UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015

OR

For the transition period from                  to                 

Commission file number: 001-33225

 

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

(630) 574-3000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

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 whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

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

As of October 30, 2015, 60,446,628 shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock, par value $.0001 per share, were outstanding.

 

 

 

 

---

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and Subsidiaries

Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the Quarterly Period ended September 30, 2015

INDEX

 

 

 

 

2

---

PART I — Financial Information

GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share amounts)  

 

 

See notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

3

---

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and Subsidiaries

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

 

 

See notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

4

---

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and Subsidiaries

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

 

 

See notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

5

---

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and Subsidiaries

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

 

 

 

See notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

6

---

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and Subsidiaries

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

 

7

---

 

See notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

 

8

---

GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

(dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts or as otherwise noted)

 

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and notes herein should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Company” or “Great Lakes”) and the notes thereto, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. The condensed consolidated financial statements included herein have been prepared by the Company without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the SEC’s rules and regulations, although management believes that the disclosures are adequate and make the information presented not misleading. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, which are of a normal and recurring nature (except as otherwise noted), that are necessary to present fairly the Company’s financial position as of September 30, 2015, and its results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 and cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 have been included.

The components of costs of contract revenues include labor, equipment (including depreciation, maintenance, insurance and long-term rentals), subcontracts, fuel and project overhead. Hourly labor is generally hired on a project-by-project basis. Costs of contract revenues vary significantly depending on the type and location of work performed and assets utilized. Generally, capital projects have the highest margins due to the complexity of the projects, while coastal protection projects have the most volatile margins because they are most often exposed to variability in weather conditions.

The Company’s cost structure includes significant annual equipment-related costs, including depreciation, maintenance, insurance and long-term rentals. These costs have averaged approximately 20% to 22% of total costs of contract revenues over the prior three years. During the year, both equipment utilization and the timing of fixed cost expenditures fluctuate significantly. Accordingly, the Company allocates these fixed equipment costs to interim periods in proportion to revenues recognized over the year, to better match revenues and expenses. Specifically, at each interim reporting date the Company compares actual revenues earned to date on its dredging contracts to expected annual revenues and recognizes equipment costs on the same proportionate basis. In the fourth quarter, any over or under allocated equipment costs are recognized such that the expense for the year equals actual equipment costs incurred during the year.

The Company has three operating segments that, through aggregation, comprise two reportable segments: dredging and environmental & remediation. Three operating segments were aggregated into two reportable segments as the segments have similarity in economic margins, services, production processes, customer types, distribution methods and regulatory environment. The Company has determined that the operating segments are the Company’s three reporting units. Due to a decline in the overall financial performance and declining cash flows in the Terra Contracting Services, LLC (“Terra”) reporting unit, the Company concluded there was a triggering event that required an interim impairment test for the reporting unit in the second quarter of 2015 and recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $2,750 during the quarter ended June 30, 2015. This impairment of goodwill is discussed in Note 6. The Company performed its most recent annual test of impairment as of July 1, 2015 for the remaining goodwill with no indication of impairment as of the test date. The Company will perform its next scheduled annual test of goodwill in the third quarter of 2016.

In connection with the acquisition of Magnus Pacific (“Magnus”) in the fourth quarter of 2014, the Company issued a secured promissory note to the former owners of Magnus which has terms that could reduce the amount owed based on minimum EBITDA expectations. The Company remeasures the fair value of the promissory note at each reporting period based on projections of the earnings target for the business. Based on the Company’s projections at June 30, 2015, Magnus is not expected to reach the minimum EBITDA threshold for 2015 designated in the secured promissory note; therefore, during the second quarter of 2015, the Company reduced the remaining fair value by $7,013 to zero and the corresponding change is reflected in general and administrative expenses.

The condensed consolidated results of operations and comprehensive income for the interim periods presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standard Update No. 2015-03 (“ASU 2015-03”), Interest - Imputation of Interest: Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs which requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability,

9

---

consistent with debt discounts. This update is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and is required to be applied retrospectively. The Company does not expect a material impact to our consolidated financial statements as a result of such requirement.

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standard Update No. 2014-09 (“ASU 2014-09”), Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which supersedes the existing revenue recognition requirements. ASU 2014-09 is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 has been deferred to be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period, which will be our first quarter of fiscal 2018. Early adoption is permitted in fiscal 2017. We are currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2014-09 on our consolidated financial statements.

 

 

Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net income attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the reporting period. Diluted earnings per share is computed similarly to basic earnings per share except that it reflects the potential dilution that could occur if dilutive securities or other obligations to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common stock. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, the dilutive effect of 462 thousand stock options and restricted stock units were excluded from the diluted weighted-average common shares outstanding as the Company incurred a loss during this period. For the three months ended September 30, 2014, the dilutive effect of 521 thousand stock options and restricted stock units were excluded from the diluted weighted-average common shares outstanding as the Company incurred a loss during this period. For the three months ended September 30, 2015, 1,170 thousand stock options or restricted stock units were excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share based on the application of the treasury stock method. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, 500 thousand stock options or restricted stock units were excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share based on the application of the treasury stock method. The computations for basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share from continuing operations are as follows:

 

 

 

Accounts receivable at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 are as follows:

 

 

10

---

The components of contracts in progress at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 are as follows:

 

 

 

Accrued expenses at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 are as follows:

 

 

 

Credit Agreement

On June 4, 2012, the Company entered into a senior revolving credit agreement (as subsequently amended, the “Credit Agreement”) with certain financial institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, Swingline Lender and an Issuing Lender, Bank of America, N.A., as Syndication Agent and PNC Bank, National Association, BMO Harris Bank N.A. and Fifth Third Bank, as Co-Documentation Agents. The Credit Agreement provides for a senior revolving credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of up to $210,000, multicurrency borrowings up to a $50,000 sublimit and swingline loans up to a $10,000 sublimit. The Credit Agreement also includes an incremental loans feature that will allow the Company to increase the senior revolving credit facility by an aggregate principal amount of up to $15,000. This feature is subject to lenders providing incremental commitments for such increase, provided that no default or event of default exists, and the Company being in pro forma compliance with the existing financial covenants, both before and after giving effect to the increase, and subject to other standard conditions. The Credit Agreement is collateralized by a substantial portion of the Company’s operating equipment with a net book value at September 30, 2015 of $151,593.

Depending on the Company’s consolidated leverage ratio (as defined in the Credit Agreement), borrowings under the revolving credit facility will bear interest at the option of the Company at either a LIBOR rate plus a margin of between 1.50% to 2.50% per annum or a base rate plus a margin of between 0.50% to 1.50% per annum.

The Credit Agreement contains affirmative, negative and financial covenants customary for financings of this type. The Credit Agreement also contains customary events of default (including non-payment of principal or interest on any material debt and

11

---

breaches of covenants) as well as events of default relating to certain actions by the Company’s surety bonding provider. The Credit Agreement requires the Company to maintain a net leverage ratio less than or equal to 4.50 to 1.00 as of the end of each fiscal quarter and a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.25 to 1.00.

The obligations of Great Lakes under the Credit Agreement are unconditionally guaranteed, on a joint and several basis, by each existing and subsequently acquired or formed material direct and indirect domestic subsidiary of the Company. During a year, the Company frequently borrows and repays amounts under its revolving credit facility. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had $28,000 of borrowings on the revolver and $81,323 of letters of credit outstanding, resulting in $100,677 of availability under the Credit Agreement. At September 30, 2015, the Company was in compliance with its various financial covenants under the Credit Agreement.

Term loan facility

On November 4, 2014, the Company entered into a senior secured term loan facility consisting of a term loan in an aggregate principal amount of $50,000 (the “Term Loan Facility”) pursuant to a Loan and Security Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) by and among the lenders party thereto from time to time and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent. The Company has borrowed an aggregate principal amount of $47,360. The proceeds from the Term Loan Facility will be used for the working capital and general corporate purposes of the Company, including to repay borrowings under the Credit Agreement made to finance the construction of the Company’s dual mode articulated tug/barge trailing suction hopper dredge (the “ATB”).

The Term Loan Facility has a term of 5 years. The borrowings under the Term Loan Facility bear interest at a fixed rate of 4.655% per annum. If an event of default occurs under the Loan Agreement, the interest rate will increase by 2.00% per annum during the continuance of such event of default.

The Term Loan Facility provides for monthly amortization payments, payable in arrears, which commenced on December 4, 2014, at an annual amount of (i) approximately 10% of the principal amount of the Term Loan Facility during the first two years of the term, (ii) approximately 20% of the principal amount of the Term Loan Facility during the third and fourth years of the term, and (iii) approximately 25% of the principal amount of the Term Loan Facility during the final year of the term, with the remainder due on the maturity date of the facility. In addition, the Company has usual and customary mandatory prepayment provisions and may optionally prepay the Term Loan Facility in whole or in part at any time, subject to a minimum prepayment amount.

The Loan Agreement includes customary representations, affirmative and negative covenants and events of default for financings of this type and includes the same financial covenants that are currently set forth in the Credit Agreement. The Term Loan Facility is collateralized by a portion of the Company’s operating equipment with a net book value at September 30, 2015 of $49,838.

Senior notes

The Company has outstanding $275,000 of 7.375% senior notes due February 2019. There is an optional redemption on all notes. The redemption prices are 103.7% in 2015, 101.8% in 2016 and 100% in any year following, until the notes mature in 2019.  Interest is paid semi-annually and principal is due at maturity.

Other

The Company enters into note arrangements to finance certain vessels and ancillary equipment.  During the first quarter of 2015, the Company financed the $15,569 acquisition of a vessel previously under an operating lease with a note bearing interest at 5.75% to maturity in 2023.  The current portion of all equipment notes is $3,239. The long term portion is $14,361 and is included in notes payable.

 

 

The Company’s annual goodwill impairment test is conducted in the third quarter of each year and interim evaluations are performed when the Company determines that a triggering event has occurred that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of goodwill below its carrying value. Due to a decline in the overall financial performance and declining cash flows in the Terra reporting unit, the Company concluded there was a triggering event that required an interim impairment test for the reporting unit in the second quarter of 2015.

The Company performed step one of the goodwill impairment test as of June 30, 2015, which compared the fair value of the Terra reporting unit against its carrying amount, including goodwill. In deriving the fair value of the Terra reporting unit, the Company used both a market-based approach and an income-based approach. Under the income approach, the fair value of the reporting unit is based

12

---

on the present value of estimated future cash flows. Under the market approach, the Company uses the guideline public company method by applying estimated market-based enterprise value multiples to the reporting unit’s estimated revenue and Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations. Based on the first step analysis, management concluded that the fair value of the Terra reporting unit was less than its carrying value; therefore, the Company performed step two of the goodwill impairment analysis.

Step two of the goodwill impairment analysis measures the impairment charge by allocating the reporting unit’s fair value to all of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit in a hypothetical analysis that calculates implied fair value of goodwill in the same manner as if the reporting unit was being acquired in a business combination. Any excess of the carrying value of the reporting unit’s goodwill over the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is recorded as a loss on impairment of goodwill.

Management determined that the Terra reporting unit’s implied fair value of goodwill was below the carrying value as of June 30, 2015. As a result, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $2,750 in the second quarter of 2015.

The Company performed its annual goodwill impairment test for the remaining reporting units in the third quarter and no additional impairment was recorded for the nine months ended September 30, 2015.

The change in the carrying value of goodwill for the period ended September 30, 2015 is as follows:

 

 

 

Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. A fair value hierarchy has been established by GAAP that requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. The accounting guidance describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1—Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2—Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3—Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.

The Company utilizes the market approach to measure fair value for its financial assets and liabilities. The market approach uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities. At times, the Company holds certain derivative contracts that it uses to manage foreign currency risk or commodity price risk. The Company does not hold or issue derivatives for speculative or trading purposes. The fair values of these financial instruments are summarized as follows:

13

---

 

 

 

Foreign exchange contracts

The Company has exposure to foreign currencies that fluctuate in relation to the U.S. dollar. The Company periodically enters into foreign exchange forward contracts to hedge this risk. At September 30, 2015, there were no outstanding contracts.

Fuel hedge contracts

The Company is exposed to certain market risks, primarily commodity price risk as it relates to the diesel fuel purchase requirements, which occur in the normal course of business. The Company enters into heating oil commodity swap contracts to hedge the risk that fluctuations in diesel fuel prices will have an adverse impact on cash flows associated with its domestic dredging contracts. The Company’s goal is to hedge approximately 80% of the fuel requirements for work in domestic backlog.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company was party to various swap arrangements to hedge the price of a portion of its diesel fuel purchase requirements for work in its backlog to be performed through August 2016. As of September 30, 2015, there were 8.0 million gallons remaining on these contracts which represent approximately 80% of the Company’s forecasted domestic fuel purchases through August 2016. Under these swap agreements, the Company will pay fixed prices ranging from $1.67 to $2.11 per gallon.

At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the fair value liability of the fuel hedge contracts was estimated to be $1,550 and $3,029, respectively, and is recorded in accrued expenses. Changes in the fair value of fuel hedge contracts being recorded in the Statement of Operations are recorded as cost of contract revenues. The fair values of fuel hedges are corroborated using inputs that are readily observable in public markets; therefore, the Company determines fair value of these fuel hedges using Level 2 inputs.

The Company is exposed to counterparty credit risk associated with non-performance of its various derivative instruments. The Company’s risk would be limited to any unrealized gains on current positions. To help mitigate this risk, the Company transacts only with counterparties that are rated as investment grade or higher. In addition, all counterparties are monitored on a continuous basis.

The fair value of the fuel hedge contracts outstanding as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 is as follows:

 

 

Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis

All other nonfinancial assets and liabilities measured at fair value in the financial statements on a nonrecurring basis are subject to fair value measurements and disclosures. Nonfinancial assets and liabilities included in our condensed consolidated balance sheets and measured on a nonrecurring basis consist of goodwill and long-lived assets, including other acquired intangibles. Goodwill and long-lived assets are measured at fair value to test for and measure impairment, if any, at least annually for goodwill or when necessary for both goodwill and long-lived assets.

14

---

The Company estimated the fair value of our Terra reporting unit for our goodwill impairment test by using both a market-based approach and an income-based approach. The income approach is dependent on a number of factors, including estimates of future market growth trends, forecasted revenues and expenses based upon historical operating data, appropriate discount rates and other variables. The market approach measures the value of a reporting unit through comparison to comparable companies. Under the market approach, the Company uses the guideline public company method by applying estimated market-based enterprise value multiples to the reporting unit’s estimated revenue and Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations. The Company analyzed companies that performed similar services or are considered peers.

An impairment of goodwill was recorded in the amount of $2,750 in the second quarter of 2015. The fair value of goodwill was determined using quantitative models that contained significant unobservable inputs. See Note 6.

 

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

Changes in the components of the accumulated balances of other comprehensive loss are as follows:

 

 

Adjustments reclassified from accumulated balances of other comprehensive loss to earnings are as follows:

 

 

Other financial instruments

The carrying value of financial instruments included in current assets and current liabilities approximates fair value due to the short-term maturities of these instruments. Based on timing of the cash flows and comparison to current market interest rates, the carrying value of our senior revolving credit agreement approximates fair value. The Company entered into a senior secured term loan facility in November 2014 that approximates fair value based upon stable market interest rates and Company credit ratings from inception to year end. In January 2011 and again in November 2014, the Company issued a total of $275,000 of 7.375% senior notes due February 1, 2019, which were outstanding at September 30, 2015 (See Note 5). The senior notes are senior unsecured obligations of the Company and its subsidiaries that guarantee the senior notes. The fair value of the senior notes was $275,688 at September 30, 2015, which is a Level 1 fair value measurement as the senior notes value was obtained using quoted prices in active markets.

 

 

15

---

The Company’s 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan permits the granting of stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock and restricted stock units to its employees and directors for up to 5.8 million shares of common stock.

In March 2015, the Company granted 698 thousand restricted stock units to certain employees pursuant to the plan. In addition, all non-employee directors on the Company’s board of directors are paid a portion of their board-related compensation in stock grants. Compensation cost charged to expense related to share-based compensation arrangements was $839 and $828 for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively and $2,897 and $1,816 for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

 

 

Commercial commitments

Performance and bid bonds are customarily required for dredging and marine construction projects, as well as some environmental & remediation projects. The Company has a bonding agreement with Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) under which the Company can obtain performance, bid and payment bonds. In April 2015, we entered into additional bonding agreements with ACE Holdings, Inc., Argonaut Insurance Company, Berkley Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, the “Additional Sureties”). The bonding agreements with the Additional Sureties contain similar terms and conditions as the Zurich bonding agreement. The Company also has outstanding bonds with Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. Bid bonds are generally obtained for a percentage of bid value and amounts outstanding typically range from $1,000 to $10,000. At September 30, 2015, the Company had outstanding performance bonds totaling approximately $1,066,169, of which $45,582 relates to projects accounted for in discontinued operations. The revenue value remaining in backlog related to the projects of continuing operations totaled approximately $455,712.

In connection with the sale of our historical demolition business, the Company was obligated to keep in place the surety bonds on pending demolition projects for the period required under the respective contract for a project.

Certain foreign projects performed by the Company have warranty periods, typically spanning no more than one to three years beyond project completion, whereby the Company retains responsibility to maintain the project site to certain specifications during the warranty period. Generally, any potential liability of the Company is mitigated by insurance, shared responsibilities with consortium partners, and/or recourse to owner-provided specifications.

Legal proceedings and other contingencies

As is customary with negotiated contracts and modifications or claims to competitively bid contracts with the federal government, the government has the right to audit the books and records of the Company to ensure compliance with such contracts, modifications, or claims, and the applicable federal laws. The government has the ability to seek a price adjustment based on the results of such audit. Any such audits have not had, and are not expected to have, a material impact on the financial position, operations, or cash flows of the Company.

Various legal actions, claims, assessments and other contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business are pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters could ultimately be decided, resolved, or settled adversely to the Company. Although the Company is subject to various claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business, except as described below, the Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings or environmental claims. The Company records an accrual when it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not believe any of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would be expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, cash flows or financial condition of the Company.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013, primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition segment and with regard to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company’s announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June 10, 2013. The

16

---

plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August 9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013. After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the court entered an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion to dismiss. The parties agreed to a settlement, which was paid by insurance. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 12, 2015, and granted final approval on September 17, 2015. The securities litigation is now concluded.

On March 28, 2013, the Company was named as a nominal defendant, and its directors were named as defendants, in a shareholder derivative action in DuPage County Circuit Court in Illinois captioned Hammoud v. Berger et al., Case No. 2013CH001110. The lawsuit primarily alleges breaches of fiduciary duties related to allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition segment and with regard to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, which exposed the Company to securities litigation. A second, similar lawsuit captioned The City of Haverhill Retirement System v. Leight et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02470, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on April 2, 2013 and was voluntarily dismissed on June 10, 2013. A third, similar lawsuit captioned St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters Pension Trust Fund v. Leight et al., Case No. 13 CH 15483, was filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois on July 8, 2013, and has since been transferred to DuPage County Circuit Court and consolidated with the Hammoud action. The Hammoud/St. Lucie plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 9, 2013, but the action was otherwise stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the securities class action. A fourth, similar lawsuit (that additionally named one current and one former executive as defendants) captioned Griffin v. Berger et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04907, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on July 9, 2013. The Griffin action was also stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the securities class action.  The parties agreed to a settlement, which was paid by insurance. The DuPage County Circuit Court preliminarily approved the settlement of the Hammoud/St. Lucie action on May 13, 2015, and granted final approval on August 7, 2015. The Griffin action was dismissed with prejudice on August 20, 2015.  The derivative litigation is now concluded.

On April 23, 2014, the Company completed the sale of NASDI, LLC (“NASDI”) and Yankee Environmental Services, LLC (“Yankee”), which together comprised the Company’s historical demolition business, to a privately owned demolition company. Under the terms of the divestiture, the Company retained certain pre-closing liabilities relating to the disposed business. Certain of these liabilities and a legal action brought by the Company to enforce the buyer’s obligations under the sale agreement are described below.

In 2009, NASDI received a letter stating that the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is investigating alleged violations of the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act. The Company believes that the Massachusetts Attorney General is investigating waste disposal activities at an allegedly unpermitted disposal site owned by a third party with whom NASDI contracted for the disposal of waste materials in 2007 and 2008. Per the Massachusetts Attorney General’s request, NASDI executed a tolling agreement regarding the matter in 2009 and engaged in further discussions with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office. Should a claim be brought, the Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

On January 14, 2015, the Company and our subsidiary, NASDI Holdings, LLC, brought an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enforce the terms of the Company's agreement to sell NASDI and Yankee. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company received cash of $5,309 and retained the right to receive additional proceeds based upon future collections of outstanding accounts receivable and work in process existing at the date of close. The Company seeks specific performance of buyer’s obligation to collect and to remit the additional proceeds, and other related relief. Defendants have filed counterclaims alleging that the Company misrepresented the quality of its contracts and receivables prior to the sale. The Company denies defendants’ allegations and intends to vigorously defend against the counterclaims.

In 2012, the Company contracted with a shipyard to perform the functional design drawings, detailed design drawings and follow on construction of a new Articulated Tug & Barge (“ATB”) Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge. In April 2013, the Company terminated the contract with the shipyard for default and the counterparty sent the Company a notice requesting arbitration under the contract with respect to the Company’s termination for default, including but not limited to the Company’s right to draw on letters of credit that had been issued by the shipyard as financial security required by the contract. In May 2013, the Company drew upon the shipyard’s letters of credit related to the contract and received $13,600. Arbitration proceedings were initiated. In January 2014, the Company and the shipyard executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company retained $10,500 of the proceeds of the financial security and remitted $3,100 of those funds to the shipyard, all other claims were released, and the arbitration was dismissed with prejudice.

The Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to the above matters as the Company does not believe, based on information currently known to it, that a loss relating to these matters is probable, and an estimate of a range of potential losses relating to these matters cannot reasonably be made.

 

 

17

---

TerraSea Environmental Solutions

The Company owns 50% of TerraSea Environmental Solutions (“TerraSea”) as a joint venture. TerraSea is engaged in the environmental services business through its ability to remediate contaminated soil and dredged sediment treatment. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company had net advances to TerraSea of $28,974 and $22,898, respectively, which are recorded in other current assets. The Company has an accumulated deficit in joint ventures, which represents losses recognized to date in excess of our investment in TerraSea, of $13,919 and $10,383 at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, which is presented in accrued expenses. The Company has commenced the wind down of TerraSea with its joint venture partner. The Company believes its net advances to TerraSea are ultimately recoverable either through the operations of the joint venture or as an obligation of our joint venture partner. The joint venture partner has notified the Company that it disagrees with the amount of net advances to TerraSea. The Company believes that its joint venture partner remains obligated for its share of net advances, and any future advances necessary to complete TerraSea’s remaining project. During July 2015, the Company proposed taking a larger percent of the loss on a TerraSea project. Based on this proposal, the Company accrued $1,506 at June 30, 2015 representing the estimated share of additional losses to be assumed. To the extent that net advances are not fully recoverable, additional losses may result in future periods. The Company and its joint venture partner remain obligated to fund TerraSea through the completion of its remaining project, which is expected to occur in 2015.

Amboy Aggregates

The Company and a New Jersey aggregates company each own 50% of Amboy Aggregates (“Amboy”). Amboy was formed in December 1984 to mine sand from the entrance channel to New York Harbor to provide sand and aggregate for use in road and building construction and for clean land fill. Amboy sold its interest in a stone import business and its holdings in land, owned in conjunction with Lower Main Street Development, LLC, during 2014 and is winding down operations.

 

 

On April 23, 2014, the Company entered into an agreement and completed the sale of NASDI and Yankee, its two former subsidiaries that comprised our historical demolition business.  Under the terms of the agreement, the Company received cash of $5,309 and retained the right to receive additional proceeds based upon future collections of outstanding accounts receivable and work in process existing at the date of close, including recovery of outstanding claims for additional compensation from customers, net of future payments of accounts payable existing at the date of close, including any future payments of obligations associated with outstanding claims.  In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a preliminary loss on disposal of assets held for sale in discontinued operations. The loss on disposal is subject to change based on the value of additional proceeds received on the working capital existing at the date of disposition.  The amount and timing of the working capital settlement and the amount and timing of the realization of additional net proceeds may be impacted by the litigation with the buyer of the historical demolition business (see Note 9). However, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.  The results of the businesses have been reported in discontinued operations as follows:

 

 

 

18

---

The Company and its subsidiaries currently operate in two reportable segments: dredging and environmental & remediation. The Company’s financial reporting systems present various data for management to run the business, including profit and loss statements prepared according to the segments presented. Management uses operating income to evaluate performance between the two segments. Segment information for the periods presented is provided as follows:

 

 

Foreign dredging revenue of $38,042 and $127,280 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively, was primarily attributable to work done in the Middle East and Brazil. Foreign dredging revenue for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 was $40,040 and $85,691, respectively.

The majority of the Company’s long-lived assets are marine vessels and related equipment. At any point in time, the Company may employ certain assets outside of the U.S., as needed, to perform work on the Company’s foreign projects.

 

 

 

Jonathan W. Berger, Chief Executive Officer and director of the Company notified the Board on October 11, 2015 of his intention to retire, effective as of the earlier of April 13, 2017 and a date chosen by the Board. The Company is in the process of identifying a successor to fill the vacancy that will be created by Mr. Berger’s retirement and will engage an executive search firm to assist in the identification and assessment of internal and external candidates.

 

Nathan D. Leight tendered his resignation as director and Chairman of the Board and Denise E. Dickins tendered her resignation as director and Chair of the Audit Committee of the Company, in each case effective as of October 13, 2015. On October 16, 2015, the Board elected Robert Uhler as a director.

 

Effective November 10, 2015, Maryann A. Waryjas, Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, will resign from her positions with the Company.

 

 

 

The Company’s long-term debt at September 30, 2015 includes $275,000 of 7.375% senior notes due February 1, 2019. The Company’s obligations under these senior unsecured notes are guaranteed by the Company’s 100% owned domestic subsidiaries. Such guarantees are full, unconditional and joint and several.

The following supplemental financial information sets forth for the Company’s subsidiary guarantors (on a combined basis), the Company’s non-guarantor subsidiaries (on a combined basis) and Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation, exclusive of its subsidiaries (“GLDD Corporation”):

19

---

 

 

 

20

---

 

 

 

21

---

 

 

 

22

---

 

 

 

23

---

 

 

 

24

---

 

 

 

25

---

 

 

 

26

---

 

 

 

 

27

---

Cautionary note regarding forward-looking statements

Certain statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q may constitute “forward-looking” statements as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) or in releases made by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), all as may be amended from time to time. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Great Lakes” or the “Company”), or industry results, to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Statements that are not historical fact are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements can be identified by, among other things, the use of forward-looking language, such as the words “plan,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “estimate,” “project,” “may,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “seeks,” or “scheduled to,” or other similar words, or the negative of these terms or other variations of these terms or comparable language, or by discussion of strategy or intentions. These cautionary statements are being made pursuant to the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the PSLRA with the intention of obtaining the benefits of the “safe harbor” provisions of such laws. Great Lakes cautions investors that any forward-looking statements made by Great Lakes are not guarantees or indicative of future performance. Important assumptions and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those forward-looking statements with respect to Great Lakes, include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties that are described in Part II, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of Great Lakes’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, and in other securities filings by Great Lakes with the SEC.

Although Great Lakes believes that its plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by such forward-looking statements are reasonable, actual results could differ materially from a projection or assumption in any forward-looking statements. Great Lakes’ future financial condition and results of operations, as well as any forward-looking statements, are subject to change and inherent risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are made only as of the date hereof and Great Lakes does not have or undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, subsequent events or otherwise, unless otherwise required by law.

 

 

General

The Company is the largest provider of dredging services in the United States and a major provider of environmental and remediation services. In addition, the Company is the only U.S. dredging service provider with significant international operations, which represented 25% of its dredging revenues for the first nine months of 2015, above the Company’s prior three year average of 19%. The mobility of the Company’s fleet enables the Company to move equipment in response to changes in demand for dredging services.

Dredging generally involves the enhancement or preservation of navigability of waterways or the protection of shorelines through the removal or replenishment of soil, sand or rock. The U.S. dredging market consists of four primary types of work: capital, coastal protection, maintenance and rivers & lakes. The Company’s bid market is defined as the aggregate dollar value of domestic dredging projects on which the Company bid or could have bid if not for capacity constraints (“bid market”). The Company experienced an average combined bid market share in the U.S. of 43% over the prior three years, including 46%, 50%, 28% and 60% of the domestic capital, coastal protection, maintenance and rivers & lakes sectors, respectively.

The Company’s largest domestic dredging customer is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”), which has responsibility for federally funded projects related to navigation and flood control of U.S. waterways. In the first nine months of 2015, the Company’s dredging revenues earned from contracts with federal government agencies, including the Corps as well as other federal entities such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy were approximately 62% of dredging revenues, slightly below the Company’s prior three year average of 63%.

The Company’s environmental & remediation subsidiaries provide soil, water and sediment environmental remediation for the state and local and private party markets. Remediation involves the retrieval and removal of contamination from an environment through the use of separation techniques or disposal based on the quantity and severity of the contamination. Besides environmental remediation, the environmental & remediation segment performs industrial cleaning, abatement services and hazardous waste removal. Our recent acquisition of Magnus Pacific (“Magnus”) expands the geographic footprint of our environmental operations to include the U.S. West Coast and broadens our suite of services to include geotechnical contracting capabilities and other environmental solutions. In the first nine months of 2015, environmental & remediation revenues accounted for 21% of total revenues.

The Company operates in three operating segments that, through aggregation, comprise two reportable segments: dredging and environmental & remediation. Three operating segments were aggregated into two reportable segments as the segments have

28

---

similarity in economic margins, services, production processes, customer types, distribution methods and regulatory environment. The Company has determined that the operating segments are the Company’s three reporting units.

 

 

Results of operations

The following tables set forth the components of net income (loss) and Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations, as defined below, as a percentage of contract revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014:

 

 

29

---

Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations, as provided herein, represents net income, adjusted for net interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization expense, debt extinguishment, accelerated maintenance expense for new international deployments, goodwill or asset impairments and gains on bargain purchase acquisitions. Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations is not a measure derived in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The Company presents Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations as an additional measure by which to evaluate the Company’s operating trends. The Company believes that Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations is a measure frequently used to evaluate performance of companies with substantial leverage and that the Company’s primary stakeholders (i.e., its stockholders, bondholders and banks) use Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations to evaluate the Company’s period to period performance. Additionally, management believes that Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations provides a transparent measure of the Company’s recurring operating performance and allows management to readily view operating trends, perform analytical comparisons and identify strategies to improve operating performance. For this reason, the Company uses a measure based upon Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations to assess performance for purposes of determining compensation under the Company’s incentive plan. Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations should not be considered an alternative to, or more meaningful than, amounts determined in accordance with GAAP including: (a) operating income as an indicator of operating performance; or (b) cash flows from operations as a measure of liquidity. As such, the Company’s use of Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations, instead of a GAAP measure, has limitations as an analytical tool, including the inability to determine profitability or liquidity due to the exclusion of accelerated maintenance expense for new international deployments, goodwill or asset impairments, gains on bargain purchase acquisitions, interest and income tax expense and the associated significant cash requirements and the exclusion of depreciation and amortization, which represent significant and unavoidable operating costs given the level of indebtedness and capital expenditures needed to maintain the Company’s business. For these reasons, the Company uses operating income to measure the Company’s operating performance and uses Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations only as a supplement. The following is a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations to net income (loss):

 

 

The following table sets forth, by segment and type of work, the Company’s contract revenues for each of the periods indicated:

 

 

Total revenue for the 2015 third quarter was $220.8 million, an increase compared to revenue of $202.2 million during the 2014 third quarter. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, total revenue increased to $634.2 million from $561.3 million during the

30

---

same period in the prior year, an increase of 13%. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, increases in domestic and foreign capital, maintenance and environmental & remediation revenues were slightly offset by decreases in coastal protection and rivers & lakes revenues. Revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 includes revenue earned by Magnus which did not operate as part of the Company until November 2014.

Capital dredging consists primarily of port expansion projects, which involve the deepening of channels to allow access by larger, deeper draft ships and the provision of land fill used to expand port facilities. In addition to port work, capital projects also include land reclamations, trench digging for pipelines, tunnels and cables, and other dredging related to the construction of breakwaters, jetties, canals and other marine structures. Domestic capital dredging revenue decreased by $13.6 million, or 24%, to $44.0 million, in the 2015 third quarter compared to the same quarter in 2014. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, domestic capital dredging revenue increased $15.4 million, or 12%, compared to the same period in the prior year. The increase in domestic capital dredging revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was primarily driven by an LNG port expansion project in Texas as well as work on a project in Maryland.  During the first three quarters of 2015, the Company continued work on several large deepening projects in Miami and on the Delaware River. Additionally, the Company began work on the Savannah Harbor deepening project during the third quarter of 2015. These increases were partially offset by a greater amount of revenue earned on projects in Miami, New York and on the Delaware River during the same period of the prior year.

Foreign capital projects typically involve land reclamations, channel deepening and port infrastructure development. In the third quarter of 2015 foreign dredging revenue was $38.0 million, a decrease of $2.0 million, or 5%, from the same quarter in the prior year. Foreign dredging revenue for the first nine months of 2015 increased by $41.6 million, or 49%, compared to the same period in the prior year. Revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was driven by a project to widen and deepen the Suez Canal. Additionally, the Company continued work on a large project in Bahrain and four projects in Brazil during the first nine months of 2015. In comparison, revenue for the first nine months of 2014 was driven by the Wheatstone LNG project in Western Australia, a project in the Middle East and two projects in Brazil.

Coastal protection projects generally involve moving sand from the ocean floor to shoreline locations where erosion threatens shoreline assets. Coastal protection revenue was $46.4 million in the third quarter of 2015, down $14.5 million or 45%, compared to the 2014 third quarter. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, coastal protection revenue was $118.1 million compared to $158.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014. During the first nine months of 2015, coastal protection revenue was driven by large projects in New York and New Jersey for the repair of shorelines damaged as a result of Superstorm Sandy as well as projects in Florida and Virginia. During the same period in 2014, the Company earned revenues on a greater number of projects in Florida, as well as large projects in North Carolina and South Carolina that did not repeat during the current year.

Maintenance dredging consists of the re-dredging of previously deepened waterways and harbors to remove silt, sand and other accumulated sediments. Maintenance revenue in the third quarter of 2015 decreased by $5.1 million, or 19%, compared to the same period in 2014. Maintenance revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was $89.7 million, an increase of $4.5 million, or 5%, from maintenance revenue of $85.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014. The increase in maintenance dredging revenues for the first three quarters of 2015 was driven by large projects in Georgia, Texas, Louisiana and significant harbor work in Florida and North Carolina. These increases were slightly offset by a greater amount of revenue earned on a large project in New York during the first nine months of 2014 as well as harbor work in Maryland and a channel maintenance project in New York that did not repeat in the current year.

Domestic rivers & lakes dredging and related operations typically consist of lake and river dredging, inland levee and construction dredging, environmental restoration and habitat improvement and other marine construction projects. Rivers & lakes revenue in the third quarter of 2015 was $12.6 million, an increase of $1.6 million or 15% compared to the third quarter of 2014. Rivers & lakes revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 was $22.5 million and $23.0 million, respectively. During the first nine months of 2015, revenue was driven by the Lake Decatur project in addition to projects in Florida, Iowa and Mississippi. These revenues were offset by a greater number of projects during the same period in the prior year, including a lake project in Illinois, a river project in Nebraska and a private company project in Florida that did not repeat in the current year.

The environmental & remediation segment recorded revenues of $60.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2015, up 63% compared to $37.2 million for the same period in 2014. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, environment & remediation segment revenue was $131.9 million compared to $79.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014. The increase is attributable to revenue earned by Magnus which did not become part of the Company until the fourth quarter of 2014. This increase was slightly offset by a remediation project in Michigan which is part of the Company’s existing environmental & remediation business that did not repeat during the current year.

Consolidated gross profit for the 2015 third quarter decreased by $0.4 million, or 2% to $24.1 million, from $24.5 million in the third quarter of 2014. Gross profit margin (gross profit divided by revenue) for the 2015 third quarter decreased to 10.9% from 12.1% for the three months ended September 30, 2014. Consolidated gross profit for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 decreased to

31

---

$67.1 million from $71.6 million for the same period in the prior year. Gross profit margin for the first nine months of 2015 decreased to 10.6% from 12.8% for the first nine months of 2014. The decrease in gross profit margin for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was driven by unforeseen circumstances that lead to project delays on two of the environmental & remediation segment’s largest projects during the third quarter. During the nine months ended September 30, 2015, the environmental & remediation segment experienced losses on several projects, with one project accounting for $6.2 million of the losses. A decline in the amount of work executed and increased operating overhead costs, primarily due to increased personnel costs, in the environmental & remediation segment also impacted the gross profit margin as compared to the same period in the prior year. These decreases were partially offset by strong contract margin on our Suez Canal project, improved fleet utilization and favorable project mix, both leading to strong margins in our dredging segment.

General and administrative expenses totaled $15.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2015, slightly lower than general and administrative expenses of $16.1 million in the third quarter of 2014. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, general and administrative expenses totaled $48.8 million and $49.9 million, respectively. In the first nine months of 2015, a reduction in the value of the Magnus seller note payable of $7.0 million and decreases in legal and professional fees of $0.8 million and other office expenses of $0.7 million were mostly offset by higher payroll and benefit expenses of $3.4 million and increased amortization expense of $5.1 million, primarily related to the Magnus acquisition.

Operating income for the three months ended September 30, 2015 was $9.7 million, an increase of $1.7 million, compared to operating income of $8.0 million in the same period of 2014. Operating income for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 decreased $4.8 million, or 23%, to $16.4 million from $21.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014. The change in the Company’s operating income for the first nine months of 2015 was attributable to the decrease in gross profit described above. The Company recorded a $2.8 million goodwill impairment charge at the Terra reporting unit during the second quarter of 2015 which further added to the decline in operating income. See Note 6 in the notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

Net interest expense totaled $7.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2015, up from interest expense of $4.7 million from the same period of 2014. Net interest expense for the first nine months of 2015 increased $3.8 million, or 26%, to $18.5 million compared to $14.7 million in the first nine months of 2014. Net interest expense for the first nine months of 2015 was up compared to the same period in the prior year due to interest expense associated with the additional senior notes issued in November 2014, the senior secured term loan facility (“Term Loan Facility”) and higher amortization of deferred financing fees. These expenses were slightly offset by lower interest expense related to the Company’s revolving credit facility during the current year.

The income tax provision for the three months ended September 30, 2015 was $0.7 million compared to an income tax benefit of $1.1 million for the 2014 third quarter. The income tax benefit for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was $2.8 million compared to $0.4 million for the same period of 2014. The change in the income tax benefit for the first nine months of 2015 was attributable to the lower taxable operating income in 2015 as compared to the same period in the prior year. The effective tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was 34.6%. The Company expects the tax rate for the full year before consideration of nondeductible pretax items to remain near 40%.

Net income from continuing operations was $0.3 million and there were no earnings per diluted share for the 2015 third quarter compared to net loss from continuing operations of $1.0 million and loss per diluted share of $0.01 for the same period of 2014. Net loss from continuing operations was $5.4 million and loss per diluted share was $0.09 for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 compared to net income from continuing operations of $0.4 million and earnings per diluted share of $0.01 for the same period of 2014. The decrease in net income from continuing operations through the first nine months of 2015 is due to lower operating income described above. Net loss from continuing operations includes an additional $2.1 million recorded to equity in loss of joint ventures in the third quarter of 2015 related to losses at one of our joint ventures. Additionally, during the first nine months of 2014, the Company recognized a $2.2 million noncash bargain purchase gain which did not repeat during the current year. The decrease in operating income in 2015 was partially offset by the increase in income tax provision for the first nine months of 2015.

Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations (as defined on page 30) for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 was $23.1 million and $13.4 million, respectively. Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was $60.8 million compared with $45.3 million in the same 2014 period. This increase is primarily driven by higher depreciation and amortization expenses during the current year, slightly offset by the lower operating income described above.

 

 

Results by segment

Dredging

Dredging segment revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 were $162.5 million, a decrease of $4.6 million, or 3%, compared to $167.1 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2014. Dredging revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 were $506.7 million, an increase of $20.5 million, or 4%, compared to $486.2 million for the same period of 2014. The dredging

32

---

segment’s revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 included increases in domestic and foreign capital and maintenance revenues which were partially offset by decreases in coastal protection and rivers & lakes revenues. Current year revenues were driven by a project to widen and deepen the Suez Canal, an LNG port expansion project in Texas, a capital project in Maryland, several port deepening projects, including PortMiami, large maintenance projects in Georgia, Houston and Louisiana and significant harbor maintenance work in Florida and North Carolina. In comparison, dredging revenues in the first three quarters of 2014 included coastal protection projects in North Carolina and South Carolina that did not repeat during the current year.

Dredging segment gross profit margin for the three months ended September 30, 2015 increased to 18.1% from 10.7% in the three months ended September 30, 2014. Gross profit margin in the dredging segment was 15.4% for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 compared to a gross profit margin of 12.6% for the same period in the prior year. Strong contract margin on our Suez project, improved fleet utilization and favorable project mix, resulted in greater fixed cost coverage for the first three quarters of 2015. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company experienced higher unearned plant costs associated with two dredges which were in dry dock during the 2014 third quarter as well as lower utilization in the Middle East which negatively impacted gross profit margin.

Operating income at the dredging segment for the three months ended September 30, 2015 increased $13.9 million, to $19.6 million from $5.7 million for the same period in the prior year. Dredging segment operating income was $45.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 compared to operating income of $24.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014. The increase in operating income is result of the increase in gross profit, described above, as well as a decrease in administrative charges related to labor expenses and legal expenses.

Environmental & remediation

Environmental & remediation segment revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 were $60.5 million, an increase of $23.3 million, or 63%, compared to $37.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2014. Environmental & remediation revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 were $131.9 million, an increase of $52.7 million, or 67%, compared to $79.2 million for the same period in 2014. Environmental & remediation revenues for the first nine months of 2015 were up compared to the same period in the prior year due to revenue earned by Magnus which was acquired in November 2014. This increase was slightly offset by a significant remediation project in Michigan, which was part of the Company’s existing environmental & remediation business that did not repeat during the current year.

For the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, the environmental & remediation segment had a negative gross profit margin of 8.9% and a gross profit margin of 17.7%, respectively. The environmental & remediation segment had a negative gross profit margin of 8.4% for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and a gross profit margin of 13.0% for the same period in the prior year. The decline in gross profit margin for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was driven by unforeseen circumstances that lead to project delays on two of the environmental & remediation segment’s largest projects during the third quarter. During the nine months ended September 30, 2015, the environmental & remediation experienced losses on several projects, with one project accounting for $6.2 million of the losses. A decline in the amount of work executed and increased operating overhead costs, primarily due to increased personnel costs, in the environmental & remediation segment also impacted the gross profit margin as compared to the same period in the prior year.

The environmental & remediation segment experienced an operating loss of $9.9 million and operating income of $2.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The environmental & remediation segment had an operating loss of $29.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015, compared to an operating loss of $3.0 million for the same period of 2014. The change in operating loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 is the result of the decline in gross profit margin, as described above, an increase in amortization expense of $5.1 million, mostly attributable to the Magnus acquisition in November 2014 and a $2.8 million goodwill impairment charge recorded at the Terra reporting unit during the second quarter of 2015. Further, increases in payroll and benefits of $1.4 million, technical and consulting expenses of $0.5 million and legal and professional fees of $1.2 million negatively impacted operating income for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. These increases in general and administrative expenses were slightly offset by a reduction in the value of the Magnus seller note payable of $7.0 million.

 

 

33

---

Bidding activity and backlog

The following table sets forth, by reporting segment and type of dredging work, the Company’s backlog as of the dates indicated:

 

 

The Company’s contract backlog represents its estimate of the revenues that will be realized under the portion of the contracts remaining to be performed. For dredging contracts these estimates are based primarily upon the time and costs required to mobilize the necessary assets to and from the project site, the amount and type of material to be dredged and the expected production capabilities of the equipment performing the work. For environmental & remediation contracts, these estimates are based on the time and remaining costs required to complete the project relative to total estimated project costs and project revenues agreed to with the customer. However, these estimates are necessarily subject to variances based upon actual circumstances. Because of these factors, as well as factors affecting the time required to complete each job, backlog is not always indicative of future revenues or profitability. Also, 61% of the Company’s September 30, 2015 dredging backlog relates to federal government contracts, which can be canceled at any time without penalty to the government, subject to the Company’s contractual right to recover the Company’s actual committed costs and profit on work performed up to the date of cancellation. The Company’s backlog may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter based upon the type and size of the projects the Company is awarded from the bid market. A quarterly increase or decrease of the Company’s backlog does not necessarily result in an improvement or a deterioration of the Company’s business. The Company’s backlog includes only those projects for which the Company has obtained a signed contract with the customer.

The domestic dredging bid market for the 2015 third quarter totaled $586.9 million, resulting in $1,037.4 million of work awarded in the first nine months of 2015. This represents a decrease of $101.3 million compared to the first nine months of 2014. The bid market for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 decreased from the prior year primarily due to award of a significant coastal protection project in Louisiana, the Lake Decatur project as well as projects for the Bayport Ship Channel and deepening the Delaware River in the prior year. In the first nine months of 2015, $45 million fewer capital projects were let to bid. Of the $403 million in capital projects awarded in 2015, the Company was awarded the $135 million Savannah Harbor deepening project, an $80 million LNG project in Texas, a $77 million deepening project on the Delaware River, a $77 million coastal restoration project in Louisiana. Additionally, the Company was awarded several maintenance projects as well as a coastal protection project in New York. Including these awards, the Company won 19%, or $40.7 million of the coastal protection projects awarded through September 30, 2015. For the contracts released in the current year, the Company won 96%, or $387.1 million of the domestic capital projects, 29%, or $117.9 million of the maintenance projects and 48%, or $2.6 million of the rivers & lakes projects awarded through September 30, 2015. The Company won 53% of the overall domestic bid market through September 30, 2015, which is above the Company’s prior three year average of 43%. Variability in contract wins from quarter to quarter is not unusual and one quarter’s win rate is generally not indicative of the win rate the Company is likely to achieve for a full year.

The Company’s contracted dredging backlog was $644.8 million at September 30, 2015 compared to $594.2 million of backlog at December 31, 2014. These amounts do not reflect approximately $145.4 million of domestic low bids pending formal award and additional phases (“options”) pending on projects currently in backlog at September 30, 2015. At December 31, 2014 the amount of domestic low bids and options pending award was $113.5 million.

Domestic capital dredging backlog at September 30, 2015 was $227.8 million higher than at December 31, 2014. During the first nine months of 2015, the Company continued to earn revenue on the PortMiami project, deepening projects in New York and Maryland and a private LNG port expansion project in Texas. During the first nine months of 2015, the Company was awarded the Savannah Harbor deepening project, the Shell Island West project, an LNG project in Texas and a deepening project on the Delaware River. During the third quarter of 2015, the Company was low bidder on a $103 million coastal restoration project which will add to backlog as the project is awarded. Completion of the Panama Canal expansion is on track to be completed next year, which continues to put pressure on the ports on the East Coast to continue with their studies and plans to deepen and widen in anticipation of the post-

34

---

Panamax vessels. Additionally, during October 2015 BP settled the final Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims for approximately $20 billion. This amount reflects the preliminary agreement which was reached in the second quarter of 2015 and includes $5.5 billion related to Clean Water Act penalties. Several other vendors related to the oil spill have already reached deals that resolve their claims in the disaster. Many of the Gulf States previously committed to spending a portion of the fines received to repair the natural resources impacted by the oil spill including on coastal restoration projects that include dredging. Although the bulk of the fines are to be paid over the next 15 to 18 years, the Company expects several coastal restoration projects envisioned by the States to come to fruition in the next couple of years providing a new source of domestic capital dredging projects on which the Company will bid.

Foreign capital dredging backlog was down $117.2 million from December 31, 2014. The decline in backlog during the current year is due to revenue earned on the Suez Canal project as well as on projects in the Middle East and Brazil during the first nine months of 2015. The Company was awarded three projects in Brazil during the first nine months of the year. The world’s need for reclaimed land continues to expand to support global energy consumption, seaborne trade, population growth and tourism all of which are expected to add nearly 400 viable dredging projects over the next six years. Besides the Middle East, the Company continues to pursue ancillary work in South America where we have positioned a clamshell dredge and operate as a reputable regional provider. The Company expects the additional opportunities globally to provide a continued source of future international dredging revenue.

Coastal protection dredging backlog at September 30, 2015 was $73.4 million lower than at December 31, 2014. During the nine months in 2015, the Company earned revenue on several coastal protection projects in New York and New Jersey as well as projects in Florida and Virginia that were in backlog at December 31, 2014. Subsequent to the end of the quarter, the Company was low bidder on another project in Florida and has several options on current projects in backlog that will add to backlog as they are awarded. Funding related to Northeastern U.S. beach replenishment continues to be released and the Company is anticipating these new dredging projects along the coast to extend through 2016. Federal and state government actions continue to support the repair and improvement of America’s coastline through the completion of protective beaches and berms.

Maintenance dredging backlog was up $30.8 million from December 31, 2014. During the first nine months of 2015, the Company earned revenue on harbor maintenance projects including the Wilmington Harbor project as well as two harbor projects in Florida that were in backlog at year end. The Company was award maintenance projects in New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Texas which contributed to backlog at September 30, 2015. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) calls for full use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (“HMTF”) within ten years for its intended purpose of maintaining future access to the waterways and ports that support our nation’s economy. Through the increased appropriation of HMTF monies, the Corps has substantially increased projects for maintenance dredging in 2015 and the Company anticipates an increase in harbor projects to be let to bid throughout the government’s current fiscal year and beyond.

Rivers & lakes backlog is $17.4 million lower at September 30, 2015 than at December 31, 2014 as the Company continues to earn revenue on its large lake project in Illinois during the first nine months of 2015. The Corps’ work plan for 2015 includes several upper Mississippi River projects to open channels that are often clogged by silt and sediment from upstream, in addition to planned levee repair along the Mississippi River.

Environmental & remediation services backlog has increased $36.5 million from December 31, 2014. The increase was primarily driven by the award of a remediation project in Washington and environmental projects in Wisconsin and Michigan during the first nine months of 2015. The Company continued to earn revenue on a remediation project in Washington and an abatement project in New Jersey. The Company’s acquisition of Magnus expands the geographic footprint of our environmental operations to include the U.S. West Coast and broadens our suite of services to include geotechnical contracting capabilities and other environmental solutions.

 

 

Liquidity and capital resources

The Company’s principal sources of liquidity are net cash flows provided by operating activities and proceeds from previous issuances of long term debt. The Company’s principal uses of cash are to meet debt service requirements, finance capital expenditures, provide working capital and other general corporate purposes.

The Company’s net cash provided by (used in) operating activities of continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 totaled $(3.9) million and $15.3 million, respectively. Normal increases or decreases in the level of working capital relative to the level of operational activity impact cash flow from operating activities. The decrease in the current year from the nine months ended September 30, 2014 was driven by decline in net income during the current year. Further, during the first three quarters of 2015, the Company recorded a reduction in the fair value of the Magnus seller note payable of $7.0 million to zero, in addition to reductions in interest and other contingent consideration. In comparison, the Company had a lower investment in working capital and experienced $9.1 million in losses at two of its joint ventures during the same period 2014.

35

---

The Company’s net cash flows used in investing activities of continuing operations for the first nine months of 2015 and 2014 totaled $52.2 million and $70.0 million, respectively. Investing activities in both periods primarily relate to normal course upgrades and capital maintenance of the Company’s dredging fleet. During the nine months ended September 30, 2015, the Company spent $24.3 million on the construction of a dual mode articulated tug/barge trailing suction hopper dredge (“ATB”), compared to $20.9 million in the same period in the prior year. Further contributing to the change in cash flows used in investing activities, the Company paid $3.1 million related to a vendor performance obligation as a result of a settlement agreement and $2.0 million for a small asset acquisition during the first nine months of 2014.

The Company’s net cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities of continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 totaled $23.3 million and $(0.1) million, respectively. The change in net cash flows from financing activities is primarily due to net borrowings on the Company’s revolver during the first nine months of 2015 of $28.0 million, compared to no net borrowings for the same period in the prior year. Additionally, the Company made payments of $3.8 million on the senior secured term loan facility (“Term Loan Facility”) during the first nine months of 2015. The Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program, authorizing, but not obligating, the repurchase of up to an aggregate amount of $15.0 million of its common stock from time to time through December 31, 2016. As of September 30, 2015, an aggregate amount of $1.1 million shares has been repurchased as part of the program.

On June 4, 2012, the Company entered into a senior revolving credit agreement (as subsequently amended, the “Credit Agreement”) with certain financial institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, Swingline Lender and an Issuing Lender, Bank of America, N.A., as Syndication Agent and PNC Bank, National Association, BMO Harris Bank N.A. and Fifth Third Bank, as Co-Documentation Agents. The Credit Agreement provides for a senior revolving credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of up to $210 million, multicurrency borrowings up to a $50 million sublimit and swingline loans up to a $10 million sublimit. The Credit Agreement also includes an incremental loans feature that will allow the Company to increase the senior revolving credit facility by an aggregate principal amount of up to $15 million. This feature is subject to lenders providing incremental commitments for such increase, provided that no default or event of default exists, and the Company being in pro forma compliance with the existing financial covenants, both before and after giving effect to the increase, and subject to other standard conditions.

Depending on the Company’s consolidated leverage ratio (as defined in the Credit Agreement), borrowings under the revolving credit facility will bear interest at the option of the Company of either a LIBOR rate plus a margin of between 1.50% to 2.50% per annum or a base rate plus a margin of between 0.50% to 1.50% per annum.

The Credit Agreement contains affirmative, negative and financial covenants customary for financings of this type. The Credit Agreement also contains customary events of default (including non-payment of principal or interest on any material debt and breaches of covenants) as well as events of default relating to certain actions by the Company’s surety bonding provider. The Credit Agreement requires the Company to maintain a net leverage ratio less than or equal to 4.50 to 1.00 as of the end of each fiscal quarter and a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.25 to 1.00.

The obligations of Great Lakes under the Credit Agreement are unconditionally guaranteed, on a joint and several basis, by each existing and subsequently acquired or formed material direct and indirect domestic subsidiary of the Company. During a year, the Company frequently borrows and repays amounts under its revolving credit facility. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had $28.0 million of borrowings on the revolver and $81.3 million of letters of credit outstanding, resulting in $100.7 million of availability under the Credit Agreement. Borrowings under the line of credit may be limited based on the Company’s requirements to comply with its covenants. At September 30, 2015, the Company was in compliance with its various covenants under the Credit Agreement.

On November 4, 2014, the Company entered into a Term Loan Facility consisting of a term loan in an aggregate principal amount of $50 million, with the lenders party thereto from time to time and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent. The Company has borrowed an aggregate principal amount of $46.8 million. The proceeds from the Term Loan Facility will be used for the working capital and general corporate purposes of the Company, including to repay borrowings under the Credit Agreement made to finance the construction of the Company’s ATB.

The Term Loan Facility has a term of 5 years. The borrowings under the Term Loan Facility bear interest at a fixed rate of 4.655% per annum. If an event of default occurs under the Loan Agreement, the interest rate will increase by 2.00% per annum during the continuance of such event of default.

