Back to GetFilings.com

Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

Commission file number 333-112279

HUNTSMAN LLC
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

        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 Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES o    NO ý

        On August 16, 2004, 10,000,000 units of membership interest of the registrant were outstanding. There is no established trading market for the registrant's units of membership interest. All of the registrant's units of membership interest are held by an affiliate.

HUNTSMAN LLC
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

PART I.    FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

HUNTSMAN LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)

(Dollars in Millions)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

1

HUNTSMAN LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS (UNAUDITED)

(Dollars in Millions)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

See "Note 1—General" concerning the consolidation of HIH, effective as of May 1, 2003, and its effect on comparability of amounts.

2

HUNTSMAN LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF MEMBER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) (UNAUDITED)

(Dollars and Units in Millions)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

3

HUNTSMAN LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)

(Dollars in Millions)

Supplemental non-cash activities:

        On May 9, 2003, HMP, the indirect parent of the Company, exercised an option that it held to purchase ICI's 30% membership interest in HIH. At that time, HMP purchased the remaining approximate 9% membership interest in HIH owned by certain institutional investors. As such, effective May 1, 2003, HIH became a consolidated subsidiary of the Company. As of May 1, 2003, HIH's total assets of $5,163.9 million (including cash of $62.2 million), total liabilities of $4,889.2 million and minority interest of $1.0 million were consolidated into the Company. In addition, the Company recorded minority interest of $111.1 million to reflect HMP's 40% interest in HIH. See "Note 1—General."

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

4

HUNTSMAN LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

1.     General

Description of Business

        Huntsman LLC (the "Company," including its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires) is a leading manufacturer and marketer of a wide range of chemical products that are sold to diversified consumer and industrial end markets. The Company has 47 primary manufacturing facilities located in North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, South America and Africa and sells its products globally through its five principal business segments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Polymers, Pigments and Base Chemicals.

Company

        The Company is a Utah limited liability company and all of its units of interest are owned by HMP Equity Holdings Corporation ("HMP"). HMP is a Delaware corporation and is owned 100% by Huntsman Group Inc., a Delaware corporation ("HGI"), subject to warrants that, if exercised, would entitle the holders to acquire up to 12% of the common stock of HMP. HGI is owned 100% by Huntsman Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Huntsman Holdings"). The voting membership interests of Huntsman Holdings are owned 50.2% by the Huntsman family, 47.8% by MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners, L.P. ("MatlinPatterson"), 1.8% by Consolidated Press Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries ("Consolidated Press") and 0.2% by senior management. In addition, Huntsman Holdings has issued certain non-voting preferred units to Huntsman Holdings Preferred Member LLC, which, in turn, is owned 93.7%, indirectly, by MatlinPatterson, 3.6% by Consolidated Press, 1.8% by the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, 0.6% by senior management and 0.3% by the Huntsman family. Huntsman Holdings has also issued certain non-voting preferred units to the Huntsman family, MatlinPatterson and Consolidated Press that track the performance of an affiliate, Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC ("AdMat"). AdMat's results of operations are not included in the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Huntsman family has board and operational control of the Company.

        Prior to its conversion into a Utah limited liability company on September 9, 2002, the Company, then named Huntsman Corporation, was a Utah corporation. As part of the conversion to a limited liability company, the holders of shares of preferred and common stock exchanged their shares in the Company for units of membership interest. Because these exchange transactions were between related entities, the exchange was recorded at the historical carrying value of the stock and no gain or loss was recognized.

        Prior to September 30, 2002, the Company was owned by members of the Huntsman family and by certain affiliated entities. On September 30, 2002, the Company and its subsidiary, Huntsman Polymers Corporation ("Huntsman Polymers"), completed debt for equity exchanges (the "Restructuring"). Pursuant to the Restructuring, the Huntsman family contributed all of their equity interests in the Company and its subsidiaries, including minority interests acquired from Consolidated Press and the interests described in the second following paragraph, to Huntsman Holdings in exchange for equity interests in Huntsman Holdings. MatlinPatterson and Consolidated Press exchanged approximately $679 million in principal amount of the Company's outstanding subordinated notes and Huntsman Polymers' 11³/4% senior unsecured notes (the "Huntsman Polymers Notes") they held into equity interests in Huntsman Holdings. There was also approximately $84 million in accrued interest that was cancelled as a result of the exchange. The net book value of the $763 million of principal and accrued

5

interest exchanged for equity, after considering debt issuance costs, was $753 million. Huntsman Holdings now indirectly owns all the equity of the Company.

        In connection with the Restructuring, the effective cancellation of debt was recorded as a capital contribution by the Company because MatlinPatterson and Consolidated Press received equity of Huntsman Holdings, the Company's indirect parent, in exchange. The fair value of the equity received approximated the carrying value of the debt exchanged. No gain was recorded on the Restructuring.

        As discussed above, on September 30, 2002, the Company effectively acquired the following interests from Huntsman Holdings:

•

The remaining 20% interest in JK Holdings Corporation ("JK Holdings") and the remaining 20% interest in Huntsman Surfactants Technology Corporation, both previously accounted for as consolidated subsidiaries;



•

The remaining 50% interest in Huntsman Chemical Australia Unit Trust ("HCA Trust") and HCPH Holdings Pty Limited ("HCPH"), formerly accounted for as an investment in unconsolidated affiliates using equity method of accounting; and



•

The remaining 19.9% interest in Huntsman Specialty Chemicals Holdings Corporation ("HSCHC").

The Company accounted for the acquisition of the minority interests from Huntsman Holdings as an equity contribution with a value of $71.1 million (including cash of $7.9 million and net of debt assumed of $35.3 million).

        The Company owns 60% of the membership interests of Huntsman International Holdings LLC ("HIH"), and, prior to May 9, 2003, HMP owned approximately 1% of the membership interests of HIH. On May 9, 2003, HMP completed the acquisition of the 30% of the HIH membership interests held by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC ("ICI") and the remaining approximately 9% of the HIH membership interests held by certain institutional investors (the "HIH Consolidation Transaction"). HIH is a global manufacturer and marketer of polyurethanes, amines, surfactants, titanium dioxide ("TiO2") and basic petrochemicals. HIH and its subsidiaries are non-guarantor, unrestricted subsidiaries of the Company pursuant to the Company's various debt agreements. HIH and its subsidiaries, including Huntsman International LLC ("HI"), are separately financed from the Company, their debt is non-recourse to the Company, and the Company is not obligated to make cash contributions to, or investments in, HIH and its subsidiaries.

        Prior to May 1, 2003, the Company accounted for its investment in HIH using the equity method of accounting due to the significant management participation rights formerly granted to ICI pursuant to the HIH limited liability company agreement. As a consequence of HMP's 100% direct and indirect ownership of HIH and the resulting termination of ICI's management participation rights, the Company is considered to have a controlling financial interest in HIH. Accordingly, the Company no longer accounts for HIH using the equity method of accounting, but effective May 1, 2003 HIH's results of operations are consolidated with the Company's results of operations, with HMP's 40% interest in HIH recorded as a minority interest. Consequently, results of HIH through April 30, 2003 are recorded using the equity method of accounting, and results of HIH beginning May 1, 2003 are recorded on a consolidated basis. As a result, the summary historical financial data for periods ending prior to May 1, 2003 are not comparable to financial periods ending on or after May 1, 2003.

6

        The following table is a summary of the net assets of HIH as of May 1, 2003 (dollars in millions):

Interim Financial Statements

        The unaudited consolidated financial statements of the Company were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") and in management's opinion, all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the periods shown, have been made. Results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of those to be expected for the full year. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes to consolidated financial statements included in the Company's special financial report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Use of 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 disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Reclassifications

        Certain amounts in the consolidated financial statements for prior periods have been reclassified to conform with the current presentation.

2.     Recently Issued Financial Accounting Standards

        In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Financial Interpretation No. ("FIN") 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities." FIN 46 addresses the requirements for business enterprises to consolidate related entities, for which they do not have controlling interests through voting or other rights, if they are determined to be the primary beneficiary as a result of variable economic interests. Transfers to a qualifying special purpose entity are not subject to this interpretation. In December 2003, the FASB issued a complete replacement of FIN 46 (FIN 46R), to clarify certain complexities. The Company is required to adopt this standard on January 1, 2005 and is currently evaluating its impact but does not expect the impact to be significant.

