Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

Commission File Number: 1-1511

FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number including area code: (248) 354-7700

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

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 x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes ¨ No x

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $25.3 million as of June 30, 2004 based on the reported last sale price as published for over-the-counter market for such date.

The Registrant had 89,057,696 shares of common stock outstanding as of February 22, 2005.

Table of Contents

INDEX

1

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements contained or incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K which are not statements of historical fact constitute “Forward-Looking Statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”).

Forward-looking statements give current expectations or forecasts of future events. Words such as “anticipate”, “expect”, “intend”, “plan”, “believe”, “seek”, “estimate” and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with discussions of future operating or financial performance signify forward-looking statements. From time to time, Federal-Mogul Corporation (the “Company”) also may provide oral or written forward-looking statements in other materials released to the public. Such statements are made in good faith by the Company pursuant to the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the Reform Act.

Any or all forward-looking statements included in this report or in any other public statements may ultimately be incorrect. Forward-looking statements may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause the actual results, performance, experience or achievements of the Company to differ materially from any future results, performance, experience or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

These are some of the factors that could potentially cause actual results to differ materially from expected and historical results. Other factors besides those listed here could also materially affect the Company’s business.

Chapter 11 Filing

Legal and Environmental Proceedings

Business Environment and Economic Conditions

2

Table of Contents

Other Factors

3

Table of Contents

PART I

Proceedings under Chapter 11 and Administration of the Bankruptcy Code

On October 1, 2001 (the “Petition Date”), Federal-Mogul Corporation, (“Federal-Mogul” or the “Company”) and all of its wholly-owned United States subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization (the “U.S. Restructuring”) under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Also on October 1, 2001, certain of the Company’s United Kingdom subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and petitions for Administration (the “U.K. Restructuring”) under the United Kingdom Insolvency Act of 1986 (the “Act”) in the High Court of Justice, Chancery division in London, England (the “High Court”). The Company and its U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries included in the U.S. Restructuring or the U.K. Restructuring are herein referred to as the “Debtors”. The U.S. Restructuring and U.K. Restructuring are herein referred to as the “Restructuring Proceedings”. The Chapter 11 cases of the Debtors (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”) have been consolidated for purposes of joint administration as In re: Federal-Mogul Global Inc., T&N Limited, et al (Case No. 01-10578(RTL)). Subsidiaries outside of the aforementioned U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are not party to the Chapter 11 Cases and, therefore, are not currently provided protection from creditors by any bankruptcy court and are operating in the normal course. The Chapter 11 Cases are discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

The Restructuring Proceedings were initiated in response to a sharply increasing number of asbestos-related claims and their demand on the Company’s cash flows and liquidity. Under the Restructuring Proceedings, the Debtors expect to develop and implement a plan for addressing the asbestos-related claims against them.

Business Overview

The Company is a leading global supplier of vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty and industrial markets. Federal-Mogul has established an expansive global presence and conducts its operations through various manufacturing, distribution and technical centers that are wholly-owned subsidiaries or partially-owned joint ventures, organized into five primary reporting segments; Powertrain, Sealing Systems and Systems Protection, Friction, Aftermarket and Corporate. Federal-Mogul offers its customers a diverse array of market-leading products for original equipment (“OE”) and parts replacement (“aftermarket”) applications, including engine bearings, pistons, piston pins, rings, cylinder liners, valve train and transmission products, connecting rods, sealing systems, element resistant systems protection sleeving products, electrical connectors and sockets, disc pads and brake shoes, and ignition, lighting, fuel, wiper and chassis products. The Company’s principal customers include many of the world’s original equipment manufacturers (“OEM”) of vehicles and industrial products and aftermarket retailers and wholesalers.

Federal-Mogul has operations in 31 countries and, accordingly, all of the Company’s reporting segments derive sales from both domestic and international markets. The attendant risks of the Company’s international operations are primarily related to currency fluctuations, changes in local economic and political conditions, and changes in

4

Table of Contents

laws and regulations. The following tables set forth the Company’s net sales and net property, plant and equipment by geographic region as a percentage of total net sales and total net property, plant and equipment, respectively:

The following table sets forth the Company’s net sales by reporting segment as a percentage of total net sales. Segment information for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 has been reclassified to include the operating results of Asia Pacific operations within the product group reporting segments. Previously, the Asia Pacific segment information was included within the Corporate reporting segment. This reclassification is consistent with organizational changes implemented during the second quarter of 2004.

As set forth in the above table, the Company maintains a balance of sales derived from the original equipment market and the aftermarket. The Company seeks to participate in both of these markets by leveraging its original equipment product engineering and development capability, manufacturing know-how, and expertise in managing a broad and deep range of replacement parts to service the aftermarket. The Company believes that it is uniquely positioned to effectively manage the life cycle of a broad range of products to a diverse customer base.

5

Table of Contents

Strategy

The Company’s strategy is designed to enhance profitability by leveraging existing and developing new sustainable competitive advantages. This strategy consists of the following primary elements:

The Company’s strategy is designed to capitalize on certain trends occurring in the original equipment and aftermarket replacement markets. The Company assesses individual opportunities to execute its strategy based upon estimated sales and margin growth, cost reduction potential, internal investment returns, and other criteria, and makes investment decisions on a case-by-case basis. Opportunities meeting or exceeding these criteria are generally undertaken through acquisitions and investments, divestitures, restructuring activities, strategic joint ventures and alliances, and research and development activities.

Acquisitions and Investments. In connection with its strategic planning process, the Company assesses opportunities for sales and earnings growth through product line expansion, technological advancements, geographic expansion, penetration of new markets and acquisition of new customers, and other opportunities consistent with the Company’s strategy that will provide a sustainable competitive advantage.

Divestitures. In connection with its strategic planning process, the Company assesses its operations for market position, product technology and capability, and profitability. Those businesses determined by management not to have a sustainable competitive advantage are considered non-core and may be considered for divestiture or other exit activities. Over the past several years, the Company has divested numerous non-core businesses. The elimination of these non-core businesses has freed up both human and capital resources, which have been devoted to the Company’s core businesses.

During 2004, the Company completed the following divestitures of non-core businesses:

During 2003, the Company completed the following divestitures of non-core businesses:

During 2002, the Company completed the following divestitures of non-core businesses:

6

Table of Contents

These divestitures have been presented as discontinued operations for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002. At December 31, 2004, no assets were held for sale in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.” Additional financial information related to these divestitures is included in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements, “Discontinued Operations” included in Item 8 of this report.

Restructuring Activities. The Company has undertaken various restructuring activities to streamline its operations, consolidate and take advantage of available capacity and resources, and ultimately achieve cost reductions. These restructuring activities include efforts to integrate and rationalize the Company’s businesses and to relocate manufacturing operations to lower cost markets.

The Company defines restructuring expense to include charges incurred with exit or disposal activities accounted for in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 146, employee severance costs incurred as a result of an exit or disposal activity accounted for in accordance with SFAS Nos. 88 and 112, and pension and other postemployment benefit costs incurred as a result of an exit or disposal activity accounted for in accordance with SFAS Nos. 87 and 106.

An overview by reporting segment of the Company’s restructuring activities completed during 2004 is provided below.

Various programs, which are similar in nature to those discussed above, are currently in progress and are scheduled for completion during 2005. The Company’s restructuring activities are further discussed in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements, “Restructuring.”

Joint Ventures and Other Strategic Alliances. Joint ventures and other strategic alliances represent an important element of the Company’s business strategy. The Company forms joint ventures and strategic alliances to gain entry into new markets, facilitate the exchange of technical information and development of new products, extend current product offerings, provide low cost manufacturing operations, and broaden its customer base. The Company believes that certain of its joint ventures have provided, and will continue to provide, opportunities to expand business relationships with Asian OEMs. The Company is currently involved in 36 joint ventures located in 12 different countries throughout the world, including China, India, Korea and Turkey. Of these joint ventures, the Company maintains a controlling interest in 15 entities and, accordingly, the financial results of these entities are included in the consolidated financial statements of the Company. The Company has a non-controlling interest in 21 of its joint ventures, of which 18 are accounted for under the equity method and three are accounted for under the cost method. The Company does not hold a controlling interest in an entity based on exposure to economic risks and potential rewards (variable interests) for which it is the primary beneficiary. Further, the Company’s joint ventures are businesses established and maintained in connection with its operating strategy and are not special purpose entities.

