Magnera - 10-Q quarterly report FY2017 Q1

P. H. Glatfelter Company and subsidiaries (“Glatfelter”) is a manufacturer of specialty papers and fiber-based engineered materials. Headquartered in York, PA, U.S. operations include facilities in Spring Grove, PA and Chillicothe and Fremont, OH. International operations include facilities in Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the Philippines, and sales and distribution offices in Russia and China. The terms “we,” “us,” “our,” “the Company,” or “Glatfelter,” refer to P. H. Glatfelter Company and subsidiaries unless the context indicates otherwise. Our products are marketed worldwide, either through wholesale paper merchants, brokers and agents, or directly to customers.

Basis of Presentation The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements (“financial statements”) include the accounts of Glatfelter and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.

We prepared these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“generally accepted accounting principles” or “GAAP”) and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission pertaining to interim financial statements. In our opinion, the financial statements reflect all normal, recurring adjustments needed to present fairly our results for the interim periods. When preparing these financial statements, we have assumed that you have read the audited consolidated financial statements included in our 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Accounting Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingencies as of the balance sheet date and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Management believes the estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of these financial statements are reasonable, based upon currently available facts and known circumstances, but recognizes that actual results may differ from those estimates and assumptions.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements  In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-09, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718) Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting designed to simplify certain aspects of accounting for share-

based awards. The new ASU requires entities to recognize as a component of income tax expense all excess tax benefits or deficiencies arising from the difference between compensation costs recognized and the intrinsic value at the time an option is exercised or, in the case of restricted stock and similar awards, the fair value upon vesting of an award. Previously such differences were recognized in additional paid in capital as part of an “APIC pool.” The ASU also requires entities to exclude excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies from the calculation of common share equivalents for purposes of calculating earnings per share. In addition, as permitted by the ASU, we have elected to account for the impact of forfeitures as they occur rather to estimate forfeitures for purposes of recognizing compensation expense. We adopted this standard effective January 1, 2017, on a prospective basis; however, the adoption of the new standard did not have a material impact on our reported results of operations or financial position.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). This ASU will require organizations such as us that lease assets to recognize on the balance sheet the assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by those leases. The new guidance will be effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods therein. Early adoption is permitted. We are in the process of assessing the impact this standard will have on us and expect to follow a modified retrospective method provided for under the standard.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13 Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments that changes the impairment model for most financial instruments, including trade receivables from an incurred loss method to a new forward-looking approach, based on expected losses. Under the new guidance, an allowance is recognized based on an estimate of expected credit losses. This standard is effective for us in the first quarter of 2020 and must be adopted using a modified retrospective transition approach. We are currently assessing the impact this standard may have on our results of operations and financial position.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers which clarifies the principles for recognizing revenue and develops a common revenue standard for GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. The new standard is required to be adopted retrospectively for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. The ASU requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments. The guidance allows for both retrospective and modified retrospective

methods of adoption. We will apply the modified retrospective method of adoption. We have performed an initial assessment of the impact of the ASU on our policies, processes, systems and controls and are developing processes to obtain the information necessary for the new disclosures. We are in the process of evaluating the impact this standard may have, if any, on our reported results of operations or financial position. Based on the initial assessment, we do not expect this ASU will have a significant impact on the timing or amount of revenue recognition.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-07, Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost (“ASU 2017-07”). The update requires entities to present the service cost component of the net periodic benefit cost in the same income statement line item as other employee compensation costs arising from services rendered during the period. All other components are to be presented below the determination of operating income. Entities will be required to disclose the line(s) used to present the other components of net periodic benefit cost, if the components are not presented separately in the income statement. ASU 2017-07 is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and early adoption is permitted. We do not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-07 will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

The following table sets forth the details of basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”):

The following table sets forth potential common shares outstanding that were not included in the computation of diluted EPS for the period indicated, because their effect would be anti-dilutive:

Income taxes are recognized for the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year and deferred tax liabilities and assets for the future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in our consolidated financial statements or tax returns. The effects of income taxes are measured based on enacted tax laws and rates.

As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had $16.1 million and $14.2 million of gross unrecognized tax benefits. As of March 31, 2017, if such benefits were to be recognized, approximately $13.0 million would be recorded as a component of income tax expense, thereby affecting our effective tax rate.

We, or one of our subsidiaries, file income tax returns with the United States Internal Revenue Service, as well as various state and foreign authorities.

The following table summarizes, by major jurisdiction, tax years that remain subject to examination:

The amount of income taxes we pay is subject to ongoing audits by federal, state and foreign tax authorities, which often result in proposed assessments. Management performs a comprehensive review of its global tax positions on a quarterly basis and accrues amounts for uncertain tax positions. Based on these reviews and the result of discussions and resolutions of matters with certain tax authorities and the closure of tax years subject to tax audit, reserves are adjusted as necessary. However, future results may include favorable or unfavorable adjustments to our estimated tax liabilities in the period the assessments are determined or resolved or as such statutes are closed. Due to potential for resolution of federal, state and foreign examinations, and the lapse of various statutes of limitation, it is reasonably possible our gross unrecognized tax benefits balance may decrease within the next twelve months by a range of zero to $0.9 million. Substantially all of this range relates to tax positions taken in the United Kingdom and the U.S.

We recognize interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as income tax expense. The following table summarizes information related to interest and penalties on uncertain tax positions:

6.STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

The P. H. Glatfelter Amended and Restated Long Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”) provides for the issuance of Glatfelter common stock to eligible participants in the form of restricted stock units, restricted stock awards, non-qualified stock options, performance shares, incentive stock options and performance units.

Pursuant to terms of the LTIP, we have issued to eligible participants restricted stock units, performance share awards and stock only stock appreciation rights.

Restricted Stock Units (“RSU”) and Performance Share Awards (“PSAs”) Awards of RSUs and PSAs are made under our LTIP. The RSUs vest on the passage of time, generally on a graded scale over a three, four, and five-year period, or in certain instances the RSUs were issued with five year cliff vesting. PSAs are issued to members of management and vesting is based on achievement of cumulative financial performance targets covering a two year period followed by an additional one-year service period. The performance measures include a minimum, target and maximum performance level providing the grantees an opportunity to receive more or less shares than targeted depending on actual financial performance. For both RSUs and PSAs, the grant date fair value of the awards, which is equal to the closing price per common share on the date of the award, is used to determine the amount of expense to be recognized over the applicable service period. Settlement of RSUs and PSAs will be made in shares of our common stock currently held in treasury.

The following table summarizes RSU and PSA activity during periods indicated:

The amount granted in 2017 and 2016 includes PSAs of 157,064 and 191,548, respectively, exclusive of reinvested dividends.

The following table sets forth aggregate RSU and PSA compensation expense for the periods indicated:

Stock Only Stock Appreciation Rights (“SOSARs”) Under terms of the SOSAR, a recipient receives the right to a payment in the form of shares of common stock equal to the difference, if any, in the fair market value of one share of common stock at the time of exercising the SOSAR and the exercise price. The SOSARs vest ratably over a three year period and have a term of ten years.

The following table sets forth information related to outstanding SOSARS for the three months ended March 31;

The following table sets forth SOSAR compensation expense for the periods indicated:

The following tables provide information with respect to the net periodic costs of our pension and post-retirement medical benefit plans.

Inventories, net of reserves, were as follows:

Long-term debt is summarized as follows:

On March 12, 2015, we amended our revolving credit agreement with a consortium of banks (the “Revolving Credit Facility”) which increased the amount available for borrowing to $400 million, extended the maturity of the facility to March 12, 2020, and instituted a revised interest rate pricing grid. On February 1, 2017, the Revolving Credit Facility was further amended to, among other things, change the definition of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) for purposes of calculating covenant compliance.

