Back to GetFilings.com

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

FORM 10-Q

Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED June 30, 2002

Commission file number 1-3433

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

2030 DOW CENTER, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 48674
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 989-636-1000

Not applicable
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes    ý    No    o.

The Dow Chemical Company
Table of Contents

2

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Income

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

3

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

5

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

6

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Note A—Consolidated Financial Statements

        The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) which, in the opinion of management, are considered necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the periods covered. Certain reclassifications of prior year amounts have been made to conform to current year presentation. These statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 20, 2002 for the year ended December 31, 2001. Except as otherwise indicated by the context, the terms "Company" or "Dow" as used herein mean The Dow Chemical Company and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Note B—Accounting Changes

        The Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," in June 1998. SFAS No. 133 requires an entity to recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the statement of financial position and measure those instruments at fair value. The Company adopted SFAS No. 133, as amended and interpreted by the FASB and the Derivatives Implementation Group through "Statement 133 Implementation Issues," on January 1, 2001. See Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk for further discussion of the Company's use of derivative instruments and risk management objectives.

        The Company uses derivative instruments to manage exposures to currency exchange rates, commodity prices and interest rate risks. The adoption of SFAS No. 133 resulted in a cumulative transition adjustment gain of $32 million ($51 million pretax) and a cumulative after-tax increase to accumulated other comprehensive income ("AOCI") of $65 million ($103 million pretax) in the first quarter of 2001.

        In September 2000, the FASB issued SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities." This statement, which replaces SFAS No. 125, revises the standards for accounting for securitizations and other transfers of financial assets and collateral, and requires certain disclosures, but it carries over most of the provisions of SFAS No. 125 without reconsideration. SFAS No. 140 was effective for transfers and servicing of financial assets and extinguishments of liabilities occurring after March 31, 2001. It was effective for recognition and reclassifications of collateral and for disclosures relating to securitization transactions and collateral for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2000. The adoption of SFAS No. 140 did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

        In July 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141, "Business Combinations," which replaces Accounting Principles Board ("APB") Opinion No. 16, "Business Combinations." Under SFAS No. 141, all business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001 are accounted for using the purchase method. As required by SFAS No. 141, negative goodwill of $89 million associated with the acquisition of Buna Sow Leuna Olefinverbund ("BSL") in 1997 was written off and included in the cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles in the first quarter of 2002. The application of SFAS No. 141 did not result in the reclassification of any amounts previously recorded as goodwill or other intangible assets.

        In July 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," which replaces APB Opinion No. 17, "Intangible Assets," and establishes new accounting and reporting requirements for goodwill and other intangible assets, effective for fiscal years beginning after

7

December 15, 2001. Under this statement, goodwill and intangible assets that are deemed to have indefinite useful lives are not amortized, but are subject to impairment testing. Impairment testing is required to be performed at adoption and at least annually thereafter. On an ongoing basis (absent any impairment indicators), Dow plans to perform impairment tests during the fourth quarter of each year, in conjunction with the Company's annual budgeting process. Effective January 1, 2002, Dow ceased all amortization of goodwill, which is its only intangible asset with an indefinite useful life, and tested recorded goodwill for impairment by comparing the fair value of each reporting unit, determined using a discounted cash flow method, with its carrying value. As a result of the Company's impairment testing, goodwill impairment losses totaling $22 million were recorded in the first quarter of 2002 and included in the cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles.

        Summaries of the impairment losses are as follows:

•

The Hampshire Fine Chemicals reporting unit has experienced increased competition and the loss of several large customers. The reporting unit has revised its 10-year earnings forecast to reflect the decreased profitability outlook, and as a result, the Company recognized a goodwill impairment loss of $18 million in the first quarter of 2002 in the Performance Chemicals segment.



•

The Rubber reporting unit has faced increased competition and customer consolidations resulting in steadily declining margins. Revisions were made to the 10-year earnings forecast to reflect these negative trends and, as a result, a goodwill impairment loss of $4 million was recognized in the first quarter of 2002 in the Plastics segment.

        As required by SFAS No. 142, the Company also reassessed the useful lives and the classification of its identifiable intangible assets and determined them to be appropriate. See Note E for additional disclosures regarding the adoption of SFAS No. 142.

        In August 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations," which requires an entity to record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred and a corresponding increase in the related long-lived asset. The liability is adjusted to its present value each period and the asset is depreciated over its useful life. A gain or loss may be incurred upon settlement of the liability. SFAS No. 143 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002. The Company is currently assessing the impact of adopting this statement.