7

Table of Contents

Net sales for consolidated joint ventures were approximately 9% of consolidated net sales for the year ended December 31, 2004. The Company’s investment in unconsolidated joint ventures totaled $160 million as of December 31, 2004, while the Company’s equity in earnings of such affiliates amounted to $36 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Research and Development. The Company maintains technical centers throughout the world designed to develop advanced products and processes, to provide manufacturing support for all of the Company’s manufacturing sites, and to provide technological expertise in engineering and design development providing solutions for customers and bringing new, innovative products to market. Federal-Mogul’s research and development activities are conducted at the Company’s major research centers in Burscheid, Germany; Nuremberg, Germany; Wiesbaden, Germany; Bad Camberg, Germany; Plymouth, Michigan; Skokie, Illinois, Ann Arbor, Michigan and Yokohama, Japan.

Each of the Company’s business units is engaged in various engineering, research and development efforts working closely with customers to develop custom solutions unique to their needs. Total expenditures from continuing operations for research and development activities were $137 million, $123 million and $107 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

The Company’s Products

The following provides an overview of products manufactured and distributed by the Company’s reporting segments.

Powertrain. Powertrain products are used primarily in automotive, light truck, heavy-duty, industrial, marine, agricultural, power generation and small air-cooled engine applications. The primary products of this segment include engine bearings, pistons, piston pins, rings, cylinder liners, valve train and transmission products and connecting rods. These products are offered under the Federal-Mogul, AE, Glyco, Goetze and Nural brand names. These products are either sold as individual components or, increasingly, offered to automotive manufacturers assembled in a power cylinder system. This strategic product offering adds value to the customer by simplifying the assembly process, lowering costs and reducing vehicle development time. Powertrain operates 46 manufacturing facilities in 12 countries, serving a large number of major automotive, heavy-duty and industrial customers worldwide. Powertrain derived 28% of its 2004 sales in the Americas and 72% in Europe and the rest of world.

In North America, Powertrain products are expected to benefit from increased out-sourcing of piston machining and power cylinder systems from OEMs. Additionally, the Company is well positioned to benefit from expected growth opportunities in heavy-duty markets. In Europe, Powertrain products will continue to benefit from its existing high market share in diesel engine applications in pistons, rings, and engine bearings, and the expected continuing increase in production of diesel engines in comparison to gasoline applications.

8

Table of Contents

The following provides a description of the various products manufactured by Powertrain:

Sealing Systems and Systems Protection. The Sealing Systems and Systems Protection reporting segment serves the complete drive train with sealing systems comprised of a wide array of seal and gasket technologies and innovative products focused primarily on protecting sensitive components from the harsh environment within engine compartments. Sealing Systems and Systems Protection products are used in automotive, light truck, heavy-duty, agricultural, off-highway, marine, railroad, high performance and industrial applications. The primary products include dynamic seals, gaskets (static seals) and element resistant systems protection sleeving products. The products within this group are marketed under the brand names of Federal-Mogul, Goetze, National, Fel-Pro, Payen and Glockler. Sealing Systems and Systems Protection operates 30 manufacturing facilities in 12 countries, serving many major automotive, heavy-duty and industrial customers worldwide. Sealing Systems and Systems Protection derived 76% of its 2004 sales in the Americas and 24% in Europe and the rest of world.

OEM customers are increasingly demanding total engine sealing solutions and Federal-Mogul is poised to take advantage of these opportunities as Sealing Systems possesses the ability to supply total engine, transmission and axle sealing applications. Joint venture partnerships with Japanese automotive suppliers provide the Company commercial relationships with Honda and Toyota in the United States.

9

Table of Contents

The following provides a description of the various products manufactured by Sealing Systems and Systems Protection:

Friction. Federal-Mogul is one of the world’s largest independent suppliers of friction materials for the automotive, heavy-duty, and railway markets. The primary products of this segment include brake disc pads, brake shoes, and brake linings and blocks. Federal-Mogul offers a portfolio of world-class brand names, including Abex, Beral, Wagner and Ferodo. Federal-Mogul supplies friction products to all major customers in the light vehicle, commercial vehicle and railway sectors and is also very active in the aftermarket. Friction operates 15 manufacturing facilities in 10 countries, serving many major automotive, railroad and industrial customers worldwide. Friction derived 26% of its 2004 sales in the Americas and 74% in Europe and the rest of world.

10

Table of Contents

The following provides a description of the various products manufactured by Friction:

Aftermarket. Aftermarket distributes products manufactured within the above segments, or purchased, to the independent automotive, heavy-duty and industrial aftermarkets. The segment also includes manufacturing operations for brake, chassis, ignition, lighting, fuel and wiper products. Federal-Mogul is a leader in several key aftermarket product lines. These products are marketed under various brand names, including Champion, Fel-Pro, Carter, ANCO, Moog, Wagner, Ferodo, Glyco and Sealed Power. Aftermarket operates 22 manufacturing facilities and 29 distribution centers in 19 countries, serving a diverse base of distributors and retail customers around the world. Aftermarket derived 73% of its 2004 sales in the Americas and 27% in Europe and the rest of world.

11

Table of Contents

The following provides a description of the various products manufactured and/or distributed by Aftermarket:

12

Table of Contents

Reporting Segment Financial Information. Approximately 54% of the Company’s net sales are to the OE market and approximately 46% are to the aftermarket. The following tables summarize net sales, gross margin and total assets for each reporting segment for the periods indicated. Segment information for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 has been reclassified to include the operating results of Asia Pacific operations within the product group reporting segments. Previously, the Asia Pacific segment information was included within the Corporate reporting segment. This reclassification is consistent with organizational changes implemented during the second quarter of 2004.

For information related to the Company’s reporting segments, refer to Note 21 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Net sales by reporting segment were:

13

Table of Contents

Gross margin by reporting segment was:

Total assets by reporting segment were:

The Company’s Industry

The automotive supply industry is comprised of two primary markets; the OE market in which the Company’s products are used in the manufacture of new vehicles, and the aftermarket in which the Company’s products are used as replacement parts for current production and older vehicles.

The OE Market. The OE market is characterized by short-term volatility, with overall expected long-term growth of vehicle sales and production. Demand for automotive parts in the OE market is generally a function of the number of new vehicles produced, which is primarily driven by macro-economic factors such as interest rates, fuel prices, consumer confidence, employment and other trends. In 2004, the number of light vehicles produced, which is a substantial portion of the OE market, was 15.8 million in North America, 16.3 million in Western Europe, and 27.5 million in the rest of the world. Although OE demand is tied to planned vehicle production, parts suppliers also have the opportunity to grow through increasing their product content per vehicle, by further penetrating business with existing customers, and by gaining new customers and markets. Companies with a global presence and advanced technology, engineering, manufacturing and customer support capabilities are best positioned to take advantage of these opportunities.

There are currently several significant existing and emerging trends that are impacting the OE market, including the following:

14

Table of Contents

The Aftermarket Business. Aftermarket products are sold as replacement parts for vehicles in current production and older vehicles to a wide range of wholesalers, retailers and installers. Demand for aftermarket products is driven by the quality of OE parts, the number of vehicles in operation, the average age of the vehicle fleet, and vehicle usage (measured by miles driven). Although the number of vehicles on the road and different models available continue to increase, the aftermarket has experienced weakness due to increases in average useful lives of automotive parts resulting from continued technological innovation and resulting quality and durability. Replacement demand for certain aftermarket products is also impacted by annual weather cycles. Generally, the relative severity of winter can significantly impact the short-term demand for products such as wiper blades, chassis components and fuel pumps. The aftermarket continues to experience consolidation of warehouse distributors and retailers, resulting in excess inventory throughout the supply chain that can adversely affect near-term sales to these customers.

There are currently several significant existing and emerging trends that are impacting the aftermarket business, including the following:

15

Table of Contents

The Company’s Customers

The Company supplies OE manufacturers with a wide variety of precision-engineered parts, essentially all of which are manufactured by the Company. The Company’s OE customers consist primarily of automotive and heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers as well as agricultural, off-highway, marine, railroad, high performance and industrial application manufacturers. The Company has well-established relationships with substantially all major North American, European and Asian automotive OE manufacturers.

Federal-Mogul’s aftermarket customers include independent warehouse distributors who redistribute products to local parts suppliers called jobbers, distributors of heavy-duty vehicular parts, engine rebuilders and retail parts stores. The breadth of Federal-Mogul’s product lines, the strength of its brand names, marketing expertise, and sizable sales force, and its distribution and logistics capability, are central to the Company’s aftermarket operations.

Among Federal-Mogul’s largest customers are the Aftermarket Autoparts Alliance, Autozone, BMW, CarQuest, Caterpillar, Cummins, DaimlerChrysler, Fiat, Ford/Jaguar/Volvo, General Motors, NAPA, Ozark/O’Reilly’s, PSA, Renault/Nissan and Volkswagen/Audi. This determination is based upon sales derived from these customers during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. No individual customer accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s sales during 2004.

The Company’s Competition

The global vehicular parts business is highly competitive. The Company competes with many of its customers that produce their own components as well as with independent manufacturers and distributors of component parts in the United States and abroad. In general, competition for such sales is based on price, product quality, technology, delivery, customer service and the breadth of products offered by a given supplier. The Company is meeting these competitive challenges by more efficiently integrating its manufacturing and distribution operations, expanding its product coverage within its core businesses, and utilizing its worldwide technical centers to develop and provide value-added solutions to its customers. A summary of the Company’s primary independent competitors by reporting segment is set forth below.

The Company’s Backlog

For OEM customers, the Company generally receives purchase orders for specific components supplied for particular vehicles. These supply relationships typically extend over the life of the related vehicle, subject to interim design and technical specification revisions, and do not require the customer to purchase a minimum quantity. In addition to customary commercial terms and conditions, purchase orders generally provide for annual price

16

Table of Contents

reductions based upon expected productivity improvements and other factors. Customers typically retain the right to terminate purchase orders, but the Company generally cannot terminate purchase orders. OEM order fulfillment is typically manufactured in response to customer purchase order releases, and the Company ships directly from a manufacturing location to the customer for use in vehicle production and assembly. Accordingly, the Company’s manufacturing locations do not typically maintain significant finished goods inventory, but rather produce from on-hand raw materials and work-in process inventory within relatively short manufacturing cycles. The primary risk to the Company is lower than expected vehicle production by one or more of its OEM customers or termination of the business based upon perceived or actual shortfalls in delivery, quality or value.

For its aftermarket customers, the Company generally establishes product line arrangements that encompass all components offered within a particular product line. These are typically multi-year arrangements, although they are subject to termination by either the Company or the customer upon relatively short notice. Pricing is market responsive and subject to adjustment based upon competitive pressures and other commercial factors. Aftermarket order fulfillment is largely performed from finished goods inventory stocked in the Company’s worldwide distribution network. Inventory stocking levels in the Company’s distribution centers are established based upon historical customer demand.

Although customer programs typically extend to future periods and, although there is an expectation that the Company will supply certain levels of OE production and aftermarket shipments over such periods, the Company believes that outstanding purchase orders and product line arrangements do not constitute firm orders. Firm orders are limited to specific and authorized customer purchase order releases placed with its manufacturing and distribution centers for actual production and order fulfillment. Firm orders are typically fulfilled as promptly as possible after receipt from the conversion of available raw materials and work-in-process inventory for OEM orders and from current on-hand finished goods inventory for aftermarket orders. The dollar amount of such purchase order releases on hand and not processed at any point in time is not believed to be significant based upon the timeframe involved.

The composition of the Company’s purchase orders and arrangements as measured by terms and conditions, pricing and other factors has remained largely unchanged during the last three years.

The Company’s Raw Materials and Suppliers

The Company purchases various raw materials for use in its manufacturing processes, including ferrous and non-ferrous metals, synthetic and natural rubber, graphite, fibers, stampings, castings and forgings. In addition, the Company purchases parts manufactured by other manufacturers for sale in the aftermarket. The Company has not experienced any shortages of raw materials or finished parts and normally does not carry inventories of raw materials or finished parts in excess of those reasonably required to meet its production and shipping schedules. For business and efficiency purposes, the Company has established single sourcing relationships with a small number of its suppliers. However, based upon market conditions and readily available alternative supply sources, the Company believes it could readily replace any single supply source without a material disruption to its business. In 2004, no outside supplier of the Company provided products that accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s net sales.

The Company experienced raw material inflation of approximately $50 million during 2004 concentrated in steel, non-ferrous metals and hydrocarbon based commodities. Through its centralized supply chain functions, the Company continues to work with its suppliers to reduce its global material costs. However, the Company expects raw material steel supply will continue to be constrained and the impact of increasing material costs or disruptions in supply will likely continue to pressure the Company’s operating results.

Seasonality of the Company’s Business

The Company’s business is moderately seasonal because many North American customers typically close assembly plants for two weeks in July for model year changeovers, and for an additional week during the December holiday season. Customers in Europe historically shut down vehicle production during a portion of August and one week in December. The aftermarket experiences seasonal fluctuations in sales due to demands caused by weather patterns.

17

Table of Contents

Historically, the Company’s sales and operating profits have been the strongest in the second quarter. Refer to Note 22, “Quarterly Financial Data”, to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

The Company’s Employee Relations

As of December 31, 2004, the Company had approximately 44,700 full-time employees, of which approximately 17,200 were employed in the United States.

Various unions represent approximately 42% of the Company’s domestic hourly employees and approximately 60% of the Company’s international hourly employees. Most of the Company’s unionized manufacturing facilities have their own contract with its own expiration date, and as a result, no contract expiration date affects more than one facility.

Impact of Environmental Regulations on the Company

The Company’s operations, consistent with those of the manufacturing sector in general, are subject to numerous existing and proposed laws and governmental regulations designed to protect the environment, particularly regarding plant wastes and emissions and solid waste disposal. Capital expenditures for property, plant and equipment for environmental control activities did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or cash flows in 2004 and are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or cash flows in 2005 or 2006.

The Company’s Intellectual Property

The Company holds in excess of 3,800 patents and patent applications on a worldwide basis, of which 762 have been filed in the United States. Of the 3,800 patents and patent applications, approximately 30% are in production use and/or are licensed to third parties, and the remaining 70% are being considered for future production use or provide a strategic technological benefit to the Company. These patents and patent applications expire over various periods through the year 2026.

The Company does not materially rely on any single patent, nor will the expiration of any single patent materially affect the Company’s business. Typically, new technology is introduced and patented by the Company replacing formerly patented technology before the expiration of the existing patent. In the aggregate, the Company’s worldwide patent portfolio is materially important to its business because it enables the Company to achieve technological differentiation from its competitors.

The Company also maintains more than 4,800 active trademark registrations and applications worldwide. In excess of 90% of these trademark registrations and applications are in commercial use by the Company or are licensed to third parties. All trademark registrations that are still in commercial use are routinely renewed by the Company prior to their expiration.

The Company’s Website and Access to Filed Reports

The Company maintains an internet website at www.federal-mogul.com. The Company provides access to its annual and periodic reports filed with the SEC through this website. In addition, paper copies of annual and periodic reports filed with the SEC may be obtained by contacting the Company’s headquarters at the address located within the SEC Filings or under Investor Relations on the aforementioned website.

18

Table of Contents

Federal-Mogul’s world headquarters is located in Southfield, Michigan, which is a leased facility. At December 31, 2004, the Company had 196 manufacturing/technical centers, distribution and sales and administration office facilities worldwide. Approximately 35% of the facilities are leased; the majority of which are distribution, sales and administration offices. The Company owns the remainder of the facilities.

The facilities range in size from approximately 1,700 square feet to 1,143,000 square feet. Management believes substantially all of the Company’s facilities are in good condition and that it has sufficient capacity to meet its current and expected manufacturing and distribution needs. No material facility is significantly underutilized, except for those being sold or closed in the normal course of business.

On October 1, 2001 (the “Petition Date”), the Company and all of its wholly-owned United States subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization (the “U.S. Restructuring”) under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Also on October 1, 2001, certain of the Company’s United Kingdom subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and petitions for Administration (the “U.K. Restructuring”) under the United Kingdom Insolvency Act of 1986 (the “Act”) in the High Court of Justice, Chancery division in London, England (the “High Court”). The Company and its U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries included in the U.S. Restructuring and the U.K. Restructuring are herein referred to as the “Debtors”. The U.S. Restructuring and U.K. Restructuring are herein referred to as the “Restructuring Proceedings”. The Chapter 11 cases of the Debtors (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”) have been consolidated for purposes of joint administration as In re: Federal-Mogul Global Inc., T&N Limited, et al (Case No. 01-10578(RTL)). Subsidiaries outside of the aforementioned U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are not party to the Chapter 11 Cases and, therefore, are not currently provided protection from creditors by any bankruptcy court and are operating in the normal course. The Chapter 11 Cases are further discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

The Restructuring Proceedings were entered into in response to a sharply increasing number of asbestos-related claims and their demand on the Company’s cash flows and liquidity. Under the Restructuring Proceedings, the Debtors expect to develop and implement a plan for addressing the asbestos-related claims against them.

Material pending legal proceedings, other than the Chapter 11 and Administration proceedings above and other than ordinary, routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the Company became or was a party during the year ended December 31, 2004, or subsequent thereto but before the filing of this report, are summarized below.

T&N Companies Asbestos Litigation

The Company’s U.K. subsidiary, T&N Ltd., and two U.S. subsidiaries (the “T&N Companies”) are among many defendants named in numerous court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. T&N Ltd. is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation, to a lesser extent, in the United Kingdom and France. As of the Petition Date, T&N Ltd. was a defendant in approximately 115,000 pending personal injury claims. The two United States subsidiaries were defendants in approximately 199,000 pending personal injury claims. The Company includes as pending claims open served claims, settled but not documented claims, and settled but not paid claims. Notice of complaints continue to be received post-petition and are in violation of the automatic stay.

19

Table of Contents

The Company’s recorded liability for this litigation (approximately $1.4 billion as of December 31, 2004) represented the Company’s estimate prior to the Restructuring Proceedings for claims currently pending and those which were reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012. The Company did not provide a liability for claims that may be paid subsequent to this period as it could not reasonably estimate such claims. In estimating the liability prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company made assumptions regarding the total number of claims anticipated to be received in a future period, the typical cost of settlement (which is sensitive to the industry in which the plaintiff claims exposure, the alleged disease type and the jurisdiction in which the action is being brought), the rate of receipt of claims, the settlement strategy in dealing with outstanding claims and the timing of settlements. As a result of the Restructuring Proceedings, pending asbestos-related litigation against the Company in the United States and the U.K. is stayed (subject to certain exceptions in the case of governmental authorities), and no party may take action to pursue or collect on such asbestos claims absent specific authorization of the Bankruptcy Court or the High Court. Since the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company has ceased making payments with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits. An asbestos creditors’ committee has been appointed in the U.S. representing asbestos claimants with pending claims against the Company, and the Bankruptcy Court has appointed a legal representative for the interests of potential future asbestos claimants. In the U.K. a creditors committee consisting in large part of representatives of asbestos claimants has been appointed. The Company’s obligations with respect to present and future claims could be determined through litigation in the Bankruptcy Court, the High Court, and/or through negotiations with each of the official committees appointed.

While the Company believes that the liability recorded as of October 1, 2001 was appropriate for anticipated losses arising from asbestos-related claims against the T&N Companies through 2012, it is the Company’s view that, as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings, there is even greater uncertainty in estimating the timing and amount of future asbestos liability and related insurance recovery for pending and future claims. There are significant differences in the treatment of asbestos claims in a bankruptcy proceeding as compared to the tort litigation system. Among other things, it is uncertain at this time as to the number of asbestos-related claims that will be filed in the Restructuring Proceedings, the number of future claims that will be included in a plan of reorganization, how claims for punitive damages and claims by persons with no asbestos-related physical impairment will be treated and whether such claims will be allowed, and the impact that historical settlement values for asbestos claims may have on the estimation of asbestos liability in the Restructuring Proceedings.

While the Restructuring Proceedings will impact the timing and amount of the asbestos claims and related insurance recoverable amounts, there has been no change, other than to reflect an insurance settlement and foreign exchange translation, to the recorded amounts since the Company initiated the Restructuring Proceedings. Accordingly, the recorded amounts for the asbestos claims and related insurance recoverable asset could change significantly based upon events that occur from the Restructuring Proceedings.

No assurance can be given that the T&N Companies will not be subject to material additional liabilities and significant additional litigation relating to asbestos matters through 2012 or thereafter. In the event that such liabilities exceed the amounts recorded by the Company or the remaining insurance coverage, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition could be materially affected.

In 1996, T&N Ltd. (formerly T&N, plc) purchased for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a £500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30, 1996, where the exposure occurred prior to that date, exceed £690 million. During 2000, the Company concluded that the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would exceed the trigger point and recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N policy of $577 million. As of December 31, 2004, the recorded insurance recoverable was $687.7 million. In December 2001, one of the three reinsurers, European International Reinsurance Company Ltd. (“EIR”), filed suit in a London, England court to challenge the validity of its insurance contract with the T&N Companies. As a result of this lawsuit, a claim was made against the broker (Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for breach of its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in October 2003. Prior to the conclusion of the trial, the parties were able to reach a settlement. As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a $38.9 million asbestos charge during 2003. Under the terms of the settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5% of its one-third share of the reinsurance policy. By separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an additional 17.25% of the EIR share of the reinsurance policy. T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums paid under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N Ltd. for which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or Sedgwick. The settlement agreements referenced above are being held in escrow pending approval

20

Table of Contents

by the Bankruptcy Court and the Administrators of T&N Ltd. of those portions of the above-described settlement agreements that affect the Debtors. A motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the settlement was filed on March 1, 2004.

Subsequent to this motion, the other two reinsurers, Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG (“Munich Re”) and Centre Reinsurance International Co. (“CRIC”), a subsidiary of the Zurich Financial Services Group, notified the Company of their belief that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick may breach one or more provisions of the Reinsurance Agreement. The hearing to review the March 1, 2004 motion has been adjourned without date as the parties attempt to resolve the issues raised by the two reinsurers. However, these efforts have been unsuccessful, prompting the Administrators to file an action in the London High Court seeking a declaration that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick do not breach provisions of the Reinsurance Agreement. At a hearing on February 14, 2005, the English High Court gave directions to set out an approximate 35 day timetable for the production of evidence for a substantive hearing in early April 2005. In addition, the English High Court gave a direction that Curzon Insurance Limited, (“Curzon”) the original insurer under the policy, should make a similar application to run in tandem with the Administrators’ application.

In October 2004, the other two reinsurers initiated an action against the Company in the High Court in London alleging that the Company’s proposed Plan of Reorganization may breach provisions of the applicable insurance policies, relieving the reinsurers of their obligations. On November 26, 2004, the court issued its judgement generally finding that the Plan as written does not provide any basis to relieve the reinsurers of their obligations. The court indicated that it could not address at this time issues arising from subsequent implementation of the Plan. This judgement has not been appealed.

Also in relation to the insurance in December 2002, Munich Re and CRIC sought certain declarations from the English High Court as to the meaning of certain terms contained in the policy and Reinsurance Agreement. These proceedings were adjourned; however, in August 2003, T&N’s Administrators issued their own applications for determinations of certain legal issues arising under the policy. These included, among other things, the seeking of declarations whether (i) the provision for the transfer of claims handling rights under the policy was not enforceable under the provisions of S1(3) of the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930; (ii) the Reinsurers must meet all expenses incurred in claims handling following the transfer of the right to handle claims, even if such expenses are incurred within the retention of the policy; (iii) such expenses incurred by the Reinsurers constitutes an administration expense payable in priority to other creditors.

On February 12, 2004 the English High Court held, among other thing, that (i) claims handling rights had been transferred; (ii) that claims handling rights did not rank as an administration expense; and (iii) that the Reinsurers could be obliged, in the proper exercise of claims handling to incur expenses, but only on the basis that they formed part of the ultimate net loss under the policy.

