News Article | May 4, 2017
ROCHESTER, N.H.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Albany International Corp. (NYSE:AIN) reported that Q1 2017 net income attributable to the Company was $10.8 million, including a net charge of $0.8 million for income tax adjustments. Q1 2016 net income attributable to the Company was $13.5 million, including favorable income tax adjustments of $1.0 million. Q1 2017 income before income taxes was $17.5 million, including restructuring charges of $2.7 million, and losses from foreign currency revaluation of $1.9 million. Q1 2017 income before income taxes also includes $0.6 million of professional fees related to the integration of the Q2 2016 acquisition of Harris Corporation’s composite aerostructures division (referred to below as “SLC”). Q1 2016 income before income taxes was $20.4 million, including restructuring charges of $0.7 million, losses of $1.4 million from foreign currency revaluation, and $1.6 million of expenses related to the acquisition. Table 1 summarizes key financial metrics of SLC, which is included in the AEC segment: Table 2 summarizes net sales and the effect of changes in currency translation rates: In comparison to Q1 2016, MC net sales increased in tissue and packaging grades but that increase was offset by declines in the publication grades. The increase in AEC net sales was primarily due to the Q2 2016 acquisition and growth in LEAP. First-quarter gross profit increased to $75.9 million in 2017 from $72.5 million in 2016. Gross profit margin in Q1 2017 was 38.1% compared to 42.1% in Q1 2016, reflecting the change in the business mix due to higher AEC sales. MC gross profit was $69.2 million (48.5% of net sales) in Q1 2017, compared to $69.6 million (47.9% of net sales) in Q1 2016. AEC gross profit increased to $6.8 million (12.1% of net sales) in Q1 2017, compared to $3.1 million (11.5% of net sales) in Q1 2016. Q1 2017 selling, technical, general, and research (STG&R) expenses were $51.2 million, or 25.7% of net sales, including losses of $1.8 million from the revaluation of nonfunctional-currency assets and liabilities, and $0.6 million of professional fees related to the integration of SLC. Q1 2016 STG&R expenses were $49.6 million, or 28.8% of net sales, including losses of $1.9 million from the revaluation of nonfunctional-currency assets and liabilities, and $1.6 million of expenses related to the Q2 2016 acquisition. The reduction in STG&R expenses as a percentage of net sales in 2017 reflects the relative growth of AEC which carries lower STG&R expenses as a percentage of net sales. The following table summarizes first-quarter expenses associated with internally funded research and development by segment: The following table summarizes first-quarter operating income by segment: AEC incurred restructuring charges of $2.6 million in the first quarter of 2017, principally related to a reduction in personnel in SLC. Table 5 presents the effect on operating income resulting from restructuring, currency revaluation, and acquisition expenses: Q1 2017 Other income/expense, net, was expense of $0.2 million, including losses related to the revaluation of nonfunctional-currency balances of $0.1 million. Q1 2016 Other income/expense, net, was income of $0.3 million, including income related to the revaluation of nonfunctional-currency balances of $0.5 million. The following table summarizes currency revaluation effects on certain financial metrics: Q1 2017 Interest expense, net, was $4.3 million, compared to $2.2 million in Q1 2016. The increase was due to higher debt as a result of the acquisition of SLC in Q2 2016. The Company’s income tax rate based on income from continuing operations was 32.6% for Q1 2017, compared to 39.7% for Q1 2016. The decrease in the rate was due to a shift in the mix of pretax income in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Discrete tax items increased income tax expense by $0.8 million in Q1 2017, and decreased income tax expense by $1.0 million in Q1 2016. The following tables provide a reconciliation of operating income and net income to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA: Payments for capital expenditures increased to $25.1 million in Q1 2017, compared to $8.1 million in Q1 2016, primarily due to the ramp in AEC programs. Depreciation and amortization was $17.3 million in Q1 2017, compared to $14.8 million in Q1 2016. As noted in Table 1, depreciation and amortization for SLC was $3.9 million in Q1 2017. CFO and Treasurer John Cozzolino commented, “As is typical for the first quarter, cash flow was negatively impacted by incentive compensation payments, seasonal increases in accounts receivable and inventory, and high first-quarter income tax payments. In Q1 2017, these typical cash flow effects were compounded by sharp increases in receivables, inventory, and capital expenditures associated with multiple program ramps in AEC. For the total Company, the net effect of higher receivables and inventory, combined with reductions in accrued liabilities, was a use of cash of approximately $31 million during the quarter. Payments for capital expenditures in Q1 were about $25 million and we continue to estimate full-year spending in 2017 to be $95 million to $105 million. At this rate of spending for capital expenditures, we expect additional quarterly increases in net debt for the remainder of the year, but at a considerably lower level than in Q1. “Total debt decreased a little over $4 million to $480 million as of the end of the quarter, while cash balances decreased about $38 million to a total of $143 million. The combined effect of those two changes resulted in a $34 million increase to net debt (total debt less cash, see Table 14) to a balance of $337 million as of the end of the quarter. The Company’s leverage ratio, as defined in our primary debt agreements, was 2.30 at both the end of Q1 2017 and Q4 2016, well below our limit of 3.50. “The Company’s income tax rate based on income from continuing operations was about 33% in Q1 2017, compared to 35% for the full-year 2016. We continue to expect the full-year tax rate for 2017 to be similar to the rate in 2016. Cash paid for income taxes was about $9 million in Q1, and we estimate cash taxes in 2017 to range from $25 million to $30 million.” CEO Joseph Morone said, “In Q1 2017, both businesses continued to perform well and in line with our short- and long-term expectations and objectives. MC once again generated strong income and strong new product performance, while AEC once again generated strong growth and executed well on each of its key programs, while continuing to position itself for improved profitability and new business. “In MC, sales were essentially flat, both sequentially and in comparison to Q1 2016. There were no significant deviations from recent market trends during the quarter. Once again, a significant decline in publication grade sales was offset by incremental gains in the other grades, most notably during Q1 in tissue. By the end of Q1, the publication grades accounted for 23% of total sales, compared to 25% in Q1 2016, 27% in Q1 2015, and 30% in Q1 2014. Our new product performance continued to be strong across all product lines, especially in tissue. Competitive pricing pressure remained intense, particularly in Europe and Asia, although the topline impact was offset by volume growth in Asia. “Profitability was once again strong in Q1 2017 due to incremental productivity gains and good plant utilization. Gross margin, segment net income and Adjusted EBITDA were in line with the excellent performance levels of Q1 2016. “As for our outlook in MC, the market appears stable and we enter Q2 with a good order backlog. Although we have been anticipating and are seeing some inflationary pressures, MC remains on track toward its full-year objective of annual Adjusted EBITDA in the middle of that $180 million to $195 million range that we have discussed on numerous occasions. (See Table 15 for reconciliation to GAAP net income for this segment.) “AEC continued on its path of accelerating growth. Q1 sales grew to $56 million, from $27 million in Q1 2016, the last quarter before we acquired SLC. Excluding SLC, sales grew by $9 million or 34%. The quarter began slowly