View Filing Data

Document and Entity Information - USD ($)	3 Months Ended
Document and Entity Information - USD ($)	Mar. 31, 2011	Apr. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010
Document and Entity Information [Abstract]
Entity Registrant Name	SEALED AIR CORP/DE
Entity Central Index Key	0001012100
Document Type	10-Q
Document Period End Date	Mar. 31, 2011
Amendment Flag	false
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2011
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q1
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer	Yes
Entity Voluntary Filers	No
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity Public Float			$ 3,206,000,000
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		160,154,342

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) - USD ($) shares in Millions, $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2011	Mar. 31, 2010
Net sales:
Food Packaging	$ 474.9	$ 447.2
Food Solutions	228.8	219.1
Protective Packaging	335.1	306.5
Other	89.7	88.4
Total net sales	1,128.5	1,061.2
Cost of sales	819.5	761.2
Gross profit	309.0	300.0
Marketing, administrative and development expenses	186.0	175.5
Restructuring and other charges		0.6
Operating profit	123.0	123.9
Interest expense	(37.0)	(40.7)
Impairment of available-for-sale securities		(0.7)
Foreign currency exchange (losses) gains related to Venezuelan subsidiary	(0.2)	1.2
Other (expense) income, net	(3.9)	2.3
Earnings before income tax provision	81.9	86.0
Income tax provision	22.2	24.8
Net earnings available to common stockholders	$ 59.7	$ 61.2
Net earnings per common share:
Basic	$ 0.37	$ 0.38
Diluted	0.34	0.35
Dividends per common share	$ 0.13	$ 0.12
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
Basic	158.7	157.8
Diluted	176.9	176.1

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 696.0	$ 675.6
Receivables, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $18.8 in 2011 and $17.0 in 2010	696.1	697.1
Inventories	559.0	495.8
Deferred tax assets	142.7	146.2
Other current assets	28.3	25.3
Total current assets	2,122.1	2,040.0
Property and equipment, net	958.3	948.3
Goodwill	1,952.1	1,945.9
Non-current deferred tax assets	167.3	179.6
Other assets, net	290.5	285.6
Total assets	5,490.3	5,399.4
Current liabilities:
Short-term borrowings	9.1	23.5
Current portion of long-term debt	4.9	6.5
Accounts payable	265.5	232.0
Deferred tax liabilities	5.1	5.0
Settlement agreement and related accrued interest	798.7	787.9
Other current liabilities	357.7	392.8
Total current liabilities	1,441.0	1,447.7
Long-term debt, less current portion	1,398.8	1,399.2
Other liabilities	154.9	150.9
Total liabilities	$ 2,994.7	$ 2,997.8
Commitments and contingencies
Stockholders' equity:
Preferred stock, $0.10 par value per share, 50,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued in 2011 and 2010	$ 0.0	$ 0.0
Common stock, $0.10 par value per share, 400,000,000 shares authorized; shares issued: 170,550,339 in 2011 and 169,272,636 in 2010; shares outstanding: 160,154,232 in 2011 and 159,305,507 in 2010.	17.1	17.0
Common stock reserved for issuance related to Settlement agreement, $0.10 par value per share, 18,000,000 shares in 2011 and 2010	1.8	1.8
Additional paid-in capital	1,160.6	1,152.7
Retained earnings	1,744.8	1,706.1
Common stock in treasury, 10,396,107 in 2011 and 9,967,129 shares in 2010	(374.7)	(362.7)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of taxes:
Unrecognized pension items	(46.8)	(47.9)
Cumulative translation adjustment	(6.9)	(65.9)
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments	3.3	3.5
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of taxes	(50.4)	(110.3)
Total parent company stockholders' equity	2,499.2	2,404.6
Non-controlling interests	(3.6)	(3.0)
Total stockholders' equity	2,495.6	2,401.6
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	$ 5,490.3	$ 5,399.4

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Mar. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Current assets:
Receivables, allowance for doubtful accounts	$ 18.8	$ 17.0
Stockholders' equity:
Preferred stock, par value	$ 0.10	$ 0.10
Preferred stock, shares authorized	50,000,000	50,000,000
Preferred stock, shares issued	0	0
Common stock, par value	$ 0.10	$ 0.10
Common stock, shares authorized	400,000,000	400,000,000
Common stock, shares issued	170,550,339	169,272,636
Common stock, shares outstanding	160,154,232	159,305,507
Common stock reserved for issuance related to Settlement agreement, par value	$ 0.10	$ 0.10
Common stock reserved for issuance related to Settlement agreement, shares	18,000,000	18,000,000
Common stock in treasury, shares	10,396,107	9,967,129

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2011	Mar. 31, 2010
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net earnings available to common stockholders	$ 59.7	$ 61.2
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization	36.0	39.6
Share-based incentive compensation	5.8	7.5
Amortization of senior debt related items and other	0.2	0.5
Provisions for bad debt	1.6	1.8
Provisions for inventory obsolescence	3.3	0.6
Impairment of available-for-sale securities		0.7
Deferred taxes, net	2.5	(5.1)
Excess tax benefit from share - based incentive compensation	(2.6)
Net gain on disposals of property and equipment and other	(0.1)	(0.4)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities, net of effects of businesses and certain assets acquired:
Receivables, net	21.6	26.1
Inventories	(51.6)	(33.3)
Other assets, net	(0.9)	3.4
Accounts payable	26.5	12.2
Income taxes payable	(4.7)	17.5
Other liabilities	(30.1)	(49.0)
Net cash provided by operating activities	67.2	83.3
Cash flows from investing activities:
Capital expenditures for property and equipment	(19.5)	(15.4)
Proceeds from sales of property and equipment	0.3	2.4
Other investing activities	0.6	1.2
Net cash used in investing activities	(18.6)	(11.8)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from long-term debt	0.4
Excess tax benefit from share - based incentive compensation	2.6
Payments of contingent liabilities acquired	(1.0)
Payments of long-term debt	(2.2)	(71.0)
Acquisition of common stock for tax withholding obligations under our 2005 contingent stock plan	(12.0)
Net payments of short-term borrowings	(14.3)	(14.1)
Dividends paid on common stock	(20.8)	(19.1)
Net cash used in financing activities	(47.3)	(104.2)
Effect of foreign currency exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents	19.1	(34.3)
Cash and cash equivalents:
Balance, beginning of period	675.6	694.5
Net change during the period	20.4	(67.0)
Balance, end of period	696.0	627.5
Supplemental Cash Flow Information:
Interest payments, net of amounts capitalized	36.1	44.7
Income tax payments	$ 25.2	13.0
Non-cash items:
Transfer of shares of our common stock from treasury as part of our 2009 profit-sharing plan contribution		7.2
Net unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities		$ 0.9

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2011	Mar. 31, 2010
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income [Abstract]
Net earnings available to common stockholders	$ 59.7	$ 61.2
Other comprehensive income, net of taxes:
Recognition of deferred pension items, net of taxes of $0.3 in 2011 and $0.4 in 2010	1.1	1.7
Unrealized losses on derivative instruments, net of taxes of $0.1 in 2011 and 2010	(0.2)	(0.2)
Unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities, reclassified to net earnings, net of taxes of $0.1		(0.1)
Unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities, net of taxes of $0.3		0.6
Foreign currency translation adjustments	59.0	(26.9)
Comprehensive income, net of taxes	$ 119.6	$ 36.3

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited) (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2011	Mar. 31, 2010
Other comprehensive income, net of taxes:
Recognition of deferred pension items, net of taxes	$ 0.3	$ 0.4
Unrealized losses on derivative instruments, net of taxes	0.1	0.1
Unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities, reclassified to net earnings, net of taxes	0.0	0.1
Unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities, net of taxes	$ 0.0	$ 0.3

