Hamilton

U.S. Steel CFO says Canadian arm was 'bleeding' cash in 2013

In 2013, David Burritt, then the new chief financial officer of U.S. Steel, wrote in an email to a colleague, "Canada is bleeding, and we need to conserve cash." Friday was the second day of U.S. Steel hearings in Toronto.

The six-day hearing began Thursday

U.S. Steel Canada (Kelly Bennett/CBC)

When David Burritt was brought in as the new chief financial officer of U.S. Steel in 2013, he soon discovered a "disturbing" problem.

"Canada is bleeding, and we need to conserve cash," he wrote in an email to a colleague in October 2013.

Burritt is a restructuring guru, and with him as architect, the embattled steel maker adopted a mindset they called the "Carnegie Way," in which all options were "on the table" to help the company stabilize and hope to become profitable again.

First in his sights: The Canadian side of the company, the former Stelco plants in Hamilton and Nanticoke that U.S. Steel had bought in 2007.

The Canadian operation was contributing 10 per cent of company-wide sales and revenue, Burritt testified in court on Friday. But it was the source of 50 to 60 per cent of the company's losses between 2009 and 2013, he said.

The company was losing $2 million a day, Burritt said, and "half of that was Canada."

And meanwhile, Burritt discovered the Pittsburgh-based company he'd just joined was sending tens, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian operations.

Burritt was testifying in the second day of a scheduled six-day hearing into whether the U.S. corporation – which severed ties in October with the Canadian plants – is entitled to a claim of more than $2.2 billion it invested in the Canadian operations. Essentially the question is, was that money loans to be repaid to the parent, or were they investments in an arm of the corporation?

If the court rules they were loaned, that finding would place U.S. Steel, the American corporation, at the front of the line in the bankruptcy restructuring process under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act that the Canadian operations, now known as U.S. Steel Canada, is in the middle of.

That contention is opposed by the provincial government, by active and retired salaried workers and by United Steelworkers union members, who fear that would compromise the company's ability to cover its other obligations, including pensions. 

'I was very disturbed'

But Burritt's testimony identified that hundreds of millions of dollars had been transferred before he arrived, and those transfers of capital were unsecured. In this court hearing, U.S. Steel is hoping to prove the point that all $2.2 billion should be considered secured debt.

"I was very disturbed, quite upset that that amount of money was being sent there without being secured," he said.

What didn't come up in either side's questioning of Burritt Friday was why the Canadian operations were so lopsided. U.S. Steel's vice president Larry Brockway confirmed in court on Thursday that the American parent company had shifted business from the Canadian mills after the economic collapse of 2008 and 2009, as it confronted an extremely rocky time for the steel industry.  

In October 2013, U.S. Steel Canada announced that it would permanently shutter iron and steelmaking at Hamilton Works. It had already temporarily halted the work in 2010. The move impacted 47 non-union jobs.

Burritt told the court that the "Carnegie Way" approach meant that he and the company would examine all options for what to do about Canada:

  • Turn around the business, which seemed not viable at the time, he said;
  • "Split out" the Canadian operations as its own entity,
  • Start a full shutdown through insolvency restructuring.

'I don't recall'

Peter Ruby, an attorney for the province who cross-examined Burritt on behalf of the province and of other opponents to the $2.2 billion claim, focused a period of questioning on whether the restructuring option was one shared with the president of U.S. Steel Canada at the time he was agreeing to terms – secured this time – for continued funding from the American parent.

On some points related to the company's relationship with the Canadian plants, Burritt was fuzzy.

"Did you ask anyone whether there was a contract to continue funding Canada?" Ruby asked.

"I don't recall," Burritt said.

The hearings resume on Wednesday, January 20.

Read more from Day 1 here. Updates from the first two days of the trial are below: