Federal Signal (FSS) 10-Q2022 Q3 Quarterly report

Products manufactured and services rendered by the Company are divided into two reportable segments: Environmental Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. The individual operating businesses are organized as such because they share certain characteristics, including technology, marketing, distribution and product application, which create long-term synergies. These segments are discussed in Note 11 – Segment Information.

These condensed consolidated financial statements include all normal and recurring adjustments that we considered necessary to present a fair statement of our results of operations, financial condition and cash flow. Intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. During the current year, the Company is separately presenting Amortization expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Accordingly, prior-year amounts have been reclassified from Selling, engineering, general and administrative (“SEG&A”) expenses to conform to current-year presentation.

There are no new accounting pronouncements issued, but not yet adopted, that are expected to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flow.

The cash consideration paid by the Company to acquire Ground Force was approximately $43.1 million and was funded through existing cash and borrowings on the Company’s credit facility.

During the three months ended September 30, 2022, the Company finalized its purchase price allocation for the Ground Force acquisition. The measurement period adjustments, which primarily resulted from the completion of the third-party valuation of acquired intangible assets, did not have a material impact on the financial statements as of, and for the three and nine months ended, September 30, 2022. The following table summarizes the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of the acquisition date:

The following table presents the Company’s Net sales disaggregated by geographic region, based on the location of the end customer, and by major product line:

The following table summarizes the components of Inventories:

The following table summarizes the components of Long-term borrowings and finance lease obligations:

As more fully described within Note 12 – Fair Value Measurements, the Company uses a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The fair value of long-term debt is based on interest rates that we believe are currently available to us for issuance of debt with similar terms and remaining maturities (Level 2 input).

The following table summarizes the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of the Company’s long-term borrowings:

Borrowings under the 2019 Credit Agreement bore interest, at the Company’s option, at a base rate or a Eurocurrency or Sterling Overnight Index Average (“SONIA”) daily rate (as each is defined in the 2019 Credit Agreement), plus, in each case, an applicable margin. The applicable margin ranged from zero to 0.75% for base rate borrowings and 1.00% to 1.75% for Eurocurrency or SONIA daily rate borrowings. The Company also paid a commitment fee to the lenders ranging between 0.10% to 0.25% per annum on the unused portion of the $500 million revolving credit facility along with other standard fees. Letter of credit fees were payable on outstanding letters of credit in an amount equal to the applicable Eurocurrency or SONIA daily rate margin plus other customary fees.

The Company was subject to certain net leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio financial covenants under the 2019 Credit Agreement that were measured at each fiscal quarter-end. The Company was in compliance with all such covenants as of September 30, 2022.

As of September 30, 2022, there was $329.5 million of cash drawn and $10.3 million of undrawn letters of credit under the 2019 Credit Agreement, with $160.2 million of net availability for borrowings. As of December 31, 2021, there was $280.7 million cash drawn and $10.1 million of undrawn letters of credit under the 2019 Credit Agreement, with $209.2 million of net availability for borrowings.

The following table summarizes the gross borrowings and gross payments under the Company’s revolving credit facilities:

On October 21, 2022, the Company entered into the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “2022 Credit Agreement”), by and among the Company and certain of its foreign subsidiaries (collectively, the “Borrowers”), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent, swingline lender and issuing lender, PNC Bank, National Association and Truist Bank as syndication agents, and the other lenders and parties signatory thereto. The 2022 Credit Agreement amends and restates the 2019 Credit Agreement. See Note 13 – Subsequent Events for additional information.

As a result of the application of hedge accounting treatment, all unrealized gains and losses related to the derivative instrument are recorded in Accumulated other comprehensive loss and are reclassified into operations in the same period in which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Hedge effectiveness is assessed quarterly. The Company does not use derivative instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

The fair value of the Company’s interest rate swaps is derived from a discounted cash flow analysis based on the terms of the contract and the interest rate curve (Level 2 inputs) and measured on a recurring basis in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

At September 30, 2022, the fair value of the 2019 Swap was an asset of $4.0 million, which was included in Other long-term assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. At December 31, 2021, the fair value of the Swap was a liability of $0.7 million, which was included in Other long-term liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, unrealized pre-tax gains of $1.6 million and $4.7 million, respectively, were recorded in Accumulated other comprehensive loss. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, unrealized pre-tax gains of $0.1 million and $1.2 million, respectively, were recorded in Accumulated other comprehensive loss. No ineffectiveness was recorded in either period.

In connection with entering into the 2022 Credit Agreement in October 2022, the Company terminated the 2019 Swap and entered into a new interest rate swap. See Note 13 – Subsequent Events for additional information.

The Company recognized income tax expense of $4.9 million and $4.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively. During the three months ended September 30, 2022, the Company recognized a $2.7 million tax benefit from the release of a valuation allowance that had previously been recorded against deferred tax assets associated with foreign tax credits in the U.S., which are now considered more-likely-than-not to be realized, primarily due to tax planning strategies. The Company also recognized a $1.1 million tax benefit during the three months ended September 30, 2022 associated with the release of a valuation allowance in the U.K., as the associated deferred tax assets are now considered more-likely-than-not to be realized primarily due to increased projections of future taxable income. During the three months ended September 30, 2021, the Company recognized a $3.4 million tax benefit associated with the release of state valuation allowances and a $1.1 million tax benefit associated with the remeasurement of deferred taxes for changes in state tax apportionment, both of which resulted from a change in tax status during the quarter. Including these items, the Company’s effective tax rate for the three months ended September 30, 2022 was 13.4%, compared to 12.8% in the prior-year quarter.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, the Company recognized income tax expense of $23.1 million and $17.3 million, respectively. The increase in tax expense in the current-year period was largely due to higher pre-tax income levels and a $3.2 million reduction in the amount of excess tax benefits from stock compensation activity compared to the prior-year period. Including these items, the Company’s effective tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 was 21.2%, compared to 17.6% in the prior-year period.

The Company has transactions involving the sale of equipment to certain of its customers which include (i) guarantees to repurchase the equipment for a fixed price at a future date and (ii) guarantees to repurchase the equipment from the third-party lender in the event of default by the customer. As of September 30, 2022, both the single year and maximum potential cash payments the Company could be required to make to repurchase equipment under these agreements amounted to $2.3 million. The Company’s risk under these repurchase arrangements would be partially mitigated by the value of the products repurchased as part of the transaction. Historical cash requirements and losses associated with these obligations have not been significant but could increase if customer defaults exceed current expectations.

The Company has certain lease agreements for facilities owned by affiliates which include provisions requiring the Company to guarantee any remaining lease payments in the event of default. As of September 30, 2022, the total amount of future payments guaranteed under these agreements was approximately $1.3 million. The Company believes the likelihood of defaulting on these leases is remote.

The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company’s petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December

2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company’s objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court’s ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the firefighters’ claims predominate over the individual issues and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of firefighters on the issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motions to amend their complaints. On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court to decide the class certification issues. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed lawsuits in this matter. The Company objected to certification and the parties engaged in discovery and other matters related to this motion.

The Company also filed motions to dismiss cases involving firefighters who worked for fire departments located outside of the State of Illinois based on improper venue. On February 24, 2017, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered orders dismissing the cases of 1,770 such firefighter plaintiffs from the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois. Pursuant to these orders, these plaintiffs had six months thereafter to refile their cases in jurisdictions where these firefighters are located. Prior to this six-month deadline, attorneys representing some of these plaintiffs contacted the Company regarding possible settlement of their cases. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company entered into a global settlement agreement with two attorneys who represented approximately 1,090 of these plaintiffs. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company offered $700 per plaintiff to settle these cases and 717 plaintiffs accepted this offer as a final settlement. The settlement agreement did not require the payment of any attorney fees by the Company. The attorneys representing these plaintiffs agreed to withdraw from representing plaintiffs who did not respond to the settlement offer. It is the Company’s position that the non-settling plaintiffs who failed to timely refile their cases following the February 2017 dismissal by the Circuit Court of Cook County are now barred from doing so by the statute of limitations. The Company filed a venue motion seeking to transfer to DuPage County cases involving 10 plaintiffs who reside and work in Illinois but outside of Cook County. The Court granted this motion on June 28, 2017.