        In May 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 106-2 ("FSP 106-2"), "Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003" (the "Act"), which superceded FSP 106-1 of the same name, which was issued in January 2004 and permitted a sponsor of a post-retirement health care plan that provides a prescription drug benefit to make a one-time election to defer accounting for the effects of the Act until more authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy was issued. FSP 106-2 provides guidance on how to account for future subsidies available beginning in 2006 to employers who provide prescription drug

7

benefits that are "actuarially equivalent" to those that will be provided under Medicare. Sponsors that provide actuarially equivalent benefits must account for the subsidy as a reduction in the accumulated postretirement benefit obligation and any reduction of the sponsor's share of future costs should be reflected in service cost in the period of implementation. The Company is currently evaluating whether the drug benefit provided by its postretirement plans would be considered actuarially equivalent. If the Company determines its plans are actuarially equivalent, FSP 106-2 will be effective during the quarter ended September 30, 2004.

3.     Inventories

        Inventories consist of the following (dollars in millions):

        In the normal course of operations, the Company at times exchanges raw materials and finished goods with other companies for the purpose of reducing transportation costs. The net open exchange positions are valued at the Company's cost. Net amounts deducted from or added to inventory under open exchange agreements, which represent the net amounts payable or receivable by the Company under open exchange agreements, were approximately $9.9 million payable and $8.2 million payable (46,700,196 and 26,910,072 pounds, respectively) at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively.

4.     Property, Plant and Equipment

        The cost and accumulated depreciation of property, plant and equipment consist of the following (dollars in millions):

8

5.     Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates

        The Company's ownership percentage and investments in unconsolidated affiliates, primarily manufacturing joint ventures, consist of the following (dollars in millions):

(1)

The Company owns 50% of BASF Huntsman Shanghai Isocyanate Investment BV. BASF Huntsman Shanghai Isocyanate Investment BV owns a 70% interest in a manufacturing joint venture, thus giving the Company an indirect 35% interest in the manufacturing joint venture.

6.     Intangible Assets

        The gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets consist of the following (dollars in millions):

        Amortization expense for intangible assets for the six month period ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, is $16.5 million and $1.2 million, respectively. Estimated future amortization expense for intangible assets over the next five years is as follows (dollars in millions):

9

7.     Other Noncurrent Assets

        Other noncurrent assets consist of the following (dollars in millions):

8.     Accrued Liabilities

        Accrued liabilities consist of the following (dollars in millions):

9.     Other Noncurrent Liabilities

        Other noncurrent liabilities consist of the following (dollars in millions):

10.   Restructuring and Plant Closing Costs

        As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the Company had reserves for restructuring and plant closing costs of $86.3 million and $25.3 million, respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Company, on a consolidated basis, recorded additional reserves of $78.1 million, including

10

reserves for workforce reductions, demolition and decommissioning and facility closure costs. During the 2004 period, the Company made cash payments against these reserves of $17.1 million.

        As of June 30, 2004, accrued restructuring and plant closing costs by type of cost consist of the following (dollars in millions):

(1)

Includes impact of foreign currency translation.

        Details with respect to the Company's reserves for restructuring and plant closing costs are provided below by segments (dollars in millions):

(1)

Includes impact of foreign currency translation.

        As of December 31, 2003, the Polyurethanes segment reserve consisted of $15.8 million related to the restructuring activities at the Rozenburg, Netherlands site (as announced in 2003), the workforce reductions throughout the Polyurethanes segment (as announced in 2003), and the closure of the Shepton Mallet, U.K. site (as announced in 2002). During the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Polyurethanes segment recorded additional restructuring charges of $22.9 million and made cash payments of $10.6 million. In the first quarter 2004, the Polyurethanes segment recorded restructuring expenses of $4.8 million, all of which are payable in cash. In the second quarter 2004, the Polyurethanes segment announced restructuring charges of $18.1 million, all of which are payable in cash, including the closure of its West Deptford, New Jersey site. These restructuring activities are expected to result in additional restructuring charges of approximately $15 million through 2005 and result in workforce reductions of approximately 160 employees, of which 48 positions have been reduced during the six months ended June 30, 2004. As of June 30, 2004, the Polyurethanes segment restructuring reserve totaled $28.1 million.

        As of December 31, 2003, the Performance Products segment reserve consisted of $2.4 million related to the closure of a number of plants at its Whitehaven, U.K. facility, the closure of an administrative office in London, U.K., the rationalization of its surfactants technical center in Oldbury, U.K., and the restructuring of its facility in Barcelona, Spain. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Performance Products segment accrued restructuring charges of $20.9 million, of which $5.1 million are payable in cash, and made cash payments of $0.5 million related to these restructuring activities. There are no material additional charges expected related to these restructuring activities. On July 1, 2004, the Company announced the closure of its Guelph, Ontario, Canada Performance Products manufacturing facility. Production will be moved to the Company's other larger, more efficient facilities. These restructuring activities are not expected to result in additional charges. Workforce

11

reductions of approximately 66 positions are anticipated. The Performance Products segment reserve totaled $22.8 million as of June 30, 2004.

        As of December 31, 2003, the Polymers segment reserve consisted of $2.8 million related to its demolition and decommissioning of the Odessa, Texas styrene manufacturing facility and noncancelable lease costs. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Polymers segment recorded restructuring expenses related to the closure of an Australian manufacturing unit of $5.1 million, of which $1.5 million are payable in cash, and made cash payments of $0.4 million related to these restructuring activities. These restructuring activities are expected to result in additional charges of less than $1.0 million through 2005 and in workforce reductions of approximately 23 positions, of which 13 positions have been reduced in the six months ended June 30, 2004. The Polymers segment reserve totaled $7.5 million as of June 30, 2004.

        As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the Pigments segment reserve consisted of $25.7 and $4.3 million, respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Pigments segment recorded additional restructuring charges of $108.1 million and made cash payments of $5.6 million. In the first quarter 2004, the Pigments segment recorded restructuring expenses of $3.9 million, all of which are payable in cash. In the second quarter 2004, the Pigments segment recorded restructuring expenses of $104.2 million, of which $81.1 million is not payable in cash. In April 2004, the Company announced that, following a review of the Pigments business, it will idle approximately 55,000 tonnes, or about 10%, of its total TiO₂ production capacity in the fourth quarter of 2004. As a result of this decision, the Company has recorded a restructuring charge of $17.0 million, a $77.2 million asset impairment charge and a $3.9 million charge for the write off of spare parts inventory and other assets. Concerning the impairment charge, the Company determined that the value of the related long-lived assets was impaired and recorded the non-cash charge to earnings for the impairment of these assets. The fair value of these assets for purposes of measuring the impairment was determined using the present value of expected cash flows. During the second quarter of 2004, the Company recorded additional charges of $10.0 million in regard to previously announced restructuring activities which primarily relate to workforce reductions. These restructuring activities are expected to result in additional restructuring charges of approximately $13 million through 2005 and result in workforce reductions of approximately 475 employees, of which 46 positions have been reduced during the six months ended June 30, 2004. As of June 30, 2004, the Pigments segment restructuring reserve totaled $25.7 million.

        As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the Base Chemicals segment reserve consisted of $2.2 and nil, respectively, related to workforce reductions arising from the announced change in work shift schedules at the Wilton, U.K. facility. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Base Chemicals segment recorded restructuring charges of $2.2 million, all of which is payable in cash. These restructuring activities are expected to result in additional charges of approximately $4.3 million and in workforce reductions of approximately 68 positions.

12

11.   Debt

        Debt outstanding consists of the following (dollars in millions):

13

Huntsman LLC Debt (Excluding HIH and HI)

HLLC Credit Facilities

        As of June 30, 2004, the Company's senior secured credit facilities (the "HLLC Credit Facilities") consist of a $275 million revolving credit facility maturing in 2006 (the "HLLC Revolving Facility") and two term loan facilities maturing in 2007 in the amount of $606.3 million ("Term Loan A") and $96.1 million ("Term Loan B" and, collectively with Term Loan A, the "HLLC Term Facilities"). Term Loan A has scheduled quarterly maturities commencing March 2006, with the final balance due at maturity. The total outstanding balance of Term Loan B is due at maturity.