        In October 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets." This statement replaces SFAS No. 121, "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed of," and provisions of APB Opinion No. 30, "Reporting the Results of Operations—Reporting the Effects of Disposal of a Segment of a Business, and Extraordinary, Unusual and Infrequently Occurring Events and Transactions" for the disposal of segments of a business. The statement creates one accounting model, based on the framework established in SFAS No. 121, to be applied to all long-lived assets, including discontinued operations. SFAS No. 144 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001. The Company determined that its current accounting policy for the impairment of long-lived assets is consistent with SFAS No. 144.

Note C—Merger-Related Expenses and Restructuring

        On March 29, 2001, management made certain decisions relative to employment levels, duplicate assets and facilities and excess capacity resulting from the Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide") merger (see Note D) on February 6, 2001. These decisions were based on management's

8

assessment of the actions necessary to achieve synergies as a result of the merger. The economic effects of these decisions, combined with merger-related transaction costs and certain asset impairments, resulted in a pretax special charge in the first quarter of 2001 of $1,384 million, which was included in Unallocated and Other for segment reporting purposes.

        The special charge included $643 million for employee-related costs, which consisted predominantly of provisions for employee severance, change of control obligations, medical and retirement benefits, and outplacement services. The Company's integration plans included a workforce reduction of approximately 4,500 people, primarily from Union Carbide's administrative, marketing, purchasing, research and development, and manufacturing workforce. The charge for severance was based upon the severance plan provisions communicated to employees. According to the initial integration plans, the Company expected to expend approximately 66 percent of the employee-related costs within the first two years following the merger, though the timing of severance payments is dependent upon employee elections. Expenditures with respect to employee-related costs associated with pension and postretirement benefit plans will occur over a much more extended period. The Company is in the process of determining the period of time over which they will be expended. During the fourth quarter of 2001, a review of the Company's integration plans resulted in a revision to the estimated workforce reduction, as actual reductions had exceeded the original plans. Consequently, the severance provision was increased $56 million for an additional workforce reduction of approximately 600 people. As of December 31, 2001, severance of $333 million had been paid to approximately 3,100 former employees. In the first half of 2002, severance of $111 million was paid to approximately 1,600 former employees, bringing the program-to-date amount to $444 million paid to approximately 4,700 former employees.

        The special charge included $122 million for transaction costs, which consisted primarily of investment banking, legal and accounting fees. All of these costs had been paid at March 31, 2001.

        The special charge included $619 million for the write-down of duplicate assets and facilities directly related to the merger, the loss on divestitures required to obtain regulatory approval for the merger, asset impairments and lease abandonment reserves. Duplicate assets consisted principally of capitalized software costs, information technology equipment, and research and development facilities and equipment, all of which were written off during the first quarter of 2001. The fair values of the impaired assets, which include production facilities and transportation equipment, were determined based on discounted cash flows and an appraisal, respectively. These components of the special charge will require limited future cash outlays, and will result in a decrease in annual depreciation of approximately $62 million. In November 2001, the decision to close a research and development facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey, was reversed in light of difficult economic conditions; the facility will now remain open until at least 2005. Consequently, $55 million of the special charge was reversed during the fourth quarter. At December 31, 2001, $77 million of the reserve remained for the abandonment of leased facilities and demolition costs; at June 30, 2002, $69 million of the reserve remained.

        In addition to the special charge, one-time merger and integration costs of $115 million were recorded in 2001. For the first half of 2002, one-time merger and integration costs totaled $23 million, compared with $24 million last year.

9

        The following table summarizes the activity in the special charge reserve:

Note D—Acquisitions and Divestitures

Union Carbide Corporation Merger

        In August 1999, The Dow Chemical Company and Union Carbide Corporation announced a definitive merger agreement for a tax-free, stock-for-stock transaction. Under the agreement, Union Carbide stockholders received 1.611 shares of Dow stock (on a post-split basis) for each share of Union Carbide stock they owned, for a total of approximately 219 million shares. Based upon Dow's closing price of $124 11/16 (pre-split) on August 3, 1999, the transaction was valued at $66.96 per Union Carbide share, or $11.6 billion in aggregate including $2.3 billion of net debt. According to the agreement, the merger was subject to certain conditions, including approval by Union Carbide stockholders and review by antitrust regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe and Canada. Union Carbide stockholders approved the merger on December 1, 1999. On May 3, 2000, the European Commission approved the merger subject to certain conditions. On February 6, 2001, after receiving clearance from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Canadian Competition Bureau and other jurisdictions around the world, Union Carbide merged with a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, and Union Carbide became a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow. As part of the regulatory approval process, the Company agreed to:

•

Divest certain European polyethylene assets. (The sale of Union Carbide's 50 percent ownership in Polimeri Europa S.r.l. to EniChem was completed in April 2001.)



•

Divest and license certain polyethylene gas-phase technology globally. (Completed in the first quarter of 2001.)



•

Contribute the Unipol polyethylene process technology licensing and polyethylene conventional catalyst businesses of Union Carbide to Univation Technologies LLC. (Occurred simultaneously with the merger.)



•

Divest Dow's worldwide ethyleneamines business (with the exception of Dow's facility in Terneuzen, The Netherlands). (Business was sold to Huntsman International, LLC in the first quarter of 2001.)

10

•

Divest Dow's worldwide ethanolamines business. (Business was sold to INEOS plc in the first quarter of 2001.)



•

Divest the North American Gas/Spec gas treating business. (Business was sold to INEOS plc in the first quarter of 2001.)

        The Union Carbide merger was accounted for as a pooling of interests. See Note C regarding a special charge for merger-related expenses and restructuring recorded in 2001.

Other Significant Acquisitions and Divestitures

        In January 2001, the Company acquired the 50 percent interest in Gurit-Essex AG that it did not previously own from Gurit-Heberlein AG for approximately $390 million. Gurit-Essex AG is the largest European supplier of automotive adhesives, sealants and body engineered systems for the automotive OEM and aftermarket. The acquisition globalized Dow Automotive's product availability and doubled the Company's adhesives, sealants and body engineered systems business.

        On February 9, 2001, Dow announced it had reached an agreement with EniChem to acquire its polyurethanes business, which had annual sales of approximately $500 million. The acquisition, which strengthens Dow's polyurethanes portfolio by enhancing its European presence, was completed in April 2001 for a net cash cost of approximately $80 million. Under the terms of the agreement, Dow divested Union Carbide's 50 percent interest in Polimeri Europa S.r.l. to EniChem in order to satisfy the European Commission's conditions for approval of the merger.

        On March 8, 2001, Dow announced it had reached an agreement to acquire Rohm and Haas Company's agricultural chemicals business, including working capital, for approximately $1 billion. After receiving regulatory approval, the Company announced completion of the acquisition on June 1, 2001. In the second quarter of 2002, the Company finalized its allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, principally consisting of adjustments to goodwill, property, and accounts receivable.

        On March 29, 2001, Dow announced it was making a tender offer to acquire 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Ascot Plc, a publicly traded U.K. company with annual chemical sales of approximately $335 million. The European Commission granted regulatory approval of the acquisition on May 11, 2001, and the Company declared its offer to acquire Ascot wholly unconditional on June 1, 2001. The acquisition is valued at approximately $450 million. Dow has integrated the Fine Chemicals and Specialty Chemicals businesses of Ascot into Dow's Performance Chemicals' business group. In the second quarter of 2002, the Company finalized its allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, principally consisting of adjustments to goodwill, property, and other intangible assets.

Note E—Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

        The Company ceased amortizing goodwill upon adoption of SFAS No. 142 on January 1, 2002 (see Note B). The following table provides pro forma results for the three months and six months ended

11

June 30, 2001, compared with actual results for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2002, as if the non-amortization provisions of SFAS No. 142 had been applied:

12

        Accumulated amortization for goodwill upon adoption of SFAS No. 142 was $569 million. The following table shows changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the six months ended June 30, 2002, by operating segment:

        The following table provides information regarding the Company's other intangible assets:

        Amortization expense for other intangible assets (not including software) was $19 million in the second quarter of 2002, compared with $10 million in the same period last year. Year to date, amortization expense for other intangible assets (not including software) was $33 million, compared with $20 million for the first six months of 2001. Amortization expense for software, which is included in cost of sales, totaled $6 million in the second quarter, compared with $4 million last year. For the first six months of this year, amortization expense for software was $11 million, up from $8 million for

13

the same period last year. Total estimated amortization expense for 2002 and the five succeeding fiscal years is as follows:

Note F—Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Litigation

        On May 15, 1995, Dow Corning Corporation ("Dow Corning"), in which the Company is a 50 percent shareholder, voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve litigation related to Dow Corning's breast implant and other silicone medical products. As a consequence of that action and prior charges taken by Dow Corning, the Company fully reserved its investment in Dow Corning and reserved its 50 percent share of equity earnings through the third quarter of 2000.

