The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) 10-Q2020 Q3 Quarterly report

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by US GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included.

The Company has historically experienced, and expects to continue to experience, variability in quarterly results. The results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020 are not indicative of the results to be expected for the full year as business is seasonal in nature with the majority of Net sales for the Reportable Segments traditionally occurring during the second and third quarters. However, periods of economic downturn can alter the Company's seasonal patterns.

Effective January 1, 2020, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2016-13, “Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” (ASC 326). This ASU replaces the incurred loss impairment methodology in current US GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates. In addition, new disclosures are required. The Company adopted ASU 2016-13 using the modified retrospective transition method. The adoption of ASU 2016-13 did not result in a material cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings at January 1, 2020 and did not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 3 for additional information.

The Company manufactures and sells paint, stains, supplies, equipment and floor covering through company-operated stores, branded and private label products through retailers, and a broad range of industrial coatings directly to global manufacturing customers through company-operated branches. A large portion of the Company’s revenue is recognized at a point in time and made to customers who are not engaged in a long-term supply agreement or any form of contract with the Company. These sales are paid for at the time of sale in cash, credit card or on account with the vast majority of customers having terms between 30 and 60 days, not to exceed one year. Many customers who purchase on account take advantage of early payment discounts offered by paying within 30 days of being invoiced. The Company estimates variable consideration for these sales on the basis of both historical information and current trends to estimate the expected amount of discounts to which customers are likely to be entitled.

The remaining revenue is governed by long-term supply agreements and related purchase orders (“contracts”) that specify shipping terms and aspects of the transaction price including rebates, discounts and other sales incentives, such as advertising support. Contracts are at standalone pricing. The performance obligation in these contracts is determined by each of the individual purchase orders and the respective stated quantities, with revenue being recognized at a point in time when obligations under the terms of the agreement are satisfied. This generally occurs with the transfer of control of our products to the customer. Sales, value add, and other taxes we collect concurrent with revenue-producing activities are excluded from revenue.

Refer to Note 17 for the Company's disaggregation of Net sales by reportable segment. As the reportable segments are aligned by similar economic factors, trends and customers, this disaggregation best depicts how the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors.

The Company has made payments or credits for rebates or incentives at the beginning of a long-term contract where future revenue is expected and before satisfaction of performance obligations. Under these circumstances, the Company recognizes a contract asset and amortizes these prepayments over the expected benefit life of the long-term contract typically on a straight-line basis.

The majority of variable consideration in the Company’s contracts include a form of volume rebate, discounts, and other incentives, where the customer receives a retrospective percentage rebate based on the amount of their purchases. In these situations, the rebates are accrued as a fixed percentage of sales and recorded as a reduction of net sales until paid to the customer per the terms of the contract. Forms of variable consideration such as tiered rebates, whereby a customer receives a retrospective price decrease dependent on the volume of their purchases, are calculated using a forecasted percentage to determine the most likely amount to accrue. Management creates a baseline calculation using historical sales and then utilizing forecast information, estimates the anticipated sales volume each quarter to calculate the expected reduction to sales. The remainder of the transaction price is fixed as agreed upon with the customer, limiting estimation of revenues including constraints.

The Company’s Accounts receivable and current and long-term contract assets and liabilities are summarized in the following table.

The difference between the opening and closing balances of the Company’s contract assets and contract liabilities primarily results from the timing difference between the Company’s performance and the customer’s payment.

Provisions for estimated returns are established and the expected costs continue to be recognized as contra-revenue per ASC 606 when the products are sold. The Company only offers an assurance type warranty on products sold, and there is no material service to the customer beyond fixing defects that existed at the time of sale and no warranties are sold separately.

Warranty liabilities are excluded from the table above. Amounts recognized during the quarter from deferred revenue were not material. The Company records a right of return liability within each of its operations to accrue for expected customer returns. Historical actual returns are used to estimate future returns as a percentage of current sales. Obligations for returns and refunds were not material individually or in the aggregate.

The following table summarizes the movement in the Company's allowance for doubtful accounts:

In accordance with the Goodwill and Other Intangibles Topic of the ASC, goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets are tested for impairment annually during the fourth quarter, and interim impairment tests are performed whenever an event occurs or circumstances change that indicate an impairment has more likely than not occurred.

As of September 30, 2020, the Company considered the current and expected future economic and market conditions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impact on each of the reporting units and intangible assets. During this review, management considered the Company's current market capitalization, forecasts for reporting units, as well as the results of the annual 2019 impairment tests performed during the fourth quarter of 2019. The Company determined it was not more likely than not that the goodwill and intangible assets were impaired, and thus, a triggering event had not occurred which would require an interim impairment test to be performed.

Although the Company believes its assumptions and estimates of fair value related to reporting units and indefinite-lived trademarks are reasonable, actual financial results could differ from those estimates due to the inherent uncertainty involved in making such estimates. Changes in assumptions concerning future financial results (including sales projections which have a significant impact on the valuation of trademarks under the royalty savings method) or other underlying assumptions could have a significant impact and future impairment charges could be required.

In March 2020, the Company issued $500.0 million of 2.30% Senior Notes due May 2030 and $500.0 million of 3.30% Senior Notes due May 2050 (collectively the “New Notes”) in a public offering. The net proceeds from the issuance of the New Notes were used to repurchase a portion of the 2.75% Senior Notes due 2022 and redeem the 2.25% Senior Notes due May 2020. The repurchase of the 2.75% Senior Notes due 2022 during the first quarter of 2020 resulted in a loss of $21.3 million recorded in Other expense - net.

On September 14, 2020, the Company amended its five-year credit agreement entered into on May 6, 2016. The primary purpose of the amendment was to extend the maturity of $75.0 million of the commitments available for borrowing and obtaining the issuance, renewal, extension and increase of a revolving letter of credit from June 20, 2021 to June 20, 2025.

In August 2019, the Company repurchased $1.010 billion of its 2.25% Senior Notes due May 2020 and $490.0 million of its 2.75% Senior Notes due June 2022. These repurchases resulted in a loss of $14.8 million recorded in Other expense - net.

In August 2019, the Company issued $800.0 million of 2.95% Senior Notes due 2029 and $550.0 million of 3.80% Senior Notes due 2049 in a public offering. The net proceeds from the issuance of the Senior Notes were used for general corporate purposes.

In June 2019, the Company repurchased $60.9 million of its 2.25% Senior Notes due May 2020. This repurchase resulted in an insignificant gain.

The following table summarizes the components of the Company’s net periodic benefit cost for domestic defined benefit pension plans, foreign defined benefit pension plans and postretirement benefits other than pensions:

The Company is involved with environmental investigation and remediation activities at some of its currently and formerly owned sites (including sites which were previously owned and/or operated by businesses acquired by the Company). In addition, the Company, together with other parties, has been designated a potentially responsible party under federal and state environmental protection laws for the investigation and remediation of environmental contamination and hazardous waste at a number of third-party sites, primarily Superfund sites. In general, these laws provide that potentially responsible parties may be held jointly and severally liable for investigation and remediation costs regardless of fault. The Company may be similarly designated with respect to additional third-party sites in the future.

The Company initially provides for estimated costs of environmental-related activities relating to its past operations and third-party sites for which commitments or clean-up plans have been developed and when such costs can be reasonably estimated based on industry standards and professional judgment. These estimated costs, which are mostly undiscounted, are determined based on currently available facts regarding each site. If the reasonably estimable costs can only be identified as a range and no specific amount within that range can be determined more likely than any other amount within the range, the minimum of the range is provided.

The largest and most complex of the Major Sites is the Gibbsboro, New Jersey site (“Gibbsboro”) which comprises the substantial majority of the environmental-related accrual. Gibbsboro, a former manufacturing plant, and related areas, which ceased operations in 1978, has had various areas included on the National Priorities List since 1999. This location has soil, waterbodies, and groundwater contamination related to the historic operations of the facility. Gibbsboro has been divided by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) into 6 operable units (“OUs”) based on location and characteristics, whose investigation and remediation efforts are likely to occur over an extended period of time. Each of the OUs are in various phases of investigation and remediation with the EPA that provide enough information to reasonably estimate cost ranges and record environmental-related accruals. The most significant assumptions underlying the reliability and precision of remediation cost estimates for the Gibbsboro site are the type and extent of future remedies to be selected by the EPA and the costs of implementing those remedies.

The remaining three Major Sites comprising the majority of the accrual include (1) a multi-party Superfund site that has received a record of decision from the federal EPA and is currently in the remedial design phase for one operable unit and for which a remedial investigation/feasibility study has been submitted for another operable unit, (2) a closed paint manufacturing facility that is in the operation and maintenance phase of remediation under both federal and state EPA programs, and (3) a formerly-owned site containing warehouse and office space that is in the remedial investigation phase under a state EPA program. Each of these three Major Sites are in phases of investigation and remediation that provide sufficient information to reasonably estimate cost ranges and record environmental-related accruals.

Excluding the Major Sites discussed above, no sites are individually material to the total accrual balance. There are multiple, future events yet to occur, including further remedy selection and design, remedy implementation and execution, and securing applicable governmental agency approvals, all of which have the potential to contribute to the uncertainty surrounding these future events. As these events occur and to the extent that the cost estimates of the environmental remediation change, the existing reserve will be adjusted.

Management expects these contingent environmental-related liabilities to be resolved over an extended period of time. Management is unable to provide a more specific time frame due to the indeterminate amount of time to conduct investigation activities at any site, the indeterminate amount of time to obtain environmental agency approval, as necessary, with respect to investigation and remediation activities, and the indeterminate amount of time necessary to conduct remediation activities.

The Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations Topic of the ASC requires a liability to be recognized for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if a settlement date and fair value can be reasonably estimated. The Company recognizes a liability for any conditional asset retirement obligation when sufficient information is available to reasonably estimate a settlement date to determine the fair value of such a liability. The Company has identified certain conditional asset retirement obligations at various current and closed manufacturing, distribution and store facilities. These obligations relate primarily to asbestos abatement, hazardous waste Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closures, well abandonment, transformers and used oil disposals and underground storage tank closures. Using investigative, remediation and disposal methods that are currently available to the Company, the estimated costs of these obligations were accrued and are not significant. The recording of additional liabilities for future conditional asset retirement obligations may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which the costs are accrued. Management does not believe that any potential liability ultimately attributed to the Company for its conditional asset retirement obligations will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, liquidity, or cash flow due to the extended period of time over which sufficient information may become available regarding the closure or modification of any one or group of the Company’s facilities. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s operations cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred.

nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation that may be filed, including utilizing all avenues of appeal, if necessary.

Notwithstanding the Company’s views on the merits, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company ultimately may not prevail. Adverse court rulings or determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. Except with respect to the litigation in California discussed below, the Company has not accrued any amounts for such litigation because the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss has occurred, and the Company believes it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses as there is no substantive information upon which an estimate could be based. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. Due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California. On November 14, 2017, the Sixth District Court of Appeal entered its decision, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment of liability with respect to residences built before 1951 and reversed and vacated the trial court’s judgment with respect to residences built after 1950. The Sixth District Court of Appeal directed the trial court to: (i) recalculate the amount of the abatement fund to limit the fund to the amount necessary to cover the cost of inspecting and remediating pre-1951 residences; and (ii) hold an evidentiary hearing to appoint a suitable receiver. On December 22, 2017, the Company and the 2 other defendants submitted separate Petitions for Review to the California Supreme Court, which were subsequently denied. On July 16, 2018, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking discretionary review, which was subsequently denied. On April 17, 2018, the parties filed their briefs with the trial court regarding the recalculation of the amount of the abatement

fund. The trial court subsequently ruled the amount of the abatement fund to be $409.1 million, which was later reduced to $401.1 million. The trial court also subsequently issued a tentative ruling on May 10, 2019, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for fees and costs.

In both actions, the counties request declaratory relief establishing the existence of a public nuisance and the defendants' contribution to it, the abatement of an ongoing public nuisance arising from the presence of lead-based paint in housing throughout the applicable county, an injunction against future illicit conduct, and the costs of litigation and attorneys' fees.

In October 2018, the Company filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania Counties of Delaware, Erie and York seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the violation of the Company's rights under the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Company voluntarily dismissed defendant Erie County on November 9, 2018 and defendant York County on November 21, 2018. Defendant Delaware County filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which the federal trial court granted on October 4, 2019. The Company appealed the federal trial court’s dismissal on November 1, 2019 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On July 31, 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the federal trial court's dismissal of the Complaint.

The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al., initiated an action in Wisconsin state court against the Company, other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association in September 1999. The claims against the Company and the other defendants included strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims is the theory of “risk contribution” liability (Wisconsin’s theory which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result. The plaintiff

appealed and, on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the Company and other defendants.

Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk contribution/market share liability) that does not require the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. Although the risk contribution liability theory was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts. However, in an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., on November 15, 2010, the District Court held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory as applied in that case violated the defendants’ right to substantive due process and is unconstitutionally retroactive. The District Court's decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., was appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 24, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking that Court's review of the Seventh Circuit's decision, and on May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition. The case is currently pending in the District Court.

In Maniya Allen, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, cases involving 6 of the 146 plaintiffs were selected for discovery. In Dijonae Trammell, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, discovery for 1 of the 3 plaintiffs was consolidated with the 6 Allen cases referenced above. The parties selected 4 of the cases to proceed to expert discovery and to prepare for trial. The District Court previously issued an order scheduling trial in the 4 cases to commence on June 15, 2020, but the trial date was continued due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and no new trial date has been scheduled.

on March 3, 2006 in the Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, previously was stayed and inactive. On January 9, 2019, the Company filed an unopposed motion to lift the stay with the trial court, which was granted, allowing the case to proceed. On June 28, 2019, the Company and its liability insurers each filed separate motions for summary judgment seeking various forms of relief. Oral argument regarding those motions occurred on October 24, 2019 and those motions remain pending before the trial court. The liability insurers’ action, which was filed on February 23, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has been dismissed. An ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation would mean that insurance proceeds could be unavailable under the policies at issue to mitigate any ultimate abatement related costs and liabilities. The Company has not recorded any assets related to these insurance policies or otherwise assumed that proceeds from these insurance policies would be received in estimating any contingent liability accrual. Therefore, an ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation without a determination of liability against the Company in the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation will have no impact on the Company’s results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. As previously stated, however, except with respect to the litigation in California discussed above, the Company has not accrued any amounts for the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation and any significant liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued.

The treasury stock transferred from defined benefit pension plan during the three months ended March 31, 2019 relates to the termination of the Company's domestic defined benefit pension plan as described in Note 7. In February 2020, the Company received proceeds of $57.4 million in conjunction with the issuance of 100,000 treasury shares to fund Company contributions to the domestic defined contribution plan.

The components of accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income (AOCI), including the reclassification adjustments for items that were reclassified from AOCI to net income, are shown below.

In February 2020, the Company settled its $400.0 million U.S. Dollar to Euro cross currency swap contract entered into in May 2019 to hedge the Company's net investment in its European operations. At the time of the settlement, an unrealized gain of $11.8 million, net of tax, was recognized in AOCI. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, an unrealized gain of $13.9 million and $8.9 million, respectively, net of tax, was recognized in AOCI.

In February 2020, the Company entered into 2 U.S. Dollar to Euro cross currency swap contracts to hedge the Company's net investment in its European operations. The contracts have a notional value of $500.0 million and $244.0 million, respectively, and mature on June 1, 2024 and November 15, 2021, respectively. During the term of the $500.0 million contract, the Company will pay fixed-rate interest in Euros and receive fixed-rate interest in U.S. Dollars, thereby effectively converting a portion of the Company's U.S. Dollar denominated fixed-rate debt to Euro denominated fixed-rate debt. During the term of the $244.0 million contract, the Company will pay floating-rate interest in Euros and receive floating-rate interest in U.S. Dollars. The fair value of the contracts are included in Other liabilities on the balance sheet. See Note 13. The changes in fair value are recognized in the foreign currency translation adjustments component of AOCI. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, an unrealized loss of $26.4 million and $37.1 million, respectively, net of tax, was recognized in AOCI.

The Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures Topic of the ASC applies to the Company’s financial and non-financial assets and liabilities. The guidance applies when other standards require or permit the fair value measurement of assets and liabilities. The Company did not have any fair value measurements for its non-financial assets and liabilities during the third quarter. There were no assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. The following table presents the Company’s financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, categorized using the fair value hierarchy:

The table below summarizes the carrying amounts and fair values of the Company's debt. The Company's publicly traded debt and non-publicly traded debt are classified as level 1 and level 2, respectively, in the fair value hierarchy.

Provisions for environmental matters - net represent site-specific increases or decreases to environmental-related accruals as information becomes available upon which more accurate costs can be reasonably estimated and as additional accounting guidelines are issued. Environmental-related accruals are not recorded net of insurance proceeds in accordance with the Offsetting Subtopic of the Balance Sheet Topic of the ASC. See Note 8 for further details on the Company’s environmental-related activities.

The (gain) loss on sale or disposition of assets represents net realized (gains) losses associated with the sale or disposal of fixed assets previously used in the conduct of the primary business of the Company.

Foreign currency transaction related (gains) losses represent net realized (gains) losses on U.S. dollar-denominated liabilities of foreign subsidiaries and net realized (gains) losses from foreign currency option and forward contracts. There were 0 material foreign currency option and forward contracts outstanding at September 30, 2020 and 2019.

Miscellaneous pension (income) expense consists of the non-service components of net pension costs (credits). See Note 7 for information on Miscellaneous pension (income) expense and the Domestic pension plan settlement expense.

Other income and Other expense included items of revenue, gains, expenses and losses that were unrelated to the primary business purpose of the Company. There were no other items within the Other income or Other expense caption that were individually significant.

The Company classifies all income tax related interest and penalties as income tax expense. At December 31, 2019, the Company had accrued $26.2 million for the potential payment of income tax interest and penalties.

There were no significant changes to any of the balances of unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2019 during the nine months ended September 30, 2020.

The Company and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and various state and foreign jurisdictions. The IRS is currently auditing the Company's 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 income tax returns. As a result of these audits, certain adjustments have been proposed. The Company is evaluating the proposed adjustments and believes that it is adequately reserved for any potential exposure. At September 30, 2020, the federal statute of limitations had not expired for the 2013 through 2019 tax years.

At September 30, 2020, the Company is subject to non-U.S. income tax examinations for the tax years of 2013 through 2019. In addition, the Company is subject to state and local income tax examinations for the tax years 1998 through 2019.

The Company reports its segment information in the same way that management internally organizes its business for assessing performance and making decisions regarding allocation of resources in accordance with the Segment Reporting Topic of the ASC. The Company has determined that it has 3 reportable operating segments: The Americas Group, Consumer Brands Group and Performance Coatings Group (individually, a Reportable Segment and collectively, the Reportable Segments).