Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended March 26, 2005

or

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number: 0-20242

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

1340 Treat Blvd., Suite 600, Walnut Creek, California 94597

(Address of principle executive offices)

(925) 948-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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

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

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

Table of Contents

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

This Form 10-Q includes “forward-looking statements.” Forward-looking statements include statements concerning our plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events, future revenues or performance, capital expenditures, financing needs, plans or intentions relating to acquisitions, our competitive strengths and weaknesses, our business strategy and the trends we anticipate in the industries and economies in which we operate and other information that is not historical information. When used in this Form 10-Q, the words “estimates,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “projects,” “plans,” “intends,” “believes” and variations of such words or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, our examination of historical operating trends, are based upon our current expectations and various assumptions. Our expectations, beliefs and projections are expressed in good faith, and we believe there is a reasonable basis for them, but we cannot assure you that our expectations, beliefs and projections will be realized.

There are a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-Q. Important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements we make in this Form 10-Q are set forth in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2004, including the factors described in the section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Risk Factors.” If any of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if any of our underlying assumptions are incorrect, our actual results may differ significantly from the results that we express in or imply by any of our forward-looking statements. We do not undertake any obligation to revise these forward-looking statements to reflect future events or circumstances. Presently known risk factors include, but are not limited to, the following factors:

2

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

(unaudited)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Three and Six Months Ended March 26, 2005

(unaudited)

The condensed consolidated balance sheets of Central Garden & Pet Company and subsidiaries (the “Company” or “Central”) as of March 26, 2005, the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended March 27, 2004 and March 26, 2005 and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six months ended March 27, 2004 and March 26, 2005 have been prepared by the Company, without audit. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (which include only normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the periods mentioned above, have been made.

For the Company’s foreign business in the UK, the local currency is the functional currency. Assets and liabilities are translated using the exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date. Income and expenses are translated at the average exchange rate for the period. Comprehensive income was $26.3 million for the period ended March 26, 2005 and includes net earnings of $24.9 million and foreign currency translation adjustments of $1.4 million that are excluded from net earnings but reported in accumulated other comprehensive income, a separate component of shareholders’ equity. Deferred taxes are not provided on translation gains and losses, because the Company expects earnings of its foreign subsidiary to be permanently reinvested. Transaction gains and losses are included in results of operations.

Due to the seasonal nature of the Company’s garden business, the results of operations for the three and six months ended March 26, 2005 and March 27, 2004 are not indicative of the operating results that may be expected for the entire fiscal year. These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the annual audited financial statements, accounting policies and financial notes thereto, included in the Company’s 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K, which has previously been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has various non-qualified stock-based compensation programs, which provide for stock option grants and restricted stock awards. The fair value of restricted stock awards is recognized as deferred compensation at the time of the grant as a separate component of shareholders’ equity with amortization over the vesting period. Stock options may be granted to officers, key employees and directors. The Company has elected to continue to account for stock-based compensation using the intrinsic value method prescribed in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, whereby the options are granted at market price, and, therefore, no compensation costs are recognized. As required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148 (SFAS No. 148), Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure, the Company has provided fair value based pro-forma disclosures in its interim financial statements.

If compensation expense for the Company’s various stock option plans had been determined based upon the projected fair values at the grant dates for awards under those plans in accordance with SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, the Company’s pro-forma net earnings, basic and diluted earnings per common share would have been as follows:

6

Table of Contents

On December 16, 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, which is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. The statement supercedes APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and its related implementation guidance. SFAS No. 123R requires all entities to recognize compensation expense in an amount equal to the fair-value of share-based payments. Upon adoption at the beginning of our next fiscal year, all employee stock option awards will be recognized as an expense in the Company’s statement of operations, typically over the related vesting period of the options. SFAS No. 123R requires use of fair value to measure share-based awards issued to employees, computed at the date of grant. Additionally, SFAS No. 123R requires companies to record compensation expense for the unvested portion of previously granted awards as they continue to vest, as calculated previously and included in the Company’s prior pro forma disclosures under SFAS No. 148.

The Company will adopt SFAS No. 123R at the beginning of fiscal year 2006, as required, and will adopt the standard using the modified prospective method requiring the Company to record compensation expense for all awards granted after the date of adoption, and for the unvested portion of previously granted awards outstanding as of the date of adoption.

The following is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted per-share computations for income from continuing operations:

Options to purchase 1,996,946 shares of common stock at prices ranging from $7.54 to $45.45 per share were outstanding at March 26, 2005 and options to purchase 2,348,108 shares of common stock at prices ranging from $1.30 to $33.85 per share were outstanding at March 27, 2004. For the three month periods ended March 26, 2005 and March 27, 2004, options to purchase 22,480 and 42,310 shares of common stock, respectively, were outstanding but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the option exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares and, therefore, the effect would be anti-dilutive. For the six month periods ended March 26, 2005 and March 27, 2004, options to purchase 23,480 and 42,310 shares of common stock, respectively, were outstanding but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the option exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares and, therefore, the effect would be anti-dilutive.

Shares of common stock from the assumed conversion of the Company’s convertible preferred stock, issued in February 2004, totaling 86,404 were included in the computation of diluted EPS for the three and six month periods ended March 26, 2005.

7

Table of Contents

In February 2005, the Company acquired Gulfstream Home & Garden, Inc., including its 20% equity interest in Tech Pac, L.L.C. (“Tech Pac”), for approximately $21 million in cash, with possible contingent performance based payments over the next ten years. Gulfstream is the exclusive marketer of the garden product brands Sevin(R), Over’n Out!(R), and RooTone(R) through its relationship with Tech Pac, a supplier of insect control products. The Company is in process of finalizing its allocation of the purchase price to the fair value of assets acquired. The consolidated financial statements include the results of Gulfstream from the date of acquisition.

Management has determined that the reportable segments of the Company are Garden Products and Pet Products, based on the level at which the chief operating decision making group reviews the results of operations to make decisions regarding performance assessment and resource allocation.

8

Table of Contents

Central does not believe that the outcome of the following legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, liquidity or financial position taken as a whole. However, because these proceedings may raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties, Central cannot predict with assurance the outcome of these proceedings. Accordingly, adverse settlements or resolutions may occur and negatively impact earnings or cash flows in the quarter of settlement or resolution.

TFH Litigation. In December 1997, Central acquired all of the stock of TFH Publications, Inc. (“TFH”). In connection with the transaction, Central made a $10 million loan to the sellers (the “Axelrod Loan”), which was evidenced by a Promissory Note. In September 1998, the prior owners of TFH brought suit against Central and certain executives of Central for damages and relief from their obligations under the Promissory Note, alleging, among other things, that Central’s failure to properly supervise the TFH management team had jeopardized their prospects of achieving certain earnouts. Central believes that these allegations are without merit. Central counterclaimed against the prior owners for enforcement of the Promissory Note, rescission and/or damages and other relief, alleging, among other things, fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty by the prior owners of TFH. These actions, Herbert R. Axelrod and Evelyn Axelrod v. Central Garden & Pet Company; Glen S. Axelrod; Gary Hersch; William E. Brown; Robert B. Jones; Glenn Novotny; and Neill Hines, Docket No. MON-L-5100-99, and TFH Publications, Inc. v. Herbert Axelrod et al., Docket No. L-2127-99 (consolidated cases), are in the New Jersey Superior Court. The trial in this matter began on April 4, 2005 and is currently ongoing.

During the course of discovery in this action, Central became aware of certain information which shows that prior to the acquisition of TFH by Central, certain records of TFH were prepared in an inaccurate manner which, among other things, resulted in underpayment of taxes by certain individuals. Those individuals could be liable for back taxes, interest, and penalties. In addition, even though all of the events occurred prior to the acquisition of TFH by Central, there is a possibility that TFH could be liable for penalties for events which occurred under prior management. Central believes that TFH has strong defenses available to the assertion of any penalties against TFH. Central cannot predict whether TFH will be required to pay any such penalties. In the event that TFH were required to pay penalties, Central would seek compensation from the prior owners.

On April 12, 2004, one of the former owners of TFH, Herbert Axelrod, was indicted by a federal grand jury. The two-count federal indictment, which was based on actions taken by Herbert Axelrod before Central acquired TFH, charged Herbert Axelrod with conspiracy to defraud the United States Internal Revenue Service and aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns by a former Vice President of TFH. In April 2004, Herbert Axelrod failed to appear for his arraignment, and a federal warrant was issued for his arrest. Subsequently, Herbert Axelrod was arrested in Germany and extradited to the United States. In December 2004, Herbert Axelrod pled guilty to a criminal charge of aiding and abetting the filing of a false income tax return. Herbert Axelrod is currently serving his sentence in jail for this crime. Central has information that Herbert Axelrod has liquidated and transferred assets out of the United States. The status of his assets has raised questions, which cannot presently be answered, about Central’s ability to collect on any of its claims against Herbert Axelrod or the Axelrod Loan. Central intends to continue pursuing its claims against Mr. Axelrod. If Central is unsuccessful in its claims against Mr. Axelrod regarding the Axelrod Loan or is unable to collect any judgment awarded, Central would be required to write-off the Axelrod Loan, which would result in a non-cash charge against its future earnings. The Axelrod Loan is currently carried on the financial statements of Central as an “Other Asset” in the amount of $10.2 million.

Scotts Litigation. On June 30, 2000, The Scotts Company filed suit against Central to collect the purchase price of certain lawn and garden products previously sold to Central. See The Scotts Company v. Central Garden & Pet Company, Docket No. C2 00-755 (U.S. Dist Ct. N.D. Ohio). Central filed its answer and a counter complaint asserting various claims for breaches of contracts.

