UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C.  20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one)

Owens-Illinois, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

419-247-5000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  ý    No  o 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. $.01 par value common stock – 152,681,770 shares at July 31, 2005.

Part I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements.

The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements presented herein are unaudited but, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments necessary to present fairly such information for the periods and at the dates indicated.  Because the following unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation S-X, they do not contain all information and footnotes normally contained in annual consolidated financial statements; accordingly, they should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto appearing in the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of June 30, 2004 and the three and six month periods then ended have been restated as follows:

1.               On October 7, 2004, the Company announced that it had completed the sale of its blow-molded plastic container operations in North America, South America and Europe.  As required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“FAS”) No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” the Company has presented the results of operations for the blow-molded plastic container business in the Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 as a discontinued operation.  As such, results for that period have been reclassified to conform to this presentation.  At June 30, 2004, the assets and liabilities of the blow-molded plastic container business were presented in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as the assets and liabilities of discontinued operations.

2.               During the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company determined that certain commodity futures contracts did not meet all of the documentation requirements to qualify for special hedge accounting treatment and began to recognize all changes in fair value of these contracts in current earnings as required by FAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.”  Results of Operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 have been adjusted from the amounts originally reported to include the mark to market gains on these commodity futures contracts which were previously deferred through September 30, 2004.

2

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

3

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes.

4

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

5

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS – Continued

See accompanying notes.

6

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS

(Dollars in millions)

See accompanying notes.

7

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Tabular data dollars in millions,

except share and per share amounts

1.              Earnings Per Share

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:

The convertible preferred stock was not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 since the result would have been antidilutive.  Options to purchase 2,215,350 and 4,621,619 weighted average shares of common stock that were outstanding during the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the options’ exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares.

8

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:

The convertible preferred stock was not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 since the result would have been antidilutive.  Options to purchase 2,911,614 and 5,878,764 weighted average shares of common stock that were outstanding during the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the options’ exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares.

2.  Stock Options

The Company has three nonqualified stock option plans.  The Company has adopted the disclosure-only provisions (intrinsic value method) of FAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.”  All options have been granted at prices equal to the market price of the Company’s common stock on the date granted.  Accordingly, the Company recognizes no compensation expense related to the stock option plans.

If the Company had elected to recognize compensation cost based on the fair value of the options granted at grant date as allowed by FAS No. 123, pro forma net income and earnings per share would have been as follows:

9

The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

10

3.  Long-Term Debt

The following table summarizes the long-term debt of the Company:

On October 7, 2004, in connection with the sale of the Company’s blow-molded plastic container operations, the Company’s subsidiary borrowers entered into the Third Amended and Restated Secured Credit Agreement (the “Agreement”).  The proceeds from the sale were used to repay C and D term loans and a portion of the B1 term loan outstanding under the previous agreement.  On January 19, 2005, the Company completed the required divestiture of two European glass container factories and received proceeds of approximately $180 million.  The proceeds were largely used to repay debt during the quarter.  At June 30, 2005, the Third Amended and Restated Secured Credit Agreement includes a $600.0 million revolving credit facility and a $223.9 million A1 term loan, each of which has a final maturity date of April 1,

11

2007. It also includes a $220.8 million B1 term loan, a $185.6 million C1 term loan, and a €46.3 million C2 term loan, each of which has a final maturity date of April 1, 2008.

At June 30, 2005, the Company’s subsidiary borrowers had unused credit of $229.7 million available under the Agreement.

The weighted average interest rate on borrowings outstanding under the Agreement at June 30, 2005 was 5.17%. Including the effects of cross-currency swap agreements related to borrowings under the Agreement by the Company’s Australian and European subsidiaries, as discussed in Note 11, the weighted average interest rate was 5.78%.

