e10vq
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended July 2, 2006
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: 000-26734
SANDISK CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
DELAWARE
|
|
77-0191793 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization)
|
|
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
601 McCarthy Blvd. |
|
|
Milpitas, California
|
|
95035 |
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
(Zip Code) |
Registrants telephone number, including area code
(408) 801-1000
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
Number of shares outstanding of the issuers common stock $0.001 par value, as of July
2, 2006: 195,956,991.
SanDisk Corporation
Index
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (in thousands)
SANDISK CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
January 1, 2006* |
|
|
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1,318,479 |
|
|
$ |
762,058 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
960,995 |
|
|
|
935,639 |
|
Investment in foundries |
|
|
18,990 |
|
|
|
18,338 |
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
|
311,921 |
|
|
|
329,014 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
378,196 |
|
|
|
331,584 |
|
Deferred taxes |
|
|
107,283 |
|
|
|
95,518 |
|
Other current assets |
|
|
121,164 |
|
|
|
103,584 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
3,217,028 |
|
|
|
2,575,735 |
|
Long-term investments |
|
|
405,714 |
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
254,695 |
|
|
|
211,092 |
|
Notes receivable and investments in flash ventures |
|
|
499,024 |
|
|
|
265,074 |
|
Deferred tax asset |
|
|
143,630 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
167,248 |
|
|
|
5,415 |
|
Intangibles, net |
|
|
97,232 |
|
|
|
4,608 |
|
Other non-current assets |
|
|
56,038 |
|
|
|
58,263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
4,840,609 |
|
|
$ |
3,120,187 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
110,864 |
|
|
$ |
231,208 |
|
Accounts payable to related parties |
|
|
86,153 |
|
|
|
74,121 |
|
Other accrued liabilities |
|
|
139,947 |
|
|
|
115,525 |
|
Deferred income on shipments to distributors and
retailers and deferred revenue |
|
|
143,678 |
|
|
|
150,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
480,642 |
|
|
|
571,137 |
|
Convertible senior notes |
|
|
1,150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred revenue and other non-current liabilities |
|
|
40,850 |
|
|
|
25,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
1,671,492 |
|
|
|
596,396 |
|
Commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
Capital in excess of par value |
|
|
2,120,567 |
|
|
|
1,621,819 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
1,037,380 |
|
|
|
906,624 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income |
|
|
10,974 |
|
|
|
2,635 |
|
Deferred compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,475 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
3,169,117 |
|
|
|
2,523,791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
|
$ |
4,840,609 |
|
|
$ |
3,120,187 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Information derived from the audited Consolidated Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial
statements. |
3
SANDISK CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product |
|
$ |
636,675 |
|
|
$ |
453,762 |
|
|
$ |
1,174,403 |
|
|
$ |
853,441 |
|
License and royalty |
|
|
82,510 |
|
|
|
61,134 |
|
|
|
168,042 |
|
|
|
112,430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
719,185 |
|
|
|
514,896 |
|
|
|
1,342,445 |
|
|
|
965,871 |
|
Cost of product revenues |
|
|
430,177 |
|
|
|
300,797 |
|
|
|
815,044 |
|
|
|
551,985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
289,008 |
|
|
|
214,099 |
|
|
|
527,401 |
|
|
|
413,886 |
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
73,785 |
|
|
|
61,404 |
|
|
|
137,547 |
|
|
|
107,351 |
|
Sales and marketing |
|
|
45,067 |
|
|
|
27,034 |
|
|
|
88,442 |
|
|
|
51,631 |
|
General and administrative |
|
|
37,182 |
|
|
|
19,617 |
|
|
|
67,198 |
|
|
|
35,341 |
|
Write-off of acquired in-process technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets |
|
|
4,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
160,466 |
|
|
|
108,055 |
|
|
|
340,934 |
|
|
|
194,323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
128,542 |
|
|
|
106,044 |
|
|
|
186,467 |
|
|
|
219,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income (loss) of business ventures |
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
(360 |
) |
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
Interest income |
|
|
22,670 |
|
|
|
9,710 |
|
|
|
38,527 |
|
|
|
17,694 |
|
Gain (loss) on investment in foundries |
|
|
764 |
|
|
|
(5,224 |
) |
|
|
2,253 |
|
|
|
(9,253 |
) |
Interest expense and other income (expense), net |
|
|
(1,614 |
) |
|
|
1,728 |
|
|
|
(665 |
) |
|
|
2,229 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income |
|
|
22,013 |
|
|
|
5,854 |
|
|
|
40,477 |
|
|
|
10,615 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before taxes |
|
|
150,555 |
|
|
|
111,898 |
|
|
|
226,944 |
|
|
|
230,178 |
|
Provision for income taxes |
|
|
54,914 |
|
|
|
41,402 |
|
|
|
96,188 |
|
|
|
85,166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
95,641 |
|
|
$ |
70,496 |
|
|
$ |
130,756 |
|
|
$ |
145,012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.49 |
|
|
$ |
0.39 |
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
|
$ |
0.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.47 |
|
|
$ |
0.37 |
|
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in computing net income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
195,527 |
|
|
|
181,469 |
|
|
|
194,302 |
|
|
|
181,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
202,980 |
|
|
|
190,256 |
|
|
|
202,522 |
|
|
|
190,127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.
4
SANDISK CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Cash flows from operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
130,756 |
|
|
$ |
145,012 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred taxes |
|
|
(17,395 |
) |
|
|
1,076 |
|
(Gain) loss on investment in foundries |
|
|
(1,195 |
) |
|
|
9,253 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
57,666 |
|
|
|
29,413 |
|
Provision for doubtful accounts |
|
|
1,001 |
|
|
|
(163 |
) |
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
44,688 |
|
|
|
1,069 |
|
Tax benefit
from share-based compensation |
|
|
(61,023 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Write-off of acquired in-process technology |
|
|
39,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-cash charges |
|
|
(4,744 |
) |
|
|
2,274 |
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
23,048 |
|
|
|
(47,800 |
) |
Inventories |
|
|
(39,976 |
) |
|
|
(33,171 |
) |
Other assets |
|
|
(8,743 |
) |
|
|
(15,241 |
) |
Accounts payable trade |
|
|
(123,758 |
) |
|
|
30,132 |
|
Accounts payable, related party |
|
|
13,065 |
|
|
|
15,947 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
58,798 |
|
|
|
55,676 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
111,788 |
|
|
|
193,477 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments |
|
|
(805,300 |
) |
|
|
(295,582 |
) |
Proceeds from sale of short-term investments |
|
|
375,446 |
|
|
|
281,608 |
|
Investment in Flash Partners |
|
|
(127,919 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of property and equipment, net |
|
|
(89,722 |
) |
|
|
(56,218 |
) |
Notes receivable from FlashVision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,222 |
) |
Notes receivable from Flash Partners |
|
|
(95,445 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Cash acquired in business combination with Matrix, net of acquisition costs |
|
|
9,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) investing activities |
|
|
(733,508 |
) |
|
|
(92,414 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of convertible senior notes, net of issuance costs |
|
|
1,125,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of convertible bond hedge |
|
|
(386,090 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of warrants |
|
|
308,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from employee stock programs |
|
|
68,850 |
|
|
|
15,853 |
|
Tax benefit
from share-based compensation |
|
|
61,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities |
|
|
1,177,955 |
|
|
|
15,853 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on cash |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
556,421 |
|
|
|
117,294 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year |
|
|
762,058 |
|
|
|
463,795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of the six months ended July 2, 2006 |
|
$ |
1,318,479 |
|
|
$ |
581,089 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of stock for acquisition |
|
$ |
260,908 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial
statements.
5
SANDISK CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
1. Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
These interim condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited but reflect, in the
opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments and accruals,
necessary to present fairly the financial position of SanDisk Corporation and its subsidiaries (the
Company) as of July 2, 2006, the statements of income for the three and six months ended July 2,
2006 and July 3, 2005 and the statements of cash flows for the six months ended July 2, 2006 and
July 3, 2005. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial
statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, have
been omitted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or SEC. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in
conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in
the Companys most recent annual report on Form 10-K, as amended. Certain prior period amounts
have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. The results of operations
for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be
expected for the entire fiscal year.
The Companys fiscal year ends on the Sunday closest to December 31, and its fiscal quarters
end on the Sunday closest to March 31, June 30, and September 30, respectively. The second
quarters of fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2005 ended on July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively.
Fiscal year 2006 ends on December 31, 2006 and fiscal year 2005 ended on January 1, 2006.
Organization and Nature of Operations. SanDisk Corporation (together with its subsidiaries,
the Company) was incorporated in Delaware on June 1, 1988. The Company designs, develops and
markets flash storage card products used in a wide variety of consumer electronics products. The
Company operates in one segment, flash memory storage products.
Principles of Consolidation. The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
the Company and its majority-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have
been eliminated.
Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires
management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial
statements and accompanying notes. The estimates and judgments affect the reported amounts of
assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent liabilities. On
an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to customer programs
and incentives, product returns, bad debts, inventories and related reserves, investments, income
taxes, warranty obligations, restructuring and contingencies, stock compensation and litigation.
The Company bases estimates on historical experience and on other assumptions that its management
believes are reasonable under the circumstances. These estimates form the basis for making
judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities when those values are not readily
apparent from other sources. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
Short and Long-Term Investments. Short and long-term investments are designated as
available-for-sale and reported at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses, net of tax,
recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income. In connection with the issuance of the
Companys 1% Convertible Senior Notes (see Note 8, Financing Arrangements) and evaluation of future
cash requirements, investments with original maturities greater than three months and remaining
maturities less than one year are classified as short-term investments. Investments with remaining
maturities greater than one year as of the balance sheet date are classified as long-term
investments.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements. In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48,
or FIN 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109.
FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprises
financial statements in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 109, or
FAS 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. FIN 48 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement
attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or
expected to be taken in a tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition,
classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition.
FIN 48 will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. Earlier adoption is
permitted as of the beginning of an enterprises fiscal year, provided the enterprise has not yet
issued financial statements, including financial statements for any interim period, for that fiscal
year. The Company will adopt FIN 48 in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and is currently
evaluating the effect that the adoption of FIN 48 will have on its consolidated results of
operations and financial condition.
6
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
2. Stock-Based Compensation
Stock-Based Benefit Plans
2005 Incentive Plan. In May 2005, the Companys board of directors adopted the 2005 Stock
Incentive Plan, which was amended in May 2006 and renamed the 2005 Incentive Plan (the 2005
Plan). Shares of the Companys common stock may be issued under the 2005 Plan pursuant to three separate equity incentive
programs: (i) the discretionary grant program under which stock options and stock appreciation
rights may be granted to officers and other employees, non-employee board members and independent
consultants, (ii) the stock issuance program under which shares may be awarded to such individuals
through restricted stock or restricted stock unit awards or as a stock bonus for services rendered
to the Company, and (iii) an automatic grant program for the non-employee board members pursuant to
which such individuals will receive option grants or other stock awards at designated intervals
over their period of board service. The 2005 Plan also includes a performance-based cash bonus
awards program for employees classified under Section 16. Grants and awards under the
discretionary grant program generally vest as follows: 25% of the shares will vest on the first
anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the remaining 75% will vest proportionately each
quarter over the next 16 quarters of continued service. Awards under the stock issuance program
generally vest in equal annual installments over a 4 year period. Grants under the automatic grant
program will vest in accordance with the specific vesting provisions set forth in that program. A
total of 21,236,150 shares of the Companys common stock have been reserved for issuance under this
plan. The share reserve may increase by up to an additional 10,000,000 shares of common stock to
the extent that outstanding options under the 1995 Stock Option Plan and the 1995 Non-Employee
Directors Stock Option Plan expire or terminate unexercised, of which as of July 2, 2006, 708,352
shares of common stock has been added to the 2005 Plan reserve. All options granted under the 2005
Plan were granted with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the common stock on the
date of grant and will expire seven years from the date of grant. Through July 2, 2006, options to
purchase a total of 6,476,699 shares of common stock were granted to employees under the 2005 Plan,
net of cancellations. For the three and six months ended July 2, 2006, awards of 759,863 and
4,812,886 shares of common stock, respectively, were granted to employees under the 2005 Plan, net
of cancellations.
1995 Stock Option Plan and 1995 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan. Both of these plans
terminated on May 27, 2005, and no further option grants were made under the plans after that date.
However, options that were outstanding under these plans on May 27, 2005 will continue to be
governed by their existing terms and may be exercised for shares of the Companys common stock at
any time prior to the expiration of the ten-year option term or any earlier termination of those
options in connection with the optionees cessation of service with the Company. Grants and awards
under this discretionary grant and stock issuance programs will generally vest as follows: 25% of
the shares will vest on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the remaining
75% will vest proportionately each quarter over the next 36 months of continued service. As of
July 2, 2006, options had been granted, net of cancellations, to purchase 38,393,887 and
1,616,000 shares of common stock under the 1995 Stock Option Plan and the 1995 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option
Plan, respectively.
2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) was
approved by the stockholders on May 27, 2005. The ESPP plan consists of two components: a
component for employees residing in the United States and an international component for employees
who are non-U.S. residents. The ESPP plan allows eligible employees to purchase shares of the
Companys common stock at the end of each six-month offering period at a purchase price equal to
85% of the lower of the fair market value per share on the start date of the offering period or the
fair market value per share on the purchase date. As of July 2, 2006, a total of 5,000,000 shares
were reserved for issuance and for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006, 113,909 shares of common stock were
issued under the ESPP plan.
Adoption of SFAS 123(R)
Effective January 2, 2006, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provisions of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), SFAS 123(R), Share-Based Payment, using the
modified-prospective transition method, and therefore, has not restated its financial statements
for prior periods. For awards expected to vest, compensation cost recognized in the three and six
months ended July 2, 2006 includes the following: (a) compensation cost, based on the grant-date
estimated fair value and expense attribution method elected upon the Companys adoption of SFAS
123(R), related to any share-based awards granted through, but not yet vested as of January 1,
2006, and (b) compensation cost for any share-based awards granted on or subsequent to January 2,
2006, based on the grant-date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS
123(R). The
7
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Company recognizes compensation expense for the fair values of these awards, which
have graded vesting, on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of each of these
awards, net of estimated forfeitures.
The Company estimates the fair value of stock options granted using the Black-Scholes-Merton
option-pricing formula and a single-option award approach. The Companys expected term represents
the period that the Companys stock-based awards are expected to be outstanding and was determined
based on historical experience regarding similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual
terms of the stock-based awards. The Companys expected volatility is based on the implied
volatility of its traded options and the Company considered the guidance provided by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commissions Staff Accounting Bulletin 107 to place exclusive reliance on
implied volatilities to estimate our stock volatility over the expected term of the awards. The
Company has historically not paid dividends and has no foreseeable plans to issue dividends. The
risk-free interest rate is based on the yield from U.S. Treasury zero-coupon bonds with an
equivalent term.
As a result of adopting SFAS 123(R), the impact to the Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 to income before income taxes and net
income was $30.3 million, $92.4 million, $21.9 million and $76.8 million lower, respectively, than
if the Company had continued to account for share-based compensation under APB 25. The basic and
diluted earnings per share for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 was $0.11, $0.11, $0.40
and $0.37 lower, respectively, than if the Company had continued to
account for share-based
compensation under APB 25. In addition, prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), the Company
presented the tax benefit of stock option exercises as operating cash flows. Upon the adoption of
SFAS 123(R), tax benefits resulting from tax deductions in excess of the compensation cost
recognized for those options are classified as financing cash flows and a corresponding deduction
from operating cash flows.
Stock Options
The fair value of the Companys stock options granted to employees for the three and six
months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005 was estimated using the following weighted average
assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
Dividend yield |
|
None |
|
None |
|
None |
|
None |
Expected volatility |
|
|
0.51 - 0.55 |
|
|
|
0.52 |
|
|
|
0.51 - 0.55 |
|
|
|
0.53 |
|
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
4.89% - 5.08 |
% |
|
|
3.87 |
% |
|
|
4.35% - 5.08 |
% |
|
|
3.89 |
% |
Expected lives |
|
3.6 years |
|
4.7 years |
|
3.7 years |
|
4.7 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average fair value at grant date |
|
$ |
28.14 |
|
|
$ |
12.14 |
|
|
$ |
27.50 |
|
|
$ |
11.83 |
|
A summary of option activity under all of the Companys share-based compensation plans as of
July 2, 2006 and changes during the six months ended July 2, 2006 is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Contractual |
|
|
Intrinsic |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Term (Years) |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In thousands, except exercise price and contractual term) |
|
Options outstanding at January 1, 2006 |
|
|
20,316 |
|
|
$ |
21.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
4,964 |
|
|
|
56.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
|
|
(3,869 |
) |
|
|
16.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(508 |
) |
|
|
37.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expired |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
47.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at July 2, 2006 |
|
|
20,899 |
|
|
|
30.41 |
|
|
|
6.7 |
|
|
$ |
477,850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options vested and expected to vest after July 2, 2006 |
|
|
19,650 |
|
|
|
29.50 |
|
|
|
6.7 |
|
|
|
463,761 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable at July 2, 2006 |
|
|
8,506 |
|
|
$ |
16.64 |
|
|
|
5.9 |
|
|
$ |
292,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, the aggregate intrinsic
value of options exercised under the Companys share-based compensation plans was $58.6 million, $176.3
million, $11.4 million and $29.2 million, respectively. At July 2, 2006, the total compensation
cost related to options granted to employees under the Companys share-based compensation plans but not yet
8
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
recognized was approximately $199.0 million, net of estimated forfeitures. This cost will be
amortized on a straight-line basis over a weighted average period of
approximately 2.6 years.
Restricted Stock
Restricted stock and restricted stock units are converted into shares of the Companys common
stock upon vesting on a one-for-one basis. Typically, vesting of restricted stock is subject to
the employees continuing service to the Company. The cost of these awards is determined using the
fair value of the Companys common stock on the date of the grant, and compensation is recognized
on a straight-line basis over the requisite vesting period.
A summary of the changes in restricted stock units outstanding under the Companys share-based compensation plan during the six months ended July 2, 2006 is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Grant |
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date |
|
|
Intrinsic |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Value |
|
Non-vested share units at January 1, 2006 |
|
|
105,188 |
|
|
$ |
42.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
601,007 |
|
|
|
62.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Vested |
|
|
(17,040 |
) |
|
|
31.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(14,114 |
) |
|
|
59.04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested share units at July 2, 2006 |
|
|
675,041 |
|
|
$ |
59.14 |
|
|
$ |
34,413,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of July 2, 2006, the Company had $32.4 million of total unrecognized compensation expense,
net of estimated forfeitures, related to restricted stock, which will be recognized over a weighted
average estimated remaining life of 3.0 years.
Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPP)
The fair value of grants under the employee stock purchase plans was estimated on the first
date of the purchase period, with the following weighted average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
Dividend yield |
|
None |
|
None |
|
None |
|
None |
Expected volatility |
|
|
0.54 |
|
|
|
0.42 |
|
|
|
0.51 |
|
|
|
0.45 |
|
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
4.69 |
% |
|
|
2.77 |
% |
|
|
4.53 |
% |
|
|
2.60 |
% |
Expected lives |
|
1/2 year |
|
1/2 year |
|
1/2 year |
|
1/2 year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average fair value at exercise date |
|
$ |
20.45 |
|
|
$ |
6.74 |
|
|
$ |
18.50 |
|
|
$ |
6.89 |
|
At July 2, 2006, there was $0.3 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to the
ESPP that is expected to be recognized over a period of approximately 0.1 years.
9
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Stock Compensation Expense
The Company recorded $25.9 million and $44.7 million of share-based compensation for the three
and six months ended July 2, 2006 that included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Share-based compensation expense by caption: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales |
|
$ |
2,478 |
|
|
$ |
2,478 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
10,421 |
|
|
|
19,206 |
|
Sales and marketing |
|
|
5,125 |
|
|
|
9,165 |
|
General and administrative |
|
|
7,846 |
|
|
|
13,807 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
25,870 |
|
|
$ |
44,656 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation expense by type of award: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options |
|
$ |
21,694 |
|
|
$ |
37,748 |
|
Restricted stock |
|
|
3,202 |
|
|
|
5,239 |
|
ESPP |
|
|
974 |
|
|
|
1,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
25,870 |
|
|
$ |
44,656 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation expense of $2.6 million related to manufacturing personnel was
capitalized into inventory as of July 2, 2006.
Prior to fiscal 2006, the Company followed the disclosure-only provisions of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, or SFAS 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, as
amended. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share for the
three months and six months ended July 3, 2005 if the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS
123, as amended, had been applied to options granted under the Companys share-based compensation plans. For purposes of this pro forma disclosure, the estimated value of the share-based compensation
is recognized over the vesting periods. If the Company had recognized the expense of
share-based compensation in the condensed consolidated statement of income, additional paid-in capital would
have increased by a corresponding amount, net of applicable taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
Net income, as reported |
|
$ |
70,496 |
|
|
$ |
145,012 |
|
Fair value method expense, net of related tax |
|
|
(10,396 |
) |
|
|
(20,707 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income |
|
$ |
60,100 |
|
|
$ |
124,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share as reported: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.39 |
|
|
$ |
0.80 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.37 |
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
Pro forma earnings per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.33 |
|
|
$ |
0.69 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.32 |
|
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
Disclosures for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 are not presented because
share-based compensation was accounted for under SFAS 123(R) fair-value method during this period.
10
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
3. Warranty
Changes to the Companys warranty reserve activity were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Balance, beginning of period |
|
$ |
8,423 |
|
|
$ |
10,332 |
|
|
$ |
11,258 |
|
|
$ |
11,380 |
|
Additions (reductions) to costs of product revenue |
|
|
4,599 |
|
|
|
3,909 |
|
|
|
1,992 |
|
|
|
4,488 |
|
Usage |
|
|
(3,361 |
) |
|
|
(2,516 |
) |
|
|
(3,589 |
) |
|
|
(4,143 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of period |
|
$ |
9,661 |
|
|
$ |
11,725 |
|
|
$ |
9,661 |
|
|
$ |
11,725 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of the Companys products have a warranty ranging from one to five years. A
provision for the estimated future cost related to warranty expense is recorded at the time of
customer invoice. The Companys warranty obligation is affected by customer and consumer returns,
product failures and repair or replacement costs incurred.
11
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
4. Balance Sheet Detail
Inventories
Inventories were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
January 1, 2006 |
|
Raw material |
|
$ |
117,638 |
|
|
$ |
99,006 |
|
Work-in-process |
|
|
72,020 |
|
|
|
61,900 |
|
Finished goods |
|
|
188,538 |
|
|
|
170,678 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventories |
|
$ |
378,196 |
|
|
$ |
331,584 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, the Company sold
approximately $5.2 million, $9.2 million, $4.7 million and $4.9 million, respectively, of inventory
that had been fully written-off or reserved in previous periods.
Notes Receivables and Investments in Flash Ventures
Notes receivable and investments in flash ventures were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
January 1, 2006 |
|
Notes receivable, FlashVision |
|
$ |
63,750 |
|
|
$ |
61,927 |
|
Notes receivable, Flash Partners |
|
|
96,061 |
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in FlashVision |
|
|
164,888 |
|
|
|
161,080 |
|
Investment in Flash Partners |
|
|
174,325 |
|
|
|
42,067 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total notes receivable and investments in flash ventures |
|
$ |
499,024 |
|
|
$ |
265,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Non-current Assets
Other non-current assets were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
January 1, 2006 |
|
Investment in foundries |
|
$ |
16,364 |
|
|
$ |
11,013 |
|
Deposits |
|
|
6,437 |
|
|
|
4,709 |
|
Other non-current assets |
|
|
33,237 |
|
|
|
42,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other non-current assets |
|
$ |
56,038 |
|
|
$ |
58,263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Accrued Liabilities
Other accrued liabilities were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
January 1, 2006 |
|
Accrued payroll and related expenses |
|
$ |
45,035 |
|
|
$ |
55,614 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
12,994 |
|
|
|
2,165 |
|
Research and development liability, related party |
|
|
5,984 |
|
|
|
4,200 |
|
Other accrued liabilities |
|
|
75,934 |
|
|
|
53,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other accrued liabilities |
|
$ |
139,947 |
|
|
$ |
115,525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
5. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
Goodwill
Goodwill balance is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January 1, 2006 |
|
$ |
5,415 |
|
Goodwill adjustment |
|
|
25 |
|
Goodwill acquired (Note 11) |
|
|
161,808 |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at July 2, 2006 |
|
$ |
167,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, or SFAS 142, Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets, goodwill is not amortized, but instead is reviewed and tested for
impairment at least annually and whenever events or circumstances occur which indicate that
goodwill might be impaired. Impairment of goodwill is tested at the Companys reporting unit level
by comparing the carrying amount, including goodwill, to the fair value. In performing the
analysis, the Company uses the best information available, including reasonable and supportable
assumptions and projections. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit exceeds its implied fair
value, goodwill is considered impaired and a second step is performed to measure the amount of
impairment loss, if any. The Company will perform an annual review of goodwill with an effective
date of the first day of the fourth fiscal quarter of every fiscal year.
Other Intangible Assets
Other intangible assets balances were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
January 1, 2006 |
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Amount |
|
Core technology |
|
$ |
76,300 |
|
|
$ |
(4,996 |
) |
|
$ |
71,304 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Developed product
technology |
|
|
12,900 |
|
|
|
(1,538 |
) |
|
|
11,362 |
|
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
|
(542 |
) |
|
|
958 |
|
Customer relationships |
|
|
14,100 |
|
|
|
(2,154 |
) |
|
|
11,946 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition-related
intangible assets |
|
|
103,300 |
|
|
|
(8,688 |
) |
|
|
94,612 |
|
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
|
(542 |
) |
|
|
958 |
|
Technology licenses |
|
|
7,389 |
|
|
|
(4,769 |
) |
|
|
2,620 |
|
|
|
7,389 |
|
|
|
(3,739 |
) |
|
|
3,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
110,689 |
|
|
$ |
(13,457 |
) |
|
$ |
97,232 |
|
|
$ |
8,889 |
|
|
$ |
(4,281 |
) |
|
$ |
4,608 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other intangible assets increased by $101.8 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2006 as a
result of the Companys acquisition of Matrix Semiconductor, Inc., or Matrix. Technology licenses
represent technology licenses purchased from third parties.
The annual amortization expense of other intangible assets that existed as of July 2, 2006 is
expected to be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Amortization Expenses |
|
|
|
Acquisition- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Intangible |
|
|
Technology |
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
License |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Fiscal periods: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 (remaining six months) |
|
$ |
8,864 |
|
|
$ |
1,091 |
|
2007 |
|
|
17,687 |
|
|
|
903 |
|
2008 |
|
|
17,229 |
|
|
|
626 |
|
2009 |
|
|
12,724 |
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
12,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
2011 and thereafter |
|
|
25,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
94,612 |
|
|
$ |
2,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
6. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
Accumulated other comprehensive income presented in the accompanying balance sheet consists of
the accumulated unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale marketable securities, including
the Companys investments in foundries, as well as currency translation adjustments relating to
local currency denominated subsidiaries and equity investees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
January 1, 2006 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Accumulated net unrealized gain (loss) on: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale short-term investments |
|
$ |
(2,908 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,233 |
) |
Available-for-sale investments in foundries |
|
|
1,832 |
|
|
|
(383 |
) |
Foreign currency translation |
|
|
12,050 |
|
|
|
7,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated other comprehensive income |
|
$ |
10,974 |
|
|
$ |
2,635 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
95,641 |
|
|
$ |
70,496 |
|
|
$ |
130,756 |
|
|
$ |
145,012 |
|
Unrealized income on
available-for-sale investment
in foundries |
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
1,675 |
|
|
|
2,215 |
|
|
|
1,213 |
|
Unrealized income (loss) on
available-for-sale short-term
investments |
|
|
(412 |
) |
|
|
965 |
|
|
|
1,325 |
|
|
|
(1,018 |
) |
Currency translation gain (loss) |
|
|
6,164 |
|
|
|
(4,224 |
) |
|
|
4,799 |
|
|
|
(8,032 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive net income |
|
$ |
101,631 |
|
|
$ |
68,912 |
|
|
$ |
139,095 |
|
|
$ |
137,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
7. Net Income per Share
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income per share (in
thousands, except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Numerator for basic net income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income, as reported |
|
$ |
95,641 |
|
|
$ |
70,496 |
|
|
$ |
130,756 |
|
|
$ |
145,012 |
|
Denominator for basic net income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
195,527 |
|
|
|
181,469 |
|
|
|
194,302 |
|
|
|
181,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per share |
|
$ |
0.49 |
|
|
$ |
0.39 |
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
|
$ |
0.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator for diluted net income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income, as reported |
|
$ |
95,641 |
|
|
$ |
70,496 |
|
|
$ |
130,756 |
|
|
$ |
145,012 |
|
Denominator for basic net income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
195,527 |
|
|
|
181,469 |
|
|
|
194,302 |
|
|
|
181,050 |
|
Effect of dilutive options and restricted stock |
|
|
7,453 |
|
|
|
8,787 |
|
|
|
8,220 |
|
|
|
9,077 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in computing diluted net income
per share |
|
|
202,980 |
|
|
|
190,256 |
|
|
|
202,522 |
|
|
|
190,127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted net income per share |
|
$ |
0.47 |
|
|
$ |
0.37 |
|
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per share excludes any dilutive effects of options, unvested stock units,
warrants and convertible securities. Diluted net income per share includes the dilutive effects of
stock options, unvested stock units, warrants and convertible securities. For the three and six
months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, a total of 33,188,789, 31,921,634 and 6,038,067 and
6,013,628 shares of common stock issuable under stock options, warrants and the 1% Convertible
Senior Notes, respectively, have been omitted from the diluted net income per share calculation
because their inclusion would be antidilutive.
15
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
8. Financing Arrangements
The following table reflects the carrying value of our long-term borrowings as of July 2, 2006
and January 1, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
January 1, 2006 |
|
|
(In millions) |
1%
Convertible Senior Notes due 2013 |
|
$ |
1,150.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
In May 2006, the Company issued and sold $1.15 billion in aggregate principal amount of 1%
Convertible Senior Notes due 2013 (the 1% Notes) at par.
The 1% Notes may be converted,
under certain circumstances described below, based on an initial conversion rate of 12.1426 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of notes (which
represents an initial conversion price of approximately $82.36 per share). The net proceeds to the
Company from the offering of the 1% Notes were $1.13 billion.
The 1% Notes may be converted prior to the close of business on the scheduled trading day
immediately preceding February 15, 2013, in multiples of $1,000 principal amount at the option of
the holder under any of the following circumstances 1) during the five business-day period after any
five consecutive trading-day period (the measurement period) in which the trading price per note
for each day of such measurement period was less than 98% of the product of the last reported sale
price of the Companys common stock and the conversion rate on each such day; 2) during any
calendar quarter after the calendar quarter ending June 30, 2006, if the last reported sale
price of the Companys common stock for 20 or more trading days in a period of 30 consecutive
trading days ending on the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter exceeds
120% of the applicable conversion price in effect on the last trading day of the immediately
preceding calendar quarter; or 3) upon the occurrence of specified corporate transactions. On and
after February 15, 2013 until the close of business on the scheduled trading day immediately
preceding the maturity date of May 15, 2013, holders may convert their notes at any time, regardless of the
foregoing circumstances.
Upon conversion, a holder will receive the conversion value of the 1% Notes to be converted equal to the conversion rate
multiplied by the volume weighted average price of the Companys common stock during a specified
period following the conversion date. The conversion value of each 1% Note will be paid in: 1) cash equal to the
lesser of the principal amount of the note or the conversion value, as defined, and 2) to the
extent the conversion value exceeds the principal amount of the note, a combination of common stock
and cash. The conversion price will be subject to adjustment in some events but will not be
adjusted for accrued interest. In addition, upon a fundamental change at any time, as defined, the
holders may require the Company to repurchase for cash all or a portion of their notes upon a
designated event at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes being repurchased
plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any.
The
Company will pay cash interest at an annual rate of 1%, payable
semi-annually on May 15 and November 15 of each year, beginning November 15, 2006. Debt issuance costs of
approximately $24.5 million are being amortized to interest expense over the term of the 1% Notes.
Concurrently with the issuance of the 1% Notes, the Company purchased a convertible bond hedge
and sold warrants. The separate convertible bond hedge and warrant transactions are structured to
reduce the potential future economic dilution associated with the
conversion of the 1% Notes and to increase the initial conversion price to $95.03 per share. Each of these components are
discussed separately below:
|
|
|
Convertible Bond Hedge. Counterparties agreed to sell to the Company up to approximately 14.0 million
shares of the Companys common stock, which is the number of shares initially issuable upon conversion
of the 1% Notes in full, at a price of $82.36 per share. The convertible bond hedge
transaction will be settled in net shares and will terminate upon the earlier of the
maturity date of the 1% Notes or the first day none of the 1% Notes remain outstanding due to
conversion or otherwise. Settlement of the convertible bond hedge in
net shares, based on the number of shares issued upon conversion of the 1% Notes, on the
expiration date would result in the Company receiving net shares equivalent to the number of
shares issuable by the Company upon conversion of the 1% Notes. Should there be an early
unwind of the convertible bond hedge transaction, the number of net shares potentially
received by the Company will depend upon 1) the then existing overall market conditions, 2)
the Companys stock price, 3) the volatility of the Companys stock, and 4) the amount of
time remaining before expiration of the convertible bond hedge. The convertible bond hedge transaction cost
of $386.1 million has been accounted for as an equity transaction in accordance with
Emerging Issues Task Force No. 00-19, or EITF 00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial
Statements Indexed to, and Potentially Settled
|
16
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
|
|
|
in, a Companys Own Stock. The Company recorded a tax benefit of approximately $145.6 million
in stockholders equity from the deferred tax assets related to the convertible bond hedge. |
|
|
|
|
Sold Warrants. The Company received $308.7 million from the same counterparties
from the sale of warrants to purchase up to approximately 14.0 million shares of the Companys common
stock at an exercise price of $95.03 per share. The warrants have an expected life of 7.25
years and expire in August 2013. At expiration, the Company may, at its option,
elect to settle the warrants on a net share basis. As of July 2, 2006, the warrants had not
been exercised and remained outstanding. The value of the warrants has been classified as
equity because they meet all the equity classification criteria of EITF 00-19. |
17
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
9. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees
Commitments
FlashVision. The Company has a 49.9% ownership interest in FlashVision Ltd., or FlashVision,
a business venture with Toshiba Corporation, or Toshiba, formed in fiscal 2000. In the venture,
the Company and Toshiba have collaborated in the development and manufacture of NAND flash memory
products. These NAND flash memory products are manufactured by Toshiba at its 200-millimeter wafer
fabrication facilities, located in Yokkaichi, Japan, using the semiconductor manufacturing
equipment owned or leased by FlashVision. FlashVision purchases wafers from Toshiba at cost and
then resells those wafers to the Company and Toshiba at cost plus a mark-up. Toshiba owns 50.1% of
this venture. The Company accounts for its 49.9% ownership position in FlashVision under the
equity method of accounting. The terms of the FlashVision venture contractually obligate the
Company to purchase half of FlashVisions NAND wafer supply. The Company cannot estimate the total
amount of this commitment as of July 2, 2006, because it is based upon future costs and volumes.
In addition, the Company is committed to fund 49.9% of FlashVisions costs to the extent that
FlashVisions revenues from wafer sales to the Company and Toshiba are insufficient to cover these
costs.
As of July 2, 2006, the Company had notes receivable from FlashVision of 7.3 billion Japanese
yen, or approximately $64 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. These notes are
secured by the equipment purchased by FlashVision using the note proceeds. The Company agreed to
indemnify Toshiba for certain liabilities Toshiba incurs as a result of Toshibas guarantee of the
FlashVision equipment lease arrangement. If FlashVision fails to meet its lease commitments, and
Toshiba fulfills these commitments under the terms of Toshibas guarantee, then the Company will be
obligated to reimburse Toshiba for 49.9% of any claims and associated expenses under the lease,
unless the claims result from Toshibas failure to meet its obligations to FlashVision or its
covenants to the lenders. Because FlashVisions equipment lease arrangement is denominated in
Japanese yen, the maximum amount of the Companys contingent indemnification obligation on a given
date when converted to U.S. dollars will fluctuate based on the exchange rate in effect on that
date. See Off Balance Sheet Liabilities.
Flash Partners. The Company has a 49.9% ownership interest in Flash Partners Ltd., or Flash
Partners, a business venture with Toshiba, formed in fiscal 2004. In the venture, the Company and
Toshiba have collaborated in the development and manufacture of NAND flash memory products. These
NAND flash memory products are manufactured by Toshiba at the 300-millimeter wafer fabrication
facility, Fab 3, located in Yokkaichi, Japan, using the semiconductor manufacturing equipment owned
or leased by Flash Partners. Flash Partners purchases wafers from Toshiba at cost and then resells
those wafers to the Company and Toshiba at cost plus a mark-up. Toshiba owns 50.1% of this
venture. The Company accounts for its 49.9% ownership position in Flash Partners under the equity
method of accounting. The Company is committed to purchase half of Flash Partners NAND wafer
supply. The Company cannot estimate the total amount of this commitment as of July 2, 2006,
because it is based upon future costs and volumes. In addition, the Company is committed to fund
49.9% of Flash Partners costs to the extent that Flash Partners revenues from wafer sales to the
Company and Toshiba are insufficient to cover these costs.
As of July 2, 2006, the Company and Toshiba had committed to expand Flash Partners capacity
to 90,000 wafer starts per month. The Company currently estimates the total equipment funding
obligation at the 90,000 wafer starts per month level to be approximately 430.0 billion Japanese
yen, or approximately $3.8 billion based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. Of this amount,
the Company is obligated to fund 215.0 billion Japanese yen, or approximately $1.9 billion based
upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006, of which approximately $0.9 billion was left to fund as of
July 2, 2006. After considering the commitments between the Company and Toshiba to expand capacity
at Flash Partners, the Company continues to not be the primary beneficiary of Flash Partners. On
July 27, 2006, the Company and Toshiba agreed to accelerate the expansion of Fab 3, which is
expected to bring Fab 3 wafer capacity from the previously planned 90,000 wafers per month to
110,000 wafers per month by July 2007. See Note 14, Subsequent Events.
As of July 2, 2006, Flash Partners had utilized operating lease facilities of 117.0 billion
Japanese yen, or approximately $1.02 billion based on the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. As of
July 2, 2006, the Companys guarantee of the Flash Partners operating lease obligation, net of
accumulated lease payments, was approximately 54.3 billion Japanese yen, or approximately $474
million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. In addition, Flash Partners expects to
secure additional equipment lease facilities over time, which the Company may be obligated to
guarantee in whole or in part.
18
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Flash Alliance. The Company has a 49.9% ownership interest in Flash Alliance Ltd., or Flash
Alliance, a business venture with Toshiba, formed on July 7, 2006. In the venture, Company and
Toshiba will collaborate in the development and manufacture of NAND flash memory products. These
NAND flash memory products will be manufactured by Toshiba at the proposed 300-millimeter wafer
fabrication facility, Fab 4, located in Yokkaichi, Japan, using the semiconductor manufacturing
equipment that will be owned or leased by Flash Alliance. Flash Alliance will purchase wafers from
Toshiba at cost and then resell those wafers to the Company and Toshiba at cost plus a mark-up.
Toshiba owns 50.1% of this venture. The Company accounts for its 49.9% ownership position in Flash
Alliance under the equity method of accounting. The Company is committed to purchase half of Flash
Alliances NAND wafer supply.
The
capacity of Fab 4 at full expansion is expected to be greater than 150,000 wafers per
month and the timeframe to reach full capacity is to be mutually agreed by the parties. To date,
the parties have agreed to an expansion plan to 67,500 wafers per month for which the total
investment in Fab 4 is currently estimated at approximately $3.0 billion through the end of 2008,
of which the Companys share is currently estimated to be approximately $1.5 billion. Initial NAND
production is currently scheduled for the end of 2007. For expansion beyond 67,500 wafers per
month, it is expected that investments and output would continue to be shared 50/50 between the
Company and Toshiba. The Company expects to fund its portion of the investment through its cash as
well as other financing sources. The Company is committed to fund 49.9% of Flash Alliances costs
to the extent that Flash Alliances revenues from wafer sales to the Company and Toshiba are
insufficient to cover these costs.
As a part of the FlashVision, Flash Partners and Flash Alliance venture agreements, the
Company is required to fund direct and common research and development expenses related to the
development of advanced NAND flash memory technologies. As of July 2, 2006, the Company had
accrued liabilities related to these expenses of $6.0 million.
Toshiba Foundry. The Company has the ability to purchase additional capacity under a foundry
arrangement with Toshiba. Under the terms of this agreement, the Company is required to provide
Toshiba with a purchase order commitment based on a six-month rolling forecast.
Business Ventures and Foundry Arrangement with Toshiba. Purchase orders placed under the
Toshiba ventures and foundry arrangement with Toshiba relating to the first three months of the
six-month forecast are binding and cannot be canceled. At July 2, 2006, the Company had
approximately $155.1 million of noncancelable purchase orders for flash memory wafers outstanding
to FlashVision, Flash Partners and Toshiba.
Other Silicon Sources. The Companys contracts with its other sources of silicon wafers
generally require the Company to provide purchase order commitments based on six-month rolling
forecasts. The purchase orders placed under these arrangements relating to the first three months
of the six-month forecast are generally binding and cannot be canceled. Outstanding purchase
commitments for other sources of silicon wafers are included as part of the total Noncancelable
production purchase commitments in the Contractual Obligations table below.
Subcontractors. In the normal course of business, the Companys subcontractors periodically
procure production materials based on the forecast the Company provides to them. The Companys
agreements with these subcontractors require that it reimburse them for materials that are
purchased on the Companys behalf in accordance with such forecast. Accordingly, the Company may
be committed to certain costs over and above its open noncancelable purchase orders with these
subcontractors. Outstanding purchase commitments for subcontractors are included as part of the
total Noncancelable production purchase commitments in the Contractual Obligations table below.
19
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Off Balance Sheet Liabilities
The following table details the Companys portion of the remaining indemnification or
guarantee obligation under each of the FlashVision and Flash Partners master lease facilities in
both Japanese yen and United States dollar equivalent based upon the
exchange rate at July 2, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease
Amounts(1) |
|
|
Expiration |
|
Master Lease Agreement |
|
(Yen
in billions) |
|
|
(Dollars in millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
FlashVision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2006 |
|
¥ |
7.5 |
|
|
$ |
65.6 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flash Partners |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2004 |
|
|
21.6 |
|
|
|
188.5 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
December 2005 |
|
|
16.7 |
|
|
|
145.6 |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
June 2006 |
|
|
16.0 |
|
|
|
139.7 |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Flash Partners |
|
|
54.3 |
|
|
|
473.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total indemnification or guarantee obligation |
|
¥ |
61.8 |
|
|
$ |
539.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The maximum amount of the Companys contingent indemnification or guarantee
obligation, net of payments and any lease adjustments. |
FlashVision. In May 2002, FlashVision secured an equipment lease arrangement of approximately
37.9 billion Japanese yen, or approximately $331 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2,
2006, with Mizuho Leasing, and other financial institutions. On May 31, 2006, FlashVision
refinanced the remaining balance of this equipment lease arrangement. The refinanced arrangement
was approximately 15.0 billion Japanese yen, or approximately
$131 million based upon the
exchange rate at July 2, 2006.
Lease payments are due quarterly and are scheduled to be completed in February 2009 and a residual
payment of 3.1 billion Japanese yen, or $27 million based upon the
exchange rate at July 2, 2006, will be due in February 2009. Under the terms
of the refinanced lease, Toshiba guaranteed these commitments on behalf of FlashVision. The
Company agreed to indemnify Toshiba for certain liabilities Toshiba incurs as a result of Toshibas
guarantee of the FlashVision equipment lease arrangement. If FlashVision fails to meet its lease
commitments, and Toshiba fulfills these commitments under the terms of Toshibas guarantee, then
the Company will be obligated to reimburse Toshiba for 49.9% of any claims and associated expenses
under the lease, unless the claims result from Toshibas failure to meet its obligations to
FlashVision or its covenants to the lenders. Because FlashVisions equipment lease arrangement is
denominated in Japanese yen, the maximum amount of the Companys contingent indemnification
obligation on a given date when converted to U.S. dollars will fluctuate based on the exchange rate
in effect on that date. As of July 2, 2006, the maximum amount of the Companys contingent
indemnification obligation, which reflects payments and any lease adjustments, was approximately
7.5 billion Japanese yen, or approximately $66 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2,
2006.
Flash Partners. Flash Partners intends to sell and lease-back from a consortium of financial
institutions a portion of its tools and has entered into three equipment lease agreements of
approximately 117.0 billion Japanese yen, or approximately $1.02 billion based upon the exchange
rate at July 2, 2006. As of July 2, 2006, Flash Partners had drawn down the entire amounts from
each of the three master lease facilities. The Company and Toshiba have each guaranteed, on a
several basis, 50% of Flash Partners obligations under the master lease agreements. Lease
payments are due quarterly and are scheduled to be completed in stages through 2011. At the end of
each of the lease terms, Flash Partners has the option of purchasing the tools from the lessors.
Flash Partners is obligated to insure the equipment, maintain the equipment in accordance with the
manufacturers recommendations and comply with other customary terms to protect the leased assets.
The master lease agreements contains covenants that require the Company to maintain a minimum
shareholder equity balance of $1.16 billion as well as a long-term loan rating of BB- or Ba3, based
on a named independent rating service. In addition, the master lease
agreements contain customary
events of default for a Japanese lease facility. The master lease
agreements are exhibits to the Companys most recent
annual report for Form 10-K and the most recent lease facility is an exhibit to this quarterly
report on Form 10-Q. These agreements should be read carefully in its
entirety for a comprehensive understanding of its terms and the nature of the obligations the
Company guaranteed. The fair value of the Companys guarantee of Flash Partners lease obligation
was insignificant at inception of the guarantee. In addition, Flash Partners expects to secure
additional equipment lease facilities over time, which the Company may be required to guarantee in
whole or in part. As of July 2, 2006, the maximum amount of the Companys guarantee obligation of
the Flash Partners master lease agreements, which reflects payments and any lease adjustments, was
approximately 54.3 billion Japanese yen, or approximately $474 million based upon the exchange
rate at July 2, 2006.
20
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Guarantees
Indemnification Agreements. The Company has agreed to indemnify suppliers and customers for
alleged patent infringement. The scope of such indemnity varies, but may, in some instances,
include indemnification for damages and expenses, including attorneys fees. The Company may
periodically engage in litigation as a result of these indemnification obligations. The Companys
insurance policies exclude coverage for third-party claims for patent infringement. Although the
liability is not remote, the nature of the patent infringement indemnification obligations prevents
the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required
to pay to its suppliers and customers. Historically, the Company has not made any significant
indemnification payments under any such agreements. As of July 2, 2006, no amount has been accrued
in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to these
indemnification guarantees.
As permitted under Delaware law and the Companys charter and bylaws, the Company has
agreements whereby it indemnifies certain of its officers and each of its directors for certain
events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at the Companys request in
such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officers or directors lifetime.
The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these
indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has a Director and Officer insurance
policy that may reduce its exposure and enable it to recover all or a portion of any future amounts
paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the estimated fair value
of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has no liabilities recorded for these
agreements as of July 2, 2006 or January 1, 2006, as this liability is not reasonably estimable
even though liability under these agreements is not remote.
The Company and Toshiba have agreed to mutually contribute to, and indemnify each other, Flash
Partners and Flash Alliance for, environmental remediation costs or liability resulting from Flash
Partners or Flash Alliances manufacturing operations in certain circumstances. In 2004 and 2006,
respectively, the Company and Toshiba each engaged consultants to perform a review of the existing
environmental conditions at the site of the facility at which Flash Partners operations are located
and Flash Alliance operations will be located to establish a baseline for evaluating future
environmental conditions. The Company and Toshiba have also entered into a Patent Indemnification
Agreement under which in many cases the Company will share in the expenses associated with the
defense and cost of settlement associated with such claims. This agreement provides limited
protection for the Company against third-party claims that NAND flash memory products manufactured
and sold by Flash Partners or Flash Alliance infringe third-party patents. The Company has not
made any indemnification payments under any such agreements and as of July 2, 2006, no amounts have
been accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to these
indemnification guarantees.
21
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Contractual Obligations and Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
Contractual Obligations. The following summarizes the Companys contractual cash obligations,
commitments and off balance sheet arrangements at July 2, 2006, and the effect such obligations are
expected to have on its liquidity and cash flows in future periods (in thousands). In addition to
the summarization below, on July 7, 2006, the Company agreed to invest $1.5 billion through the end
of fiscal 2008 in Flash Alliance. See Note 14, Subsequent Events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More than 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than |
|
|
2 - 3 Years |
|
|
3 5 Years |
|
|
Years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Year |
|
|
(Fiscal 2007 |
|
|
(Fiscal 2009 |
|
|
(Beyond |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
(6 months 2006) |
|
|
and 2008) |
|
|
and 2010) |
|
|
Fiscal 2010) |
|
Operating leases |
|
$ |
41,325 |
|
|
$ |
2,646 |
|
|
$ |
10,932 |
|
|
$ |
10,578 |
|
|
$ |
17,169 |
|
FlashVision, fabrication capacity
expansion costs, and reimbursement for
certain other costs including
depreciation |
|
|
263,538 |
(4) |
|
|
49,290 |
|
|
|
142,063 |
|
|
|
69,420 |
|
|
|
2,765 |
|
Flash Partners fabrication capacity
expansion and start-up costs, and
reimbursement for certain other costs
including depreciation (1) |
|
|
2,559,206 |
(4) |
|
|
102,836 |
|
|
|
1,521,447 |
|
|
|
616,263 |
|
|
|
318,660 |
|
Toshiba research and development |
|
|
93,762 |
(4) |
|
|
18,762 |
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital equipment purchases commitments |
|
|
38,811 |
|
|
|
38,811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Convertible Senior Notes principal
and interest (2) |
|
|
1,229,016 |
|
|
|
5,750 |
|
|
|
23,000 |
|
|
|
23,000 |
|
|
|
1,177,266 |
|
Operating expense commitments |
|
|
80,291 |
|
|
|
80,291 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncancelable production purchase
commitments (3) |
|
|
528,436 |
(4) |
|
|
528,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual cash obligations |
|
$ |
4,834,385 |
|
|
$ |
826,822 |
|
|
$ |
1,772,442 |
|
|
$ |
719,261 |
|
|
$ |
1,515,860 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off Balance Sheet Arrangements. |
|
|
|
|
As of |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
Indemnification of FlashVision foundry equipment lease (5) |
|
$ |
65,555 |
|
Guarantee of Flash Partners lease (6) |
|
$ |
473,827 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In July 2006, the Company and Toshiba agreed to accelerate the expansion of Fab 3
to 110,000 wafers per month and agreed to an additional investment in Fab 3 of approximately
$350 million. |
|
(2) |
|
In May 2006, the Company issued and sold $1.15 billion in aggregate principal
amount of 1% Convertible Senior Notes due May 15, 2013. The Company will pay cash interest
at an annual rate of 1%, payable semi-annually on May 15
and November 15 of each year, beginning November 15, 2006. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes Toshiba foundries, FlashVision, Flash Partners, related parties vendors
and other silicon sources vendors purchase commitments. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes amounts denominated in Japanese yen which are subject to fluctuation in
exchange rates prior to payment and have been translated using the exchange rate at July 2,
2006. |
|
(5) |
|
The Companys contingent indemnification obligation is 7.5 billion Japanese yen,
or approximately $66 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. |
|
(6) |
|
The Companys guarantee obligation, net of cumulative lease payments, is 54.3
billion Japanese yen, or approximately $474 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2,
2006. |
22
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts
The Companys objective for holding derivatives is to minimize the material risks associated
with non-functional currency transactions. The Company does not enter into derivatives for
speculative or trading purposes. The Companys derivative instruments are recorded at fair value
on the balance sheet with changes in fair value recorded in other income (expense). The Company
had foreign currency exchange contract lines available in the amount of $1.24 billion at July 2,
2006 to enter into foreign currency forward contracts. As of July 2, 2006, the Company had foreign
currency forward contracts in place with a notional amount of 14.8 billion Japanese yen, or
approximately $129 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. The fair value of these
foreign currency forward contracts as of July 2, 2006 was immaterial. The realized gains and losses
on foreign currency forward contracts for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 were
immaterial.
23
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
10. Related Parties and Strategic Investments
Toshiba. The Company and Toshiba have collaborated in the development and manufacture of NAND
flash memory products. These NAND flash memory products are manufactured by Toshiba at Toshibas
Yokkaichi, Japan operations using the semiconductor manufacturing equipment owned or leased by
FlashVision or Flash Partners. See also Note 9, Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees. The
Company purchased NAND flash memory wafers from FlashVision, Flash Partners and Toshiba, made
payments for shared research and development expenses, made loans to FlashVision and Flash Partners
and made investments in Flash Partners totaling approximately $367.5 million, $562.6 million,
$121.7 million and $251.0 million in the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005,
respectively. The purchases of NAND flash memory wafers are ultimately reflected as a component of
the Companys cost of product revenues. At July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006, the Company had
accounts payable balances due to FlashVision of $20.1 million and $23.0 million, respectively,
balances due to Flash Partners of $38.0 million and $27.0 million, respectively, and balances due
to Toshiba of $16.7 million and $11.7 million, respectively. At July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006,
the Company had accrued current liabilities due to Toshiba for shared research and development
expenses of $6.0 million and $4.2 million, respectively.
Tower
Semiconductor. The Company owns approximately 13% of the outstanding shares of Tower
Semiconductor Ltd., or Tower, one of its suppliers of wafers for its controller components, has
prepaid wafer credits issued by Tower, and has convertible debt and a warrant to purchase Tower
ordinary shares. The Companys Chief Executive Officer is also a member of the Tower board of
directors. The Company has sourced controller wafers from Tower since the third quarter of fiscal
2003. As of July 2, 2006, the Company owned approximately 11.1 million Tower shares with a
carrying value and market value of $15.0 million and $15.6 million, respectively, a warrant to
purchase 0.4 million Tower ordinary shares at an exercise price of $7.50 per share, with a carrying
value of zero and Tower prepaid wafer credits with a carrying value of zero. In addition, the
Company holds a Tower convertible debenture with a carrying value and market value of $4.1 million.
The Company purchased controller wafers and related non-recurring engineering, or NRE, of
approximately $10.1 million, $16.6 million,
$4.6 million and $14.7 million in the three and six
months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively. These purchases of controller wafers are
ultimately reflected as a component of the Companys cost of product revenues. At July 2, 2006 and
January 1, 2006, the Company had amounts payable to Tower of approximately $5.1 million and $2.4
million, respectively, related to the purchase of controller wafers and related NRE. On August 2,
2006, the Company entered in to a non-binding memorandum of understanding to loan $10 million to
Tower to fund a portion of the overall expansion of Towers 0.13 micron logic wafer capacity. See
Note 14, Subsequent Events.
Flextronics. The Chairman of Flextronics International, Ltd., or Flextronics, has served on
the Companys Board of Directors since September 2003. For the three and six months ended July 2,
2006 and July 3, 2005, the Company recorded revenues related to Flextronics and its affiliates of
$29.8 million, $49.0 million, $3.4 million and $7.2 million, respectively, and at July 2, 2006 and
January 1, 2006, the Company had receivables from Flextronics and its affiliates of $30.3 million
and $12.5 million, respectively. In addition, the Company purchased from Flextronics and its
affiliates $6.2 million, $20.6 million, $8.7 million and $19.3 million of services for card
assembly and testing in the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively,
which are ultimately reflected as a component of the Companys cost of product revenues. At July
2, 2006 and January 1, 2006, the Company had amounts payable to Flextronics and its affiliates of
approximately $0.7 million and $5.4 million, respectively, for these services.
U3, LLC. The Company and msystems Ltd., or msystems, each own 50% of U3, LLC, an entity
established to develop and market a next generation platform for universal serial bus flash drives.
The Company has consolidated the statement of financial position and the results of operations of
U3 since the first quarter of fiscal 2005. The Companys total investment in U3 as of July 2, 2006
was $6.3 million.
24
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
11. Business Acquisition
Matrix Semiconductor. On January 13, 2006, the Company completed the acquisition of Matrix
Semiconductor, Inc., or Matrix, a designer and developer of three-dimensional (3-D) integrated
circuits. Matrix® 3-D Memory is used for one-time programmable storage applications
that complement the Companys existing flash storage memory products. The Company acquired 100% of
the outstanding shares of Matrix for a total purchase price of $296.4 million, consisting of $20.0
million in cash, 3,722,591 shares of common stock valued at $242.3 million, assumed equity
instruments to issue 567,704 shares of common stock valued at $33.2 million and transaction
expenses of $0.9 million primarily for accounting and legal fees. The assumed stock options were
valued using the Black-Scholes-Merton valuation model with the following assumptions: stock price
of $65.09; a weighted average volatility rate of 52.8%; a risk-free interest rate of 4.3%; a
dividend yield of zero and a weighted average expected remaining term of 1.4 years. The fair value
of unvested assumed stock options, which was valued at the consummation date, will be recognized as
compensation expenses, net of forfeitures, over the remaining vesting period.
The preliminary allocation of Matrix purchase price to the tangible and identifiable
intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed is summarized below (in thousands). The
preliminary allocation was based on managements estimates of fair value, which included a
third-party appraisal. The allocation of the purchase price may be subject to change based on
final estimates of fair value, primarily related to deferred taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
$ |
9,432 |
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
6,956 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
4,010 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
1,919 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
1,786 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired |
|
|
24,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(2,302 |
) |
Other liabilities |
|
|
(23,081 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed |
|
|
(25,383 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net tangible liabilities acquired |
|
$ |
(1,280 |
) |
|
|
|
|
The allocation of the purchase price to the tangible and intangible assets acquired and
liabilities assumed is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible liabilities acquired |
|
$ |
(1,280 |
) |
Acquired in-process technology |
|
|
39,600 |
|
Acquisition-related restructuring |
|
|
(17,543 |
) |
Deferred income tax liability |
|
|
(38,379 |
) |
Deferred income tax asset |
|
|
35,810 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
161,808 |
|
Other intangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
Core technology |
|
|
76,300 |
|
Developed product technology |
|
|
11,400 |
|
Customer relationships |
|
|
14,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
281,816 |
|
Assumed unvested equity instrument to be expensed |
|
|
14,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase price |
|
$ |
296,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
The core and developed product technology as a result of the acquisition of Matrix are being
amortized over an estimated useful life of seven years, and the customer relationships are being
amortized over an estimated useful life of three years. No residual value has been estimated for
the intangible assets. In accordance with SFAS 142, the Company will not amortize the goodwill,
but will evaluate it at least annually for impairment.
25
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
Acquisition-Related Restructuring. During the first quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company
established its plans to integrate the Matrix operations which included exiting duplicative
facilities and recorded $17.5 million for acquisition-related restructuring activities, of which
$17.4 million relates to excess lease obligations. The lease obligations extend through the end of
the lease term in 2016. These acquisition-related restructuring liabilities were included in the
purchase price allocation of the cost to acquire Matrix.
In-process
Technology. As part of the Matrix purchase agreement, a certain amount of the
purchase price was allocated to acquired in-process technology which was determined through
established valuation techniques in the high-technology computer industry and written-off in the
first quarter of fiscal 2006 because technological feasibility had not been established and no
alternative future uses existed. The value was determined by estimating the net cash flows and
discounting forecasted net cash flows to their present values. The Company wrote-off the acquired
in-process technology of $39.6 million in the first quarter of
fiscal 2006. As of July 2, 2006, it was estimated that these in-process projects would be completed over the next one
to three years at an estimated total cost of $16.0 million.
The net cash flows from the identified projects were based on estimates of revenues, costs of
revenues, research and development expenses, including costs to complete the projects, selling,
marketing and administrative expenses, and income taxes from the projects. The Company believes
the assumptions used in the valuations were reasonable at the time of the acquisition. The
estimated net revenues and gross margins were based on managements projections of the projects and
were in line with industry averages. Estimated total net revenues from the projects were expected
to grow through fiscal 2009 and decline thereafter as other new products are expected to become
available. Estimated operating expenses included research and development expenses and selling,
marketing and administrative expenses based upon historical and expected direct expense level and
general industry metrics. Estimated research and development expenses included costs to bring the
projects to technological feasibility and costs associated with ongoing maintenance after a product
is released. These activities range from 0% to 5% of net Matrixs portion of the Companys
revenues for the in-process technologies.
The effective tax
rate used in the analysis of the in-process technologies reflects a
historical industry-specific average for the United States federal income tax rates. Discount
rates (the rates utilized to discount the net cash flows to their present values) ranging from
12.5% to 15.5% were used in computing the present value of net cash flows for the projects. The
percentage of completion was determined using costs incurred by Matrix prior to the acquisition
date compared to the estimated remaining research and development to be completed to bring the
projects to technological feasibility.
Pro Forma Results.
The following unaudited pro forma financial information for the
six months ended July 2, 2006 and three and six months ended July 3,
2005, presents the combined results of the Company and
Matrix, as if the acquisition had occurred at the beginning of the periods presented. Certain
adjustments have been made to the combined results of operations, including amortization of
acquired other intangible assets; however, charges for acquired in-process technology were excluded
as these items were non-recurring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months |
|
|
|
|
ended |
|
Six
months ended |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts) |
Net revenues |
|
$ |
516,584 |
|
|
$ |
1,343,287 |
|
|
$ |
972,409 |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
58,594 |
|
|
$ |
160,048 |
|
|
$ |
123,365 |
|
Net income per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.32 |
|
|
$ |
0.82 |
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.30 |
|
|
$ |
0.79 |
|
|
$ |
0.63 |
|
The pro forma financial information does not necessarily reflect the results of operations
that would have occurred had the Company and Matrix constituted a consolidated entity during such
periods.
26
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
12. Income Taxes
The Company recorded tax provisions of $54.9 million, $96.2 million, $41.4 million and $85.2
million for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively, or
effective tax rates of 36.5%, 42.4%, 37.0%, and 37.0% for the three and six months ended July 2,
2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively. The Companys effective tax rate for the second quarter of
fiscal 2006 differed from the statutory federal rate of 35.0% primarily due to the impact of state
taxes, non-deductible stock option compensation expense recorded under FAS 123(R), non-deductible
amortization of intangibles, and the tax impact of non-U.S. operations.
The tax benefits associated with stock option activity for the three and six months ended July
2, 2006 and July 3, 2005 reduced taxes payable by $19.1 million, $61.0 million, $3.7 million and
$9.1 million, respectively. Such benefits are credited to capital in excess of par value when
realized.
27
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
13. Litigation
From time-to-time, it has been and may continue to be necessary to initiate or defend
litigation against third parties. These and other parties could bring suit against the Company.
In each case listed below where the Company is the defendant, the Company intends to vigorously
defend the action.
On October 31, 2001,
the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Memorex Products, Inc., Pretec Electronics
Corporation, Ritek Corporation, and Power Quotient International Co., Ltd. In the suit,
captioned SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Products, Inc., et al., Civil Case No. CV 01 4063 VRW, the
Company seeks damages and injunctions against these companies from making, selling, importing or
using flash memory cards that infringe its U.S. Patent No. 5,602,987. The court granted
summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants Ritek, Pretec and Memorex and
entered judgment on May 17, 2004. On June 2, 2004, the Company filed a notice of appeal
of the summary judgment rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 8, 2005, the
Federal Circuit held in favor of the Company, vacating the judgment of non-infringement and
remanding the case back to district court.
On or
about June 9, 2003, the Company received written notice from Infineon Technologies AG, or
Infineon, that it believes the Company has infringed its U.S. Patent
No. 5,726,601 (the 601 patent). On June 24, 2003, the Company filed a complaint against
Infineon for a declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and
invalidity regarding the 601 patent
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
SanDisk Corporation v. Infineon Technologies AG, a German corporation, et al., Civil Case No. C 03 02931 BZ. On
October 6, 2003, Infineon filed an answer and counterclaim: (a) denying that the Company is
entitled to the declaration sought by the Companys complaint; (b) requesting that the
Company be adjudged to have infringed, actively induced and/or contributed to the infringement
of the 601 patent and an additional patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,841,222 (the 222 patent). On
August 12, 2004, Infineon filed an amended counterclaim for patent infringement alleging
that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,026,002 (the 002
patent); 5,041,894 (the 894 patent); and 6,226,219 (the 219 patent), and omitting the 601 and 222 patents. On August 18, 2004, the
Company filed an amended complaint against Infineon for a declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and
invalidity regarding the 002, 894, and 219 patents. On February 9, 2006, the Company
filed a second amended complaint to include claims for declaratory
judgment that the 002, 894 and 219 patents
are unenforceable. On March 17, 2006, the Court granted a stipulation by the parties
withdrawing all claims and counterclaims regarding the 002 patent.
On October 2, 2003, a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of United States holders of ordinary
shares of Tower as of the close of business on April 1, 2002 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit, captioned Philippe de Vries, Julia
Frances Dunbar De Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. 03 CV 4999, was
filed against Tower and a number of its shareholders and directors, including the Company
and Dr. Harari, who is a Tower board member, and asserted claims arising under
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 14a 9 promulgated there under. The lawsuit alleged that Tower and certain of
its directors made false and misleading statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower
shareholders regarding a proposed amendment to a contract between Tower and certain
of its shareholders, including us. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys and experts fees and expenses. On August 19, 2004, the court granted the
Companys and the other defendants motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
with prejudice. On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 1, 2006, the Court
of Appeals issued its ruling affirming the dismissal of the case.
On February 20, 2004, the
Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco in a
purported consumer class action captioned Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane
Electric Corp. USA, et al., Civil Case No. GCG 04 428953, alleging false advertising,
unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act. The lawsuit purports to be on
behalf of a class of purchasers of flash memory products and claims that the defendants
overstated the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products. The lawsuit
seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount. The parties have
reached a settlement of the case, which is pending final court approval.
On October 15, 2004, the
Company filed a complaint for patent infringement and declaratory judgment of non-infringement
and patent invalidity against STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned SanDisk
Corporation v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., et al., Civil Case No. C 04
04379JF. The
complaint alleges that STMicros products infringe one of the
Companys U.S. patents
and seeks damages and an injunction. The complaint further seeks a declaratory judgment
that the Company does not infringe several of STMicros U.S. patents. By order dated
January 4, 2005, the court
28
stayed the
Companys claim
that STMicro infringes the Companys patent pending an outcome in the ITC investigation
initiated on November 15, 2004 (discussed below). On January 20, 2005,
the court issued an order granting STMicros motion to dismiss the declaratory
judgment causes of action. The Company has appealed this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The remainder of the case, including
the Companys infringement claim against STMicro, is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
On February 4, 2005, STMicro
filed two complaints for patent infringement against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, captioned
STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. SanDisk Corporation, Civil Case No.
4:05CV44 (the '44 Action),
and STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. SanDisk Corporation, Civil Case No.
4:05CV45 (the '45 Action),
respectively. The complaints seek damages and injunctions against certain SanDisk products. On April 22, 2005, the
Company filed counterclaims on two patents against STMicroelectronics N.V. and
STMicroelectronics, Inc. in the '45 Action. The counterclaims seek damages and
injunctive relief against STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics, Inc. flash memory
products. In the '44 Action, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation
that the Companys motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on all accused products
be granted. STMicro has asked the U.S. District Court Judge to reject that Report and
Recommendation. The '45 Action, previously scheduled for trial in November, 2006, is
now expected to have a trial date in the first quarter of 2007.
On October 15, 2004, the
Company filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (as amended) (Case No. 337-TA 526) titled, In the matter of
certain NAND flash memory circuits and products containing same in the United States
International Trade Commission, naming STMicroelectronics N.V. and
STMicroelectronics, Inc. (STMicro) as respondents. In the complaint, the Company
alleges that STMicros NAND flash memory infringes U.S. Patent
No. 5,172,338 (the 338 patent), and seek
an order excluding their products from importation into the United States. In the complaint, the
Company alleges that STMicros NAND flash memory infringes the
338 patent and seeks
an order excluding their products from importation into the United States. On
November 15, 2004, the ITC instituted an investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Section 1337
against STMicro in response to the Companys complaint. A hearing was held from
August 1-8, 2005. On October 19, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial
determination confirming the validity and enforceability of the
Companys United States
Patent 5,172,338 (338 patent) by rejecting STMicros claims that the patent was
invalidated by prior art. The initial determination, however, found
that STMicros
NAND flash memory chips did not infringe three claims of the 338 patent. On October 31, 2005,
the Company filed a petition with the International Trade Commission to review and reverse
the finding of non-infringement. Also, on October 31, 2005, STMicro filed a petition for
review with the International Trade Commission to review and reverse the finding
that the patent was valid and enforceable. On December 6, 2005, the ITC issued its
decision. The ITC declined to review the finding of non-infringement, and, after
reviewing the finding of validity, declined to take any position on the issue of validity. The
Company is appealing the ITCs decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On October 14, 2005,
STMicroelectronics, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and
the Companys CEO
Eli Harari, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda,
captioned STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Harari, Case No. HG 05237216. The complaint
alleges that STMicroelectronics, Inc., as the successor to Wafer Scale
Integration, Inc.s (WSI) legal rights, has an ownership interest in several SanDisk
patents that issued from applications filed by Dr. Harari, a former WSI employee. The
complaint seeks the assignment or co-ownership of certain inventions and patents
conceived of by Harari, including some of the patents asserted by the Company in its
litigations against STMicro, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. On
November 15, 2005, Harari and the Company removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, where it was assigned case number
C05-04691. On November 23, 2005, Harari and the Company filed counterclaims,
asserting the Companys ownership of the patents and applications raised in the
complaint. On December 13, 2005, STMicroelectronics, Inc. filed a motion to
remand the case back to the Superior Court of Alameda County.
STMicros remand
motion was denied by the Court in March 2006. On April 24, 2006, Dr. Harari and the
Company filed a motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations and other grounds
that, if granted, would result in dismissal of all of STMicros claims. The court did
not rule on the motion for summary judgment. On July 18, 2006, the case was remanded
to the Superior Court of Alameda County after briefing and oral argument on a motion
by STMicro for reconsideration of the order denying remand. Case No. HG 05237216 is
now scheduled for an initial case management conference on September 15, 2006.
On December 6, 2005, the
Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against STMicroelectronics, Inc. and
STMicroelectronics, NV (STMicro) (Case No. C0505021 JF). In the suit, the Company
seeks damages and injunctions against STMicro from making, selling, importing or using
flash memory chips or products that infringe the Companys U.S. Patent No. 5,991,517. The
case is presently stayed, pending the termination of the ITC investigation instituted
February 8, 2006, discussed below.
On January 10, 2006, the
Company filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended)
(Case No. 337-TA-560) titled, In the matter of certain NAND flash memory circuits
and products containing same in the ITC, naming STMicro as respondents. In the complaint,
the Company alleges that: (i) STMicros NOR flash memory
infringes the 338 patent; (ii)
STMicros NAND flash memory infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,542,956; and (iii) STMicros NOR
flash memory and NAND flash memory infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,991,517. The complaint seeks
an order excluding STMicros NOR and NAND flash memory products from importation into the
United States. The ITC instituted an investigation, based on the Companys complaint, on
February 8, 2006. On March 31, 2006, STMicro filed a motion for partial summary
determination or termination of the investigation with respect to the
338 patent. On May 1, 2006, the
Administrative Law Judge denied STMicros motion in an order that is not subject to
review by the ITC. On May 17, 2006, SanDisk filed a motion to voluntarily terminate
the investigation with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,542,956. The motion was granted
June 1, 2006.
On or
about July 15, 2005, Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dellelecttronica, S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A., (Sisvel) filed suit
against the Company and others in the district court of the Netherlands in The Hague in a case
captioned Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dellelecttronica, S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A. adverse
to SanDisk International Sales, Moduslink B.V. and UPS SCS (Nederland) B.V., Case No. 999.131.1804 (Cause List
numbers 2006/167 and 2006/168). Sisvel alleges that certain of the Companys MP3 products
infringe three European patents of which Sisvel claims to be a licensee with the right to
bring suit. Sisvel seeks an injunction and unspecified damages. Sisvel has previously
publicly indicated that it will license these and other patents under reasonable and
nondiscriminatory terms, and it has specifically offered the Company a license under
the patents. The Company has submitted pleadings asking the court to strike Sisvels
pleadings as legally insufficient and seeking other procedural relief. The court is
still addressing these procedural matters and the Company will not be required to
answer on the substance of Sisvels claim until September 2006 at the earliest.
In a related
action, on March 9, 2006, the Company filed an action in the English High Court, Chancery
Division, Patents Court, in London, against Sisvel and the owners of the patents Sisvel
has asserted against the Company in the Netherlands. The case is SanDisk
Corporation v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (a Dutch
corporation), France Télécom (a French
corporation), Télédiffusion de France S.A. (a French
corporation), Institut für Rundfunktechnik
GmbH (a German corporation) and Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dellelecttronica, S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A.,
Case No. HC 06 C 00835. In this action, the Company seeks a declaration of non-infringement of
the patents asserted by Sisvel in connection with the Companys MP3 products. The Company
also seeks a declaration that the patents are not essential to the technology of MP3
players, as Sisvel presently contends in the case filed in the Netherlands. The defendants
have submitted their formal defense and counterclaimed for infringement. The trial in
this matter is expected to take place along with the trial for Case No. HC 06 C 00615 in
March 2007.
In another
related action, on April 13, 2006, Audio MPEG filed a complaint alleging patent infringement
in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case is Audio MPEG v. SanDisk
Corporation, Case No. 2:06cv209 WDK/JEB. Audio MPEG holds itself out to be the U.S. subsidiary
of Sisvel and purports to have the right to enforce certain patents in the U.S. on subject
matter related to the patents asserted by Sisvel in the Netherlands. Specifically, Audio
MPEG asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,214,678 (entitled Digital transmission system using
subband coding of a digital signal), U.S. Patent No. 5,323,396 (entitled Digital
transmission system, transmitter and receiver for use in the transmission system), U.S. Patent No. 5,539,829
(entitled Subband coded digital transmission system using some composite signals),
and U.S. Patent No. 5,777,992 (entitled Decoder for decoding and encoded digital
signal and a receiver comprising the decoder). The complaint seeks damages and
injunctive relief. The Company responded promptly, filing a motion to dismiss on
April 20, 2006, asking the court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Audio
MPEG failed to join the patent holders as co-plaintiffs. Audio MPEG responded by
voluntarily joining the patent owners as defendants. Thereafter, the Company sought to have
the case dismissed or transferred
to the Northern District of California. The court has not yet decided the
transfer or dismissal motions.
In another
related action, on April 13, 2006, Sisvel filed suit against the
Companys
subsidiary, SanDisk GmbH, for patent infringement in the Mannheim District
Court in Germany, S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A. v. SanDisk GmbH, file no. 7 O 90/06,
which was served on the Company on or about May 10, 2006. The plaintiffs
allege that certain of the Companys MP3 products infringe four German patents
of which Sisvel claims to be a licensee with the right to bring suit. Sisvel
seeks an injunction and unspecified damages. Sisvel has previously publicly
stated that it will license these and other patents under reasonable and
nondiscriminatory terms, and it has specifically offered the Company a
license under the patents.
In another related
action, on April 13, 2006, Sisvel filed suit against the Company for patent
infringement in the Mannheim District Court in Germany, S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A. v.
SanDisk Corporation, file no. 7 O 89/06, which was served on the Company in
or about July, 2006. The plaintiffs allege that certain of the
Companys MP3
products infringe four German patents of which Sisvel claims to be a licensee
with the right to bring suit. Sisvel seeks an injunction and unspecified damages. Sisvel
has previously publicly stated that it will license these and other patents under
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, and it has specifically offered the
Company a license under the patents.
On August 7, 2006
two lawsuits were filed against the Company and others in the California Superior Court for
Santa Clara County, captioned Dashiell v. SanDisk Corporation, et al., Case No. 1-06-CV-068759
and Capovilla v. SanDisk Corporation, et al, Case No. 1-06-CV-068760. Each complaint purports
to assert a class action claim on behalf of shareholders of msystems
Ltd. (msystems)
and further purports to assert derivative claims on behalf of msystems. Defendants
include the Company, msystems, and several officers and directors of msystems. The
complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties by officers and directors of
msystems relating to alleged option backdating and to allegedly furthering
their own interests in connection with the merger, and that these alleged
breaches were aided and abetted by the Company. The complaints further
allege that the terms of the announced merger between the Company and msystems are
not fair to msystems shareholders. The complaints seek compensatory damages, an
accounting, imposition of a constructive trust, punitive damages, a declaration that the
merger agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, an injunction against consummation
of the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, and other relief.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Contd)
14. Subsequent Events
On July 7, 2006, the Company closed a transaction with Toshiba under which the Company and
Toshiba created a new semiconductor company, Flash Alliance Ltd., or Flash Alliance, a Japanese
tokurei yugen kaisha, owned 49.9% by the Company and 50.1% by Toshiba, and agreed to cooperate in
the construction and equipping of an additional 300-millimeter NAND wafer fabrication facility (Fab
4), to produce NAND flash memory products for the parties. See Note 9, Commitments, Contingencies
and Guarantees.
On July 27, 2006, the Company and Toshiba agreed to accelerate the expansion of Fab 3, which
is expected to bring Fab 3 wafer capacity from the previously planned 90,000 wafers per month to
110,000 wafers per month by July 2007. The incremental investment by the Company for 50% of this
higher Fab 3 output is currently estimated at approximately 40 billion Japanese yen, or $350
million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006, over the next 12 months. The Companys total
investment to bring Fab 3 wafer capacity to 110,000 wafers per month is expected to be
approximately $2.2 billion. The Company expects to fund its portion of the investment through cash
on hand as well as other financing sources.
On July 30, 2006, the Company entered into agreements to acquire msystems Ltd., or msystems,
in an all stock transaction. This combination will join together two flash memory companies with
complementary products, customers and channels. In the transaction, each msystems ordinary share
will be converted into 0.76368 of a share of the Companys common stock. The closing of the
transaction is subject to conditions, including, among others, Israeli court approval, regulatory
approval and msystems shareholder approval. The transaction is expected to close as early as the
fourth quarter of 2006.
On August 2, 2006, the Company entered in to a non-binding memorandum of understanding to loan
$10 million to Tower to fund a portion of the overall expansion of Towers 0.13 micron logic wafer
capacity. Furthermore, the Company has committed to purchase, upon such expansion, volume
production quantities of 0.13 micron wafers during 2007 and 2008 and will have right of first
refusal on the use of the extra capacity produced by the equipment related to this loan through
2009.
29
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Statements in this report, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements
within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These statements may contain words such as
expects, anticipates, intends, plans, believes, seeks, estimates or other wording
indicating future results or expectations. Forward-looking statements are subject to significant
risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in
these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially
include, but are not limited to, those discussed under Risk Factors and elsewhere in this report.
Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected
by any of these factors. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking
statements to reflect any event or circumstance that arises after the date of this report, except
as required by law. References in this report to SanDisk®, we, our, and us
refer collectively to SanDisk Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries.
Overview
We are the worldwide leader in flash storage card products. We design, develop and market
flash storage devices used in a wide variety of consumer electronics products. Flash storage
allows data to be stored in a compact format that retains the data for an extended period of time
after the power has been turned off. Our flash storage card products are designed to enable
mass-market adoption of digital cameras, feature phones, MP3 players and other digital consumer
devices. Our products include flash cards, Universal Serial Bus, or USB, flash drives and digital
audio players.
As a supplier to this industry, our results are primarily driven by worldwide demand for flash
storage devices, which in turn depends on end-user demand for electronic products. We believe the
market for flash storage is price elastic. We expect that as we reduce the price of our flash
devices, consumers will demand an increasing number of megabytes of memory. In order to profitably
capitalize on price elasticity in the market for flash storage products, we must reduce our cost
per megabyte at a rate similar to the change in selling price per megabyte to the consumer. We
achieve these cost reductions through technology improvements primarily focused on increasing the
amount of memory stored in a given area of silicon.
In January 2006, we acquired Matrix Semiconductor, Inc., or Matrix, a designer and developer
of three-dimensional (3-D) integrated circuits. Matrix® 3-D Memory is used for one-time
programmable storage applications that complement our existing flash storage memory products.
Matrix 3-D Memory is used for storage applications that do not require rewriteable memory and where
low cost is the paramount consideration, such as video games, music and other content, or for
archiving. The acquisition of Matrix resulted in a $39.6 million write-off of in-process acquired
technology during the first quarter of fiscal 2006.
In May 2006, we issued and sold $1.15 billion in aggregate principal amount of 1% Convertible
Senior Notes due 2013 (the 1% Notes). The 1% Notes were issued at par and pay interest
at a rate of 1% per annum. The 1% Notes may be converted, under
certain circumstances, based on an initial conversion rate of 12.1426
shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of notes (which represents an initial conversion price of
approximately $82.36 per share). The conversion price will be subject to adjustment in some events
but will not be adjusted for accrued interest. The net proceeds to us from the offering of the 1%
Notes were $1.13 billion. Concurrently with the issuance of the 1% Notes, we purchased a
convertible bond hedge and sold warrants. The separate convertible
bond hedge and warrant
transactions are structured to reduce the potential future economic dilution associated with the
conversion of the 1% Notes and to increase the initial conversion price to $95.03 per share. Net
proceeds from this offering will be used for general corporate purposes, including capital
expenditures for new and existing manufacturing facilities, development of new technologies,
general working capital and other non-manufacturing capital expenditures. The net proceeds may
also be used to fund strategic investments or acquisitions of products, technologies or
complementary businesses or obtain the right or license to use additional technologies.
On
July 7, 2006, we and Toshiba Corporation, or Toshiba, entered
into a business venture, Flash
Alliance Ltd., or Flash Alliance, to build Fab 4, a proposed new advanced 300-millimeter wafer
fabrication facility at Toshibas Yokkaichi, Japan operations, to meet the anticipated fast growing
demand for NAND flash memory in 2008 and beyond. We own 49.9% and Toshiba owns 50.1% of Flash
Alliance. Both we and Toshiba will collaborate in the development and manufacture of NAND flash
memory products. These NAND flash memory products will be manufactured by Toshiba at Fab 4 using
the semiconductor manufacturing equipment owned or leased by Flash Alliance. Flash Alliance will
purchase wafers from Toshiba at cost and then resell those wafers to us and Toshiba at cost plus a
mark-up. We account for our 49.9% ownership position in Flash Alliance under the equity method of
accounting. We are committed to purchase half of Flash Alliances NAND wafer supply.
30
The capacity of Fab 4 at full expansion is currently expected to be approximately 150,000
wafers per month and the timeframe to reach full capacity is to be mutually agreed by the parties.
To date, the parties have agreed to an expansion plan to 67,500 wafers per month for which the
total investment in Fab 4 is currently estimated at approximately $3.0 billion through the end of
2008, of which our share is currently estimated to be approximately $1.5 billion. Initial NAND
production is currently scheduled for the end of 2007. For expansion beyond 67,500 wafers per
month, it is expected that investments and output would continue to be shared 50/50 between us and
Toshiba. We expect to fund our portion of the investment through our cash as well as other
financing sources. We are also committed to fund 49.9% of Flash Alliances costs to the extent
that Flash Alliances revenues from wafer sales to us and Toshiba are insufficient to cover these
costs.
On July 30, 2006, we entered into agreements to acquire msystems Ltd., or msystems, in an all
stock transaction. This combination will join together two flash memory companies with
complementary products, customers and channels. In the transaction, each msystems ordinary share
will be converted into 0.76368 of a share of our common stock. The closing of the transaction is
subject to conditions, including, among others, Israeli court
approval, regulatory approvals and
msystems shareholder approval. The transaction is expected to close as early as the fourth
quarter of 2006.
Beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2006, we adopted the fair value recognition
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), or SFAS 123(R), Share Based
Payments, using the modified-prospective transition method. Under that transition method,
compensation cost recognized in the six months ended July 2, 2006 included the following: (a)
compensation cost based on the grant date fair value related to any share-based awards granted
through, but not yet vested as of January 1, 2006, and (b) compensation cost for any share-based
awards granted on or subsequent to January 2, 2006, based on the grant-date fair value estimated in
accordance with the provisions of SFAS 123(R). As a result of adopting SFAS 123(R), we recognized
share-based compensation expense of $25.9 million and $44.7 million during the three
months and six months ended July 2, 2006, which affected our reported cost of sales, research and
development, selling and marketing and general and administrative expenses. In addition, at July
2, 2006, we capitalized to inventory $2.6 million of
compensation cost for share-based awards that
were issued to manufacturing personnel. We calculate this share-based compensation expense based on the
fair values of the share-based compensation awards as estimated using the Black-Scholes-Merton
closed-form option valuation model. As of July 2, 2006, total unrecognized compensation expense
related to unvested share-based compensation arrangements already granted under our various plans
was $231.5 million, which we expect will be recognized over a
weighted-average period of 2.7 years.
31
Results of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
|
Product revenues |
|
$ |
636.7 |
|
|
|
88.5 |
% |
|
$ |
453.8 |
|
|
|
88.1 |
% |
|
$ |
1,174.4 |
|
|
|
87.5 |
% |
|
$ |
853.5 |
|
|
|
88.4 |
% |
License and royalty revenues |
|
|
82.5 |
|
|
|
11.5 |
% |
|
|
61.1 |
|
|
|
11.9 |
% |
|
|
168.0 |
|
|
|
12.5 |
% |
|
|
112.4 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
719.2 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
514.9 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
1,342.4 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
965.9 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
Cost of product revenues |
|
|
430.2 |
|
|
|
59.8 |
% |
|
|
300.8 |
|
|
|
58.4 |
% |
|
|
815.0 |
|
|
|
60.7 |
% |
|
|
552.0 |
|
|
|
57.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margins |
|
|
289.0 |
|
|
|
40.2 |
% |
|
|
214.1 |
|
|
|
41.6 |
% |
|
|
527.4 |
|
|
|
39.3 |
% |
|
|
413.9 |
|
|
|
42.9 |
% |
Operating expenses
Research and development |
|
|
73.8 |
|
|
|
10.3 |
% |
|
|
61.4 |
|
|
|
11.9 |
% |
|
|
137.5 |
|
|
|
10.2 |
% |
|
|
107.4 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
% |
Sales and marketing |
|
|
45.1 |
|
|
|
6.3 |
% |
|
|
27.0 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
% |
|
|
88.4 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
% |
|
|
51.6 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
% |
General and administrative |
|
|
37.2 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
% |
|
|
19.6 |
|
|
|
3.9 |
% |
|
|
67.2 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
% |
|
|
35.3 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
% |
Write-off of acquired
in-process technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.6 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of acquisition
related intangible assets |
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
8.2 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
160.5 |
|
|
|
22.3 |
% |
|
|
108.0 |
|
|
|
21.0 |
% |
|
|
340.9 |
|
|
|
25.4 |
% |
|
|
194.3 |
|
|
|
20.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
128.5 |
|
|
|
17.9 |
% |
|
|
106.1 |
|
|
|
20.6 |
% |
|
|
186.5 |
|
|
|
13.9 |
% |
|
|
219.6 |
|
|
|
22.7 |
% |
Non-operating income, net |
|
|
22.0 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
% |
|
|
5.8 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
% |
|
|
40.5 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
% |
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before taxes |
|
|
150.5 |
|
|
|
20.9 |
% |
|
|
111.9 |
|
|
|
21.7 |
% |
|
|
227.0 |
|
|
|
16.9 |
% |
|
|
230.2 |
|
|
|
23.8 |
% |
Provision for income taxes |
|
|
54.9 |
|
|
|
7.6 |
% |
|
|
41.4 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
% |
|
|
96.2 |
|
|
|
7.2 |
% |
|
|
85.2 |
|
|
|
8.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
95.6 |
|
|
|
13.3 |
% |
|
$ |
70.5 |
|
|
|
13.7 |
% |
|
$ |
130.8 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
% |
|
$ |
145.0 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
|
Retail |
|
$ |
446.2 |
|
|
$ |
376.5 |
|
|
|
19 |
% |
|
$ |
818.2 |
|
|
$ |
693.1 |
|
|
|
18 |
% |
OEM |
|
|
190.5 |
|
|
|
77.3 |
|
|
|
146 |
% |
|
|
356.2 |
|
|
|
160.4 |
|
|
|
122 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product revenues |
|
$ |
636.7 |
|
|
$ |
453.8 |
|
|
|
40 |
% |
|
$ |
1,174.4 |
|
|
$ |
853.5 |
|
|
|
38 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in our product revenues for the three months ended July 2, 2006 compared to the
three months ended July 3, 2005 was comprised of a 178% increase in the number of megabytes sold,
partially offset by a 49% reduction in our average selling price per megabyte. Our product
revenues for the six months ended July 2, 2006 compared to the six months ended July 3, 2005 was
comprised of a 172% increase in the number of megabytes sold, partially offset by a 49% reduction
in our average selling price per megabyte. Our year-over-year product revenue growth for the three
and six months ended July 2, 2006 was primarily due to increased sales of cards for handsets,
digital audio players, cards for gaming devices and high performance cards for cameras, primarily
our SanDisk Ultra® and our SanDisk Extreme® cards. We expect to continue to
reduce our price per megabyte as technology advances allow us to further reduce our cost per
megabyte.
Our top ten customers represented approximately 52% and 51% of our total revenues in the three
and six months ended July 2, 2006, respectively, compared to 50% and 58% in three and six months
ended July 3, 2005, respectively. No customer exceeded 10% of our total revenues in either of the
three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005 except Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., which
was 11% and 12% in the three and six months ended July 2, 2006, respectively, including sales of
our products and royalty revenues.
32
Geographical Product Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pct of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pct of |
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
Pct of |
|
|
|
|
Pct of |
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Change |
|
|
Revenue |
|
Revenue |
|
Revenue |
|
Revenue |
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
|
North America |
|
$ |
276.2 |
|
|
|
43 |
% |
|
$ |
235.5 |
|
|
|
52 |
% |
|
|
17 |
% |
|
$ |
493.4 |
|
|
|
42 |
% |
|
$ |
438.4 |
|
51 |
% |
|
|
13 |
% |
EMEA |
|
|
153.3 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
122.0 |
|
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
26 |
% |
|
|
293.6 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
233.2 |
|
27 |
% |
|
|
26 |
% |
Other foreign countries |
|
|
207.2 |
|
|
|
33 |
% |
|
|
96.3 |
|
|
|
21 |
% |
|
|
115 |
% |
|
|
387.4 |
|
|
|
33 |
% |
|
|
181.9 |
|
22 |
% |
|
|
113 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
636.7 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
453.8 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
40 |
% |
|
$ |
1,174.4 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
853.5 |
|
100 |
% |
|
|
38 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The geographic breakdown of our product revenues for the three and six month periods
ended July 2, 2006 over the comparable periods in fiscal 2005 reflects higher sales to the
Asia-Pacific based locations for handset OEM customers that are bundling our flash memory cards
with music and camera enabled handsets.
License and Royalty Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
License and royalty revenues |
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
$ |
61.1 |
|
|
|
35 |
% |
|
$ |
168.0 |
|
|
$ |
112.4 |
|
|
|
49 |
% |
The increase in our license and royalty revenues for the three and six months ended July 2,
2006 was primarily driven by increased overall sales by our licensees as well as increased
royalties related to the sale of multi-level-cell (MLC) based products.
Gross Margin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
|
Product gross margin |
|
$ |
206.5 |
|
|
$ |
153.0 |
|
|
|
35 |
% |
|
$ |
359.4 |
|
|
$ |
301.5 |
|
|
|
19 |
% |
Product gross margin (as a percent of product
revenues) |
|
|
32.4 |
% |
|
|
33.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
30.6 |
% |
|
|
35.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin (as a percent of total revenues) |
|
|
40.2 |
% |
|
|
41.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.3 |
% |
|
|
42.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
The decrease in product gross margin percentage for the three and six months ended July 2,
2006 over the comparable period in fiscal 2005 was primarily due to a reduction in the average
selling price per megabyte that was not fully offset by a decrease in the cost per megabyte and
stock compensation expense of $2.5 million related to the adoption of SFAS 123(R). Stock
compensation expense of $2.6 million was capitalized in inventory at July 2, 2006 and will be
recognized as cost of sales as product is sold.
Research and Development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
Research and development |
|
$ |
73.8 |
|
|
$ |
61.4 |
|
|
|
20 |
% |
|
$ |
137.5 |
|
|
$ |
107.4 |
|
|
|
28 |
% |
Percent of revenue |
|
|
10.3 |
% |
|
|
11.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.2 |
% |
|
|
11.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Our research and development expense growth for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006
was primarily due to stock compensation expense of $10.4 million and $19.2 million, respectively,
related to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), increased payroll costs of $11.4 million and $19.2 million,
respectively, primarily related to our acquisition of Matrix and higher engineering
consulting costs of $3.1 million and $5.5 million, respectively, partially offset by the
elimination of initial design and development costs for Flash Partners 300-millimeter fab,
recorded in the first and second quarters of fiscal 2005.
33
Sales and Marketing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
Sales and marketing |
|
$ |
45.1 |
|
|
$ |
27.0 |
|
|
|
67 |
% |
|
$ |
88.4 |
|
|
$ |
51.6 |
|
|
|
71 |
% |
Percent of revenue |
|
|
6.3 |
% |
|
|
5.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.6 |
% |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Our sales and marketing expense growth for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 was
primarily due to stock compensation expense of $5.1 million and $9.2 million, respectively, related
to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), increased payroll costs of $4.5 million and $8.4 million,
respectively, related to increased headcount, increased merchandising expenses of $4.4 million and
$10.5 million, respectively, and higher consulting and outside services costs of $1.6 million and
$4.2 million, respectively.
General and Administrative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
General and administrative |
|
$ |
37.2 |
|
|
$ |
19.6 |
|
|
|
90 |
% |
|
$ |
67.2 |
|
|
$ |
35.3 |
|
|
|
90 |
% |
Percent of revenue |
|
|
5.2 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.0 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Our general and administrative expense growth for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006
was primarily due to increased stock compensation expense of $7.8 million and $13.8 million,
respectively, related to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), increased patent and other litigation costs
of $2.9 million and $8.1 million, respectively, and increased payroll costs of $3.0 million and
$5.2 million, respectively.
Write-off of Acquired In-process Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
Write-off of acquired in-process technology |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
$ |
39.6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
n/a |
|
Percent of revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As part of the Matrix
purchase agreement, a certain amount of the purchase price was allocated
to acquired in-process technology which was determined through established valuation techniques in
the high-technology computer industry and written-off in the first quarter of fiscal 2006 because
technological feasibility had not been established and no alternative future uses existed. The
value was determined by estimating the net cash flows and discounting forecasted net cash flows to
their present values. As of July 2, 2006, it was estimated that these in-process
projects would be completed over the next one to three years at an
estimated total cost of $16 million. See Note 11, Business Acquisition.
Amortization of Acquisition Related Intangible Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
Change |
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
Amortization
of acquisition
related intangible
assets |
|
$ |
4.4 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
$ |
8.2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
n/a |
|
Percent of revenue |
|
|
0.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our three and six months ended July 2, 2006 amortization of acquisition related intangible
assets was primarily related to costs incurred from our acquisition of Matrix in January 2006.
34
Non-Operating Income (Loss), net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
(In millions, except percentages) |
|
Equity in income (loss) of business ventures |
|
$ |
0.2 |
|
|
$ |
(0.3 |
) |
|
|
167 |
% |
|
$ |
0.4 |
|
|
$ |
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
500 |
% |
Interest income |
|
|
22.7 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
134 |
% |
|
|
38.5 |
|
|
|
17.7 |
|
|
|
118 |
% |
Gain (loss) in investment in foundries |
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
115 |
% |
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
(9.3 |
) |
|
|
125 |
% |
Interest expense and other income (loss), net |
|
|
(1.7 |
) |
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
(200 |
)% |
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
(130 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-operating income (loss), net |
|
$ |
22.0 |
|
|
$ |
5.9 |
|
|
|
273 |
% |
|
$ |
40.5 |
|
|
$ |
10.6 |
|
|
|
282 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in non-operating income for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 was
primarily due to increased interest income of $22.7 million and
$38.5 million, respectively, as a
result of higher interest rates and higher cash and investment balances partially offset by
interest expense related to the issuance and sale of our 1% Notes totaling $1.15 billion in May
2006.
Provision for Income Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
|
July 2, 2006 |
|
July 3, 2005 |
Provision for income taxes |
|
|
36.5 |
% |
|
|
37.0 |
|
|
|
42.4 |
% |
|
|
37.0 |
% |
We recorded tax provisions of $54.9 million, $96.2 million, $41.4 million and $85.2 million
for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively, or effective tax
rates of 36.5%, 42.4%, 37.0%, and 37.0% for the three and six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3,
2005, respectively. Our effective tax rate for the second quarter of fiscal 2006 differed from the
statutory federal rate of 35.0% primarily due to the impact of state taxes, non-deductible stock
option compensation expense recorded under FAS 123(R), non-deductible amortization of intangibles,
and the tax impact of non-U.S. operations.
The tax benefits associated with stock option activity for the three and six months ended July
2, 2006 and July 3, 2005 reduced taxes payable by $19.1 million, $61.0 million, $3.7 million and
$9.1 million, respectively. Such benefits are credited to capital in excess of par value when
realized.
35
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Cash Flows. Operating activities generated $111.8 million of cash during the six months ended
July 2, 2006. The primary sources of operating cash flow for the six months ended July 2, 2006
were (1) net income, adjusted to exclude the effect of non-cash charges including depreciation,
amortization, share-based compensation and write-off of acquired in-process technology, which were
partially offset by tax benefit from share-based compensation and loss on investment in
foundries, and (2) reductions in accounts receivable and increases in other liabilities, which were
partially offset by increases in inventories and in other assets and decreases in accounts
payable.
We used $733.5 million for investing activities during the six months ended July 2, 2006.
Purchases of short and long-term investments, net of proceeds from sales and maturities of
short-term investments, totaled $429.9 million. Capital expenditures totaling $89.7 million and
our loans and investment in Flash Partners of $223.4 million to purchase equipment for Fab 3 was
partially offset by cash acquired of $9.4 million as a result of our acquisition of Matrix.
We generated $1.18 billion of cash from financing activities due to $1.13 billion of cash from
the issuance of the 1% Convertible Senior Notes, net of issuance costs, partially offset by the
purchase of the convertible bond hedge of $386.1 million. We received $308.7 million from the
issuance of warrants and $68.9 million from exercises of stock incentives. Additionally, we
received a tax benefit of $61.0 million on employee stock programs during the six months ended July
2, 2006.
Liquid Assets. At July 2, 2006, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of
$2.28 billion. As of July 2, 2006, the cost basis of our investment in 24.5 million UMC shares was
$13.4 million with a market value of $14.7 million. In addition, at July 2, 2006, we held 11.1
million Tower shares, of which the carrying value and market value was $15.0 million and $15.6
million, respectively. As of July 2, 2006, we remained subject to certain restrictions on the sale
or transfer of our Tower ordinary shares including certain rights of first refusal, and through
January 2008, have agreed to maintain minimum shareholdings.
Short-Term Liquidity. As of July 2, 2006, our working capital balance was $2.74 billion. We
do not expect any liquidity constraints in the next twelve months. We currently expect to loan,
make investments or guarantee future operating leases for fab expansion of approximately $750
million over the next twelve months. We also expect to spend approximately $250 million over the
next twelve months on property and equipment, which includes assembly and test equipment as well as
engineering equipment, and spending related to facilities and information systems.
Long-Term Requirements. Depending on the demand for our products, we may decide to make
additional investments, which could be substantial, in wafer fabrication foundry capacity and
assembly and test manufacturing equipment to support our business in the future. We may also make
equity investments in other companies or engage in merger or acquisition transactions. These
additional investments may require us to raise additional financing, which could be difficult to
obtain, and which if not obtained in satisfactory amounts may prevent us from funding the ventures
with Toshiba, increasing our wafer supply, developing or enhancing our products, taking advantage
of future opportunities, growing our business or responding to competitive pressures or
unanticipated industry changes, any of which could harm our business.
Financing Arrangements. In May 2006, we issued and sold $1.15 billion in aggregate principal
amount of 1% Notes due 2013. The 1% Notes were issued at par and pay interest at a rate of
1% per annum. The 1% Notes may be converted, under certain
circumstances, based on an initial conversion rate of 12.1426 shares per $1,000
principal amount of notes (which represents an initial conversion price of approximately $82.36 per
share). The conversion price will be subject to adjustment in some events but will not be adjusted
for accrued interest. The net proceeds to us from the offering of the 1% Notes were $1.13 billion.
Concurrently with the issuance of the 1% Notes, we purchased a convertible bond hedge and sold
warrants. The separate convertible bond hedge and warrant transactions are structured to reduce
the potential future economic dilution associated with the conversion of the 1% Notes
and to increase the initial conversion price to $95.03 per share. Each of these components are discussed
separately below:
|
|
|
Convertible Bond Hedge. Counterparties agreed to sell
to us up to approximately 14.0 million shares of
our common stock, which is the number of shares initially issuable upon conversion of the 1% Notes in
full, at a price of $82.36 per share. The convertible bond hedge transaction will be
settled in net shares and will terminate upon the earlier of the
maturity date of the 1% Notes or the first
day none of the 1% Notes remain outstanding due to conversion or otherwise. Settlement
of the convertible bond hedge in net |
36
|
|
|
shares on the expiration date would result in us
receiving net shares equivalent to the number of shares issuable by us upon conversion of
the 1% Notes. Should there be an early unwind of the convertible bond hedge transaction,
the number of
net shares potentially received by us will depend upon 1) the then existing overall market
conditions, 2) our stock price, 3) the volatility of our stock, and 4) the amount of time
remaining before expiration of the convertible bond hedge. The convertible bond hedge transaction cost of
$386.1 million has been accounted for as an equity transaction in accordance with Emerging
Issues Task Force No. 00-19, or EITF 00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial Statements
Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Companys Own Stock. We recorded a tax benefit of
approximately $145.6 million in stockholders equity from the deferred tax assets related to
the convertible bond hedge. |
|
|
|
|
Sold Warrants. We received $308.7 million from the same counterparties from the
sale of warrants to purchase up to approximately 14.0 million shares of our common stock at an
exercise price of $95.03 per share. The warrants have an expected life of 7.25 years and
expire in August 2013. At expiration, we may, at option, elect to settle the
warrants on a net share basis. As of July 2, 2006, the warrants had not been exercised and
remained outstanding. The value of the warrants has been classified as equity because
they meet all the equity classification criteria of EITF 00-19. |
Contingent Obligations. We agreed to reimburse Toshiba for 49.9% of losses it sustains under
its guarantee of FlashVisions operating lease with Mizuho Leasing. As of July 2, 2006, the
maximum exposure for both us and Toshiba under that guarantee was 15.0 billion Japanese yen, or
approximately $131 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006, and our maximum exposure
was 7.5 billion Japanese yen, or approximately $66 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2,
2006.
Toshiba Ventures. We are a 49.9% percent owner in, FlashVision and Flash Partners. We and
Toshiba have collaborated in the development and manufacture of NAND flash memory products. These
NAND flash memory products are manufactured by Toshiba at Toshibas Yokkaichi, Japan operations
using the semiconductor manufacturing equipment owned or leased by FlashVision or Flash Partners.
This equipment is funded by investments in or loans to the ventures from us and Toshiba. Toshiba
owns 50.1% of each of these ventures. Individually, FlashVision and Flash Partners purchases
wafers from Toshiba at cost and then resells those wafers to us and Toshiba at cost plus a mark-up.
We are contractually obligated to purchase half of FlashVision and Flash Partners NAND wafer
supply. We cannot estimate the total amount of the wafer purchase commitment as of July 2, 2006
because our price is determined by reference to the future cost to produce the semiconductor
wafers. In addition to the semiconductor assets owned by FlashVision and Flash Partners, we
directly own certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment in Toshibas Yokkaichi operations for
which we receive 100% of the output from this equipment. From time-to-time, we and Toshiba
mutually approve increases in wafer supply capacity of Flash Partners that may contractually
obligate us to increased capital funding. We and Toshiba each pay the cost of our own design teams
and 50% of the wafer processing and similar costs associated with this direct design and
development of flash memory.
The cost of the wafers we purchase from FlashVision and Flash Partners is recorded in
inventory and ultimately cost of sales. FlashVision and Flash Partners are variable interest
entities and we are not the primary beneficiary of either venture because we are entitled to less
than a majority of any residual gains and are obligated with respect to less than a majority of
residual losses with respect to both ventures. Accordingly, we account for our investments under
the equity method and do not consolidate. Our share of the net income or loss of FlashVision and
Flash Partners is included in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income as Equity in income
of business ventures.
As part of the FlashVision and Flash Partners agreements, we agreed to share in Toshibas
costs associated with NAND product development and its common semiconductor research and
development activities. As of July 2, 2006, we had accrued liabilities related to those expenses
of $6.0 million. Our common research and development obligation related to FlashVision and Flash
Partners is variable but capped at increasing fixed quarterly amounts through 2008. Our direct
research and development contribution is determined based on a variable computation. The common
research and development participation agreement and the product development agreement are exhibits
to our most recent annual report on Form 10-K and should be read carefully in their entirety for a
more complete understanding of these arrangements.
For semiconductor fixed assets that are leased by FlashVision or Flash Partners, we and
Toshiba guaranteed, in whole or in part, a portion of the outstanding lease payments under each of
those leases through various methods. These obligations are denominated in Japanese yen and are
non-cancelable. Under the terms of the FlashVision lease, Toshiba guaranteed these commitments on
behalf of FlashVision and we agreed to indemnify Toshiba for certain liabilities Toshiba incurs as
a result of its guarantee of the FlashVision equipment lease arrangement. As of July 2, 2006, the
maximum amount of our contingent indemnification obligation, which reflects payments and any lease
adjustments, was approximately 7.5 billion Japanese yen, or
37
approximately
$66 million based upon
the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. Under the terms of the Flash Partners leases, we guaranteed on
an unsecured and several basis 50% of Flash Partners lease obligations under master lease
agreements entered into in December 2004, December 2005 and June 2006. Our total lease obligation
guarantee, net of lease payments as of July 2, 2006, was 54.3 billion Japanese yen, or
approximately $474 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006.
We also have a 49.9% ownership interest in Flash Alliance, a business
venture with Toshiba, formed on July 7, 2006 to develop and manufacture NAND flash memory products.
These NAND flash memory products will be manufactured by Toshiba at the proposed 300-millimeter
wafer fabrication facility, Fab 4, located in Yokkaichi, Japan, using the semiconductor
manufacturing equipment to be owned or leased by Flash Alliance. Flash Alliance will purchase
wafers from Toshiba at cost and then resell those wafers to us and Toshiba at cost plus a mark-up.
Toshiba owns 50.1% of this venture. We account for our 49.9% ownership position in Flash Alliance
under the equity method of accounting. We are committed to purchase half of Flash Alliances NAND
wafer supply.
The
capacity of Fab 4 at full expansion is expected to be greater than 150,000 wafers per
month and the timeframe to reach full capacity is to be mutually agreed by the parties. To date,
the parties have agreed to an expansion plan to 67,500 wafers per month for which the investment in
Fab 4 is currently estimated at approximately $3.0 billion through the end of 2008, of which our
share is currently estimated to be approximately $1.5 billion. Initial NAND production is
currently scheduled for the end of 2007. For expansion beyond 67,500 wafers per month, it is
expected that investments and output would continue to be shared 50/50 between us and Toshiba. We
expect to fund our portion of the investment through cash as well as other financing sources. We
are committed to fund 49.9% of Flash Alliances costs to the extent that Flash Alliances revenues
from wafer sales to us and Toshiba are insufficient to cover these costs.
38
Contractual Obligations and Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
Our contractual obligations and off balance sheet arrangements at July 2, 2006, and the effect
those contractual obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flow over the next
five years is presented in textual and tabular format in Note 9 to our condensed consolidated
financial statements included in Item 1.
Critical Accounting Policies
The preparation of consolidated financial statements and related disclosures in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management
to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported. Certain of these
significant accounting policies are considered to be critical accounting policies, as defined
below.
A critical accounting policy is defined as one that is both material to the presentation
of our consolidated financial statements and requires management to make difficult, subjective or
complex judgments that could have a material effect on our financial condition or results of
operations. Specifically, these policies have the following attributes: 1) we are required to
make assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time of the estimate; and 2)
different estimates we could reasonably have used, or changes in the estimate that are reasonably
likely to occur, would have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects cannot be determined with
certainty. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions
believed to be applicable and reasonable under the circumstances. These estimates may change as
new events occur, as additional information is obtained and as our operating environment changes.
These changes have historically been minor and have been included in the consolidated financial
statements as soon as they became known. In addition, management is periodically faced with
uncertainties, the outcomes of which are not within its control and will not be known for prolonged
periods of time. These uncertainties are discussed in the section below entitled Risk Factors.
Based on a critical assessment of its accounting policies and the underlying judgments and
uncertainties affecting the application of those policies, management believes that our
consolidated financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America, and provide a meaningful presentation of our
financial condition and results of operations.
On January 2, 2006, we implemented the following new critical accounting policy:
Equity-Based Compensation Employee Incentive Plans and Employee Stock Purchase Plans.
Beginning on January 2, 2006, we began accounting for stock awards and ESPP shares under the
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), or SFAS 123(R), Share-Based
Payments, which requires the recognition of the fair value of equity-based compensation. The fair
value of stock awards and ESPP shares was estimated using a Black-Scholes-Merton closed-form option
valuation model. This model requires the input of assumptions in implementing SFAS 123(R),
including expected stock price volatility, expected term and estimated forfeitures of each award.
The parameters used in the model are reviewed and adjusted on a quarterly basis. We elected the
modified-prospective method for adoption of SFAS 123(R). We recognized compensation expense for
the fair values of these awards, which have graded vesting, on a straight-line basis over the
requisite service period of each of these awards, net of estimated forfeitures. We make quarterly
assessments of the adequacy of the APIC credit pool to determine if there are any tax deficiencies
which require recognition in the condensed consolidated statements of income. Prior to the
implementation of SFAS 123(R), we accounted for stock awards and ESPP shares under the provisions
of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and made
pro forma footnote disclosures as required by SFAS No. 148, Accounting For Stock-Based Compensation
Transition and Disclosure, which amended SFAS No. 123, Accounting For Stock-Based Compensation.
Pro forma net income and pro forma net income per share disclosed in the footnotes to the
consolidated condensed financial statements were estimated using a Black-Scholes-Merton closed-form
option valuation model to determine the estimated fair value and by attributing such fair value
over the requisite service period on a straight-line basis for those awards that actually vested.
The fair value of restricted stock units was calculated based upon the fair market value of our
common stock on the date of grant.
For further information about other critical accounting policies, see the discussion of
critical accounting policies in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1,
2006.
39
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
There have been no material changes to the disclosures in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 1, 2006.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. Under the supervision and with the
participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial
officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our
disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), as of the end of the period
covered by this report (the Evaluation Date). Based upon the evaluation, our principal executive
officer and principal financial officer concluded as of the Evaluation Date that our disclosure
controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in
reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and
reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms.
There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rule 13a-15(f)) during the quarter ended July 2, 2006 that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
40
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
From time-to-time, it has been and may continue to be necessary to initiate or defend
litigation against third parties. These and other parties could bring suit against us. In each
case listed below where we are the defendant, we intend to vigorously defend the action.
On October 31, 2001, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California against Memorex Products, Inc.,
Pretec Electronics Corporation, Ritek Corporation, and Power Quotient International Co., Ltd. In
the suit, captioned SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Products, Inc., et al., Civil Case No. CV 01 4063 VRW,
the Company seeks damages and injunctions against these companies from making, selling, importing
or using flash memory cards that infringe its U.S. Patent No. 5,602,987. The court granted summary
judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants Ritek, Pretec and Memorex and entered judgment
on May 17, 2004. On June 2, 2004, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the summary judgment
rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 8, 2005, the
Federal Circuit held in favor of the Company, vacating the judgment of non-infringement and
remanding the case back to district court.
On or about June 9, 2003, the Company received written notice from Infineon Technologies AG,
or Infineon, that it believes the Company has infringed its U.S. Patent No. 5,726,601 (the 601
patent). On June 24, 2003, the Company filed a complaint against Infineon for a declaratory
judgment of patent non-infringement and invalidity regarding the 601 patent in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned SanDisk Corporation v. Infineon
Technologies AG, a German corporation, et al., Civil Case No. C 03 02931 BZ. On October 6, 2003,
Infineon filed an answer and counterclaim: (a) denying that the Company is entitled to the
declaration sought by the Companys complaint; (b) requesting that the Company be adjudged to have
infringed, actively induced and/or contributed to the infringement of the 601 patent and an
additional patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,841,222 (the 222 patent). On August 12, 2004, Infineon filed
an amended counterclaim for patent infringement alleging that the Company infringes U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,026,002 (the 002 patent); 5,041,894 (the 894 patent); and 6,226,219 (the 219 patent), and
omitting the 601 and 222 patents. On August 18, 2004, the Company filed an amended complaint
against Infineon for a declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and invalidity regarding the
002, 894, and 219 patents. On February 9, 2006, the Company filed a second amended complaint to
include claims for declaratory judgment that the 002, 894 and 219 patents are unenforceable. On
March 17, 2006, the Court granted a stipulation by the parties withdrawing all claims and
counterclaims regarding the 002 patent.
On October 2, 2003, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of United
States holders of ordinary shares of Tower as of the close of business on April 1, 2002 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit, captioned Philippe
de Vries, Julia Frances Dunbar De Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil
Case No. 03 CV 4999, was filed against Tower and a number of its shareholders and directors,
including the Company and Dr. Harari, who is a Tower board member, and asserted claims arising
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a 9
promulgated there under. The lawsuit alleged that Tower and certain of its directors made false
and misleading statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower shareholders regarding a proposed
amendment to a contract between Tower and certain of its shareholders, including us. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys and experts fees and expenses. On August 19,
2004, the court granted the Companys and the other defendants motion to dismiss the complaint in
its entirety with prejudice. On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 1, 2006, the Court of Appeals
issued its ruling affirming the dismissal of the case.
On February 20, 2004, the Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products
were sued in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco
in a purported consumer class action captioned Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et
al., Civil Case No. GCG 04 428953, alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of
contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy
Act. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of flash memory products and
claims that the defendants overstated the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.
The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount. The parties have
reached a settlement of the case, which is pending final court approval.
On October 15, 2004, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement and declaratory
judgment of non-infringement and patent invalidity against STMicroelectronics N.V. and
STMicroelectronics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned SanDisk Corporation v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., et al., Civil Case No. C 04
04379JF. The complaint alleges that STMicros products infringe one of the Companys U.S. patents
and seeks damages and an injunction. The complaint further seeks a declaratory judgment that the
Company does not infringe several of STMicros U.S. patents. By order dated January 4, 2005, the
court
41
stayed the Companys claim that STMicro infringes the Companys patent pending an outcome in
the ITC investigation initiated on November 15, 2004 (discussed below). On January 20, 2005, the
court issued an order granting STMicros motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment causes of
action. The Company has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. The remainder of the case, including the Companys infringement claim against STMicro, is
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
On February 4, 2005, STMicro filed two complaints for patent infringement against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, captioned
STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. SanDisk Corporation, Civil Case No. 4:05CV44 (the 44 Action), and
STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. SanDisk Corporation, Civil Case No. 4:05CV45 (the 45 Action),
respectively. The complaints seek damages and injunctions against certain SanDisk products. On
April 22, 2005, the Company filed counterclaims on two patents against STMicroelectronics N.V. and
STMicroelectronics, Inc. in the 45 Action. The counterclaims seek damages and injunctive relief
against STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics, Inc. flash memory products. In the 44
Action, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation that the Companys motion for
summary judgment of non-infringement on all accused products be granted. STMicro has asked the
U.S. District Court Judge to reject that Report and Recommendation. The 45 Action, previously
scheduled for trial in November, 2006, is now expected to have a trial date in the first quarter of
2007.
On October 15, 2004, the Company filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(as amended) (Case No. 337-TA 526) titled, In the matter of certain NAND flash memory circuits and
products containing same in the United States International Trade Commission, naming
STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics, Inc. (STMicro) as respondents. In the complaint,
the Company alleges that STMicros NAND flash memory infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,172,338 (the 338
patent), and seek an order excluding their products from importation into the United States. In
the complaint, the Company alleges that STMicros NAND flash memory infringes the 338 patent and
seeks an order excluding their products from importation into the United States. On November 15,
2004, the ITC instituted an investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 against STMicro in
response to the Companys complaint. A hearing was held from August 1-8, 2005. On October 19,
2005, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination confirming the validity and
enforceability of the Companys United States Patent 5,172,338 (338 patent) by rejecting STMicros
claims that the patent was invalidated by prior art. The initial determination, however, found
that STMicros NAND flash memory chips did not infringe three claims of the 338 patent. On
October 31, 2005, the Company filed a petition with the International Trade Commission to review
and reverse the finding of non-infringement. Also, on October 31, 2005, STMicro filed a petition
for review with the International Trade Commission to review and reverse the finding that the
patent was valid and enforceable. On December 6, 2005, the ITC issued its decision. The ITC
declined to review the finding of non-infringement, and, after reviewing the finding of validity,
declined to take any position on the issue of validity. The Company is appealing the ITCs
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On October 14, 2005, STMicroelectronics, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and the
Companys CEO Eli Harari, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, captioned STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Harari, Case No. HG 05237216. The complaint alleges
that STMicroelectronics, Inc., as the successor to Wafer Scale Integration, Inc.s (WSI) legal
rights, has an ownership interest in several SanDisk patents that issued from applications filed by
Dr. Harari, a former WSI employee. The complaint seeks the assignment or co-ownership of certain
inventions and patents conceived of by Harari, including some of the patents asserted by the
Company in its litigations against STMicro, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. On
November 15, 2005, Harari and the Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, where it was assigned case number C05-04691. On November 23,
2005, Harari and the Company filed counterclaims, asserting the Companys ownership of the patents
and applications raised in the complaint. On December 13, 2005, STMicroelectronics, Inc. filed a
motion to remand the case back to the Superior Court of Alameda County. STMicros remand motion
was denied by the Court in March 2006. On April 24, 2006, Dr. Harari and the Company filed a
motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations and other grounds that, if granted, would
result in dismissal of all of STMicros claims. The court did not rule on the motion for summary
judgment. On July 18, 2006, the case was remanded to the Superior Court of Alameda County after
briefing and oral argument on a motion by STMicro for reconsideration of the order denying remand.
Case No. HG 05237216 is now scheduled for an initial case management conference on September 15,
2006.
On December 6, 2005, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California against STMicroelectronics, Inc. and
STMicroelectronics, NV (STMicro) (Case No. C0505021 JF). In the suit, the Company seeks damages
and injunctions against STMicro from making, selling, importing or using flash memory chips or
products that infringe the Companys U.S. Patent No. 5,991,517. The case is presently stayed,
pending the termination of the ITC investigation instituted February 8, 2006, discussed below.
On January 10, 2006, the Company filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(as amended) (Case No. 337-TA-560) titled, In the matter of certain NAND flash memory circuits and
products containing same in the ITC, naming STMicro as respondents. In the complaint, the Company
alleges that: (i) STMicros NOR flash memory infringes the 338 patent; (ii) STMicros NAND flash
memory infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,542,956; and (iii) STMicros NOR flash memory and NAND flash
memory infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,991,517. The complaint seeks an order excluding STMicros NOR
and NAND flash memory products from importation into the United States. The ITC instituted an
investigation, based on the Companys complaint, on February 8, 2006. On March 31, 2006, STMicro
filed a motion for partial summary determination or termination of the investigation with respect
to the 338 patent. On May 1, 2006, the Administrative Law Judge denied STMicros motion in an
order that is not subject to review by the ITC. On May 17, 2006, SanDisk filed a motion to
voluntarily terminate the investigation with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,542,956. The motion was
granted June 1, 2006.
On or about July 15, 2005, Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dellelecttronica, S.I.Sv.El.,
S.p.A., (Sisvel) filed suit against the Company and others in the district court of the
Netherlands in The Hague in a case captioned Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dellelecttronica,
S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A. adverse to SanDisk International Sales, Moduslink B.V. and UPS SCS (Nederland)
B.V., Case No. 999.131.1804 (Cause List numbers 2006/167 and 2006/168). Sisvel alleges that
certain of the Companys MP3 products infringe three European patents of which Sisvel claims to be
a licensee with the right to bring suit. Sisvel seeks an injunction and unspecified damages.
Sisvel has previously publicly indicated that it will license these and other patents under
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, and it has specifically offered the Company a license under
the patents. The Company has submitted pleadings asking the court to strike Sisvels pleadings as
legally insufficient and seeking other procedural relief. The court is still addressing these
procedural matters and the Company will not be required to answer on the substance of Sisvels
claim until September 2006 at the earliest.
In a related action, on March 9, 2006, the Company filed an action in the English High Court,
Chancery Division, Patents Court, in London, against Sisvel and the owners of the patents Sisvel
has asserted against the Company in the Netherlands. The case is SanDisk Corporation v.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (a Dutch corporation), France Télécom (a French corporation),
Télédiffusion de France S.A. (a French corporation), Institut für Rundfunktechnik GmbH (a German
corporation) and Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dellelecttronica, S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A., Case No.
HC 06 C 00835. In this action, the Company seeks a declaration of non-infringement of the patents
asserted by Sisvel in connection with the Companys MP3 products. The Company also seeks a
declaration that the patents are not essential to the technology of MP3 players, as Sisvel
presently contends in the case filed in the Netherlands. The defendants have submitted their
formal defense and counterclaimed for infringement. The trial in this matter is expected to take
place along with the trial for Case No. HC 06 C 00615 in March 2007.
In another related action, on April 13, 2006, Audio MPEG filed a complaint alleging patent
infringement in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case is Audio MPEG v.
SanDisk Corporation, Case No. 2:06cv209 WDK/JEB. Audio MPEG holds itself out to be the U.S.
subsidiary of Sisvel and purports to have the right to enforce certain patents in the U.S. on
subject matter related to the patents asserted by Sisvel in the Netherlands. Specifically, Audio
MPEG asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,214,678 (entitled Digital transmission system using subband coding
of a digital signal), U.S. Patent No. 5,323,396 (entitled Digital transmission system,
transmitter and receiver for use in the transmission system), U.S. Patent No. 5,539,829 (entitled
Subband coded digital transmission system using some composite signals), and U.S. Patent No.
5,777,992 (entitled Decoder for decoding and encoded digital signal and a receiver comprising the
decoder). The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. The Company responded promptly,
filing a motion to dismiss on April 20, 2006, asking the court to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that Audio MPEG failed to join the patent holders as co-plaintiffs. Audio MPEG responded
by voluntarily joining the patent owners as defendants. Thereafter, the Company sought to have
the case dismissed or transferred to the Northern District of California. The court has not
yet decided the transfer or dismissal motions.
In another related action, on April 13, 2006, Sisvel filed suit against the Companys
subsidiary, SanDisk GmbH, for patent infringement in the Mannheim District Court in Germany,
S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A. v. SanDisk GmbH, file no. 7 O 90/06, which was served on the Company on or about
May 10, 2006. The plaintiffs allege that certain of the Companys MP3 products infringe four
German patents of which Sisvel claims to be a licensee with the right to bring suit. Sisvel seeks
an injunction and unspecified damages. Sisvel has previously publicly stated that it will license
these and other patents under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, and it has specifically
offered the Company a license under the patents.
In another related action, on April 13, 2006, Sisvel filed suit against the Company for patent
infringement in the Mannheim District Court in Germany, S.I.Sv.El., S.p.A. v. SanDisk Corporation,
file no. 7 O 89/06, which was served on the Company in or about July, 2006. The plaintiffs allege
that certain of the Companys MP3 products infringe four German patents of which Sisvel claims to
be a licensee with the right to bring suit. Sisvel seeks an injunction and unspecified damages.
Sisvel has previously publicly stated that it will license these and other patents under reasonable
and nondiscriminatory terms, and it has specifically offered the Company a license under the
patents.
On August 7, 2006 two lawsuits were filed against the Company and others in the California
Superior Court for Santa Clara County, captioned Dashiell v. SanDisk Corporation, et al., Case No.
1-06-CV-068759 and Capovilla v. SanDisk Corporation, et al, Case No. 1-06-CV-068760. Each
complaint purports to assert a class action claim on behalf of shareholders of msystems Ltd.
(msystems) and further purports to assert derivative claims on behalf of msystems. Defendants
include the Company, msystems, and several officers and directors of msystems. The complaints
allege breaches of fiduciary duties by officers and directors of msystems relating to alleged
option backdating and to allegedly furthering their own interests in connection with the merger,
and that these alleged breaches were aided and abetted by the Company. The complaints further
allege that the terms of the announced merger between the Company and msystems are not fair to
msystems shareholders. The complaints seek compensatory damages, an accounting, imposition of a
constructive trust, punitive damages, a declaration that the merger agreement is unlawful and
unenforceable, an injunction against consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger
agreement, and other relief.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
The following description of the risk factors associated with our business includes any
material changes to and supersedes the description of the risk factors associated with our business
previously disclosed in Item 1A of our annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January
1, 2006 and our most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which may adversely affect our operations
and our stock price. Our quarterly and annual operating results have fluctuated significantly in
the past and we expect that they will continue to fluctuate in the future. This fluctuation could
result from a variety of factors, including, among others, the following:
|
|
|
decline in the average selling prices, net of promotions, for our products due to
strategic price reductions initiated by us or our competitors, excess supply and competitive
pricing pressures; |
|
|
|
|
addition of new competitors, expansion of supply from existing competitors and ourselves
creating excess market supply, which could cause our average selling prices to decline
faster than our costs decline; |
|
|
|
|
timing, volume and cost of wafer production from the FlashVision, Flash Partners and
Flash Alliance ventures as impacted by fab start-up delays and costs, technology
transitions, yields or production interruptions due to natural disasters, power outages,
equipment failure or other factors; |
|
|
|
|
unpredictable or changing demand for our products, particularly demand for certain types
or capacities of our products or demand for our products in certain markets or geographies; |
|
|
|
|
excess supply from captive sources due to ramping output faster than the growth in
demand; |
|
|
|
|
insufficient supply from captive and non-captive sources or insufficient capacity from
our test and assembly sub-contractors to meet demand; |
|
|
|
|
continued development of new markets and products for NAND flash memory and acceptance of
our products in these markets; |
|
|
|
|
our license and royalty revenues may decline significantly in the future as our existing
license agreements and key patents expire; |
|
|
|
|
timing of sell-through by our distributors and retail customers; |
|
|
|
|
increased purchases of flash memory products from our non-captive sources, which
typically cost more than products from our captive sources; |
|
|
|
|
difficulty in forecasting and managing inventory levels; particularly due to
noncancelable contractual obligations to purchase materials such as flash memory and
controllers, and the need to build finished product in advance of customer purchase orders; |
|
|
|
|
errors or defects in our products caused by, among other things, errors or defects in the
memory or controller components, including memory and non-memory components we procure from
third-party suppliers; |
|
|
|
|
disruption in the manufacturing operations of captive, non-captive and other suppliers,
including for sole sourced controller wafers; |
|
|
|
|
write-downs of our investments in fabrication capacity, equity investments and other assets; |
|
|
|
|
expensing of share-based compensation; |
|
|
|
|
adverse changes in product and customer mix; |
42
|
|
|
risks related to our proposed acquisition of msystems; and |
|
|
|
|
the factors listed elsewhere under Risk Factors. |
Sales to a small number of customers represent a significant portion of our revenues and, if
we were to lose one of our major licensees or customers or experience any material reduction in
orders from any of our customers, our revenues and operating results would suffer. Sales to our
top 10 customers and licensees accounted for more than 51%, 50%, 55% and 48% of our total revenues
during the six months ended July 2, 2006 and the fiscal years of 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
No customer exceeded 10% of total revenues in any of these periods except Samsung Electronics Co.
Ltd., which accounted for 12% of our total revenues in the first six months of fiscal 2006 and Best
Buy Company, Inc., which accounted for 11% of our total revenues in fiscal 2005. If we were to
lose one of our major licensees or customers or experience any material reduction in orders from
any of our customers or in sales of licensed products by our licensees, our revenues and operating
results would suffer. Additionally, our license and royalty revenues may decline significantly in
the future as our existing license agreements expire. Our sales are generally made from standard
purchase orders rather than long-term contracts. Accordingly, our customers may generally
terminate or reduce their purchases from us at any time without notice or penalty. In addition,
the composition of our major customer base changes from year-to-year as we enter new markets.
Our business depends significantly upon sales of products in the highly competitive consumer
market, a significant portion of which are made to retailers and through distributors, and if our
distributors, and, retailers are not successful in this market, we could experience substantial
product returns, which would negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of
operations. A significant portion of our sales are made through retailers, either directly or
through distributors. Sales through these channels typically include rights to return unsold
inventory and protection against price declines. As a result, we do not recognize revenue until
after the product has been sold through to the end user, in the case of sales to retailers, or to
our distributors customers, in the case of sales to distributors. If our distributors and
retailers are not successful in this market, we could experience substantial product returns or
price protection claims, which would harm our business, financial condition and results of
operations. Availability of sell-through data varies throughout the retail channel, which makes it
difficult for us to forecast retail product revenues. Our arrangements with our customers also
provide them price protection against declines in our recommended selling prices, which has the
effect of reducing our deferred revenue and eventually revenue. Except in limited circumstances,
we do not have exclusive relationships with our retailers or distributors, and therefore, must rely
on them to effectively sell our products over those of our competitors.
Our average selling prices, net of promotions, may decline due to excess supply, competitive
pricing pressures and strategic price reductions initiated by us or our competitors. The market
for NAND flash products is competitive and characterized by rapid price declines. Price declines
may be influenced by, among other factors, strategic price decreases by us or our competitors such
as those implemented by us in 2006, supply in excess of demand from existing or new competitors,
technology transitions, including adoption of multi-level cell, or MLC, by other competitors, new
technologies or other strategic actions by competitors to gain market share. If our technology
transitions take longer or are more costly than anticipated to complete, our cost reductions fail
to keep pace with the rate of price declines or our price decreases fail to generate sufficient
additional demand, our gross margin and operating results will be negatively impacted.
Our revenue depends in part on the success of products sold by our OEM customers. A portion
of our sales are to a number of OEMs, who bundle our flash memory products with their products,
such as cameras or handsets. Our sales to these customers are dependent upon the OEM choosing our
products over those of our competitors and on the OEMs ability to create, introduce, market and
sell its products successfully in its markets. Should our OEM customers be unsuccessful in selling
their current or future products that include our product, or should they decide to discontinue
bundling our products, our results of operation and financial condition could be harmed.
The continued growth of our business depends on the development of new markets and products
for NAND flash memory and continued elasticity in our existing markets. Over the last several
years, we have derived the majority of our revenues from the digital camera market. This market
continues to experience slower growth rates and continues to represent a declining percentage of
our total revenue, and therefore, our growth will be increasingly dependent on the development of
new markets, new applications and new products for NAND flash memory. For example, in 2005, our
revenue from the digital camera market grew by only 4% over the prior year, and it is possible that
our revenue from this market could decline in future years. Newer markets for flash memory include
handsets, USB drives, gaming and digital audio players. There can be no assurance that new markets
and products will develop and grow fast enough, or that new markets will adopt NAND flash
technologies in general or our
43
products in particular, to enable us to continue our growth. There
can be no assurance that the increase in average product capacity demand in response to price
reductions will continue to generate revenue growth for us as it has in the past.
We continually seek to develop new applications, products, technologies and standards, which
may not be widely adopted by
consumers or, if adopted, may reduce demand by consumers for our older products. We
continually seek to develop new applications, products and standards and enhance existing products
and standards with higher memory capacities and other enhanced features. New applications, such as
the adoption of flash memory cards in mobile handsets, can take several years to develop. Early
successes in working with handset manufacturers to add card slots to their mobile phones does not
guarantee that consumers will adopt memory cards used for storing songs, images and other content
in mobile handsets. Our new products may not gain market acceptance and we may not be successful
in penetrating the new markets that we target, such as handsets, digital audio players or
pre-recorded flash memory cards. As we introduce new standards or technologies, such as
TrustedFlash, it can take time for these new standards or technologies to be adopted, for
consumers to accept and transition to these new standards or technologies and for significant sales
to be generated from them, if this happens at all. Moreover, broad acceptance of new standards,
technologies or products by consumers may reduce demand for our older products. If this decreased
demand is not offset by increased demand for our other form factors or our new products, our
results of operations could be harmed. Any new applications, products, technologies or standards
we develop may not be commercially successful.
We face competition from numerous manufacturers and marketers of products using flash memory,
as well as from manufacturers of new and alternative technologies, and if we cannot compete
effectively, our results of operations and financial condition will suffer. Our competitors
include many large domestic and international companies that have greater access to advanced wafer
manufacturing capacity and substantially greater financial, technical, marketing and other
resources than we do, which allows them to produce flash memory chips in high volumes at low costs
and to sell these flash memory chips themselves or to our flash card competitors at a low cost.
Some of our competitors may sell their flash memory chips at or below their true manufacturing
costs to gain market share and to cover their fixed costs. Such practices have been common in the
DRAM industry during periods of excess supply, and have resulted in substantial losses in the DRAM
industry. In addition, many semiconductor companies have begun to bring up substantial new
capacity of flash memory, including MLC flash memory. For example, Samsung began shipping its
first MLC chips in the third quarter of 2005 and continues to ramp its MLC output. In addition,
Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., or Hynix, is aggressively ramping NAND output and IM Flash Technologies,
LLC is expected to produce significant NAND output in the future. If the combined total new flash
memory capacity exceeds the corresponding growth in demand, prices may decline dramatically,
adversely impacting our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, current and
future competitors produce or could produce alternative flash memory technologies that compete
against our NAND flash memory technology.
Our primary semiconductor competitors continue to include our historical competitors Renesas
Technology Corporation, or Renesas, Samsung and Toshiba. New competitors include Hynix, Infineon
Technologies AG, or Infineon, Micron Technology, Inc., or Micron and STMicroelectronics N.V., which
began shipping NAND or NAND-competitive memory in 2004. If any of these competitors increase their
memory output, as Hynix recently has, it will likely result in a decline in the prevailing prices
for packaged NAND semiconductor components.
We also compete with flash memory card manufacturers and resellers. These companies purchase,
or have a captive supply of, flash memory components and assemble memory cards. These companies
include, among others, Dane-Elec Manufacturing, Delkin Devices, Inc., Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.,
Hagiwara Sys-Com Co., Ltd., Hama Corporation, Inc., I/O Data Device, Inc., Infineon, Jessops PLC,
Kingmax, Inc., Kingston Technology Company, Inc., msystems Ltd., or msystems, Matsushita Battery
Industrial Co., Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industries, Ltd., or Matsushita, Micron, including
through its acquired subsidiary, Lexar Media, Inc., or Lexar, Memorex Products, Inc., or Memorex,
Panasonic (a brand owned by Matsushita), PNY Technologies, Inc., or PNY, PQI Corporation, Pretec
Electronics Corporation (USA), Renesas, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., or Samsung, Sharp Electronics
KK, SimpleTech, Inc., Sony Corporation, Toshiba Corporation and Viking Components, Inc.
Some of our competitors have substantially greater resources than we do, have well recognized
brand names or have the ability to operate their business on lower margins than we do. The success
of our competitors may adversely affect our future sales revenues and may result in the loss of our
key customers. For example, Samsung, with significant manufacturing capacity, brand recognition
and access to broad distribution channels, provides competing flash cards, such as the MMC
micro that competes directly with our microSD mobile card. Lexar markets a line of
flash cards bearing the Kodak brand name, which competes with our flash memory cards. Our handset
card products also face competition from embedded solutions from competitors including Intel,
msystems and Samsung. Our digital audio players face competition from similar products offered by
44
other companies, including Apple Computer, Inc., Creative Technologies, Ltd., iriver America, Inc.
and Samsung. Our USB flash drives face competition from Lexar, msystems, Memorex, and PNY, among
others. If our products cannot compete effectively, our market share and profitability will be
adversely impacted.
Furthermore, many companies are pursuing new or alternative technologies, such as
nanotechnologies or microdrives, which may compete with flash memory. These new or alternative
technologies may provide smaller size, higher capacity, reduced cost,
lower power consumption or other advantages. If we cannot compete effectively, our results of
operations and financial condition will suffer.
We have patent cross-license agreements with several of our leading competitors. Under these
agreements, we have enabled competitors to manufacture and sell products that incorporate
technology covered by our patents. If we continue to license our patents to our competitors,
competition may increase and may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We believe that our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including:
|
|
|
price, quality and on-time delivery to our customers; |
|
|
|
|
product performance, availability and differentiation; |
|
|
|
|
success in developing new applications and new market segments; |
|
|
|
|
sufficient availability of supply; |
|
|
|
|
efficiency of production; |
|
|
|
|
timing of new product announcements or introductions by us, our customers and our competitors; |
|
|
|
|
the ability of our competitors to incorporate standards or develop formats which we do not offer; |
|
|
|
|
the number and nature of our competitors in a given market; |
|
|
|
|
successful protection of intellectual property rights; and |
|
|
|
|
general market and economic conditions. |
We may not be able to successfully compete in the marketplace.
The semiconductor industry is subject to significant downturns that have harmed our business,
financial condition and results of operations in the past and may do so in the future. The
semiconductor industry is highly cyclical and is characterized by constant and rapid technological
change, rapid product obsolescence and price declines, evolving standards, short product life
cycles and wide fluctuations in product supply and demand. The industry has experienced
significant downturns, often in connection with, or in anticipation of, maturing product cycles of
both semiconductor companies and their customers products and declines in general economic
conditions. These downturns have been characterized by diminished product demand, production
overcapacity, high inventory levels and accelerated declines in selling prices. We have
experienced these conditions in our business in the past and may experience such downturns in the
future.
Our business and the markets we address are subject to significant fluctuations in supply and
demand and our commitments to our ventures with Toshiba may result in losses. Through Flash
Partners increased production, we expect our 2006 captive memory supply to increase by a higher
percentage than our captive flash memory supply increased in either of the last two years. Our
obligation to purchase 50% of the supply from FlashVision, Flash Partners and Flash Alliance, the
ventures with Toshiba, could harm our business and results of operations if our committed supply
exceeds demand for our products. The adverse effects could include, among other things,
significant decreases in our product prices, significant excess, obsolete or lower of cost or
market inventory write-downs and the impairment of our investments in the ventures with Toshiba.
These effects will be magnified once the Fab 4 venture commences production. Any future excess
supply could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
45
We depend on third-party foundries for silicon supply and any shortage or disruption in our
supply from these sources will reduce our revenues, earnings and gross margins. All of our flash
memory card products require silicon supply for the memory and controller components. The
substantial majority of our flash memory is currently supplied by our ventures with Toshiba and by
Toshiba pursuant to our foundry agreement, and to a lesser extent by Renesas and Samsung. Any
disruption in supply of flash memory from our captive or non-captive sources would harm our
operating results. We intend to increase production at Fab 3, commence production at Fab 4 and
continue to procure wafers from non-captive sources. If the Fab 3 production ramp does not
increase as anticipated, we fail to commence production at Fab 4 as planned, Fab 4 does not meet
anticipated manufacturing output, or our non-captive sources fail to supply wafers in the amounts
and at the times we expect, we may not have sufficient
supply to meet demand and our operating results will be harmed. Currently, our controller
wafers are only manufactured by Tower and UMC, and some of these controllers are sole-sourced at
either UMC or Tower. Any disruption in the manufacturing operations of Tower or UMC would result
in delivery delays, would adversely affect our ability to make timely shipments of our products and
would harm our operating results until we could qualify an alternate source of supply for our
controller wafers, which could take three or more quarters to complete. In times of significant
growth in global demand for flash memory, demand from our customers may outstrip the supply of
flash memory and controllers available to us from our current sources. If our silicon vendors are
unable to satisfy our requirements on competitive terms or at all due to lack of capacity,
technological difficulties, natural disaster, financial difficulty, power failure, labor unrest,
their refusal to do business with us, their relationships with our competitors or other causes, we
may lose potential sales and our business, financial condition and operating results may suffer.
In addition, these risks are magnified at Toshibas Yokkaichi operations, where the current
ventures are operated, Fab 4 will be located, and Toshibas foundry capacity is located.
Earthquakes and power outages have resulted in production line stoppage and loss of wafers in
Yokkaichi and similar stoppages and losses may occur in the future. For example, in the first
quarter of fiscal 2006, a brief power outage in Fab 3 resulted in a loss of wafers and significant
costs associated with bringing the fab back on line. Also, the Tower fabrication facility, from
which we source controller wafers, is facing financial challenges and is located in Israel, an area
of political and military turmoil. Any disruption or delay in supply
from our silicon sources could significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
Our actual manufacturing yields may be lower than our expectations resulting in increased
costs and product shortages. The fabrication of our products requires wafers to be produced in a
highly controlled and ultra clean environment. Semiconductor manufacturing yields and product
reliability are a function of both design technology and manufacturing process technology and
production delays may be caused by equipment malfunctions, fabrication facility accidents or human
errors. Yield problems may not be identified or improved until an actual product is made and can
be tested. As a result, yield problems may not be identified until the wafers are well into the
production process. We have from time-to-time experienced yields which have adversely affected our
business and results of operations. We have experienced adverse yields on more than one occasion
when we have transitioned to new generations of products. If actual yields are low, we will
experience higher costs and reduced product supply, which could harm our business, financial
condition and results of operations. For example, if the production ramp and/or yield of the
70-nanometer, 300-millimeter Flash Partners wafers do not increase as expected, we may not have
enough supply to meet demand and our cost competitiveness, business, financial condition and
results of operations will be harmed.
We depend on our third-party subcontractors and our business could be harmed if our
subcontractors do not perform as planned. We rely on third-party subcontractors for our wafer
testing, IC assembly, packaged testing, product assembly, product testing and order fulfillment.
From time-to-time, our subcontractors have experienced difficulty in meeting our requirements. If
we are unable to increase the capacity of our current sub-contractors or qualify and engage
additional sub-contractors, we may not be able to meet demand for our products. We do not have
long-term contracts with our existing subcontractors nor do we expect to have long-term contracts
with any new subcontract suppliers. We do not have exclusive relationships with any of our
subcontractors, and therefore, cannot guarantee that they will devote sufficient resources to
manufacturing our products. We cannot, and will not, be able to directly control product delivery
schedules. Furthermore, we manufacture on a turnkey basis with some of our subcontract suppliers.
In these arrangements we do not have visibility and control of their inventories of purchased parts
necessary to build our products or of the progress of our products through their assembly line.
Any significant problems that occur at our subcontractors, or their failure to perform at the level
we expect, could lead to product shortages or quality assurance problems, either of which would
have adverse effects on our operating results.
In transitioning to new processes, products and silicon sources, we face production and market
acceptance risks that have caused, and may in the future cause significant product delays that
could harm our business. Successive generations of our products have incorporated semiconductors
with greater memory capacity per chip. The transition to new generations of products, such as the
56-nanometer 8 and 16 gigabit MLC chip which we expect to begin shipping in volume in 2007, is
highly complex and requires new controllers, new test procedures and modifications of numerous
aspects of manufacturing, as well as
46
extensive qualification of the new products by both us and our
OEM customers. In addition, Flash Partners is currently ramping the 70-nanometer 8 gigabit MLC
chip in the Yokkaichi 300-millimeter fab and this transition is subject to yield, quality and
output risk. Furthermore, procurement of MLC wafers from non-captive sources requires us to
develop new controller technology and may result in inadequate quality or performance in our
products that integrate these MLC components. Any material delay in a development or qualification
schedule could delay deliveries and adversely impact our operating results. We periodically have
experienced significant delays in the development and volume production ramp-up of our products.
Similar delays could occur in the future and could harm our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
Our products may contain errors or defects, which could result in the rejection of our
products, product recalls, damage to our reputation, lost revenues, diverted development resources
and increased service costs and warranty claims and litigation. Our products are complex, must
meet stringent user requirements, may contain errors or defects and the majority of our products
are warrantied for one to five years. Errors or defects in our products may be caused by,
among other things, errors or defects in the memory or controller components, including components
we procure from non-captive sources such as the MLC products we procure from a third-party
supplier. These factors could result in the rejection of our products, damage to our reputation,
lost revenues, diverted development resources, increased customer service and support costs and
warranty claims and litigation. We record an allowance for warranty and similar costs in
connection with sales of our product, but actual warranty and similar costs may be significantly
higher than our recorded estimate and result in an adverse effect on our results of operations and
financial condition.
Our new products have from time-to-time been introduced with design and production errors at a
rate higher than the error rate in our established products. We must estimate warranty and similar
costs for new products without historical information and actual costs may significantly exceed our
recorded estimates. Underestimation of our warranty and similar costs would have an adverse effect
on our results of operations and financial condition.
We and Toshiba plan to continue to expand the wafer fabrication capacity of the Flash Partners
business venture as well as start a new venture, Flash Alliance, and as we do so, we will make
substantial capital investments and incur substantial start-up and tool relocation costs, which
could adversely impact our operating results. We and Toshiba are making, and plan to continue to
make, substantial investments in new capital assets to expand the wafer fabrication capacity of our
Flash Partners business venture in Japan. We and Toshiba recently announced our intention to
accelerate expansion at Fab 3 to bring wafer capacity to 110,000 wafers per month by July 2007 and
in addition, we and Toshiba recently announced the creation of Flash Alliance, owned 49.9% by us
and 50.1% by Toshiba, and agreed to cooperate in the construction and equipping of an additional
300-millimeter NAND wafer fabrication facility (Fab 4), to produce NAND flash memory products for
the parties. Moreover, each time that we and Toshiba add substantial new wafer fabrication
capacity, we will experience significant initial design and development and start-up costs as a
result of the delay between the time of the investment and the time qualified products are
manufactured and sold in volume quantities. For several quarters, we will incur initial design and
development costs and start-up costs and pay our share of ongoing operating activities even if we
do not achieve the planned output volume or utilize our full share of the expanded output, and
these costs will impact our gross margins, results of operations and financial condition.
There is no assurance that Flash Partners 300-millimeter NAND flash memory facility will
perform as expected, in particular as we transition to new lithography feature sizes. The Flash
Partners 300-millimeter fab, Fab 3, is currently transitioning from 90-nanometer to 70-nanometer
feature sizes. There can be no assurance that this transition will occur on schedule or at the
yields or costs that we anticipate. In addition, in 2007, Fab 3 is scheduled to transition to
wafers with a 56-nanometer feature size. Each of these technology transitions is more difficult
and subject to significant risks in terms of schedule, yield and cost If Flash Partners, or in the
future, Flash Alliance, encounters difficulties in transitioning to new technologies, our cost per
megabyte may not remain competitive with the costs achieved by other NAND flash memory producers.
Also, Samsung is licensed under our patents to use MLC technology, which enhances its manufacturing
capabilities. Samsung began shipping NAND/MLC products in the third quarter of 2005 and may be
able to produce product at a lower cost than we can and increase their market share, thus adversely
affecting our operating results and financial condition.
We have a contingent indemnification obligation for certain liabilities Toshiba incurs as a
result of Toshibas guarantee of the FlashVision equipment lease arrangement and have environmental
and intellectual property indemnification as well as guarantee obligations with respect to Flash
Partners. Toshiba has guaranteed FlashVisions lease arrangement with third-party lessors. The
total minimum remaining lease payments as of July 2, 2006 were 15.0 billion Japanese yen, or
approximately $131 million based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. If Toshiba makes payments
under its guarantee, we have agreed to indemnify Toshiba for 49.9% of its costs.
47
In December 2004, December 2005 and June 2006, Flash Partners entered into three separate
equipment lease facilities totaling approximately 117.0 billion Japanese yen, or approximately
$1.021 billion based upon the exchange rate at July 2, 2006, which, as of July 2, 2006, had been
drawn down in their entirety. As of July 2, 2006, our cumulative guarantee under the equipment
leases, net of cumulative lease payments, was approximately 54.3 billion Japanese yen, or
approximately $474 million based on the exchange rate at July 2, 2006. If our corporate rating is
significantly downgraded by any rating agency, it may impair the ability of our ventures with
Toshiba to obtain future equipment lease financings on terms consistent with current leases and
would cause a default under certain current leases, either of which could harm our business and
financial condition.
We and Toshiba have also agreed to mutually contribute to, and indemnify each other, Flash
Partners and Flash Alliance for, environmental remediation costs or liability resulting from Flash
Partners and Flash Alliances manufacturing operations in certain circumstances. In addition, we
and Toshiba entered into a Patent Indemnification Agreement under which in many cases we will share
in the expenses associated with the defense and cost of settlement associated with such claims.
This agreement provides limited protection for us against third-party claims that NAND flash memory
products manufactured and sold by Flash
Partners or Flash Alliance infringe third-party patents.
None of the foregoing obligations are reflected as liabilities on our consolidated balance
sheets. If we have to perform our obligations under these agreements, our business will be harmed
and our financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.
Seasonality in our business may result in our inability to accurately forecast our product
purchase requirements. Sales of our products in the consumer electronics market are subject to
seasonality. For example, sales have typically increased significantly in the fourth quarter of
each year, sometimes followed by declines in the first quarter of the following year. This
seasonality increases the complexity of forecasting our business. If our forecasts are inaccurate,
we can lose market share or procure excess inventory or inappropriately increase or decrease our
operating expenses, any of which could harm our business, financial condition and results of
operations. This seasonality also may lead to higher volatility in our stock price, the need for
significant working capital investments in receivables and inventory and our need to build up
inventory levels in advance of our most active selling seasons.
From time-to-time, we overestimate our requirements and build excess inventory, and
underestimate our requirements and have a shortage of supply, both of which harm our financial
results. The majority of our products are sold into consumer markets, which are difficult to
accurately forecast. Also, a substantial majority of our quarterly sales are from orders received
and fulfilled in that quarter. Additionally, we depend upon timely reporting from our retail and
distributor customers as to their inventory levels and sales of our products in order to forecast
demand for our products. Our international customers submit these reports on a monthly, not
weekly, basis making it more difficult to accurately forecast demand. We have in the past
significantly over-forecasted and under-forecasted actual demand for our products. The failure to
accurately forecast demand for our products will result in lost sales or excess inventory both of
which will have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In addition, at times inventory may increase in anticipation of increased demand or as captive
wafer capacity ramps. If demand does not materialize, we may be forced to write-down excess
inventory which may harm our financial condition and results of operations.
Under conditions of tight flash memory supply, we may be unable to adequately increase our
production volumes or secure sufficient supply in order to maintain our market share. If we are
unable to maintain market share, our results of operations and financial condition could be harmed.
Conversely, during periods of excess supply in the market for our flash memory products, we may
lose market share to competitors who aggressively lower their prices.
Our ability to respond to changes in market conditions from our forecast is limited by our
purchasing arrangements with our silicon sources. These arrangements generally provide that the
first six months of our rolling nine-month projected supply requirements are fixed and we may make
only limited percentage changes in the second six months of the period covered by our supply
requirement projections.
We are sole sourced for a number of our critical components and the absence of a back-up
supplier exposes our supply chain to unanticipated disruptions. We rely on our vendors, some of
which are a sole source of supply, for many of our critical components. We do not have long-term
supply agreements with most of these vendors. Our business, financial condition and operating
results could be significantly harmed by delays or reductions in shipments if we are unable to
develop alternative sources or obtain sufficient quantities of these components.
48
We are exposed to foreign currency risks. Our purchases of NAND flash memory from the Toshiba
ventures and our investments in those ventures are denominated in Japanese yen. Our sales,
however, are primarily denominated in U.S. dollars or other foreign currencies. Additionally, we
expect over time to increase the percentage of our sales denominated in currencies other than the
U.S. dollar. This exposes us to significant risk from foreign currency fluctuations. Management
of these foreign exchange exposures and the foreign currency forward contracts used to mitigate
these exposures is complex and if we do not successfully manage our foreign exchange exposures, our
business, results of operations and financial condition could be harmed.
Terrorist attacks, war, threats of war and government responses thereto may negatively impact
our operations, revenues, costs and stock price. Terrorist attacks, U.S. military responses to
these attacks, war, threats of war and any corresponding decline in consumer confidence could have
a negative impact on consumer retail demand, which is the largest channel for our products. Any of
these events may disrupt our operations or those of our customers and suppliers and may affect the
availability of materials needed to manufacture our products or the means to transport those
materials to manufacturing facilities and finished products to customers. Any of these events
could also increase volatility in the U.S. and world financial markets, which could harm our stock
price and may limit the capital resources available to us and our customers or suppliers or
adversely affect
consumer confidence. In addition, we have a development center in Northern Israel, near the
border with Lebanon, an area currently experiencing significant violence and political unrest.
Recently, our employees in this area have been relocated to other facilities. Continued turmoil
and unrest in this area could cause delays in the development of our products. This could harm our
business and results of operations.
Natural disasters or epidemics in the countries in which we or our suppliers or subcontractors
operate could negatively impact our operations. Our operations, including those of our suppliers
and subcontractors, are concentrated in Milpitas, California, Yokkaichi, Japan, Hsinchu and
Taichung, Taiwan and Dongguan, Shanghai and Shenzen, China. In the past, these areas have been
affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons, and some areas have been
affected by epidemics, such as avian flu. If a natural disaster or epidemic were to occur in one
or more or these areas, our disaster recovery processes may not provide adequate business
continuity. In addition, we do not have insurance for most natural disasters, including
earthquakes. This could harm our business and results of operations.
We may be unable to protect our intellectual property rights, which would harm our business,
financial condition and results of operations. We rely on a combination of patents, trademarks,
copyright and trade secret laws, confidentiality procedures and licensing arrangements to protect
our intellectual property rights. In the past, we have been involved in significant and expensive
disputes regarding our intellectual property rights and those of others, including claims that we
may be infringing third parties patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights. We
expect that we may be involved in similar disputes in the future. We cannot assure you that:
|
|
|
any of our existing patents will not be invalidated; |
|
|
|
|
patents will be issued for any of our pending applications; |
|
|
|
|
any claims allowed from existing or pending patents will have sufficient scope or strength; |
|
|
|
|
our patents will be issued in the primary countries where our products are sold in order
to protect our rights and potential commercial advantage; or |
|
|
|
|
any of our products or technologies do not infringe on the patents of other companies. |
In addition, our competitors may be able to design their products around our patents and other
proprietary rights.
Several companies have recently entered or announced their intentions to enter the flash
memory market, and we believe these companies may require a license from us. Enforcement of our
rights may require litigation. If we bring a patent infringement action and are not successful,
our competitors would be able to use similar technology to compete with us. Moreover, the
defendant in such an action may successfully countersue us for infringement of their patent or
assert a counterclaim that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. If we did not prevail as a
defendant in patent infringement case, we could be required to pay substantial damages, cease the
manufacture, use and sale of infringing products, expend significant resources to develop
non-infringing technology, discontinue the use of specific processes or obtain licenses to the
infringing technology.
49
We may be unable to license intellectual property to or from third parties as needed, or renew
existing licenses, which could expose us to liability for damages, increase our costs or limit or
prohibit us from selling products. If we incorporate third-party technology into our products or
if we are found to infringe others intellectual property, we could be required to license
intellectual property from a third party. We may also need to license some of our intellectual
property to others in order to enable us to obtain important cross-licenses to third-party patents.
We cannot be certain that licenses will be offered when we need them, or that the terms offered
will be acceptable, or that these licenses will help our business. If we do obtain licenses from
third parties, we may be required to pay license fees or royalty payments. In addition, if we are
unable to obtain a license that is necessary to the manufacture of our products, we could be
required to suspend the manufacture of products or stop our product suppliers from using processes
that may infringe the rights of third parties. We may not be successful in redesigning our
products, the necessary licenses may not be available under reasonable terms, our existing
licensees may not renew their licenses upon expiration and we may not be successful in signing new
licensees in the future.
We are currently and may in the future be involved in litigation, including litigation
regarding our intellectual property rights or those of third parties, which may be costly, may
divert the efforts of our key personnel and could result in adverse court rulings which could
materially harm our business. We are involved in a number of lawsuits, including among others,
several cases involving our patents and the patents of third parties. We are the plaintiff in some
of these actions and the defendant in other of
these actions. Some of the actions could seek injunctions against the sale of our products
and/or substantial monetary damages, which if granted or awarded, could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Litigation is subject to inherent risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to
differ materially from our expectations. Factors that could cause litigation results to differ
include, but are not limited to, the discovery of previously unknown facts, changes in the law or
in the interpretation of laws, and uncertainties associated with the judicial decision-making
process. If we receive an adverse judgment in any litigation, we could be required to pay
substantial damages and/or cease the manufacture, use and sale of products. Litigation, including
intellectual property litigation, can be complex, can extend for a protracted period of time, and
can be very expensive. Litigation initiated by us could also result in counter-claims against us,
which could increase the costs associated with the litigation and result in our payment of damages
or other judgments against us. In addition, litigation may divert the efforts and attention of
some of our key personnel.
We have been, and expect to continue to be, subject to claims and legal proceedings regarding
alleged infringement by us of the patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights of
third parties. From time-to-time we have sued, and may in the future sue, third parties in order
to protect our intellectual property rights. Parties that we have sued and that we may sue for
patent infringement may countersue us for infringing their patents. If we are held to infringe the
intellectual property of others, we may need to spend significant resources to develop
non-infringing technology or obtain licenses from third parties, but we may not be able to develop
such technology or acquire such licenses on terms acceptable to us or at all. We may also be
required to pay significant damages and/or discontinue the use of certain manufacturing or design
processes. In addition, we or our suppliers could be enjoined from selling some or all of our
respective products in one or more geographic locations. If we or our suppliers are enjoined from
selling any of our respective products or if we are required to develop new technologies or pay
significant monetary damages or are required to make substantial royalty payments, our business
would be harmed.
Moreover, from time-to-time we agree to indemnify certain of our suppliers and customers for
alleged patent infringement. The scope of such indemnity varies but generally includes
indemnification for direct and consequential damages and expenses, including attorneys fees. We
may from time-to-time be engaged in litigation as a result of these indemnification obligations.
Third-party claims for patent infringement are excluded from coverage under our insurance policies.
A future obligation to indemnify our customers or suppliers may have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations. For additional information concerning
legal proceedings, see Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings.
Because of our international business and operations, we must comply with numerous
international laws and regulations, and we are vulnerable to political instability, currency
fluctuations and other risks related to international operations. Currently, all of our products
are produced overseas in China, Israel, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. We may, therefore, be
affected by the political, economic and military conditions in these countries.
Specifically, China does not currently have a comprehensive and highly developed legal system,
particularly with respect to the protection of intellectual property rights. This results, among
other things, in the prevalence of counterfeit goods in China. The enforcement of existing and
future laws and contracts remains uncertain, and the implementation and interpretation of such
50
laws
may be inconsistent. Such inconsistency could lead to piracy and degradation of our intellectual
property protection. Our results of operations and financial condition could be harmed by the sale
of counterfeit products.
Our international business activities could also be limited or disrupted by any of the
following factors:
|
|
|
the need to comply with foreign government regulation; |
|
|
|
|
general geopolitical risks such as political and economic instability, potential
hostilities and changes in diplomatic and trade relationships; |
|
|
|
|
natural disasters affecting the countries in which we conduct our business, particularly
Japan, such as the earthquakes experienced in Taiwan in 1999, in Japan in 2004, 2003 and
previous years, and in China in previous years; |
|
|
|
|
reduced sales to our customers or interruption to our manufacturing processes in the
Pacific Rim that may arise from regional issues in Asia; |
|
|
|
|
imposition of regulatory requirements, tariffs, import and export restrictions and other barriers and restrictions; |
|
|
|
|
imposition of additional duties, charges and/or fees related to customs entries for our products, which are all
manufactured offshore; |
|
|
|
|
inability to successfully manage our foreign exchange exposures; |
|
|
|
|
longer payment cycles and greater difficulty in accounts receivable collection; |
|
|
|
|
adverse tax rules and regulations; |
|
|
|
|
weak protection of our intellectual property rights; and |
|
|
|
|
delays in product shipments due to local customs restrictions. |
Tower Semiconductors Financial Situation is Challenging. Tower supplies a significant
portion of our controller wafers from its Fab 2 facility and is currently a sole source of supply
for some of our controllers. Towers Fab 2 is operational but has not been completed and a
continued supply of controllers to us from Tower on a cost-effective basis may be dependent on this
completion. Towers completion of the equipment installation, technology transfer and ramp-up of
production at Fab 2 is dependent upon Tower (a) having, or being able to raise, sufficient funds to
complete the Fab 2 project; (b) meeting the conditions to receive Israeli government grants and tax
benefits approved for Fab 2; and (c) obtaining the approval of the Israeli Investment Center to
extend the five-year investment period under its Fab 2 approved enterprise program. In addition,
Tower recently entered into an amendment to the credit facility agreement with its banks. If Tower
fails to raise funds in the amounts and at the times required under the amended credit facility
agreement or otherwise fails to comply with the revised financial ratios and covenants to avoid
being in default under its amended bank credit agreements, Tower may have to cease operations. If
this occurs, we will be forced to source our controllers from another supplier and our business,
financial condition and results of operations may be harmed. Specifically, our ability to supply a
number of products would be disrupted until we were able to transition manufacturing and qualify a
new foundry with respect to controllers that are currently sole sourced at Tower, which could take
three or more quarters to complete.
We have recognized cumulative losses of approximately $54.1 million as a result of the
other-than-temporary decline in the value of our investment in Tower ordinary shares, $9.2 million
as a result of the impairment in value on our prepaid wafer credits and $1.3 million of losses on
our warrant to purchase Tower ordinary shares as of July 2, 2006. We are subject to certain
restrictions on the transfer of our approximately 11.1 million Tower ordinary shares including
certain rights of first refusal, and through January 2008, have agreed to maintain minimum
shareholdings. It is possible that we will record further write-downs of our investment, which was
carried on our consolidated balance sheet at $15.0 million as of July 2, 2006, which would harm our
results of operations and financial condition.
Our stock price has been, and may continue to be, volatile, which could result in investors
losing all or part of their
51
investments. The market price of our stock has fluctuated
significantly in the past and may continue to fluctuate in the future. We believe that such
fluctuations will continue as a result of many factors, including future announcements concerning
us, our competitors or principal customers regarding financial results or expectations,
technological innovations, new product introductions, governmental regulations, the commencement or
results of litigation or changes in earnings estimates by analysts. In addition, in recent years
the stock market has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations and the market prices of
the securities of high technology and semiconductor companies have been especially volatile, often
for reasons outside the control of the particular companies. These fluctuations as well as general
economic, political and market conditions may have an adverse affect on the market price of our
common stock.
We may make acquisitions that are dilutive to existing stockholders, result in
unanticipated accounting charges or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations,
and result in difficulties in assimilating and integrating the operations, personnel,
technologies, products and information systems of acquired companies or businesses. We
continually evaluate and explore strategic opportunities as they arise, including business
combinations, strategic partnerships, collaborations, capital investments and the purchase,
licensing or sale of assets. If we issue equity securities in connection with an acquisition, the
issuance may be dilutive to our existing stockholders. Alternatively, acquisitions made entirely
or partially for cash would reduce our cash reserves.
Acquisitions may require significant capital infusions, typically entail many risks and could
result in difficulties in assimilating and integrating the operations, personnel, technologies,
products and information systems of acquired companies. In order to realize the intended benefits
of our recent acquisition of Matrix Semiconductor, Inc. and our proposed acquisition of msystems
Ltd., or msystems, we will have to successfully integrate and retain key Matrix personnel and
msystems personnel, respectively. We may experience delays in the timing and successful
integration of acquired technologies and product
development through volume production, unanticipated costs and expenditures, changing
relationships with customers, suppliers and strategic partners, or contractual, intellectual
property or employment issues. In addition, key personnel of an acquired company may decide not to
work for us. The acquisition of another company or its products and technologies may also result
in our entering into a geographic or business market in which we have little or no prior
experience. These challenges could disrupt our ongoing business, distract our management and
employees, harm our reputation, subject us to an increased risk of intellectual property and other
litigation and increase our expenses. These challenges are magnified as the size of the
acquisition increases, and we cannot assure you that we will realize the intended benefits of any
acquisition. Acquisitions may require large one-time charges and can result in increased debt or
contingent liabilities, adverse tax consequences, substantial depreciation or deferred compensation
charges, the amortization of identifiable purchased intangible assets or impairment of goodwill,
any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results
of operations. Furthermore, our acquisition of msystems could cause
us to re-evaluate the accounting
classification for our FlashVision, Flash Partners and Flash Alliance
ventures, including
consolidating the ventures which may have an adverse result in our consolidated financial reports.
Mergers and acquisitions of high-technology companies are inherently risky and subject to many
factors outside of our control, and no assurance can be given that our previous or future
acquisitions will be successful and will not materially adversely affect our business, operating
results, or financial condition. Failure to manage and successfully integrate acquisitions could
materially harm our business and operating results. Even when an acquired, or proposed to be
acquired, company, such as msystems, has already developed and marketed products, there can be no
assurance that such products will be successful after the closing, will not cannibalize sales of
our existing products, that product enhancements will be made in a timely fashion or that
preacquisition due diligence will have identified all possible issues that might arise with respect
to such company.
Our success depends on key personnel, including our executive officers, the loss of who could
disrupt our business. Our success greatly depends on the continued contributions of our senior
management and other key research and development, sales, marketing and operations personnel,
including Dr. Eli Harari, our founder, president and chief executive officer. We do not have
employment agreements with any of our executive officers and they are free to terminate their
employment with us at any time. Our success will also depend on our ability to recruit additional
highly skilled personnel. We may not be successful in hiring or retaining key personnel and our
key personnel may not remain employed with us.
To manage our growth, we may need to improve our systems, controls and procedures and relocate
portions of our business to new or larger facilities. We have experienced and may continue to
experience rapid growth, which has placed, and could continue to place a significant strain on our
managerial, financial and operations resources and personnel. We expect that our number of
employees, including management-level employees, will continue to increase for the foreseeable
future. We must continue to improve our operational, accounting and financial systems and
managerial controls and procedures, including fraud
52
procedures, and we will need to continue to
expand, as well as, train and manage our workforce. From time-to-time, we may need to relocate
portions of our business to new or larger facilities which could result in disruption of our
business or operations. For example, in May 2006, we plan to relocate our corporate headquarters
and significant engineering operations, including labs and data centers, to new facilities. If we
do not manage our growth effectively, including transitions to new or larger facilities, our
business could be harmed.
We may raise additional financing, which could be difficult to obtain, and which if not
obtained in satisfactory amounts may prevent us from funding the ventures with Toshiba, increasing
our wafer supply, developing or enhancing our products, taking advantage of future opportunities,
growing our business or responding to competitive pressures or unanticipated industry changes, any
of which could harm our business. We currently believe that we have sufficient cash resources to
fund our operations as well as our investments in the ventures with Toshiba for at least the next
twelve months; however, we may in the future raise additional funds, including funds to meet our
obligations with respect to Flash Partners and Flash Alliance, and we cannot be certain that we
will be able to obtain additional financing on favorable terms, if at all. From time-to-time, we
may decide to raise additional funds through public or private debt, equity or lease financings.
If we issue additional equity securities, our stockholders will experience dilution and the new
equity securities may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of existing holders of
common stock. If we raise funds through debt or lease financing, we will have to pay interest and
may be subject to restrictive covenants, which could harm our business. If we cannot raise funds
on acceptable terms, if and when needed, we may not be able to develop or enhance our products,
fulfill our obligations to Flash Partners and Flash Alliance, take advantage of future
opportunities, grow our business or respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated industry
changes, any of which could have a negative impact on our business.
Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents, stockholder rights plan and in Delaware law
could discourage or delay a change in control and, as a result, negatively impact our stockholders.
We have taken a number of actions that could have the effect of discouraging a takeover attempt.
For example, we have a stockholders rights plan that would cause substantial dilution
to a stockholder, and substantially increase the cost paid by a stockholder, who attempts to
acquire us on terms not approved by our board of directors. This could discourage an acquisition
of us. In addition, our certificate of incorporation grants our board of directors the authority
to fix the rights, preferences and privileges of and issue up to 4,000,000 shares of preferred
stock without stockholder action (2,000,000 of which have already been reserved under our
stockholder rights plan). Issuing preferred stock could have the effect of making it more
difficult and less attractive for a third-party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting
stock. Preferred stock may also have other rights, including economic rights senior to our common
stock that could have a material adverse effect on the market value of our common stock. In
addition, we are subject to the anti-takeover provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law. This section provides that a corporation may not engage in any business
combination with any interested stockholder during the three-year period following the time that a
stockholder became an interested stockholder. This provision could have the effect of delaying or
discouraging a change of control of SanDisk.
Unanticipated changes in our tax provisions or exposure to additional income tax liabilities
could affect our profitability. We are subject to income taxes in the United States and numerous
foreign jurisdictions. Our tax liabilities are affected by the amounts we charge for inventory,
services, licenses, funding and other items in intercompany transactions. We are subject to
ongoing tax audits in various jurisdictions. Tax authorities may disagree with our intercompany
charges or other matters and assess additional taxes. We regularly assess the likely outcomes of
these audits in order to determine the appropriateness of our tax provision. However, there can be
no assurance that we will accurately predict the outcomes of these audits, and the actual outcomes
of these audits could have a material impact on our net income or financial condition. In
addition, our effective tax rate in the future could be adversely affected by changes in the mix of
earnings in countries with differing statutory tax rates, changes in the valuation of deferred tax
assets and liabilities, changes in tax laws and the discovery of new information in the course of
our tax return preparation process. In particular, the carrying value of deferred tax assets,
which are predominantly in the United States, is dependent on our ability to generate future
taxable income in the United States. Any of these changes could affect our profitability.
Furthermore, our tax provisions could be adversely affected as a result of any new interpretative
accounting guidance related to accounting for uncertain tax provisions.
Changes in securities laws and regulations have increased our costs; further, in the event we
are unable to satisfy regulatory requirements relating to internal control, or if our internal
control over financial reporting is not effective, our business could suffer. The Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that became law in July 2002 required changes in our corporate governance, public
disclosure and compliance practices. The number of rules and regulations applicable to us has
increased and will continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs, and has made some
activities more difficult, such as stockholder approval of new option plans. In addition, we have
incurred and expect to continue to incur significant costs in connection with compliance
53
with
Section 404 of that law regarding internal control over financial reporting. These laws and
regulations and perceived increased risk of liability could make it more difficult for us to
attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit
committee, and qualified executive officers. We cannot estimate the timing or magnitude of
additional costs we may incur as a result.
In connection with our certification process under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we have identified and will from time-to-time identify deficiencies in our internal control
over financial reporting. We cannot assure you that individually or in the aggregate these
deficiencies would not be deemed to be a material weakness. Furthermore, we may not be able to
implement enhancements on a timely basis in order to prevent a failure of our internal controls or
enable us to furnish future unqualified certifications. A material weakness or deficiency in
internal control over financial reporting could materially impact our reported financial results
and the market price of our stock could significantly decline. Additionally, adverse publicity
related to the disclosure of a material weakness or deficiency in internal controls over financial
reporting could have a negative impact on our reputation, business and stock price. Any internal
control or procedure, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable
assurance of achieving desired control objectives.
We may experience significant fluctuations in our stock price, which may, in turn, significantly
affect the trading price of our convertible notes. Our stock has experienced substantial price
volatility, particularly as a result of quarterly variations in our operating results, the
published expectations of analysts, and as a result of announcements by our competitors and us. In
addition, the stock market has experienced price and volume fluctuations that have affected the
market price of many technology companies, in particular, and that have often been unrelated to the
operating performance of such companies. In addition, the price of our securities may also be
affected by general global, economic and market conditions and the cost of operations in one or
more of our product markets. While we cannot predict the individual effect that these factors may
have on the price or our securities, these factors, either individually or in the aggregate, could
result in significant variations in the price of our common stock during any given period of time.
These fluctuations in our stock price also impact the price of our outstanding convertible
securities and the likelihood of the convertible securities being converted into our common stock.
We have significant financial obligations related to our ventures with Toshiba which could
impact our ability to comply with our obligations under the notes. We have entered into agreements
to guarantee, indemnify or provide financial support with respect to lease and certain other
obligations of our ventures with Toshiba in which we have a 49.9% ownership interest. In addition,
we may enter into future agreements to increase manufacturing capacity, including further expansion
of Fab 3 and development of Fab 4. As of July 2, 2006 we had commitments of approximately $2.9
billion to fund our various obligations under the FlashVision and Flash Partners ventures with
Toshiba. As of July 2, 2006, we had indemnification and guarantees obligations for these ventures
of approximately $539 million. Due to these and our other commitments, we may not have sufficient
funds to make payments under or repurchase the notes.
Our debt service obligations may adversely affect our cash flow. While the 1% Notes are
outstanding, we will have debt service obligations on the holders of the 1% Notes of approximately
$11.5 million per year in interest payments. If we issue other debt securities in the future, our
debt service obligations will increase. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash to meet these
obligations and must instead use our existing cash or investments, we may have to reduce, curtail
or terminate other activities of our business. We intend to fulfill our debt service obligations
from cash generated by our operations, if any, and from our existing cash and investments. We may
also in the future enter into other financial instruments that could increase our debt service
obligations.
Our indebtedness could have significant negative consequences to you. For example, it could:
|
|
|
increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions; |
|
|
|
|
limit our ability to obtain additional financing; |
|
|
|
|
require the dedication of a substantial portion of any cash flow from operations to the
payment of principal of, and interest on, our indebtedness, thereby reducing the
availability of such cash flow to fund our growth strategy, working capital, capital
expenditures and other general corporate purposes; |
|
|
|
|
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and our industry; and |
54
|
|
|
place us at a competitive disadvantage relative to our competitors with less debt. |
The 1% Notes rank junior in right of payment to any future secured debt and the
liabilities of our subsidiaries. The notes are our general unsecured obligations and rank
junior in right of payment to any future secured debt to the extent of the value of the assets
securing such debt. The 1% Notes are equal in right of payment with any future unsubordinated,
unsecured debt. As of July 2, 2006, we had $1.15 billion of
debt outstanding, and we expect from
time-to-time to incur additional indebtedness and other liabilities.
In
addition, the 1% Notes are not be guaranteed by any of our existing or future
subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation,
contingent or otherwise, to pay any amounts due with respect to the notes or to make any funds
available therefore, whether by dividends, loans or other payments. As a result, the 1% Notes
effectively rank junior in right of payment to all existing and future debt and other liabilities,
including trade payables, of our subsidiaries. As of July 2, 2006, our subsidiaries had no
outstanding debt, but had total trade and other payables of $110.9 million.
The net share settlement feature of the1% Notes may have adverse consequences. The 1% Notes
are subject to net share settlement, which means that we will satisfy our conversion obligation to
holders by paying cash in settlement of the lesser of the principal amount and the conversion value
of the 1% Notes and by delivering shares of our common stock in settlement of any and all
conversion obligations in excess of the daily conversion values. Accordingly, upon conversion of a
note, holders might not receive any shares of our common stock, or they might receive fewer shares
of common stock relative to the conversion value of the 1% Note. In addition, any settlement of a
conversion of notes into cash and shares of our common stock will be delayed until at least the
24th trading day following our receipt of the holders conversion notice. Accordingly, holders may
receive fewer proceeds than expected because the value of our common stock may decline, or fail to
appreciate as much as holders may expect, between the day that the holders exercise their
conversion right and the day the conversion value of the 1% Notes is determined.
Our failure to convert the 1% Notes into cash or a combination of cash and common stock upon
exercise of a holders conversion right in accordance with the provisions of the indenture would
constitute a default under the indenture. We may not have the financial resources or be able to
arrange for financing to pay such principal amount in connection with the surrender of the 1% Notes
for conversion. While we currently only have debt related to the 1% Notes and we do not have other
agreements
that would restrict our ability to pay the principal amount of the 1% Notes in cash, we may
enter into such an agreement in the future which may limit or prohibit our ability to make any such
payment. In addition, a default under the indenture could lead to a default under existing and
future agreements governing our indebtedness. If, due to a default, the repayment of related
indebtedness were to be accelerated after any applicable notice or grace periods, we may not have
sufficient funds to repay such indebtedness and amounts owing in respect of the conversion of any
1% Notes.
We may be unable to repurchase 1% Notes upon the occurrence of a designated event; a
designated event may adversely affect us or the 1% Notes. Holders of the 1% Notes have the right
to require us to repurchase their 1% Notes upon the occurrence of a designated event. If a
designated event occurs, it cannot be assured that we will have enough funds to repurchase all the
1% Notes. In addition, future debt we incur or other agreements we may enter may limit our ability
to repurchase the 1% Notes upon a designated event. Moreover, holders of our 1% Notes exercise the
repurchase right for a designated event, it may cause a default under our other debt, even if the
designated event itself does not cause a default, because of the potential financial effect on us
that would be caused by such a repurchase.
A fundamental change or change in control transaction involving us could have a negative
effect on us and the trading price of our common stock and could negatively impact the trading
price of the 1% Notes. Furthermore, the designated event provisions, including the provisions
requiring the increase to the conversion rate for conversions in connection with a fundamental
change in some cases, may make more difficult or discourage a takeover of our company and the
removal of incumbent management.
The convertible note hedge transactions and the warrant option transactions may affect the
value of the notes and our common stock. We have entered into convertible note hedge transactions
with Morgan Stanley & Co. International Limited and Goldman, Sachs & Co., or the dealers. These
transactions are expected to reduce the potential dilution upon conversion of the notes. We used
approximately $67.3 million of the net proceeds of funds received from the 1% Notes to pay the net
cost of the convertible note hedge in excess of the warrant transactions. These transactions were
accounted for as an adjustment to our stockholders equity. In connection with hedging these
transactions, the dealers or their affiliates:
55
|
|
|
have entered into various over-the-counter cash-settled derivative transactions with
respect to our common stock, concurrently with, and shortly after, the pricing of the
notes; and |
|
|
|
|
may enter into, or may unwind, various over-the-counter derivatives and/or purchase
or sell our common stock in secondary market transactions following the pricing of the
notes, including during any observation period related to a conversion of notes. |
The dealers or their affiliates are likely to modify their hedge positions from time to time
prior to conversion or maturity of the notes by purchasing and selling shares of our common stock,
other of our securities or other instruments they may wish to use in connection with such hedging.
In particular, such hedging modification may occur during any observation period for a conversion
of the 1% Notes, which may have a negative effect on the value of the consideration received in
relation to the conversion of those notes. In addition, we intend to exercise options we hold under
the convertible note hedge transactions whenever notes are converted. To unwind their hedge
positions with respect to those exercised options, the dealers or their affiliates expect to sell
shares of our common stock in secondary market transactions or unwind various over-the-counter
derivative transactions with respect to our common stock during the observation period, if any, for
the converted notes.
The effect, if any, of any of these transactions and activities on the market price of our
common stock or the 1% Notes will depend in part on market conditions and cannot be ascertained at
this time, but any of these activities could adversely affect the value of our common stock and the
value of the 1% Notes and, as a result, the amount of cash and the number of shares of common
stock, if any, holders will receive upon the conversion of the notes.
There are numerous risks associated with our recent entry into an agreement to acquire
msystems. On July 30, 2006 we announced that we had entered into an agreement to acquire msytems
in a transaction in which the outstanding msystems ordinary shares would be exchanged for shares of
our common stock. There are numerous risks associated with our having entered into this agreement,
including the risks described below.
All conditions to the merger may not be completed and the merger may not be consummated. The
merger is subject to the satisfaction of numerous closing conditions that are beyond either
companys control and may prevent or delay its completion. Neither we nor msystems can predict
whether and when these other conditions will be satisfied. These conditions include the approval
of msystems shareholders and possibly creditors, as well as Israeli court approval. The merger is
also subject to antitrust, competition and other regulatory review in the United States, Israel and
other jurisdictions. Due to these conditions or
other factors, the merger may not be completed. In the event the merger is not completed, we
may be subject to many risks, including the costs related to the proposed merger, such as legal,
accounting and advisory fees, which must be paid even if the merger is not completed. In addition,
if the merger is not completed due to the failure to obtain antitrust regulatory approval, we may
be obligated to make a substantial investment in msystems ordinary shares. If the merger is not
completed, the market price of our common stock could decline. As
noted in the section entitled Legal Proceedings, actions
purporting to be class and derivative actions on behalf of msystems
shareholders have recently been filed in California state court.
SanDisk may be required to expend significant resources to defend
these actions and could be subject to damages or settlement costs
related to same.
Completion of the merger may result in the dilution of our per share operating results. The
completion of the merger may not improve our per share operating results or result in a financial
condition superior to that which we would have achieved on a stand-alone basis. The merger could
fail to produce the benefits that we anticipate, or could have other adverse effects that we
currently do not foresee. In addition, some of the assumptions that we have relied upon, such as
the achievement of operating synergies, may not be realized. In this event, the merger could
result in a reduction of our per-share earnings as compared to the per-share earnings that would
have been achieved by us if the merger had not occurred.
Although we expect that the merger will result in benefits to us, those benefits may not occur
because of integration and other challenges. If the merger is completed, achieving the expected
benefits of the merger will depend on the timely and efficient integration of our and msystems
technology, operations, business culture and personnel. This will be particularly challenging due
to the fact that msystems is located in Israel and we are located in California. The integration
may not be completed as quickly as expected, and if we fail to effectively integrate the companies
or the integration takes longer than expected, we may not achieve the expected benefits of the
merger. The challenges involved in this integration include, among others:
|
|
|
incorporating msystems technology and products into our business and future product lines; |
|
|
|
|
continuing to effectively sell msystems products through msystems OEM distribution channels; |
56
|
|
|
integrating msystems sales force into our worldwide product sales and distribution network; |
|
|
|
|
demonstrating to msystems customers that the merger will not result in adverse changes in
customer service standards or product support; |
|
|
|
|
coordinating research and development activities to enhance introduction of new products and technologies; |
|
|
|
|
integrating msystems internal control over financial reporting with our internal control over financial reporting; |
|
|
|
|
migrating both companies to a common enterprise resource planning information system to
integrate all operations, sales and administrative activities for the combined companies in
a timely and cost effective way; |
|
|
|
|
integrating msystems international operations with ours; |
|
|
|
|
potentially incurring impairment charges to write down the carrying amount of intangible
assets generated as a result of the merger; |
|
|
|
|
potentially having to reevaluate the accounting classification for our FlashVision, Flash
Partners and Flash Alliance ventures with Toshiba in order to consolidate the financial
results of these ventures, which could have an adverse effect on our consolidated financial
position and results of operations; |
|
|
|
|
persuading the employees of both companies that the companies business cultures are compatible; |
|
|
|
|
maintaining employee morale and retaining key employees; and |
|
|
|
|
ensuring there are no delays in releasing new products to market. |
Our integration with msystems will be international in scope, complex, time consuming and
expensive, and may disrupt our respective businesses or result in the loss of customers or key
employees or the diversion of the attention of management. This will be particularly difficult
because certain key members of msystems senior management will not remain with the combined
companies after the merger. Some of msystems suppliers, distributors, customers and licensors are
our competitors or work with our competitors and may reduce or terminate their business
relationships with msystems as a result of the merger. In addition, the integration process may
strain our financial and managerial controls and reporting systems and procedures. This may result
in the
diversion of management and financial resources from our core business objectives. There can
be no assurance that we and msystems will successfully integrate our respective businesses or that
we will realize the anticipated benefits of the merger.
In addition, msystems headquarters and significant operations are located in Israel.
Therefore, political, economic and military conditions in Israel directly affect its business and
operations. We cannot predict the effect of continued or increased violence in Lebanon or Gaza, or
the effect of military action elsewhere in the Middle East. Continued armed conflicts or political
instability in the region would harm business conditions and could adversely affect the combined
companys results of operations. Furthermore, several countries continue to restrict or ban
business with Israel and Israeli companies. These restrictive laws and policies may limit the
combined companys ability to make sales in those countries.
The acquisition may result in a loss of customers. We and msystems operate in a highly
competitive market, and our future performance will be affected by our ability to retain each
companys existing customers. We and msystems currently sell to several of the same large
customers. The combined companys ability to maintain the current level of sales of each company
prior to the merger to these common customers may be limited by the desire of these customers to
minimize their dependence on a single supplier. If, following the merger, common customers seek
alternative suppliers for at least a portion of the products and services currently provided by
both us and msystems, our combined business may be harmed. In addition, msystems has a broad base
of OEM customers and has substantial experience selling to those customers. In order to achieve
the expected benefits of the merger, we must continue to successfully sell, and expand sales
levels, to the OEM market.
Third parties may terminate or alter existing contracts or relationships with msystems or us.
msystems has contracts with some of its suppliers, distributors, customers, licensors and other
business partners. Some of these contracts require msystems to
57
obtain consent from these parties
in connection with the merger. If these consents cannot be obtained, msystems may suffer a loss of
potential future revenue and may lose rights that are material to msystems business and the
business of the combined companies. In addition, third parties with whom msystems or we currently
have relationships may terminate or otherwise reduce the scope of their relationship with msystems
or us in anticipation of the merger. In order to achieve the expected benefits of the merger, the
combined company may renegotiate contracts with some of its suppliers and other third parties, and
there is no assurance that such negotiations will be successful.
General uncertainty related to the merger could harm the combined company. Our or msystems
existing customers may, in response to the announcement of the proposed merger, delay or defer
purchasing decisions. If either companys customers delay or defer purchasing decisions, the
revenues of the combined company following the merger could be lower than expected. Similarly, our
and msystems employees may experience or perceive uncertainty about their future roles with the
combined company following the merger. This may harm our and msystems ability to attract and
retain key management, marketing, sales and technical personnel. Also, speculation regarding the
likelihood of the completion of the merger could increase the volatility of our and msystems share
prices prior to the closing.
A prolonged delay in completing the planned merger may create uncertainty among our customers,
suppliers or partners, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. In
addition, a prolonged delay could affect our operational planning, budgeting, capital expenditures
and hiring decisions, which could harm our business and results of operations.
There are risks related to msystems prior option grant practices. As a result of an
investigation by a special committee of its board of directors into its option grant practices, on
July 17, 2006, msystems filed a Form 20-F with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC,
in which it restated its financial statements for each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 1999
through 2005 and, in a separate report on Form 6-K, restated its financial statements for each of
the four quarters of fiscal 2005 and the first quarter of fiscal 2006. In addition, msystems has
disclosed that the SEC is conducting an informal investigation into msystems option grant
practices and the restatement of its financials. If this investigation is not resolved before the
closing of the merger, the combined companys independent registered public accountants may be
unable to complete their accounting review of our unaudited quarterly financial statements or the
pro forma financial statements of the combined companies, which may delay our filing of required
reports with the SEC. Any such delay could cause material harm to our business and operations
including, among other things, the initiation of delisting proceedings by the NASDAQ Global Market;
the termination of our timely filer status with the SEC, which would make it more difficult for us
to raise capital through a public offering of our securities; the potential suspension of our SEC
registration statements; a decrease in our stock price; negative financial analyst coverage and
media exposure; lawsuits by our stockholders and other third parties; and potential breaches of
various agreements to which we are a party.
Under the merger agreement, the combined company after the closing of the transaction will be
responsible for liabilities associated with msystems prior stock option grant practices, including
indemnification of directors and certain members of
management of msystems. These liabilities could be substantial and may include, among other
things, the costs of defending lawsuits against msystems and its directors, officers, employees and
former employees by stockholders and other third parties; the cost of defending any shareholder
derivative suits; the cost of governmental, law enforcement or regulatory investigations; civil or
criminal fines and penalties; expenses associated with further financial restatements; auditor,
legal and other expenses; and expenses associated with the remedial measures to be effected by
msystems.
58
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
None.
Item 3. Defaults upon Senior Securities
None.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
At our Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on May 25, 2006, the following individuals were
elected to the Board of Directors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Votes For |
|
Votes Withheld |
Irwin Federman |
|
|
164,084,462 |
|
|
|
2,557,323 |
|
Dr. Eli Harari |
|
|
164,037,397 |
|
|
|
2,604,388 |
|
Steven J. Gomo |
|
|
165,539,770 |
|
|
|
1,102,015 |
|
Eddy W. Hartenstein |
|
|
165,535,073 |
|
|
|
1,106,712 |
|
Catherine P. Lego |
|
|
165,552,475 |
|
|
|
1,089,310 |
|
Michael E. Marks |
|
|
162,432,540 |
|
|
|
4,209,245 |
|
Dr. James D. Meindl |
|
|
161,752,610 |
|
|
|
4,889,175 |
|
The following proposals were also approved at our Annual Meeting:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
Shares |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
Voted For |
|
Voted Against |
|
Abstaining |
|
Not Voted |
Approve
amendments to the
SanDisk Corporation
2005 Incentive Plan. |
|
|
79,360,033 |
|
|
|
53,393,198 |
|
|
|
260,715 |
|
|
|
34,441,551 |
|
Approve an
amendment to the
SanDisk
Corporations
Certificate of
Incorporation,
increasing the
authorized Common
Stock from
400,000,000 shares
to 800,000,000
shares |
|
|
144,047,864 |
|
|
|
22,456,040 |
|
|
|
137,881 |
|
|
|
813,712 |
|
Ratify the
appointment of
Ernst & Young LLP
as the Companys
independent
registered public
accounting firm for
the fiscal year
ending December 31,
2006 |
|
|
164,555,483 |
|
|
|
1,991,648 |
|
|
|
94,654 |
|
|
|
813,712 |
|
Item 5.Other Information
None.
59
Item 6. Exhibits
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit Title |
2.1
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 20, 2005, by and among SanDisk Corporation, Mike
Acquisition Company LLC, Matrix Semiconductor, Inc. and Bruce Dunlevie as the stockholder
representative for the stockholders of Matrix Semiconductor, Inc.(1) |
|
3.1
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant.(2) |
|
3.2
|
|
Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant dated
December 9, 1999.(3) |
|
3.3
|
|
Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant dated May
11, 2000.(4) |
|
3.4
|
|
Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Registrant dated May 26, 2006.(5) |
|
3.5
|
|
Restated Bylaws of the Registrant, as amended to date.(6) |
|
3.6
|
|
Certificate of Designations for the Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, as filed with
the Delaware Secretary of State on July 24, 1997.(7) |
|
3.7
|
|
Amendment to Certificate of Designations for the Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, as
filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on September 24, 2003.(8) |
|
4.1
|
|
Reference is made to Exhibits 3.1,
3.2 and 3.3.(2), (3), (4) |
|
4.2
|
|
Rights Agreement, dated as of September 15, 2003, between the Registrant and Computershare Trust
Company, Inc.(8) |
|
10.1
|
|
Guarantee Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2006, by and between the Registrant, IBJ Leasing Co.,
Ltd., Sumisho Lease Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Finance Corporation.(*) |
|
10.2
|
|
Basic Lease Contract, dated as of June 20, 2006, by and between Flash Partners Yuken Kaisha,
IBJ Leasing Co., Ltd., Sumisho Lease Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Finance Corporation.(*), (+) |
|
10.3
|
|
Sublease (Building 3), dated
as of December 21, 2005 by and between Maxtor Corporation and the
Registrant. (*) |
|
10.4
|
|
Sublease (Building 4), dated
as of December 21, 2005 by and between Maxtor Corporation and the
Registrant. (*) |
|
10.5
|
|
Sublease (Building 6), dated
as of December 21, 2005 by and between Maxtor Corporation and the
Registrant. (*) |
|
10.6
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Indemnification
and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of May 29, 2006, by and between
the Registrant and Toshiba Corporation. (*) |
|
10.7
|
|
Amended and Restated SanDisk Corporation 2005 Incentive
Plan.(*) |
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
32.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
32.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
*Filed herewith. |
|
+ Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain portions hereof. |
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on January 20, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-1
(No. 33-96298). |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2000. |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-3
(No. 333-85686). |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on June 1, 2006. |
|
(6) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on April 10, 2006. |
|
(7) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants
Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on May 16,
1997. |
|
(8) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Registration Statement on Form 8-A
dated September 25, 2003. |
60
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly
caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDISK CORPORATION
(Registrant)
|
|
Dated: August 10, 2006 |
By: |
/s/ JUDY BRUNER
|
|
|
|
Judy Bruner |
|
|
|
Executive Vice President, Administration and
Chief Financial Officer
(On behalf of the Registrant and as Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|
|
61
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit Title |
2.1 |
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 20, 2005, by and among SanDisk Corporation, Mike |
|
|
Acquisition Company LLC, Matrix Semiconductor, Inc. and Bruce Dunlevie as the stockholder |
|
|
representative for the stockholders of Matrix Semiconductor, Inc.(1) |
|
3.1 |
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant.(2) |
|
3.2 |
|
Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant dated |
|
|
|
December 9, 1999.(3) |
|
3.3 |
|
Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant dated May |
|
|
11, 2000.(4) |
|
3.4 |
|
Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the |
|
|
Registrant dated May 26, 2006.(5) |
|
3.5 |
|
Restated Bylaws of the Registrant, as amended to date.(6) |
|
3.6 |
|
Certificate of Designations for the Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, as filed with |
|
|
the Delaware Secretary of State on July 24, 1997.(7) |
|
3.7 |
|
Amendment to Certificate of Designations for the Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, as |
|
|
filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on September 24, 2003.(8) |
|
4.1 |
|
Reference is made to Exhibits 3.1,
3.2 and 3.3.(2), (3), (4) |
|
4.2 |
|
Rights Agreement, dated as of September 15, 2003, between the Registrant and Computershare Trust |
|
|
Company, Inc.(8) |
|
10.1 |
|
Guarantee Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2006, by and between the Registrant, IBJ Leasing Co., |
|
|
Ltd., Sumisho Lease Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Finance Corporation.(*) |
|
10.2 |
|
Basic Lease Contract, dated as of June 20, 2006, by and between Flash Partners Yuken Kaisha, |
|
|
IBJ Leasing Co., Ltd., Sumisho Lease Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Finance Corporation.(*), (+) |
|
|
10.3
|
|
Sublease (Building 3), dated
as of December 21, 2005 by and between Maxtor Corporation and the Registrant.(*) |
|
10.4
|
|
Sublease (Building 4), dated
as of December 21, 2005 by and between Maxtor Corporation and the Registrant.(*) |
|
10.5
|
|
Sublease (Building 6), dated
as of December 21, 2005 by and between Maxtor Corporation and the Registrant.(*) |
|
10.6
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Indemnification
and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of May 29, 2006, by and between
the Registrant and Toshiba Corporation.(*) |
|
10.7
|
|
Amended and Restated SanDisk Corporation 2005 Incentive
Plan.(*) |
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
32.1 |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant |
|
|
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
32.2 |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant |
|
|
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
*Filed herewith. |
|
+ Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain portions hereof. |
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on January 20, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-1
(No. 33-96298). |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2000. |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-3
(No. 333-85686). |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on June 1, 2006. |
|
(6) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on April 10, 2006. |
|
(7) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on May 16, 1997. |
|
(8) |
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to the Registrants Registration Statement on Form 8-A
dated September 25, 2003. |
62