The English High Court of Appeal gave judgement on February 11, 2005. Curzon and T&N’s appeal was unsuccessful on all points. Munich Re and CRIC were successful only in relation to their appeal to the extent to which claims handling expenses incurred by the Reinsurers were administration expenses. The Court of Appeal held that the reimbursement of such expenses should be treated as sums payable in respect of liabilities incurred within Section 19(5) of the Insolvency Act of 1986. However, the Court of Appeal said that what claims handling expenses need to be incurred by the Reinsurers must remain a matter under the control of the Court. Curzon and T&N sought permission to appeal to the House of Lords in respect of this issue but leave was refused. T&N’s Administrators are considering whether to seek permission to appeal from the House of Lords.

The ultimate realization of insurance proceeds is directly related to the amount of related covered claims paid by the Company. If the ultimate asbestos claims are higher than the recorded liability, the Company expects the ultimate insurance recoverable to be higher than the recorded amount, up to the cap of the insurance layer. If the ultimate asbestos claims are lower than the recorded liability, the Company expects the ultimate insurance recoverable to be lower than the recorded amount. While the Restructuring Proceedings will impact the timing and amount of the asbestos claims and the insurance recoverable, there has been no change, other than to reflect the settlement discussed above and the effect of foreign currency, to the recorded amounts since the Company initiated the Restructuring Proceedings. Accordingly, the recorded amounts for this insurance recoverable asset could change significantly as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings.

21

Table of Contents

During the first quarter of 2004, the security rating of Centre Reinsurance International Co. was downgraded by several major credit rating providers. As a result of the downgrade, the Company obtained a guarantee of all CRIC’s obligations under the policy from Centre Reinsurance (US) Limited (“CRUS”), an affiliate of CRIC. The security rating of CRUS has not been affected by the downgrade of CRIC and remains unchanged since the inception of the policy. If the reinsurers and/or the related affiliate are not able to meet their obligations under the policy, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition could be materially affected.

The U.S. claims costs applied against this policy are converted at a fixed exchange rate of $1.69/£. As such, if the market exchange rate is greater than $1.69/£, the Company will effectively have a premium on 100% recovery on claims paid. As of December 31, 2004, the $688 million insurance recoverable asset includes an exchange rate premium of approximately $76 million.

Abex and Wagner Asbestos Litigation

Two of the Company’s businesses formerly owned by Cooper Industries, Inc., known as Abex and Wagner, are involved as defendants in numerous court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. These claims mainly involve friction products. As of the Petition Date, Abex and Wagner were defendants in approximately 66,000 and 33,000 pending claims, respectively. As a result of the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company includes as a pending claim open served claims, settled but not documented claims and settled but not paid claims. Notices of complaints continue to be received post-petition and are in violation of the automatic stay.

The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging exposure to Wagner products arises from the 1998 stock purchase from Cooper Industries, Inc. of the corporate successor by merger to Wagner Electric Company; the purchased entity is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and one of the Debtors in the Restructuring Proceedings. As a consequence, all claims against the Debtors, including asbestos-related claims, have been stayed.

The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging exposure to Abex products arises from a contractual liability entered into in 1994 by the predecessor to the Company whose stock the Company purchased in 1998. Pursuant to that contract, prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company, through the relevant subsidiary, was liable for certain indemnity and defense payments incurred on behalf of an entity known as Pneumo Abex Corporation, the successor in interest to Abex Corporation. Effective as of the Petition Date, the Company has ceased making such payments and is currently considering whether to accept or reject the 1994 contractual liability.

As mentioned above, as of the Petition Date, pending asbestos litigation of Abex (as to the Company only) and Wagner is stayed (subject to certain exceptions in the case of governmental authorities), and no party may take action to pursue or collect on such asbestos claims absent specific authorization of the Bankruptcy Court or the High Court.

The Company’s recorded liability for this litigation (comprised of $129.5 million in Abex liabilities and $84.1 million in Wagner liabilities as of December 31, 2004) represented the Company’s estimate prior to the Restructuring Proceedings for claims currently pending and those which were reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012. The Company did not provide a liability for claims that may be brought subsequent to this period as it could not reasonably estimate such claims. In estimating the liability prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company made assumptions regarding the total number of claims anticipated to be received in a future period, the typical cost of settlement (which is sensitive to the industry in which the plaintiff claims exposure, the alleged disease type and the jurisdiction in which the action is being brought), the rate of receipt of claims, the settlement strategy in dealing with outstanding claims and the timing of settlements.

As a result of the Restructuring Proceedings, pending asbestos-related litigation is stayed. The Company issued various letters of credit in connection with asbestos lawsuits that had resulted in verdicts against the Company or its subsidiaries prior to its filing for bankruptcy protection. The letters of credit were issued as security for judgments entered against the Company or its subsidiaries to permit the Company to pursue appeals to these judgments. The Bankruptcy Court has lifted the automatic stay with respect to one letter of credit for the Company where the letter of credit was in place to allow the appeal of a judgement against Wagner to proceed. During 2004, the final appeal in this case was denied and a draw was made upon this letter of credit of approximately $1 million.

22

Table of Contents

While the Company believes that the liability recorded as of October 1, 2001 was appropriate for anticipated losses arising from asbestos-related claims related to Abex and Wagner through 2012, it is the Company’s view that, as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings, there is even greater uncertainty in estimating the timing and amount of future asbestos liability and related insurance recovery for pending and future claims. There are significant differences in the treatment of asbestos claims in a bankruptcy proceeding as compared to the tort litigation system. Among other things, it is uncertain at this time as to the number of asbestos-related claims that will be filed in the proceeding, the number of future claims that will be included in a plan of reorganization, how claims for punitive damages and claims by persons with no asbestos-related physical impairment will be treated and whether such claims will be allowed, and the impact historical settlement values for asbestos claims may have on the estimation of asbestos liability in the Restructuring Proceedings.

While the Restructuring Proceedings will impact the timing and amount of the asbestos claims and related insurance recoverable amounts, there has been no change, other than cash payments and receipts and foreign exchange translation, to the recorded amounts since the Company initiated the Restructuring Proceedings. Accordingly, the recorded amounts for the asbestos claims could change significantly based upon events that occur from the Restructuring Proceedings.

No assurance can be given that the Company will not be subject to material additional liabilities and significant additional litigation relating to Abex and Wagner asbestos matters through 2012 or thereafter. In the event that such liabilities exceed the amounts recorded by the Company or the remaining insurance coverage, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition could be materially affected.

Federal-Mogul and Fel-Pro Asbestos Litigation

Prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in its own name as one of a large number of defendants in multiple lawsuits brought by claimants alleging injury from exposure to asbestos due to its ownership of certain assets involved in gasket making. As of the Petition Date, the Company was a defendant in approximately 61,500 pre-petition pending claims. Over 40,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court, where, prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending. Notices of complaints continue to be received post-petition and are in violation of the automatic stay.

Prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company’s Fel-Pro subsidiary also was named as a defendant in a number of product liability cases involving asbestos, primarily involving gasket or packing products. Fel-Pro was a defendant in approximately 34,000 pending claims as of the Petition Date. Over 32,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court where, prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending. The Company was defending all such claims vigorously and believed that it and Fel-Pro had substantial defenses to liability and insurance coverage for defense and indemnity. All claims alleging exposure to the products of the Company and of Fel-Pro have been stayed as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings.

Other Matters

In January 2005, the Company was notified by a customer that it experienced a quality problem with one of its products allegedly due to component parts supplied by the Company. The merits of this allegation are still under investigation by both the Company and its customer. Until further investigation is completed, any responsibility and related liability cannot be determined. However, based upon investigations performed to date, the Company believes its component parts are in accordance to customer specifications and are not the root cause of the quality problem. Accordingly, no reserve has been provided as of December 31, 2004.

The Company is involved in other legal actions and claims, directly and through its subsidiaries. After taking into consideration legal counsel’s evaluation of such actions, management is of the opinion that the outcomes are not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, operating results, or cash flows.

Environmental Matters

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of

23

Table of Contents

1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national or state environmental laws. These laws require responsible parties to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition. In addition, the Company has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation requires the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities.

At most of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate, which are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent waste, the Company’s exposure is expected to be limited. Despite the joint and several liability which might be imposed on the Company under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, the Company’s share of the total waste has generally been small. The other companies, which also sent wastes, often numbering in the hundreds or more, generally include large, solvent publicly owned companies, and in most such situations the government agencies and courts have imposed liability in some reasonable relationship to contribution of waste.

The Company has identified certain present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments. The Company is actively seeking to resolve these matters.

Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, the Company has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual matters based upon information currently available from site investigations and consultants.

Recorded environmental reserves were $61 million and $66 million at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The decrease in the reserves during 2004 resulted primarily from expenditures against the reserves, downward adjustment of certain reserves based on new and more accurate estimates of remaining costs, sale of certain sites to purchasers who assumed the remaining environmental liabilities, court-approved settlement of certain contractual and governmental cleanup claims with creditors in the company’s pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, and other factors. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by the Company, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition could be materially affected. At December 31, 2004, management estimates that reasonably possible material additional losses above and beyond management’s best estimate of required remediation costs, as recorded approximate $40 million.

Legal proceedings are further discussed in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004.

24

Table of Contents

PART II

The Company’s common stock trades on the NASD over-the-counter bulletin board market under the ticker symbol “FDMLQ”.

The approximate number of shareholders of record of the Company’s common stock at February 22, 2005 was 7,090. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices of the Company’s common stock for each calendar quarter for the last two years as reported on the over-the-counter market:

The closing price of the Company’s common stock as reported on the over-the-counter market on February 22, 2005 was $0.34.

The Company was prohibited in 2004, 2003 and 2002, under its Senior Credit Agreement and its debtor-in-possession credit facilities, from paying dividends on its common stock, and therefore did not declare any such dividends. The Company does not expect to declare a dividend in the foreseeable future.

On June 4, 2004, the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) for the Company and the other U.S. and U.K. Debtors was filed with the Bankruptcy Court. The Plan was jointly proposed by the Company, the Unsecured Creditors Committee, the Asbestos Claimants Committee, the Future Asbestos Claimants Representative, the Agent for the Prepetition Bank Lenders and the Equity Security Holders Committee (collectively referred to as the “Plan Proponents”).

The Plan provides that asbestos personal injury claimants, both present and future, will be permanently channeled to a trust or series of trusts established pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby protecting Federal-Mogul and its affiliates in the Chapter 11 Cases from existing and future asbestos liability. Although certain issues remain to be resolved, the Plan provides that all currently outstanding stock of Federal-Mogul will be cancelled, and 50.1% of newly authorized and issued common stock of reorganized Federal-Mogul will be distributed to the asbestos trusts, and 49.9% of the newly authorized and issued common stock will be distributed pro rata to the noteholders. If the Bankruptcy Court finds that the classes of holders of common and preferred stock of Federal-Mogul have voted in favor of the Plan, the holders of currently outstanding common and preferred stock of Federal-Mogul will receive warrants that may be used to purchase shares of reorganized Federal-Mogul at a predetermined exercise price.

25

Table of Contents

The following table presents information from the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the five years ended December 31, 2004. This information should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Financial Statements and Supplemental Data”. Information for the four years ended December 31, 2003 has been reclassified from that presented in prior reports to reflect the financial results of operations divested in 2004 as discontinued operations.

26

Table of Contents

Overview

Federal-Mogul Corporation (“Federal-Mogul” or the “Company”) offers a broad range of vehicular parts, accessories, modules and systems to customers in both the original equipment market (“OE”) and the replacement market (“aftermarket”) on a worldwide basis. Management believes the Company’s sales of $6.2 billion are well balanced between original equipment and aftermarket as well as domestic and international. During 2004, the Company derived 54% of its sales from the OE market and 46% from the aftermarket. Prominent OE customers include the world’s largest automotive manufacturers such as General Motors, Ford/Jaguar/Volvo, DaimlerChrysler, BMW, PSA, Volkswagen/Audi and Renault/Nissan. Similarly, prominent aftermarket customers include the Aftermarket Auto Parts Alliance, Autozone, CarQuest, Advance Automotive, NAPA and Ozark/O’Reilly’s. Geographically, the Company derived 47% of its sales domestically and 53% internationally. The Company has operations in established markets including the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Mexico and Canada, and emerging markets including China, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Korea, Poland and Thailand. The attendant risks of the Company’s international operations are primarily related to currency fluctuations, changes in local economic and political conditions, and changes in laws and regulations.

The Company operates in an extremely competitive industry, driven by global vehicle production volumes and part replacement trends. Business is typically awarded to the supplier offering the most favorable combination of cost, quality, technology and service. In addition, customers continue to require periodic cost reductions which requires the Company to continually assess, redefine and improve its operations, products, and manufacturing capabilities to maintain and improve profitability. Management continues to develop and execute initiatives to meet the challenges of the industry and to achieve its strategy.

A number of initiatives commenced in 2001 and, while certain of these initiatives have been completed as of December 31, 2004, many are still in process and ongoing:

27

Table of Contents

Voluntary Reorganization under Chapter 11 and Administration

On October 1, 2001 (the “Petition Date”), the Company and all of its wholly-owned United States subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization (the “U.S. Restructuring”) under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Also on October 1, 2001, certain of the Company’s United Kingdom subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and petitions for Administration (the “U.K. Restructuring”) under the United Kingdom Insolvency Act of 1986 (the “Act”) in the High Court of Justice, Chancery division in London, England (the “High Court”). The Company and its U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries included in the U.S. Restructuring or the U.K. Restructuring are herein referred to as the “Debtors”. The U.S. Restructuring and U.K. Restructuring are herein referred to as the “Restructuring Proceedings”. The Chapter 11 cases of the Debtors (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”) have been consolidated for purposes of joint administration as In re: Federal-Mogul Global Inc., T&N Limited, et al (Case No. 01-10578(RTL)). Subsidiaries outside of the aforementioned U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are not party to the Chapter 11 Cases and, therefore, are not currently provided protection from creditors by any bankruptcy court and are operating in the normal course. The Chapter 11 Cases are further discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

28

Table of Contents

The Restructuring Proceedings were initiated in response to a sharply increasing number of asbestos-related claims and their demand on the Company’s cash flows and liquidity. Under the Restructuring Proceedings, the Debtors expect to develop and implement a plan for addressing the asbestos-related claims against them.

Consequences of the Restructuring Proceedings

The U.S. Debtors are operating their businesses as debtors-in-possession subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The U.K. Debtors are continuing to manage their operations under the supervision of Administrators approved by the High Court. All vendors are being paid for all goods furnished and services provided after the Petition Date. However, as a consequence of the Restructuring Proceedings, pending litigation against the Debtors as of the Petition Date is stayed (subject to certain exceptions in the case of governmental authorities), and no party may take any action to pursue or collect pre-petition claims except pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court or the High Court as applicable. It is the Debtors’ intention to address all pending and future asbestos-related claims and all other pre-petition claims through a unified plan of reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code or schemes of arrangement or company voluntary arrangements under the Act.

In the U.S., four committees, representing asbestos claimants, asbestos property damage claimants, unsecured creditors and equity security holders (collectively, the “Committees”) have been appointed as official committees in the Chapter 11 Cases and, in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, have the right to be heard on all matters that come before the Bankruptcy Court. The Committees, together with the legal representative for the future asbestos claimants, play important roles in the Restructuring Proceedings. In the U.K., the Administrators have appointed creditors committees, representing both asbestos claimants and general unsecured creditors.

On June 4, 2004, the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) for the Company and the other U.S. and U.K. Debtors was filed with the Bankruptcy Court. The Plan was jointly proposed by the Company, the Unsecured Creditors Committee, the Asbestos Claimants Committee, the Future Asbestos Claimants Representative, the Agent for the Prepetition Bank Lenders and the Equity Security Holders Committee (collectively referred to as the “Plan Proponents”). Also on June 4, 2004, a Disclosure Statement to be used in soliciting votes to accept or reject the Plan (the “Disclosure Statement”) was approved by the Bankruptcy Court and a December 2004 hearing was scheduled to determine whether the Bankruptcy Court should approve the Plan. On December 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court delayed this confirmation hearing pending a hearing to estimate asbestos personal injury claims against U.K. Debtors. Such estimation hearing has not yet been scheduled.

On July 12, 2004, solicitation packages containing the Plan and Disclosure Statement, various supporting documents and a ballot, if appropriate, were mailed to known creditors of the Company and holders of common and preferred stock interests in the Company. All votes were due by the close of business on November 3, 2004. Although the Plan Proponents have granted extensions of the November 3, 2004 voting deadline to a few significant claimants, the voting agent has confirmed that the overwhelming majority of the classes of claims and interests have voted to accept the Plan. For the few classes of claims that voted to reject the Plan, the Plan Proponents intend to either amend the Plan so as to obtain such classes’ accepting votes or seek to confirm the Plan over the objection of such classes.