In April 2002, trial occurred on the claims and counterclaims of the parties (excluding one oral contract claim that was severed from the remainder of the case). The net verdict was in favor of Scotts in the amount of $10.4 million which had previously been recorded as an obligation by the Company. Scotts and Central filed post-trial motions. In a March 20, 2003 order, the district court denied Scotts’ motion for attorneys’ fees, granted Scotts’ motion to set aside $750,000 of the jury amount awarded to Central, denied Central’s motion for a new trial, granted Central’s motion for prejudgment interest, and granted in part and denied in part Scotts’ motion for prejudgment interest. The court directed each party to re-determine the amount of their respective interest claims in light of the Court’s ruling and to submit their respective determinations. On July 11, 2003, the Court issued an order resolving the remaining prejudgment interest issues and directing the parties to submit calculations in accordance with its decision. Pursuant to this order, the Court awarded prejudgment interest to Scotts in the net amount of $2.8 million. On October 3, 2003, Central and Scotts settled the oral contract claim that had previously been severed from the remainder of the case. Pursuant to the settlement, Scotts reduced the judgment amount by $300,000. Central and Scotts appealed different aspects of the prior judgment and post-judgment orders. In connection with the appeal, Central paid approximately $15 million into an escrow account, which is reported as restricted investments in the accompanying balance sheets as of September 25 and March 26, 2005. On April 12, 2005, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming the district court’s decisions on all but two issues. The Sixth Circuit determined that the district court had erred in allowing Scotts to recover prejudgment interest at 18% rather than 10% as to a portion of its claim. The

9

Table of Contents

Sixth Circuit also ruled that prejudgment interest accrued to the date of the revised judgment filed in September 2003 rather than the original judgment entered in May 2002. The case was remanded back to the district court for redetermination of the interest amount.

Phoenix Fire. On August 2, 2000, a fire destroyed Central’s leased warehouse space in Phoenix, Arizona, and an adjoining warehouse space leased by a third party. On July 31, 2001, the adjoining warehouse tenant filed a lawsuit against Central and other parties in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, seeking to recover $47 million for property damage from the fire. See Cardinal Health Inc., et al. v. Central Garden & Pet Company, et al., Civil Case No. CV2001-013152. Local residents also filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging claims for bodily injury and property damage as a result of the fire. This class action lawsuit has now been settled as to all parties, and has received Court approval. As part of the settlement, Central’s liability insurers paid $7,825,000 on behalf of Central in May 2004. The building owner and several nearby businesses have also filed lawsuits for property damage and business interruption, which are being coordinated with the remaining tenant lawsuit. Each of these lawsuits is currently pending in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Four of the business interruption lawsuits have been settled for amounts totaling approximately $680,000, paid by Central’s insurers. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, after monitoring the cleanup operations and asking Central, the building owner and the adjoining warehouse tenant to assess whether the fire and fire suppression efforts may have caused environmental impacts to soil, groundwater and/or surface water, has now issued a letter stating that Central need take no further action at the site with respect to environmental issues. In early 2001, the EPA requested information relating to the fire. On July 17, 2002, the EPA informed Central that it intended to file a civil administrative complaint seeking penalties of up to $350,000 for certain alleged post-fire reporting violations. Central and the EPA have settled those allegations for $65,000. The overall amount of the damages to all parties caused by the fire, and the overall amount of damages which Central may sustain as a result of the fire, have not been quantified. At the time of the fire, Central maintained property insurance covering losses to the leased premises, Central’s inventory and equipment, and loss of business income. Central also maintained insurance providing $51 million of coverage (with no deductible) against third party liability. Central believes that this insurance coverage will be available with respect to third party claims against Central if parties other than Central are not found responsible. The precise amount of the damages sustained in the fire, the ultimate determination of the parties responsible and the availability of insurance coverage are likely to depend on the outcome of complex litigation, involving numerous claimants, defendants and insurance companies.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company (as listed below, collectively the “Guarantor Subsidiaries”) have guaranteed fully and unconditionally, on a joint and several basis, the obligation to pay principal and interest under the Company’s $150,000,000 9-1/8% Senior Subordinated Notes (the “Notes”) issued on January 30, 2003. Certain subsidiaries and operating divisions are not guarantors of the Notes and have been included in the financial results of the Parent in the information below. Those subsidiaries that are guarantors of the Notes are as follows:

Interpet USA, LLC

Four Paws Products Ltd.

Grant Laboratories, Inc.

Gulfstream Home & Garden, Inc.

Kaytee Products, Incorporated

Matthews Redwood & Nursery Supply, Inc.

New England Pottery LLC

Norcal Pottery Products, Inc.

Pennington Seed, Inc. (including Phaeton Corporation (dba Unicorn Labs), Pennington Seed, Inc. of Nebraska, Gro Tec, Inc., Seeds West, Inc., All-Glass Aquarium Co., Inc. (including Oceanic Systems, Inc.))

T.F.H. Publications, Inc.

Wellmark International

10

Table of Contents

In lieu of providing separate unaudited financial statements for the Guarantor Subsidiaries, the Company has included the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidating financial statements based on the Company’s understanding of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s interpretation and application of Rule 3-10 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation S-X.

11

Table of Contents