-issued common stock that we withheld from delivering to employees during December of 2012 to satisfy their tax obligations related to stock-based awards.
ITEM 6.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following selected financial data reflects the results of operations. This information should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified by reference to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. The financial information presented may not be indicative of future performance.
In 2010, we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Cliffstar Corporation and its affiliated companies for approximately $503.0 million in cash, $14.0 million in deferred consideration payable in equal installments over three years and contingent consideration of up to $55.0 million. The first $15.0 million of the contingent consideration was paid upon the achievement of milestones in certain expansion projects in 2010. The remainder of the contingent consideration was to be calculated based on the achievement of certain performance measures during the fiscal year ending January 1, 2011. In 2011, the seller of Cliffstar raised certain objections to the performance measures used to calculate the contingent consideration, and the parties commenced the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the asset purchase agreement. During 2011, Cott made interim payments to the seller equal to $29.6 million, which was net of a $4.7 million refund due to Cott and included $0.9 million in settlement of certain of the seller’s objections to the calculation of the contingent consideration. The seller’s claims for an additional $12.1 million in contingent consideration were submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the asset purchase agreement and favorably resolved in February 2013 by payment of $0.6 million by Cott to settle all claims.
ITEM 7.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Overview
We are one of the world’s largest producers of beverages on behalf of retailers, brand owners and distributors. Our objective of creating sustainable long-term growth in revenue and profitability is predicated on working closely with our customers to provide proven profitable products. As a “fast follower” of innovative products, our goal is to identify which new products are succeeding in the marketplace and develop similar high quality products at a better value. This objective is increasingly relevant in more difficult economic times.
The beverage market is subject to some seasonal variations. Our beverage sales are generally higher during the warmer months and also can be influenced by the timing of holidays and weather fluctuations. The purchases of our raw materials and related accounts payable fluctuate based upon the demand for our products as well as the timing of the fruit growing seasons. The seasonality of our sales volume combined with the seasonal nature of fruit growing causes our working capital needs to fluctuate throughout the year, with inventory levels increasing in the first half of the year in order to meet high summer demand, and with fruit inventories peaking during the last quarter of the year when purchases are made after the growing season. In addition, our accounts receivable balances decline in the fall as customers pay their higher-than-average outstanding balances from the summer deliveries.
We typically operate at low margins and therefore relatively small changes in cost structures can materially impact results. In 2010 and 2011 industry carbonated soft drink (“CSD”) sales were mostly flat while a decline was seen during 2012, and ingredient and packaging costs remained volatile.
Ingredient and packaging costs represent a significant portion of our cost of sales. These costs are subject to global and regional commodity price trends. Our most significant commodities are aluminum, polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) resin, corn, sugar, fruit and fruit concentrates. We attempt to manage our exposure to fluctuations in ingredient and packaging costs by entering into fixed price commitments for a portion of our ingredient and packaging requirements and implementing price increases as needed. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for a majority of our forecasted aluminum and fruit and fruit concentrate requirements for 2012 and entered into fixed price commitments for a majority of our aluminum requirements and a portion of our fruit and fruit concentrate requirements for 2013, as well as a portion of our aluminum requirements for 2014. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for all of our high fructose corn syrup (“HFCS”) requirements for 2012 and entered into fixed price commitments for all of our HFCS requirements for 2013. In 2012, we had fixed price commitments for all of our sugar requirements for 2012 and entered into fixed price commitments for all of our sugar requirements for 2013. Regarding PET resin, since this is not a traded commodity, no fixed price mechanism has been implemented, and we expect to pay prevailing market prices. Although PET resin is not a traded commodity, at times we are able to enter into short-term fixed price commitments. During 2012, we entered into fixed price commitments for a portion of our PET resin requirements for the second and third quarter of the year.
In 2010, we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Cliffstar Corporation and its affiliated companies for approximately $503.0 million in cash, $14.0 million in deferred consideration payable in equal installments over three years and contingent consideration of up to $55.0 million. The first $15.0 million of the contingent consideration was paid upon the achievement of milestones in certain expansion projects in 2010. The remainder of the contingent consideration was to be calculated based on the achievement of certain performance measures during the fiscal year ending January 1, 2011. In 2011, the seller of Cliffstar raised certain objections to the performance measures used to calculate the contingent consideration, and the parties commenced the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the asset purchase agreement. During 2011, Cott made interim payments to the seller equal to $29.6 million, which was net of a $4.7 million refund due to Cott and included $0.9 million in settlement of certain of the seller’s objections to the calculation of the contingent consideration. The seller’s claims for an additional $12.1 million in contingent consideration were submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the asset purchase agreement and favorably resolved in February 2013 by payment of $0.6 million by Cott to settle all claims.
The Cliffstar Acquisition was financed through the closing of a private placement offering by Cott Beverages Inc. of $375.0 million aggregate principal amount of 8.125% senior notes due 2018 (the “2018 Notes”), the underwritten public offering of 13.4 million of our common shares (the “Equity Offering”) and borrowings under our asset-based lending (“ABL”) facility, which we refinanced in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition, to increase the amount available for borrowings to $275.0 million.
Our financial liquidity, as of December 29, 2012 improved from 2011 due to increased cash from operating activities, and lower cash outflows for investing and financing activities compared to 2011.
We supply Walmart and its affiliated companies, under annual non-exclusive supply agreements, with a variety of products in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Mexico, including CSDs, 100% shelf stable juice and juice-based products, clear, still and sparkling flavored waters, energy products, sports products, new age beverages, and ready-to-drink teas. In 2012 we supplied Walmart with all of its private-label CSDs in the United States. In the event Walmart were to utilize additional suppliers to fulfill a portion of its requirements for CSDs, our operating results could be materially adversely affected. Sales to Walmart in 2012, 2011 and 2010, accounted for 31.0%, 31.6% and 31.0%, respectively, of total revenue.
In 2012, our capital expenditures were devoted primarily to maintaining existing beverage production facilities, making equipment upgrades in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada and expenditures related to vertically integrating our manufacturing capabilities.
Summary Financial Results
Our net income in 2012 was $47.8 million or $0.50 per diluted share, compared with net income of $37.6 million or $0.40 per diluted share in 2011.
The following items of significance impacted our 2012 financial results:
•
our filled beverage 8-ounce equivalents (“beverage case volume”) decreased 9.6% due primarily to our exit from certain low gross margin business and the general decline in the North American CSD and juice categories;
•
our revenue decreased 3.6% in 2012 compared to 2011 due primarily to lower volumes and a product mix shift into juice drinks and sports drinks from 100% shelf-stable juice in North America. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, revenue decreased 3.0%;
•
our gross profit as a percentage of revenue increased to 12.9% in 2012 from 11.8% in 2011 due primarily to an increase in average price per case and our exit from lower margin business, as well as operational efficiencies in North America;
•
our selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses increased to $178.0 million from $172.7 million, due primarily to an increase in certain employee-related costs compared to a lowering of the annual incentive and long-term incentive accruals in the prior year partially offset by lower information technology expenses in 2012;
•
our loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment was the result of the sale of a facility in Mexico and normal operational disposals;
•
our 2012 results were impacted by the final contingent consideration earn-out accrual of $0.6 million related to the Cliffstar Acquisition;
•
our other income in 2012 was $2.0 million as a result of insurance recoveries in excess of the loss incurred on a facility in the United States in the amount of $1.9 million and recording a bargain purchase of $0.9 million in the United Kingdom offset partially by foreign exchange losses of $0.8 million in the year, compared to other expense in 2011 of $2.2 million related to foreign exchange losses on intercompany loans;
•
our interest expense decreased by $2.9 million or 5.1% due primarily to lower debt balances held throughout the year; and
•
our income tax expense increased to $4.6 million compared to an income tax benefit of $0.7 million in 2011 due primarily to the recording of allowances against deferred tax assets in the U.S. that are uncertain to be realized as well as a reduction to the loss generated in the U.K.
The following items of significance impacted our 2011 financial results:
•
our filled beverage case volume increased 15.3% driven by a 17.6% increase in the North America reporting segment, due primarily to the Cliffstar Acquisition;
•
our revenue increased 29.5% in 2011 compared to 2010 due primarily to the Cliffstar Acquisition. Excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition and foreign exchange, revenue increased 6.7%;
•
the Cliffstar Acquisition contributed $385.6 million of the increase in revenue, and $19.6 million of the increase in operating income;
•
our gross profit as a percentage of revenue declined to 11.8% in 2011 from 14.8% in 2010. Gross profit in 2011 was adversely impacted by higher commodity costs;
•
our SG&A expenses increased to $172.7 million from $166.7 million, due primarily to the full year inclusion of Cliffstar;
•
our interest expense increased 54.7% due primarily to the issuance of the 2018 Notes in the third quarter of 2010; and
•
a year-to-date tax benefit of $0.7 million in 2011 compared to income tax expense of $18.6 million in 2010 due primarily to lower pre-tax income in the United States, the reorganization of our legal entity structure and refinancing of intercompany debt.
The following items of significance impacted our 2010 financial results:
•
our filled beverage case volume increased 7.3% driven by a 7.7% increase in the North America reporting segment, due primarily to the Cliffstar Acquisition;
•
our revenue increased 12.9% in 2010 compared to 2009. Absent foreign exchange impact, revenue increased 12.2% in 2010, due primarily to the Cliffstar Acquisition;
•
the Cliffstar Acquisition contributed $232.2 million to revenue and $5.2 million to operating income;
•
our gross profit as a percentage of revenue declined to 14.8% in 2010 from 15.6% in 2009. Gross profit in 2010 included $12.0 million of Cliffstar related purchase accounting adjustments, which reduced gross profit as a percentage of revenue by 0.6%. Excluding this amount, gross profit as a percentage of revenue was 15.4%;
•
the transaction costs related to the Cliffstar Acquisition were $7.2 million and integration costs were $6.7 million, which are included in SG&A;
•
our 2010 results were favorably impacted by the reduction of the contingent consideration earn-out accrual of $20.3 million related to the Cliffstar Acquisition;
•
the interest expense increased 24.2% in 2010 compared to 2009 due to the issuance of the 2018 Notes; and
•
the income tax expense changed from a benefit of $22.8 million in 2009 to an expense of $18.6 million in 2010 due primarily to the fact that the prior year included the utilization of valuation allowances and the utilization of accruals related to uncertain tax positions.
Critical Accounting Policies
Our significant accounting policies and recently issued accounting pronouncements are described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We believe the following represent our critical accounting policies:
Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts in the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes. These estimates are based on historical experience, the advice of external experts or on other assumptions management believes to be reasonable. Where actual amounts differ from estimates, revisions are included in the results for the period in which actual amounts become known. Historically, differences between estimated and actual amounts have not had a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.
Impairment testing of goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess purchase price of acquired businesses over the fair value of the net assets acquired. Goodwill is not amortized, but instead is tested at least annually for impairment in the fourth quarter or more frequently if we determine a triggering event has occurred during the year. Any impairment loss is recognized in our results of operations. We evaluate goodwill for impairment on a reporting unit basis. Reporting units are operations for which discrete financial information is available and are at or one level below our operating segments. For the purpose of testing goodwill for impairment, our reporting units are the United States (“U.S.”), Canada and Royal Crown International (“RCI”). We had goodwill of $130.3 million on our balance sheet at December 29, 2012, which represents amounts for the U.S., Canada and the RCI reporting units.
In 2012, for our Canada and RCI reporting units, we assessed qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances indicated that it was more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit was less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, we had determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit was less than its carrying amount, then we would have performed the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test. We concluded that it was more likely than not that the fair value of each reporting unit was more than its carrying amount and therefore we were not required to perform any additional testing.
For our U.S. reporting unit, we chose to bypass the qualitative assessment and performed the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test using a mix of the income approach (which is based on the discounted cash flow of the reporting unit) and the public company approach. We believe using a combination of the two approaches provides a more accurate valuation because it incorporates the actual cash generation of the Company in addition to how a third party market participant would value the reporting unit. Because the business is assumed to continue in perpetuity, the discounted future cash flow includes a terminal value. We used a weighted average terminal growth rate of 1% for our U.S. reporting unit in 2012 and 2011. The long-term growth assumptions incorporated into the discounted cash flow calculation reflect our long-term view of the market (including a decline in CSD demand), projected changes in the sale of our products, pricing of such products and operating profit margins. The estimated revenue changes in this analysis for the U.S. reporting unit ranged between -1.4% and 3.0% for 2012 and 2.2% and 3.4% for 2011.
The discount rate used for the fair value estimates in this analysis was 10.5% for 2012 and ranged from 11% to 12% for 2011 and 10% to 12% for 2010. These rates were based on the weighted average cost of capital a market participant would use if evaluating the reporting unit as an investment. The risk-free rate was 2.4% and 2.6% for 2012 and 2011, respectively, and was based on a 20-year U.S. Treasury Bill as of the valuation date.
Each year during the fourth quarter, we re-evaluate the assumptions used to reflect changes in the business environment, such as revenue growth rates, operating profit margins and discount rate. Based on the evaluations performed this year, we determined that the fair value of our reporting units exceeded their carrying amounts.
Impairment testing of intangible assets with an indefinite life
Our only intangible asset with an indefinite life relates to the 2001 acquisition of intellectual property from Royal Crown Company, Inc., including the right to manufacture our concentrates, with all related inventions, processes, technologies, technical and manufacturing information, know-how and the use of the Royal Crown brand outside of North America and Mexico (the “Rights”). This asset has a net book value of $45.0 million. Prior to 2001, we paid a volume based royalty to the Royal Crown Company for purchase of concentrates. There are no legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic, or other factors that limit the useful life of this intangible.
The life of the Rights is considered to be indefinite and therefore not amortized, but instead is tested at least annually for impairment or more frequently if we determine a triggering event has occurred during the year. We compare the carrying amount of the Rights with its fair value and if the carrying amount is greater than the fair value, we recognize in income an impairment loss. To determine fair value, we use a relief from royalty method which calculates a fair value royalty rate that is applied to a forecast of future volume shipments of concentrate that is used to produce CSDs. The forecast of future volumes is based on the estimated inter-plant shipments and RCI shipments. The relief from royalty method is used since the Rights were purchased in part to avoid making future royalty payments for concentrate to the Royal Crown Company. The resulting cash flows are discounted using a discount rate of 14.5% and estimated volume changes between 1.0% and 10.0%. No impairment was identified as of December 29, 2012. Absent any other changes, if our inter-plant concentrate volume declines by 1.0% from our estimated volume, the fair value of our Rights would decline by approximately $1.5 million. If our RCI volume declines by 1.0% from our estimated volume, the fair value of the Rights would decline by approximately $2.6 million. If our discount rate increases by 100 basis points, the fair value of the Rights would decline by approximately $5.2 million. None of these adjustments would result in an impairment of our Rights as either a stand-alone adjustment or in combination.