The Term Loan Facility provides for monthly amortization payments, payable in arrears, which commenced on December 4, 2014, at an annual amount of (i) approximately 10% of the principal amount of the Term Loan Facility during the first two years of the term, (ii) approximately 20% of the principal amount of the Term Loan Facility during the third and fourth years of the term, and (iii) approximately 25% of the principal amount of the Term Loan Facility during the final year of the term, with the remainder due on the

36

---

maturity date of the facility. In addition, the Company may optionally prepay the Term Loan Facility in whole or in part at any time, subject to a minimum prepayment amount.

The Loan Agreement includes customary representations, affirmative and negative covenants and events of default for financings of this type and includes the same financial covenants that are currently set forth in the Credit Agreement.

Performance and bid bonds are customarily required for dredging and marine construction projects, as well as some environmental & remediation projects. The Company has a bonding agreement (the “Zurich Bonding Agreement”) with Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) under which the Company can obtain performance, bid and payment bonds. In April 2015, we entered into additional bonding agreements with ACE Holdings, Inc., Argonaut Insurance Company, Berkley Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, the “Additional Sureties”). The bonding agreements with the Additional Sureties contain similar terms and conditions as the Zurich Bonding Agreement. The Company also has outstanding bonds with Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. Bid bonds are generally obtained for a percentage of bid value and amounts outstanding typically range from $1 million to $10 million. At September 30, 2015, the Company had outstanding performance bonds totaling approximately $1,066.2 million, of which $45.6 million relates to projects accounted for in discontinued operations. The revenue value remaining in backlog related to the projects of continuing operations totaled approximately $455.7 million.

In connection with the sale of our historical demolition business, the Company was obligated to keep in place the surety bonds on pending demolition projects for the period required under the respective contract for a project.

In January 2011, the Company issued $250 million in aggregate principal amount of its 7.375% senior notes due February 1, 2019. Approximately $180 million of the net proceeds from the original issuance of the senior notes were used to prepay all of the Company’s 7.75% senior subordinated notes due December 2013, including prepayment premiums and accrued and unpaid interest.  In November 2014, the Company issued an additional $25 million in aggregate principal amount of its 7.375% senior notes due February 1, 2019. The proceeds from this issuance were used to repay indebtedness incurred under our senior secured revolving credit facility in connection with the acquisition of Magnus, and for general corporate purposes. The indenture governing the senior notes, among other things, limits the ability of the Company and its restricted subsidiaries to (i) pay dividends, or make certain other restricted payments or investments; (ii) incur additional indebtedness and issue disqualified stock; (iii) create liens on its assets; (iv) transfer and sell assets; (v) merge, consolidate or sell all or substantially all of its assets; (vi) enter into certain transactions with affiliates; (vii) create restrictions on dividends or other payments by its restricted subsidiaries and (viii) create guarantees of indebtedness by restricted subsidiaries. These covenants are subject to a number of important limitations and exceptions that are described in the indenture governing the senior notes.

The impact of changes in functional currency exchange rates against the U.S. dollar on non-U.S. dollar cash balances, primarily the Brazilian Real and Australian Dollar, is reflected in the cumulative translation adjustment—net within accumulated other comprehensive loss. Cash held in non-U.S. dollar currencies primarily is used for project-related and other operating costs in those currencies reducing the Company’s exposure to future realized exchange gains and losses.

The Company believes its cash and cash equivalents, its anticipated cash flows from operations and availability under its revolving credit facility will be sufficient to fund the Company’s operations, capital expenditures, and the scheduled debt service requirements for the next twelve months. Beyond the next twelve months, the Company’s ability to fund its working capital needs, planned capital expenditures, scheduled debt payments and dividends, if any, and to comply with all the financial covenants under the Credit Agreement and bonding agreement, depends on its future operating performance and cash flows, which in turn, are subject to prevailing economic conditions and to financial, business and other factors, some of which are beyond the Company’s control.

Critical accounting policies and estimates

In preparing its consolidated financial statements, the Company follows accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America which are described in Note 1 to the Company’s December 31, 2014 Consolidated Financial Statements included on Form 10-K. The application of these principles requires significant judgments or an estimation process that can affect the results of operations, financial position and cash flows of the Company, as well as the related footnote disclosures. The Company continually reviews its accounting policies and financial information disclosures. There have been no material changes in the Company’s critical accounting policies or estimates since December 31, 2014.

 

 

The market risk of the Company’s financial instruments as of September 30, 2015 has not materially changed since December 31, 2014. The market risk profile of the Company on December 31, 2014 is disclosed in Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

 

37

---

 

 

a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, as required by Rule 13a-15(b) and 15d-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) as of September 30, 2015. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act a) is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding disclosure and b) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective in providing such a reasonable assurance.

b) Changes in internal control over financial reporting.

There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2015 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

38

---

PART II — Other Information

See Note 9 “Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

In addition, we are in discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) relating to a project we performed at the Mayport Naval Station from 2010-2012. The EPA is alleging violations of Section 105 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (“MPRSA”) and failure to report violations of the MPRSA.

There have been no material changes, except for the following, during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 to the risk factors previously disclosed in Item 1A. Risk Factors in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

If we are unable, in the future, to obtain bonding or letters of credit for our contracts, our ability to obtain future contracts will be limited, thereby adversely affecting our business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition.

We are generally required to post bonds in connection with our domestic dredging or remediation contracts and bonds or letters of credit with our foreign dredging contracts to ensure job completion if we ever fail to finish a project. We have entered into the Zurich Bonding Agreement with Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), pursuant to which Zurich acts as surety, issues bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds, and provides guarantees required by us in the day-to-day operations of our dredging business. However, under certain circumstances as specified in the agreement, Zurich is not obligated under the Zurich Bonding Agreement to issue future bonds for us. In April 2015, we entered into additional bonding agreements with ACE Holdings, Inc., Argonaut Insurance Company, Berkley Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, the “Additional Sureties”). The bonding agreements with the Additional Sureties contain similar terms and conditions as the Zurich Bonding Agreement. Historically, we have had a strong bonding capacity, but surety companies issue bonds on a project-by-project basis and can decline to issue bonds at any time or require the posting of collateral as a condition to issuing any bonds. In addition to our bonds outstanding with Zurich and the Additional Sureties, we also have surety bonds outstanding with Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. With respect to our foreign dredging business, we generally obtain letters of credit under the Credit Agreement. However, access to our senior credit facility under the Credit Agreement may be limited by failure to meet certain financial requirements or other defined requirements. If we are unable to obtain bonds or letters of credit on terms reasonably acceptable to us, our ability to take on future work would be severely limited.

In connection with the sale of our historical demolition business, we were obligated to keep in place the surety bonds on pending demolition projects for the period required under the respective contract for a project.  If there should be a default triggered under any of such surety bonds, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain bonds and on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

The review of potential strategic alternatives by our Board of Directors may result in significant transaction expenses and unexpected liabilities.

On October 16, 2015, the Company announced that its Board of Directors is undertaking a review of potential strategic alternatives. The pursuit of potential strategic alternatives could result in the diversion of management’s attention from our existing business; failure to achieve financial or operating objectives; incurrence of significant transaction expenses; failure to retain key personnel, customers or contracts; and volatility in the Company’s stock price. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in entering into or consummating a transaction at this time or in the future, that any such strategic alternative will yield additional value for stockholders, or that the process will not have an adverse impact on our business.

We have not set a timetable for completion of this process and do not intend to discuss or disclose developments with respect to the process unless and until such time as our Board of Directors has approved a definitive course of action or otherwise concludes the review of strategic alternatives. As a consequence, perceived uncertainties related to the future of the Company may result in the loss of potential business opportunities and may make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified personnel and business partners.

(a) None.

(b) None.

(c) The following table summarizes repurchases of our common stock during the three months ended September 30, 2015.

39

---

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

 

 

(a) None.

(b) None.

Not applicable.

(a) None.

(b) Not applicable.

 

 

40

---

 

 

 

41

---

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

 

 

Date:  November 4, 2015

 

 

42

---

EXHIBIT INDEX

 

 

43