The Plan provides that asbestos personal injury claimants, both present and future, will be permanently channeled to a trust or series of trusts established pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby protecting Federal-Mogul and its affiliates in the Chapter 11 Cases from existing and future asbestos liability. Although certain issues remain to be resolved, the Plan provides that all currently outstanding stock of Federal-Mogul will be cancelled, and 50.1% of newly authorized and issued common stock of reorganized Federal-Mogul will be distributed to the asbestos trusts, and 49.9% of the newly authorized and issued common stock will be distributed pro rata to the noteholders. If the classes of holders of common and preferred stock of Federal-Mogul vote in favor of the Plan, the holders of currently outstanding common and preferred stock of Federal-Mogul will receive warrants that may be used to purchase shares of reorganized Federal-Mogul at a predetermined exercise price.

Unsecured creditors, including trade creditors, of the U.S. Debtors are projected to receive cash distributions under the Plan equal to 35% of their allowed claims, payable in three annual installments, provided that the aggregate of all allowed unsecured claims against the U.S. Debtors does not exceed $258.0 million. Any excess above this amount could result in a reduction in the percentage distribution that the unsecured creditors of the U.S. Debtors ultimately receive. Unsecured creditors, including trade creditors, of the U.K. Debtors will receive distributions that vary according to terms specified within the Plan and Disclosure Statement.

There are two possible types of U.K. schemes of arrangements. The first is under Section 425 of the Companies Act of 1985, which may involve a scheme for the reconstruction of the Company. If a majority in number representing

29

Table of Contents

three-fourths in value of the creditors or members or any class of them agree to the compromise or arrangement, it is binding if sanctioned by the High Court. Section 425 may be invoked where there is an Administration order in force in relation to the Company. The other possible type of scheme arises under Section 1 of the Insolvency Act of 1986 in relation to Company Voluntary Arrangements (“CVAs”). If a majority in value representing more than three-fourths of the creditors agrees to the compromise or arrangement set out in the CVA proposal, it will be approved.

The Plan Proponents have prepared forms of Schemes of Arrangement and CVAs to be submitted for the U.K. Debtors in the U.K. Restructuring proceedings. These forms of Schemes of Arrangement and CVAs parallel the provisions of the Plan to the fullest extent possible under English and Scottish insolvency law. Under English and Scottish law, the Administrators are the only persons with authority to recommend and submit Schemes of Arrangement and/or CVAs. The Administrators have not yet agreed to recommend the Schemes of Arrangement and CVAs that parallel the Plan. The Plan Proponents are working toward an agreement with the Administrators to recommend parallel Schemes of Arrangement and CVAs. Alternatively, if such an agreement cannot be achieved, the Plan Proponents will work toward an agreement with the Administrators to retain the businesses of those U.K. Debtors that are valuable to Federal-Mogul and its customers and to jointly market those U.K. Debtors that are not valuable to Federal-Mogul and its customers. This process is consistent with the Company’s strategy to focus on core business segments, and to consider for divestiture or other exit activities those non-core operations determined by management not to have a sustainable competitive advantage.

In October 2004, the Administrators applied to the High Court for directions related to: 1) questions of fairness of the Plan; 2) the approach of the High Court to CVAs and schemes of arrangement designed to implement the Plan within the U.K.; 3) the compatibility with English pension laws of the proposals for the trustees of pension schemes of the U.K. debtors; and 4) the impact under English insolvency law should the Administrators not propose CVAs and schemes of arrangement. In response to the application for directions, the High Court directed the Administrators to not propose schemes of arrangement and CVAs consistent with the draft schemes and draft CVAs included within the currently filed Plan without further order of the High Court. In addition, the High Court directed the Administrators to not convene meetings of creditors of the U.K. Companies pursuant to any demands or requisitions made pursuant to the Plan. Additionally, the High Court granted the Administrators leave to modify their consent, if necessary, with the directors of the U.K. Debtors exercising their powers either to a) promote and/or confirm the Plan; or b) file or continue any motion in the Bankruptcy Court which seeks relief in relation to the Administrators or the U.K. Debtors.

If the Plan Proponents and the Administrators cannot reach an agreement regarding either Schemes of Arrangement and CVAs that parallel the Plan or the means by which the Federal-Mogul will retain the business of the U.K. Debtors that are valuable to Federal-Mogul and its customers, then one or more of the following may occur with respect to each U.K. Debtor: (a) the U.K. Debtors and the Plan Proponents may ask the High Court to approve the Plan with respect to the U.K. Debtors as a matter of comity; or (b) Federal-Mogul may bid for those businesses of the U.K. Debtors that are valuable to Federal-Mogul and its customers and any actual or deemed transfer of assets to Federal-Mogul in connection therewith shall be entitled to the benefits of the injunction pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. If Federal-Mogul is not the successful bidder, the injunction pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code shall not apply to the transfer of any assets to any entity other than Federal-Mogul or its designee. The Company believes that, in the event the assets of the U.K. debtors are marketed for public sale, Federal-Mogul ultimately will be the successful bidder for those assets that are valuable to Federal-Mogul and its customers. Any remaining assets would be liquidated. The Company believes that such a non-consensual process with the Administrators is not in the best interest of the creditors of the U.K. Debtors, including pension creditors, and employees of the U.K. Debtors and that the failure to arrive at a consensual plan could be damaging to the interests of such parties.

30

Table of Contents

The Company is unable to predict with a high degree of certainty at this time what treatment will be accorded under any such plan of reorganization to claims against the U.K. Debtors arising from intercompany indebtedness, licenses, executory contracts, transfers of goods and services, and other intercompany arrangements, transactions and relationships that were entered into prior to the Petition Date. Various parties in the Chapter 11 Cases may challenge these arrangements, transactions, and relationships, and the outcome of those challenges, if any, may have an impact on the treatment of various claims under such plan of reorganization.

The Bankruptcy Court may confirm a plan of reorganization only upon making certain findings required by the Bankruptcy Code, and a plan may be confirmed over the dissent of non-accepting creditors and equity security holders if certain requirements of the Bankruptcy Code are met. The payment rights and other entitlements of pre-petition creditors and equity security holders may be substantially altered by any plan of reorganization confirmed in the Chapter 11 Cases. There is no assurance that there will be sufficient assets to satisfy the Debtors’ pre-petition liabilities in whole or in part, and the pre-petition creditors of some Debtors may be treated differently than those of other Debtors.

Accounting Impact

Pursuant to AICPA Statement of Position 90-7 (“SOP 90-7”), “Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code”, the Company’s pre-petition liabilities that are subject to compromise are reported separately in the consolidated balance sheet at the expected amount of the allowed claims. Note 2, “Voluntary Reorganization under Chapter 11 and Administration”, includes the detail of “Liabilities subject to compromise” as of December 31, 2004. Obligations of the Company’s subsidiaries not covered by the Restructuring Proceedings will remain classified in the consolidated balance sheet based upon maturity dates or the expected dates of payment. SOP 90-7 also requires separate reporting of certain expenses, realized gains and losses, a portion of interest income and provisions for losses related to the Restructuring Proceedings as reorganization items. Accordingly, the Debtors recorded Chapter 11 and Administration related reorganization expenses of $99.7 million, $97.1 million and $107.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this report for further information concerning the Restructuring Proceedings.

Critical Accounting Policies

The accompanying consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this report have been prepared in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles and, accordingly, the Company’s accounting policies have been disclosed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. The Company considers accounting estimates to be critical accounting policies when:

When more than one accounting principle, or the method of its application, is generally accepted, management selects the principle or method that it considers to be the most appropriate given the specific circumstances. Application of these accounting principles requires the Company’s management to make estimates about the future resolution of existing uncertainties. Estimates are typically based upon historical experience, current trends, contractual documentation, and other information, as appropriate. Due to the inherent uncertainty involving estimates, actual results reported in the future may differ from those estimates. In preparing these financial statements, management has made its best estimates and judgments of the amounts and disclosures included in the financial statements, giving due regard to materiality. The following summarizes the Company’s critical accounting policies.

Reorganization Under Chapter 11 and Administration

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with SOP 90-7 and on a going concern basis, which contemplates continuity of operations and realization of assets and liquidation of

31

Table of Contents

liabilities in the ordinary course of business. However, as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings, such realization of assets and liquidation of liabilities, without substantial adjustments and/or changes of ownership, is highly uncertain. Given this uncertainty, there is substantial doubt about the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern. While operating as debtors-in-possession under the protection of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and Administration under the Act, and subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Administrators or the High Court or otherwise as permitted in the ordinary course of business, the Debtors, or some of them, may sell or otherwise dispose of assets and liquidate or settle liabilities for some amounts other than those reflected in the consolidated financial statements. Further, a plan of reorganization or scheme of arrangement could materially change the amounts and classifications in the historical consolidated financial statements.

Asbestos Liabilities and Asbestos-Related Insurance Recoverable

The Company’s United Kingdom subsidiary, T&N Ltd., two United States subsidiaries (“T&N Companies”), and two of the Company’s subsidiaries formerly owned by Cooper Industries, Inc., known as Abex and Wagner, are among many defendants named in numerous court actions in the United States alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-related products. T&N Ltd. is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation, to a lesser extent, in the United Kingdom and France. The recorded liability at December 31, 2004 represents the Company’s estimate, prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, for claims currently pending and those which were reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012. The Company did not provide a liability for claims that may be paid subsequent to this period as it could not reasonably estimate such claims. In estimating the asbestos liability prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company made assumptions regarding the total number of claims anticipated to be received in a future period, the rate of receipt of claims, the typical cost of settlement, the settlement strategy in dealing with outstanding claims and the timing of settlements. While the Company believes that the liability recorded was appropriate for anticipated losses arising from asbestos-related claims through 2012, it is the Company’s view that, as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings, there is even greater uncertainty in estimating the asbestos liability for pending and future claims.

T&N Ltd. purchased for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a £500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30, 1996, where the exposure occurred prior to that date, exceed £690 million. During 2000, the Company concluded that the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would exceed the trigger point of certain asbestos policies and accordingly recorded an insurance recoverable asset.

The ultimate realization of insurance proceeds is directly related to the amount of related covered claims paid by the Company. If the ultimate asbestos claims are higher than the recorded liability, the Company expects the ultimate insurance recoverable to be higher than the recorded amount. If the ultimate asbestos claims are lower than the recorded liability, the Company expects the ultimate insurance recoverable to be lower than the recorded amount. While the Restructuring Proceedings will impact the timing and amount of the asbestos claims and the insurance recoverable, there has been no change to the recorded amounts, other than an insurance settlement described further below, and the impact of foreign currency, due to uncertainties created by the Restructuring Proceedings. Accordingly, these amounts could change significantly based upon events that occur from the Restructuring Proceedings and could materially affect the Company’s future financial statements.

Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans

Using appropriate actuarial methods and assumptions, the Company’s defined benefit pension plans are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 87, “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions;” Non-pension postretirement benefits are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 106, “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions;” disability, early retirement and other postemployment benefits are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 112, “Employer Accounting for Postemployment Benefits.”

Actual results that differ from assumptions used are accumulated and amortized over future periods and, accordingly, generally affect recognized expense and the recorded obligation in future periods. Therefore, assumptions used to calculate benefit obligations as of the end of a fiscal year directly impact the expense to be recognized in future periods. The primary assumptions affecting the Company’s accounting for employee benefits under SFAS Nos. 87, 106 and 112 as of December 31, 2004 are as follows:

32

Table of Contents

The following table illustrates the sensitivity to a change in certain assumptions for pension and non-pension benefits. The changes in these assumptions have no impact on the Company’s 2005 funding requirements.

The assumed health care trend rate has a significant impact on the amounts reported for non-pension plans. The following table illustrates the sensitivity to a change in the assumed health care trend rate:

Environmental Matters

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national or state environmental laws. These laws require responsible parties to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition. In addition, the Company has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state environmental laws. PRP designation requires the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities.

The Company has identified certain present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments. The Company is actively seeking to resolve these matters. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, the Company

33

Table of Contents

has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such matters based upon current available information from site investigations and consultants.

Recorded environmental reserves were $61.0 million and $66.0 million at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. These accruals are based upon management’s best estimates, which requires management to make assumptions regarding the costs for remediation activities, the extent to which costs may be reimbursed by other participating parties, the financial viability of such participating parties, the timeframes over which remediation activities will be completed, and other items. Although management believes its accruals will be adequate to cover the Company’s estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such environmental matters, any changes in the underlying assumptions could materially impact the Company’s future results of operations and financial condition. At December 31, 2004, management estimates that reasonably possible material additional losses above and beyond management’s best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded approximates $40 million.

Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived assets, such as property, plant and equipment and definite-lived intangible assets, are stated at cost. Depreciation and amortization is computed principally by the straight-line method for financial reporting purposes and by accelerated methods for income tax purposes. Definite-lived assets are periodically reviewed for impairment indicators. If impairment indicators exist, the Company performs the required analysis and records an impairment charge, as required, in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”.

Indefinite-lived intangible assets, such as goodwill and trademarks, are carried at historical value and not amortized. Indefinite-lived intangible assets are reviewed for impairment annually as of October 1, or more frequently if impairment indicators exist. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Accounting for Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”, the impairment analysis compares the estimated fair value of these assets to the related carrying value, and an impairment charge is recorded for any excess of carrying value over estimated fair value. The estimated fair value is based upon considerations of various valuation methodologies, including guideline transaction multiples, multiples of current earnings, and projected future cash flows discounted at rates commensurate with the risk involved.

Estimating fair value for both long-lived and indefinite-lived assets requires management to make assumptions regarding future sales volumes and pricing, capital expenditures, useful lives and salvage values of related property, plant and equipment, the Company’s ability to develop and implement productivity improvements, discount rates, effective tax rates, market multiples, and other items. Any differences in actual results from management’s estimates could result in fair values different from estimated fair values, which could materially impact the Company’s future results of operations and financial condition.

Income Taxes

The Company accounts for income taxes in accordance with SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes”. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The Company records a valuation allowance on deferred tax assets by tax jurisdiction when it is more likely than not that such assets will not be realized. Management judgment is required in determining the Company’s valuation allowance on deferred tax assets. The Company does not provide taxes on undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries that are considered to be permanently reinvested.

34

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

The following discussion of the Company’s results of operations should be read in connection with Items 1 and 7A of this Form 10-K. These Items provide additional relevant information regarding the business of the Company, its strategy, and the various industry dynamics in the OE market and the aftermarket which have a direct and significant impact on the Company’s results of operations. Results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 have been reclassified to reflect organizational changes implemented during the second quarter of 2004.

Consolidated Results

Sales by reporting segment were:

Gross margin by reporting segment was:

Net sales increased by $651 million, or 12%, to $6,174 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 due to $254 million of favorable foreign currency, $254 million of new business and $239 million of increased sales volumes. These increases were partially offset by $71 million of customer price reductions and $25 million due to disruptions associated with a fire that occurred at the Company’s Smithville, Tennessee aftermarket distribution center in March 2004. The sales increase was attributable to new business experienced in both the OE and aftermarket segments. Volume increases were also experienced in both segments and were driven by increased demand for the Company’s heavy duty products and market share growth in the North American aftermarket.

Gross margin increased by $90 million, or 8%, to $1,177 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 from $1,087 million in 2003. Increased sales volumes and favorable foreign currency contributed $210 million of gross margin during 2004. These positive factors were partially offset by customer price reductions of $71 million and raw material inflation of approximately $50 million primarily in ferrous metals and hydrocarbon-based commodities. Net productivity gains of $10 million from the Company’s ongoing cost reduction activities in 2004 partially offset these increased costs. Through its centralized supply chain functions, the Company continues to work with its suppliers to reduce its global material costs. However, the Company expects raw material steel supply will continue to be constrained and the impact of increasing material costs or disruptions in supply will likely continue to pressure the Company’s operating results.

35

Table of Contents

Reporting Segment Results 2004 v. 2003

The following table provides changes in sales and gross margin for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared with the year ended December 31, 2003 for each of the Company’s reporting segments. “SSP” and “AM” represent Sealing Systems and Systems Protection and Aftermarket, respectively.