Jeld-Wen Details Plans to Sell Door Plant by Year End

Charlotte, NC—In its annual report filed with the SEC last month, window and door giant Jeld-Wen Holding revealed details about the court-ordered sale of its Towanda, PA door skin plant. Separately, Jeld-Wen says William (Bill) Christensen, currently CEO of Rehau, will join the firm as president of Jeld-Wen Europe on April 1.

In the SEC filing, for the year ended December 31, 2021, Jeld-Wen (NYSE:JELD) reported latest fourth quarter net revenue of $1.287 billion, up 12 percent, but net income of $42 million was flat, as Jeld-Wen spent nearly $20 million on legal fees in its multi-year litigation with its door skin customer, Steves & Sons. For the year, legal fees totaled $67 million. Yet net income still rose a whopping 84 percent, to $168.8 million, on revenue of $4.77 billion, up 12.7 percent.

Jeld-Wen details for its investors for the first time the results of its loss Steves & Sons, a San Antonio, TX door manufacturer:

“During 2021, [Jeld-Wen] ceased the appeal process for its litigation with Steves & Sons, Inc. As a result, we are required to divest the Towanda, PA operations. Assuming customary closing conditions are met and subject to court approval, we believe the divestiture will occur within the next 12 months and qualifies for ‘held for sale accounting’ and we have reclassified certain assets and liabilities to assets held for sale.” The table below shows the Towanda plant’s assets and liabilities.

Jeld-Wen Towanda, PA Plant Hold for Sale Profile on December 31, 2021 (amounts in thousands):

Assets
Inventory $15,520
Other current assets $105
Property and equipment $35,870
Intangible assets $1,471
Goodwill $65,000
Operating lease assets $1,458
Assets held for sale $119,424

Liabilities
Accrued payroll and benefits $907
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities $3,945
Current maturities of long term debt $10
Long-term debt $2
Operating lease liability $1,004
Liabilities held for sale $5,868

You can read the IWF Network News report on the Jeld-Wen vs. Steves & Sons case here. But what follows is summary Jeld-Wen prepared for the SEC:

“Steves & Sons, Inc. vs JELD-WEN, Inc. – We sell molded door skins to certain customers pursuant to long-term contracts, and these customers in turn use the molded door skins to manufacture interior doors and compete directly against us in the marketplace. We gave notice of termination of one of these contracts and, on June 29, 2016, the counterparty to the agreement, Steves and Sons, Inc. filed a claim against JWI in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (the “Eastern District of Virginia”). The complaint alleged that our acquisition of CMI, a competitor in the molded door skins market, together with subsequent price increases and other alleged acts and omissions, violated antitrust laws, and constituted a breach of contract and breach of warranty. Specifically, the complaint alleged that our acquisition of CMI substantially lessened competition in the molded door skins market.

The complaint sought declaratory relief, ordinary and treble damages, and injunctive relief, including divestiture of certain assets acquired in the CMI acquisition.In February 2018, a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a verdict that was unfavorable to JWI with respect to Steves’ claims that our acquisition of CMI violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and found that JWI breached the supply agreement between the parties (the “Original Action”). The verdict awarded Steves $12.2 million for past damages under both the Clayton Act and breach of contract claims and $46.5 million in future lost profits under the Clayton Act claim.

During the course of the proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia, we discovered certain facts that led us to conclude that Steves, its principals, and certain former employees of the [Jeld-Wen] had misappropriated company trade secrets, violated the terms of various agreements between the Company and those parties, and violated other laws. On May 11, 2018, a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a verdict on our trade secrets claims against Steves and awarded damages in the amount of $1.2 million. The presiding judge entered a judgment in our favor for those damages, and the entire amount has been paid by Steves.

On August 16, 2019, the presiding judge granted Steves’ request for an injunction, prohibiting us from pursuing certain claims against individual defendants pending in Bexar County, Texas. On September 11, 2019, JELDWEN filed a notice of appeal of the Eastern District of Virginia’s injunction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Fourth Circuit”).

On March 13, 2019, the presiding judge entered an Amended Final Judgment Order in the Original Action, awarding $36.5 million in past damages under the Clayton Act (representing a trebling of the jury’s verdict) and granting divestiture of certain assets acquired in the CMI acquisition, subject to appeal. The judgment also conditionally awarded damages in the event the judgment was overturned on appeal. Specifically, the court awarded $139.4 million as future antitrust damages in the event the divestiture order was overturned on appeal and $9.9 million as past contract damages in the event both the divestiture and antitrust claims were overturned on appeal. On April 12, 2019, Steves filed a petition requesting an award of its fees and a bill of costs, seeking $28.4 million in attorneys’ fees and $1.7 million in costs in connection with the Original Action. On November 19, 2019, the presiding judge entered an order for further relief awarding Steves an additional $7.1 million in damages for pricing differences from the date of the underlying jury verdict through May 31, 2019 (the “Pricing Action”). We also appealed that ruling. On April 14, 2020, Steves filed a motion for further supplemental relief for pricing differences from the date of the prior order and going forward through the end of the parties’ current supply agreement (the “Future Pricing Action”). We opposed that request for further relief.

JELD-WEN filed a supersedeas bond and notice of appeal of the judgment, which was heard by the Fourth Circuit on May 29, 2020. On February 18, 2021, the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on appeal in the Original Action, affirming the Amended Final Judgment Order in part and vacating and remanding in part. The Fourth Circuit vacated the Eastern District of Virginia’s alternative $139.4 million lost-profits award, holding that award was premature because Steves has not suffered the purported injury on which its claim for future lost profits rests. The Fourth Circuit also vacated the Eastern District of Virginia’s judgment for Sam Steves, Edward Steves, and John Pierce on JELD-WEN’s trade secrets claims.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s finding of antitrust injury and its award of $36.5 million in past antitrust damages. It also affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s divestiture order, while clarifying that JELD-WEN retains the right to challenge the terms of any divestiture, including whether a sale to any particular buyer will serve the public interest, and made clear that the Eastern District of Virginia may need to revisit its divestiture order ifthe special master who has been appointed by the presiding judge cannot locate a satisfactory buyer. JELD-WEN then filed a motion for rehearing en banc with the Fourth Circuit that was denied on March 22, 2021.Following a thorough review, and consistent with our practice, we concluded that it is in the best interest of the Company and its stakeholders to move forward with the divestiture of Towanda and certain related assets. Althoughthe Company did not seek Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit’s February 18, 2021 decision, the Company retains the legal right to challenge the divestiture process and the final divestiture order. We made estimates related to the divestiture in the preparation of our financial statements; however, there can be no guarantee that the divestiture will be consummated. The divestiture process is ongoing, and the special master is overseeing this process. Although the Company has decided to divest, we continue to believe that Steves’ claims lacked merit and that it was not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of divestiture. We continue to believe that the judgment in accordance with the verdict was improper under applicable law.

During the pendency of the Original Action, on February 14, 2020, Steves filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that we breached the long-term supply agreement between the parties, including, among other claims, by incorrectly calculating the allocation of door skins owed to Steves (the “Allocation Action”). Steves sought an additional allotment of door skins and damages for violation ofantitrust laws, tortious interference, and breach of contract. On April 10, 2020, the presiding judge granted Steves’ motion for preliminary injunction, and the parties settled the issues underlying the preliminary injunction on April30, 2020 and the Company reserved the right to appeal the ruling in the Fourth Circuit.

The Company believed all the claims lacked merit and moved to dismiss the antitrust and tortious interference claims.On June 2, 2020, we entered into a settlement agreement with Steves to resolve the Pricing Action, the Future Pricing Action, and the Allocation Action. As a result of the settlement, Steves filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment in the Pricing Action, withdrew its Future Pricing Action with prejudice, and filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in the Allocation Action. The Company also withdrew its appeal of the Pricing Action. The parties agreed to bear their own respective attorneys’ fees and costs in these actions. In partial consideration of the settlement, JWI and Steves entered into an amended supply agreement satisfactory to both parties that, by its terms, endedon September 10, 2021. This settlement had no effect on the Original Action between the parties except to agree that certain specific terms of the Amended Final Judgment Order in the Original Action would apply to the amendedsupply agreement during the pendency of the appeal of the Original Action.

On April 2, 2021, JWI and Steves filed a stipulation regarding the amended supply agreement in the Original Action, stating that regardless of whetherthe case remains on appeal as of September 10, 2021, and absent further order of the court, the amended supply agreement would be extended until the divestiture of Towanda and certain related assets is complete and Steves’ newsupply agreement with the company that acquires Towanda is in effect.
We continue to believe the claims in the settled actions lacked merit and made no admission of liability in these matters.

On October 7, 2021, we entered into a settlement agreement with Steves to resolve the following: (i) Steves’ past and any future claims for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs in connection with the Original Action, except that Steves and JWI each reserved the right to seek attorneys’ fees arising out of any challenge of the divestiture process or the final divestiture order; (ii) the Steves Texas Trade Secret Theft Action and the related Fourth Circuit appeal of the Eastern District of Virginia’s injunction in the Original Action; (iii) the past damages award in the Original Action; and (iv) any and all claims and counterclaims, known or unknown, that were asserted or could have been asserted against each other from the beginning of time through the date of the settlement agreement. As a result of the settlement, the parties filed a stipulated notice of satisfaction of the past antitrust damages judgment and astipulated notice of settlement of Steves’ claim for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs against JWI in the Original Action, and Steves filed a notice of withdrawal of its motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses and bill of costs inthe Original Action. The Company also filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice and agreed to take no judgment in the Steves Texas Trade Secret Theft Action, and the parties filed a joint agreement for dismissal of the injunction appeal in the Fourth Circuit. On November 3, 2021, we paid $66.4 million to Steves under the settlement agreement.”

BACK TO NEWS