4.  Supplemental Cash Flow Information

5.  Comprehensive Income

The components of comprehensive income (loss) are: (a) net earnings; (b) change in fair value of certain derivative instruments; (c) adjustment of minimum pension liabilities; and (d) foreign currency translation adjustments.  Total comprehensive income (loss) is as follows:

12

6.  Inventories

Major classes of inventory are as follows:

7.  New Accounting Standards

In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued FAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment,” which requires that the cost resulting from all share-based payment transactions be recognized in the financial statements.  The statement requires a public entity to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award (with limited exceptions).  That cost will be recognized over the required service period (usually the vesting period).  No compensation cost is recognized for equity instruments for which employees do not render the requisite service.  The provisions of FAS No. 123R are effective as of the beginning of the annual reporting period that begins after June 15, 2005.  The Company has not yet determined the impact of adopting FAS No. 123R.

In May 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued FAS No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections,” which changes the requirements for accounting for and reporting a change in accounting principle.  The statement requires changes in accounting principle to be applied retrospectively to prior periods’ financial statements.  The statement also redefines “restatement” as being the correction of an error. FAS No. 154 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005.  The Company will apply FAS No. 154 as required.

8.  Contingencies

The Company is one of a number of defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers.  From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company’s former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos.  The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958.  The traditional asbestos personal injury lawsuits and claims relating to such production and sale of asbestos material typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as “asbestos claims”).

As of June 30, 2005, the Company has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 33,000 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an analysis of the claims and lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2004, approximately 94% of

13

plaintiffs and claimants either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court.  Approximately 5% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15 million or less, and 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million.  Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages $100 million or greater but less than $123 million.

As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages.  This variability, together with the actual experience discussed further below of litigating or resolving through settlement hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period, demonstrates that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.  Rather, the amount potentially recoverable for a specific claimant is determined by other factors such as the claimant’s severity of disease, product identification evidence against specific defendants, the defenses available to those defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, the claimant’s history of smoking or exposure to other possible disease-causative factors, and the various other matters discussed further below.

In addition to the pending claims set forth above, the Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs’ counsel throughout the country.  These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company’s former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958.  Some plaintiffs’ counsel have historically withheld claims under these agreements for later presentation while focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort system.  The Company believes that as of June 30, 2005 there are approximately 21,000 claims against other defendants and which are likely to be asserted some time in the future against the Company. These claims are not included in the totals set forth above.  The Company further believes that the bankruptcies of additional co-defendants, as discussed below, resulted in an acceleration of the presentation and disposition of a number of these previously withheld preexisting claims under such agreements, which claims would otherwise have been presented and disposed of over the next several years.  This acceleration is reflected in an increased number of pending asbestos claims and, to the extent disposed, contributed to additional asbestos-related payments.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.  Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the above description of pending matters or in the following description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June 30, 2005, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 322,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $6,300.  Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over periods ranging up to seven years.  Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $92 million at June 30, 2005 ($91 million at December 31, 2004) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.  The Company’s indemnity payments for these claims have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time.  As discussed above, a part of the Company’s objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.

14

Under such agreements, qualification by meeting certain illness and exposure criteria has tended to reduce the number of claims presented to the Company that would ultimately be dismissed or rejected due to the absence of impairment or product exposure evidence.  The Company expects that as a result, although aggregate spending may be lower, there may be an increase in the per claim average indemnity payment involved in such resolution.

The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability (i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $2.85 billion through 2004, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability.  The Company’s ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the expanding list of non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation and found liable for substantial damage awards, the continued use of litigation screenings to generate new lawsuits, the large number of claims asserted or filed by parties who claim prior exposure to asbestos materials but have no present physical impairment as a result of such exposure, and the growing number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy.

