10-K: Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)
Published on November 1, 2007
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-K
(Mark
One)
x
|
ANNUAL
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF
1934
|
For
the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2006
or
¨
|
TRANSITION
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF
1934
|
For
the
transition period from ___ to ___
Commission
File Number 0-22175
EMCORE
Corporation
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
New
Jersey
|
22-2746503
|
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
organization)
|
(I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
|
|
10420
Research Road, SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico
|
87123
|
|
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrant’s
telephone number,
including area code: (505)
332-5000
Former
address, if changed since last report: 145
Belmont Drive, Somerset,
NJ 08873
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
Title
of each class:
|
Common
Stock, No Par Value
|
Name
of each exchange on which registered:
|
NASDAQ
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
|
None
|
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined
in
Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ¨Yes xNo
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. ¨Yes xNo
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 xNo
Indicate
by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to
this
Form 10-K. ¨
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. (Check
one):
o
Large accelerated
filer
|
x Accelerated
filer
|
o
Non-accelerated filer
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Act).¨Yes xNo
The
aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant
as of March 30, 2007 (the last business day of the registrant's most recently
completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $203.8 million, based on
the
closing sale price of $5.00 per share of common stock as reported on the NASDAQ
Global Market.
The
number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s no par value common stock as of
October 19, 2007 was 51,218,629.
EMCORE
Corporation
FORM
10-K
For
The Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2006
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
PAGE
|
||||||
3
|
||||||
Part
I
|
||||||
|
||||||
Item
1.
|
10
|
|||||
Item
1A.
|
23
|
|||||
Item
1B.
|
38
|
|||||
Item
2.
|
39
|
|||||
Item
3.
|
39
|
|||||
Item
4.
|
42
|
|||||
Part
II
|
||||||
Item
5.
|
43
|
|||||
Item
6.
|
43
|
|||||
Item
7.
|
49
|
|||||
Item
7A.
|
76
|
|||||
Item
8.
|
77
|
|||||
for
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 (as restated), and
2004
(as restated)
|
77
|
|||||
as
of September 30, 2006 and 2005 (as restated)
|
78
|
|||||
for
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 (as restated), and
2004
(as restated)
|
78
|
|||||
for
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 (as restated), and
2004
(as restated)
|
80
|
|||||
82
|
||||||
129
|
||||||
|
||||||
Item
9.
|
130
|
|||||
Item
9A.
|
130
|
|||||
Item
9B.
|
134
|
|||||
Part
III
|
||||||
Item
10.
|
134
|
|||||
Item
11.
|
136
|
|||||
Item
12.
|
144
|
|||||
Item
13.
|
145
|
|||||
Item
14.
|
146
|
|||||
|
||||||
Part
IV
|
||||||
Item
15.
|
148
|
|||||
150
|
EXPLANATORY
NOTE
In
this
Annual Report on Form 10-K, EMCORE Corporation (the “Company”, “we”, or
“EMCORE”) restated its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2005, the
Consolidated Statements of Operations, Shareholders’ Equity and Cash Flows for
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, and the related notes
thereto as previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“SEC”). This Annual Report also reflects the restatement of the
related quarterly financial data for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006
and 2005 and selected financial data as of and for the fiscal years ended
September 30, 2004, 2003, and 2002 as disclosed in Item 6 – Selected
Financial Data and Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations.
Background
In
May
2006, EMCORE’s senior management voluntarily began an inquiry into the Company’s
historical stock option granting practices. The inquiry was not in
response to any governmental investigation, shareholder lawsuit, whistleblower
complaint, or inquiries from media organizations. Based on an initial
review, senior management approached the Board of Directors and requested that
it form a Special Committee to examine EMCORE’s historical stock option granting
practices. The Board of Directors, pursuant to senior management’s
recommendation, appointed a Special Committee of three independent EMCORE
directors to investigate the Company’s historical stock option granting
practices.
Based
on
this independent investigation, senior management, in consultation with the
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, concluded that it was likely that
the
appropriate measurement dates for certain stock option grants, under the
appropriate accounting treatment for stock options, differed from the recorded
grant dates for such awards. Accordingly, on November 6, 2006, as
initially disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K, senior management and
the
Audit Committee determined that the Company’s financial statements included in
its annual and interim reports and any related reports of its independent
registered public accounting firm, earnings press releases, and similar
communications previously issued by the Company for the periods beginning with
fiscal year 2000 should no longer be relied upon.
This
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006, reflects
a
restatement for additional stock-based compensation expense, under the
appropriate accounting treatment for stock options for all periods
presented. We have not amended and we do not intend to amend any of
our other previously filed annual reports on Form 10-K or quarterly reports
on
Form 10-Q in connection with this matter.
Scope
of Stock Option Grant Review
The
Special Committee, together with independent counsel and outside accounting
experts, reviewed stock option grants from the time of EMCORE’s initial public
offering in March 1997 through September 30, 2006. The Special Committee’s
advisors also reviewed more than 250,000 e-mail messages, Board and Compensation
Committee minutes, and other documents, files, and data. Additionally, these
advisors interviewed present and former officers and employees of the Company
who were involved in the stock option granting process.
Special
Committee Findings
As
originally disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 15, 2006,
the Special Committee’s investigation and report included the following key
findings and conclusions:
|
·
|
The
investigation was initiated as a result of senior management’s
recommendation to the Board in a manner consistent with senior
management’s past conduct in instances where it has learned of issues
concerning accounting, legal, or regulatory
compliance.
|
|
·
|
The
Company, through its senior management, cooperated fully with the
investigation, providing all requested documents and making senior
management and the Company’s current and former employees available for
interviews, all in a conscientious and timely
fashion.
|
|
·
|
There
was no evidence that senior management in any way tampered with or
fabricated documents or took other actions consistent with intent
to
defraud.
|
|
·
|
Senior
management did not receive any option grants between October 3, 2001
and
May 18, 2004, a period that marked the absolute historic low point
of the
Company’s common stock market value. During this period,
EMCORE stock routinely traded at or below $2 per share and reached
a low
point of $1 per share. In addition, EMCORE implemented a stock option
exchange plan, accounted for under the provisions of FAS
Interpretation No. (“FIN”) 44, Accounting for Certain transactions
involving Stock Compensation, whereby the Company offered to exchange
all options with a strike price greater than $4. Senior management
voluntarily elected not to participate in the repricing and retained
their
underwater options, while the options belonging to those participating
in
the exchange plan were repriced to
$1.82.
|
|
·
|
Senior
management exercised only a small portion of the stock options granted
since the Company’s Initial Public
Offering.
|
|
·
|
Prior
to the completion of the Special Committee’s review, Mr. Richards, Chief
Executive Officer, Mr. Werthan, former Chief Financial Officer, and
Mr.
Brodie, former Chief Legal Officer, informed the Company that they
did not
wish to retain any benefits from erroneously priced stock
options. The Chief Executive Officer and the former Chief Legal
Officer voluntarily tendered payments of $166,625 and $97,000,
respectively, representing the entire benefit received from the misdated
stock options exercised and sold by them. The former Chief
Financial Officer had not exercised or sold any of the misdated stock
options. The former Chief Financial Officer and the former
Chief Legal Officer further voluntarily surrendered all rights to
any
unexercised grants that had been identified as
misdated.
|
|
·
|
The
investigation found no evidence that the Board generally did not
properly
exercise oversight duties with respect to the Company’s stock option
plans.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee stated that it was unable to conclude that the
Company
or anyone involved in the stock option granting process at the Company
engaged in willful misconduct. Rather, the granting process was often
characterized by carelessness and inattention to applicable accounting
and
disclosure rules, and the Company failed to maintain adequate controls
concerning the issuance of stock
options.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee found that there were occasions when administrative
changes were made to the grant lists after the grant date and exercise
price were set.
|
|
·
|
Senior
management did not seek to profit from the issuance of the stock
option
grants at the expense of the Company or its
shareholders.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee found, with respect to retention grants awarded
in 2000
and 2004, that even after lists had been announced as “final” and a grant
date set, later adjustments to the lists sometimes included changes
both
in the number of options granted to individuals and in the aggregate
number of options granted. No changes to the retention
grant lists benefited any member of senior
management.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee further concluded that, as a result of, among other
things, such inadequate controls and practices, there were certain
instances where the exercise prices of certain stock option grants,
principally related to new hire grants, appear to have been selected
with
the benefit of hindsight -- i.e., selected to reflect the stock
price at a date, prior to the actual date of grant, when the Company’s
stock price was lower.
|
The
Special Committee ultimately concluded that no member of EMCORE’s management
involved in the granting of, or accounting for, the Company’s stock option
awards willfully misdated options with the intent to circumvent the Company’s
accounting policies, controls and disclosure requirements. Moreover, the Special
Committee found that prior to May 2006 no member of the Company’s management
involved in the granting of, or accounting for, stock options had sufficient
knowledge of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for
Stock Issued to Employees” (“APB 25”) at the time to understand the accounting
consequences arising out of the Company’s stock option granting
practices.
The
Special Committee also recommended that the Company adopt certain policies,
procedures and practices to govern the Company’s option granting practices in
the future. On November 13, 2006, the Company revised its stock
option granting policy to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee
and imposed a higher degree of control over the Company’s option granting
process.
Stock
Option Plans
EMCORE
maintains two
incentive stock option plans: the 1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option
Plan (the “1995 Plan”) and the 2000 Stock Option Plan (the “2000 Plan” and
together with the 1995 Plan, the “Option Plans”). Most of the
Company’s stock options vest and become exercisable over four to five years and
have ten-year terms. Certain stock options under the Option Plans are
intended to qualify as incentive stock options pursuant to Section 422A of
the
Internal Revenue Code. Both the 1995 Plan and the 2000 Plan
provided that no incentive stock option may be issued at less than 100% of
fair
market value at the time that the option is granted. The 2000 Plan
also stated that the Compensation Committee of the Board or the Board itself
was
empowered to delegate all or any part of its responsibilities and powers to
any
person or persons selected by it, including, among other powers:
|
·
|
selecting
to whom options shall be granted;
|
|
·
|
determining
the number of shares of stock; and,
|
|
·
|
setting
the stock option exercise price.
|
Prior
to
October 1, 2005, the Company accounted for share-based compensation expense
for
options granted under the Option Plans using the recognition and measurement
provisions of APB 25. APB 25 defined the measurement date as the
first date on which both the number of shares an individual employee was
entitled to receive and the option or purchase price, if any, were
known. On October 1, 2005, the Company adopted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment (revised
2004) which requires all share-based payments to employees to be recognized
in the Statement of Operations based on their fair values.
Delegation
of Authority
Since
1997, the authority to issue stock option grants to non-executive new hires
has
resided with senior management. The Board of Directors formally gave
this authority to them in that year. For all other stock option
grants to non-executives, such as retention and
promotion grants, the authority to make grants varied as follows:
·
|
For
stock option grants issued under the 1995 Plan, which was in effect
from
1997 through 1999, approval was required by either the Board of
Directors
or the Compensation Committee in order to establish a measurement
date
under APB 25.
|
·
|
For
stock option grants issued from the date of adoption of the 2000
Plan on
November 8, 1999 through September 30, 2005, the Board had implicitly
delegated the authority to the Chief Executive Officer to determine
the
recipients and terms of awards and grant
them.
|
·
|
For
stock option grants issued on or after October 1, 2005, the Board
formally
delegated the authority to the Chief Executive Officer to determine
the
recipients and terms of awards and grant
them.
|
All
grants were subsequently ratified by the Board as approved by the Chief
Executive Officer.
Summary
of Restatement Adjustments
The
Company, with consideration given to the results of the Special Committee’s
independent investigation, reviewed approximately 5,640 individual grants,
representing more than 19 million stock options, from the period when the
Company became public in March 1997 through September 30,
2006. The principal component of the restatement was a revision
to measurement dates of certain stock option grants. Based upon their
review, the Company found, among other things, the following:
|
o
|
The
cumulative effect of misdated options totaled approximately $24.5
million.
|
|
o
|
A
majority of the restatement related to periods prior to fiscal year
2004. The restatement impact on the Statement of Operations in
fiscal years 2006 and 2005 totaled approximately $0.7 million and
$0.4
million, respectively.
|
|
o
|
Two
misdated retention grants, dated prior to fiscal year 2003, represented
approximately $20.2 million, or 82% of the total stock option
restatement. These stock option grants were issued during a
period with high stock price
volatility.
|
Consistent
with the direction provided to the public by the Office of the Chief Accountant
of the SEC in a letter dated September 19, 2006 (the “OCA Letter”), the Company
reviewed all available relevant information, including historical approval
patterns where evidence was available, and formed what the Company believes
is a
reasonable conclusion as to the most likely option granting actions that
occurred and the dates which such actions occurred in determining the
appropriate accounting.
There
was
no stock-based compensation expense for options as previously reported under
APB 25 for fiscal years 1997 through 2005. The following table
presents the effects of the revision of measurement dates on stock-based
compensation expense for options included in the determination of net income
(loss), for fiscal year 1997 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2006,
in
accordance with the provisions of APB 25 and SFAS 123(R).
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Year
|
Net
Additional Stock-Based Compensation Expense
|
|||
Fiscal
1997
|
$ |
58
|
||
Fiscal
1998
|
2
|
|||
Fiscal
1999
|
568
|
|||
Fiscal
2000
|
11,012
|
|||
Fiscal
2001
|
611
|
|||
Fiscal
2002
|
5,638
|
|||
Fiscal
2003
|
5,013
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 1997-2003
|
22,902
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 2004
|
528
|
|||
First
Quarter 2005
|
136
|
|||
Second
Quarter 2005
|
44
|
|||
Third
Quarter 2005
|
45
|
|||
Fourth
Quarter 2005
|
153
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 2005
|
378
|
|||
First
Quarter 2006
|
332
|
|||
Second
Quarter 2006
|
73
|
|||
Third
Quarter 2006
|
294
|
|||
Fourth
Quarter 2006
|
-
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 2006
|
699
|
|||
Total
Impact
|
$ |
24,507
|
Review
of Option Grants
The
Company’s stock option grants were organized into categories based on grant
type. The Company analyzed the evidence related to each category of grants
including, but not limited to, electronic and physical documents. Based on
the
relevant facts and circumstances, the Company applied the applicable accounting
standards to determine, for every grant within each category, the most
appropriate measurement date. The principal grant categories were as
follows:
|
(1)
|
Retention
Grants
|
EMCORE
has a practice of granting stock options to employees for the purpose of
retaining and motivating key employees. Generally, the process for retention
grants involved the Board of Directors approving a pool of options to be
distributed to key employees. The Board of Directors then delegated to senior
management the authority to determine the terms and recipients and issue
the
awards under the Option Plans to non-executive
employees. Senior management, after receiving information from
the Board as to the pool of awards available, would then, in conjunction
with
others in the Company, compile the grant distribution list, select the exercise
price and issue the awards. The option grants were priced reflecting the
closing
price of EMCORE common stock on the previously stated grant date, which may
not
have been the date the terms were finalized. If executive management were
to
receive a grant as part of the overall retention grant, the Board of Directors
or the Compensation Committee would approve the amount and allocation to
these
individuals in advance and would provide that such grants were to be priced
at
the same time the stock options for the key employees were
completed. The Board of Directors adopted stock option distribution
guidelines in 2005 to be followed by senior management in their allocation
process to non-executive employees. The purpose of these guidelines was to
govern the distribution of stock option grants to employees at different
grade
levels to ensure consistency and reduce disparities across
divisions.
In
the
course of its review, management reviewed all retention grants issued by
the
Company, which represented approximately nine million stock options. Measurement
dates were selected based upon evidence of the most appropriate date that
a
final listing of employees and grant terms, including exercise price, had
been
determined and approved by management with the appropriate level of authority.
In those instances where the market price of the Company’s stock on the most
appropriate measurement date was higher than the option exercise price, the
Company recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded
no
financial statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market
value
on the revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted
under
generally accepted accounting principles. We noted instances, where subsequent
to the revised measurement date being established, the number of options
granted
to certain employees changed. In these instances, we treated such revisions
as a
modification and applied variable plan accounting to those awards subsequent
to
modification under the provisions of APB 25 and related interpretations.
No
changes were made to grants to senior management subsequent to the revised
measurement date. The total adjustment related to retention grants totaled
approximately $22.0 million, or approximately 90% of the total
adjustment.
|
(2)
|
New
Hire Grants
|
EMCORE
has a practice of granting stock options to eligible new employees on their
start date. The Board of Directors had delegated to senior management the
authority to make new hire grants under the Option Plans to non-executive
employees. The number of stock options awarded was generally based on stock
option distribution guidelines approved by the Board of Directors. The number
of
stock options granted were included in the employee's offer letter and the
grant
date and exercise price were determined on the employee's first day of
employment and the closing price of the Company's common stock on that
day.
Management
reviewed
each new hire grant that the Company made since EMCORE became a public
company. During this review, management determined that, absent evidence
that senior management or the Board of Directors granted options after an
employee’s hire date or the terms were not finalized as of the hire date, the
hire date was determined to be the most appropriate measurement date for
new
hire grants. In instances where the market price of the Company’ stock on the
most appropriate measurement date was higher than the option exercise price,
the
Company recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded
no
financial statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market
value
on the revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted
under
generally accepted accounting principles. All new hire grants with incorrect
measurement dates were granted prior to October 1, 2005. The total adjustment
related to new hire grants totaled approximately $1.9 million, or approximately
8% of the total adjustment.
|
(3)
|
Other
Equity Awards
|
Management
reviewed other stock option grants, which included promotion, non-qualified,
and
acquisition related option grants, as well as, stock awards granted as part
of
the Company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Measurement dates were selected
based upon evidence that a final listing of employees and grant terms, including
exercise price, had been determined and approved by management with the
appropriate level of authority. Evidence of a most appropriate measurement
date
was based upon Company e-mails or other correspondence that provided evidence
that the terms of the awards had been finalized and approved. In those instances
where the market price of the Company’s stock on the most appropriate
measurement date was higher than the option exercise price, the Company
recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded no financial
statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market value on
the
revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted under
generally accepted accounting principles. The total adjustment related to
other
equity awards totaled approximately $0.6 million, or approximately
2%.
Sensitivity
Analysis
Based
on
the available facts and circumstances surrounding our stock option granting
practices, we adopted a methodology for determining the most likely measurement
dates. We believe the application of this methodology, based on all relevant
information available, indicated the most likely date when the number of
options
granted to each employee was approved and the exercise price and the numbers
of
shares were known with finality. However, we acknowledge that measurement
date
conclusions are dependent on the facts and circumstances of each stock option
grant and that some grants involved the application of significant judgment.
Because certain measurement dates could not be determined with certainty
and
involved subjectivity, we performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the
impact of using alternative measurement dates for certain grants.
In
our
sensitivity analysis, we looked at a range of possible alternative measurement
dates. This range, depending on the facts and circumstances of the specific
grant, began with either (i) the original grant date, or (ii) the date on
which
grant lists were completed and presented for approval; and ended with either
(i)
the date on which a completed list was presented to the Equity Edge
administrator or was communicated to the recipients, or (ii) the date it
was
entered into Equity Edge, our stock option administration software. Within
this
range of dates, we computed compensation expense for each grant using the
low,
average, and high stock market prices of the Company’s common stock during the
period and compared the resulting amount to the compensation recorded using
the
most likely date. The use of the low stock market price would have resulted
in a
$2.6 million decrease in stock-based compensation expense. The use of the
average and high stock market prices would have resulted in an increase of
$6.6
million and $14.5 million, respectively, in stock-based compensation
expense.
We
believe our methodology, based on the best evidence available, results in
the
most likely measurement date for our stock option grants.
Tax
Impact
The
Company reviewed the implications of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code
which prohibits tax deductions for non-performance based compensation paid
to
the chief executive officer and the four highest compensated officers in excess
of one million dollars in a taxable year and concluded that no adjustments
to
our previously filed financials statements are required.
Remediation
Activities
The
Board
of Directors of the Company adopted a revised Incentive Stock Option Grant
Policy on November 13, 2006, that provided that:
|
·
|
Non-administrative
grant responsibilities other than with respect to new-hire options
are to
be set by the Compensation
Committee.
|
|
·
|
All
new-hire options be issued the later of an employee’s first day of
employment, or where applicable, the date the Compensation Committee
approved the terms of the new-hire grant and have an exercise price
of not
less than 100% of the fair market value of the Company’s stock on that
date. The Board will conduct a review of all new-hire grants to
ensure compliance with the Company’s policies and
procedures.
|
|
·
|
The
grant date for all options awarded to employees other than new-hire
options is the date on which the Compensation Committee meets and
approves
the grants.
|
|
·
|
The
exercise price of options other than new hire-options should be set
at the
closing price of the common stock of the Company on the date on which
the
Compensation Committee approves the
grants.
|
|
·
|
The
Company should, with respect to annual retention grants to employees,
maintain the practice of awarding retention grants to senior management
on
the same date and with the same exercise price as retention grants
awarded
to non-senior management employees.
|
|
·
|
No
additions or modifications to option grants should be permitted after
the
Compensation Committee has approved the option
grants.
|
|
·
|
All
grants are to be communicated to employees as soon as reasonably
practicable after the grant date.
|
Under
the
terms of option agreements issued under the 2000 Plan, terminated employees
who
have vested and exercisable stock options have 90 days after the date of
termination to exercise the options. In November 2006, the Company announced
suspension of reliance on previously issued financial statements which in turn
caused the Form S-8 registration statements for shares of common stock issuable
under the option plans not to be available. Therefore, terminated employees
were
precluded from exercising their options during the remaining contractual
term. This November 2006 modification did not have any accounting
impact as there was no incremental compensation in accordance with SFAS
123(R).
To
address this issue with affected former employees under the 2000 Plan, EMCORE’s
Board of Directors agreed in April 2007 to approve an option grant
“modification” for these individuals by extending the normal 90-day exercise
period after termination date to a date after which EMCORE becomes compliant
with its SEC filings and the registration of the option shares is once again
effective. The Company is preparing a plan of communication with its
terminated employees relating to the tolling arrangement which is expected
to be
finalized as soon as reasonably practicable. We will account for the
April 2007 modification of stock options as additional compensation expense
in
accordance with SFAS 123(R).
Additional
Information
See
Item 1A – Risk Factors, for a discussion of certain risk factors related to
our historical stock option grant review.
See
Item
7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations, for a discussion of our critical accounting policy regarding
stock-based compensation.
See
Item
8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, specifically Note 20,
Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, for the financial impact of the revised measurement dates
on stock-based compensation expense, on a year-by-year basis.
See
Item 9A – Controls and Procedures, which describes management’s conclusion,
in light of the findings of the Special Committee and the restatement reflected
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, that the Company had two material weaknesses
in internal control over financial reporting related to (i) stock option plan
administration and accounting for and disclosure of stock option grants as
of
September 30, 2006 and (ii) the process for the identification and
implementation of the proper accounting for certain
transactions. Such material weaknesses resulted in material errors
and the restatement of previously issued financial statements. As a
result, management has concluded that the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting and its disclosure controls and procedures were not
effective as of September 30, 2006.
PART
I
ITEM
1. Business
Company
Overview
EMCORE
is
a leading provider of compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems
for
the broadband, fiber optic, satellite and terrestrial solar power
markets. We have two operating segments: Fiber Optics and
Photovoltaics. EMCORE's Fiber Optics segment offers optical
components, subsystems and systems that enable the transmission of video, voice
and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables for high-speed data and
telecommunications, cable television (CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP)
networks. EMCORE's Photovoltaics segment provides solar products for
satellite and terrestrial applications. For satellite applications, EMCORE
offers high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based gallium arsenide (GaAs)
solar cells, covered interconnect cells (CICs) and fully integrated solar
panels. For terrestrial applications, EMCORE offers its
high-efficiency GaAs solar cells for use in solar power concentrator
systems. For specific information about our company, our products or
the markets we serve, please visit our website at
http://www.emcore.com. We were established in 1984 as a New Jersey
corporation.
EMCORE
is
subject to the information requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
We file periodic reports, current reports, proxy statements and other
information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website
(http://www.sec.gov) that contains all of our information that has been filed
electronically. Certain SEC filings are available on our website, free of
charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically
filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The information on EMCORE’s
website is not incorporated by reference into and is not made a part of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K or a part of any other report or filing with the
SEC.
As
discussed in the Explanatory Note, this Annual Report on Form 10-K includes
restatements of the following previously filed financial statements, data and
related disclosures:
|
·
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of September 30,
2005;
|
|
·
|
Consolidated
Statements of Operations, Shareholders’ Equity and Cash Flows for the
fiscal years ended September 30, 2005 and
2004;
|
|
·
|
Consolidated
selected financial data as of and for our fiscal years ended September
30,
2004, 2003, and 2002; and
|
|
·
|
Unaudited
quarterly consolidated selected financial data for all quarters in
our
fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 and the first three quarters
in our
fiscal year ended September 30,
2006.
|
We
have
not amended, and we do not intend to amend, any of our other previously filed
annual reports on Form 10-K or quarterly reports on Form
10-Q. This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
September 30, 2006 reflects a restatement for additional stock-based
compensation expense, under the appropriate accounting treatment for stock
options, for all periods presented.
Industry
Overview
Compound
semiconductor-based products provide the foundation of components, subsystems
and systems used in a broad range of technology markets, including broadband,
datacom, telecom and satellite communication equipment and networks, advanced
computing technologies and satellite and terrestrial solar power generation
systems. Compound semiconductor materials are capable of providing
electrical or electro-optical functions, such as emitting optical communications
signals, detecting optical communications signals, and converting sunlight
into
electricity.
Our
Markets
Collectively,
our products serve the telecommunications, cable television, defense and
homeland security, and satellite and terrestrial solar power
markets. The following illustration shows how our products are
deployed throughout the world’s communication infrastructure and power
generation markets.
Fiber
Optics
Our
products enable information that is encoded on light signals to be transmitted,
routed (switched) and received in communication systems and
networks. Our Fiber Optics segment primarily targets the following
markets:
|
·
|
Cable
Television (CATV) Networks. We are a market leader in
providing radio frequency (RF) over fiber products for the CATV
industry. Our products are used in hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC)
networks that enable cable service operators to offer multiple advanced
services to meet the expanding demand for high-speed Internet, on-demand
and interactive video and other advanced services, such as high-definition
television (HDTV) and voice over IP (VoIP). Our CATV products
include forward and return-path analog and digital lasers, photodetectors
and subassembly components, broadcast analog and digital fiber-optic
transmitters and quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) transmitters
and
receivers. Our products provide our customers with increased
capacity to offer more cable services; increased data transmission
distance, speed and bandwidth; lower noise video receive; and lower
power
consumption.
|
|
·
|
Fiber-To-The-Premises
(FTTP) Networks. Telecommunications companies are
increasingly extending their optical infrastructure to the customer’s
location in order to deliver higher bandwidth services. We have developed
and maintained customer qualified FTTP components and subsystem products
to support plans by telephone companies to offer voice, video and
data
services through the deployment of new fiber-based access
networks. Our FTTP products include passive optical network
(PON) transceivers, analog fiber optic transmitters for video overlay
and
high-power erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFA), analog and digital
lasers, photodetectors and subassembly components, analog video receivers
and multi-dwelling unit (MDU) video receivers. Our products
provide our customers with higher performance for analog and digital
characteristics; integrated infrastructure to support competitive
costs;
and additional support for multiple
standards.
|
|
·
|
Data
Communications Networks. We provide leading-edge optical
components and transceiver modules for data applications that enable
switch-to-switch, router-to-router and server-to-server backbone
connections at aggregate speeds of 10 gigabits per second (G) and
above. Our products support 10G Ethernet, optical Infiniband
and parallel optical interconnects for enterprise Ethernet, metro
Ethernet
and high performance computing (HPC) applications. Our data communications
products include components and transceivers for LX4, EX4, SR, LR,
LRM and
CX4 10G Ethernet applications and optical Infiniband, high-speed
lasers,
photodetectors and subassembly components, parallel optical modules
and
optical media converters. Our products provide our customers
with increased network capacity; increased data transmission distance
and
speeds; increased bandwidth; lower power consumption; improved cable
management over copper interconnects; and lower cost optical
interconnections for massively parallel
multi-processors.
|
|
·
|
Telecommunications
Networks. Our leading-edge optical components and modules enable
high-speed (up to an aggregate 40G) optical interconnections that
drive
advanced architectures in next-generation carrier class switching
and
routing networks. Our products are used in equipment in the network
core
and key metro optical nodes of voice telephony and Internet
infrastructures. Our products include a comprehensive parallel
optical transceiver family, distributed feedback lasers (DFB) and
APD
components in various packages for OC-48 and OC-192
applications. Recently, we developed and launched a XFP DWDM
(wavelength division multiplexing) transceiver and 300-pin
small-form-factor tunable transponder products for the telecommunications
market.
|
|
·
|
Satellite
Communications (Satcom) Networks. We are a leading provider of
optical components and systems for use in equipment that provides
high-performance optical data links for the terrestrial portion of
satellite communications networks. Our products include transmitters,
receivers, subsystems and systems that transport wideband radio frequency
and microwave signals between satellite hub equipment and antenna
dishes. Our products provide our customers with increased
bandwidth and lower power
consumption.
|
|
·
|
Storage
Area Networks. Our high performance optical components are also
used in high-end data storage solutions to improve the performance
of the
storage infrastructure. Products include high-speed 850nm
vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSELs), DFBs, photodiode
components for 2G, 8G and 10G Fibre Channel. Our products also
include 10G (single data rate Infiniband SDR IB) and 20G (double
data rate
Infiniband DDR IB) transmit and receive optical media
converters.
|
|
·
|
Video
Transport. Our video transport product line offers
solutions for broadcasting, transportation, IP television (IPTV),
mobile
video and security & surveillance applications over private and public
networks. EMCORE’s video, audio, data and RF transmission systems serve
both analog and digital requirements, providing cost-effective, flexible
solutions geared for network reconstruction and
expansion.
|
|
·
|
Defense
and Homeland Security. Leveraging our expertise in RF
module design and high-speed parallel optics, we provide a suite
of
ruggedized products that meet the reliability and durability requirements
of the U.S. Government and defense markets. Our specialty
defense products include fiber optic gyro components used in precision
guided munitions, ruggedized parallel optic transmitters and receivers,
high-frequency RF fiber optic link components for towed decoy systems,
optical delay lines for radar systems, EDFAs, terahertz spectroscopy
systems and other products. Our products provide our customers
with high frequency and dynamic range; compact form-factor; and extreme
temperature, shock and vibration
tolerance.
|
|
·
|
Consumer
Products. We intend to extend our optical technology
into the consumer market by integrating our VCSELs into optical computer
mice and ultra short data links. We are in production with
customers on several products and currently qualifying our products
with
additional customers. An optical computer mouse with laser
illumination is superior to LED-based illumination in that it reveals
surface structures that a LED light source cannot uncover. VCSELs
enable
computer mice to track with greater accuracy, on more surfaces and
with
greater responsiveness than existing LED-based
solutions.
|
The
following charts depict some of our fiber optics products:
As
summarized in the table below, we have positioned ourselves as a vertically
integrated fiber optics component and subsystem manufacturer that services
a
significant portion of the digital analog communications market:
Datacom
and Telecom
|
Broadband
|
|||||||
Serial
1-4G
|
Serial
10G
|
Parallel
|
CATV
|
FTTP
|
||||
850nm
|
1310-1550nm
|
850nm
|
1310-1550nm
|
Copper
|
850nm
|
1310-1550nm
|
1310,1490,1550nm
|
|
MODULES
|
SR
X2
SR
SFP+
|
LX4
Xenpak LX4 X2
LR
X2
LR
SFP+
ZR
XFP DWDM
Tunable
SFF
300-pin
Tspdr
LRM
SFP+
|
CX4
Xenpak
CX4
X2
CX4
XFP
|
SNAP12
SmartLink
Mini95
QSFP
|
Ex-Mod/Dir-Mod
/Lin-Mod
1550,
QAM
and 1310
Transmitters
Receiver
Subsystem
Tx
Engine
Rx
Video Card
|
B-PON
TxRx
B-PON
MDU TxRx
G-PON
TxRx
GPON
MDU TxRx
|
||
OSAS
|
TO
- Cans
LC/SC
TOSA
LC/SC
ROSA
|
TO
- Cans
LC/SC
TOSA
LC/SC
ROSA
|
LC/SC
TOSA
LC/SC
ROSA
|
DML
Butterfly
Mini
Dil Rx
LC/SC
ROSA
LRM
TOSA
Linear
ROSA
|
AOSA
|
DFB
Butterfly Analog PD OSA
|
DFB
Laser TO
APD-TIA
TO
|
|
CHIPS
|
VCSELs
PDs
|
FP, DFBs
PINs, APDs
|
VCSELs
PDs
|
FP, DFBs
PINs, APDs
|
VCSEL
Array
PIN
Array
|
Analog
DFB
Analog
PD
|
DFB
Laser
APDs
|
Photovoltaics
We
believe our high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based GaAs solar cell
products provide our customers with compelling cost and performance advantages
over traditional silicon-based solutions. These include higher solar
cell efficiency, allowing for greater conversion of light into electricity,
an
increased ability to benefit from use in solar concentrator systems, ability
to
withstand high heat and radiation environments and reduced overall
footprint. Our Photovoltaics segment serves two primary
markets:
|
·
|
Satellite
Solar Power Generation. We are a leader in providing
solar power generation solutions to the global communications satellite
industry and U.S. Government space programs. We provide
advanced compound semiconductor solar cell and solar panel products,
which
are more resistant to radiation levels in space and generate substantially
more power from sunlight than silicon-based solutions. Space
power systems using our multi-junction solar cells weigh less per
unit of
power than traditional silicon-based solar cells. These performance
characteristics increase satellite useful life, increase satellites’
transmission capacity and reduce launch costs. Our products
provide our customers with higher light to power conversion efficiency
for
reduced size and launch costs; higher radiation tolerance; and longer
lifetime in harsh space environments. We design and manufacture
multi-junction compound semiconductor solar cells for both commercial
and
military satellite applications. We currently manufacture and sell
one of
the most efficient and reliable, radiation resistant advanced
triple-junction solar cells in the world, with an average "beginning
of
life" efficiency of 28.5%. In May 2007, EMCORE announced that
it has attained solar conversion efficiency of 31% for an entirely
new
class of advanced multi-junction solar cells optimized for space
applications. EMCORE is also the only manufacturer to supply
true monolithic bypass diodes, for shadow protection, utilizing several
EMCORE patented methods. A satellite’s operational success and
corresponding revenue depend on its available power and its capacity
to
transmit data. EMCORE also provides covered interconnect cells (CICs)
and
solar panel lay-down services, giving us the capacity to manufacture
complete solar panels. We can provide satellite manufacturers with
proven
integrated satellite power solutions that considerably improve satellite
economics. Satellite manufacturers and solar array integrators rely
on
EMCORE to meet their satellite power needs with our proven flight
heritage. The pictures below represent a solar cell and solar panel
for
satellite space power applications.
|
|
|
|
·
|
Terrestrial
Solar Power Generation. Solar power generation systems
use photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight to electricity and have
been
used in space programs and, to a lesser extent, in terrestrial
applications for several decades. The market for terrestrial
solar power generation solutions has grown significantly as solar
power
generation technologies improve in efficiency, as global prices for
non-renewable energy sources (e.g., fossil fuels) continue to rise,
and as
concern has increased regarding the effect of carbon emissions on
global
warming. Terrestrial solar power generation has emerged as one of
the most
rapidly growing renewable energy sources due to certain advantages
solar
power holds over other energy sources, including reduced environmental
impact, elimination of fuel price risk, installation flexibility,
scalability, distributed power generation (i.e., electric power is
generated at the point of use rather than transmitted from a central
station to the user), and reliability. The rapid increase in demand
for
solar power has created a growing need for highly efficient, reliable
and
cost-effective solar power concentrator
systems.
|
EMCORE
has adapted its high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based GaAs solar cell
products for terrestrial applications, which are intended for use with solar
concentrator systems in utility-scale installations. In August 2007,
EMCORE announced that it has reached 39% peak conversion efficiency on its
terrestrial concentrating solar cell products currently in volume
production. This compares favorably to typical efficiency of 15-21%
on silicon-based solar cells. We believe that solar concentrator systems
assembled using our compound semiconductor solar cells will be competitive
with
silicon-based solar power generation systems because they are more efficient
and, when combined with the advantages of concentration, we believe will result
in a lower cost of power generated. Our multi-junction solar cell
technology is not subject to silicon shortages, which has led to increasing
prices in the raw materials required for silicon-based solar
cells. While the terrestrial power generation market is still
developing, we have already fulfilled production orders for one solar
concentrator company, and provided samples to several others, including major
system manufacturers in Europe and Asia. EMCORE currently serves the
terrestrial solar market with two levels of concentrated photovoltaic (CPV)
products: components (including solar cells and solar cell receivers) and CPV
power systems, as shown in the pictures below:
Terrestrial
solar cell (mm)
|
Terrestrial
solar cell receiver
|
CPV
power system
|
||
|
|
|
Recent
investments and strategic partnerships include:
|
·
|
In
November 2006, EMCORE invested $13.5 million in WorldWater & Solar
Technologies Corporation (WorldWater, OTC BB:WWAT.OB) a leader in
solar
electric engineering, water management solutions and solar energy
installations and products. This investment represents EMCORE’s
first tranche of its intended $18.0 million investment, in return
for
convertible preferred stock and warrants of WorldWater, equivalent
to
approximately 31% equity ownership in WorldWater, or approximately
26.5%
on a fully diluted basis.
|
|
·
|
Also
in November 2006, EMCORE and WorldWater announced the formation of
a
strategic alliance and supply agreement under which EMCORE will be
the
exclusive supplier of high-efficiency multi-junction solar cells,
assemblies and concentrator subsystems to WorldWater with expected
revenue
up to $100.0 million over the next 3
years.
|
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations under Item 7 and Financial
Statements and Supplemental Data under Item 8 for further discussion of these
transactions.
EMCORE’s
Strategy
With
several strategic acquisitions and divestures in the past year, EMCORE has
developed a strong business focus and comprehensive product portfolios in two
main sectors: Fiber Optics and Photovoltaics. Our principal objective
is to maximize shareholder value by leveraging our expertise in advanced
compound semiconductor technologies to be a leading provider of
high-performance, cost-effective product solutions in each of our
markets. Key elements of our strategy include:
Enhance
Our Technology and Expand Our Product Leadership While Lowering Production
Costs.
Through
substantial investment in research and development and product engineering,
we
seek to expand our leadership position in compound semiconductor-based fiber
optics and photovoltaics solutions. We work with our customers to
enhance the performance of our processes, materials science and fiber optic
module design expertise, and to develop new low-cost components, modules,
subsystems and systems. In each product line, EMCORE offers its customers
advanced cost-competitive solutions, which allows them to be the leaders of
technology and product solutions.
Continue
to Target Large Growth Market Opportunities.
We
target
market opportunities that we believe have large potential growth and where
the
favorable performance characteristics of our products and high volume production
efficiencies may give us a competitive advantage over our competitors. We
believe that as production costs continue to be reduced, existing and new
customers will be compelled to increase their use of our products because of
their attractive performance characteristics and superior value.
Penetrate
the Terrestrial Solar Power Market.
We
are
adapting our high-efficiency solar cell technology, developed for satellite
space power, for terrestrial applications. We believe that solar concentrator
systems assembled using our compound semiconductor solar cells will be
competitive with silicon-based solar power generation systems because our
products are more efficient than silicon and, when combined with the advantages
of concentration, they will result in a lower cost of power
generated.
Expand
Our Customer Relationships and the Breadth of Our Customer
Base.
EMCORE
is
devoted to working directly with its customers from initial product design,
product qualification and manufacturing to product delivery. EMCORE's customer
base includes many of the largest telecommunication and data communication
equipment manufacturers, computer manufacturing companies, and aerospace
companies in the world. We intend to further strengthen our existing
customer relationships and expand our customer base in each of our operating
segments. We work closely with many of our customers to anticipate their current
and future needs through a collaborative process to develop next-generation
technologies to help them achieve their product development objectives and
seek
to develop long-term relationships with leading companies in each of the
industries that we serve.
Pursue
Strategic Acquisitions and Partnerships.
We
are
committed to the ongoing evaluation of strategic opportunities that can expand
our addressable markets and strengthen our competitive position. Where
appropriate, we will acquire additional products, technologies, or businesses
that are complementary to, or broaden the markets in which we operate. We plan
to pursue strategic acquisitions to increase revenues and allow for higher
overhead absorption where such acquisitions can improve our gross
margins.
Recent
acquisitions include:
|
·
|
In
April 2007, EMCORE
acquired privately held Opticomm Corporation, of San Diego,
California.
|
|
·
|
In
January 2006, EMCORE
acquired privately held K2 Optronics, Inc., of Sunnyvale,
California.
|
|
·
|
In
December 2005, EMCORE acquired privately held Force, Inc., of
Christiansburg, Virginia.
|
|
·
|
In
November 2005, EMCORE acquired privately held Phasebridge, Inc.,
of
Pasadena, California.
|
|
·
|
In
May 2005, EMCORE acquired the analog CATV and specialty business
of JDS
Uniphase, of Ewing, NJ.
|
All
of
these acquired businesses have been integrated into EMCORE's Fiber Optics
operating segment.
Restructuring
Programs and Divestitures
EMCORE
is
committed to achieving profitability by increasing revenue through the
introduction of new products, reducing our cost structure and lowering the
breakeven points of our product lines. We have significantly
streamlined our manufacturing operations by focusing on core competencies to
identify cost efficiencies. Where appropriate, we transferred the manufacturing
of certain product lines to low-cost contract manufacturers.
EMCORE’s
restructuring programs are designed to further reduce the number of
manufacturing facilities, in addition to the divesture or exit from selected
businesses and product lines that were not strategic and/or were not capable
of
achieving desired revenue or profitability goals.
Recent
divestitures and facility consolidations include:
|
·
|
In
August 2007, we announced the consolidation of our North American
fiber
optics engineering and design centers into our main operating sites.
EMCORE's engineering facilities in Virginia, Illinois, and Northern
California will be consolidated into larger primary sites in Albuquerque,
New Mexico and Alhambra, California. The consolidation of these
engineering sites will allow EMCORE to leverage resources within
engineering, new product introduction, and customer
service. The design centers in Virginia and Northern California
have been closed and the design center in Illinois was vacated in
October
2007.
|
|
·
|
In
October 2006, we announced the move of our corporate headquarters
from
Somerset, New Jersey to Albuquerque, New Mexico. Financial
operations and records have been transferred and the New Jersey facility
was vacated in September 2007.
|
|
·
|
In
October 2006, we consolidated our solar panel operations into a
state-of-the-art facility located in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The establishment of a modern solar panel manufacturing
facility, adjacent to our solar cell fabrication operations, facilitates
consistency as well as reduces manufacturing costs. The benefit
of having these operations located on one site is expected to provide
high
quality, high reliability and cost-effective solar
components. Solar panel production operations ceased at our
California solar panel facility in June 2006 and the facility was
vacated
in December 2006.
|
|
·
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE sold its 49% membership interest in GELcore,
LLC to
General Electric Corporation, which owned the remaining 51% membership
interest prior to the transaction, for $100.0 million in
cash.
|
|
·
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE completed the sale of the assets of its Electronic
Materials & Device division, including inventory, fixed assets, and
intellectual property to IQE plc, a public limited company organized
under
the laws of the United Kingdom, for $16.0
million.
|
|
·
|
In
April 2005, EMCORE divested product technology focused on gallium
nitride-based power electronic devices for the power device
industry. The new company, Velox Semiconductor Corporation (Velox),
initially raised $6.0 million from various venture capital
partnerships. EMCORE contributed intellectual property and equipment
in exchange for an initial 19.2% stake in
Velox.
|
Our
results of operations and financial condition have and will continue to be
significantly affected by severance, restructuring charges, impairment of
long-lived assets and idle facility expenses incurred during facility closing
activities. Please refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A, Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under
Item 7 and Financial Statements and Supplemental Data under Item 8 for further
discussion of these items.
Government
Research Contract Funding
We
derive
a portion of our revenue from funding of research contracts or subcontracts
by
various agencies of the U.S. Government. These contracts typically cover work
performed over extended periods of time, from several months up to several
years. These contracts may be modified or terminated at the convenience of
the
U.S. Government and may be subject to government budgetary fluctuations. In
fiscal 2006, 2005, and 2004, government research contract funding represented
8%, 8% and 3% of our total consolidated revenue, respectively.
EMCORE
had been engaged in a multi-year cost reimbursable solar cell development and
production contract for a major U.S. aerospace corporation. It was previously
reported that the contract would exceed $40.0 million in development and
production revenues over the next several years. Although we
recognized significant revenues for this program during fiscal 2007, our
customer notified us in August 2007 that their program had been terminated
by
the U.S. Government for its convenience. We adjusted our order
backlog accordingly and this will have no effect on our fiscal 2008 revenue
guidance. In fiscal 2008, we expect to recognize additional revenue
from this program related to contract termination costs. We also
expect revenue in fiscal 2008 from a new U.S. Government contract that has
similar technical contract requirements.
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations under Item 7 and Financial
Statements and Supplemental Data under Item 8 for further discussion of
government contracts.
Sales
and Marketing
We
sell
our products worldwide through our dedicated sales force, external sales
representatives and distributors and application engineers. Our sales force
communicates with our customers’ engineering, manufacturing and purchasing
personnel to determine product design, qualifications, performance and cost.
Our
strategy is to use our dedicated sales force to sell to key accounts and to
expand our use of external sales representatives for increased coverage in
international markets and some domestic segments.
Throughout
our sales cycle, we work closely with our customers to qualify our products
into
their product lines. As a result, we develop strategic and long-lasting customer
relationships with products and services that are tailored to our customers’
requirements.
We
focus
our marketing communications efforts on increasing brand awareness,
communicating our technologies’ advantages and generating leads for our sales
force. We use a variety of marketing methods, including our website,
participation at trade shows and selective advertising to achieve these
goals.
Externally,
our marketing group works with customers to define requirements, characterize
market trends, define new product development activities, identify cost
reduction initiatives and manage new product
introductions. Internally, our marketing group communicates and
manages customer requirements with the goal of ensuring that our product
development activities are aligned with our customers’ needs. These
product development activities allow our marketing group to manage new product
introductions and product and market trends.
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations under Item 7 and Financial
Statements and Supplemental Data under Item 8 for further discussion of sales
and marketing, including information regarding our customers and geographic
areas in which we do business.
Manufacturing
As
of
September 30, 2006, we had thirteen dedicated MOCVD (Metal Organic Chemical
Vapor Deposition) systems for both research and production, which are capable
of
processing virtually all compound semiconductor materials and
devices. Our operations include wafer fabrication, device design and
production, fiber optic module, subsystem and system design and manufacture,
and
solar panel engineering and assembly. Many of our manufacturing
operations are computer monitored or controlled to enhance production output
and
statistical control. We employ a strategy of minimizing ongoing capital
investments, while maximizing the variable nature of our cost structure. We
maintain supply agreements with many key suppliers through our supply chain
management function. Where we can gain cost advantages while maintaining quality
and intellectual property control, we outsource the production of certain
subsystems, components and subassemblies to contract manufacturers located
outside of the U.S. Our contract manufacturing supply chain is an
integral part of enabling this strategy. We develop assembly and testing
procedures, and then transfer these procedures overseas. Our contract
manufacturers must maintain comprehensive quality and delivery systems, and
we
continuously monitor them for compliance.
Our
various manufacturing processes involve extensive quality assurance systems
and
performance testing. Our facilities have acquired and maintain certification
status for their quality management systems. Our manufacturing facilities
located in New Mexico and California are registered to ISO 9001
standards.
In
May
2007, EMCORE announced the opening of a new manufacturing facility in Langfang,
China. Our new company, Langfang EMCORE Optoelectronics Co. Ltd., is located
approximately 20 miles southeast of Beijing and currently occupies a space
of
22,000 square feet with a Class-10,000 clean room for optoelectronic device
packaging. Another 60,000 square feet is available for future
expansion. We will transfer our most cost sensitive optoelectronic
devices to this facility. This facility, along with a strategic
alignment with our existing contract-manufacturing partners, should enable
us to
improve our cost structure and gross margins. We also expect to develop and
provide improved service to our global customers by having a local presence
in
Asia.
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations under Item 7 for further
discussion of manufacturing activities.
Sources
of Raw Materials
We
depend
on a limited number of suppliers for certain raw materials, components and
equipment used in our products. We continually review our vendor relationships
to mitigate risks and improve costs, especially where we depend on one or two
vendors for critical components or raw materials. While maintaining inventories
that we believe are sufficient to meet our near-term needs, we generally do
not
carry significant inventories of raw materials. Accordingly, we maintain ongoing
communications with our vendors in order to prevent any interruptions in supply,
and have implemented a supply-chain management program to maintain quality
and
lower purchase prices through standardized purchasing efficiencies and design
requirements. To date, we generally have been able to obtain sufficient
quantities of quality supplies in a timely manner.
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A for further discussion of our reliance
upon
sole or limited sources of raw materials.
Research
and Development
Our
research and development (R&D) efforts have been focused on maintaining our
technological leadership position by working to improve the quality and
attributes of our product lines. We also invest significant resources to develop
new products and production technology to expand into new market opportunities
by leveraging our existing technology base and infrastructure. Our industry
is
characterized by rapid changes in process technologies with increasing levels
of
functional integration. Our efforts are focused on designing new proprietary
processes and products, on improving the performance of our existing materials,
components and subsystems, and on reducing costs in the product manufacturing
process.
As
of
September 30, 2006, we had 3 MOCVD systems dedicated to R&D
efforts. The R&D staff utilizes x-ray, optical and electrical
characterization equipment, as well as device and module fabrication and testing
equipment, which generate data rapidly, allowing for shortened development
cycles and rapid customer response.
During
fiscal 2006, 2005 and 2004, we invested $19.7 million, $16.5 million, and $20.1
million in R&D activities, respectively. As a percentage of
revenues, R&D represented 14%, 14%, and 25% for fiscal 2006, 2005 and 2004,
respectively. As part of the ongoing effort to cut costs, many of our
projects are used to develop lower cost versions of our existing products.
We
also actively compete for R&D funds from Government agencies and other
entities. In view of the high cost of development, we solicit research contracts
that provide opportunities to enhance our core technology base and promote
the
commercialization of targeted products. Generally, internal R&D funding is
used for the development of products that will be released within 12 months
and
external funding is used for longer-range R&D efforts.
EMCORE’s
Photovoltaics division announced the following new product developments and
launches:
|
·
|
In
August 2007, our production terrestrial concentrator cell reached
a new
level of performance, attaining 39% peak conversion efficiency under
concentrated illumination conditions. This advancement is an evolution
of
EMCORE's proven concentrator triple junction (CTJ) production technology,
with which several million CTJ solar cells have been produced and
shipped
to concentrator photovoltaic system manufacturers worldwide. We believe
that EMCORE's continuing investment in technology innovation will
enable
the introduction of concentrator solar cell products with conversion
efficiencies over
40%.
|
|
·
|
In
May 2007, we announced a solar conversion efficiency of 31% for an
entirely new class of advanced multi-junction solar cells optimized
for
space applications. The new solar cell, referred to as the Inverted
Metamorphic (IMM) design, is composed of a novel combination of compound
semiconductors that enables a superior response to the solar spectrum
compared to conventional multi-junction solar cells. Due to its innovative
design, the IMM cell is approximately one fifteenth the thickness
of the
conventional multi-junction solar cell. We expect that the IMM cell,
developed in conjunction with the Vehicle Systems Directorate of
U.S. Air
Force Research Laboratory, will enable a new class of extremely
lightweight, high-efficiency, and flexible solar arrays that we believe
will power the next generation of spacecrafts and satellites and
will form
a platform for future generations of terrestrial concentrator
products.
|
In
March
2007, EMCORE’s Fiber Optics division announced the following new product
development and launches:
|
·
|
10GBASE-LRM
(long reach multimode) SFP+ Optical Transceiver Module. The LRM SFP+
product expands EMCORE's 10G product portfolio into additional market
niches and platforms, which is a part of EMCORE's strategy to provide
a
complete suite of modules for legacy multimode customer
applications.
|
|
·
|
Full
Band Tunable Long Reach Small Form Factor Transponder and 1550nm
DWDM Long
Reach XFP Optical Transceiver Module for 10G
Applications. These products mark the continued expansion of
EMCORE's market leading portfolio of parallel VCSEL and LX4 optical
modules for the 300m multimode market into the long reach 10G application
space.
|
|
·
|
Double
Data Rate (DDR) 12 Channel 60G Modules. The MTX/RX9552 is a 12
channel 60G DDR product that doubles the speed of the existing single
data
rate (SDR) SNAP12. The DDR modules are currently sampling to customers
at
data rates of 5G per channel featuring low power consumption and
an
improved digital management interface. The Mini, MTX/RX9542, is
the second new product offering that offers DDR bandwidth with less
than
half the footprint. Originally designed for broad temperature range
military applications, the Mini's small form factor allows commercial
end
users to dramatically increase card density and
bandwidth.
|
|
·
|
1.244G
Burst-Mode, ITU G.984 compliant APD/TIA for the rapidly expanding
Gigabit
Passive Optical Network (GPON) OLT market. EMCORE has created
APD/TIA packaged components for the rapidly expanding North American
GPON
OLT Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH)
market.
|
|
·
|
1310
10G Fabry-Perot LC Transmit Optical Sub Assembly (TOSA) designed
to meet
the emerging market of 10G SFP+ and XFP 10G-LRM modules. This
new product offering expands EMCORE's product base in 10G over multimode
fiber applications by providing key components for LRM modules. LRM
is an
emerging technology that provides 10G transmission speeds over 220m
multi-mode optical fiber links as defined by the IEEE 802.3aq 10G-LRM
standard.
|
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations under Item 7 and Financial
Statements and Supplemental Data under Item 8 for further discussion of our
R&D efforts.
Intellectual
Property and Licensing
We
protect our proprietary technology by applying for patents where appropriate
and
in other cases by preserving the technology, related know-how and information
as
trade secrets. The success and competitive position of our product lines depend
significantly on our ability to obtain intellectual property protection for
our
R&D efforts. We also acquire, through license grants or assignments, rights
to patents on inventions originally developed by others. As of September 30,
2006, we held approximately 85 U.S. patents and 8 foreign patents. Also, we
have
over 100 additional patent applications pending. Our U.S. patents will expire
on
varying dates between 2009 and 2024. These patents and patent
applications claim various aspects of current or planned commercial versions
of
our materials, components, subsystems and systems.