        On June 22, 2004, the Company applied $362.9 million from the proceeds from its offering of the HLLC Unsecured Notes (as defined below) to Term Loan B. See "—Senior Unsecured Notes (HLLC Unsecured Notes)" below. In addition, as discussed in "—Senior Secured Notes (2003 HLLC Secured Notes)" below, in 2003, the Company repaid a total of $331.8 million on Term Loan A and $65.0 million on the HLLC Revolving Facility, without reducing commitments. The next scheduled quarterly amortization payment under the HLLC Credit Facilities is due March 2006.

        The HLLC Revolving Facility is secured by a first lien on substantially all the assets of the Company, HSCHC, Huntsman Specialty Chemicals Corporation ("Huntsman Specialty") and the Company's domestic restricted subsidiaries, which does not include HIH or HI. The HLLC Term Facilities are secured by a second lien on substantially the same assets that secure the HLLC Revolving Facility. The HLLC Credit Facilities are also guaranteed by HSCHC and Huntsman Specialty and by the Company's domestic restricted subsidiaries (collectively, the "HLLC Guarantors"). Neither HIH nor HI are HLLC Guarantors. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the weighted average interest rates on the HLLC Credit Facilities were 5.8% and 7.3%, respectively, excluding the impact of interest rate hedges.

        The HLLC Revolving Facility is subject to a borrowing base of accounts receivable and inventory and is available for general corporate purposes. Borrowings under the HLLC Revolving Facility bear interest, at the Company's option, at a rate equal to (i) a LIBOR-based eurocurrency rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 2.75% to 3.50% as based on the Company's most recent ratio of total debt to "EBITDA" (as defined in the HLLC Revolving Facility credit agreement), or (ii) a prime-based rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 1.75% to 2.50%, also based on the Company's most recent ratio of total debt to EBITDA. As of June 30, 2004, the interest rate on the HLLC Revolving Facility was LIBOR plus 3.50%.

        As of June 30, 2004, borrowings under the HLLC Term Facilities bear interest, at the Company's option, at a rate equal to (i) a LIBOR-based eurocurrency rate plus an applicable margin of 4.0% and 9.0% for Term Loan A and Term Loan B, respectively, or (ii) a prime-based rate plus an applicable margin of 3.00% and 8.0% for Term Loan A and Term Loan B, respectively. On June 23, 2004, in accordance with the HLLC Credit Facilities agreement, the applicable margin for Term Loan A decreased 0.75% (75 basis points) in conjunction with the repayment of $362.9 million on Term Loan B. This agreement also provides for quarterly escalating interest rates on Term Loan B of up to maximum LIBOR and prime based margins of 9.75% and 8.75%, respectively by July 2004.

        The HLLC Credit Facilities provide for financial covenants including a minimum interest coverage ratio, a minimum fixed charge ratio and maximum debt to EBITDA ratio, as defined, and limits on capital expenditures, in addition to restrictive covenants customary to financings of these types, including limitations on liens, debt and the sale of assets. On May 6, 2004, the Company amended certain financial covenants in the HLLC Credit Facilities. The amendment applies to both the HLLC Revolving Facility and the HLLC Term Facilities and provides for, among other things, the amendment of certain financial covenants through the fourth quarter 2005. The amendment provided for an increase in the maximum leverage ratio, and a decrease in the minimum interest coverage ratio and the fixed charge coverage ratio. The amendment also amended the mandatory prepayment provisions

14

contained in the HLLC Credit Facilities to permit the Company, after certain levels of repayment of Term Loan B, to use subordinate debt or equity proceeds to repay a portion of the outstanding indebtedness of certain of its Australian subsidiaries. As noted in "—Other Debt" below, on June 24, 2003, the Company used $25 million of the proceeds from the offering of the HLLC Unsecured Notes to repay existing indebtedness at Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty. ("HCCA").

        Management believes that the Company is in compliance with the covenants of the HLLC Credit Facilities as of June 30, 2004.

Senior Secured Notes (2003 HLLC Secured Notes)

        On September 30, 2003, the Company sold $380 million aggregate principal amount of 11⁵/8% senior secured notes due 2010 at a discount to yield 11⁷/8% in a private offering (the "September 2003 Offering"). The proceeds from the offering were used to repay $65.0 million on the HLLC Revolving Facility, without reducing commitments, and $296.6 million on Term Loan A. On December 3, 2003 the Company sold an additional $75.4 million aggregate principal amount of its senior secured notes (collectively with the notes sold in the September 2003 Offering, the "2003 HLLC Secured Notes") at a discount to yield 11.72% (the "December 2003 Offering"). The proceeds of this offering were used to repay $35.2 million on Term Loan A. The remaining proceeds of this offering were temporarily applied to reduce outstanding borrowings under the HLLC Revolving Facility, and the Company, on January 28, 2004, used $37.5 million of the net cash proceeds to redeem the Huntsman Polymers Notes (representing principal of $36.8 million plus accrued interest). The Huntsman Polymers Notes would have been due in December 2004 and were redeemed at 100% of their aggregate principal amount. The 2003 HLLC Secured Notes bear interest at a rate of 11⁵/8% per annum and interest is payable semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The 2003 HLLC Secured Notes mature on October 15, 2010 and are secured by a second lien on substantially all the assets of the Company, HSCHC, Huntsman Specialty and the Company's domestic restricted subsidiaries (which do not include HIH or HI). The 2003 HLLC Secured Notes are effectively subordinated to all the Company's obligations under the HLLC Revolving Facility and rank pari passu with the HLLC Term Facilities. The 2003 HLLC Secured Notes are also guaranteed by the HLLC Guarantors. In accordance with the Company's contractual obligation to register the 2003 HLLC Secured Notes, the Company's registration statement on Form S-4/A filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission became effective on February 13, 2004 and the exchange offer of unregistered 2003 HLLC Secured Notes for registered 2003 HLLC Secured Notes was completed on March 29, 2004.

        The 2003 HLLC Secured Notes are redeemable after October 15, 2007 at 105.813% of the principal amount thereof, declining ratably to par on and after October 15, 2009, and prior to October 15, 2007 at a redemption price equal to the greater of (1) 105.813% of the principal amount thereof plus all required interest payments due on such notes through October 15, 2007, discounted to the redemption date using the treasury rates, plus 0.50%, plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption, or (2) 100% of the principal amount thereof.

        The indenture governing the 2003 HLLC Secured Notes contains covenants relating to the incurrence of debt, limitations on distributions, asset sales and affiliate transactions, among other things. The indenture also requires the Company to offer to repurchase the 2003 HLLC Secured Notes upon a change of control. Management believes that the Company is in compliance with the covenants of the 2003 HLLC Secured Notes as of June 30, 2004.

Senior Unsecured Notes (HLLC Unsecured Notes)

        On June 22, 2004, the Company sold $300 million of senior unsecured fixed rate notes that bear interest at 11.5% and mature on July 15, 2012 (the "HLLC Unsecured Fixed Rate Notes") and $100 million of senior unsecured floating rate notes that bear interest at a rate equal to LIBOR plus 7.25% and mature on July 15, 2011 (the "HLLC Unsecured Floating Rate Notes," and together with

15

the HLLC Unsecured Fixed Rate Notes, the "HLLC Unsecured Notes"). The interest rate on the HLLC Unsecured Floating Rate Notes as of June 30, 2004 was 8.80%. The proceeds from the offering were used to repay $362.9 million on Term Loan B and $25 million to repay existing indebtedness at HCCA. See "—Other Debt" below. The HLLC Unsecured Notes are unsecured obligations of the Company and are guaranteed by the HLLC Guarantors.

        The HLLC Unsecured Fixed Rate Notes are redeemable after July 15, 2008 at 105.75% of the principal amount thereof, declining ratably to par on and after July 15, 2010, and prior to July 15, 2008 at a redemption price equal to the greater of (1) 105.75% of the principal amount thereof plus all required interest payments due on such notes through July 15, 2008, discounted to the redemption date using the treasury rates, plus 0.50%, plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption, or (2) 100% of the principal amount thereof. The HLLC Unsecured Floating Rate Notes are redeemable after July 15, 2006 at 104.0% of the principal amount thereof, declining ratably to par on and after July 15, 2008, and prior to July 15, 2006 at a redemption price equal to the greater of (1) 104.0% of the principal amount thereof plus all required interest payments due on such notes through July 15, 2006, discounted to the redemption date using the treasury rates, plus 0.50%, plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption, or (2) 100% of the principal amount thereof.