The Company was also sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 71 lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of less

than $0.1 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the “Claimants”) and who had asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement provided that the Company pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the “Settlement Payment”) to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”), (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by Claimants, which was 95% of all Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience, uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and involved various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.

In January 2015, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed two new complaints in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints were located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these cases, which involved 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District of Columbia, was removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims in this case on May 31, 2016. The Company thereafter moved to recover various fees and costs in this case, asserting that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to properly investigate these claims prior to filing suit. The Court granted this motion on April 25, 2017, awarding $0.1 million to the Company (the “Order”). After plaintiffs appealed this Order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court decision awarding fees and costs to the Company.

With respect to claims of other out-of-state firefighters involved in these two cases, the Company moved to dismiss these claims as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims on November 5, 2015. During August through December 2015, another nine new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases involved a total of 193 firefighters, most of whom were located outside of Pennsylvania. The Company again moved to dismiss all claims filed by out-of-state firefighters in these cases as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. On May 24, 2016, the Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims. Plaintiffs appealed this decision and, on September 25, 2018, the appellate court reversed this dismissal. The Company then filed a petition with the appellate court requesting that the court reconsider its ruling. On December 7, 2018, the appellate court granted the Company’s petition

and withdrew its prior decision. On June 25, 2020, the Court issued a decision affirming the trial court’s dismissal of these cases with prejudice.

On May 13, 2016, four new cases were filed in Philadelphia state court, involving a total of 55 Philadelphia firefighters who live in Pennsylvania. During August 2016, the Company settled a case for nominal amounts involving four Philadelphia firefighters that had been set for trial in Philadelphia state court during September 2016. During 2017, plaintiffs filed additional cases in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, involving over 100 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs. During January 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate and bifurcate, similar to a motion filed in the Pittsburgh hearing loss cases, as described below. The Company filed an opposition to this motion. These cases were then transferred to the mass tort program in Philadelphia for pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs’ counsel thereafter dismissed several plaintiffs. During November 2017, a trial involving one Philadelphia firefighter occurred. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company in this trial. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, discussed below, there was a total of 75 firefighters involved in cases pending in the Philadelphia mass tort program.

During March 2014, an action also was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise involves various defendants in addition to the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, 33 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, discussed below, there was a total of 28 firefighters involved in cases filed in Erie County.

During August 2017, five cases involving 70 firefighter plaintiffs were filed in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve firefighter plaintiffs who originally filed in Cook County several years ago and were dismissed pursuant to the Company’s forum nonconveniens motion.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193 Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County. All of the cases filed in Erie County, New York were removed to federal court in the Western District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate and bifurcate these cases, similar to the motion filed in the Pittsburgh hearing loss cases, as described below. The Company filed an opposition to the motion. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiff named the Company as well as several other parties as defendants. That case subsequently was transferred to federal court in the Northern District of New York and thereafter dismissed. During April 2015 through January 2016, 29 new cases involving a total of 235 firefighters were filed in various counties in the New York City area. During December 2016 through October 2017, additional cases were filed in these jurisdictions. On February 5, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint in an additional case filed in Kings County, New York. This case involved one plaintiff. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, discussed below, there was a total of 536 firefighters involved in cases filed in the State of New York.

During November 2015, the Company was served with a complaint filed in Union County, New Jersey state court, involving 34 New Jersey firefighters. This case was transferred to federal court in the District of New Jersey. During the period from January through May 2016, eight additional cases were filed in various New Jersey state courts. Most of the firefighters in these cases resided in New Jersey and worked at New Jersey fire departments. During December 2016, a case involving one New Jersey firefighter was filed in the United States District Court of New Jersey. On May 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate and bifurcate in the pending federal court case in New Jersey. This motion was similar to bifurcation motions filed by plaintiffs in Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Philadelphia. The Court denied the motion as premature. Pursuant to a petition filed by both parties, all New Jersey state court cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, discussed below, there was a total of 61 firefighters involved in cases filed in New Jersey.

During May through October 2016, nine cases were filed in Suffolk County, Massachusetts state court, naming the Company as a defendant. These cases involved 194 firefighters who lived and worked in the Boston area. During August 2017, plaintiffs filed additional cases in Suffolk County court. The Company moved to transfer various cases filed in Suffolk County to other counties in Massachusetts where plaintiffs resided and worked. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, discussed below, there was a total of 218 firefighters involved in cases filed in Massachusetts.

During August and September 2017, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed additional hearing loss cases in Florida. The Company was the only named defendant. These cases were filed in several different counties in Florida, including Tampa, Miami and Orlando municipalities. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, discussed below, there was a total of 166 firefighters involved in cases filed in Florida.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 247 plaintiff firefighters from Pittsburgh and against various defendants, including the Company. During May 2016, two additional cases were filed against the Company in Allegheny County involving 19 Pittsburgh firefighters. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The Court scheduled trials for May, September and November 2016, for eight firefighters per trial. Prior to the first scheduled trial in Pittsburgh, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims asserted by plaintiff firefighters involved in this trial. Following an appeal by the plaintiff firefighters, the appellate court affirmed this dismissal. The next trial for six Pittsburgh firefighters started on November 7, 2016. Shortly after this trial began, plaintiffs’ counsel moved for a mistrial because a key witness suddenly became unavailable. The Court granted this motion and rescheduled this trial for March 6, 2017. During January 2017, plaintiffs also moved to consolidate and bifurcate trials involving Pittsburgh firefighters. In particular, plaintiffs sought one trial involving liability issues to apply to all Pittsburgh firefighters who filed suit against the Company. The Company filed an opposition to this motion. On April 18, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to bifurcate the next Pittsburgh trial. Pursuant to a motion for clarification filed by the Company, the Court ruled that the bifurcation order would only apply to six plaintiffs who were part of the next trial group in Pittsburgh. The Company thereafter sought an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s bifurcation order. The appellate court declined to accept the appeal at that time. A bifurcated trial began on September 27, 2017 in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prior to and during trial, two plaintiffs were dismissed, resulting in four plaintiffs remaining for trial. After approximately two weeks of trial, the jury found that the Company’s siren product was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and rendered a verdict in favor of the Company.

A second trial involving Pittsburgh firefighters began during January 2018. At the outset of this trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys, who represent all firefighters who have filed cases in Allegheny County, Philadelphia, Buffalo, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Florida, as described above, requested that the Company consider settlement of various cases. This trial was continued to allow the parties to further discuss possible settlement. During March 2018, the parties agreed in principle on a framework (the “Settlement Framework”) to resolve hearing loss claims and cases in all jurisdictions involved in the hearing loss litigation except in Cook County and Lackawanna County, and excluding one case involving one firefighter in New York City. The firefighters excluded from the Settlement Framework are represented by different attorneys. The Company settled the cases in Lackawanna County and settled the case involving one firefighter in New York City for nominal amounts. Pursuant to the Settlement Framework, the Company would pay $700 to each firefighter who filed a lawsuit and is eligible to be part of the settlement. The Company would pay $300 to each firefighter who has not yet filed a case and is eligible to be part of the settlement. The settlement agreement does not include the payment of any attorney fees by the Company. To be eligible for settlement, among other things, firefighters must provide proof that they have high frequency noise-induced hearing loss. There are approximately 3,700 firefighters whose claims may be considered as part of this settlement, including approximately 1,320 firefighters who have ongoing filed lawsuits. This Settlement Framework was finalized in a global settlement agreement executed on November 4, 2019. Pursuant to this global settlement agreement, the parties are now in the process of determining how many of the approximately 3,700 firefighters will be eligible to participate in the settlement. In order to minimize the parties’ respective legal costs and expenses during this settlement process, on July 5, 2018, the parties entered into a tolling agreement (the “Tolling Agreement”). Pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, counsel for the settling firefighters agreed to dismiss the pending lawsuits in all jurisdictions except for the Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania cases, and the Company agreed to a tolling of any statute of limitations applicable to the dismissed cases. The Tolling Agreement continued in place until the parties executed the global settlement agreement on November 4, 2019. After execution of the global settlement agreement, the Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) cases were dismissed. The global settlement agreement requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to withdraw from representing firefighters who elect not to participate in this settlement.