Other intangible assets
As of December 29, 2012, other intangible assets were $270.4 million, consisting principally of $225.0 million of customer relationships that arose from acquisitions, $13.3 million of financing costs, $15.0 million of information technology assets, and $5.5 million of trademarks. Customer relationships are amortized on a straight-line basis for the period over which we expect to receive economic benefits. We review the estimated useful life of these intangible assets annually, taking into consideration the specific net cash flows related to the intangible asset, unless a review is required more frequently due to a triggering event such as the loss of a customer. The permanent loss or significant decline in sales to any customer included in the intangible asset would result in impairment in the value of the intangible asset or accelerated amortization and could lead to an impairment of fixed assets that were used to service that customer. In 2010, we recorded $216.9 million of customer relationships acquired in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition. In 2011, we recorded an asset impairment charge of $1.4 million related primarily to customer relationships. In 2012, we did not record any impairment charges for other intangible assets.
Impairment of long-lived assets
When adverse events occur, we compare the carrying amount of long-lived assets to the estimated undiscounted future cash flows at the lowest level of independent cash flows for the group of long-lived assets and recognize any impairment loss in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, taking into consideration the timing of testing and the asset’s remaining useful life. The expected life and value of these long-lived assets is based on an evaluation of the competitive environment, history and future prospects as appropriate. In 2011, we recorded an impairment of long-lived assets of $0.6 million related to a production plant in Mexico that ceased operations. We did not record impairments of long-lived assets in 2012 or 2010.
Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost, determined on the first-in, first-out method, or net realizable value. Finished goods and work-in-process include the cost of raw materials, direct labor and manufacturing overhead costs. As a result, we use an inventory reserve to adjust our costs down to a net realizable value and to reserve for estimated obsolescence of both raw and finished goods.
Income taxes
We are subject to income taxes in Canada as well as in numerous foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgments and estimates are required in determining the income tax expense in these jurisdictions. Our income tax expense, deferred tax assets and liabilities and reserves for unrecognized tax benefits reflect management’s best assessment of estimated future taxes to be paid in the jurisdictions in which we operate.
Our income tax expense includes the results of the reorganization of our legal entity structure and refinancing of intercompany debt. The reorganization of our legal entity structure and refinancing of intercompany debt should result in long term reduction of Cott’s effective tax rate versus statutory rates. However, since the calculation of our tax liabilities involves dealing with uncertainties in the application of complex tax laws and regulations in a multitude of jurisdictions across our global operations, our effective tax rate may ultimately be different than the amount we are currently reporting.
Deferred income taxes arise from temporary differences between the tax and financial statement recognition of revenue and expense. In evaluating our ability to recover our deferred tax assets within the jurisdiction from which they arise we consider all available positive and negative evidence, including scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, tax planning strategies and recent financial operations. In projecting future taxable income, we begin with historical results adjusted for the results of discontinued operations and changes in accounting policies and incorporate assumptions including the amount of future Canadian and foreign pre-tax operating income, the reversal of temporary differences, and the implementation of feasible and prudent tax planning strategies. These assumptions require significant judgment about the forecasts of future taxable income and are consistent with the plans and estimates we are using to manage the underlying businesses.
Changes in tax laws and rates could also affect recorded deferred tax assets and liabilities in the future. Management is not aware of any such changes that would have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
The calculation of our tax liabilities involves dealing with uncertainties in the application of complex tax laws and regulations in a multitude of jurisdictions across our global operations.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 740, “Income Taxes” (“ASC 740”) provides that a tax benefit from an uncertain tax position may be recognized when it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained upon examination, including resolutions of any related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits. ASC 740 also provides guidance on measurement, derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition.
We recognize tax liabilities in accordance with ASC 740 and we adjust these liabilities when our judgment changes as a result of the evaluation of new information not previously available. Due to the complexity of some of these uncertainties, the ultimate resolution may result in a payment that is materially different from our current estimate of the tax liabilities. These differences will be reflected as increases or decreases to income tax expense in the period in which they are determined.
Pension costs
We account for our pension plans in accordance with ASC No. 715-20, “Compensation-Defined Benefit Plans-General” (“ASC 715-20”). The funded status is the difference between the fair value of plan assets and the benefit obligation. The adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive income represents the net unrecognized actuarial gains or losses and unrecognized prior service costs. Future actuarial gains or losses that are not recognized as net periodic benefits cost in the same periods will be recognized as a component of other comprehensive income.
We maintain two defined-benefit plans that cover certain employees in the United Kingdom and certain other employees under a collective bargaining agreement at one plant in the United States. We record annual amounts relating to these plans based on calculations specified by GAAP, which include various actuarial assumptions such as discount rates (3.5% to 4.6%) and assumed rates of return (5.7% to 7.0%) depending on the pension plan. Material changes in pension costs may occur in the future due to changes in these assumptions. Future annual amounts could be impacted by changes in the discount rate, changes in the expected long-term rate of return, changes in the level of contributions to the plans and other factors.
The discount rate is based on a model portfolio of AA rated bonds with a maturity matched to the estimated payouts of future pension benefits. The expected return on plan assets is based on our expectation of the long-term rates of return on each asset class based on the current asset mix of the funds, considering the historical returns earned on the type of assets in the funds, plus an assumption of future inflation. The current investment policy target asset allocation differs between our two plans, but it is between 50.0% to 65.0% for equities and 35.0% to 50.0% for bonds. The current inflation assumption is 3.3%. We review our actuarial assumptions on an annual basis and make modifications to the assumptions based on current rates and trends when appropriate. The effects of the modifications are amortized over future periods.
Non-GAAP Measures
In this report, we supplement our reporting of financial measures determined in accordance with GAAP by utilizing certain non-GAAP financial measures. We exclude the impact of foreign exchange to separate the impact of currency exchange rate changes from our results of operations and, in some cases, by excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition. Additionally, we supplement our reporting of SG&A, cost of sales, gross profit, and operating income in accordance with GAAP by excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition. We exclude these items to better understand trends in the business and the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition. Because we use these adjusted financial results in the management of our business and to understand business performance independent of the Cliffstar Acquisition, we believe this supplemental information is useful to investors for their independent evaluation and understanding of our core business performance and the performance of our management.
We also utilize earnings before interest expense, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), which is GAAP earnings before interest expense, provision for income taxes, depreciation and amortization. We consider EBITDA to be an indicator of operating performance. We also use EBITDA, as do analysts, lenders, investors and others, because it excludes certain items that can vary widely across different industries or among companies within the same industry. These differences can result in considerable variability in the relative costs of productive assets and the depreciation and amortization expense among companies. We also utilize Adjusted EBITDA as an indicator of operating performance. Our Adjusted EBITDA excludes purchase accounting adjustments, integration expenses, restructuring and asset impairments. Adjusted EBITDA excludes these items to facilitate period-over-period comparisons of our ongoing core operations before material charges.
Because we use these adjusted financial results in the management of our business and to understand underlying business performance, we believe this supplemental information is useful to investors for their independent evaluation and understanding of our business performance and the performance of our management. The non-GAAP financial measures described above are in addition to, and not meant to be considered superior to, or a substitute for, our financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. In addition, the non-GAAP financial measures included in this report reflect our judgment of particular items, and may be different from, and therefore may not be comparable to, similarly titled measures reported by other companies.
The following table summarizes our Consolidated Statements of Operations as a percentage of revenue for 2012, 2011 and 2010:
The following table summarizes revenue, cost of sales, gross profit, SG&A expenses, and operating income for the years ended December 31, 2011, and January 1, 2011, respectively:
In 2011, we recorded $3.8 million of integration costs related to the Cliffstar Acquisition.
In 2010, we recorded $7.2 million of transaction costs and $6.7 million of integration costs related to the Cliffstar Acquisition.
The following table summarizes our revenue and operating income by reporting segment for 2012, 2011 and 2010:
The following table summarizes our beverage case volume by reporting segment for 2012, 2011 and 2010:
Revenues and volumes are attributed to reporting segments based on the location of the customer.
The following tables summarize revenue and beverage case volume by product for 2012, 2011 and 2010:
Results of Operations
The following table summarizes the change in revenue by reporting segment for 2012:
Impact of foreign exchange is the difference between the current year’s revenue translated utilizing the current year’s average foreign exchange rates less the current year’s revenue translated utilizing the prior year’s average foreign exchange rates.
The following table summarizes the change in revenue by reporting segment for 2011:
Impact of foreign exchange is the difference between the current year’s revenue translated utilizing the current year’s average foreign exchange rates less the current year’s revenue translated utilizing the prior year’s average foreign exchange rates.
The following table summarizes the change in revenue by reporting segment for 2010:
Impact of foreign exchange is the difference between the current year’s revenue translated utilizing the current year’s average foreign exchange rates less the current year’s revenue translated utilizing the prior year’s average foreign exchange rates.
The following table summarizes our EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA for the three and twelve months ended December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.
2012 versus 2011
Revenue decreased $84 million, or 3.6%, in 2012 from 2011. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, revenue decreased 3.0% due primarily to lower beverage case volumes and a product mix shift into juice drinks and sports drinks from 100% shelf-stable juice in North America.
2011 versus 2010
Revenue increased $531.3 million, or 29.5%, in 2011 from 2010. The Cliffstar Acquisition contributed $385.6 million to revenue. Excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition and foreign exchange, revenue increased 6.7% due primarily to improved beverage case volume and higher prices in the U.K. and North America, offset in part by lower beverage case volume in RCI.
Revenue Results for Reporting Segments
2012 versus 2011
North America revenue decreased $101.9 million, or 5.6%, in 2012 from 2011. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, revenue decreased 5.4%, due primarily to our exit from certain low gross margin business, a general decline in the North American CSD and juice categories and a product mix shift into juice drinks and sports drinks from 100% shelf-stable juice. Net selling price per beverage case (which is net revenue divided by beverage case volume) increased 3.2% in 2012 from 2011 due primarily to an increase in average price per case and a product mix shift.
U.K. revenue increased $25.3 million, or 5.6%, in 2012 from 2011, due primarily to an increase in average price per case and favorable product mix. Net selling price per beverage case increased 8.2% in 2012 from 2011 due primarily to an increase in average price per case and favorable product mix. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, U.K. revenue increased 7.0% in 2012 from 2011.
Mexico revenue decreased $13.0 million, or 25.1%, in 2012 from 2011, due primarily to the non-renewal of a regional brand license at the end of its term. Net selling price per beverage case increased 8.6% in 2012 from 2011 due primarily to favorable product mix. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, Mexico revenue decreased 18.0% in 2012 from 2011.
RCI revenue increased $5.6 million, or 21.9%, in 2012 from 2011, due primarily to higher volumes from a new customer in South America and the timing of shipments to customers in Asia. Net selling price per case increased 13.6%. RCI primarily sells concentrate.
2011 versus 2010
North America revenue increased $452.0 million, or 33.3%, in 2011 from 2010. The Cliffstar Acquisition contributed $385.6 million of the increase in revenue. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange and the Cliffstar Acquisition, revenue increased 4.3%, due to a 4.4% improvement in beverage case volume that resulted primarily from new business wins and the introduction of new products, as well as higher prices. Net selling price per beverage case increased 13.7% in 2011 from 2010, due primarily to improved product mix related to juice volume resulting from the Cliffstar Acquisition. Excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition, net selling price per beverage case remained flat in 2011 from 2010.
U.K. revenue increased $80.8 million, or 22.0%, in 2011 from 2010, primarily as a result of a 9.3% increase in beverage case volume and improved product mix (primarily increases in energy and sports isotonic products). Net selling price per beverage case increased 11.7% in 2011 from 2010 due primarily to commodity-driven customer price increases and a favorable product mix. Absent foreign exchange impact, U.K. revenue increased 17.8% in 2011 from 2010.
Mexico revenue increased $1.7 million, or 3.4%, in 2011 from 2010, due primarily to a 6.3% increase in beverage case volume offset in part by a 2.8% decrease in net selling price per beverage case in 2011 from 2010. Absent foreign exchange impact, Mexico revenue increased 1.0% in 2011 from 2010.
RCI revenue decreased $3.2 million, or 11.1%, in 2011 from 2010, due primarily to the timing of shipments to our largest customer located in Asia as well as the decreased demand from a customer in Southwestern Asia as a result of the political instability in that region. Net selling price per beverage case remained flat in 2011 from 2010. RCI primarily sells concentrate.
Cost of Sales
2012 versus 2011
Cost of sales represented 87.1% of revenue in 2012 compared to 88.2% in 2011. The decrease in cost of sales as a percentage of revenue was due primarily to an increase in average price per case and favorable product mix. Variable costs represented 76.1% of total sales in 2012, down from 77.7% in 2011. Major elements of these variable costs included ingredient and packaging costs, distribution costs and fees paid to third-party manufacturers.
2011 versus 2010
Cost of sales represented 88.2% of revenue in 2011 compared to 85.2% in 2010. Excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition, cost of sales represented 87.3% of revenue in 2011 compared to 84.3% in 2010. The increase in cost of sales as a percentage of revenue was due primarily to higher commodity costs. Variable costs represented 77.7% of total sales in 2011, up from 74.7% in 2010.
Gross Profit
2012 versus 2011
Gross profit as a percentage of revenue increased to 12.9% in 2012 from 11.8% in 2011, due primarily to an increase in average price per case and the exit from certain low gross margin business, as well as operating efficiencies in North America.
2011 versus 2010
Gross profit as a percentage of revenue decreased to 11.8% in 2011 from 14.8% in 2010. Excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition, gross profit as a percentage of revenue decreased to 12.8% in 2011 from 15.7% in 2010. The decline in gross profit was due primarily to higher commodity costs.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
2012 versus 2011
SG&A in 2012 increased $5.3 million, or 3.1%, from 2011. The increase in SG&A was due primarily to an increase in certain employee-related costs in 2012 compared to lowering of the annual incentive and long-term incentive accruals in 2011, partially offset by lower information technology expenses in the current year. As a percentage of revenue, SG&A was 7.9% in 2012 and 7.4% in 2011.