for AEC, but revenue accelerated as the quarter progressed, and the business remains on track toward its full-year target of 25% to 35% revenue growth over 2016. “The growth was led once again by LEAP. AEC continues to execute on the very aggressive LEAP ramp schedule, while the LEAP engine program continues to perform well in the marketplace. The order backlog for LEAP exceeded 12,000 engines at the end of Q1 with no signs of market softening, CFM delivered its 100th LEAP engine during the quarter, and the LEAP engines in service are performing well and meeting their performance targets. “Q1 sales in SLC were flat compared to Q4, but as with the rest of AEC, we expect a sharp increase in SLC sales for the balance of 2017. It has been a full year since our acquisition of SLC, and our experience to date – particularly our experience with SLC’s customers – validates our view of the growth potential that motivated the acquisition. In SLC’s key growth and legacy programs, the near- and long-term demand outlook is strong and SLC is meeting customer expectations. Of particular note since our last earnings call are two recent developments in the CH-53K program. SLC was informed during Q1 that it was selected by Sikorsky as its supplier of the year for the CH-53K. And in early April, the CH-53K program was officially approved by the Department of Defense to enter into low-rate initial production. At full-rate production next decade and with no additional content, this program has the potential to generate as much as $150 million per year of revenue. “While AEC segment net income declined compared to Q1 2016, due to increases in depreciation expense and restructuring, Adjusted EBITDA improved significantly, both in absolute terms and as a percent of sales. Profitability was held back by a still substantial effort to complete the integration of SLC into AEC. The AEC ERP system successfully went live in SLC in February, but the usual inefficiencies associated with learning a new system and modifying work processes will continue to be a drag on productivity well into the second half of the year. Shortly after the end of the quarter, SLC announced a significant restructuring, which coupled with continuous improvement in operations, should result in gradual improvements to profitability by the end of this year. “Q1 was also marked by a significant increase in new business development activity in AEC. As previously mentioned, AEC is pursuing new business opportunities on three fronts: existing aerospace platforms, new aerospace platforms, and diversification outside of aerospace. While there were promising developments during Q1 on all three fronts, the most notable were on existing aerospace platforms. AEC received a significant number of formal requests-for-proposal as well as more preliminary expressions of interest from a broad cross-section of OEMs, largely prompted by AEC’s execution and emphasis on lean manufacturing in its existing programs with those OEMs. “As for our outlook for AEC, we continue to expect full-year revenue to be 25% to 35% higher than full-year 2016, and Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of sales to slowly improve. For the longer term, the intensity of new business development activity in Q1 suggests that there is more upside than downside risk to our current estimate of $450 million to $500 million revenue potential by 2020, as well as potential for substantial growth beyond 2020. “In sum, this was a good quarter for both businesses, as MC generated strong Adjusted EBITDA and AEC strong growth. Both businesses remain firmly on track toward their short- and long- term goals. For 2017, MC is on track toward full-year Adjusted EBITDA in the middle of our expected range, and AEC is on track for full-year revenue growth between 25% and 35% coupled with gradually improving Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of sales.” Albany International is a global advanced textiles and materials processing company, with two core businesses. Machine Clothing is the world’s leading producer of custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to production in the paper, nonwovens, and other process industries. Albany Engineered Composites is a rapidly growing supplier of highly engineered composite parts for the aerospace industry. Albany International is headquartered in Rochester, New Hampshire, operates 22 plants in 10 countries, employs 4,400 people worldwide, and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (Symbol AIN). Additional information about the Company and its products and services can be found at www.albint.com. This release contains certain non-GAAP metrics, including: percent change in net sales excluding currency rate effects (for each segment and the Company as a whole); EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA (for each segment and the Company as a whole, represented in dollars or as a percentage of net sales); net debt; and net income per share attributable to the Company, excluding adjustments. Such items are provided because management believes that, when reconciled from the GAAP items to which they relate, they provide additional useful information to investors regarding the Company’s operational performance. Presenting increases or decreases in sales, after currency effects are excluded, can give management and investors insight into underlying sales trends. EBITDA, or net income with interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization added back, is a common indicator of financial performance used, among other things, to analyze and compare core profitability between companies and industries because it eliminates effects due to differences in financing, asset bases and taxes. An understanding of the impact in a particular quarter of specific restructuring costs, acquisition expenses, currency revaluation, or other gains and losses, on net income (absolute as well as on a per-share basis), operating income or EBITDA can give management and investors additional insight into core financial performance, especially when compared to quarters in which such items had a greater or lesser effect, or no effect. Restructuring expenses in the MC segment, while frequent in recent years, are reflective of significant reductions in manufacturing capacity and associated headcount in response to shifting markets, and not of the profitability of the business going forward as restructured. Net debt is, in the opinion of the Company, helpful to investors wishing to understand what the Company’s debt position would be if all available cash were applied to pay down indebtedness. EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and net income per share attributable to the Company, excluding adjustments, are performance measures that relate to the Company’s continuing operations. Percent changes in net sales, excluding currency rate effects, are calculated by converting amounts reported in local currencies into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate of a prior period. That amount is then compared to the U.S. dollar amount reported in the current period. The Company calculates EBITDA by removing the following from Net income: Interest expense net, Income tax expense, Depreciation and amortization. Adjusted EBITDA is calculated by: adding to EBITDA costs associated with restructuring and pension settlement charges; adding (or subtracting) revaluation losses (or gains); subtracting (or adding) gains (or losses) from the sale of buildings or investments; subtracting insurance recovery gains; subtracting (or adding) Income (or loss) attributable to the non-controlling interest in Albany Safran Composites (ASC); and adding expenses related to the Company’s acquisition of Harris Corporation’s composite aerostructures division. Adjusted EBITDA may also be presented as a percentage of net sales by dividing it by net sales. Net income per share attributable to the Company, excluding adjustments, is calculated by adding to (or subtracting from) net income attributable to the Company per share, on an after-tax basis: restructuring charges; discrete tax charges (or gains) and the effect of changes in the income tax rate; foreign currency revaluation losses (or gains); acquisition expenses; and losses (or gains) from the sale of investments. EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, and net income per share attributable to the Company, excluding adjustments, as defined by the Company, may not be similar to EBITDA measures of other companies. Such measures are not considered measurements under GAAP, and should be considered in addition to, but not as substitutes for, the information contained in the Company’s statements of income. The Company discloses certain income and expense items on a per-share basis. The Company believes that such disclosures provide important insight into underlying quarterly earnings and are financial performance metrics commonly used by investors. The Company calculates the quarterly per-share amount for items included in continuing operations by using the income tax rate based on income from continuing operations and the weighted-average number of shares outstanding for each period. Year-to-date earnings per-share effects are determined by adding the amounts calculated at each reporting period. The following table contains the calculation of net income per share attributable to the Company, excluding adjustments: The following table contains the calculation of net debt: The following table contains the reconciliation of MC 2017 projected Adjusted EBITDA to MC 2017 projected net income: * Due to the uncertainty of these items, management is currently unable to project restructuring expenses and foreign currency revaluation gains/losses for the remainder of the year. This press release may contain statements, estimates, or projections that constitute “forward-looking statements” as defined under U.S. federal securities laws. Generally, the words “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “look for,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements, which generally are not historical in nature. Forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties (including, without limitation, those set forth in the Company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K or Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q) that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company’s historical experience and our present expectations or projections. Forward-looking statements in this release or in the webcast include, without limitation, statements about macroeconomic, geopolitical and paper-industry trends and conditions during 2016 and in future years; expectations in 2017 and in future periods of sales, EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA (both in dollars and as a percentage of net sales), income, gross profit, gross margin, cash flows and other financial items in each of the Company’s businesses, including the acquired composite aerostructures business, and for the Company as a whole; the timing and impact of production and development programs in the Company’s AEC business segment and the sales growth potential of key AEC programs, as well as AEC as a whole; the amount and timing of capital expenditures, future tax rates and cash paid for taxes, depreciation and amortization; future debt and net debt levels and debt covenant ratios; and changes in currency rates and their impact on future revaluation gains and losses. Furthermore, a change in any one or more of the foregoing factors could have a material effect on the Company’s financial results in any period. Such statements are based on current expectations, and the Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements. Statements expressing management’s assessments of the growth potential of its businesses, or referring to earlier assessments of such potential, are not intended as forecasts of actual future growth, and should not be relied on as such. While management believes such assessments to have a reasonable basis, such assessments are, by their nature, inherently uncertain. This release and earlier releases set forth a number of assumptions regarding these assessments, including historical results, independent forecasts regarding the markets in which these businesses operate, and the timing and magnitude of orders for our customers’ products. Historical growth rates are no guarantee of future growth, and such independent forecasts and assumptions could prove materially incorrect in some cases.
News Article | May 7, 2017
If the former NFL player's 2015 murder conviction is dismissed, his estate is likely to fetch millions of dollars, according to a report. Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was linked to the Bloods street gang, new documents related to the NFL star’s suicide revealed Friday, according to the Associated Press. The new death report lists the street gang under Hernandez's gang profile and also mentions that he was disciplined for having gang paraphernalia. The official term used was “STG,” which stands for Security Threat Group, a term for gangs in prison. Hernandez was serving a life sentence for a 2013 murder at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Lancaster, Massachusetts. Days after he was acquitted in a 2012 double murder, Hernandez was found hanging from a bed sheet in his cell at the maximum-security prison on April 19. Read: What Aaron Hernandez's Suicide Note To Fiancee Shayanna Jenkins Said After a request was made by the AP, Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. released the death report on Friday. The same day, one of the suicide notes left behind by former NFL star was also released by prosecutors. In the note, which was addressed to his fiancée Shayanna Jenkins-Hernandez, Hernandez said she would be rich even after his death. “You have always been my soul mate and I want you to live life and know I’m always with you,” the football player wrote. “I told you what was coming indirectly! I love you so much and know you are an angel- literally! “Tell my story fully but never think anything besides how much I love you,” he continued. “This was the supremes, the almightys plan, not mine! I love you! The noted ended with: “Let [redacted] know how much I love her! Look after [redacted] and [redacted] for me – those are my boys (YOURE RICH).” Watch TMZ on Yahoo View, available on iOS and Android. Soon after his death, a judge ordered that the notes be released to the people they were addressed to. Reports say that the two other notes that Hernandez wrote before committing suicide were addressed to his daughter and another close friend in prison, with whom Hernandez was reported to be in an intimate relationship. His lawyer, however, said that reports of such physical relationship were untrue. “Rumors of letters to a gay lover, in or out of prison, are false,” his lawyer Jose Baez said in a statement. “These are malicious leaks used to tarnish someone who is dead… Notwithstanding my unambiguous statement that there were no such letters, representatives, on behalf of an individual named Kyle Kennedy, continues to advise the media such a gay love letter exists.” Some reports also said that the third letter was addressed to Baez himself. According to Hernandez’s friends in prison, the news of his suicide came as a shock as he was very happy about his acquittal a few days earlier. “Since Friday's verdict he had been talking about the NFL and going back to play even if it wasn't with the Pats,” an inmate friend was reported saying. “He talked about his daughter and spending time with her.” On Thursday, Massachusetts State Police released an investigative report detailing the accounts of events after the death of former New England Patriots tight end. According to the report, the tracks of Hernandez’s cell door were jammed with cardboard to stop it from opening and shampoo was spilled across the prison floor to make it slippery. After the prison officers arrived at his cell, they found him found hanging naked from a bed sheet tied around window bars. The 27-year-old’s right middle finger had a fresh cut and adjacent fingers had blood on them, the report stated. Furthermore, “John 3:16” was written on Hernandez’s forehead and the prison walls. The Bible was open to John 3:16 that was highlighted with blood and placed under the drawings. The report also said the investigation to Hernandez was closed and his death was ruled out as a suicide.
News Article | May 5, 2017
This photo released on Thursday, May 4, 2017, in a report by the Massachusetts Department of Correction shows a Bible open to John 3:16, with the verse marked in blood, found in the cell of former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez after he was found hanged in his cell on April 19 at the Souza-Baranowski prison in Shirley, Mass. Hernandez was serving a life sentence in the 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd, who had been dating his fiancee's sister. (Massachusetts Department of Correction via AP) BOSTON (AP) — Former NFL star Aaron Hernandez was a member of the Bloods street gang and was disciplined for having gang paraphernalia, according to newly released documents related to the investigation into his prison suicide. A death report released Friday lists the Bloods under Hernandez's gang profile and says Hernandez was disciplined for having "STG" paraphernalia. In prison, "STG" stands for Security Threat Group, a euphemism for gangs. Hernandez, a former New England Patriots tight end, was found April 19 hanging from a bed sheet in his cell in a maximum-security prison, where he was serving a life sentence for a 2013 murder. His suicide came days after he was acquitted in a 2012 double slaying. Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. released the report in response to a public records request from The Associated Press. A separate court filing by prosecutors included excerpts from a suicide note left by Hernandez to his fiancee. "You have always been my soul-mate and I want you to live life and know I'm always with you," Hernandez wrote. In the handwritten note, Hernandez calls Shayanna Jenkins Hernandez a "true angel" and "the definition of God's love." He urges her to "tell my story fully, but never think anything besides how much I love you." The excerpts were included in a filing prosecutors made as part of their opposition to a motion by Hernandez's appellate attorneys to vacate his conviction under a state legal principle that says convictions can be erased if a defendant dies before his appeal is heard, as Hernandez did. A judge has scheduled a hearing Tuesday. The documents released by Early say that while Hernandez was housed in a Bristol County jail awaiting trial in the 2013 case he was disciplined for five violations: threatening to kill a correction officer and his family; submitting a urine sample that tested positive for a painkiller; committing an aggravated assault; refusing to obey an order; and possessing gang paraphernalia. Separate reports released Thursday by state police and the Department of Correction offer insight into Hernandez's final days. Interviews with inmates show Hernandez was excited about his acquittal in the double slaying and didn't appear to have thoughts of suicide. "They stated that he was positive and even happily emotional, which was not usual of Hernandez," the Department of Correction report states. An inmate friend said he was shocked by Hernandez's suicide because he seemed so upbeat after his acquittal. "Since Friday's verdict he had been talking about the NFL and going back to play even if it wasn't with the Pats," the inmate said, according to the report. "He talked about his daughter and spending time with her." The state police report said Hernandez wrote "John 3:16," a reference to a Bible verse, in ink on his forehead and in blood on a cell wall. The verse says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." A Bible was nearby, open to John 3:16, with the verse marked by a drop of blood. Some inmates said Hernandez had become increasingly spiritual during his time in prison. Hernandez's lawyers in his double-murder trial have said he showed no signs he planned to kill himself. They have pledged to conduct an independent investigation into his death. The Department of Correction released prison records showing Hernandez was cited a dozen times for disciplinary issues, including physical altercations with other inmates, possessing a homemade weapon, getting a tattoo and having another inmate in his cell. Sanctions for those violations included the loss of his phone, gym and yard privileges. One report says Hernandez was "insolent" toward a correction officer and used a racial epithet after he was cited for tampering with a lock. "This place ain't (expletive) to me. I'll run this place and keep running (expletive). Prison ain't (expletive) to me," he said, according to the report. Hernandez, who grew up in Bristol, Connecticut, played three seasons for the Patriots before he was released by the team hours after his arrest in June 2013 in the killing of Odin Lloyd, who was dating his fiancee's sister. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
News Article | February 21, 2017
RESTON Va., Feb. 21, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- STG Group, Inc. (OTCQB:STGG), (the “Company” or “STG”), a leading provider of mission-critical technology, cyber, and data solutions to the U.S. Government, today announced that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement to acquire Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. (PSS) for a total consideration of approximately $119 million. STG Group intends to fund the purchase price with a combination of debt and equity financing. STG Group expects the transaction to close during the first quarter of 2017, subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory review. PSS is a leading provider of advanced computing, analytics, program and acquisition management, cyber and software solutions to key defense, intelligence and federal civilian customers, working with over 25 government agency partners. The acquisition of PSS advances STG’s vision to create a new breed of high growth, agile business delivering knowledge superiority and information security to U.S. federal clients. It will combine strong capabilities and proven success in delivery and innovation with a shared commitment to developing and enhancing new solutions with much greater speed and efficiency, aligned to a growing customer demand for rapid innovation. “We are excited to announce the next step in our transformation strategy for STG Group. With the acquisition of PSS, we are advancing our technological agility and ingenuity to meet the most complex and demanding national security challenges facing the U.S.,” said STG President Phillip Lacombe. “Preferred Systems Solutions has proven excellence in data analytics, cyber security, high performance computing, acquisition and program management, and software development, with particular strength and depth in the Intelligence Community. The combined company will have stronger core competences, greater scale and depth, the ability to develop new capabilities and focus on a wider range of customers managing larger, more complex Federal programs. With our progressive vision for the business, I believe that we will deliver on the growing demands of those customers. As we work towards close, we look forward to welcoming and integrating PSS and its people in to the STG team.” “We are extremely pleased to become part of the STG Group as it will significantly increase our ability to provide an expanded set of advanced technology capabilities across the broad spectrum of critical national security programs,” said Scott Goss, CEO of PSS. “Equally important is the opportunity for our associates to grow personally and professionally in an environment with similar values and culture. The company’s commitment to outstanding customer support enables world class services in support of our country’s warfighters and the federal civilian workforce working daily to safeguard our country.” Morrison & Foerster LLP (legal counsel) served as advisors to STG Group, Inc. on this transaction. Sagent Advisors acted as financial advisor and rendered a fairness opinion to the Board of Directors of STG in connection with the acquisition. About STG STG Group, Inc. is a leading provider of mission-critical technology, cyber, and data solutions to more than 50 U.S. Federal Agencies. Applying decades of experience, the company works to ensure the security of the digital domain, the effectiveness of complex IT systems and the delivery of quality intelligence to decision makers. STG is a Washington Technology Top 100 Company. Visit STG at www.stg.com. About Preferred Systems Solutions Preferred Systems Solutions is a premier provider of Software Engineering & Development, High Performance Computing, Cyber Security, Cloud Computing, Systems Engineering & Technical Assistance, Business Applications and Financial Management, and Program and Acquisition Management services to government and industry clients that include the Intelligence Community, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Transportation Command, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation, among other customers. For more information, visit www.pssfed.com. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties concerning STG, STG’s expected financial performance, as well as STG’s strategic and operational plans. Forward-looking statements relate to expectations, beliefs, projections, future plans and strategies, anticipated events or trends and similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. Terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Actual events or results may differ materially from those described in this press release due to a number of risks and uncertainties. The potential risks and uncertainties include, among others, the possibility that the transaction will not close or that the closing may be delayed; the reaction of customers to the acquisition; the possibility that conditions to the closing of the transaction may not be satisfied; the transaction may involve unexpected costs, liabilities or delays; or the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the transaction agreement. In addition, please refer to risks described in the “Risk Factors” in STG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and filed with the SEC. Please also refer to the other documents that STG filed with the SEC on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K. The filings by STG identify and address other important factors that could cause its financial and operational results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements set forth in this press release. STG is under no duty to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this press release to conform to actual results, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any such statements.
News Article | November 8, 2016
RESTON, Va., Nov. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- STG Group, Inc. (OTCQB:STGG), a leading provider of mission-critical technology, cyber, and data solutions to the U.S. Government, announced today that Mr. Paul Rempfer has joined STG as Senior Vice President of Business Development. In this role, he will work with STG senior leadership and have management and operational oversight of the company’s capture, business development, and proposal management organizations. Mr. Rempfer’s appointment was effective from November 1, 2016. Mr. Rempfer brings more than 20 years of executive experience, having led business development organizations that have captured over $2 billion in contracts across cyber security, intelligence, and critical infrastructure domains. Mr. Rempfer has experience driving strong growth across both new and established enterprises, and he possesses the industry relationships, insights and know-how to help expand STG’s strategic opportunities, build partnerships, and advance its corporate growth agenda. Phil Lacombe, President of STG, commented, “We are very excited to have Paul leading our business development team. We believe that his understanding of critical national security missions and the cyber environment will enable us to continue expanding our support for key government customers. I am very familiar with Paul’s success in leading complex capture efforts and diverse business development teams and am delighted to have him on the STG leadership team.” Prior to joining STG, Mr. Rempfer served as a Principal at Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. At Booz Allen, he had responsibility for leading the corporate business development strategy for pursuits in the cyber and intelligence domains. Prior to Booz Allen, he held operational and executive management roles with ManTech International Corporation, General Dynamics Corporation, Secure Mission Solutions, Inc. and Noblis. “I’m excited to be joining a true industry leader like STG with its unwavering commitment to staying ahead of the curve with innovative solutions in the defense of our nation. I’m looking forward to helping STG grow and succeed in the near future,” said Mr. Rempfer. Mr. Rempfer earned a BA from The University of Iowa. About STG STG Group, Inc. is a leading provider of mission-critical technology, cyber and data solutions to more than 50 US Federal Agencies. Applying decades of experience, the company works to ensure the security of the digital domain, the effectiveness of complex IT systems and the delivery of quality intelligence to decision makers. STG is a Washington Technology Top 100 Company. Visit STG at www.stg.com. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties concerning STG, STG’s expected financial performance, as well as STG’s strategic and operational plans. Forward-looking statements relate to expectations, beliefs, projections, future plans and strategies, anticipated events or trends and similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. Terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Actual events or results may differ materially from those described in this press release due to a number of risks and uncertainties. The potential risks and uncertainties include, among others, risks relating to success in retaining or recruiting officers, key employees or directors, the potential liquidity and trading of our securities, and the size of our addressable markets and the amount of U.S. government spending on private contractors. In addition, please refer to risks described in the “Risk Factors” in STG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and filed with the SEC. Please also refer to the other documents that STG filed with the SEC on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K. The filings by STG identify and address other important factors that could cause its financial and operational results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements set forth in this press release. STG is under no duty to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this press release to conform to actual results.
