Popular Mass Ave. seafood spot to partner with Gallery Pastry founder at new Carmel location
Salt, known for its fresh seafood and handmade pastas, will open a third location in June. The new location will be at the Carmel City Center, taking over the space occupied by the former Matt the Miller's Tavern.
'We're excited to bring Salt to Carmel and introduce our fresh, coastal-inspired dining experience to this dynamic community,' co-owner John Bales said in a news release. 'Our guests have embraced Salt in our other locations."
Bales opened the first Salt location on Mass Ave in 2016, followed by Salt at Geist in 2023.
More Hamilton County news: 'Epic catastrophe': Pay issues plague Westfield firefighters, mayor says changes needed
The menu in Carmel will include jumbo lump crab cakes, Salt sashimi plate, Chilean sea bass, lobster mac and cheese and filet mignon topped with Maine lobster Oscar. The restaurant will also offer wine, cocktails and dessert.
Salt at Carmel City Center will be open daily for lunch and dinner, offering a variety of quick lunch options, including sandwiches, fish tacos, salads and sushi. The restaurant has collaborated with Gallery Pastry Shop founder Alison Keefer to create a seafood-inspired brunch on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, according to the news release.
Salt at Carmel City Center will be open daily from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Contact Jake Allen at jake.allen@indystar.com.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Popular seafood spot on Mass Ave. to open new location in Carmel
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Changes Coming: How The OBBBA Affects State Tax
In this episode of Tax Notes Talk, Steve Kralik of Armanino discusses the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's implications for state tax, including the new version of the SALT cap and how states may conform to the changes. Tax Notes Talk is a podcast produced by Tax Notes. This transcript has been edited for clarity. David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I'm David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International. This week: getting SALTy. As we previously covered, there were a few sticking points in the process of getting the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed into law. One of those points was what to do with the state and local tax, or SALT, deduction cap, which was set to expire at the end of 2025 with other Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions. The House SALT Caucus originally pushed for the cap to be increased from $10,000 to $40,000. But Senate Republicans were concerned with the overall cost of the bill, advocating for keeping the cap at $10,000 and using it as a pay-for to offset other tax cuts. So where did Congress end up on the SALT cap, and what do other tax changes in the bill mean for states? This episode is part of our ongoing series on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As we continue to dive deep into the most important tax changes and provisions in the coming weeks or even months, we'd like to hear from you. If there's an aspect of the bill that you'd like to hear more about, please email us at podcast@ But for now, here to talk more about this is Tax Notes senior reporter, Paul Jones. Paul, welcome back to the podcast. Paul Jones: Thanks, Dave. It's always a pleasure. David D. Stewart: I understand you recently spoke with someone about this. Who did you talk to? Paul Jones: I spoke with Steve Kralik, who's managing director of Armanino Advisory LLC. David D. Stewart: And what did you talk about? Paul Jones: Well, as we'll hear, Steve is quite knowledgeable about the debate over the OBBBA, including the back and forth over the SALT cap element. So we discussed that, and we also talked about how the increase and extension of the SALT cap will impact states' own passthrough entity workarounds, which allow PTE owners to sidestep the cap. We also talked about some of the ways that the bill's provisions could impact states' own tax policies, including their conformity decisions. And we also got into what might be coming next in terms of some federal tax policy legislation, or at least debates over it. David D. Stewart: All right, let's go to that interview. Paul Jones: Hi, Steve. How are you doing today? Steve Kralik: I'm great. Thanks for having me, Paul. Paul Jones: Yeah. So just a couple weeks back, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was passed into law and signed by President Trump, and obviously there are a lot of implications for states. One of the things we talked about previously that I'd like to sort of recap is the SALT cap debate that occurred during the discussion of H.R.1. And there were a couple efforts to address particularly states' SALT cap workarounds for passthrough entities. Can you talk quickly about what lawmakers in Congress were initially proposing to do to change or to hem those in and ultimately what happened, why those didn't get passed? Steve Kralik: Well, yeah. So the origin of the SALT cap workarounds go back a number of years ago. Shortly after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, there was an effort — and it started, actually, in my home state of Connecticut — to provide a continued uncapped deduction for passthrough entity owners. So the idea being to provide a deduction at a passthrough entity level that gets taken off of gross income to arrive at a net amount distributed to the passthrough entity members. And so Connecticut was the first in a long line of states adopting this type of provision. Connecticut, their tax was actually mandatory, but the other states adopted elective taxes. And ultimately, the IRS in 2020, so in the Notice 2020-75, blessed the idea of allowing taxes paid at the entity level to avoid the cap at the individual level. And there was a lot of questions up until that notice was issued about whether these workarounds would be valid and would be held valid by the IRS. The IRS eliminated a lot of that uncertainty in 2020. Over 35 states have these passthrough entity taxes. And so the big question mark in this legislative session was whether or not the cap would continue. So the $10,000 original cap under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, there was a huge question mark because the legislation was passed with that cap going away. So instead of going from $10,000 to some other number, it would be uncapped after 2025. And so the question mark was, does the federal government expand the cap, continue to hold the $10,000 cap, or continue with the uncapped amount? And so that was the big tension here, was the extending of the cap was politically unfavorable. But also, an uncapped SALT deduction would be very costly. So there was a huge amount of political turmoil around continuing with the SALT cap. And so the initial bill passed by the House of Representatives had an expansion of the cap, but what happened was there was a limitation on this SALT workaround — the SALT cap workaround, the passthrough entity taxes, or PTET as we call them. Paul Jones: Right. And was that an effort to save money, so they were increasing the cap, but they were going to try and curb some of these workarounds to compensate for that cost, or was there a different motive for that? Steve Kralik: Well, it was definitely revenue related, but there also was a bit of politics going on in that the original cap was designed to affect high tax states that typically lean Democratic. And so as this was a Republican-led bill, there was some thought that some of these limitations were designed more from a political perspective. But as you mentioned, the expansion of the cap — because going from $10,000 up, it costs a lot of money. And so the idea was to recapture some of that loss through limitations on the passthrough entity tax. And so the proposal, it had winners and losers for passthrough entities. So there's a special deduction that's available. It's section 199A of the Internal Revenue Code that applies to passthrough entities and businesses that earn money other than through professional type services. So doctors, lawyers, and accountants, for example, are not eligible. And so the House bill actually had a limitation that would have disallowed the PTET for those types of businesses. And so there was a lot of pushback on the House bill as it went over to the Senate. So there was a lot of lobbying for a change to that limitation. So the limit would've been unlimited for businesses eligible for 199A, other than professional services, but would've limited it for the professional services. And there wasn't really a policy justification. Again, it was I think just a budgetary consideration. And so as it went to the Senate, the Senate proposal wound up scrapping that proposal and then adopting something different — an expansion for passthrough entity tax from $10,000 up, but ultimately with a 50 percent limitation. So above the flat dollar cap, all businesses — not doctors, lawyers, and accountants versus other businesses — it scrapped that and would've provided a 50 percent limitation in passthrough entity tax. And so there was concerns now — everybody previously eligible and taking advantage were concerned about losing access to this benefit. And so then, ultimately, the final legislation expanded the cap but retained the prior deductibility of the passthrough entity tax. Paul Jones: Right. So now moving forward, obviously, like you said, we have a larger SALT cap overall. And the passthrough entities that were taking advantage of the states' workaround still have basically an unfettered ability to do that, at least per the federal government. But now that it looks like some version of the cap is going to be here to stay. It's $40,000 for now, and then it will go back down to $10,000 unless they extend that. It also looks like states' workarounds are probably going to be permanent. There are some states that have to maybe talk about extending theirs. I think most of them just have them go on or terminate when the federal cap ends. Their workarounds will continue going forward. But there are some other issues. I know that I've spoken with people who've said that the rules that various states apply for purposes of their passthrough entity tax workarounds have proven complicated or maybe a deterrent for taxpayers who want to utilize a way of getting around the SALT cap. And obviously there may be less taxpayers now who feel the need to use the SALT cap because the cap is higher. But for those who still want to utilize it, are those rules — do they continue to pose a burden, and is there going to be more pressure on states maybe now to take a look at the workarounds they've approved and try and make them more streamlined or user-friendly? Steve Kralik: Thanks for bringing that up. As a state tax specialist, I'm used to complexity in state tax. It's not just 50 jurisdictions, it's a whole lot more. And wading through statutory language and procedures, it's second nature for me. But even I, encountering the passthrough entity provisions, I'm often perplexed, I would say, as part of the look into the various states' approaches to passthrough entity tax. And so the percentage of total passthrough entities that take advantage — I was relatively shocked at the low percentages who actually takes advantage out of all potential passthrough entities. And I think the complexity and procedures between prepayment requirements that are outside the ordinary course of a typical compliance process and who's eligible, what's the base, for example, do resident taxpayers bring in 100 percent or not? Those are things that differ state by state, or sometimes, it's even hard to tell what the rules are, to be honest. And so now that there's a perpetual — the anticipation was that the need, and in fact in some cases, the actual passthrough entity tax would've gone away with the SALT cap no longer being capped. There was not as much of an impetus. If something is temporary, it's much less likely that you're going to try to fix anything that's problematic. What I would hope is that the states in some way — and there's different ways of approaching this — there are different groups that can push these types of changes through. But some way to harmonize or streamline some of these rules would definitely be welcome and perhaps provide additional pickup where the states may be better off. And definitely taxpayers and tax practitioners as well would have more certainty, more clarity around these rules. And so if one thing comes out of this is the idea that we could do it better. We could change the way that these calculations are done and explain them in a way and harmonize them state to state. I think that would be very welcome and then would definitely affect how many people ultimately elect into these regimes. Paul Jones: So let's move on now and take a quick look. Some of the concern people have had about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's impact on states' bottom lines has to do with changes to funding, for example, to Medicaid and, I think, SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]. But also obviously there's a whole bunch of changes to the federal tax code, and some of those will flow through to state tax codes. And that will depend on how they conform, when they conform, if they choose to update their conformity, etc. But just quickly, what are some of the changes at the federal level that you think states may need to make conscious decisions about? You obviously have the permanently increased bonus depreciation, immediate R&D [research and development]expensing — there's even a higher standard deduction. They increased that a bit, and some above-the-line tax breaks such as for tips, which as we previously discussed, that could actually pose a bit of a political challenge. Steve Kralik: The conformity to federal tax provisions is something that varies by state, but there's a few different types of conformity. So, for example, for the bonus depreciation, this isn't the first time that we've adopted some form of bonus depreciation, going back to, I believe, shortly after 2001, I believe was the initial bonus. And so states have generally decoupled from the bonus depreciation. The conformity to federal tax code, the Internal Revenue Code, there are some states that adopt all changes based upon what's called rolling conformity. So basically the current Internal Revenue Code as it exists today. I suspect that, and have not done full research here, but the states with rolling conformity that had previously decoupled from prior versions of bonus depreciation likely would decouple currently. There may be states, though, that have specific language referring to a particular type of bonus depreciation which would need to affirmatively decouple, otherwise the federal deduction would come through on the state return. Other states have what's called static conformity, where it's a conformity to a prior version of the Internal Revenue Code. And so, again, using depreciation, the bonus depreciation, it wouldn't be a part of that particular state's provisions because they would've coupled with, for example, the Internal Revenue Code as of December 31, 2024 , for example, and so would not adopt automatically these provisions. As you mentioned, the interesting, I think, political question is going to be states that have automatic — called rolling conformity — to, for example, for personal income tax, gross income, section 61. The way that the tax on tips and tax on overtime was adopted is through what's called an above-the-line deduction. It's a deduction to arrive at your gross income or your taxable income. So if the state conforms to taxable income or gross income and has rolling conformity, they will automatically conform to this exemption. And now states may not want to, given budgetary concerns, and given obviously the change in the SNAP and Medicaid, which there's a lot of revenue that goes through to the states, which now, that revenue is going to be lessened. So you're going to have a budgetary impact at the state level along with a reduction in potential receipts. But the political aspects of pushing through a special tax on tips and overtime is maybe something like a third rail. That may be something that taxpayers may be quite upset about if they realize that the state's going to take special effort to tax them. And the last thing I mentioned is there is a change in the expensing of R&D. Actually, many tax prognosticators had expected that to go away a lot earlier than 2025. There's been a huge push since the provision was adopted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but that finally was changed. One thing that's interesting from a state and local perspective is the potential for the differential in treatment. So previously there was a five-year capitalization and five-year amortization for U.S.-based research and a 15-year amortization for foreign research. That's been changed to allow U.S.-based research to be fully expensed immediately. What is interesting from a state and local perspective is the potential that that disparate treatment for U.S. versus foreign research might actually be violative of the foreign commerce clause. And given that it's gone from instead of a five [years] versus 15 [years], it's a full expensing with the ability to file amended returns to claim, the potential exists that that potential constitutional challenge might be out there. Paul Jones: So actually on the topic of changes that could potentially spur litigation, I want to move on to a different topic, and that's the changes that have occurred with GILTI [global intangible low-taxed income], or as it's now called the NCTI [net controlled foreign corporation tested income]. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed the way that that income is taxed. And basically, as I understand it, they significantly broadened the base. And the way that that is taxed at the federal level still provides a fair amount of relief. But states that have been taxing GILTI, which do not bring in foreign tax credits, they're potentially going to be substantially increasing their taxation of that. I bring this up in part because there's potential down the road that that could actually lead to litigation. But before we get to that question, do you think that there's going to be a greater push in light of, as you mentioned, some of the budget reality states are facing for more states to try and tax what was GILTI income, now it's NCTI income, under these new rules? Or maybe we're going to see sort of the same hesitancy by other states to go after this income? Steve Kralik: I think it's a big question mark right now. I do think that the expansion of the new NCTI — so net CFC tested income, NCTI — it's an expanded definition of taxable income, removing what was called the deemed tangible return. That's been removed, and in exchange for that removal, as you mentioned, an expansion of the foreign tax credit. Now states do not conform to the foreign tax credit, and so the expansion in the small number of states that do tax GILTI would definitely have an increase. You've asked another question, which is states, given that there's been a change to expand the definition of taxable income under the new NCTI, would there be an impetus for them to expand the taxation of the income? Let's say, for example, they previously provided 100 percent exemption or deduction for that, or 95 percent, for example, in a few states. I think there might be, and it might be because there's a change. But also on the flip side, in states that do tax, for example, and don't provide what's called apportionment relief, there might be an additional amount of impetus to challenge some of the states that do tax GILTI, now NCTI. Paul Jones: So basically you had a situation, and I think this is similar to what you were talking about with the immediate R&D expensing, where there had been some possibility of a legal conflict or litigation and that the changes made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R.1, have maybe exaggerated or intensified these in such a way that there's going to potentially spur litigation that we were maybe anticipating but never actually saw under the TCJA or previous federal tax policy. Now we might actually see legal battles about this come to fruition. Is that correct? Steve Kralik: That is correct. Again, with the expansion of the tax base and the change in the calculation, I think it does provide a potential avenue for future litigation, which, as you mentioned, didn't really come to fruition under the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the original foreign income provisions. Paul Jones: So I'm sort of curious then. I had been thinking about this from the context of updating conformity and everything like that, but obviously the litigation angle here raises this question in my mind in a different way. Overall, when we had the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed, it took a number of years. And of course we also had the pandemic throw a wrench in things and complicate things. But it took a while for states to figure out which elements they were going to adopt, how they were going to adjust, etc. Do you have any sense — do you want to speculate as to whether the OBBBA is going to be more disruptive or less disruptive in terms of states having to adjust to it, possibly litigation resulting from some of its provisions adopted at the state level, for example, than the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was? Steve Kralik: I believe at the corporate income tax level and the changes from GILTI to NCTI, I think that that is going to be a little bit quieter because I think that they've laid the groundwork for the approaches that they're going to take. So I think it's going to be at the margins. I think at the personal income tax [level], I do believe that the changes to taxes on tips and taxes on overtime are going to be something that's going to be in the news a lot, I think. I think that that taxing, following the federal rules, and whether or not the states are going to decouple, is going to be something I think is going to be a little bit more of a political question as we move forward. Paul Jones: So we've got H.R.1, we've got the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law. But of course, I believe the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has made it clear he's now moving forward with some follow-up tax policy legislation. And there were obviously some provisions, we discussed a couple, that were proposed and never actually made it into the final OBBBA. For example, there was talk at least at one point of broadening protections under Public Law 86-272 to provide more protection for businesses that carry out solicitation of sales and various other potential activities over the internet. I'm curious if you have any thoughts as to what we might be looking at coming down the pike. Are there likely to be any other major tax policy changes at the federal level in any of this follow-up legislation, do you think? Or do you think that the stuff that was significant from a state tax policy standpoint probably made it through in H.R.1? Are we in the quiet before the storm of another round of debate, or have we maybe got the major changes that we're going to see this year? Steve Kralik: I believe that the state and local tax big changes likely were either included or excluded, and I don't think that they're going to revisit those in this next bill. Now, you did mention the impact of the proposal, which was ultimately stricken, to expand the protections of the federal legislation. It's called Public Law 86-272. I do think that that stands a good chance of being revisited in this second bill. But just to backtrack a little bit and explain what it means to state and local tax: So P.L. 86-272, it's a federal law which limits a state's ability to impose a net income tax if a company is only soliciting sales of tangible personal property and sends those orders outside the state for acceptance or rejection and ships from outside the state. What has happened in recent years was the MTC [Multistate Tax Commission] had proposed an expansion of the disqualifying activities, an interpretation of Public Law 86-272, to extend it to internet-related activities. For example, having a job application on a website or having a post-sale activity with the ability to chat with a customer service representative through the internet. That those activities — because they're not entirely ancillary to solicitation, not directly related, only related to the solicitation because there was a separate business reason to conduct those activities — that those activities were disqualifying. Even though they were conducted at a server from outside the state, it'd be deemed to be conducted within the state. And a number of states that have taken up the MTC's proposed model rules, one of them being California. California adopted those rules in a TAM [techincal advice memorandum] in 2022 that was ultimately shot down for procedural reasons but may represent the FTB's [Franchise Tax Board] interpretation of the extent of Public Law 86-272. The federal legislation, the proposal that was in the House of Representatives' proposed bill, would have limited that effort by deeming any activity that's related to solicitation, even if it's not entirely ancillary, it'd still be protected. And so that proposal may still come back in this next bill, and that could have some big impacts, state and local perspective. It basically would provide continuing protection in updating Public Law 86-272 for the 21st century. Paul Jones: Right. So with H.R.1, we sort of had a giant collection of tax policy decisions that had to be made. And now that that's passed, there's more of an opportunity maybe to drill down on some of these specific issues like these proposed changes to 86-272. I think you mentioned it's come up in previous years. Maybe it's time to really get that square focus on it, on the merits, and for lawmakers to decide if they're going to go forward with it or not. Steve Kralik: I agree. And the fact that it was in the original bill, I think provides some additional consideration that may come back again. Paul Jones: Got it. Well, this has been a fascinating conversation, Steve. Just want to say thanks for taking time to share your thoughts with us and all of our listeners. Steve Kralik: Thank you so much. It's really been a pleasure talking about this. And I do want to share that it's been an exciting time in state and local tax, seeing things in the news. Pretty exciting for a practitioner who's done this for a long time. So thanks again. Again, I appreciate the opportunity.
Business Wire
2 days ago
- Business Wire
Compass Minerals Reports Fiscal 2025 Third-Quarter Results