Organization and Basis of Presentation	3 Months Ended
Organization and Basis of Presentation	Mar. 31, 2011
Organization and Basis of Presentation Disclosure [Abstract]
Organization and Basis of Presentation	(1) Organization and Basis of Presentation *Organization* We are a leading global innovator and manufacturer of a wide range of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. We conduct substantially all of our business through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (US). These two subsidiaries, directly and indirectly, own substantially all of the assets of the business and conduct operations themselves and through subsidiaries around the world. We adopted this corporate structure in connection with the Cryovac transaction. See “Cryovac Transaction Commitments and Contingencies,” of Note 13, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for a description of the Cryovac transaction and related terms used in these Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. Throughout this report, when we refer to “Sealed Air,” the “Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us,” we are referring to Sealed Air Corporation and all of our subsidiaries, except where the context indicates otherwise. *Basis of Presentation* Our condensed consolidated financial statements include all of the accounts of the Company and our subsidiaries. We have eliminated all significant intercompany transactions and balances in consolidation. In management’s opinion, all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring accruals, necessary for a fair presentation of our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2011 and our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 have been made. The results set forth in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and in our condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. All amounts are approximate due to rounding. Some prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. These reclassifications, individually and in the aggregate, had no impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Our condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared following the interim reporting requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. As permitted under those rules, annual footnotes or other financial information that are normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or U.S. GAAP, have been condensed or omitted. The preparation of condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts and the disclosure of contingent amounts in our condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from these estimates. We are responsible for the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and notes included in this document. As these are condensed financial statements, they should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 and with the information contained in other publicly-available filings with the SEC.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards	3 Months Ended
Recently Issued Accounting Standards	Mar. 31, 2011
Recently Issued Accounting Standards Disclosure [Abstract]
Recently Issued Accounting Standards	(2) Recently Issued Accounting Standards *Adopted in 2011* In September 2009, the FASB ratified an amendment to accounting standards addressing revenue recognition for arrangements with multiple revenue-generating activities. The amendment addresses how revenue should be allocated to separate elements that could impact the timing of recognizing revenue. The amendment is effective for us on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified on or after January 1, 2011, and earlier application is permitted. We adopted this amendment on January 1, 2011 on a prospective basis, and any impact to our consolidated financial position and results of operations will depend on future revenue arrangements we enter into. Currently, we do not believe the adoption of this amendment will materially impact our consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Segments

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Segments Disclosure [Abstract]

Segments

(3) Segments

The following table shows net sales, depreciation and amortization and operating profit by our segment reporting structure.


	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2011		2010
Net sales
Food Packaging	$	474.9	$	447.2
Food Solutions		228.8		219.1
Protective Packaging		335.1		306.5
Other		89.7		88.4

Total	$	1,128.5	$	1,061.2

Depreciation and amortization
Food Packaging	$	16.3	$	18.9
Food Solutions		7.5		7.9
Protective Packaging		7.0		7.8
Other		5.2		5.0

Total	$	36.0	$	39.6

Operating profit(1)
Food Packaging	$	62.6	$	56.5
Food Solutions		19.4		20.9
Protective Packaging		40.0		39.5
Other		1.0		7.6

Total segments and other		123.0		124.5
Restructuring and other charges(2)		—		0.6

Total	$	123.0	$	123.9


(1)		Before taking into consideration restructuring and other charges.

(2)		The amounts primarily represent charges associated with the implementation of our global manufacturing strategy, the majority of which were related to our Food Packaging segment.

Assets by Reportable Segments

The following table shows assets allocated by our segment reporting structure. Only assets which are identifiable by segment and reviewed by our chief operating decision maker by segment are allocated to the reportable segment assets, which are trade receivables, net, and finished goods inventories, net. All other assets are included in “Assets not allocated.”


	March 31,		December 31,
	2011		2010
Assets:
Trade receivables, net, and finished goods inventory, net
Food Packaging	$	415.2	$	409.8
Food Solutions		210.8		204.7
Protective Packaging		308.7		297.9
Other		64.7		54.9

Total segments and other		999.4		967.3
Assets not allocated
Cash and cash equivalents		696.0		675.6
Property and equipment, net		958.3		948.3
Goodwill		1,952.1		1,945.9
Other		884.5		862.3

Total	$	5,490.3	$	5,399.4

Allocation of Goodwill to Reportable Segments

Our management views goodwill as a corporate asset, so we do not allocate our goodwill balance to the reportable segments. However, we are required to allocate goodwill to each reporting unit to perform our annual impairment review of goodwill, which we do during the fourth quarter of the year. See Note 8, “Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets,” for the allocation of goodwill and the changes in goodwill balances in the three months ended March 31, 2011 by our segment reporting structure.

Restructuring Activities

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Restructuring Activities [Abstract]

Restructuring Activities

(4) Restructuring Activities

European Manufacturing Facility Closure

In December 2010, we informed affected employees that we would be closing a small industrial shrink packaging manufacturing facility in Europe. We are taking this action based on our review of operating costs and technology levels in an effort to simplify our plant network and improve our operating efficiency.

We recorded associated costs and restructuring and other charges of $7 million in 2010. We will record the remaining costs of approximately $1 to 2 million predominantly in 2011.

The table below shows the restructuring accrual balance and activity.


Restructuring accrual at December 31, 2010	$	3.7
Adjustment to accrual for termination benefits		0.8
Cash payments during 2011		(0.8	)
Effect of changes in foreign currency rates		0.3

Restructuring accrual at March 31, 2011	$	4.0

We expect to pay the accrual balance remaining at March 31, 2011 within the next 12 months, and this amount is included in other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2011.

Accounts Receivable Securitization Program	3 Months Ended
Accounts Receivable Securitization Program	Mar. 31, 2011
Accounts Receivable Securitization Program [Abstract]
Accounts Receivable Securitization Program	(5) Accounts Receivable Securitization Program We and a group of our U.S. subsidiaries maintain an accounts receivable securitization program with a bank and an issuer of commercial paper administered by the bank. As of March 31, 2011, the maximum purchase limit for receivable interests was $125 million, subject to the availability limits described below. The amounts available from time to time under the program may be less than $125 million due to a number of factors, including but not limited to our credit ratings, trade receivable balances, the creditworthiness of our customers and our receivables collection experience. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the level of eligible assets available under the program was lower than $125 million primarily due to our current credit rating. As a result, the amount available to us under the program was approximately $84 million at March 31, 2011. Although we do not believe that these restrictive provisions presently materially restrict our operations, if an additional event occurs that triggers one of these restrictive provisions, we could experience a further decline in the amounts available under the program or termination of the program. As of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we had no amounts outstanding under this program, and we did not utilize this program during the first quarter of 2011. The overall program is scheduled to expire in December 2012; however, the program includes a bank financing commitment that must be renewed annually. The bank financing commitment is scheduled to expire on December 2, 2011. We plan to seek an additional 364 day renewal of the bank commitment before its expiration. While the bank is not obligated to renew the bank financing commitment, we have negotiated annual renewals since the commencement of the program in 2001. Under limited circumstances, the bank and the issuer of commercial paper can end purchases of receivables interests before the above dates. A downgrade of our long-term senior unsecured debt to BB- or below by Standard & Poor’s Rating Services or Ba3 or below by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., or failure to comply with interest coverage, debt leverage or various other ratios related to our receivables collection experience could result in termination of the receivables program. We were in compliance with the credit rating provisions and these ratios at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Any transfers of ownership interests in receivables under this program are considered secured borrowings and will be recorded as liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Also, the fees on outstanding borrowings under this program, if any, will be included in interest expense, and the costs of commitment fees on the unused portion of this program are included in other (expense) income, net, on our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Inventories

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Inventories Disclosure [Abstract]

Inventories

(6) Inventories

The following table details our inventories and the reduction of certain inventories to a LIFO basis.


	March 31,			December 31,
	2011			2010
Inventories (at FIFO, which approximates replacement value):
Raw materials	$	104.5		$	94.5
Work in process		127.7			112.6
Finished goods		374.8			337.8

Subtotal (at FIFO)		607.0			544.9
Reduction of certain inventories to LIFO basis		(48.0	)		(49.1	)

Total	$	559.0		$	495.8

We determine the value of non-equipment U.S. inventories by the last-in, first-out or LIFO inventory method. U.S. inventories determined by the LIFO method were $123 million at March 31, 2011 and $102 million at December 31, 2010.

Property and Equipment, net

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Property and Equipment, Net Disclosure [Abstract]

Property and Equipment, net

(7) Property and Equipment, net

The following table details our property and equipment, net.


	March 31,			December 31,
	2011			2010
Land and improvements	$	59.5		$	53.0
Buildings		639.1			620.1
Machinery and equipment		2,392.1			2,325.8
Other property and equipment		110.5			106.3
Construction-in-progress		47.6			43.6

		3,248.8			3,148.8
Accumulated depreciation and amortization		(2,290.5	)		(2,200.5	)

Property and equipment, net	$	958.3		$	948.3

The following table details our interest cost capitalized and depreciation and amortization expense for property and equipment.


	Three Months
	Ended
	March 31,
	2011		2010
Interest cost capitalized	$	0.9	$	1.3
Depreciation and amortization expense for property and equipment		33.5		36.8

Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets Disclosure [Abstract]

Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

(8) Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

Goodwill

The following table shows our goodwill balances by our reporting unit structure.


	Carrying		Impact of		Carrying
	Value at		Foreign		Value at
	December 31,		Currency		March 31,
	2010		Translation		2011
Food Packaging segment	$	382.9	$	1.2	$	384.1
Food Solutions segment		147.9		0.5		148.4
Protective Packaging segment:
Protective Packaging		1,144.5		3.6		1,148.1
Shrink Packaging		115.1		0.3		115.4

Total Protective Packaging segment		1,259.6		3.9		1,263.5
Other:
Specialty Materials		109.9		0.4		110.3
Medical Applications		45.6		0.2		45.8
New Ventures		—		—		—

Total Other		155.5		0.6		156.1

Total Company	$	1,945.9	$	6.2	$	1,952.1

We test goodwill for impairment on a reporting unit basis annually during the fourth quarter of each year and at other times if events or circumstances exist that indicate the carrying value of goodwill may no longer be recoverable. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, we determined that there were no events or changes in circumstances that occurred that would indicate that the fair value of any of our reporting units may be below its carrying value.