We
also
have entered into license agreements with the licensing agencies of universities
and other organizations, under which we have obtained exclusive or non-exclusive
rights to practice inventions claimed in various patents and applications issued
or pending in the U.S. and other foreign countries. We do not believe the
financial obligations under any of these agreements materially adversely affect
our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We
rely
on trade secrets to protect our intellectual property when we believe that
publishing patents would make it easier for others to reverse engineer our
proprietary processes. A “trade secret” is information that has value to the
extent it is not generally known, not readily ascertainable by others through
legitimate means, and protected in a way that maintains its secrecy. Reliance
on
trade secrets is only an effective business practice insofar as trade secrets
remain undisclosed and a proprietary product or process is not reverse
engineered or independently developed. To protect our trade secrets, we take
certain measures to ensure their secrecy, such as partitioning the non-essential
flow of information between our different groups and executing non-disclosure
agreements with our employees, joint venture partners, customers and suppliers.
We also rely upon other intellectual property rights such as trademarks and
copyrights where appropriate.
As
is
typical in our industry, from time to time, we have sent letters to, and
received letters from, third parties regarding the assertion of patent or other
intellectual property rights in connection with certain of our products and
processes. On September 11, 2006, we filed a lawsuit against Optium Corporation
(Optium) for patent infringement. In the suit, EMCORE and JDS Uniphase
Corporation (JDSU) allege that Optium is infringing on U.S. patents 6,282,003
and 6,490,071 with its Prisma II 1550nm transmitters. On March 14, 2007, EMCORE
and JDSU filed a second patent suit against Optium on JDSU's patent
6,519,374. On March 15, 2007, Optium Corporation filed a declaratory
judgment action against the Company and JDSU. Optium seeks in this litigation
a
declaration that certain products of Optium do not infringe United States Patent
No. 6,519,374 ("the '374 patent") and that the patent is invalid. The '374
patent is assigned to JDSU and licensed to the Company. Other than the filing
of
a Complaint, Optium has taken no action in this case, and the Company has not
been served.
In
connection with our sale of the capital equipment business in November 2003,
we
retained a license to all MOCVD system-related technology. We intend to use
this
license to further optimize the performance of our own reactors and develop
improvements to our hardware that will increase yields on existing products
and
enable the fabrication of advanced wide-band gap materials.
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A, Legal Proceedings under Item 3,
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations under Item 7 and Financial Statements and Supplemental Data under
Item 8 for further discussion of intellectual property.
Environmental
Regulations
We
are
subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations concerning the use,
storage, handling, generation, treatment, emission, release, discharge, and
disposal of certain materials used in our R&D and production operations, as
well as laws and regulations concerning environmental remediation, homeland
security, and employee health and safety. The production of wafers and devices
involves the use of certain hazardous raw materials, including, but not limited
to, ammonia, phosphine, and arsine. If our control systems are
unsuccessful in preventing release of these or other hazardous materials or
we
fail to comply with such environmental provisions, our actions, whether
intentional or inadvertent, could result in fines and other liabilities to
the
U.S. Government or third parties, and injunctions requiring us to suspend or
curtail operations which could have a material adverse effect on our
business.
We
have
in-house professionals to address compliance with applicable environmental,
homeland security, and health and safety laws and regulations. We believe that
we are currently in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, including
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A for further discussion of our compliance
efforts associated with environmental regulations.
Competition
The
markets for our products in each of our operating segments are extremely
competitive and are characterized by rapid technological change, frequent
introduction of new products, short product life cycles and significant price
erosion. We face actual and potential competition from numerous domestic and
international companies. Many of these companies have greater engineering,
manufacturing, marketing and financial resources than we have. Partial lists
of
these competitors within the markets we participate in include:
Fiber
Optics
CATV
Networks. Our competitors include Hitachi Yagi and Optium
Corporation at the subsystem level and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. and Eudyna
Device, Inc. at the component product level.
FTTP
and Telecommunications Networks. Our competitors include
Cyoptics, JDSU, Mitsubishi, MRV Communications, and Sumitomo for
telecommunications and FTTP components. For 10G transceivers and
parallel optical modules, our principal competitors include Avago, Finisar
Corporation, JDSU, Opnext, Inc. and numerous smaller vendors.
Data
Communications, Storage Area Networks and Consumer
Products. Our competitors include Avago, Finisar, Hitachi
Cable and Opnext and numerous smaller vendors.
Satellite
Communications Networks. Our primary competitors are
Foxcom and MITEQ, Inc.
Video
Transport Products. Our primary competitors are Evertz and
Telecast.
Defense
and Homeland Security. The competitors in RF transport for defense and
homeland security products include Aegis Technologies, Gemfire Corporation,
Linear Photonics, LLC, JDSU and Optium.
Photovoltaics
Satellite
Power Generation. In the market for satellite power
photovoltaics products, we primarily compete with Azure Solar GmbH, Sharp and
Spectrolab, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing.
Terrestrial
Power Generation. In the market for terrestrial power
photovoltaics products, we primarily compete with Azure Solar GmbH and
Spectrolab, Inc. in the solar cell market and Amonix, Concentrix, Energy
Innovations, Solar Systems Pty, and SolFocus in the solar power systems
market.
In
addition to the companies listed above, we compete with many research
institutions and universities for research contract funding. We also sell our
products to current competitors and companies with the capability of becoming
competitors. As the markets for our products grow, new competitors are likely
to
emerge and current competitors may increase their market share. In the EU,
political and legal requirements encourage the purchase of EU-produced goods,
which may put us at a competitive disadvantage against our European
competitors.
There
are
substantial barriers to entry by new competitors across our product lines.
These
barriers include the large number of existing patents, the time and costs to
be
incurred to develop products, the technical difficulty in manufacturing
semiconductor products, the lengthy sales and qualification cycles and the
difficulties in hiring and retaining skilled employees with the required
scientific and technical backgrounds. We believe that the primary competitive
factors within our current markets are yield, throughput, performance, breadth
of product line, product heritage, customer satisfaction and customer commitment
to competing technologies. Competitors may develop enhancements to or future
generations of competitive products that offer superior price and performance
characteristics. We believe that in order to remain competitive, we must invest
significant financial resources in developing new product features and
enhancements and in maintaining customer satisfaction worldwide.
Order
Backlog
As
of
September 30, 2006, we had an order backlog of approximately $48 million as
compared to a backlog from continuing operations of approximately $34 million
from the prior year.
As
of
June 30, 2007, order backlog increased to approximately $121
million. The significant increase in order backlog is attributable to
the receipt of long-term photovoltaics-related sales contracts, of which
approximately $45 million is scheduled for shipment after June 30,
2008.
EMCORE
had been engaged in a multi-year cost reimbursable solar cell development and
production contract for a major U.S. aerospace corporation. It was previously
reported that the contract would exceed $40.0 million in development and
production revenues over the next several years. Although we
recognized significant revenues for this program during fiscal 2007, our
customer notified us in August 2007 that their program had been terminated
by
the U.S. Government for its convenience. We adjusted our order
backlog; however, this had no effect on our fiscal 2008 revenue
guidance. In fiscal 2008, we expect to recognize additional revenue
from this program related to contract termination costs. We also
expect revenue in fiscal 2008 from a new U.S. Government contract that has
similar technical contract requirements.
Customers
may ask us to delay shipment of certain orders and our backlog could also be
adversely affected if customers unexpectedly cancel purchase orders accepted
by
us. A majority of our fiber optics products typically ship within the
same quarter as when the purchase order is received; therefore, our backlog
at
any particular date is not necessarily indicative of actual revenue or the
level
of orders for any succeeding period.
Employees
As
of
September 30, 2006, we had 750 employees of whom 54 had a Ph.D.
degree. Our year-end headcount included 450 employees in
manufacturing operations, 107 employees in R&D, 152 employees in sales,
general and administration (SG&A), and 41 temporary employees. This
represented a net increase of 100 employees or 15% from September 30, 2005.
Headcount as of September 30, 2005 of 650 employees included 52 employees
associated with businesses sold by EMCORE during fiscal 2006.
None
of
our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, nor have we
ever
experienced any labor-related work stoppage. Generally, we believe
our employee relations are good.
Competition
is intense in the recruiting of personnel in the semiconductor
industry. Our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel is
essential to our continued success. We are focused on retaining key
contributors, developing our staff and cultivating their level of
commitment.
ITEM
1A.
|
Risk
Factors
|
Our
disclosure and analysis in this 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K contain some
forward-looking statements, within the meaning of Section 27A of the
Securities Act and Section 21E of Exchange Act, that set forth anticipated
results based on management’s plans and assumptions. From time to time, we also
provide forward-looking statements in other materials we release to the public
as well as oral forward-looking statements. These statements are based largely
on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial
trends affecting the financial condition of our business. They relate
to future events or our future financial performance and involve known and
unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual
results, levels of activity, performance or achievements of our business or
our
industry to be materially different from those expressed or implied by any
forward-looking statements. Such statements include, in particular, projections
about our future results, statements about our plans, strategies, business
prospects, changes and trends in our business and the markets in which we
operate. These forward-looking statements may be identified by the
use of terms and phrases such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “intends”, “plans”,
“believes”, “estimates”, “targets”, “can”, “may”, “could”, “will”, and
variations of these terms and similar phrases.
We
cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will be realized, although
we believe we have been prudent in our plans and assumptions. Achievement of
future results is subject to risks, uncertainties and potentially inaccurate
assumptions. Should known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, or
should underlying assumptions prove inaccurate, actual results could differ
materially from past results and those anticipated, estimated or projected.
You
should bear this in mind as you consider forward-looking
statements.
We
undertake no obligation to publicly update forward-looking statements, whether
as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You are advised,
however, to consult any further disclosures we make on related subjects in
our
10-Q and 8-K reports to the SEC. Also note that we provide the following
cautionary discussion of risks, uncertainties and possibly inaccurate
assumptions relevant to our businesses. These are factors that, individually
or
in the aggregate, we think could cause our actual results to differ materially
from expected and historical results. We note these factors for investors as
permitted by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You should
understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors.
Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion
of all potential risks or uncertainties.
The
discovery that we had incorrectly priced stock options and had not accounted
for
them correctly has had, and may continue to have, a material adverse effect
on
our financial results.
We
cannot
predict the outcome of the pending shareholder lawsuits or our non-public SEC
investigation, and we may face additional actions, shareholder lawsuits,
governmental investigations and actions on other legal proceedings related
to
our historical stock option practices and the remedial actions we have taken.
All of these events have required us, and will continue to require us, to expend
significant management time and incur significant accounting, legal, consulting
and other expenses. This could require significant additional attention and
resources from the operation of our business and adversely affect our financial
condition and results of operations.
The
Special Committee investigation of our historical stock option practices and
resulting restatements has been time consuming and expensive, and has had a
material adverse effect on our financial condition.
The
Special Committee investigation and restatement activities have required us
to
expend significant management time and incur significant accounting, legal,
consulting and other expenses. The resulting restatements have had a material
adverse effect on our results of operations.
We
have not been in compliance with SEC reporting requirements and NASDAQ listing
requirements and may continue to face compliance issues with both. If we are
unable to remain in compliance with SEC reporting requirements and NASDAQ
listing requirements, there may be a material adverse effect on the Company
and
our shareholders.
Due
to
the Special Committee investigation and resulting restatements, we did not
file
our periodic reports with the SEC on time and faced the possibility of delisting
of our stock from the NASDAQ Global Market. With the filing of this Annual
Report and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q thereafter for the quarters ended
December 31, 2006, March 31, 2007, and June 30, 2007, we believe we will return
to full compliance with SEC reporting requirements and NASDAQ listing
requirements and, therefore, the NASDAQ delisting matter would be
resolved. However, if the SEC has comments on these reports (or other
reports that we previously filed) that require us to file amended reports,
or if
the NASDAQ does not concur that we are in compliance with applicable listing
requirements, we may be unable to maintain an effective listing of our stock
on
NASDAQ. If this happens, the price of our stock and the ability of
our shareholders to trade in our stock could be adversely affected. In addition,
we would be subject to a number of restrictions regarding the registration
of
our stock under federal securities laws, and we would not be able to issue
stock
options or other equity awards to our employees or allow them to exercise their
outstanding options, which could adversely affect our business and results
of
operations.
We
have been named as a party to shareholder derivative lawsuits relating to our
historical stock option practices, and we may be named in additional
securities-related lawsuits in the future. Additional lawsuits could
become time consuming and expensive and could result in the payment of
significant judgments and settlements, which could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
In
connection with our historical stock option practices, three derivative actions
were filed against certain of our current and former directors and officers
purporting to assert claims on the Company’s behalf. Although we have reached a
settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, see Item 3.
Legal
Proceedings, there may be additional derivative or class action lawsuits filed
in the future. Additional lawsuits could become time consuming and
expensive, and if they result in unfavorable outcomes, there could be a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
and
cash flows. We
may be
required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs in excess of our
insurance coverage related to these matters, which could have a further material
adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
In
addition, subject to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our
current and former directors, officers and employees in connection with the
investigation of our historical stock option practices and the related
shareholder litigation and government investigation. We currently hold insurance
policies for the benefit of our directors and officers, although our insurance
coverage may not be sufficient in some or all of these matters. Furthermore,
the
insurers may seek to deny or limit coverage in some or all of these matters,
in
which case we may have to self-fund all or a substantial portion of our
indemnification obligations.
We
are subject to the risk of employee lawsuits in connection with our historical
stock option practices, the resulting restatements, and the remedial measures
we
have taken.
In
addition to the possibilities that there may be additional governmental
investigations or actions and shareholder lawsuits against us, we may be
involved with future litigation by former officers and employees in connection
with their stock options, employment terminations and other matters. These
lawsuits may be time consuming and expensive, and cause further distraction
from
the operation of our business. The adverse resolution of any specific lawsuit
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
It
may be difficult or costly to obtain director and officer insurance coverage
as
a result of our stock options problems.
We
expect
that the issues arising from our misdated stock options may make it more
difficult to obtain director and officer insurance coverage in the future.
If we are able to obtain this coverage, it could be significantly more costly
than in the past, which would have an adverse effect on our financial results
and cash flow. As a result of this and related factors, our directors and
officers could face increased risks of personal liability in connection with
the
performance of their duties. As a result, we may have difficultly attracting
and
retaining qualified directors and officers, which could adversely affect our
business.
We
have a history of incurring significant net losses and our future profitability
is not assured.
We
commenced operations in 1984 and as of September 30, 2006, we had an accumulated
deficit of $284.9 million. We incurred net income of $54.9 million in fiscal
2006, net loss of $13.5 million in fiscal 2005 and a net loss of $14.0 million
in fiscal 2004. Fiscal 2006 results include the sale of our GELcore
joint venture that resulted in a net gain, before tax, of $88.0
million. Our operating results for future periods are subject to
numerous uncertainties and we cannot assure you that we will not continue to
experience net losses for the foreseeable future. Although our
revenues have grown in recent years, we may be unable to sustain such growth
rates in light of potential changes in market or economic
conditions. In addition, if we are not able to reduce our costs, we
may not be able to achieve profitability.
Our
future revenues are inherently unpredictable. As a result, our
operating results are likely to fluctuate from period to period, which may
cause
volatility in our stock price and may cause our stock price to
decline.
Our
quarterly and annual operating results have fluctuated substantially in the
past
and are likely to fluctuate significantly in the future due to a variety of
factors, some of which are outside of our control. Factors that could
cause our quarterly or annual operating results to fluctuate
include:
|
•
|
market
acceptance of our products;
|
|
•
|
market
demand for the products and services provided by our
customers;
|
|
•
|
disruptions
or delays in our manufacturing processes or in our supply of raw
materials
or product components;
|
|
•
|
changes
in the timing and size of orders by our
customers;
|
|
•
|
cancellations
and postponements of previously placed
orders;
|
|
•
|
reductions
in prices for our products or increases in the costs of our raw materials;
and
|
|
•
|
the
introduction of new products and manufacturing
processes.
|
In
addition, the limited lead times with which several of our customers order
our
products restrict our ability to forecast revenues. We may also
experience a delay in generating or recognizing revenues for a number of
reasons. For example, orders at the beginning of each quarter
typically represent a small percentage of expected revenues for that quarter
and
are generally cancelable at any time. We depend on obtaining orders during
each
quarter for shipment in that quarter to achieve our revenue objectives. Failure
to ship these products by the end of a quarter may adversely affect our results
of operations.
As
a
result of the foregoing, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our
results of operations should not be relied upon as indications of future
performance. In addition, our results of operations in one or more
future quarters may fail to meet the expectations of securities analysts or
investors, which would likely result in a decline in the trading price of our
common stock.
We
enter into long-term fixed-price contracts in our Photovoltaics division, which
could subject us to losses if we have cost overruns.
Many
of
our contracts in our Photovoltaics division are contracted on a fixed-price
basis. While firm fixed-price contracts allow us to benefit from cost
savings, they also expose us to the risk of cost overruns. If the initial
estimates we use to calculate the contract price and the cost to perform the
work prove to be incorrect, we could incur losses. In addition, some of our
contracts have specific provisions relating to cost, schedule, and performance.
If we fail to meet the terms specified in those contracts, then our cost to
perform the work could increase or our price could be reduced, which would
adversely affect our financial condition. These programs have risk for
reach-forward losses if our estimated costs exceed our estimated
price.
Fixed-price
development work inherently has more uncertainty than production contracts
and,
therefore, more variability in estimates of the cost to complete the work.
Many
of these development programs have very complex designs. As technical or quality
issues arise, we may experience schedule delays and cost impacts, which could
increase our estimated cost to perform the work or reduce our estimated price,
either of which could adversely affect our financial condition. Some fixed-price
development contracts include initial production units in their scope of work.
Successful performance of these contracts depends on our ability to meet
production specifications and delivery rates. If we are unable to
perform and deliver to contract requirements, our contract price could be
reduced through the incorporation of liquidated damages, termination of the
contract for default, or other financially significant exposure. Management
uses
its best judgment to estimate the cost to perform the work and the price we
will
eventually be paid on fixed-price development programs. While we believe the
cost and price estimates incorporated in the financial statements are
appropriate, future events could result in either favorable or unfavorable
adjustments to those estimates.
Our
ability to achieve operational and material cost reductions and to realize
production efficiencies for our operations is critical to our ability to achieve
long-term profitability.
We
currently are in the process of implementing a number of operational and
material cost reductions and productivity improvement initiatives, particularly
with regards to our Fiber Optics segment. Cost reduction initiatives often
involve facility consolidation and re-design of our products, which requires
our
customers to accept and qualify the new designs, potentially creating a
competitive disadvantage for our products. These initiatives can be
time-consuming and disruptive to our operations and costly in the
short-term. Successfully implementing these and other cost-reduction
initiatives throughout our operations is critical to our future competitiveness
and ability to achieve long-term profitability. However, there can be no
assurance that these initiatives will be successful.
We
are substantially dependent on a small number of customers and the loss of
any
one of these customers could adversely affect our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
In
fiscal
2006, 2005 and 2004, our top five customers accounted for 39%, 49%, and 40%
of
our total annual revenue. In particular, Cisco Systems, Inc.
accounted for 12% of our total revenue in fiscal 2006. There can be
no assurance that we will continue to achieve historical levels of sales of
our
products to our largest customers. The loss of or a reduction in
sales to one or more of our largest customers could have a material adverse
affect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
We
may not be successful in obtaining market acceptance and demand for our
terrestrial solar systems.
We
have
invested and intend to continue to invest significant resources in the
adaptation of our high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based GaAs solar cell
products for terrestrial applications, and in mid 2006, EMCORE established
a
wholly-owned subsidiary, EMCORE Solar Power, (“ESP”) to conduct this
business ESP is in the development stage and the
terrestrial solar power business will require substantial additional funding
for
the hiring of employees, research and development and investment in capital
equipment. Factors such as changes in energy prices or the
development of new and efficient alternative energy technologies could limit
growth in or reduce the market for terrestrial solar products. In
addition, we may experience difficulties in applying our satellite-based solar
products to terrestrial applications or we may be unable to compete with new
and
emerging terrestrial solar products. The sale of concentrated
photovoltaic (“CPV”) systems involve the design, manufacture and installation of
large and complex structures intended for outdoor operation, regarding which
the
Company has no previous experience. In addition, it is expected that
much of the market for our CPV systems will be outside the U.S. and will involve
partnering with non-U.S. entities and evaluation and compliance with non-U.S.
laws, regulations, and government electric supply contracts, which are also
new
areas for the Company. There can be no assurance that our bids
on solar power installations will be accepted, that we will win any of these
bids or that our solar concentrator systems will be qualified for these
projects. If our terrestrial solar cell products are not cost
competitive or accepted by the market, our business, financial condition and
results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.
We
depend heavily on U.S. Government contracts, which are subject to unique
risks.
In
2006,
8% of our revenues were derived from U.S. Government contracts. In addition
to
normal business risks, our contracts with the U.S. Government are subject to
unique risks, some of which are beyond our control.
The
funding of U.S. Government programs is subject to congressional
appropriations. Many of the U.S. Government programs in which we
participate may extend for several years; however, these programs are normally
funded annually. Long-term government contracts and related orders are subject
to cancellation if appropriations for subsequent performance periods are not
made. The termination of funding for a U.S. Government program would result
in a
loss of anticipated future revenues attributable to that program, which could
have a materially negative impact on our operations.
The
U.S. Government may modify, curtail or terminate our contracts. The U.S.
Government may modify, curtail or terminate its contracts and subcontracts
without prior notice at its convenience upon payment for work done and
commitments made at the time of termination. Modification, curtailment or
termination of our major programs or contracts could have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
Our
contract costs are subject to audits by U.S. Government agencies. U.S.
Government representatives may audit the costs we incur on our U.S. Government
contracts, including allocated indirect costs. Such audits could result in
adjustments to our contract costs. Any costs found to be improperly allocated
to
a specific contract will not be reimbursed, and such costs already reimbursed
must be refunded. We have recorded contract revenues based upon costs we expect
to realize upon final audit. However, we do not know the outcome of any future
audits and adjustments and we may be required to reduce our revenues or profits
upon completion and final negotiation of audits. If any audit uncovers improper
or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and
administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of
profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or prohibition from doing
business with the U.S. Government.
Our
business is subject to potential U.S. Government inquiries and
investigations. We are sometimes subject to certain U.S. Government
inquiries and investigations of our business practices due to our participation
in government contracts. Any such inquiry or investigation could potentially
result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial
condition.
Our
U.S. Government business is also subject to specific procurement regulations
and
other requirements. These requirements, although customary in U.S.
Government contracts, increase our performance and compliance costs. These
costs
might increase in the future, reducing our margins, which could have a negative
effect on our financial condition. Failure to comply with these regulations
and
requirements could lead to suspension or debarment, for cause, from U.S.
Government contracting or subcontracting for a period of time and could have
a
negative effect on our reputation and ability to secure future U.S. Government
contracts.
If
we do not keep pace with rapid technological change, our products may not be
competitive.
We
compete in markets that are characterized by rapid technological change,
frequent new product introductions, changes in customer requirements, evolving
industry standards, continuous improvement in products and the use of our
existing products in new applications. We may not be able to develop
the underlying core technologies necessary to create new products and
enhancements at the same rate as or faster than our competitors, or to license
the technology from third parties that is necessary for our
products.
Product
development delays may result from numerous factors, including:
|
•
|
changing
product specifications and customer
requirements;
|
|
•
|
unanticipated
engineering complexities;
|
|
•
|
expense
reduction measures we have implemented and others we may
implement;
|
|
•
|
difficulties
in hiring and retaining necessary technical personnel;
and
|
|
•
|
difficulties
in allocating engineering resources and overcoming resource
limitations.
|
We
cannot
assure you that we will be able to identify, develop, manufacture, market or
support new or enhanced products successfully, if at all, or on a timely, cost
effective or repeatable basis. Our future performance will depend on our
successful development and introduction of, as well as market acceptance of,
new
and enhanced products that address market changes as well as current and
potential customer requirements and our ability to respond effectively to
product announcements by competitors, technological changes or emerging industry
standards. Because it is generally not possible to predict the amount of time
required and the costs involved in achieving certain research, development
and
engineering objectives, actual development costs may exceed budgeted amounts
and
estimated product development schedules may be extended. If we incur budget
overruns or delays in our research and development efforts, our business,
financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely
affected.
The
competitive and rapidly evolving nature of our industry has in the past resulted
and is likely in the future to result in reductions in our product prices and
periods of reduced demand for our products.
We
face
substantial competition in each of our operating segments from a number of
companies, many of which have greater financial, marketing, manufacturing and
technical resources than us. Larger-sized competitors often spend more on
research and development, which could give those competitors an advantage in
meeting customer demands and introducing technologically innovative products
before we do. We expect that existing and new competitors will improve the
design of their existing products and will introduce new products with enhanced
performance characteristics.
The
introduction of new products and more efficient production of existing products
by our competitors has resulted and is likely in the future to result in price
reductions and increases in expenses and reduced demand for our
products. In addition, some of our competitors may be willing to
provide their products at lower prices, accept a lower profit margin or expend
more capital in order to obtain or retain business. Competitive
pressures have required us to reduce the prices of some of our products,
including our fiber optic modules and our solar cells. These
competitive forces could diminish our market share and gross margins, resulting
in a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition and results
of
operations.
New
competitors may also enter our markets, including some of our current and
potential customers who may attempt to integrate their operations by producing
their own components and subsystems or acquiring one of our competitors, thereby
reducing demand for our products. In addition, rapid product
development cycles, increasing price competition due to maturation of
technologies, the emergence of new competitors in Asia with lower cost
structures and industry consolidation resulting in competitors with greater
financial, marketing and technical resources could result in lower prices or
reduced demand for our products.
Expected
and actual introductions of new and enhanced products may cause our customers
to
defer or cancel orders for existing products and may cause our products to
become obsolete. A slowdown in demand for existing products ahead of a new
product introduction could result in a write-down in the value of inventory
on
hand related to existing products. We have in the past experienced a slowdown
in
demand for existing products and delays in new product development and such
delays may occur in the future. To the extent customers defer or cancel orders
for existing products due to a slowdown in demand or in anticipation of a new
product release or if there is any delay in development or introduction of
our
new products or enhancements of our products, our business, financial condition
and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
We
may not be successful in implementing our growth strategy if we are unable
to
identify and acquire suitable acquisition targets. In addition, our
acquisitions may not have the anticipated effect on our financial
results.
Finding
and consummating acquisitions is an important component of our growth strategy.
Our continued ability to grow by acquisition is dependent upon the availability
of suitable acquisition candidates and may be dependent on our ability to obtain
acquisition financing on acceptable terms. We experience competition in making
acquisitions from larger companies with significantly greater resources. There
can be no assurance that we will be able to procure the necessary funds to
effectuate our acquisition strategy on commercially reasonable terms, or at
all.
Future
acquisitions by us may involve the following:
|
•
|
use
of significant amounts of cash;
|
|
•
|
potentially
dilutive issuances of equity securities on potentially unfavorable
terms;
and
|
|
•
|
incurrence
of debt on potentially unfavorable
terms.
|
In
addition, acquisitions involve numerous risks, including:
|
•
|
inability
to achieve anticipated synergies;
|
|
•
|
difficulties
in the integration of the operations, technologies, products and
personnel
of the acquired company;
|
|
•
|
diversion
of management’s attention from other business
concerns;
|
|
•
|
risks
of entering markets in which we have limited or no prior
experience;
|
|
•
|
potential
loss of key employees of the acquired company or of us;
and
|
|
•
|
risk
of assuming unforeseen liabilities or becoming subject to
litigation.
|
If
these
factors limit our ability to integrate the operations of our acquisitions
successfully or on a timely basis, our expectations of future results of
operations may not be met. In addition, our growth and operating strategies
for
businesses we acquire may be different from the strategies that such business
currently is pursuing. If our strategies are not the proper strategies for
a
company we acquire, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition and results of operations. Further, there can be no assurance that
we
will be able to maintain or enhance the profitability of any acquired business
or consolidate the operations of any acquired business to achieve cost
savings.
In
addition, there may be liabilities that we fail, or are unable, to discover
in
the course of performing due diligence investigations on each company, business
or asset we have already acquired or may acquire in the future. Such liabilities
could include those arising from employee benefits contribution obligations
of a
prior owner or non-compliance with, or liability pursuant to, applicable
federal, state or local environmental requirements by prior owners for which
we,
as a successor owner, may be responsible. In addition, there may be additional
costs relating to acquisitions including, but not limited to, possible purchase
price adjustments. We cannot assure you that rights to indemnification by
sellers of assets to us, even if obtained, will be enforceable, collectible
or
sufficient in amount, scope or duration to fully offset the possible liabilities
associated with the business or property acquired. Any such liabilities,
individually or in the aggregate, could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
In
the
past several years we have completed several acquisitions, which have broadened
our product lines within our target markets and increased the level of vertical
integration within those product lines. However, if customer demand in these
markets does not meet current expectations, our revenues could be significantly
reduced and we could suffer a material adverse affect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
Our
products are difficult to manufacture. Our production could be
disrupted and our results will suffer if our production yields are low as a
result of manufacturing difficulties.
We
manufacture many of our wafers and devices in our own production facilities.
Difficulties in the production process, such as contamination, raw material
quality issues, human error or equipment failure, can cause a substantial
percentage of wafers and devices to be nonfunctional. Lower-than-expected
production yields may delay shipments or result in unexpected levels of warranty
claims, either of which can materially adversely affect our results of
operations. We have experienced difficulties in achieving planned yields in
the
past, particularly in pre-production and upon initial commencement of full
production volumes, which have adversely affected our gross margins. Because
the
majority of our manufacturing costs are fixed, achieving planned production
yields is critical to our results of operations. Because we manufacture many
of
our products in a single facility, we have greater risk of interruption in
manufacturing resulting from fire, natural disaster, equipment failures, or
similar events than we would if we had back-up facilities available for
manufacturing these products. We could also incur significant costs
to repair and/or replace products that are defective and in some cases costly
product redesigns and/or rework may be required to correct a
defect. Additionally, any defect could adversely affect our
reputation and result in the loss of future orders.
We
face lengthy sales and qualifications cycles for our new products and, in many
cases, must invest a substantial amount of time and funds before we receive
orders.
Most
of
our products are tested by current and potential customers to determine whether
they meet customer or industry specifications. The length of the qualification
process, which can span a year or more, varies substantially by product and
customer, and thus can cause our results of operations to be unpredictable.
During a given qualification period, we invest significant resources and
allocate substantial production capacity to manufacture these new products
prior
to any commitment to purchase by customers. In addition, it is difficult to
obtain new customers during the qualification period as customers are reluctant
to expend the resources necessary to qualify a new supplier if they have one
or
more existing qualified sources. If we are unable to meet applicable
specifications or do not receive sufficient orders to profitably use the
allocated production capacity, our business, financial condition and results
of
operations could be materially adversely affected.
Our
historical and future budgets for operating expenses, capital expenditures,
operating leases and service contracts are based upon our assumptions as to
the
future market acceptance of our products. Because of the lengthy lead times
required for product development and the changes in technology that typically
occur while a product is being developed, it is difficult to accurately estimate
customer demand for any given product. If our products do not achieve an
adequate level of customer demand, our business, financial condition and results
of operations could be materially adversely affected.
If
our contract manufacturers fail to deliver quality products at reasonable prices
and on a timely basis, our business, financial condition and results of
operations could be materially adversely affected.
We
are
increasing our use of contract manufacturers located outside of the U.S. as
a
less-expensive alternative to performing our own manufacturing of certain
products. Contract manufacturers in Asia currently manufacture a
substantial portion of our high-volume parts. If these contract
manufacturers do not fulfill their obligations to us, or if we do not properly
manage these relationships and the transition of production to these contract
manufacturers, our existing customer relationships may suffer. For example,
in
the past, we experienced difficulties filling orders in our
fiber-to-the-premises business due to capacity limitations at one of our
contract manufacturers. In addition, by undertaking these activities, we run
the
risk that the reputation and competitiveness of our products and services may
deteriorate as a result of the reduction of our ability to oversee and control
quality and delivery schedules. The use of contract manufacturers located
outside of the U.S. also subjects us to the following additional risks that
could significantly impair our ability to source our contract manufacturing
requirements internationally, including:
|
•
|
unexpected
changes in regulatory requirements;
|
|
•
|
legal
uncertainties regarding liability, tariffs and other trade
barriers;
|
|
•
|
inadequate
protection of intellectual property in some
countries;
|
|
•
|
greater
incidence of shipping delays;
|
|
•
|
greater
difficulty in hiring talent needed to oversee manufacturing operations;
and
|
|
•
|
potential
political and economic instability.
|
Prior
to
our customers accepting products manufactured at our contract manufacturers,
they must requalify the product and manufacturing processes. The qualification
process can be lengthy and expensive, with no guarantee that any particular
product qualification process will lead to profitable product sales. The
qualification process determines whether the product manufactured at our
contract manufacturer achieves customers’ quality, performance and reliability
standards. Our expectations as to the time periods required to qualify a product
line and ship products in volumes to customers may be erroneous. Delays in
qualification can impair the expected timing of the transfer of a product line
to our contract manufacturer and may impair the expected amount of sales of
the
affected products. We may, in fact, experience delays in obtaining qualification
of products produced by our contract manufacturers and, therefore, our operating
results and customer relationships could be materially adversely
affected.
Our
supply chain and manufacturing process relies on accurate forecasting to provide
us with optimal margins and profitability. Because of market uncertainties,
forecasting is becoming much more difficult. In addition, as we come to rely
more heavily on contract manufacturers, we may have fewer personnel with
expertise to manage these third-party arrangements.
Protecting
our trade secrets and obtaining patent protection is critical to our ability
to
effectively compete.
Our
success and competitive position depend on protecting our trade secrets and
other intellectual property. Our strategy is to rely on trade secrets and
patents to protect our manufacturing and sales processes and products. Reliance
on trade secrets is only an effective business practice if trade secrets remain
undisclosed and a proprietary product or process is not reverse engineered
or
independently developed. We take measures to protect our trade secrets,
including executing non-disclosure agreements with our employees, our joint
venture partners, customers and suppliers. If parties breach these agreements
or
the measures we take are not properly implemented, we may not have an adequate
remedy. Disclosure of our trade secrets or reverse engineering of our
proprietary products, processes, or devices could materially adversely affect
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
There
is
also no assurance that any patents will afford us commercially significant
protection of our technologies or that we will have adequate financial resources
to enforce our patents. Nor can there be any assurance that the
significant number of patent applications that we have filed and are pending,
or
those we may file in the future, will result in patents being
issued. In addition, the laws of certain other countries may not
protect our intellectual property to the same extent as U.S. laws.
Our
failure to obtain or maintain the right to use certain intellectual property
may
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
The
compound semiconductor, optoelectronics and fiber optic communications
industries are characterized by frequent litigation regarding patent and other
intellectual property rights. From time to time we have received, and may
receive in the future, notice of claims of infringement of other parties’
proprietary rights and licensing offers to commercialize third party patent
rights. Although we are not currently involved in any litigation relating to
claims of infringement from other parties’ intellectual property, there can be
no assurance that:
|
•
|
infringement
claims (or claims for indemnification resulting from infringement
claims)
will not be asserted against us or that such claims will not be
successful;
|
|
•
|
future
assertions will not result in an injunction against the sale of infringing
products, which could significantly impair our business and results
of
operations;
|
|
•
|
any
patent owned or licensed by us will not be invalidated, circumvented
or
challenged; or
|
|
•
|
we
will not be required to obtain licenses, the expense of which may
adversely affect our results of operations and
profitability.
|
In
addition, effective copyright and trade secret protection may be unavailable
or
limited in certain foreign countries. Litigation, which could result in
substantial cost and diversion of our resources, may be necessary to defend
our
rights or defend us against claimed infringement of the rights of
others. In certain circumstances, our intellectual property rights
associated with government contracts may be limited.
Our
substantial level of indebtedness could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition and results of
operations.
We
have
substantial debt service obligations. At September 30, 2006, our debt was $95.9
million. In April 2007, we repurchased approximately $11.4 million of the
outstanding debt. We may incur additional debt in the future. This
significant amount of debt could:
|
•
|
make
it difficult for us to make payments on our convertible notes and
any
other debt we may have;
|
|
•
|
make
it difficult for us to obtain any necessary future financing for
working
capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements or other
purposes;
|
|
•
|
make
us more vulnerable to adverse changes in general economic, industry
and
competitive conditions, in government regulation and in our business
by
limiting our flexibility in planning for, and reacting to changing
conditions;
|
|
•
|
place
us at a competitive disadvantage compared with our competitors that
have
less debt;
|
|
•
|
require
us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations
to
service our debt, which would reduce the amount of our cash flow
available
for other purposes, including working capital and capital expenditures;
and
|
|
•
|
limit
funds available for research and
development.
|
If
we are
unable to generate sufficient cash flow or otherwise obtain funds necessary
to
make required payments on our outstanding indebtedness, we would be in default
under the terms of our indebtedness. Default under the indenture governing
our
convertible senior subordinated notes would permit the holders of such notes
to
accelerate the maturity of the notes and could cause defaults under future
indebtedness we may incur. Any such default could materially adversely affect
our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we
cannot assure you that we would be able to repay amounts due in respect of
the
notes if payment of the notes were to be accelerated following the occurrence
of
an event of default as defined in the indenture.
In
our Fiber Optics business, we generally do not have long-term contracts with
our
customers and we typically sell our products pursuant to purchase orders with
short lead times. As a result, our customers could stop purchasing
our products at any time and we must fulfill orders in a timely manner to keep
our customers.
Generally,
we do not have long-term contracts with customers that purchase our fiber optic
products. As a result, our agreements with our customers do not
provide any assurance of future sales. Risks associated with the
absence of long-term contracts with our customers include the
following:
|
•
|
our
customers can stop purchasing our products at any time without
penalty;
|
|
•
|
our
customers may purchase products from our competitors;
and
|
|
•
|
our
customers are not required to make minimum
purchases.
|
We
generally sell our products pursuant to individual purchase orders, which often
have extremely short lead times. If we are unable to fulfill these
orders in a timely manner, it is likely that we will lose sales and
customers. In addition, we sell some of our products to the U.S.
Government and governmental entities. These contracts are generally
subject to termination for convenience provisions and may be cancelled at any
time.
War,
terrorism, public health issues, and other circumstances could disrupt supply,
delivery, or demand of products, which could negatively affect the Company’s
operations and performance.
War,
terrorism, public health issues, and other business interruptions, whether
in
the U.S. or abroad, have caused and could cause damage or disruption to
international commerce and global economy, and thus may have a strong negative
impact on the global economy, the Company, and the Company’s suppliers or
customers. The Company’s major business operations are subject to interruption
by earthquake, other natural disasters, fire, power shortages, terrorist attacks
and other hostile acts, labor disputes, public health issues, and other events
beyond its control.
Although
it is impossible to predict the occurrences or consequences of any such events,
such events could result in a decrease in demand for the Company’s products,
make it difficult or impossible for the Company to deliver products to its
customers or to receive components from its suppliers, and create delays and
inefficiencies in the Company’s supply chain. In addition, should major public
health issues including pandemics arise, the Company could be negatively
affected by more stringent employee travel restrictions, additional limitations
in the availability of freight services, governmental actions limiting the
movement of products between various regions, delays in production ramps of
new
products, and disruptions in the operations of the Company’s manufacturing
vendors and component suppliers. The Company’s operating results and financial
condition have been, and in the future may be, adversely affected by such
events.
We
have significant international sales, which expose us to additional risks and
uncertainties.
Sales
to
customers located outside the U.S. accounted for approximately 24% of our
revenues in fiscal 2006, 17% of our revenues in fiscal 2005 and 32% of our
revenues in fiscal 2004. Sales to customers in Asia represent the majority
of
our international sales. We believe that international sales will continue
to
account for a significant percentage of our revenues and we are seeking
international expansion opportunities. Because of this, the following
international commercial risks may materially adversely affect our
revenues:
|
•
|
political
and economic instability or changes in U.S. Government policy with
respect
to these foreign countries may inhibit export of our devices and
limit
potential customers’ access to U.S. dollars in a country or region in
which those potential customers are
located;
|
|
•
|
we
may experience difficulties in the timeliness of collection of foreign
accounts receivable and be forced to write off these
receivables;
|
|
•
|
tariffs
and other barriers may make our devices less cost
competitive;
|
|
•
|
the
laws of certain foreign countries may not adequately protect our
trade
secrets and intellectual property or may be burdensome to comply
with;
|
|
•
|
potentially
adverse tax consequences to our customers may damage our cost
competitiveness;
|
|
•
|
currency
fluctuations may make our products less cost competitive, affecting
overseas demand for our products;
and
|
|
•
|
language
and other cultural barriers may require us to expend additional resources
competing in foreign markets or hinder our ability to effectively
compete.
|
In
addition, certain foreign laws and regulations place restrictions on the
concentration of certain hazardous materials, including, but not limited to,
lead, mercury and cadmium, in our products. Failure to comply with such laws
and
regulations could subject us to future liabilities or result in the limitation
or suspension of the sale or production of our products. These regulations
include the European Union's Restrictions on Hazardous Substances, Directive
on
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and the directive on End of Life
for
Vehicles. Failure to comply with environmental and health and safety laws and
regulations may limit our ability to export products to the EU and could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
We
will lose sales if we are unable to obtain government authorization to export
our products.
Exports
of our products are subject to export controls imposed by the U.S. Government
and administered by the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce. In certain
instances, these regulations may require pre-shipment authorization from the
administering department. For products subject to the Export
Administration Regulations (“EAR”) administered by the Department of Commerce’s
Bureau of Industry and Security, the requirement for a license is dependent
on
the type and end use of the product, the final destination and the identity
of
the end user. Virtually all exports of products subject to the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) regulations administered by
the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls require a
license. Most of our fiber optics products and our terrestrial solar
power products are subject to EAR; however, certain fiber optics products and
.
all of our commercially available solar cell satellite products are currently
subject to ITAR.
Given
the
current global political climate, obtaining export licenses can be difficult
and
time-consuming. For example, we did not receive export licenses
covering three international satellite programs in time to ship product during
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006. Failure to obtain export
licenses for these shipments could significantly reduce our revenue and could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of
operations. Compliance with U.S. Government regulations may also subject us
to
additional fees and costs. The absence of comparable restrictions on competitors
in those countries may adversely affect our competitive position.
Our
operating results could be harmed if we lose access to sole or limited sources
of materials, components or services.
We
currently obtain some materials, components and services used in our products
from limited or single sources. For example, we obtain germanium
substrates for our space-based solar cells from a single supplier. We
generally do not carry significant inventories of any raw materials. Because
we
often do not account for a significant part of our suppliers' businesses, we
may
not have access to sufficient capacity from these suppliers in periods of high
demand. For example, in the past, we experienced difficulties filling orders
in
our fiber-to-the-premises business due to limited available capacity of one
of
our contract manufacturers. In addition, since we generally do not have
guaranteed supply arrangements with our suppliers we risk serious disruption
to
our operations if an important supplier terminates product lines, changes
business focus, or goes out of business. Because some of these suppliers are
located overseas, we may be faced with higher costs of purchasing these
materials if the U.S. dollar weakens against other currencies. If we were to
change any of our limited or sole source suppliers, we would be required to
re-qualify each new supplier. Re-qualification could prevent or delay product
shipments that could materially adversely affect our results of operations.
In
addition, our reliance on these suppliers may materially adversely affect our
production if the components vary in quality or quantity. If we are unable
to
obtain timely deliveries of sufficient components of acceptable quality or
if
the prices of components for which we do not have alternative sources increase,
our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially
adversely affected.
A
failure to attract and retain technical and other key personnel could reduce
our
revenues and our operational effectiveness.
Our
future success depends, in part, on our ability to attract and retain certain
key personnel, including scientific, operational, financial, and managerial
personnel. The competition for attracting and retaining these employees
(especially scientists, technical and financial personnel) is intense. Because
of this competition for skilled employees, we may be unable to retain our
existing personnel or attract additional qualified employees in the future.
If
we are unable to retain our skilled employees and attract additional qualified
employees to the extent necessary to keep up with our business demands and
changes, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be
materially adversely affected.
The
Company's operating results could be adversely affected by the departure of
senior management or key personnel.
The
loss
of senior management and key personnel - either as a group or on an individual
basis - could have a materially adverse affect on the Company's business and
financial performance. Due to the recent departure of several senior
management members (including the Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, Chief Technology Officer, General Counsel and the head of one of our
operating divisions), the Company is implementing procedures to make it less
dependent on key individuals so that it is less likely that the loss of any
single individual will impact its business.
Failure
to comply with environmental and safety regulations, resulting in improper
handling of hazardous raw materials used in our manufacturing processes, could
result in costly remediation fees, penalties or
damages.
We
are
subject to laws and regulations and must obtain certain permits and licenses
relating to the use of hazardous materials. Our production activities involve
the use of certain hazardous raw materials, including, but not limited to,
ammonia, gallium, phosphine and arsine. If our control systems are unsuccessful
in preventing a release of these materials into the environment or other adverse
environmental conditions or human exposures occur, we could experience
interruptions in our operations and incur substantial remediation and other
costs or liabilities.
Our
stock price could be adversely affected by the issuance of preferred
stock.
Our
Board
of Directors is authorized to issue up to 5,882,352 shares of preferred stock
with such dividend rates, liquidation preferences, voting rights, redemption
and
conversion terms and privileges as our Board of Directors, in its sole
discretion, may determine. The issuance of shares of preferred stock may result
in a decrease in the value or market price of our common
stock. Additionally, our Board of Directors could use the preferred
stock to delay or discourage hostile bids for control of us in which
shareholders may receive premiums for their common stock or to make the possible
sale of EMCORE or the removal of our management more difficult. The issuance
of
shares of preferred stock could adversely affect the voting and other rights
of
the holders of common stock and may depress the price of our common
stock.
We
do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable
future, and therefore only appreciation of the price of our common stock will
provide a return to our shareholders.
We
currently anticipate that we will retain all future earnings, if any, to finance
the growth and development of our business. We do not intend to pay cash
dividends in the foreseeable future. As a result, only appreciation of the
price
of our common stock, which may not occur, will provide a return to our
shareholders.
Changes
in accounting rules could affect the Company’s future operating
results.
Financial
statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP). These principles are subject to interpretation by various
governing bodies, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
and
the SEC, who create and interpret appropriate accounting standards. A change
in
accounting standards could have a significant effect on the Company’s results of
operations. For example, in December 2004, the FASB issued new
guidance that addressed the accounting for share-based payments, Statement
of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment (revised
2004)” (“SFAS 123(R)”), which the Company adopted on October 1,
2005. In fiscal 2006, stock-based compensation expense reduced
diluted earnings per common share by approximately $0.09 per share. Although
the
adoption of SFAS 123(R) is expected to continue to have a significant impact
on
the Company’s results of operations, future changes to various assumptions used
to determine the fair value of equity awards issued or the amount and type
of
equity awards granted, create uncertainty as to the amount of future stock-based
compensation expense.
We
are subject to risks associated with the availability and coverage of
insurance.
For
certain risks, the Company does not maintain insurance coverage because of
cost
and/or availability. Because the Company retains some portion of its insurable
risks, and in some cases self-insures completely, unforeseen or catastrophic
losses in excess of insured limits may have a material adverse effect on the
Company’s results of operations and financial position.
We
are increasing operations in China, which exposes us to risks inherent in doing
business in China.
In
May
2007, EMCORE Hong Kong, a wholly owned subsidiary of EMCORE Corporation,
announced the opening of a new manufacturing facility in Langfang, China. Our
new company, Langfang EMCORE Optoelectronics Co. Ltd., is located approximately
20 miles southeast of Beijing and currently occupies a space of 22,000 square
feet with a Class-10,000 clean room for optoelectronic device
packaging. Another 60,000 square feet is available for future
expansion. EMCORE will transfer its most cost sensitive
optoelectronic devices to this facility. This facility, along with a
strategic alignment with our existing contract-manufacturing partners, should
enable us to improve our cost structure and gross margins across product lines
within EMCORE. We expect to develop and provide improved service to our global
customers by having a local presence in Asia. As we continue to
consolidate our manufacturing operations, we will incur additional costs to
transfer product lines to our China facility, including costs of qualification
testing with our customers, which could have a material adverse impact on our
operating results and financial condition.
Our
China-based activities are subject to greater political, legal and economic
risks than those faced by our other operations. In particular, the
political, legal and economic climate in China (both at national and regional
levels) is extremely fluid and unpredictable. Our ability to operate in China
may be adversely affected by changes in Chinese laws and regulations, such
as
those relating to taxation, import and export tariffs, environmental
regulations, land use rights, intellectual property and other matters, which
laws and regulations remain highly underdeveloped and subject to change, with
little or no prior notice, for political or other reasons. Moreover, the
enforceability of applicable existing Chinese laws and regulations is
uncertain. In addition, we may not obtain the requisite legal permits
to continue to operate in China and costs or operational limitations may be
imposed in connection with obtaining and complying with such permits. Our
business could be materially harmed by any changes in the political, legal
or
economic climate in China or the inability to enforce applicable Chinese laws
and regulations.
As
a
result of a government order to ration power for industrial use, operations
in
our China facility may be subject to possible interruptions or shutdowns,
adversely affecting our ability to complete manufacturing commitments on a
timely basis. If we are required to make significant investments in generating
capacity to sustain uninterrupted operations at our facility, we may not realize
the reductions in costs anticipated from our expansion in China. In addition,
future outbreaks of avian influenza, or other communicable diseases, could
result in quarantines or closures of our facility, thereby disrupting our
operations and expansion in China.
We
intend
to export the majority of the products manufactured at our facilities in China.
Accordingly, upon application to and approval by the relevant governmental
authorities, we will not be subject to certain Chinese taxes and are exempt
from
customs duty assessment on imported components or materials when the finished
products are exported from China. We are, however, required to pay income taxes
in China, subject to certain tax relief. As the Chinese trade regulations are
in
a state of flux, we may become subject to other forms of taxation and duty
assessments in China or may be required to pay for export license fees in the
future. In the event that we become subject to any increased taxes or new forms
of taxation imposed by authorities in China, our results of operations could
be
materially and adversely affected.
Our
business and operations would be adversely impacted in the event of a failure
of
our information technology infrastructure.
We
rely
upon the capacity, reliability and security of our information technology
hardware and software infrastructure and our ability to expand and update this
infrastructure in response to our changing needs. We are constantly updating
our
information technology infrastructure. Any failure to manage, expand and update
our information technology infrastructure or any failure in the operation of
this infrastructure could harm our business.
Despite
our implementation of security measures, our systems are vulnerable to damages
from computer viruses, natural disasters, unauthorized access and other similar
disruptions. Any system failure, accident or security breach could result in
disruptions to our operations. To the extent that any disruptions or security
breach results in a loss or damage to our data, or inappropriate disclosure
of
confidential information, it could harm our business. In addition, we may be
required to incur significant costs to protect against damage caused by these
disruptions or security breaches in the future.
If
we fail to remediate weaknesses in our current system of internal controls
to an
effective level, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results
or prevent fraud. As a result, our business could be harmed and current and
potential investors could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which
could have a negative effect on the trading price of our debt and equity
securities.
The
Company is subject to the ongoing internal control provisions of Section 404
of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These provisions provide for the identification
of material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, which
is a
process to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial
reporting for external purposes in accordance with U.S. GAAP. If we
cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our brand, operating
results and the market value of our debt and equity securities could be harmed.
We have in the past discovered, and may in the future discover, areas of our
internal controls that need improvement. Specifically, in Item 9A – Controls and
Procedures within this 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K, management identified
certain material weaknesses in our internal controls processes.
We
have
devoted significant resources to remediate and improve our internal controls.
We
have also been monitoring the effectiveness of these remediated measures. We
cannot be certain that these measures will ensure adequate controls over our
financial processes and reporting in the future. We intend to continue
implementing and monitoring changes to our processes to improve internal
controls over financial reporting. Any failure to implement required new or
improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation,
could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting
obligations.
Inadequate
internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported
financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price
of our debt and equity securities. Further, the impact of these events could
also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons
to
serve on our Board of Directors or as executive officers, which could harm
our
business. The additions of our manufacturing facility in China and acquisitions
increase the burden on our systems and infrastructure, and impose additional
risk to the ongoing effectiveness of our internal controls, disclosure controls,
and procedures. Consequently, we expect to expend significant
resources and effort in this regard, but are not certain that our efforts will
be successful.
Our
cost reduction programs may be insufficient to achieve long-term
profitability.
We
are
undertaking cost reduction measures intended to reduce our expense structure
at
both the cost of goods sold and the operating expense levels. We believe these
measures are a necessary response to, among other things, declining average
sales prices across our product lines. These measures may be unsuccessful in
creating profit margins sufficient to sustain our current operating structure
and business.
Shifts
in industry-wide demands and inventories could result in significant inventory
write-downs.
The
life
cycles of some of our products depend heavily upon the life cycles of the end
products into which our products are designed. Products with short life cycles
require us to manage production and inventory levels closely. We evaluate our
ending inventories on a quarterly basis for excess quantities, impairment of
value and obsolescence. This evaluation includes analysis of sales levels by
product and projections of future demand based upon input received from our
customers, sales team and management estimates. If inventories on hand are
in
excess of demand, or if they are greater than 12-months old, appropriate
reserves are provided. In addition, we write off inventories that are considered
obsolete based upon changes in customer demand, manufacturing process changes
that result in existing inventory obsolescence or new product introductions,
which eliminate demand for existing products. Remaining inventory balances
are
adjusted to approximate the lower of our manufacturing cost or market
value.
If
future
demand or market conditions are less favorable than our estimates, inventory
write-downs may be required. We cannot assure investors that obsolete or excess
inventories, which may result from unanticipated changes in the estimated total
demand for our products and/or the estimated life cycles of the end products
into which our products are designed, will not affect us beyond the inventory
charges that we have already taken.
Our
management's stock ownership gives them the power to control business affairs
and prevent a takeover that could be beneficial to unaffiliated
shareholders.
Certain
members of our management and the Board of Directors, specifically Thomas J.
Russell, Chairman of our Board, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., President, Chief
Executive Officer and a director, and Robert Louis-Dreyfus, a former director,
are former members of Jesup & Lamont Merchant Partners, L.L.C. They
collectively beneficially own approximately 18% of our common stock.
Accordingly, such persons will continue to hold sufficient voting power to
control our business and affairs for the foreseeable future. This concentration
of ownership may also have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing
a
change in control of our company, which could have a material adverse effect
on
our stock price.