Knapp K.R.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
Kruk M.C.,STG Inc
Monthly Weather Review | Year: 2010
Numerous agencies around the world perform postseason analysis of tropical cyclone position and intensity, a process described as "best tracking." However, this process is temporally and spatially inhomogeneous because data availability, operational techniques, and knowledge have changed over time and differ among agencies. The net result is that positions and intensities often vary for any given storm for different agencies. In light of these differences, it is imperative to analyze and document the interagency differences in tropical cyclone intensities. To that end, maximum sustained winds from different agencies were compared using data from the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) global tropical cyclone dataset. Comparisons were made for a recent 5-yr period to investigate the current differences, where linear systematic differences were evident. Time series of the comparisons also showed temporal changes in the systematic differences, which suggest changes in operational procedures. Initial attempts were made to normalize maximum sustained winds by correcting for known changes in operational procedures. The result was mixed, in that the adjustments removed some but not all of the systematic differences. This suggests that more details on operational procedures are needed and that a complete reanalysis of tropical cyclone intensities should be performed. © 2010 American Meteorological Society.
Knapp K.R.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
Kruk M.C.,STG Inc |
Levinson D.H.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
Diamond H.J.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
Neumann C.J.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society | Year: 2010
The IBTrACS dataset is the result of a globally coordinated and collaborative project. IBTrACS provides the first publicly available centralized repository of global tropical cyclone best-track data from the RSMCs and other agencies. In combining the disparate datasets, IBTrACS uses objective techniques that necessarily account for the inherent differences between international agencies. Unlike any other global tropical cyclone best-track dataset, IBTrACS provides a measure of the interagency variability, which helps Lo identify uncertainty in the tropical cyclone record. While IBTrACS is not a reanalysis (e.g., Fernandez-Partagas and Diaz 1996; Harper et al. 2008b; Landsea et al. 2004), the derived uncertainty metrics can serve as a stepping stone in identifying those tropical cyclones that are in most need of reanalysis. As IBTrACS data stand, numerous inhomogeneities exist in the intensity record due to interagency differences in available technologies, observations, and procedures over time. For example, inhomogeneities were introduced when various satellite data became available at an agency or when forecasters were trained in different analysis techniques. As discussed in LDK, efforts are underway at NCDC to document the operating procedures at the various RSMC and forecast offices, with an emphasis on changes in processes or capabilities that affect dataset homogeneity. Finally, IBTrACS is expandable to allow for inclusion of other best-track datasets that may become available. This allows input from individuals and/or agencies that have yet to make best-track data available. IBTrACS could become even more useful by including other information on global tropical cyclones. For example, nondeveloping storm tracks could be included for the tropical cyclone forecasting community in a future version. Such data are necessary to compile statistical tropical cyclone intensity prediction models (e.g., DeMaria and Kaplan 1999). Furthermore, some agencies provide non-6-h analyses and other storm parameters (such as radius of maximum winds, storm size, eye diameter, and radius of the outermost closed isobar), which could be incorporated into IBTrACS, making it more useful to surge and wave modelers, emergency managers, and reinsurance groups. (To download the freely available IBTrACS dataset, visit www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ibtracs/.). © 2010 American Meteorological Society.
Groisman P.Y.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
Knight R.W.,STG Inc |
Karl T.R.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Journal of Hydrometeorology | Year: 2012
In examining intense precipitation over the central United States, the authors consider only days with precipitation when the daily total is above 12.7 mm and focus only on these days and multiday events constructed from such consecutive precipitation days. Analyses show that over the central United States, a statistically significant redistribution in the spectra of intense precipitation days/events during the past decades has occurred. Moderately heavy precipitation events (within a 12.7-25.4 mm day -1 range) became less frequent compared to days and events with precipitation totals above 25.4 mm. During the past 31 yr (compared to the 1948-78 period), significant increases occurred in the frequency of "very heavy" (the daily rain events above 76.2 mm) and extreme precipitation events (defined as daily and multiday rain events with totals above 154.9 mm or 6 in.), with up to 40% increases in the frequency of days and multiday extreme rain events. Tropical cyclones associated with extreme precipitation do not significantly contribute to the changes reported in this study. With time, the internal precipitation structure (e.g., mean and maximum hourly precipitation rates within each preselected range of daily or multiday event totals) did not noticeably change. Several possible causes of observed changes in intense precipitation over the central United States are discussed and/or tested. © 2012 American Meteorological Society.
News Article | June 25, 2012
As early as 1961, some within NASA proposed that a Mars expedition be made the space agency’s next goal after Apollo. NASA Administrator James Webb was loath to promote such a goal until after Apollo had achieved its politically motivated purpose of placing a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. In October 1968, Webb retired, leaving his inexperienced deputy Thomas Paine in charge. In January 1969, as Apollo neared culmination, Richard Nixon entered the Oval Office. Nixon appointed the Space Task Group (STG), but otherwise placed a low priority on setting NASA’s future course. In October 1969, Mars supporters within NASA found comfort when the STG endorsed – with reservations – NASA’s own proposed blueprint for its future. The NASA plan was based on the Integrated Program Plan (IPP) developed by the NASA Headquarters Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF). NASA’s plan culminated in a Mars expedition in 1981, 1983, or 1986, while the STG report only called for a Mars expedition by the end of the 20th century. Nevertheless, many hoped that Nixon would follow the STG’s advice and declare a Mars expedition to be NASA’s next major goal. This optimism led OMSF to establish the Manned Planetary Missions Requirements Group (PMRG), which included representatives from NASA Headquarters and several NASA field centers. The PMRG can be seen as the successor to the Planetary Joint Action Group, which studied Mars landings and piloted Mars/Venus flybys between 1965 and 1967. The PMRG first met formally in December 1969. Not insignificantly, that same month OMSF chief George Mueller, the driving force behind the IPP, left NASA for private industry. Hoped-for White House support for Mars exploration never materialized, though the Nixon Administration paid lip service to a piloted Mars expedition by the end of the 20th century. At the same time, it slashed NASA’s budget, leading Paine to cut three manned lunar landings from the Apollo Program and cancel the Saturn V, the largest and most powerful rocket ever launched. By the end of 1970, Paine also departed NASA, which subsequently shifted most of its efforts to reusable winged spacecraft development. Nixon made the Earth-orbital Space Shuttle NASA’s post-Apollo piloted program in January 1972. NASA’s Mars aspirations died with a whimper – a call to NASA centers participating in the PMRG for reports summing up their Mars study activities. PMRG work at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston, Texas, resided in the Advanced Studies Office, Engineering and Development Directorate, under leadership of Morris Jenkins. The chief guiding principle of MSC PMRG work was “austerity.” According to Jenkins, MSC called for an 11-year development and test period leading to a 570-day initial Mars expedition in 1987-1988. It assumed the existence by that time of a reusable Earth Orbit Shuttle (EOS) consisting of a winged piloted Booster and winged piloted Orbiter with a cylindrical payload bay 15 feet in diameter. The study rejected the notion of launching Mars spacecraft components in the EOS Orbiter payload bay because as many as 30 modules would have to be launched separately and brought together in orbit, yielding a “complex and lengthy assembly and checkout process.” MSC proposed instead to launch 24-foot-diameter Mars ship modules on the back of the EOS Booster with help from a Chemical Propulsion System (CPS) upper stage. The CPS, which would have a mass of 60,000 pounds empty, would hold up to 540,000 pounds of liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen propellants, and would use the same rocket engine and propellant tank designs as the EOS Booster and Orbiter. The EOS Booster would carry the CPS and Mars ship module partway to orbit, then would separate to return to its launch site. The CPS would then ignite to place itself and its payload into assembly orbit. The CPS stages would be refueled in orbit by EOS Orbiters acting as tankers and reused as the Mars ship’s propulsion stages. Mars ship assembly would require 71 EOS launches. Launch 1 would place CPS #5 and the 110,000-pound Mission Module (MM) into Earth orbit. The MM, the Mars crew’s living quarters, would also serve as the Earth-orbital construction base during Mars ship assembly. Launch 2 would place in orbit CPS #6 and the 33,000-pound Electrical Power System (EPS) module, and launch 3 would place into orbit CPS #4 and the 12,000-pound payload hangar. Launches 4, 5, and 6 would place into orbit CPS modules #3, #2, and #1, respectively. Launches 7 through 71 would see EOS Orbiters pump three million pounds of liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen propellants into the six CPS modules from tanks in their payload bays. The assembled Mars ship would include at its front end the payload hangar bearing the mission’s 110,000-pound Mars Excursion Module (MEM) lander and 31,000 pounds of automated Mars/Venus probes. Next would come the four-deck MM. Decks 1 and 2 would constitute the MM’s primary pressurized volume, while decks 3 and 4 would serve as the backup pressurized volume. Either volume could be sealed off if it lost pressure, became contaminated, or was otherwise rendered uninhabitable. Deck four would also serve as the spacecraft’s thick-walled solar flare radiation shelter. The 65-foot-long EPS module would carry pressurized gas storage tanks and two wing-like solar arrays. The arrays, which together would have a mass of 15,000 pounds, would be of relatively flimsy construction and could be degraded by hard radiation, so would be designed to be retracted during propulsive maneuvers and solar flares. A tunnel doubling as an airlock would run between an extravehicular activity hatch in the forward payload hangar through the MM to a hatch leading aft into the EPS module. The airlock tunnel would also provide access to docking ports on MM decks 1 and 3. The front end of CPS #6 would attach to the aft end of the EPS module. The front end of CPS #5 would attach to the aft end of CPS #6, the front end of CPS #4 would attach to the aft end of CPS #5, and the front end of CPS #3 would attach to the aft end of CPS #4. CPS stages #1 and #2 would be mounted on either side of CPS #3, with CPS #1 in starboard position and CPS #2 in port position. For Earth-orbit departure, the twin solar arrays would be retracted, then a series of propulsive maneuvers would take place over several orbits. Maneuver 1 would see CPSs #1 and #2 ignite and burn to depletion to place the Mars ship into an elliptical “intermediate orbit” with its perigee at assembly orbit altitude. The spent CPSs would then separate. Maneuver 2 would occur at next perigee, when CPS #3 would ignite to boost the Mars ship’s apogee, placing it in an elliptical “waiting orbit.” For maneuver 3, CPS #3 would ignite at apogee to adjust the plane of the Mars ship’s departure path. CPS #3 would then separate. Space tugs would later recover CPS stages #1, #2, and #3 for re-use. Maneuver 4 would see CPS #4 ignite at next perigee, placing MSC’s Mars ship on course for Mars. CPS #4 would then separate and not be recovered. The crew would extend the solar arrays, then would spin the Mars ship end over end about twice per minute to produce artificial gravity in the MM equal to one-sixth of Earth’s gravity (that is, one lunar gravity). The spin axis would remain located in the forward third of CPS #6 (the CPS stage nearest the EPS module) throughout the expedition. CPS #5 would perform any necessary course correction maneuvers during the six-month flight to Mars, then would ignite to slow the Mars ship so that the planet’s gravity could capture it into a 200-by-10,000-mile orbit. A spacecraft entering an elliptical Mars orbit would need less arrival and departure propellant than one entering a circular Mars orbit, MSC found. CPS #5 would then separate. The five-person crew would spend the next 15 days in orbit studying Mars and preparing the MEM for landing. The MSC PMRG report proposed a two-stage conical MEM similar to a 1967 North American Rockwell design. The MEM Pilot/Geologist (who would also serve as backup Systems Engineer), Physician (backup Bioscientist), and Bioscientist (backup Med tech/Deputy MEM pilot) would then separate from the payload hangar in the MEM, leaving behind the Commander/Primary Spacecraft Pilot (backup Med tech/Systems Engineer) and Systems Engineer (Deputy Commander/backup Primary Spacecraft Pilot) to mind the mother ship in orbit. The MEM crew would spend 45 days exploring Mars using a pair of small unpressurized rovers resembling the Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle. The electric rovers would have a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour. During surface excursions, one crewmember would remain in the MEM at all times while the other two drove one rover each. This “tandem convoy” arrangement would circumvent the onerous “walk back” limitation imposed by single rover use. If both astronauts rode a single rover and it broke down, they would have to walk back to the MEM. Maximum walk-back distance would be limited less by astronaut stamina than by the amount of water and air the Mars suit backpacks could hold. The tandem convoy approach meant that, if one Mars rover failed, the functional rover could return both crewmembers safely to the MEM. The rovers would each include a tow hook for returning the failed rover to the MEM for repairs. The area available to two mutually supportive rovers would total 8000 square miles, compared to only 80 square miles for a single rover, MSC determined. Maximum rover range would be 100 miles, but this could be extended by carrying extra batteries. A one-day rover traverse (10 hours outside the MEM) could cover up to 84 mile. Once every 15 days, a 36-hour traverse of up to 152 miles could occur, with the astronauts sleeping overnight on the parked rovers in their hard-shelled aluminum Mars suits. The astronauts would collect samples of martian rock and soil with emphasis on gathering possible life forms. According to MSC, the “potential for even elementary life to exist on another planet in the solar system may. . .be the keystone to the implementation of a manned planetary exploration program. . .[M]an’s unique capabilities in exploration could. . .have a direct qualitative impact on life science yield.” The report assumed that equipment and procedures could be developed to prevent the astronauts from contaminating the samples during collection. After 45 days of exploration, the crew would blast off from Mars in the MEM ascent stage and dock with one of the docking ports (ideally the deck 3 port) on the side of the MM. The MEM crew would use the Backup Pressurized Volume as a quarantine facility until the danger of spreading martian contagion to the other two crewmembers was judged to be past. Any living organisms the astronauts collected would be transferred to a Mars environment simulator in the MM. The spent MEM ascent stage would then be cast off. CPS #6 would ignite at periapsis to begin the 330-day voyage from Mars to Earth. The astronauts, meanwhile, would begin preliminary studies of the Mars samples to record data on life forms that might not survive the trip to Earth laboratories. During return to Earth, the Mars spacecraft would fly past Venus. MSC’s study favored a Venus swingby-type expedition over an opposition-class short-stay expedition with less than 15 days at Mars and a total duration of less than 450 days. It also rejected a conjunction-class long-stay expedition with a 360-to-560-day stay at Mars and a total duration of 900 to 1100 days. The opposition-class expedition would have an Earth-return speed of from 50,000 to 70,000 feet per second. This would mean that, if it used no form of aerobraking, it would need to carry up to 30 million pounds of propellants to slow itself enough to achieve an elliptical Earth orbit. Earth return would add nothing to the Mars ship’s propellant load if, just prior to Earth arrival, the crew abandoned the Mars ship in a small Earth-return capsule capable of withstanding high atmosphere-reentry speeds. The report pegged the cost of developing and testing such a capsule at more than $2 billion, a pricetag it judged was “certainly not consistent with austerity.” By contrast, propellant needed for the conjunction-class mission, with its long Mars stay, would total only 1.4 million pounds. MSC judged, however, that MSC found that the mission’s detour past Venus would permit an expedition with a short stay at Mars and propulsive Earth-orbit capture with the same total propellant load as the opposition-class expedition with high-speed capsule reentry. CPS #6 would slow the Mars ship so that Earth’s gravity could capture it into an elliptical orbit. The MM would then separate, and a space tug would be dispatched to dock with it and circularize its orbit at an altitude accessible to an EOS. The EOS would then dock with the MM to retrieve the Mars expedition crew and Mars samples. Upon landing on Earth, crew and samples would be transferred to “appropriate surface quarantine facilities.” MSC’s PMRG report received only limited distribution within NASA and virtually no attention outside the agency. Formal studies within NASA aimed at sending humans to Mars would not occur again until the 1980s. 1970s NASA was, however, not through with Mars. Even as MSC completed its report, the robotic Mariner 8 and Mariner 9 Mars orbiters were entering the final stages of preparation for launch. Mariner 8 lifted off on May 9, 1971, and fell into the Atlantic after its Centaur upper stage tumbled out of control. Mission planners activated plans for a one-spacecraft Mars orbiter mission put in place more than a year earlier and launched Mariner 9 on 30 May 1971. The spacecraft took advantage of the extremely favorable 1971 Earth-Mars transfer opportunity, and arrived in Mars orbit on 14 November 1971. The first Mars orbiter, Mariner 9 waited out a planet-enveloping dust storm that hid nearly all the planet’s features; then, as the dust settled in December 1971 and January 1972, it began to map the entire planet in detail for the first time. Scientists viewing Mariner 9 images discovered the great volcanoes of Mars, including Olympus Mons, the largest mountain in the Solar System, and Mars’s great equatorial canyon system, which they named Valles Marineris to honor Mariner 9. They also found signs of flowing water in Mars’s past: enormous flood channels and smaller branching features. By the time it ran out of compressed nitrogen steering gas and was turned off on 27 October 1972, the robotic spacecraft had exceeded both its own pre-launch mission objectives and those of Mariner 8. Beyond Apollo chronicles space history through programs and missions that didn’t happen. Comments are encouraged. Off-topic comments might be deleted.