Identifiable Intangible Assets

The following tables summarize our identifiable intangible assets with definite and indefinite useful lives.


	March 31,			December 31,
	2011			2010
Gross carrying value	$	117.2		$	113.2
Accumulated amortization		(38.2	)		(35.2	)

Total	$	79.0		$	78.0

Identifiable intangible assets are included in other assets, net, on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. These include $31 million of intangible assets that we have determined to have indefinite useful lives.

Below is the amortization expense of our intangible assets. This expense is included in marketing, administrative and development expenses on our condensed consolidated statements of operations.


	Three Months
	Ended
	March 31,
	2011		2010
Amortization expense of our intangible assets	$	2.5	$	2.8

The following table shows the remaining estimated future amortization expense at March 31, 2011.


2011	$	7.2
2012		8.2
2013		7.2
2014		6.2
2015		5.6
Thereafter		13.6

Total	$	48.0

Debt and Credit Facilities

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Debt and Credit Facilities Disclosure [Abstract]

Debt and Credit Facilities

(9) Debt and Credit Facilities

Our total debt outstanding consisted of the amounts included in the table below.


	March 31,		December 31,
	2011		2010
Short-term borrowings	$	9.1	$	23.5
Current portion of long-term debt		4.9		6.5

Total current debt		14.0		30.0
5.625% Senior Notes due July 2013, less unamortized discount of $0.4 in 2011 and 2010(1)		399.4		399.4
12% Senior Notes due February 2014(1), (2)		155.3		156.0
7.875% Senior Notes due June 2017, less unamortized discount of $7.2 in 2011 and $7.4 in 2010		392.8		392.6
6.875% Senior Notes due July 2033, less unamortized discount of $1.4 in 2011 and $1.5 in 2010		448.6		448.5
Other		2.7		2.7

Total long-term debt, less current portion		1,398.8		1,399.2

Total debt	$	1,412.8	$	1,429.2


(1)		Amount includes adjustments due to interest rate swaps. See “Interest Rate Swaps,” of Note 10, “Derivatives and Hedging Activities,” for further discussion.

(2)		In December 2010, we completed an early redemption of $150 million of the original outstanding $300 million principal amount of our 12% Senior Notes.

Lines of Credit

The following table summarizes our available lines of credit and committed and uncommitted lines of credit, including the global credit facility and European credit facility, which are discussed below, and the amounts available under our accounts receivable securitization program. Our principal credit lines were committed and consisted of the global credit facility and the European credit facility. We are not subject to any material compensating balance requirements in connection with our lines of credit.


	March 31,		December 31,
	2011		2010
Used lines of credit	$	9.1	$	23.5
Unused lines of credit		937.5		902.8

Total available lines of credit	$	946.6	$	926.3

Available lines of credit—committed	$	686.5	$	671.2
Available lines of credit—uncommitted		260.1		255.1

Total available lines of credit	$	946.6	$	926.3

Accounts receivable securitization program—committed(1)	$	84.0	$	91.0


(1)		See Note 5, “Accounts Receivable Securitization Program,” for further details of this program.

Global Credit Facility

The global credit facility is available for general corporate purposes, including the payment of amounts required to be paid upon the effectiveness of the Settlement agreement as defined and discussed in Note 13, “Commitments and Contingencies.” We may re-borrow amounts repaid under the facility from time to time before its expiration or earlier termination. Our obligations under the facility bear interest at floating rates, which are generally determined by adding the applicable borrowing margin to the base rate or the interbank rate for the relevant currency and time period. The facility provides for changes in borrowing margins based on our long-term senior unsecured debt ratings. The facility has an expiration date of July 26, 2012. As of March 31, 2011, the total amount available under the global credit facility was $472 million.

Facility fees are payable at the rate of 0.20% per annum on the total amounts available under the global credit facility. The facility provides for changes in fees based on our long-term senior unsecured debt ratings. Also, certain U.S. subsidiaries would be required to guarantee obligations under the facility if our long-term senior unsecured debt ratings by both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s are below investment grade.

The terms of our global credit facility and our European credit facility, discussed below, include a requirement that, upon the occurrence of specified events that would adversely affect the Settlement agreement or would materially increase our liability in respect of the W. R. Grace bankruptcy or the asbestos liability arising from the Cryovac transaction, we would be required to repay any amounts outstanding under these facilities or refinance these facilities within 60 days.

We did not utilize this facility in the three months ended March 31, 2011 and there were no amounts outstanding under this facility at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

European Credit Facility

We have a €150 million European credit facility, which was equivalent to U.S. $212 million at March 31, 2011. The facility has an expiration date of July 26, 2012. A syndicate of banks made this facility available to Sealed Air and a group of our European subsidiaries for general corporate purposes, including the payment of amounts required to be paid upon effectiveness of the Settlement agreement. The terms of this facility are substantially similar to the terms of our global credit facility. We may re-borrow amounts repaid under the European credit facility from time to time before the expiration or earlier termination of the facility.

We did not utilize this facility in the three months ended March 31, 2011 and there were no amounts outstanding under this facility at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Other Lines of Credit

Substantially all our short-term borrowings of $9 million at March 31, 2011 and $24 million at December 31, 2010 were outstanding under lines of credit available to several of our foreign subsidiaries. The following table details our other lines of credit.


	March 31,			December 31,
	2011			2010
Available lines of credit	$	262.9		$	257.8
Unused lines of credit		253.8			234.3
Weighted average interest rate		7.4	%		7.4	%

Covenants

Each issue of our outstanding senior notes imposes limitations on our operations and those of specified subsidiaries. The principal limitations restrict liens, sale and leaseback transactions and mergers, acquisitions and dispositions. Our global credit facility and our European credit facility contain financial covenants relating to interest coverage, debt leverage and minimum liquidity and restrictions on the creation of liens, the incurrence of additional indebtedness, acquisitions, mergers and consolidations, asset sales, and amendments to the Settlement agreement discussed above. We were in compliance with the above financial covenants and limitations, as applicable, at March 31, 2011.

Derivatives and Hedging Activities

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Derivatives and Hedging Activities Disclosure [Abstract]

Derivatives and Hedging Activities

(10) Derivatives and Hedging Activities

We report all derivative instruments on our balance sheet at fair value and establish criteria for designation and effectiveness of transactions entered into for hedging purposes.

As a large global organization, we face exposure to market risks, such as fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates. To manage the volatility relating to these exposures, we enter into various derivative instruments from time to time under our risk management policies. We designate derivative instruments as hedges on a transaction basis to support hedge accounting. The changes in fair value of these hedging instruments offset in part or in whole corresponding changes in the fair value or cash flows of the underlying exposures being hedged. We assess the initial and ongoing effectiveness of our hedging relationships in accordance with our policy. We do not purchase, hold or sell derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. Our practice is to terminate derivative transactions if the underlying asset or liability matures or is sold or terminated, or if we determine the underlying forecasted transaction is no longer probable of occurring.

Foreign Currency Forward Contracts Not Designated as Hedges

Our subsidiaries have foreign currency exchange exposure from buying and selling in currencies other than their functional currencies. The primary purposes of our foreign currency hedging activities are to manage the potential changes in value associated with the amounts receivable or payable on transactions denominated in foreign currencies and to minimize the impact of the changes in foreign currencies related to foreign currency denominated interest-bearing intercompany loans and receivables and payables. The changes in fair value of these contracts are recognized in other (expense) income, net, on our condensed consolidated statements of operations and are largely offset by the remeasurement of the underlying foreign currency denominated items indicated above. These contracts have original maturities of less than 12 months.

The estimated fair value of these contracts, which represents the estimated net payments that would be paid or that would be received by us in the event of their termination, based on the then current foreign currency exchange rates, was a net current liability of $1 million at March 31, 2011 and $0.3 million at December 31, 2010.

Foreign Currency Forward Contracts Designated as Cash Flow Hedges

The primary purposes of our cash flow hedging activities are to manage the potential changes in value associated with the amounts receivable or payable on equipment and raw material transactions that are denominated in foreign currencies in order to minimize the impact of the changes in foreign currencies. We record gains and losses on foreign currency forward contracts qualifying as cash flow hedges in other comprehensive income to the extent that these hedges are effective and until we recognize the underlying transactions in net earnings, at which time we recognize these gains and losses in other (expense) income, net, on our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Net unrealized after tax gains (losses) related to these contracts were included in other comprehensive income for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 and were immaterial. The unrealized amounts in other comprehensive income will fluctuate based on changes in the fair value of open contracts during each reporting period.

Interest Rate Swaps

From time to time, we may use interest rate swaps to manage our mix of fixed and floating rates on outstanding indebtedness.