Certain
provisions of New Jersey law and our charter may make a takeover of EMCORE
difficult even if such takeover could be beneficial to some of our
shareholders.
New
Jersey law and our certificate of incorporation, as amended, contain certain
provisions that could delay or prevent a takeover attempt that our shareholders
may consider in their best interests. Our Board of Directors is divided into
three classes. Directors are elected to serve staggered three-year terms and
are
not subject to removal except for cause by the vote of the holders of at least
80% of our capital stock. In addition, approval by the holders of 80% of our
voting stock is required for certain business combinations unless these
transactions meet certain fair price criteria and procedural requirements or
are
approved by two-thirds of our continuing directors. We may in the future adopt
other measures that may have the effect of delaying or discouraging an
unsolicited takeover, even if the takeover were at a premium price or favored
by
a majority of unaffiliated shareholders. Certain of these measures may be
adopted without any further vote or action by our shareholders and this could
depress the price of our common stock.
ITEM
1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
Not
Applicable.
ITEM
2.
|
Properties
|
The
following chart contains certain information regarding each of our principal
facilities.
Location
|
Function
|
Approximate
Square
Footage
|
Term
(in
fiscal year)
|
|||
Albuquerque,
New Mexico
|
Corporate
Headquarters
Manufacturing
facility for photovoltaic products
Manufacturing
facility for digital fiber optic products
R&D
facility
|
165,000
|
Facilities
are owned by EMCORE; certain land is leased. Land lease expires
in 2050
|
|||
Alhambra,
California
|
Manufacturing
facility for CATV, FTTP and Satcom products
R&D
facility
|
91,000
|
Lease
expires in 2011 (1)
|
|||
City
of Industry, California
|
Facility
was vacated in December 2006
|
72,000
|
Lease
terminated by agreement in 2006
|
|||
Langfang,
China
|
Manufacturing
facility for fiber optics products
|
22,000
|
Lease
expires in 2012
|
|||
|
||||||
Somerset,
New Jersey
|
Former
Corporate Headquarters
Facility
vacated in September 2007
|
19,000
|
Lease
expires in 2007 (2)
|
|||
Sunnyvale,
California
|
Manufacturing
facility for ECL lasers
R&D
facility
Facility
expected to be vacated in 2008
|
15,000
|
Lease
expires in 2008 (1),
(3)
|
|||
Naperville,
Illinois
|
Manufacturing
facility for LX4 modules
R&D
facility
Facility
was vacated in October 2007
|
11,000
|
Lease
expires in 2013 (1)
|
|||
Ivyland,
Pennsylvania
|
Manufacturing
facility for CATV and Satcom products
R&D
facility
|
9,000
|
Lease
expires in 2011(1)
|
|||
San
Diego, California
|
Manufacturing
facility for video transport products
R&D
facility (April 2007 - Acquisition of Opticomm
Corporation)
|
8,100
|
Lease
expires in 2008
|
|||
Blacksburg,
Virginia
|
Manufacturing
facility for video transport products
R&D
facility.
Facility
was vacated in June 2007
|
6,000
|
Lease
expires in 2009 (1)
|
|||
Santa
Clara, California
|
Manufacturing
facility for digital fiber optics products
R&D
facility
Facility
was vacated in September 2007
|
4,000
|
Lease
expires in 2007 (4)
|
Notes:
|
(1)
|
This
lease has the option to be renewed by EMCORE, subject to inflation
adjustments.
|
|
(2)
|
Lease
is on a month-to-month basis. EMCORE subleases approximately
half of this facility to IQE plc.
|
|
(3)
|
EMCORE
subleases approximately one-third of this facility to third
parties.
|
|
(4)
|
Lease
is on a month-to-month basis.
|
ITEM
3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
The
Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that are discussed
below. The Company is also subject to certain other legal proceedings and claims
that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and which have not been
fully adjudicated. The Company does not believe it has a potential
liability related to current legal proceedings and claims that could
individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, liquidity or results of operations. However, the results of legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Should the Company fail to
prevail in any legal matters or should several legal matters be resolved against
the Company in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular
reporting period could be materially adversely affected. The Company settled
certain matters during 2006 that did not individually or in the aggregate have
a
material impact on the Company’s results of operations.
NASDAQ
Delisting Proceeding
On
December 18, 2006, EMCORE received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for
continued listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that
its
common stock was subject to delisting from The NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice,
which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to
file its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006
with the SEC by the required deadline. The Company had previously filed a Form
12b-25 with the SEC indicating that the Company would be unable to file its
Form
10-K by the original filing deadline of December 14, 2006 due to the Company’s
ongoing review of its prior stock option grants.
On
February 13, 2007, EMCORE received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for
continued listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that
its
common stock was subject to delisting from The NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice,
which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to
file its report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006
with
the SEC by the required deadline. The Company had previously filed a Form 12b-25
with the SEC indicating that the Company would be unable to file its Form 10-Q
by the original filing deadline of February 9, 2007 due to the Company’s ongoing
review of its prior stock option grants.
The
Company attended a hearing before the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel (the
“Panel”) on February 15, 2007 to review both the Staff Determination letter
received by the Company on December 18, 2006 as a result of the Company's
inability to file its Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 by the
required deadline and the Staff Determination letter received by the Company
on
February 13, 2007 as a result of the Company's inability to file its Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 by the required deadline.
On
April
3, 2007, the Company received notice from the NASDAQ Stock Market that the
Panel
granted the Company’s request for continued listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market
subject to the Company filing both its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2006 and its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006
with the SEC by no later than May 10, 2007.
On
May
10, 2007, the Company received notice from the NASDAQ Stock
Market that the Panel had granted the Company’s request for an extension of the
May 10, 2007 deadline. The extension was conditioned on the Company filing
its
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006, its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2006 and all required restatements with the SEC
by no
later than June 18, 2007.
On
May
14, 2007, the Company received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that
the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for continued
listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that its common
stock was subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice, which
the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to file
its report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 with the
SEC
by the required deadline. The Company had previously filed a Form 12b-25 with
the SEC indicating that the Company would be unable to file its Form 10-Q by
the
original filing deadline of May 10, 2007 due to the Company’s ongoing review of
its prior stock option grants.
On
May
25, 2007, EMCORE filed an appeal of the May 10, 2007 Panel decision to grant
the
Company’s request for an extension through June 18, 2007. EMCORE
appealed the May 25, 2007 decision on the sole ground that the Panel could
not
grant the Company beyond June 18, 2007 to file the missing Form 10-K, Form
10-Qs
and restatements. On June 8, 2007, the Company requested that NASDAQ
stay the Panel’s May 10, 2007 decision pending the Company’s appeal of that
action.
On
June
15, 2007, the Company received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market stating
that the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council (the “Listing Council”) has
stayed the previously reported May 10, 2007 decision of the Panel and any future
Panel determinations to suspend the Company’s securities from trading on NASDAQ,
pending further review by the Listing Council. Consequently, the Company’s
securities would continue to be listed and tradable on the NASDAQ Global Market
System until further action by the Listing Council to lift the stay, which
would
not occur prior to August 10, 2007. In addition, the Company was
invited to submit any additional information to the Listing Council for
consideration in its review by no later August 10, 2007.
On
August
10, 2007, the Company submitted a letter, in response to the Listing Council’s
invitation, requesting that the Listing Council exercise its discretionary
authority in favor of granting the Company an additional extension to regain
compliance with NASDAQ’s filing requirement. The Company is awaiting
the Listing Council’s response to this letter.
On
August
13, 2007, the Company received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that
the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for continued
listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that its common
stock was subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. The
notice, which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s
failure to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2007 with the SEC by the required deadline. The Company had
previously filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC
indicating that the Company would be unable to file this Quarterly Report by
the
original filing deadline of August 9, 2007 due to the Company’s ongoing review
of its prior stock option grants.
On
October 2, 2007, the Company received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter
stating that the Company was not in compliance with holding its annual meeting
of shareholders within twelve months of the Company’s fiscal year end, as set
forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rules 4350(e) and 4350(g) and that its common stock
was subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice,
which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to
hold its annual shareholder meeting by September 30, 2007.
On
October 5, 2007, the Company has received a decision from the Listing Council
stating that, pursuant to its discretionary authority, it has granted the
Company an exception and allowed the Company until December 4, 2007 to
demonstrate compliance with all of the Global Market continued listing
requirements (the “Decision”). The Decision requires that the Company
file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 and its Form
10-Q for the quarters ended December 31, 2006, March 31, 2007 and June 30,
2007
with the SEC by the close of business on December 4, 2007. The
Decision also provides that if the Company has not filed these delinquent
reports with the SEC by the close of business on December 4, 2007, the Company’s
securities will be suspended at the opening of business on December 6,
2007.
Although
we believe the filing of this Form 10-K, and our concurrent filings of the
Form
10-Qs for the quarters ended December 31, 2006, March 31, 2007, and June 30,
2007 satisfy the Panel’s requirements, we cannot assure you that the Panel will
be satisfied with these filings. See the Explanatory Note in our
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 for
a
discussion of stock option restatements that caused the delay in our SEC
filings.
SEC
Investigation
The
Company informed the staff of the SEC of the Special Committee’s investigation
on November 6, 2006. After the Company’s initial contact with the
SEC, the SEC opened a non-public investigation concerning the Company’s historic
option granting practices since the Company’s initial public
offering. The Company has cooperated fully with the SEC’s
investigation. Although we cannot predict the outcome of this matter,
we do not expect that such matter will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position or results of operations.
Shareholder
Derivative Litigation Relating to Historical Stock Option
Practices
On
February 1, 2007, Plaintiff Lewis Edelstein filed a purported stockholder
derivative action (the “Federal Court Action”) on behalf of the Company against
certain of its present and former directors and officers (the “Individual
Defendants”), as well as the Company as nominal defendant, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Edelstein v. Brodie, et.
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00596-FLW-JJH (D.N.J.). On May 22,
2007, Plaintiffs Kathryn Gabaldon and Michael Sackrison each filed a purported
stockholder derivative action against the Individual Defendants, and the Company
as nominal defendant, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County,
Gabaldon v. Brodie, et. al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03185-FLW-JJH (D.N.J.) and
Sackrison v. Brodie, et. al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00596-FLW-JJH (D.N.J.)
(collectively, the “State Court Actions”).
Both
the
Federal Court Action and the State Court Actions alleged, using essentially
identical contentions that the Individual Defendants engaged in improprieties
and violations of law in connection with the Company’s historical issuances of
stock options. Each of the actions seeks the same relief on behalf of
the Company, including, among other things, damages, equitable relief, corporate
governance reforms, an accounting, rescission, restitution and costs and
disbursements of the lawsuit. On July 10, 2007, the State Court
Actions were removed to the United States District Court for the District of
New
Jersey.
On
September 26, 2007, the plaintiff in the Federal Court Action signed an
agreement in principle with the Individual Defendants and the Company to settle
that litigation in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”)
filed as Exhibit 10.10 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. That same
day, the plaintiffs in the State Court Actions advised the Federal Court that
the settlement embodied in the MOU would also constitute the settlement of
the
State Court Actions.
The
MOU
provides that the Company will adhere to certain policies and procedures
relating to the issuance of stock options, stock trading by directors, officers
and employees, the composition of its Board of Directors, and the functioning
of
the Board’s Audit and Compensation Committees. The MOU also provides
for the payment of $700,000 relating to plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, costs and
expenses, which the Company’s insurance carrier has committed to pay on behalf
of the Company. To be fully implemented, the MOU will be embodied in
a more detailed stipulation of settlement and will be expressly conditioned
on
Court approval following a period for comment by potentially affected
parties.
We
have
recorded $700,000 as a liability for the stipulated settlement as of September
30, 2006 since events that led to the litigation existed as of that
date. Although we anticipate that our insurance carrier will cover
the stipulated settlement, we have not recorded any receivable, or gain
contingency, since the settlement is still contingent upon certain future
events.
Indemnification
Obligations
Subject
to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our current and former
directors, officers and employees in connection with the investigation of our
historical stock option practices, related government investigation and
shareholder litigation. These obligations arise under the terms of our
certificate of incorporation, our bylaws, applicable contracts, and New Jersey
law. The obligation to indemnify generally means that we are required to pay
or
reimburse the individuals’ reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and
other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. We are currently
paying or reimbursing legal expenses being incurred in connection with these
matters by a number of our current and former directors, officers and employees.
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 liability insurance policies that limits its exposure
and enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid.
Intellectual
Property Lawsuits
We
protect our proprietary technology by applying for patents where appropriate
and
in other cases by preserving the technology, related know-how and information
as
trade secrets. The success and competitive position of our product lines is
significantly impacted by our ability to obtain intellectual property protection
for our R&D efforts.
We
have,
from time to time, exchanged correspondence with third parties regarding the
assertion of patent or other intellectual property rights in connection with
certain of our products and processes. Additionally, on September 11, 2006,
we
filed a lawsuit against Optium Corporation (Optium) in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for patent infringement.
In the suit, EMCORE and JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDSU) allege that Optium
is
infringing on U.S. patents 6,282,003 and 6,490,071 with its Prisma II 1550nm
transmitters. On March 14, 2007, following denial of a motion to add additional
claims to its existing lawsuit, EMCORE and JDSU filed a second patent suit
in
the same court against Optium alleging infringement of JDSU's patent
6,519,374. On March 15, 2007, Optium filed a declaratory judgment
action against the Company and JDSU. Optium seeks in this litigation a
declaration that certain products of Optium do not infringe United States Patent
No. 6,519,374 ("the '374 patent") and that the patent is invalid. The '374
patent is assigned to JDSU and licensed to the Company. Other than the filing
of
a Complaint, Optium has taken no action in this case, and the Company has not
been served.
ITEM
4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security
Holders
|
No
matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter
ended September 30, 2006.
PART
II
ITEM
5.
|
Market
for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer
Purchases of Equity
Securities
|
The
Company’s common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market and is quoted under
the symbol "EMKR". The reported closing sale price of our common stock on
October 19, 2007 was $9.71 per share. As of October 19, 2007, we had
approximately 240 shareholders of record. Many of our shares of
common stock are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of
stockholders, and we are unable to estimate the number of these
stockholders.
Price
Range of Common Stock
The
price
range per share of common stock presented below represents the highest and
lowest sales prices for the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market
during each quarter of the two most recent fiscal years.
First
Quarter
|
Second
Quarter
|
Third
Quarter
|
Fourth
Quarter
|
|||||||||||||
Fiscal
2006 price range per share of common stock
|
$ |
4.97
–
$7.83
|
$ |
6.93
– $10.67
|
$ |
7.65
– $12.65
|
$ |
5.56
– $10.11
|
||||||||
Fiscal
2005 price range per share of common stock
|
$ |
1.46
– $3.97
|
$ |
2.25
– $ 3.77
|
$ |
2.70
– $ 4.75
|
$ |
4.00
– $ 6.12
|
Dividend
Policy
We
have
never declared or paid dividends on our common stock since the Company's
formation. We currently do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock
in
the foreseeable future, so that we may reinvest any earnings in our business.
The payment of dividends, if any, in the future is at the discretion of the
Board of Directors.
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The
description of equity compensation plans required by Regulation S-K, Item
201(d) is incorporated herein by reference to Part III, Item 12 –
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related
Stockholder Matters.
ITEM
6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The
following selected consolidated financial data of EMCORE's five most recent
fiscal years ended September 30, 2006 is qualified by reference to, and should
be read in conjunction with, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations under Item 7 and Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data under Item 8. The Statement of Operations data set forth
below and the Balance Sheet data as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 are derived
from EMCORE's restated financial statements included elsewhere in this document.
The Balance Sheet data as of September 30, 2004, 2003, and 2002 are derived
from
restated financial statements not included herein.
The
following information should be read in conjunction with our consolidated
financial statements and notes thereon. The information presented in
the following tables has been adjusted to reflect effects of the restatement
of
the Company’s financial results, which is more fully described in the
“Explanatory Note” immediately preceding Part I, Item 1 and Note 20,
“Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements of this Form 10-K.
The
information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of results for future
operations. Significant transactions that affect the comparability of
EMCORE’s operating results and financial condition include:
Financial
Highlights:
Fiscal
2006:
|
·
|
In
November 2005, EMCORE exchanged $14.4 million aggregate principal
amount
of EMCORE’s 5% convertible subordinated notes due in May 2006 for $16.6
million aggregate principal amount of newly issued convertible senior
subordinated notes due May 15, 2011. As a result of this transaction,
EMCORE recognized approximately $1.1 million in the first quarter
of
fiscal 2006 related to the early extinguishment of
debt.
|
|
·
|
EMCORE
received manufacturing equipment valued at $2.0 million less tax
of $0.1
million as a final earn-out payment from Veeco in connection with
the sale
of the TurboDisc business.
|
|
·
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE sold its Electronic Materials &
Device (EMD) division to IQE plc (IQE) for $16.0
million. The net gain associated with the sale of the EMD business
totaled
approximately $7.6 million, net of tax of $0.5 million. The
results of operations of the EMD division have been reclassified
to
discontinued operations for all periods
presented.
|
|
·
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE sold its 49% membership interest in GELcore,
LLC for
$100.0 million to General Electric Corporation, which prior to the
transaction owned the remaining 51% membership interest in
GELcore. EMCORE recorded a net gain of $88.0 million, before
tax, on the sale of GELcore, after netting EMCORE’s investment in this
joint venture of $10.8 million and transaction expenses of $1.2
million.
|
|
·
|
EMCORE
recorded approximately $2.2 million of impairment charges on goodwill
and
intellectual property associated with the June 2004 acquisition of
Corona
Optical Systems.
|
|
·
|
Other
expense included a charge of $0.5 million associated with the write-down
of the Archcom investment.
|
|
·
|
EMCORE
recognized a provision for income taxes of $1.9 million from continuing
operations for the year ended September 30,
2006.
|
Fiscal
2005:
|
·
|
SG&A
expense included approximately $0.9 million in severance-related
charges
and $2.3 million of charges associated with the consolidation of
EMCORE’s
City of Industry, California location to Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
|
|
·
|
EMCORE
received a $12.5 million net earn-out payment from Veeco in connection
with the 2003 sale of the TurboDisc
business.
|
Fiscal
2004:
|
·
|
In
November 2003, EMCORE sold its TurboDisc capital equipment (TurboDisc)
division to a subsidiary of Veeco Instruments, Inc. (Veeco). The
results
of operations of TurboDisc have been reclassified to discontinued
operations for all periods presented. The net gain associated with
the
sale of the TurboDisc business totaled approximately $19.6
million.
|
|
·
|
In
February 2004, EMCORE exchanged approximately $146.0 million, or
90.2%, of
the 2006 Notes for approximately $80.3 million aggregate principal
amount
of new 5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due May 15, 2011
and
approximately 7.7 million shares of EMCORE common stock. The total
net
gain from debt extinguishment was $12.3
million.
|
|
·
|
SG&A
expense included approximately $1.2 million in severance-related
charges.
|
|
·
|
Other
expense included a charge of $0.5 million associated with the write-down
of an investment.
|
Fiscal
2003:
|
·
|
In
December 2002, EMCORE purchased $13.2 million principal amount of
the 2006
Notes at prevailing market prices for approximately $6.3 million.
Total
gain from debt extinguishment was $6.6 million after netting unamortized
debt issuance costs of approximately $0.3
million.
|
|
·
|
In
January 2003, EMCORE purchased Ortel for $26.2 million in
cash.
|
Fiscal
2002:
|
·
|
In
March 2002, EMCORE acquired certain assets of Tecstar for a total
cash
purchase price of approximately $25.1
million.
|
|
·
|
EMCORE
recorded pre-tax charges to income totaling $40.7 million, which
included:
a) a severance SG&A charge of $0.8 million related to employee
termination costs, b) a SG&A charge of $30.8 million
related to impairment of certain fixed assets, c) an inventory write-down
expense of $7.7 million charged to cost of revenue, and d) an additional
reserve for doubtful accounts of $1.4 million which was charged to
SG&A expense.
|
|
·
|
Other
expense included a charge of $14.4 million associated with the write-off
of two investments.
|
Selected
Financial Data
Statements
of Operations Data
For
the fiscal years ended September 30
(in
thousands, except per share data)
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
2003
|
2002
|
|||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
|
$
|
143,533
|
$
|
115,367
|
$
|
81,885
|
$
|
50,852
|
$
|
32,695
|
|||||||||
Gross
profit (loss)
|
25,952
|
19,302
|
4,473
|
(3,231
|
)
|
(12,884
|
)
|
|||||||||||||
Operating
loss
|
|
(34,150
|
)
|
(20,371
|
)
|
(35,604
|
)
|
(38,256
|
)
|
(68,711
|
)
|
|||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
|
46,891
|
(24,685
|
)
|
(28,376
|
)
|
(40,149
|
)
|
(91,876
|
)
|
||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
9,884
|
11,200
|
14,422
|
(3,389
|
)
|
(43,523
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
|
54,923
|
$
|
(13,485
|
)
|
$
|
(13,954
|
)
|
$
|
(43,538
|
)
|
$
|
(135,399
|
)
|
||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Per
basic share
|
|
$
|
0.91
|
$
|
(0.52
|
)
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
$
|
(1.09
|
)
|
$
|
(2.51
|
)
|
|||||
Per
diluted share
|
$
|
0.87
|
$
|
(0.52
|
)
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
$
|
(1.09
|
)
|
$
|
(2.51
|
)
|
Balance
Sheet Data
As
of September 30
(in
thousands)
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
2003
|
2002
|
||||||||||||||||
Cash,
cash equivalents and marketable securities
|
$
|
123,967
|
$
|
40,175
|
$
|
51,572
|
$
|
28,439
|
$
|
84,180
|
||||||||||
Working
capital
|
129,683
|
56,996
|
58,486
|
77,382
|
111,650
|
|||||||||||||||
Total
assets
|
287,547
|
206,287
|
213,243
|
232,439
|
285,943
|
|||||||||||||||
Long-term
liabilities
|
84,516
|
94,701
|
96,051
|
161,750
|
175,000
|
|||||||||||||||
Shareholders’
equity
|
149,399
|
75,563
|
85,809
|
44,772
|
81,950
|
EMCORE
CORPORATION
Consolidated
Statement of Operations - Unaudited
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued Operations Adjustment (1)
|
Stock
Compensation Expense Adjustment (2)
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
60,284
|
$ | (9,432 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
50,852
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
61,959
|
(8,756 | ) |
880
|
54,083
|
|||||||||||
Gross
loss
|
(1,675 | ) | (676 | ) | (880 | ) | (3,231 | ) | ||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
21,637
|
(2,460 | ) |
839
|
20,016
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
17,002
|
(2,172 | ) |
179
|
15,009
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
38,639
|
(4,632 | ) |
1,018
|
35,025
|
|||||||||||
Operating
(loss) income
|
(40,314 | ) |
3,956
|
(1,898 | ) | (38,256 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(1,009 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(1,009 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
8,288
|
-
|
-
|
8,288
|
||||||||||||
Net
gain from debt extinguishment
|
(6,614 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(6,614 | ) | ||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
1,228
|
-
|
-
|
1,228
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
1,893
|
-
|
-
|
1,893
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(42,207 | ) |
3,956
|
(1,898 | ) | (40,149 | ) | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
3,682
|
(3,956 | ) | (3,115 | ) | (3,389 | ) | |||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (38,525 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (5,013 | ) | $ | (43,538 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$ | (1.14 | ) | $ |
0.10
|
$ | (0.05 | ) | $ | (1.09 | ) | |||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
0.10
|
(0.10 | ) | (0.09 | ) | (0.09 | ) | |||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (1.04 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (0.14 | ) | $ | (1.18 | ) | |||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
36,999
|
36,999
|
36,999
|
36,999
|
____________
|
(1)
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE sold its EMD division to IQE.EMCORE’s financial
statements have been reclassified to reflect the EMD business as
a
discontinued operation.
|
|
(2)
|
This
restatement principally reflects additional stock-based compensation
expense under APB 25, the Company’s historical accounting method, relating
to the Company’s historical stock option grants. See
Explanatory Note immediately preceding Part I of this Annual Report
regarding our restated financial statements. See Item 8 –
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, specifically Note 20
of the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for the financial impact
of
the stock-based compensation expense, on a year-by-year basis, associated
with our historical stock option grant
review.
|
EMCORE
CORPORATION
Consolidated
Statements of Operations - Unaudited
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations Adjustment (1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
(2)
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
51,236
|
$ | (18,541 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
32,695
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
62,385
|
(17,660 | ) |
854
|
45,579
|
|||||||||||
Gross
loss
|
(11,149 | ) | (881 | ) | (854 | ) | (12,884 | ) | ||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
16,491
|
(2,765 | ) |
767
|
14,493
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
30,580
|
(2,562 | ) |
230
|
28,248
|
|||||||||||
Impairment
|
30,804
|
(17,718 | ) |
-
|
13,086
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
77,875
|
(23,045 | ) |
997
|
55,827
|
|||||||||||
Operating
(loss) income
|
(89,024 | ) |
22,164
|
(1,851 | ) | (68,711 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(2,865 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(2,865 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
8,936
|
-
|
-
|
8,936
|
||||||||||||
Reduction
in fair value of investment
|
14,388
|
-
|
-
|
14,388
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
2,706
|
-
|
-
|
2,706
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
23,165
|
-
|
-
|
23,165
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(112,189 | ) |
22,164
|
(1,851 | ) | (91,876 | ) | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
(17,572 | ) | (22,164 | ) | (3,787 | ) | (43,523 | ) | ||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (129,761 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (5,638 | ) | $ | (135,399 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$ | (3.07 | ) | $ |
0.61
|
$ | (0.05 | ) | $ | (2.51 | ) | |||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
(0.48 | ) | (0.61 | ) | (0.10 | ) | (1.19 | ) | ||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (3.55 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (0.15 | ) | $ | (3.70 | ) | |||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
36,539
|
36,539
|
36,539
|
36,539
|
____________
|
(1)
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE sold its EMD division to IQE.EMCORE’s financial
statements have been reclassified to reflect the EMD business as
a
discontinued operation.
|
|
(2)
|
This
restatement principally reflects additional stock-based compensation
expense under APB 25, the Company’s historical accounting method, relating
to the Company’s historical stock option grants. See
Explanatory Note immediately preceding Part I of this Annual Report
regarding our restated financial statements. See Item 8 –
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, specifically Note 20
of the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for the financial impact
of
the stock-based compensation expense, on a year-by-year basis, associated
with our historical stock option grant
review.
|
ITEM
7.
|
Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
Financial
Statement Restatements
This
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 reflects a
restatement for additional stock-based compensation expense, under the
appropriate accounting treatment for stock options, for all periods
presented. This Annual Report also reflects the reclassification of
the results of operations of EMCORE’s Electronic Materials & Device (“EMD”)
division to discontinued operations (see Note 8, Discontinued Operations and
Restructuring Charges, of the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements). We have not amended and we do not intend to amend any of
our other previously filed annual reports on Form 10-K or quarterly reports
on
Form 10-Q.
Business
Overview
EMCORE
Corporation (the “Company”, “we”, or “EMCORE”) is a leading provider of compound
semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic,
satellite and terrestrial solar power markets. We have two operating
segments: Fiber Optics and Photovoltaics. EMCORE's Fiber Optics
segment offers optical components, subsystems and systems that enable the
transmission of video, voice and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables
for
high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television (“CATV”) and
fiber-to-the-premises (“FTTP”) networks. EMCORE's Photovoltaics
segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial applications.
For
satellite applications, EMCORE offers high-efficiency compound
semiconductor-based gallium arsenide (“GaAs”) solar cells, covered interconnect
cells (“CICs”) and fully integrated solar panels. For terrestrial
applications, EMCORE offers its high-efficiency GaAs solar cells for use in
solar power concentrator systems. For specific information about our
company, our products or the markets we serve, please visit our website at
http://www.emcore.com. We were established in 1984 as a New Jersey
corporation.
Management
Summary
Our
principal objective is to maximize shareholder value by leveraging our expertise
in advanced compound semiconductor technologies to be a leading provider of
high-performance, cost-effective product solutions in each of the markets we
serve.
We
target
market opportunities that we believe have large potential growth and where
the
favorable performance characteristics of our products and high volume production
efficiencies may give us a competitive advantage over our
competitors. We believe that as compound semiconductor production
costs continue to be reduced, existing and new customers will be compelled
to
increase their use of these products because of their attractive performance
characteristics and superior value.
With
several strategic acquisitions and divestures in the past year, EMCORE has
developed a strong business focus and comprehensive product portfolios in two
main sectors: Fiber Optics and Photovoltaics.
Fiber
Optics
Our
fiber
optics products enable information that is encoded on light signals to be
transmitted, routed (switched) and received in communication
networks. Our fiber optics products provide our customers with
increased capacity to offer more services, at increased data transmission
distance, speed and bandwidth with lower noise video receive and lower power
consumption. Our Fiber Optics segment primarily targets the following
markets:
|
·
|
Cable
Television (CATV) Networks - We are a market leader in providing
radio frequency (RF) over fiber products for the CATV
industry. Our products are used in hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC)
networks that enable cable service operators to offer multiple advanced
services to meet the expanding demand for high-speed Internet, on-demand
and interactive video and other advanced services, such as high-definition
television (HDTV) and voice over IP
(VoIP).
|
|
·
|
Fiber-To-The-Premises
(FTTP) Networks - Telecommunications companies are increasingly
extending their optical infrastructure to the customer’s location in order
to deliver higher bandwidth services. We have developed and maintained
customer qualified FTTP components and subsystem products to support
plans
by telephone companies to offer voice, video and data services through
the
deployment of new fiber-based access
networks.
|
|
·
|
Data
Communications Networks - We provide leading-edge optical
components and modules for data applications that enable switch-to-switch,
router-to-router and server-to-server backbone connections at aggregate
speeds of 10 gigabits per second (G) and
above.
|
|
·
|
Telecommunications
Networks - Our leading-edge optical components and modules enable
high-speed (up to an aggregate 40G) optical interconnections that
drive
advanced architectures in next-generation carrier class switching
and
routing networks. Our products are used in equipment in the
network core and key metro optical nodes of voice telephony and Internet
infrastructures.
|
|
·
|
Satellite
Communications (Satcom) Networks - We are a leading provider of
optical components and systems for use in equipment that provides
high-performance optical data links for the terrestrial portion of
satellite communications networks.
|
|
·
|
Storage
Area Networks - Our high performance optical components are also
used in high-end data storage solutions to improve the performance
of the
storage infrastructure.
|
|
·
|
Video
Transport - Our video transport product line offers solutions for
broadcasting, transportation, IP television (IPTV), mobile video
and
security & surveillance applications over private and public networks.
EMCORE’s video, audio, data and RF transmission systems serve both analog
and digital requirements, providing cost-effective, flexible solutions
geared for network reconstruction and
expansion.
|
|
·
|
Defense
and Homeland Security - Leveraging our expertise in RF module
design and high-speed parallel optics, we provide a suite of ruggedized
products that meet the reliability and durability requirements of
the U.S.
Government and defense markets. Our specialty defense products
include fiber optic gyro components used in precision guided munitions,
ruggedized parallel optic transmitters and receivers, high-frequency
RF
fiber optic link components for towed decoy systems, optical delay
lines
for radar systems, EDFAs, terahertz spectroscopy systems and other
products.
|
|
·
|
Consumer
Products - We intend to extend our optical technology into the
consumer market by integrating our VCSELs into optical computer mice
and
ultra short data links. We are in production with customers on
several products and currently qualifying our products with additional
customers. An optical computer mouse with laser illumination is
superior to LED-based illumination in that it reveals surface structures
that a LED light source cannot uncover. VCSELs enable computer mice
to
track with greater accuracy, on more surfaces and with greater
responsiveness than existing LED-based
solutions.
|
Photovoltaics
We
believe our high-efficiency compound semiconductor GaAs solar cell products
provide our customers with compelling cost and performance advantages over
traditional silicon-based solutions. These include higher solar cell
efficiency, allowing for greater conversion of light into electricity, an
increased ability to benefit from use in solar concentrator systems, ability
to
withstand high heat environments and reduced overall footprint. Our
Photovoltaics segment serves two primary markets: Satellite Solar Power
Generation and Terrestrial Solar Power Generation.
|
·
|
Satellite
Solar Power Generation. We are a leader in providing
solar power generation solutions to the global communications satellite
industry and U.S. Government space programs. We provide
advanced compound semiconductor solar cell and solar panel products,
which
are more resistant to radiation levels in space and generate substantially
more power from sunlight than silicon-based solutions. Space
power systems using our multi-junction solar cells weigh less per
unit of
power than traditional silicon-based solar cells. These performance
characteristics increase satellite useful life, increase satellites’
transmission capacity and reduce launch costs. Our products
provide our customers with higher light to power conversion efficiency
for
reduced size and launch costs; higher radiation tolerance; and longer
lifetime in harsh space environments. We design and manufacture
multi-junction compound semiconductor solar cells for both commercial
and
military satellite applications. We currently manufacture and sell
one of
the most efficient and reliable, radiation resistant advanced
triple-junction solar cells in the world, with an average "beginning
of
life" efficiency of 28.5%. In May 2007, EMCORE announced that
it has attained solar conversion efficiency of 31% for an entirely
new
class of advanced multi-junction solar cells optimized for space
applications. EMCORE is also the only manufacturer to supply
true monolithic bypass diodes, for shadow protection, utilizing several
EMCORE patented methods. A satellite’s operational success and
corresponding revenue depend on its available power and its capacity
to
transmit data. EMCORE also provides covered interconnect cells (CICs)
and
solar panel lay-down services, giving us the capacity to manufacture
complete solar panels. We can provide satellite manufacturers with
proven
integrated satellite power solutions that considerably improve satellite
economics. Satellite manufacturers and solar array integrators rely
on
EMCORE to meet their satellite power needs with our proven flight
heritage.
|
|
·
|
Terrestrial
Solar Power Generation. Solar power generation systems
use photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight to electricity and have
been
used in space programs and, to a lesser extent, in terrestrial
applications for several decades. The market for terrestrial
solar power generation solutions has grown significantly as solar
power
generation technologies improve in efficiency, as global prices for
non-renewable energy sources (e.g., fossil fuels) continue to rise,
and as
concern has increased regarding the effect of carbon emissions on
global
warming. Terrestrial solar power generation has emerged as one of
the most
rapidly growing renewable energy sources due to certain advantages
solar
power holds over other energy sources, including reduced environmental
impact, elimination of fuel price risk, installation flexibility,
scalability, distributed power generation (i.e., electric power is
generated at the point of use rather than transmitted from a central
station to the user), and reliability. The rapid increase in demand
for
solar power has created a growing need for highly efficient, reliable
and
cost-effective solar power concentrator
systems.
|
EMCORE
has adapted its high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based GaAs solar cell
products for terrestrial applications, which are intended for use with solar
concentrator systems in utility-scale installations. In August 2007,
EMCORE announced that it has reached 39% peak conversion efficiency on its
terrestrial concentrating solar cell products currently in volume
production. This compares favorably to typical efficiency of 15-21%
on silicon-based solar cells. We believe that solar concentrator systems
assembled using our compound semiconductor solar cells will be competitive
with
silicon-based solar power generation systems because they are more efficient
and, when combined with the advantages of concentration, we believe it will
result in a lower cost of power generated. Our multi-junction solar
cell technology is not subject to silicon shortages, which has led to increasing
prices in the raw materials required for silicon-based solar cells. While the
terrestrial power generation market is still developing, we have already
fulfilled production orders for one solar concentrator company, and provided
samples to several others, including major system manufacturers in Europe and
Asia.
Recent
investments and strategic partnerships include:
|
·
|
In
November 2006, EMCORE invested $13.5 million in WorldWater & Solar
Technologies Corporation (“WorldWater”, OTC BB: WWAT.OB) a leader in solar
electric engineering, water management solutions and solar energy
installations and products. This investment represents EMCORE’s
first tranche of its intended $18.0 million investment, in return
for
convertible preferred stock and warrants of WorldWater, equivalent
to
approximately 31% equity ownership in WorldWater, or approximately
26.5%
on a fully diluted basis.
|
|
·
|
Also
in November 2006, EMCORE and WorldWater announced the formation of
a
strategic alliance and supply agreement under which EMCORE will be
the
exclusive supplier of high-efficiency multi-junction solar cells,
assemblies and concentrator subsystems to WorldWater with expected
revenues up to $100.0 million over the next three
years.
|
Please
refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A and Financial Statements and Supplemental
Data under Item 8 for further discussion of these transactions.
We
are
committed to the ongoing evaluation of strategic opportunities that can expand
our addressable markets and strengthen our competitive position. Where
appropriate, we will acquire additional products, technologies, or businesses
that are complementary to, or broaden the markets in which we operate. We plan
to pursue strategic acquisitions to increase revenues and allow for higher
overhead absorption where such acquisitions can improve our gross
margins.
Recent
acquisitions include:
|
·
|
On
April 13, 2007,
EMCORE acquired privately-held Opticomm Corporation, of San Diego,
California, including its fiber optic video, audio and data
networking business, technologies, and intellectual
property. EMCORE paid $4.0 million initial consideration for
all of the shares of Opticomm. EMCORE also agreed to an additional
earn-out payment based on Opticomm's 2007 revenues. EMCORE management
anticipates that this transaction will provide approximately $7.0
million
of revenue for calendar year 2007, and upon integration will be
operationally profitable. In 2006, Opticomm generated revenues of
$6.3
million. Founded in 1986, Opticomm is one of the leading specialists
in
the field of fiber optic video, audio and data networking for the
commercial, governmental and industrial sectors. Its flagship product
is
the Optiva platform, a complete line of transmission systems built
to
address the primary optical communication requirements of the following
markets: broadcast and media, security and surveillance, healthcare,
traffic and rail, and government and
military.
|
|
·
|
On
January 12, 2006,
EMCORE purchased K2 Optronics, Inc. (“K2”), a privately-held company
located in Sunnyvale, CA. EMCORE, an investor in K2, paid
approximately $4.1 million in EMCORE common stock, and paid approximately
$0.7 million in transaction-related expenses, to acquire the remaining
part of K2 that EMCORE did not already own. Prior to the transaction
EMCORE owned a 13.6% equity interest in K2 as a result of a $1.0
million
investment that EMCORE made in K2 in October 2004. In addition, K2
was a
supplier to EMCORE of analog external cavity lasers for CATV
applications.
|
|
·
|
On
December 18, 2005, EMCORE
acquired the assets of Force, Inc., a privately-held company located
in
Christiansburg, Virginia. In connection with the asset purchase,
EMCORE
issued 240,000 shares of EMCORE common stock, no par value, with
a market
value of $1.6 million at the measurement date and $0.5 million in
cash.
The acquisition included Force’s fiber optic transport and video broadcast
products, technical and engineering staff, certain assets and intellectual
properties and technologies.
|
|
·
|
On
November 8, 2005, EMCORE
acquired the assets of Phasebridge, Inc., a privately-held company
located
in Pasadena, California. Founded in
2000, Phasebridge is
known as an innovative provider of high performance, high value,
miniaturized multi-chip system-in-package optical modules and subsystem
solutions for a wide variety of markets, including fiber optic gyroscopes
(FOG) for weapons & aerospace guidance, RF over fiber links for device
remoting and optical networks, and emerging technologies such as
optical
RF frequency synthesis and processing and terahertz
spectroscopy. In
connection with the asset purchase, based on a closing price of $5.46,
EMCORE issued 128,205 shares of EMCORE common stock, no par value,
that
was valued in the transaction at approximately $0.7
million. The acquisition included Phasebridge’s products,
technical and engineering staff, certain assets and intellectual
properties and technologies.
|
All
of
these acquired businesses are part of EMCORE's Fiber Optics operating
segment. Please refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A and Financial
Statements and Supplemental Data under Item 8 for further discussion of these
transactions.
EMCORE
is
committed to achieving profitability by increasing revenue through the
introduction of new products, reducing our cost structure and lowering the
breakeven points of our product lines. We have significantly
streamlined our manufacturing operations by focusing on core competencies to
identify cost efficiencies. Where appropriate, we transferred the manufacturing
of certain product lines to contract manufacturers.
In
May
2007, EMCORE announced the opening of a new manufacturing facility in Langfang,
China. Our new company, Langfang EMCORE Optoelectronics Co. Ltd., is located
approximately 20 miles southeast of Beijing and currently occupies a space
of
22,000 square feet with a Class-10,000 clean room for optoelectronic device
packaging. Another 60,000 square feet is available for future
expansion. We will transfer its most cost sensitive optoelectronic
devices to this facility. This facility, along with a strategic
alignment with our existing contract-manufacturing partners, should enable
us to
improve our cost structure and gross margins. We also expect to develop and
provide improved service to our global customers using a local presence in
Asia.
EMCORE’s
restructuring programs are designed to further reduce the number of
manufacturing facilities, in addition to the divesture or exit from selected
businesses and product lines that were not strategic and/or were not capable
of
achieving desired revenue or profitability goals.
Recent
divestitures and facility consolidations include:
|
·
|
In
August 2007, we announced the consolidation of our North American
fiber
optics engineering and design centers into our main operating sites.
EMCORE's engineering facilities in Virginia, Illinois, and Northern
California will be consolidated into larger primary sites in Albuquerque,
New Mexico and Alhambra, California. The consolidation of these
engineering sites will allow EMCORE to leverage resources within
engineering, new product introduction, and customer
service. The design centers in Virginia and Northern California
have been closed and the design center in Illinois was vacated in
October
2007.
|
|
·
|
In
October 2006, we announced the move of our corporate headquarters
from
Somerset, New Jersey to Albuquerque, New Mexico. Financial
operations and records have been transferred and the New Jersey facility
was vacated in September 2007.
|
|
·
|
In
October 2006, we consolidated our solar panel operations into a
state-of-the-art facility located in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The establishment of a modern solar panel manufacturing
facility, adjacent to our solar cell fabrication operations, should
facilitate consistency, as well as reduce manufacturing
costs. The benefit of having these operations located on one
site is expected to provide high quality, high reliability and
cost-effective solar components. Solar panel production
operations ceased at our California solar panel facility in June
2006 and
the facility was vacated in December
2006.
|
|
·
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE sold its 49% membership interest in GELcore,
LLC to
General Electric Corporation, which owned the remaining 51% membership
interest prior to the transaction, for $100.0 million in
cash.
|
|
·
|
In
August 2006, EMCORE completed the sale of the assets of its Electronic
Materials & Device (EMD) division, including inventory, fixed assets,
and intellectual property to IQE plc, a public limited company organized
under the laws of the United Kingdom for $16.0
million.
|
|
·
|
In
April 2005, EMCORE divested product technology focused on gallium
nitride-based power electronic devices for the power device
industry. The new company, Velox Semiconductor Corporation
(“Velox”), initially raised $6.0 million from various venture capital
partnerships. EMCORE contributed intellectual property and equipment
in exchange for an initial 19.2% stake in
Velox.
|
Our
results of operations and financial condition have and will continue to be
significantly affected by severance, restructuring charges, impairment of
long-lived assets and idle facility expenses incurred during facility closing
activities. Please refer to Risk Factors under Item 1A and Financial
Statements and Supplemental Data under Item 8 for further discussion of these
items.
Financial
Statement Restatements
Background
In
May
2006, EMCORE’s senior management voluntarily began an inquiry into the Company’s
historical stock option granting practices. The inquiry was not in
response to any governmental investigation, shareholder lawsuit, whistleblower
complaint, or inquiries from media organizations. Based on an initial
review, senior management approached the Board of Directors and requested that
it form a Special Committee to examine EMCORE’s historical stock option granting
practices. The Board of Directors, pursuant to senior management’s
recommendation, appointed a Special Committee of three independent EMCORE
directors to investigate the Company’s historical stock option granting
practices.
Based
on
this independent investigation, senior management, in consultation with the
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, concluded that it was likely that
the
appropriate measurement dates for certain stock option grants, under the
appropriate accounting treatment for stock options, differed from the recorded
grant dates for such awards. Accordingly, on November 6, 2006, as
initially disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K, senior management and
the
Audit Committee determined that the Company’s financial statements included in
its annual and interim reports and any related reports of its independent
registered public accounting firm, earnings press releases and similar
communications previously issued by the Company for the periods beginning with
fiscal year 2000 should no longer be relied upon.
This
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006, reflects
a
restatement for additional stock-based compensation expense, under the
appropriate accounting treatment for stock options, for all periods
presented. We have not amended and we do not intend to amend any of
our other previously filed annual reports on Form 10-K or quarterly reports
on
Form 10-Q in connection with this matter.
Scope
of Stock Option Grant Review
The
Special Committee, together with independent counsel and outside accounting
experts, reviewed stock option grants from the time of EMCORE’s initial public
offering in March 1997 through September 30, 2006. The Special Committee’s
advisors also reviewed more than 250,000 e-mail messages, Board and Compensation
Committee minutes, and other documents, files and data. Additionally, these
advisors interviewed present and former officers and employees of the Company
who were involved in the stock option granting process.
Special
Committee Findings
As
originally disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 15, 2006,
the Special Committee’s investigation and report included the following key
findings and conclusions:
|
·
|
The
investigation was initiated as a result of senior management’s
recommendation to the Board in a manner consistent with senior
management’s past conduct in instances where it has learned of issues
concerning accounting, legal, or regulatory
compliance.
|
|
·
|
The
Company, through its senior management, cooperated fully with the
investigation, providing all requested documents and making senior
management and the Company’s current and former employees available for
interviews, all in a conscientious and timely
fashion.
|
|
·
|
There
was no evidence that senior management in any way tampered with or
fabricated documents or took other actions consistent with intent
to
defraud.
|
|
·
|
Senior
management did not receive any option grants between October 3, 2001
and
May 18, 2004, a period that marked the absolute historic low point
of the
Company’s common stock market value. During this period,
EMCORE stock routinely traded at or below $2 per share and reached
a low
point of $1 per share. In addition, EMCORE implemented a stock option
exchange plan accounted for under the provisions of FASB Interpretation
No. (“FIN”) 44, Accounting for Certain transactions involving Stock
Compensation, whereby the Company offered to exchange all options
with a strike price greater than $4. Senior management voluntarily
elected
not to participate in the repricing and retained their underwater
options,
while the options belonging to those participating in the exchange
plan
were repriced to $1.82.
|
|
·
|
Senior
management exercised only a small portion of the stock options granted
since the Company’s Initial Public
Offering.
|
|
·
|
Prior
to the completion of the Special Committee’s review, Mr. Richards, Chief
Executive Officer, Mr. Werthan, former Chief Financial Officer, and
Mr.
Brodie, former Chief Legal Officer, informed the Company that they
did not
wish to retain any benefits from erroneously priced stock
options. The Chief Executive Officer and the former Chief Legal
Officer voluntarily tendered payments of $166,625 and $97,000,
respectively, representing the entire benefit received from the misdated
stock options exercised and sold by them. The former Chief
Financial Officer had not exercised or sold any of the misdated stock
options. The former Chief Financial Officer and the former
Chief Legal Officer further voluntarily surrendered all rights to
any
unexercised grants that had been identified as
misdated.
|
|
·
|
The
investigation found no evidence that the Board generally did not
properly
exercise oversight duties with respect to the Company’s stock option
plans.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee stated that it was unable to conclude that the
Company
or anyone involved in the stock option granting process at the Company
engaged in willful misconduct. Rather, the granting process was often
characterized by carelessness and inattention to applicable accounting
and
disclosure rules, and the Company failed to maintain adequate controls
concerning the issuance of stock
options.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee found that there were occasions when administrative
changes were made to the grant lists after the grant date and exercise
price were set.
|
|
·
|
Senior
management did not seek to profit from the issuance of the stock
option
grants at the expense of the Company or its
shareholders.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee found, with respect to retention grants awarded
in 2000
and 2004, that even after lists had been announced as “final” and a grant
date set, later adjustments to the lists sometimes included changes
both
in the number of options granted to individuals and in the aggregate
number of options granted. No changes to the retention
grant lists benefited any member of senior
management.
|
|
·
|
The
Special Committee further concluded that, as a result of, among other
things, such inadequate controls and practices, there were certain
instances where the exercise prices of certain stock option grants,
principally related to new hire grants, appear to have been selected
with
the benefit of hindsight -- i.e., selected to reflect the stock
price at a date, prior to the actual date of grant, when the Company’s
stock price was lower.
|
The
Special Committee ultimately concluded that no member of EMCORE’s management
involved in the granting of, or accounting for, the Company’s stock option
awards willfully misdated options with the intent to circumvent the Company’s
accounting policies, controls and disclosure requirements. Moreover, the Special
Committee found that prior to May 2006 no member of the Company’s management
involved in the granting of, or accounting for, stock options had sufficient
knowledge of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for
Stock Issued to Employees” (“APB 25”) at the time to understand the accounting
consequences arising out of the Company’s stock option granting
practices.
The
Special Committee also recommended that the Company adopt certain policies,
procedures and practices to govern the Company’s option granting practices in
the future. On November 13, 2006, the Company revised its stock
option granting policy to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee
and imposed a higher degree of control over the Company’s option granting
process.
Stock
Option Plans
EMCORE
maintains two
incentive stock option plans: the 1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option
Plan (the “1995 Plan”) and the 2000 Stock Option Plan (the “2000 Plan” and
together with the 1995 Plan, the “Option Plans”). Most of the
Company’s stock options vest and become exercisable over four to five years and
have ten-year terms. Certain stock options under the Option Plans are
intended to qualify as incentive stock options pursuant to Section 422A of
the
Internal Revenue Code. Both the 1995 Plan and the 2000 Plan
provided that no incentive stock option may be issued at less than 100% of
fair
market value at the time that the option is granted. The 2000 Plan
also stated that the Compensation Committee of the Board or the Board itself
was
empowered to delegate all or any part of its responsibilities and powers to
any
person or persons selected by it, including, among other powers:
|
·
|
selecting
to whom options shall be granted;
|
|
·
|
determining
the number of shares of stock; and,
|
|
·
|
setting
the stock option exercise price.
|
Prior
to
October 1, 2005, the Company accounted for share-based compensation expense
for
options granted under the Option Plans using the recognition and measurement
provisions of APB 25. APB 25 defined the measurement date as the
first date on which both the number of shares an individual employee was
entitled to receive and the option or purchase price, if any, were
known. On October 1, 2005, the Company adopted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment (revised
2004)” which requires all share-based payments to employees to be recognized in
the Statement of Operations based on their fair values.
Delegation
of Authority
Since
1997, the authority to issue stock option grants to non-executive new hires
has
resided with senior management. The Board of Directors formally gave
this authority to them in that year. For all other stock option
grants to non-executives, such as retention and
promotion grants, the authority to make grants varied as follows:
·
|
For
stock option grants issued under the 1995 Plan, which was in effect
from
1997 through 1999, approval was required by either the Board of
Directors
or the Compensation Committee in order to establish a measurement
date
under APB 25.
|
·
|
For
stock option grants issued from the date of adoption of the 2000
Plan on
November 8, 1999 through September 30, 2005, the Board had implicitly
delegated the authority to the Chief Executive Officer to determine
the
recipients and terms of awards and grant
them.
|
·
|
For
stock option grants issued on or after October 1, 2005, the Board
formally
delegated the authority to the Chief Executive Officer to determine
the
recipients and terms of awards and grant
them.
|
All
grants were subsequently ratified by the Board as approved by the Chief
Executive Officer.
Summary
of Restatement Adjustments
The
Company, with consideration given to the results of the Special Committee’s
independent investigation, reviewed approximately 5,640 individual grants,
representing more than 19 million stock options, from the period when the
Company became public in March 1997 through September 30,
2006. The principal component of the restatement was a revision
to measurement dates of certain stock option grants. Based upon their
review, the Company found, among other things, the following:
|
·
|
The
cumulative effect of misdated options totaled approximately $24.5
million.
|
|
·
|
A
majority of the restatement related to periods prior to fiscal year
2004. The restatement impact on the Statement of Operations in
fiscal years 2006 and 2005 totaled approximately $0.7 million and
$0.4
million, respectively.
|
|
·
|
Two
misdated retention grants, dated prior to fiscal year 2003, represented
approximately $20.2 million, or 82% of the total stock option
restatement. These stock option grants were issued during a
period with high stock price
volatility.
|
Consistent
with the direction provided to the public by the Office of the Chief Accountant
of the SEC in a letter dated September 19, 2006 (the “OCA Letter”), the Company
reviewed all available relevant information, including historical approval
patterns where evidence was available, and formed what the Company believes
is a
reasonable conclusion as to the most likely option granting actions that
occurred and the dates which such actions occurred in determining the
appropriate accounting.
There
was
no stock-based compensation expense for options as previously reported under
APB 25 for fiscal years 1997 through 2005. The following table
presents the effects of the revision of measurement dates on stock-based
compensation expense for options included in the determination of net income
(loss), for fiscal year 1997 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2006,
in
accordance with the provisions of APB 25 and SFAS 123(R).
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Year
|
Net
Additional Stock-Based Compensation Expense
|
|||
Fiscal
1997
|
$ |
58
|
||
Fiscal
1998
|
2
|
|||
Fiscal
1999
|
568
|
|||
Fiscal
2000
|
11,012
|
|||
Fiscal
2001
|
611
|
|||
Fiscal
2002
|
5,638
|
|||
Fiscal
2003
|
5,013
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 1997-2003
|
22,902
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 2004
|
528
|
|||
First
Quarter 2005
|
136
|
|||
Second
Quarter 2005
|
44
|
|||
Third
Quarter 2005
|
45
|
|||
Fourth
Quarter 2005
|
153
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 2005
|
378
|
|||
First
Quarter 2006
|
332
|
|||
Second
Quarter 2006
|
73
|
|||
Third
Quarter 2006
|
294
|
|||
Fourth
Quarter 2006
|
-
|
|||
Total
Fiscal 2006
|
699
|
|||
Total
Impact
|
$ |
24,507
|
Review
of Option Grants
The
Company’s stock option grants were organized into categories based on grant
type. The Company analyzed the evidence related to each category of
grants including, but not limited to, electronic and physical documents. Based
on the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company applied the applicable
accounting standards to determine, for every grant within each category, the
most appropriate measurement date. The principal grant categories
were as follows:
|
1.
|
Retention
Grants
|
EMCORE
has a practice of granting stock options to employees for the purpose of
retaining and motivating key employees. Generally, the process for retention
grants involved the Board of Directors approving a pool of options to be
distributed to key employees. The Board of Directors then delegated to senior
management the authority to determine the terms and recipients and issue
the
awards under the Option Plans to non-executive
employees. Senior management, after receiving information from
the Board as to the pool of awards available, would then, in conjunction
with
others in the Company, compile the grant distribution list, select the exercise
price and issue the awards. The option grants were priced reflecting the
closing
price of EMCORE common stock on the previously stated grant date, which may
not
have been the date the terms were finalized. If executive management were
to
receive a grant as part of the overall retention grant, the Board of Directors
or the Compensation Committee would approve the amount and allocation to
these
individuals in advance and would provide that such grants were to be priced
at
the same time the stock options for the key employees were
completed. The Board of Directors adopted stock option distribution
guidelines in 2005 to be followed by senior management in their allocation
process to non-executive employees. The purpose of these guidelines was to
govern the distribution of stock option grants to employees at different
grade
levels to ensure consistency and reduce disparities across
divisions.
In
the
course of its review, management reviewed all retention grants issued by
the
Company, which represented approximately nine million stock options. Measurement
dates were selected based upon evidence of the most appropriate date that
a
final listing of employees and grant terms, including exercise price, had
been
determined and approved by management with the appropriate level of authority.
In those instances where the market price of the Company’s stock on the most
appropriate measurement date was higher than the option exercise price, the
Company recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded
no
financial statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market
value
on the revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted
under
generally accepted accounting principles. We noted instances, where subsequent
to the revised measurement date being established, the number of options
granted
to certain employees changed. In these instances, we treated such revisions
as a
modification and applied variable plan accounting to those awards subsequent
to
modification under the provisions of APB 25 and related interpretations.
No
changes were made to grants to senior management subsequent to the revised
measurement date. The total adjustment related to retention grants totaled
approximately $22.0 million, or approximately 90% of the total
adjustment.
|
2.
|
New
Hire Grants
|
EMCORE
has a practice of granting stock options to eligible new employees on their
start date. The Board of Directors had delegated to senior management the
authority to make new hire grants under the Option Plans to non-executive
employees. The number of stock options awarded was generally based on stock
option distribution guidelines approved by the Board of Directors. The number
of
stock options granted were included in the employee's offer letter and the
grant
date and exercise price were determined on the employee's first day of
employment and the closing price of the Company's common stock on that
day.
Management
reviewed
each new hire grant that the Company made since EMCORE became a public
company. During this review, management determined that, absent evidence
that senior management or the Board of Directors granted options after an
employee’s hire date or the terms were not finalized as of the hire date, the
hire date was determined to be the most appropriate measurement date for
new
hire grants. In instances where the market price of the Company’ stock on the
most appropriate measurement date was higher than the option exercise price,
the
Company recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded
no
financial statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market
value
on the revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted
under
generally accepted accounting principles. All new hire grants with incorrect
measurement dates were granted prior to October 1, 2005. The total adjustment
related to new hire grants totaled approximately $1.9 million, or approximately
8% of the total adjustment.
|
3.
|
Other
Equity Awards
|
Management
reviewed other stock option grants, which included promotion, non-qualified,
and
acquisition related option grants, as well as, stock awards granted as part
of
the Company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Measurement dates were selected
based upon evidence that a final listing of employees and grant terms, including
exercise price, had been determined and approved by management with the
appropriate level of authority. Evidence of a most appropriate measurement
date
was based upon Company e-mails or other correspondence that provided evidence
that the terms of the awards had been finalized and approved. In those instances
where the market price of the Company’s stock on the most appropriate
measurement date was higher than the option exercise price, the Company
recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded no financial
statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market value on
the
revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted under
generally accepted accounting principles. The total adjustment related to
other
equity awards totaled approximately $0.6 million, or approximately
2%.
Sensitivity
Analysis
Based
on
the available facts and circumstances surrounding our stock option granting
practices, we adopted a methodology for determining the most likely measurement
dates. We believe the application of this methodology, based on all relevant
information available, indicated the most likely date when the number of
options
granted to each employee was approved and the exercise price and the numbers
of
shares were known with finality. However, we acknowledge that measurement
date
conclusions are dependent on the facts and circumstances of each stock
option
grant and that some grants involved the application of significant judgment.
Because certain measurement dates could not be determined with certainty
and
involved subjectivity, we performed a sensitivity analysis to determine
the
impact of using alternative measurement dates for certain grants.
In
our
sensitivity analysis, we looked at a range of possible alternative measurement
dates. This range, depending on the facts and circumstances of the specific
grant, began with either (i) the original grant date, or (ii) the date on
which
grant lists were completed and presented for approval; and ended with either
(i)
the date on which a completed list was presented to the Equity Edge
administrator or was communicated to the recipients, or (ii) the date it
was
entered into Equity Edge, our stock option administration software. Within
this
range of dates, we computed compensation expense for each grant using the
low,
average, and high stock market prices of the Company’s common stock during the
period and compared the resulting amount to the compensation recorded using
the
most likely date. The use of the low stock market price would have
resulted in a $2.6 million decrease in stock-based compensation expense.
The use
of the average and high stock market prices would have resulted in an increase
of $6.6 million and $14.5 million, respectively, in stock-based compensation
expense.
We
believe our methodology, based on the best evidence available, results in
the
most likely measurement date for our stock option grants.
Tax
Impact
The
Company reviewed the implications of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code
which prohibits tax deductions for non-performance based compensation paid
to
the chief executive officer and the four highest compensated officers in excess
of one million dollars in a taxable year and concluded that no adjustments
to
our previously filed financials statements are required.
Remediation
Activities
The
Board
of Directors of the Company adopted a revised Incentive Stock Option Grant
Policy on November 13, 2006, that provided that:
|
·
|
Non-administrative
grant responsibilities other than with respect to new-hire options
are to
be set by the Compensation
Committee.
|
|
·
|
All
new-hire options be issued the later of an employee’s first day of
employment, or where applicable, the date the Compensation Committee
approved the terms of the new-hire grant and have an exercise price
of not
less than 100% of the fair market value of the Company’s stock on that
date. The Board will conduct a review of all new-hire grants to
ensure compliance with the Company’s policies and
procedures.
|
|
·
|
The
grant date for all options awarded to employees other than new-hire
options is the date on which the Compensation Committee meets and
approves
the grants.
|
|
·
|
The
exercise price of options other than new hire-options should be set
at the
closing price of the common stock of the Company on the date on which
the
Compensation Committee approves the
grants.
|
|
·
|
The
Company should, with respect to annual retention grants to employees,
maintain the practice of awarding retention grants to senior management
on
the same date and with the same exercise price as retention grants
awarded
to non-senior management employees.
|
|
·
|
No
additions or modifications to option grants should be permitted after
the
Compensation Committee has approved the option
grants.
|
|
·
|
All
grants are to be communicated to employees as soon as reasonably
practicable after the grant
date.
|
Under
the
terms of option agreements issued under the 2000 Plan, terminated employees
who
have vested and exercisable stock options have 90 days after the date of
termination to exercise the options. In November 2006, the Company announced
suspension of reliance on previously issued financial statements which in turn
caused the Form S-8 registration statements for shares of common stock issuable
under the option plans not to be available. Therefore, terminated employees
were
precluded from exercising their options during the remaining contractual
term. This November 2006 modification did not have any accounting
impact as there was no incremental compensation in accordance with SFAS
123(R).
To
address this issue with affected former employees under the 2000 Plan, EMCORE’s
Board of Directors agreed in April 2007 to approve an option grant
“modification” for these individuals by extending the normal 90-day exercise
period after termination date to a date after which EMCORE becomes compliant
with its SEC filings and the registration of the option shares is once again
effective. The Company is preparing a plan of communication with
its terminated employees relating to the tolling arrangement which is
expected to be finalized as soon as reasonably practicable. We will
account for the April 2007 modification of stock options as additional
compensation expense in accordance with SFAS 123(R).
Additional
Information
See
Item 1A – Risk Factors, for a discussion of certain risk factors related to
our historical stock option grant review.
See
Item
8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, specifically Note 20,
Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, for the financial impact of the revised measurement dates
on stock-based compensation expense, on a year-by-year basis.
See
Item 9A – Controls and Procedures, which describes management’s conclusion,
in light of the findings of the Special Committee and the restatement reflected
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, that the Company had two material weaknesses
in internal control over financial reporting related to (i) stock option plan
administration and accounting for and disclosure of stock option grants as
of
September 30, 2006 and (ii) the process for the identification and
implementation of the proper accounting for certain
transactions. Such material weaknesses resulted in material errors
and the restatement of previously issued financial statements. As a
result, management has concluded that the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting and its disclosure controls and procedures were not
effective as of September 30, 2006.
Critical
Accounting Policies
The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) requires
management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts
of
assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at
the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and
expenses during the reported period. Management develops estimates based on
historical experience and on various assumptions about the future that are
believed to be reasonable based on the best information available. EMCORE’s
reported financial position or results of operations may be materially different
under changed conditions or when using different estimates and assumptions,
particularly with respect to significant accounting policies, which are
discussed below. In the event that estimates or assumptions prove to differ
from
actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect more
current information. EMCORE's most significant estimates relate to accounts
receivable, inventory, goodwill, intangibles, other long-lived assets, warranty
accruals, revenue recognition, and valuation of stock-based
compensation.
Valuation
of Accounts Receivable. EMCORE regularly evaluates the collectibility of its
accounts receivable and accordingly maintains allowances for doubtful accounts
for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to meet
their
financial obligations to us. The allowance is based on the age of receivables
and a specific identification of receivables considered at risk. EMCORE
classifies charges associated with the allowance for doubtful accounts as
SG&A expense. If the financial condition of our customers were to
deteriorate, additional allowances may be required.
Valuation
of Inventory. Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market, with cost
being determined using the standard cost method. EMCORE reserves against
inventory once it has been determined that: (i) conditions exist that may not
allow the inventory to be sold for its intended purpose, (ii) the inventory’s
value is determined to be less than cost, or (iii) the inventory is determined
to be obsolete. The charge related to inventory reserves is recorded as a cost
of revenue. The majority of the inventory write-downs are related to estimated
allowances for inventory whose carrying value is in excess of net realizable
value and on excess raw material components resulting from finished product
obsolescence. In most cases where EMCORE sells previously written down
inventory, it is typically sold as a component part of a finished product.
The
finished product is sold at market price at the time resulting in higher average
gross margin on such revenue. EMCORE does not track the selling price of
individual raw material components that have been previously written down or
written off, since such raw material components usually are an insignificant
portion of the resultant finished product and related sales price. EMCORE
evaluates inventory levels at least quarterly against sales forecasts on a
significant part-by-part basis, in addition to determining its overall inventory
risk. Reserves are adjusted to reflect inventory values in excess of forecasted
sales, as well as overall inventory risk assessed by management. We have
incurred, and may in the future incur, charges to write-down our inventory.
While we believe, based on current information, that the amount recorded for
inventory is properly reflected on our balance sheet, if market conditions
are
less favorable than our forecasts, our future sales mix differs from our
forecasted sales mix, or actual demand from our customers is lower than our
estimates, we may be required to record additional inventory
write-downs.
Valuation
of Goodwill and Intangible Assets. Goodwill represents the excess of the
purchase price of an acquired business or assets over the fair value of the
identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed. Intangible assets consist
primarily of intellectual property that has been internally developed or
purchased. Purchased intangible assets include existing and core technology,
trademarks and trade names, and customer contracts. Intangible assets are
amortized using the straight-lined method over estimated useful lives ranging
from one to fifteen years.
EMCORE
evaluates its goodwill and intangible assets for impairment on an annual basis,
or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value
may not be recoverable. Circumstances that could trigger an impairment test
include but are not limited to: a significant adverse change in the business
climate or legal factors; an adverse action or assessment by a regulator;
unanticipated competition; loss of key personnel; the likelihood that a
reporting unit or significant portion of a reporting unit will be sold or
otherwise disposed; results of testing for recoverability of a significant
asset
group within a reporting unit; and recognition of a goodwill impairment loss
in
the financial statements of a subsidiary that is a component of a reporting
unit. The determination as to whether a write-down of goodwill or intangible
assets is necessary involves significant judgment based on the short-term and
long-term projections of the future performance of the reporting unit to which
the goodwill or intangible assets are attributed. As of
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, EMCORE tested for impairment of its goodwill
and intangible assets. In accordance with SFAS 142, Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets, the fair value of the reporting units was
determined by using a valuation technique based on each reporting unit’s
multiples of revenues. Based on that analysis, we determined that the carrying
amount of the reporting units did not exceed their fair value.
During
the three months ended September 30, 2006, as part of our quarterly review
of
financial results, we identified impairment indicators that the carrying value
of our goodwill and intangible assets associated with the acquisition of Corona
Optical Systems may not be recoverable. See Note 9 to the accompanying
consolidated financial statements for further details.
Valuation
of Long-lived Assets. EMCORE reviews long-lived assets on an annual basis or
whenever events or circumstances indicate that the assets may be
impaired. A long-lived asset is considered impaired when its
anticipated undiscounted cash flow is less than its carrying value. In making
this determination, EMCORE uses certain assumptions, including, but not limited
to: (a) estimates of the fair market value of these assets; and (b) estimates
of
future cash flows expected to be generated by these assets, which are based
on
additional assumptions such as asset utilization, length of service that assets
will be used in our operations, and estimated salvage values. As of December
31,
2006, 2005 and 2004, EMCORE tested for impairment and based on that analysis,
we
did not record any impairment charges on any of EMCORE’s long-lived
assets.
Product
Warranty Reserves. EMCORE provides its customers with limited rights of
return for non-conforming shipments and warranty claims for certain products.
In
accordance with SFAS 5, Accounting for Contingencies, EMCORE makes
estimates of product warranty expense using historical experience rates as
a
percentage of revenue and accrues estimated warranty expense as a cost of
revenue. We estimate the costs of our warranty obligations based on our
historical experience of known product failure rates, use of materials to repair
or replace defective products and service delivery costs incurred in correcting
product failures. In addition, from time to time, specific warranty accruals
may
be made if unforeseen technical problems arise. Should our actual experience
relative to these factors differ from our estimates, we may be required to
record additional warranty reserves. Alternatively, if we provide more reserves
than we need, we may reverse a portion of such provisions in future
periods.
Revenue
Recognition. Revenue is recognized upon shipment, provided persuasive
evidence of a contract exists, (such as when a purchase order or contract is
received from a customer), the price is fixed, the product meets its
specifications, title and ownership have transferred to the customer, and there
is reasonable assurance of collection of the sales proceeds. In those few
instances where a given sale involves post shipment obligations, formal customer
acceptance documents, or subjective rights of return, revenue is not recognized
until all post-shipment conditions have been satisfied and there is reasonable
assurance of collection of the sales proceeds. The majority of our products
have
shipping terms that are free on board (FOB) or free carrier alongside (FCA)
shipping point, which means that EMCORE fulfills its delivery obligation when
the goods are handed over to the freight carrier at our shipping dock. This
means the buyer bears all costs and risks of loss or damage to the goods from
that point. In certain cases, EMCORE ships its products cost insurance and
freight (CIF). Under this arrangement, revenue is recognized under FCA shipping
point terms, but EMCORE pays (and bills the customer) for the cost of shipping
and insurance to the customer's designated location. EMCORE accounts for
shipping and related transportation costs by recording the charges that are
invoiced to customers as revenue, with the corresponding cost recorded as cost
of revenue. In those instances where inventory is maintained at a
consigned location, revenue is recognized only when our customer pulls product
for its use and title and ownership have transferred to the
customer. Revenue from time and material contracts is recognized at
the contractual rates as labor hours and direct expenses are
incurred. EMCORE also generates service revenue from hardware repairs
and calibrations that is recognized as revenue upon completion of the
service. Any cost of warranties and remaining obligations that are
inconsequential or perfunctory are accrued when the corresponding revenue is
recognized.
Distributors
- EMCORE uses a number of distributors around the world. In accordance with
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition, EMCORE
recognizes revenue upon shipment of product to these distributors. Title and
risk of loss pass to the distributors upon shipment, and our distributors are
contractually obligated to pay EMCORE on standard commercial terms, just like
our other direct customers. EMCORE does not sell to its distributors on
consignment and, except in the event of product discontinuance, does not give
distributors a right of return.
Solar
Panel Contracts - EMCORE records revenues from certain solar panel
contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. Revenue is recognized
in
proportion to actual costs incurred compared to total anticipated costs expected
to be incurred for each contract. If estimates of costs to complete long-term
contracts indicate a loss, a provision is made for the total loss anticipated.
EMCORE has numerous contracts that are in various stages of completion. Such
contracts require estimates to determine the appropriate cost and revenue
recognition. EMCORE uses all available information in determining dependable
estimates of the extent of progress towards completion, contract revenues,
and
contract costs. Estimates are revised as additional information becomes
available.
Government
R&D Contracts - R&D contract revenue represents reimbursement by
various U.S. Government entities, or their contractors, to aid in the
development of new technology. The applicable contracts generally provide that
EMCORE may elect to retain ownership of inventions made in performing the work,
subject to a non-exclusive license retained by the U.S. Government to practice
the inventions for governmental purposes. The R&D contract funding may be
based on a cost-plus, cost reimbursement, cost-share, or a firm fixed price
arrangement. The amount of funding under each R&D contract is determined
based on cost estimates that include both direct and indirect costs. Cost-plus
funding is determined based on actual costs plus a set margin. As we incur
costs
under cost reimbursement type contracts, we record revenue. Contract costs
include material, labor, special tooling and test equipment, subcontracting
costs, as well as an allocation of indirect costs. For cost-share contracts,
the
actual costs of performance are divided between the U.S. Government and EMCORE
based on the R&D contract terms. An R&D contract is considered complete
when all significant costs have been incurred, milestones have been reached,
and
any reporting obligations to the customer have been met.
Stock-Based
Compensation. EMCORE records stock-based compensation under SFAS
123(R). The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date
of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model and the straight-line
attribution approach. The option-pricing model requires the input of highly
subjective assumptions, including the option’s expected life and the price
volatility of the underlying stock. EMCORE’s expected term represents the period
that stock-based awards are expected to be outstanding and is determined based
on historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to the
contractual terms of the stock-based awards, vesting schedules and expectations
of future employee behavior as influenced by changes to the terms of its
stock-based awards. The expected stock price volatility is based on EMCORE’s
historical stock prices. See Note 4 to our consolidated financial
statements for further details.
***
The
above
listing is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all of our accounting
policies. In many cases, the accounting treatment of a particular transaction
is
specifically dictated by U.S. GAAP. There also are areas in which management's
judgment in selecting any available alternative would not produce a materially
different result. See our audited consolidated financial statements and notes
thereto included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which contain a discussion
of our accounting policies, recently adopted accounting pronouncements and
other
required GAAP disclosures.
Business
Segments, Geographic Revenue, Significant Customers and
Backlog
EMCORE
has two operating segments: Fiber Optics and Photovoltaics. EMCORE's
Fiber Optics revenue is derived primarily from sales of optical components
and
subsystems for CATV, FTTP, enterprise routers and switches, telecom grooming
switches, core routers, high performance servers, supercomputers, and satellite
communications data links. EMCORE's Photovoltaics revenue is derived
primarily from the sales of solar power conversion products, including solar
cells, covered interconnect solar cells, and solar
panels. EMCORE evaluates its reportable segments in accordance
with SFAS 131, Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related
Information. EMCORE’s Chief Executive Officer is EMCORE’s Chief Operating
Decision Maker pursuant to SFAS 131, and he allocates resources to segments
based on their business prospects, competitive factors, net revenue, operating
results and other non-GAAP financial ratios.
The
following tables set forth the revenue and percentage of total revenue
attributable to each of EMCORE's operating segments for the fiscal years ended
September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
Segment
Revenue
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
104,852
|
73
|
%
|
$
|
81,960
|
71
|
%
|
$
|
56,169
|
69
|
%
|
||||||||||||
Photovoltaics
|
38,681
|
27
|
33,407
|
29
|
25,716
|
31
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||
Total
revenue
|
$
|
143,533
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
115,367
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
81,885
|
100
|
%
|
The
following tables set forth EMCORE's consolidated revenue by geographic region
for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004. Revenue was
assigned to geographic regions based on the customers’ or contract
manufacturers’ billing address.
Geographic
Revenue
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
|||||||||||||||||||
United
States
|
$
|
109,614
|
76
|
%
|
$
|
95,723
|
83
|
%
|
$
|
55,314
|
68
|
%
|
||||||||||||
Asia
|
28,537
|
20
|
13,725
|
12
|
15,148
|
18
|
||||||||||||||||||
South
America
|
1,230
|
1
|
3
|
-
|
416
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||
Europe
|
4,152
|
3
|
5,916
|
5
|
11,007
|
13
|
||||||||||||||||||
Total
revenue
|
$
|
143,533
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
115,367
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
81,885
|
100
|
%
|
Cisco
Systems, Inc. (Cisco) accounted for 12% and 22% of our total consolidated
revenue in fiscal 2006 and 2005, respectively. Motorola
accounted for 15% of our total consolidated revenue in fiscal 2004.
As
of
September 30, 2006, we had an order backlog of approximately $48 million as
compared to a backlog from continuing operations of approximately $34 million
from the prior year.
As
of
June 30, 2007, order backlog increased to approximately $121
million. The significant increase in order backlog is attributable to
the receipt of long-term photovoltaics-related sales contracts, of which
approximately $45 million is scheduled for shipment after June 30,
2008.
EMCORE
had been engaged in a multi-year cost reimbursable solar cell development and
production contract for a major U.S. aerospace corporation. It was previously
reported that the contract would exceed $40.0 million in development and
production revenues over the next several years. Although we
recognized significant revenues for this program during fiscal 2007, our
customer notified us in August 2007 that their program had been terminated
by
the U.S. Government for its convenience. We adjusted our order
backlog accordingly and this will have no effect on our fiscal 2008 revenue
guidance. In fiscal 2008, we expect to recognize additional revenue
from this program related to contract termination costs. We also
expect revenue in fiscal 2008 from a new U.S. Government contract that has
similar technical contract requirements.
A
majority of our fiber optics products typically ship within the same quarter
as
when the purchase order is received; therefore, our backlog at any particular
date is not necessarily indicative of actual revenue or the level of orders
for
any succeeding period.
On
November 28, 2006, EMCORE announced that its Photovoltaics division had been
awarded a multi-year purchase order from a leading manufacturer of high power
geosynchronous communications satellites. EMCORE estimates the expected revenue
from the purchase order at more than $41.0 million over a period of 3 years.
EMCORE will supply state of the art, high efficiency multi-junction solar cells
for approximately ten high power satellites. Production of the solar cells
will
take place at EMCORE's state-of-the-art multi-junction solar cell production
facility located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The recently awarded
purchase order represents an extension to an existing multi-year purchasing
agreement with a leading U.S. commercial satellite manufacturer. The agreement
calls for continuous solar cell production through 2009 with several hundred
thousand solar cells to be delivered to the end customer.
The
following table sets forth operating losses attributable to each EMCORE
operating segment for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and
2004.
Statement
of Operations Data
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||
Operating
loss by segment:
|
||||||||||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
(18,950
|
)
|
$
|
(13,884
|
)
|
$
|
(25,067
|
)
|
|||
Photovoltaics
|
(8,365
|
)
|
(4,348
|
)
|
(8,733
|
)
|
||||||
Corporate
|
(6,835
|
)
|
(2,139
|
)
|
(1,804
|
)
|
||||||
Operating
loss
|
(34,150
|
)
|
(20,371
|
)
|
(35,604
|
)
|
||||||
Total
other expenses (income)
|
(81,041
|
)
|
4,314
|
(7,228
|
)
|
|||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations before income
taxes
|
46,891
|
(24,685
|
)
|
(28,376
|
)
|
|||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
1,852
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$
|
45,039
|
$
|
(24,685
|
)
|
$
|
(28,376
|
)
|
On
October 1, 2005, EMCORE adopted SFAS 123(R) and incurred stock-based
compensation expense in its results of operations for fiscal 2006, which was
distributed as follows:
Stock-based
Compensation Expense
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006
|
||||||||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
Cost
of Revenue
|
SG&A
|
R&D
|
Total
|
||||||||||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
893
|
$
|
1,593
|
$
|
1,135
|
$
|
3,621
|
||||||||
Photovoltaics
|
242
|
661
|
203
|
1,106
|
||||||||||||
Total
stock-based compensation expense from continuing
operations
|
1,135
|
2,254
|
1,338
|
4,727
|
||||||||||||
Discontinued
operations (1)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
267
|
||||||||||||
Total
stock-based compensation expense
|
$
|
1,135
|
$
|
2,254
|
$
|
1,338
|
$
|
4,994
|
______________________
(1)
See
Note 8 “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Long-lived
assets (consisting of property, plant and equipment, goodwill and intangible
assets) for each operating segment as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 are as
follows:
Long-lived
Assets
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
57,817
|
$
|
56,261
|
||||
Photovoltaics
|
42,087
|
37,861
|
||||||
Corporate
|
22
|
235
|
||||||
Total
long-lived assets
|
$
|
99,926
|
$
|
94,357
|
Results
of Operations
The
following table sets forth the consolidated statements of operations data of
EMCORE expressed as a percentage of total revenues for the fiscal years ended
September 30, 2006, 2005, and 2004.
STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS DATA
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||||
Revenue
|
100.0
|
%
|
100.0
|
%
|
100.0
|
%
|
||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
81.9
|
83.3
|
94.5
|
|||||||||
Gross
profit
|
18.1
|
16.7
|
5.5
|
|||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
26.6
|
20.1
|
24.4
|
|||||||||
Research
and development
|
13.7
|
14.3
|
24.5
|
|||||||||
Impairment
of goodwill and intellectual property
|
1.6
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
41.9
|
34.4
|
48.9
|
|||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(23.8
|
)
|
(17.7
|
)
|
(43.4
|
)
|
||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(0.9
|
)
|
(0.9
|
)
|
(1.0
|
)
|
||||||
Interest
expense
|
3.7
|
4.1
|
7.5
|
|||||||||
Loss
from convertible subordinated notes exchange offer
|
0.8
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Net
gain from debt extinguishment
|
-
|
-
|
(15.0
|
)
|
||||||||
Impairment
of investment
|
0.3
|
-
|
0.6
|
|||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
0.3
|
0.4
|
-
|
|||||||||
Net
gain on sale of GELcore investment
|
(61.3
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
0.4
|
0.1
|
(0.9
|
)
|
||||||||
Equity
in net loss of Velox investment
|
0.2
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Total
other (income) expenses
|
(56.5
|
)
|
3.7
|
(8.8
|
)
|
|||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations before income
taxes
|
32.7
|
(21.4
|
)
|
(34.6
|
)
|
|||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
1.3
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
31.4
|
(21.4
|
)
|
(34.6
|
)
|
|||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.3
|
(1.1
|
)
|
(6.3
|
)
|
|||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
6.6
|
10.8
|
23.9
|
|||||||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
6.9
|
9.7
|
17.6
|
|||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
38.3
|
%
|
(11.7
|
)%
|
(17.0
|
)%
|
Comparison
of Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated
Revenue
EMCORE’s
consolidated revenue
increased $28.1 million or 24% to $143.5 million from $115.4 million, as
reported in the prior year. International sales increased $14.3 million or
73%,
when compared to the prior year. Government contract revenue increased $1.7
million or 18% to $11.1 million from $9.4 million, as reported in the prior
year. A comparison of revenue achieved at each of EMCORE’s operating segments
follows:
Fiber
Optics
Over
the
past several years, communications networks have experienced dramatic growth
in
data transmission traffic due to worldwide Internet access, e-mail, and
e-commerce. As Internet content expands to include full motion video on-demand,
HDTV, multi-channel high quality audio, online video conferencing, image
transfer, online multi-player gaming, and other broadband applications, the
delivery of such data will place a greater demand on available bandwidth and
require the support of higher capacity networks. The bulk of this traffic,
which
continues to grow at a very high rate, is already routed through the optical
networking infrastructure used by local and long distance carriers, as well
as
Internet service providers. Optical fiber offers substantially greater bandwidth
capacity, is less error prone, and is easier to administer than older copper
wire technologies. As greater bandwidth capability is delivered closer to the
end user, increased demand for higher content, real-time, interactive visual
and
audio content is expected. We believe that EMCORE is well positioned to benefit
from the continued deployment of these higher capacity fiber-optic
networks.
Customers
for the Fiber Optics segment include: Avago Technologies, Inc., Alcatel, Aurora
Networks, BUPT-GUOAN Broadband, C-Cor Electronics, Cisco, Finisar,
Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Intel Corporation, Jabil, JDSU, Motorola, Network
Appliance, Sycamore Networks, Inc., and Tellabs.
Annual
revenues increased $22.9 million or 28% to $104.9 million from $82.0 million,
as
reported in the prior year. On a quarterly basis, fiscal 2006 revenues were
$25.0 million, $25.9 million, $26.0 million and $28.0 million. On a quarterly
basis, fiscal 2005 revenues were $17.7 million, $19.0 million, $21.1 million
and
$24.2 million. The annual increase in revenues is primarily due to
recent acquisitions and a significant increase in the demand for our 10G
products, satellite communications, telecommunications and FTTP components
as
well as CATV. The communications industry in which we participate
continues to be dynamic. The driving factor is the competitive environment
that
exists between cable operators, telephone companies, and satellite and wireless
service providers. Each are rapidly investing capital to deploy a converging
multi-service network capable of delivering “triple play services”, i.e. video,
voice and data content, bundled as a service provided by a single communication
provider. As a market leader in RF transmission over fiber products for the
CATV
industry, EMCORE enables cable companies to offer multiple forms of
communications to meet the expanding demand for high-speed Internet, on-demand
and interactive video, and other new services (such as HDTV and VoIP).
Television is also undergoing a major transformation, as the U.S. Government
requires television stations to broadcast exclusively in digital format,
abandoning the analog format used for decades. Although the transition date
for
digital transmissions is not expected for several years, the build-out of these
television networks has already begun. To support the telephone companies plan
to offer competing video, voice and data services through the deployment of
new
fiber-based systems, EMCORE has developed and maintains customer qualified
FTTP
components and subsystem products. Our CATV and FTTP products include broadcast
analog and digital fiber optic transmitters, quadrature amplitude modulation
(QAM) transmitters, video receivers, and passive optical network (PON)
transceivers. Government contract revenues in fiscal 2006 totaled
$1.9 million. There were no government contract revenues for fiber optics
products in fiscal 2005. Fiber optics revenue represented 73% and 71% of
EMCORE's total consolidated revenues for fiscal 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
Photovoltaics
EMCORE
is
a leader in providing solar power generation solutions to the global
communications satellite industry and U.S. Government space
programs. EMCORE provides advanced compound semiconductor solar cell
products and solar panels, which are more resistant to radiation levels in
space
and convert substantially more power from sunlight than silicon-based
solutions. EMCORE’s Photovoltaics segment designs and manufactures
multi-junction compound semiconductor solar cells for both commercial and
military satellite applications.
Customers
for the Photovoltaics segment include Boeing, General Dynamics, the Indian
Space
Research Organization (“ISRO”), Lockheed Martin, and Space
Systems/Loral.
Annual
revenues increased $5.3 million or 16% to $38.7 million from $33.4 million,
as
reported in the prior year. On a quarterly basis, fiscal 2006 revenues were
$10.7 million, $10.3 million, $10.4 million and $7.3 million. On a quarterly
basis, fiscal 2005 revenues were $7.5 million, $7.8 million, $8.8 million and
$9.3 million. Revenue for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 was
reduced because EMCORE did not receive export licenses covering three
international satellite programs in time to ship product. EMCORE has
since received license approvals on all three of the programs and the delayed
orders were shipped to the customers. EMCORE is currently required to obtain
approvals from the Department of State in order to export certain satellite
photovoltaic products. EMCORE has shipped these specific products in the past
and has requested a Commodity Jurisdiction classification that would simplify
the export of these products. Government contract revenues totaled
$9.2 million and $9.4 million in fiscal 2006 and 2005,
respectively. Photovoltaics revenue represented 27% and 29% of
EMCORE's total consolidated revenues for fiscal 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
We
see
additional areas for growth resulting from the joint venture between ISRO and
EADS Astrium for the manufacture of GEO communication satellites. EMCORE is
a
leading supplier of solar cell products to ISRO, and we anticipate increased
activity with that customer. Government and military procurement remains steady,
and we have succeeded in gaining market share in that area. We have
recently has been awarded solar panel government contracts for military and
science missions, and this represents an expansion of our customer
base.
EMCORE
had been engaged in a multi-year cost reimbursable solar cell development and
production contract for a major U.S. aerospace corporation. It was previously
reported that the contract would exceed $40.0 million in development and
production revenues over the next several years. Although we
recognized significant revenues for this program during fiscal 2007, our
customer notified us in August 2007 that their program had been terminated
by
the U.S. Government for its convenience. We adjusted our order
backlog accordingly and this will have no effect on our fiscal 2008 revenue
guidance. In fiscal 2008, we expect to recognize additional revenue
from this program related to contract termination costs. We also
expect revenue in fiscal 2008 from a new U.S. Government contract that has
similar technical contract requirements.
In
February 2006, EMCORE was awarded a subcontract to participate in the Defense
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHSEC) program
to more than double the efficiency of terrestrial solar cells within the next
fifty months. EMCORE was selected by the University of Delaware, the prime
contractor for the DARPA VHSEC program, to develop advanced III-V multi-junction
solar cells in Phase I of the program effort. The VHSEC program will provide
up
to $53.0 million in funding, which will be awarded to program participants
in
various phases over the next several years.
In
August
2007, EMCORE was awarded a follow-on production order from Green and Gold Energy
(GGE) for three million solar cells for use in GGE's SunCubeTM terrestrial
concentrator system. This 105 MW purchase order represents the largest
procurement of concentrator solar cells in the industry to date and is a
follow-on order to an initial 5 MW order placed earlier in 2007. All hardware
ordered under this contract is to be shipped by December 2008.
Gross
Profit
Gross
profit increased $6.7 million or 35% to $26.0 million from $19.3 million in
the
prior year. Compared to the prior year, gross margins increased from 16.7%
to
18.1%. On a segment basis, margins for Fiber Optics increased from 18% to 21%
primarily from the increase in sales volume and savings from our manufacturing
cost reduction program offset slightly from declining average selling
prices. Margins for the Photovoltaics segment decreased from 14% to
13%. This decrease was due to product mix shift to generally lower
margin products and higher overhead absorption variances as EMCORE consolidated
its solar panel operations into a state-of-the-art facility located in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Actions
designed to improve our gross margins (through product mix improvements, cost
reductions associated with product transfers and product rationalization,
maximizing production yields on high-performance devices and quality
improvements, among other things) continue to be a principal focus for
us. The establishment of a modern solar panel manufacturing facility,
adjacent to our solar cell fabrication operations, should facilitate
consistency, as well as reduce manufacturing costs. The benefit of having these
operations located on one site is expected to provide high quality, high
reliability and cost-effective solar components. Solar panel production
operations ceased at our California solar panel facility in June 2006 and the
facility was vacated in December 2006. We focus our activities on
developing new process control and yield management tools that enable us to
accelerate the adoption of new technologies into full-volume production, while
minimizing their associated risks.
On
October 1, 2005, EMCORE adopted SFAS 123(R) and incurred stock-based
compensation expense as more fully described in Note 3 to EMCORE’s
consolidated financial statements. In fiscal 2006, gross profit includes
$1.1 million of stock-based compensation expense related to employee stock
options and employee stock purchases under SFAS 123(R).
Operating
Expenses
Selling,
General and Administrative. SG&A expenses increased $15.0
million or 65% to $38.2 million from $23.2 million in the prior
year. Consistent with prior years, SG&A expense
includes corporate overhead expenses. As a percentage of revenue,
SG&A increased from 20% to 27%. The increase in SG&A expense is
primarily due to:
|
·
|
acquisitions
of Phasebridge Inc., Force Inc., and K2 Optronics,
Inc.;
|
|
·
|
a
related-party partial loan forgiveness to our Chief Executive Officer
that
totaled approximately $2.7 million as more fully described in Note 10
to EMCORE’s consolidated financial
statements;
|
|
·
|
stock-based
compensation expense related to employee stock options and employee
stock
purchases under SFAS 123(R) totaling $2.3 million. As part of
the restatement, stock-based compensation expense in fiscal 2005
totaled
$0.2 million;
|
|
·
|
Sarbanes-Oxley,
in particular Section 404, compliance
expense;
|
|
·
|
professional
fees incurred associated with our review of historical stock option
grants;
|
|
·
|
expenses
associated with the move of our solar panel manufacturing facility
to
Albuquerque, New Mexico; and
|
|
·
|
continued
investment in personnel strategic to our
business.
|
Research
and Development. Our R&D efforts have been sharply focused to
maintain our technological leadership position by working to improve the quality
and attributes of our product lines. We also invest significant resources to
develop new products and production technology to expand into new market
opportunities by leveraging our existing technology base and infrastructure.
Our
efforts are focused on designing new proprietary processes and products, on
improving the performance of our existing materials, components, and subsystems,
and on reducing costs in the product manufacturing process. In addition to
using
our internal capacity to develop and manufacture products for our target
markets, EMCORE continues to expand its portfolio of products and technologies
through acquisitions.
R&D
expenses increased $3.2 million or 19% to $19.7 million from $16.5 million
in
the prior year. The increase in R&D is due to
expenses attributable to the three businesses acquired since November 2005
and
additional stock-based compensation expense of $1.3 million related to the
adoption of SFAS 123(R). As a percentage of revenue, R&D remained
flat at 14% for both fiscal 2006 and 2005. We believe that recently
completed R&D projects have the potential to greatly improve our competitive
position and drive revenue growth in the next few years.
As
part
of the ongoing effort to cut costs, many of our projects are to develop lower
cost versions of our existing products and of our existing processes, while
improving quality. Also, we have implemented a program to focus research and
product development efforts on projects that we expect to generate returns
within one year. As a result, over the last several years, EMCORE has reduced
overall R&D costs as a percentage of revenue without, we believe,
jeopardizing future revenue opportunities. Our technology and product leadership
is an important competitive advantage. Driven by current and anticipated demand,
we will continue to invest in new technologies and products that offer our
customers increased efficiency, higher performance, improved functionality,
and/or higher levels of integration. In fiscal 2007, we expect
R&D spending to significantly increase as we invest in solar power
concentrator system development.
Impairment. EMCORE
recorded approximately $2.2 million of impairment charges on goodwill and
intellectual property associated with the June 2004 acquisition of Corona
Optical Systems, as more fully described in Note 9 to EMCORE’s consolidated
financial statements.
Other
Income & Expenses
Loss
from Convertible Subordinated Notes Exchange Offer. In November 2005,
EMCORE exchanged $14.4 million aggregate principal amount of EMCORE’s 5%
convertible subordinated notes due in May 2006 for $16.6 million aggregate
principal amount of newly issued convertible senior subordinated notes due
May
15, 2011. As a result of this transaction, EMCORE recognized approximately
$1.1
million of expense in the first quarter of fiscal 2006 related to the early
extinguishment of debt. EMCORE will also incur additional expense of
approximately $1.1 million over the life of the subordinated notes, which will
be charged to interest expense. This charge will increase interest expense
by
approximately $50,000 per quarter through May 2011, the maturity date of the
convertible subordinated notes.
Impairment
of Investment. In February 2002, EMCORE purchased preferred stock of
Archcom Technologies, Inc., a venture-funded, start-up optical networking
components company that designs, manufactures and markets a series of high
performance lasers and photodiodes for datacom and telecom industries. In fiscal
2006, EMCORE wrote-off its remaining investment in Archcom totaling $0.5
million.
Net
Gain on Sale of GELcore Investment. In August 2006, EMCORE sold its 49%
membership interest in GELcore, LLC for $100.0 million to General Electric
Corporation, which prior to the transaction owned the remaining 51% membership
interest in GELcore. EMCORE recorded a net gain of $88.0 million,
before tax, on the sale of GELcore, after netting EMCORE’s investment in this
joint venture of $10.8 million and transaction expenses of $1.2
million.
Provision
for Income Taxes
EMCORE
recorded a provision for income taxes totaling $1.9 million in connection with
the gain on the sale of GELcore. As a result of its losses, the
Company did not incur any income tax expense in fiscal 2005.
See
Item
8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, specifically Note 17 of
the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for further discussion of the
financial tax impact of the sale of GELcore and tax expense adjustments
associated with our historical stock option grant review.
Discontinued
Operations
On
August
18, 2006, EMCORE completed the sale of the assets of its EMD division, including
inventory, fixed assets, and intellectual property to IQE. Under the
terms of the purchase agreement, EMCORE sold the EMD Business to IQE for $16.0
million, consisting of $13.0 million in cash and $3.0 million in the form of
a
secured promissory note of IQE, guaranteed by IQE's affiliates. The note was
completely repaid in fiscal 2007, via four quarterly installments at an annual
interest rate of 7.5%. All 56 employees of the EMD division were
transferred to IQE in connection with the sale. EMCORE recorded a net
gain of $7.6 million, after tax, on the sale of EMD, after netting EMCORE’s
investment in EMD of $6.0 million and transaction expenses of $2.4 million.
EMCORE’s financial statements have been reclassified to reflect the EMD Business
as a discontinued operation for all periods presented.
In
November 2003, EMCORE sold its TurboDisc capital equipment business in an asset
sale to a subsidiary of Veeco Instruments Inc. (Veeco). The selling price was
$60.0 million in cash at closing, with a potential additional earn-out up to
$20.0 million over the next two years, calculated based on the net sales of
TurboDisc products. In March 2005, EMCORE received $13.2 million of earn-out
payment from Veeco in connection with its first year of net sales of TurboDisc
products. After offsetting this receipt against expenses related to the
discontinued operation, EMCORE recorded a net gain from the disposal of
discontinued operations of $12.5 million. In March 2006, EMCORE received
manufacturing equipment valued at $2.0 million less $0.1 million tax
as a final earn-out payment from Veeco in connection with Veeco’s second year of
net sales of TurboDisc products. The cumulative additional earn-out
totaled $15.2 million or 76% of the maximum available payout of $20.0
million.
Comparison
of Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2005 and 2004
Consolidated
Revenue
EMCORE’s
consolidated revenue
increased $33.5 million or 41% to $115.4 million from $81.9 million, as reported
in the prior year. International sales decreased $6.9 million or 26%, when
compared to the prior year. Revenue from government contracts increased $6.6
million or 236% to $9.4 million from $2.8 million, as reported in the prior
year. A comparison of revenue achieved at each of EMCORE’s operating segments
follows:
Fiber
Optics. Annual revenues increased $25.8 million or 46% to $82.0
million from $56.2 million, as reported in the prior year. On a quarterly basis,
fiscal 2005 revenues were $17.7 million, $19.0 million, $21.1 million and $24.2
million. On a quarterly basis, fiscal 2004 revenues were $15.5
million, $14.2 million, $11.9 million and $14.6 million. Increased
sales volume of 10G Ethernet transceiver modules and CATV and FTTP components
were the reason for the significant increase in annual
revenues. There were no government contract revenues for fiber optics
products in fiscal 2005 or 2004. Fiber optics revenue represented 71% and 69%
of
EMCORE's total consolidated revenues for fiscal 2005 and 2004,
respectively.
Photovoltaics.
Annual revenues increased $7.7 million or 30% to $33.4 million from $25.7
million, as reported in the prior year. On a quarterly basis, fiscal 2005
revenues were $7.5 million, $7.8 million, $8.8 million and $9.3
million. On a quarterly basis, fiscal 2004 revenues were $4.5
million, $6.1 million, $6.8 million and $8.3 million. The increase in
revenue was attributable to both increases in solar cell orders and government
research contracts. Government contract revenues for
photovoltaics products were $9.4 million and $2.8 million in fiscal years 2005
and 2004, respectively. Photovoltaics revenue represented 29% and 31% of
EMCORE's total consolidated revenues for fiscal 2005 and 2004,
respectively.
Gross
Profit
Gross
profit increased $14.8 million or 329% to $19.3 million from $4.5 million in
the
prior year. Compared to the prior year, gross margins increased from 5.5% to
16.7%. On a segment basis, Fiber Optics margins increased from 12% to 18% due
to
increased revenues and improvement on material costs. Photovoltaics
margins increased from (8%) to 14% due to increased revenues, completion of
profitable solar panel contracts and significant improvement on manufacturing
metrics and yields.
Operating
Expenses
Selling,
General and Administrative. SG&A expenses increased $3.2
million or 16% to $23.2 million from $20.0 million in the prior
year. This increase is a direct result of
acquisition-related charges, costs incurred as we fully implemented the
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in particular Section 404
thereof, the continued investment in personnel strategic to our business,
severance charges, and expenses associated with the Company’s April 2005
announcement to move its solar panel manufacturing facility to Albuquerque,
New
Mexico. Fiscal 2005 SG&A expense included approximately $0.9 million in
severance-related charges and approximately $2.3 million in expenses related
to
the relocation of this facility. The severance-related charges were provided
to
54 employees that were involuntary affected by a reduction in workforce. In
fiscal 2004, EMCORE incurred $1.2 million in severance-related charges related
to employee termination costs for 110 employees. As a percentage of
revenue, SG&A decreased from 24% to 20%.
Research
and Development. R&D expenses decreased $3.6 million or 18% to
$16.5 million from $20.1 million in the prior year. The
primary reason for the annual decrease in R&D expense was the divestiture of
product technology (see Note 7 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements for further details). In April 2005, EMCORE divested an R&D
project that was focused on gallium nitride (GaN)-based power electronic devices
for the power device industry. The new company, Velox Semiconductor
Corporation (Velox), raised $6.0 million from various venture capital
partnerships. Five EMCORE employees transferred to Velox as full-time personnel
and EMCORE contributed intellectual property and equipment, receiving a 19.2%
stake in Velox. As a percentage of revenue, R&D decreased from 25% in fiscal
2004 to 14% in fiscal 2005.
Other
Income & Expenses
Interest
Expense, net. Interest expense, net decreased $1.6 million, or 30%, to $3.8
million in fiscal 2005 from $5.4 million in fiscal 2004. This decrease is
primarily due to the retirement of approximately $65.7 million of EMCORE’s
subordinated debt through a debt exchange accomplished in February
2004.
Net
Gain From Debt Extinguishment. In February 2004, EMCORE exchanged
approximately $146.0 million, or 90.2%, of the remaining 2006 Notes for
approximately $80.3 million aggregate principal amount of new 5% Convertible
Senior Subordinated Notes due May 15, 2011 and approximately 7.7 million shares
of EMCORE common stock. As a result of this transaction, EMCORE recorded a
net
gain from early debt extinguishment before tax of approximately $12.3
million.
Impairment
of Investment. In February 2002, EMCORE purchased $1.0 million of preferred
stock of Archcom Technologies, Inc., a venture-funded, start-up optical
networking components company that designs, manufactures and markets a series
of
high performance lasers and photodiodes for datacom and telecom industries.
In
fiscal 2004, EMCORE chose not to participate in an equity offering at Archcom,
which diluted EMCORE’s ownership in half to $0.5
million.
Equity
in Net Loss (Income) of GELcore. EMCORE's portion of equity in GELcore
decreased $0.9 million to a net loss of approximately $0.1 million in fiscal
2005 from net income of approximately $0.8 million in fiscal 2004. The annual
decrease was due to costs associated with the transfer of operations from
GELcore’s Lechine, Quebec manufacturing facility to Mexico, which was completed
in July 2005. GELcore incurred approximately $1.6 million of costs related
to
this transfer, of which EMCORE’s share was approximately $0.8
million.
Discontinued
Operations
EMCORE
sold its TurboDisc capital equipment business in November
2003. During fiscal 2004, EMCORE recognized a gain on the disposal of
the TurboDisc business of $19.6 million. In March 2005, EMCORE received $13.2
million of earn-out payment from Veeco in connection with its first year of
net
sales of TurboDisc products. After offsetting this receipt against expenses
related to the discontinued operation, EMCORE recorded a net gain from the
disposal of discontinued operations of $12.5 million.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Working
Capital
As
of
September 30, 2006, EMCORE had working capital of approximately $129.7 million,
which was an increase of $72.7 million when compared to $57.0 million as of
September 30, 2005. Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of
September 30, 2006 totaled $124.0 million, which reflects a net increase of
$83.8 million from September 30, 2005. The increase was primarily due to
proceeds received from the sale of our GELcore investment.
Cash
Flow
Net
Cash Used For Operations - Net cash
used for operating activities increased $11.0 million or 72% to $26.3 million
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 from $15.3 million, as reported
in
the prior period, primarily due to increased revenues and operations associated
with recent business acquisitions.
Net
Cash Provided by Investing Activities - For the twelve months
ended September 30, 2006, net cash provided by investing activities increased
by
$10.7 million to $24.2 million from $13.5 million, as reported in the prior
year. Changes in investing cash flow during the twelve months ended September
30, 2006 and 2005 consisted of:
|
·
|
Cash
proceeds received during
fiscal year 2006 of $100.0 million from the sale of the GELcore investment
and $13.0 million from the sale of the EMD Division. Cash
proceeds of $13.2 million from the first year of earn-out payment
from Veeco in
connection with its first year of net sales of TurboDisc products
in
fiscal year 2005.
|
|
·
|
Capital
expenditures increased to
$7.3 million during fiscal year 2006 from $5.1 million, as reported
in the
prior fiscal year. A significant portion of the increase in capital
spending is related to our Photovoltaics division as it increases
manufacturing capacity.
|
|
·
|
EMCORE
purchased a net of $80.7
million of marketable securities during fiscal year 2006 with the
proceeds
from the sale of the GELcore investment and EMD Division compared
to a net
sale of $11.5 million in marketable securities during fiscal year
2005.
|
Net
Cash Provided By Financing Activities - For the twelve months
ended September 30, 2006, net cash provided by financing activities increased
$3.2 million to $5.1 million from $1.9 million. The increase was primarily
driven by the proceeds from the exercise of stock options of $6.3 million in
fiscal 2006 compared to $0.9 million in fiscal 2005.
Financing
Transactions
In
May
2001, EMCORE issued $175.0 million aggregate principal amount of its 5%
convertible subordinated notes due in May 2006 (“2006 Notes”). In December 2002,
EMCORE purchased $13.2 million principal amount of the 2006 Notes at prevailing
market prices for an aggregate of approximately $6.3 million, resulting in
a
gain of approximately $6.6 million after netting unamortized debt issuance
costs
of approximately $0.3 million. In February 2004, EMCORE exchanged approximately
$146.0 million, or 90.2%, of its remaining 2006 Notes for approximately $80.3
million aggregate principal amount of new 5% convertible senior subordinated
notes due May 15, 2011 (“2011 Notes”) and approximately 7.7 million shares of
EMCORE common stock. Interest on the 2011 Notes is payable in arrears
semiannually on May 15 and November 15 of each year. The notes were convertible
into EMCORE common stock at a conversion price of $8.06 per share, subject
to
adjustment under customary anti-dilution provisions. They also are redeemable
should EMCORE's common stock price reach $12.09 per share for at least twenty
trading days within a period of any thirty consecutive trading days. As a result
of this transaction, EMCORE reduced debt by approximately $65.7 million,
recorded a gain from early debt extinguishment of approximately $12.3
million.
In
November 2005, EMCORE exchanged $14.4 million aggregate principal amount of
EMCORE’s 2006 Notes for $16.6 million aggregate principal amount of newly issued
convertible senior subordinated notes due May 15, 2011 (“New 2011 Notes”)
pursuant to an Exchange Agreement (“Agreement”) with Alexandra Global Master
Fund Ltd. (“Alexandra”). The terms of the New 2011 Notes
are identical in all material respects to EMCORE’s 2011 Notes.
The New 2011 Notes are ranked pari passu with the existing 2011 Notes. The
New 2011 Notes will be convertible at any time prior to maturity, unless
previously redeemed or repurchased by EMCORE, into the shares of EMCORE common
stock, no par value, at the conversion rate of 124.0695 shares of common stock
per $1,000 principal amount. The effective conversion rate
was $8.06 per share of common stock, subject to adjustment under
customary anti-dilution provisions. They also are redeemable should EMCORE's
common stock price reach $12.09 per share for at least twenty trading days
within a period of any thirty consecutive trading days. As a result of
this transaction, EMCORE recognized approximately $1.1 million in the first
quarter of fiscal 2006 related to the early extinguishment of debt. EMCORE
will
also incur additional expense of approximately $1.1 million over the life of
the
subordinated notes issued to Alexandra, which will be charged to interest
expense. Furthermore, the 2006 Notes exchanged by Alexandra represented
approximately 91.4% of the $15.8 million total amount of existing 2006 Notes
outstanding at the time of the transaction. EMCORE paid the remaining $1.4
million of 2006 Notes on the May 15, 2006 maturity date.
For
the
years ended September 30, 2006, 2005, and 2004, interest expense relating to
the
notes approximated $5.4 million, $4.8 million, and $6.2 million,
respectively.
The
$2.3
million of costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the 2006 Notes,
2011 Notes and the New 2011 Notes were capitalized and are being amortized
to
SG&A on a straight-line basis for over the remaining life of the notes which
approximates the charge using the implied interest method. Issuance costs
related to the notes, net of amortization, were $1.1 million and $1.5 million
as
of September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The unamortized portions of the
issuance costs are included in “Other assets” on the consolidated balance
sheets. See Note 22 - Subsequent Events for recent modifications to
the Convertible Subordinated Notes and April 2007 note settlement.
If
our
cash flow is inadequate to meet our obligations or we are unable to generate
sufficient cash flow or otherwise obtain funds necessary to make required
payments on the notes or our other obligations, we would be in default under
the
terms thereof. Default under any of the note indentures would permit the holders
of the notes to accelerate the maturity of the notes and could cause defaults
under future indebtedness we may incur. Any such default would have a material
adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows. In addition, we cannot assure you that we would
be
able to repay amounts due in respect of the notes if payment of any of the
notes
were to be accelerated following the occurrence of an event of default as
defined in the respective note indentures.
EMCORE
may repurchase 2011 Notes and/or New 2011 Notes through various means,
including, but not limited to, one or more open market or privately negotiated
transactions in future periods. The timing and amount of repurchase, if any,
whether de minimis or material, will depend on many factors, including,
but not limited to, the availability of capital, the prevailing market price
of
the notes, and overall market conditions.
In
September 2005, EMCORE entered into a non-recourse receivables purchase
agreement (“AR Agreement”) with Silicon Valley Bank (“SVBank”). Under the
terms of the AR Agreement, EMCORE from time to time may sell, without recourse,
certain account receivables to SVBank up to a maximum aggregate outstanding
amount of $20.0 million. In September 2006 and 2005, EMCORE
sold approximately $3.0 million and $2.2 million of account receivables to
SVBank, respectively. The AR Agreement expired on December 31,
2006.
Contractual
Obligations and Commitments
EMCORE’s
contractual obligations and commitments over the next five years are summarized
in the table below:
As
of September 30, 2006
|
||||||||||||||||||||
(in
millions)
|
Total
|
2007
|
2008
to 2009
|
2010
to 2011
|
2012
and
later
|
|||||||||||||||
Convertible
subordinated notes (1)
|
$ | 96.8 | (1) | $ |
11.4
|
$ |
-
|
$ | 85.4 | (1) | $ |
-
|
||||||||
Interest
on convertible subordinated notes
|
23.4
|
4.6
|
9.4
|
9.4
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||
Operating
lease obligations
|
11.8
|
1.7
|
2.5
|
2.2
|
5.4
|
|||||||||||||||
JDSU
inventory obligations
|
1.4
|
1.4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||
Letters
of credit
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||
Total
contractual cash obligations and commitments
|
$ |
134.1
|
$ |
19.8
|
$ |
11.9
|
$ |
97.0
|
$ |
5.4
|
_______________
|
(1)
|
Does
not include $0.9 million of loss related to extinguishment of debt
incurred in fiscal year 2005 (see Note 15 – Convertible Subordinated
Notes).
|
Our
long-term debt is convertible debt, and therefore may be converted to EMCORE
common stock before maturity under certain circumstances. Operating leases
includes non-cancelable terms and excludes renewal option periods, property
taxes, insurance and maintenance expenses on leased properties. The
JDSU inventory purchase obligation is an estimate based on the best information
available. As of September 30, 2006, EMCORE does not have any significant
purchase obligations or other long-term liabilities beyond those listed in
the
table above.
Conclusion
We
believe that our current liquidity should be sufficient to meet our cash needs
for working capital through the next twelve months. If cash generated from
operations and cash on hand are not sufficient to satisfy EMCORE's liquidity
requirements, EMCORE will seek to obtain additional equity or debt financing.
Additional funding may not be available when needed, or on terms acceptable
to
EMCORE. If EMCORE is required to raise additional financing and if adequate
funds are not available or not available on acceptable terms, our ability to
continue to fund expansion, develop and enhance products and services, or
otherwise respond to competitive pressures may be severely limited. Such a
limitation could have a material adverse effect on EMCORE's business, financial
condition, results of operations, and cash flow.
Due
to
the Special Committee investigation and resulting restatements, we did not
file
our periodic reports with the SEC on time and faced the possibility of delisting
of our stock from the NASDAQ Global Market. With the filing of this Annual
Report and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q thereafter for the quarters ended
December 31, 2006, March 31, 2007, and June 30, 2007, we believe we have
returned to full compliance with SEC reporting requirements and NASDAQ listing
requirements and, therefore, the NASDAQ delisting matter should now be
resolved. However, if the SEC has comments on these reports (or other
reports that we previously filed) that require us to file amended reports,
or if
the NASDAQ does not concur that we are in compliance with applicable listing
requirements, we may be unable to maintain an effective listing of our stock
on
NASDAQ. If this happens, the price of our stock and the ability of
our shareholders to trade in our stock could be adversely affected. In addition,
we would be subject to a number of restrictions regarding the registration
of
our stock under federal securities laws, which could adversely affect our
business and results of operations.
Subsequent
Events
Relocation
of Headquarters and Departure and Appointment of Certain
Officers
Shortly
after the Company sold both its New Jersey-based EMD Division and its GELcore
joint venture, we announced the relocation of our headquarters to Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Three officers of the Company decided against relocation
and resigned.
|
·
|
Mr.
Thomas G. Werthan, an
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
resigned and left the Company on February 19, 2007. Mr. Werthan joined
the
Company in June 1992. Mr. Werthan will continue to be a member
of the Board of Directors, a position he has held since joining the
Company. In February 2007, Mr. Adam Gushard, former Vice
President of Finance, was appointed Interim Chief Financial
Officer. As discussed in Note 10, Receivables, of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, in connection with Mr. Werthan’s
resignation and pursuant to the terms of his promissory note, the
Board of
Directors forgave a loan he had with the Company. Mr. Werthan
was responsible for the personal taxes related to the loan
forgiveness.
|
|
·
|
Mr.
Howard W. Brodie, an
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of the
Company, resigned and left the Company on April 27, 2007. Mr. Brodie
joined the Company in 1999. In April 2007, Mr. Keith Kosco was
appointed Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of the
Company.
|
|
·
|
Dr.
Richard A. Stall, Executive Vice President and the Chief Technology
Officer of the Company, resigned and left the Company on June 27,
2007.
Dr. Stall co-founded the Company in 1984. On December 18,
2006, after ten years of service on the Board, Dr. Stall resigned
his seat
on the Board. Dr. John Iannelli, Ph.D. joined the Company in
January 2003 through the acquisition of Ortel from Agere Systems
and was
appointed Chief Technology Officer in June
2007.
|
In
addition, Mr. Scott T. Massie, an Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer of the Company, resigned and left the Company on December 29,
2006. Dr. Hong Q. Hou was appointed as President and Chief Operating
Officer and was elected to the Company’s Board of Directors.
The
Company also reported that Mr. Reuben F. Richards will continue to serve as
Chief Executive Officer until the Company’s Annual Meeting in 2008, at which
time he will become Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Dr. Thomas J. Russell, the current Chairman, will become Chairman Emeritus
and Lead Director. The Board of Directors has offered Dr. Hong Q. Hou the
position of Chief Executive Officer after Mr. Richards becomes
Chairman.
Restructuring
of the Company’s 5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due
2011
On
April
9, 2007, the Company entered into a First Supplemental Indenture (the “2004
Supplemental Indenture”) with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee
(the “Trustee”), which amends the Indenture, dated as of February 24, 2004 (the
“2004 Indenture”), between the Company and the Trustee, governing the Company’s
5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2011 issued thereunder (the “2004
Notes”). Also on April 9, 2007, the Company entered into a First Supplemental
Indenture (the “2005 Supplemental Indenture” and together with the 2004
Supplemental Indenture, the “Supplemental Indentures”) with the Trustee, which
amends the Indenture, dated as of November 16, 2005 (the “2005 Indenture” and
together with the 2004 Indenture, the “Indentures”), between the Company and the
Trustee, governing the Company’s 5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due
2011 issued thereunder (the “2005 Notes” and together with the 2004 Notes, the
“Notes”).
Each
Supplemental Indenture, among other things, increased the interest rate of
the
applicable Notes to 5.5% from 5.0%, reduced the Conversion Price (as defined
in
the applicable Indenture) from $8.06 to $7.01, provided for an increase in
the
Conversion Rate (as defined in the applicable Supplemental Indenture) in the
event of a Non-Stock Change of Control (as defined in the applicable
Supplemental Indenture), amended the restriction on payment of dividends,
amended the definition of “Events of Default” and provided for an additional
payment in certain circumstances in which the Company fails to comply with
its
reporting obligations under the applicable Indenture. The Supplemental
Indentures also provided a waiver of the Company’s failure to file certain
reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).
In
order
to give effect to the Supplemental Indentures, the Company entered into a
Consent to Amendment and Waiver, dated as of April 9, 2007 (the “2004 Consent”),
with certain holders of the 2004 Notes (the “2004 Consenting Holders”), and a
Consent to Amendment and Waiver, dated as of April 9, 2007 (the “2005 Consent”
and together with the 2004 Consent, the “Consents”), with the holder of the 2005
Notes (together with the 2004 Consenting Holders, the “Consenting Holders”),
pursuant to which holders of at least a majority of the outstanding 2004 Notes
and at least a majority of the 2005 Notes consented to the execution and
delivery of the 2004 Supplemental Indenture and the 2005 Supplemental Indenture,
respectively. The Consenting Holders also waived any and all Defaults (as
defined in the applicable Indenture) and Events of Default (as defined in the
applicable Indenture) relating to any failure of the Company to observe or
perform any covenant or agreement contained in the Notes or the Indentures
as a
result of the Company’s failure to file with the SEC, or with the Trustee, its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006, its Annual
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 and/or any other
reports that the Company fails to file in a timely manner for reasons in whole
or in part directly or indirectly attributable to or arising out of the
Company’s review of its historical stock option grants as initially reported in
the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 6, 2006.
The Consenting Holders agree to rescind any notice of acceleration delivered
to
the Company with respect to such failure to file.
The
Consents also provided the Company with the option to repurchase an aggregate
of
$11.4 million of the outstanding principal amount of the Notes held by the
Consenting Holders at a purchase price equal to $1,000 per $1,000 principal
amount of the Notes purchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to
but
excluding the date of purchase. The Company exercised this option and
repurchased $11.4 million of its outstanding notes on April 13,
2007. Accordingly, the Company classified the $11.4 million principal
repayment as a current liability as of September 30, 2006.
Section
409A
Section
409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 409A”) states that options granted
with an exercise price below the fair market value are subject to a 20% excise
tax on any gains derived from the exercise of such options if the options
vested
subsequent to December 31, 2004 and were exercised subsequent to December
31,
2005 (the “Affected Options”). The Company has taken certain actions
to address the adverse tax consequences under Section 409A and a comparable
provision of the California Tax Code (“California Section 409A”) resulting to
individuals that received Affected Options. The Company participated in a
Federal Internal Revenue Service and a California Franchise Tax Board program
and paid the Section 409A and California Section 409A taxes and interest
on
behalf of these non-executives. The Company incurred and recorded
approximately $0.3 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2007 in connection
with its participation in these programs.
ITEM
7A.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET
RISK
|
We
are
exposed to financial market risks, including changes in currency exchange rates
and interest rates. We do not use derivative financial instruments for
speculative purposes.
Currency
Exchange Rates. Although EMCORE enters into transactions denominated in
foreign currencies from time to time, the total amount of such transactions
is
not material. Accordingly, fluctuations in foreign currency values would not
have a material adverse effect on our future financial condition or results
of
operations. However, some of our foreign suppliers may adjust their prices
(in
$US) from time to time to reflect currency exchange fluctuations, and such
price
changes could impact our future financial condition or results of
operations. The Company does not currently hedge foreign currency
exposure.
Interest
Rates. We maintain an investment portfolio in a variety of high-grade
(AAA), short-term debt and money market instruments, which carry a minimal
degree of interest rate risk. Due in part to these factors, our future
investment income may be slightly less than expected because of changes in
interest rates, or we may suffer insignificant losses in principal if forced
to
sell securities that have experienced a decline in market value because of
changes in interest rates. The Company does not currently hedge its
interest rate exposure.
ITEM
8.
|
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY
DATA
|
EMCORE
CORPORATION
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004
(in
thousands, except per share data)
|
2006
|
(As
restated) (1)
2005
|
(As
restated) (1)
2004
|
|||||||||
Revenue
|
$
|
143,533
|
$
|
115,367
|
$
|
81,885
|
||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
117,581
|
96,065
|
77,412
|
|||||||||
Gross
profit
|
25,952
|
19,302
|
4,473
|
|||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
38,177
|
23,219
|
20,019
|
|||||||||
Research
and development
|
19,692
|
16,454
|
20,058
|
|||||||||
Impairment
of goodwill and intellectual property
|
2,233
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
60,102
|
39,673
|
40,077
|
|||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(34,150
|
)
|
(20,371
|
)
|
(35,604
|
)
|
||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(1,286
|
)
|
(1,081
|
)
|
(783
|
)
|
||||||
Interest
expense
|
5,352
|
4,844
|
6,156
|
|||||||||
Loss
from convertible subordinated notes exchange offer
|
1,078
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Net
gain from debt extinguishment
|
-
|
-
|
(12,312
|
)
|
||||||||
Impairment
of investment
|
500
|
-
|
500
|
|||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
424
|
439
|
-
|
|||||||||
Net
gain on sale of GELcore investment
|
(88,040
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||
Equity
in net loss (income) of GELcore investment
|
599
|
112
|
(789
|
)
|
||||||||
Equity
in net loss of Velox investment
|
332
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Total
other (income) expense
|
(81,041
|
)
|
4,314
|
(7,228
|
)
|
|||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations before income
taxes
|
46,891
|
(24,685
|
)
|
(28,376
|
)
|
|||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
1,852
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
45,039
|
(24,685
|
)
|
(28,376
|
)
|
|||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
373
|
(1,276
|
)
|
(5,162
|
)
|
|||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
9,511
|
12,476
|
19,584
|
|||||||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
9,884
|
11,200
|
14,422
|
|||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
|
54,923
|
$
|
(13,485
|
)
|
$
|
(13,954
|
)
|
||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||
Basic
per share data:
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.91
|
$
|
(0.52
|
)
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
0.20
|
0.24
|
0.34
|
|||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
|
1.11
|
$
|
(0.28
|
)
|
$
|
(0.32
|
)
|
||||
Diluted
per share data:
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.87
|
$
|
(0.52
|
)
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
0.19
|
0.24
|
0.34
|
|||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
|
1.06
|
$
|
(0.28
|
)
|
$
|
(0.32
|
)
|
||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding:
|
||||||||||||
Basic
|
49,687
|
47,387
|
43,303
|
|||||||||
Diluted
|
52,019
|
47,387
|
43,303
|
______________________
(1) See
Note 20 “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
EMCORE
CORPORATION
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
As
of September 30, 2006 and 2005
(in
thousands)
|
2006
|
(As
restated) (1)
2005
|
||||||
ASSETS
|
||||||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
22,592
|
$
|
19,525
|
||||
Restricted
cash
|
738
|
547
|
||||||
Marketable
securities
|
101,375
|
20,650
|
||||||
Accounts
receivable, net of allowance of $552 at September 30, 2006 and
$320 at
September 30, 2005
|
27,387
|
20,163
|
||||||
Receivables,
related parties
|
453
|
4,197
|
||||||
Notes
receivable
|
3,000
|
-
|
||||||
Inventory,
net
|
23,252
|
17,159
|
||||||
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
4,518
|
3,529
|
||||||
Assets
of discontinued operations
|
-
|
7,249
|
||||||
Total
current assets
|
183,315
|
93,019
|
||||||
Property,
plant and equipment, net
|
55,186
|
54,539
|
||||||
Goodwill
|
40,447
|
34,643
|
||||||
Other
intangible assets, net
|
4,293
|
5,175
|
||||||
Investments
in unconsolidated affiliates
|
981
|
12,698
|
||||||
Long-term
receivables, related parties
|
82
|
169
|
||||||
Other
non-current assets, net
|
3,243
|
6,044
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Total
assets
|
$
|
287,547
|
$
|
206,287
|
||||
LIABILITIES
and SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
||||||||
Current
liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
20,122
|
$
|
13,851
|
||||
Accrued
expenses and other current liabilities
|
22,082
|
17,877
|
||||||
Convertible
subordinated notes, current portion
|
11,428
|
1,350
|
||||||
Liabilities
of discontinued operations
|
-
|
2,945
|
||||||
Total
current liabilities
|
53,632
|
36,023
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Convertible
subordinated notes
|
84,516
|
94,701
|
||||||
Total
liabilities
|
138,148
|
130,724
|
||||||
Commitments
and contingencies (Note 16)
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Shareholders’
equity:
|
||||||||
Preferred
stock, $0.0001 par, 5,882 shares authorized, no shares
outstanding
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Common
stock, no par value, 100,000 shares authorized, 50,962 shares issued
and
50,803 shares outstanding as of September 30, 2006; 48,023 shares
issued
and 48,003 outstanding as of September 30, 2005
|
436,338
|
416,274
|
||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(284,856
|
)
|
(339,779
|
)
|
||||
Treasury
stock, at cost; 159 shares as of September 30, 2006; 20 shares
as of
September 30, 2005
|
(2,083
|
)
|
(932
|
)
|
||||
Total
shareholders’ equity
|
149,399
|
75,563
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Total
liabilities and shareholders’ equity
|
$
|
287,547
|
$
|
206,287
|
______________________
(1) See
Note 20 “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
EMCORE
CORPORATION
Consolidated
Statements of Shareholders’ Equity
For
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004
(in
thousands)
|
Common
Stock
Shares
|
Common
Stock
Amount
|
Accumulated
Deficit
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income
(Loss)
|
Shareholders’
Notes
Receivable
|
Treasury
Stock
|
Total
Shareholders’
Equity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2003, as previously
reported
|
37,307
|
$ |
335,266
|
$ | (289,438 | ) | $ | (90 | ) | $ | (34 | ) | $ | (932 | ) | $ |
44,772
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock-based
compensation in opening shareholders’ equity(1)
|
22,902
|
(22,902 | ) |
-
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2003, (as restated) (1)
|
37,307
|
358,168
|
(312,340 | ) | (90 | ) | (34 | ) | (932 | ) |
44,772
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss, as restated (1)
|
(13,954 | ) | (13,954 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unrealized
loss on marketable securities
|
4
|
4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Translation
adjustment
|
(25 | ) | (25 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comprehensive
loss
|
(13,975 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock-based
compensation (1)
|
528
|
528
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock
option exercises
|
1,328
|
2,642
|
2,642
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Compensatory
stock issuances
|
230
|
812
|
812
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock – ESPP
|
411
|
911
|
911
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subordinated
debt exchange
|
7,655
|
50,119
|
50,119
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2004, (as restated) (1)
|
46,931
|
413,180
|
(326,294 | ) | (111 | ) | (34 | ) | (932 | ) |
85,809
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss, as restated (1)
|
(13,485 | ) | (13,485 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Translation
adjustment
|
111
|
111
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comprehensive
loss
|
(13,374 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock-based
compensation (1)
|
378
|
378
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock
option exercises
|
483
|
936
|
936
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Compensatory
stock issuances
|
247
|
774
|
774
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock – ESPP
|
342
|
1,006
|
1,006
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Forgiveness
of shareholders’ note receivable
|
34
|
34
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2005, (as restated) (1)
|
48,003
|
416,274
|
(339,779 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(932 | ) |
75,563
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
income (and comprehensive loss)
|
54,923
|
54,923
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock-based
compensation expense
|
4,994
|
4,994
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock
option exercises
|
1,655
|
6,326
|
6,326
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Compensatory
stock issuances
|
97
|
758
|
758
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock – ESPP
|
217
|
1,108
|
1,108
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock for acquisition of:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force,
Inc.
|
240
|
1,625
|
1,625
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phasebridge,
Inc.
|
128
|
700
|
700
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
K2
Optronics, Inc.
|
549
|
4,135
|
4,135
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares
issued in lieu of royalties
|
53
|
418
|
418
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Treasury
stock
|
(139 | ) | (1,151 | ) | (1,151 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2006
|
50,803
|
$ |
436,338
|
$ | (284,856 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (2,083 | ) | $ |
149,399
|
______________________
(1) See
Note 20 “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
EMCORE
CORPORATION
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
For
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004
(in
thousands)
|
2006
|
(As
restated) (1)
2005
|
(As
restated) (1)
2004
|
|||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
|
54,923
|
$
|
(13,485
|
)
|
$
|
(13,954
|
)
|
||||
Adjustments
to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash used for operating
activities:
|
||||||||||||
Recognition
of loss on marketable securities
|
-
|
-
|
(25
|
)
|
||||||||
Stock-based
compensation expense
|
4,727
|
317
|
339
|
|||||||||
(Income)
loss from discontinued operations
|
(373
|
)
|
1,276
|
5,162
|
||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations
|
(9,511
|
)
|
(12,476
|
)
|
(19,584
|
)
|
||||||
Gain
on sale of GELcore investment
|
(88,040
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||
Gain
from debt extinguishment
|
-
|
-
|
(12,312
|
)
|
||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
12,332
|
13,177
|
15,722
|
|||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
424
|
439
|
-
|
|||||||||
Provision
(adjustment) for doubtful accounts
|
183
|
(290
|
)
|
(178
|
)
|
|||||||
Accretion
of loss from convertible subordinated notes exchange
offer
|
165
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Loss
on convertible subordinated notes exchange offer
|
1,078
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Equity
in net loss (income) of unconsolidated affiliates
|
931
|
112
|
(789
|
)
|
||||||||
Compensatory
stock issuances
|
758
|
775
|
812
|
|||||||||
Reduction
of note receivable due for services received
|
521
|
521
|
521
|
|||||||||
Loss
on impairment of goodwill and intellectual property
|
2,233
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Impairment
of investment
|
500
|
-
|
500
|
|||||||||
Forgiveness
of shareholders’ notes receivable
|
2,613
|
34
|
-
|
|||||||||
Total
non-cash adjustments
|
(71,459
|
)
|
3,885
|
(9,832
|
)
|
|||||||
Changes
in operating assets and liabilities, net of effect of
acquisitions:
|
||||||||||||
Accounts
receivable
|
(7,690
|
)
|
(787
|
)
|
(5,766
|
)
|
||||||
Related
party receivables
|
67
|
(397
|
)
|
110
|
||||||||
Inventory
|
(5,523
|
)
|
(503
|
)
|
758
|
|||||||
Prepaid
and other current assets
|
(48
|
)
|
(1,114
|
)
|
(1,067
|
)
|
||||||
Other
assets
|
(302
|
)
|
(298
|
)
|
(701
|
)
|
||||||
Accounts
payable
|
4,148
|
165
|
7,656
|
|||||||||
Accrued
expenses and other current liabilities
|
1,248
|
(965
|
)
|
434
|
||||||||
Total
change in operating assets and liabilities
|
(8,100
|
)
|
(3,899
|
)
|
1,424
|
|||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities of continuing
operations
|
(79,559
|
)
|
(14
|
)
|
(8,408
|
)
|
||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities of discontinued
operations
|
(1,652
|
)
|
(1,788
|
)
|
(9,976
|
)
|
||||||
|
||||||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities
|
(26,288
|
)
|
(15,287
|
)
|
(32,338
|
)
|
||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Cash
proceeds from sale of GELcore investment
|
100,000
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Purchase
of plant and equipment
|
(7,311
|
)
|
(5,134
|
)
|
(2,728
|
)
|
||||||
Investments
in unconsolidated affiliates
|
-
|
(1,495
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||
Proceeds
from (investments in) associated company
|
500
|
(1,000
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||
Cash
purchase of businesses, net of cash acquired
|
610
|
(2,821
|
)
|
(3,386
|
)
|
|||||||
Purchase
of marketable securities
|
(100,325
|
)
|
(13,275
|
)
|
(49,621
|
)
|
||||||
Sale
of marketable securities
|
19,600
|
24,775
|
17,475
|
|||||||||
Funding
of restricted cash
|
(138
|
)
|
(547
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||
Proceeds
from disposals of property, plant and equipment
|
21
|
15
|
-
|
|||||||||
Investing
activities of discontinued operations
|
11,267
|
|
12,974
|
|
60,598
|
|
||||||
Net
cash provided by investing activities
|
$
|
24,224
|
$
|
13,492
|
$
|
22,338
|
______________________
(1) See
Note 20 “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
EMCORE
CORPORATION
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
For
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004
(in
thousands)
(Continued
from previous page)
|
|
2006
|
(As
restated )(1)
2005
|
(As
restated) (1)
2004
|
||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Repurchase
of convertible subordinated notes
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
(10
|
)
|
|||||
(Payments
on) proceeds from other long-term obligations
|
(839
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||
Payments
on capital lease obligations
|
-
|
(43
|
)
|
(60
|
)
|
|||||||
Proceeds
from exercise of stock options
|
6,326
|
936
|
2,642
|
|||||||||
Proceeds
from employee stock purchase plan
|
1,108
|
1,005
|
911
|
|||||||||
Payments
of convertible debt obligation
|
(1,350
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||
Convertible
debt/equity issuance costs
|
(114
|
)
|
-
|
(2,500
|
)
|
|||||||
|
||||||||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
5,131
|
1,898
|
983
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Net
increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
3,067
|
103
|
(9,017
|
)
|
||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
19,525
|
19,422
|
28,439
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$
|
22,592
|
$
|
19,525
|
$
|
19,422
|
||||||
|
||||||||||||
SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION
|
||||||||||||
Cash
paid during the period for interest
|
$
|
4,428
|
$
|
4,803
|
$
|
7,383
|
||||||
NON-CASH
INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
||||||||||||
Acquisition
of property and equipment under capital leases
|
$
|
126
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
37
|
||||||
Common
stock issued in connection with acquisitions
|
$
|
6,460
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
||||||
Issuance
of common stock in conjunction with the subordinated debt
exchange
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
51,091
|
||||||
Issuance
of common stock in lieu of royalties
|
$
|
418
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
||||||
Note
receivable received in connection with sale of discontinued
operations
|
$
|
3,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
||||||
Purchase
of property, plant and equipment on account
|
$
|
339
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
||||||
Manufacturing
equipment received in lieu of earn-out proceeds from disposition
of
discontinued operations
|
$
|
2,012
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
______________________
(1) See
Note 20 “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
EMCORE
Corporation
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
As
of September 30, 2006 and 2005,
and
for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and
2004
NOTE
1. Description of Business
EMCORE
Corporation (the “Company” or “EMCORE”) designs, manufactures and markets a
broad portfolio of compound semiconductor-based products for the broadband,
fiber optic, satellite and solar power markets. The Company has two operating
segments: Fiber Optics and Photovoltaics. The Fiber Optics segment
offers optical components, subsystems and systems that enable the transmission
of video, voice and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables for high-speed
data communications and telecommunications networks, cable television (“CATV”)
and fiber-to-the-premises (“FTTP”) networks. The products enable information
that is encoded on light signals to be transmitted, routed (switched) and
received in communication networks. The Photovoltaics segment
provides products for satellite and terrestrial applications. For
satellite applications, the Company offers high efficiency gallium arsenide
(“GaAs”) solar cells, covered interconnect cells (“CICs”) and fully integrated
solar panels. For terrestrial applications, the Company has adapted
their high-efficiency GaAs solar cells for use in solar concentrator
systems. The Company believes their products provide their customers
with compelling cost and performance advantages over traditional silicon-based
solutions. These include higher solar cell efficiency, allowing for
greater conversion of light into electricity, an increased ability to benefit
from use in solar concentrator systems, ability to withstand high heat
environments and reduce overall footprint. The Company was
established in 1984 as a New Jersey corporation. The Company has
separately disclosed the operating portions of cash flows attributable to its
discontinued operations, which in prior periods were reported on a combined
basis as a single amount.
The
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements have been restated to reflect adjustments
related to stock-based compensation expense and the reclassification of
discontinued operations related to our Electronic Materials & Device
division as further described in Note 8, Discontinued Operations and
Restructuring Charges and Note 20, Restatement of Consolidated Financial
Statements, below.
NOTE
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Principles
of Consolidation. The consolidated financial statements have been prepared
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
of America (“U.S. GAAP”) and include EMCORE and its wholly owned subsidiaries.
All material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in
consolidation. Certain amounts in prior period financial statements
have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.
Use
of
Estimates. The preparation of the consolidated financial statements requires
management of the Company to make estimates and assumptions that affect the
reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets
and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reported period. Management develops
estimates based on historical experience and on various assumptions about the
future that are believed to be reasonable based on the best information
available. EMCORE’s reported financial position or results of operations may be
materially different under changed conditions or when using different estimates
and assumptions, particularly with respect to significant accounting
policies. In the event that estimates or assumptions prove to differ
from actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect
more
current information.
Concentration
of Credit Risk. Financial instruments that may subject EMCORE to
concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents,
marketable securities and accounts receivable. EMCORE’s cash and cash
equivalents and marketable securities are held in safekeeping by certain large
creditworthy financial institutions in excess of the $100,000 insured limit
of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. EMCORE has established guidelines
relative to credit ratings, diversification and maturities that seek to maintain
safety and liquidity. On certain occasions, EMCORE performs credit evaluations
of its customers' financial condition and generally requires no collateral
from
its customers. These evaluations require significant judgment and are based
on a
variety of factors including, but not limited to, current economic trends,
historical payment patterns, bad debt write-off experience, and financial review
of the customer.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents consist of highly liquid
short-term investments with an original maturity of three months or less at
the
time of purchase.
Restricted
Cash. Restricted cash represents interest-bearing investments in bank
certificates of deposit and money market funds which act as collateral
supporting the issuance of letters of credit and performance bonds for the
benefit of third parties.
Marketable
Securities. Investments in securities with remaining maturities
in excess of three months, which are held for purposes of funding our current
operations are classified as available for sale and reported as short-term
marketable securities in the consolidated balance sheets. The
investments consist primarily of auction rate securities, which have interest
rates that reset generally every 7 to 35 days. There were no
unrealized holding gains or losses on the marketable securities as of September
30, 2006 and 2005 and the fair value of these securities was $101.4 million
and
$20.7 million at September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Valuation
of Accounts Receivable. EMCORE regularly evaluates the collectibility of its
accounts receivable and accordingly maintains allowances for doubtful accounts
for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to meet
their
financial obligations to us. The allowance is based on the age of receivables
and a specific identification of receivables considered at risk. EMCORE
classifies charges associated with the allowance for doubtful accounts as
SG&A expense. If the financial condition of our customers were to
deteriorate, additional allowances may be required.
Inventory.
Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market, with cost being determined
using the standard cost method. EMCORE reserves against inventory once it has
been determined that: (i) conditions exist that may not allow the inventory
to
be sold for its intended purpose, (ii) the inventory’s value is determined to be
less than cost, (iii) or the inventory is determined to be obsolete. The charge
related to inventory reserves is recorded as a cost of revenue. The majority
of
the inventory write-downs are related to estimated allowances for inventory
whose carrying value is in excess of net realizable value and on excess raw
material components resulting from finished product obsolescence. In most cases
where EMCORE sells previously written down inventory, it is typically sold
as a
component part of a finished product. The finished product is sold at market
price at the time resulting in higher average gross margin on such revenue.
EMCORE does not track the selling price of individual raw material components
that have been previously written down or written off, since such raw material
components usually are an insignificant portion of the resultant finished
product and related sales price. EMCORE evaluates inventory levels at least
quarterly against sales forecasts on a significant part-by-part basis, in
addition to determining its overall inventory risk. Reserves are adjusted to
reflect inventory values in excess of forecasted sales, as well as overall
inventory risk assessed by management. We have incurred, and may in the future
incur, charges to write-down inventory. While we believe, based on current
information, that the amount recorded for inventory is properly reflected on
our
balance sheet, if market conditions are less favorable than our forecasts,
our
future sales mix differs from our forecasted sales mix, or actual demand from
our customers is lower than our estimates, we may be required to record
additional inventory write-downs.
Property,
Plant, and Equipment. Property, plant, and equipment are recorded at cost
and depreciated on a straight-line basis over the following estimated useful
lives of the assets:
|
Estimated
Useful
Life
|
|||
Buildings
|
40 years
|
|||
Leasehold
Improvements
|
5
-
7 years
|
|||
Machinery
and equipment
|
5 years
|
|||
Furniture
and fixtures
|
5 years
|
Leasehold
improvements are amortized over the lesser of the asset life or the life of
the
related lease. Expenditures for repairs and maintenance are charged to expense
as incurred. The costs for major renewals and improvements are capitalized
and
depreciated over their estimated useful lives. The cost and related accumulated
depreciation of the assets are removed from the accounts upon disposition and
any resulting gain or loss is reflected in the consolidated statement of
operations.
Valuation
of Goodwill and Intangible Assets. Goodwill represents the excess of the
purchase price of an acquired business or assets over the fair value of the
identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed. Intangible assets consist
primarily of intellectual property that has been internally developed or
purchased. Purchased intangible assets include existing and core technology,
trademarks and trade names, and customer base and contracts. Intangible assets
are amortized using the straight-lined method over estimated useful lives
ranging from one to fifteen years.
EMCORE
evaluates its goodwill and intangible assets for impairment on an annual basis,
or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value
may not be recoverable. Circumstances that could trigger an impairment test
include but are not limited to: a significant adverse change in the business
climate or legal factors; an adverse action or assessment by a regulator;
unanticipated competition; loss of key personnel; the likelihood that a
reporting unit or significant portion of a reporting unit will be sold or
otherwise disposed; results of testing for recoverability of a significant
asset
group within a reporting unit; and recognition of a goodwill impairment loss
in
the financial statements of a subsidiary that is a component of a reporting
unit. The determination as to whether a write-down of goodwill or intangible
assets is necessary involves significant judgment based on the short-term and
long-term projections of the future performance of the reporting unit to which
the goodwill or intangible assets are attributed. As of December 31, 2006,
2005
and 2004, EMCORE tested for impairment of its goodwill and intangible
assets. In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard
(“SFAS”) No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, the fair
value of the reporting units was determined by using a valuation technique
based
on each reporting unit’s multiples of revenues. Based on that analysis, we
determined that the carrying amount of the reporting units did not exceed their
fair value.
During
the three months ended September 30, 2006, as part of a quarterly review of
financial results, the Company identified impairment indicators that the
carrying value of goodwill and intangible assets associated with the acquisition
of Corona Optical Systems may not be recoverable. See Note 9, Impairment,
of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further
details.
Valuation
of Long-lived Assets. EMCORE reviews long-lived assets on an annual basis or
whenever events or circumstances indicate that the assets may be impaired.
A
long-lived asset is considered impaired when its anticipated undiscounted cash
flow is less than its carrying value. In making this determination, EMCORE
uses
certain assumptions, including, but not limited to: (a) estimates of the fair
market value of these assets; and (b) estimates of future cash flows expected
to
be generated by these assets, which are based on additional assumptions such
as
asset utilization, length of service that assets will be used in our operations,
and estimated salvage values. As of December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, EMCORE
tested for impairment and based on that analysis, we did not record any
impairment charges on any of EMCORE’s long-lived
assets.
Investments.
EMCORE accounts for its investments in common stock over which it has the
ability to exercise significant influence, using the equity method of
accounting. EMCORE accounts for similar investments that do not permit the
Company to exercise significant influence over the entity in which EMCORE
is investing by using the cost method of accounting. The recorded amounts
generally represent the Company’s cost of the investment less any adjustments
made when it is determined that an investment’s carrying value is
other-than-temporarily impaired. EMCORE periodically reviews these investments
for impairment. In the event the carrying value of an investment exceeds its
fair value and the decline in fair value is determined to be
other-than-temporary, EMCORE writes down the value of the investment to its
fair
value.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments. The carrying amounts of cash and cash
equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivable, accounts payable,
accrued expenses and other current liabilities approximate fair value because
of
the short maturity of these instruments. The carrying amount of long-term
receivables approximates fair value, as the effective rates for these
instruments are comparable to market rates at year-end. The carrying amount
of
investments approximates fair market value. Fair value for investments in
privately-held companies is estimated based upon one or more of the following:
assessment of historical and forecasted financial condition; operating results
and cash flows, valuation estimates based on recent rounds of financing, and/or
quoted market prices of comparable public companies. The fair market value
of
our convertible subordinated notes fluctuates with interest rates and
the market price of the stock. As of September 30, 2006 and 2005, the
fair market value of our convertible subordinated notes, based on the quoted
market prices, approximated $98.3 million and $92.8 million,
respectively.
Revenue
Recognition. Revenue is recognized upon shipment provided persuasive
evidence of a contract exists, (such as when a purchase order or contract is
received from a customer), the price is fixed, the product meets its
specifications, title and ownership have transferred to the customer, and there
is reasonable assurance of collection of the sales proceeds. In those few
instances where a given sale involves post shipment obligations, formal customer
acceptance documents, or subjective rights of return, revenue is not recognized
until all post-shipment conditions have been satisfied and there is reasonable
assurance of collection of the sales proceeds. The majority of our products
have
shipping terms that are free on board (FOB) or free carrier alongside (FCA)
shipping point, which means that EMCORE fulfills its delivery obligation when
the goods are handed over to the freight carrier at our shipping dock. This
means the buyer bears all costs and risks of loss or damage to the goods from
that point. In certain cases, EMCORE ships its products cost insurance and
freight (CIF). Under this arrangement, revenue is recognized under FCA shipping
point terms, but EMCORE pays (and bills the customer) for the cost of shipping
and insurance to the customer's designated location. EMCORE accounts
for shipping and related transportation costs by recording the charges that
are
invoiced to customers as revenue, with the corresponding cost recorded as cost
of revenue. In those instances where inventory is maintained at a
consigned location, revenue is recognized only when our customer pulls product
for its use and title and ownership have transferred to the
customer. Revenue from time and material contracts is recognized at
the contractual rates as labor hours and direct expenses are
incurred. EMCORE also generates service revenue from hardware repairs
and calibrations that is recognized as revenue upon completion of the
service. Any cost of warranties and remaining obligations that are
inconsequential or perfunctory are accrued when the corresponding revenue is
recognized.
Distributors
- EMCORE uses a number of distributors around the world. In accordance with
Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 104, Revenue Recognition, EMCORE
recognizes revenue upon shipment of product to these distributors. Title and
risk of loss pass to the distributors upon shipment, and our distributors are
contractually obligated to pay EMCORE on standard commercial terms, just like
our other direct customers. EMCORE does not sell to its distributors on
consignment and, except in the event of product discontinuance, does not give
distributors a right of return.
Solar
Panel Contracts - EMCORE records revenues from certain solar panel
contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. Revenue is recognized
in
proportion to actual costs incurred compared to total anticipated costs expected
to be incurred for each contract. If estimates of costs to complete long-term
contracts indicate a loss, a provision is made for the total loss anticipated.
EMCORE has numerous contracts that are in various stages of completion. Such
contracts require estimates to determine the appropriate cost and revenue
recognition. EMCORE uses all available information in determining dependable
estimates of the extent of progress towards completion, contract revenues,
and
contract costs. Estimates are revised as additional information becomes
available. At September 30, 2006 and 2005, EMCORE’s accrued program
losses totaled approximately $7,000 and $23,000, respectively.
Government
R&D Contracts - R&D contract revenue represents reimbursement by
various U.S. Government entities, or their contractors, to aid in the
development of new technology. The applicable contracts generally provide that
EMCORE may elect to retain ownership of inventions made in performing the work,
subject to a non-exclusive license retained by the U.S Government to practice
the inventions for governmental purposes. The R&D contract funding may be
based on a cost-plus, cost reimbursement, cost-share, or a firm fixed price
arrangement. The amount of funding under each R&D contract is determined
based on cost estimates that include both direct and indirect costs. Cost-plus
funding is determined based on actual costs plus a set margin. As we incur
costs
under cost reimbursement type contracts, we record revenue. Contract costs
include material, labor, special tooling and test equipment, subcontracting
costs, as well as an allocation of indirect costs. For cost-share contracts,
the
actual costs of performance are divided between the U.S. Government and EMCORE
based on the R&D contract terms. An R&D contract is considered complete
when all significant costs have been incurred, milestones have been reached,
and
any reporting obligations to the customer have been met. Government contract
revenues totaled $11.1 million and $9.4 million in fiscal 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
Product
Warranty Reserves. EMCORE provides its customers with limited rights of
return for non-conforming shipments and warranty claims for certain products.
In
accordance with SFAS 5, Accounting for Contingencies, EMCORE makes
estimates of product warranty expense using historical experience rates as
a
percentage of revenue and accrues estimated warranty expense as a cost of
revenue. We estimate the costs of our warranty obligations based on our
historical experience of known product failure rates, use of materials to repair
or replace defective products and service delivery costs incurred in correcting
product failures. In addition, from time to time, specific warranty accruals
may
be made if unforeseen technical problems arise. Should our actual experience
relative to these factors differ from our estimates, we may be required to
record additional warranty reserves. Alternatively, if we provide more reserves
than we need, we may reverse a portion of such provisions in future
periods.
Research
and Development. Research and development costs are charged to expense as
incurred.
Income
Taxes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the expected
tax consequences of temporary differences between the tax bases of assets and
liabilities and their reported amounts. Management provides valuation
allowances against the deferred tax asset for amounts which are considered
“more
likely than not” to be realized. See Note 17 to the consolidated financial
statements for further details.
Comprehensive
Income (Loss). SFAS 130, Reporting Comprehensive Income,
establishes standards for reporting and display of comprehensive income and
its
components in financial statements. It requires that all items that are required
to be recognized under accounting standards as components of comprehensive
income be reported in the financial statement that is displayed with the same
prominence as other financial statements. Comprehensive income consists of
net
earnings, the net unrealized gains or losses on available for sale marketable
securities and foreign currency translation adjustments and is presented in
the
consolidated statements of shareholders' equity.
Earnings
Per Share. Basic earnings per share is calculated by dividing net earnings
applicable to common stock by the weighted average number of common stock shares
outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share reflect the potential
dilution that could occur if EMCORE’s outstanding stock options were exercised.
The effect of outstanding common stock purchase options and warrants, the
convertible preferred stock and the convertible subordinated notes have been
excluded from the diluted earnings per share calculation if the effect of such
securities is anti-dilutive. The following table reconciles the
numerators and denominators used in the computations of both basic and diluted
EPS:
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||
Numerator:
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$
|
45,039
|
$
|
(24,685
|
)
|
$
|
(28,376
|
)
|
||||
Denominator:
|
||||||||||||
Basic
EPS:
|
||||||||||||
Weighted
average common shares outstanding
|
49,687
|
47,387
|
43,303
|
|||||||||
Basic
EPS for income (loss) from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.91
|
$
|
(0.52
|
)
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
||||
Diluted
EPS:
|
||||||||||||
Weighted
average common shares outstanding
|
49,687
|
47,387
|
43,303
|
|||||||||
Stock
options
|
2,332
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
52,019
|
47,387
|
43,303
|
||||||||||
Diluted
EPS for income (loss) from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.87
|
$
|
(0.52
|
)
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
For
the
periods ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, 6,166,226 and 5,336,651 common shares
representing options were excluded from the diluted earnings per share
calculations because the exercise price exceeded the average market price of
our
common stock for these periods. For both of the periods ended September 30,
2005
and 2004, 31,535 shares of common stock representing warrants were excluded
from
the diluted earnings per share calculations because the exercise price did
not
exceed the average market price of our common stock for this period. There
was
no dilutive effect from shares related to our Convertible Notes of 12,016,930;
10,238,325; and zero at September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, because
the average market price of our common stock during that period did not exceed
the conversion price.
Stock-Based
Compensation. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing
model to determine the fair-value of stock-based awards under SFAS 123(R),
consistent with that used for pro forma disclosures under SFAS 123,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. The Company has elected to use
the modified prospective transition method as permitted by SFAS 123(R) and
accordingly prior periods have not been restated to reflect the impact of SFAS
123(R). The modified prospective transition method requires that stock-based
compensation expense be recorded for all new and unvested stock options,
restricted stock, restricted stock units, and employee stock purchase plan
shares that are ultimately expected to vest as the requisite service is rendered
beginning on October 1, 2005, the first day of the Company’s fiscal year 2006.
For purposes of pro forma disclosure, stock-based compensation expense for
awards granted prior to October 1, 2005 is measured on the grant-date fair-value
as determined under the provisions of SFAS 123. See Note 4 to
the consolidated financial statements for further details.
NOTE
3. Recent Accounting Pronouncements
SFAS
123(R) - Effective October 1, 2005, EMCORE adopted SFAS 123(R),
Share-Based Payment (revised 2004), which revised SFAS No. 123. On
November 10, 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued
Staff Position No. SFAS 123(R)-3, Transition Election Related to Accounting
for Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment Awards. EMCORE has
elected to adopt the alternative transition method provided in the FASB Staff
Position for calculating the tax effects of stock-based compensation pursuant
to
SFAS 123(R). See Note 4, Equity, of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements for further details.
SAB
107 - Effective October 1, 2005, EMCORE adopted SAB No. 107,
Share-Based Payment. SAB 107 provides guidance regarding the
interactions between SFAS 123(R) and certain Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) rules and regulations, including guidance related to valuation methods,
the classification of compensation expense, non-GAAP financial measures, the
accounting for income tax effects of share-based payment arrangements,
disclosures in Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) subsequent to
adoption of SFAS 123(R), and modifications of options prior to the adoption
of
SFAS 123(R). See Note 4, Equity, of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements for further details.
SAB 108
- In September 2006, the SEC issued SAB No. 108, Considering the
Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current
Year Financial Statements. SAB 108 provides guidance on how prior year
misstatements should be considered when quantifying misstatements in current
year financial statements for purposes of determining whether the current year’s
financial statements are materially misstated. SAB 108 is effective for fiscal
years ending after November 15, 2006. Although the Company will continue to
evaluate the application of SAB 108, management does not currently believe
that
this pronouncement will have a material impact on the Company’s results of
operations or financial position.
SFAS
151 - Effective October 1, 2005, EMCORE adopted SFAS 151, Inventory
Costs, an amendment of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4. SFAS 151 clarifies the
accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling
costs, and wasted material (or spoilage). SFAS 151 requires that
those items be recognized as current-period charges regardless of whether they
meet the criterion of "so abnormal". In addition, it requires that
allocation of fixed production overheads to the costs of conversion be based
on
the normal capacity of the production facilities. The adoption of this
pronouncement did not have a material impact on EMCORE’s financial
statements.
SFAS
154 - In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS 154, Accounting Changes and
Error Corrections, requiring retrospective application to prior-period
financial statements of changes in accounting principle, unless it is
impracticable to determine either the period-specific effects or the cumulative
effect of the change. SFAS 154 also redefines "restatement" as the revising
of
previously issued financial statements to reflect correction of errors made.
SFAS 154 is effective for accounting changes and corrections of errors made
in
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. SFAS 154 was adopted in fiscal
year 2006 and the Company believes these consolidated financial statements
comply with the requirements of SFAS 154.
SFAS 157
- In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements,
which defines fair value, provides a framework for measuring fair
value,
and expands the disclosures required for fair value measurements. SFAS 157
applies to other accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements;
it does not require any new fair value measurements. SFAS 157 is effective
for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and is required to be
adopted by the Company on October 1, 2008. Although the Company will continue
to
evaluate the application of SFAS 157, management does not currently believe
adoption of this pronouncement will have a material impact on the Company’s
results of operations or financial position.
SFAS
159 - In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 159, The Fair Value Option
for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities – Including an Amendment of FASB
Statement No. 115. The fair value option permits entities to choose to
measure eligible financial instruments at fair value at specified election
dates. The entity will report unrealized gains and losses on the items on which
it has elected the fair value option in earnings. SFAS 159 is effective for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and is required to be adopted
by
the Company on October 1, 2008. The Company is currently evaluating the effect
of adopting SFAS 159, but does not expect it to have a material impact on its
consolidated results of operations or financial condition.
FIN
47 - Effective October 1, 2005, EMCORE adopted FASB Interpretation
No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations,
an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143. This interpretation clarifies
the timing of liability recognition for legal obligations associated with the
retirement of tangible long-lived assets when the timing and/or method of
settlement of the obligations are conditional on a future event and where an
entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value
of an asset retirement obligation. The adoption of this pronouncement did not
have a material impact on EMCORE’s financial statements.
FIN
48 - In June 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48 (“FIN 48”),
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109. FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for income taxes by prescribing
the minimum recognition threshold a tax position is required to meet before
being recognized in the financial statements. FIN 48 also provides guidance
on
derecognition, measurement, classification, interest and penalties, accounting
in interim periods, disclosure and transition. FIN 48 applies to all tax
positions related to income taxes subject to SFAS 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes. Differences between the amounts recognized in the statements of
financial position prior to the adoption of FIN 48 and the amounts reported
after adoption should be accounted for as a cumulative-effect adjustment
recorded to the beginning balance of retained earnings. FIN 48 is effective
for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006 and was required to be
adopted by the Company on October 1, 2007. EMCORE does not believe the adoption
of FIN 48 will have a material impact on its financial statements.
EITF
05-6 - In June 2005, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) issued
No. 05-6, Determining the Amortization Period for Leasehold
Improvements. The pronouncement requires that leasehold improvements
acquired in a business combination or purchased subsequent to the inception
of
the lease be amortized over the lesser of the useful life of the asset or the
lease term that includes reasonably assured lease renewals as determined on
the
date of the acquisition of the leasehold improvement. This pronouncement should
be applied prospectively and EMCORE adopted it during the first quarter of
fiscal 2006. This pronouncement did not have a material impact on the financial
statements.
EITF
06-3 - In March 2006, EITF issued No. 06-3, How Taxes Collected
from Customers and Remitted to Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented
in
the Income Statement. The pronouncement requires a policy be
adopted to present externally imposed taxes on revenue-producing transactions
on
either a gross or net basis. Gross or net presentation may be elected for each
different type of tax, but similar taxes should be presented consistently.
Taxes
within the scope of this issue would include taxes that are imposed on a revenue
transaction between a seller and a customer. EITF 06-3 is effective in interim
and annual financial periods beginning after December 15, 2006 and was
required to be adopted by the Company on January 1, 2007. We adopted
EITF 06-3 by presenting externally imposed taxes on revenue-producing
transactions on a net basis, and it has not had a material impact on our
financial statements.
FSP
115-1 - In November 2005, FASB issued Staff Position (FSP) 115-1, The
Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain
Investments, which provides guidance on determining when investments in
certain debt and equity securities are considered impaired, whether that
impairment is other-than-temporary, and on measuring such impairment loss.
FSP
115-1 also includes accounting considerations subsequent to the recognition
of
an other-than-temporary impairment and requires certain disclosure about
unrealized losses that have not been recognized as other-than-temporary
impairments. FSP 115-1 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning
after
December 15, 2005. EMCORE does not believe the adoption of FSP 115-1 on October
1, 2006 will have a material impact on its financial statements.
NOTE
4. Equity
Stock
Options
EMCORE
has stock option plans
to provide long-term incentives to eligible employees, officers, and directors
in the form of stock options. Most of the stock options vest and become
exercisable over four to five years and have ten-year terms. EMCORE maintains
two incentive stock option plans: the 2000 Stock Option Plan (“2000 Plan”), and
the 1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan (“1995 Plan” and,
together with the 2000 Plan, the “Option Plans”). The 1995 Plan authorizes the
grant of options to purchase up to 2,744,118 shares of EMCORE's common stock.
The 2000 Plan authorizes the grant of options to purchase up to 9,350,000 shares
of EMCORE's common stock. As of September 30, 2006, no options were available
for issuance under the 1995 Plan and 1,229,128 options were available for
issuance under the 2000 Plan. Certain options under the Option Plans are
intended to qualify as incentive stock options pursuant to Section 422A of the
Internal Revenue Code.
The
following table
summarizes the activity under the Option Plans:
Number
of Shares
|
Weighted
Average Exercise Price
|
Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual Life
(in
years)
|
||||||||||
Outstanding
as of September 30, 2003
|
5,751,066
|
$
|
3.98
|
|||||||||
Granted
|
1,920,950
|
3.03
|
||||||||||
Exercised
|
(1,327,819
|
)
|
1.98
|
|||||||||
Cancelled
|
(842,884
|
)
|
3.47
|
|||||||||
Outstanding
as of September 30, 2004
|
5,501,313
|
4.21
|
||||||||||
Granted
|
1,793,900
|
3.23
|
||||||||||
Exercised
|
(482,881
|
)
|
1.94
|
|||||||||
Cancelled
|
(646,106
|
)
|
3.64
|
|||||||||
Outstanding
as of September 30, 2005
|
6,166,226
|
4.16
|
||||||||||
Granted
|
2,184,407
|
7.79
|
||||||||||
Exercised
|
(1,654,535
|
)
|
3.82
|
|||||||||
Cancelled
|
(463,563
|
)
|
4.57
|
|||||||||
Outstanding
as of September 30, 2006
|
6,232,535
|
$
|
5.49
|
7.39
|
||||||||
Expected
to vest as of September 30, 2006
|
3,148,280
|
$ |
5.36
|
8.71
|
||||||||
Exercisable
as of September 30, 2006
|
2,293,855
|
$
|
5.70
|
5.14
|
||||||||
Non-vested
as of September 30, 2006
|
3,938,680
|
$
|
5.37
|
8.70
|
The
stock option issue prices
during fiscal 2006 ranged from $5.18 to $12.57 per share. The stock option
issue
prices during fiscal 2005 ranged from $1.98 to $5.84 per share. The stock option
issue prices during fiscal 2004 ranged from $2.30 to $7.18 per
share. These options are subject to a five-year vesting period for
new-hire grants and a four-year vesting period for retention grants and have
a
contractual life of ten years.
As
of
September 30, 2006 there was approximately $13.0 million of total unrecognized
compensation expense related to non-vested stock-based compensation arrangements
granted under the Option Plans. This expense is expected to be recognized over
an estimated weighted average life of 3.4 years. The total intrinsic value
of
options exercised during fiscal 2006, 2005, and 2004 was $8.0 million, $1.2
million, and $3.9 million, respectively. The aggregate intrinsic
value of fully vested share options as of September 30, 2006 was $4.9
million.
Number
of Stock Options Outstanding
|
Options
Exercisable
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Exercise
Price of Stock Options
|
Number
Outstanding
|
Weighted
Average Remaining Contractual Life (years)
|
Weighted-
Average Exercise Price
|
Number
Exercisable
|
Weighted-
Average Exercise Price
|
|||||||||||||||||
<$1.00
|
1,920
|
1.18
|
$ |
0.23
|
1,920
|
$ |
0.23
|
|||||||||||||||
>=$1.00
to <$5.00
|
3,344,448
|
7.16
|
$ |
2.72
|
1,398,308
|
$ |
2.41
|
|||||||||||||||
>=$5.00
to <$10.00
|
2,633,277
|
7.99
|
$ |
7.54
|
667,287
|
$ |
7.05
|
|||||||||||||||
>$10.00 |
252,890
|
4.17
|
$ |
20.88
|
226,340
|
$ |
22.07
|
|||||||||||||||
TOTAL
|
6,232,535
|
7.39
|
$ |
5.49
|
2,293,855
|
$ |
5.70
|
Periods
prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R) - Prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R),
EMCORE provided the disclosures required under SFAS 123 as amended by SFAS
148,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosures.
The following table illustrates the effect on net loss and net loss per share
as
if EMCORE had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS 123 to
options granted under EMCORE’s stock-based compensation plans prior to the
adoption. The footnotes to the Company’s previously issued financial statements
for the years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, previously disclosed pro
forma net loss in accordance with SFAS 123; however, pro forma disclosures
did not include measurement date changes for the respective fiscal years.
Specifically, the Company’s footnote disclosure understated pro forma net loss
because it did not include any stock-based compensation expense under
APB 25 (see Note 20 - Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements).
The following table presents the effects of the revision of measurement dates
on
stock-based compensation included in the determination of net loss. For purposes
of this pro forma disclosure, the value of the options was estimated using
a
Black-Scholes option pricing model and amortized on a straight-line basis
over
the respective vesting periods of the awards. Disclosures for fiscal 2006
are
not presented because stock-based compensation was accounted for under
the fair-value method, as prescribed by SFAS 123(R) during this
period.
Pro
forma net loss per share
(in
thousands)
|
|
2005
|
2004
|
|||||
Net
loss, as reported
|
$
|
(13,485
|
)
|
$
|
(13,954
|
)
|
||
Add:
Stock-based compensation expense included in reported net loss,
net of
tax
|
378
|
528
|
||||||
Deduct:
Total stock-based compensation expense determined under the fair
value
based method, for all awards, net of tax
|
(2,927
|
)
|
(3,476
|
)
|
||||
Pro
forma net loss
|
$
|
(16,034
|
)
|
$
|
(16,902
|
)
|
||
Net
loss, as reported, per basic and diluted share
|
$
|
(0.28
|
)
|
$
|
(0.32
|
)
|
||
Pro
forma net loss per basic and diluted share
|
$
|
(0.34
|
)
|
$
|
(0.39
|
)
|
Adoption
of SFAS 123(R) - As required by SFAS 123(R), management has made an estimate
of expected forfeitures and is recognizing compensation expense only for those
equity awards expected to vest. The effect of recording stock-based compensation
expense during fiscal 2006 was as follows:
Stock-based
Compensation Expense
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006
(in
thousands)
|
Cost
of Revenue
|
SG&A
|
R&D
|
Total
|
||||||||||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
893
|
$
|
1,593
|
$
|
1,135
|
$
|
3,621
|
||||||||
Photovoltaics
|
242
|
661
|
203
|
1,106
|
||||||||||||
Total
stock-based compensation expense from continuing
operations
|
1,135
|
2,254
|
1,338
|
4,727
|
||||||||||||
Discontinued
operations (1)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
267
|
||||||||||||
Total
stock-based compensation expense
|
$
|
1,135
|
$
|
2,254
|
$
|
1,338
|
$
|
4,994
|
______________________
(1)
See
Note 8 “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Valuation
Assumptions
EMCORE
estimated the fair value of stock options using a Black-Scholes model. The
fair
value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the
Black-Scholes option valuation model and the straight-line attribution approach
using the following weighted-average assumptions. The
weighted-average grant date fair value of stock options granted during fiscal
2006, 2005 and 2004 was $6.22, $2.48 and $2.29, respectively.
Black-Scholes
Weighted-Average Assumptions
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||
Expected
dividend yield
|
0
|
%
|
0
|
%
|
0
|
%
|
||||||
Expected
stock price volatility
|
97
|
%
|
105
|
%
|
109
|
%
|
||||||
Risk-free
interest rate
|
4.7
|
%
|
3.8
|
%
|
3.4
|
%
|
||||||
Expected
term (in years)
|
6.1
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
|||||||||
Estimated
pre-vesting forfeitures
|
18.7
|
%
|
-
|
-
|
Expected
Dividend Yield: The Black-Scholes valuation model calls for a
single expected dividend yield as an input. EMCORE has not issued any
dividends.
Expected
Stock Price Volatility: The fair values of stock-based payments
were valued using the Black-Scholes valuation method with a volatility factor
based on EMCORE’s historical stock prices.
Risk-Free
Interest Rate: EMCORE bases the risk-free interest rate used in
the Black-Scholes valuation method on the implied yield currently available
on
U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with an equivalent remaining term. Where the
expected term of EMCORE’s stock-based awards do not correspond with the terms
for which interest rates are quoted, EMCORE performed a straight-line
interpolation to determine the rate from the available maturities.
Expected
Term: EMCORE’s expected term represents the period that EMCORE’s
stock-based awards are expected to be outstanding and was determined based
on
historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual
terms of the stock-based awards, vesting schedules and expectations of future
employee behavior as influenced by changes to the terms of its stock-based
awards.
Estimated
Pre-vesting Forfeitures: When estimating forfeitures, EMCORE considers
voluntary termination behavior as well as future workforce reduction
programs. This valuation assumption was not used in fiscal 2005 or
2004.
Preferred
Stock
EMCORE’s
certificate of incorporation authorizes the Board of Directors to issue up
to
5,882,352 shares of preferred stock of EMCORE upon such terms and conditions
having such rights, privileges, and preferences as the Board of Directors may
determine.
Warrants
At
September 30, 2005, EMCORE had the following outstanding warrants:
Underlying
Security
|
|
Exercise
Price
|
Warrants
|
Expiration
Date
|
||||||||||
Common
stock (1)
|
$2.16
|
14,796
|
August
21, 2006
|
|||||||||||
Common
stock (2)
|
$15.16
- $31.18
|
16,739
|
March
5, 2006 – September 1, 2006
|
______________________
|
(1)
|
Issued
in connection with EMCORE’s December 1997 acquisition of MicroOptical
Devices, Inc.
|
|
(2)
|
Issued
in connection with EMCORE’s IP agreement with Sandia
Laboratories.
|
At
September 30, 2006, EMCORE does not have any outstanding warrants.
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan
In
fiscal
2000, EMCORE adopted an Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The ESPP provides
employees of EMCORE an opportunity to purchase common stock through payroll
deductions. The ESPP is a 6-month duration plan with new participation periods
beginning the first business day of January and July of each year. The purchase
price is set at 85% of the average high and low market price for EMCORE's common
stock on either the first or last day of the participation period, whichever
is
lower, and contributions are limited to the lower of 10% of an employee's
compensation or $25,000. In November 2006, the Company suspended the ESPP due
to
its review of historical stock option granting practices. The number
of shares of common stock available for issuance under the ESPP is 2,000,000
shares.
The
amount of shares issued for the ESPP are as follows:
Number
of Common
Stock
Shares Issued
|
Purchase
Price per
Common
Stock Share
|
|||||||
Amount
of shares reserved for the ESPP
|
2,000,000
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
Number
of shares issued in calendar years 2000 through 2003
|
(398,159
|
)
|
$ |
1.87
- $40.93
|
||||
Number
of shares issued in June 2004 for first half of calendar year
2004
|
(166,507
|
)
|
$ |
2.73
|
||||
Number
of shares issued in December 2004 for second half of calendar year
2004
|
(167,546
|
)
|
$ |
2.95
|
||||
Number
of shares issued in June 2005 for first half of calendar year
2005
|
(174,169
|
)
|
$ |
2.93
|
||||
Number
of shares issued in December 2005 for second half of calendar year
2005
|
(93,619
|
)
|
$ |
3.48
|
||||
Number
of shares issued in June 2006 for first half of calendar year
2006
|
(123,857
|
)
|
$ |
6.32
|
||||
|
|
|||||||
Remaining
shares reserved for the ESPP as of September 30,
2006
|
876,143
|
|
Future
Issuances
As
of September 30, 2006, EMCORE has reserved a total of 20,354,736 shares of
its common stock for future issuances as follows:
Number
of
Common
Stock
Shares
Available
|
||||
For
exercise of outstanding common stock options
|
6,232,535
|
|||
For
conversion of subordinated notes
|
12,016,930
|
|||
For
future issuances to employees under the ESPP plan
|
876,143
|
|||
For
future common stock option awards
|
1,229,128
|
|||
Total
reserved
|
20,354,736
|
NOTE
5. Sale of GELcore Joint Venture
In
January 1999, General Electric Lighting and EMCORE formed GELcore, LLC, a joint
venture to address the solid-state lighting market with high brightness light
emitting diode-based (HB-LED) lighting systems. General Electric
Lighting and EMCORE agreed that this joint venture would be the exclusive
vehicle for each party’s participation in solid-state
lighting. EMCORE had a 49% non-controlling interest in the GELcore
venture and accounted for this investment using the equity method of
accounting.
On
August
31, 2006, EMCORE sold its 49% membership interest in GELcore, LLC for $100.0
million to General Electric Corporation, which prior to the transaction owned
the remaining 51% membership interest in GELcore. EMCORE recorded a
net gain of $88.0 million, before tax, on the sale of GELcore, after netting
EMCORE’s investment in this joint venture of $10.8 million and transaction
expenses of $1.2 million.
NOTE
6. Acquisitions
K2
Optronics,
Inc.
On
January 12, 2006, EMCORE
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger Agreement”) with K2
Optronics, Inc. (“K2”), a privately-held company located in Sunnyvale, CA and
EMCORE Optoelectronics Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
EMCORE (“Merger Sub”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, EMCORE acquired
K2 in a transaction in which Merger Sub merged with and into K2, with K2
becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of EMCORE. EMCORE, an investor in K2, paid
approximately $4.1 million in EMCORE common stock, and paid approximately $0.7
million in transaction-related expenses, to acquire the remaining part of K2
that EMCORE did not already own. Prior to the transaction EMCORE owned a 13.6%
equity interest in K2 as a result of a $1.0 million investment that EMCORE
made
in K2 in October 2004. In addition, K2 was a supplier to EMCORE of analog
external cavity lasers for CATV applications. In connection with the merger,
EMCORE issued a total of 548,688 shares of EMCORE common stock, no par value,
(based on a 20-trading day weighted average price), to K2’s
shareholders.
Including
EMCORE’s initial
$1.0 million investment in K2, the purchase price was allocated as
follows:
(in
thousands)
K2
Optronics, Inc. Acquisition
|
|
|||
Net
purchase price
|
$
|
5,135
|
||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
872
|
|||
Excess
purchase price allocated to goodwill
|
$
|
6,007
|
Historical
net assets acquired in the acquisition were as follows:
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Current
assets
|
$
|
1,374
|
||
Fixed
assets
|
388
|
|||
Intellectual
property
|
583
|
|||
Current
liabilities
|
(2,412
|
)
|
||
Debt
|
(805
|
)
|
||
|
||||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
$
|
(872
|
)
|
Force,
Inc.
On
December 18, 2005, EMCORE entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Force,
Inc., a privately held company located in Christiansburg, Virginia. In
connection with the asset purchase, EMCORE issued 240,000 shares of EMCORE
common stock, no par value, with a market value of $1.6 million at the
measurement date and paid $0.5 million in cash. The acquisition included Force’s
fiber optic transport and video broadcast products, technical and engineering
staff, certain assets, and intellectual properties and technologies. The
purchase price was allocated as follows:
(in
thousands)
Force,
Inc. Acquisition
|
|
|||
Net
purchase price
|
$
|
2,125
|
||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
(985
|
)
|
||
Excess
purchase price allocated to goodwill
|
$
|
1,140
|
Historical
net assets acquired in the acquisition were as follows:
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Current
assets
|
$
|
450
|
||
Inventory
|
570
|
|||
Fixed
assets
|
60
|
|||
Intellectual
property
|
1,075
|
|||
Current
liabilities
|
(1,170
|
)
|
||
|
||||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
$
|
985
|
Phasebridge,
Inc.
On
November 8, 2005, EMCORE entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with
Phasebridge, Inc., a privately-held company located in Pasadena, California.
In
connection with the asset purchase and based on a closing price of $5.46, EMCORE
issued 128,205 shares of EMCORE common stock, no par value, that were valued
in
the transaction at $0.7 million. The acquisition included Phasebridge’s
products, technical and engineering staff, certain assets, and intellectual
properties and technologies. The purchase price was allocated as
follows:
(in
thousands)
Phasebridge,
Inc. Acquisition
|
|
|||
Net
purchase price
|
$
|
700
|
||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
(678
|
)
|
||
Excess
purchase price allocated to goodwill
|
$
|
22
|
Historical
net assets acquired in the acquisition were as follows:
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Current
assets
|
$
|
39
|
||
Fixed
assets
|
127
|
|||
Intangible
assets
|
603
|
|||
Current
liabilities
|
(91
|
)
|
||
|
||||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
$
|
678
|
JDS
Uniphase Corporation – CATV
On
May
31, 2005, EMCORE acquired the analog cable TV (CATV) and radio frequency (RF)
over fiber specialty businesses from JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDSU) for $1.5
million in cash plus a deferred payment, payable in quarterly installments,
associated with EMCORE’s quarterly usage of the acquired JDSU inventory valued
between $2.5 million and $3.5 million. EMCORE is also responsible to pay JDSU
a
royalty on licensed intellectual property. The purchase price was allocated
as
follows:
(in
thousands)
JDSU
CATV Acquisition
|
|
|||
Net
purchase price
|
$
|
1,500
|
||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
(1,230
|
)
|
||
Excess
purchase price allocated to goodwill
|
$
|
270
|
Historical
net assets acquired in the acquisition were as follows:
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Inventory
|
$
|
3,450
|
||
Fixed
assets
|
1,000
|
|||
Cost
investment in K2 Optronics
|
500
|
|||
Intangible
assets
|
1,040
|
|||
Current
liabilities
|
(4,760
|
)
|
||
|
||||
Historical
net assets acquired
|
$
|
1,230
|
All
of
these transactions were accounted for as purchases in accordance with SFAS
141,
Business Combinations; therefore, the tangible assets acquired were
recorded at fair value on the acquisition date. These acquisitions were not
significant on a pro-forma basis, and therefore, pro-forma financial statements
have not been presented. The operating results of the businesses acquired are
included in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations from the
date
of acquisition. All of these acquired businesses are part of EMCORE's Fiber
Optics operating segment.
NOTE
7. Investments
In
April
2005, EMCORE divested product technology focused on gallium nitride-based power
electronic devices for the power device industry. The divestiture resulted
in a new company, Velox Semiconductor Corporation (“Velox”) and EMCORE
contributed intellectual property and equipment in exchange for a 19.2%
ownership stake in Velox. For the three months ended December 31, 2005 and
March 31, 2006, EMCORE had recognized a loss of $0.2 million and $0.1 million,
respectively, related to Velox, which was recorded as a component of other
income and expenses. During fiscal 2006, EMCORE reduced its voting
percentage and relinquished its Velox Board seat, and its right to a Velox
Board
seat. As a result of these modifications, EMCORE reported its investment
in Velox under the cost method of accounting rather than the equity method
of
accounting. Under the cost method of accounting, the Velox investment is carried
at cost and adjusted only for other-than-temporary declines in fair value,
distribution of earnings and additional investments. As of September 30, 2006,
EMCORE's net investment in Velox amounted to approximately $1.0
million.
NOTE
8. Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges
Discontinued
Operations
Electronic
Materials & Device (EMD) division
On
August
18, 2006, EMCORE completed the sale of the assets of its Electronic Materials
& Device (“EMD”) division, including inventory, fixed assets, and
intellectual property, pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement, dated July
19,
2006 (“Purchase Agreement”), between EMCORE, IQE plc, (IQE) a public limited
company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, and IQE RF, LLC, a
New
Jersey limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of
IQE. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, EMCORE sold the EMD
division to IQE for $16.0 million, consisting of $13.0 million in cash and
$3.0
million in the form of a secured promissory note of IQE, guaranteed by IQE's
affiliates. The note was completely repaid in fiscal 2007, via four quarterly
installments at an annual interest rate of 7.5%.
The
components of the gain on disposal of discontinued operations are as
follows:
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Total
cash received
|
$ |
13,000
|
||
Short-term
note receivable
|
3,000
|
|||
Assets
sold:
|
||||
Inventory
|
(4,048 | ) | ||
Prepaid
and other current assets
|
(47 | ) | ||
Plant
and equipment
|
(1,856 | ) | ||
Identifiable
intangible assets
|
(242 | ) | ||
Total
assets sold
|
(6,193 | ) | ||
Liabilities
sold:
|
||||
Accrued
expenses
|
175
|
|||
Total
liabilities sold
|
175
|
|||
Less: Disposal
charges, including $523 of tax, and selling expenses
|
(2,354 | ) | ||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations
|
$ |
7,628
|
The
carrying values of the assets and liabilities of EMD, which were included in
the
September 30, 2005 consolidated balance sheet, are as follows:
(in
thousands)
|
|
|||
Assets:
|
||||
Accounts
receivable
|
$
|
2,470
|
||
Inventory
|
1,189
|
|||
Prepaid
and other current assets
|
109
|
|||
Plant
and equipment
|
2,418
|
|||
Identifiable
intangible assets
|
172
|
|||
Other
assets
|
891
|
|||
Total
assets
|
$
|
7,249
|
||
Liabilities
|
||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
1,736
|
||
Accrued
liabilities
|
1,209
|
|||
Total
liabilities
|
$
|
2,945
|
TurboDisc
Division
In
November 2003, EMCORE sold its TurboDisc capital equipment business in an asset
sale to a subsidiary of Veeco Instruments Inc. (Veeco). The selling price was
$60.0 million in cash at closing, with a potential additional earn-out up to
$20.0 million over the next two years, calculated based on the net sales of
TurboDisc products. During fiscal 2004, EMCORE recognized a gain on the disposal
of the TurboDisc business of $19.6 million. In March 2005, EMCORE
received $13.2 million of earn-out from Veeco in connection with its first
year
of net sales of TurboDisc products. After offsetting this receipt against
expenses related to the discontinued operation, EMCORE recorded a net gain
from
the disposal of discontinued operations of $12.5 million in fiscal year
2005. In March 2006, EMCORE received manufacturing equipment valued at $2.0
million less $0.1 million of tax as a final earn-out payment from Veeco in
connection with Veeco’s second year of net sales of TurboDisc products.
The cumulative additional earn-out totaled $15.2 million or 76% of the maximum
available payout of $20.0 million.
In
accordance with the provisions of SFAS 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, EMCORE’s results of operations have been
reclassified to reflect the EMD and TurboDisc Divisions as discontinued
operations for all periods presented. Operating results of the
discontinued operations are as follows:
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006
(in
thousands)
|
EMD
|
TurboDisc
|
Total
|
|||||||||
Revenue
|
$
|
17,941
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
17,941
|
||||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
$
|
373
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
373
|
||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations (1)
|
7,628
|
1,883
|
9,511
|
|||||||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
$
|
8,001
|
$
|
1,883
|
$
|
9,884
|
___________
|
(1)
|
Net
of tax of $523 on EMD and $129 on
TurboDisc
|
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005
(in
thousands)
|
EMD
|
TurboDisc
|
Total
|
|||||||||
Revenue
|
$
|
12,236
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
12,236
|
||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
$
|
(1,276
|
)
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
(1,276
|
)
|
||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations
|
-
|
12,476
|
12,476
|
|||||||||
(Loss)
Income from discontinued operations
|
$
|
(1,276
|
)
|
$
|
12,476
|
$
|
11,200
|
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004
(in
thousands)
|
EMD
|
TurboDisc
|
Total
|
|||||||||
Revenue
|
$
|
11,184
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
11,184
|
||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
$
|
(3,117
|
)
|
$
|
(2,045
|
)
|
$
|
(5,162
|
)
|
|||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations
|
-
|
19,584
|
19,584
|
|||||||||
(Loss)
Income from discontinued operations
|
$
|
(3,117
|
)
|
$
|
17,539
|
$
|
14,422
|
Restructuring
Charges
As
EMCORE
has acquired businesses and consolidated them into its existing operations,
EMCORE has incurred charges associated with the transition and integration
of
those activities. Expenses recognized as restructuring charges include costs
associated with the integration of several business acquisitions and EMCORE’s
overall cost-reduction efforts. Restructuring charges are included in
SG&A. The charges recognized in fiscal year 2006 were primarily
related to our Photovoltaics operating segment. Fiscal year 2007
charges relate to our Fiber Optics operating segment of which restructuring
activities began and were incurred in fiscal year 2007. These restructuring
efforts are expected to be completed in calendar year 2008. Costs
incurred and expected to be incurred consist of the following:
(in
thousands)
|
Amount
Incurred
in
Period
|
Cumulative
Amount
Incurred
to
Date
|
Amount
Expected
in
Future
Periods
|
Total
Amount
Expected
to be
Incurred
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
One-time
termination benefits
|
$ |
14
|
$ |
203
|
$ |
3,235
|
$ |
3,438
|
||||||||
Contract
termination Costs
|
343
|
343
|
296
|
639
|
||||||||||||
Other
associated costs
|
653
|
2,907
|
565
|
3,472
|
||||||||||||
Total
restructuring charges
|
$ |
1,010
|
$ |
3,453
|
$ |
4,096
|
$ |
7,549
|
The
following table sets forth changes in the accrual for restructuring
charges:
(in
thousands)
|
||||
Balance
at September 30, 2005
|
$
|
260
|
|
|
Increase
in liability due to restructuring of photovoltaics
segment
|
|
1,010
|
||
Costs
paid or otherwise settled
|
(1,014
|
)
|
||
|
|
|||
Balance
at September 30, 2006
|
$
|
256
|
|
NOTE
9. Impairment
Reduction
of goodwill and intangible assets - During the quarter ended September 30,
2006, due to declining demand for product and loss of capability to
manufacture the product, management decided to discontinue the product line
Corona Optical Systems ("Corona"). As a result, the Company
determined that the carrying value of goodwill and the remaining net balance
of
intangible assets acquired when EMCORE purchased Corona Optical Systems (Corona)
in June 2004 might not be recoverable. As of September 30, 2006,
Corona-related goodwill of $1.7 million and net intellectual property of $0.5
million no longer provided any value to EMCORE. As a result, EMCORE
wrote down these assets and recorded the expense as an impairment charge in
the
statement of operations.
Reduction
in fair value of an investment– EMCORE regularly evaluates the carrying
value of its investments. When the carrying value of an investment exceeds
the
fair value and the decline in fair value is deemed to be other-than-temporary,
EMCORE writes down the value of the investment to its fair value. In February
2002, EMCORE purchased $1.0 million of preferred stock of Archcom Technology,
Inc. (Archcom), a venture-funded, start-up optical networking components company
that designs, manufactures, and markets a series of high performance lasers
and
photodiodes for the datacom and telecom industries. During fiscal 2004, Archcom
raised additional capital, but EMCORE did not participate. As a result, EMCORE
reduced the carrying value of its investment in Archcom by 50%, or $0.5 million
and recorded this expense as a reduction in fair value of an investment in
the
statement of operations. Due to declining performance of the
investment during the quarter ended September 30, 2006, EMCORE determined that
the remaining carrying value of the investment was not recoverable.
As a result, EMCORE wrote-down the remaining carrying value of its investment
in
Archcom totaling $0.5 million and recorded this expense as a reduction in fair
value of an investment in the statement of operations.
NOTE
10. Receivables
The
components of accounts receivable as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 consisted
of
the following:
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Accounts
receivable
|
$
|
25,597
|
|
$
|
19,243
|
|
||
Accounts
receivable – unbilled
|
|
2,342
|
|
|
1,240
|
|
||
Accounts
receivable, gross
|
|
27,939
|
|
|
20,483
|
|
||
Allowance
for doubtful accounts
|
|
(552
|
)
|
|
(320
|
)
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Total
accounts receivable, net
|
$
|
27,387
|
|
$
|
20,163
|
|
The
following table summarizes the changes in the allowance for doubtful accounts
for the years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004:
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||
Balance
at beginning of year
|
$
|
320
|
|
$
|
651
|
|
$
|
1,005
|
|
|||
Account
adjustments charged (to) from bad debt expense
|
|
364
|
|
(295
|
)
|
|
(194
|
)
|
||||
Write-offs
(deductions against receivables)
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
(36
|
)
|
|
(160
|
)
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Balance
at end of year
|
$
|
552
|
|
$
|
320
|
|
$
|
651
|
|
In
September 2005, EMCORE entered into a non-recourse receivables purchase
agreement (“AR Agreement”) with Silicon Valley Bank (“SVBank”). Under the
terms of the AR Agreement, EMCORE from time to time may sell, without recourse,
certain accounts receivables to SVBank up to a maximum aggregate
outstanding amount of $20.0 million. In September 30, 2006 and 2005,
EMCORE sold approximately $3.0 and $2.2 million of accounts receivables to
SVBank, respectively. The AR Agreement expired on December 31,
2006.
Receivables
from related parties as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 consisted of the
following:
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||
GELcore
investment-related
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
185
|
||||
Velox
investment-related
|
|
332
|
|
249
|
||||
Employee
loans
|
|
121
|
|
3,763
|
||||
Subtotal
|
|
453
|
|
4,197
|
||||
Long-term
assets:
|
|
|
|
|||||
Employee
loans
|
|
82
|
|
169
|
||||
|
|
|
||||||
Total
receivables from related parties
|
$
|
535
|
$
|
4,366
|
Employee
Loans
From
time
to time, prior to July 2002, EMCORE loaned money to certain of its executive
officers and directors. Pursuant to due authorization from EMCORE's Board of
Directors, EMCORE loaned $3.0 million to Mr. Reuben Richards, the Chief
Executive Officer in February 2001 (“The Note”). The Note matured on February
22, 2006 and bore interest compounded at a rate of (a) 5.18% per annum through
May 23, 2002 and (b) 4.99% from May 24, 2002 through maturity. All interest
was
payable at maturity. On February 13, 2006, Mr. Richards tendered 139,485 shares
of EMCORE common stock in partial payment of the Note. Principal plus accrued
interest on the Note totaled approximately $3.83 million. The Compensation
Committee of EMCORE’s Board of Directors specifically approved the tender
of shares, as permitted by the Note, at the price of $8.25 per share, which
was
the closing price of EMCORE common stock on February 13, 2006. On February
28,
2006, the Compensation Committee resolved to forgive the remaining balance
of
the Note (approximately $2.7 million), effective as of March 10, 2006. Mr.
Richards’ tender of common stock on February 13, 2006 was accepted as full
payment and satisfaction of the Note, including principal and accrued
interest. Additionally, the Compensation Committee resolved to accelerate
and vest the final tranche of each of the incentive stock option grants made
in
fiscal 2004 and 2005 to Mr. Richards, which constitute a combined accelerated
vesting of 111,250 shares. EMCORE recorded a one-time charge of approximately
$2.7 million in March 2006 for the partial forgiveness of the Note, plus a
charge of approximately $0.3 million in stock-based compensation expense under
SFAS 123(R) relating to the accelerated ISO grants.
In
addition, pursuant to due authorization of EMCORE's Board of Directors, EMCORE
also loaned $85,000 to Mr. Werthan, the former Chief Financial Officer, in
December 1995. This loan did not bear interest and provided for offset of the
loan via bonuses payable to Mr. Werthan over a period of up to 25
years. In connection with Mr. Werthan’s resignation in February
2007 and pursuant to the terms of the promissory note, the Board of Directors
forgave the remaining portion of his outstanding loan that totaled
$82,000. Mr. Werthan was responsible for the personal taxes related
to the loan forgiveness.
The
remaining related party receivable balance of approximately $121,000 as of
September 30, 2006 related to multiple interest bearing loans from EMCORE to
an
officer (who is not an executive officer) that were made during 1997 through
2000 and were payable on demand. These loans, including accrued
interest, were paid back to the Company in December 2006.
During
the first quarter of fiscal 2005, pursuant to due authorization of the Company’s
Compensation Committee, EMCORE wrote-off $34,000 of notes receivable that were
issued in 1994 to certain EMCORE employees.
NOTE
11. Inventory, net
Inventory
is stated at the lower of cost or market, with cost being determined using
the
standard cost method that includes material, labor and manufacturing overhead
costs. The components of inventory as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 consisted
of the following:
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Raw
Materials
|
$
|
14,990
|
$
|
14,322
|
||||
Work-in-process
|
6,074
|
5,005
|
||||||
Finished
goods
|
|
8,660
|
|
5,871
|
||||
Inventory,
gross
|
|
29,724
|
|
25,198
|
||||
|
||||||||
Less:
reserves
|
|
(6,472
|
)
|
|
(8,039
|
)
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
Total
inventory, net
|
$
|
23,252
|
$
|
17,159
|
The
following table summarizes the changes in the inventory reserve accounts for
the
years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004:
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||
Balance
at beginning of year
|
$
|
8,039
|
|
$
|
3,843
|
|
$
|
4,211
|
|
|||
Account
adjustments (charged to reserve expense)
|
|
1,955
|
|
7,383
|
|
3,826
|
||||||
Write-offs
(deductions against inventory)
|
|
(3,522
|
)
|
|
(3,187
|
)
|
|
(4,194
|
)
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Balance
at end of year
|
$
|
6,472
|
|
$
|
8,039
|
|
$
|
3,843
|
|
NOTE
12. Property, Plant, and Equipment, net
The
components of property, plant, and equipment as of September 30, 2006 and 2005
consisted of the following:
(in
thousands)
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||
Land
|
$
|
1,502
|
$
|
1,502
|
||||
Building
and improvements
|
40,035
|
37,945
|
||||||
Equipment
|
64,275
|
63,859
|
||||||
Furniture
and fixtures
|
5,362
|
2,807
|
||||||
Leasehold
improvements
|
2,696
|
552
|
||||||
Construction
in progress
|
8,553
|
3,289
|
||||||
Property,
plant and equipment, gross
|
122,423
|
109,954
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Less:
accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
(67,237
|
)
|
(55,415
|
)
|
||||
Total
property, plant and equipment, net
|
$
|
55,186
|
$
|
54,539
|
As
of
September 30, 2006 and 2005, EMCORE did not have any significant capital lease
agreements.
NOTE
13. Goodwill and Intangible Assets, net
The
following table sets forth changes in the carrying value of goodwill by
operating segment:
(in
thousands)
|
|
Fiber
Optics
|
Photovoltaics
|
Total
|
||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2005
|
$
|
14,259
|
|
$
|
20,384
|
|
$
|
34,643
|
|
|||
Acquisition
– Force, Inc.
|
|
1,140
|
|
-
|
|
1,140
|
||||||
Acquisition
– K2 Optronics, Inc.
|
6,007
|
-
|
6,007
|
|||||||||
Acquisition
– JDSU CATV purchase price adjustment
|
20
|
-
|
20
|
|||||||||
Acquisition
– earn-out payments
|
315
|
-
|
315
|
|||||||||
Acquisition
– Phasebridge
|
22
|
-
|
22
|
|||||||||
Impairment
– see Note 9
|
|
(1,700
|
)
|
|
-
|
|
(1,700
|
)
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2006
|
$
|
20,063
|
|
$
|
20,384
|
|
$
|
40,447
|
|
The
following table sets forth changes in the carrying value of intangible assets
by
operating segment:
(in
thousands)
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross
Assets
|
Accumulated
Amortization
|
Net
Assets
|
Gross
Assets
|
Accumulated
Amortization
|
Net
Assets
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fiber
Optics:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patents
|
$
|
579
|
$
|
(218
|
)
|
$
|
361
|
$
|
368
|
$
|
(136
|
)
|
$
|
232
|
||||||||||
Ortel
acquired IP
|
3,274
|
(2,394
|
)
|
880
|
3,274
|
(1,746
|
)
|
1,528
|
||||||||||||||||
JDSU
acquired IP
|
1,040
|
(314
|
)
|
726
|
1,650
|
(110
|
)
|
1,540
|
||||||||||||||||
Phasebridge
acquired IP
|
603
|
(244
|
)
|
359
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||||
Force
acquired IP
|
1,075
|
(227
|
)
|
848
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||||
K2
Optronics acquired IP
|
583
|
(126
|
)
|
457
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||||
Alvesta
acquired IP
|
193
|
(148
|
)
|
45
|
193
|
(107
|
)
|
86
|
||||||||||||||||
Molex
acquired IP
|
558
|
(335
|
)
|
223
|
558
|
(223
|
)
|
335
|
||||||||||||||||
Corona
acquired IP – see Note 9
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1,000
|
(267
|
)
|
733
|
|||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
|
7,905
|
(4,006
|
)
|
3,899
|
7,043
|
(2,589
|
)
|
4,454
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Photovoltaics:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patents
|
382
|
(162
|
)
|
220
|
271
|
(100
|
)
|
171
|
||||||||||||||||
Tecstar
acquired IP
|
1,900
|
(1,726
|
)
|
174
|
1,900
|
(1,350
|
)
|
550
|
||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
|
2,282
|
(1,888
|
)
|
394
|
2,171
|
(1,450
|
)
|
721
|
||||||||||||||||
Total
|
$
|
10,187
|
$
|
(5,894
|
)
|
$
|
4,293
|
$
|
9,214
|
$
|
(4,039
|
)
|
$
|
5,175
|
Based
on
the carrying amount of the intangible assets as of September 30, 2006, and
assuming no future impairment of the underlying assets, the estimated future
amortization expense is as follows:
(in
thousands)
|
|
|||
Fiscal
year ending:
|
||||
September
30, 2007
|
$
|
1,655
|
||
September
30, 2008
|
1,022
|
|||
September
30, 2009
|
713
|
|||
September
30, 2010
|
603
|
|||
September
30, 2011
|
141
|
|||
Thereafter
|
159
|
|||
Total
future amortization expense
|
$
|
4,293
|
NOTE
14. Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities
The
components of accrued expenses and other current liabilities as of September
30,
2006 and 2005 consisted of the following:
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Compensation-related
|
6,973
|
4,611
|
||||||
Interest
|
1,830
|
1,814
|
||||||
Warranty
|
1,074
|
1,195
|
||||||
Professional
fees
|
2,529
|
1,082
|
||||||
Royalty
|
535
|
551
|
||||||
Self
insurance
|
784
|
646
|
||||||
Deferred
revenue and customer deposits
|
324
|
-
|
||||||
Tax-related
|
4,418
|
-
|
||||||
Litigation-related
|
700
|
-
|
||||||
Other
|
2,915
|
7,978
|
||||||
Total
accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
22,082
|
17,877
|
The
following table sets forth changes in the product warranty accrual
account:
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||
For
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006 and
2005
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Balance
at beginning of year
|
$
|
1,195
|
|
$
|
1,959
|
|
||
Account
adjustments (charged from (to) warranty expense)
|
|
175
|
|
(290
|
)
|
|||
Reversals
due to use or expiration of liability
|
|
(296
|
)
|
|
(474
|
)
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Balance
at end of year
|
$
|
1,074
|
|
$
|
1,195
|
|
NOTE
15. Convertible Subordinated Notes
In
May
2001, EMCORE issued $175.0 million aggregate principal amount of its 5%
convertible subordinated notes due in May 2006 (“2006 Notes”). Interest is
payable in arrears semiannually on May 15 and November 15 of each
year. The notes are convertible into EMCORE common stock at a
conversion price of $48.76 per share, subject to certain adjustments, at the
option of the holder. In December 2002, EMCORE purchased $13.2
million principal amount of the 2006 Notes at prevailing market prices for
an
aggregate of approximately $6.3 million, resulting in a gain of approximately
$6.6 million after netting unamortized debt issuance costs of approximately
$0.3
million.
In
February 2004, EMCORE exchanged approximately $146.0 million, or 90.2%, of
its
remaining 2006 Notes for approximately $80.3 million aggregate principal amount
of new 5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due May 15, 2011 (“2011 Notes”)
and approximately 7.7 million shares of EMCORE common stock. Interest on the
2011 Notes is payable in arrears semiannually on May 15 and November 15 of
each
year. The notes were convertible into EMCORE common stock at a conversion price
of $8.06 per share, subject to adjustment under customary anti-dilutive
provisions. They also are redeemable should EMCORE's common stock price reach
$12.09 per share. As a result of this transaction, EMCORE reduced debt by
approximately $65.7 million, and recorded a gain from early debt extinguishment
of approximately $12.3 million.
In
November 2005, EMCORE exchanged $14.4 million aggregate principal amount of
the
2006 Notes for $16.6 million aggregate principal amount of newly issued
Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due May 15, 2011 (“New 2011 Notes”)
pursuant to an Exchange Agreement (“Agreement”) with Alexandra Global Master
Fund Ltd. (“Alexandra”). The terms of the New 2011 Notes
are identical in all material respects to the 2011 Notes. The
New 2011 Notes are ranked pari passu with the existing 2011 Notes. The New
2011 Notes will be convertible at any time prior to maturity, unless previously
redeemed or repurchased by EMCORE, into the shares of EMCORE common stock,
no
par value, at the conversion rate of 124.0695 shares of common stock per $1,000
principal amount. The effective conversion rate was $8.06 per share of
common stock, subject to adjustment under customary anti-dilutive provisions.
They also are redeemable should EMCORE's common stock price reach $12.09 per
share. As a result of this transaction, EMCORE recognized a loss of
approximately $1.1 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2006. EMCORE will
also
incur additional expense of approximately $1.1 million over the life of the
subordinated notes issued to Alexandra, which will be charged as interest
expense. Furthermore, the 2006 Notes exchanged by Alexandra represented
approximately 91.4% of the $15.8 million total amount of existing 2006 Notes
outstanding at the time of the transaction. EMCORE paid the remaining $1.4
million of 2006 Notes on the May 15, 2006 maturity date.
For
the
years ended September 30, 2006, 2005, and 2004, interest expense relating to
the
notes approximated $5.4 million, $4.8 million, and $6.2 million,
respectively.
The
$2.3
million of costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the 2006 Notes,
2011 Notes and the New 2011 Notes were capitalized and are being amortized
to
SG&A expense on a straight-line basis for over the remaining life of the
notes which approximates the charge using the implied interest method. Issuance
costs related to the notes, net of amortization, were $1.1 million and $1.5
million as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The unamortized
portions of the issuance costs are included in “Other assets” on the
consolidated balance sheets. See Note 22 - Subsequent Events for
recent modifications to the convertible subordinated notes and April 2007 note
settlement.
NOTE
16. Commitments and Contingencies
EMCORE
leases certain land, facilities, and equipment under non-cancelable operating
leases. The leases provide for rental adjustments for increases in base rent
(up
to specific limits), property taxes, insurance and general property maintenance
that would be recorded as rent expense. Net facility and equipment rent expense
under such leases amounted to approximately $2.1 million, $1.9 million, and
$2.3
million for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005, and 2004,
respectively. Future minimum rental payments under EMCORE's non-cancelable
operating leases with an initial or remaining term of one year or more as of
September 30, 2006 are as follows:
(in
thousands)
Operating
Leases
|
|
|||
Fiscal
year ending:
|
||||
September
30, 2007
|
$
|
1,724
|
||
September
30, 2008
|
1,303
|
|||
September
30, 2009
|
1,202
|
|||
September
30, 2010
|
1,112
|
|||
September
30, 2011
|
1,074
|
|||
Thereafter
|
5,421
|
|||
Total
minimum lease payments
|
$
|
11,836
|
As
of
September 30, 2006, EMCORE had three standby letters of credit totaling
approximately $0.7 million.
The
Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that are discussed
below. The Company is also subject to certain other legal proceedings and claims
that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and which have not been
fully adjudicated. The Company does not believe it has a potential
liability related to current legal proceedings and claims that could
individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, liquidity or results of operations. However, the results of legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Should the Company fail to
prevail in any legal matters or should several legal matters be resolved against
the Company in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular
reporting period could be materially adversely affected. The Company settled
certain matters during 2006 that did not individually or in the aggregate have
a
material impact on the Company’s results of operations.
Shareholder
Derivative Litigation Relating to Historical Stock Option
Practices
On
February 1, 2007, Plaintiff Lewis Edelstein filed a purported stockholder
derivative action (the “Federal Court Action”) on behalf of
the Company against certain of its present and former directors and
officers (the “Individual Defendants”), as well as the Company as nominal
defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Edelstein v. Brodie, et. al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00596-FLW-JJH
(D.N.J.). On May 22, 2007, Plaintiffs Kathryn Gabaldon and
Michael Sackrison each filed a purported stockholder derivative action against
the Individual Defendants, and the Company as nominal defendant, in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, Gabaldon v. Brodie, et. al., Case
No. 3:07-cv-03185-FLW-JJH (D.N.J.) and Sackrison v. Brodie, et. al., Case
No. 3:07-cv-00596-FLW-JJH (D.N.J.) (collectively, the “State Court
Actions”).
Both
the
Federal Court Action and the State Court Actions alleged, using essentially
identical contentions that the Individual Defendants engaged in improprieties
and violations of law in connection with the Company’s historical issuances of
stock options. Each of the actions seeks the same relief on behalf of
the Company, including, among other things, damages, equitable relief, corporate
governance reforms, an accounting, rescission, restitution and costs and
disbursements of the lawsuit. On July 10, 2007, the State Court
Actions were removed to the United States District Court for the District of
New
Jersey.
On
September 26, 2007, the plaintiff in the Federal Court Action signed an
agreement in principle with the Individual Defendants and the Company to settle
that litigation in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”)
filed as Exhibit 10.10 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. That same
day, the plaintiffs in the State Court Actions advised the Federal Court that
the settlement embodied in the MOU would also constitute the settlement of
the
State Court Actions.
The
MOU
provides that the Company will adhere to certain policies and procedures
relating to the issuance of stock options, stock trading by directors, officers
and employees, the composition of its Board of Directors, and the functioning
of
the Board’s Audit and Compensation Committees. The MOU also provides
for the payment of $700,000 relating to plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, costs and
expenses, which the Company’s insurance carrier has committed to pay on behalf
of the Company. To be fully implemented, the MOU will be embodied in
a more detailed stipulation of settlement and will be expressly conditioned
on
Court approval following a period for comment by potentially affected
parties.
We
have
recorded $700,000 as a liability for the stipulated settlement as of September
30, 2006 since events that led to the litigation existed as of that
date. Although we anticipate that our insurance carrier will cover
the stipulated settlement, we have not recorded any receivable, or gain
contingency, since the settlement is still contingent upon certain future
events.
NASDAQ
Delisting Proceeding
On
December 18, 2006, EMCORE received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for
continued listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that
its
common stock was subject to delisting from The NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice,
which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to
file its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006
with the SEC by the required deadline. The Company had previously filed a Form
12b-25 with the SEC indicating that the Company would be unable to file its
Form
10-K by the original filing deadline of December 14, 2006 due to the Company’s
ongoing review of its prior stock option grants.
On
February 13, 2007, EMCORE received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for
continued listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that
its
common stock was subject to delisting from The NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice,
which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to
file its report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006
with
the SEC by the required deadline. The Company had previously filed a Form 12b-25
with the SEC indicating that the Company would be unable to file its Form 10-Q
by the original filing deadline of February 9, 2007 due to the Company’s ongoing
review of its prior stock option grants.
The
Company attended a hearing before the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel (the
“Panel”) on February 15, 2007 to review both the Staff Determination letter
received by the Company on December 18, 2006 as a result of the Company's
inability to file its Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 by the
required deadline and the Staff Determination letter received by the Company
on
February 13, 2007 as a result of the Company's inability to file its Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 by the required deadline.
On
April
3, 2007, the Company received notice from the NASDAQ Stock Market that the
Panel
granted the Company’s request for continued listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market
subject to the Company filing both its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2006 and its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006
with the SEC by no later than May 10, 2007.
On
May
10, 2007, the Company received notice from the NASDAQ Stock
Market that the Panel had granted the Company’s request for an extension of the
May 10, 2007 deadline. The extension was conditioned on the Company filing
its
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006, its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2006 and all required restatements with the SEC
by no
later than June 18, 2007.
On
May
14, 2007, the Company received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that
the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for continued
listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that its common
stock was subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice, which
the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to file
its report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 with the
SEC
by the required deadline. The Company had previously filed a Form 12b-25 with
the SEC indicating that the Company would be unable to file its Form 10-Q by
the
original filing deadline of May 10, 2007 due to the Company’s ongoing review of
its prior stock option grants.
On
May
25, 2007, EMCORE filed an appeal of the May 10, 2007 Panel decision to grant
the
Company’s request for an extension through June 18, 2007. EMCORE
appealed the May 25, 2007 decision on the sole ground that the Panel could
not
grant the Company beyond June 18, 2007 to file the missing Form 10-K, Form
10-Qs
and restatements. On June 8, 2007, the Company requested that NASDAQ
stay the Panel’s May 10, 2007 decision pending the Company’s appeal of that
action.
On
June
15, 2007, the Company received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market stating
that the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council (the “Listing Council”) has
stayed the previously reported May 10, 2007 decision of the Panel and any future
Panel determinations to suspend the Company’s securities from trading on NASDAQ,
pending further review by the Listing Council. Consequently, the Company’s
securities would continue to be listed and tradable on the NASDAQ Global Market
System until further action by the Listing Council to lift the stay, which
would
not occur prior to August 10, 2007. In addition, the Company was
invited to submit any additional information to the Listing Council for
consideration in its review by no later August 10, 2007.
On
August
10, 2007, the Company submitted a letter, in response to the Listing Council’s
invitation, requesting that the Listing Council exercise its discretionary
authority in favor of granting the Company an additional extension to regain
compliance with NASDAQ’s filing requirement. The Company is awaiting
the Listing Council’s response to this letter.
On
August
13, 2007, the Company received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating
that
the Company was not in compliance with the filing requirements for continued
listing set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and that its common
stock was subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. The
notice, which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s
failure to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2007 with the SEC by the required deadline. The Company had
previously filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC
indicating that the Company would be unable to file this Quarterly Report by
the
original filing deadline of August 9, 2007 due to the Company’s ongoing review
of its prior stock option grants.
On
October 2, 2007, the Company received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter
stating that the Company was not in compliance with holding its annual meeting
of shareholders within twelve months of the Company’s fiscal year end, as set
forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rules 4350(e) and 4350(g) and that its common stock
was subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. The notice,
which the Company expected, was issued as a result of the Company’s failure to
hold its annual shareholder meeting by September 30, 2007.
On
October 5, 2007, the Company has received a decision from the Listing Council
stating that, pursuant to its discretionary authority, it has granted the
Company an exception and allowed the Company until December 4, 2007 to
demonstrate compliance with all of the Global Market continued listing
requirements (the “Decision”). The Decision requires that the Company
file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 and its Form
10-Q for the quarters ended December 31, 2006, March 31, 2007 and June 30,
2007
with the SEC by the close of business on December 4, 2007. The
Decision also provides that if the Company has not filed these delinquent
reports with the SEC by the close of business on December 4, 2007, the Company’s
securities will be suspended at the opening of business on December 6,
2007.
Although
we believe the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K as of September 30,
2006
and our concurrent filings of the Form 10-Qs for the quarters ended December
31,
2006, March 31, 2007, and June 30, 2007 satisfy the Panel’s requirements, we
cannot assure you that the Panel will be satisfied with these
filings. See the Explanatory Note in our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 for a discussion of stock option
restatements that caused the delay in our SEC filings.
SEC
Investigation
The
Company informed the staff of the SEC of the Special Committee’s investigation
on November 6, 2006. After the Company’s initial contact with the
SEC, the SEC opened a non-public investigation concerning the Company’s historic
option granting practices since the Company’s initial public
offering. The Company has cooperated fully with the SEC’s
investigation. Although we cannot predict the outcome of this matter,
we do not expect that such matter will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position or results of operations.
Indemnification
Obligations
Subject
to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our current and former
directors, officers and employees in connection with the investigation of our
historical stock option practices, related government investigation and
shareholder litigation. These obligations arise under the terms of our
certificate of incorporation, our bylaws, applicable contracts, and New Jersey
law. The obligation to indemnify generally means that we are required to pay
or
reimburse the individuals’ reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and
other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. We are currently
paying or reimbursing legal expenses being incurred in connection with these
matters by a number of our current and former directors, officers and employees.
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 liability insurance policies that limits its exposure
and enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts
paid.
Intellectual
Property Lawsuits
We
have,
from time to time, exchanged correspondence with third parties regarding the
assertion of patent or other intellectual property rights in connection with
certain of our products and processes. Additionally, on September 11, 2006,
we
filed a lawsuit against Optium Corporation (Optium) in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for patent infringement.
In the suit, EMCORE and JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDSU) allege that Optium
is
infringing on U.S. patents 6,282,003 and 6,490,071 with its Prisma II 1550nm
transmitters. On March 14, 2007, following denial of a motion to add additional
claims to its existing lawsuit, EMCORE and JDSU filed a second patent suit
in
the same court against Optium alleging infringement of JDSU's patent
6,519,374. On March 15, 2007, Optium filed a declaratory judgment
action against the Company and JDSU. Optium seeks in this litigation a
declaration that certain products of Optium do not infringe United States Patent
No. 6,519,374 ("the '374 patent") and that the patent is invalid. The '374
patent is assigned to JDSU and licensed to the Company. Other than the filing
of
a Complaint, Optium has taken no action in this case, and the Company has not
been served.
NOTE
17. Income Taxes
As
a
result of its losses, EMCORE did not incur any income tax expense during the
years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004. A reconciliation of the
provision for income taxes, with the amount computed by applying the statutory
federal and state income tax rates for the year ended September 30, 2006 of
3.95% to income before provision for income taxes, is as follows:
(dollars
in millions)
|
Years
Ended September 30,
|
|||||||||||
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||||
Income
tax benefit computed at federal statutory rate
|
$
|
16.4
|
|
|
$
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.8
|
)
|
|
State
taxes, net of federal effect
|
|
2.7
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
||||
Non-deductible
executive compensation
|
|
0.9
|
|
-
|
|
-
|
||||||
Valuation
allowance
|
|
(18.1
|
)
|
|
5.4
|
|
5.6
|
|||||
Income
tax expense (benefit)
|
$
|
1.9
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
||||||
Effective
tax rate
|
3.95
|
%
|
0
|
%
|
0
|
%
|
Significant
components of EMCORE’s deferred tax assets are as follows:
(in
thousands)
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
Deferred
tax assets (liabilities):
|
|
|
||||||
Federal
net operating loss carryforwards
|
$ |
71,987
|
$ |
94,634
|
||||
Research
credit carryforwards (state and federal)
|
1,951
|
2,024
|
||||||
Inventory
reserves
|
2,149
|
2,751
|
||||||
Accounts
receivable reserves
|
146
|
112
|
||||||
Accrued
warranty reserve
|
365
|
431
|
||||||
State
net operating loss carryforwards
|
13,080
|
15,860
|
||||||
Investment
write-down
|
4,766
|
4,766
|
||||||
Other
|
2,440
|
1,586
|
||||||
Fixed
assets and intangibles
|
(8,553 | ) |
2,256
|
|||||
Total
deferred tax assets
|
88,331
|
124,420
|
||||||
Valuation
allowance
|
(88,331 | ) | (124,420 | ) | ||||
Net
deferred tax assets
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
As
of
September 30, 2006, EMCORE had net operating loss carryforwards for federal
income tax purposes of approximately $211.7 million, which expire beginning
in
the year 2021 through 2025. EMCORE also has state net operating loss
carryforwards of approximately $145.3 million, which expire beginning in the
year 2009. EMCORE also has federal and state research and development
tax credits of approximately $0.7 million and $1.3 million, respectively. The
research credits will begin to expire in the year 2007 through
2025. Utilization of EMCORE’s net operating loss and tax credit
carryforwards may be subject to a substantial annual limitation due to the
ownership change limitations set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 382
and similar state provisions. Such an annual limitation could result in the
expiration of the net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards before
utilization.
EMCORE
is
incorporated in the State of New Jersey, which presently limits the use of
net
operating loss carryforwards due to state government budget
deficits.
There
was
no tax benefit associated with exercise of stock options for the fiscal years
ended September 30, 2006, 2005 or 2004.
NOTE
18. Segment Data and Related Information
EMCORE
has two operating segments: Fiber Optics and Photovoltaics. EMCORE's
Fiber Optics revenue is derived primarily from sales of optical components
and
subsystems for cable television (CATV), fiber to the premise (FTTP), enterprise
routers and switches, telecom grooming switches, core routers, high performance
servers, supercomputers, and satellite communications data
links. EMCORE's Photovoltaics revenue is derived primarily from the
sales of solar power conversion products, including solar cells, covered
interconnect solar cells, and solar panels. EMCORE evaluates
its reportable segments in accordance with SFAS 131, Disclosures About
Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. EMCORE’s Chief Executive
Officer is EMCORE’s Chief Operating Decision Maker pursuant to SFAS 131, and he
allocates resources to segments based on their business prospects, competitive
factors, net revenue, operating results and other non-GAAP financial
ratios.
The
following table sets forth the revenue and percentage of total revenue
attributable to each of EMCORE's operating segments for the fiscal years ended
September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
Segment
Revenue
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
104,852
|
73
|
%
|
$
|
81,960
|
71
|
%
|
$
|
56,169
|
69
|
%
|
||||||||||||
Photovoltaics
|
38,681
|
27
|
33,407
|
29
|
25,716
|
31
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||
Total
revenue
|
$
|
143,533
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
115,367
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
81,885
|
100
|
%
|
The
following table sets forth EMCORE's consolidated revenue by geographic region
for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004. Revenue
was assigned to geographic regions based on the customers’ or contract
manufacturers’ billing address.
Geographic
Revenue
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
Revenue
|
%
of Revenue
|
|||||||||||||||||||
United
States
|
$
|
109,614
|
76
|
%
|
$
|
95,723
|
83
|
%
|
$
|
55,314
|
68
|
%
|
||||||||||||
Asia
|
28,537
|
20
|
13,725
|
12
|
15,148
|
18
|
||||||||||||||||||
South
America
|
1,230
|
1
|
3
|
-
|
416
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||
Europe
|
4,152
|
3
|
5,916
|
5
|
11,007
|
13
|
||||||||||||||||||
Total
revenue
|
$
|
143,533
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
115,367
|
100
|
%
|
$
|
81,885
|
100
|
%
|
Cisco
Systems, Inc. (Cisco) accounted for 12% and 22% of our total consolidated
revenue in fiscal 2006 and 2005, respectively. Motorola
accounted for 15% of our total consolidated revenue in fiscal 2004.
The
following table sets forth operating losses attributable to each EMCORE
operating segment for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and
2004:
Statement
of Operations Data
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
||||||||
Operating
loss by segment:
|
||||||||||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
(18,950
|
)
|
$
|
(13,884
|
)
|
$
|
(25,067
|
)
|
|||
Photovoltaics
|
(8,365
|
)
|
(4,348
|
)
|
(8,733
|
)
|
||||||
Corporate
|
(6,835
|
)
|
(2,139
|
)
|
(1,804
|
)
|
||||||
Operating
loss
|
(34,150
|
)
|
(20,371
|
)
|
(35,604
|
)
|
||||||
Total
other expenses (income)
|
(81,041
|
)
|
4,314
|
(7,228
|
)
|
|||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations before income
taxes
|
46,891
|
(24,685
|
)
|
(28,376
|
)
|
|||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
1,852
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$
|
45,039
|
$
|
(24,685
|
)
|
$
|
(28,376
|
)
|
Long-lived
assets (consisting of property, plant and equipment, goodwill and intangible
assets) for each operating segment as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 are as
follows:
Long-lived
Assets
|
||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Fiber
Optics
|
$
|
57,817
|
$
|
56,261
|
||||
Photovoltaics
|
42,087
|
37,861
|
||||||
Corporate
|
22
|
235
|
||||||
Total
long-lived assets
|
$
|
99,926
|
$
|
94,357
|
NOTE
19. Employee Benefit Plans
EMCORE
has a Savings Plan that qualifies as a deferred salary arrangement under Section
401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Under the Savings Plan, participating
employees may defer a portion of their pretax earnings, up to the Internal
Revenue Service annual contribution limit. All employer contributions are made
in EMCORE's common stock. For the years ended September 30, 2006, 2005, and
2004, EMCORE contributed approximately $0.9 million, $0.7 million, and $0.7
million, respectively, in common stock to the Savings Plan.
NOTE
20. Restatement of Consolidated Financial
Statements
Background
In
May
2006, EMCORE’s senior management voluntarily began an inquiry into the Company’s
historical stock option granting practices. The inquiry was not in
response to any governmental investigation, shareholder lawsuit, whistleblower
compliant or inquiries from media organizations. Based on an initial
review, senior management approached the Board of Directors and recommended
that
it form a Special Committee to examine EMCORE’s historical stock option granting
practices. The Board of Directors, pursuant to senior management’s
recommendation, appointed a Special Committee of three independent EMCORE
directors to investigate the Company’s historical stock option granting
practices.
Based
on
this independent investigation, senior management, in consultation with the
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, concluded that it was likely that
the
most appropriate measurement dates for certain stock option grants, under the
appropriate accounting treatment for stock options, differed from the recorded
grant dates for such awards. Accordingly, on November 6, 2006, as
initially disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K, senior management and
the
Audit Committee determined that the Company’s financial statements included in
its annual and interim reports and any related reports of its independent
registered public accounting firm, earnings press releases and similar
communications previously issued by the Company for the periods beginning with
fiscal year 2000 should no longer be relied upon.
There
was
no stock-based compensation expense for options as previously reported under
APB 25 for fiscal years 1997 through 2005. The following table
presents the effects of the revision of measurement dates on stock-based
compensation expense for options included in the determination of net
income (loss), for fiscal years 1997 through 2006, in accordance with the
provisions of APB 25 and SFAS 123(R). See Note 4, Equity, of
the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further
details.
Year
|
Net
Impact to
Expense
|
Common
Stock
|
Accumulated
Deficit
|
Net
Impact to
Shareholders'
Equity
|
||||||||||||
Fiscal
1997
|
$
|
58
|
$
|
58
|
$
|
(58
|
)
|
$
|
-
|
|||||||
Fiscal
1998
|
2
|
60
|
(60
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Fiscal
1999
|
568
|
628
|
(628
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Fiscal
2000
|
11,012
|
11,640
|
(11,640
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Fiscal
2001
|
611
|
12,251
|
(12,251
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Fiscal
2002
|
5,638
|
17,889
|
(17,889
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Fiscal
2003
|
|
5,013
|
|
22,902
|
(22,902
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||||
Cummulative
effect on opening retained earnings
|
22,902
|
|||||||||||||||
Total
Fiscal 2004
|
528
|
23,430
|
(23,430
|
)
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Total
Fiscal 2005
|
378
|
23,808
|
(23,808
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Total
Impact
|
$
|
23,808
|
Review
of Option Grants
The
Company’s stock option grants were organized into categories based on grant
type. The Company analyzed the evidence related to each category of
grants including, but not limited to, electronic and physical documents. Based
on the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company applied the applicable
accounting standards to determine, for every grant within each category, the
most appropriate measurement date. The principal grant categories
were as follows:
|
(1)
|
Retention
Grants
|
EMCORE
has a practice of granting stock options to employees for the purpose of
retaining and motivating key employees. Generally, the process for retention
grants involved the Board of Directors approving a pool of options to be
distributed to key employees. The Board of Directors then delegated to senior
management the authority to determine the terms and recipients and issue
the
awards under the Option Plans to non-executive
employees. Senior management, after receiving information from
the Board as to the pool of awards available, would then, in conjunction
with
others in the Company, compile the grant distribution list, select the exercise
price and issue the awards. The option grants were priced reflecting the
closing
price of EMCORE common stock on the previously stated grant date, which may
not
have been the date the terms were finalized. If executive management were
to
receive a grant as part of the overall retention grant, the Board of Directors
or the Compensation Committee would approve the amount and allocation to
these
individuals in advance and would provide that such grants were to be priced
at
the same time the stock options for the key employees were
completed. The Board of Directors adopted stock option distribution
guidelines in 2005 to be followed by senior management in their allocation
process to non-executive employees. The purpose of these guidelines was to
govern the distribution of stock option grants to employees at different
grade
levels to ensure consistency and reduce disparities across
divisions.
In
the
course of its review, management reviewed all retention grants issued by
the
Company, which represented approximately nine million stock options. Measurement
dates were selected based upon evidence of the most appropriate date that
a
final listing of employees and grant terms, including exercise price, had
been
determined and approved by management with the appropriate level of authority.
In those instances where the market price of the Company’s stock on the most
appropriate measurement date was higher than the option exercise price, the
Company recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded
no
financial statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market
value
on the revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted
under
generally accepted accounting principles. We noted instances, where subsequent
to the revised measurement date being established, the number of options
granted
to certain employees changed. In these instances, we treated such revisions
as a
modification and applied variable plan accounting to those awards subsequent
to
modification under the provisions of APB 25 and related interpretations.
No
changes were made to grants to senior management subsequent to the revised
measurement date. The total adjustment related to retention grants totaled
approximately $22.0 million, or approximately 90% of the total
adjustment.
|
(2)
|
New
Hire Grants
|
EMCORE
has a practice of granting stock options to eligible new employees on their
start date. The Board of Directors had delegated to senior management the
authority to make new hire grants under the Option Plans to non-executive
employees. The number of stock options awarded was generally based on stock
option distribution guidelines approved by the Board of Directors. The number
of
stock options granted were included in the employee's offer letter and the
grant
date and exercise price were determined on the employee's first day of
employment and the closing price of the Company's common stock on that
day.
Management
reviewed
each new hire grant that the Company made since EMCORE became a public
company. During this review, management determined that, absent evidence
that senior management or the Board of Directors granted options after an
employee’s hire date or the terms were not finalized as of the hire date, the
hire date was determined to be the most appropriate measurement date for
new
hire grants. In instances where the market price of the Company’ stock on the
most appropriate measurement date was higher than the option exercise price,
the
Company recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded
no
financial statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market
value
on the revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted
under
generally accepted accounting principles. All new hire grants with incorrect
measurement dates were granted prior to October 1, 2005. The total adjustment
related to new hire grants totaled approximately $1.9 million, or approximately
8% of the total adjustment.
|
(3)
|
Other
Equity Awards
|
Management
reviewed other stock option grants, which included promotion, non-qualified,
and
acquisition related option grants, as well as, stock awards granted as part
of
the Company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Measurement dates were selected
based upon evidence that a final listing of employees and grant terms, including
exercise price, had been determined and approved by management with the
appropriate level of authority. Evidence of a most appropriate measurement
date
was based upon Company e-mails or other correspondence that provided evidence
that the terms of the awards had been finalized and approved. In those instances
where the market price of the Company’s stock on the most appropriate
measurement date was higher than the option exercise price, the Company
recognized stock-based compensation expense. The Company recorded no financial
statement benefit for option grants issued above the fair market value on
the
revised measurement dates, as such benefit would not be permitted under
generally accepted accounting principles. The total adjustment related to
other
equity awards totaled approximately $0.6 million, or approximately
2%.
Tax
Impact
The
Company reviewed the implications of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code
which prohibits tax deductions for non-performance based compensation paid
to
the chief executive officer and the four highest compensated officers in excess
of one million dollars in a taxable year and concluded that no adjustments
to
our previously filed financials statements are required.
The
following tables present the effects of the restatement on the Company’s
previously issued consolidated financial statements for the years ended
September 30, 2004 and 2005 and as of September 30, 2005:
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
93,069
|
$ | (11,184 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
81,885
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
85,780
|
(8,429 | ) |
61
|
77,412
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
7,289
|
(2,755 | ) | (61 | ) |
4,473
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
21,927
|
(2,168 | ) |
260
|
20,019
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
23,555
|
(3,515 | ) |
18
|
20,058
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
45,482
|
(5,683 | ) |
278
|
40,077
|
|||||||||||
Operating
(loss) income
|
(38,193 | ) |
2,928
|
(339 | ) | (35,604 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(783 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(783 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
6,156
|
-
|
-
|
6,156
|
||||||||||||
Net
gain from debt extinguishment
|
(12,312 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(12,312 | ) | ||||||||||
Impairment
of investment
|
500
|
-
|
-
|
500
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net income of GELcore investment
|
(789 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(789 | ) | ||||||||||
Total
other income
|
(7,228 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(7,228 | ) | ||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(30,965 | ) |
2,928
|
(339 | ) | (28,376 | ) | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
(2,045 | ) | (2,928 | ) | (189 | ) | (5,162 | ) | ||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
19,584
|
-
|
-
|
19,584
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
17,539
|
(2,928 | ) | (189 | ) |
14,422
|
||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (13,426 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (528 | ) | $ | (13,954 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.72 | ) | $ |
0.07
|
$ | (0.01 | ) | $ | (0.66 | ) | |||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
0.41
|
(0.07 | ) |
-
|
0.34
|
|||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (0.31 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (0.01 | ) | $ | (0.32 | ) | |||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share calculations
|
43,303
|
-
|
-
|
43,303
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
127,603
|
$ | (12,236 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
115,367
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
106,746
|
(10,721 | ) |
40
|
96,065
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
20,857
|
(1,515 | ) | (40 | ) |
19,302
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
24,697
|
(1,686 | ) |
208
|
23,219
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
17,429
|
(1,044 | ) |
69
|
16,454
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
42,126
|
(2,730 | ) |
277
|
39,673
|
|||||||||||
Operating
loss (income)
|
(21,269 | ) |
1,215
|
(317 | ) | (20,371 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(1,081 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(1,081 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
4,844
|
-
|
-
|
4,844
|
||||||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
439
|
-
|
-
|
439
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
112
|
-
|
-
|
112
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
4,314
|
-
|
-
|
4,314
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(25,583 | ) |
1,215
|
(317 | ) | (24,685 | ) | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
-
|
(1,215 | ) | (61 | ) | (1,276 | ) | |||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
12,476
|
-
|
-
|
12,476
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
12,476
|
(1,215 | ) | (61 | ) |
11,200
|
||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (13,107 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (378 | ) | $ | (13,485 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.54 | ) | $ |
0.02
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.52 | ) | ||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
0.26
|
(0.02 | ) |
-
|
0.24
|
|||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (0.28 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.28 | ) | ||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
47,387
|
-
|
-
|
47,387
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Balance Sheet
As
of September 30, 2005
(in
thousands)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
ASSETS
|
||||||||||||||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ |
19,525
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
19,525
|
||||||||
Marketable
securities
|
20,650
|
-
|
-
|
20,650
|
||||||||||||
Restricted
cash
|
547
|
-
|
-
|
547
|
||||||||||||
Accounts
receivable, net
|
22,633
|
(2,470 | ) |
-
|
20,163
|
|||||||||||
Receivables,
related parties
|
4,197
|
-
|
4,197
|
|||||||||||||
Inventory,
net
|
18,348
|
(1,189 | ) |
-
|
17,159
|
|||||||||||
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
3,638
|
(109 | ) |
-
|
3,529
|
|||||||||||
Assets
of discontinued operations
|
-
|
7,249
|
-
|
7,249
|
||||||||||||
Total
current assets
|
89,538
|
3,481
|
93,019
|
|||||||||||||
Property,
plant and equipment, net
|
56,957
|
(2,418 | ) |
-
|
54,539
|
|||||||||||
Goodwill
|
34,643
|
-
|
-
|
34,643
|
||||||||||||
Other
intangible assets, net
|
5,347
|
(172 | ) |
-
|
5,175
|
|||||||||||
Investments
in unconsolidated affiliates
|
12,698
|
-
|
-
|
12,698
|
||||||||||||
Long-term
receivables, related parties
|
169
|
-
|
-
|
169
|
||||||||||||
Other
non-current assets, net
|
6,935
|
(891 | ) |
-
|
6,044
|
|||||||||||
Total
assets
|
$ |
206,287
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
206,287
|
||||||||
LIABILITIES
and SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
||||||||||||||||
Current
liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$ |
15,587
|
$ | (1,736 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
13,851
|
|||||||
Accrued
expenses and other current liabilities
|
19,086
|
(1,209 | ) |
-
|
17,877
|
|||||||||||
Convertible
subordinated notes, current portion
|
1,350
|
-
|
-
|
1,350
|
||||||||||||
Liabilities
of discontinued operations
|
-
|
2,945
|
-
|
2,945
|
||||||||||||
Total
current liabilities
|
36,023
|
-
|
-
|
36,023
|
||||||||||||
Convertible
subordinated notes
|
94,701
|
-
|
-
|
94,701
|
||||||||||||
Total
liabilities
|
130,724
|
-
|
-
|
130,724
|
||||||||||||
Shareholders’
equity:
|
||||||||||||||||
Preferred
stock, $0.0001 par, 5,882 shares authorized, no shares
outstanding
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Common
stock, no par value, 100,000 shares authorized, 48,023 shares issued
and 48,003 shares outstanding
|
392,466
|
-
|
23,808
|
416,274
|
||||||||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(315,971 | ) |
-
|
(23,808 | ) | (339,779 | ) | |||||||||
Treasury
stock, at cost; 20 shares
|
(932 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(932 | ) | ||||||||||
Total
shareholders’ equity
|
75,563
|
-
|
-
|
75,563
|
||||||||||||
Total
liabilities and shareholders’ equity
|
$ |
206,287
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
206,287
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
As
of September 30, 2004
(in
thousands)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (13,426 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (528 | ) | $ | (13,954 | ) | |||||
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash used for operating
activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Recognition
of loss on marketable securities
|
(25 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(25 | ) | ||||||||||
Stock-based
compensation expense
|
-
|
-
|
339
|
339
|
||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
2,045
|
2,928
|
189
|
5,162
|
||||||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations
|
(19,584 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(19,584 | ) | ||||||||||
Gain
from debt extinguishment
|
(12,312 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(12,312 | ) | ||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
15,219
|
503
|
-
|
15,722
|
||||||||||||
(Adjustment)
provision for doubtful accounts
|
(215 | ) |
37
|
-
|
(178 | ) | ||||||||||
Equity
in net income of unconsolidated affiliates
|
(789 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(789 | ) | ||||||||||
Compensatory
stock issuances
|
812
|
-
|
-
|
812
|
||||||||||||
Reduction
of note receivable due for services received
|
521
|
-
|
-
|
521
|
||||||||||||
Impairment
of investment
|
500
|
-
|
-
|
500
|
||||||||||||
Total
non-cash adjustments
|
(13,828 | ) |
3,468
|
528
|
(9,832 | ) | ||||||||||
Changes
in operating assets and liabilities, net of effect of
acquisitions:
|
||||||||||||||||
Accounts
receivable
|
(6,190 | ) |
424
|
-
|
(5,766 | ) | ||||||||||
Related
party receivables
|
110
|
-
|
-
|
110
|
||||||||||||
Inventory
|
(752 | ) |
1,510
|
-
|
758
|
|||||||||||
Prepaid
and other current assets
|
(560 | ) | (507 | ) |
-
|
(1,067 | ) | |||||||||
Other
assets
|
(1,009 | ) |
308
|
-
|
(701 | ) | ||||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
6,543
|
1,113
|
-
|
7,656
|
||||||||||||
Accrued
expenses and other current liabilities
|
992
|
(558 | ) |
-
|
434
|
|||||||||||
Total
change in operating assets and liabilities
|
(866 | ) |
2,290
|
-
|
1,424
|
|||||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities of continuing
operations
|
(14,694 | ) |
5,758
|
528
|
(8,408 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities of discontinued
operations
|
(4,218 | ) | (5,758 | ) |
-
|
(9,976 | ) | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities
|
(32,338 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(32,338 | ) | ||||||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Purchase
of property, plant and equipment
|
(4,173 | ) |
1,445
|
-
|
(2,728 | ) | ||||||||||
Cash
purchase of businesses, net of cash acquired
|
(3,386 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(3,386 | ) | ||||||||||
Purchase
of marketable securities
|
(49,621 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(49,621 | ) | ||||||||||
Sale
of marketable securities
|
17,475
|
-
|
-
|
17,475
|
||||||||||||
Investing
activities of discontinued operations
|
62,043
|
(1,445 | ) |
-
|
60,598 | |||||||||||
Net
cash provided by investing activities
|
$ |
22,338
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
22,338
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
(Continued
from previous page)
|
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
||||||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Repurchase
of convertible subordinated notes
|
(10
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(10
|
)
|
||||||||||
Payments
on capital lease obligations
|
(60
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(60
|
)
|
||||||||||
Proceeds
from exercise of stock options
|
2,642
|
-
|
-
|
2,642
|
||||||||||||
Proceeds
from employee stock purchase plan
|
911
|
-
|
-
|
911
|
||||||||||||
Convertible
debt/equity issuance costs
|
(2,500
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(2,500
|
)
|
||||||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
983
|
-
|
-
|
983
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
decrease in cash and cash equivalents
|
(9,017
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(9,017
|
)
|
||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
28,439
|
-
|
-
|
28,439
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$
|
19,422
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
19,422
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
As
of September 30, 2005
(in
thousands)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (13,107 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (378 | ) | $ | (13,485 | ) | |||||
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash used for operating
activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Stock-based
compensation expense
|
-
|
-
|
317
|
317
|
||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
1,215
|
61
|
1,276
|
||||||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations
|
(12,476 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(12,476 | ) | ||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
14,464
|
(1,287 | ) |
-
|
13,177
|
|||||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
439
|
-
|
-
|
439
|
||||||||||||
(Adjustment)
provision for doubtful accounts
|
(302 | ) |
12
|
-
|
(290 | ) | ||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of unconsolidated affiliates
|
112
|
-
|
-
|
112
|
||||||||||||
Compensatory
stock issuances
|
775
|
-
|
-
|
775
|
||||||||||||
Reduction
of note receivable due for services received
|
521
|
-
|
-
|
521
|
||||||||||||
Forgiveness
of shareholders’ notes receivable
|
34
|
-
|
-
|
34
|
||||||||||||
Total
non-cash adjustments
|
3,567
|
(60 | ) |
378
|
3,885
|
|||||||||||
Changes
in operating assets and liabilities, net of effect of
acquisitions:
|
||||||||||||||||
Accounts
receivable
|
(1,556 | ) |
769
|
-
|
(787 | ) | ||||||||||
Related
party receivables
|
(397 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(397 | ) | ||||||||||
Inventory
|
(59 | ) | (444 | ) |
-
|
(503 | ) | |||||||||
Prepaid
and other current assets
|
(1,142 | ) |
28
|
-
|
(1,114 | ) | ||||||||||
Other
assets
|
(978 | ) |
680
|
-
|
(298 | ) | ||||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
(477 | ) |
642
|
-
|
165
|
|||||||||||
Accrued
expenses and other current liabilities
|
(1,138 | ) |
173
|
-
|
(965 | ) | ||||||||||
Total
change in operating assets and liabilities
|
(5,747 | ) |
1,848
|
-
|
(3,899 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities of continuing
operations
|
(2,180 | ) |
1,788
|
378
|
(14 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities of discontinued
operations
|
-
|
(1,788 | ) |
-
|
(1,788 | ) | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities
|
(15,287 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(15,287 | ) | ||||||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Purchase
of plant and equipment
|
(5,357 | ) |
223
|
-
|
(5,134 | ) | ||||||||||
Investments
in unconsolidated affiliates
|
(1,495 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(1,495 | ) | ||||||||||
Investments
in associated company
|
(1,000 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(1,000 | ) | ||||||||||
Cash
purchase of businesses, net of cash acquired
|
(2,821 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(2,821 | ) | ||||||||||
Purchase
of marketable securities
|
(13,275 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(13,275 | ) | ||||||||||
Sale
of marketable securities
|
24,775
|
-
|
-
|
24,775
|
||||||||||||
Funding
of restricted cash
|
(547 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(547 | ) | ||||||||||
Proceeds
from disposals of property, plant and equipment
|
15
|
-
|
-
|
15
|
||||||||||||
Investing
activities of discontinued operations
|
13,197
|
(223 | ) |
-
|
12,974 | |||||||||||
Net
cash provided by investing activities
|
$ |
13,492
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
13,492
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
(Continued
from previous page)
|
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
||||||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Payments
on capital lease obligations
|
$
|
(43
|
)
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
(43
|
)
|
||||||
Proceeds
from exercise of stock options
|
936
|
-
|
-
|
936
|
||||||||||||
Proceeds
from employee stock purchase plan
|
1,005
|
-
|
-
|
1,005
|
||||||||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
1,898
|
-
|
-
|
1,898
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
103
|
-
|
-
|
103
|
||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
19,422
|
-
|
-
|
19,422
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$
|
19,525
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
19,525
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
NOTE
21. Selected Quarterly Financial Information
(unaudited)
The
following tables present EMCORE’s unaudited results of operations for the eight
most recently ended quarters. EMCORE believes that all necessary adjustments,
consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, have been included in the
amounts below to present fairly the selected quarterly information when read
in
conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes included
elsewhere in this document. EMCORE’s results from operations may vary
substantially from quarter to quarter. Accordingly, the operating results for
a
quarter are not necessarily indicative of results for any subsequent quarter
or
for the full year. EMCORE has experienced and expects to continue to experience
significant fluctuations in quarterly results.
The
selected quarterly financial data has been restated to reflect the
following:
·
|
As
discussed in Note 8 - Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges,
in August 2006, EMCORE sold its Electronic Materials & Device (EMD)
division to IQE plc (IQE). EMCORE’s quarterly financial information has
been reclassified to reflect the EMD business as a discontinued
operation.
|
·
|
Under
APB 25, the Company’s historical accounting method, this restatement
principally reflects additional stock-based compensation expense
relating
to the Company’s historical stock option
grants.
|
Statements
of Operations
Fiscal
2006
(in
thousands, except per share data)
|
(As
restated)
Quarter
1
December
31,
2005
|
(As
restated)
Quarter
2
March
31,
2006
|
(As
restated)
Quarter
3
June
30,
2006
|
Quarter
4
September
30,
2006
|
||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$
|
35,729
|
$
|
36,115
|
$
|
36,323
|
$
|
35,366
|
||||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
29,381
|
28,248
|
28,778
|
31,174
|
||||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
6,348
|
7,867
|
7,545
|
4,192
|
||||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
7,054
|
10,652
|
7,886
|
12,585
|
||||||||||||
Research
and development
|
4,273
|
4,734
|
5,053
|
5,632
|
||||||||||||
Impairment
of goodwill and intellectual property
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2,233
|
||||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
11,327
|
15,386
|
12,939
|
20,450
|
||||||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(4,979
|
)
|
(7,519
|
)
|
(5,394
|
)
|
(16,258
|
)
|
||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(330
|
)
|
(246
|
)
|
(263
|
)
|
(447
|
)
|
||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,297
|
1,359
|
1,331
|
1,365
|
||||||||||||
Loss
from convertible subordinated notes exchange offer
|
1,078
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Impairment
of investment
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
500
|
||||||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
424
|
||||||||||||
Net
gain on sale of GELcore investment
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
(88,040
|
)
|
|||||||||||
Equity
in net (income) loss of GELcore investment
|
(547
|
)
|
397
|
129
|
620
|
|||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of Velox investment
|
182
|
150
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses (income)
|
1,680
|
1,660
|
1,197
|
(85,578
|
)
|
|||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations before income
taxes
|
(6,659
|
)
|
(9,179
|
)
|
(6,591
|
)
|
69,320
|
|||||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1,852
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(6,659
|
)
|
(9,179
|
)
|
(6,591
|
)
|
67,468
|
|||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
(214
|
)
|
170
|
384
|
33
|
|||||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
-
|
2,012
|
-
|
7,499
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from discontinued operations
|
(214
|
)
|
2,182
|
384
|
7,532
|
|||||||||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$
|
(6,873
|
)
|
$
|
(6,997
|
)
|
$
|
(6,207
|
)
|
$
|
75,000
|
|||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
$
|
(0.13
|
)
|
$
|
1.33
|
|||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
0.04
|
0.01
|
0.15
|
||||||||||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
$
|
(0.12
|
)
|
$
|
1.48
|
|||||
Diluted
per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
$
|
(0.13
|
)
|
$
|
1.28
|
|||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
0.04
|
0.01
|
0.14
|
||||||||||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
$
|
(0.12
|
)
|
$
|
1.42
|
|||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
|
48,181
|
49,410
|
50,430
|
50,728
|
||||||||||||
Diluted
|
48,181
|
49,410
|
50,430
|
52,853
|
Statements
of Operations
Fiscal
2005
(in
thousands, except per share data)
|
(As
restated)
Quarter
1
December
31,
2004
|
(As
restated)
Quarter
2
March
31,
2005
|
(As
restated)
Quarter
3
June
30,
2005
|
(As
restated)
Quarter
4
September
30,
2005
|
||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$
|
25,137
|
$
|
26,859
|
$
|
29,916
|
$
|
33,455
|
||||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
22,668
|
22,424
|
23,609
|
27,364
|
||||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
2,469
|
4,435
|
6,307
|
6,091
|
||||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
5,185
|
4,605
|
7,527
|
5,902
|
||||||||||||
Research
and development
|
4,875
|
3,692
|
3,865
|
4,022
|
||||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
10,060
|
8,297
|
11,392
|
9,924
|
||||||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(7,591
|
)
|
(3,862
|
)
|
(5,085
|
)
|
(3,833
|
)
|
||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(233
|
)
|
(249
|
)
|
(297
|
)
|
(302
|
)
|
||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,202
|
1,202
|
1,202
|
1,238
|
||||||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
439
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net (income) loss of GELcore investment
|
(372
|
)
|
297
|
778
|
(591
|
)
|
||||||||||
Total
other expenses (income)
|
597
|
1,250
|
1,683
|
784
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(8,188
|
)
|
(5,112
|
)
|
(6,768
|
)
|
(4,617
|
)
|
||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
(1,089
|
)
|
151
|
(192
|
)
|
(146
|
)
|
|||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
-
|
12,476
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from discontinued operations
|
(1,089
|
)
|
12,627
|
(192
|
)
|
(146
|
)
|
|||||||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$
|
(9,277
|
)
|
$
|
7,515
|
$
|
(6,960
|
)
|
$
|
(4,763
|
)
|
|||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$
|
(0.17
|
)
|
$
|
(0.11
|
)
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
$
|
(0.10
|
)
|
||||
(Loss)
income from discontinued operations
|
(0.02
|
)
|
0.27
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
$
|
0.16
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
$
|
(0.10
|
)
|
|||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
46,994
|
47,265
|
47,426
|
47,861
|
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the three months ended December 31, 2004
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued Operations Adjustment (1)
|
Stock
Compensation Expense Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
26,964
|
$ | (1,827 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
25,137
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
24,889
|
(2,235 | ) |
14
|
22,668
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
2,075
|
408
|
(14 | ) |
2,469
|
|||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
5,560
|
(451 | ) |
76
|
5,185
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
5,059
|
(190 | ) |
6
|
4,875
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
10,619
|
(641 | ) |
82
|
10,060
|
|||||||||||
Operating
(loss) income
|
(8,544 | ) |
1,049
|
(96 | ) | (7,591 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(233 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(233 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,202
|
-
|
-
|
1,202
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net income of GELcore investment
|
(372 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(372 | ) | ||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
597
|
-
|
-
|
597
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(9,141 | ) |
1,049
|
(96 | ) | (8,188 | ) | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
(1,049 | ) | (40 | ) | (1,089 | ) | |||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (9,141 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (136 | ) | $ | (9,277 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.19 | ) | $ |
0.02
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.17 | ) | ||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
(0.02 | ) |
-
|
(0.02 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (0.19 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.19 | ) | ||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
46,994
|
-
|
-
|
46,994
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the three months ended March 31, 2005
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
30,430
|
$ | (3,571 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
26,859
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
24,901
|
(2,481 | ) |
4
|
22,424
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
5,529
|
(1,090 | ) | (4 | ) |
4,435
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
5,127
|
(554 | ) |
32
|
4,605
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
4,069
|
(379 | ) |
2
|
3,692
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
9,196
|
(933 | ) |
34
|
8,297
|
|||||||||||
Operating
(loss) income
|
(3,667 | ) | (157 | ) | (38 | ) | (3,862 | ) | ||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(249 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(249 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,202
|
-
|
-
|
1,202
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
297
|
-
|
-
|
297
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
1,250
|
-
|
-
|
1,250
|
||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
(4,917 | ) | (157 | ) | (38 | ) | (5,112 | ) | ||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
-
|
157
|
(6 | ) |
151
|
|||||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
12,476
|
-
|
-
|
12,476
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
12,476
|
157
|
(6 | ) |
12,627
|
|||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ |
7,559
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (44 | ) | $ |
7,515
|
|||||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.10 | ) | $ | (0.01 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (0.11 | ) | |||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
0.26
|
0.01
|
-
|
0.27
|
||||||||||||
Net
income
|
$ |
0.16
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
0.16
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
47,265
|
-
|
-
|
47,265
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the three months ended June 30, 2005
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
33,234
|
$ | (3,318 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
29,916
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
26,503
|
(2,902 | ) |
8
|
23,609
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
6,731
|
(416 | ) | (8 | ) |
6,307
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
7,902
|
(402 | ) |
27
|
7,527
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
4,061
|
(199 | ) |
3
|
3,865
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
11,963
|
(601 | ) |
30
|
11,392
|
|||||||||||
Operating
income (loss)
|
(5,232 | ) |
185
|
(38 | ) | (5,085 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(297 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(297 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,202
|
-
|
-
|
1,202
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
778
|
-
|
-
|
778
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
1,683
|
-
|
-
|
1,683
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(6,915 | ) |
185
|
(38 | ) | (6,768 | ) | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
(185 | ) | (7 | ) | (192 | ) | |||||||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$ | (6,915 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (45 | ) | $ | (6,960 | ) | |||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.15 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.15 | ) | ||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (0.15 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.15 | ) | ||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
47,426
|
-
|
-
|
47,426
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the three months ended September 30, 2005
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
36,975
|
$ | (3,520 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
33,455
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
30,453
|
(3,103 | ) |
14
|
27,364
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
6,522
|
(417 | ) | (14 | ) |
6,091
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
6,108
|
(279 | ) |
73
|
5,902
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
4,240
|
(276 | ) |
58
|
4,022
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
10,348
|
(555 | ) |
131
|
9,924
|
|||||||||||
Operating
income (loss)
|
(3,826 | ) |
138
|
(145 | ) | (3,833 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(302 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(302 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,238
|
-
|
-
|
1,238
|
||||||||||||
Loss
on disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
439
|
-
|
-
|
439
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net (income) loss of GELcore investment
|
(591 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(591 | ) | ||||||||||
Total
other expenses (income)
|
784
|
-
|
-
|
784
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
(4,610 | ) |
138
|
(145 | ) | (4,617 | ) | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
-
|
(138 | ) | (8 | ) | (146 | ) | |||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | (4,610 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (153 | ) | $ | (4,763 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.10 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.10 | ) | ||||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | (0.10 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.10 | ) | ||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
47,861
|
-
|
-
|
47,861
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the three months ended December 31, 2005
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
39,891
|
$ | (4,162 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
35,729
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
33,055
|
(3,750 | ) |
76
|
29,381
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
6,836
|
(412 | ) | (76 | ) |
6,348
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
7,263
|
(347 | ) |
138
|
7,054
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
4,434
|
(239 | ) |
78
|
4,273
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
11,697
|
(586 | ) |
216
|
11,327
|
|||||||||||
Operating
(loss) income
|
(4,861 | ) |
174
|
(292 | ) | (4,979 | ) | |||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(330 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(330 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,297
|
-
|
-
|
1,297
|
||||||||||||
Loss
from convertible subordinated notes exchange offer
|
1,078
|
-
|
-
|
1,078
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net income of GELcore investment
|
(547 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(547 | ) | ||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of Velox investment
|
182
|
-
|
-
|
182
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
1,680
|
-
|
-
|
1,680
|
||||||||||||
(Loss)
income from continuing operations
|
(6,541 | ) |
174
|
(292 | ) | (6,659 | ) | |||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
(174 | ) | (40 | ) | (214 | ) | |||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (6,541 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (332 | ) | $ | (6,873 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.14 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.14 | ) | ||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (0.14 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.14 | ) | ||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
48,181
|
-
|
-
|
48,181
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the three months ended March 31, 2006
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
41,162
|
$ | (5,047 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
36,115
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
32,473
|
(4,231 | ) |
6
|
28,248
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
8,689
|
(816 | ) | (6 | ) |
7,867
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
11,001
|
(399 | ) |
50
|
10,652
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
4,964
|
(240 | ) |
10
|
4,734
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
15,965
|
(639 | ) |
60
|
15,386
|
|||||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(7,276 | ) | (177 | ) | (66 | ) | (7,519 | ) | ||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(246 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(246 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,359
|
-
|
-
|
1,359
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
397
|
-
|
-
|
397
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of Velox investment
|
150
|
-
|
-
|
150
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
1,660
|
-
|
-
|
1,660
|
||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
(8,936 | ) | (177 | ) | (66 | ) | (9,179 | ) | ||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
-
|
177
|
(7 | ) |
170
|
|||||||||||
Gain
on disposal of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
2,012
|
-
|
-
|
2,012
|
||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
2,012
|
177
|
(7 | ) |
2,182
|
|||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (6,924 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (73 | ) | $ | (6,997 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.18 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.18 | ) | ||||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
0.04
|
-
|
-
|
0.04
|
||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (0.14 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.14 | ) | ||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share calculations
|
49,410
|
-
|
-
|
49,410
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
For
the three months ended June 30, 2006
(in
thousands, except per share data)
As
Previously
Reported
|
EMD
Discontinued
Operations
Adjustment
(1)
|
Stock
Compensation
Expense
Adjustment
|
As
Restated
|
|||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
41,954
|
$ | (5,631 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
36,323
|
|||||||
Cost
of revenue
|
33,336
|
(4,641 | ) |
83
|
28,778
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
8,618
|
(990 | ) | (83 | ) |
7,545
|
||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
8,182
|
(401 | ) |
105
|
7,886
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
5,152
|
(179 | ) |
80
|
5,053
|
|||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
13,334
|
(580 | ) |
185
|
12,939
|
|||||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(4,716 | ) | (410 | ) | (268 | ) | (5,394 | ) | ||||||||
Other
(income) expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
(263 | ) |
-
|
-
|
(263 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
1,331
|
-
|
-
|
1,331
|
||||||||||||
Equity
in net loss of GELcore investment
|
129
|
-
|
-
|
129
|
||||||||||||
Total
other expenses
|
1,197
|
-
|
-
|
1,197
|
||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
(5,913 | ) | (410 | ) | (268 | ) | (6,591 | ) | ||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations
|
-
|
410
|
(26 | ) |
384
|
|||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (5,913 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (294 | ) | $ | (6,207 | ) | |||||
Per
share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and diluted per share data:
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$ | (0.12 | ) | $ | (0.01 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ | (0.13 | ) | |||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
-
|
0.01
|
-
|
0.01
|
||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (0.12 | ) | $ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ | (0.12 | ) | ||||||
Weighted-average
number of shares outstanding used in basic and diluted per share
calculations
|
50,430
|
-
|
-
|
50,430
|
__________________
(1)
See
Note 8, “Discontinued Operations and Restructuring Charges” in Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
NOTE
22. Subsequent Events
|
1.
|
Strategic
Investment in WorldWater & Solar Technologies Corporation
(“WorldWater”)
|
On
November 29, 2006, EMCORE invested $13.5 million in WorldWater, a leader in
solar electric engineering, water management solutions and solar energy
installations and products. This investment represents EMCORE’s first tranche of
its intended $18.0 million investment, in return for convertible preferred
stock
and warrants of WorldWater, equivalent to approximately 31% equity ownership
in
WorldWater, or approximately 26.5% on a fully diluted basis. In
connection with the investment, EMCORE received two seats on WorldWater's Board
of Directors. EITF 02-14, Whether an Investor Should Apply the
Equity Method of Accounting to Investments Other Than Common Stock,
provides guidance on whether an investor should apply the equity method of
accounting to investments other than common stock. In accordance with
EITF 02-14, although the investment in WorldWater gives us the ability to
exercise significant influence over the operating and financial policies of
the
investee, since the investment does not qualify as in-substance common stock
the
equity method of accounting is not appropriate. In-substance common
stock is an investment in an entity that has risk and reward characteristics
that are substantially similar to the entity’s common stock. The risk
and reward characteristics of our investment are not substantially similar
to
WorldWater’s common stock because our investment’s liquidation preference is
considered substantive. Therefore, we are accounting for the
investment in WorldWater under the cost method of accounting and evaluating
it
for other-than-temporary impairment each reporting period.
On
April
9, 2007, EMCORE delivered a letter to WorldWater advising them that subject
to
the matters set forth therein, EMCORE would make additional investments in
WorldWater. Subject to signing definitive agreements, EMCORE intends to (1)
purchase 5,000,000 shares of WorldWater's common stock at $0.50 per share,
with
a five year warrant to purchase 1,250,000 shares of the WorldWater's common
stock at $0.50, under the terms of a Confidential Private Placement Memorandum
prepared by WorldWater and dated as of March 2007 and (2) complete the
$4,500,000 Tranche B investment previously agreed to in the Investment
Agreement, dated November 29, 2006 between EMCORE and WorldWater provided that
the purchase of shares pursuant to the Tranche B Investment will occur at a
purchase price of $0.40 per share and EMCORE will be entitled to 25% warrant
coverage at $0.40 per share. Subsequent to April 9, 2007, material
changes were made to the terms of the proposed offering discussed in (1) above,
and we elected not to participate.
|
2.
|
Restructuring
of the Company’s 5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due
2011
|
On
April
9, 2007, the Company entered into a First Supplemental Indenture (the “2004
Supplemental Indenture”) with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee
(the “Trustee”), which amends the Indenture, dated as of February 24, 2004 (the
“2004 Indenture”), between the Company and the Trustee, governing the Company’s
5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2011 issued thereunder (the “2004
Notes”). Also on April 9, 2007, the Company entered into a First Supplemental
Indenture (the “2005 Supplemental Indenture” and together with the 2004
Supplemental Indenture, the “Supplemental Indentures”) with the Trustee, which
amends the Indenture, dated as of November 16, 2005 (the “2005 Indenture” and
together with the 2004 Indenture, the “Indentures”), between the Company and the
Trustee, governing the Company’s 5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due
2011 issued thereunder (the “2005 Notes” and together with the 2004 Notes, the
“Notes”).
Each
Supplemental Indenture, among other things, increased the interest rate of
the
applicable Notes to 5.5% from 5.0%, reduced the Conversion Price (as defined
in
the applicable Indenture) from $8.06 to $7.01, provided for an increase in
the
Conversion Rate (as defined in the applicable Supplemental Indenture) in the
event of a Non-Stock Change of Control (as defined in the applicable
Supplemental Indenture), amended the restriction on payment of dividends,
amended the definition of “Events of Default” and provided for an additional
payment in certain circumstances in which the Company fails to comply with
its
reporting obligations under the applicable Indenture. The Supplemental
Indentures also provided a waiver of the Company’s failure to file certain
reports with the SEC.
In
order
to give effect to the Supplemental Indentures, the Company entered into a
Consent to Amendment and Waiver, dated as of April 9, 2007 (the “2004 Consent”),
with certain holders of the 2004 Notes (the “2004 Consenting Holders”), and a
Consent to Amendment and Waiver, dated as of April 9, 2007 (the “2005 Consent”
and together with the 2004 Consent, the “Consents”), with the holder of the 2005
Notes (together with the 2004 Consenting Holders, the “Consenting Holders”),
pursuant to which holders of at least a majority of the outstanding 2004 Notes
and at least a majority of the 2005 Notes consented to the execution and
delivery of the 2004 Supplemental Indenture and the 2005 Supplemental Indenture,
respectively. The Consenting Holders also waived any and all Defaults (as
defined in the applicable Indenture) and Events of Default (as defined in the
applicable Indenture) relating to any failure of the Company to observe or
perform any covenant or agreement contained in the Notes or the Indentures
as a
result of the Company’s failure to file with the SEC, or with the Trustee, its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006, its Annual
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 and/or any other
reports that the Company fails to file in a timely manner for reasons in whole
or in part directly or indirectly attributable to or arising out of the
Company’s review of its historical stock option grants as initially reported in
the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 6, 2006.
The Consenting Holders agree to rescind any notice of acceleration delivered
to
the Company with respect to such failure to file.
The
Consents also provided the Company with the option to repurchase an aggregate
of
$11.4 million of the outstanding principal amount of the Notes held by the
Consenting Holders at a purchase price equal to $1,000 per $1,000 principal
amount of the Notes purchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to
but
excluding the date of purchase. The Company exercised this option and
repurchased $11.4 million of its outstanding notes on April 13,
2007. Accordingly, the Company classified the $11.4 million principal
repayment as a current liability as of September 30, 2006.
|
3.
|
Acquisition
of Opticomm Corporation
|
In
April
2007, EMCORE acquired privately-held Opticomm Corporation of San Diego,
California, including its fiber optic video, audio and data networking business,
technologies, and intellectual property. EMCORE paid $4.0 million initial
consideration for all of the shares of Opticomm. EMCORE also agreed to an
additional earn-out payment based on Opticomm’s 2007 revenues. Opticomm is one
of the leading specialists in the field of fiber optic video, audio and data
networking for the commercial, governmental and industrial sectors.
|
4.
|
Option
Grant Modification for Affected Former
Employees
|
Under
the
terms of option agreements issued under the 2000 Plan, terminated employees
who
have vested and exercisable stock options have 90 days after the date of
termination to exercise the options. In November 2006, the Company announced
suspension of reliance on previously issued financial statements which in turn
caused the Form S-8 registration statements for shares of common stock issuable
under the option plans not to be available. Therefore, terminated employees
were
precluded from exercising their options during the remaining contractual
term. This November 2006 modification did not have any accounting
impact as there was no incremental compensation in accordance with SFAS
123(R).
To
address this issue with affected
former employees under the 2000 Plan, EMCORE’s Board of Directors agreed in
April 2007 to approve an option grant “modification” for these individuals by
extending the normal 90-day exercise period after termination date to a date
after which EMCORE becomes compliant with its SEC filings and the registration
of the option shares is once again effective. The Company is
preparing a plan of communication with its terminated employees relating to
the tolling arrangement which is expected to be finalized as soon as
reasonably practicable. We will account for the April 2007
modification of stock options as additional compensation expense in accordance
with SFAS 123(R).
|
5.
|
Section
409A
|
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 409A”) states that options granted with an exercise price below the fair market value are subject to a 20% excise tax on any gains derived from the exercise of such options if the options vested subsequent to December 31, 2004 and were exercised subsequent to December 31, 2005 (the “Affected Options”). The Company has taken certain actions to address the adverse tax consequences under Section 409A and a comparable provision of the California Tax Code (“California Section 409A”) resulting to individuals that received Affected Options. The Company participated in a Federal Internal Revenue Service and a California Franchise Tax Board program and paid the Section 409A and California Section 409A taxes and interest on behalf of these non-executives. The Company incurred and recorded approximately $0.3 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2007 in connection with its participation in these programs.
REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM
To
the Board of Directors and Shareholders of EMCORE
Corporation
Albuquerque,
New Mexico
We
have
audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of EMCORE Corporation
(the
"Company") as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of
the
three years in the period ended September 30, 2006. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on
our audits.
We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the
financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures
in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In
our
opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of EMCORE Corporation as of September 30,
2006
and 2005, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each
of
the three years in the period ended September 30, 2006, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
As
discussed in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company
adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based
Payment, effective October 1, 2005.
As
discussed in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements, the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2005, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
for
the years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 have been restated.
We
have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of the Company's
internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2006, based on
the
criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by
the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our
report dated October 30, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on management's
assessment of the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting and an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal
control over financial reporting because of material weaknesses.
/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany,
New Jersey
October
30, 2007
ITEM
9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial
Disclosure
|
None.
ITEM
9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
The
Company intends to maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to
provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in
reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) is recorded,
processed, summarized and reported within the specified time periods and
accumulated and communicated to management, including its Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer), as appropriate, to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure.
Management,
under the supervision and with the participation of its Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer), evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e)
promulgated under the Act), as of the end of the period covered by this report.
Based on that evaluation, management concluded that, as of that date, the
Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the
reasonable assurance level because of the identification of material weaknesses
in its internal control over financial reporting, as described below, which
the
Company views as an integral part of its disclosure controls and
procedures.
Attached
as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K are certifications of the
Company’s Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Interim
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), which are required
in
accordance with Rule 13a-14 of the Act. This Disclosure Controls and
Procedures section includes information concerning management’s evaluation of
disclosure controls and procedures referred to in those certifications and,
as
such, should be read in conjunction with the certifications of the Company’s
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Interim Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer).
Management’s
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management
is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control
over
financial reporting of the Company. Management’s intent is to design
this system to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the
United States of America.
The
Company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and
procedures that:
1)
|
pertain
to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately
and
fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets
of the
Company;
|
2)
|
provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary
to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and
that
receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in
accordance
with authorizations of management and directors of the
Company; and
|
3)
|
provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the Company’s assets that
could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
|
A
material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant
deficiencies, in internal controls over financial reporting such that there
is a
reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim
financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely
basis. Management performed an assessment of the effectiveness of the
Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2006,
utilizing the criteria described in the “Internal Control — Integrated
Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (“COSO”). The objective of this assessment was to determine whether
the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of
September 30, 2006. In its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting as of September 30, 2006, management determined
that
there were control deficiencies that constituted material weaknesses, as
described below.
(i)
Control Activities Relating to Stock Option
Grants
The
Company did not maintain effective controls over its granting of stock options
and the related recording and disclosure of stock-based compensation expense
under APB 25, SFAS 123, SFAS 123(R) and their related
interpretations. Specifically, effective controls, including monitoring,
were
not designed and in place to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
existence, completeness, accuracy, valuation and presentation of activity
related to the Company’s granting of stock options in the financial statements.
These control deficiencies resulted in errors in (i) stock-based
compensation expense, additional paid-in capital, related income tax accounts
and weighted averaged diluted shares outstanding and (ii) related financial
statement disclosures that resulted in the restatement of the Company’s
historical financial statements. Accordingly, management determined
that in the aggregate these control deficiencies constitute a material weakness
in internal control over financial reporting.
(ii)
Control Activities Relating to Non-routine and Non-Systematic
Transactions
The
Company did not maintain effective controls over non-routine and non-systematic
transactions. Specifically, the Company did not properly review and
analyze legal expenses, interest income, amortization expense, gross receipts
tax and other accruals. In addition, the Company had errors in
the classifications of bonuses and discontinued operations. This
control deficiency resulted in errors to the Company’s financial statements for
the fourth quarter of 2006. Accordingly, management determined that this
control
deficiency constituted a material weakness in internal control over financial
reporting.
Due
to
these material weaknesses, management determined that the Company’s internal
control over financial reporting was not effective as of September 30,
2006. Management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s
internal control over financial reporting has been audited by Deloitte &
Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in
their
report which is included herein.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There
have been no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting,
other than the changes discussed below, that have materially affected, or
are
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting.
Remediation
of Material Weaknesses
Management
is committed to remediating the control deficiencies that constitute the
material weaknesses described above by implementing changes to the Company’s
internal control over financial reporting. In addition, management has
established procedures to consider the ongoing effectiveness of both the
design
and operation of the Company’s internal control over financial
reporting. The Chief Executive Officer and the Interim Chief
Financial Officer of the Company have taken the responsibility to implement
changes and improvements in the Company’s internal control over financial
reporting and remediate the control deficiencies that gave rise to the material
weaknesses. Specifically, these changes include:
Remediation
Activities Relating to Stock Option Grants
The
Board
of Directors of the Company adopted a revised Incentive Stock Option Grant
Policy on November 13, 2006, that provided that:
|
·
|
Non-administrative
grant responsibilities other than with respect to new-hire options
are to
be set by the Compensation
Committee.
|
|
·
|
All
new-hire options be issued the later of an employee’s first day of
employment, or where applicable, the date the Compensation Committee
approved the terms of the new-hire grant and have an exercise price
of not
less than 100% of the fair market value of the Company’s stock on that
date. The Board will conduct a review of all new-hire grants to
ensure compliance with the Company’s policies and
procedures.
|
|
·
|
The
grant date for all options awarded to employees other than new-hire
options is the date on which the Compensation Committee meets and
approves
the grants.
|
|
·
|
The
exercise price of options other than new hire-options should be set
at the
closing price of the common stock of the Company on the date on which
the
Compensation Committee approves the
grants.
|
|
·
|
The
Company should, with respect to annual retention grants to employees,
maintain the practice of awarding retention grants to senior management
on
the same date and with the same exercise price as retention grants
awarded
to non-senior management employees.
|
|
·
|
No
additions or modifications to options grants should be permitted
after the
Compensation Committee has approved the option
grants.
|
|
·
|
All
grants are to be communicated to employees as soon as reasonably
practicable after the grant date.
|
Remediation
Activities Relating to Non-routine Transactions
Management
has also reevaluated its accounting policies and procedures related to the
above
mentioned non-routine accounting transactions which aggregated to a material
weakness. As part of our review, we have enhanced the review process
over non-routine transactions and the related accounting treatment by ensuring
that these transactions are subject to a more thorough and detailed
review.
Limitations
on the Effectiveness of Controls
Our
management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
does not expect that our disclosure controls or our internal controls will
prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how
well
designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance
that
the control system’s objectives will be met. Further, the design of a control
system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the
benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of
the
inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can
provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud,
if
any, within EMCORE have been detected. These inherent limitations include the
realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns
can occur because of simple error or mistake. Controls can also be
circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or
more
people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any
system of controls is based in part upon certain assumptions about the
likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design
will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future
conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with
associated policies or procedures. Because of the inherent
limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error
or
fraud may occur and not be detected.
REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To
the
Board of Directors and Shareholders of EMCORE Corporation
Albuquerque,
New Mexico
We
have
audited management's assessment included in the accompanying Report of
Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, that EMCORE Corporation
(the "Company") did not maintain effective internal control over financial
reporting as of September 30, 2006, because of the effect of the material
weaknesses identified in management's assessment based on criteria established
in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company's
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our
audit.
We
conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all
material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management's assessment,
testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal
control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for
our opinions.
A
company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by,
or
under the supervision of, the company's principal executive and principal
financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by
the
company's board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control
over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain
to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2)
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to
permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are
being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors
of
the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely
detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's
assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
Because
of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting,
including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of
controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented
or
detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods
are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.
A
material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant
deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material
misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented
or detected. The following material weaknesses have been identified and
included in management's assessment: (1) The Company did not maintain effective
controls over its granting of stock options and the related recording and
disclosure of share based compensation expense under APB 25, SFAS 123
and SFAS 123(R), and the related interpretations. Specifically,
effective controls, including monitoring, were not designed and in place to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the existence, completeness, accuracy,
valuation and presentation of activity related to the Company’s granting of
stock options in the financial statements. These control deficiencies
resulted in errors in (i) share based compensation expense, additional
paid-in capital and weighted averaged shares outstanding, and (ii) related
financial statement disclosures that resulted in the restatement of the
Company’s historical financial statements; and (2) The Company did not maintain
effective controls over the identification and review of certain non-routine
and
non-systematic accounting transactions. A thorough analysis of these
transactions, encompassing all of the relevant facts and accounting guidance,
was not performed. This control deficiency resulted in errors in
accrued expenses, interest income, amortization expense and legal expense,
as
well as misclassifications in the statement of operations related to
discontinued operations and the gain recognized on the sale of an
investment. These material weaknesses were considered in determining
the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the
consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended September 30,
2006, of the Company and this report does not affect our report on such
financial statements.
In
our
opinion, management's assessment that the Company did not maintain effective
internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2006, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Also in our opinion,
because of the effect of the material weaknesses described above on the
achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, the Company has not
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of September
30, 2006, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission.
We
have
also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of
and
for the year ended September 30, 2006 of the Company and our report dated
October 30, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on those
financial statements and included explanatory paragraphs relating to the
restatement of the consolidated financial statements, as discussed in Note
20 to
the consolidated financial statements, and the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, as
discussed in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements.
/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany,
New Jersey
October
30, 2007
ITEM
9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
PART
III
ITEM
10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate
Governance
|
Directors
and Executive Officers
Set
forth
below is certain information with respect to each of the directors and executive
officers of EMCORE.
THOMAS
J.
RUSSELL, Ph.D., 75, has been a director of the Company since May 1995 and was
elected Chairman of the Board on December 6, 1996. Dr. Russell founded
Bio/Dynamics, Inc. in 1961 and managed the company until its acquisition by
IMS
International in 1973, following which he served as President of that company’s
Life Sciences Division. From 1984 until 1988, he served as Director, then as
Chairman of IMS International until its acquisition by Dun & Bradstreet in
1988. From 1988 to 1992, he served as Chairman of Applied Biosciences, Inc.,
and
was a Director until 1996. In 1990, Dr. Russell was appointed as a Director
of
Saatchi & Saatchi plc (now Cordiant plc), and served on that board until
1997. He served as a Director of adidas-Salomon AG from 1994 to 2001. He also
served on the board of LD COM Networks until 2004. He holds a Ph.D. in
physiology and biochemistry from Rutgers University.
REUBEN
F.
RICHARDS, JR., 51, joined the Company in October 1995 and became Chief Executive
Officer in December 1996. Mr. Richards has been a director of the Company since
May 1995. From October 1995 to December 2006, Mr. Richards served as the
Company’s President. From September 1994 to December 1996, Mr. Richards was a
Senior Managing Director of Jesup & Lamont Capital Markets Inc. (an
affiliate of a registered broker-dealer). From December 1994 to December 1996,
he was a member and President of Jesup & Lamont Merchant Partners, L.L.C.
From 1992 through 1994, Mr. Richards was a principal with Hauser, Richards
&
Co., a firm engaged in corporate restructuring and management turnarounds.
From
1986 until 1992, Mr. Richards was a Director at Prudential-Bache Capital Funding
in its Investment Banking Division.
HONG
Q.
HOU, Ph.D., 42, has served as a director of the Company since December 2006.
Dr.
Hou joined the Company in 1998 and became President and Chief Operating Officer
of the Company in December 2006. Dr. Hou co-started the Company’s Photovoltaics
division, and subsequently managed the Company’s Fiber Optics division. In 2005
and 2006, Dr. Hou was responsible for managing the Company’s CATV and analog
products business. From 1995 to 1998, Dr. Hou was a Principal Member of
Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories, a Department of Energy weapon
research lab managed by Lockheed Martin. He was a Member of Technical Staff
at
AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1993 to 1995, where he engaged in research on
high-speed optoelectronic devices.
CHARLES
SCOTT, 58, has served as a director of the Company since February 1998. Since
January 1, 2004, he has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of William
Hill plc, a leading provider of bookmaking services in the United Kingdom.
Prior
to that, Mr. Scott served as Chairman of a number of companies, including
Cordiant Communications Group plc, Saatchi & Saatchi Company plc, and Robert
Walters plc.
JOHN
GILLEN, 65, has served as a director of the Company since March
2003. Mr. Gillen has been a partner in the firm of Gillen and
Johnson, P.A., Certified Public Accountants since 1974. Prior to that time,
Mr.
Gillen was employed by the Internal Revenue Service and Peat Marwick Mitchell
& Company, Certified Public Accountants.
ROBERT
BOGOMOLNY, 68, has served as a director of the Company since April 2002. Since
August 2002, Mr. Bogomolny has served as President of the University of
Baltimore. Prior to that, he served as Corporate Senior Vice President and
General Counsel of G.D. Searle & Company, a pharmaceuticals manufacturer,
from 1987 to 2001. At G.D. Searle, Mr. Bogomolny was responsible at various
times for its legal, regulatory, quality control, and public affairs activities.
He also led its government affairs department in Washington, D.C., and served
on
the Searle Executive Management Committee.
THOMAS
G.
WERTHAN, 50, served as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer from June 1992 to
February 2007 and has been a member of the Board of Directors since 1992. He
is
currently Chief Financial Officer of EPV SOLAR, Inc. a private company. Prior
to
joining the Company, he was associated with The Russell Group, a venture capital
partnership, as Chief Financial Officer for several portfolio companies. The
Russell Group was affiliated with Thomas J. Russell, Chairman of the Board
of
Directors of the Company. From 1985 to 1989, Mr. Werthan served as
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer for Audio Visual Labs,
Inc.,
a manufacturer of multimedia and computer graphics equipment.
Non-Director
Executive Officers
ADAM
GUSHARD, 37, joined the Company in December 1997 and has served as Interim
Chief
Financial Officer since February 2007. Previously, Mr. Gushard served as Vice
President of Finance and has extensive experience with the Company's financial
operations, controls, and corporate strategy, having served as an assistant
controller, controller and corporate controller at the Company. Prior to joining
the Company, Mr. Gushard was a certified public accountant with the public
accounting firm, Coopers & Lybrand LLP (now PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP). Mr.
Gushard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Finance from Pennsylvania State
University.
KEITH
J.
KOSCO, ESQ., 55, joined the Company in January 2007 and serves as Chief Legal
Officer, and Secretary of the Company. From 2003 to 2006, Mr. Kosco served
as
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Aspire Markets, Inc. and from 2002
to
2003 served as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of 3D Systems
Corporation, a high technology capital goods manufacturer. From 1998
to 2001, Mr. Kosco served as Director of Mergers and Acquisitions and Assistant
General Counsel of Litton Industries, Inc., a technology and defense company
that was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation in 2001. Mr. Kosco
also has over 17 years of experience in private practice with the law firms
of
Squire Sanders & Dempsey and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Mr.
Kosco received his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1979.
JOHN
IANNELLI, Ph.D., 42, joined the Company in January 2003 through the acquisition
of Ortel from Agere Systems and has served as Chief Technology Officer since
June 2007. Prior to his current role, Dr. Iannelli was Senior Director of
Engineering of EMCORE’s Broadband division (Ortel). Dr. Iannelli
joined Ortel in 1995 and has led several development programs and products
in
the areas of analog and digital transmitters/transceivers. He has made seminal
inventions in the areas of fiber optic transport in digital and broadband
infrastructures. He has numerous publications and issued US
patents. Dr. Iannelli holds a Ph.D. and MS degree in Applied Physics
from the California Institute of Technology, a BS degree in Physics from
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and a Masters degree in Business
Administration from the University of Southern California.
Additional
Information Regarding Directors and Executive Officers
Mr.
Robert Louis-Dreyfus, after serving as a director of the Company since March
1997, resigned his seat on the Company’s Board of Directors on October 30,
2007.
As
previously reported on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 20, 2006, Mr.
Richards will continue to serve as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer until
the Company’s Annual Meeting in 2008, at which time he will become Executive
Chairman and Chairman of the Board of Directors and Dr. Thomas Russell, the
current Chairman, will become Chairman Emeritus and Lead Director. At
that time, Dr. Hou will succeed Mr. Richards as the Company’s Chief Executive
Officer.
Audit
Committee
The
Company has a separately designated standing Audit Committee established in
accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Audit
Committee currently consists of Messrs. Scott, Gillen, and Bogomolny. Each
member of the Audit Committee is currently an independent director within the
meaning of NASD Rule 4200(a)(15). The Board of Directors has determined that
Messrs. Scott and Gillen are each audit committee financial
experts.
Section
16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Based
on
the Company’s review of copies of all disclosure reports filed by directors and
executive officers of the Company pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Exchange
Act,
as amended, and written representations furnished to the Company, the Company
believes that there was compliance with all filing requirements of Section
16(a)
applicable to directors and executive officers of the Company during the fiscal
year 2006, with the exception of November 8, 2005 filings for Messrs. Bogomolny,
Gillen, and Scott, and July 11, 2006 filings for Messrs. Bogomolny, Gillen,
and
Scott, which were reported one day late.
Code
of Ethics
We
have
adopted a code of ethics entitled the “EMCORE Corporation Code of Business
Conduct and Ethics,” which is applicable to all employees, officers, and
directors of EMCORE. The full text of our Code of Business Conduct
and Ethics is included with the Corporate Governance information available
on
our website (www.emcore.com). The Company intends to disclose
any changes in or waivers from its code of ethics by posting such information
on
its website or by filing a Form 8-K.
ITEM
11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
Executive
Compensation
The
following table sets forth certain information concerning the annual and
long-term compensation earned for services in all capacities to the Company
for
fiscal years ended September 30, 2006, 2005, and 2004 of those persons who
during such fiscal year (i) served as the Company’s chief executive officer, and
(ii) were the four most highly-compensated officers (other than the chief
executive officer) (collectively, the “Named Executive Officers”):
Annual
Compensation
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name
and Principal Position
|
Fiscal
Year
|
Salary
|
Bonus
|
Other
Annual
Compensation
|
Long-term
Compensation
Securities
Underlying
Options
|
All
Other
Compensation
|
||||||||||||||||||
Reuben
F. Richards, Jr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
President
and
|
2006
|
$ |
400,400
|
$ |
419,901
|
$ | 2,683,495 | (1) |
--
|
$ | 384 | (2) | ||||||||||||
Chief
Executive
|
2005
|
385,000
|
225,000
|
--
|
300,000
|
384 | (2) | |||||||||||||||||
Officer
|
2004
|
356,923
|
325,000
|
--
|
145,000
|
384 | (2) | |||||||||||||||||
Richard
A. Stall (3)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former
Executive Vice
|
2006
|
$ |
249,600
|
$ |
176,776
|
$ |
--
|
--
|
$ | 7,678 | (5) | |||||||||||||
President
and Chief
|
2005
|
243,000
|
75,000
|
28,304 | (4) |
45,000
|
7,384 | (5) | ||||||||||||||||
Technology
Officer
|
2004
|
231,615
|
100,000
|
--
|
50,000
|
8,350 | (5) | |||||||||||||||||
Thomas
G. Werthan (6)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former
Executive Vice
|
2006
|
$ |
248,440
|
$ |
115,000
|
$ |
--
|
--
|
$ | 7,232 | (9) | |||||||||||||
President
and Chief
|
2005
|
236,000
|
75,000
|
22,123 | (7) |
60,000
|
5,963 | (9) | ||||||||||||||||
Financial
Officer
|
2004
|
218,269
|
125,000
|
80,000 | (8) | 6,670 | (9) | |||||||||||||||||
Howard
W. Brodie, Esq. (10)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former
Executive Vice
|
2006
|
$ |
223,600
|
$ |
170,341
|
--
|
--
|
$ | 3,480 | (12) | ||||||||||||||
President
and Chief Legal
|
2005
|
215,000
|
75,000
|
--
|
45,000
|
3,663 | (12) | |||||||||||||||||
Officer
|
2004
|
205,961
|
125,000
|
--
|
60,000 | (11) | 5,187 | (12) | ||||||||||||||||
Scott
T. Massie (13)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former
Executive Vice
|
2006
|
$ |
260,000
|
$ |
100,000
|
--
|
--
|
$ | 7,615 | (14) | ||||||||||||||
President
and Chief
|
2005
|
250,000
|
93,750
|
--
|
67,500
|
7,384 | (14) | |||||||||||||||||
Operating
Officer
|
2004
|
197,482
|
80,000
|
--
|
40,000
|
6,884 | (14) |
____________________
(1)
|
In
February 2001, the Company made a loan to Mr. Richards in the amount
of
$3.0 million to avoid the necessity of Mr. Richards selling shares
of the
Company’s stock during periods of market volatility, given his position
with the Company. At the time the loan was made, it was viewed
to be in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders. In February 2006, Mr. Richards tendered
approximately $1.15 million in stock to the Company in partial payment
of
the loan, which included approximately $0.8 million of
interest. Later that same month, the Compensation Committee
forgave the remaining balance of the loan of $2.7 million and Mr.
Richards
agreed to pay all income taxes incurred as a result of such loan
forgiveness. The Company estimated that Mr. Richards’ tax
liability was approximately $1.3
million.
|
(2)
|
Amounts
shown consist of life insurance
premiums.
|
(3)
|
In
June 2007, Dr. Stall resigned from the
Company.
|
(4)
|
In
November 2004, the Compensation Committee forgave a loan made in
1994 by
the Company to Dr. Stall in the amount of $16,750. In light of Dr.
Stall’s
service to the Company, the Compensation Committee cancelled the
loan
through a bonus in the amount of $28,304, which includes repayment
of the
loan and additional cash to cover
taxes.
|
(5)
|
Amounts
shown for fiscal year 2006 consist of life insurance premiums of
$384 and
EMCORE’s matching contributions under its 401(k) plan of $7,294, which are
made in EMCORE common stock. Amounts shown for fiscal year 2005 consist
of
life insurance premiums of $384 and EMCORE’s matching contributions under
its 401(k) plan of $7,000, which are made in EMCORE common
stock. Amounts shown for fiscal year 2004 consist of life
insurance premiums of $384 and EMCORE’s matching contributions under its
401(k) plan of $7,966, which are made in EMCORE common
stock.
|
(6)
|
In
February 2007, Mr. Werthan resigned from the
Company.
|
(7)
|
In
November 2004, the Compensation Committee forgave a loan made in
1994 by
the Company to Mr. Werthan in the amount of $13,450. In light of
Mr.
Werthan’s past and continued service to the Company, the Compensation
Committee cancelled the loan through a bonus in the amount of $22,123,
which includes repayment of the loan and additional cash to cover
taxes.
|
(8)
|
In
October 2006, Mr. Werthan voluntarily surrendered all rights to the
80,000
unexercised stock options granted during fiscal 2004, as they have
been
identified as misdated during fiscal year
2007.
|
(9)
|
Amounts
shown for fiscal year 2006 consist of life insurance premiums of
$384 and
EMCORE’s matching contributions under its 401(k) plan of $6,848, which are
made in EMCORE common stock. Amounts shown for fiscal year 2005 consist
of
life insurance premiums of $384 and EMCORE’s matching contributions under
its 401(k) plan of $5,579, which are made in EMCORE common
stock. Amounts shown for fiscal year 2004 consist of life
insurance premiums of $384 and EMCORE’s matching contributions under its
401(k) plan of $6,286, which are made in EMCORE common
stock.
|
(10)
|
In
April 2007, Mr. Brodie resigned from the
Company.
|
(11)
|
In
October 2006, Mr. Brodie voluntarily surrendered all rights to the
60,000
unexercised stock options granted during fiscal 2004, as they have
been
identified as misdated during fiscal year
2007.
|
(12)
|
Amounts
shown for fiscal year 2006 consist of life insurance premiums of
$384 and
EMCORE’s matching contributions under its 401(k) plan of $3,096, which are
made in EMCORE common stock. Amounts shown for fiscal year 2005 consist
of
life insurance premiums of $384 and EMCORE’s matching contributions under
its 401(k) plan of $3,279, which are made in EMCORE common stock.
Amounts
shown for fiscal year 2004 consist of life insurance premiums of
$374 and
EMCORE’s matching contributions under its 401(k) plan of $4,813, which are
made in EMCORE common stock.
|
(13)
|
In
December 2006, Mr. Massie resigned from the
Company.
|
(14)
|
Amounts
shown for fiscal year 2006 consist of life insurance premiums of
$384 and
EMCORE’s matching contributions under its 401(k) plan of $7,231, which are
made in EMCORE common stock. Amounts shown for fiscal year 2005 consist
of
life insurance premiums of $384 and EMCORE’s matching contributions under
its 401(k) plan of $7,000, which are made in EMCORE common stock.
Amounts
shown for fiscal year 2004 consist of life insurance premiums of
$384 and
EMCORE’s matching contributions under its 401(k) plan of $6,500, which are
made in EMCORE common stock.
|
Option
Grants in Fiscal 2006
There
were no options granted to the Named Executive Officers during fiscal year
2006.
Aggregated
Option Exercises in Fiscal 2006 and Year-End Option Values
The
following table sets forth the number of shares acquired by the Named Executive
Officers upon options exercised during fiscal 2006 and the value thereof,
together with the number of exercisable and unexercisable options held by the
Named Executive Officers on September 30, 2006 and the aggregate gains that
would have been realized had these options been exercised on September 30,
2006,
even though such options had not been exercised by the Named Executive
Officers.
|
Shares
Acquired
On
Exercise (1)
|
Value
Realized
|
Total
Number of Unexercised
Options
at
September
30, 2006(2)
|
Value
of Unexercised
In-the-Money
Options
at
September
30, 2006(3)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Name
|
Exercisable
|
Unexercisable
|
Exercisable
|
Unexercisable
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Reuben
F. Richards, Jr.
|
267,500 | (4) | $ |
847,450
|
286,250
|
186,250
|
$ |
306,763
|
$ |
494,263
|
||||||||||||||
Richard
A. Stall
|
164,620
|
$ |
536,405
|
198,750
|
58,750
|
$ |
69,250
|
$ |
166,625
|
|||||||||||||||
Thomas
G. Werthan
|
37,546
|
$ |
148,531
|
265,000 | (5) | 85,000 | (6) | $ | 179,350 | (5) | $ | 244,100 | (6) | |||||||||||
Howard
W. Brodie, Esq.
|
122,500 | (7) | $ |
192,023
|
68,750 | (8) |
33,750
|
$ |
176,175
|
$ |
84,375
|
|||||||||||||
Scott
T. Massie
|
60,000
|
$ |
359,800
|
26,875
|
70,625
|
$ |
75,088
|
$ |
192,363
|
____________________
(1)
|
A
total of 652,166 options were exercised by Named Executive Officers
in
fiscal 2006. This includes 162,500 options that were
subsequently identified as misdated as a result of the stock option
review
discussed in the Explanatory Note immediately preceding Part I of
this
Annual Report. The gains recognized by Mr. Richards and Mr.
Brodie, as a result of the misdated options, were paid back to the
Company
in October 2006. See notes (4) and (7)
below.
|
(2)
|
This
represents the total number of shares subject to stock options held
by
each Named Executive Officer at September 30, 2006. These options
were
granted on various dates during the fiscal years 1997 through 2005
and
includes 503,750 exercisable and 121,250 unexercisable shares subject
to
stock options that were subsequently identified as
misdated.
|
(3)
|
These
amounts represent the difference between the exercise price of the
stock
options and the closing price of the Company’s common stock on September
29, 2006 for all the in-the-money options held by each Named Executive
Officer. The in-the-money stock option exercise prices range from
$2.63 to
$5.10.
|
(4)
|
Includes
192,500 shares acquired upon the exercise of stock options subsequently
identified as misdated. In October 2006, Mr. Richards
voluntarily tendered payment of $166,625, representing the entire
benefit
from his exercise and sale of these misdated stock
options.
|
(5)
|
Includes
187,500 options identified as misdated during fiscal year 2007, which
had
a value of $131,600. Mr. Werthan voluntarily surrendered all
rights to these options in October
2006.
|
(6)
|
Includes
40,000 options identified as misdated during fiscal year 2007, which
had a
value of $131, 600. Mr. Werthan voluntarily surrendered all
rights to these options in October
2006.
|
(7)
|
Includes
42,500 shares acquired upon the exercise of stock options subsequently
identified as misdated. In October 2006, Mr. Brodie voluntarily
tendered payment of $96,668, representing the entire benefit received
from
42,500 stock options exercised during fiscal year 2006 and 15,000
stock
options exercised prior to fiscal year
2006.
|
(8)
|
Includes
57,500 options identified as misdated during fiscal year 2007, which
had a
value of $148,050. Mr. Brodie voluntarily surrendered all
rights to these options in October
2006.
|
Director
Compensation
Pursuant
to its Directors’ Stock Award Plan, the Company pays non-employee directors a
fee in the amount of $3,000 per Board meeting attended ($3,600 for the Chairman
of the Board) and $500 per committee meeting attended ($600 for the chairman
of
a committee), as well as reimburses a non-employee director's reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with such Board or committee
meeting. From time to time, Board members are invited to attend meetings of
Board committees of which they are not members. When this occurs,
these non-committee Board members receive a committee meeting fee of $500.
Payment of fees under the Directors’ Stock Award Plan has historically been made
in common stock of the Company at the closing price on the NASDAQ National
Market for the day prior to the meeting. If the proposed amendment to the
Directors’ Stock Award Plan is approved at the Annual Meeting, payment of fees
under the Directors’ Stock Award Plan will be made, beginning with fees paid for
fiscal 2007, in common stock payable in one issuance annually based on the
closing price on the NASDAQ National Market for the date of
issuance.
In
addition, on October 20, 2005, the Board of Directors instituted an Outside
Directors Cash Compensation Plan providing for the payment of cash compensation
to outside directors for their participation at Board meetings. Director
compensation is established by the Board and periodically reviewed. One of
the
objectives of the Outside Directors Cash Compensation Plan is to provide the
Company with an advantage in attracting and retaining outside
directors. Each non-employee director receives a meeting fee for each
meeting that he or she attends (including telephonic meetings, but excluding
execution of unanimous written consents) of the Board. In addition, each
non-employee director receives a committee meeting fee for each meeting that
he
or she attends (including telephonic meetings, but excluding execution of
unanimous written consents) of a Board committee. Until changed by resolution
of
the Board, the meeting fee is $4,000 and the committee meeting fee is $1,500;
provided that the meeting fee for special telephonic meetings (i.e., Board
meetings that are not regularly scheduled and in which non-employee directors
typically participate telephonically) is $750 and the committee meeting fee
for
such special telephonic meetings is $600. Any non-employee director who is
the
chairman of a committee receives an additional $750 for each meeting of the
committee that he or she chairs, and an additional $200 for each special
telephonic meeting of such committee. Directors may defer cash compensation
otherwise payable under the Outside Directors Cash Compensation
Plan.
No
director who is an employee of the Company receives compensation for services
rendered as a director under either the Outside Directors Cash Compensation
Plan
or the Directors’ Stock Award Plan.
Employment
Contracts and Termination of Employment and Change-in-Control
Arrangements
Agreements
with Named Executive Officers
The
Company has entered into agreements with certain Named Executive Officers in
connection with their departures from the Company, as described more fully
below.
|
●
|
On
December 19, 2006, the Company entered into an agreement and release
with
Mr. Scott Massie specifying his severance benefits and releasing
the
Company from certain claims. Pursuant to the terms of the
agreement, the Company paid Mr. Massie $310,000 (equal to 62 weeks of
his salary), less applicable withholdings and deductions, in a lump-sum
payment on August 6, 2007. Additionally, Mr. Massie
elected to continue coverage under the Company’s health plans pursuant to
the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended
(“COBRA”), and the Company paid $6,029 in COBRA
premiums.
|
●
|
On
February 8, 2007, the Company entered into a severance agreement
with Mr.
Thomas Werthan specifying his severance
benefits. In accordance with the Company’s Severance Policy
adopted in 2004 (the “Severance Policy”), under the terms of the severance
agreement the Company paid Mr. Werthan $387,040 (equal to 82 weeks of
his salary), less applicable tax withholdings and deductions, in
a
lump-sum payment on September 14, 2007. Additionally,
Mr. Werthan elected COBRA continuation coverage under the Company’s
health plans and $7,235 was deducted from Mr. Werthan’s lump sum
severance payment, which represents the amount of Mr. Werthan’s portion of
the COBRA premiums. In connection with Mr. Werthan’s
resignation in February 2007 and pursuant to the terms of the promissory
note, the Board of Directors forgave his $82,000 loan with the
Company. Mr. Werthan was responsible for the personal taxes
related to the loan forgiveness.
|
●
|
On
April 17, 2007, the Company entered into a severance agreement
with Mr.
Howard Brodie. In accordance with the Severance Policy, under
the terms of the severance agreement, the Company will pay Mr. Brodie
$313,939 (equal to 68 weeks of his salary plus automobile expenses),
less
applicable tax withholdings and deductions, in a lump-sum payment
to be
paid on October 31, 2007. Additionally, Mr. Brodie
elected to continue coverage under the Company’s health plans pursuant to
COBRA. Pursuant to Mr. Brodie’s severance agreement, the
Company will pay the portion of the COBRA premiums, up to a maximum
of 68
weeks, equal to the amount that the Company would have otherwise
paid for
health insurance coverage if Mr. Brodie were an active employee of
the Company during such time. Also, until the lump sum
severance payment is made, the Company will pay Mr. Brodie’s portion
of the COBRA premiums, which total amount of premiums will then
be
deducted from Mr. Brodie’s lump sum severance payment. No
later than October 31, 2007, the Company will also pay
Mr. Brodie $55,341, less applicable withholdings and deductions,
representing the amount earned by Mr. Brodie under the Company’s 2006
Executive Bonus Plan.
|
|
●
|
On
June 25, 2007, the Company entered into a severance agreement with
Dr.
Richard Stall. In accordance with the Company’s Severance
Policy, under the terms of the severance agreement, the Company will
pay
Dr. Stall $470,400 (equal to 98 weeks of his salary), less applicable
tax withholdings and deductions, in a lump-sum payment to be paid
on
January 2, 2008. Additionally, Dr. Stall elected to
continue coverage under the Company’s health plans pursuant to
COBRA. Pursuant to Mr. Stall’s severance agreement, the Company
will pay the portion of Dr. Stall’s COBRA premiums, up to a maximum
of 98 weeks, equal to the amount that the Company would have otherwise
paid for health insurance coverage if Mr. Stall were an active employee
of
the Company during such time. Also, until the lump sum
severance payment is made, the Company will pay Mr. Stall’s portion
of the COBRA premiums, which total amount of premiums will then be
deducted from Mr. Stall’s lump sum severance
payment.
|
Agreements
with Other Executive Officers
In
connection with Dr. Hong Hou’s appointment as President and Chief Operating
Officer of the Company in December 2006, Dr. Hou’s annual base salary was
increased from $227,000 to $400,000. He also became eligible for the
Company’s 2007 Executive Bonus Plan providing him the opportunity to earn a
bonus equal to 80% of his base salary based on both Company-wide performance
and
individual performance as determined by the Compensation
Committee. Additionally, the Compensation Committee granted
Dr. Hou options to purchase 245,000 shares of the Company’s common stock
under the 2000 Plan at an exercise price of $5.76 per share, which was the
fair
market value (as defined in the 2000 Plan) of a share of the Company’s common
stock on December 14, 2006, the date of the option grant to
Dr. Hou. The Compensation Committee also approved an additional
grant of options to purchase 255,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to be
made in calendar year 2007 subject to compliance with the provisions of the
2000
Plan. The exercise price of the options to be granted in 2007 will be
the fair market value of a share of the Company’s common stock on the grant date
in 2007. The initial option grant for 245,000 shares vested on the
date of grant, December 14, 2006. The options to be granted in
2007 will vest in four equal installments over four years with the first 25
percent vesting in 2008 on the one-year anniversary of the date of grant, and
are subject to the terms and conditions of the 2000 Plan.
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The
Company’s Compensation Committee currently consists of Messrs. Gillen,
Bogomolny, and Scott. The Compensation Committee reviews and recommends to
the
Board of Directors the compensation and benefits of all executive officers
of
the Company, reviews general policy matters relating to compensation and
benefits of executive officers and employees of the Company, and administers
the
issuance of stock options and stock appreciation rights and awards of restricted
stock to the Company’s officers and key salaried employees. No member of the
Compensation Committee is now or ever was an officer or an employee of the
Company. No executive officer of the Company serves as a member of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of any entity one or more
of
whose executive officers serves as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors
or Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee meets at least once
annually.
BOARD
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT ON EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
The
following Report of the Compensation Committee does not constitute soliciting
material, and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into
any
other Company filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates this
Report of the Compensation Committee by reference therein.
The
Committee’s Responsibilities
The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors is composed entirely of
independent directors. The Compensation Committee is responsible for setting
and
administering policies, which govern EMCORE’s executive compensation programs.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the compensation philosophy and
policies that the Compensation Committee applied in making executive
compensation decisions in 2006. The Compensation Committee met three times
in
fiscal 2006 (October 2005, February 2006 and May 2006).
Compensation
Philosophy
The
Compensation Committee has approved compensation programs intended
to:
|
·
|
Attract
and retain talented executive officers and key employees by providing
total compensation competitive with that of other executives employed
by
companies of similar size, complexity and lines of
business;
|
|
·
|
Motivate
executives and key employees to achieve strong financial and operational
performance;
|
|
·
|
Emphasize
performance-based compensation, which balances rewards for short-term
and
long-term results;
|
|
·
|
Reward
individual performance; link the interests of executives with shareholders
by providing a significant portion of total pay in the form of stock-based
incentives and requiring target levels of stock ownership;
and
|
|
·
|
Encourage
long-term commitment to EMCORE.
|
Compensation
Methodology
Each
year
the Compensation Committee reviews data from market surveys, proxy statements,
and independent consultants to assess EMCORE’s competitive position with respect
to the following three components of executive compensation:
|
·
|
Base
Salary;
|
|
·
|
Annual
incentives; and
|
|
·
|
Long-term
incentives.
|
The
Compensation Committee also considers individual performance, level of
responsibility, and skills and experience in making compensation decisions
for
each executive.
Components
of Compensation
Base
Salary. Base salaries for executives are determined based upon job
responsibilities, level of experience, individual performance, comparisons
to
the salaries of executives in similar positions obtained from market surveys,
and competitive data obtained from consultants and staff research. The goal
for
the base pay component is to compensate executives at a level, which
approximates the median salaries of individuals in comparable positions and
markets. The Compensation Committee reviews, adjusts, where appropriate, and
approves the salary increases for executive officers, as such are recommended
to
the Committee by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. Any salary
increase for the Chief Executive Officer is reviewed by the Committee in
executive session. Due to the Company’s improved financial
performance in fiscal year 2005, the Committee approved base salary increases
of four percent for the Company’s
executive officers, including the Named Executive Officers (as defined below),
in October 2005.
Annual
Incentives. Pursuant to the Fiscal 2006 Executive Bonus Plan, bonus targets
for each executive officer of the Company were established to promote the
achievement of performance objectives of the Company. Half of an
executive’s bonus target was related to the Company meeting revenue targets and
half of the bonus target was related to the Company meeting EBIT targets set
forth in the Company’s fiscal 2006 budget. Based upon the Company’s
performance in fiscal 2006 and the recommendations of the Chief Executive
Officer, the Company’s executive officers, including the Named Executive
Officers, were awarded bonuses ranging from 38% – 64% of their respective base
salaries.
Long-Term
Incentives. Long-term equity awards consist of stock options, which are
designed to give executive officers and other employees of the Company an
opportunity to acquire shares of the Company’s common stock, to provide an
incentive for such employees to continue to promote the best interests of the
Company and enhance its long-term performance and to provide an incentive for
such employees to join or remain with the Company. Generally, stock
options vest in equal installments over a period of four or five years and
expire ten (10) years from the grant date. In fiscal 2006, no stock
options were awarded to any of the Company’s executive officers.
Compliance
with Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code
Under
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, EMCORE may not deduct annual
compensation in excess of $1 million paid to certain employees, generally its
Chief Executive Officer and its four other most highly compensated executive
officers, unless that compensation qualifies as performance-based compensation.
While the Compensation Committee intends to structure performance-related awards
in a way that will preserve the maximum deductibility of compensation awards,
the Compensation Committee may from time to time approve awards that would
vest
upon the passage of time or other compensation, which would not result in
qualification of those awards as performance-based compensation.
Compensation
of the Chief Executive Officer
The
Compensation Committee reviews annually the compensation of the Chief Executive
Officer and recommends any adjustments to the Board of Directors for approval.
The Chief Executive Officer participates in the same programs and receives
compensation based upon the same criteria as EMCORE’s other executive officers.
However, the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation reflects the greater policy-
and decision-making authority that the Chief Executive Officer holds, and the
higher level of responsibility that he has with respect to the strategic
direction of EMCORE and its financial and operating results.
The
components of Mr. Richard’s 2006 compensation were:
Base
Salary. After considering EMCORE’s overall performance and competitive
practices, the Compensation Committee recommended, and the Board of Directors
approved, a 4% increase in Mr. Richards’ base salary, to $400,400, effective
October 1, 2005.
Annual
Incentives. Annual incentive compensation for Mr. Richards is based upon
achievement of targets set by the Board of Directors. Based on the attainment
of
certain strategic corporate milestones, including the Company’s completion of
the sale of its membership interest in GELcore, LLC to General Electric
Corporation for $100 million and the sale of its Electronic Materials &
Device division to IQE RF, LLC for $16 million, in September 2006 Mr. Richards
received a payment of $255,000.
Pursuant
to due authorization from EMCORE's Board of Directors, EMCORE loaned $3.0
million to Mr. Reuben Richards, the Chief Executive Officer in February 2001
(“The Note”). The Note matured on February 22, 2006 and bore interest compounded
at a rate of (a) 5.18% per annum through May 23, 2002 and (b) 4.99% from May
24,
2002 through maturity. All interest was payable at maturity. On February 13,
2006, Mr. Richards tendered 139,485 shares of EMCORE common stock in partial
payment of the Note. Principal plus accrued interest on the Note totaled
approximately $3.83 million. The Compensation Committee of EMCORE’s
Board of Directors specifically approved the tender of shares, as permitted
by the Note, at the price of $8.25 per share, which was the closing price of
EMCORE common stock on February 13, 2006. On February 28, 2006, the Compensation
Committee resolved to forgive the remaining balance of the Note (approximately
$2.7 million), effective as of March 10, 2006. Mr. Richards’ tender of
common stock on February 13, 2006 was accepted as full payment and satisfaction
of the Note, including principal and accrued interest. Additionally, the
Compensation Committee resolved to accelerate and vest the final tranche of
each
of the incentive stock option grants made in fiscal 2004 and 2005 to Mr.
Richards, which constitute a combined accelerated vesting of 111,250 shares.
In
considering this matter, the Compensation Committee carefully considered Mr.
Richards’ past performance, including the recent appreciation in the stock price
and EMCORE’s improved financial performance, the facts and circumstances
surrounding the loan, Mr. Richards’ current compensation, Mr. Richards’
willingness to repay a portion of the Note and all resulting taxes totaling
$1.3
million, and the desire to retain Mr. Richards’ continued service to EMCORE.
EMCORE recorded a one-time charge of approximately $2.7 million in March 2006
for the partial forgiveness of the Note, plus a charge of approximately $0.3
million in stock-based compensation expense under SFAS 123(R) relating to the
accelerated ISO grants.
The
Compensation Committee conducts its annual review of Chief Executive Officer
performance and compensation after the close of the fiscal year, to assure
thorough consideration of year-end results.
This
report has been provided by the Compensation Committee.
October
29, 2007
COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE
John
Gillen, Chairman
Charlie
Scott
Robert
Bogomolny
|
Performance
Graph
The
following stock performance graph does not constitute soliciting material,
and
should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other Company
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates this stock
performance graph by reference therein.
The
following graph and table compares the cumulative total shareholders’ return on
the Company’s common stock for the five-year period from September 30, 2001
through September 30, 2006 with the cumulative total return on the NASDAQ Stock
Market Index and the NASDAQ Electronic Components Stocks Index (SIC Code 3674).
The comparison assumes $100 was invested on September 30, 2001 in the Company’s
common stock. The Company did not declare, nor did it pay, any dividends during
the comparison period.
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
||||||||||||||||||
EMCORE
Corporation
|
100.00
|
17.76
|
34.35
|
23.01
|
71.50
|
69.16
|
||||||||||||||||||
NASDAQ
Composite
|
100.00
|
81.95
|
123.82
|
132.99
|
152.97
|
164.09
|
||||||||||||||||||
NASDAQ
Electronic Components
|
100.00
|
66.58
|
105.38
|
106.99
|
127.83
|
126.75
|
ITEM
12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related
Stockholder Matters
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The
following table sets forth as of August 31, 2007 certain information regarding
the beneficial ownership of the Company’s voting common stock by (i) each person
or “group” (as that term is defined in Section 13(d)(3) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) known by the Company to
be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the voting common stock, (ii) each
Named Executive Officer of the Company, (iii) each director and nominee, and
(iv) all directors and executive officers as a group (10 persons). Except as
otherwise indicated, the Company believes, based on information furnished by
such persons, that each person listed below has the sole voting and investment
power over the shares of common stock shown as beneficially owned, subject
to
common property laws, where applicable. Shares beneficially owned include shares
and underlying warrants and options exercisable within sixty (60) days of August
31, 2007. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each of the beneficial
owners is c/o the Company, 10420 Research Road, Albuquerque, NM
87123.
Name
|
Shares
Beneficially
Owned
|
Percent
of
Common
Stock
|
||||||
Robert
Bogomolny
|
86,972
|
*
|
||||||
John
Gillen
|
29,242
|
*
|
||||||
Robert
Louis-Dreyfus (1)
|
3,303,259
|
6.5 | % | |||||
Thomas
J. Russell (2)
|
5,023,791
|
9.8 | % | |||||
Charles
Scott (3)
|
42,409
|
*
|
||||||
Reuben
F. Richards, Jr. (4)
|
1,052,054
|
2.0 | % | |||||
Richard
A. Stall (5)
|
284,780
|
*
|
||||||
Thomas
G. Werthan
|
16,266
|
*
|
||||||
Howard
W. Brodie, Esq.
(6)
|
11,250
|
*
|
||||||
Scott
T. Massie (7)
|
302
|
*
|
||||||
All
directors and executive officers as a group (11 persons) (8)
|
10,300,187
|
19.8 | % | |||||
Alexandra
Global Master Fund Ltd. (9)
|
3,222,503
|
6.3 | % | |||||
AMVESCAP
PLC (10)
|
4,000,005
|
7.8 | % | |||||
Kern
Capital Management, LLC (11)
|
2,691,300
|
5.3 | % | |||||
Kopp
Investment Advisors, LLC (12)
|
4,082,020
|
8.0 | % | |||||
The
Quercus Trust (13)
|
4,926,745
|
9.7 | % |
__________________
*
|
Less
than 1.0%
|
(1)
|
All
3,303,259 shares held by Gallium Enterprises Inc. Mr. Robert
Louis-Dreyfus, after serving as a director of the Company since March
1997
resigned his seat on the Company’s Board of Directors on October 30,
2007.
|
(2)
|
Includes
2,280,035 shares held by The AER
Trust.
|
(3)
|
Includes
30,409 shares owned by Kircal, Ltd.
|
(4)
|
Includes
options to purchase 397,500 shares and 175,000 shares held by
spouse.
|
(5)
|
Includes
options to purchase 222,500 shares and 548 shares held by 401(k)
plan.
|
(6)
|
Includes
options to purchase 11,250 shares.
|
(7)
|
Shares
held by 401(k) plan.
|
(8)
|
Includes
options to purchase 1,012,729 shares beneficially owned by Reuben
Richards, Jr., Chief Executive Officer; Hong Hou, President and Chief
Operating Officer; Adam Gushard, Interim Chief Financial Officer;
and John
Iannelli, Chief Technology Officer. No options to purchase
shares were beneficially owned by the six directors (including Thomas
Werthan), or Keith Kosco, Chief Legal Officer. Richard Stall,
Howard Brodie, and Scott Massie resigned from the Company prior to
August
31, 2007 and are not included in this
total.
|
(9)
|
This
information is based solely on information contained in a Schedule
13G
filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on February 14,
2007, by Alexandra Global Master Fund Ltd. (“Alexandra
Global”). Alexandra Investment Management, LLC (“Alexandra
Management,” which is investment advisor to Alexandra Global) and Mikhail
A. Filimonov (“Filimonov”), Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Managing
Member, and Chief Investment Officer of Alexandra Management may
be deemed
to share voting and dispositive power with respect to the shares
owned by
Alexandra Global by reason of their respective relationships with
Alexandra Global. Alexandra Management and Filimonov disclaim
beneficial ownership of all such shares. The address of
Alexandra Global is Citco Building, Wickams Cay, P.O. Box 662, Road
Town,
Tortola, British Virgin Islands. The address of Alexandra
Management and Filimonov is 767 Third Avenue, 39th Floor, New York,
New
York 10017.
|
(10)
|
This
information is based solely on information contained in a Schedule
13G
filed with the SEC on February 14, 2007, by AMVESCAP PLC, a U.K.
entity,
on behalf of itself and PowerShares Capital Management LLC, a U.S.
entity
(“PowerShares”). The shares reported for AMVESCAP PLC represent the total
shares held by AMVESCAP PLC through PowerShares. The address of
AMVESCAP PLC is 30 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1AG,
England. The address of AMVESCAP PLC is 30 Finsbury Square,
London EC2A 1AG, England.
|
(11)
|
This
information is based solely on information contained in a Schedule
13G
filed with the SEC on February 14, 2007, by Kern Capital Management,
LLC
(“KCM”), Robert E. Kern, Jr. (“R. Kern,” controlling member of KCM), and
David G. Kern (“D. Kern,” controlling member of KCM). As
controlling members of KCM, R. Kern and D. Kern may be deemed the
beneficial owners of the shares owned by KCM. R. Kern and D.
Kern expressly disclaim beneficial ownership of all such
shares. The address of KCM, R. Kern, and D. Kern is 114 West
47th
Street, Suite 1926, New York, New York
10036.
|
(12)
|
This
information is based solely on information contained in a Schedule
13D
filed with the SEC on July 17, 2007, by Kopp Investment Advisors,
LLC
(“KIA”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kopp Holding Company, LLC (“KH
LLC”), which, is controlled by Mr. LeRoy C. Kopp (“L. Kopp”) through Kopp
Holding Company (collectively, the “Kopp Parties”). KIA reports
beneficially owning a total of 3,866,520 shares including having
sole
voting power over 3,866,520 shares and shared dispositive power over
2,641,020 shares. KH LLC reports beneficially owning a total of
3,866,520 shares. Kopp Holding Company reports beneficially
owning a total of 3,866,520 shares. L. Kopp reports
beneficially owning a total of 4,082,020 shares, including having
sole
dispositive power over 1,441,000 shares. The address of the
Kopp Parties is 7701 France Avenue South, Suite 500, Edina, Minnesota
55435. The address of Kopp Investment Advisors, LLC is 7701 France
Avenue
South, Suite 500, Edina, Minnesota
55435.
|
(13)
|
This
information is based solely on information contained in a Schedule
13D
filed with the SEC on August 24, 2007, by The Quercus Trust, David
Gelbaum
and Monica Chavez Gelbaum. David Gelbaum, Trustee, The Quercus
Trust, reports beneficially owning a total of 4,926,745 shares and
sharing
voting and dispositive power with respect to such
shares. Monica Chavez Gelbaum, Trustee, The Quercus Trust,
reports beneficially owning a total of 4,926,745 shares and sharing
voting
and dispositive power with respect to such shares. The address of
David
Gelbaum, an individual, as co-trustee of the Quercus Trust and Monica
Chavez Gelbaum, an individual, as co-trustee of the Quercus Trust
is 2309
Santiago Drive, Newport Beach, California
92660.
|
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The
following table sets forth, as of September 30, 2006, the number of securities
outstanding under each of EMCORE’s stock option plans, the weighted average
exercise price of such options, and the number of options available for grant
under such plans:
Plan
Category
|
Number
of securities
to
be issued upon
exercise
of outstanding
options,
warrants and rights
|
Weighted-average
exercise
price
of
outstanding options,
warrants
and rights
|
Number
of securities
remaining
available for future issuance under equity compensation
plans
(excluding
securities
reflected
in
column
(a))
|
|||||||||
(a)
|
(b)
|
(c)
|
||||||||||
Equity
compensation plans approved by security holders
|
6,230,615
|
$ |
5.49
|
1,229,128
|
||||||||
Equity
compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
1,920
|
0.23
|
-
|
|||||||||
Total
|
6,232,535
|
$ |
5.49
|
1,229,128
|
ITEM
13.
|
Certain
Relationships, Related Transactions and Director
Independence
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions
From
time
to time, prior to July 2002, EMCORE loaned money to certain of its executive
officers and directors. Pursuant to due authorization from EMCORE's Board of
Directors, EMCORE loaned $3.0 million to Mr. Reuben Richards, the Chief
Executive Officer in February 2001 (“The Note”). The Note matured on February
22, 2006 and bore interest compounded at a rate of (a) 5.18% per annum through
May 23, 2002 and (b) 4.99% from May 24, 2002 through maturity. All interest
was
payable at maturity. On February 13, 2006, Mr. Richards tendered 139,485 shares
of EMCORE common stock in partial payment of the Note. Principal plus accrued
interest on the Note totaled approximately $3.83 million. The Compensation
Committee of EMCORE’s Board of Directors specifically approved the tender
of shares, as permitted by the Note, at the price of $8.25 per share, which
was
the closing price of EMCORE common stock on February 13, 2006. On February
28,
2006, the Compensation Committee resolved to forgive the remaining balance
of
the Note (approximately $2.7 million), effective as of March 10, 2006. Mr.
Richards’ tender of common stock on February 13, 2006 was accepted as full
payment and satisfaction of the Note, including principal and accrued
interest. Additionally, the Compensation Committee resolved to accelerate
and vest the final tranche of each of the incentive stock option grants made
in
fiscal 2004 and 2005 to Mr. Richards, which constitute a combined accelerated
vesting of 111,250 shares. In considering this matter, the Compensation
Committee carefully considered Mr. Richards’ past performance, including the
recent appreciation in the stock price and EMCORE’s improved financial
performance, the facts and circumstances surrounding the loan, Mr. Richards’
current compensation, Mr. Richards’ willingness to repay a portion of the Note
and all resulting taxes totaling $1.3 million, and the desire to retain Mr.
Richards’ continued service to EMCORE. EMCORE recorded a one-time charge of
approximately $2.7 million in March 2006 for the partial forgiveness of the
Note, plus a charge of approximately $0.3 million in stock-based compensation
expense under SFAS 123(R) relating to the accelerated ISO grants.
In
addition, pursuant to due authorization of EMCORE's Board of Directors, EMCORE
also loaned $85,000 to Mr. Werthan, the former Chief Financial Officer, in
December 1995. This loan did not bear interest and provided for offset of the
loan via bonuses payable to Mr. Werthan over a period of up to 25
years. In connection with Mr. Werthan’s resignation in February
2007 and pursuant to the terms of the promissory note, the Board of Directors
forgave the remaining portion of his outstanding loan that totaled
$82,000. Mr. Werthan was responsible for the personal taxes related
to the loan forgiveness.
The
remaining related party receivable balance of approximately $121,000 as of
September 30, 2006 relates to multiple interest bearing loans from EMCORE to
an
officer (who is not an executive officer) that were made during 1997 through
2000 and are payable on demand. These loans, including accrued
interest, were paid back to the Company in December 2006.
During
the first quarter of fiscal 2005, pursuant to due authorization of the Company’s
Compensation Committee, EMCORE wrote-off $34,000 of notes receivable that were
issued in 1994 to certain EMCORE employees.
ITEM
14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and
Services
|
Registered
Public Accounting Firm
Deloitte
& Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, audited the
financial statements of EMCORE Corporation for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2006. The Audit Committee and the Board of Directors have selected Deloitte
& Touche LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007. The ratification of the
appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP will be determined by the vote of the
holders of a majority of the shares present in person or represented by proxy
at
the Annual Meeting. If this appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP is not
ratified by shareholders, the Board of Directors will appoint another
independent registered public accounting firm whose appointment for any period
subsequent to the Annual Meeting will be subject to the approval of shareholders
at that meeting.
Representatives
of Deloitte & Touche LLP are expected to attend the Annual Meeting. They
will have the opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so, and
are
expected to be available to answer appropriate questions.
Fiscal
2006 & 2005 Fees and Services
Deloitte
& Touche LLP was the independent registered public accounting firm that
audited EMCORE’s financial statements for fiscal 2006 and 2005. In addition to
performing the audit services for fiscal 2006 and 2005, the Company also
retained Deloitte & Touche LLP to perform other non-audit related services
during these periods.
The
aggregate fees billed by Deloitte & Touche LLP in connection with audit and
non-audit services rendered for fiscal 2006 and 2005 are as
follows:
Fiscal
2006
|
Fiscal
2005
|
|||||||
Audit
fees (1)
|
$ |
1,170,000
|
$ |
638,000
|
||||
Audit-related
fees (2)
|
34,000
|
28,000
|
||||||
Tax
fees (3)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
All
other fees
(4)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Total
|
$ |
1,204,000
|
$ |
666,000
|
Notes
(1)
|
Represents
fees billed for professional services rendered in connection with
the
audit of our annual consolidated financial statements, reviews of
our
quarterly consolidated financial statements, advice provided on accounting
matters that arose in connection with audit services, comfort letters,
consents, assistance with and review of documents filed with the
SEC and
attest services pursuant to SOX 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002.
Fiscal 2006 included $488,000 of audit fees for professional services
rendered in connection with the audit of our internal controls over
financial reporting (SOX 404
compliance).
|
(2)
|
Represents
fees for professional services related to the audits of our employee
benefit plan and other statutory or regulatory
filings.
|
(3)
|
Not
applicable.
|
(4)
|
Not
applicable.
|
Audit
Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
In
accordance with its charter, the Audit Committee approves in advance all audit
and non-audit services to be rendered by our independent public accountants.
In
considering whether to approve such services, the Audit Committee will consider
the following:
|
·
|
Whether
the services are performed principally for the Audit
Committee
|
|
·
|
The
effect of the service, if any, on audit effectiveness or on the quality
and timeliness of the Company’s financial reporting
process
|
|
·
|
Whether
the service would be performed by a specialist (e.g. technology
specialist) and who also provide audit support and whether that would
hinder independence
|
|
·
|
Whether
the service would be performed by audit personnel and, if so, whether
it
will enhance the knowledge of the Company’s
business
|
|
·
|
Whether
the role of those performing the service would be inconsistent with
the
auditor’s role (e.g., a role where neutrality, impartiality and auditor
skepticism are likely to be
subverted)
|
|
·
|
Whether
the audit firm’s personnel would be assuming a management role or creating
a mutuality of interest with
management
|
|
·
|
Whether
the auditors would be in effect auditing their own
numbers
|
|
·
|
Whether
the project must be started and completed very
quickly
|
|
·
|
Whether
the audit firm has unique expertise in the service,
and
|
|
·
|
The
size of the fee(s) for the non-audit
service(s).
|
PART
IV
ITEM
15.
|
Exhibits
and Financial Statement
Schedules.
|
(a)(1)
|
Financial
Statements
|
Included
in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:
Consolidated
Statements of Operations for the fiscal years ended September 30,
2006,
2005 (as restated), and 2004 (as restated)
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 (as
restated)
|
Consolidated
Statements of Shareholders’ Equity for the fiscal years ended September
30, 2006, 2005 (as restated), and 2004 (as restated)
|
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows for the fiscal years ended September 30,
2006,
2005 (as restated), and 2004 (as restated)
|
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm
|
(a)(2)
|
Financial
Statement Schedules
|
The
applicable financial statement schedules required under this Item 15(a)(2)
are
presented in the Company's consolidated financial statements and notes thereto
under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
(a)(3)
|
Exhibits
|
2.1
|
Asset
Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 3, 2003, by and among Veeco
St.
Paul Inc., Veeco Instruments Inc., and Registrant (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K
filed
November 18, 2003).
|
|
2.2
|
Purchase
Agreement, dated as of May 27, 2005, between JDS Uniphase Corporation
and
Registrant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Registrant’s
Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 3, 2005).
|
|
2.3
|
Merger
Agreement, dated January 12, 2006, by and among K2 Optronics, Inc.,
EMCORE
Corporation, and EMCORE Optoelectronics Acquisition Corp. (incorporated
by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed
on January 19, 2006).
|
|
2.4
|
Asset
Purchase Agreement between IQE RF, LLC, IQE plc, and EMCORE Corporation,
dated July 19, 2006. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to
Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 24,
2006).
|
|
2.5
|
Membership
Interest Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 31, 2006, by and
between
General Electric Company, acting through the GE Lighting operations
of its
Consumer and Industrial division, and EMCORE Corporation (incorporated
by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed
on September 7, 2006).
|
|
3.1
|
Restated
Certificate of Incorporation, dated December 21, 2000 (incorporated
by
reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000).
|
|
3.2
|
Amended
By-Laws, as amended through December 21, 2000 (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 3.2 to Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal
year ended September 30, 2000).
|
|
4.1
|
Indenture,
dated as of February 24, 2004, between Registrant and Deutsche Bank
Trust
Company Americas, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
4.3 to
Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2004).
|
|
4.2
|
Note
dated as of February 24, 2004, in the amount of $80,276,000 (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 4.4 to Registrant's Annual Report on Form
10-K for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004).
|
|
4.3
|
Note,
dated as of November 16, 2005, in the amount of $16,580,460 (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 4.5 to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005).
|
|
4.4
|
Indenture,
dated as of November 16, 2005, between Registrant and Deutsche Bank
Trust
Company Americas, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
4.6 to
Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005).
|
|
4.5
|
Specimen
certificate for shares of common stock (incorporated by reference
to
Exhibit 4.1 to Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form
S-1
(File No. 333-18565) filed with the Commission on February 24,
1997).
|
10.2
|
Transaction
Agreement dated January 20, 1999 between General Electric Company
and
Registrant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Registrant’s
Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A filed on May 17, 1999).
Confidential treatment has been requested by EMCORE for portions
of this
document. Such portions are indicated by “[*]”.
|
|
10.3†
|
1995
Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on
Form S-1 filed on February 6, 1997).
|
|
10.4†
|
1996
Amendment to Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2
to
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed on
February 6, 1997).
|
|
10.5†
|
MicroOptical
Devices 1996 Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
99.1
to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed on February 6,
1998).
|
|
10.6†
|
2000
Stock Option Plan, as amended and restated on February 13, 2006
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Registrant’s Current Report
on Form 8-K filed on February 17, 2006).
|
|
10.7†
|
2000
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated on February
13, 2006
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Registrant’s Current Report
on Form 8-K filed on February 17, 2006).
|
|
10.8†
|
Directors’
Stock Award Plan (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1
to
Registrant’s Original Registration Statement of Form S-8 filed on November
5, 1997), as amended by the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed
on
August 10, 2004.
|
|
10.9†
|
Agreement
regarding forgiveness of promissory note with Chief Executive Officer
(incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K
filed on March 1, 2006 and to Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A
filed on March 6, 2006).
|
|
Memorandum
of Understanding, dated as of September 26, 2007 between Lewis Edelstien
and Registrant regarding shareholder derivative
litigation.
|
||
10.11†
|
Fiscal
2006 Executive Bonus Plan (incorporated by reference to Registrant’s
Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 25, 2005).
|
|
10.12†
|
Terms
of Executive Severance Policy (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.1
to Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2004).
|
|
10.13†
|
Outside
Directors Cash Compensation Plan, as amended and restated on February
13,
2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Registrant’s Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on February 17, 2006).
|
|
10.14
|
Non-Recourse
Receivables Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 23, 2005, between
Registrant and Silicon Valley Bank (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit
10.14 to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005).
|
|
10.15
|
Exchange
Agreement, dated as of November 10, 2005, by and between Alexandra
Global
Master Fund Ltd. and Registrant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.15 to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005).
|
|
14.1
|
Code
of Ethics for Financial Professionals (incorporated by reference
to
Exhibit 14.1 to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2003).
|
|
Subsidiaries
of the Registrant.
|
||
Consent
of Deloitte & Touche LLP.
|
||
Certificate
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, dated October 30, 2007.
|
||
Certificate
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, dated October 30, 2007.
|
||
Certificate
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, dated October 30, 2007.
|
||
Certificate
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, dated October 30,
2007.
|
__________
*
Filed herewith
†
Management contract or compensatory plan
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf
by
the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
EMCORE
CORPORATION
|
||
Date:
October 30, 2007
|
By:
|
/s/
Reuben F. Richards, Jr.
|
Reuben
F. Richards, Jr.
|
||
President
and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
POWER
OF ATTORNEY
Each
person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints and hereby
authorizes Reuben F. Richards, Jr. and, severally, such person’s true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution or resubstitution, for such
person and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign
on
such person’s behalf, individually and in each capacity stated below, any and
all amendments, including post-effective amendments to this Form 10-K, and
to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Commission granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as such person might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their substitute or substitutes,
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has
been
signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant in the
capacities indicated, on October 30, 2007.
Signature
|
Title
|
/s/
Thomas J. Russell
|
Chairman
of the Board and Director
|
Thomas
J. Russell
|
|
/s/
Reuben F. Richards, Jr.
|
Chief
Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive
Officer)
|
Reuben
F. Richards, Jr.
|
|
/s/
Adam Gushard
|
Interim
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)
|
Adam
Gushard
|
|
/s/
Hong Q. Hou
|
President,
Chief Operating Officer, and Director
|
Hong
Q. Hou
|
|
/s/
Charles T. Scott
|
Director
|
Charles
T. Scott
|
|
/s/
John Gillen
|
Director
|
John
Gillen
|
|
/s/
Robert Bogomolny
|
Director
|
Robert
Bogomolny
|
|
/s/
Thomas G. Werthan
|
Director
|
Thomas
G. Werthan
|
150