Back to GetFilings.com

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

FORM 10-Q

Owens-Illinois, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

        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

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ý    No o

        Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

        Owens-Illinois, Inc. $.01 par value common stock—148,870,365 shares at April 30, 2004.

Part I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements.

        The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements presented herein are unaudited but, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments necessary to present fairly such information for the periods and at the dates indicated. Since the following unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation S-X, they do not contain all information and footnotes normally contained in annual consolidated financial statements; accordingly, they should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto appearing in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

2

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes.

3

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes.

4

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in millions)

See accompanying notes.

5

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Tabular data dollars in millions,
except share and per share amounts

1.     Earnings Per Share

        The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:

        The convertible preferred stock was not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 since the result would have been antidilutive. Options to purchase 7,135,909 and 7,237,090 weighted average shares of common stock that were outstanding during the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the options' exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares.

2.     Inventories

        Major classes of inventory are as follows:

6

3.     Long-Term Debt

        The following table summarizes the long-term debt of the Company:

        On March 15, 2004, the Company's subsidiary borrowers entered into the Second Amended and Restated Secured Credit Agreement (the "Agreement"). The previous Amended and Restated Secured Credit Agreement was amended and restated in order to provide financing for the previously announced acquisition of BSN Glasspack, S.A. The Agreement provides for up to $3.27 billion of U.S. dollar borrowings and 52 million Euro borrowings, of which $1.37 billion and 52 million Euros are not available until the closing of the BSN transaction. The Agreement includes a $600 million revolving credit facility and a $460 million A1 term loan, each of which has a final maturity date of April 1, 2007. The Agreement also includes an $840 million B1 term loan, a $1,095 million U.S. dollar and 52 million Euro C term loans and a $275 million D term loan, each of which has a final maturity date of April 1, 2008.

        At March 31, 2004, the Company's subsidiary borrowers had unused credit of $343.4 million available under the Agreement.

        The weighted average interest rate on borrowings outstanding under the Agreement at March 31, 2004 was 3.95%. Including the effects of cross-currency swap agreements related to borrowings under the Agreement by the Company's Australian and Canadian subsidiaries, as discussed in Note 10, the weighted average interest rate was 6.71%.

7

4.     Supplemental Cash Flow Information

        The increase in cash taxes paid is the result of higher international earnings.

5.     Comprehensive Income

        The components of comprehensive income are: (a) net earnings; (b) change in fair value of certain derivative instruments; (c) adjustment of minimum pension liabilities; and (d) foreign currency translation adjustments. Total comprehensive income for the three month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 amounted to $23.7 million and $77.5 million, respectively.

6.     Stock Options

        The Company has three nonqualified stock option plans. The Company has adopted the disclosure-only provisions (intrinsic value method) of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation." All options have been granted at prices equal to the market price of the Company's common stock on the date granted. Accordingly, the Company recognizes no compensation expense related to the stock option plans.

        If the Company had elected to recognize compensation cost based on the fair value of the options granted at grant date as allowed by FAS No. 123, pro forma net income and earnings per share would have been as follows:

        The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

8

7.     Contingencies

        The Company is one of a number of defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. The traditional asbestos personal injury lawsuits and claims relating to such production and sale of asbestos material typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

        As of March 31, 2004, the Company has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 31,000 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the claims and lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2003, approximately 92% of the plaintiffs and claimants either do not specify the monetary damages sought or, in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. Fewer than 4% of the plaintiffs specify the maximum of their damages claim to be between $10 million and $33 million, while approximately 4% of the plaintiffs claim specific damage amounts ranging between $6 million to $122 million. A single suit pending since 1991 involving fewer than 0.1% of the plaintiffs and approximately 60 defendants, claims damages of $11 billion.

        As indicated by the foregoing summary, modern pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. This variability, together with the actual experience discussed further below of litigating or resolving through settlement hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period, demonstrates that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable for a specific claimant is determined by other factors such as the claimant's severity of disease, product identification evidence against specific defendants, the defenses available to those defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, the claimant's history of smoking or exposure to other possible disease-causative factors, and the various other matters discussed further below.

        In addition to the pending claims set forth above, the Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically withheld claims under these agreements for later presentation while focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort system. The Company believes that as of March 31, 2004 there are no more than 21,000 of such preexisting but presently unasserted claims against the Company that are not included in the total of pending claims set forth above. The Company further believes that the bankruptcies of additional co-defendants, as discussed below, resulted in an acceleration of the presentation and disposition of a number of these previously withheld preexisting claims under such agreements, which claims would otherwise have been presented and disposed of over the next several years. This acceleration is reflected in an increased number of pending asbestos claims and, to the extent disposed, contributed to additional asbestos-related payments.

        The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any

9

material liability and they are not included in the above description of pending matters or in the following description of disposed matters.

        Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company, as of March 31, 2004, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 310,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $6,000. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over periods ranging up to seven years. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $90 million at March 31, 2004 ($87 million at December 31, 2003) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The Company's indemnity payments for these claims have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. As discussed above, a part of the Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Under such agreements, qualification by meeting certain illness and exposure criteria has tended to reduce the number of claims presented to the Company that would ultimately be dismissed or rejected due to the absence of impairment or product exposure evidence. The Company expects that as a result, although aggregate spending may be lower, there may be an increase in the per claim average indemnity payment involved in such resolution. In this regard, although the average of such payments has been somewhat higher following the implementation of the claims-handling agreements in the mid-1990s, the annual average amount has not varied materially from year to year in recent years.

        The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability (i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of $2.7 billion through 2003, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the expanding list of non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation and found liable for substantial damage awards, the continued use of litigation screenings to generate new lawsuits, the large number of claims asserted or filed by parties who claim prior exposure to asbestos materials but have no present physical impairment as a result of such exposure, and the growing number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy.

        The Company has continued to monitor trends which may affect its ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The Company expects that the total asbestos-related cash payments will be moderately lower in 2004 compared to 2003 and will continue to decline thereafter as the preexisting but presently unasserted claims withheld under the claims handling agreements are presented to the Company and as the number of potential future claimants continues to decrease. The material components of the Company's accrued liability are based on amounts estimated by the Company in connection with its comprehensive review and consist of the following: (i) the reasonably probable contingent liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the Company, (ii) the contingent liability for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with various plaintiffs' counsel, (iii) the contingent liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company believes it is reasonably probable will be asserted in the next several years, to the degree that an estimation as to future claims is possible, and (iv) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the foregoing types of claims.

        The significant assumptions underlying the material components of the Company's accrual are:

a)

the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;



b)

the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company's administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those set forth in those agreements;

10

c)

the extent of decrease or increase in the inventory of pending serious disease cases;



d)

the extent to which the Company is able to successfully defend itself at trial;



e)

the extent of actions by courts to eliminate, reduce or permit the diversion of financial resources for unimpaired claimants and so-called forum shopping;



f)

the extent to which additional defendants with substantial resources and assets are required to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims;



g)

the number and timing of co-defendant bankruptcies; and



h)

the extent to which the resolution of co-defendant bankruptcies divert resources to unimpaired claimants.

        The Company expects to conduct a comprehensive review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability.

        In April 1999, Crown Cork & Seal Technologies Corporation ("CCS") filed suit against Continental PET Technologies, Inc. ("CPT"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that certain plastic containers manufactured by CPT, primarily multi-layer PET containers with barrier properties, infringe CCS's U.S. Patent 5,021,515 relating to an oxygen-scavenging material. CCS is a party to an agreement with Chevron Philips Chemical Company ("Chevron") under which Chevron has rights to sublicense certain CCS patents, including, Chevron believed, the patent involved in the suit against CPT. To avoid the cost of litigation, CPT took a sublicense from Chevron under the patent in suit and other patents. Chevron then entered the suit to defend and assert its right to sublicense the patent in suit to CPT. In November 2002, the Delaware District Court concluded that Chevron did not have the rights it purported to sublicense to CPT and entered a judgment to that effect on March 31, 2003.

        In connection with the initial public offering of Constar International Inc. ("Constar"), CCS contributed to Constar the patent involved in the suit against CPT. As a result, Constar was substituted for CCS as the plaintiff in the suit. The Court's judgment will allow Constar to pursue its lawsuit against CPT, which is in its initial stages and had been stayed pending resolution of the Chevron claims. In the lawsuit, Constar seeks certain monetary damages and injunctive relief. CPT will continue to pursue all defenses available to it. However, if the Court were to reach conclusions adverse to CPT on the claims for monetary damages asserted by Constar, the Company believes such determination would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations and financial position, and any such damages could be covered in part by third-party indemnification. Additionally, an adverse decision with respect to Constar's request for injunctive relief is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company because it believes that it can pursue alternative technologies for the manufacture of multi-layer PET containers with barrier properties.

        Other litigation is pending against the Company, in many cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to the business of the Company and in others presenting allegations that are nonroutine and involve compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims as well as other types of relief.

        The ultimate legal and financial liability of the Company with respect to the lawsuits and proceedings referred to above, in addition to other pending litigation, cannot be estimated with certainty. The Company's reported results of operations for 2003 were materially affected by the $450 million fourth-quarter charge for asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial. Any possible future additional charge would likewise materially affect the Company's

11

results of operations in the period in which it might be recorded. Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and will continue to affect the Company's cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-term and long-term basis.

8.     Segment Information

        The Company operates in the rigid packaging industry. The Company has two reportable product segments within the rigid packaging industry: (1) Glass Containers and (2) Plastics Packaging. The Glass Containers segment includes operations in North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific region, and South America. The Plastics Packaging segment consists of two business units—consumer products (plastic containers and closures) and prescription products.

        The Company currently evaluates performance and allocates resources based on earnings before interest income, interest expense, provision for income taxes and minority share owners' interests in earnings of subsidiaries ("EBIT") excluding amounts related to certain items that management considers not representative of ongoing operations ("Segment EBIT"). EBIT for product segments includes an allocation of some corporate expenses based on both a percentage of sales and direct billings based on the costs of specific services provided. For the Company's U.S. pension plans, net periodic pension cost (credit) has been allocated to product segments.

        Financial information for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 regarding the Company's product segments is as follows:

        The reconciliation of Segment EBIT to earnings before income taxes and minority share owners' interests in earnings of subsidiaries for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 is as follows:

9.     New Accounting Standards

        FIN No. 46 (Revised). In January 2003, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation ("FIN") No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities". FIN No. 46 sets forth the criteria used in determining

12

whether an investment in a variable interest entity ("VIE") should be consolidated and is based on the general premise that a company that controls another entity through interests other than voting interests should consolidate the controlled entity. FIN No. 46 is effective for periods ending after December 15, 2003 for companies that have interest in structures that are commonly referred to as special-purpose entities. FIN No. 46 is effective for all other types of variable interest entities for periods ending after March 15, 2004. The Company does not have an interest in any structure that would be considered a special-purpose entity and therefore, FIN No. 46 was adopted by the Company on March 31, 2004 with no impact on the Company's results of operations or financial position.

10.   Derivative Instruments

        The terms of the Second Amended and Restated Secured Credit Agreement require that borrowings under the Agreement be denominated in U.S. dollars except for the C term loan which allows for 52 million Euro borrowings. In order to manage the exposure to fluctuating foreign exchange rates created by U.S. dollar borrowings by the Company's international subsidiaries, certain subsidiaries have entered into currency swaps for the principal amount of their borrowings under the Agreement and for their interest payments due under the Agreement.

        During 2003, the Company's subsidiary in Australia entered into a number of agreements that swap a total of U.S. $666 million of borrowings into 1,050 million Australian dollars. These derivative instruments swap both the interest and principal from U.S. dollars to Australian dollars and also swap the interest rate from a U.S.-based rate to an Australian-based rate. These agreements have various maturity dates ranging from April 2004 through May 2005.