        The indenture governing the HLLC Unsecured Notes contains covenants relating to the incurrence of debt, limitations on distributions, asset sales and affiliate transactions, among other things. The indenture also requires the Company to offer to repurchase the HLLC Unsecured Notes upon a change of control. Management believes that the Company is in compliance with the covenants of the HLLC Unsecured Notes as of June 30, 2004.

Senior Subordinated Fixed And Floating Rate Notes (HLLC Notes) And Huntsman Polymers Senior Unsecured Notes (Huntsman Polymers Notes)

        The Company's 9.5% fixed and variable subordinated notes due 2007 (the "HLLC Notes") with an outstanding principal balance of $59.3 million as of June 30, 2004 are unsecured subordinated obligations of the Company and are junior in right of payment to all existing and future secured or unsecured senior indebtedness of the Company and effectively junior to any secured indebtedness of the Company to the extent of the collateral securing such indebtedness. Interest is payable on the HLLC Notes semiannually on January 1 and July 1 at an annual rate of 9.5% on the fixed rate notes and LIBOR plus 3.25% on the floating rate notes. The HLLC Notes are redeemable at the option of the Company after July 2002 at a price declining from 104.75% to 100% of par value as of July 1, 2005. The weighted average interest rate on the floating rate notes was 4.5% and 4.4% as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively.

        On January 28, 2004, the Company used $37.5 million of the net cash proceeds from the December 2003 Offering to redeem the Huntsman Polymers Notes (representing principal of $36.8 million plus accrued interest). The Huntsman Polymers Notes were unsecured senior obligations of Huntsman Polymers; they had an original maturity of December 2004, a fixed interest rate of 11³/4%, and an outstanding balance of $36.8 million as of December 31, 2003. The Huntsman Polymers Notes would have been due in December 2004 and were redeemed at 100% of their aggregate principal amount.

        Prior to the Restructuring completed September 30, 2002, the indentures governing the HLLC Notes and Huntsman Polymers Notes contained certain restrictive covenants. Concurrently with the closing of the Restructuring, previously executed amendments to the indentures became effective and virtually all the restrictive covenants contained in the indentures were eliminated.

16

Other Debt

        Huntsman Specialty's subordinated note in the aggregate principal amount of $75.0 million accrued interest until April 15, 2002 at 7% per annum. Pursuant to the note agreement, effective April 15, 2002, all accrued interest was added to the principal of the note for a total principal amount of $106.6 million. Such principal balance will be payable in a single installment on April 15, 2008. Interest has been payable quarterly in cash, commencing July 15, 2002. For financial reporting purposes, the note was initially recorded at its estimated fair value of $58.2 million, based on prevailing market rates as of the effective date. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the unamortized discount on the note is $6.3 million and $6.9 million, respectively.

        Certain of the Company's Australian subsidiaries maintain credit facilities that are non-recourse to the Company. HCCA, in its capacity as trustee of the HCA Trust, holds the Company's Australian styrenics assets. HCCA maintains a credit facility (the "HCCA Facility"), consisting of a term facility. On June 24, 2004, the Company used $25 million of proceeds from the offering of the HLLC Unsecured Notes to repay a portion of the HCCA Facility, including repaying in full the working capital facility and reducing the term facility to $14.4 million (A$20.9 million). In connection with this repayment, a preexisting payment default was cured and the remaining term facility was amended. The outstanding loan amount matures and is due on July 31, 2005. The HCCA Facility contains no financial covenants, and borrowings under the HCCA Facility bear interest at a base rate plus a spread of 1.25%, plus an additional 0.5% line use fee. As of June 30, 2004, the weighted average interest rate for the HCCA Facility was 6.8%. The HCCA Facility is secured by effectively all the assets of the HCA Trust. Management believes that HCCA is in compliance with the covenants of the HCCA Facility as of June 30, 2004.

        Huntsman Australia Holdings Corporation ("HAHC") and certain of its subsidiaries hold the Company's Australian surfactants assets. HAHC and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to credit facilities established in December 1998 (the "HAHC Facilities"). As of June 30, 2004, borrowings under the HAHC Facilities total A$53.2 million ($36.8 million) and bear interest at a base rate plus a spread of 2%. As of June 30, 2004, the weighted average interest rate for the HAHC Facilities was 7.5%. Principal payments are due semiannually through December 2005. The HAHC Facilities are collateralized by effectively all of the assets of the HAHC subsidiaries in addition to a stock pledge of the shares of one of its U.S. subsidiaries. The HAHC Facilities are subject to financial covenants, including a debt service ratio, a leverage ratio, an interest coverage ratio and limits on capital expenditures, in addition to restrictive covenants customary to financings of this type, including limitations on liens, debt and the sale of assets. As of June 30, 2004, HAHC was current on all scheduled amortization and interest payments under the HAHC Facilities but was not in compliance with certain financial covenants in the agreements governing the HAHC Facilities. The outstanding debt balances due under the HAHC Facilities have been classified in current portion of long-term debt.

        On July 2, 2001, the Company entered into a 15% note payable with an affiliated entity in the amount of $25.0 million. The note is due and payable on the earlier of the tenth anniversary of the issuance date or the date of the repayment in full in cash of all indebtedness of the Company under its senior secured credit facilities. Interest is not paid in cash, but is accrued at a designated rate of 15% per annum, compounded annually. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, accrued interest added to the principal balance was $13.0 million and $10.5 million, respectively.

HI Debt

        The HIH and HI debt transactions and balances prior to the HIH Consolidation Transaction, effective May 1, 2003, are not included in the accompanying financial statements.

17

Senior Secured Credit Facilities (HI Credit Facilities)

        As of June 30, 2004, HI had senior secured credit facilities (the "HI Credit Facilities") which consisted of a revolving loan facility of up to $400 million that was scheduled to mature on June 30, 2005, a $620.1 million term loan B facility that was scheduled to mature on June 30, 2007, and a $620.1 million term loan C facility that was scheduled to mature on June 30, 2008. On July 13, 2004, HI amended and restated the HI Credit Facilities. The HI Credit Facilities as amended and restated now consist of a revolving loan facility of up to $375 million with a maturity of September 2008 (the "HI Revolving Facility"), which includes a $50 million multicurrency revolving loan facility available in euros, GBP Sterling and U.S. dollars, and a term loan B facility consisting of a $1,305 million term portion and a €50 million (approximately $61.6 million) term portion (the "HI Term Facility"). At the closing of the amendment and restatement of the HI Credit Facilities, of the $126.6 million of net proceeds, $82.4 million was applied to repay all outstanding borrowings on the HI Revolving Facility and the balance, net of fees, increased cash and cash equivalents. The increased liquidity is available for general corporate purposes and to provide a portion of funds for the potential construction of a polyethylene production facility at HI's Wilton, U.K. facility. Scheduled amortization of the HI Term Facility is 1% per annum, commencing June 30, 2005, with the remaining unpaid balance due at maturity. The maturity of the HI Term Facility is December 31, 2010; provided that the maturity will be accelerated to December 31, 2008 if HI has not refinanced all of the outstanding HI Senior Notes (as defined below) and HI Subordinated Notes (as defined below) on or before December 31, 2008 on terms satisfactory to the administrative agent under the HI Credit Facilities.

        Interest rates for the amended and restated HI Credit Facilities are based upon, at HI's option, either a eurocurrency rate (LIBOR) or a base rate (prime) plus the applicable spread. The applicable spreads vary based on a pricing grid, in the case of eurocurrency-based loans, from 2.25% to 3.25% per annum depending on the loan facility and whether specified conditions have been satisfied, and, in the case of base rate loans, from 1.00% to 2.00% per annum. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003 (which was prior to the amendment and restatement of the HI Credit Facilities), the average interest rates on the HI Credit Facilities were 5.4% and 5.6%, respectively, excluding the impact of interest rate hedges. Pursuant to the amendment and restatement, the current applicable interest rate spreads were reduced by 0.25% (25 basis points) on the HI Revolving Facility and by 0.875% (87.5 basis points) on the HI Term Facility.

        HI's obligations under the HI Credit Facilities are supported by guarantees of the Company, substantially all of HI's domestic subsidiaries and certain foreign subsidiaries, as well as pledges of substantially all their assets, including 65% of the voting stock of certain non-U.S. subsidiaries.