As of September 30, 2022, the Company has recognized an estimated liability for the potential settlement amount under the Settlement Framework. While it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of this matter may result in a loss in excess of the amount accrued, the incremental loss is not expected to be material.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases.

as participating securities pursuant to the two-class method. Under the two-class method, net income is reduced by the amount of dividends declared in the period for common stock and participating securities. The remaining undistributed earnings are then allocated to common stock and participating securities as if all of the net income for the period had been distributed. The amounts of distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021 were insignificant and did not materially impact the calculation of basic or diluted EPS.

Basic EPS is computed by dividing income available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock and non-vested restricted stock awards outstanding for the period.

Diluted EPS is computed using the weighted average number of shares of common stock and non-vested restricted stock awards outstanding for the year, plus the effect of dilutive potential common shares outstanding during the period. The dilutive effect of common stock equivalents is determined using the more dilutive of the two-class method or alternative methods. The Company uses the treasury stock method to determine the potentially dilutive impact of our employee stock options and restricted stock units, and the contingently issuable method for our performance-based restricted stock unit awards.

For both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, options to purchase 0.3 million shares of the Company’s common stock had an anti-dilutive effect on EPS, and accordingly, were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS. For both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, options to purchase 0.2 million shares of the Company’s common stock had an anti-dilutive effect on EPS, and accordingly, were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS.

The following table reconciles Net income to basic and diluted EPS:

On April 26, 2022, the Board declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.09 per common share. The dividend totaled $5.4 million and was distributed on June 3, 2022 to stockholders of record at the close of business on May 20, 2022.

On July 25, 2022, the Board declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.09 per common share. The dividend totaled $5.5 million and was distributed on September 2, 2022 to stockholders of record at the close of business on August 19, 2022.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, dividends of $5.5 million and $16.5 million, respectively, were paid to stockholders.

On October 25, 2022, the Board declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.09 per common share payable on December 2, 2022 to stockholders of record at the close of business on November 18, 2022.

No shares were repurchased during the three months ended September 30, 2022. During the nine months ended September 30, 2022, the Company repurchased 472,381 shares for a total of $16.1 million.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, the Company repurchased 82,754 and 87,754 shares for a total of $3.2 million and $3.4 million, respectively.

The following table summarizes the amounts reclassified from Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, in the three months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021 and the affected line item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations:

The following table summarizes the amounts reclassified from Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, in the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021 and the affected line item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations:

The Company has two reportable segments: the Environmental Solutions Group and the Safety and Security Systems Group. Business units are organized under each reportable segment because they share certain characteristics, such as technology, marketing, distribution and product application, which create long-term synergies.

The following tables summarize the Company’s operations by segment, including Net sales, Operating income (loss), and Total assets:

The Company uses a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. This hierarchy maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs. Observable inputs are developed based on market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Company’s assumptions about valuation based on the best information available in the circumstances. The three levels of inputs are classified as follows:

In determining fair value, the Company uses various valuation approaches within the fair value measurement framework. The valuation methodologies used for the Company’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value and their classification in the valuation hierarchy are summarized below.