2011 versus 2010
SG&A in 2011 increased $6.0 million, or 3.6%, from 2010. The impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition was $7.0 million, and included additional SG&A expenses of $17.1 million resulting from the full year inclusion of Cliffstar, offset in part by a reduction of $2.9 million in integration costs, and transaction costs of $7.2 million incurred in the prior year period. Excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition, SG&A decreased $1.0 million. As a percentage of revenue, SG&A was 7.4% in 2011 and 9.2% in 2010.
Restructuring, Goodwill and Asset Impairments
2012 versus 2011
We did not record any restructuring or impairment charges in 2012. In 2011, we recorded an intangible asset impairment of $1.4 million related to a customer list that was impaired due to the loss of a customer. Also in 2011, we recorded a $0.6 million impairment of long-lived assets related to a production plant in Mexico that ceased operations.
2011 versus 2010
We did not record any restructuring charges in 2011. In 2010, we recorded a gain of $0.5 million related to a lease contract termination. In 2011, we recorded an intangible asset impairment of $1.4 million related to a customer list that was impaired due to the loss of a customer. Also in 2011, we recorded a $0.6 million impairment of long-lived assets related to a production plant in Mexico that ceased operations.
Operating Income
2012 versus 2011
Operating income in 2012 was $109.7 million compared to operating income of $100.7 million in 2011. Overall, operating income increased by $9.0 million, or 8.9%, as a result of an increase in average price per case, the exit from certain low gross margin business, favorable product mix, and operational efficiencies in North America, partially offset by an increase in SG&A.
2011 versus 2010
Operating income in 2011 was $100.7 million compared to operating income of $99.0 million in 2010. The Cliffstar Acquisition contributed $19.6 million of the increase in operating income in 2011, and $5.2 million to operating income in 2010. Excluding the impact of the Cliffstar Acquisition, operating income declined by $28.0 million or 26.0% from 2010.
Other (Income) Expense, Net
2012 versus 2011
Other income was $2.0 million in 2012 compared to other expense of $2.2 million in 2011. In 2012, we recorded $1.9 million of insurance recoveries in excess of the loss incurred on a U.S. facility and a bargain purchase gain of $0.9 million in the U.K., offset by $0.8 million of foreign exchange losses primarily related to intercompany loans. In 2011, we recorded $2.2 million of foreign exchange losses primarily related to intercompany loans.
2011 versus 2010
Other expense was $2.2 million in 2011 compared to $4.0 million in 2010. In 2011, we recorded $2.2 million of foreign exchange losses primarily related to intercompany loans. In 2010, we recorded a $1.4 million write-off of financing fees and $2.6 million of foreign exchange losses related primarily to intercompany loans.
Interest Expense, Net
2012 versus 2011
Net interest expense in 2012 decreased 5.1% from 2011 due primarily to lower average debt balances held throughout 2012 and lower ABL fees in 2012 compared to 2011.
2011 versus
Net interest expense in 2011 increased 54.7% from 2010 due primarily to a higher average debt balance resulting from the issuance of the 2018 Notes in the third quarter of 2010.
Income Taxes
2012 versus 2011
In 2012, we recorded income tax expense of $4.6 million compared to a tax benefit of $0.7 million in 2011. The difference was due primarily to the recording of allowances against deferred tax assets in the U.S. that are uncertain to be realized as well as a reduction to the loss generated in the U.K.
2011 versus 2010
In 2011, we recorded a tax benefit of $0.7 million compared to tax expense of $18.6 million in 2010. The difference between these two amounts was due primarily to lower pre-tax income in the United States, the reorganization of our legal entity structure and refinancing of intercompany debt, offset in part by the reestablishment of a U.S. federal valuation allowance.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The following table summarizes our cash flows for 2012, 2011 and 2010 as reported in our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements:
Operating Activities
Cash provided by operating activities in 2012 was $173.0 million compared to $163.5 million in 2011 and $178.4 million in 2010. The $9.5 million increase in 2012 compared to 2011 was due primarily to higher net income, deferred income taxes, and income taxes recoverable, offset by a smaller amount of cash provided by changes in working capital in 2012 compared to 2011.
The $14.9 million decrease in 2011 compared to 2010 was due primarily to the timing of disbursements and the receipt of tax refunds in the prior year, offset in part by a reduction in inventory purchases.
Investing Activities
Cash used in investing activities was $80.4 million in 2012 compared to $90.2 million in 2011 and $554.7 million in 2010. The $9.8 million decrease in 2012 compared to 2011 was due primarily to using less cash for acquisitions offset in part by larger expenditures for property, plant and equipment related to our ongoing vertical integration.
The $464.5 million decrease in 2011 compared to 2010 was due primarily to the purchase price paid in 2010 in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition. The decrease in 2011 compared to 2010 was offset in part by $34.3 million of payments made in 2011 related to contingent consideration and deferred consideration paid in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition.
Financing Activities
Cash used in financing activities was $16.2 million in 2012 compared to cash used of $20.3 million in 2011 and cash provided of $393.3 million in 2010. During 2012, we made payments of $3.3 million on our long-term debt, $5.8 million for dividends and $1.2 million for financing fees. In 2011, we made payments of $6.8 million on our long-term debt and $7.8 million, net under our ABL facility.
In 2011, cash used in financing activities was $20.3 million compared to cash provided of $393.3 million in 2010. During 2011, we made payments of $6.8 million on our long-term debt. In 2011, we made net payments of $7.8 million on our ABL facility, which reduced our borrowings to nil. In 2010, we received proceeds of $375.0 million from the issuance of the 2018 Notes and $71.1 million in net proceeds from the underwritten public offering of 13.4 million of our common shares (the “Equity Offering”), partially offset by $14.2 million of financing fees, $12.5 million in net payments under the ABL facility, $18.7 million in payments of long-term debt, and $7.4 million of distributions to non-controlling interests.
Financial Liquidity
As of December 29, 2012, we had $605.8 million of debt and $179.4 million of cash and cash equivalents compared to $608.0 million of debt and $100.9 million of cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2011.
We believe that our level of resources, which includes cash on hand, available borrowings under the ABL facility and funds provided by operations, will be adequate to meet our expenses, capital expenditures, and debt service obligations for the next twelve months. Our ability to generate cash to meet our current expenses and debt service obligations will depend on our future performance. If we do not have enough cash to pay our debt service obligations, or if the ABL facility, 2017 Notes, or 2018 Notes were to become currently due, either at maturity or as a result of a breach, we may be required to take actions such as amending our ABL facility or the indentures governing our 2017 Notes and 2018 Notes, refinancing all or part of our existing debt, selling assets, incurring additional indebtedness or raising equity. If we need to seek additional financing, there is no assurance that this additional financing will be available on favorable terms or at all.
Should we desire to consummate significant acquisition opportunities or undertake significant expansion activities, our capital needs would increase and could result in our need to increase available borrowings under our ABL facility or access public or private debt and equity markets.
As of December 29, 2012, our total availability under the ABL facility was $220.6 million, which was based on our borrowing base (accounts receivables, inventory, and fixed assets). We had no outstanding borrowings under the ABL facility and $11.0 million in outstanding letters of credit. As a result, our excess availability under the ABL facility was $209.6 million. Each month’s borrowing base is not effective until submitted to the lenders, which usually occurs on the fifteenth day of the following month.
We earn approximately 92.3% of our consolidated operating income in subsidiaries located outside of Canada. All of these foreign earnings are considered to be indefinitely reinvested in foreign jurisdictions where we have made, and will continue to make, substantial investments to support the ongoing development and growth of our international operations. Accordingly, no Canadian income taxes have been provided on these foreign earnings. Cash and cash equivalents held by our foreign subsidiaries are readily convertible into other foreign currencies, including Canadian dollars. We do not intend, nor do we foresee a need, to repatriate these funds.
We expect existing domestic cash, cash equivalents, cash flows from operations and the issuance of domestic debt to continue to be sufficient to fund our domestic operating, investing and financing activities. In addition, we expect existing foreign cash, cash equivalents, and cash flows from operations to continue to be sufficient to fund our foreign operating and investing activities.
In the future, should we require more capital to fund significant discretionary activities in Canada than is generated by our domestic operations and is available through the issuance of domestic debt or stock, we could elect to repatriate future periods’ earnings from foreign jurisdictions. This alternative could result in a higher effective tax rate during the period of repatriation. While the likelihood is remote, we could also elect to repatriate earnings from foreign jurisdictions that have previously been considered to be indefinitely reinvested. Upon distribution of those earnings in the form of dividends or otherwise, we may be subject to additional Canadian income taxes and withholding taxes payable to various foreign jurisdictions, where applicable. This alternative could result in a higher effective tax rate in the period in which such a determination is made to repatriate prior period foreign earnings.
During the third quarter of 2010, we completed the Cliffstar Acquisition. The Cliffstar Acquisition was financed through the issuance of the 2018 Notes (the “Note Offering”), the Equity Offering, and borrowings under our ABL facility, which we refinanced in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition. The ABL facility was refinanced to, among other things, provide for the Cliffstar Acquisition, the Note Offering and the application of net proceeds therefrom, the Equity Offering and the application of net proceeds therefrom and to increase the amount available for borrowings to $275.0 million. We drew down a portion of indebtedness under that facility in order to fund the Cliffstar Acquisition. We incurred $5.4 million of financing fees in connection with the refinancing of the ABL facility. Net proceeds from the Equity Offering were $71.1 million, after deducting expenses, underwriting discounts and commissions.
Net proceeds resulting from the Note Offering were $366.4 million after issuance costs of $8.6 million. The 2018 Notes are senior unsecured obligations and rank equally with all other existing and future unsubordinated indebtedness, including indebtedness under our credit facilities. We are subject to covenants and limitations on our and/or our subsidiaries’ ability, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, to (i) pay dividends or make distributions, repurchase equity securities, prepay subordinated debt or make certain investments, (ii) incur additional debt or issue certain disqualified stock or preferred stock, (iii) create or incur liens on assets securing indebtedness, (iv) merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or substantially all of our assets taken as a whole, (v) enter into transactions with affiliates and (vi) sell assets.
During the fourth quarter of 2009, we completed our offering of $215.0 million in aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes resulting in net proceeds of approximately $206.8 million after a discount of $3.1 million and issuance costs of $5.1 million. The 2017 Notes mature on November 15, 2017 and pay interest semiannually on May 15th and November 15th of each year. The 2017 Notes are senior unsecured obligations and rank equally with all other existing and future unsubordinated indebtedness, including indebtedness under our credit facilities. We are subject to covenants and limitations on our and/or our subsidiaries’ ability, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, to (i) pay dividends or make distributions, repurchase equity securities, prepay subordinated debt or make certain investments, (ii) incur additional debt or issue certain disqualified stock or preferred stock, (iii) create or incur liens on assets, (iv) merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or substantially all assets taken as a whole, (v) enter into transactions with affiliates and (vi) sell assets.
We may, from time to time, depending on market conditions, including without limitation whether the 2017 Notes or 2018 Notes are then trading at discounts to their respective face amounts, repurchase the 2017 Notes or 2018 Notes for cash and/or in exchange for shares of our common stock, warrants, preferred stock, debt or other consideration, in each case in open market purchases and/or privately negotiated transactions. The amounts involved in any such transactions, individually or in aggregate, may be material. However, the covenants in our ABL facility subject such purchases to certain limitations and conditions.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We have no off-balance sheet arrangements as defined under Item 303(a)(4) of Regulation S-K as of December 29, 2012.
Contractual Obligations
The following table shows the schedule of future payments under certain contracts, including debt agreements and guarantees, as of December 29, 2012:
The ABL facility is considered a current liability. As of December 29, 2012, we had no outstanding borrowings under the ABL facility.
We funded water bottling equipment through a financing agreement signed in January 2008 (the “GE Obligation”). At the end of the GE Obligation, we may exchange $6.5 million of deposits for the extinguishment of $6.5 million in debt.
Interest expense includes fixed interest on the 2018 Notes, the 2017 Notes, the GE Obligation, the ABL facility, capital leases and other long-term liabilities. Actual amounts will differ from estimates provided.
Purchase obligations consist of commitments for the purchase of inventory and energy. These obligations represent the minimum contractual obligations expected under the normal course of business.
The contractual obligations table excludes the Company’s ASC 740 uncertain tax positions of $9.2 million because the Company cannot make a reliable estimate as to when such amounts will be settled.
Debt
Our total debt as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was as follows:
Our 8.375% senior notes were issued at a discount of 1.425% on November 13, 2009.
Asset-Based Lending Facility
On March 31, 2008, we entered into a credit agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. as Agent that created an ABL facility to provide financing for our North America, U.K. and Mexico reporting segments. In connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition, we refinanced the ABL facility on August 17, 2010 to, among other things, provide for the Cliffstar Acquisition, the Note Offering and the application of net proceeds therefrom, the Equity Offering and the application of net proceeds therefrom and to increase the amount available for borrowings to $275.0 million. We drew down a portion of the indebtedness under the ABL facility in order to fund the Cliffstar Acquisition. We incurred $5.4 million of financing fees in connection with the refinancing of the ABL facility.
On July 19, 2012, we amended the ABL facility to, among other things, extend the maturity date to either July 19, 2017 or, if we have not redeemed, repurchased or refinanced the 2017 Notes by May 1, 2017, May 15, 2017. We incurred $1.2 million of financing fees in connection with the amendment of the ABL facility. This amendment was considered to be a modification of the original agreement under generally accepted accounting standards.
The financing fees incurred in connection with the refinancing of the ABL facility on August 17, 2010, along with the financing fees incurred in connection with the amendment of the ABL facility on July 19, 2012, are being amortized using the straight-line method over the duration of the amended ABL facility.
As of December 29, 2012, we had no outstanding borrowings under the ABL facility. The commitment fee was 0.375% per annum of the unused commitment, which, taking into account $11.0 million of letters of credit, was $264.0 million as of December 29, 2012.
The effective interest rate as of December 29, 2012 on LIBOR and Prime loans is based on average aggregate availability as follows:
8.125% Senior Notes due in 2018
On August 17, 2010, we issued $375.0 million of 2018 Notes. The issuer of the 2018 Notes is our wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Cott Beverages Inc., and most of our U.S., Canadian and U.K. subsidiaries guarantee the 2018 Notes. The interest on the 2018 Notes is payable semi-annually on March 1st and September 1st of each year.
We incurred $8.6 million of financing fees in connection with the issuance of the 2018 Notes. The financing fees are being amortized using the effective interest method over an eight-year period, which represents the term to maturity of the 2018 Notes.
8.375% Senior Notes due in 2017
On November 13, 2009, we issued $215.0 million of 2017 Notes. The 2017 Notes were issued at a $3.1 million discount. The issuer of the 2017 Notes is our wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Cott Beverages Inc., and most of our U.S., Canadian and U.K. subsidiaries guarantee the 2017 Notes. The interest on the 2017 Notes is payable semi-annually on May 15th and November 15th of each year.
We incurred $5.1 million of financing fees in connection with the 2017 Notes. The financing fees are being amortized using the effective interest method over an eight-year period, which represents the term to maturity of the 2017 Notes.
GE Financing Agreement
We funded $32.5 million of water bottling equipment purchases through a finance lease arrangement in 2008. The quarterly payments under the lease obligation totaled approximately $8.8 million per annum for the first two years, $5.3 million per annum for the subsequent two years, then $1.7 million per annum for the final four years.
Credit Ratings and Covenant Compliance
Credit Ratings
Our objective is to maintain credit ratings that provide us with ready access to global capital and credit markets at favorable interest rates.
As of December 29, 2012, the Company’s credit ratings were as follows:
Any downgrade of our credit ratings by either Moody’s or S&P could increase our future borrowing costs or impair our ability to access capital markets on terms commercially acceptable to us or at all.
Covenant Compliance
8.125% Senior Notes due in 2018
Under the indenture governing the 2018 Notes, we are subject to a number of covenants, including covenants that limit our and certain of our subsidiaries’ ability, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, to (i) pay dividends or make distributions, repurchase equity securities, prepay subordinated debt or make certain investments, (ii) incur additional debt or issue certain disqualified stock or preferred stock, (iii) create or incur liens on assets securing indebtedness, (iv) merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or substantially all of our assets taken as a whole, (v) enter into transactions with affiliates and (vi) sell assets. We have been in compliance with all of the covenants under the 2018 Notes and there have been no amendments to any such covenants since the 2018 Notes were issued.
8.375% Senior Notes due in 2017
Under the indenture governing the 2017 Notes, we are subject to a number of covenants, including covenants that limit our and certain of our subsidiaries’ ability, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, to (i) pay dividends or make distributions, repurchase equity securities, prepay subordinated debt or make certain investments, (ii) incur additional debt or issue certain disqualified stock or preferred stock, (iii) create or incur liens on assets securing indebtedness, (iv) merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or substantially all of our assets taken as a whole, (v) enter into transactions with affiliates and (vi) sell assets. We have been in compliance with all of the covenants under the 2017 Notes and there have been no amendments to any such covenants since the 2017 Notes were issued.
ABL Facility
On July 19, 2012, we, and the other parties to the ABL facility, agreed to amend the ABL facility to, among other things (a) extend the maturity date to either July 19, 2017 or, if we have not redeemed, repurchased or refinanced the 2017 Notes by May 1, 2017, May 15, 2017, (b) change the threshold at which the springing minimum fixed charge coverage ratio would be tested, which threshold will now be met if excess availability is less than the greater of 10% of the lenders’ commitments under the revolving credit facility (the “Revolver”) or $27.5 million, and (c) change the threshold at which the springing cash dominion provision would become effective, which threshold will now be met if excess availability is less than the greater of 12.5% of the lenders’ commitments under the Revolver or $34.375 million. Although the minimum fixed charge coverage ratio was not triggered as of December 29, 2012, the ratio as calculated under this covenant was greater than 1.1 to 1.0. We were in compliance with all of the applicable covenants under the ABL facility as of December 29, 2012.
Common Share Repurchase Program
On May 1, 2012, our board of directors authorized the repurchase of up to $35.0 million of our common shares in the open market or through privately negotiated transactions over a 12-month period through either a 10b5-1 automatic trading plan or at management’s discretion in compliance with regulatory requirements, and given market, cost and other considerations. We are unable to predict the number of shares that will be repurchased under the share repurchase program, or the aggregate dollar amount of the shares actually purchased. We may discontinue purchases at any time, subject to compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. During the second quarter of 2012, we repurchased 35,272 common shares for approximately $0.3 million through open market transactions. No additional repurchases were made under the program through December 29, 2012.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
In the fourth quarter of 2012, 356,379 shares of our previously-issued common stock were withheld from delivery to our employees to satisfy their tax obligations related to stock-based awards.
Capital structure
Since December 31, 2011, equity has increased by $54.7 million. The increase was primarily the result of net income of $47.8 million, $4.5 million of non-controlling interest income, $4.9 million of share-based compensation expense, $10.7 million of foreign currency translation gain on the net assets of self-sustaining foreign operations, and $1.4 million in pension benefit plan adjustments offset by $5.8 million in dividend payments, $3.2 million in common share purchases, and $5.6 million of distributions to non-controlling interests.
Dividend payments
No dividend payments were made during 2010 or 2011. On October 31, 2012, the board of directors declared a dividend of C$0.06 per share on common shares, payable in cash on December 20, 2012 to shareowners of record at the close of business on December 4, 2012. The dividend payment was approximately $5.8 million in the aggregate. Cott intends to pay a regular quarterly dividend on its common shares subject to, among other things, the best interests of its shareowners, Cott’s results of operations, cash balances and future cash requirements, financial condition, statutory regulations and covenants set forth in the ABL facility and indentures governing the 2017 Notes and 2018 Notes, as well as other factors that the board of directors may deem relevant from time to time.
ITEM 7A.
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
We do not trade market risk sensitive instruments.
Currency Exchange Rate Risk
We are exposed to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Operations outside of the United States accounted for 34.2% of 2012 revenue and 32.5% of 2011 revenue, and are concentrated principally in the United Kingdom, Canada and Mexico. We translate the revenues and expenses of our foreign operations using average exchange rates prevailing during the period. The effect of a 10.0% change in foreign currency exchange rates among the U.S. dollar versus the Canadian dollar, pound sterling and Mexican peso as of December 29, 2012, at current levels of foreign debt and operations would result in our revenues in 2012 changing by $73.4 million and our gross profit in 2012 changing by $8.2 million. This change would be material to our cash flows and our results of operations.
Our primary exposure to foreign currency exchange rates relates to transactions in which the currency collected from customers is different from the currency utilized to purchase the product sold. In 2012, we entered into foreign currency contracts to hedge some of these currency exposures for which natural hedges do not exist. Natural hedges exist when purchases and sales within a specific country are both denominated in the same currency and, therefore, no exposure exists to hedge with foreign exchange forward, option, or swap contracts (collectively, the “foreign exchange contracts”). We do not enter into foreign exchange contracts for trading purposes. The risk of loss on a foreign exchange contract is the risk of non-performance by the counterparties, which we minimize by limiting our counterparties to major financial institutions. The fair values of the foreign exchange contracts, which are $0.1 million, are estimated using market quotes. As of December 29, 2012, we had outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts with notional amounts of $13.5 million.
Debt obligations and interest rates
We have exposure to interest rate risk from the outstanding principal amounts of our short-term and long-term debt. Our long-term debt is fixed and our short-term debt is variable. Our ABL facility is vulnerable to fluctuations in the U.S. short-term base rate and the LIBOR rate. Since we did not have any ABL borrowings outstanding as of December 29, 2012, a 100 basis point increase in the current per annum interest rate for our ABL facility (excluding the $11.0 million of outstanding letters of credit) would not result in additional interest expense or be material to our cash flows or our results of operations. The weighted average interest rate of our debt outstanding at December 29, 2012 was 8.2%.
We regularly review the structure of our debt and consider changes to the proportion of variable versus fixed rate debt through refinancing, interest rate swaps or other measures in response to the changing economic environment. Historically, we have not used derivative instruments to manage interest rate risk. If we use and fail to manage these derivative instruments successfully, or if we are unable to refinance our debt or otherwise increase our debt capacity in response to changes in the marketplace, the expense associated with debt service could increase. This would negatively impact our financial condition and profitability.
The information below summarizes our market risks associated with long-term debt obligations as of December 29, 2012. The table presents principal cash flows and related interest rates by year. Interest rates disclosed represent the actual weighted average rates as of December 29, 2012.
We funded the purchase of water bottling equipment through the GE Obligation. At the end of the GE Obligation, we may exchange $6.5 million of deposits for the extinguishment of $6.5 million in debt or elect to purchase such equipment.
Commodity Price Risk
The competitive marketplace in which we operate may limit our ability to recover increased costs through higher prices. As a result, we are subject to market risk with respect to commodity price fluctuations principally related to our purchases of aluminum, PET resin, corn for HFCS, sugar, fruit and fruit concentrates. When possible, we manage our exposure to this risk primarily through the use of supplier pricing agreements, which enable us to fix the purchase prices for certain commodities. We estimate that a 10% increase in the market prices of these commodities over the current market prices would cumulatively increase our cost of sales during the next 12 months by approximately $30.0 million. This change would be material to our cash flows and our results of operations.
ITEM 8.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Financial statements and exhibits filed under this item are listed in the index appearing in Item 15 of this report.
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
ITEM 9A.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Company’s management, under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of December 29, 2012 (the “Evaluation”). Based upon the Evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) are effective.
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Management evaluates the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting using the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Management, under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 29, 2012, and concluded that it was effective as of December 29, 2012.
The effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 29, 2012 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company’s independent registered certified public accounting firm, who also audited the Company’s consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as stated in their report which appears herein.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 29, 2012 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
ITEM 9B.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
Not Applicable.
PART III
ITEM 10.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The information required by this item regarding directors is incorporated by reference to, and will be contained in, the “Election of Directors” section of our definitive proxy circular for the 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareowners, which will be filed within 120 days after December 29, 2012 (the “2013 Proxy Circular”). The information required by this item regarding audit committee financial expert disclosure is incorporated by reference to, and will be contained in, the “Corporate Governance” section of our 2013 Proxy Circular. The information required by this item regarding executive officers appears as the Supplemental Item in Part I. There have been no material changes to the procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to our board of directors.
The Audit Committee of our board of directors is an “audit committee” for the purposes of Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Audit Committee charter is posted on our website at www.cott.com. The members of the Audit Committee are Graham Savage (Chairman), George Burnett and Gregory Monahan. As required by the NYSE rules, the board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate and that Mr. Savage qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
All of our directors, officers and employees must comply with our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. In addition, our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and principal accounting officer and certain other employees have a further obligation to comply with our Code of Ethics for Senior Officers. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and our Code of Ethics for Senior Officers are posted on our website, www.cott.com and we intend to comply with obligations to disclose any amendment to, or waiver of, provisions of these codes by posting such information on our website.
Section 16(a) Beneficial ownership reporting compliance
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to, and will be contained in, the “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” section of our 2013 Proxy Circular.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to, and will be contained in, the “Compensation of Executive Officers” section of our 2013 Proxy Circular.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED SHAREOWNER MATTERS
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to, and will be contained in, the “Principal Shareowners,” “Security Ownership of Directors and Management” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information” sections of our 2013 Proxy Circular.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to, and will be contained in, the “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” section of our 2013 Proxy Circular.
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to, and will be contained in, the “Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm” section of our 2013 Proxy Circular.
PART IV
ITEM 15.
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a) The documents filed as part of this report are as follows:
1. Financial Statements
The consolidated financial statements and accompanying report of independent registered certified public accounting firm are listed in the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements and are filed as part of this report.
2. Financial Statement Schedule
Schedule II-Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
3. Exhibits
Exhibits required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K set forth on the “Exhibit Index.”
All other schedules called for by the applicable SEC accounting regulations are not required under the related instructions or are inapplicable and, therefore, have been omitted.
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Cott Corporation
/S/ JERRY FOWDEN
Jerry Fowden
Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 27, 2013
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:
COTT CORPORATION
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page(s)
Report of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm
F - 2
Consolidated Statements of Operations
F - 3
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
F - 4
Consolidated Balance Sheets
F - 5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
F - 6
Consolidated Statements of Equity
F - 7
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F - 8 to F - 50
Report of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Cott Corporation:
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Cott Corporation and its subsidiaries at December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 29, 2012 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the index appearing under Item 15(a)2 presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 29, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for these financial statements and financial statement schedule, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements, on the financial statement schedule, and on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Tampa, Florida
February 27, 2013
COTT CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(in millions of U.S. dollars except share and per share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
COTT CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Net of a $1.1 million tax expense, $0.6 million tax benefit and $0.6 million tax benefit for the years ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011 and January 1, 2011, respectively.
Net of a $0.3 million tax expense and $0.1 million tax benefit effect for the years ended December 31, 2011 and January 1, 2011, respectively.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
COTT CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except share amounts)
Approved by the Board of Directors:
/s/ Graham Savage
Director
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
COTT CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
COTT CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Description of Business
Cott Corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries (“Cott,” “the Company,” “our Company,” “Cott Corporation,” “we,” “us,” or “our”), is one of the world’s largest producers of beverages on behalf of retailers, brand owners and distributors. Our product lines include carbonated soft drinks (“CSDs”), 100% shelf stable juice and juice-based products, clear, still and sparkling flavored waters, energy products, sports products, new age beverages, and ready-to-drink teas, as well as alcoholic beverages for brand owners.
Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of presentation
These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) using the U.S. dollar as the reporting currency, as the majority of our business and the majority of our shareowners are in the United States.
For the years ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011 and January 1, 2011, we had 52 weeks of activity.
We have five reporting segments-North America (which includes our U.S. operating segment and Canada operating segment), United Kingdom (“U.K.”) (which includes our United Kingdom reporting unit and our Continental European reporting unit), Mexico, Royal Crown International (“RCI”) and All Other.
Basis of consolidation
The financial statements consolidate our accounts, our wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures which we control. All intercompany transactions and accounts have been eliminated in consolidation.
Estimates
The preparation of these consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the amount of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The consolidated financial statements include estimates and assumptions which, in the opinion of management, were significant to the underlying amounts representing the future valuation of intangible assets, long-lived assets and goodwill, accounting for share-based compensation, realization of deferred income tax assets and the resolution of tax contingencies.
Revenue recognition
We recognize revenue, net of sales returns, when ownership passes to customers for products manufactured in our own plants and/or by third parties on our behalf, and when prices to our customers are fixed and collection is reasonably assured. This may be upon shipment of goods or upon delivery to the customer, depending on contractual terms. Shipping and handling costs paid by the customer to us are included in revenue. Although we accept returns of products from our customers occasionally, such returns, historically, have not been material.
Sales incentives
We participate in various incentive programs with our customers, including volume-based incentives, contractual rebates and promotional allowances. Volume incentives are based on our customers achieving volume targets for a period of time. Volume incentives and contractual rebates are deducted from revenue and accrued as the incentives are earned and are based on management’s estimate of the total the customer is expected to earn and claim. Promotional allowances are accrued at time of revenue recognition and deducted from revenue based on either the volume shipped or the volume sold at the retailer location, depending on the terms of the allowance. We regularly review customer sales forecasts to ensure volume targets will be met and adjust incentive accruals and revenues accordingly.
Cost of sales
We record shipping and handling and finished goods inventory costs in cost of sales. Finished goods inventory costs include the cost of direct labor and materials and the applicable share of overhead expense chargeable to production.
Selling, general and administrative expenses
We record all other expenses not charged to production as selling, general and administrative expenses.
Share-based compensation
Share-based compensation expense for all share-based compensation awards is based on the grant-date fair value. We recognized these compensation costs net of a forfeiture rate on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of the award, which is generally the vesting term of three years. No estimated forfeitures were included in the calculation of share-based compensation for the 2012, 2011 and 2010 share-based awards.
Additional paid-in capital is adjusted by the tax impact related to the difference between the amount deducted for tax purposes and the compensation cost for accounting purposes. Where the tax deduction exceeds book compensation cost, an increase in additional paid-in capital is recorded. Where the tax deduction is less than book compensation cost, a reduction in additional paid-in capital is recorded to the extent there is an accumulated balance or charged to income tax expense if a shortfall remains after the accumulated additional paid-in capital is brought to zero.
Cash and cash equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents include all highly liquid investments with original maturities not exceeding three months at the time of purchase. The fair values of our cash and cash equivalents approximate the amounts shown on our Consolidated Balance Sheets due to their short-term nature.
Allowance for doubtful accounts
A portion of our accounts receivable is not expected to be collected due to non-payment, bankruptcies and sales returns and deductions. Our accounting policy for the allowance for doubtful accounts requires us to reserve an amount based on the evaluation of the aging of accounts receivable, sales return trend analysis, detailed analysis of high-risk customers’ accounts, and the overall market and economic conditions of our customers.
Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost, determined on the first-in, first-out method, or net realizable value. Returnable bottles are valued at the lower of cost, deposit value or net realizable value. Finished goods and work-in-process include the cost of raw materials, direct labor and manufacturing overhead costs. As a result, we use an inventory reserve to adjust our costs down to a net realizable value and to reserve for estimated obsolescence of both raw and finished goods.
Property, plant and equipment
Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is allocated between cost of sales and selling, general and administration expenses and is determined using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets as follows:
Leasehold improvements are amortized using the straight-line method over the remaining life of the lease or useful life, whichever is shorter. Maintenance and repairs are charged to operating expense when incurred.
Goodwill and indefinite life intangible assets:
The following table summarizes our goodwill on a reporting segment basis as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
Goodwill represents the excess purchase price of acquired businesses over the fair value of the net assets acquired. Goodwill is not amortized, but instead is tested for impairment at least annually in the fourth quarter or more frequently if we determine a triggering event has occurred during the year. Any impairment loss is recognized in our results of operations. We evaluate goodwill for impairment on a reporting unit basis. Reporting units are operations for which discrete financial information is available, and are at or one level below our operating segments. For the purpose of testing goodwill for impairment, our reporting units are U.S., Canada and RCI. We had goodwill of $130.3 million on our balance sheet at December 29, 2012, which represents amounts for the U.S., Canada and the RCI reporting units.
In 2012, for our Canada and RCI reporting units, we assessed qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances indicated that it was more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit was less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, we had determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit was less than its carrying amount, then we would have performed the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test. We concluded that it was more likely than not that the fair value of each reporting unit was more than its carrying amount and therefore we were not required to perform the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test.
For our U.S. reporting unit, we chose to bypass the qualitative assessment and performed the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test using a mix of the income approach (which is based on the discounted cash flow of the reporting unit) and the public company approach. We believe using a combination of the two approaches provides a more accurate valuation because it incorporates the actual cash generation of the Company in addition to how a third party market participant would value the reporting unit. Because the business is assumed to continue in perpetuity, the discounted future cash flow includes a terminal value. We used a weighted average terminal growth rate of 1% for our U.S. reporting unit in 2012 and 2011. The long-term growth assumptions incorporated into the discounted cash flow calculation reflect our long-term view of the market (including a decline in CSD demand), projected changes in the sale of our products, pricing of such products and operating profit margins. The estimated revenue changes in this analysis for the U.S. reporting unit ranged between -1.4% and 3.0% for 2012 and 2.2% and 3.4% for 2011.
The discount rate used for the fair value estimates in this analysis was 10.5% for 2012 and ranged from 11% to 12% for 2011 and 10% to 12% for 2010. These rates were based on the weighted average cost of capital a market participant would use if evaluating the reporting unit as an investment. The risk-free rate was 2.4% and 2.6% for 2012 and 2011, respectively, and was based on a 20-year U.S. Treasury Bill as of the valuation date.
Each year during the fourth quarter, we re-evaluate the assumptions used to reflect changes in the business environment, such as revenue growth rates, operating profit margins and discount rate. Based on the evaluations performed this year, we determined that the fair value of our reporting units exceeded their carrying amounts.
Intangible and other assets
As of December 29, 2012, other intangible assets were $270.4 million, consisting principally of $225.0 million of customer relationships that arose from acquisitions, $13.3 million of financing costs, $15.0 million of information technology assets, and $5.5 million of trademarks. Customer relationships are amortized on a straight-line basis for the period over which we expect to receive economic benefits. We review the estimated useful life of these intangible assets annually, taking into consideration the specific net cash flows related to the intangible asset, unless a review is required more frequently due to a triggering event such as the loss of a customer. The permanent loss or significant decline in sales to any customer included in the intangible asset would result in impairment in the value of the intangible asset or accelerated amortization and could lead to an impairment of fixed assets that were used to service that customer. In 2010, we recorded $216.9 million of customer relationships acquired in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition. In 2012 and 2011, we recorded an asset impairment charge of nil and $1.4 million, respectively, related primarily to customer relationships.
Our only intangible asset with an indefinite life relates to the 2001 acquisition of intellectual property from Royal Crown Company, Inc., including the right to manufacture our concentrates, with all related inventions, processes, technologies, technical and manufacturing information, know-how and the use of the Royal Crown brand outside of North America and Mexico (the “Rights”). This asset has a net book value of $45.0 million. Prior to 2001, we paid a volume based royalty to the Royal Crown Company for purchase of concentrates. There are no legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic, or other factors that limit the useful life of this intangible.
The life of the Rights is considered to be indefinite and therefore not amortized, but instead is tested at least annually for impairment or more frequently if we determine a triggering event has occurred during the year. We compare the carrying amount of the Rights to their fair value and where the carrying amount is greater than the fair value, we recognize in income an impairment loss. To determine fair value, we use a relief from royalty method, which calculates a fair value royalty rate that is applied to a forecast of future volume shipments of concentrate that is used to produce CSDs. The forecast of future volumes is based on the estimated inter-plant shipments and RCI shipments. The relief from royalty method is used since the Rights were purchased in part to avoid making future royalty payments for concentrate to the Royal Crown Company. The resulting cash flows are discounted using a discount rate of 14.5% and estimated volume changes between 1.0% and 10.0%. No impairment was calculated for the year ended December 29, 2012. Absent any other changes, if our inter-plant concentrate volume declines by 1.0% from our estimated volume, the fair value of our Rights would decline by approximately $1.5 million. If our RCI volume declines by 1.0% from our estimated volume, the fair value of the Rights would decline by approximately $2.6 million. If our discount rate increases by 100 basis points, the fair value of the Rights would decline by approximately $5.2 million. None of these adjustments would result in an impairment of our Rights as either a stand-alone adjustment or in combination.
Impairment of long-lived assets
When adverse events occur, we compare the carrying amount of long-lived assets to the estimated undiscounted future cash flows at the lowest level of independent cash flows for the group of long-lived assets and recognize any impairment loss in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, taking into consideration the timing of testing and the asset’s remaining useful life. The expected life and value of these long-lived assets is based on an evaluation of the competitive environment, history and future prospects as appropriate. In 2011, we recorded an impairment of long-lived assets of $0.6 million related to a production plant in Mexico that ceased operations. We did not record impairments of long-lived assets in 2012 or 2010.
Foreign currency translation
The assets and liabilities of non-U.S. active operations, all of which are self-sustaining, are translated to U.S. dollars at the exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet dates. Revenues and expenses are translated using average monthly exchange rates prevailing during the period. The resulting gains or losses are recorded in accumulated comprehensive income under shareowners’ equity.
Income Taxes
We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized based on the differences between the accounting values of assets and liabilities and their related tax bases using currently enacted income tax rates. A valuation allowance is established to reduce deferred income tax assets if, on the basis of available evidence, it is not more likely than not that all or a portion of any deferred tax assets will be realized. We classify interest and income tax penalties as income tax expense (benefit).
We account for uncertain tax positions using a two-step process. The first step is to evaluate the tax position for recognition by determining if the weight of available evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained on audit, including resolution of related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits. The second step requires us to estimate and measure the tax benefit as the largest amount that is more than 50% likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement. It is inherently difficult and subjective to estimate such amounts, as we have to determine the probability of various possible outcomes. We re-evaluate these uncertain tax positions on a quarterly basis. This evaluation is based on factors including, but not limited to, changes in facts or circumstances, changes in tax law, effectively settled issues under audit, and new audit activity. Such a change in recognition or measurement would result in the recognition of a tax benefit or an additional charge to the tax provision.
We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits within the income tax expense line in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations, and we include accrued interest and penalties within the income tax payable or receivable account in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Pension costs
We record annual amounts relating to defined benefit pension plans based on calculations, which include various actuarial assumptions such as discount rates and assumed rates of return depending on the pension plan. Material changes in pension costs may occur in the future due to changes in these assumptions. Future annual amounts could be impacted by changes in the discount rate, changes in the expected long-term rate of return, changes in the level of contributions to the plans and other factors. The funded status is the difference between the fair value of plan assets and the benefit obligation. Future actuarial gains or losses that are not recognized as net periodic benefits cost in the same periods will be recognized as a component of other comprehensive income.
Recently issued accounting pronouncements
ASU 2011-08-Intangibles-Goodwill and Other: Testing Goodwill for Impairment
In September 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) amended its guidance in regards to testing goodwill for impairment to address concern raised about the cost and complexity of performing the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test required under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 350 - “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other.” The objective of this update is to simplify how entities, both public and nonpublic, test goodwill for impairment. The amendments in the update permit an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in ASC Topic 350. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than 50 percent. The amendments are effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. We have adopted this guidance and incorporated it into our goodwill assessment procedures.
ASU 2011-12- Comprehensive Income: Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-05
In November 2011, the FASB deferred part of the new rules on the presentation of other comprehensive income as required by ASU 2011-05. As written, the guidance in ASU 2011-05 would have required that reclassification adjustments from other comprehensive income to net income be presented by income statement line item. Most respondents pointed out that the information required for separate presentation of reclassification adjustments in the statements may not be available in a timely manner due to the fact that there is currently no process and control in place to collect and summarize the level of detailed information required for such presentation. The amendments in this ASU are effective at the same time as the amendments in ASU 2011-05 so that entities will not be required to comply with the presentation requirements in ASU 2011-05 that this ASU is deferring. The deferral is effective for the fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2011.
ASU 2012-02-Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment
In July 2012, the FASB amended its guidance in regards to testing indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment in order to reduce the cost and complexity of performing an impairment test for indefinite-lived intangible assets by simplifying how an entity tests those assets for impairment and to improve consistency in impairment testing guidance among long-lived asset categories. The amendment permits an entity first to assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the quantitative impairment test in accordance with ASC Subtopic 350-30, “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other”-General Intangibles Other than Goodwill. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than 50 percent. The amendments are effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. Early adoption is permitted, including for annual and interim impairment tests performed as of a date before July 27, 2012, if a public entity’s financial statements for the most recent annual or interim period have not yet been issued. We are currently assessing the impact of this standard on our consolidated financial statements.
Note 2-Acquisition
In March of 2012, our U.K. reporting segment acquired a beverage and wholesale business based in Scotland for approximately $5.0 million. The business was purchased from a company in administration and provides a number of benefits to our U.K. reporting segment, including increased product offerings, logistical synergies and access to an additional production line. The acquisition has been accounted for using the purchase method of accounting for business combinations, and related operating results are included in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the periods subsequent to the acquisition. The identified assets, which included inventory, property, plant and equipment, trade names and customer lists, were recorded at their estimated fair values, which exceeded the fair value of the purchase price of the business. Accordingly, the acquisition has been accounted for as a bargain purchase and, as a result, we recognized a gain of approximately $0.9 million associated with the acquisition. The gain is included in the other (income) expense, net section of the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
On August 17, 2010, we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Cliffstar Corporation (“Cliffstar”) and its affiliated companies for approximately $503.0 million in cash, $14.0 million in deferred consideration payable in equal installments over three years and contingent consideration of up to $55.0 million (the “Cliffstar Acquisition”). The first $15.0 million of the contingent consideration was paid upon the achievement of milestones in certain expansion projects in 2010. The remainder of the contingent consideration was to be calculated based on the achievement of certain performance measures during the fiscal year ending January 1, 2011.
In 2011, the seller of Cliffstar raised certain objections to the performance measures used to calculate the contingent consideration, and the parties commenced the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the asset purchase agreement. During 2011, Cott made interim payments to the seller equal to $29.6 million which was net of a $4.7 million refund due to Cott and included $0.9 million in settlement of certain of the seller’s objections to the calculation of the contingent consideration. The seller’s claims for an additional $12.1 million in contingent consideration were submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the asset purchase agreement and favorably resolved by payment by Cott in February 2013 of approximately $0.6 million.
The Cliffstar Acquisition was financed through the issuance of $375.0 million aggregate principal amount of 8.125% senior notes due 2018 (the “2018 Notes”), the underwritten public offering of 13.4 million of our common shares (the “Equity Offering”) and borrowings under our credit facility, which we refinanced in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition, to increase the amount available for borrowings to $275.0 million.
Our primary reasons for the Cliffstar Acquisition were to expand Cott’s product portfolio and manufacturing capabilities, enhance our customer offering and growth prospects, and improve our strategic platform for the future.
The Cliffstar Acquisition is being accounted for under the purchase accounting method, in accordance with ASC 805, “Business Combinations”, with the assets and liabilities acquired recorded at their fair values at the date of the Cliffstar Acquisition. Identified intangible assets, goodwill and property, plant and equipment are recorded at their estimated fair values per valuations. The results of operations of the acquired business have been included in our operating results beginning as of the date of the Cliffstar Acquisition. We allocated the purchase price of the Cliffstar Acquisition to tangible assets, liabilities and identifiable intangible assets acquired based on their estimated fair values. The excess of the purchase price over the aggregate fair values was recorded as goodwill. The fair value assigned to identifiable intangible assets acquired was based on estimates and assumptions made by management. Intangible assets are amortized using the straight-line amortization method.
In addition to the purchase price, we incurred $7.2 million of acquisition related costs, which were expensed as incurred and recorded in the selling, general, and administrative expenses caption of our Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended January 1, 2011, in accordance with ASC 805.
The following table summarizes the allocation of the purchase price to the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition.
Intangible Assets
In our determination of the fair value of the intangible assets, we considered, among other factors, the best use of acquired assets, analysis of historical financial performance and estimates of future performance of Cliffstar’s products. The estimated fair values of identified intangible assets were calculated considering market participant expectations and using an income approach and estimates and assumptions provided by Cliffstar’s and our management. The following table sets forth the components of identified intangible assets associated with the Cliffstar Acquisition and their estimated weighted average useful lives:
Customer relationships represent future projected revenue that will be derived from sales to existing customers of the acquired company.
In conjunction with the closing of the Cliffstar Acquisition, certain key employees of Cliffstar executed non-competition agreements, which prevent those employees from competing with us in specified restricted territories for a period of three years from the date of the Cliffstar Acquisition. The value of the Cliffstar business could be materially diminished without these non-competition agreements.
Goodwill
The principal factor that resulted in recognition of goodwill was that the purchase price for the Cliffstar Acquisition was based in part on cash flow projections assuming the reduction of administration costs and the integration of acquired customers and products into our operations, which is of greater value than on a standalone basis. Goodwill is expected to be deductible for tax purposes.
Supplemental Pro Forma Data (unaudited)
The following unaudited pro forma financial information for the years ended January 1, 2011 and January 2, 2010 represent the combined results of our operations as if the Cliffstar Acquisition had occurred on December 28, 2008. The unaudited pro forma results reflect certain adjustments related to the Cliffstar Acquisition such as increased amortization expense on acquired intangible assets resulting from the preliminary fair valuation of assets acquired. The unaudited pro forma financial information does not necessarily reflect the results of operations that would have occurred had we operated as a single entity during such period.
For the year ended January 2, 2010, Cott recorded restructuring charges of $1.5 million due to the 2009 Restructuring Plan (as defined in Note 3) and $3.6 million of asset impairments primarily related to the write-off of a customer list. For the year ended January 1, 2011, Cott recorded a restructuring gain of $0.5 million related to the North American Plan (as defined in Note 3).
Revenues for Cliffstar from the date of the Cliffstar Acquisition through January 1, 2011 were $232.2 million and operating income was $5.2 million.
Note 3-Restructuring and Asset Impairments
In 2007, we implemented the North American Realignment and Cost Reduction Plan (the “North American Plan”) to consolidate the management of our Canadian and U.S. businesses to a North American basis, among other objectives. In 2010, we paid the remaining lease termination costs in connection with the North American Plan.
During 2012 and 2011, the Company had no restructuring activities. During 2010, the Company made $5.4 million of cash payments related to the North American Plan. These cash payments included $3.0 million related to the settlement of one of its lease obligations, which resulted in a gain of $0.4 million. In addition, the Company recorded a $0.1 million gain related to other non-cash charges for the North American Plan during 2010. We do not anticipate incurring any additional restructuring charges related to the North American Plan in the future.
The following table summarizes restructuring, asset impairment and intangible asset impairment charges (gains) for the years ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011 and January 1, 2011:
As of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011, no amounts are owed under our restructuring plans.
Year ended December 31, 2011
The following table summarizes our asset impairment charges on a reporting segment basis for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Asset impairments - In 2011, we recorded an asset impairment charge of $1.4 million related primarily to customer relationships. Also, in 2011, we recorded a $0.6 million impairment of long-lived assets related to a production plant in Mexico that ceased operations.
Note 4-Other (Income) Expense, Net
The following table summarizes other (income) and expenses for the years ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011 and January 1, 2011:
Note 5-Interest Expense
The following table summarizes interest expense for the years ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011 and January 1, 2011:
Note 6-Income Tax Expense (Benefit)
Income before income taxes consisted of the following:
Income tax expense (benefit) consisted of the following:
The following table reconciles income taxes calculated at the basic Canadian corporate rates with the income tax provision:
Deferred income tax assets and liabilities were recognized on temporary differences between the financial and tax bases of existing assets and liabilities as follows:
The increase in the valuation allowance from December 31, 2011 to December 29, 2012 was primarily the result of additional allowances booked in the U.S and Mexico.
The deferred tax assets and liabilities have been classified as follows on the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
As a result of certain realization requirements of ASC Topic 718, “Compensation-Stock Compensation” (“ASC 718”), the table of deferred tax assets and liabilities shown above does not include certain deferred tax assets at December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011 that arose directly from tax deductions related to equity compensation in excess of compensation recognized for financial reporting. As of December 29, 2012, equity will be increased by $2.8 million if and when such deferred tax assets are ultimately realized.
At December 29, 2012, undistributed earnings of our foreign operations were considered to be permanently reinvested. No deferred tax liability has been recognized on the basis difference created by such earnings since it is our intention to utilize those earnings in the foreign operations for an indefinite period of time. The determination of the amount of deferred taxes on these earnings is not practicable because the computation would depend on a number of factors that cannot be known until a decision to repatriate the earnings is made.
As of December 29, 2012, we have operating loss carryforwards totaling $319.6 million, credit carryforwards totaling $1.5 million and capital loss carryforwards totaling $14.4 million. The operating loss carryforward amount was attributable to Mexico operating loss carryforwards of $20.8 million that will expire from 2018 to 2022 and U.S. federal and state operating loss carryforwards of $108.8 million and $190.0 million, respectively. The U.S. federal operating loss carryforwards will expire from 2027 to 2032, and the state operating loss carryforwards will expire from 2013 to 2032.
The credit carryforward amount was attributable to a U.S. federal alternative minimum tax credit carryforward of $0.7 million with an indefinite life and U.S. state credit carryforwards of $0.8 million that will expire from 2014 to 2018. The capital loss carryforward is attributable to a Canadian capital loss of $10.8 million and a U.K. capital loss of $3.6 million, both with an indefinite life.
We establish a valuation allowance to reduce deferred tax assets if, based on the weight of the available evidence, both positive and negative, for each respective tax jurisdiction, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. Due to uncertainty resulting from the lack of sustained taxable income in recent years in the U.S. and Mexico, we have determined that it is more likely than not that the benefit from net operating loss carryforwards and other net deferred tax assets in these jurisdictions will not be realized in the future. In recognition of this risk, we have provided a valuation allowance of $15.2 million and $8.8 million to reduce our deferred tax assets in the U.S. and Mexico, respectively.
Additionally, we have determined that it is more likely than not that the benefit from our capital losses in Canada and the U.K. will not be realized in the future due to the uncertainty regarding potential future capital gains in each jurisdiction. In recognition of this risk, we have provided a valuation allowance of $2.7 million on our Canadian capital losses and $0.8 million on our U.K. capital losses.
If our assumptions change and we determine we will be able to realize these deferred tax assets, an income tax benefit of $27.2 million will be realized as a result of the reversal of the valuation allowance at December 29, 2012.
In 2006, the FASB issued guidance regarding provisions of uncertain tax positions in ASC 740, which provides specific guidance on the financial statement recognition, measurement, reporting and disclosure of uncertain tax positions taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. ASC 740 addresses the determination of whether tax benefits, either permanent or temporary, should be recorded in the financial statements.
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of our unrecognized tax benefits is as follows:
As of December 29, 2012, we had $9.2 million of unrecognized tax benefits, a net increase of $0.2 million from $9.0 million as of December 31, 2011. If we recognized our tax positions, approximately $3.8 million would favorably impact the effective tax rate. We believe it is reasonably possible that our unrecognized tax benefits will decrease or be recognized in the next twelve months by up to $0.8 million due to the settlement of certain tax positions and lapses in statutes of limitation in various tax jurisdictions.
We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in the provision for income taxes. We recovered $0.2 million, $0.2 million and $0.2 million of interest and penalties during the year ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011 and January 1, 2011, respectively. The amount of interest and penalties recognized as an asset in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for 2012 and 2011 was $0.1 million and $3.1 million, respectively.
Years prior to 2007 are closed to audit by the Internal Revenue Service. Years prior to 2007 are closed to audit by U.S. state jurisdictions. We are currently under audit in Canada by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) for tax years 2005 through 2008. Years prior to 2005 are closed to audit by the CRA. Years prior to 2007 are closed to audit by both the U.K. and Mexico tax authorities.
Note 7-Share-based Compensation
Each of our share-based compensation plans has been approved by our shareowners, except for our 1986 Common Share Option Plan, as amended (the “Option Plan”), which was adopted prior to our initial public offering, and a stock option award granted to our Chief Executive Officer, which was an inducement grant made to attract and retain that executive. Subsequent amendments to the Option Plan that required shareowner approval have been approved.
The table below summarizes the share-based compensation expense for the years ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011, and January 1, 2011. This share-based compensation expense was recorded in selling, general, and administrative expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. As used below: (i) “PSUs” mean performance share units granted under our Amended and Restated Performance Share Unit Plan (the “PSU Plan”), (ii) “Performance-based RSUs” mean restricted share units with performance-based vesting granted under the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2010 Equity Incentive Plan”); (iii) “Time-based RSUs” mean restricted share units with time-based vesting granted under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, (iv) “EISPP” means common share units granted under the Restated Executive Incentive Share Purchase Plan (the “Restated EISPP”); (v) “Director share awards” mean common shares granted to the non-management members of Cott’s board of directors under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, which were issued in consideration of such directors’ annual board retainer fee; and (vi) “Share appreciation rights” mean share appreciation rights granted under the Amended and Restated Share Appreciation Rights Plan.
During the third quarter of 2011, we concluded that it was no longer probable that the targets established for the Performance-based RSUs awarded in 2010 and 2011 would be met, and we no longer expect these awards to ultimately vest. Accordingly, we recorded an adjustment to reverse $3.3 million in compensation costs that had been recorded to date for the Performance-based RSUs awarded in 2010 and 2011. We continue to accrue the compensation expense for the Performance-based RSUs awarded in 2012.
As of December 29, 2012, the unrecognized share-based compensation expense and years we expect to recognize it as compensation expense were as follows:
Stock Options
Subsequent to the adoption of the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, the Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the board of directors (“HRCC”) determined that certain of Cott’s long-term incentive plans were no longer needed and terminated the Option Plan. In connection with the termination of the Option Plan, outstanding options will continue in accordance with the terms of the Option Plan until vested, paid out, forfeited or terminated, as applicable. No further awards will be granted under the Option Plan. Future awards, including any awards of options, are expected to be governed by the terms of the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan.
During 2012, approximately 385,000 options were granted to certain of our employees under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan at an exercise price of $6.58 per share (C$6.47 at date of issuance). The fair value of the option grant was estimated to be $4.04 using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. No options were granted during the year ended December 31, 2011. Options representing 250,000 shares were granted to our Chief Executive Officer during the first quarter of 2010 at an exercise price of C$8.01 per share. The fair value of this option grant was estimated to be C$5.16 using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. On August 9, 2010, the Company entered into a Common Share Option Cancellation and Forfeiture Agreement to cancel this option award. The cancellation was effective as of September 22, 2010. The Company entered into this arrangement with the Chief Executive Officer in order to transition him to the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, which was approved by shareholders on May 4, 2010. Future grants to this and other executive officers are expected to be governed by the terms of such plan.
No options were granted during the year ended December 31, 2011. The fair value of each option granted during the years ended December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011, and January 1, 2011 was estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:
Stock option activity was as follows:
The aggregate intrinsic value amounts in the table above represent the difference between the closing price of our common stock on December 29, 2012, which was C$7.90 (December 31, 2011- C$6.40; January 1, 2011-C$8.95), and the exercise price, multiplied by the number of in-the-money stock options as of the same date. There were no stock options exercised in 2012 and 2010. The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised during the year ended December 31, 2011 was $0.4 million.
Total compensation cost related to unvested awards under the option plan not yet recognized is $1.0 million. The total fair value of shares that vested during the year ended December 29, 2012 was nil.
Outstanding options at December 29, 2012 were as follows:
Long-Term Incentive Plans
2010 Equity Incentive Plan
Our shareowners approved our 2010 Equity Incentive Plan at the Annual and Special Meeting of Shareowners held on May 4, 2010. Awards under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan may be in the form of incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options, restricted shares, restricted share units, performance shares, performance units, stock appreciation rights, and stock payments to employees, directors and outside consultants. The 2010 Equity Incentive Plan is administered by the HRCC or any other board committee as may be designated by the board from time to time. At the inception of the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, 4,000,000 shares were reserved for future issuance, subject to adjustment upon a share split, share dividend, recapitalization, and other similar transactions and events.
On May 3, 2012, we granted 96,010 common shares to the non-management members of our board of directors under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan for approximately $0.7 million. The common shares were issued in consideration of the directors’ annual board retainer fee.
In 2012, we granted 330,969 Performance-based RSUs, 441,996 Time-based RSUs and 384,546 stock options to certain of our employees. The Performance-based RSUs vest based on the achievement of a specified target level of pre-tax income for the period beginning on January 1, 2012 and ending on the last day of our 2014 fiscal year. The amount of Performance-based RSUs that may vest and the related unrecognized compensation cost is subject to change based on the level of targeted pre-tax income that is achieved during the period beginning on January 1, 2012 and ending on the last day of our 2014 fiscal year. The Time-based RSUs and the stock options vest on the last day of our 2014 fiscal year.
On May 6, 2011, we granted 76,110 common shares to the non-management members of our board of directors under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan for approximately $0.7 million. The common shares were issued in consideration of the directors’ annual board retainer fee.
In 2011, we granted 592,163 Performance-based RSUs and 151,545 Time-based RSUs to certain of our employees. The Performance-based RSUs vest based on the achievement of a specified target level of pre-tax income for the period beginning on January 2, 2011 and ending on the last day of our 2013 fiscal year. The amount of Performance-based RSUs that may vest and the related unrecognized compensation cost is subject to change based on the level of targeted pre-tax income that is achieved during the period beginning on January 2, 2011 and ending on the last day of our 2013 fiscal year. The Time-based RSUs vest on the last day of our 2013 fiscal year.
On May 4, 2010, we granted 78,790 common shares to the non-management members of our board of directors under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan for approximately $0.7 million. The common shares were issued in consideration of the directors’ annual board retainer fee.
In 2010, we granted 1,726,807 Performance-based RSUs and 1,396,807 Time-based RSUs to certain of our employees. The performance targets established for these Performance-based RSUs were not met, and as a result, such awards did not vest. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Time-based RSUs vested on the last day of our 2012 fiscal year and were issued for approximately $7.1 million.
During the year ended December 29, 2012, Performance-based RSU and Time-based RSU activity was as follows:
Shares to be issued pursuant to Time-based RSUs, Performance-based RSUs, or stock options that are forfeited, expired, or are cancelled or settled without the issuance of shares return to the pool of shares available for issuance under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan. As of December 31, 2012, there were 3,254,567 Time-based RSUs, Performance-based RSUs, and stock options outstanding and 745,433 shares available for future issuance under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan.
Amended and Restated PSU Plan
Under the Amended and Restated Performance Share Unit Plan (the “PSU Plan”), PSUs were awarded to Company employees. The value of an employee’s award under our PSU Plan depended on (i) our performance over a maximum three-year performance cycle; and (ii) the market price of our common shares at the time of vesting. Performance targets were established by the HRCC. PSUs granted vested over a term not exceeding three fiscal years. As of January 1, 2011, the Trustee under the PSU Plan held 0.6 million common shares as treasury shares. The remaining outstanding awards under the PSU Plan vested in February 2011 upon the achievement of adjusted operating income exceeding zero for 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Subsequent to the adoption of the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, the HRCC determined that certain of Cott’s long-term incentive plans were no longer needed and terminated the PSU Plan.
Amended and Restated SAR Plan
Under the Amended and Restated Share Appreciation Rights Plan (the “SAR Plan”), share appreciation rights (“SARs”) were awarded to employees and directors of our Company. SARs typically vested on the third anniversary of the grant date. On vesting, each SAR represented the right to be paid the difference, if any, between the price of our common shares on the date of grant and their price on the vesting date of the SAR. Payments in respect of vested in-the-money SARs were made in the form of our common shares purchased on the open market by an independent trust with cash contributed by us. During the year ended January 1, 2011, 154,000 SARs vested out-of-the-money. On August 10, 2010, the Company entered into a Stock Appreciation Right Cancellation Agreement with an executive officer to cancel 100,000 previously granted SARs. The cancellation was effective as of September 2, 2010.
Subsequent to the adoption of the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, the HRCC determined that certain of Cott’s long-term incentive plans were no longer needed and terminated the SAR Plan.
Restated Executive Incentive Share Purchase Plan
In the second quarter of 2007, our shareowners approved a restated executive incentive share purchase plan (the “Restated EISPP”), which allowed officers and senior management executives, as designated by the HRCC, to elect to receive their performance bonus (or a portion thereof) as common share units held on their behalf by an independent trust. If the employee elected to receive common share units, we provided to the employee an equal number of shares, which vested on January 1, 2011 due to the achievement of certain performance goals (“Match Portion”).
The Match Portion of the performance bonus was estimated based on the employee’s election and was amortized over the service period of approximately four years. During 2007, employees elected to defer a total of $1.1 million under the Restated EISPP. In 2009, the Company recorded an expense of $0.1 million related to the anticipated 2007 matching portion of the performance bonus. No amount was accrued for the Match Portion for 2008 deferrals because corporate performance goals were not achieved and no bonus amounts were deferred into the plan. Effective as of December 27, 2008, the HRCC approved an amendment to the Restated EISPP with the effect of freezing participation in the plan. The remaining outstanding Match Portion vested in February 2011 upon the achievement of cumulative EBIT growth of 10% per annum over the three-year performance cycle ending at the end of fiscal 2010.
Subsequent to the adoption of the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, the HRCC determined that certain of Cott’s long-term incentive plans were no longer needed and terminated the Restated EISPP.
Average Canadian-U.S. Dollar Exchange Rates for 2012, 2011 and 2010
The weighted average exercise prices for options in this Note are disclosed in Canadian dollars. The table below represents the average Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar exchange rate for the fiscal years ended 2012, 2011 and 2010.
Note 8-Net Income per Common Share
Basic net income per common share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per common share is calculated using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding adjusted to include the effect, if dilutive, of the exercise of in-the-money stock options, PSUs, Performance-based RSUs and Time-based RSUs.
A reconciliation of the denominators of the basic and diluted net income per common share computations is as follows:
At December 29, 2012, options to purchase 468,000 (December 31, 2011-284,000; January 1, 2011-704,000) shares of common stock at a weighted average exercise price of C$7.28 (December 31, 2011- C$20.47; January 1, 2011-C$16.67) per share were outstanding, of which 50,000 (December 31, 2011-209,000; January 1, 2011-354,000) were not included in the computation of diluted net income per share because the options’ exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares. Shares purchased on the open market and held by independent trusts are categorized as treasury shares under applicable accounting rules. In 2012, we utilized such shares to satisfy the vesting of Time-based RSU’s granted in 2010. We excluded (December 31, 2011-674,397; January 1, 2011-1,051,000) treasury shares held in various trusts in the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share in 2011 and 2010.
Note 9-Segment Reporting
Our business operates through five reporting segments-North America (which includes our U.S. operating segment and Canada operating segment), U.K. (which includes our United Kingdom reporting unit and our Continental European reporting unit), Mexico, RCI and All Other. The primary measures used in evaluating our reporting segments is revenues, operating income (loss), and additions to property, plant and equipment, which have been included as part of our segment disclosures listed below.
Reporting Segments
Intersegment revenue between North America and the other reporting segments was $16.4 million for the year ended December 29, 2012.
Excludes intersegment receivables, investments and notes receivable.
Reporting Segments
Intersegment revenue between North America and the other reporting segments was $14.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Excludes intersegment receivables, investments and notes receivable.
Reporting Segments
Intersegment revenue between North America and the other reporting segments was $19.0 million for the year ended January 1, 2011.
Excludes intersegment receivables, investments and notes receivable.
For the year ended December 29, 2012, sales to Walmart accounted for 31.0% (2011-31.6%, 2010-31.0%) of our total revenue, 36.3% of our North America reporting segment revenue (2011-35.9%, 2010-35.3%), 14.9% of our U.K. reporting segment revenue (2011-14.6%, 2010-16.6%) and 21.6% of our Mexico reporting segment revenue (2011-44.7%, 2010-38.9%).
Credit risk arises from the potential default of a customer in meeting its financial obligations with us. Concentrations of credit exposure may arise with a group of customers that have similar economic characteristics or that are located in the same geographic region. The ability of such customers to meet obligations would be similarly affected by changing economic, political or other conditions. We are not currently aware of any facts that would create a material credit risk.
Revenues are attributed to operating segments based on the location of the customer. Revenues by operating segment were as follows:
Represents intercompany revenue among our operating segments, of which $16.4 million, $14.7 million and $19.0 million represents intersegment revenue between the North America reporting segment and our other operating segments for December 29, 2012, December 31, 2011, and January 1, 2011, respectively.
Revenues by product were as follows:
Property, plant and equipment by geographic area as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011 were as follows:
Note 10-Accounts Receivable, Net
The following table summarizes accounts receivable, net as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
Note 11-Inventories
The following table summarizes inventories as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
Note 12-Property, Plant & Equipment
The following table summarizes property, plant and equipment as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
Depreciation expense for the year ended December 29, 2012 was $66.0 million ($63.5 million-December 31, 2011; $52.6 million-January 1, 2011).
Note 13-Intangibles and Other Assets
The following table summarizes intangibles and other assets as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
Amortization expense of intangible and other assets was $35.4 million during 2012 ($35.7 million-December 31, 2011; $26.5 million-January 1, 2011). Amortization of intangibles includes $2.9 million ($2.7 million-December 31, 2011; $2.2 million-January 1, 2011) relating to information technology assets and $3.7 million ($3.9 million-December 31, 2011; $2.7 million-January 1, 2011) relating to deferred financing assets.
The estimated amortization expense for intangible and other assets over the next five years is:
Note 14-Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
The following table summarizes accounts payable and accrued liabilities as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
Note 15-Debt
Our total debt as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was as follows:
Our 8.375% senior notes were issued at a discount of 1.425% on November 13, 2009.
The long-term debt payments (which include current maturities of long-term debt) required in each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows:
We funded the purchase of water bottling equipment through a financing agreement signed in January 2008 (the “GE Obligation”). At the end of the GE Obligation, we may exchange $6.5 million of deposits for the extinguishment of $6.5 million in debt or elect to purchase such equipment.
Asset-Based Lending Facility
On March 31, 2008, we entered into a credit agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Agent that created an asset-based lending credit facility (the “ABL facility”) to provide financing for our North America, U.K. and Mexico reporting segments. In connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition, we refinanced the ABL facility on August 17, 2010 to, among other things, provide for the Cliffstar Acquisition, the issuance of the 2018 Notes and the application of net proceeds therefrom, the underwritten public offering of 13,340,000 common shares at a price of $5.67 per share and the application of net proceeds therefrom and to increase the amount available for borrowings to $275.0 million. We drew down a portion of the indebtedness under the ABL facility in order to fund the Cliffstar Acquisition. We incurred $5.4 million of financing fees in connection with the refinancing of the ABL facility.
On July 19, 2012, we amended the ABL facility to, among other things, extend the maturity date to either July 19, 2017 or, if we have not redeemed, repurchased or refinanced the 2017 Notes by May 1, 2017, May 15, 2017. We incurred $1.2 million of financing fees in connection with the amendment of the ABL facility. This amendment was considered to be a modification of the original agreement under generally accepted accounting standards.
The financing fees incurred in connection with the refinancing of the ABL facility on August 17, 2010, along with the financing fees incurred in connection with the amendment of the ABL facility on July 19, 2012, are being amortized using the straight-line method over the duration of the amended ABL facility.
As of December 29, 2012, we had no outstanding borrowings under the ABL. The commitment fee was 0.375% per annum of the unused commitment, which, taking into account $11.0 million of letters of credit, was $264.0 million as of December 29, 2012.
The effective interest rate as of December 29, 2012 on LIBOR and Prime loans is based on average aggregate availability as follows:
8.125% Senior Notes due in 2018
On August 17, 2010, we issued the 2018 Notes. The issuer of the 2018 Notes is our wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Cott Beverages Inc., and most of our U.S., Canadian and United Kingdom subsidiaries guarantee the 2018 Notes. The interest on the 2018 Notes is payable semi-annually on March 1st and September 1st of each year.
We incurred $8.6 million of financing fees in connection with the issuance of the 2018 Notes. The financing fees are being amortized using the effective interest method over an eight-year period, which represents the term to maturity of the 2018 Notes.
8.375% Senior Notes due in 2017
On November 13, 2009, we issued $215.0 million of senior notes that are due on November 15, 2017 (the “2017 Notes”). The 2017 Notes were issued at a $3.1 million discount. The issuer of the 2017 Notes is our wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Cott Beverages Inc., and most of our U.S., Canadian and United Kingdom subsidiaries guarantee the 2017 Notes. The interest on the 2017 Notes is payable semi-annually on May15th and November 15th of each year.
We incurred $5.1 million of financing fees in connection with the 2017 Notes. The financing fees are being amortized using the effective interest method over an eight-year period, which represents the term to maturity of the 2017 Notes.
GE Financing Agreement
We funded $32.5 million of water bottling equipment purchases through a finance lease arrangement in 2008. The quarterly payments under the lease obligation totaled approximately $8.8 million per annum for the first two years, $5.3 million per annum for the subsequent two years, then $1.7 million per annum for the final four years.
Covenant Compliance
8.125% Senior Notes due in 2018
Under the indenture governing the 2018 Notes, we are subject to a number of covenants, including covenants that limit our and certain of our subsidiaries’ ability, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, to (i) pay dividends or make distributions, repurchase equity securities, prepay subordinated debt or make certain investments, (ii) incur additional debt or issue certain disqualified stock or preferred stock, (iii) create or incur liens on assets securing indebtedness, (iv) merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or substantially all of our assets taken as a whole, (v) enter into transactions with affiliates and (vi) sell assets. We have been in compliance with all of the covenants under the 2018 Notes and there have been no amendments to any such covenants since the 2018 Notes were issued.
8.375% Senior Notes due in 2017
Under the indenture governing the 2017 Notes, we are subject to a number of covenants, including covenants that limit our and certain of our subsidiaries’ ability, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, to (i) pay dividends or make distributions, repurchase equity securities, prepay subordinated debt or make certain investments, (ii) incur additional debt or issue certain disqualified stock or preferred stock, (iii) create or incur liens on assets securing indebtedness, (iv) merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or substantially all of our assets taken as a whole, (v) enter into transactions with affiliates and (vi) sell assets. We have been in compliance with all of the covenants under the 2017 Notes and there have been no amendments to any such covenants since the 2017 Notes were issued.
ABL Facility
On July 19, 2012, we, and the other parties to the ABL facility, agreed to amend the ABL facility to, among other things (a) extend the maturity date to either July 19, 2017 or, if we have not redeemed, repurchased or refinanced the 2017 Notes by May 1, 2017, May 15, 2017, (b) change the threshold at which the springing minimum fixed charge coverage ratio would be tested, which threshold will now be met if excess availability is less than the greater of 10% of the lenders’ commitments under the revolving credit facility (the “Revolver”) or $27.5 million, and (c) change the threshold at which the springing cash dominion provision would become effective, which threshold will now be met if excess availability is less than the greater of 12.5% of the lenders’ commitments under the Revolver or $34.375 million. Although the minimum fixed charge coverage ratio was not triggered as of December 29, 2012, the ratio as calculated under this covenant was greater than 1.1 to 1.0. We were in compliance with all of the applicable covenants under the ABL facility as of December 29, 2012.
Note 16-Benefit Plans
We maintain two defined benefit plans resulting from prior acquisitions that cover certain employees at one plant in the United States under a collective bargaining agreement (“U.S. Plan”) and certain employees in the United Kingdom (“U.K. Plan”). Retirement benefits for employees covered by the U.S. Plan are based on years of service multiplied by a monthly benefit factor. The monthly benefit for employees under the U.K. Plan is based on years of service multiplied by a monthly benefit factor. Pension costs are funded in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law. Both plans are closed to new participants. We use a December 31st measurement date for both of our plans.
Obligations and Funded Status
The following table summarizes the change in the benefit obligation, change in plan assets and unfunded status of the two plans as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
The accumulated benefit obligation for both defined benefit pension plans equaled the projected benefit obligations of $41.8 million and $39.3 million at the end of 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Periodic Pension Costs
The components of net periodic pension cost were as follows:
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
Amounts included in accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax, at year-end which have not yet been recognized in net periodic benefit cost were as follows:
Assumptions
Assumptions used to determine benefit obligations at year-end:
Assumptions used to determine net periodic benefit cost at year-end:
The discount rate for the U.S. Plan is based on a model portfolio of AA rated bonds with a maturity matched to the estimated payouts of future pension benefits for this type of plan. The discount rate of the U.K. Plan is based on a model portfolio of AA rated bonds, using the redemption yields on the constituent stocks of the Merrill Lynch index with a maturity matched to the estimated future pension benefits. The weighted average return for both plans for the year ended December 29, 2012 was 5.7%. The expected returns under the U.S. Plan and the U.K. Plan on plan assets are based on our expectation of the long-term average rate of return on assets in the pension funds, which is based on the allocation of assets.
Asset Mix
Our pension plan weighted-average asset allocations by asset category were as follows:
Plan Assets
Our investment policy is that plan assets will be managed utilizing an investment philosophy and approach characterized by all of the following, but listed in priority order: (1) emphasis on total return, (2) emphasis on high-quality securities, (3) sufficient income and stability of income, (4) safety of principal with limited volatility of capital through proper diversification and (5) sufficient liquidity. (The target allocation percentages for the U.K. Plan assets are 65% in equity securities and 35% in debt securities. The target allocation percentages for the U.S. Plan assets are 50% in equity securities and 50% in debt securities. None of our equity or debt securities are included in plan assets.)
Cash Flows
We expect to contribute $2.0 million to the pension plans during the 2013 fiscal year.
The following benefit payments are expected to be paid:
Cott primarily maintains defined contribution retirement plans covering qualifying employees. The total expense with respect to these plans was $6.9 million for the year ended December 29, 2012 ($6.4 million-December 31, 2011; $3.9 million-January 1, 2011).
The fair values of the Company’s pension plan assets at December 29, 2012 were as follows:
The fair values of the Company’s pension plan assets at December 31, 2011 were as follows:
Note 17-Commitments and Contingencies
We lease buildings, machinery and equipment, computer hardware and furniture and fixtures. All contractual increases and rent free periods included in the lease contract are taken into account when calculating the minimum lease payment and recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Certain leases have renewal periods and contingent rentals, which are not included in the table below. The minimum annual payments under operating leases are as follows:
Operating lease expenses were:
Operating lease expenses are shown net of sublease income of $0.3 million for 2012. As of December 29, 2012, we had commitments for capital expenditures of approximately $15.8 million.
In 2007, we entered into a $39.7 million purchase obligation for new equipment to support our bottled water business. Of the $39.7 million, payments of $16.5 million were made as of December 29, 2007. We funded $32.5 million of water bottling equipment purchases through a finance lease arrangement in 2008. The quarterly payments under the lease obligation totaled approximately $8.8 million per annum for the first two years, $5.3 million per annum for the subsequent two years, then $1.7 million per annum for the final four years.
In January 2005, we were named as one of many defendants in a class action suit alleging the unauthorized use by the defendants of container deposits and the imposition of recycling fees on consumers. On June 2, 2006, the British Columbia Supreme Court granted the summary trial application, which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action against us and the other defendants. On June 26, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the action to the British Columbia Court of Appeals which was denied, and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected on December 20, 2007. In February 2005, similar class action claims were filed in a number of other Canadian provinces. Claims filed in Quebec have since been discontinued, but is unclear how the dismissal of the British Columbia case will impact the other cases.
On August 17, 2010, we completed the Cliffstar Acquisition which included contingent consideration of up to $55.0 million. The first $15.0 million of the contingent consideration was paid upon the achievement of milestones in certain expansion projects in 2010. The remainder of the contingent consideration was to be calculated based on the achievement of certain performance measures during the fiscal year ending January 1, 2011. During 2011, Cott made interim payments to the seller equal to $29.6 million which was net of a $4.7 million refund due to Cott and included $0.9 million in settlement of certain of the seller’s objections to the calculation of the contingent consideration.
In 2011, the seller of Cliffstar raised certain objections to the performance measures used to calculate the contingent consideration, and the parties commenced the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the asset purchase agreement. The seller’s claims for an additional $12.1 million in contingent consideration were submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the asset purchase agreement and favorably resolved by payment by Cott in February 2013 of approximately $0.6 million.
We are subject to various claims and legal proceedings with respect to matters such as governmental regulations, and other actions arising out of the normal course of business. Management believes that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flow. In addition, we are involved in legal matters where the likelihood of loss has been judged to be reasonably possible, but for which a range of the potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.
We had $11.0 million in standby letters of credit outstanding as of December 29, 2012 ($9.7 million- December 31, 2011; $12.6 million-January 1, 2011).
We have future purchase obligations of $175.0 million that consist of commitments for the purchase of inventory, energy transactions, and payments related to information technology outsourcing agreements. These obligations represent the minimum contractual obligations expected under the normal course of business.
Note 18-Shares Held in Trust treated as Treasury Shares
In May 2008, an independent trustee acting under certain of our benefit plans purchased 2.3 million of our common shares to be used to satisfy future liabilities under the PSU Plan and the Restated EISPP. During the year ended December 29, 2012, we distributed 0.7 million shares from the trust to satisfy certain 2010 Equity Incentive Plan obligations that had vested during the last quarter of the year. As of December 29, 2012, there were no shares held in trust and that accounted for as treasury shares under applicable accounting rules.
Note 19-Hedging Transactions and Derivative Financial Instruments
We are directly and indirectly affected by changes in foreign currency market conditions. These changes in market conditions may adversely impact our financial performance and are referred to as market risks. When deemed appropriate by management, we use derivatives as a risk management tool to mitigate the potential impact of foreign currency market risks.
We purchase forward contract derivative instruments. Forward contracts are agreements to buy or sell a quantity of a currency at a predetermined future date, and at a predetermined rate or price. We do not enter into derivative financial instruments for trading purposes.
All derivatives are carried at fair value in the Consolidated Balance Sheets in the line item other receivables or other payables. The carrying values of the derivatives reflect the impact of legally enforceable agreements with the same counterparties. These allow us to net settle positive and negative positions (assets and liabilities) arising from different transactions with the same counterparty.
The accounting for gains and losses that result from changes in the fair values of derivative instruments depends on whether the derivatives have been designated and qualify as hedging instruments and the types of hedging relationships. The changes in fair values of derivatives that have been designated and qualify as cash flow hedges are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (“AOCI”) and are reclassified into the line item in the Consolidated Statements of Operations in which the hedged items are recorded in the same period the hedged items affect earnings. Due to the high degree of effectiveness between the hedging instruments and the underlying exposures being hedged, fluctuations in the value of the derivative instruments are generally offset by changes in the fair values or cash flows of the underlying exposures being hedged.
We formally designate and document, at inception, the financial instrument as a hedge of a specific underlying exposure, the risk management objective and the strategy for undertaking the hedge transaction. In addition, we formally assess both at the inception and at least quarterly thereafter, whether the financial instruments used in hedging transactions are effective at offsetting changes in either the fair values or cash flows of the related underlying exposures. Any ineffective portion of a financial instrument’s change in fair value is immediately recognized into earnings.
We estimate the fair values of our derivatives based on quoted market prices or pricing models using current market rates (refer to Note 21). The notional amounts of the derivative financial instruments do not necessarily represent amounts exchanged by the parties and, therefore, are not a direct measure of our exposure to the financial risks described above. The amounts exchanged are calculated by reference to the notional amounts and by other terms of the derivatives, such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates or other financial indices. We do not view the fair values of our derivatives in isolation, but rather in relation to the fair values or cash flows of the underlying hedged transactions. All of our derivatives are straight-forward over-the-counter instruments with liquid markets.
Credit Risk Associated with Derivatives
We have established strict counterparty credit guidelines and enter into transactions only with financial institutions of investment grade or better. We mitigate pre-settlement risk by being permitted to net settle for transactions with the same counterparty.
Cash Flow Hedging Strategy
We use cash flow hedges to minimize the variability in cash flows of assets or liabilities or forecasted transactions caused by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. The changes in the fair values of derivatives designated as cash flow hedges are recorded in AOCI and are reclassified into the line item in the Consolidated Statements of Operations in which the hedged items are recorded in the same period the hedged items affect earnings. The changes in fair values of hedges that are determined to be ineffective are immediately reclassified from AOCI into earnings. We did not discontinue any cash flow hedging relationships during the year ended December 29, 2012. The maximum length of time over which we hedge our exposure to future cash flows is typically one year.
We maintain a foreign currency cash flow hedging program to reduce the risk that our procurement activities will be adversely affected by changes in foreign currency exchange rates. We enter into forward contracts to hedge certain portions of forecasted cash flows denominated in foreign currencies. The total notional value of derivatives that have been designated and qualify for our foreign currency cash flow hedging program as of December 29, 2012 was approximately $13.5 million.
The fair value of the Company’s derivative instruments was $0.1 million as of December 29, 2012.
The settlement of our derivative instruments resulted in a charge to cost of sales of $0.6 million for the year ended December 29, 2012.
Note 20-Equity Offering
On August 17, 2010, we completed an underwritten public offering of 13,340,000 common shares at a price of $5.67 per share. The net proceeds of the Equity Offering of $71.1 million, after deducting expenses, underwriting discounts and commissions, were used to finance, in part, the Cliffstar Acquisition.
Note 21-Fair Value Measurements
ASC No. 820 defines fair value as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Additionally, the inputs used to measure fair value are prioritized based on a three-level hierarchy. This hierarchy requires entities to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.
The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:
•
Level 1-Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
•
Level 2-Observable inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1, such as quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar assets and liabilities in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data.
•
Level 3-Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. This includes certain pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies and similar techniques that use significant unobservable inputs.
We have certain assets and liabilities that are required to be recorded at fair value on a recurring basis in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
Fair value of financial instruments
The carrying amounts reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for cash, receivables, payables, short-term borrowings and long-term debt approximate their respective fair values, except as otherwise indicated. The carrying values and estimated fair values of our significant outstanding debt as of December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011 were as follows:
The fair values were based on the trading levels and bid/offer prices observed by a market participant and are considered level 1 financial instruments.
Fair value of contingent consideration
The fair value of the contingent consideration payable in the Cliffstar Acquisition was based on significant inputs not observed in the market and thus represented a Level 3 instrument. Level 3 instruments are valued based on unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and reflect our own assumptions in measuring fair value.
In 2011, the seller of Cliffstar raised certain objections to the performance measures used to calculate the contingent consideration, and the parties commenced the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the asset purchase agreement. During 2011, Cott made interim payments to the seller equal to $29.6 million which was net of a $4.7 million refund due to Cott and included $0.9 million in settlement of certain of the seller’s objections to the calculation of the contingent consideration. The seller’s claims for an additional $12.1 million in contingent consideration were submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the asset purchase agreement and favorably resolved by payment by Cott in February 2013 of approximately $0.6 million.
Note 22-Quarterly Financial Information (unaudited)
Note 23-Guarantor Subsidiaries
The 2017 Notes and 2018 Notes issued by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Cott Beverages, Inc., are unconditionally guaranteed on a senior basis pursuant to guarantees by Cott Corporation and certain other wholly owned subsidiaries (the “Guarantor Subsidiaries”). The guarantees of the Guarantor Subsidiaries are subject to release in limited circumstances only upon the occurrence of certain customary conditions.
We have not presented separate financial statements and separate disclosures have not been provided concerning subsidiary guarantors because management has determined such information is not material to the holders of the above-mentioned notes.
The following supplemental financial information sets forth on an unconsolidated basis, our Balance Sheets, Statements of Operations and Cash Flows for Cott Corporation, Cott Beverages Inc., Guarantor Subsidiaries and our other subsidiaries (the “Non-guarantor Subsidiaries”). The supplemental financial information reflects our investments and those of Cott Beverages Inc. in their respective subsidiaries using the equity method of accounting. In the third quarter of 2012, we revised the financial statements of certain Non-guarantor Subsidiaries to properly reflect their capitalization and subsequent investment in certain Guarantor Subsidiaries resulting from a reorganization completed in connection with the Cliffstar Acquisition. These Non-guarantor Subsidiaries, which have no business operations and no operating assets, hold, directly or indirectly, our investments in substantially all of the Guarantor Subsidiaries and therefore may be viewed for purposes of this disclosure as in-substance Guarantor Subsidiaries themselves. We have therefore included these Non-guarantor Subsidiaries as Guarantor Subsidiaries in the supplemental financial information below and have revised the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2011. While this revision does not change the assets available to satisfy the guarantees made by the Guarantor Subsidiaries, the inclusion of these Non-guarantor Subsidiaries in the Guarantor Subsidiary column for purposes of the below disclosure results in the December 31, 2011 investment in subsidiaries and equity accounts for Non-guarantor Subsidiaries being reduced by $225.3 million. There was no change to the Consolidated Balance Sheets nor any changes to the Consolidating Statements of Operations and Cash Flows for the periods presented.
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations
For the year ended December 29, 2012
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations
For the year ended December 31, 2011
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations
For the year ended January 1, 2011
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Consolidating Balance Sheet
As of December 29, 2012
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Consolidating Balance Sheet
As of December 31, 2011
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows
For the year ended December 29, 2012
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows
For the year ended December 31, 2011
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows
For the year ended January 1, 2011
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Note 24-Subsequent Event
On February 14, 2013, the Board of Directors declared a dividend of C$0.06 per share on common shares, payable in cash on April 5, 2013 to shareowners of record at the close of business on March 20, 2013.
Schedule II-Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
Cott Corporation
Exhibit Index
Document is subject to request for confidential treatment.
Indicates a management contract or compensatory plan.