        The Company's financial statement exposure for breast implant product liability claims against Dow Corning is limited to its investment in Dow Corning, which, after fully reserving its investment in Dow Corning and reserving its share of equity earnings through the third quarter of 2000, is not material. As a result, any future charges by Dow Corning related to such claims or as a result of the Chapter 11 proceeding are not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

        The Company is separately named as a defendant in more than 14,000 breast implant product liability cases, of which approximately 4,000 state cases are the subject of summary judgments in favor of the Company. In these situations, plaintiffs have alleged that the Company should be liable for Dow Corning's alleged torts based on the Company's 50 percent stock ownership in Dow Corning and that the Company should be liable by virtue of alleged "direct participation" by the Company or its agents in Dow Corning's breast implant business. These latter, direct participation claims include counts sounding in strict liability, fraud, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, concert of action and negligence.

        Judge Sam C. Pointer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama was appointed by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to oversee all of the product liability cases involving silicone breast implants filed in the U.S. federal courts. Initially, in a ruling issued on December 1, 1993, Judge Pointer granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no basis on which a jury could conclude that the Company was liable for any claimed defects in the breast implants manufactured by Dow Corning. In an interlocutory opinion issued on April 25, 1995, Judge Pointer affirmed his earlier ruling as to plaintiffs' corporate control claims but vacated that ruling as to plaintiffs' direct participation claims.

        On July 7, 1998, Dow Corning, the Company and Corning Incorporated ("Corning"), on the one hand, and the Tort Claimants' Committee in Dow Corning's bankruptcy on the other, agreed on a binding Term Sheet to resolve all tort claims involving Dow Corning's silicone medical products, including the claims against Corning and the Company (collectively, the "Shareholders"). The agreement set forth in the Term Sheet was memorialized in a Joint Plan of Reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed by Dow Corning and the Tort Claimants' Committee (collectively, the "Proponents") on

14

November 9, 1998. On February 4, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court approved the disclosure statement describing the Joint Plan. Before the Joint Plan could become effective, however, it was subject to a vote by the claimants, a confirmation hearing and all relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Voting was completed on May 14, 1999, and the confirmation hearing concluded on July 30, 1999.

        On November 30, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order confirming the Joint Plan, but then issued an Opinion on December 21, 1999, that, in the view of the Proponents and the Shareholders, improperly interpreted or attempted to modify certain provisions of the Joint Plan affecting the resolution of tort claims involving Dow Corning's silicone medical products against various entities, including the Shareholders. Many of the parties in interest, including the Shareholders, filed various motions and appeals seeking, among other things, a clarification of the December 21, 1999 Opinion. These motions and appeals were heard by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Page Hood on April 12 and 13, 2000, and on November 13, 2000, Judge Hood affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's November 30, 1999 Order confirming the Joint Plan and reversed, in part, the Bankruptcy Court's December 21, 1999 Opinion, including that portion of the Opinion the Shareholders had appealed. In turn, various parties in interest appealed Judge Hood's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which heard oral arguments in the matter on October 23, 2001. On January 29, 2002, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion which, among other things, affirmed Judge Hood's determination that claims against various entities, including the Shareholders, may be enjoined where "unusual circumstances" exist, and remanded the case to the District Court for certain factual determinations. The effectiveness of the Joint Plan remains subject to the District Court making such factual determinations and any subsequent appellate action. Accordingly, there can be no assurance at this time that the Joint Plan will become effective.

        It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that plaintiffs will prevail on the theory that the Company should be liable in the breast implant litigation because of its shareholder relationship with Dow Corning. The Company's management believes that there is no merit to plaintiffs' claims that the Company is liable for alleged defects in Dow Corning's silicone products because of the Company's alleged direct participation in the development of those products, and the Company intends to contest those claims vigorously. Management believes that the possibility is remote that a resolution of plaintiffs' direct participation claims, including the vigorous defense against those claims, would have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or cash flows. Nevertheless, in light of Judge Pointer's April 25, 1995 ruling, it is possible that a resolution of plaintiffs' direct participation claims, including the vigorous defense against those claims, could have a material adverse impact on the Company's net income for a particular period, although it is impossible at this time to estimate the range or amount of any such impact.