        The HI Credit Facilities contain covenants relating to the incurrence of debt, purchase and sale of assets, limitations on investments, affiliate transactions, change in control provisions, capital expenditures and maintenance of certain financial ratios. The amendment and restatement provided for, among other things, the amendment of certain financial covenants, including changes to the maximum leverage ratio, the minimum interest coverage ratio, and an increase in the permitted amount of annual consolidated capital expenditures from $250 million to $300 million, with a provision for carryover to subsequent years. In addition, the mandatory prepayment level in connection with HI's accounts receivable securitization program was increased from $310 million to $325 million. For more information, see "Note 13—Securitization of Accounts Receivable." Management believes that, as of June 30, 2004, HI was in compliance with the covenants of the HI Credit Facilities.

HI Senior Notes and HI Senior Subordinated Notes

        In March 2002, HI issued $300 million 9⁷/8% Senior Notes (collectively with the 2003 HI Senior Notes (defined below), the "HI Senior Notes"). Interest on the HI Senior Notes is payable semi-annually and the HI Senior Notes mature on March 1, 2009. The HI Senior Notes are unsecured and are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a joint and several basis by the HI Guarantors. The HI

18

Senior Notes are redeemable, in whole or in part, at any time by HI on or prior to March 1, 2006 at 100% of the face value plus a "make whole" premium, as defined in the applicable indenture. After March 1, 2006, the HI Senior Notes may be redeemed by HI, in whole or in part, at a redemption price that declines from 104.937% to 100% after March 1, 2008. On April 11, 2003, HI sold an additional $150 million in aggregate principal amount of 9⁷/8% Senior Notes due 2009 (the "2003 HI Senior Notes"). The 2003 HI Senior Notes were priced at 105.25%.

        HI also has outstanding $600 million and €450 million ($550.4 million as of June 30, 2004) 10¹/8% Senior Subordinated Notes (the "HI Subordinated Notes"). Interest on the HI Subordinated Notes is payable semi-annually and the HI Subordinated Notes mature on July 1, 2009. The HI Subordinated Notes are unsecured and are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a joint and several basis by substantially all of HI's domestic subsidiaries and certain foreign subsidiaries (collectively, the "HI Guarantors"). The HI Subordinated Notes are redeemable, in whole or in part, at any time by HI prior to July 1, 2004 at 100% of the face value plus a "make whole" premium, as defined in the applicable indenture. On or after July 1, 2004 the HI Subordinated Notes may be redeemed by HI at 105.063% of the principal amount thereof, declining ratably to par on and after July 1, 2007.

        The HI Senior Notes and the HI Subordinated Notes contain covenants relating to the incurrence of debt, limitations on distributions, asset sales and affiliate transactions, among other things. They also contain a change of control provision requiring HI to offer to repurchase the HI Senior Notes and the HI Subordinated Notes upon a change of control. Management believes that HI is in compliance with the covenants of the HI Senior Notes and the HI Subordinated Notes as of June 30, 2004.

Other Debt

        HI maintains a $25 million multicurrency overdraft facility for its European subsidiaries (the "HI European Overdraft Facility"), all of which was available as of June 30, 2004. As of December 31, 2003, HI had approximately $7.5 million outstanding under the HI European Overdraft Facility included within trade payables. The HI European Overdraft Facility is used for daily working capital needs.

        Included within other debt is debt associated with one of HI's Chinese MDI joint ventures. In January 2003, HI entered into a joint venture agreement with Shanghai Chlor-Alkali Chemical Company, Ltd. to build MDI production facilities near Shanghai, China. HI owns 70% of the joint venture, Huntsman Polyurethanes Shanghai Ltd. ("HPS"), which is a consolidated affiliate. On September 19, 2003, HPS obtained secured financing for the construction of the production facilities. HPS obtained term loans for the construction of its plant in the maximum principal amount of approximately $82.4 million, a working capital credit line in the amount of approximately $35.1 million, and a facility for funding value added tax ("VAT") payments in the amount of approximately $0.6 million. As of June 30, 2004, there were $4.0 million outstanding in U.S. dollar borrowings and 10.0 million in RMB borrowings ($1.2 million) under these facilities. The interest rate on these facilities is LIBOR plus 0.48% for U.S. dollar borrowings and 90% of the Peoples Bank of China rate for RMB borrowings. As of June 30, 2004, the interest rate for U.S. dollar borrowings was approximately 2.1% and 5.2% for RMB borrowings. The loans are secured by substantially all the assets of HPS and will be repaid in 16 semi-annual installments, beginning no later than June 30, 2007. The financing is non-recourse to HI, but is guaranteed during the construction phase by affiliates of HPS, including Huntsman Holdings. Huntsman Holdings unconditionally guarantees 70% of any amounts due and unpaid by HPS under the loans described above (except for the VAT facility which is not guaranteed). Huntsman Holdings' guarantees remain in effect until HPS has (i) commenced production at least 70% of capacity for at least 30 days, and (ii) achieved a debt service cover ratio of at least 1:1.

19

HIH Debt

        On June 30, 1999, HIH issued senior discount notes ("HIH Senior Discount Notes") and senior subordinated discount notes (the "HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes" and, collectively with the HIH Senior Discount Notes, the "HIH Discount Notes") to ICI with initial stated values of $242.7 million and $265.3 million, respectively. The HIH Discount Notes are due December 31, 2009. Interest on the HIH Discount Notes is paid in kind. The HIH Discount Notes contain limits on the incurrence of debt, restricted payments, liens, transactions with affiliates, and merger and sales of assets. Management believes that HIH is in compliance with the covenants of the HIH Discount Notes as of June 30, 2004.

        Interest on the HIH Senior Discount Notes accrues at 13³/8% per annum. The HIH Senior Discount Notes are redeemable prior to July 2004 for an amount equal to the net present value of 106.688% of the projected July 1, 2004 accreted value and thereafter at stipulated redemption prices declining to 100% of accreted value in 2007.

        The HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes have a stated rate of 8% that originally was to reset to a market rate in June 2002 and can be redeemed at 100% of accreted value at any time until June 30, 2004. On December 21, 2001, the terms of the HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes were modified, including deferring the reset date until September 2004, at which time the interest rate will reset to a market rate. For financial reporting purposes, the HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes were initially recorded at their estimated fair value of $223 million based upon prevailing market rates at June 30, 1999. The modification of the terms resulted in a significant decrease in the present value of the debt and, as a result, the debt was treated effectively as an extinguishment and reissuance of the debt. The debt was recorded using a 16% interest rate, the estimated market rate for the debt as of December 20, 2001. In connection with the financial restructuring of Huntsman LLC on September 30, 2002, MatlinPatterson contributed its interest in the HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes to HMP. On May 9, 2003, HMP completed the purchase of the HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes from ICI. As of June 30, 2004, the HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes are held by HMP.

        As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the HIH Senior Discount Notes included $221.0 million and $191.9 million of accrued interest, respectively. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the HIH Senior Subordinated Discount Notes included $127.4 million and $112.3 million of accrued interest, respectively, and $6.8 million and $19.2 million of discount, respectively.

12.   Derivatives and Hedging Activities

Interest Rate Hedging

        Through the Company's borrowing activities, it is exposed to interest rate risk. Such risk arises due to the structure of the HLLC Credit Facilities and the Company's debt portfolio, including the duration of the portfolio and the mix of fixed and floating interest rates. The HI Credit Facilities require that a certain portion of debt be at fixed rates through either interest rate hedges or through other means that provide a similar effect. Actions taken to reduce interest rate risk include managing the mix and rate characteristics of various interest bearing liabilities as well as entering into interest rate swaps, collars and options.

20

        As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the Company had entered into various types of interest rate contracts to manage its interest rate risk on its long-term debt as indicated below (dollars in millions):

        Under interest rate swaps, the Company agrees with other parties to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between fixed-rate and floating-rate interest amounts calculated by reference to an agreed notional principal amount.

        The Company purchases interest rate cap and interest rate collar agreements to reduce the impact of changes in interest rates on its floating-rate long-term debt. The cap agreements entitle the Company to receive from the counterparties (major banks) the amounts, if any, by which the Company's interest payments on certain of its floating-rate borrowings exceed a certain rate. The floor agreements require the Company to pay to the counterparties (major banks) the amount, if any, by which the Company's interest payments on certain of its floating-rate borrowings are less than a certain rate.

        The majority of the interest rate contracts have been designated as cash flow hedges of future interest payments on the Company's variable rate debt. The fair value of these interest rate contracts designated as hedges as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003 was a loss of approximately $4.5 million and $13.0 million, respectively, which is recorded in other accrued liabilities and in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) to the extent of the effective portions of the hedging instruments. Gains and losses related to these contracts will be reclassified from other comprehensive income (loss) into earnings in the periods in which the related hedged interest payments are made. As of June 30, 2004, losses of approximately $7.1 million are expected to be reclassified into earnings over the remainder of 2004. Gains and losses on these agreements, including amounts recorded related to hedge ineffectiveness, are reflected as interest expense in the statement of operations. Income of $0.3 million and $0.7 million was recorded in interest expense in the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

        As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, swap agreement liabilities with a fair value of $1.7 million and $6.2 million, respectively, have not been designated as hedges for financial reporting purposes. The change in the liability resulted in interest income of $3.9 million.

        The Company is exposed to credit losses in the event of nonperformance by a counterparty to the derivative financial instruments. The Company anticipates, however, that the counterparties will be able to fully satisfy obligations under the contracts.

21

Commodity Price Hedging

        As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, there were no cash flow commodity price hedging contracts recorded in other current assets and other comprehensive income.

        As of June 30, 2004 there were no commodity price hedging contracts designated as fair value hedges. As of December 31, 2003, commodity price hedging contracts designated as fair value hedges are included in the balance sheet as $0.8 million in accrued liabilities and $0.5 million in inventory.

        Commodity price contracts not designated as hedges as defined by SFAS No. 133 are reflected in the balance sheet as $0.5 million and $0.3 million in other current assets and accrued liabilities, respectively, as of June 30, 2004, and as $0.5 million and $0.3 million in other current assets and accrued liabilities, respectively, as of December 31, 2003.

        During the six months ended June 30, 2004 and the six months ended June 30, 2003, the Company recorded an increase of $3.3 million and a reduction of $2.6 million, respectively, in cost of goods sold related to net gains and losses from settled contracts, net gains and losses in fair value price hedges, and the change in fair value on commodity price hedges not designated as hedges as defined in SFAS No. 133. During the six months ended June 30, 2003, the Company recorded a reduction of $0.9 million in cost of goods sold related to net gains and losses from settled contracts, net gains and losses in fair value price hedges, and the change in fair value on commodity price hedging contracts not designated as hedges as defined in SFAS No. 133.

Foreign Currency Rate Hedging

        The Company may enter into foreign currency derivative instruments to minimize the short-term impact of movements in foreign currency rates. These contracts are not designated as hedges for financial reporting purposes and are recorded at fair value. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003 and for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, the fair value, change in fair value, and realized gains (losses) of outstanding foreign currency rate hedging contracts was not material.

Net Investment Hedging

        Currency effects of net investment hedges produced a gain of $19.0 million and a loss of $48.8 million in other comprehensive income (loss) (foreign currency translation adjustments) for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, there was a cumulative net loss of approximately $107.3 million and $126.3 million, respectively.

13.   Securitization of Accounts Receivable

        On December 21, 2000, HI initiated an accounts receivable securitization program under which it grants an undivided interest in certain of its trade receivables to a qualified off-balance sheet entity (the "Receivables Trust") at a discount. This undivided interest serves as security for the issuance of commercial paper and medium term notes by the Receivables Trust. At June 30, 2004, the Receivables Trust had outstanding approximately $195 million in U.S. dollar equivalents in medium term notes and approximately $114 million in commercial paper. Under the terms of the agreements, HI and its subsidiaries continue to service the receivables in exchange for a 1% fee of the outstanding receivables, and HI is subject to recourse provisions.

        HI's retained interest in receivables (including servicing assets) subject to the program was approximately $184 million and $154 million as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively. The value of the retained interest is subject to credit and interest rate risk. For the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, new sales of accounts receivable sold into the program totaled approximately $2,379.6 million and $2,054.6 million, respectively, and cash collections from receivables sold into the program that were reinvested totaled approximately $2,335.1 million and $2,035.1 million, respectively.

22

Servicing fees received during the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 were approximately $2.6 million and $2.4 million, respectively.

        HI incurs losses on the accounts receivable securitization program for the discount on receivables sold into the program and fees and expenses associated with the program. HI also retains responsibility for the economic gains and losses on forward contracts mandated by the terms of the program to hedge the currency exposures on the collateral supporting the off-balance sheet debt issued. Gains and losses on forward contracts included as a component of the loss on accounts receivable securitization program are a loss of $1.4 million and a loss of $17.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively. As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the fair value of the open forward currency contracts is $0.1 million and $6.8 million, respectively, which is included as a component of the residual interest that is included as a component of trade receivables on HI's balance sheet. On April 16, 2004 HI amended the commercial paper facility. Pursuant to the amendment, the maturity of the commercial paper facility was extended to March 31, 2007. In addition, the amendment permits the issuance of euro-denominated commercial paper.

        The key economic assumptions used in valuing the residual interest at June 30, 2004 are presented below:

        A 10% and 20% adverse change in any of the key economic assumptions would not have a material impact on the fair value of the retained interest. Total receivables over 60 days past due as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003 were $12.9 million and $15.6 million, respectively.

14.   Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

        The components of other comprehensive income (loss) consist of the following (dollars in millions):

15.   Commitments and Contingencies

        The Company has various purchase commitments extending through 2017 for materials, supplies and services entered into in the ordinary course of business. The purchase commitments are contracts that require minimum volume purchases. Certain contracts allow for changes in minimum required purchase volumes in the event of a temporary or permanent shutdown of a facility. The contractual

23

purchase price for substantially all of these contracts is variable based upon market prices, subject to annual negotiations. The Company has also entered into a limited number of contracts which require minimum payments, even if no volume is purchased. These contracts approximate $35 million annually through 2005, declining to approximately $16 million after 2011. Historically, the Company has not made any minimum payments under its take or pay contracts.

        The Company is a party to various proceedings instituted by private plaintiffs, governmental authorities and others arising under provisions of applicable laws, including various environmental, products liability and other laws. Except as otherwise discussed in "Note 16—Legal Matters," based in part on the indemnities provided to the Company by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC ("ICI") and Huntsman Specialty in connection with the transfer of business to the Company and insurance coverage, management does not believe that the outcome of any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

16.   Legal Matters

        HI has settled certain claims during and prior to the second quarter of 2004 relating to discoloration of unplasticised poly vinyl chloride ("u-PVC") products allegedly caused by HI's TiO2 ("Discoloration Claims"). Substantially all of the TiO2 that was the subject of these claims was manufactured prior to HI's acquisition of its TiO2 business from ICI in 1999. Net of amounts HI has received from insurers and pursuant to contracts of indemnity, HI has paid approximately £8 million ($14.9 million) in costs and settlement amounts for Discoloration Claims.

        Certain insurers have denied coverage with respect to certain Discoloration Claims. HI brought suit against these insurers to recover the amounts it believes are due to it. A judgment in this suit is expected at the end of the third quarter or beginning of the fourth quarter 2004.

        During the second quarter 2004, HI recorded a charge in the amount of $14.9 million with respect to Discoloration Claims. HI expects that it will incur additional costs with respect to Discoloration Claims, potentially including additional settlement amounts. However, HI does not believe that it has material ongoing exposure for additional Discoloration Claims, after giving effect to its rights under contracts of indemnity, including the rights of indemnity it has against ICI. Nevertheless, HI can provide no assurance that its costs with respect to Discoloration Claims will not have a material adverse impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

        The Company is a party to various other proceedings instituted by private plaintiffs, governmental authorities and others arising under provisions of applicable laws, including various environmental, products liability and other laws. Except as otherwise disclosed in this report, and based in part on the indemnities provided to the Company in connection with the transfer of businesses to it and its insurance coverage, the Company does not believe that the outcome of any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

17.   Environmental Matters

General

        The Company is subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign laws, regulations, rules and ordinances relating to pollution, protection of the environment and the generation, storage, handling, transportation, treatment, disposal and remediation of hazardous substances and waste materials. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to frequent environmental inspections and monitoring by governmental enforcement authorities. In addition, the Company's production facilities require operating permits that are subject to renewal, modification and, in certain circumstances, revocation. Actual or alleged violations of environmental laws or permit requirements could result in restrictions or prohibitions on plant operations, substantial fines and civil or criminal sanctions, as well

24

as, under some environmental laws, the assessment of strict liability and/or joint and several liability. Moreover, changes in environmental regulations could inhibit or interrupt the Company's operations, or require it to change its equipment or operations, and any such changes could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, environmental or regulatory matters may cause the Company to incur significant unanticipated losses, costs or liabilities.