        The Company's subsidiaries in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and several other European countries have also entered into short term forward exchange contracts which effectively swap additional intercompany and external borrowings by each subsidiary into its local currency. These contracts swap both the interest and principal amount of borrowings in excess of amounts covered by the swap contracts described above.

        The Company recognizes the above derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value, and the Company accounts for them as fair value hedges. Accordingly, the changes in the value of the swaps are recognized in current earnings and are expected to substantially offset any exchange rate gains or losses on the related U.S. dollar borrowings. For three months ended March 31, 2004, the amount not offset was immaterial.

        In the fourth quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004, the Company entered into a series of interest rate swap agreements with a total notional amount of $1.3 billion that mature from 2007 through 2013. The swaps were executed in order to: (i) convert a portion of the senior notes and senior debentures fixed-rate debt into floating-rate debt; (ii) maintain a capital structure containing appropriate amounts of fixed and floating-rate debt; and (iii) reduce net interest payments and expense in the near-term.

        The Company's fixed-to-variable interest rate swaps are accounted for as fair value hedges. Because the relevant terms of the swap agreements match the corresponding terms of the notes, there is no hedge ineffectiveness. Accordingly, as required by FAS No. 133 the Company recorded the fair market values of the swaps as a net other long-term asset along with a corresponding net increase to the hedged debt.

        Under the swaps the Company receives fixed rate interest amounts (equal to interest on the corresponding note hedged) and pays interest at a six month U.S. LIBOR rate (set in arrears) plus a margin spread (see table below). The interest rate differential on each swap is recognized as an adjustment of interest expense over the term of the agreement.

13

        The following selected information relates to fair value swaps at March 31, 2004 (based on a projected U.S. LIBOR rate of 1.212%):

        The Company also uses commodity futures contracts related to forecasted natural gas requirements. The objective of these futures contracts is to limit the fluctuations in prices paid for natural gas and the potential volatility in earnings or cash flows from future market price movements. The Company continually evaluates the natural gas market with respect to its future usage requirements. The Company generally evaluates the natural gas market for the next twelve to eighteen months and continually enters into commodity futures contracts in order to hedge a portion of its usage requirements through the next twelve to eighteen months. At March 31, 2004, the Company had entered into commodity futures contracts for approximately 75% (approximately 13,500,000 MM BTUs) of its expected North American natural gas usage for the full year of 2004 and approximately 4% (approximately 960,000 MM BTUs) for the full year of 2005.

        The Company accounts for the above futures contracts on the balance sheet at fair value. The effective portion of changes in the fair value of a derivative that is designated as, and meets the required criteria for, a cash flow hedge is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income ("OCI") and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the underlying hedged item affects earnings. The ineffective portion of the change in the fair value of a derivative designated as a cash flow hedge is recognized in current earnings.

        The above futures contracts are accounted for as cash flow hedges at March 31, 2004. Hedge accounting is only applied when the derivative is deemed to be highly effective at offsetting anticipated cash flows of the hedged transactions. For hedged forecasted transactions, hedge accounting will be discontinued if the forecasted transaction is no longer probable to occur, and any previously deferred gains or losses will be recorded to earnings immediately.

        At March 31, 2004, an unrealized net gain of $5.8 million, after tax of $3.1 million, related to these commodity futures contracts was included in OCI. There was no ineffectiveness recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003.

        The Company's international subsidiaries may enter into short-term forward exchange agreements to purchase foreign currencies at set rates in the future. These foreign currency forward exchange agreements are used to limit exposure to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates for all significant planned purchases of fixed assets or commodities that are denominated in a currency other than the subsidiaries' functional currency. Subsidiaries may also use forward exchange agreements to offset the foreign currency risk for receivables and payables not denominated in their functional currency. The Company records these short-term forward exchange agreements on the balance sheet at fair value and changes in the fair value are recognized in current earnings.

11.   Restructuring Accruals

        In August 2003, the Company announced the permanent closing of its Hayward, California glass container factory. Production at the factory was suspended in June following a major leak in its only

14

glass furnace. As a result, the Company recorded a capacity curtailment charge of $28.5 million ($17.8 million after tax) in the third quarter of 2003.

        The closing of this factory resulted in the elimination of approximately 170 jobs and a corresponding reduction in the Company's workforce. The Company expects to save approximately $12 million per year by closing this factory and moving the production to other locations. The Company anticipates that it will pay out approximately $15 million in cash related to severance, benefits, lease commitments, plant clean-up, and other plant closing costs. The Company expects that a substantial portion of these costs will be paid out by the end of 2005.

        In November 2003, the Company announced the permanent closing of its Milton, Ontario glass container factory. This closing was part of an effort to bring capacity and inventory levels in line with anticipated demand. As a result, the Company recorded a capacity curtailment charge of $20.1 million ($19.5 million after tax) in the fourth quarter of 2003.

        The closing of this factory in November 2003 resulted in the elimination of approximately 150 jobs and a corresponding reduction in the Company's workforce. The Company eventually expects to save approximately $8.5 million per year by closing this factory and moving the production to other locations. The Company anticipates that it will pay out approximately $8.0 million in cash related to severance, benefits, plant clean-up, and other plant closing costs. The Company expects that the majority of these costs will be paid out by the end of 2005.

        In December 2003, the Company announced the permanent closing of its Perth, Australia glass container factory. This closing was part of an effort to reduce overall capacity in Australia and bring inventory levels in line with anticipated demand. The Perth plant's western location and small size contributed to the plant being a higher cost facility that was no longer economically feasible to operate. As a result, the Company recorded a capacity curtailment charge of $23.9 million ($17.4 million after tax) in other costs and expenses in the results of operations for 2003.

        The closing of this factory in December 2003 resulted in the elimination of approximately 107 jobs and a corresponding reduction in the Company's workforce. The Company expects to save approximately $9 million per year by closing this factory and eventually moving the production to other locations. The Company anticipates that it will pay out approximately $10 million in cash related to severance, benefits, plant clean-up, and other plant closing costs. The Company expects that the majority of these costs will be paid out by third quarter of 2004.

        Selected information related to the above glass container factory closings is as follows:

15

12.   Pensions

        The components of the net pension expense (credit) for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 were as follows:

        The Company previously disclosed in its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003, that it expected to contribute $33.9 million to its pension plans in 2004. As of March 31, 2004, $9.1 million of contributions have been made. The Company presently does not expect its projected contributions for the full year of 2004 to be significantly different from the $33.9 million previously projected.

13.   Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions

        The components of the net postretirement benefit cost for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 were as follows:

        During January 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position ("FSP") 106-1, "Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the "Act")", which permits a sponsor of a postretirement health care plan that provides a prescription drug benefit to make a one-time election to defer accounting for the effects of the Act. The guidance in this FSP is effective for interim or annual financial statements of fiscal years ending after December 7, 2003. The election to defer accounting for the Act is a one-time election that must be made before net periodic postretirement benefit costs for the period that includes the Act's enactment date are first included in reported financial information pursuant to the requirements of FAS No. 106, "Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other than Pensions". In accordance with FSP 106-1, the Company has elected to defer accounting for the effects of the Act and, accordingly, the measures of net postretirement benefit cost shown above do not reflect the effects of the Act on the postretirement benefits. The Company has not determined the impact of the Act on these benefits.

16

14.   Financial Information for Subsidiary Guarantors and Non-Guarantors

        The following presents condensed consolidating financial information for the Company, segregating: (1) Owens-Illinois, Inc., the issuer of six series of senior notes and debentures (the "Parent"); (2) the two subsidiaries which have guaranteed the senior notes and debentures on a subordinated basis (the "Guarantor Subsidiaries"); and (3) all other subsidiaries (the "Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries"). The Guarantor Subsidiaries are wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company and their guarantees are full, unconditional and joint and several. They have no operations and function only as intermediate holding companies.

        Wholly-owned subsidiaries are presented on the equity basis of accounting. Certain reclassifications have been made to conform all of the financial information to the financial presentation on a consolidated basis. The principal eliminations relate to investments in subsidiaries and inter-company balances and transactions.

17