At March 31, 2011, we had outstanding interest rate swaps related to our 12% Senior Notes and our 5.625% Senior Notes that qualified and were designated as fair value hedges. We entered into these interest rate swaps to effectively convert these senior notes into floating rate debt. We recorded a mark-to-market adjustment to record an increase of $5 million at March 31, 2011 in the carrying amount of these senior notes due to changes in interest rates and an offsetting increase to other assets at March 31, 2011 to record the fair value of the related interest rate swaps. There was no ineffective portion of the hedges recognized in earnings during the period.

At December 31, 2010, we recorded a mark-to-market adjustment to record an increase of $6 million in the carrying amount of our 12% Senior Notes and our 5.625% Senior Notes due to changes in interest rates and an offsetting increase to other assets at December 31, 2010 to record the fair value of the related interest rate swaps. There was no ineffective portion of the hedges recognized in earnings during the period.

Under the terms of most of our outstanding interest rate swap agreements in 2011, we received interest at a fixed rate and paid interest at variable rates that were based on the one-month London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR. The remaining portion of our outstanding interest rate swap agreements in 2011 were based on the six-month LIBOR. As a result of our interest rate swap agreements, interest expense was reduced by $1 million in the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

Other Derivative Instruments

We may use other derivative instruments from time to time, such as foreign exchange options to manage exposure to foreign exchange rates and interest rate and currency swaps related to access to international financing transactions. These instruments can potentially limit foreign exchange exposure by swapping borrowings denominated in one currency for borrowings denominated in another currency. At March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we had no foreign exchange options or interest rate and currency swap agreements outstanding.

See Note 11, “Fair Value Measurements and Other Financial Instruments,” for a discussion of the inputs and valuation techniques used to determine the fair value of our outstanding derivative instruments.

Fair Value of Derivative Instruments

The following table details the fair value of our derivative instruments included on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.


	Fair Value of Asset				Fair Value of (Liability)
	Derivatives(1)				Derivatives(1)
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,			December 31,
	2011		2010		2011			2010
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
Foreign currency forward contracts (cash flow hedges)	$	0.1	$	0.1	$	(0.1	)	$	—

Interest rate swaps	$	5.3	$	6.0	$	(0.2	)	$	(0.2	)

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
Foreign currency forward contracts	$	—	$	0.5	$	(1.2	)	$	(0.8	)

Total	$	5.4	$	6.6	$	(1.5	)	$	(1.0	)


(1)		Asset derivatives were included in other current assets for the foreign currency forward contracts and other assets for the interest rate swaps. Liability derivatives were included in other current liabilities for foreign currency forward contracts and other liabilities for interest rate swaps.

The following table details the effect of our derivative instruments on our condensed consolidated statements of operations.


	Amount of
	Gain (Loss)
	Recognized in
	Net Earnings on
	Derivatives(1)
	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2011		2010
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
Interest rate swaps	$	0.8	$	0.6
Foreign currency forward contracts(2)		—		(0.1	)
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
Foreign currency forward contracts(2)		5.1		(25.3	)

Total	$	5.9	$	(24.8	)


(1)		Amounts recognized on the foreign currency forward contracts were included in other (expense) income, net. Amounts recognized on the interest rate swaps were included in interest expense.

(2)		The net gains and (losses) included above were substantially offset by the net (losses) and gains resulting from the remeasurement of the underlying foreign currency denominated items in other (expense) income, net, on the condensed consolidated statement of operations. The underlying foreign currency denominated items include receivables and payables and interest-bearing intercompany loans and receivables and payables. See “Foreign Currency Forward Contracts Not Designated as Hedges” above for further information.

Fair Value Measurements and Other Financial Instruments

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Fair Value Measurements and Other Financial Instruments Disclosure [Abstract]

Fair Value Measurements and Other Financial Instruments

(11) Fair Value Measurements and Other Financial Instruments

Fair Value Measurements

In determining fair value, we utilize valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs to the extent possible and consider counterparty credit risk in our assessment of fair value. Fair value measurement should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability in the principal or most advantageous market. When considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, the following fair value hierarchy distinguishes between observable and unobservable inputs, which are categorized in one of the following levels:

	•		Level 1 Inputs: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities accessible to the reporting entity at the measurement date.

	•		Level 2 Inputs: Other than quoted prices included in Level 1 inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

	•		Level 3 Inputs: Unobservable inputs for the asset or liability used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available, thereby allowing for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at measurement date.

The following table details the fair value hierarchy of our financial instruments.


	Total
March 31, 2011	Fair Value		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Cash equivalents	$	135.4	$	—	$	135.4	$	—

Derivative financial instruments net asset:
Interest rate swaps	$	5.1	$	—	$	5.1	$	—

Derivative financial instruments net liability:
Foreign currency forward contracts	$	1.2	$	—	$	1.2	$	—


	Total
December 31, 2010	Fair Value		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Cash equivalents	$	163.4	$	53.4	$	110.0	$	—

Derivative financial instruments net asset:
Interest rate swaps	$	5.8	$	—	$	5.8	$	—

Derivative financial instruments net liability:
Foreign currency forward contracts	$	0.2	$	—	$	0.2	$	—

Cash Equivalents

Our cash equivalents at March 31, 2011 consisted of commercial paper (fair value determined using Level 2 inputs). Our cash equivalents at December 31, 2010 consisted of investments in U.S. Treasury obligations (fair value determined using Level 1 inputs) and commercial paper (fair value determined using Level 2 inputs). Since these are short-term highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase, they present negligible risk of changes in fair value due to changes in interest rates.

Derivative Financial Instruments

Our foreign currency forward contracts are recorded at fair value on our condensed consolidated balance sheets using an income approach valuation technique based on observable market inputs (Level 2).

Observable market inputs used in the calculation of the fair value of foreign currency forward contracts include foreign currency spot and forward rates obtained from an independent third party market data provider. In addition, other pricing data quoted by various banks and foreign currency dealers involving identical or comparable instruments are included.

Our interest rate swaps are recorded at fair value on our condensed consolidated balance sheet using an income approach valuation technique based on observable market inputs (Level 2). Observable market inputs used in the calculation of the fair value of interest rate swaps include pricing data from counterparties to these swaps, and a comparison is made to other market data including U.S. Treasury yields and swap spreads involving identical or comparable derivative instruments.

Counterparties to these foreign currency forward contracts and interest rate swaps are rated at least A- by Standard & Poor’s and A3 by Moody’s. None of these counterparties experienced any significant ratings downgrades in the three months ended March 31, 2011. The fair value generally reflects the estimated amounts that we would receive or pay to terminate the contracts at the reporting date.

Other Financial Instruments

The following financial instruments are recorded at fair value or at amounts that approximate fair value: (1) receivables, net, (2) certain other current assets, (3) accounts payable and (4) other current liabilities. The carrying amounts reported on our condensed consolidated balance sheets for the above financial instruments closely approximate their fair value due to the short-term nature of these assets and liabilities.

Other liabilities that are recorded at carrying value on our condensed consolidated balance sheets include our senior notes. We utilize a market approach to calculate the fair value of our senior notes. Due to their limited investor base and the relatively small face value of each issue of the senior notes, they may not be actively traded on the date we calculate their fair value. Therefore, we utilize prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving similar securities, reflecting U.S. Treasury yields to calculate the yield to maturity and the price on each of our senior notes. These inputs are provided by an independent third party and are considered to be Level 2 inputs.

We derive our fair value estimates of our various other debt instruments by evaluating the nature and terms of each instrument, considering prevailing economic and market conditions, and examining the cost of similar debt offered at the balance sheet date. We also incorporated our credit default swap rates and currency specific swap rates in the valuation of each debt instrument, as applicable.

These estimates are subjective and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgment, and therefore we cannot determine them with precision. Changes in assumptions could significantly affect our estimates.

The table below shows the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our total debt.


	March 31, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Carrying		Fair		Carrying		Fair
	Amount		Value		Amount		Value
5.625% Senior Notes due July 2013(1)	$	399.4	$	426.1	$	399.4	$	423.1
12% Senior Notes due February 2014(1)		155.3		186.8		156.0		196.5
7.875% Senior Notes due June 2017		392.8		447.9		392.6		438.8
6.875% Senior Notes due July 2033		448.6		448.6		448.5		415.1
Other foreign loans		11.9		11.5		26.2		26.0
Other domestic loans		4.8		4.8		6.5		6.5

Total debt	$	1,412.8	$	1,525.7	$	1,429.2	$	1,506.0


(1)		The carrying value and fair value of such debt include adjustments due to interest rate swaps. See Note 10, “Derivatives and Hedging Activities.”

Income Taxes	3 Months Ended
Income Taxes	Mar. 31, 2011
Income Taxes Disclosure [Abstract]
Income Taxes	(12) Income Taxes *Effective Income Tax Rate and Income Tax Provision* Our effective income tax rate was 27.1% for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 28.8% for the three months ended March 31, 2010. For both the three months ended March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010, our effective income tax rate was lower than the statutory U.S. federal income tax rate of 35% primarily due to our lower net effective income tax rate on foreign earnings and our domestic manufacturing deduction, partially offset by state income taxes. In addition, the rate for the three months ended March 31, 2011 was also lower than the statutory U.S. rate because of certain U.S. tax credits. Those credits, which expired on December 31, 2009, were retroactively reinstated in December 2010, and were therefore reflected in our rate for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and not in our rate for the three months ended March 31, 2010. *Unrecognized Tax Benefits* There have been no material changes to the Company’s unrecognized tax benefits as reported at March 31, 2011, nor have we changed our policy with regard to the reporting of penalties and interest related to unrecognized tax benefits. Therefore, a reconciliation of unrecognized tax benefits from January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011 has not been provided.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

(13) Commitments and Contingencies

Cryovac Transaction Commitments and Contingencies

Settlement Agreement and Related Costs

On November 27, 2002, we reached an agreement in principle with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co., known as Grace, to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and our affiliates in connection with the Cryovac transaction described below (as memorialized by the parties in the Settlement agreement and as approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the “Settlement agreement”). The Settlement agreement will also resolve the fraudulent transfer claims and successor liability claims, as well as indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies, in connection with the Cryovac transaction. On December 3, 2002, our Board of Directors approved the agreement in principle. We received notice that both of the Committees had approved the agreement in principle as of December 5, 2002. The parties subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of November 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle. For a description of the Cryovac transaction, asbestos-related claims and the parties involved, see “Cryovac Transaction” “Discussion of Cryovac Transaction Commitments and Contingencies,” “Fresenius Claims,” “Canadian Claims” and “Additional Matters Related to the Cryovac Transaction” below.

We recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $850 million as a result of the Settlement agreement on our condensed consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2002. The charge consisted of the following items:

	•		a charge of $513 million covering a cash payment that we will be required to make under the Settlement agreement upon the effectiveness of an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy. Because we cannot predict when a plan of reorganization may become effective, we recorded this liability as a current liability on our condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2002. Under the terms of the Settlement agreement, this amount accrues interest at a 5.5% annual rate from December 21, 2002 to the date of payment. We have recorded this interest in interest expense on our condensed consolidated statements of operations and in Settlement agreement and related accrued interest on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The accrued interest, which is compounded annually, was $286 million at March 31, 2011 and $275 million at December 31, 2010.

	•		a non-cash charge of $322 million representing the fair market value at the date we recorded the charge of nine million shares of Sealed Air common stock that we expect to issue under the Settlement agreement upon the effectiveness of an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy, which was adjusted to eighteen million shares due to our two-for-one stock split in March 2007. These shares are subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that adjust for the effects of stock splits, stock dividends and other events affecting our common stock. The fair market value of our common stock was $35.72 per pre-split share ($17.86 post-split) as of the close of business on December 5, 2002. We recorded this amount on our condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2002 as follows: $0.9 million representing the aggregate par value of these shares of common stock reserved for issuance related to the Settlement agreement, and the remaining $321 million, representing the excess of the aggregate fair market value over the aggregate par value of these common shares, in additional paid-in capital. The diluted net earnings per common share calculations for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 reflect the eighteen million shares of common stock that we have reserved for issuance related to the Settlement agreement.

	•		$16 million of legal and related fees as of December 31, 2002.

Settlement agreement and related costs reflected legal and related fees for Settlement-related matters of $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, which are included in other (expense) income, net, on our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Cryovac Transaction

On March 31, 1998, we completed a multi-step transaction that brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed Air Corporation’s business under the common ownership of the Company. These businesses operate as subsidiaries of the Company, and the Company acts as a holding company. As part of that transaction, the parties separated the Cryovac packaging business, which previously had been held by various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company, from the remaining businesses previously held by the Company. The parties then arranged for the contribution of these remaining businesses to a company now known as W. R. Grace & Co., and the Company distributed the Grace shares to the Company’s stockholders. As a result, W. R. Grace & Co. became a separate publicly owned company. The Company recapitalized its outstanding shares of common stock into a new common stock and a new convertible preferred stock. A subsidiary of the Company then merged into the former Sealed Air Corporation, which became a subsidiary of the Company and changed its name to Sealed Air Corporation (US).

Discussion of Cryovac Transaction Commitments and Contingencies

In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac’s operations. Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold by Grace’s subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn., which has operated for decades and has been a subsidiary of Grace since the Cryovac transaction. The Cryovac transaction agreements provided that, should any claimant seek to hold the Company or any of its subsidiaries responsible for liabilities retained by Grace or its subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities, Grace and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend us.

Since the beginning of 2000, we have been served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac transaction, we are responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-defendants in some of these actions. Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic insulation product. Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these cases. None of these cases has reached resolution through judgment, settlement or otherwise. As discussed below, Grace’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding has stayed all of these cases.

While the allegations in these actions directed to us vary, these actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability. Under a theory of successor liability, plaintiffs with claims against Grace and its subsidiaries may attempt to hold us liable for liabilities that arose with respect to activities conducted prior to the Cryovac transaction by W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. or other Grace subsidiaries. A transfer would be a fraudulent transfer if the transferor received less than reasonably equivalent value and the transferor was insolvent or was rendered insolvent by the transfer, was engaged or was about to engage in a business for which its assets constitute unreasonably small capital, or intended to incur or believed that it would incur debts beyond its ability to pay as they mature. A transfer may also be fraudulent if it was made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. If a court found any transfers in connection with the Cryovac transaction to be fraudulent transfers, we could be required to return the property or its value to the transferor or could be required to fund liabilities of Grace or its subsidiaries for the benefit of their creditors, including asbestos claimants. We have reached an agreement in principle and subsequently signed the Settlement agreement, described below, that is expected to resolve all these claims.

In the Joint Proxy Statement furnished to their respective stockholders in connection with the Cryovac transaction, both parties to the transaction stated that it was their belief that Grace and its subsidiaries were adequately capitalized and would be adequately capitalized after the Cryovac transaction and that none of the transfers contemplated to occur in the Cryovac transaction would be a fraudulent transfer. They also stated their belief that the Cryovac transaction complied with other relevant laws. However, if a court applying the relevant legal standards had reached conclusions adverse to us, these determinations could have had a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and a number of its subsidiaries filed petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware. Grace stated that the filing was made in response to a sharply increasing number of asbestos claims since 1999.

In connection with its Chapter 11 filing, Grace filed an application with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to stay, among others, all actions brought against the Company and specified subsidiaries related to alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries or alleging fraudulent transfer claims. The court issued an order dated May 3, 2001, which was modified on January 22, 2002, under which the court stayed all the filed or pending asbestos actions against us and, upon filing and service on us, all future asbestos actions. No further proceedings involving us can occur in the actions that have been stayed except upon further order of the Bankruptcy Court.

Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace’s bankruptcy case received the court’s permission to pursue fraudulent transfer and other claims against the Company and its subsidiary Cryovac, Inc., and against Fresenius, as discussed below. The claims against Fresenius are based upon a 1996 transaction between Fresenius and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. Fresenius is not affiliated with us. In March 2002, the court ordered that the issues of the solvency of Grace following the Cryovac transaction and whether Grace received reasonably equivalent value in the Cryovac transaction would be tried on behalf of all of Grace’s creditors. This proceeding was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Adv. No. 02-02210).

In June 2002, the court permitted the U.S. government to intervene as a plaintiff in the fraudulent transfer proceeding, so that the U.S. government could pursue allegations that environmental remediation expenses were underestimated or omitted in the solvency analyses of Grace conducted at the time of the Cryovac transaction. The court also permitted Grace, which asserted that the Cryovac transaction was not a fraudulent transfer, to intervene in the proceeding. In July 2002, the court issued an interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied in the trial, holding, among other things, that, subject to specified limitations, post-1998 claims should be considered in the solvency analysis of Grace. We believe that only claims and liabilities that were known, or reasonably should have been known, at the time of the 1998 Cryovac transaction should be considered under the applicable standard.

With the fraudulent transfer trial set to commence on December 9, 2002, on November 27, 2002, we reached an agreement in principle with the Committees prosecuting the claims against the Company and Cryovac, Inc., to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims arising from the Cryovac transaction. On the same day, the court entered an order confirming that the parties had reached an amicable resolution of the disputes among the parties and that counsel for us and the Committees had agreed and bound the parties to the terms of the agreement in principle. As discussed above, the agreement in principle called for payment of nine million shares of our common stock and $512.5 million in cash, plus interest on the cash payment at a 5.5% annual rate starting on December 21, 2002 and ending on the effective date of an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy, when we are required to make the payment. These shares are subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that adjust for the effects of stock splits, stock dividends and other events affecting our common stock, and as a result, the number of shares of our common stock that we will issue increased to eighteen million shares upon the two-for-one stock split in March 2007. On December 3, 2002, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the agreement in principle. We received notice that both of the Committees had approved the agreement in principle as of December 5, 2002. The parties subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of November 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle. On November 26, 2003, the parties jointly presented the definitive Settlement agreement to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for approval. On Grace’s motion to the U.S. District Court, that court transferred the motion to approve the Settlement agreement to the Bankruptcy Court for disposition.

On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the Settlement agreement. Although Grace is not a party to the Settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is directed to comply with the Settlement agreement subject to limited exceptions. The order also provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction over any dispute involving the interpretation or enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Settlement agreement. We expect that the Settlement agreement will become effective upon Grace’s emergence from bankruptcy pursuant to a plan of reorganization that is consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2004, we filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where the fraudulent transfer trial was pending, requesting that the court vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer claims against us. We were not challenging the Settlement agreement. The motion was filed as a protective measure in the event that the Settlement agreement is ultimately not approved or implemented; however, we still expect that the Settlement agreement will become effective upon Grace’s emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization that is consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement.

On July 11, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order closing the proceeding brought in 2002 by the committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the Grace bankruptcy proceeding against us without prejudice to our right to reopen the matter and renew in our sole discretion our motion to vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer claims against us.

As a condition to our obligation to make the payments required by the Settlement agreement, any final plan of reorganization must be consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement, including provisions for the trusts and releases referred to below and for an injunction barring the prosecution of any asbestos-related claims against us. The Settlement agreement provides that, upon the effective date of the final plan of reorganization and payment of the shares and cash, all present and future asbestos-related claims against us that arise from alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its affiliates (including former affiliates that became our affiliates through the Cryovac transaction) will be channeled to and become the responsibility of one or more trusts to be established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code as part of a final plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy. The Settlement agreement will also resolve all fraudulent transfer claims against us arising from the Cryovac transaction as well as the Fresenius claims described below. The Settlement agreement provides that we will receive releases of all those claims upon payment. Under the agreement, we cannot seek indemnity from Grace for our payments required by the Settlement agreement. The order approving the Settlement agreement also provides that the stay of proceedings involving us described above will continue through the effective date of the final plan of reorganization, after which, upon implementation of the Settlement agreement, we will be released from the liabilities asserted in those proceedings and their continued prosecution against us will be enjoined.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization (the “Grace Plan”) with the Bankruptcy Court. There were a number of objections filed. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the “ACC”) and the Asbestos PI Future Claimants’ Representative (the “FCR”) filed their proposed plan of reorganization (the “Claimants’ Plan”) with the Bankruptcy Court in November 2007. On April 7, 2008, Grace issued a press release announcing that Grace, the ACC, the FCR, and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders (the “Equity Committee”) had reached an agreement in principle to settle all present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims against Grace (the “PI Settlement”) and disclosed a term sheet outlining certain terms of the PI Settlement and for a contemplated plan of reorganization that would incorporate the PI Settlement (as filed and amended from time to time, the “PI Settlement Plan”).

On September 19, 2008, Grace, the ACC, the FCR, and the Equity Committee filed, as co-proponents, the PI Settlement Plan and several exhibits and associated documents, including a disclosure statement (as filed and amended from time to time, the “PI Settlement Disclosure Statement”), with the Bankruptcy Court. Amended versions of the PI Settlement Plan and the PI Settlement Disclosure Statement have been filed with the Bankruptcy Court from time to time. The PI Settlement Plan, which supersedes each of the Grace Plan and the Claimants’ Plan, remains pending and has not become effective. The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are not co-proponents of the PI Settlement Plan. As filed, the PI Settlement Plan would provide for the establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g) of the United States Bankruptcy Code to which present and future asbestos-related claims would be channeled. The PI Settlement Plan also contemplates that the terms of the Settlement agreement will be incorporated into the PI Settlement Plan and that we will pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement agreement. On March 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the PI Settlement Disclosure Statement (the “DS Order”) as containing adequate information and authorizing Grace to solicit votes to accept or reject the PI Settlement Plan, all as more fully described in the order. The DS Order did not constitute the Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan, approval of the merits of the PI Settlement Plan, or endorsement of the PI Settlement Plan. In connection with the plan voting process in the Grace bankruptcy case, we voted in favor of the PI Settlement Plan that was before the Bankruptcy Court. We will continue to review any amendments to the PI Settlement Plan on an ongoing basis to verify compliance with the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2009, a senior manager with the voting agent appointed in the Grace bankruptcy case filed a declaration with the Bankruptcy Court certifying the voting results with respect to the PI Settlement Plan. This declaration was amended on August 5, 2009 (as amended, the “Voting Declaration”). According to the Voting Declaration, with respect to each class of claims designated as impaired by Grace, the PI Settlement Plan was approved by holders of at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number (or for classes voting for purposes of Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, at least 75% in number) of voted claims. The Voting Declaration also discusses the voting results with respect to holders of general unsecured claims (“GUCs”) against Grace, whose votes were provisionally solicited and counted subject to a determination by the Bankruptcy Court of whether GUCs are impaired (and, thus, entitled to vote) or, as Grace contends, unimpaired (and, thus, not entitled to vote). According to the Voting Declaration, more than one half of voting holders of GUCs voted to accept the PI Settlement Plan, but the provisional vote did not obtain the requisite two-thirds dollar amount to be deemed an accepting class in the event that GUCs are determined to be impaired. To the extent that GUCs are determined to be an impaired non-accepting class, Grace and the other plan proponents have indicated that they would nevertheless seek confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan under the “cram down” provisions contained in section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum opinion (as amended, the “Memorandum Opinion”) overruling certain objections to the PI Settlement Plan and finding, among other things, that GUCs are not impaired under the PI Settlement Plan. On the same date, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order regarding confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan (as amended, the “Confirmation Order”). As entered on January 31, 2011, the Confirmation Order contained recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended that the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) approve the Confirmation Order, and that the District Court confirm the PI Settlement Plan and issue a channeling injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thereafter, on February 15, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order clarifying its Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation Order (the “Clarifying Order”). Among other things, the Clarifying Order provided that any references in the Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation Order to a recommendation that the District Court confirm the PI Settlement Plan were thereby amended to make clear that the PI Settlement Plan was confirmed and that the Bankruptcy Court was requesting that the District Court issue and affirm the Confirmation Order including the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. On March 11, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to reconsider the Memorandum Opinion filed by BNSF Railway Company (the “March 11 Order”). Among other things, the March 11 Order amended the Memorandum Opinion to clarify certain matters relating to objections to the PI Settlement Plan filed by BNSF.

Although we are optimistic that, if it were to become effective, the PI Settlement Plan would implement the terms of the Settlement agreement, we can give no assurance that this will be the case notwithstanding the Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan. The terms of the PI Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment. Moreover, the PI Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of a number of conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI Settlement Plan and include, without limitation, the availability of exit financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan by the District Court. Additionally, various parties have filed notices of appeal or have otherwise challenged the Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation Order, and the PI Settlement Plan may be subject to further appeal or challenge before the District Court or other courts. The appealing parties have designated various issues to be considered on appeal, including, without limitation, issues relating to releases and injunctions contained in the PI Settlement Plan. The District Court has scheduled a hearing, which is currently set for June 28, 2011, to hear oral arguments in connection with appeals of the Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation Order.

While the Bankruptcy Court has confirmed the PI Settlement Plan and the District Court has scheduled a hearing to consider oral arguments relating to appeals of the Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation Order, additional proceedings may be held before the District Court or other courts to consider matters related to the PI Settlement Plan. We do not know whether or when the District Court will affirm the Memorandum Opinion or the Confirmation Order or approve the PI Settlement Plan, or whether or when a final plan of reorganization will become effective. Assuming that a final plan of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, approved by the District Court, and does become effective, we do not know whether the final plan of reorganization will be consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement or if the other conditions to our obligation to pay the Settlement agreement amount will be met. If these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by us, we will not be obligated to pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement agreement. However, if we do not pay the Settlement agreement amount, we will not be released from the various asbestos related, fraudulent transfer, successor liability, and indemnification claims made against us and all of these claims would remain pending and would have to be resolved through other means, such as through agreement on alternative settlement terms or trials. In that case, we could face liabilities that are significantly different from our obligations under the Settlement agreement. We cannot estimate at this time what those differences or their magnitude may be. In the event these liabilities are materially larger than the current existing obligations, they could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations. We will continue to review the Grace bankruptcy proceedings (including appeals and other proceedings relating to the Memorandum Opinion, the Confirmation Order, or the PI Settlement Plan), as well as any amendments or changes to the Memorandum Opinion, the Confirmation Order, or the PI Settlement Plan, to verify compliance with the Settlement agreement.