Environmental Capital Expenditures and Accruals

        The Company may incur future costs for capital improvements and general compliance under environmental and safety laws, including costs to acquire, maintain and repair pollution control equipment. The Company estimates that, on a consolidated basis, capital expenditures for environmental and safety matters during 2004 will be approximately $64 million, including approximately $34 million for HIH. However, since capital expenditures for these matters are subject to evolving regulatory requirements and depend, in part, on the timing, promulgation and enforcement of specific requirements, the Company cannot provide assurance that material capital expenditures beyond those currently anticipated will not be required under environmental and safety laws.

        The Company has established financial reserves relating to anticipated environmental restoration and remediation programs, as well as certain other anticipated environmental liabilities. Management believes these reserves are sufficient for known requirements. Liabilities are recorded when potential liabilities are either known or considered probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company's liability estimates are based upon available facts, existing technology and past experience. On a consolidated basis, a total of approximately $32 million has been accrued related to environmental related liabilities as of June 30, 2004, including approximately $16 million related to HIH. However, no assurance can be given that all potential liabilities arising out of the Company's present or past operations or ownership have been identified or fully assessed or that future environmental liabilities will not be material to the Company.

Potential Liabilities

        Given the nature of the Company's business, violations of environmental laws may result in restrictions imposed on its operating activities, substantial fines, penalties, damages or other costs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is aware of the following matters and believes (1) the reserves related to these matters to be sufficient for known requirements, and (2) the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material impact on its results of operations or financial position:

        On June 29, 2004, management at the Port Neches, Texas facilities was notified by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") of potential Clean Air Act violations relating to the operation of cooling towers at two of the plants. The Company was invited by TCEQ to provide information that might mitigate the various alleged violations. The Company responded in writing to TCEQ during the week of July 19, 2004. It is likely that penalties will be proposed by the agency for some or all of the alleged violations.

        By letter dated July 13, 2004, the TCEQ notified the Company that it is contemplating an enforcement action against the Company for nuisance odors near the Port Neches, Texas plant on May 28, 2004. The notice advises the Company to begin taking actions immediately to address the outstanding alleged violation. The plant is currently investigating the matter.

        By letter dated July 20, 2004, the TCEQ notified the Company that it is contemplating an enforcement action based upon 29 separate alleged violations for various upset events at the Port Neches facilities. The notice advises the Company to begin taking actions immediately to address the outstanding alleged violations. The plant is currently investigating the allegations.

25

        On October 1, 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") sent the Company an information request under section 114 of the federal Clean Air Act. The request seeks information regarding all upset releases of air contaminants from the Port Arthur, Texas plant for the period from August 1999 to August 2003. Four other companies with plants located in Port Arthur also received similar requests. The Company responded in a timely manner to the request. Whether this request will result in an enforcement action being initiated against the Company is unknown at this time.

        On June 25, 2003, a group of more than 500 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in state district court in Beaumont, Texas against six local chemical plants and refineries, including the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the refineries and chemical plants discharge chemicals into the air that cause health problems for area residents. The claim does not specify a dollar amount, but seeks damages for heath impacts as well as property value losses. The suit is based on emissions data from reports that these plants filed with the TCEQ.

        On October 6, 2002, a leak of sulphuric acid from two tanks located near the Whitehaven, U.K. plant was discovered. About 342 to 347 tonnes of acid were released onto the ground and into the soil near the tanks. Although the Company took immediate steps to contain the spillage and recover acid, a quantity of acid reached a nearby beach via a geological fault. The Company did not own the tanks from which the acid leaked; however, it did own the acid in the tanks. The U.K. Health and Safety Executive issued three Improvement Notices requiring corrective action with which the Company is complying. The U.K. Environment Agency ("EA") on or about April 27, 2004, served a summons providing notice to Huntsman Surface Sciences UK Limited that a criminal prosecution has been initiated against it as a result of the spill based on alleged violations of the Water Resources Act and Environmental Protection Act. A similar prosecution was initiated against the owner of the tanks, Rhodia, S.A. Both companies agreed to plead guilty to one charge. Huntsman Surface Sciences UK Limited was fined £40,000 and assessed £8,000 in prosecution costs on August 5, 2004.

        The Company has been named as a "premises defendant" in a number of asbestos exposure lawsuits. These suits often involve multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, and, generally, the complaint in the action does not indicate which plaintiffs are making claims against a specific defendant, where the alleged injuries were incurred or what injuries each plaintiff claims. These facts must be learned through discovery. There are currently 39 asbestos exposure cases pending against the Company. Among the cases currently pending, management is aware of three claims of mesothelioma. The Company does not have sufficient information at the present time to estimate any liability in these cases. Although the Company cannot provide specific assurances, based on its understanding of similar cases, management believes that the Company's ultimate liability in these cases will not be material to its financial position or results of operations.

        The Company has incurred, and may in the future incur, liability to investigate and clean up waste or contamination at current or former facilities or facilities operated by third parties at which it may have disposed of waste or other materials. Similarly, the Company may incur costs for the cleanup of wastes that were disposed of prior to the purchase of its businesses. Under some environmental laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable for the costs of environmental contamination on or from its properties and at off-site locations where it disposed of or arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous wastes and may incur liability for damages to natural resources. For example, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended ("CERCLA"), and similar state laws, a current owner or operator of real property may be liable for such costs regardless of whether the owner or operator owned or operated the real property at the time of the release of the hazardous substances and regardless of whether the release or disposal was in compliance with law at the time it occurred. In addition, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended ("RCRA"), and similar state laws, as the holder of permits to treat or store hazardous wastes, the Company may, under some circumstances, be required to remediate contamination at or from its properties regardless of when the contamination occurred. For example,

26

the Odessa, Port Arthur, and Port Neches facilities in Texas are the subject of ongoing RCRA remediation. Based on current information and past costs relating to these matters, the Company does not believe such matters will have a material adverse effect. There can be no assurance, however, that any such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

        The Company is aware that there is or may be soil or groundwater contamination at some of its other facilities resulting from past operations. Based on available information and the indemnification rights (including indemnities provided by ICI, Nova Chemicals Corporation, The Rohm and Haas Company, Rhodia, S.A., Shell, Texaco and Dow Chemical, for the facilities that each of them transferred to the Company), the Company believes that the costs to investigate and remediate known contamination will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows; however, the Company cannot give any assurance that such indemnities will fully cover the costs of investigation and remediation, that it will not be required to contribute to such costs or that such costs will not be material.

        In addition, the Company has been notified by third parties of claims against it or its subsidiaries for cleanup liabilities at certain former facilities and other third party sites, including Belpre, Ohio (a former facility); Georgetown Canyon, Idaho (an alleged former property on which phosphorus mining was conducted); Aerex Refinery, Bloomfield, New Mexico (an alleged former property); Turtle Bayou Superfund Site, Texas (an alleged off-site disposal location); the Martin Aaron Superfund Site, Camden, New Jersey (an off-site disposal and reconditioning facility which ICI is alleged to have used); the Gulf Nuclear Sites in Odessa and near Houston, Texas (off-site waste handling sites); Star Lake Superfund Site, Texas (located near the Port Neches facility); the San Angelo Electric Service Company Site, San Angelo, Texas (an alleged PCB-handling site); the North Maybe Canyon Mine near Soda Springs, Idaho (an alleged former property on which phosphorus was mined); and the Malone Services Site, Texas City, Texas (an off-site disposal location). With respect to the Belpre, Georgetown Canyon, Aerex, and North Maybe Canyon sites, which are under investigation, the Company is unable to determine whether such liabilities may be material to it because it does not have information sufficient to evaluate the claims. With respect to the remaining matters, based on current information and past experience, the Company does not believe such matters will have a material adverse effect on it.

        Based upon currently available information, the Company does not anticipate that any of the potential liabilities referenced above will materially adversely affect its financial position or results of operations.

