Business

Lexmark posts second quarter loss of $35.4 million

Lexington-based Lexmark on Friday reported a second-quarter a net loss of $35.4 million, or a loss of 56 cents per diluted share, slightly worse than the same quarter of 2015.

Year-to-date, the business software and printing company reported a loss of $74.8 million, or net loss of $1.19 per share, compared to a $14.5 million loss, or a 24 cents a share loss, in the same six months of 2015.

Earnings adjusted for interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization were $114 million or 69 cents a share, down from $139 million or 97 cents a share in the same quarter of 2015.

For the quarter, Lexmark reported revenue of $863 million, down 2 percent from the same quarter of 2015. Some of Lexmark’s business showed improvement; the higher-value solutions segment (which includes managed print and enterprise software revenue) was up 9 percent to $371 million.

But more traditional segments, including imaging solutions and core revenue, were down or flat.

The Lexmark board declared a 36-cent quarterly cash dividend, payable on Sept. 16 to shareholders of record as of Sept. 2. Last quarter, Lexmark also paid a 36-cent dividend.

On July 22, Lexmark shareholders approved a merger with Chinese investors that will close later this year. Shareholders will get $40.50 per share in cash. Once the sale to Apex Technology, PAG Asia Capital and Legend Capital Management Co. is completed, Lexmark shares will cease to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The company is not doing quarterly conference calls with analysts while the transaction is pending.

Lexmark announced the $3.6 billion sale to Apex in April. According to CEO Paul Rooke, the deal will have minimal impact on workers in Lexington; the company headquarters will remain on Newtown Pike. Lexmark is one of Lexington’s largest private employers, with 2,300 local employees.

The sale came after several rounds of layoffs, including an announced restructuring earlier this year to eliminate 4 percent of the global workforce.

  Comments