Fresenius Claims

In January 2002, we filed a declaratory judgment action against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., its parent, Fresenius AG, a German company, and specified affiliates in New York State court asking the court to resolve a contract dispute between the parties. The Fresenius parties contended that we were obligated to indemnify them for liabilities that they might incur as a result of the 1996 Fresenius transaction mentioned above. The Fresenius parties’ contention was based on their interpretation of the agreements between them and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. in connection with the 1996 Fresenius transaction. In February 2002, the Fresenius parties announced that they had accrued a charge of $172.0 million for these potential liabilities, which included pre-transaction tax liabilities of Grace and the costs of defense of litigation arising from Grace’s Chapter 11 filing. We believe that we were not responsible to indemnify the Fresenius parties under the 1996 agreements and filed the action to proceed to a resolution of the Fresenius parties’ claims. In April 2002, the Fresenius parties filed a motion to dismiss the action and for entry of declaratory relief in its favor. We opposed the motion, and in July 2003, the court denied the motion without prejudice in view of the November 27, 2002 agreement in principle referred to above. As noted above, under the Settlement agreement, we and the Fresenius parties will exchange mutual releases, which will release us from any and all claims related to the 1996 Fresenius transaction.

Canadian Claims

In November 2004, the Company’s Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. are also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace’s marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of The Queen’s Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, we learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace’s marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the “Canadian Court”), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.’s U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions referred to above. The parties finalized a global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has subsequently been amended (the “Canadian Settlement”), will be entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. We do not have any positive obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but we are a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in favor of the Grace parties (including us) will become operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace’s United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. As indicated above, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court’s Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the Confirmation Order’s terms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI Settlement Plan has not become effective, and we can give no assurance that the PI Settlement Plan (or any other plan of reorganization) will be approved by the District Court or will become effective. Assuming that a final plan of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) is approved by the District Court, and does become effective, if the final plan of reorganization does not incorporate the terms of the Canadian Settlement or if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then we could be required to pay substantial damages, which we cannot estimate at this time and which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Additional Matters Related to the Cryovac Transaction

In view of Grace’s Chapter 11 filing, we may receive additional claims asserting that we are liable for obligations that Grace had agreed to retain in the Cryovac transaction and for which we may be contingently liable. To date, we are not aware of any material claims having been asserted or threatened against us.

Final determinations and accountings under the Cryovac transaction agreements with respect to matters pertaining to the transaction had not been completed at the time of Grace’s Chapter 11 filing in 2001. We have filed claims in the bankruptcy proceeding that reflect the costs and liabilities that we have incurred or may incur that Grace and its affiliates agreed to retain or that are subject to indemnification by Grace and its affiliates under the Cryovac transaction agreements, other than payments to be made under the Settlement agreement. Grace has alleged that we are responsible for specified amounts under the Cryovac transaction agreements. Subject to the terms of the Settlement agreement, amounts for which we may be liable to Grace may be used to offset the liabilities of Grace and its affiliates to us. We intend to seek indemnification by Grace and its affiliates to the extent permissible under law, the Settlement agreement, and the Cryovac transaction agreements. Except to the extent of any potential setoff or similar claim, we expect that our claims will be as an unsecured creditor of Grace. Since portions of our claims against Grace and its affiliates are contingent or unliquidated, we cannot determine the amount of our claims, the extent to which these claims may be reduced by setoff, how much of the claims may be allowed, or the amount of our recovery on these claims, if any, in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Stockholders' Equity

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Stockholders' Equity Disclosure [Abstract]

Stockholders' Equity

(14) Stockholders’ Equity

Quarterly Cash Dividends

On April 7, 2011, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.13 per common share. This dividend is payable on June 17, 2011 to stockholders of record at the close of business on June 3, 2011. The estimated amount of this dividend payment is $21 million based on 160 million shares of our common stock issued and outstanding as of April 30, 2011.

On February 17, 2011, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.13 per common share, which was paid on March 18, 2011 to stockholders of record at the close of business on March 4, 2011. We used $21 million of available cash to pay this quarterly cash dividend.

The dividend payments discussed above are recorded as reductions to cash and cash equivalents and retained earnings on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Currently there are no restrictions that materially limit our ability to pay dividends or that we reasonably believe are likely to materially limit the future payment of dividends on our common stock. From time to time, we may consider other means of returning value to our stockholders based on our consolidated financial position and results of operations. There is no guarantee that our Board of Directors will declare any further dividends.

2005 Contingent Stock Plan

Share-based Incentive Compensation

We record share-based incentive compensation expense in marketing, administrative and development expenses on our condensed consolidated statements of operations with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital within stockholders’ equity based on the fair value of the share-based incentive compensation awards at the date of grant. We recognize an expense or credit reflecting the straight-line recognition, net of estimated forfeitures, of the expected cost of the program. For the 2011 three-year PSU awards, 2010 three-year PSU awards and the 2009 three-year PSU awards, to the extent the performance against the targets improves or worsens, the cumulative amount accrued to date is adjusted up or down.

The table below shows our total share-based incentive compensation expense.


	Three Months
	Ended
	March 31,
	2011		2010
2011 Three-year PSU Awards	$	0.9	$	—
2010 Three-year PSU Awards		0.8		0.8
2009 Two-year and Three-year PSU Awards		1.5		3.3
SLO Awards		0.4		0.8
Other long-term share-based incentive compensation programs		2.2		2.6

Total share-based incentive compensation expense	$	5.8	$	7.5

The following table shows the estimated amount of total share-based incentive compensation expense expected to be recognized on a straight-line basis over the remaining respective vesting periods by program at March 31, 2011.


	2011		2012		2013		2014		Total
2011 Three-year PSU Awards	$	2.7	$	3.6	$	3.5	$	—	$	9.8
2010 Three-year PSU Awards		2.2		3.0		—		—		5.2
2009 Three-year PSU Awards		5.3		—		—		—		5.3
SLO Awards		1.5		0.5		—		—		2.0
Other long-term share-based incentive compensation programs		6.8		6.6		3.1		0.3		16.8

Total share-based incentive compensation expense	$	18.5	$	13.7	$	6.6	$	0.3	$	39.1

For the 2011 three-year PSU awards, 2010 three-year PSU awards and the 2009 three-year PSU awards, the estimated amount of this future share-based incentive compensation expense will fluctuate based on: 1) the level of achievement of the respective goals and measures considered probable in future quarters, which impacts the number of shares that could be issued; and 2) the future price of our common stock, which impacts the expense related to additional discretionary shares.

The discussion that follows provides further details of our share-based incentive compensation programs.

PSU Awards

As part of our long term incentive program adopted in 2008, during the first 90 days of each year, the Organization and Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors, or Compensation Committee, has approved Performance Share Unit (PSU) awards for our executive officers and other selected key executives, which includes for each officer or executive a target number of shares of common stock and performance goals and measures that will determine the percentage of the target award that is earned following the end of the performance period. Following the end of the performance period, participants will also receive a cash payment in the amount of the dividends (without interest) that would have been paid during the performance period on the number of shares that they have earned. As of March 31, 2011, we have accrued $2 million for these dividends in other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

2011 Three-year PSU Awards

In March 2011, the Compensation Committee approved awards with a three-year performance period beginning January 1, 2011. The Compensation Committee established principal performance goals, which are 1) three-year cumulative volume growth of net trade sales and 2) three-year average return on invested capital. These performance goals are outlined in further detail in the Proxy Statement for our 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The targeted number of shares of common stock that can be earned is 409,410 shares for these 2011 PSU awards. If the threshold level is achieved for either of the two performance goals mentioned above, then the number of shares earned for each participant can be increased (if the additional goal mentioned below is achieved) or decreased (if the additional goal mentioned below is not achieved) by up to 10% of the target level at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, or an aggregate of 40,941 shares for all participants. The additional goal is a 2013 safety result of a total recordable incident rate (a workplace safety indicator) (“TRIR”) of 1.20 or better, excluding facilities acquired during the performance period.

The total number of shares to be issued for these awards can range from zero to 200% of the target number of shares depending on the level of achievement of the performance goals and measures, plus or minus the 40,941 additional discretionary shares mentioned above.

The expense included in the table above was calculated using a grant date common stock share price of $26.18 per share on March 11, 2011 and is based on management’s estimate as of March 31, 2011 of the level of probable achievement of the performance goals and measures, which was determined to be at the target level (409,410 shares) as of March 31, 2011.

2010 Three-year PSU Awards

In March 2010, the Compensation Committee approved awards with a three-year performance period beginning January 1, 2010. The Compensation Committee established principal performance goals, which are 1) three-year cumulative volume growth of net trade sales and 2) three-year average return on invested capital. These performance goals are outlined in further detail in the Proxy Statement for our 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The targeted number of shares of common stock that can be earned is 433,481 shares for these 2010 PSU awards. If the threshold level is achieved for either of the two performance goals mentioned above, then the number of shares earned for each participant can be increased (if the additional goal mentioned below is achieved) or decreased (if the additional goal mentioned below is not achieved) by up to 10% of the target level at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, or an aggregate of 43,348 shares for all participants. The additional goal is a 2012 safety result of TRIR of 1.20 or better, excluding facilities acquired during the performance period.