Regulatory Developments

        In a March 30, 2004 Federal Register, the EPA announced that it will designate the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas area as in "serious" non-attainment with the one-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. The Company currently believes that this change in status will not require additional controls and/or work practices to meet the as yet undefined regulatory requirements for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Although no assurance can be given, the Company believes that any additional capital required to comply with the new rules based on this area reclassification, above its existing operating plans for plants in Port Arthur and Port Neches, Texas, will not be material.

        Under the European Union ("EU") Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive ("IPPC"), EU member governments are to adopt rules and implement a cross-media (air, water and waste) environmental permitting program for individual facilities. The U.K. was the first EU member government to request IPPC permit applications from the Company. In the U.K., sites at Wilton, North Tees, and Whitehaven have all submitted applications and received certification of their permits. The site at Llanelli has submitted a report to the Environmental Agency and a draft permit has been received and is currently under review for comment. The Grimsby site will accelerate its IPPC

27

submission to 2004 (rather than 2005) to address site operational changes, while the Greatham site is preparing to submit its application in 2005. The Company is not yet in a position to know with certainty what the other U.K. IPPC permits will require, and it is possible that the costs of compliance could be material; however, the Company believes, based upon its experience to date, that the costs of compliance with IPPC permitting in the U.K. will not be material to its financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, the IPPC directive has recently been implemented in France, and similar to its operations in the U.K., the Company does not anticipate having to make material capital expenditures to comply. In the French program, sites must submit ten-year reviews of their environmental, health and safety plans and performance, and the Calais, St Mihiel and Lavera sites are developing the necessary documents.

        With respect to its facilities in EU jurisdictions other than the U.K. and France, IPPC implementing legislation is not yet in effect, or the Company has not yet been required to seek IPPC permits. In Spain and Italy the IPPC directive has not yet been fully implemented. However, regional authorities in both countries have initiated discussions with local chemical producers; and the sites at Barcelona, Scarlino, Patrica, and Castiglione have all started to develop programs for IPPC submissions. In the Netherlands and Germany, existing legislation covers most, if not all, of the IPPC requirements, thus no significant work is anticipated for the sites in those countries (Rozenburg, Osnabrück and Deggendorf.). The Petfurdo site in Hungary has started to prepare its IPPC report, as required under the rules agreed upon for EU accession.

        On October 29, 2003, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new EU regulatory framework for chemicals. Under this proposed new system called "REACH" (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals), enterprises that manufacture or import more than one ton of a chemical substance per year would be required to register such manufacture or import in a central database. The REACH initiative, as proposed, would require risk assessment of chemicals, preparations (e.g., soaps and paints) and articles (e.g., consumer products) before those materials could be manufactured or imported into EU countries. Where warranted by a risk assessment, hazardous substances would require authorizations for their use. This regulation could impose risk control strategies that would require capital expenditures by the Company. As proposed, REACH would take effect in three primary stages over the eleven years following the final effective date (assuming final approval). The impacts of REACH on the chemical industry and on the Company are unclear at this time because the parameters of the program are still being actively debated. Nevertheless, it is possible that REACH, if implemented, would be costly to the Company.

MTBE Developments

        The use of MTBE is controversial in the United States and elsewhere and may be substantially curtailed or eliminated in the future by legislation or regulatory action. The presence of MTBE in some groundwater supplies in California and other states (primarily due to gasoline leaking from underground storage tanks) and in surface water (primarily from recreational watercraft) has led to public concern about MTBE's potential to contaminate drinking water supplies. Heightened public awareness regarding this issue has resulted in state, federal and foreign initiatives to rescind the federal oxygenate requirements for reformulated gasoline or restrict or prohibit the use of MTBE in particular.

        For example, the California Air Resources Board adopted regulations that prohibit the addition of MTBE to gasoline as of January 1, 2004. Certain other states have also taken actions to restrict or eliminate the current or future use of MTBE. States which have taken action to prohibit or restrict the use of MTBE accounted for over 40% of the U.S. market for MTBE prior to the taking of such action. In connection with its ban, the State of California requested that the EPA waive the federal oxygenated fuels requirements of the federal Clean Air Act for gasoline sold in California. The EPA denied the State's request on June 12, 2001. Certain of the state bans, including California's ban, have been challenged in court as unconstitutional (in light of the Clean Air Act). On June 4, 2003, a federal court

28

of appeals rejected such a challenge to California's ban, ruling that the ban is not pre-empted by the Clean Air Act.

        The energy bill pending in the U.S. Congress would eliminate the oxygenated fuels requirements in the Clean Air Act and phase out or curtail MTBE use. To date, no such legislation has become law. However, such legislation is being considered by Congress and if it were to become law it could result in a federal ban on the use of MTBE in gasoline. In addition, on March 20, 2000, the EPA announced its intention, through an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, to phase out the use of MTBE under authority of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. In its notice, the EPA also called on the U.S. Congress to restrict the use of MTBE under the Clean Air Act.

        In Europe, the EU issued a final risk assessment report on MTBE on September 20, 2002. While no ban of MTBE was recommended, several risk reduction measures relating to storage and handling of MTBE-containing fuel were recommended. Separate from EU action, Denmark entered into a voluntary agreement with refiners to reduce the sale of MTBE in Denmark. Under the agreement, use of MTBE in 92- and 95-octane gasoline in Denmark ceased by May 1, 2002; however, MTBE is still an additive in a limited amount of 98-octane gasoline sold in about 100 selected service stations in Denmark.

        Any phase-out or other future regulation of MTBE in other states, nationally or internationally may result in a significant reduction in demand for the Company's MTBE and result in a material loss in revenues or material costs or expenditures. In the event that there should be a phase-out of MTBE in the United States, the Company believes it will be able to export MTBE to Europe or elsewhere or use its co-product TBA to produce saleable products other than MTBE. If the Company opts to produce products other than MTBE, necessary modifications to its facilities may require significant capital expenditures and the sale of the other products may produce a materially lower level of cash flow than the sale of MTBE.

        In addition, while the Company has not been named as a defendant in any litigation concerning the environmental effects of MTBE, it cannot provide assurances that it will not be involved in any such litigation or that such litigation will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a version of an energy bill that contained limited liability protection for producers of MTBE. The Senate's version of the bill did not have liability protection. This issue was one of the reasons that a compromise energy bill was not passed. Whether a compromise will be reached on this legislation in 2004, and whether any compromise will provide liability protection for producers, are unknown. In any event, the liability protection provision in the House bill applied only to defective product claims; it would not preclude other types of lawsuits.

Other Matters

        The TCEQ and the Company settled outstanding allegations of environmental regulatory violations at the Port Neches, Texas, facilities on May 29, 2003. The settlement imposes penalties totaling $352,250 and requires enhanced air monitoring around the C4 plant, an air compliance audit performed by an outside consultant at that plant, and application for an air emissions permit for the joint wastewater treatment plant that services all of the Port Neches facilities. Although management does not anticipate it, it is possible that the terms of a joint wastewater treatment plant air permit, which will likely be issued as a result of the settlement, may cause the Company to incur costs that could be material.

29

        The State of Texas settled an air enforcement case with the Company relating to the Port Arthur plant on May 13, 2003. Under the settlement, the Company is required to pay a civil penalty of $7.5 million over more than four years, undertake environmental monitoring projects totaling about $1.5 million in costs, and pay $375,000 in attorney's fees to the Texas Attorney General. Thus, as of May 17, 2004, the Company has paid $1.8 million toward the penalty and $375,000 for the attorney's fees; the monitoring projects are underway and on schedule. It is not anticipated that this settlement will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position.

18.   Operating Segment Information

        The Company derives its revenues, earnings and cash flows from the manufacture and sale of a wide variety of differentiated and commodity chemical products. The Company has five reportable operating segments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Polymers, Pigments and Base Chemicals. The major products of each reportable operating segment are as follows:

        Sales between segments are generally recognized at external market prices.

        The Company uses EBITDA to measure the financial performance of its global business units and for reporting the results of its operating segments. This measure includes all operating items relating to the businesses. The EBITDA of operating segments excludes items that principally apply to the Company as a whole. The Company believes that EBITDA is useful in helping investors assess the

30

results of its business operations. The revenues and EBITDA for each of the Company's reportable operating segments are as follows (dollars in millions):