FORM 10-K
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ |
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
or
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
Commission file number 1-9860
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
42-1612474 |
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
225 Summit Ave
Montvale, New Jersey
|
|
07645-1523 |
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
(Zip Code) |
201-930-3300
(Registrants telephone number)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class
|
|
Name of each exchange on
which registered: |
Common Stock, Par Value $0.01
|
|
New York Stock Exchange |
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 þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section
13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark 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 Registrants 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. o
Indicate
by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company.
See the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
|
|
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant
computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold on June 29, 2007, was
approximately $5.6 billion. For purposes of this calculation, shares held by directors, executive
officers and 10% shareholders of the Registrant have been excluded. Such exclusion should not be
deemed a determination or an admission by the Registrant that these individuals are, in fact,
affiliates of the Registrant.
As of February 15, 2008, there were 107,907,427 shares of the Registrants common stock
outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The information required by Part III of this Report, to the extent not set forth herein, is
incorporated herein by reference from the registrations definitive proxy statement relating to the
annual meeting of shareholders to be held on May 15, 2008, which definitive proxy statement shall
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal
year to which this Report relates.
2
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
INDEX TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007
2
PART I
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
Safe Harbor Statement and Market Data
This Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents incorporated herein by reference contain
forward-looking statements based on expectations, estimates and projections as of the date of this
filing. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements.
See Item 1A Risk Factors.
This report also contains market and industry data obtained from industry publications. We
have not independently verified any of this information and its accuracy and completeness cannot be
guaranteed.
Change in Fiscal Year
Effective December 31, 2006, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Barr, the Company, we, us or
our) changed its fiscal year end from June 30 to December 31. This change was made to align our
fiscal year end with that of our then recently acquired subsidiary, PLIVA d.d. (PLIVA), and with
other companies within our industry. This Form 10-K covers the calendar year January 1, 2007 to
December 31, 2007, which we refer to as 2007. Comparative financial information to 2007 is
provided in this Form 10-K with respect to the calendar year January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006,
which is unaudited and which we refer to as 2006. Additional information is provided with respect
to the transition period July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the Transition Period), which is
audited. We refer to the period beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006 as fiscal 2006,
and the period beginning July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2005 as fiscal 2005. All information,
data and figures provided in this report for fiscal 2006 and 2005 relate solely to Barrs financial
results and do not include the results of PLIVA, the Croatian company we acquired in October 2006.
OVERVIEW
We are a global specialty pharmaceutical company that operates in more than 30 countries. Our
operations are based primarily in North America and Europe, with our key markets being the United
States, Croatia, Germany, Poland and Russia. We are primarily engaged in the development,
manufacture and marketing of generic and proprietary pharmaceuticals. We are one of the worlds
leading generic drug companies. For 2007, which includes PLIVAs results of operations for the
entire period, we recorded $2.3 billion of product sales and $2.5 billion of total revenues
worldwide. In addition, we are actively involved in the development of generic biologic products,
an area that we believe provides significant prospects for long-term earnings and profitability.
Generics
We market and sell generic pharmaceutical products in the U.S., Europe and certain other
countries in the rest of the world (which we refer to as ROW). During 2007, we recorded $1.9
billion of sales of generic pharmaceutical products. We conduct our generics business in North
America principally through our Barr Laboratories subsidiary and in Europe and the ROW through
PLIVA and its subsidiaries.
Our generic product portfolio includes solid oral dosage forms, injectables, liquids and
cream/ointment products. At December 31, 2007, we marketed for sale (a) in the U.S., approximately
245 different dosage forms and strengths of approximately 120 different generic pharmaceutical
products, including 25 oral contraceptive products, and (b) in Europe and the ROW, approximately
255 different molecules, representing 1,025 generic pharmaceutical products in approximately 2,790
different presentations (where one molecule in one market represents a product, and each
combination of a formulation and strength represents one presentation).
Our generic product development efforts are focused primarily on high barrier-to-entry
products for all our markets, utilizing our various drug delivery platforms. To more effectively
compete in some European and ROW markets, we also develop and in-license certain commodity products
where we can obtain market share based on the efforts of our sales forces in those markets.
3
Proprietary Products
We market and sell proprietary pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. During
2007, we recorded $438.3 million of sales of proprietary pharmaceutical products. Our proprietary
business is conducted through our Duramed Pharmaceuticals subsidiary.
Our proprietary product portfolio and pipeline is largely concentrated in the area of female
healthcare. At December 31, 2007, we marketed 26 proprietary pharmaceutical products. These
products include, among others: SEASONIQUE® (levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol tablets
0.15 mg/0.03 mg and ethinyl estradiol tablets 0.01 mg), our newest generation extended-cycle oral contraceptive
product; PLAN BTM (levonorgestrel), our dual-label, over-the-counter (OTC)/Rx emergency
contraceptive; PARAGARD® T 380A (intrauterine copper contraceptive), our IUC
contraceptive product; MIRCETTE® (Desogestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol),
a traditional 28-day oral
contraceptive; and our ENJUVIA (synthetic conjugated estrogens, B) line of hormone
therapy products.
Biologics
Biologic products represent a significant subset of pharmaceutical products and are
manufactured with the use of live organisms as opposed to chemical (non-biological) compounds. At
December 31, 2007, we had several generic biologics products in various stages of development for
the U.S. and European markets, including granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), a protein
that stimulates the growth of certain white blood cells. We are optimistic about our prospects of
becoming a leader in the generic biologics market worldwide, and are actively working with the
Congress and the Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) to create a regulatory pathway for
generic biologics in the United States.
General Information
To supplement our internal efforts in support of our business strategies, we continually
evaluate business development opportunities that we believe will strengthen our product portfolio
and help grow our generic, proprietary, and generic biologic businesses. A primary example of this
activity is our acquisition of PLIVA, as discussed in greater detail below.
We operate manufacturing, research and development and administrative facilities in five
primary locations within the U.S. and three primary locations in Europe. Through our PLIVA
acquisition, we also develop and manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients to support our
internal product development efforts. Our organizational structure reflects the global nature of
our business and the sharing of resources between our generic and proprietary businesses. For
example, our operating and corporate functions are managed on a global basis, supporting both
generic and proprietary activities.
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware holding company that was formed through a
reincorporation merger on December 31, 2003. Our predecessor entity, a New York corporation, was
formed in 1970 and commenced active operations in 1972. Our corporate headquarters are located at
225 Summit Avenue, Montvale, New Jersey 07645, and our main telephone number is 201-930-3300.
Our Internet address is www.barrlabs.com. We do not intend for this website address to be an
active link or to otherwise incorporate by reference the contents of the website into this report.
We post the following filings in the Investors section of our website as soon as reasonably
practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC: our annual report on
Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments
to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. All
such filings on our Investors section of the website are available free of charge. The public may
read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SECs Public Reference Room or
electronically through the SEC website (www.sec.gov). We also provide information concerning
corporate governance, including our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Board committee charters and
committee composition, Code of Conduct and other governance information within the Investors
section of our website.
PLIVA Acquisition
On October 24, 2006, we completed the acquisition of PLIVA, a generic pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Zagreb, Croatia. Under the terms of the cash tender offer, we paid approximately
$2.4 billion based
4
on an offer price of HRK 820 per share (in the Croatian currency) for all shares tendered
during the offer period. Subsequent to the close of the offer period, we purchased an additional
390,809 shares on the Croatian stock market for $58.3 million, and own 98.1% of all shares of PLIVA
as of December 31, 2007.
Under Croatian law, our ownership of more than 95% of the voting shares in PLIVA permits us to
undertake the necessary actions to acquire the remainder of PLIVAs outstanding share capital
though we are not obligated to do so. We are currently evaluating this option and, in the meantime,
we may continue to purchase shares on the open market as deemed necessary.
The PLIVA acquisition has been a transforming event for the Company. Prior to the
acquisition, we marketed generic and proprietary pharmaceutical products almost exclusively in the
United States. With our acquisition of PLIVA, we have significantly increased our global reach and
now have access to additional internally developed drug delivery and development capabilities. We
now operate in more than 30 countries worldwide. We have supplemented our historical solid oral
dosage form product portfolio with PLIVAs portfolio and capabilities for developing injectable
products and cream/ointment products.
We also have combined two companies that are at the forefront of the development of generic
biologics, with Barr traditionally focusing on the U.S. market and PLIVA principally focusing on
the European markets (where a regulatory pathway for generic biologics already exists).
In addition, the PLIVA acquisition has increased our research and development capabilities. It
also has given us access to low cost manufacturing capabilities in Croatia, Poland and the Czech
Republic, and the opportunity to conduct product research and development in jurisdictions that
offer favorable tax treatment for such activities.
During 2007, we worked diligently on the integration of Barr and PLIVA. As a result, the
integration is largely complete. Some of the milestones we have accomplished are highlighted below:
|
|
|
all U.S. commercial operations have been consolidated under Barr Laboratories,
Inc. or Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; |
|
|
|
|
we have moved all PLIVA proprietary products sold previously under the Odyssey
label to our Duramed label; |
|
|
|
|
we have moved all U.S. PLIVA generic products sold previously under the PLIVA
label to our Barr label; |
|
|
|
|
all U.S. sales and marketing and related administrative activities have been
consolidated; |
|
|
|
|
we have transferred products between our European and U.S. manufacturing sites
to optimize manufacturing efficiency and capacity utilization; |
|
|
|
|
we are on schedule to substantially shut down PLIVAs U.S. manufacturing
facilities by the end of 2008; |
|
|
|
|
we have successfully completed the divestiture of PLIVAs Veterina animal health
business and PLIVAs operations in Italy and Spain; |
|
|
|
|
senior personnel from Barr and PLIVA have been transferred and relocated outside
their home countries to work in functions including commercial operations, finance,
quality control and human resources; |
|
|
|
|
we have established global product selection, product development and business
development processes; |
|
|
|
|
we have established global operational departments and their integration has
been substantially completed; |
5
|
|
|
our Forest, Virginia facility became the single point of
distribution for all generic products in the United States; and |
|
|
|
|
we completed the FTC-ordered divestitures of four products. |
GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS
We are a global leader in the generic pharmaceutical industry. Generic drugs are the chemical
and therapeutic equivalents of brand-name drugs, typically sold at prices below those of their
brand-name equivalents. In the U.S., our largest market, our generic products are marketed under
the Barr label.
Outside the U.S., our operations are primarily in Central and Eastern Europe, including
Croatia, Germany, Poland and Russia (the Key Non-U.S. Markets), where the markets vary
considerably from the U.S. market in that in many cases there is a market for branded generic
products (i.e., generic products sold under a company name) for which there are only limited
opportunities for generic substitution by the pharmacist. As a result, physician and pharmacist
loyalty to a particular companys generic product can be a significant driver in obtaining market
share. In the recently expanded European Union (EU), as regulated by the European Medicine Agency
(EMEA), the EUs equivalent of the FDA, the generic pharmaceutical industry is becoming an
increasingly important supplier of pharmaceuticals.
We have the capability to develop, manufacture and market generic pharmaceuticals in various
dosage forms, including tablets and capsules, creams and topicals, and liquids and injectables.
Our relationships with third parties provide access to other drug delivery systems, such as nasal
sprays, patches and sterile ophthalmics.
In general, we focus our development activities on generic products that have one or more
characteristics that we believe will make it difficult for others to develop competing generic
products. The characteristics of the selected generic products we pursue may include one or more of
the following:
|
|
|
those with complex formulation or development characteristics; |
|
|
|
|
those requiring specialized manufacturing capabilities; |
|
|
|
|
those where sourcing the raw material may be difficult; and |
|
|
|
|
those that must overcome unusual regulatory or legal challenges, including
patent challenges. |
We believe generic products with some or all of these characteristics may produce higher
returns for a longer period of time than products without these characteristics. Examples of such
products in our portfolio include generic oral contraceptives and injectables. We currently
manufacture 25 generic oral contraceptive products and six generic injectable products. We expect
our portfolio of injectable products to grow to over a dozen products within the next two years.
We also develop and manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), primarily for use
internally and, to a lesser extent, for sale to third parties. We manufacture 23 different APIs
for use in pharmaceuticals through our facilities located in Croatia and the Czech Republic. We
believe that our ability to produce API for internal use may provide us with a strategic advantage
over competitors that lack this ability, particularly as to the timeliness of obtaining API for our
products.
For a description of the regulatory process that applies to developing generic
pharmaceuticals, see Government Regulation below.
Filings and Approvals
We file each of our regulatory submissions for generic products with the expectation that: (1)
the applicable regulator will approve the marketing of the applicable product; (2) we will validate
our process for manufacturing
6
that product within the specifications that have been or will be approved by the applicable
regulator; and (3) the cost of producing the inventory relating to the applicable product will be
recovered from the commercialization of the product.
United States
During 2007, in the U.S. market, we:
|
|
|
filed 30 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) with the FDA; |
|
|
|
|
received FDA approvals for 19 generic products, including
tentative approvals; and |
|
|
|
|
launched 14 new generic products. |
At December 31, 2007, we had approximately 70 ANDAs, including tentatively approved
applications, pending at the FDA, targeting branded pharmaceutical products with an estimated $29
billion in annual sales, based on industry source data.
Europe and ROW
During 2007, we submitted for registration 224 products in 584 different presentations (where
one molecule in one market represents a product and each combination of a formulation and strength
represents one presentation), representing 65 individual molecules. During this period, we also
received approvals for 143 products in 310 different presentations, representing 54 different
molecules. As of December 31, 2007, with regulatory bodies in Europe and ROW, we had a total of 287
product registrations pending, representing 90 molecules in 735 different presentations.
Operations in our Key Non-US Markets
Germany. The German market is the largest pharmaceutical market in Europe and is our largest
European market in terms of revenues. In Germany, we market our products through our subsidiary,
AWD.pharma, and our largest selling product is Katadolon (flupirtine). Like the markets of Central
and Eastern Europe, the German market is predominantly a branded generics one with doctors
prescribing international nonproprietary name (INN) products and corporate brands. Substitution
is possible at the pharmacy level, but only with one of the three lowest priced generic
alternatives available. All prescription drugs are reimbursed up to the respective reference price.
In March 2007, Germanys largest health insurance company, Allgemeinen Ortskrankenkassen (AOK),
representing more than 25 million of the approximately 79 million publicly-insured people in
Germany, announced that for 2007 it had selected 43 products from 11 pharmaceutical companies
including several from our German subsidiary as a result of a competitive bidding process. Our
selection in this tender process significantly increased our sales as compared to a year earlier.
AOK also conducted a competitive bidding (or tender) process for an increased number of products
for 2008-2009, in which we also participated. This tender process was
completed in September 2007,
but the results have not been publicly announced or implemented because the legality of this tender
process is currently being litigated.
In 2006, the government introduced a number of new measures that have had a significant impact
on the generic pharmaceutical market. First, it has introduced a price moratorium which eliminates
the possibility of increasing prices through March 2008. Second, it has imposed a mandatory
producer rebate of 10% and banned any further discounts or rebates in kind to pharmacists. Third,
it has allowed health insurers to waive the patient co-pay in cases where the generic is priced at
least 30% below the reference level. At this time, prices for products have been somewhat reduced,
but higher volumes have mostly offset the lower pricing.
In September 2007, we acquired O.R.C.A.pharm GmbH, a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on the oncology market in Germany, for an initial payment of EUR 21 million in September, a EUR 2.2
million payment in the quarter ended December 31, 2007 for working capital assumed in the transaction, and
additional payments of up to EUR 12.1 million based on the achievement of profitability milestones.
This acquisition strengthens our position in
7
the oncology market in Germany and will also allow us to add existing Barr and PLIVA products
to the O.R.C.A.pharm portfolio.
Croatia. Croatia is the site of our European headquarters, where we have manufacturing, R&D,
biologic and API facilities. Croatia is our second largest European market in terms of revenues. As
of the end of 2007, we were the leader in the Croatian generic market with approximately 37% market
share. Currently, we market some of the top products for the Croatian pharmaceutical market
including Sumamed (azithromycin), Klavocin (amoxicillin clavulanic acid), Voltaren (diclofenac) and
Peptoran (ranitidine). The Croatian market is a strong branded generic market where substitution at
the pharmacy level is generally not allowed. Physicians represent the key decision makers in this
market, making product detailing of great importance. Croatia currently has a reimbursement system
based on two independent product lists, one where essential drugs are fully reimbursed, and a
second where other select drugs are partially reimbursed.
Poland. We have both manufacturing and R&D facilities in Poland. The Polish pharmaceuticals
market is the second largest in Central and Eastern Europe and relies heavily on generic drugs,
though it remains a branded market with emphasis on product promotion. Sumamed is our largest
selling product in Poland, where we also have a strong portfolio of over-the-counter drugs. We
currently rank fourth in this generic market. As a result of high patient co-payments, competition
among pharmacies and general economic growth, the market is highly competitive and is expected to
grow.
Russia. The Russian market is the largest in Central and Eastern Europe and is also one of the
fastest growing. The market is fragmented and no one company dominates. State involvement in the
market is limited and most expenditures on drugs are made directly by individuals to pharmacists.
Our largest selling product in Russia is Sumamed, which retains its leading position despite over
15 generic competitors. In 2005, the government created the first federal healthcare program, known
as the DLO, providing reimbursement for drugs that are on the DLO list. In November 2006, the
government published a revised DLO list with significant changes that have affected participating
companies to differing degrees. In addition, the budget for the DLO was significantly overspent in
2006, which has created large delays in payment to producers. As a result, we have decreased our
participation in the DLO market and in 2007 nearly 95% of our sales in Russia were in the
commercial market. We believe that the Russian market offers significant growth potential because
of the overall robust economy and the relatively untapped market. We continue to seek to expand our
operations in this market.
Generic Product Portfolio
Set forth below are descriptions of certain generic products that contributed significantly to
our revenues in 2007.
Oral Contraceptives. In the U.S., we currently manufacture and market 25 generic oral
contraceptive products under trade names including Aviane®, Kariva® and Tri-Sprintec®. We also
market two generic oral contraceptives in Canada with a partner. Our oral contraceptives compete
with the branded versions of the products and, in most instances, with other generic products
and/or authorized generic versions of the branded product. Authorized generics are generic
products that are manufactured under the brand pharmaceutical companys New Drug Application
(NDA) and sold either by the brand company itself or through a licensee. Oral contraceptives are
the most common method of reversible birth control, used by approximately 82% of women in the U.S.
at some time during their reproductive years. Oral contraceptives have a long history with
widespread use attributed to many factors, including efficacy in preventing pregnancy, safety and
simplicity in initiation and discontinuation, medical benefits and relatively low incidence of side
effects. According to industry sources, the oral contraceptive market in the U.S. had sales of
approximately $3.4 billion during 2007.
Our most significant competitor in this category is Watson Pharmaceuticals (Watson), a large
generic pharmaceutical company that markets and distributes a sizeable portfolio of generic oral
contraceptive products. Additional generic competitors include Teva Pharmaceuticals, a global
pharmaceutical company that currently markets two generic oral contraceptive products, and is
expected to launch additional products, the timing of which is not known. There is also a small,
privately held pharmaceutical company that distributes authorized generic versions of two oral
contraceptive products.
8
Fentanyl Citrate. In the U.S., we market an oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate product that is
the generic version of Cephalons ACTIQ (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate) [C-II], 200 mcg, 400
mcg, 600 mcg, 800 mcg, 1200 mcg, and 1600 mcg cancer pain-management product. We launched this
product in September 2006 under a license agreement previously granted to us by Cephalon in August
2004, pursuant to a Federal Trade Commission order. The license grants us a non-exclusive right to
sell a generic version of ACTIQ. Under the licensing agreement, Cephalon is currently supplying us
with fentanyl citrate manufactured under Cephalons NDA, which we have the right to market. Our
ANDA is currently under active review at the FDA. Our product competes with Cephalons authorized
generic, which Cephalon has licensed to a third party.
Sumamed/Azithromycin. Azithromycin was developed by PLIVA and licensed to Pfizer for sale in
certain territories. In the U.S. our azithromycin product is the generic equivalent of Pfizers
Zithromax® antibacterial treatment product, available in tablet, oral suspension and
injectable formulations. Following the expiry of the azithromycin compound patent in the U.S., in
November 2005, we launched the generic tablet version in the U.S. and are currently one of eight
generic competitors in the U.S. In July 2006, we launched the first generic oral suspension version
in the U.S. and are currently one of four generic competitors in that market. In January 2007, we
also received approval from the FDA to market our injectable form and launched that product in the
U.S. in the quarter ended September 30, 2007. In Europe and ROW, we sell azithromycin under the
trade name Sumamed and detail it to physicians and pharmacists.
Katadolon (flupirtine). Katadolon is a centrally acting non-opioid analgesic with muscle-tone
normalization effect and the ability to prevent pain chronification by inhibiting the development
of pain memory. Due to the unique structure and mode of action as a selective neuronal potassium
channel opener, Katadolon is the prototype of a new class of analgesic substances. It has been in
clinical use since 1984 and is marketed and actively promoted in Germany, Russia, other Central and
Eastern European countries, and China. Katadolon S-long, the slow release formulation of flupirtine
maleate, is registered and has been available on the German market since April 2006.
The table below sets forth those products, or classes of products, within our generics segment
that accounted for 10% or more of that segments total product sales during 2007, the Transition
Period, fiscal 2006 or fiscal 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
Period |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
Oral contraceptives |
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
53 |
% |
|
|
48 |
% |
|
|
53 |
% |
Desmopressin |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
13 |
% |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Denotes less than 10% in the period indicated. |
Sales and Marketing
We market our generic products to customers in the U.S. and Puerto Rico through an integrated
sales and marketing team that includes a four-person national accounts sales force. The activities
of the sales force are supported by our marketing and customer service organization in our
Montvale, New Jersey offices. The U.S. customer base for our generic products includes drug store
chains, supermarket chains, mass merchandisers, wholesalers, distributors, managed care
organizations, mail order accounts, group purchasing organizations, government/military and
repackagers.
We
promote our generic products in Europe and the ROW through over 1,300 sales
representatives, including contract sales representatives and marketing employees. While products
may be promoted to different audiences in different countries, the sales representatives generally
promote branded generic products to physicians and pharmacists. While we have very few dedicated
sales representatives for our generics business in the U.S., the significant number of sales
representatives in Europe is attributable to Europe being largely a branded generics market, as
compared with the substitution-based generics market in the U.S., where bioequivalent generic
products can be easily substituted for the brand product and other generics.
Net sales to customers who accounted for 10% or more of our generic product sales during 2007,
the Transition Period, fiscal 2006 or fiscal 2005 were as follows:
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
Period |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
McKesson Drug Company |
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
17 |
% |
|
|
22 |
% |
|
|
15 |
% |
Cardinal Health |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
|
|
13 |
% |
AmeriSource Bergen |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
Walgreens |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
13 |
% |
|
|
15 |
% |
CVS |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
|
* |
|
Denotes less than 10% in the period indicated. |
Patent Challenges
As part of our generic development activities for the U.S. market, we develop generic versions
of select brand products where we believe the patents relating to the brand products are invalid,
unenforceable or not infringed by our competing generic products. Utilizing the patent challenge
process under the Hatch-Waxman Act (discussed below), we seek to invalidate patents or to obtain a
declaration that our generic version does not infringe the patent. Our development activities in
this area, including sourcing raw materials and developing equivalent products, are designed to
obtain FDA approval for our product. Our legal activities in this area, performed by outside
counsel, work toward eliminating the barrier to market entry created by the patents.
Our Patent Challenge History
Our efforts in the area of challenging patents on branded pharmaceutical products have
resulted in the successful conclusion of 19 out of 22 cases that have
been finally resolved as of December 31, 2007. Successful
outcomes have included: court rulings in our favor invalidating patents or finding that our product
does not infringe an existing patent; situations in which we have not been sued for patent
infringement; situations where we launched our generic product at risk; and settlements with the
patent holder. Unfavorable outcomes, including court rulings in favor of the patent holder and
cases that are dismissed, result in our not being able to launch a generic product until the patent
on the brand pharmaceutical product expires. Recent examples of successful outcomes to our patent
challenges include:
|
|
|
ADDERALL XR. ADDERALL XR is a once-daily, extended-release, mixed salt
amphetamine product that is indicated for the treatment of ADHD. In August 2006,
we entered into a product acquisition agreement, a product development
agreement, and settlement and license agreements with Shire plc to settle our
pending patent infringement dispute. Under the terms of the agreements, we (1)
purchased Shires ADDERALL® (immediate-release mixed amphetamine salts) tablets
for $63.0 million; (2) granted Shire a license to obtain regulatory approval for
and market in certain specified territories our SEASONIQUE extended-cycle oral
contraceptive product, along with five products in various stages of
development, for an initial $25.0 million payment for previously incurred
product development expenses, and for reimbursement of development expenses
incurred going forward, up to a maximum of $140.0 million over an eight-year
period, not to exceed $30.0 million per year; and (3) are able to launch a
generic version of ADDERALL XR on April 1, 2009, more than nine years earlier
than the last-to-expire Shire listed patent. |
|
|
|
|
Desmopressin. Desmopressin is the generic equivalent of Ferring B.V.s
DDAVP® Tablets. DDAVP Tablets are indicated as antidiuretic
replacement therapy in the management of central diabetes insipidus and for the
management of the temporary polyuria and polydipsia following head trauma or
surgery in the pituitary region. DDAVP is also indicated for the management of
primary nocturnal enuresis. Following the February 2005 summary judgment ruling
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the patent
alleged to cover DDAVP is unenforceable and not infringed by our product, we
launched Desmopressin Acetate tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, on July 5, 2005. In
February 2006, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the District Courts ruling
that the patent at issue is unenforceable. In October 2006, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied Ferrings petition for a writ of certiorari. |
10
|
|
|
Modafinil. Modafinil is the generic equivalent of Cephalons
Provigil®. In February 2006, we entered into an agreement with
Cephalon to settle our pending patent infringement dispute in the U.S. related
to Provigil. Under the terms of the settlement, Cephalon granted us a
non-exclusive, royalty-bearing right to market and sell a generic version of
Provigil in the U.S. Our license will become effective in October 2011, unless
Cephalon obtains a pediatric extension for Provigil, in which case we would be
permitted entry in April 2012. Cephalon has announced that it has been granted a
pediatric extension for Provigil. We may be allowed to enter at an earlier date
based upon the entry of another generic version of Provigil. |
|
|
|
|
Niacin. Niacin is the generic equivalent of Abbott Laboratories (formerly
Kos Pharmaceuticals) NIASPAN® product. In April 2005, we entered
into co-promotion, licensing and manufacturing, and settlement and license
agreements relating to the resolution of the patent litigation involving
NIASPAN. Under the terms of the agreements, we: (1) co-promote the current
NIASPAN and ADVICOR® products (the Kos Products) to
obstetricians, gynecologists and other practitioners with a focus on womens
healthcare in the U.S. using our 93-person specialty sales force, and in return
we receive a royalty based upon overall sales of the Kos Products, whether by
Kos or our sales force; (2) serve as a stand-by, alternate supply source for the
Kos Products; and (3) will be allowed to launch generic versions of the Kos
Products on September 20, 2013, about four years before the last of the
applicable Kos patents is set to expire. |
Pending Patent Challenges
During 2007, 11 patent litigation suits were initiated against Barr in response to ANDAs we
had filed, representing the largest number of cases initiated against us in any 12 month period. At
December 31, 2007, we had publicly disclosed the following patent challenges that are in various
stages of litigation:
11
($ millions as of December 31, 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARKET |
|
ANDA NAME(Brand Product) |
|
VALUE |
|
Alendronate Sodium (Fosamax®) |
|
$ |
1,836.3 |
|
Alfuzosin Hydrochloride Extended Release (Uroxatral®) |
|
|
154.0 |
|
Argatroban Injection (Argatroban®) |
|
|
114.6 |
|
Aripiprazole (Abilify® and ABILIFY® Discmelt) |
|
|
2,347.4 |
|
Aspirin/Extended-Release Dipyridamole (Aggrenox®) |
|
|
297.4 |
|
Dexmethylphenidate Hydrochloride (Focalin® XR) |
|
|
268.8 |
|
Drospirenone and Ethinyl Estradiol (YASMIN®) |
|
|
572.0 |
|
Fexofenadine (Allegra® Tablets, Allegra® Capsules and Allegra® D) |
|
|
1,153.9 |
|
Galantamine Hydrobromide (RAZADYNE®) |
|
|
116.0 |
|
Galantamine Hydrobromide (RAZADYNE® ER) |
|
|
109.3 |
|
Levalbuterol Hydrochloride (Xopenex®) |
|
|
633.2 |
|
Methylphenidate Hydrochloride (Ritalin® LA) |
|
|
105.4 |
|
Norethindrone/Ethjnyl Estradiol (Femcon® FE) |
|
|
46.1 |
|
Norgestimate/Ethjnyl Estradiol (TRI-CYCLEN LO®) |
|
|
407.9 |
|
Olopatadine Hydrochloride (Patanol®) |
|
|
301.0 |
|
Pramipexole Dihydrochloride (MIRAPEX®) |
|
|
350.2 |
|
Raloxifene Hydrochloride (EVISTA®) |
|
|
690.8 |
|
Temozolomide (TEMODAR®) |
|
|
286.0 |
|
Thalidomide (Thalomid®) |
|
|
400.1 |
|
Tramadol HCl & Acetaminophen (ULTRACET®) |
|
|
101.9 |
|
Triamcinolone Acetonide (NASACORT® AQ) |
|
|
369.1 |
|
Zolpidem Tartrate (AMBIEN® CR) |
|
|
932.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
$ |
11,594.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Source: IMS Health twelve months sales ended December 31, 2007. |
Set forth below is a discussion of a patent-challenge matter listed in the above table.
Fexofenadine (Allegra Tablets). Several patents related to fexofenadine hydrochloride, 30 mg,
60 mg and 180 mg tablets, the generic versions of Sanofi-Aventis Allegra® tablets, are
subject to litigation. Through an arrangement with Teva, we launched a limited quantity of our
generic fexofenadine hydrochloride tablet product in order to enable Teva to market its generic
fexofenadine hydrochloride tablet product during our 180-day generic exclusivity period. We
participate in the profits Teva earns from the ongoing sales of its product. We and Teva launched
this product at risk, meaning prior to the rendering of a final decision in the patent challenge
litigation. If we are unsuccessful in the litigation, we and Teva could be liable for substantial
damages that could have material adverse effect on the results of our operations. See Item 3
Legal Proceedings Pending Litigation Matters Patent Matters Fexofenadine Hydrochloride
Suit below for additional information on the status of this litigation.
We will continue to pursue patent challenges and will evaluate future at risk launches based
on the strength of our case.
12
PROPRIETARY PHARMACEUTICALS
We manufacture and market proprietary pharmaceutical products under the Duramed label in the
United States and Canada. These products include both products that we develop internally and
products that we acquire, whether through licensing or acquisition. Proprietary products often are
patent-protected or benefit from other non-patent market exclusivities. Although the proprietary
products that we develop involve substantially higher risk to bring to market and require more
extensive research and development activities on our part when compared with our generic products,
they offer the potential for a longer period of market or product
exclusivity and may
generate greater returns than our generic products. The same is true for the proprietary products
that we acquire, although they often involve less development risk. Actively promoted proprietary
products require greater sales and marketing expenses than generic products because we need to
promote them directly to healthcare providers using our sales representatives and, in some cases,
directly to consumers through direct-to-consumer advertising.
In the U.S., FDA approval is required before any new drug can be marketed. An NDA contains
complete pre-clinical and clinical safety and efficacy data (or a right of reference to such data),
and must be submitted to the FDA to obtain approval of a new drug. Before dosing of a new drug may
begin in healthy human subjects or patients, stringent government requirements for pre-clinical
data must be satisfied. The pre-clinical data, derived primarily from laboratory studies, is submitted in an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, or its equivalent in countries
outside the U.S. where clinical trials are to be conducted. The pre-clinical data must provide an
adequate basis for evaluating both the safety and the scientific rationale for the initiation of
clinical trials.
The regulatory process for approval of an NDA is discussed in greater detail below under
Government Regulation New Drug Application Process.
Our proprietary development activities are focused primarily on expanding our portfolio of
womens healthcare products, which includes oral contraceptives, intrauterine contraception,
hormone therapy treatments for menopause/perimenopause and treatment for endometriosis and labor
and delivery. An important part of our product development strategy is to develop a broad line of products, to be prescribed primarily by
OB/GYNs, that are designed to meet the unmet medical needs of women. Our focus in the area of
extended-cycle oral contraception, which we established with the launch of SEASONALE® in 2003 and
subsequent launch of the next-generation SEASONIQUE in July 2006, is providing women with the
option of four periods per year. In addition, and in response to current contraception trends of
altering the hormone interval, we also provide women with the option of low-dose estrogen instead
of a hormonal-free interval, through our SEASONIQUE and MIRCETTE products. We are also pursuing
several products that utilize our transvaginal ring technology to treat urinary incontinence,
endometriosis and infertility.
In areas other than womens healthcare, we are pursuing a second urology product targeted at
the symptoms associated with the treatment of prostate cancer. In addition, we are developing two
oral vaccine products to prevent Adenovirus (Types 4 & 7) infections in U.S. military personnel
under contract with the Department of Defense. We continue to identify other proprietary product
candidates that further expand our product offerings in womens healthcare and are actively
evaluating additional therapeutic categories to add to our proprietary portfolio.
As a result of internal development and business development activities, at December 31, 2007
we had a broad pipeline of short-, mid- and long-term opportunities that include several
proprietary products in clinical development, two of which are starting Phase III studies, another
four of which are in Phase III studies, and three NDAs pending at the FDA. See Products in
Development.
Our proprietary research and development team has experience in managing clinical development
programs and regulatory matters. This team works closely with our generic formulation,
manufacturing and regulatory groups to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of our development
process.
Proprietary Product Portfolio
The following is a list of the proprietary products that we are actively promoting:
13
|
|
|
SEASONIQUE® (Levonorgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol and Ethinyl Estradiol)
extended-cycle oral contraceptive |
|
|
|
|
PLAN B OTC/Rx (Levonorgestrel) emergency oral contraceptive |
|
|
|
|
PARAGARD® T 380A (Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive) IUD |
|
|
|
|
ENJUVIA (Synthetic Conjugated Estrogens, B) hormone therapy |
|
|
|
|
MIRCETTE® (Desogestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol) oral contraceptive |
|
|
|
|
NIASPAN® (Niacin Extended-Release Tablets) for high cholesterol (marketed
under agreement with Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott) |
|
|
|
|
ADVICOR® (Niacin Extended-Release/Lovastatin Tablets) for high cholesterol
(also marketed under agreement with Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) |
Set forth below are descriptions of certain of the proprietary products listed above.
SEASONIQUE®. SEASONIQUE (levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol tablets 0.15 mg/0.03 mg
and ethinyl estradiol tablets 0.01 mg) is our next generation extended-cycle oral contraceptive
product. SEASONIQUE provides continuous hormonal support in the form of a low-dose of estrogen in
place of the seven placebo pills. Under the SEASONIQUE extended-cycle regimen, women take active
tablets of 0.15 mg levonorgestrel/0.03 mg of ethinyl estradiol for 84 consecutive days, followed by
seven days of low-dose estrogen (0.01 mg of ethinyl estradiol). We launched SEASONIQUE in July
2006. In August 2006, we initiated full-scale detailing for SEASONIQUE utilizing our Womens
Healthcare and Specialty Sales Forces to approximately 40,000 healthcare providers. We have also
initiated a fully integrated marketing campaign aimed at healthcare providers and patients which
includes professional education materials, medical education initiatives, published data from our
clinical studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the extended-cycle SEASONIQUE regimen,
and product sampling kits that contain extensive information for patients. We are reinforcing our
detailing activities with medical journal advertising and a direct-to-consumer advertising
campaign, including television, print and web-based advertising.
On January 22, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
Patent No. 7,320,969 for SEASONIQUE. The patent will expire on January 30,
2024. The Company immediately submitted the patent to the FDA for listing in the Orange Book. On January 23, 2008,
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. notified the Company pursuant to the
Hatch-Waxman Act, that Watson had filed an ANDA with the FDA for SEASONIQUE and that Watson had amended its
application to include a paragraph IV certification asserting that the
SEASONIQUE patent is invalid. The Company believes that the SEASONIQUE patent
is valid and enforceable and intends to file a legal action against Watson to
enforce the patent and to prevent Watson from marketing a competing product
prior to patent expiry in 2024. If we are unsuccessful in this
litigation, we may face generic competition for SEASONIQUE as early as May 25, 2009,
the date of expiration of our existing new product regulatory exclusivity for SEASONIQUE.
PLAN B Emergency Contraceptive. PLAN B, which contains the synthetic progestin
levonorgestrel, is an emergency oral contraceptive that is intended to prevent pregnancy when taken
as soon as possible within 72 hours following unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure. In
August 2006, the FDA approved our application to market PLAN B as an over-the-counter (OTC) product
for consumers 18 years of age and older, while maintaining the prescription status for women 17 and
younger. Our Womens Healthcare Sales Force promotes the dual-label PLAN B OTC/Rx to a professional
audience that includes pharmacists, physicians and other healthcare providers.
We implemented and support a CARE(SM) program (Convenient Access, Responsible
Education) that provides information to pharmacists, physicians and other healthcare providers, as
well as consumers, regarding the appropriate distribution, use and monitoring for compliance with
prescription age requirements of PLAN B OTC/Rx. The program also includes a comprehensive education
program for healthcare professionals and consumers. In addition, we support various continuing
education programs for pharmacists and other healthcare practitioners, a publication plan and
journal advertising. We continue to work closely with retail pharmacies and drug wholesalers to
ensure that they understand and follow the FDAs prescription age requirement for the dispensing of
the product.
PARAGARD® IUC. Our PARAGARD T 380A (Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive) provides women with a
long-term, reversible, non-hormonal contraceptive option. It is the only IUC approved for up to 10
years of continuous use and is more than 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. We believe that
IUCs represent an under-utilized contraceptive option for women in the United States, and we are
well positioned to grow this category through professional education and marketing. PARAGARD was
approved in 1984 and has been marketed in the United States since 1988. Duramed acquired FEI
Womens Health, LLC and the PARAGARD IUC in November 2005 and promotes the product to physicians
and health care practitioners using its Specialty Sales Force.
ENJUVIA. In May 2006, we launched our ENJUVIA (synthetic conjugated estrogens, B)
tablets and immediately initiated physician detailing using our Womens Healthcare Sales Force.
ENJUVIA is approved for the
14
treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with
menopause. ENJUVIA tablets are available in a variety of dosage strengths, including 0.3 mg, 0.45
mg, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg. ENJUVIA uses a unique delivery system, consisting of
Surelease® technology with a cellulose-based polymer tablet design, to provide slow
release of estrogens over several hours. In April 2007, we received two FDA approvals related to
our ENJUVIA product. First, our supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for ENJUVIA 0.9 mg tablet
strength was approved. Second, ENJUVIA became the first and only oral estrogen to be approved by
FDA to treat moderate-to-severe vaginal dryness and pain with intercourse, symptoms of vulvar and
vaginal atrophy associated with menopause. We launched the ENJUVIA 0.9 mg tablet and the new
indication for the ENJUVIA product line in October 2007 at the North American Menopausal Society
Annual Meeting.
Our hormone therapy products, ENJUVIA and Cenestin®, compete in the $1.8 billion
hormone therapy market with products such as Wyeths Premarin®, which is a conjugated
equine estrogens product. The hormone therapy market has declined since the findings by the
National Institutes of Health were publicized in July 2002 and created uncertainty in the minds of
many healthcare providers and consumers regarding the risks and rewards of long-term hormone
therapy. However, we believe that a number of women and their healthcare providers will continue
using ENJUVIA and Cenestin products for the short-term treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor
symptoms associated with menopause.
As
an on-going part of our product acquisition strategy, we have acquired more mature branded products, through litigation settlements, licensing agreements or
direct acquisitions. We currently have 19 branded products that we do not directly promote to
physicians but may undertake some limited marketing initiatives in an effort to maintain sales
levels. These products include ADDERALL IR, which we acquired from Shire plc during August 2006,
and five proprietary products that we acquired through PLIVA that were formerly marketed under the
Odyssey label and are now being sold under the Duramed label, which are Antabuse® (for
Alcohol Dependency), Nystatin® (Anti-fungal), Surmontil® (Anti-Depression),
Urecholine® (Urinary Tract and Bladder Treatment), and Vivactil®
(Anti-Depression).
The table below sets forth those products, or classes of products, within our proprietary
segment that accounted for 10% or more of that segments total product sales during 2007, the
Transition Period, fiscal 2006 or fiscal 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
Fiscal |
|
|
2007 |
|
Period |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
PLAN B |
|
|
21 |
% |
|
|
14 |
% |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
PARAGARD |
|
|
16 |
% |
|
|
16 |
% |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
* |
|
SEASONALE |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
14 |
% |
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
31 |
% |
CENESTIN |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
16 |
% |
LOESTRIN |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
|
* |
|
Denotes less than 10% in the period indicated. |
Products in Development
We have several proprietary products in clinical development in multiple product categories.
Examples of these products are discussed in detail below.
Bijuva (Synthetic Conjugated Estrogens, A) Cream. In June 2004, we filed an NDA
for our Bijuva (Synthetic Conjugated Estrogens, A) vaginal cream product. In April 2005, the FDA
issued a not approvable letter for our application pending submission of additional data. We have completed Phase III clinical work that we believe will provide the additional
information needed to support the Bijuva application. If approved, we intend to market Bijuva for
the treatment of moderate-to-severe symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy associated with
menopause.
Transvaginal Ring (TVR) Products. We have three products that utilize our proprietary, novel,
TVR drug delivery system, which have completed Phase II studies and for which we are designing
Phase III studies. One of these products is a urinary incontinence product that offers the
potential to deliver higher doses of oxybutynin to the
15
bladder neck with lower systemic exposure.
The second product offers the potential to treat infertility. The third product offers the
potential to treat endometriosis. We have several other products in early stages of development
that are focused on treating endometriosis, infertility, fibroids, labor and delivery, and urinary
incontinence based on this TVR drug delivery system.
Vaccines. We are developing Adenovirus Vaccines Type 4 and 7 under a $68.9 million, six-year
contract awarded in September 2001 by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). The Adenovirus
Vaccines are intended to be dispensed to armed forces recruits to prevent epidemics of an acute
respiratory disease that has been a leading cause of hospitalizations of military trainees. In July
2003, we completed construction of a 20,000 square foot manufacturing and packaging facility
designed specifically to produce these vaccines. The facility is located on our Virginia
manufacturing and distribution campus. We completed the Phase I study in April 2006. In September
2006, we began our Phase II/III clinical program, which completed
enrollment in late 2007. The results from the study, if positive,
would support the filing of a Biologics License Application
(BLA) in 2008.
In addition to supplying the vaccine to the armed forces, we have the right to market the product
to other populations, such as immunosuppressed patients, and foreign markets where the same needs
exist as those of the DOD.
Sales and Marketing
We market our proprietary products through three sales teams: our Womens Healthcare Sales
Force, our Specialty Sales Force and our Institutional Sales Force.
|
|
|
Our Womens Healthcare Sales Force, which has approximately 200 sales
representatives, currently promotes SEASONIQUE extended-cycle oral contraceptive,
our ENJUVIA hormone therapy products and our PLAN B OTC/Rx emergency contraceptive
product to womens healthcare practitioners. This sales force may market additional
womens healthcare products we develop or acquire. |
|
|
|
|
Our Specialty Sales Force, which has 90 sales representatives, promotes the
PARAGARD IUD product and MIRCETTE to obstetricians, gynecologists and other
practitioners with a focus on womens healthcare. This sales force also promotes
NIASPAN and ADVICOR cholesterol treatments under a co-promotion agreement with Kos
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that we entered into in April 2005. |
|
|
|
|
Our Institutional Sales Force, which has approximately 40 sales representatives,
promotes the Companys proprietary products at teaching hospitals and other
institutions, targeting attending physicians and OB/GYN residents. In addition,
this sales force promotes our generic injectable products to various hospitals. |
The customer base for our proprietary products includes drug store chains, supermarket chains,
mass merchandisers, wholesalers, distributors, managed care organizations, mail order accounts, and
the government/military. Net sales to customers who accounted for 10% or more of our proprietary
sales during 2007, the Transition Period, fiscal 2006 or fiscal 2005 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
Fiscal |
|
|
2007 |
|
Period |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
McKesson Drug Company |
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
36 |
% |
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
26 |
% |
Cardinal Health |
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
16 |
% |
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
20 |
% |
Integrated Commercialization
Services |
|
|
16 |
% |
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
* |
|
AmeriSource Bergen |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
* |
|
Denotes less than 10% in the period indicated. |
16
BIOLOGICS
Biologics involve the use of live organisms, as opposed to chemical (non-biological)
compounds, for their production. Biologics worldwide represent one of the fastest-growing segments
of the global pharmaceutical industry. Biologic products provide treatment for diseases like
cancer, arthritis, and rare genetic disorders. Spending on biologics in the United States increased
127% from 2001 to 2005. In 2006, biologic sales increased 20% to $40.3 billion, compared to 8%
sales growth for traditional drugs. Eighteen of the 101 drugs that brought in more than $1.0
billion in worldwide sales in 2006 were biologics. Biologics are a major driver of increasing
prescription drug costs. We believe this area represents a major growth opportunity for us and the
generic pharmaceutical industry as a whole. We also believe that we are among a few companies
uniquely qualified to research, characterize, formulate, manufacture, address complex
biologics-related issues and commercialize generic biologics in-house.
In the U.S., the FDA has not recognized an abbreviated regulatory pathway for the timely and
cost-efficient approval of generic versions of biologic products under the Public Health Service
Act (PHSA). We are working with Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
including the FDA, and the generic industrys trade association, the Generic Pharmaceutical
Association (GPhA), to help define the regulatory pathway for approval of these products. We
have been developing these products in anticipation of Congress and the FDA creating a regulatory
pathway for generic biologics in the United States. In Europe, the EMEA has developed a regulatory
pathway for generic biologics, which also are known as similar biological medicinal products. As
a result, generic biologics are at a more advanced stage in Europe than they are in the United
States.
We are actively pursuing business development initiatives and internal development activities
that we believe will enable us to bring generic versions of biologic products to market, both in
the U.S. and in Europe, and we intend to build a leadership position in the development and
marketing of such products. We currently have a biologics development portfolio that includes
recombinant human G-CSF, a protein that stimulates the growth of certain white blood cells. Our
recombinant human G-CSF is intended to be a generic version of Amgens Neupogen®, and is
intended for submission in both the European Union (via a partner) and the U.S. We are also
developing an Adenovirus vaccine for the U.S. Department of Defense, and several additional
biologic products that are in various stages of development.
There are, however, three major challenges in pursuing generic biologics: regulatory
challenges, intellectual property challenges and scientific/manufacturing challenges. The key
regulatory challenge facing us in the U.S. is that the FDA has not recognized an abbreviated
regulatory pathway that would enable the timely and cost-efficient approval of generic versions of
biologics approved under the PHSA. We are working with Congress and the FDA to overcome this
barrier.
Brand manufacturers of biologic products have sought and obtained intellectual property
protection of many aspects of biologic development and manufacturing, including processes,
characterization, naturally occurring by-products of biologic raw material production and processes
related to scale-up, manufacturing and analysis of the purity, quality and efficacy of the finished
product. We believe that we are well situated, in terms of our experience with complex intellectual
property issues, to overcome patent and other barriers to the introduction of these products.
There have been significant recent developments in the generic biologic arena. Both Houses of
the U.S. Congress debated generic biologics legislation in 2007. Several Committees, including the
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, and the House Energy & Commerce Committee held hearings on a generic biologics
pathway. Several advocacy groups have also released economic reports on generic biologics, such as
that issued by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), which estimated savings of $43.2 billion
between 2011 and 2020 if an approval pathway is established.
On February 14, 2007, Representative Waxman introduced House Bill 1038 (Access to Life Saving
Medicine Act) in the U.S. House of Representatives seeking to provide a regulatory pathway for
generic biologics. The Access to Life Saving Medicine Act, as currently written, would allow the
FDA to approve abbreviated applications for generic versions of biologic products licensed under
the PHSA, without necessarily having to repeat expensive and duplicative clinical trials. The bill
establishes a scientifically rigorous process for approval of generic versions
17
of biologic products, authorizing the FDA to determine, on a product-by-product basis, what studies will be
necessary to show that a new product is clinically comparable to the brand name product. The bill
would also create an improved process for ensuring that patent disputes are resolved early to avoid
delays in competition. On February 15, 2007, Senators Clinton and Schumer, among others, introduced
a companion bill in the Senate, Senate Bill 623. In April 2007, Representative Inslee introduced
House Bill 1956 the Patient Protection and Innovative Biologic Medicines Act of 2007. That bill
would create significant barriers to timely and expedited approval of generic biologic products.
Senator Greg introduced a similar bill in the U.S. Senate in May 2007, Senate Bill 1505. On June
26, 2007, a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Clinton, Kennedy, Hatch, and Enzi,
introduced Senate Bill 1695, Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2007. That bill
would allow the FDA to approve abbreviated applications for generic versions of biologic products
licensed under the PHSA and would give the FDA the discretion to decide what data and tests would
be necessary for approval. The bill also includes a complex patent dispute resolution mechanism.
Barr continues to work in support of passage of a workable bill.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Our commitment to research and development, which includes generics, proprietary products and
biologics, resulted in investments of $248 million in 2007, $107 million in the Transition Period,
$140 million in fiscal 2006 and $128 million in fiscal 2005. We have consistently made substantial
investments in research and development because of our belief that a significant portfolio of
products in development is critical to our long-term success. Research and development expenditures
for generic development activities typically include those related to internal personnel,
third-party bioequivalence studies, clinical studies related to biologic product development, costs
paid to third-party development partners and raw materials used in developing products. Proprietary
product development costs typically include those related to internal personnel, clinical studies,
third-party toxicology studies, clinical trials conducted by third-party clinical research
organizations, raw materials and acquired in-process research and development charges. We expect to
continue to invest aggressively in research and development projects in generic, proprietary and
generic biologics categories.
RAW MATERIALS
We purchase certain bulk pharmaceutical chemicals and raw materials that are essential to our
business from numerous suppliers. We also purchase certain finished dosage form products, such as
our PLAN B emergency contraceptive and our ViaSpan® transplant preservation agent, from
third-party suppliers.
Arrangements with non-U.S. suppliers are subject to certain risks, including obtaining
governmental clearances, export duties, political instability, currency fluctuations and
restrictions on the transfer of funds. In addition, in the U.S., the Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) regulates the allocation to us of raw materials used in the production of controlled
substances based on historical sales data. Any inability to obtain raw materials or finished
products on a timely basis, or any significant price increases that cannot be passed on to
customers, could adversely affect us. Because prior FDA approval of raw material suppliers or
product manufacturers may be required, if raw materials or finished products from an approved
supplier or manufacturer were to become unavailable, the required FDA approval of a new supplier
could cause a significant delay in the manufacture or supply of the affected drug product.
PATENTS AND PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
We file patent applications and obtain patents to protect our products, technologies,
inventions and improvements that we consider important to the development of our business. We also
rely upon trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities
to develop and maintain our competitive position. Preserving our trade secrets and protecting our
proprietary rights are important to our long-term success.
From time-to-time, we may find it necessary to initiate litigation to enforce our patent
rights, to protect our trade secrets or know-how or to determine the scope and validity of the
proprietary rights of others. Litigation concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights and proprietary
technologies can often be protracted and expensive and, as with litigation generally, the outcome
is often uncertain. See Item 3 Legal Proceedings.
18
GOVERNMENT REGULATION
United States
We are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the DEA and state governments, among
others. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Controlled Substances Act, the Prescription
Drug Marketing Act and other federal statutes and regulations govern or influence the testing,
manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, marketing, advertising and
promotion of our products. Non-compliance with applicable requirements can result in fines, recalls
and seizure of products.
Abbreviated New Drug Application Process
In the U.S., generic pharmaceutical products are the chemical and therapeutic equivalent of
branded drug products listed in the FDA publication entitled Approved Drug Products with
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, popularly known in the industry as the Orange Book. The
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, which is known as the
Hatch-Waxman Act, has been largely credited with launching the generic drug industry in the
United States. Generic drugs are bioequivalent to their brand-name counterparts, meaning they
deliver the equivalent amount of active ingredient at the same rate as the brand-name drug.
Accordingly, generic products provide safe and effective alternatives to branded products,
typically at a significantly lower price than the branded equivalent.
FDA approval is required before a generic equivalent can be marketed. We seek approval for
such products by submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA. ANDAs are
abbreviated versions of NDAs that must be filed with the FDA for a branded product. The
Hatch-Waxman Act provides that generic drugs may enter the market upon approval of an ANDA. When
processing an ANDA, the FDA waives the requirement of conducting complete clinical studies,
although it normally requires bioavailability and/or bioequivalence studies. Bioavailability
indicates the rate and extent of which the active ingredient is absorbed from a drug product and
becomes available at the site of action. Bioequivalence compares the bioavailability of one drug
product with another, and when established, indicates that the rate of absorption and levels of
concentration of the active drug substance in the body are equivalent for the generic drug and the
previously approved drug. An ANDA may be submitted for a drug on the basis that it is the
equivalent of a previously approved drug or, in the case of a new dosage form, is suitable for use
for the indications specified.
Before approving a product, the FDA also requires that our procedures and operations conform
to Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations, relating to good manufacturing
practices as defined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. We must follow the cGMP regulations
at all times during the manufacture of our products. We continue to spend significant time, money
and effort in the areas of production and quality testing to help ensure full compliance with cGMP
regulations.
If the FDA believes a company is not in compliance with cGMP, sanctions may be imposed upon
that company including: withholding from the company new drug approvals as well as approvals for
supplemental changes to existing applications; preventing the company from receiving the necessary
export licenses to export its products; and classifying the company as an unacceptable supplier
and thereby disqualifying the company from selling products to federal agencies. We believe we are
currently in compliance with cGMP regulations.
The timing of final FDA approval of an ANDA depends on a variety of factors, including whether
the applicant challenges any listed patents for the drug and whether the brand-name manufacturer is
entitled to one or more statutory exclusivity periods, during which the FDA may be prohibited from
accepting applications for, or approving, generic products. In certain circumstances, a regulatory
period can extend beyond the life of a patent, and thus block ANDAs from being approved on the
patent expiration date. For example, in certain circumstances the FDA may extend the exclusivity of
a product by six months past the date of patent expiry if the manufacturer undertakes studies on
the effect of their product in children, a so-called pediatric extension. The pediatric extension
results from a 1997 law designed to reward branded pharmaceutical companies for conducting research
on the effects of pharmaceutical products in the pediatric population. As a result, under certain
circumstances, a branded company can obtain an additional six months of market exclusivity by
performing pediatric research.
19
In May 1992, Congress enacted the Generic Drug Enforcement Act of 1992, which allows the FDA
to impose debarment and other penalties on individuals and companies that commit certain illegal
acts relating to the generic drug approval process. In some situations, the Generic Drug
Enforcement Act requires the FDA to not accept or review ANDAs for a period of time from a company
or an individual that has committed certain violations. It also provides for temporary denial of
approval of applications during the investigation of certain violations that could lead to
debarment and also, in more limited circumstances, provides for the suspension of the marketing of
approved drugs by the affected company. Lastly, the Generic Drug Enforcement Act allows for civil
penalties and withdrawal of previously approved applications. Neither we nor any of our employees
have ever been subject to debarment.
Patent Challenges
We actively challenge patents on branded pharmaceutical products where we believe such patents
are invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed by our competing generic products. Our development
activities in this area, including sourcing raw materials and developing equivalent products, are
designed to obtain FDA approval for our product. Our legal activities in this area, performed
primarily by outside counsel, are designed to eliminate the barriers to market entry created by the
patents. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the first generic ANDA applicant whose filing includes a
certification that a listed patent on the brand name drug is invalid, unenforceable, or not
infringed (a so-called paragraph IV certification), may be eligible to receive a 180-day period
of generic market exclusivity. This period of market exclusivity may provide the patent challenger
with the opportunity to earn a significant return on the risks taken and its legal and development
costs. Patent challenge product candidates typically must have several years of remaining patent
protection to ensure that the legal process can be completed prior to patent expiry. Because of the
potential value of being the only generic in the market for the 180-day generic exclusivity period,
we typically seek to be the first company to file an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification
for a targeted product.
The process for initiating a patent challenge begins with the identification of a drug
candidate and evaluation by qualified legal counsel of the patents purportedly protecting that
product. We have reviewed a number of potential challenges and have pursued only those that we
believe have merit. Our general practice is to disclose patent
challenges after the patent holder has sued us. Thus, at any time, we could have several
undisclosed patent challenges in various stages of development.
Patent challenges are complex, costly, and can take three to six years to complete. As a
result, we have in the past and may elect in the future to have partners on selected patent
challenges. These arrangements typically provide for a sharing of the costs and risks, and
generally provide for a sharing of the benefits of a successful outcome. In addition, our patent
challenges may result in settlements that we believe are reasonable, lawful, and in our
shareholders best interests.
Over the past few years the use of so-called authorized generics has increased significantly
in response to generic pharmaceutical patent challenges. Authorized generics involve the brand
pharmaceutical maker either marketing a generic version of its brand product or licensing its
brand drug to another company, which is then marketed in competition with the true generic during
the 180-day generic exclusivity period. Because the authorized generic is not sold under an ANDA,
but rather is sold under the brand pharmaceutical makers NDA, courts have held to date that the
authorized generic can compete against the patent challengers generic product during the 180-day
exclusivity period.
We believe that the marketing of authorized generics during a generic companys 180-day
exclusivity period undermines the original intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act and devalues the
incentives the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for pursuing paragraph IV certifications. In addition,
authorized generics may have a chilling effect on investment in future patent challenges by some
generic pharmaceutical companies. We continue to work with Congress to seek legislation that would
restore the full value of the incentive period. In January 2007, Senators Rockefeller, Schumer,
Leahy and Kohl introduced Senate Bill 438 seeking to prohibit the entry of an authorized generic
drug into the market during a generic companys 180-day exclusivity period.
Sales of several of our products have been impacted by the brand companys authorized generic
product launch during our 180-day exclusivity period and we anticipate that certain future products
may also face competition from authorized generics.
20
In January 2007, Senators Kohl, Leahy, Grassley, Schumer, and Feingold introduced Senate Bill
316 which would significantly limit the ability of companies to settle Hatch-Waxman patent
litigation. In March and April 2007, similar legislation was introduced in the U.S. House. We
believe that such potential legislation undermines the original intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act and
devalues the 180-day generic exclusivity incentive. We continue to work with Congress to seek
legislation that would not so limit the ability of brand and generic companies to enter into
pro-consumer settlements.
In 2006, patent reform legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate. Those bills
would make certain changes to the Patent Act. In 2007, new patent reform legislation was
introduced in the House and Senate, House Bill 1908 and Senate Bill 1145. The House passed House
Bill 1908 in September 2007. The full Senate has not voted on Senate Bill 1145. If adopted, the
proposals set forth in these bills could significantly change the way that patent laws currently
operate. We continue to work with Congress to seek legislation that would not negatively impact a
companys ability to challenge the validity, enforceability, or infringement of patents.
Patent Challenge Process
The Hatch-Waxman Act offers an incentive to generic pharmaceutical companies that challenge
suspect patents on branded pharmaceutical products. The legislation recognizes that there is a
potential for non-infringement of an existing patent or the improper issuance of patents by the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, resulting from a variety of technical, legal or
scientific factors. The Hatch-Waxman legislation places significant burdens on the challenger to
ensure that such suits are not frivolous, but also may offer the opportunity for significant
financial reward if successful.
At the time an ANDA is filed with the FDA, a generic company that wishes to challenge the
patent files a paragraph IV certification. After receiving notice from the FDA that its application
is accepted for filing, the generic
company sends the patent holder and NDA owner a notice explaining why it believes that the
patent(s) in question are invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. If the patent holder and NDA
owner bring suit in federal district court against the generic company to enforce the challenged
patent within 45 days of the receipt of the notice from the generic company, the Hatch-Waxman Act
provides for an automatic stay of the FDAs authority to grant the approval that would otherwise
give the patent challenger the right to market its generic product. This stay is set at 30 months,
or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by the court. The 30 months often does not
coincide with the timing of a trial or the expiration of a patent. The discovery, trial, and
appeals process can take several years.
Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the developer of a generic drug that files the first ANDA
containing a paragraph IV certification may be eligible to receive a 180-day period of generic
market exclusivity. This period of market exclusivity may provide the patent challenger with the
opportunity to earn a significant return on the risks taken and its legal and development costs.
The FDA adopted regulations implementing the 180-day generic marketing exclusivity provision
of the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, over the years, courts have found various provisions of the
regulations to be in conflict with the statute. For example, in Mova Pharmaceutical Corp. v.
Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1998), the court of appeals held that the Hatch-Waxman Act
required generic exclusivity to be awarded to the first generic company to file an ANDA containing
a paragraph IV certification, regardless of whether that company prevailed in a court challenge to
the relevant patent(s) before another company was ready for approval. In contrast, the FDAs
regulations had required the first patent challenger to successfully defend its challenge to the
patent(s) before another generic company was ready to receive approval. In Mylan Pharmaceuticals v.
Shalala, 81 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000), the court found that the statute requires the 180-day
generic period to commence on the date of the first court decision in favor of the generic
applicant, even if the first successful decision was a district court decision finding the
challenged patent invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed and the innovator company appealed the
courts decision. The decision was in contrast to the FDAs regulation under which the exclusivity
period would not commence until the appellate court affirmed the district courts invalidity,
unenforceability, or non-infringement ruling.
21
In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA)
was signed into law. The MMA included provisions modifying the Hatch-Waxman Act and generic
exclusivity related to patent challenges. The MMA includes several provisions regarding the patent
challenge process designed to level the playing field for generic companies. Generally speaking,
the MMA provisions apply when the first ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification was filed
after December 8, 2003. These reforms included:
|
|
|
Only one 30-month stay allowed per drug; |
|
|
|
|
Product-by-product exclusivity; |
|
|
|
|
Shared 180-day exclusivity in limited circumstances; |
|
|
|
|
Counterclaim for an Orange Book delisting allowed; and |
|
|
|
|
180-day exclusivity cannot be triggered by a district court decision. |
First, under the MMA, only patents submitted to the FDA before an ANDA is filed can result in
a 30-month stay. No additional 30-month stay can be obtained on patents listed in the Orange Book
after the ANDA has been filed. Second, exclusivity is expressly on a product-by-product basis,
meaning that there will only be one 180-day exclusivity period per listed drug. Third, because
exclusivity is product-by-product, shared exclusivity will result only when multiple companies
submit the first ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification on the same day. Fourth, ANDA
applicants now have the ability to challenge the propriety of a patent listing. If an ANDA
applicant is sued, the company can now bring a counterclaim seeking to have a patent removed from
the Orange Book. Finally, for ANDAs where the first paragraph IV certification was filed before
December 8, 2003, Congress reinstated FDAs prior interpretation of court decision, meaning that
exclusivity for such applications can be triggered by first commercial marketing or by the
appellate courts affirmance of an appealed district courts ruling. Thus, for such applications,
the 180-day exclusivity period cannot be triggered by a district court decision that is on appeal.
Where the first paragraph IV ANDA was submitted after the enactment of the MMA, the MMA made
changes to the generic exclusivity provision. Under the MMA, the start of the 180-day exclusivity
period can only be triggered by the first ANDA filers marketing of its own generic product or a
product made by the brand company. The MMA also includes a series of provisions under which the
180-day exclusivity period can be forfeited. While exclusivity could be forfeited as a result of
a court decision, that court decision must either be an unappealed district court decision or an
appellate court decision.
New Drug Application Process
FDA approval is required before any new drug can be marketed in the U.S. A New Drug
Application (NDA) is a filing submitted to the FDA to obtain approval of a new drug and must
contain complete pre-clinical and clinical safety and efficacy data or a right of reference to such
data. Before dosing a new drug in healthy human subjects or patients may begin, stringent
government requirements for pre-clinical data must be satisfied. The pre-clinical data, typically
obtained from studies in animal species as well as from laboratory studies, are submitted in an
Investigational New Drug, or IND, application, or its equivalent in countries outside the U.S.
where clinical trials are to be conducted. The pre-clinical data must provide an adequate basis for
evaluating both the safety and the scientific rationale for the initiation of clinical trials.
Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, although the phases may
overlap.
|
|
|
In Phase I, which frequently begins with the initial introduction of the
compound into healthy human subjects prior to introduction into patients, the
product is tested for safety, adverse effects, dosage, tolerance absorption,
metabolism, excretion and other elements of clinical pharmacology. |
|
|
|
|
Phase II typically involves studies in a small sample of the intended patient
population to assess the efficacy of the compound for a specific indication, to
determine dose tolerance and |
22
|
|
|
the optimal dose range, and to gather additional
information relating to safety and potential adverse effects. |
|
|
|
|
Phase III trials are undertaken to further evaluate clinical safety and
efficacy in an expanded patient population at typically dispersed study sites,
in order to determine the overall risk-benefit ratio of the compound and to
provide an adequate basis for product labeling. |
Each trial is conducted in accordance with certain standards under protocols that detail the
objectives of the study, the parameters to be used to monitor safety and the efficacy criteria to
be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In some cases, the FDA
allows a company to rely on data developed in foreign countries, or previously published data,
which eliminates the need to independently repeat some or all of the studies.
Data from pre-clinical testing and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as an NDA for
marketing approval and to other health authorities as a marketing authorization application. The
process of completing clinical trials for a new drug may take several years and require the
expenditure of substantial resources. Preparing an NDA or marketing authorization application
involves considerable data collection, verification, analysis and expense, and there can be no
assurance that approval from the FDA or any other health authority will be granted on a timely
basis, if at all. The approval process is affected by a number of factors, primarily the risks and
benefits demonstrated in clinical trials as well as the severity of the disease and the
availability of alternative treatments. The FDA or other health authorities may deny an NDA or
marketing authorization application if the regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or such
authorities may require additional testing or information.
Even after initial FDA or other health authority approval has been obtained, further studies,
including Phase IV post-marketing studies, may be required to provide additional data on safety.
The post-marketing studies could be used to gain approval for the use of a product as a treatment
for clinical indications other than those for which the product was initially tested.
Also, the FDA or other regulatory authorities require post-marketing reporting to monitor the
adverse effects of the drug. Results of post-marketing programs may limit or expand the further
marketing of the products. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes
in indication, manufacturing process or labeling or a change in the manufacturing facility, an
application seeking approval of such changes must be submitted to the FDA or other regulatory
authority. Additionally, the FDA regulates post-approval promotional labeling and advertising
activities to assure that such activities are being conducted in conformity with statutory and
regulatory requirements. Failure to adhere to such requirements can result in regulatory actions
that could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
Because we sell and are currently developing several other products that contain controlled
substances, we must meet the requirements and regulations of the Controlled Substances Act, which
are administered by the DEA. These regulations include stringent requirements for manufacturing
controls and security to prevent diversion of or unauthorized access to the drugs in each stage of
the production and distribution process. The DEA regulates allocation to us of raw materials used
in the production of controlled substances based on historical sales data. We believe we are
currently in compliance with all applicable DEA requirements.
Medicaid
In November 1990, a law regarding reimbursement for prescribed Medicaid drugs was passed as
part of the Congressional Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. All generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers whose products are covered by the Medicaid program are required to rebate to each
state a percentage of their Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) for the products in question. For
2007, these percentages were 11% in the case of products sold by us which are covered by an ANDA
and the greater of 15% or the difference between AMP minus the lowest non-government price, or Best
Price, for products sold by us which are covered by an NDA. For products covered by an NDA,
rebates may include an additional penalty if prices increased faster than the Consumer Price
Index-Urban over time.
23
The Deficit Reduction Act required changes to our methods of calculating the AMP and Best
Price effective October 1, 2007. It is too early to determine the financial effect of these
changes. We believe that federal and/or state governments may continue to enact measures in the
future aimed at reducing the cost of providing prescription drug benefits to the public,
particularly senior citizens. We cannot predict the nature of such measures or their impact on our
profitability.
Medicare
In January 2006, the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which provides for
comprehensive prescription drug coverage to seniors, took effect with the implementation of the
Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act (MMA). During 2006 and 2007, we finalized
negotiated rebate agreements involving Cenestin, ENJUVIA and Trexall with numerous Part D Sponsors.
We also calculated and reported our quarterly Average Sales Price (ASP) for products covered under
Medicare Part B, as required by the MMA.
Other Countries
In Europe and ROW, the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products is regulated in a
manner substantially similar to that in the United States. Legal requirements generally prohibit
the handling, manufacture, marketing and importation of any pharmaceutical product unless it is
properly registered in accordance with applicable law. The registration file relating to any
particular product must contain medical data related to product efficacy and safety, including
results of clinical testing and/or references to medical publications, as well as detailed
information regarding production methods and quality control. Health ministries are authorized to
cancel or suspend the registration of a product if it is found to be harmful or ineffective or
manufactured and marketed other than in accordance with registration conditions.
A directive of the European Union requires that medicinal products shall have a valid
marketing authorization before they are sold or supplied in the European Union. Marketing
authorizations are granted after the assessment of
quality, safety and efficacy. In order to control expenditures on pharmaceuticals, most member
states of the European Union regulate the pricing of such products and in some cases limit the
range of different forms of a drug available for prescription by national health services. These
controls can result in considerable price differences among member states. As part of the mutual
recognition and decentralization registration procedures established by the European Union, an
attempt was made to simplify the registration process and achieve harmonization for a given product
within the community. The centralized registration procedure is mandatory for biosimilar products
but is optional for generic versions of centrally approved products.
To date, only a few generic
products have been approved using this procedure.
The duration of certain pharmaceutical patents may be extended in Europe and the ROW by up to
five years in order to extend effective patent life to fifteen years. Additionally, data
exclusivity provisions in Europe (as discussed below) may prevent the submission of a marketing
authorization application for a generic product by six or ten years from the date of grant of the
first marketing authorization for the originator product in the European Union. New legislation,
effective as of November 2005, lengthens the exclusivity period for new products to 10 years for
all members of the EU, with a possibility of extending the period up to 11 years under certain
circumstances. As this legislation is not retrospective, the old periods of data exclusivity
continue to apply to products submitted prior to implementation of the new law. This new
legislation also enables the submission of a marketing authorization application for a generic
product to the health authorities eight years after the first marketing authorization for the
originator product was approved in the EU, and allows for research and development work during the
patent term for the purpose of submitting registration dossiers.
Data exclusivity provisions exist in many countries worldwide, including in the European
Union, although their application is not uniform. Similar provisions may be adopted by additional
countries or otherwise strengthened. In general, these exclusivity provisions prevent the approval
and/or submission of generic drug applications to the health authorities for a fixed period of time
following the first approval of a novel brand-name product in that country. As these exclusivity
provisions operate independently of patent protection, they may prevent the approval and/or
submission of generic drug applications for some products even after the patent protection has
expired.
24
Government Relations Activities
Because we believe a balanced and fair legislative and regulatory arena is critical to the
pharmaceutical industry, we have and will continue to place a major emphasis in terms of management
time and financial resources on government affairs activities. We currently maintain an office and
staff a full-time government affairs department in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for
coordinating state and federal legislative activities and coordinating with the generic industry
trade association and other associations, such as the Consumer Health Product Association and
National Association of Manufacturers, whose interests and goals are aligned with ours. Outside the
U.S., we participate in the European Generic Association, and local government affairs matters are
handled by country managers on a local level, subject to overall coordination by our government
affairs department.
COMPETITION
We face intense competition from numerous branded and generic pharmaceutical companies in
nearly every country where our pharmaceutical products are marketed. Our competitors include:
|
|
|
the generic divisions and subsidiaries of brand pharmaceutical companies,
including Sandoz US, a subsidiary of Novartis AG; |
|
|
|
|
large independent domestic and international generic manufacturers including
Mylan Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals and distributors
with large product lines where there is competition with some of our products; |
|
|
|
|
generic manufacturers in Europe such as Ratiopharm, Gedeon Richter Ltd,
Actavis and Krka d.d.; |
|
|
|
|
generic manufacturers in India that have certain cost advantages over U.S.
generic manufacturers, such as Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddys; and |
|
|
|
|
brand pharmaceutical companies whose therapies compete with our generic and
proprietary products, including Johnson & Johnson, Wyeth, Bayer and Warner
Chilcott. |
The expiration of patents and other market exclusivities on branded products results in
generic competitors entering the marketplace. In most cases, there is significant unit price decline as additional
generic competitors enter the market and we may lose market share as
well. The timing of price decreases is often unpredictable and can result in a significantly curtailed period of profitability for a particular
generic product. In addition, brand-name manufacturers frequently take actions in the U.S. to
prevent or discourage the use of a competitors generic equivalents. These actions may include:
|
|
|
filing new patents on drugs whose original patent protection is about to
expire; |
|
|
|
|
obtaining patents on next-generation products reflecting, for example
changes in formulation, means of delivery or other product improvement
modifications; |
|
|
|
|
increasing marketing initiatives; |
|
|
|
|
launching authorized generic versions of their branded products; |
|
|
|
|
using the Citizens Petition process to request amendments to FDA
standards; |
|
|
|
|
pricing the brand product below the already reduced price of the generic
product in certain formularies in order to maintain a favored reimbursement
status; and |
|
|
|
|
commencing litigation. |
25
Generic pharmaceutical market conditions have also been affected by industry consolidation and
a fundamental shift in industry distribution, purchasing and stocking patterns resulting in the
increased importance of sales to major chain drug stores and major wholesalers and a concurrent
reduction in sales to private label generic distributors.
In the generic oral contraceptive market, which represents the largest category of our
generics segment, our most significant competitor is Watson Pharmaceuticals, which markets and
distributes a sizeable portfolio of generic oral contraceptive products. Teva Pharmaceuticals,
which currently markets two generic oral contraceptive products manufactured by Andrx Corporation,
now a subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, is also a competitor. As a result of Watsons
acquisition of Andrx, Teva has gained the rights to Andrxs oral contraceptive products and pending
applications. In addition, a small, privately held pharmaceutical company distributes authorized
generic versions of two oral contraceptive products that we manufacture and market. Although we
expect competition in the generic oral contraceptive field to intensify, we believe that our large
portfolio of generic oral contraceptives will remain a significant component of our total revenues in 2008.
In Europe, we compete with other generic companies (several major multinational generic drug
companies and various local generic drug companies) and branded drug companies that continue to
sell or license branded pharmaceutical products after patent expirations and other statutory
expirations. As in the U.S., the generic market in Europe is very competitive, with the main
competitive factors being prices, time to market, reputation, customer service and breadth of
product line.
Our proprietary pharmaceutical products compete with products manufactured by branded
pharmaceutical companies in competitive markets throughout the U.S. and Canada. The competitive
factors that impact this part of our business include product efficacy, safety, market acceptance,
price, marketing effectiveness, patent protection, and research and development of new products.
Our proprietary products often must compete with other products that already have an established
position in the market. If competitors introduce new products, delivery systems or processes with
therapeutic or cost advantages, our products could be subject to price reductions or decreased
volume of sales, or both. Our proprietary products may also face competition from manufacturers of
generic pharmaceuticals, following the expiration of non-patent product exclusivities or a
successful challenge to our patents.
To ensure our ability to compete effectively, we:
|
|
|
focus our proprietary and generic product development in areas of historical
strength or competitive advantage; |
|
|
|
|
target generic products for development that have unique characteristics,
including difficulty in sourcing raw materials, difficulty in formulation or
establishing bioequivalence, and manufacturing that requires unique facilities,
processes or expertise; |
|
|
|
|
develop innovative, cost-effective proprietary products that serve unmet
medical needs; and |
|
|
|
|
make significant investments in plant and equipment to improve our
efficiency. |
These strategies provide the basis for our belief that we will continue to remain a leading
independent specialty pharmaceutical company.
EMPLOYEES
Our success depends on our ability to recruit and retain highly qualified scientific and
management personnel. We face competition for personnel from other companies (including other
pharmaceutical companies), academic institutions, government entities and other organizations. As
of December 31, 2007, we had approximately 8,900 full-time employees. In the U.S., approximately 80
of our employees are represented by unions. Outside of the U.S., approximately 2,650 of our
employees are represented by unions, and approximately 5,100 employees are covered by collective
bargaining agreements in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland.
26
We believe that our relations with our employees are good.
INSURANCE
Our insurance coverage at any given time reflects market conditions, including cost and
availability, existing at the time it is written, and the decision to obtain insurance coverage or
to self-insure varies accordingly. If we were to incur substantial liabilities that are not covered
by insurance or that substantially exceed coverage levels or accruals for probable losses, there
could be a material adverse effect on our financial statements in a particular period.
We maintain third-party insurance that provides coverage, a portion of which is subject to
specified co-insurance requirements, for the cost of product liability claims arising during the
current policy period, which began on October 1, 2007 and ends on September 30, 2008, up to an
aggregate amount of $75.0 million. For claims related to products distributed in North America, we
have retained liability for the first $25.0 million of costs incurred while claims related to
products distributed outside of North America are subject to per claim and aggregate retentions of
$1.0 million and $5.0 million, respectively.
In addition to the above programs, we also have obtained extended reporting periods under
previous policies for certain claims asserted during the current policy period where those claims
relate to remote and prior occurrences. The applicable retentions and dates of occurrence under the
previous policies vary by policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL
We believe that our operations comply in all material respects with applicable laws and
regulations concerning the environment. While it is impossible to predict accurately the future
costs associated with environmental compliance and potential remediation activities, we do not
expect compliance with environmental laws to require significant capital expenditures nor do we
expect such compliance to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.
27
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
The statements in this section describe the major risks to our business and should be
considered carefully. In addition, these statements constitute our cautionary statements under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Our disclosure and analysis in this Form 10-K contain some forward-looking statements that set
forth anticipated results based on managements 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. Such statements give our current expectations or forecasts of future
events; they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. We have tried, wherever
possible, to identify such statements by using words such as anticipate, estimate, expect,
project, intend, plan, believe, target, forecast and similar expressions in connection
with any discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include
statements relating to future actions, prospective products or product approvals, potential
acquisitions, future performance or results of current and anticipated products, sales efforts,
expenses, foreign exchange rates, the outcome of contingencies, such as legal proceedings, and
financial results.
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 reports on forms 10-Q and 8-K filed with 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.
Our success depends on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize additional
pharmaceutical products
Our future results of operations depend, to a significant degree, upon our ability to
successfully commercialize additional generic and proprietary pharmaceutical products. With respect
to our generic products, we must develop, test and manufacture these products, as well as prove
that our generic products are bioequivalent to their branded counterparts. With respect to our
proprietary products, we must complete typically lengthy clinical studies that prove the safety and
efficacy of our proprietary products. All of our products must meet and continue to comply with
regulatory and safety standards and receive regulatory approvals. We may be forced to withdraw a
product from the market if health or safety concerns arise with respect to the product. The
development and commercialization process, particularly with respect to proprietary products, is
both time-consuming and costly and involves a high degree of business risk. Our products currently
under development, if and when fully developed and tested, may not perform as we expect, necessary
regulatory approvals may not be obtained in a timely manner, if at all, and we may not be able to
successfully and profitably produce and market such products. Delays in any part of the process or
our inability to obtain regulatory approval of our products could adversely affect our operating
results by restricting or delaying our introduction of new products. Our ability to introduce and
benefit from new generic products may depend upon our ability to successfully challenge patent
rights held by branded companies. The continuous introduction of new products is critical to our
business.
28
Impact on our revenues and profits as competition is introduced
We attempt to select our generic products based on the prospects for limited competition from
competing generic companies. We do so because we believe that the more generic competitors that
market the same generic product, the lower the revenue and profitability we will record for our
product. Therefore, if any of our currently marketed products or any newly launched generic product
are subject to additional generic competition from one or more competing products, our price and
market share for the affected generic product and our operating results as a whole could be
dramatically reduced. As a consequence, unless we successfully replace generic products that are
declining in profitability with new generic products with higher profitability, our business could
be adversely affected.
Upon the expiration or loss of patent protection or regulatory exclusivity periods for one of
our branded products, or upon the at risk launch by a generic manufacturer of a generic version
of one of our branded products, we can lose the major portion of sales of that product in a very
short period, which can adversely affect our business. If we do not continue to successfully
replace proprietary products through internal development or acquisition, our revenue and profits
will decline.
Resolving Paragraph IV patent challenges
Our operating results have historically included significant contributions from products that
arise from the success we have had from our patent challenge activities. However, the success we
have had in the past from challenging branded companies patents, whether through court decisions
that permit us to launch our generic products or through settlements, may not be repeated in the
future due to the following:
|
|
|
legislation currently pending in Congress that, if passed as currently
written, could significantly limit the ability of brand and generic companies to
settle patent litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act; |
|
|
|
|
patent reform legislation proposals that would
make it more difficult to invalidate patents or render them
unenforceable; |
|
|
|
|
an increase in the number of competitors who pursue patent challenges could
make it more difficult for us to be the first to file a Paragraph IV
certification on a patent protected product; |
|
|
|
|
a branded companys decision to launch an authorized generic version of a
product will reduce our market share and lower the revenues and gross profits we
could have otherwise earned if an authorized generic were not launched; |
|
|
|
|
claims brought by third parties, including the FTC, various states Attorneys
General and other third-party payers challenging the legality of our settlement
agreements could affect the way in which we resolve our patent challenges with
the brand pharmaceutical companies; and |
|
|
|
|
the efforts of brand companies to use legislative and regulatory tactics to
delay the launch of generic products. |
Impact of At Risk Launches
There are situations in which we have used our business and legal judgment and decided to
market and sell products, subject to claims of alleged patent infringement, prior to final
resolution by the courts, based upon our belief that such patents are invalid, unenforceable or
would not be infringed. This is referred to in the pharmaceutical industry as an at risk launch.
One such example of this is our at risk launch of Fexofenadine hydrochloride 30 mg, 60 mg and 180
mg tablets, the generic versions of Sanofi-Aventis Allegra® tablets, together with
Teva, as discussed above. The risk involved in an at risk launch can be substantial because, if
a patent holder ultimately prevails, the remedies available to such holder may include, among other
things, damages measured by the profits lost by the holder, which are often significantly higher
than the profits we make from selling the generic
29
version of the product. Should we elect to proceed in this manner we could face substantial
damages if the final court decision is adverse to us. In the case where a patent holder is able to
prove that our infringement was willful, the definition of which is subjective, such damages may
be trebled.
Uncertainty associated with pharmaceutical pricing, reimbursement and related matters
Increasing expenditures for health care have been the subject of considerable public attention
in almost every jurisdiction where we conduct business. Both private and governmental entities are
seeking ways to reduce or contain health care costs. In many countries in which we currently
operate, pharmaceutical prices are subject to regulation. In the U.S., numerous proposals that
would effect changes in the U.S. health care system have been introduced or proposed in Congress
and in some state legislatures, including the enactment in December 2003 of expanded Medicare
coverage for drugs, which became effective in January 2006. Similar activities are taking place
throughout Europe. We cannot predict the nature of the measures that may be adopted or their impact
on the marketing, pricing and demand for our products.
Managed Care Trends
The trend toward managed healthcare in the U.S., the growth of organizations such as HMOs and
MCOs, and legislative proposals to reform healthcare and government insurance programs could
significantly influence the purchase of pharmaceutical products, resulting in lower prices and a
reduction in product demand. Such cost containment measures and healthcare reform could affect our
ability to sell our products and may have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally,
reimbursements to patients may not be maintained and third-party payers, which place limits on
levels of reimbursement, may reduce the demand for, or negatively affect the price of, those
products and could significantly harm our business. We may also be subject to lawsuits relating to
reimbursement programs that could be costly to defend, divert managements attention and could have
a material adverse effect on our business.
Government Regulation
We are dependent on obtaining timely approvals before marketing most of our products. Any
manufacturer failing to comply with FDA or other applicable regulatory agency requirements may be
unable to obtain approvals for the introduction of new products and, even after approval, initial
product shipments may be delayed. For example, on May 8, 2006, prior to the acquisition, PLIVA
received a warning letter from the FDA that raised numerous concerns regarding our manufacturing
facility in Zagreb, Croatia, and in connection with that letter, the FDA imposed a temporary hold
on approvals of ANDAs for products produced at this facility which
has since been lifted. The FDA also has the authority, in
certain circumstances, to revoke drug approvals previously granted and remove from the market
previously approved drug products containing ingredients no longer approved by the FDA. Our major
facilities, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S., and our products are periodically inspected by
the FDA, which has extensive enforcement powers over the activities of pharmaceutical
manufacturers, including the power to seize, force to recall and prohibit the sale or import of
non-complying products, and to halt operations of and criminally prosecute non-complying
manufacturers.
In Europe, the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products is regulated in a manner
substantially similar to that in the United States. Legal requirements generally prohibit the
handling, manufacture, marketing and importation of any pharmaceutical product unless it is
properly registered in accordance with applicable law. The registration file relating to any
particular product must contain medical data related to product efficacy and safety, including
results of clinical testing and references to medical publications, as well as detailed information
regarding production methods and quality control. Health ministries are authorized to cancel the
registration of a product if it is found to be harmful or ineffective or manufactured and marketed
other than in accordance with registration conditions.
Data exclusivity provisions exist in many countries worldwide, including in the European
Union, although their application is not uniform. Similar provisions may be adopted by additional
countries or otherwise strengthened. In general, these exclusivity provisions prevent the approval
and/or submission of generic drug applications to the health authorities for a fixed period of time
following the first approval of a novel brand-name product in that
30
country. As these exclusivity provisions operate independently of patent exclusivity, they may
prevent the approval and/or submission of generic drug applications for some products even after
the patent protection has expired.
Product Manufacturing
Difficulties or delays in product manufacturing, including, but not limited to, the inability
to increase production capacity commensurate with demand, or the failure to predict market demand
for, or to gain market acceptance of approved products, could adversely affect future results.
Dependence on Third Parties
We rely on numerous third parties to supply us with most of our raw materials, inactive
ingredients and other components for our manufactured products and for certain of our finished
goods. In many instances there is only a single supplier. In addition, we rely on third-party
distributors and alliance partners to provide services for our business, including product
development, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, customer service support, medical affairs
services, clinical studies, sales and other technical and financial services for certain of our
products. Also, in Europe we often in-license products that are manufactured by others for us.
Nearly all third-party suppliers and contractors are subject to governmental regulation and,
accordingly, we are dependent on the regulatory compliance of these third parties. We also depend
on the strength, validity and terms of our various contracts with these third-party manufacturers,
distributors and collaboration partners. Any interruption or failure by these suppliers,
distributors and collaboration partners to meet their obligations pursuant to various agreements or
obligations with us could have a material adverse effect on our business.
In addition, our revenues include amounts we earn based on sales generated and recorded by
Teva Pharmaceuticals for generic Allegra, and Kos Pharmaceuticals for NIASPAN and ADVICOR. Any
factors that negatively impact the sales of these products could adversely impact our revenues and
profits.
Customer Consolidation
Our principal customers in the United States are wholesale drug distributors and major retail
drug store chains. These customers comprise a significant part of the distribution network for
pharmaceutical products in the U.S. This distribution network is continuing to undergo significant
consolidation as a result of mergers and acquisitions among wholesale distributors and the growth
of large retail drug store chains. This consolidation may result in these groups gaining additional
purchasing leverage and consequently increasing the product pricing pressures facing our business.
Additionally, the emergence of large buying groups representing independent retail pharmacies and
the prevalence and influence of managed care organizations and similar institutions potentially
enable those groups to extract price discounts on our products. Our net sales and quarterly growth
comparisons may be affected by fluctuations in the buying patterns of major distributors, retail
chains and other trade buyers. These fluctuations may result from seasonality, pricing, wholesaler
buying decisions or other factors.
Acquisitions
We regularly review potential acquisitions of products and companies complementary to our
business. Acquisitions typically entail many risks including difficulties in integrating
operations, personnel, technologies and products. If we are not able to successfully integrate our
acquisitions, we may not obtain the advantages that the acquisitions were intended to create, which
may adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, and
our ability to develop and introduce new products.
Integration of PLIVA
We acquired PLIVA in October 2006. The acquisition involved the integration of two companies
that had previously operated independently. There continues to be a number of operational and
financial risks associated with this acquisition and related integration. The operational risks
include, but are not limited to, the following:
31
|
|
|
the necessity of coordinating and consolidating geographically separated
organizations, systems and facilities, including as they relate to disclosure
controls and internal controls for purposes of regulations promulgated under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act; |
|
|
|
|
the successful integration of our management and personnel with that of PLIVA
and retaining key employees; and |
|
|
|
|
changes in intellectual property legal protections and remedies, trade
regulations and procedures and actions affecting approval, production, pricing,
reimbursement and marketing of products. |
The financial risks include, but are not limited to, the following:
|
|
|
our ability to satisfy obligations with respect to the $1.8 billion of debt
outstanding as of December 31, 2007 that we incurred to help finance this
transaction, a significant portion of which is at a variable rate of interest
based upon LIBOR; |
|
|
|
|
charges associated with this transaction, including additional depreciation
and amortization of acquired assets and interest expense which have impacted,
and will continue to negatively impact, our net income; |
|
|
|
|
our ability to accurately forecast financial results is affected by a
significant increase in the scope and complexity of our business; |
|
|
|
|
our international-based revenues and expenses are subject to foreign currency
exchange rate fluctuations; and |
|
|
|
|
to the extent goodwill or intangible assets associated with the acquisition
become impaired, we may be required to incur material charges to our earnings
for those impairments. |
If management is unable to successfully integrate the operations and manage the financial
risks, the anticipated benefits of this acquisition may not be realized and it could result in a
material adverse effect on our operations and cash flow.
We have substantial indebtedness which requires us to apply a substantial portion of our cash flows
from operation to service our indebtedness.
In
connection with our acquisition of PLIVA, we incurred significant debt.
As of December 31, 2007 our total outstanding debt was $2.1 billion. Our current indebtedness
requires us to apply a significant portion of our operating cash flows to service our indebtedness
which may prevent us from:
|
|
|
making additional product acquisitions; |
|
|
|
|
completing additional business combinations; |
|
|
|
|
investing in all contemplated capital projects; |
|
|
|
|
securing additional debt; |
|
|
|
|
having a competitive advantage over our competitors that have less debt; and |
32
|
|
|
having the ability to invest larger portions of our excess cash flow from operations
in marketable securities. |
Volatility in interest rates, commodity prices and credit markets may adversely affect our
financial condition, result of operations or cash flows
The current volatility in interest rates, commodity prices and credit
markets could affect the following items:
|
|
|
our ability to invest in higher earning marketable securities in both the short-term
and long-term markets; |
|
|
|
|
our ability to raise additional liquidity due to credit concerns in the capital
markets; |
|
|
|
|
our ability to liquidate certain investments under our marketable securities
portfolio (including auction-rate securities) due to credit concerns in the capital
markets; and |
|
|
|
|
our exposure to the volatile interest rate market and the inability to secure
favorable interest rates. |
We are subject to risks associated with doing business outside of the United States
Our operations outside of the U.S. are subject to risks that are inherent in conducting
business under non-U.S. laws, regulations and customs. The risks associated with our operations
outside the U.S. include:
|
|
|
changes in non-U.S. medical reimbursement policies and programs; |
|
|
|
|
multiple non-U.S. regulatory requirements that are subject to change and that
could restrict our ability to manufacture and sell our products; |
|
|
|
|
compliance with anti-bribery laws such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act and similar anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions, as discussed in
further detail below; |
|
|
|
|
different local product preferences and product requirements; |
|
|
|
|
trade protection measures and import or export licensing requirements; |
|
|
|
|
difficulty in establishing, staffing and managing non-U.S. operations; |
|
|
|
|
different labor regulations; |
|
|
|
|
changes in environmental, health and safety laws; |
|
|
|
|
potentially negative consequences from changes in or interpretations of tax
laws; |
|
|
|
|
political instability and actual or anticipated military or political
conflicts; |
|
|
|
|
economic instability, inflation, recession, and interest rate or foreign
currency fluctuations; and |
|
|
|
|
minimal or diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries. |
These risks, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
33
We are subject to the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and
similar worldwide anti-bribery laws
The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions
generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to government
officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Our policies mandate compliance with
these anti-bribery laws. We operate in many parts of the world that have experienced governmental
corruption to some degree, and in certain circumstances, strict compliance with anti-bribery laws
may conflict with local customs and practices. We cannot assure you that our internal control
policies and procedures always will protect us from reckless or criminal acts committed by our
employees or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our
business and result in a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows.
Changes in foreign currency exchange rates may adversely affect our results
We are exposed to a variety of market risks, including the effects of changes in foreign
currency exchange rates and interest rates. As a result of our PLIVA acquisition, sales in non-U.S.
markets now represent a significant portion of our net sales. Therefore, when the U.S. dollar
strengthens in relation to the currencies of the countries where we sell our products, such as the
Euro or Croatian Kuna, our U.S. dollar reported revenue and income will decrease. Changes in the
relative values of currencies occur from time to time and, in some instances, may have a
significant effect on our operating results.
Cost and Expense Control/Unusual Events
Growth in costs and expenses, changes in product mix and the impact of acquisitions,
divestitures, restructurings, product withdrawals and other unusual events that could result from
evolving business strategies, evaluation of asset realization and organizational restructuring
could create volatility in our results. Such risks and uncertainties include, in particular, the
potentially significant charges to our operating results for items like in-process research and
development charges and transaction costs.
Legal Proceedings
As described in Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 3 of this report, we and certain of our
subsidiaries are involved in various patent, product liability, consumer and commercial litigations
and claims; government investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in
the ordinary course of our business. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable
rulings do occur. An unfavorable ruling could include money damages or, in some rare cases, for
which injunctive relief is sought, an injunction prohibiting the Company from manufacturing or
selling one or more products. Although we believe we have substantial defenses in these matters, we
could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations in any particular period.
Availability of Product Liability Insurance
Our business inherently exposes us to claims relating to the use of our products. We sell,
and will continue to sell, pharmaceutical products for which product liability insurance coverage
may not be available, and, accordingly, if we are sued and if adverse judgments are rendered, we
may be subject to claims that are not covered by insurance, as well as claims that exceed our
policy limits. Additional products for which we currently have coverage may be excluded in the
future. In addition, product liability coverage for pharmaceutical companies is becoming more
expensive and increasingly difficult to obtain. As a result, we may not be able to obtain the type
and amount of coverage we desire on commercially reasonable terms.
Exposure to Environmental Laws and Regulations
We are subject to numerous environmental protection and health and safety laws in the
countries where we manufacture and sell our products or otherwise operate our business. Such laws
and regulations govern, among other things:
34
|
|
|
the generation, storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials; |
|
|
|
|
emissions or discharges of substances into the environment; |
|
|
|
|
investigation and remediation of hazardous substances or materials at various
sites; and |
|
|
|
|
the health and safety of our employees. |
We may not have been, or we may not at all times be, in compliance with environmental and
health and safety laws. If we violate these laws, we could be fined, criminally charged or
otherwise sanctioned by regulators. Environmental laws outside of the U.S. are becoming more
stringent and resulting in increased costs and compliance burdens.
Certain environmental laws assess liability on current or previous owners or operators of real
property for the costs of investigation, removal or remediation of hazardous substances or
materials at their properties or at properties at which they have disposed of hazardous substances.
Liability for investigative, removal and remedial costs under certain federal and state laws is
retroactive, strict and joint and several. In addition to clean-up actions brought by governmental
authorities, private parties could bring personal injury or other claims due to the presence of, or
exposure to, hazardous substances. We have received notification from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and similar state environmental agencies that conditions at a number of formerly
owned sites where we and others have disposed of hazardous substances require investigation,
clean-up and other possible remedial action and may require that we reimburse the government or
otherwise pay for the costs of investigation and remediation and for natural resource damage claims
from such sites.
There can be no assurance that the costs of complying with current or future environmental
protection and health and safety laws, or our liabilities arising from past or future releases of,
or exposures to, hazardous substances will not exceed our estimates or adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows or that we will not be subject
to additional environmental claims for personal injury or clean-up in the future based on our past,
present or future business activities.
Managing Rapidly Growing Operations
We have grown significantly over the past several years, extending our processes, systems and
people. In particular, our acquisition of PLIVA has significantly added to the scope and complexity
of our operations. We have made and continue to make significant investments in global enterprise
resource systems and our internal control processes to help manage the increased scope and
complexity of our business. We must also attract, retain and motivate executives and other key
employees, including those in managerial, technical, sales and marketing and support positions to
support our growth. As a result, hiring and retaining qualified executives, scientists, technical
staff, manufacturing personnel, qualified quality and regulatory professionals and sales
representatives are critical to our business and competition for these people can be intense. If we
are unable to hire and retain qualified employees and if we do not continue to invest in systems
and processes to manage our growth, our operations could be adversely impacted.
Changes in Laws and Accounting Standards
Our future results could be adversely affected by changes in laws and regulations, including
changes in accounting standards, taxation requirements (including tax-rate changes, new tax laws
and revised tax law interpretations), competition laws and environmental laws in countries that we
operate.
Terrorist Activity
Our future results could be adversely affected by changes in business, political and economic
conditions, including the cost and availability of insurance, due to the threat of future terrorist
activity in the U.S. and other parts of the world and related U.S. military action overseas.
35
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
Not applicable.
36
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
The following table lists the principal facilities owned or leased by us as of December 31,
2007 and indicates the location and principal use of each of these facilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned/ |
|
|
Location |
|
Sq. Feet |
|
Leased |
|
Principal Usage(s) |
Montvale, NJ
|
|
|
142,500 |
|
|
Leased
|
|
Administrative |
Woodcliff Lake, NJ
|
|
|
90,000 |
|
|
Leased
|
|
Administrative |
East Hanover, NJ
|
|
|
280,000 |
|
|
Leased/Owned
|
|
Manufacturing; Warehousing; Administrative. (18,500 sqft owned) |
Pomona, NY
|
|
|
181,000 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
R&D; Laboratories; Administrative; Manufacturing; Warehousing |
North Tonawanda, NY
|
|
|
23,500 |
|
|
Leased
|
|
Manufacturing |
Cincinnati, OH
|
|
|
305,000 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Manufacturing; Laboratories; Packaging; Warehousing; Administrative |
Bala Cynwyd, PA
|
|
|
39,000 |
|
|
Leased
|
|
Proprietary R&D; Administrative |
Forest, VA
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Adenovirus Facility |
Forest, VA
|
|
|
407,000 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Administrative; Warehousing; Packaging; Distribution |
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
8,700 |
|
|
Leased
|
|
Government Affairs |
Brno, Czech Republic
|
|
|
453,200 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Manufacturing; API; Warehousing; Engineering; R&D; Administrative |
Zagreb, Croatia, PbF
|
|
|
1,277,900 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Administrative, Manufacturing, Packaging, R&D, API, Warehousing |
Zagreb, Croatia, Vukovarska
|
|
|
175,500 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Administrative Headquarters |
Zagreb, Croatia, SM
|
|
|
579,300 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
API; Biologics; Warehousing |
Zagreb, Croatia, HL
|
|
|
96,700 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Manufacturing; Packaging, Warehousing |
Zagreb,
Croatia, Jagićeva
|
|
|
18,000 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Administrative |
Radebeul, Germany
|
|
|
8,300 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Administrative |
Krakow, Poland
|
|
|
948,500 |
|
|
Owned
|
|
Manufacturing; Warehousing; Engineering; Administrative |
We have invested significantly over the last few years to increase our respective production,
laboratory, warehouse, distribution, manufacturing and R&D capacity. We believe that our current
facilities are in good condition and are being used productively. We constantly assess our ongoing
investments in property, plant and equipment to ensure that our facilities are adequate for us to
meet the expected demand of our pipeline products and to handle increases in current product sales.
37
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Litigation Settlement
On October 22, 1999, we entered into a settlement agreement with Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc.
(now part of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) relating to a 1992 agreement regarding the pursuit of a
generic conjugated estrogens product. Under the terms of the settlement, Schein relinquished any
claim to rights in CENESTIN in exchange for a payment of $15.0 million made to Schein in 1999. An
additional $15.0 million payment is required under the terms of the settlement if CENESTIN achieves
total profits, as defined, of greater than $100.0 million over any rolling five-year period prior
to October 22, 2014. We believe that it is probable that this payment will be earned at some point
during the next two years, most likely during 2008. As a result, we have recorded a contingent
liability as of December 31, 2007 in the amount of $13.7 million, representing an estimated
pro-rata amount of the liability incurred as of December 31, 2007.
Pending Litigation Matters
We are involved in various legal proceedings incidental to our business, including product
liability, intellectual property and other commercial litigation and antitrust actions. We record
accruals for such contingencies to the extent that we conclude a loss is probable and the amount
can be reasonably estimated. Additionally, we record insurance receivable amounts from third party
insurers when appropriate.
Many claims involve highly complex issues relating to patent rights, causation, label
warnings, scientific evidence and other matters. Often these issues are subject to substantial
uncertainties and therefore, the probability of loss and an estimate of the amount of the loss are
difficult to determine. Our assessments are based on estimates that we, in consultation with
outside advisors, believe are reasonable. Although we believe we have substantial defenses in these
matters, litigation is inherently unpredictable. Consequently, we could in the future incur
judgments or enter into settlements that could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, cash flows or financial condition in a particular period.
Summarized below are the more significant matters pending to which we are a party. As of
December 31, 2007, our reserve for the liability associated with claims or related defense costs
for these matters is not material.
Patent Matters
Fexofenadine Hydrochloride Suit
In June 2001, we filed an ANDA seeking approval from the FDA to market fexofenadine
hydrochloride tablets in 30 mg, 60 mg and 180 mg strengths, the generic equivalent of
Sanofi-Aventis Allegra tablet products for allergy relief. We notified Sanofi-Aventis pursuant to
the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act and, in September 2001, Sanofi-Aventis filed a patent
infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Newark Division,
seeking to prevent us from marketing this product until after the expiration of various U.S.
patents, the last of which is alleged to expire in 2017.
After the filing of our ANDA, Sanofi-Aventis listed an additional patent on Allegra in the
Orange Book. We filed appropriate amendments to our ANDAs to address the newly listed patent and,
in November 2002, notified Merrell Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the patent holder, and Sanofi-Aventis
pursuant to the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Sanofi-Aventis filed an amended complaint in
November 2002 claiming that our ANDA infringes the newly listed patent.
On March 5, 2004, Sanofi-Aventis and AMR Technology, Inc., the holder of certain patents
licensed to Sanofi-Aventis, filed an additional patent infringement action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey Newark Division, based on two patents that are not listed
in the Orange Book.
38
In June 2004, the court granted us summary judgment of non-infringement as to two patents. On
March 31, 2005, the court granted us summary judgment of invalidity as to a third patent. Discovery
is proceeding on the five remaining patents at issue in the case. No trial date has been
scheduled.