The Company has continued to monitor trends which may affect its ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos claims against the Company.  The Company expects that the total asbestos-related cash payments will be moderately lower in 2005 compared to 2004 and will continue to decline thereafter as the preexisting but presently unasserted claims withheld under the claims handling agreements are presented to the Company and as the number of potential future claimants continues to decrease.  The material components of the Company’s accrued liability are based on amounts estimated by the Company in connection with its comprehensive review and consist of the following: (i) the reasonably probable contingent liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the Company, (ii) the c ontingent liability for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with various plaintiffs’ counsel, (iii) the contingent liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company believes it is reasonably probable will be asserted in the next several years, to the degree that an estimation as to future claims is possible, and (iv) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of the Company’s accrual are:

a)         the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who were exposed to the Company’s asbestos-containing insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;

b)        the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company’s administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those set forth in those agreements;

c)         the extent of decrease or increase in the inventory of pending serious disease cases;

d)        the extent to which the Co mpany is able to successfully defend itself at trial;

e)         the extent of actions by courts to eliminate, reduce or permit the diversion of financial resources for unimpaired claimants and so-called forum shopping;

15

f)           the extent to which additional defendants with substantial resources and assets are required to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims;

g)        the number and timing of co-defendant bankruptcies; and

h)        the extent to which the resolution of co-defendant bankruptcies divert resources to unimpaired claimants.

The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review.  If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability.  The Company believes that an estimation of the reasonably probable amount of the contingent liability for claims not yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period of several years.  Therefore, while the results of future annual comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in an annual charge.

On November 15, 2004, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a shareholder, Joseph Sitorsky, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, captioned Sitorsky v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.  Mr. Sitorsky seeks an order compelling the Company to produce several categories of documents concerning advisory fees paid to KKR Associates, L.P., the BSN Acquisition, The Plastics Sale, due diligence in connection with the Company’s contract with software vendor, Model N, an alleged affiliate of KKR Associates, L.P., and executive compensation.  The Company reached a settlement with Mr. Sitorsky involving production of a limited selection of documents subject to a confidentiality agreement and court orders.  Due to a change in the confidentiality agreement imposed by the Delaware court, however, the Company has filed a motion to modify or vacate the settlement order.  The Company anticipates that the matter will be resolved either on the terms agreed by the parties or revised terms acceptable to the Company; but if the matter is returned to active litigation, the Company intends to defend the action vigorously.

Other litigation is pending against the Company, in many cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to the business of the Company and in others presenting allegations that are nonroutine and involve compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims as well as other types of relief.

The ultimate legal and financial liability of the Company with respect to the lawsuits and proceedings referred to above, in addition to other pending litigation, cannot be estimated with certainty.  The Company’s reported results of operations for 2004 were materially affected by the $152.6 million fourth quarter charge and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial.  Any future additional charge would likewise materially affect the Company’s results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and will continue to affect the Company’s cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and t o fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-term and long-term basis.

16

9.  Segment Information

The Company operates in the rigid packaging industry.  The Company has two reportable product segments within the rigid packaging industry:  (1) Glass Containers and (2) Plastics Packaging.  The Glass Containers segment includes operations in Europe, the Americas, and the Asia Pacific region.  Following the sale of a substantial portion of the Company’s blow-molded plastic container operations which was completed on October 7, 2004, the Plastics Packaging segment consists of healthcare packaging, closures and specialty products.

The Company’s measure of profit for its reportable segments is Segment Operating Profit, which consists of consolidated earnings from continuing operations before interest income, interest expense, provision for income taxes and minority share owners’ interests in earnings of subsidiaries and excludes amounts related to certain items that management considers not representative of ongoing operations.  The Company’s management uses Segment Operating Profit, in combination with selected cash flow information, to evaluate performance and to allocate resources.

Segment Operating Profit for product segments includes an allocation of some corporate expenses based on both a percentage of sales and direct billings based on the costs of specific services provided.  For the Company’s U.S. pension plans, net periodic pension cost (credit) has been allocated to product segments.  The information below is presented on a continuing operations basis, and therefore, the prior period amounts have been restated to remove the discontinued operations.  See Note 16 for more information.

Financial information for continuing operations for the three month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 regarding the Company’s product segments is as follows:

17

The reconciliation of Segment Operating Profit to earnings from continuing operations before income taxes and minority share owners’ interests in earnings of subsidiaries for the three month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 is as follows: