UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

þ

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004

or

o

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                     to

Commission File Number: 0-20372

RES-CARE, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (502) 394-2100

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 twelve 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 þ No o.

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes þ No o.

     The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, no par value, as of July 31, 2004, was 25,426,738.

INDEX

RES-CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

1

PART I.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.	Financial Statements

RES-CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousands)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

RES-CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

RES-CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

RES-CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

June 30, 2004
(Unaudited)

Note 1.	Basis of Presentation

     Res-Care, Inc. is primarily engaged in the delivery of residential, training, educational and support services to various populations with special needs. All references in these financial statements to “ResCare,” “we,” “us,” or “our” mean Res-Care, Inc. and unless the context otherwise requires, its consolidated subsidiaries.

     The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of ResCare have been prepared in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X and do not include all information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. In our opinion, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation of financial condition and results of operations for the interim periods have been included. Operating results for the three month and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2004.

     For further information, including a description of our critical accounting policies, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Note 2.	Long-term Debt

     Long-term debt consists of the following:

     The 5.9% convertible subordinated notes, which are due in March 2005, are included in the current portion of long-term debt in the June 30, 2004 balance sheet.

5

Note 3.	Earnings Per Share

     The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings (loss) per common share:

     See further discussion of the non-cash beneficial conversion feature in Note 7 to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

     The average shares listed below were not included in the computation of diluted earnings (loss) per common share because to do so would have been anti-dilutive for the periods presented:

6

Note 4.	Segment Information

7

Note 5.	Stock-Based Employee Compensation

     As permitted by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 123 (SFAS 148), we continue to account for our stock-based employee compensation plans under the recognition and measurement principles of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related interpretations. Stock-based employee compensation cost is not reflected in net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders, as all options granted under those plans had an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying common shares on the date of the grant. The following table illustrates the effect on net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders and earnings (loss) per common share if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS 148 to stock-based employee compensation.

Note 6.	Legal Proceedings

     From time to time, we, or a provider with whom we have a management agreement, become a party to legal and/or administrative proceedings involving state program administrators and others that, in the event of unfavorable outcomes, may adversely affect revenues and period to period comparisons.

8

     In July 2000, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, or AISL, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against us and certain of our subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. In the Complaint, AISL sought a declaration of what insurance coverage was available to ResCare in the case styled In re: Estate of Trenia Wright, Deceased, et al. v. Res-Care, Inc., et al., which was filed in Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County, Texas (the Lawsuit). After the filing, we entered into an agreement with AISL whereby any settlement reached in the Lawsuit would not be dispositive of whether the claims in the Lawsuit were covered under the insurance policies issued by AISL. AISL thereafter settled the Lawsuit for $9 million. It is our position that: (i) the Lawsuit initiated coverage under policies of insurance in more than one policy year, thus affording adequate coverage to settle the Lawsuit within coverage and policy limits, (ii) AISL waived any applicable exclusions for punitive damages by its failure to send a timely reservation of rights letter and (iii) the decision by the Texas Supreme Court in King v. Dallas Fire Insurance Company, 85 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2002) controls. Prior to the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in the King case, summary judgment was granted in favor of AISL but the scope of the order was unclear. Based on the King decision, the summary judgment was set aside. Thereafter, subsequent motions for summary judgment filed by both AISL and ResCare were denied. The case was tried, without a jury, in late December 2003. On March 31, 2004, the Court entered a judgment in favor of AISL in the amount of $5 million. It is our belief that the Court improperly limited the evidence ResCare could place in the record at trial and the type of claims it could present. Accordingly, an appeal of the Court’s decision has been filed and a supersedeas bond has been filed with the Court of $6.0 million. We have not made any provision in our condensed consolidated financial statements for any potential liability that may result from final adjudication of this matter, as we do not believe it is probable that an unfavorable outcome will result from this matter. Based on the advice of counsel, we do not believe it is probable that the ultimate resolution of this matter will result in a material liability to us nor have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

     On September 2, 2001, in a case styled Nellie Lake, Individually as an Heir-at-Law of Christina Zellner, deceased; and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christina Zellner v. Res-Care, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court of the District of Kansas at Wichita, a jury awarded noneconomic damages to Ms. Lake in the amount of $100,000, the statutory maximum, as well as $5,000 for economic loss. In addition, the jury awarded the Estate of Christina Zellner $5,000 of noneconomic damages and issued an advisory opinion recommending an award of $2.5 million in punitive damages. The judge, however, was not required to award the amount of punitive damages recommended by the jury and on February 4, 2002, entered a punitive damage judgment in the amount of $1 million. Based on the advice of counsel, we appealed the award of punitive damages, based on numerous appealable errors at trial and have since settled the case, without any contribution from AISL, for approximately $750,000. Prior to settlement, in July 2002 we filed a Declaratory Judgment action against AISL in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, alleging that the policy should be interpreted under Kentucky law, thus affording us coverage. We have since sought leave of court to amend our complaint for breach of contract, bad faith insurance practices, as well as unfair claims practices under applicable Kentucky statutes. In addition, we have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in regard to its declaration of rights action. In the interim, AISL filed a motion to transfer this action to the District of Kansas which was granted. We filed a writ of mandamus with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the Western District of Kentucky be required to retain jurisdiction, which was denied. Based on the advice of counsel, we believe any damages resulting from this matter are covered by insurance. We established a reserve in our condensed consolidated financial statements for any potential liability that may result from final adjudication of this matter. Further, we believe that recovery of the settlement is probable and, therefore we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

     In December 1999, a lawsuit styled James Michael Godfrey and Sherry Jo Lusk v. Res-Care, Inc., was filed in Superior Court of Catawba County, North Carolina, by the former owners of Access, Inc., one of our subsidiaries, claiming fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices. On July 29, 2002, a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff awarding the plaintiff damages of $990,000 with interest of $330,000 from December 1, 1999. Based on the advice of counsel, we appealed the award of damages, based on numerous appealable errors at trial. The case was briefed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and oral arguments were held on March 29, 2004. In July 2004, the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied our appeal. We are therefore filing a motion for a rehearing and, if unsuccessful, we will petition the North Carolina Supreme Court. In our opinion, after consulting with outside counsel, substantial grounds exist for a successful appeal. We have not made any provision in our condensed consolidated financial statements for any potential liability that may result from final adjudication of this matter. Based on the advice of counsel, we do not believe it is probable that the ultimate resolution of this matter will result in a material liability to us nor have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

9

     On June 21, 2002, we were notified that our mental health services subsidiary was the subject of an investigation concerning allegations relating to services provided by the subsidiary under various programs sponsored by Medicaid. The subsidiary under investigation is a non-core operation that provides skills training to persons with severe mental illness in Texas. The mental health operation was managed by its founders under a management contract until September 30, 2003 and represents less than 0.5% of the total revenues of the Disabilities Services division. During the third quarter of 2002, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Texas Attorney General (TAG) requesting the production of a variety of documents relating to the subsidiary. The aforementioned investigation was a result of a Civil False Claims Act lawsuit filed under seal by a former employee of the subsidiary on June 18, 2001, on behalf of the employee, the United States Government and the State of Texas. The lawsuit, styled United States of America and State of Texas, ex rel. Jennifer Hudnall vs. The Citadel Group, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On June 21, 2002, the seal was partially lifted for the sole purpose of informing us of the lawsuit. In March 2003, the TAG intervened in the case and in May 2003, filed under seal, a separate complaint. In July 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice notified us that they were not intervening in the case but would remain a real party in interest. On November 6, 2003, the U.S. District Court lifted the seal, thus making the lawsuit public. We have cooperated with the TAG in providing requested documents and engaged special counsel to conduct an internal investigation of the allegations. Based on the results of our investigation, we believe that the subsidiary has complied with the applicable rules and regulations governing the provision of mental health services in the State of Texas. We have also initiated settlement negotiations with the TAG. Although we cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit or any settlement with certainty, and we have incurred and could continue to incur significant legal expenses, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit or any settlement will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

     In July 2002, Lexington Insurance Company (Lexington) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Action against one of our subsidiaries, EduCare Community Living Corporation – Gulf Coast, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. In the Complaint, Lexington sought a declaration of what insurance coverage was available in the case styled William Thurber and Kathy Thurber, et al v. EduCare Community Living Corporation – Gulf Coast (EduCare), which was filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. After the filing, we entered into an agreement with Lexington whereby any settlement reached in Thurber would not be dispositive of whether the claims were covered by insurance. Lexington and EduCare thereafter contributed $1.0 million and $1.5 million, respectively, and settled the Thurber lawsuit. In the declaratory judgment action, Lexington contends that the $1.0 million previously paid satisfies all coverage obligations. Both EduCare and Lexington filed motions for summary judgment which are currently pending before the Court. After consulting with outside counsel, we expect $1.0 million of our contribution to the settlement to be reimbursed by Lexington under the primary policy. We established a reserve of $0.5 million in the condensed consolidated financial statements for any potential liability that may result from final adjudication of this matter. Further, we believe that recovery of the net $1.0 million of the settlement is probable and, therefore, based on the advice of counsel, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

10

     In August 1998, with the approval of the State of Indiana, we relocated approximately 100 individuals from three of our larger facilities to community-based settings. In June 1999, in a lawsuit styled Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. v. Res-Care Health Services, Inc., the lessor of these facilities filed suit against us in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, alleging in connection therewith breach of contract, conversion and fraudulent concealment. In January 2001, January 2002 and July 2002, Omega filed amended complaints alleging wrongful conduct in the appraisal process for the 1999 purchase of three other facilities located in Indiana, for conversion of the Medicaid certifications of the 1998 Indiana facilities and a facility in Kentucky that downsized in 1999, and for breach of contract in allowing the Kentucky facility to be closed. The parties had filed various motions for partial summary judgment. The Court denied Omega’s motion seeking summary judgment on breach of contract on the termination of the three Indiana facility leases in 1998, the Kentucky lease termination and the 1999 purchase of three facilities in Indiana. In addition, the Court has granted ResCare’s motion on the “unjust enrichment” and “conversion” of the Medicaid certifications, as well as the lease termination of the Kentucky facility and the alleged wrongful conduct in the appraisal process. The case has been set for trial in October 2004. On the advice of counsel, we believe that the amount of damages being sought by the plaintiffs is now approximately $3.6 million. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and will defend it vigorously. We do not believe it is probable that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

     In February 2002, a lawsuit previously filed in Texas State Court styled PosAbilities, Inc. v. EduCare Community Living Corporation – America, Inc. and Res-Care, Inc. was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. In this action, PosAbilities alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion in the performance of administrative services by EduCare, a subsidiary of ResCare, and sought actual damages in excess of $1.0 million along with unspecified punitive damages and attorney fees. We filed a counterclaim that proper accounting demonstrates that a substantial liability is owed to EduCare from PosAbilities, and accordingly, at the trial held at the end of March 2004, we sought to recover from PosAbilities a net amount of approximately $0.7 million. At the close of PosAbilities’ evidence at trial, the Court granted in part our motion for judgment as a matter of law and dismissed PosAbilities’ claims for fraud, punitive damages and reimbursement of certain management fees. In April 2004, prior to receiving a court decision, a settlement of the lawsuit was reached that did not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

     In addition, we are a party to various other legal and/or administrative proceedings arising out of the operation of our facilities and programs and arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, generally, these claims are without merit. Further, many of such claims may be covered by insurance. We do not believe the results of these proceedings or claims, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

11

Note 7.	Preferred Stock Issuance

     On June 23, 2004, ResCare issued 48,095 shares of Series A convertible preferred stock to four investment funds controlled by Onex Corporation (Onex), at a purchase price of $1,050 per share or a total price of $50.5 million. The preferred shares are convertible into approximately 4.8 million shares of ResCare’s common stock, based on a value of $10.50 per common share which was contractually agreed to on March 10, 2004. Net proceeds from the Onex transaction were $46.6 million. Issuance costs of approximately $3.9 million, including a $0.5 million transaction fee to Onex, were recorded as a reduction in shareholders’ equity. In addition, we recorded an expense in the second quarter of 2004 of $791,000 related to payments required under the provisions of the director stock option plans as a result of the transaction which was included as other expense in the condensed consolidated income statement.

     The preferred stock is entitled to a liquidation preference of $1,050 per share plus all unpaid, accrued dividends. Preferred shares vote on an as-converted basis as of the date of issuance. The preferred shareholders also are entitled to certain corporate governance and special voting rights, as defined in the agreement, and have no preferential dividends. Commencing 18 months after the issuance, the holders of the preferred stock have the right to put the shares to ResCare at $1,050 per share plus accrued dividends, if any, if we close a sale of substantially all of our assets or equity by merger, consolidation or otherwise.

     Accounting for this transaction falls primarily under Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 98-5, Accounting for Convertible Securities with Beneficial Conversion Features or Contingently Adjustable Conversion Ratios, and EITF No. 00-27, Application of Issue 98-5 to Certain Convertible Instruments. The beneficial conversion feature assumed in the preferred stock was calculated at $14.8 million and was determined by multiplying the number of common shares issuable upon conversion of the preferred shares by the difference between the market price of the common stock on the date of closing and the previously agreed upon conversion price. The beneficial conversion feature was a non-cash item, and was charged to retained earnings, with the offsetting credit to additional paid-in capital. Additionally, the beneficial conversion feature is treated as a reduction in determining net loss attributable to common shareholders for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2004.

     Additionally, in connection with the transaction, we entered into a management services agreement with Onex whereby Onex will advise and assist management and the board of directors from time to time on business and financial matters. We have agreed to pay Onex an annual advisory fee of $350,000 for its services under this agreement effective July 1, 2004. The management services agreement will continue in effect until such time as Onex no longer holds at least 26,452 shares of preferred stock.

12

Item 2.    &nbs