For all US dollar denominated borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility, the borrowing rate is, at our option, either, (a) the bank’s base rate which is equal to the greater of i) the prime rate; ii) the federal funds rate plus 50 basis points; or iii) the daily Euro-rate plus 100 basis points plus an applicable spread over either i), ii) or iii) ranging from 12.5 basis points to 100 basis points based on the Company’s leverage ratio and its corporate credit ratings determined by Standard & Poor’s Rating Services and Moody’s Investor Service, Inc. (the “Corporate Credit Rating”); or (b) the daily Euro-rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 112.5 basis points to 200 basis points based on the Company’s leverage ratio and the Corporate Credit Rating. For non-US dollar denominated borrowings, interest is based on (b) above.

The Revolving Credit Facility contains a number of customary covenants for financings of this type that, among other things, restrict our ability to dispose of or create liens on assets, incur additional indebtedness, repay other

indebtedness, limits certain intercompany financing arrangements, make acquisitions and engage in mergers or consolidations. We are also required to comply with specified financial tests and ratios including: i) maximum net debt to EBITDA ratio (the “leverage ratio”); and ii) a consolidated EBITDA to interest expense ratio. The most restrictive of our covenants is a maximum leverage ratio of 3.5x. As of March 31, 2017, the leverage ratio, as calculated in accordance with the definition in our amended credit agreement, was 2.4x. A breach of these requirements would give rise to certain remedies under the Revolving Credit Facility, among which are the termination of the agreement and accelerated repayment of the outstanding borrowings plus accrued and unpaid interest under the credit facility.

On October 3, 2012, we completed a private placement offering of $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of 5.375% Senior Notes due 2020 (the “5.375% Notes”). The 5.375% Notes, which are now publically registered, are fully and unconditionally guaranteed, jointly and severally, by PHG Tea Leaves, Inc., Mollanvick, Inc., Glatfelter Composite Fibers N. A., Inc., Glatfelter Advanced Materials N.A., LLC., and Glatfelter Holdings, LLC (the “Guarantors”). Interest on the 5.375% Notes is payable semiannually in arrears on April 15 and October 15.

The 5.375% Notes are redeemable, in whole or in part, at any time on or after October 15, 2016 at the redemption prices specified in the applicable Indenture. These Notes and the guarantees of the notes are senior obligations of the Company and the Guarantors, respectively, rank equally in right of payment with future senior indebtedness of the Company and the Guarantors and will mature on October 15, 2020.

The 5.375% Notes contain various covenants customary to indebtedness of this nature including limitations on i) the amount of indebtedness that may be incurred; ii) certain restricted payments including common stock dividends; iii) distributions from certain subsidiaries; iv) sales of assets; v) transactions amongst subsidiaries; and vi) incurrence of liens on assets. In addition, the 5.375% Notes contain cross default provisions that could result in all such notes becoming due and payable in the event of a failure to repay debt outstanding under the Revolving Credit Facility at maturity or a default under the Revolving Credit Facility that accelerates the debt outstanding thereunder. As of March 31, 2017, we met all of the requirements of our debt covenants.

Glatfelter Gernsbach GmbH & Co. KG (“Gernsbach”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, entered into a series of borrowing agreements with IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, Düsseldorf (“IKB”) as summarized below:

Each of the borrowings require quarterly repayments of principal and interest and provide for representations, warranties and covenants customary for financings of these types. The financial covenants contained in each of the IKB loans, which relate to the minimum ratio of consolidated EBITDA to consolidated interest expense and the maximum ratio of consolidated total net debt to consolidated adjusted EBITDA, are calculated by reference to our Revolving Credit Facility.

P. H. Glatfelter Company guarantees all debt obligations of its subsidiaries. All such obligations are recorded in these condensed consolidated financial statements.

Letters of credit issued to us by certain financial institutions totaled $5.1 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. The letters of credit, which reduce amounts available under our revolving credit facility, primarily provide financial assurances for the benefit of certain state workers compensation insurance agencies in conjunction with our self-insurance program. We bear the credit risk on this amount to the extent that we do not comply with the provisions of certain agreements. No amounts are outstanding under the letters of credit.

The amounts reported on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate fair value. The following table sets forth carrying value and fair value of long-term debt:

As of March 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016, we had $250.0 million of 5.375% fixed rate bonds. These bonds are publicly registered, but thinly traded. Accordingly, the values set forth above for the bonds, as well as our other debt instruments, are based on observable inputs and other relevant market data (Level 2). The fair value of financial derivatives is set forth below in Note 11.

As part of our overall risk management practices, we enter into financial derivatives primarily designed to either i) hedge foreign currency risks associated with forecasted transactions – “cash flow hedges”; or ii) mitigate the impact that changes in currency exchange rates have on intercompany financing transactions and foreign currency denominated receivables and payables – “foreign currency hedges."

Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments - Cash Flow Hedges We use currency forward contracts as cash flow hedges to manage our exposure to fluctuations in the currency exchange rates on certain forecasted production costs or capital expenditures expected to be incurred. Currency forward contracts involve fixing the exchange for delivery of a specified amount of foreign currency on a specified date. As of March 31, 2017, the maturity of currency forward contracts ranged from one month to 18 months.

We designate certain currency forward contracts as cash flow hedges of forecasted raw material purchases, certain production costs or capital expenditures with exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated and that qualify as cash flow hedges of foreign exchange risk is deferred as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. With respect to hedges of forecasted raw material purchases or production costs, the

amount deferred is subsequently reclassified into costs of products sold in the period that inventory produced using the hedged transaction affects earnings. For hedged capital expenditures, deferred gains or losses are reclassified and included in the historical cost of the capital asset and subsequently affect earnings as depreciation is recognized. The ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivative is recognized directly to earnings and reflected in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of income as non-operating income (expense) under the caption “Other, net.”

We had the following outstanding derivatives that were used to hedge foreign exchange risks associated with forecasted transactions and designated as hedging instruments:

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments - Foreign Currency Hedges We also enter into forward foreign exchange contracts to mitigate the impact changes in currency exchange rates have on balance sheet monetary assets and liabilities. None of these contracts are designated as hedges for financial accounting purposes and, accordingly, changes in value of the foreign exchange forward contracts and in the offsetting underlying on-balance-sheet transactions are reflected in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of income under the caption “Other, net.”

The following sets forth derivatives used to mitigate the impact changes in currency exchange rates have on balance sheet monetary assets and liabilities:

These contracts have maturities of one month from the date originally entered into.

Fair Value Measurements The following table summarizes the fair values of derivative instruments for the period indicated and the line items in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets where the instruments are recorded:

The amounts set forth in the table above represent the net asset or liability giving effect to rights of offset with each counterparty. The effect of netting the amounts presented above did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position.

The following table summarizes the amount of income or (loss) from derivative instruments recognized in our results of operations for the periods indicated and the line items in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of income where the results are recorded:

The impact of activity not designated as hedging was substantially all offset by the remeasurement of the underlying on-balance-sheet item.

The fair value hierarchy consists of three broad levels, which gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3).

The fair values of the foreign exchange forward contracts are considered to be Level 2. Foreign currency forward contracts are valued using foreign currency forward and interest rate curves. The fair value of each contract is determined by comparing the contract rate to the forward rate and discounting to present value. Contracts in a gain position are recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets

under the caption “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” and the value of contracts in a loss position is recorded under the caption “Other current liabilities.”

A rollforward of fair value amounts recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) is as follows:

We expect substantially all of the amounts recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income will be recorded as a component of the capital asset or realized in results of operations within the next 12 to 18 months and the amount ultimately recognized will vary depending on actual market rates.

Credit risk related to derivative activity arises in the event the counterparty fails to meet its obligations to us. This exposure is generally limited to the amounts, if any, by which the counterparty’s obligations exceed our obligation to them. Our policy is to enter into contracts only with financial institutions which meet certain minimum credit ratings.

Fox River - Neenah, Wisconsin

Background. We have significant uncertainties associated with environmental claims arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River, on which our former Neenah facility was located, and in the Bay of Green Bay Wisconsin (collectively, the “Site”). Since the early 1990s, the United States, the State of Wisconsin and two Indian tribes (collectively, the “Governments”) have pursued a cleanup of a 39-mile stretch of river from Little Lake Butte des Morts into Green Bay and natural resource damages (“NRDs”).

The Site has been subject to certain studies, demonstration projects and interim cleanups. The permanent cleanup, known as a “remedial action” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), consists of sediment dredging, installation of engineered caps and placement of sand covers in various areas in the bed of the river.

The United States originally notified several entities that they were potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”); however, after giving effect to settlements reached with the

Governments, the remaining PRPs exposed to continuing obligations to implement the remainder of the cleanup consist of us, Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. (“Georgia Pacific”) and NCR Corporation (“NCR”). In addition to the government claims, Appvion retains a claim against us and Georgia Pacific.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has divided the Site into five “operable units”, including the most upstream portion of the Site on which our facility was located (“OU1”) and four downstream reaches of the river and bay (“OU2-5”).

We and WTM I Company, one of the PRPs, implemented the remedial action in OU1 under a consent decree with the Governments; Menasha Corporation made a financial contribution to that work. That project began in 2004 and the work is complete, other than on-going monitoring and maintenance.

For OU2-5, work has proceeded primarily under a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) issued in November 2007 by the EPA to us and seven other respondents. The majority of that work to date has been funded or conducted by parties other than us, although before the UAO, we contributed to a project in that area and we have conducted about $13.4 million of cleanup work under the UAO in 2015 and 2016. The cleanup is expected to continue through 2018. However, as discussed below, under a proposed consent decree between the United States, Wisconsin, NCR and Appvion, Inc. (“Appvion”), we would not be responsible for any additional cleanup at the Site.

Litigation and Settlement.  In 2008, in an allocation action, NCR and Appvion sued us and many other defendants in an effort to allocate among the liable parties the costs of cleaning up this Site and compensating the Governments for their costs and the natural resource trustees for NRDs. This case has been called the “Whiting litigation.” After several summary judgment rulings and a trial, the trial court entered judgment in the Whiting Litigation allocating to NCR 100% of the costs of (a) the OU2-5 cleanup, (b) NRDs, (c) past and future costs incurred by the Governments in OU2-5, and (d) past and future costs incurred by any of the other parties net of an appropriate equitable adjustment for insurance recoveries.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that if knowledge and fault were the only equitable factors governing allocation of costs and NRDs at the Site, NCR would owe 100% of all costs and damages in OU2-5, but would not have a share of costs in OU1 -- which is upstream of the outfall of the facilities for which NCR is responsible -- solely as an “arranger for disposal” of PCB-containing waste paper by recycling it at our mill. However, the court of appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for the district

court’s further consideration of whether any other equitable factors might cause the district court to alter its allocation.

In 2010, in an enforcement action, the Governments sued us and other defendants for (a) an injunction to require implementation of the cleanup ordered by the 2007 UAO, (b) recovery of the Governments’ past and future costs of response, (c) recovery of NRDs, and (d) recovery of a declaration of liability for the Site. After appeals, the Governments did not obtain an injunction and they withdrew their claims for NRDs. The Governments obtained a declaration of our liability to comply with the 2007 UAO. The Governments’ costs claims remained pending.

On January 17, 2017, the United States filed a consent decree with the federal district court among the United States, Wisconsin, NCR, and Appvion (the “NCR/Appvion consent decree”) under which NCR would agree to complete the remaining cleanup and both NCR and Appvion would agree not to seek to recover from us or anyone else any amounts they have spent or will spend, and we and others would be barred from seeking claims against NCR or Appvion. On March 29, 2017, the United States moved for entry of a somewhat revised version of the NCR/Appvion consent decree. If the proposed consent decree is approved by the district court and if it were to withstand any appeal, then we would only face exposure to: (i) government past oversight costs, (ii) government future oversight costs, (iii) long term monitoring and maintenance, and (iv) depending on the reason, a further remedy if necessary in the event the currently ordered remedy fails, over 30 or more years, to achieve its objectives. As the result of earlier settlements, Georgia Pacific is only jointly liable with us to the Governments for monitoring and maintenance costs incurred in the most downstream three miles of the river (“OU4b”) and the bay of Green Bay (“OU5”). In addition, we and Georgia Pacific have claims against each other to reallocate the costs that we have each incurred or will incur. In connection with the filing of the proposed consent decree, NCR and Appvion filed a request to stay the trial scheduled to commence in April 2017. The courts granted the stay.

Cost estimates. The proposed NCR/Appvion consent decree, as revised, states that all parties combined have spent more than approximately $1 billion to date towards remedial actions and NRDs, of which we have contributed approximately $65 million. In addition, work to complete the remaining site remedy under the UAO is anticipated to cost approximately $200 million. If the consent decree were entered, we would no longer be exposed to reallocation of any of those amounts other than the portion contributed by Georgia Pacific, which Georgia Pacific claims to be about $145 million.

Under the proposed NCR/Appvion consent decree, we would remain responsible for the Governments’ unreimbursed past costs, which although they are in dispute, are represented

to total approximately $34 million and the Governments’ future costs. Furthermore, we, along with Georgia Pacific, would be responsible for long term monitoring and maintenance required pursuant to the Lower Fox River 100% Remedial Design Report dated December 2009 – Long Term Monitoring Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan requires long term monitoring of each of OU1 through OU5 over a period of at least 30 years. The monitoring activities consist of, among others, testing fish tissue, sampling water quality and sediment, and inspections of the engineered caps. Each operable unit is required to be monitored; however, in the event the NCR/Appvion consent decree is entered by the court, we believe the cost of portions of the plan would be subject to allocation between us and Georgia Pacific. Although we are unable to determine with certainty the timing of cash expenditures for the above matters, they are reasonably likely to extend over a period of at least 30 years.

Reserves for the Site.  Our reserve including ongoing monitoring obligations in OU1, our share of remediation of the downstream portions of the Site, NRDs and all pending, threatened or asserted and unasserted claims against us relating to PCB contamination is set forth below:

The payments set forth above represent cash paid towards completion of remediation activities in connection with the 2016 and 2015 Work Plans and ongoing monitoring activities. Of our total reserve for the Fox River, $25.0 million is recorded in the accompanying March 31, 2017 condensed consolidated balance sheet under the caption “Environmental liabilities” and the remaining $27.7 million is recorded under the caption “Other long term liabilities.”

Range of Reasonably Possible Outcomes.  Based on our analysis of all available information, including but not limited to decisions of the courts, official documents such as records of decision, discussions with legal counsel, cost estimates for future monitoring and maintenance and other post-remediation costs to be performed at the Site, and substantially dependent on whether the NCR/Appvion consent decree is entered and the resolution of the allocation issues between Georgia Pacific and us, we believe it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter could exceed the aggregate amounts accrued by amounts ranging from insignificant to approximately $40 million. We believe the likelihood of an outcome in the upper end of the monetary range is less than other possible outcomes within the range and the possibility of an outcome in excess of the upper end of the monetary range is remote. However, in the event the NCR/Appvion consent decree is not entered, the ultimate

resolution of this matter would likely resort to extensive litigation involving various matters, including allocation of remedial action and related costs. In such a scenario, although we should ultimately bear a very small share, it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter could exceed the aggregate amounts accrued by amounts ranging from insignificant to $150 million.

Summary.  Our current assessment is we will be able to manage this environmental matter without a long-term, material adverse impact on the Company. This matter could, however, at any particular time or for any particular year or years, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and/or results of operations or could result in a default under our debt covenants. Moreover,

there can be no assurance our reserves will be adequate to provide for future obligations related to this matter, or our share of costs and/or damages will not exceed our available resources, or those obligations will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and might result in a default under our loan covenants. If the proposed NCR/Appvion consent decree is not approved and a court grants relief requiring us individually either to perform directly or to contribute significant amounts towards remedial action downstream of OU1 those developments could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and might result in a default under our loan covenants.