The total number of shares to be issued for these awards can range from zero to 200% of the target number of shares depending on the level of achievement of the performance goals and measures, plus or minus the 43,348 additional discretionary shares mentioned above.

The expense included in the table above was calculated using a grant date common stock share price of $20.88 per share on March 8, 2010 and is based on management’s estimate as of March 31, 2011 of the level of probable achievement of the performance goals and measures, which was determined to be at the target level (433,481 shares, net of forfeitures) as of March 31, 2011.

2009 Three-year PSU Awards

The targeted number of shares of common stock that can be earned is 551,131 for the three-year PSU awards made in 2009. The total number of shares to be issued for each PSU for the three-year awards can range from zero to 200% of the target number of shares depending on the level of achievement of the operating profit performance goals and measures. If the threshold level is achieved for the operating performance goals and measures, then the number of shares earned for each participant can be increased (if the additional goals mentioned below are achieved) or decreased (if the additional goals mentioned below are not achieved) by up to 10% of the target level at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, or an aggregate of 55,113 shares for all participants. The additional goals are 1) average quarterly inventory days on hand starting December 31, 2008 through the performance period below the average quarterly days on hand for the period December 31, 2007 through December 31, 2008; and 2) a safety result for the final year of the performance period of TRIR of 1.30 or better, excluding facilities acquired during the performance period. These provisions are outlined in further detail in the 2010 Proxy Statement for our Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Probable achievement of the operating profit performance goals and measures based on management’s estimate as of March 31, 2011 was determined to be at the maximum level (1,102,262 shares, net of forfeitures) as of March 31, 2011. The expense included in the table above for the shares related to the achievement of the operating performance goals and measures was calculated using a common stock share price of $20.88 per share on March 8, 2010. The expense included in the table above for the shares related to the additional goals was calculated using a common stock share price of $26.66 on March 31, 2011, because of their discretionary nature.

In February 2011, we issued 1,114,139 shares of common stock for the 2009 two-year PSU awards. These awards were based on the achievement of the operating profit performance goals and measures at the maximum level in the two-year performance period of 2009 through 2010. We also acquired 408,751 of these shares of common stock that were withheld from employees to satisfy their minimum tax withholding obligations under our 2005 contingent stock plan. These shares are held in common stock in treasury at a fair market value of $12 million.

SLO Awards

Before the start of each performance year, each of our executive officers and other selected key executives is eligible to elect to receive all or a portion of his or her annual cash bonus for that year, in increments of 25% of the annual bonus, as an award of restricted stock or restricted stock units under the 2005 contingent stock plan in lieu of cash. The portion provided as an equity award may be given a premium to be determined by the Compensation Committee each year and will be rounded up to the nearest whole share. The stock price used in the calculation of the number of shares will be the closing sale price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the first trading day of the performance year. The award will be granted following the end of the performance year and after determination by the Compensation Committee of the amount of the annual bonus award for each executive officer and other selected key executive who has elected to take all or a portion of his or her annual bonus as an equity award, but no later than the March 15 following the end of the performance year.

The equity award will be made in the form of an award of restricted stock or restricted stock units that will vest on the second anniversary of the grant date or earlier in the event of death, disability or retirement from employment with us, and the shares subject to the award will not be transferable by the recipient until the later of vesting or the second anniversary of the grant date. If the recipient ceases to be employed by us before vesting, then the shares will be forfeited, except for certain circumstances following a change in control. The award will be made in the form of restricted stock unless the award would be taxable to the recipient before the shares become transferable by the recipient, in which case the award will be made in the form of restricted stock units. Recipients who hold SLO awards in the form of restricted stock receive dividends. Recipients who hold SLO awards in the form of restricted stock units receive a cash payment in the amount of the dividends (without interest) on the shares they have earned at about the same time that shares are issued to them following the period of restriction. As of March 31, 2011, we have accrued for these dividends in other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet and the amount was immaterial.

For 2011, the Compensation Committee set the SLO award premium at 25%. The 2011 SLO target awards comprise an aggregate of 94,935 restricted stock shares and restricted stock units as of March 31, 2011. For 2010, the Compensation Committee set the SLO award premium at 25%. The 2010 SLO awards that were issued on March 13, 2011 comprised an aggregate of 34,596 restricted stock shares and restricted stock units.

We record compensation expense for these awards in marketing, administrative and development expenses on the condensed consolidated statement of operations with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in-capital within stockholder’s equity, based on the fair value of the awards at the end of each reporting period, which reflects the effects of stock price changes.

For the three months ended March 31, 2011, compensation expense related to the 2011 SLO awards was recognized based on the extent to which the performance goals and measures for 2011 annual cash bonuses were considered probable of achievement at March 31, 2011. This expense is being recognized over a fifteen month period on a straight-line basis since a majority of the awards will vest at grant date, which will be no later than March 15, 2012, due to the retirement eligibility provision.

For the three months ended March 31, 2010, compensation expense related to the 2010 SLO awards was recognized based on the extent to which the performance goals and measures for 2010 annual cash bonuses were considered probable of achievement at March 31, 2010. This expense was recognized over a fifteen month period on a straight-line basis since a majority of the awards vested at grant date, which was March 13, 2011, due to the retirement eligibility provision.

Other Long-term Share-based Incentive Compensation

Under our 2005 contingent stock plan, the Compensation Committee may grant our employees awards of restricted stock, restricted stock units and cash awards measured by share price as long-term share-based incentive compensation. Our executive officers and other key executives may also receive awards of restricted stock or restricted stock units from time to time.

Net Earnings Per Common Share

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Net Earnings Per Common Share Disclosure [Abstract]

Net Earnings Per Common Share

(15) Net Earnings Per Common Share

The following table shows the calculation of basic and diluted net earnings per common share under the two-class method.


	Three Months
	Ended
	March 31,
	2011			2010
*Basic Net Earnings Per Common Share:*
Numerator
Net earnings available to common stockholders	$	59.7		$	61.2
Distributed and allocated undistributed net earnings to non-vested restricted stockholders		(0.4	)		(0.4	)

Distributed and allocated undistributed net earnings to common stockholders		59.3			60.8
Distributed net earnings—dividends paid to common stockholders		(20.7	)		(19.0	)

Allocation of undistributed net earnings to common stockholders	$	38.6		$	41.8


Denominator
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding—basic		158.7			157.8

Basic net earnings per common share:
Distributed net earnings to common stockholders	$	0.13		$	0.12
Allocated undistributed net earnings to common stockholders		0.24			0.26

Basic net earnings per common share:	$	0.37		$	0.38

*Diluted Net Earnings Per Common Share:*
Numerator
Distributed and allocated undistributed net earnings to common stockholders	$	59.3		$	60.8
Add: Allocated undistributed net earnings to non-vested restricted stockholders		0.2			0.3
Less: Undistributed net earnings reallocated to non-vested restricted stockholders		(0.2	)		(0.3	)

Net earnings available to common stockholders—diluted	$	59.3		$	60.8


Denominator
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding—basic		158.7			157.8
Effect of assumed issuance of Settlement agreement shares		18.0			18.0
Effect of non-vested restricted stock and restricted stock units		0.2			0.3

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding—diluted		176.9			176.1

Diluted net earnings per common share	$	0.34		$	0.35

PSU Awards

Since the PSU awards discussed in Note 14, “Stockholders’ Equity,” are contingently issuable shares that are based on a condition other than earnings or market price, these shares have been excluded from the diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 because they have not met the performance conditions as of these dates.

SLO Awards

The shares or units associated with the SLO awards for the fiscal year 2011 are considered contingently issuable shares and therefore are not included in the basic or diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the three months ended March 31, 2011. These shares or units, discussed in Note 14, “Stockholders’ Equity,” will not be included in the common shares outstanding until the final determination of the amount of annual incentive compensation is made in the first quarter of the following year consistent with the treatment of these awards in 2010. Once this determination is made, the shares or units will be included in the basic weighted average number of common shares outstanding if the employee is retirement eligible or in the diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding if the employee is not retirement eligible. The numbers of shares or units associated with SLO awards for the 2010 and earlier fiscal years that were included in the common shares outstanding for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were nominal.

Other (Expense) Income, net

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Other (Expense) Income, Net Disclosure [Abstract]

Other (Expense) Income, net

(16) Other (Expense) Income, net

The following table provides details of other (expense) income, net.


	Three Months
	Ended
	March 31,
	2011			2010
Interest and dividend income	$	2.0		$	2.0
Net foreign exchange transaction (losses) gains		(4.4	)		1.5
Settlement agreement and related costs		(0.4	)		(0.3	)
Noncontrolling interests		0.7			0.5
Net losses in equity affiliates		(0.2	)		(1.1	)
Costs associated with our accounts receivable securitization program		(0.2	)		(0.2	)
Other, net		(1.4	)		(0.1	)

Other (expense) income, net	$	(3.9	)	$	2.3