        Numerous lawsuits have been brought against the Company and other chemical companies alleging that the manufacture, distribution or use of pesticides containing dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") has caused, among other things, property damage, including contamination of groundwater. To date, there have been no verdicts or judgments against the Company in connection with these allegations. It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that the resolution of such lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

        Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, based on current law and existing technologies. The Company had accrued obligations of $425 million at June 30, 2002, for environmental matters, including $41 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. This is management's best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although the ultimate cost with respect to these

15

particular matters could range up to twice that amount. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and evolving technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of those accrued or disclosed will have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

        Union Carbide Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, has filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, and has provided the disclosure below concerning asbestos. The Company does not consider Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability to be material to Dow's consolidated financial statements. The disclosures contained in Union Carbide's Form 10-Q are provided in this filing to more broadly disclose information concerning Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability. References below to the "Corporation" or to "UCC" refer to Union Carbide Corporation.

        "The Corporation and its subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal proceedings and claims with both private and governmental parties. These cover a wide range of matters, including, but not limited to: product liability; trade regulation; governmental regulatory proceedings; health, safety and environmental matters; employment; patents; contracts; taxes; and commercial disputes. In some of these legal proceedings and claims, the cost of remedies that may be sought or damages claimed is substantial.

        "Separately, the Corporation is involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed, for the most part, in various state courts at various times over the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both general and punitive damages, often in very large amounts. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past; alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises; and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a divested subsidiary—Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").

        "Typically, the Corporation is only one of many named defendants, many of which, including UCC and Amchem, were members of the Center for Claims Resolution ("CCR") which sought to resolve asbestos cases on behalf of its members. The CCR ceased operating in this manner in February 2001, although it still administers certain settlements. The Corporation then began utilizing Peterson Asbestos Claims Enterprise, but only for claims processing and insurance invoicing.

        "The rate at which plaintiffs file asbestos-related suits against the Corporation and Amchem has been influenced by the bankruptcy filings of numerous defendants in asbestos-related litigation including several former CCR members. The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against it and Amchem in the future. At this time, the Corporation cannot estimate the range of liability that will result from these future cases. The Corporation will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future cases. To date, substantially all of the amounts paid by the Corporation to resolve asbestos-related suits are covered by third-party insurance.

        "For pending cases, the Corporation had asbestos-related litigation accruals of $233 million and related insurance recovery receivables of $223 million at December 31, 2001. At June 30, 2002, the Corporation had asbestos-related litigation accruals of $298 million and related insurance recovery receivables of $285 million. In addition, at June 30, 2002, the Corporation had other litigation accruals, unrelated to environmental or asbestos litigation, of $15 million and related insurance recovery receivables of $15 million.

16

        "While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims referred to in this filing, management believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to pending claims and proceedings, and that the ultimate outcome of all known and future claims, after provisions for insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position of the Corporation, but could have a material effect on the consolidated results of operations in a given quarter or year. Should any losses be sustained in connection with any of such legal proceedings and claims in excess of provisions provided and available insurance, they will be charged to income when determinable."*

*

Union Carbide Corporation, Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2002, Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Note F—Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, Litigation.

        In addition to the breast implant, DBCP and environmental remediation matters, the Company is party to a number of other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to commercial matters, including product liability, governmental regulation and other actions. Certain of these actions purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. All such claims are being contested. Dow has an active risk management program consisting of numerous insurance policies secured from many carriers at various times. These policies provide coverage that will be utilized to minimize the impact, if any, of the contingencies described above.

        Except for the possible effect on the Company's net income for breast implant litigation described above, it is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Purchase Commitments

        The Company has three major agreements for the purchase of ethylene-related products in Canada. The purchase prices are determined on a cost-of-service basis, which, in addition to covering all operating expenses and debt service costs, provides the owner of the manufacturing plants with a specified return on capital. Total purchases under the agreements were $221 million in 2001, $178 million in 2000 and $144 million in 1999.

17

        At December 31, 2001, the Company had various outstanding commitments for take or pay and throughput agreements, including the purchase agreements referred to above, for terms extending from one to 20 years. In general, such commitments were at prices not in excess of current market prices.

        In addition to the take or pay obligations at December 31, 2001, the Company had outstanding purchase commitments which ranged from one to 20 years for steam, electrical power, materials, property and other items used in the normal course of business of approximately $152 million. In general, such commitments were at prices not in excess of current market prices. The Company also had outstanding commitments for construction performance and lease payment guarantees and other

18

obligations of $860 million. The Company was also committed to lease manufacturing facilities under construction in The Netherlands.

Note G—Operating Segments and Geographic Areas