OVERLAND PARK, Kan.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Compass Minerals (NYSE: CMP), a leading global provider of essential minerals, today reported fiscal 2025 third-quarter results. Unless otherwise noted, it should be assumed that time periods referenced below are on a fiscal-year basis. MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY "Compass Minerals had a strong third quarter that saw year-over-year improvement on a number of performance measures," said Edward C. Dowling Jr., president and CEO. "In the Salt business, while pricing was relatively flat in both the highway deicing and C&I businesses, costs declined which allowed for adjusted EBITDA margin expansion and per-ton growth compared to the same period last year. Our ramp up of highway deicing production is underway as we prepare for the coming deicing season. North American bid season is going well and we are seeing improvements in pricing and commitment sizes compared to last year. The Plant Nutrition business is benefiting from stronger sales volumes and lower production costs, which drove improvements in segment level operating income and adjusted EBITDA. On the financial front, we took steps in the third quarter with our refinancing activities to enhance our financial flexibility. We further reduced net debt and strengthened our balance sheet with the sale of certain assets related to Fortress during the quarter. We continue to execute on our back-to-basics strategy and the results from the quarter reflect the progress we are making." QUARTERLY HIGHLIGHTS Net loss of $17.0 million for the third quarter of 2025, inclusive of loss on extinguishment of debt, improved from net loss in prior year of $43.6 million; Total company adjusted EBITDA for the third quarter of 2025 of $41.0 million, up 25% year over year; Salt business operating earnings and adjusted EBITDA for the third quarter of 2025 increased 4% and 6%, respectively, on a per-ton basis; Salt sales volumes up 4% year over year; and Plant Nutrition sales volumes in third quarter of 2025 up 21% from comparable prior year period; realized increases in operating earnings and adjusted EBITDA on both absolute and per-ton bases. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL RESULTS * Non-GAAP financial measure. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure are provided in tables at the end of this press release. Expand SALT BUSINESS COMMENTARY Salt revenue totaled $166.0 million and was up 3% year over year, driven by a 4% year-over-year sales volume increase, partially offset by a 1% decrease in average sales price. In the highway deicing business, year over year the company realized a 1% increase in average highway deicing selling price while sales volumes increased 5%. Consumer and Industrial (C&I) pricing decreased 1% year over year to approximately $193 per ton and sales volumes increased by 2%. Distribution costs per ton were flat year over year, while all-in product costs (defined at the segment level as sales to external customers less distribution costs less operating earnings) per ton declined 2% from the comparable prior-year quarter. Operating earnings for the quarter increased by 9% to $28.1 million from the prior-year period. Adjusted EBITDA increased to $45.8 million, up 10% from the prior-year period. Adjusted EBITDA per ton increased 6% to $29.66. PLANT NUTRITION BUSINESS COMMENTARY Plant Nutrition revenue for the quarter totaled $44.8 million, up 15% year over year on improved sales volumes. The average segment sales price for the quarter was down 5% year over year to approximately $659 per ton, reflecting supply conditions of potassium-based fertilizers globally. Per-unit distribution costs for the quarter increased 10% year over year supporting sales in markets further from the company's core western U.S. markets. Reported all-in product costs per ton decreased of 23% year over year to approximately $484 per ton. Operating earnings in the Plant Nutrition business was $5.2 million for the quarter, compared to operating loss of $1.4 million in the prior-year quarter. Adjusted EBITDA improved to $11.4 million versus $7.2 million last year. CASH FLOW AND FINANCIAL POSITION Net cash provided by operating activities amounted to $204.6 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2025, compared to $27.1 million in the prior year. A significant reduction in North American salt inventory driven by stronger winter weather and strategic positioning of inventory levels was the primary contributor to the significant improvement year over year. Net cash used in investing activities was $34.7 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2025, down from $95.0 million in the prior year principally driven by lower capital spending and proceeds from the sale of Fortress North America (Fortress) assets. Total capital spending for the nine months ended June 30, 2025 was $53.8 million. In the third quarter, the company sold certain assets and intellectual property for net proceeds of $19.6 million related to the previously announced exit of its fire retardant business. Net cash used in financing activities was $111.5 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2025, which included net debt payments of $87.0 million. In the prior year, net cash provided by financing activities reflected net borrowings of $69.5 million. Current year results reflect the previously disclosed debt financing activities that occurred in June of 2025. Compass Minerals recognized a loss from extinguishment of debt of $7.6 million due to the redemption of a portion of the outstanding 6.75% senior unsecured notes and modifications to the company's credit agreement. The company ended the quarter with $388.7 million of liquidity, comprised of $79.4 million in cash and cash equivalents and $309.3 million of availability under its $325 million revolving credit facility. The company's salt and sulfate of potash production in Canada is qualified under the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement. Accordingly, Compass Minerals' exports from Canada into the United States continue to be exempt from tariffs at this time. (1) Range for fiscal 2025 reflects the company's committed book of business for the period and assumes an average historical sales-to-commitment outcomes. Expand The company's guidance has been refined to reflect the completion of three quarters of the year. Guidance for the Plant Nutrition segment has been adjusted to reflect the completion of three quarters of the year. Positive production trends in 2025 have allowed the company to pursue business beyond normally serviced markets, leading to incremental sales. (1) Includes $3 to $5 million in cash expenses related to Fortress. Expand Guidance for Corporate includes corporate expenses in support of the company's core businesses, Fortress financial results, and the results of DeepStore, the company's records services business in the U.K. The outlook reflect previously announced actions to align the company's cost structure with current business needs. Included in the above is $7.9 million of non-cash gain related to the decline in the fair value of the Fortress contingent consideration that resulted from the winding down of the Fortress business. The company's guidance has been refined to reflect the completion of three quarters of the year. (1) Includes financial contribution from DeepStore and Fortress. Expand Total planned capital expenditures are unchanged from the company's previously provided guidance. Other Assumptions ($ in millions) 2025 Range Depreciation, depletion and amortization $105 - $115 Interest expense, net $70 - $75 Effective income tax rate (excl. valuation allowance) 13% - 18% Expand Guidance for the 2025 effective income tax rate reflects the income mix by country with income recognized in foreign jurisdictions offset by losses recognized in the U.S. 2025/2026 NORTH AMERICAN BID SEASON Approximately 70% of the company's North American highway deicing bidding process for the upcoming winter season has been completed. Based on bid results to date, which include regional market conditions and competitive dynamics, the company expects its average contract selling price for the coming season to be approximately 2%-4% higher than prices in fiscal 2025. Committed bid volumes are expected to be up approximately 3%-5% compared to fiscal 2025. It is important to distinguish between committed bid volumes, which are used to establish minimum and maximum service levels for certain customers, and expected sales volumes, which will be driven ultimately by winter weather activity in the coming year. CONFERENCE CALL Compass Minerals will discuss its results on a conference call tomorrow morning, Tuesday, Aug. 12, at 9:30 a.m. ET (8:30 a.m. CT). To access the conference call, please visit the company's website at or dial 800-715-9871. Callers must provide the conference ID number 7896827. Outside of the U.S. and Canada, callers may dial 646-307-1963. Replays of the call will be available on the company's website. A supporting corporate presentation with 2025 third-quarter results is available at About Compass Minerals Compass Minerals (NYSE: CMP) is a leading global provider of essential minerals focused on safely delivering where and when it matters to help solve nature's challenges for customers and communities. The company's salt products help keep roadways safe during winter weather and are used in numerous other consumer, industrial, chemical and agricultural applications. Its plant nutrition products help improve the quality and yield of crops while supporting sustainable agriculture. Compass Minerals operates 12 production and packaging facilities more than 1,800 employees throughout the U.S., Canada and the U.K. Visit for more information about the company and its products. Forward-Looking Statements and Other Disclaimers This press release may contain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements about the outcome of the North American bid season, including pricing and commitment sizes, the execution of back-to-basics strategy, competitive advantages, tariffs, tax rates, and the company's outlook for 2025, including its expectations regarding sales volumes, revenue, Adjusted EBITDA, depreciation, depletion, and amortization, interest expense, tax rates, and capital expenditures. Forward-looking statements are those that predict or describe future events or trends and that do not relate solely to historical matters. The company uses words such as 'may,' 'would,' 'could,' 'should,' 'will,' 'likely,' 'expect,' 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'intend,' 'plan,' 'forecast,' 'outlook,' 'project,' 'estimate' and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events to identify forward-looking statements or forward-looking information. These statements are based on the company's current expectations and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause the company's actual results to differ materially. The differences could be caused by a number of factors, including without limitation (i) weather conditions, (ii) inflation, the cost and availability of transportation for the distribution of the company's products and foreign exchange rates, (iii) pressure on prices and impact from competitive products, and (iv) any inability by the company to successfully implement its strategic priorities or its cost-saving or enterprise optimization initiatives. For further information on these and other risks and uncertainties that may affect the company's business, see the 'Risk Factors' and 'Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations' sections of the company's Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended Sept. 30, 2024, and its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended Dec. 31, 2024, March 31, 2025, and June 30, 2025 filed or to be filed with the SEC, as well as the company's other SEC filings. The company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made in this press release to reflect future events or developments, except as required by law. Because it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors, this list cannot be considered a complete set of all potential risks or uncertainties. Non-GAAP Measures In addition to using U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ('GAAP') financial measures, management uses a variety of non-GAAP financial measures described below to evaluate the company's and its operating segments' performance. While the consolidated financial statements provide an understanding of the company's overall results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, management analyzes components of the consolidated financial statements to identify certain trends and evaluate specific performance areas. Management uses EBITDA, EBITDA adjusted for items which management believes are not indicative of the company's ongoing operating performance ('Adjusted EBITDA') and EBITDA margin to evaluate the operating performance of the company's core business operations because its resource allocation, financing methods and cost of capital, and income tax positions are managed at a corporate level, apart from the activities of the operating segments, and the operating facilities are located in different taxing jurisdictions, which can cause considerable variation in net earnings. Management also uses adjusted operating earnings, adjusted operating margin, adjusted net earnings, and adjusted net earnings per diluted share, which eliminate the impact of certain items that management does not consider indicative of underlying operating performance. The presentation of these measures should not be construed as an inference that future results will be unaffected by unusual or non-recurring items. Management believes these non-GAAP financial measures provide management and investors with additional information that is helpful when evaluating underlying performance. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA exclude interest expense, income taxes and depreciation, depletion and amortization, each of which are an essential element of the company's cost structure and cannot be eliminated. In addition, Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA margin exclude certain cash and non-cash items, including stock-based compensation, impairment charges and certain restructuring charges. Consequently, any measure that excludes these elements has material limitations. The non-GAAP financial measures used by management should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net earnings, operating earnings, cash flows or other financial data prepared in accordance with GAAP or as a measure of overall profitability or liquidity. These measures are not necessarily comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies due to potential inconsistencies in the method of calculation. The calculation of non-GAAP financial measures as used by management is set forth in the following tables. All margin numbers are defined as the relevant measure divided by sales. The company does not provide a reconciliation of forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable financial measures calculated and reported in accordance with GAAP, as the company is unable to estimate significant non-recurring, unusual items and/or distinct non-core initiatives without unreasonable effort. The amounts and timing of these items are uncertain and could be material to the company's results. Adjusted operating earnings, adjusted operating margin, adjusted net earnings (loss), and adjusted net earnings (loss) per diluted share are presented as supplemental measures of the company's performance. Management believes these measures provide management and investors with additional information that is helpful when evaluating underlying performance and comparing results on a year-over-year normalized basis. These measures eliminate the impact of certain items that management does not consider indicative of underlying operating performance. These adjustments are itemized below. Adjusted net earnings (loss) per diluted share is adjusted net earnings (loss) divided by weighted average diluted shares outstanding. You are encouraged to evaluate the adjustments itemized above and the reasons management considers them appropriate for supplemental analysis. In evaluating these measures you should be aware that in the future the company may incur expenses that are the same as or similar to some of the adjustments presented below. Special Items Impacting the Three Months Ended June 30, 2024 (unaudited, in millions, except per share data) Total $ 1.5 $ — $ 1.5 $ 0.04 Expand Special Items Impacting the Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 (unaudited, in millions, except per share data) Item Description Segment Line Item Amount Tax Effect (1) After Tax EPS Impact Product recall costs Salt Product cost and Other operating income $ 2.0 $ (0.4 ) $ 1.6 $ 0.03 Restructuring charges (2) Salt Other operating income 0.3 — 0.3 0.01 Restructuring charges (2) Corporate and Other Other operating income 4.0 — 4.0 0.09 Impairments Corporate and Other Loss on impairments, net 53.7 — 53.7 1.30 Total $ 60.0 $ (0.4 ) $ 59.6 $ 1.43 Expand Special Items Impacting the Nine Months Ended June 30, 2024 (unaudited, in millions, except per share data) Item Description Segment Line Item Amount Tax Effect (1) After Tax EPS Impact Restructuring charges (2) Salt Other operating income 0.4 — 0.4 0.01 Restructuring charges (2) Plant Nutrition Other operating income 1.7 — 1.7 0.03 Impairments Corporate and Other COGS and Loss on impairments, net 124.8 — 124.8 3.02 Goodwill impairment Plant Nutrition Loss on impairments, net 51.0 — 51.0 1.23 Total $ 193.0 $ — $ 193.0 $ 4.66 Expand (1) There were no substantial income tax benefits related to these items given the U.S. valuation allowances on deferred tax assets. Applicable product recall costs reflect an impact from Canadian taxes. (2) Restructuring charges do not include certain reductions in stock-based compensation associated with forfeitures stemming from the restructuring activities. Expand Reconciliation for Adjusted Operating Earnings (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Operating income (loss) $ 15.9 $ 5.9 $ 13.3 $ (87.0 ) Product recall costs (1) 0.2 — 2.0 — Restructuring charges (2) 0.3 1.5 4.3 17.2 Loss on impairments, net (3) 0.7 — 53.7 175.8 Adjusted operating earnings $ 17.1 $ 7.4 $ 73.3 $ 106.0 Sales 214.6 202.9 1,016.4 908.6 Operating margin 7.4 % 2.9 % 1.3 % (9.6 )% Adjusted operating margin 8.0 % 3.6 % 7.2 % 11.7 % Expand (1) The company recognized costs related to a recall of food-grade salt produced at its Goderich plant. (2) The company incurred severance and related charges due to reductions in workforce, changes to executive leadership and additional restructuring costs related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025. The company also incurred severance and related charges for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2024, due to reductions in workforce and changes to executive leadership and additional restructuring costs for the termination of our lithium development project. (3) For the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025, the company recognized impairments of intangible assets related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business. For the nine months ended June 30, 2024, the company recognized impairments of long-lived assets related to the termination of the lithium development project; Fortress goodwill, intangible assets and inventory; and Plant Nutrition goodwill. Expand Reconciliation for Adjusted Net Earnings (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net loss $ (17.0 ) $ (43.6 ) $ (72.6 ) $ (157.8 ) Product recall costs (1) 0.2 — 2.0 — Restructuring charges (2) 0.3 1.5 4.3 17.2 Loss on impairments, net (3) 0.7 — 53.7 173.4 Loss on inventory impairment (3) — — — 2.4 Income tax effect — — $ (0.4 ) — Adjusted net earnings $ (15.8 ) $ (42.1 ) $ (13.0 ) $ 35.2 Net loss per diluted share $ (0.41 ) $ (1.05 ) $ (1.74 ) $ (3.83 ) Adjusted net earnings per diluted share $ (0.39 ) $ (1.01 ) $ (0.31 ) $ 0.83 Weighted-average common shares outstanding (in thousands): Diluted 41,859 41,342 41,738 41,284 Expand (1) The company recognized costs related to a recall of food-grade salt produced at its Goderich plant. Charges for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025 were $0.2 million ($0.2 million net of tax) and $2.0 million ($1.6 million net of tax), respectively. (2) The company incurred severance and related charges due to reductions in workforce, changes to executive leadership and additional restructuring costs related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025. The company also incurred severance and related charges for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2024, due to reductions in workforce and changes to executive leadership and additional restructuring costs for the termination of our lithium development project. (3) For the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025, the company recognized impairments of intangible assets related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business. For the nine months ended June 30, 2024, the company recognized impairments of long-lived assets related to the termination of the lithium development project; Fortress goodwill, intangible assets and inventory; and Plant Nutrition goodwill. Expand Reconciliation for EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net loss $ (17.0 ) $ (43.6 ) $ (72.6 ) $ (157.8 ) Interest expense 16.3 17.2 51.2 50.4 Income tax expense 3.4 32.7 22.9 20.4 Depreciation, depletion and amortization 23.2 26.1 76.5 78.4 EBITDA 25.9 32.4 78.0 (8.6 ) Adjustments to EBITDA: Stock-based compensation - non-cash 0.6 (0.7 ) 7.3 6.3 Interest income (0.3 ) (0.2 ) (0.9 ) (0.8 ) Loss (gain) on foreign exchange 8.4 (0.5 ) 3.1 (1.1 ) Loss on extinguishment of debt 7.6 — 7.6 — Product recall costs (1) 0.3 — 2.1 — Restructuring charges (2) 0.3 1.5 4.3 17.2 Loss on impairments, net (3) 0.7 — 53.7 175.8 Other (income) expense, net (2.5 ) 0.3 2.0 1.9 Adjusted EBITDA $ 41.0 $ 32.8 $ 157.2 $ 190.7 Expand (1) The company recognized costs related to a recall of food-grade salt produced at its Goderich plant. (2) The company incurred severance and related charges due to reductions in workforce, changes to executive leadership and additional restructuring costs related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025. The company also incurred severance and related charges for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2024, due to reductions in workforce and changes to executive leadership and additional restructuring costs for the termination of our lithium development project. (3) For the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025, the company recognized impairments of intangible assets related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business. For the nine months ended June 30, 2024, the company recognized impairments of long-lived assets related to the termination of the lithium development project; Fortress goodwill, intangible assets and inventory; and Plant Nutrition goodwill. Expand Salt Segment Performance (unaudited, in millions, except for sales volumes and prices per short ton) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Sales $ 166.0 $ 160.6 $ 840.9 $ 745.3 Operating earnings $ 28.1 $ 25.9 $ 124.4 $ 142.6 Operating margin 16.9 % 16.1 % 14.8 % 19.1 % Adjusted operating earnings (1) $ 28.3 $ 25.9 $ 126.7 $ 143.0 Adjusted operating margin (1) 17.0 % 16.1 % 15.1 % 19.2 % EBITDA (1) $ 45.6 $ 41.6 $ 176.8 $ 189.7 EBITDA (1) margin 27.5 % 25.9 % 21.0 % 25.5 % Adjusted EBITDA (1) $ 45.8 $ 41.6 $ 179.1 $ 190.1 Adjusted EBITDA (1) margin 27.6 % 25.9 % 21.3 % 25.5 % Sales volumes (in thousands of tons): Highway deicing 1,144 1,090 7,714 6,401 Consumer and industrial 400 393 1,428 1,403 Total Salt 1,544 1,483 9,142 7,804 Average prices (per ton): Highway deicing $ 77.63 $ 77.20 $ 71.52 $ 73.60 Consumer and industrial $ 193.26 $ 194.35 $ 202.60 $ 195.37 Total Salt $ 107.54 $ 108.27 $ 91.99 $ 95.50 Expand (1) Non-GAAP financial measure. Reconciliations follow in these tables. Expand Reconciliation for Salt Segment Adjusted Operating Earnings (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Reported GAAP segment operating earnings $ 28.1 $ 25.9 $ 124.4 $ 142.6 Restructuring charges (1) — — 0.3 0.4 Product recall costs (2) 0.2 — 2.0 — Segment adjusted operating earnings $ 28.3 $ 25.9 $ 126.7 $ 143.0 Segment sales 166.0 160.6 840.9 745.3 Segment operating margin 16.9 % 16.1 % 14.8 % 19.1 % Segment adjusted operating margin 17.0 % 16.1 % 15.1 % 19.2 % Expand (1) The company incurred severance and related charges due to a reduction of its workforce. (2) The company incurred costs related to a product recall of food-grade salt produced at its Goderich plant. Expand Reconciliation for Salt Segment EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Reported GAAP segment operating earnings $ 28.1 $ 25.9 $ 124.4 $ 142.6 Depreciation, depletion and amortization 17.5 15.7 52.4 47.1 Segment EBITDA $ 45.6 $ 41.6 $ 176.8 $ 189.7 Restructuring charges (1) — — 0.3 0.4 Product recall costs (2) 0.2 — 2.0 — Segment adjusted EBITDA $ 45.8 $ 41.6 $ 179.1 $ 190.1 Segment sales 166.0 160.6 840.9 745.3 Segment EBITDA margin 27.5 % 25.9 % 21.0 % 25.5 % Segment adjusted EBITDA margin 27.6 % 25.9 % 21.3 % 25.5 % Expand (1) The company incurred severance and related charges due to a reduction of its workforce. (2) The company incurred costs related to a product recall of food-grade salt produced at its Goderich plant. Expand Plant Nutrition Segment Performance (unaudited, dollars in millions, except for sales volumes and prices per short ton) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Sales $ 44.8 $ 38.8 $ 164.5 $ 138.6 Operating earnings (loss) $ 5.2 $ (1.4 ) $ 0.3 $ (56.7 ) Operating margin 11.6 % (3.6 )% 0.2 % (40.9 )% Adjusted operating earnings (loss) (1) $ 5.2 $ (1.4 ) $ 0.3 $ (4.0 ) Adjusted operating margin (1) 11.6 % (3.6 )% 0.2 % (2.9 )% EBITDA (1) $ 11.4 $ 7.2 $ 21.4 $ (31.0 ) EBITDA (1) margin 25.4 % 18.6 % 13.0 % (22.4 )% Adjusted EBITDA (1) $ 11.4 $ 7.2 $ 21.4 $ 21.7 Adjusted EBITDA (1) margin 25.4 % 18.6 % 13.0 % 15.7 % Sales volumes (in thousands of tons) 68 56 263 205 Average price (per ton) $ 658.79 $ 691.27 $ 625.28 $ 676.11 Expand (1) Non-GAAP financial measure. Reconciliations follow in these tables. Expand Reconciliation for Plant Nutrition Segment Adjusted Operating Earnings (Loss) (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Reported GAAP segment operating earnings (loss) $ 5.2 $ (1.4 ) $ 0.3 $ (56.7 ) Restructuring charges (1) — — — 1.7 Loss on goodwill impairment (2) — — — 51.0 Segment adjusted operating earnings (loss) $ 5.2 $ (1.4 ) $ 0.3 $ (4.0 ) Segment sales 44.8 38.8 164.5 138.6 Segment operating margin 11.6 % (3.6 )% 0.2 % (40.9 )% Segment adjusted operating margin 11.6 % (3.6 )% 0.2 % (2.9 )% Expand (1) The company incurred severance and related charges due to a reduction of its workforce. (2) The company recognized a goodwill impairment during the nine months ended June 30, 2024. Expand Reconciliation for Plant Nutrition Segment EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Reported GAAP segment operating earnings (loss) $ 5.2 $ (1.4 ) $ 0.3 $ (56.7 ) Depreciation, depletion and amortization 6.2 8.6 21.1 25.7 Segment EBITDA $ 11.4 $ 7.2 $ 21.4 $ (31.0 ) Restructuring charges (1) — — — 1.7 Loss on goodwill impairment (2) — — — 51.0 Segment adjusted EBITDA $ 11.4 $ 7.2 $ 21.4 $ 21.7 Segment sales 44.8 38.8 164.5 138.6 Segment EBITDA margin 25.4 % 18.6 % 13.0 % (22.4 )% Segment adjusted EBITDA margin 25.4 % 18.6 % 13.0 % 15.7 % Expand (1) The company incurred severance and related charges due to a reduction of its workforce. (2) The company recognized a goodwill impairment during the nine months ended June 30, 2024. Expand COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (unaudited, in millions, except share and per-share data) Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Sales $ 214.6 $ 202.9 $ 1,016.4 $ 908.6 Shipping and handling cost 56.7 53.2 288.7 255.1 Product cost 116.7 117.1 575.4 478.0 Gross profit 41.2 32.6 152.3 175.5 Selling, general and administrative expenses 24.0 27.5 86.9 106.5 Loss on impairments, net 0.7 — 53.7 173.4 Other operating expense (income) 0.6 (0.8 ) (1.6 ) (17.4 ) Operating income (loss) 15.9 5.9 13.3 (87.0 ) Other (income) expense: Interest income (0.3 ) (0.2 ) (0.9 ) (0.8 ) Interest expense 16.3 17.2 51.2 50.4 Loss (gain) on foreign exchange 8.4 (0.5 ) 3.1 (1.1 ) Loss on extinguishment of debt 7.6 — 7.6 — Other (income) expense, net (2.5 ) 0.3 2.0 1.9 Loss before income taxes (13.6 ) (10.9 ) (49.7 ) (137.4 ) Income tax expense 3.4 32.7 22.9 20.4 Net loss $ (17.0 ) $ (43.6 ) $ (72.6 ) $ (157.8 ) Basic net loss per common share $ (0.41 ) $ (1.05 ) $ (1.74 ) $ (3.83 ) Diluted net loss per common share $ (0.41 ) $ (1.05 ) $ (1.74 ) $ (3.83 ) Weighted-average common shares outstanding (in thousands): Basic 41,859 41,342 41,738 41,284 Expand COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (unaudited, in millions) June 30, Sept. 30, 2025 2024 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents $ 79.4 $ 20.2 Receivables, net 202.1 126.1 Inventories, net 264.7 414.1 Other current assets 24.4 26.9 Property, plant and equipment, net 773.8 806.5 Intangible and other noncurrent assets 193.0 246.3 Total assets $ 1,537.4 $ 1,640.1 LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY Current portion of long-term debt $ — $ 7.5 Current portion of finance lease liabilities 7.2 5.2 Other current liabilities 257.9 204.3 Long-term debt, net of current portion 825.3 910.0 Finance lease liabilities, net of current portion 8.1 11.2 Deferred income taxes and other noncurrent liabilities 189.1 185.3 Total stockholders' equity 249.8 316.6 Total liabilities and stockholders' equity $ 1,537.4 $ 1,640.1 Expand COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (unaudited, in millions) Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 Cash flows from operating activities: Net loss $ (72.6 ) $ (157.8 ) Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash flows provided by operating activities: Depreciation, depletion and amortization 76.5 78.4 Amortization of deferred financing costs 3.5 1.9 Non-cash portion of stock-based compensation 7.3 6.3 Deferred income taxes (0.5 ) 1.2 Unrealized foreign exchange loss (gain) 1.0 (0.5 ) Loss on impairments, net 53.7 173.4 Net gain from remeasurement of contingent consideration (7.9 ) (23.1 ) Loss on extinguishment of debt 7.6 — Gain on sale of Fortress assets (2.4 ) — Other, net 1.3 2.6 Changes in operating assets and liabilities: Receivables 14.2 36.8 Inventories 138.0 (9.9 ) Other assets 1.4 (2.0 ) Accounts payable and accrued expenses and other current liabilities (27.4 ) (69.4 ) Other liabilities 10.9 (10.8 ) Net cash provided by operating activities 204.6 27.1 Cash flows from investing activities: Capital expenditures (53.8 ) (93.3 ) Proceeds from sale of Fortress assets, net of transaction costs 19.6 — Other, net (0.5 ) (1.7 ) Net cash used in investing activities (34.7 ) (95.0 ) Cash flows from financing activities: Borrowings under revolving credit facility 244.3 359.6 Repayments under revolving credit facility (434.4 ) (289.2 ) Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt 62.1 69.4 Principal payments on long-term debt (63.8 ) (70.3 ) Principal payments to pay down term loan (191.3 ) — Proceeds from 2030 Notes 650.0 — Repurchase of 2027 Notes (350.0 ) — Premium paid to extinguish 2027 Notes (3.9 ) — Payments for contingent consideration — (9.1 ) Dividends paid — (12.7 ) Payment of deferred financing costs (15.5 ) (2.1 ) Shares withheld to satisfy employee tax obligations (1.3 ) (2.0 ) Other, net (7.7 ) (1.4 ) Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities (111.5 ) 42.2 Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents 0.8 (0.2 ) Net change in cash and cash equivalents 59.2 (25.9 ) Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of the year 20.2 38.7 Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 79.4 $ 12.8 Expand COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. SEGMENT INFORMATION (unaudited, in millions) Three Months Ended June 30, 2025 Salt Plant Nutrition Corporate & Other (1) Total Sales to external customers $ 166.0 $ 44.8 $ 3.8 $ 214.6 Intersegment sales — 3.2 (3.2 ) — Shipping and handling cost 50.0 6.7 — 56.7 Operating earnings (loss) (2)(3)(4) 28.1 5.2 (17.4 ) 15.9 Depreciation, depletion and amortization 17.5 6.2 (0.5 ) 23.2 Total assets (as of end of period) 1,032.1 354.0 151.3 1,537.4 Expand Three Months Ended June 30, 2024 Salt Plant Nutrition Corporate & Other (1) Total Sales to external customers $ 160.6 $ 38.8 $ 3.5 $ 202.9 Intersegment sales — 2.8 (2.8 ) — Shipping and handling cost 48.2 5.0 — 53.2 Operating earnings (loss) (2)(3)(4) 25.9 (1.4 ) (18.6 ) 5.9 Depreciation, depletion and amortization 15.7 8.6 1.8 26.1 Total assets (as of end of period) 1,013.3 408.1 173.8 1,595.2 Expand Nine Months Ended June 30, 2025 Salt Plant Nutrition Corporate & Other (1) Total Sales to external customers $ 840.9 $ 164.5 $ 11.0 $ 1,016.4 Intersegment sales — 8.7 (8.7 ) — Shipping and handling cost 263.2 25.5 — 288.7 Operating earnings (loss) (2)(3)(4) 124.4 0.3 (111.4 ) 13.3 Depreciation, depletion and amortization 52.4 21.1 3.0 76.5 Expand Nine Months Ended June 30, 2024 Salt Plant Nutrition Corporate & Other (1) Total Sales to external customers $ 745.3 $ 138.6 $ 24.7 $ 908.6 Intersegment sales — 6.6 (6.6 ) — Shipping and handling cost 235.9 18.6 0.6 255.1 Operating earnings (loss) (2)(3)(4) 142.6 (56.7 ) (172.9 ) (87.0 ) Depreciation, depletion and amortization 47.1 25.7 5.6 78.4 Expand (1) Corporate and other includes corporate entities, records management operations, the Fortress fire retardant business, equity method investments and other incidental operations and eliminations. Operating earnings (loss) for corporate and other includes indirect corporate overhead, including costs for general corporate governance and oversight, as well as costs for the human resources, information technology, legal and finance functions. (2) Corporate operating results were impacted by costs related to a product recall of $0.2 million and $2.0 million for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025, respectively. Corporate operating results were also impacted by declines in the valuation of the Fortress contingent consideration. The company recognized net gains of $7.9 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2025, and $0.9 million and $23.1 million for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2024, respectively, related to the Fortress contingent consideration valuation. (3) The company recognized impairment of $0.7 million and $53.7 million related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business for both the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025, which impacted operating results. The company also recognized impairments of $175.8 million related to the impairment of Plant Nutrition goodwill, Fortress assets and goodwill and lithium development assets for the nine months ended June 30, 2024, which impacted operating results. (4) The company continued to take steps to align its cost structure to its current business needs. These initiatives impacted Corporate operating results and resulted in net severance and related charges, excluding stock-based compensation forfeitures, for reductions in workforce and changes to executive leadership and additional restructuring costs related to the exit of the Fortress fire retardant business of $0.3 million and $4.3 million for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2025, respectively. The company also recognized severance and related charges, excluding stock-based compensation forfeitures, related to the termination of the company's lithium development project of $1.5 million and $17.2 million for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2024, respectively. Expand
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Space-ng Unveils Computer Vision Hardware/Software Development Kit at Small Sat
Space-ng is offering a low cost, rugged, air cooled Hardware Development Kit (HDK) for their space qualified Sol3 Vision System, as well as a Software Development Kit (SDK) that is free to download and use for evaluation, non-commercial, and academic research. This open architecture approach invites universities, start ups, and established aerospace companies to explore the power of computer vision for space applications in their own labs. SALT LAKE CITY, Aug. 11, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Space-ng's Sol3 hardware and software ecosystem, including the HDK and SDK, will be on display at the 39th Annual Small Satellite Conference in Salt Lake City, UT, August 10-13, 2025, at Space-ng Booth #2437. Attendees at the 39th Small Satellite Conference will include Space-ng Co-Founder and Chief Engineer Steve Bailey. Space-ng provides advanced computer vision systems such as the Vision Navigation System (VNS) software for terrain relative navigation, hazard detection, and attitude determination used by Firefly Aerospace's fully successful Blue Ghost Mission 1 (BGM1). Space-ng has completed spaceflight qualification testing for the Sol3 Vision System, with the first flight articles scheduled for delivery in Q3 of 2025. Sol3 was developed by Space-ng to host the powerful software that will drive next generation computer vision applications for space systems, the equivalent of level 5 self driving for autonomous spacecraft. Sol3 Vision SystemSol3 is an integrated hardware and software computer vision system for space. The Sol3 hardware consists of a powerful low SWAP computer, the Base Unit, that controls up to 12 remote high resolution Camera Modules. Sol3 is a user programmable software defined system, with support for hardware accelerated image processing and compute workloads. The Sol3 ecosystem includes the flight, ground, simulation, test, and operations hardware and software necessary to support computer vision and imaging systems for space applications including optical navigation, lunar landing, autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations, manufacturing, assembly, servicing, and space situational awareness. Sol3 HDKSpace-ng has developed a version of Sol3 hardware to support rapid prototyping, engineering development, and pre and post integration testing in earth-based lab and field environments. The HDK consists of a rugged air-cooled Base Unit which can support up to 12 rolling or global shutter HDK Camera Modules. The Sol3 HDK is identical in functionality, performance, and similar in size, to the Sol3 flight hardware, substituting commercial parts and connectors to keep the cost low. Access to flight like hardware for your team is no longer a barrier. The HDK Base unit is priced at $5K, with HDK Camera Modules starting at $1K, power supply and harnesses included! Fast Track from Innovation to IntegrationFlight-like hardware development environments are often expensive, long lead, difficult to work with, and scarce. This choke point in flight hardware and software integration can persist late into development where changes become ever more costly. The Sol3 HDK and SDK break this cycle. It's a complete, integration-ready platform designed to bring autonomy prototypes into flight-relevant environments, fast. Backed by software already in use for lunar landing, navigation, and proximity ops, the HDK lets your team: Drop into flight-like test loops with FSW, GNC, and Payload code examples. Run full workflows from your laptop in hours, not weeks or months. Build with confidence using well-documented, mission-proven software primitives. The Sol3 HDK and SDK puts a high fidelity toolset in the hands of engineers early in development, so they can validate mission Con-Ops and mission & system requirements, and accelerate verification of critical flight system functionality and performance. From Field Experiments to TRL9The compute and sensor stack at the heart of the HDK is identical to Space-ng's Sol3 EDU and Flight units, streamlining your development process through PDR, CDR, IRR, and TRR. "The main difference between the HDK and our Flight Units is the use of commercial connectors and non-space-grade parts" – Steve Bailey, Chief Engineer and Cofounder of Space-ng. "By ordering the HDK and using the SDK you can jump start development, explore the power of the Sol3 architecture, and move confidently into system level integration and testing." A Paradigm Shift in Flight Software DevelopmentSol3 represents a step change in onboard compute and sensor capability compared to current spacecraft architectures. Space-ng is releasing the Sol3 SDK to enable users to implement software that can take full advantage of this hardware capability to unlock advanced computer vision and autonomous use cases. This is the same software that Space-ng uses internally to develop and support lunar navigation and landing. "To deploy state of the art navigation algorithms we need access to a GPU, neural accelerator, hardware encoding, high bit depth high resolution imagery, tightly integrated IMUs, and modern environments (C++20, linux, containers) and open source software (GTSAM, ceres-solver, opencv, Eigen, pytorch). We want our partners and customers to innovate alongside us and have access to the same tools the Space-ng team is using everyday." – Ethan Rublee, CEO and Co-founder of Space-ng. "We're releasing our SDK, free for academic research and non-commercial use, to empower our community to build the next generation of space flight software." Available Now for OrderReservations for the Sol3 HDK Base Unit and Camera Modules are open online today. The first units are expected to ship in September of 2025. Upon request and acceptance of the Evaluation License, the SDK, emulation environment, and documentation can be accessed online for free. To learn more about the Sol3 HDK or to place an order, visit Sol3 CapabilitiesThe Sol3 Base Unit is the computer and camera controller, responsible for camera power and network communication with the spacecraft bus. The Base Unit hosts a capable Qualcomm based SOC, internal closed loop heater control, 4 IMUs, and supports external triggers, RS-422 I/O, floodlights, and up to 12 GMSL connected Camera Modules, and weighs less than 750 grams. Sol3 Camera Modules can be either global shutter or rolling shutter, with a user-selectable focal length, F number, and harness length. Each has 12.3 Mpixel resolution, up to 6 Gbps bandwidth, an IMU, internal closed loop heater control, and weigh as little as 150 grams apiece. Space-ng is taking orders for Sol3 hardware, with first flight hardware delivery in Q3 of 2025 and EDU hardware now available. As a software-defined system with an open architecture model, various flight software modules may be licensed from Space-ng, or developed by the customer to suit their needs. Sol3 hardware and software supports each stage of the spacecraft life cycle from design, development, test, and integration, to mission operations. This includes real time simulation, electrical ground support equipment, command and telemetry, and Over the Air (OTA) updates. Space-ng can provide dedicated support through delivery and integration, or all the way through mission success. "Optical navigation is critical in situations where you need precise maneuvering and a GPS signal is not available" – Will Coogan, Chief Engineer at Firefly Aerospace. "We chose Space-ng for the Blue Ghost mission to the Moon because their software provides a precision landing location on the lunar surface that avoids hazardous obstacles like rocks and craters. Space-ng provides excellent support and expertise, and we look forward to working with them for future missions to the Moon and beyond!" Learn More About Space-ng Space-ng is developing revolutionary computer vision hardware and software for Civil, Commercial, and Defense space customers. Space-ng builds tools that empower engineers to prototype, test, and fly advanced autonomous systems. With deep expertise in camera systems, perception, visual navigation, and flight software, our team creates integration-ready hardware and software platforms that rapidly bring ideas from field experiments to flight. Our products are being used on missions for lunar landings, proximity operations, and spacecraft autonomy. We're not just building tools — we're building the future of spacecraft systems, with engineers who dare to redefine what's possible. To learn more about Space-ng visit where you'll find the answers to your most common questions as well as contact information on how to customize Sol3 for your mission. Media Contact: Stephen Bailey, 720-840-6895, View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Space-ng Inc. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