The following table summarizes the Company’s assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of September 30, 2022:

TowHaul is a leading manufacturer of off-road towing and hauling equipment. The Company expects that the TowHaul acquisition will further bolster its position as an industry leading diversified industrial manufacturer of specialized vehicles for maintenance and infrastructure markets with leading brands of premium, value-adding products, and a strong supporting aftermarket platform.

The preliminary purchase price allocation has not been completed at this time due to the proximity of the date of acquisition to the date of issuance of the condensed consolidated financial statements. The post-acquisition operating results of TowHaul are expected to be included within the Environmental Solutions Group.

The 2022 Credit Agreement is a senior secured credit facility which provides the Borrowers access to an aggregate principal amount of $800 million, consisting of (i) a revolving credit facility in an amount up to $675 million (the “Revolver”) and (ii) a term loan facility in an amount up to $125 million. The Revolver provides for borrowings in the form of loans or letters of credit up to the aggregate availability under the facility, with a sub-limit of $100 million for letters of credit. Borrowings can be made in denominations of U.S. Dollars, Canadian Dollars, Euros or British Pounds (with borrowings in non-U.S. currencies subject to a sublimit of $300 million). In addition, the Company may expand its borrowing capacity under the 2022 Credit Agreement by up to the greater of (i) $400 million and (ii) 100% of Consolidated EBITDA for the applicable four-quarter period preceding such expansion notice, subject to the approval of the applicable lenders providing such additional borrowings in the form of increases to their revolving facility commitment, or funding of incremental term loans. Borrowings under the 2022 Credit Agreement may be used for working capital and general corporate purposes, including acquisitions. The 2022 Credit Agreement matures on October 21, 2027.

The Company’s material domestic subsidiaries provide guarantees for all obligations of the Borrowers under the 2022 Credit Agreement, which is secured by a first priority security interest in (i) all existing or hereafter acquired domestic property and assets of the Company and material domestic subsidiaries, (ii) the stock or other equity interests in each of the material domestic subsidiaries and (iii) 65% of outstanding voting capital stock of certain first-tier foreign subsidiaries, subject to certain exclusions.

Borrowings under the 2022 Credit Agreement bear interest, at the Company’s option, at a base rate or an Adjusted Term Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), Adjusted Eurocurrency Rate or Adjusted Daily Simple SONIA Rate (as each is defined in the 2022 Credit Agreement), plus, in each case, an applicable margin. The applicable margin ranges from zero to 0.75% for base rate borrowings and 1.00% to 1.75% for Adjusted Term SOFR, Adjusted Eurocurrency Rate or Adjusted Daily Simple SONIA Rate borrowings. The Company must also pay a commitment fee to the lenders ranging between 0.10% to 0.25% per annum on the unused portion of the $675 million Revolver along with other standard fees. Applicable margin, issuance fees and other customary expenses are payable on outstanding letters of credit.

The Company is subject to certain net leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio financial covenants under the 2022 Credit Agreement that are to be measured at each fiscal quarter-end. The 2022 Credit Agreement also includes certain “covenant holiday” periods, which allow for the temporary increase of the minimum net leverage ratio following the completion of a permitted acquisition, or a series of acquisitions, when the aggregate consideration over a period of twelve months exceeds $75 million. In addition, the 2022 Credit Agreement includes customary negative covenants, subject to certain exceptions, restricting or limiting the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things: (i) make non-ordinary course dispositions of assets; (ii) make certain fundamental business changes, such as mergers, consolidations or any similar combination; (iii) make restricted payments, including dividends and stock repurchases; (iv) incur indebtedness; (v) make certain loans and investments; (vi) create liens; (vii) transact with affiliates; (viii) enter into certain sale/leaseback transactions; (ix) make negative pledges; and (x) modify subordinated debt documents.

Under the 2022 Credit Agreement, restricted payments, including dividends and stock repurchases, shall be permitted if (i) the Company’s leverage ratio is less than or equal to 3.25x; (ii) the Company is in compliance with all other financial covenants; and (iii) there are no existing defaults under the 2022 Credit Agreement. If its leverage ratio is more than 3.25x, the Company is still permitted to fund (1) up to $35 million of dividend payments and stock repurchases annually; and (2) additional incremental other cash payments up to the greater of $65 million or 5% of consolidated total assets for the term of the 2022 Credit Agreement.

The 2022 Credit Agreement contains customary events of default. If an event of default occurs and is continuing, the Borrowers may be required immediately to repay all amounts outstanding under the 2022 Credit Agreement and the commitments from the lenders may be terminated.

In connection with entering into the 2022 Credit Agreement in October 2022, the Company terminated the 2019 Swap, receiving proceeds of $4.3 million. The Company also concurrently executed a new interest rate swap with a notional amount of $75.0 million, as a means of fixing the floating interest rate component on $75.0 million of its variable-rate debt.

As described in Note 11 – Segment Information to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements, the Company’s business units are organized in two reportable segments: the Environmental Solutions Group and the Safety and Security Systems Group.

However, as we had anticipated, the direct and indirect effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic continued to impact our ability to maximize production levels during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022. Specifically, the increased demand for our products combined with ongoing global supply chain disruptions have affected our ability to obtain a sufficient quantity of raw materials and purchased components, including chassis, hydraulics and other parts, that are necessary to our production processes and to deliver products to our customers. With these supply chain challenges, we have also experienced increases in the cost of raw materials and have taken measures to mitigate the associated impacts, such as implementing price increases and surcharges. From a labor perspective, the Company experienced an escalated level of coronavirus-related absences at several locations early in the year, which improved as the year progressed. While we continue to work to mitigate these challenges as they arise, we cannot provide assurance that such efforts would continue to be successful in addressing a further significant deterioration in the global supply chain, if applicable, which could impact our ability to service our customers, effectively roll out and realize price increases to offset the effects of commodity inflation and sustain our profit margins.

We continue to closely monitor the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, including emerging variants, on our business, including how it is affecting our employees, customers, supply chain and distribution network. The overall magnitude of the direct and indirect impact of the pandemic on our operating and financial results remains uncertain and will largely depend on the duration of the pandemic and the measures implemented in response, as well as the effect on our customers and suppliers.

Income before income taxes for the three months ended September 30, 2022 increased by $3.2 million, or 10%, compared to the prior-year quarter. The increase resulted from the higher operating income, partially offset by a $1.6 million increase in interest expense and a $0.4 million decrease in other income.

Income before income taxes for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 increased by $10.5 million, or 11%, compared to the prior-year period. The increase resulted from the higher operating income, partially offset by a $2.6 million increase in interest expense and a $0.5 million decrease in other income.

Net income for the three months ended September 30, 2022 increased by $2.6 million compared to the prior-year quarter, largely due to the aforementioned increase in income before taxes, partially offset by a $0.6 million increase in income tax expense. The effective tax rate for the three months ended September 30, 2022 was 13.4%, compared to 12.8% in the prior-year quarter.

Total orders for the three months ended September 30, 2022 were $382 million, an increase of $32 million, or 9%, as compared to the prior-year quarter. Our Environmental Solutions Group reported total orders of $321 million in the three months ended September 30, 2022, an increase of $29 million, or 10% in comparison to the prior-year quarter. Orders in the three months ended September 30, 2022 within our Safety and Security Systems Group were $61 million, an increase of $2 million, or 4%, compared to the prior-year quarter.

Total orders for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 were $1,248.0 million, an increase of $153.0 million, or 14%, as compared to the prior-year period. Our Environmental Solutions Group reported total orders of $1,060.7 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2022, an increase of $144.7 million, or 16% in comparison to the prior-year period. Orders in the nine months ended September 30, 2022 within our Safety and Security Systems Group were $187.3 million, an increase of $8.3 million, or 5%, compared to the prior-year period.

Our consolidated backlog at September 30, 2022 was $824 million, an increase of $337 million, or 69%, compared to the prior-year quarter.