Question-and-Answer Session
Operator
(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Chuck Murphy - Sidoti.
Chuck Murphy - Sidoti
Could you just walk through the non-recurring charges again? And just to make sure I’m clear here, John, I thought I heard you say something about the run-rate being $0.27, but the press release said $0.35, which one?
John D. Grampa
No, no. The run-rate is $0.35. The $0.27 is the difference between the two years run-rate.
Chuck Murphy - Sidoti
Can you walk through now what those non-recurring charges were again?
John D. Grampa
The largest one was the $0.09 impact was a due to a $2.6 million billing error that occurred last year that we discovered late in the first quarter, actually discovered in mid-March. And there’s not a whole lot more to say about that.
Chuck Murphy - Sidoti
And that was for Williams, though?
John D. Grampa
Yes, it was. It was in Williams. It was in that segment. It’s an unusual event that the customer was, in fact, billed consistent with the order entry by that customer, and it also happens to be a customer that submits his orders to us electronically, and we ship and bill electronically. But, it turns out that the metal that was associated with that order was his metal, and it shouldn’t have been billed for. It should have been billed only the fab charges but, in fact, he was double billed the metal, because it had been billed to him earlier.
Chuck Murphy - Sidoti
And what was the other stuff?
John D. Grampa
The others were $0.04 in the aggregate. $0.02 of it was a difference in the effective tax rate for the quarter driven by an adjustment to the deferred tax asset account. And the third one was the non-recurring purchase price allocation adjustments fundamentally to the first turn of the inventory that occurred with the acquisition.
Chuck Murphy - Sidoti
Dick, as far as the media market goes, Williams, did I hear you say that you have qualified the ruthenium with a new customer, but that there was a delay in qualifying for the oxide layer?
Richard J. Hipple
Yes. On the ruthenium targets, where we stepped backwards in sales, we are re-qualified now. And then, because of the intense activity required to really get back in the saddle here ASAP, we had to pushback a little bit of our development program on the oxide. And so, that’s pushed the oxide back, as I had mentioned. And we expect if all goes well, and we are proceeding well, and we’ve gone through several phases and everything is thumbs-up, we would hope to be shipping the oxide-type material in the third quarter.
- To read the full transcript on Seeking Alpha, click here »