On August 31, 2005, we received final FDA approval for our fexofenadine tablet products. As
referenced above, pursuant to the agreement between Teva and us, we selectively waived our 180 days
of generic exclusivity in favor of Teva, and Teva launched its generic product on September 1,
2005.
On September 21, 2005, Sanofi-Aventis filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or expedited
trial. The motion asked the court to enjoin Teva and Barr from marketing their generic versions of
Allegra tablets, 30 mg, 60 mg and 180 mg, or to expedite the trial in the case. The motion also
asked the court to enjoin Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd. and Amino Chemicals, Ltd. from the commercial
production of generic fexofenadine raw material. The preliminary injunction hearing concluded on
November 3, 2005. On January 30, 2006, the Court denied the motion by Sanofi-Aventis for a
preliminary injunction or expedited trial. Sanofi-Aventis appealed the Courts denial of its motion
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On November 8, 2006, the Federal
Circuit affirmed the District Courts denial of the motion for preliminary injunction.
On May 8, 2006, Sanofi-Aventis and AMR Technology, Inc. served a Second Amended and
Supplemental Complaint based on U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,011 and 5,750,703 (collectively, the API
patents), asserting claims against us for infringement of the API patents based on the sale of our
fexofenadine product and for inducement of infringement of the API patents based on the sale of
Tevas fexofenadine product. On June 22, 2006, we answered the complaint, denied the allegations,
and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and/or
not infringed and for damages for violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1.2.
On November 14, 2006, Sanofi-Aventis sued Barr and Teva in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, alleging that Tevas fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets infringe a
patent directed to a certain crystal form of fexofenadine hydrochloride, and that we induced Tevas
allegedly infringing sales. On November 21, 2006, Sanofi-Aventis filed an amended complaint in the
same court, asserting that our fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets infringe a different patent
directed to a different crystal form of fexofenadine hydrochloride. On January 12, 2007, we moved
to dismiss the suit against Barr Pharmaceuticals, answered the complaint on behalf of Barr
Laboratories, denied the allegations against it, and moved to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for New Jersey. On September 27, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas granted our motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District for New Jersey and
denied Barr Pharmaceutical, Inc.s motion to dismiss as moot.
Sanofi-Aventis also has brought a patent infringement suit against Teva in Israel, seeking to
have Teva enjoined from manufacturing generic versions of Allegra tablets and seeking damages.
If Barr and/or Teva are unsuccessful in the Allegra litigation, Barr potentially could be liable
for a portion of Sanofi-Aventis lost profits on the sale of Allegra, which could potentially
exceed our profits earned from our arrangement with Teva on generic Allegra.
Product Liability Matters
Hormone Therapy Litigation
We have been named as a defendant in approximately 5,080 personal injury product liability
cases brought against us and other manufacturers by plaintiffs claiming that they suffered injuries
resulting from the use of certain estrogen and progestin medications prescribed to treat the
symptoms of menopause. The cases against us involve our CENESTIN products and/or the use of our
medroxyprogesterone acetate product, which typically has been prescribed for use in conjunction
with Premarin or other hormone therapy products. All of these products remain approved by the FDA
and continue to be marketed and sold to customers. While we have been named as a defendant in these
cases, fewer than a third of the complaints actually allege the plaintiffs took a product
manufactured by us, and our experience to date suggests that, even in these cases, a high
percentage of the plaintiffs will be unable to demonstrate actual use of our product. For that
reason, approximately 4,624 of such cases have been dismissed
(leaving approximately 456 pending)
and, based on discussions with our outside counsel, more are expected to be dismissed.
39
We believe we have viable defenses to the allegations in the complaints and are defending the
actions vigorously.
Antitrust Matters
Ciprofloxacin (Cipro®) Antitrust Class Actions
We have been named as a co-defendant with Bayer Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc. and others
in approximately 38 class action complaints filed in state and federal courts by direct and
indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) from 1997 to the present. The complaints allege that
the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated
federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer protection laws. A prior investigation
of this agreement by the Texas Attorney Generals Office on behalf of a group of state Attorneys
General was closed without further action in December 2001.
The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state court, one in Kansas state court,
one in Wisconsin state court, one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York state
court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the MDL Case). On
March 31, 2005, the Court in the MDL Case granted summary judgment in the Companys favor and
dismissed all of the federal actions before it. On June 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On November 2, 2007, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion for summary affirmance, based on the Second Circuits decision in the
Companys favor in the Tamoxifen antitrust case. On November 7, 2007, the Second Circuit
transferred the appeal involving certain parties to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeals of the other parties in the case.
Briefing on the merits is now proceeding in the Federal Circuit. Merits briefing has not been
scheduled or commenced in the Second Circuit, pending a ruling on the defendants motion for
summary affirmance.
On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin
state class action for failure to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law. The Court of
Appeals reinstated the complaint on May 9, 2006 and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that
decision on July 13, 2007, while not addressing the underlying merits of the plaintiffs case. The
matter was returned to the trial court for further proceedings, and the trial court has stayed the
case.
On October 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County dismissed
the consolidated New York state class action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted and denied the plaintiffs motion for class certification. An intermediate appellate
court affirmed that decision, and plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of
Appeals.
On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court of San Diego, California ordered a stay of the
California state class actions until after the resolution of any appeal in the MDL Case. Plaintiffs
have moved to lift the stay. The court has not ruled on the motion but has scheduled a further
status hearing for March 7, 2008.
On April 22, 2005, the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas similarly stayed the action
before it, until after any appeal in the MDL Case.
The Florida state class action remains at a very early stage, with no status hearings,
dispositive motions, pre-trial schedules, or a trial date set as of yet.
We believe that our agreement with Bayer Corporation reflects a valid settlement to a patent
suit and cannot form the basis of an antitrust claim. Based on this belief, we are vigorously
defending Barr in these matters.
40
Ovcon Antitrust Proceedings
We have entered into settlements with the FTC, the State Attorneys
General (as described below) and the class representatives of the indirect purchasers. Only the claims of the direct purchasers remain active in the litigation.
Under the FTC settlement, the FTC agreed to dismiss its case against us, and we agreed to refrain from entering into exclusive supply agreements in certain non-patent challenge situations where we are an ANDA holder and the party being supplied is the NDA holder. The settlement was entered and the FTC's lawsuit against us was dismissed with prejudice on November 27, 2007.
Under the State Attorneys General Settlement, the states agreed to dismiss their claims against us in exchange for a cash payment of $5.9 million and commitments by us not to engage in certain future conduct similar to the commitments contained in the FTC settlement. The State Attorneys General Settlement was finalized on February 25, 2008.
In the actions brought on behalf of the indirect purchasers, we reached court-approved settlements with the class representatives of the certified class of indirect purchasers on behalf of the class. The settlements require us to pay $1.8 million to funds established by plaintiffs' counsel and to donate branded drug products to, among others, charitable organizations and university health centers.
In the actions brought on behalf of the direct purchasers, on October 22, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class on behalf of all entities that purchased Ovcon-35 directly from Warner Chilcott (or its affiliated companies) from April 22, 2004.
In November 2007, we and the direct purchasers filed cross motions for summary judgment. No ruling has been made on the motions and no trial date has been set.
During 2007, we recorded charges in the amount of $15.3 million related to these and other settlement offers in the Ovcon litigation.
Provigil Antitrust Proceedings
To date, we have been named as a co-defendant with Cephalon, Inc., Mylan Laboratories, Inc.,
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.,
and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Provigil Defendants) in ten separate complaints filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These actions allege, among other
things, that the agreements between Cephalon and the other individual Provigil Defendants to settle
patent litigation relating to Provigil® constitute an unfair method of competition, are
anticompetitive and restrain trade in the market for Provigil and its generic equivalents in
violation of the antitrust laws. These cases remain at a very early stage and no trial dates have
been set.
We were also named as a co-defendant with the Provigil Defendants in an action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Apotex, Inc. The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that Apotex sought to market its own generic version of Provigil and
that the settlement agreements entered into between Cephalon and
41
the other individual Provigil Defendants constituted an unfair method of competition, are
anticompetitive and restrain trade in the market for Provigil and its generic equivalents in
violation of the antitrust laws. The Provigil Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, and
briefing has taken place with respect to these motions.
We believe that we have not engaged in any improper conduct and are vigorously defending these
matters.
Medicaid Reimbursement Cases
We, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in
separate actions brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah, the City of New York, and numerous counties in
New York. In each of these matters, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages and other relief for
alleged overcharges for prescription medications paid for or reimbursed by their respective
Medicaid programs, with some states also pursuing similar allegations based on the reimbursement of
drugs under Medicare Part B or the purchase of drugs by a state health plan (for example, South
Carolina).
In the Massachusetts case, the parties reached a settlement under which the Company denied any
wrongdoing and the case was dismissed on October 9, 2007.
The Iowa and New York cases, with the exception of the actions filed by Erie, Oswego, and
Schenectady Counties in New York, are currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts. In the Iowa case, briefing on the defendants motions to dismiss is underway. In
the consolidated New York cases, discovery is underway, but no trial dates have been set. The Erie,
Oswego, and Schenectady County cases were filed in state courts in New York, again with no trial
dates set.
The Alabama, Illinois, and Kentucky cases were filed in state courts, removed to federal
court, and then remanded back to their respective state courts. Discovery is underway. The Alabama
trial court has completed the trial of a different defendant, with the
remaining defendants to be tried thereafter but with the sequencing not yet known. The Kentucky
trial court has scheduled the first trial to begin next year on May 19, 2009, but has not yet
determined which defendant(s) will be tried.
The
State of Mississippi case was filed in Mississippi state court on
October 25, 2005. Discovery
was underway, but that case, along with the Illinois case and the actions brought by Erie, Oswego,
and Schenectady Counties in New York, were removed to federal court on the motion of a
co-defendant. Remand motions were granted on September 17, 2007, and thus the cases have returned
to their respective state courts of origin, again with no trial dates set.
The
State of Hawaii case was filed in state court in Hawaii on
April 26, 2007, removed to the
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, and remanded to state court. Discovery is
underway. No trial date has been set.
The State of Alaska case was filed in state court in Alaska on October 6, 2006. Discovery is
underway. No trial date has been set.
The State of South Carolina cases consist of two complaints, one brought on behalf of the
South Carolina Medicaid Agency and the other brought on behalf of the South Carolina State Health
Plan. Both cases were filed in state court in South Carolina on January 16, 2007. Briefing on the
defendants motions to dismiss is underway. No trial date has been set.
The State of Idaho case was filed in state court in Idaho on January 26, 2007. Discovery is
underway. No trial date has been set.
The State of Utah case was filed in state court in Utah on September 21, 2007. Defendants
removed the case to federal court and moved to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts. The State has opposed both removal and transfer. No trial date has
been set.
We believe that we have not engaged in any improper conduct and are vigorously defending these
matters.
42
Breach of Contract Action
On October 6, 2005, plaintiffs Agvar Chemicals Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Inc. and Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed suit against us and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in the Superior
Court of New Jersey. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover damages and other relief, based
on an alleged breach of an alleged contract requiring us to purchase raw material for our generic
Allegra product from Ranbaxy, prohibiting us from launching our generic Allegra product without
Ranbaxys consent and prohibiting us from entering into an agreement authorizing Teva to launch
Tevas generic Allegra product. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs further asserted claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
The court has entered a scheduling order providing for the
completion of discovery by December 8, 2008, but has not yet set a date for trial. We believe there
was no such contract, fraud or negligent misrepresentation and are vigorously defending this matter.
Other Litigation
As of December 31, 2007, we were involved with other lawsuits incidental to its business,
including patent infringement actions, product liability, and personal injury claims. Management,
based on the advice of legal counsel, believes that the ultimate outcome of these other matters
will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.
Government Inquiries
On July 11, 2006, we received a request from the FTC for the voluntary submission of
information regarding the settlement agreement reached in the matter of Cephalon, Inc. v. Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The FTC is
investigating whether Barr and the other parties to the litigation have engaged in unfair methods
of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by restricting the
sale of Modafinil products. In its request letter, the FTC stated that neither the request nor the
existence of an investigation indicated that Barr or any other company had violated the law.
On February 13, 2008, the FTC filed an action against Cephalon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that Cephalon engaged in unfair methods of competition by entering into separate settlement agreements with us and three other generic companies concerning the Modafinil patent litigation. We were not named as a defendant in the litigation.
We believe that our settlement agreement is in compliance with all applicable laws and intend to cooperate with the FTCs investigation in this matter.
On October 3, 2006, the FTC notified Barr it was investigating a patent litigation settlement
reached in matters pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York between
Barr and Shire PLC concerning Shires ADDERALL XR product. On June 20, 2007, the Company received a
Civil Investigative Demand, seeking documents and data. We are cooperating with the agency in its
investigation.
43
|
|
|
ITEM 4. |
|
SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
There were no matters put to the vote of our stockholders during the quarter ended December
31, 2007.
PART II
|
|
|
ITEM 5. |
|
MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER
PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
(a) Market for Barrs Common Equity
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BRL. The
following table sets forth the quarterly high and low share trading price information for the
periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Year Ended December 31, 2007: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter |
|
$ |
56.66 |
|
|
$ |
45.77 |
|
Second quarter |
|
|
55.10 |
|
|
|
45.41 |
|
Third quarter |
|
|
57.25 |
|
|
|
49.49 |
|
Fourth quarter |
|
|
58.38 |
|
|
|
50.59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended September 30, 2006 |
|
$ |
59.25 |
|
|
$ |
44.60 |
|
Three months ended December 31, 2006 |
|
|
53.89 |
|
|
|
47.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2006: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter |
|
$ |
55.08 |
|
|
$ |
45.00 |
|
Second quarter |
|
|
63.60 |
|
|
|
53.53 |
|
Third quarter |
|
|
70.25 |
|
|
|
60.83 |
|
Fourth quarter |
|
|
64.51 |
|
|
|
47.24 |
|
As of February 15, 2008, we estimate that there were 1,467 holders of record of our common
stock. We believe that a significant number of investors in our common stock hold their shares in
street name. Therefore, the number of beneficial owners of our common stock is much greater than
the number of record holders of our common stock.
We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock during 2007 or during the last two
fiscal years and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
(b) Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
In April 2005, holders of warrants to purchase an aggregate of 288,226 shares of our common
stock, at $9.54 per share, exercised the warrants in full. As a result, we issued to the investors
288,226 unregistered shares of our common stock and received proceeds of $2,749,676. The issuance
of the shares to the investors was based on the exemption from registration under Section 4(2) of
the Securities Act.
44
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
In September 2006, we changed our fiscal year from June 30th to December
31st. We made this change to align our fiscal year end with that of our subsidiary,
PLIVA, and with other companies within our industry. The following tables set forth selected
consolidated financial data for the year ended December 31, 2007, the Transition Period, the six
months ended December 31, 2005 (unaudited), and the four-year period ended June 30, 2006. The data
for the year ended December 31, 2007, the Transition Period and the four fiscal years ended June
30, 2006 have been derived from our audited financial statements. The data for the six months ended
December 31, 2005 is unaudited and is being provided for comparison purposes. The results of
operations of our PLIVA subsidiary are included from October 25, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months |
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ended |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
December 31, |
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Statements of Operations Data |
|
2007 |
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
2,500,582 |
|
|
$ |
904,764 |
|
|
$ |
635,956 |
|
Earnings
(loss) before income taxes and
minority interest |
|
|
207,835 |
|
|
|
(302,359 |
) |
|
|
279,634 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
64,546 |
|
|
|
34,630 |
|
|
|
101,507 |
|
Net earnings (loss) |
|
|
128,350 |
|
|
|
(338,155 |
) |
|
|
178,127 |
|
Earnings (loss) per common share basic |
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
(3.18 |
) |
|
|
1.71 |
|
Earnings (loss) per common share diluted |
|
|
1.18 |
|
|
|
(3.18 |
) |
|
|
1.66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of |
|
|
As of |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Balance Sheet Data |
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Working capital |
|
$ |
970,854 |
|
|
$ |
876,106 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
4,761,627 |
|
|
|
4,961,862 |
|
Long-term debt (1) |
|
|
1,781,692 |
|
|
|
1,935,477 |
|
Shareholders equity (3) |
|
|
1,866,321 |
|
|
|
1,465,228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, |
|
Statements of Operations Data |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2003 |
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
1,314,465 |
|
|
$ |
1,047,399 |
|
|
$ |
1,309,088 |
|
|
$ |
902,864 |
|
Earnings
(loss) before income taxes and
minority interest |
|
|
522,948 |
|
|
|
329,876 |
|
|
|
194,440 |
|
|
|
262,715 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
186,471 |
|
|
|
114,888 |
|
|
|
71,337 |
|
|
|
95,149 |
|
Net earnings (loss) |
|
|
336,477 |
|
|
|
214,988 |
|
|
|
123,103 |
|
|
|
167,566 |
|
Earnings (loss) per common share basic |
|
|
3.20 |
|
|
|
2.08 |
|
|
|
1.21 |
|
|
|
1.69 |
(2) |
Earnings (loss) per common share diluted |
|
|
3.12 |
|
|
|
2.03 |
|
|
|
1.15 |
|
|
|
1.62 |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of June 30, |
|
Balance Sheet Data |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2003 |
|
Working capital |
|
$ |
921,663 |
|
|
$ |
780,386 |
|
|
$ |
670,601 |
|
|
$ |
582,183 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
1,921,419 |
|
|
|
1,490,306 |
|
|
|
1,333,269 |
|
|
|
1,180,937 |
|
Long-term debt (1) |
|
|
7,431 |
|
|
|
15,493 |
|
|
|
32,355 |
|
|
|
34,027 |
|
Shareholders equity (3) |
|
|
1,690,956 |
|
|
|
1,233,970 |
|
|
|
1,042,046 |
|
|
|
867,995 |
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes capital leases and excludes current installments. |
|
|
(2) |
|
Amounts have been adjusted for the March 16, 2004 3-for-2 stock split effected
in the form of a 50% stock dividend. |
|
|
(3) |
|
The Company has not paid a cash dividend in any of the above years. |
45
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Change in Fiscal Year
On September 21, 2006, we changed our fiscal year end from June 30 to December 31. We made
this change to align our fiscal year end with that of our subsidiary, PLIVA, and with other
companies within our industry. We have defined various periods that are covered in the discussion
below as follows:
|
|
|
2007 January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
2006 January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
Transition Period July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
comparable 2005 six months July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
fiscal 2006 July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
fiscal 2005 July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
PLIVA Stub Period October 25, 2006 through December 31, 2006 |
All information, data and figures for 2006 were derived by combining the Transition Period
along with the six-month period ended June 30, 2006. The six-month period ended June 30, 2006
relates solely to Barrs financials. The Transition Period includes PLIVAs results of operations
from October 25, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
All information, data and figures provided for the comparable 2005 six months, as well as
fiscal 2006 and 2005, relate solely to Barrs financial results and do not include the results of
PLIVA, which we acquired on October 24, 2006. PLIVAs results of operations are included from
October 25, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
Executive Overview
We are a global specialty pharmaceutical company that operates in more than 30 countries. Our
operations are based primarily in North America and Europe, with our key markets being the United
States, Croatia, Germany, Poland and Russia. We are primarily engaged in the development,
manufacture and marketing of generic and proprietary pharmaceuticals. During 2007, we recorded $2.3
billion of product sales and $2.5 billion of total revenues.
During 2007, sales of our generic products grew to $1.9 billion from $1.0 billion in 2006,
accounting for 81% of our total product sales, while sales of our proprietary products grew to
$438.3 million from $391.4 million in 2006, accounting for 19% of our total product sales. In
addition, we recorded $121.9 million of alliance and development revenues during 2007 and $44.6
million of other revenues. Alliance and development revenues are derived mainly from profit-sharing
arrangements, co-promotion agreements, and standby manufacturing fees and other reimbursements and
fees we received from third parties, including marketing partners. Other revenues primarily are
derived from our non-core operations which include our diagnostics, disinfectants, dialysis and
infusions (DDD&I) business.
During
2007, we generated $383.2 million of operating cash flows. Our operating cash flows are
a significant source of liquidity, and we expect to utilize a significant portion of these
operating cash flows to service our debt obligations as well as fund our capital needs during 2008.
PLIVA Acquisition
On October 24, 2006, we completed the acquisition of PLIVA d.d., headquartered in Zagreb,
Croatia. Under the terms of our cash tender offer, we made a payment of approximately $2.4 billion
based on an offer price of HRK 820 per share for all shares tendered during the offer period. The
transaction closed with 17,056,977 shares being tendered as part of the process, representing 92%
of PLIVAs total share capital being tendered to us. Subsequent to
46
the close of the offer period, we purchased an additional 390,809 shares on the Croatian stock
market for $58.3 million, and own 98.1% of all shares of PLIVA as of December 31, 2007.
For a detailed discussion of our PLIVA acquisition, see Item 1, Business Overview PLIVA
Acquisition above.
Generic Products
For many years, we have successfully utilized a strategy of developing the generic versions of
branded products that possess a combination of unique factors that we believe have the effect of
limiting competition for generics. Such factors include difficult formulation, complex and costly
manufacturing requirements or limited raw material availability. By targeting products with some
combination of these unique factors, we believe that our generic products will, in general, be less
affected by the intense and rapid pricing pressure often associated with more commodity-type
generic products. As a result of this focused strategy, we have been able to successfully identify,
develop and market generic products that generally have few competitors or that are able to enjoy
longer periods of limited competition, and thus generate profit margins higher than those often
associated with commodity-type generic products. The development and launch of our generic oral
contraceptive products is an example of our generic development strategy.
Until our acquisition of PLIVA, the execution of this strategy was focused predominantly on
developing solid oral dosage forms of products. While we believe there are more tablet and capsule
products that may fit our barrier-to-entry criteria, we have recently expanded our development
activities, both internally through our acquisition of PLIVA and through collaboration with third
parties, to develop non-tablet and non-capsule products such as injectables, patches, creams,
ointments, sterile ophthalmics and nasal sprays.
We also develop and manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), primarily for use
internally and, to a lesser extent, for sale to third parties. We manufacture 23 different APIs for
use in pharmaceuticals through our facilities located in Croatia and the Czech Republic. We believe
that our ability to produce API for internal use may provide us with a strategic advantage over
competitors that lack such ability, particularly as to the timeliness of obtaining API for our
products.
Challenging the patents covering certain brand products continues to be an integral part of
our generics business. For many products, the patent provides the unique barrier that we seek to
identify in our product selection process. We try to be the first company to initiate a patent
challenge because, in certain cases, we may be able to obtain 180 days of exclusivity for selling
the generic version of the product. Upon receiving exclusivity for a product, we often experience
significant revenues and profitability associated with that product for the 180-day exclusivity
period, but, at the end of that period, we experience significant decreases in our revenues and
market share associated with the product as other generic competitors enter the market. Our record
of successfully resolving patent challenges has made a recurring contribution to our operating
results, but has created periods of revenue and earnings volatility and will likely continue to do
so in the future. While earnings and cash flow volatility may result from the launch of products
subject to patent challenges, we remain committed to this part of our business.
Proprietary Products
To help diversify our generic product revenue base, we initiated a program in 2001 to develop
and market proprietary pharmaceutical products. We formalized this program through our acquisition
of Duramed Pharmaceuticals in October 2001, and thereafter by establishing Duramed Research as our
proprietary research and development subsidiary. Today, Duramed is recognized as a leader in the
area of womens healthcare. We implement our womens healthcare platform through a substantial
number of employees dedicated to the development and marketing of our proprietary products,
including approximately 335 sales representatives that promote directly to physicians five of our
products SEASONIQUE®, Enjuvia, Mircette®, ParaGard® and Plan B and two products under our
co-promotion agreement with Kos Pharmaceuticals Niaspan® and Advicor®. We have accomplished
significant growth in proprietary product sales over the last several years through both
internally-developed products, such as SEASONALE®, the first and largest selling extended-cycle
oral contraceptive in the U.S., and through product acquisitions, including ParaGard, the only
non-drug loaded IUC currently on the market in the U.S., in November 2005; Mircette, a well
established 28-day oral contraceptive, in
47
December 2005; and Adderall IR, an immediate-release, mixed salt amphetamine product that is
indicated for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy, in October
2006.
Foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations
Our international revenues and expenses are subject to foreign currency exchange rate
fluctuations. These results are first converted from local currencies into Croatian Kuna (HRK),
and then converted from HRK into U.S. dollars (USD). In general, the HRK exchange rate follows
the exchange rate fluctuations between the USD and the Euro. Depending on the direction of change
relative to the USD, foreign currency values can increase or decrease the reported dollar value of
our net assets and results of operations. While we cannot predict with certainty changes in foreign
exchange rates or the effect they will have on us, we attempt to mitigate their impact through
operational means and by using various foreign exchange financial instruments. We use
foreign exchange financial instruments to hedge forecasted
transactions even though none of the instruments are eligible for
hedge accounting. Since our derivatives do not qualify for hedge
accounting, the changes in fair value of these instruments are being
measured each period and reported in other income (expense), which
could lead to volatility of our reported net earnings. Despite the
potential for increased earnings volatility, we still use such instruments to offset the economic risk from foreign exchange rate
fluctuations.
Discontinued Operations
Since its acquisition of PLIVA on October 24, 2006, the Company has been evaluating PLIVAs
operations, and during the second half of 2007, has divested its non-core operations in Spain and
Italy, and its animal health and veterinary business operated by Veterina d.d. As a result of
these divestments, during 2007 we reclassified the combined amounts of these entities from
continuing operations to discontinued operations. The total net loss from discontinued operations,
including losses incurred on disposal, for the year ended December 31, 2007 and the Transition
Period were $13.8 million and $1.8 million, respectively.
These losses were higher in 2007, due to a
full year of results incurred in 2007, as compared to 2006, which only included 68 days of activity subsequent to the Pliva acquisition.
48
Comparison of the Year ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006
The following table sets forth revenue data for 2007 and the comparable year 2006 (unaudited)
(dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Generic products: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oral contraceptives |
|
$ |
459.1 |
|
|
$ |
444.0 |
|
|
$ |
15.1 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
Other generics |
|
|
1,436.7 |
|
|
|
608.9 |
|
|
|
827.8 |
|
|
|
136 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generic products |
|
|
1,895.8 |
|
|
|
1,052.9 |
|
|
|
842.9 |
|
|
|
80 |
% |
Proprietary products |
|
|
438.3 |
|
|
|
391.4 |
|
|
|
46.9 |
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total product sales |
|
|
2,334.1 |
|
|
|
1,444.3 |
|
|
|
889.8 |
|
|
|
62 |
% |
Alliance and development revenue |
|
|
121.9 |
|
|
|
131.3 |
|
|
|
(9.4 |
) |
|
|
-7 |
% |
Other revenue |
|
|
44.6 |
|
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
|
37.1 |
|
|
|
495 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
2,500.6 |
|
|
$ |
1,583.1 |
|
|
$ |
917.5 |
|
|
|
58 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales
Generic Products
Sales of our generic products were $1.9 billion during 2007, up from $1.0 billion during 2006.
Of this $842.9 million increase, the most significant increase was an increase of $774.7 million
attributable to sales by our PLIVA subsidiary, as well as increases attributable to internal growth
and acquisitions made during 2007. Our internal growth was largely due to ten new product launches
during 2007 which contributed $22.1 million of product sales. In addition, contributions totaling
$18.1 million were the result of our acquisition of four generic injectible products from Hospira,
Inc., and our September 2007 acquisition of O.R.C.A. pharm GmbH (ORCA), a privately-owned
specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the oncology market in Germany.
During 2007, sales of our generic oral contraceptives (Generic OCs) were $459.1 million, an
increase of $15.1 million over 2006. The increase included $6.1 million of sales of Trilegest,
which was launched in October 2007, and an $18.9 million increase in sales of Kariva, our generic
version of Mircette, due primarily to higher prices. In addition, we recorded approximately $3.5
million of higher sales of Jolessa during 2007, which was launched in late 2006. These increases
were partially offset by a total decrease of $12.4 million in sales of Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec
due to lower selling prices. We expect that sales of Kariva will decline significantly in the
second half of 2008, as compared to the first half of 2008, as a result of potential competition
when the patent on our Mircette product expires in October 2008. In
addition, we expect that competition will continue to result in lower
selling prices causing our Generic OC revenues to decrease.
During 2007, sales of our other generic products (Other Generics) were $1.4 billion, an
increase of $827.8 million over 2006. This increase was mainly due to $774.7 million of higher
sales attributable to products acquired through our PLIVA subsidiary, including sales of
Azithromycin of $128.1 million, in addition to $18.1 million from products acquired through
acquisition, as noted above. Our 2007 results include a full year of Fentanyl Citrate, our generic
version of Cephalons ACTIQ, versus only one quarter in 2006
which contributed $57.9 million of the
total increase. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $21.9 million in sales of
Desmopressin due to lower pricing.
Proprietary Products
During 2007, sales of our proprietary products were $438.3 million, up from $391.4 million
during 2006. This total increase of $46.9 million was comprised of the following items that were
included in our full year results in 2007 as compared to a partial period in 2006: (1) a $47.5
million increase in sales of our dual-label Plan B emergency contraceptive OTC/Rx (over the counter
OTC), which was launched in November 2006; (2) a $19.4
49
million increase in sales of SEASONIQUE,
our second generation extended cycle oral contraceptive, which was
launched during the quarter ended September 30, 2006; (3) a $25.0 million increase of sales of
Adderall IR, which we acquired from Shire and launched in October 2006; and (4) $25.7 million of
incremental sales of products acquired as part of the
PLIVA acquisition. Partially offsetting these increases were lower unit sales of SEASONALE, which
was down $49.6 million, or 66% from 2006 due to a full year of
competition from a competitors generic version that was
launched during
the quarter ended September 30, 2006. Additionally, other non-promoted products declined $25.6
million in 2007 as compared to 2006. We expect further increases in
sales of SEASONIQUE, Plan B and ParaGard to drive proprietary
product sales growth approximately 20% in 2008 over 2007.
Alliance and Development Revenue
During 2007, we recorded $121.9 million of alliance and development revenue, as compared to
$131.3 million during 2006. The decrease was caused by $19.2 million of lower revenues from our
profit-sharing arrangement with Teva on generic Allegra, and $8.2 million of lower royalties we
earn under our co-promotion agreement with Kos. These declines were partially offset by an increase
of $11.3 million in royalties and other fees received under our agreements with Shire plc., and
$4.2 million of higher reimbursements and fees we earn from development of the Adenovirus vaccine.
Teva
Tevas 180-day exclusivity period on generic Allegra ended on February 28, 2006. By the end of
December 2007, there were two additional competing generic Allegra products on the market. We are
aware of other companies that have filed ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications for generic
Allegra. Competition for generic Allegra has and may continue to cause Tevas Allegra revenues to
decrease. Accordingly, our royalties may decline further in future periods.
Kos
Royalties we earn under our co-promotion agreement with Kos are based on the aggregate sales
of Niaspan and Advicor in a given quarter and calendar year, up to quarterly and annual maximum
amounts. The annual cap increases each year through 2009, then remains constant for the remaining
term of our arrangement, which ends in July 2012 unless extended by either party for an additional
year. The royalty rate and our promotion-related requirements declined in 2007 compared to 2006,
and now remain fixed throughout the remaining term of the agreement. Due to sales realized by Kos
during 2007, we achieved our maximum annual royalty of $37.0 million for 2007. We believe that
sales of Niaspan and Advicor will remain strong in 2008 and that our royalties in 2008 will be
substantially similar to those we earned in 2007.
Shire
In August 2006, we entered into a series of agreements with Shire plc. Under one of those
agreements, we granted Shire a license to obtain regulatory approval and market in certain
specified territories SEASONIQUE and five other products in various stages of development, in
exchange for (1) an initial $25.0 million payment for previously incurred product development
expenses and (2) reimbursement of future development expenses up to a maximum of $140.0 million
over an eight-year period, not to exceed $30.0 million per year.
During 2007, we recorded $14.1
million of revenues from this arrangement based on the percentage of research and development
activities performed during 2007. We expect these revenues will increase in 2008 as we increase
spending on the related development projects.
Adenovirus Vaccine
Alliance and development revenues also include reimbursements and fees we receive from the
U.S. Department of Defense for the development of the Adenovirus
vaccine. We have substantially
completed the development and clinical trials related to the
Adenovirus vaccine and, as a result, expect
that the reimbursements and fees we earn from its development to decrease in
2008.
50
Other Revenue
We
recorded $44.6 million of other revenue during 2007 compared to $7.5 million for 2006. The
increase compared to the prior year period is related to a full year reporting of other non-core
revenues from our PLIVA subsidiary, primarily our DDD&I business.
Cost of Sales
The following table sets forth cost of sales data, in dollars, as well as the resulting gross
margins expressed as a percentage of product sales (except other, which is expressed as a
percentage of our other revenue line item), for 2007 and 2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Generic products |
|
$ |
1,008.8 |
|
|
$ |
448.8 |
|
|
$ |
560.0 |
|
|
|
125 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
47 |
% |
|
|
57 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proprietary products |
|
$ |
138.2 |
|
|
$ |
114.3 |
|
|
$ |
23.9 |
|
|
|
21 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
68 |
% |
|
|
71 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other revenue |
|
$ |
24.1 |
|
|
$ |
12.0 |
|
|
$ |
12.1 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
46 |
% |
|
|
-60 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of sales |
|
$ |
1,171.1 |
|
|
$ |
575.1 |
|
|
$ |
596.0 |
|
|
|
104 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
60 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales components include the following:
|
|
|
our manufacturing and packaging costs for products we manufacture; |
|
|
|
|
amortization expense (as discussed below); |
|
|
|
|
profit-sharing or royalty payments we make to third parties, including raw material
suppliers; |
|
|
|
|
the cost of products we purchase from third parties; |
|
|
|
|
lower of cost or market adjustments to our inventories; and |
|
|
|
|
stock-based compensation expense relating to employees within certain departments
that we allocate to cost of sales. |
Prior to December 31, 2006, we included amortization expenses related to acquired product
intangibles in selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) rather than cost of sales. As
discussed in our Transition Report for the six-month period ended December 31, 2006, we revised our
presentation of amortization expense to include it within cost of sales rather than SG&A. We have
adjusted our discussion regarding the year ended December 31, 2006 presented below to reflect this
change.
Generics: During 2007, our generics segment cost of sales increased by $560.0 million. This
increase in generic products cost of sales was due to both increased total generics product sales
of $843.0 million along with greater material and production costs associated with these increased
product sales. Additionally, during 2007 there were higher
amortization charges of $79.4 million
offset by a $23.6 million reduction in expenses related to the stepped-up value of inventory
acquired from PLIVA, as compared to 2006.
51
In addition to the charges noted above, our generic product sales mix changed as compared to
2006 which negatively impacted our overall margins. In general, our gross margins of acquired
products through the acquisition of PLIVA are lower than margins we previously earned, partially
due to these products having associated intangible amortization expense. During 2007, generic
product sales of acquired products represented 50.9% of total generic product sales as compared to
17.4% of total sales for 2006. As a result of a higher proportion of sales of acquired generic
products, our generic gross margins decreased from 57% in 2006 to 47% in 2007.
Proprietary: During 2007,
our proprietary segment cost of sales increased by $23.9 million as
compared to 2006 due to both a $46.9 million increase in
proprietary sales and a $3.6 million net increase in product
amortization expense and inventory step-up, thereby reducing margins for our proprietary products
from 71% to 68%. The increase in product amortization expense relates to a full year period of
expense relating to the five proprietary products we acquired through the PLIVA acquisition. The
margin decline is also a result of lower sales of higher margin
products, including a year-over-year decline of $49.6 million
in sales of SEASONALE, which now faces generic competition, and a
$9.7 million decline in sales of Mircette, which we acquired
in December 2005. Lower sales of these higher margin products were more than offset by higher sales
of promoted and non-promoted products which, in general, have lower margins than SEASONALE and
Mircette, resulting in an overall lower gross margin for the year.
Also reducing proprietary margins was a $13.7 million charge
related to a product royalty contingency agreement for our Cenestin
product.
Selling, General and Administrative Expense
The following table sets forth selling, general and administrative expense data for 2007 and
2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
$ |
763.8 |
|
|
$ |
441.5 |
|
|
$ |
322.3 |
|
|
|
73 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charge included in general and administrative |
|
$ |
15.3 |
|
|
$ |
22.5 |
|
|
$ |
(7.2 |
) |
|
|
-32 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by 73% in 2007 when compared to 2006.
Of this $322.3 million increase, approximately $261.9 million is directly attributable to the full
year reporting of our PLIVA subsidiary. The remaining increase relates to: (1) higher legal,
accounting and other consulting fees of $20.0 million; (2) integration costs of $12.0 million from
the PLIVA acquisition; (3) increased information technology expenses of $11.0 million; (4)
increased selling and marketing expenses relating to the promotion of our proprietary products in
the amount of $12.0 million; and (5) increased personnel costs of $10.6 million including expatriate charges, offset by a $7.2 million decrease in litigation charges.
Research and Development
The following table sets forth research and development expenses for 2007 and 2006 (dollars in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Research and development |
|
$ |
248.4 |
|
|
$ |
180.9 |
|
|
$ |
67.5 |
|
|
|
37 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write-off of acquired in-process research and
development |
|
$ |
4.6 |
|
|
$ |
380.7 |
|
|
$ |
(376.1 |
) |
|
|
-99 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development increased by $67.5 million in 2007 over 2006. Of this increase $63.6
million is directly attributable to a significant increase in research and development activities
since the acquisition of PLIVA, as compared to 68 days of incremental PLIVA activities in 2006.
Write-off of acquired in-process research and development (IPR&D), which resulted from the
PLIVA acquisition, was $4.6 million in 2007 as compared to $380.7 million in 2006.
Interest Income
The following table sets forth interest income for 2007 and 2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Interest income |
|
$ |
33.4 |
|
|
$ |
25.7 |
|
|
$ |
7.7 |
|
|
|
30% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in interest income for the year ended December 31, 2007 is due to higher interest
rates and higher average daily cash and marketable securities balances during these periods as
compared to the prior year periods.
Interest Expense
The following table sets forth interest expense for 2007 and 2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
158.9 |
|
|
$ |
34.6 |
|
|
$ |
124.3 |
|
|
|
N/M |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in interest expense for year ended December 31, 2007 as compared to 2006 is due
to a full year of interest expense on the $2.6 billion of debt the Company incurred in connection
with the PLIVA acquisition (both to finance the acquisition and
pre-existing debt of PLIVA). During
2007, we repaid $615.7 million of the acquisition debt. As a result, we expect interest expense to
decline in 2008 compared to 2007.
Other Income (Expense)
The following table sets forth other expense for 2007 and 2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Other income (expense) |
|
$ |
20.7 |
|
|
|
($55.2 |
) |
|
$ |
75.9 |
|
|
|
138% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense) increased by $75.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 as
compared to 2006. The increase was primarily a result of recording a $59.0 million reduction in the
value of our foreign currency option related to the PLIVA acquisition during the year ended
December 31, 2006. This reduction in fair value included the changes in the exchange rate between
the Dollar and the Euro. Additionally, in the year ended December 31, 2007, we recorded (1) $13.7
million over the prior year period related to net foreign currency gains, including hedging
activities, (2) the unwinding of treasury lock derivatives resulting in a reclassifying of a $3.5
53
million net gain from accumulated other comprehensive income to other income (expense) and (3) a
gain of $3.2 million related to dissolving a captive insurance fund.
Income Taxes
The following table sets forth income tax expense and the resulting effective tax rate stated
as a percentage of pre-tax income for 2007 and 2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Income tax expense |
|
$ |
64.6 |
|
|
$ |
119.6 |
|
|
$ |
(55.0 |
) |
|
|
-46% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax rate |
|
|
31.1 |
% |
|
|
-202.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Companys effective tax rate for 2007 was 31.1%. The rate was positively impacted by
new tax legislation in Germany enacted in September 2007 reducing the statutory corporate tax rate
from 39% to 30% effective January 1, 2008. The change reduced our deferred tax liability and income tax provision by
approximately $9.6 million during the September quarter. In
addition, the rate was positively impacted by $4.2 million
related to completion
of certain state and foreign tax examinations. For 2008 we expect our effective tax rate to increase to the low 40% range.
The
Companys effective tax rate for 2006 was negatively impacted
due to the write-off of $380.7 million of acquired
IPR&D arising from the PLIVA acquisition, which lowered
earnings, and was non-deductible for tax purposes. This resulted in
the Company having a tax expense during 2006 despite a pre-tax loss.
54
Comparison of the six months ended December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005
The following table sets forth revenue data for the Transition Period and the comparable 2005
six months (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Generic products: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oral contraceptives |
|
$ |
235.8 |
|
|
$ |
191.2 |
|
|
$ |
44.6 |
|
|
|
23% |
|
Other generic |
|
|
394.6 |
|
|
|
225.1 |
|
|
|
169.5 |
|
|
|
75% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generic products |
|
|
630.4 |
|
|
|
416.3 |
|
|
|
214.1 |
|
|
|
51% |
|
Proprietary products |
|
|
200.9 |
|
|
|
140.4 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
|
|
43% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total product sales |
|
|
831.3 |
|
|
|
556.7 |
|
|
|
274.6 |
|
|
|
49% |
|
Alliance and development revenue |
|
|
65.9 |
|
|
|
79.3 |
|
|
|
(13.4 |
) |
|
|
-17% |
|
Other revenue |
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
904.7 |
|
|
$ |
636.0 |
|
|
$ |
268.7 |
|
|
|
42% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales
Generic Products
Sales of our generic products were $630.4 million during the Transition Period, up from $416.3
million during the comparable 2005 six months. Of this $214.1 million increase, the most
significant increase was attributable to sales of approximately $183.1 million by our newly
acquired subsidiary, PLIVA, as well as increases attributable to internal growth, largely due to
new product launches. During the Transition Period, we had four significant product launches that
contributed approximately $100 million of the total increase including Fentanyl Citrate (generic
ACTIQ, for cancer pain management), Jolessa (generic SEASONALE, an extended-cycle oral
contraceptive that we launched after a competitor launched its generic version of our proprietary
SEASONALE product), Balziva (generic Ovcon 35, an oral contraceptive) and Ondansetron ODT (generic
Zofran ODT, to prevent nausea and vomiting), a product acquired in
the PLIVA acquisition. The increase from new
product launches and from PLIVA product sales were partially offset by declines in our Other
Generics discussed below.
During the Transition Period, sales of our Generic OCs were $235.8 million, an increase of
$44.6 million over the comparable 2005 six months. This 23% increase was positively impacted by
strong sales from the launches of Balziva and Jolessa, which totaled
$29.5 million, and a 22% or $7.3 million
increase in sales of our Kariva product due to an increase in both volume and
price.
During the Transition Period, sales of our Other Generics were $394.6 million, up from $225.1
million during the comparable 2005 six months, an increase of $169.5 million. This 75% increase was
mainly due to the incremental sales attributable to products acquired through the PLIVA
acquisition, as discussed above, along with our launch in September 2006 of Fentanyl Citrate, our
generic version of Cephalons ACTIQ, and the launch of Ondansetron ODT in December 2006. These two
product launches accounted for approximately $70 million of the
total increase in sales of other generics. Partially
offsetting these increases were lower sales of our inline other generic products, principally a
$44.7 decline in sales of Desmopressin. We launched Desmopressin in July 2005 with 180 days of
exclusivity as a result of a successful paragraph IV patent challenge. In March 2006, following the
expiration of the exclusivity period, sales of Desmopressin declined significantly due to the
introduction of competing generic products.
Proprietary Products
During the Transition Period, sales of our proprietary products increased 43% to $200.9
million, up from $140.4 million during the comparable 2005 six months. This total increase of $60.5
million over the comparable 2005 six months included: (1) the launch of our dual-label Plan B
emergency contraceptive OTC/Rx (over the counter
55
OTC) in November 2006 which added approximately
$11 million of incremental product sales during the quarter;
(2) $14.6 million of sales recorded from the launch of SEASONIQUE, our second generation
extended cycle oral contraceptive, during the quarter ended September 30, 2006; (3) a total of
$34.1 million of incremental product sales from full period contributions from ParaGard and
Mircette, which we acquired in November 2005 and December 2005, respectively; and (4) $12.2 million
of sales of Adderall IR, which we acquired from Shire and launched in October 2006. Partially
offsetting these increases were lower sales of SEASONALE, which were down 48% from the comparable
2005 six months due to Watsons launch of a generic version during the quarter ended September 30,
2006, and our subsequent launch of Jolessa, our own generic version, resulting in lower SEASONALE
unit sales.
Alliance and Development Revenue
During the Transition Period, we recorded $65.9 million of alliance and development revenue,
down from $79.3 million during the comparable 2005 six months. The decrease was caused by a $31.2
million decline in revenues from our profit-sharing arrangement with Teva on generic Allegra, which
began in September 2005, partially offset by an increase of $9.9 million in royalties and other
fees received under our agreements with Kos Pharmaceuticals relating to Niaspan and Advicor and an
increase of $5.5 million in fees we receive for the development of the Adenovirus vaccine.
Other Revenue
We recorded $7.5 million of other revenue during the Transition Period. This revenue is
primarily attributable to non-core operations including our animal health and agrochemicals
business, which predominantly consists of generics, feed additives, agro products and vaccines, as
well as our DDD&I business. These are businesses acquired through the PLIVA acquisition, and as
such, there are no comparable operations for the comparable 2005 six months.
Cost of Sales
The following table sets forth cost of sales data, in dollars, as well as the resulting gross
margins expressed as a percentage of product sales (except other, which is expressed as a
percentage of our other revenue line item), for the Transition Period and the comparable 2005 six
months (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Generic products |
|
$ |
306.6 |
|
|
$ |
138.3 |
|
|
$ |
168.3 |
|
|
122% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
67 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proprietary products |
|
$ |
56.2 |
|
|
$ |
33.8 |
|
|
$ |
22.4 |
|
|
66% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
72 |
% |
|
|
76 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
$ |
6.5 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6.5 |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
13 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of sales |
|
$ |
369.3 |
|
|
$ |
172.1 |
|
|
$ |
197.2 |
|
|
115% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
56 |
% |
|
|
69 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales components include the following:
|
|
|
our manufacturing and packaging costs for products we manufacture; |
56
|
|
|
amortization expense (as discussed further below); |
|
|
|
|
the write-off of the step-up in inventory arising from acquisitions, including
PLIVA; |
|
|
|
|
profit-sharing or royalty payments we make to third parties, including raw material
suppliers; |
|
|
|
|
the cost of products we purchase from third parties; |
|
|
|
|
lower of cost or market adjustments to our inventories; and |
|
|
|
|
stock-based compensation expense relating to employees within certain departments
that we allocate to cost of sales. |
In prior periods, we included amortization expense in selling, general and administrative
expenses rather than cost of sales. During the Transition Period, we revised our presentation of
amortization expense to include it within cost of sales rather than SG&A. We have adjusted all
historical periods presented in this discussion to reflect this change.
Cost of sales on an overall basis, increased 115% over the comparable 2005 six months
primarily related to the $274.6 million of higher product sales, plus certain items arising from
the acquisition of PLIVA. These items from the PLIVA acquisition included amortization expense of
$17.9 million related to intangible assets and $56.8 million in cost of sales of the stepped-up
value of inventory acquired from PLIVA and sold during the period. As part of purchase price
allocation for the PLIVA acquisition, we stepped-up the book value of inventory acquired to fair
value by $89.6 million as of October 24, 2006. The stepped-up value is recorded as a charge to cost
of sales as acquired inventory is sold. As a result of these expenses and amortization charges,
overall gross margins decreased from 69% for the comparable 2005 period to 56% in the Transition
Period.
In our generics segment, cost of sales increased in large part due to a 75% increase in total
Other Generics sales, as described above, and $17.9 million of higher amortization expense arising
primarily from product intangibles created as a result of the PLIVA acquisition. When combined with
the charge related to the step-up in inventory described above, these increases in cost of sales
resulted in a decrease in our generics margins from 67% to 52%. Partially offsetting this decrease
in gross margins was the impact from higher sales of our Generic OCs and the launch of Fentanyl
Citrate, as discussed above, during the Transition Period, which had above-average margins when
compared to many of our other generic products.
In our proprietary segment, cost of sales increased both due to a 43% increase in proprietary
sales and an $11.0 million increase in product amortization expense, thereby reducing margins for our
proprietary products from 76% to 72%. The increase in product amortization expense relates to a
full six-month period of expense relating to our November 2005 acquisition of FEI Womens Health,
LLC. Product amortization expense and the inventory step-up charge related to the five proprietary
products we acquired through the PLIVA acquisition were not material.
Selling, General and Administrative Expense
The following table sets forth selling, general and administrative expense data for the
Transition Period and the comparable 2005 six months (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
$ |
259.0 |
|
|
$ |
126.4 |
|
|
$ |
132.6 |
|
|
|
105% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative more than doubled in the Transition Period from the
comparable 2005 six months. Of this $132.6 million increase,
approximately $88.2 million was
directly attributable to the PLIVA acquisition, including both operating and integration expenses.
These expenses included, but were not limited to:
57
|
|
|
PLIVAs selling, general and administrative expenses for the PLIVA Stub Period of
approximately $88.2 million, including the sales force costs associated with approximately
1,400 incremental global sales representatives and other general and administrative
expenses associated our worldwide operations; |
|
|
|
|
professional fees of $6.8 million associated with the integration activities; and |
|
|
|
|
incremental legal and audit fees of $3.1 million related to the acquisition. |
Other increases in general and administrative expenses during the Transition Period included
an increase in information technology costs of $9.3 million, reflecting higher depreciation costs
and $2.4 million related to the integration of our SAP enterprise resource planning system, a $6.0
million payment to a raw material supplier during the Transition Period and an $8.4 million net
benefit related to the Mircette transaction that reduced general and administrative expenses in the
comparable 2005 six months. These net increases were partially offset by proceeds of $5.2 million
received in connection with the FTC-ordered sale of two products in connection with the PLIVA
acquisition.
Other increases in selling and marketing expenses include incremental marketing activity
totaling $28.4 million principally to support the launch of SEASONIQUE, the continued marketing of
our ENJUVIA product and a full period of marketing and sales force costs related to our ParaGard
product, which we acquired in November 2005.
Research and Development
The following table sets forth research and development expenses for the Transition Period and
the comparable 2005 six months (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Research and development |
|
$ |
106.8 |
|
|
$ |
66.0 |
|
|
$ |
40.8 |
|
|
62% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write-off of acquired IPR&D |
|
$ |
380.7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
380.7 |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development increased by $40.8 million in the Transition Period over the
comparable 2005 six months primarily due to an increase of $16.0 million in costs associated with
clinical trials and bio-studies and the inclusion in the comparable 2005 six months of a $5.0 million
reimbursement of previously incurred costs under a third party development agreement which reduced
expenses in that period.
Write-off of acquired in-process research and development (IPR&D), which resulted from the
PLIVA acquisition, was $380.7 million in the Transition Period.
Interest Income
The following table sets forth interest income for the Transition Period and the comparable
2005 six months (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Interest income |
|
$ |
15.7 |
|
|
$ |
8.9 |
|
|
$ |
6.8 |
|
|
76% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
The increase in interest income for the Transition Period was due to higher interest rates and
cash and marketable securities balances during the period as compared to the comparable 2005 six
months.
Interest Expense
The following table sets forth interest expense for the Transition Period and the comparable
2005 six months (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
34.1 |
|
|
$ |
0.3 |
|
|
$ |
33.8 |
|
|
|
11267 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in interest expense for the Transition Period was primarily due to interest on
borrowings outstanding under our new credit facilities that were drawn in connection with the
acquisition of PLIVA.
Other (Expense) Income
The following table sets forth other expense for the Transition Period and the comparable 2005
six months (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Other (expense) income |
|
|
($73.0 |
) |
|
|
($0.6 |
) |
|
|
($72.4 |
) |
|
|
12067 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense increased to $73.0 million in the Transition Period primarily as a result of
$69.3 million of losses we recorded upon the sale or settlement of foreign currency option and
forward contracts entered into in connection with the acquisition of PLIVA. Since our offer was
denominated in Kuna, the Croatian currency, these contracts were purchased in order to protect
against fluctuations in the USD/Kuna exchange rate, effectively locking in the U.S. dollar value of
our offer. Furthermore, these contracts helped guarantee our ability to deliver the required Kuna
to tendering shareholders. Because these contracts were put in place to hedge a business
combination, they did not qualify for hedge accounting and all associated gains or losses were
required to be recognized in our statement of operations during the Transition Period.
Income Taxes
The following table sets forth income tax expense and the resulting effective tax rate stated
as a percentage of pre-tax income for the Transition Period and the comparable 2005 six months
(dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Income tax expense |
|
$ |
34.6 |
|
|
$ |
101.5 |
|
|
$ |
(66.9 |
) |
|
-66% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax rate |
|
|
-11.5 |
% |
|
|
36.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
The effective tax rate for the Transition Period was -11.5%, as compared to 36.3% for the
comparable 2005 six months, primarily due to the write-off of $380.7 million of acquired IPR&D
arising from the PLIVA acquisition, which lowered reported earnings, and was non-deductible for tax
purposes. This resulted in the Company having tax expense for the Transition Period despite a
pre-tax loss.
The federal research and development credit was suspended as of December 31, 2005. In December
2006 it was reinstated retroactively beginning after January 1, 2006. The effective rate for the
Transition Period included a favorable effect of the reinstatement from the time the credit was
suspended at December 31, 2005 through the end of the Transition Period.
During the Transition Period the Company also recorded a favorable release of the tax reserve
related to the expiration of the statute of limitations associated with certain acquisition costs
for a prior domestic acquisition.
60
Comparison of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005
The following table sets forth revenue data for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005
(dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twelve Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Generic products: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oral contraceptives |
|
$ |
399.4 |
|
|
$ |
396.6 |
|
|
$ |
2.8 |
|
|
1% |
Other generic |
|
|
439.4 |
|
|
|
354.8 |
|
|
|
84.6 |
|
|
24% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generic products |
|
|
838.8 |
|
|
|
751.4 |
|
|
|
87.4 |
|
|
12% |
Proprietary products |
|
|
331.0 |
|
|
|
279.3 |
|
|
|
51.7 |
|
|
19% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total product sales |
|
|
1,169.8 |
|
|
|
1,030.7 |
|
|
|
139.1 |
|
|
13% |
Alliance and development revenue |
|
|
144.7 |
|
|
|
16.7 |
|
|
|
128.0 |
|
|
766% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
1,314.5 |
|
|
$ |
1,047.4 |
|
|
$ |
267.1 |
|
|
26% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales
Product sales for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 (fiscal 2006) increased 13% over
product sales for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 (fiscal 2005), resulting from increases in
sales of both generic and proprietary products. Generic sales increased in large part due to
contributions from Desmopressin, which was launched at the beginning of fiscal 2006, combined with
continued strong sales of two of our generic oral contraceptive products, Tri-Sprintec and Kariva.
Proprietary sales increased in part due to contributions of products acquired during fiscal 2006 as
well as higher sales of promoted in-line products, including SEASONALE and Plan B.
Generic Products
For fiscal 2006, sales of Generic OC products increased 1% to $399.4 million from sales of
$396.6 million in fiscal 2005. Sales in this category benefited from strong performances from
Tri-Sprintec and Kariva. Tri-Sprintec sales increased 20%, driven in part by market-share gains
during the second half of fiscal 2006, while sales of Kariva were up 32% due both to an increase in
market share and higher pricing. We believe that Tri-Sprintecs market share gains were the result
of supply shortages encountered by one of our competitors, which was remedied.
Somewhat offsetting the strong performances by Tri-Sprintec and Kariva was the impact of
increased pricing pressure from competition on certain of our other products, including Aviane and
Apri, as well as the ongoing decline in consumer demand for several Generic OC products that occurs
when brand companies cease promotional activities after a generic is launched. These factors more
than offset continued increases in the generic substitution rates for nearly all of our Generic OC
products.
For fiscal 2006, sales of Other Generics increased 24% to $439.4 million from $354.8 million
in fiscal 2005, driven by strong performances from Desmopressin and Didanosine. Desmopressin was
launched in July 2005, and recorded approximately $107.7 million of sales during fiscal 2006.
Didanosine was launched during the middle of fiscal 2005, and saw sales increase 47%
year-over-year. Desmopressin sales, which were favorably impacted in the first half of fiscal 2006
by rapid generic substitution, declined sharply in the second half due to the launch of two
competing generic products.
These increases were partially offset by lower sales of Mirtazapine, Claravis and Warfarin
Sodium, as well as the continued decline in both price and demand for certain of our other generic
products. Mirtazapine sales were lower due to further price declines and a loss of market share.
Claravis sales were lower throughout fiscal 2006 due in large part to the decline in the overall
compound usage and lower prices. As discussed in previous filings, sales of Claravis and other
isotrentinoin products indicated for the treatment of severe acne have been negatively affected by
the implementation effective January 1, 2006 of iPledge, an enhanced risk management program that
is designed to
61
minimize fetal exposure to isotrentinoin that has also led to reduced product use.
Sales of Warfarin Sodium declined due to lower prices, more than offsetting higher unit volume due
primarily to an increase in our market share.
Proprietary Products
For fiscal 2006, proprietary product sales increased 19% to $331.0 million from $279.3 million
in fiscal 2005. This increase was driven by (1) a 14% increase in sales of SEASONALE, (2) the
inclusion of sales of the ParaGard IUD and of the Mircette oral contraceptive, which we acquired in
November 2005 and December 2005, respectively, (3) the launch of ENJUVIA during the fourth quarter
of fiscal 2006 and (4) higher volume and pricing for our Plan B emergency contraceptive product.
Partially offsetting these increases were lower sales of our LOESTRIN/LOESTRIN FE oral
contraceptive products and our Cenestin hormone therapy product, due in part to customer buying
patterns.
SEASONALE sales reached $100 million during fiscal 2006, up 14% from fiscal 2005 sales. Higher
prices for SEASONALE during fiscal 2006 more than offset lower customer shipments, which were
attributable to customer buying patterns during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006. During fiscal
2006, consumer demand for SEASONALE grew, as prescriptions increased 30% compared to fiscal 2005.
Alliance, Development and Other Revenue
During fiscal 2006, alliance, development and other revenue totaled $144.7 million compared to
$16.7 million in the prior year. The substantial increase was driven by our profit sharing
arrangement with Teva, which began in September 2005 and represented 65% of such revenues in fiscal
2006, and an increase in royalties under our agreements with Kos, under which we began earning
royalties in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005.
Tevas 180-day exclusivity period on generic Allegra ended on February 28, 2006. By the end of
June 2006, there were two additional competing generic Allegra products on the market, resulting in
a decrease to Tevas revenues. Additionally, our royalty percentage decreased following the
expiration of the exclusivity period on February 28, 2006, further reducing the amount we earned.
Cost of Sales
The following table sets forth cost of sales data, in dollars, as well as the resulting gross
margins expressed as a percentage of product sales, for fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2005 (dollars in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Generic products |
|
$ |
286.0 |
|
|
$ |
264.8 |
|
|
$ |
21.2 |
|
|
8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
66 |
% |
|
|
65 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proprietary products |
|
$ |
91.9 |
|
|
$ |
52.6 |
|
|
$ |
39.3 |
|
|
75% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
72 |
% |
|
|
81 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of sales |
|
$ |
377.9 |
|
|
$ |
317.4 |
|
|
$ |
60.5 |
|
|
19% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
68 |
% |
|
|
69 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales components include the following:
|
|
|
the cost of products we purchase from third parties; |
|
|
|
|
our manufacturing and packaging costs for products we manufacture; |
|
|
|
|
profit-sharing or royalty payments we make to third parties, including raw material
suppliers; |
|
|
|
|
lower of cost or market inventory provisions; and |
62
|
|
|
stock-based compensation expense relating to employees within certain departments
that we allocate to cost of sales. |
As discussed above, during the Transition Period, we revised our presentation of amortization
expense to include it within cost of sales rather than SG&A. We have adjusted all historical
periods presented in this discussion to reflect this change.
Overall gross margins for fiscal 2006 declined to 67.7% from 69.2% in fiscal 2005. Cost of
sales increased 19% year-over-year primarily due to (1) the inclusion of $8.1 million of
stock-based compensation expense that was not present in fiscal 2005, (2) $20.7 million of charges
to write off the step-up to fair value of ParaGard inventory acquired from FEI in November 2005 and
(3) $12.4 million of higher product amortization expense. As of June 30, 2006, the entire amount of
the step-up adjustment had been charged to cost of sales as the units acquired on the date of
acquisition had been sold.
Margins on our generic products increased slightly in fiscal 2006 due to strong sales of
Desmopressin and Didanosine, both of which had higher margins than the average margin of our other
generic products. The margin increase related to these products was slightly offset by the
first-time inclusion of stock-based compensation expense in cost of sales.
Proprietary margins for the year ended June 30, 2006 were negatively impacted by the $20.7
million inventory step-up charge described above, the inclusion of stock-based compensation expense
and an increase in intangible amortization of $12.4 million.
Selling, General and Administrative Expense
The following table sets forth selling, general and administrative expense data for fiscal
2006 and 2005 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
$ |
308.8 |
|
|
$ |
285.2 |
|
|
$ |
23.6 |
|
|
8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charges included in general and administrative |
|
$ |
14.1 |
|
|
$ |
63.2 |
|
|
$ |
(49.1 |
) |
|
-78% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 8% in fiscal 2006 primarily due to: (1)
$26.4 million in higher selling and marketing costs associated with our proprietary product
portfolio, largely attributable to the launch of ENJUVIA during the fourth quarter and personnel
costs associated with the additional sales representatives acquired in the FEI acquisition, (2)
$13.4 million in stock-based compensation that was not included in the prior year, (3) higher
information technology costs of $12.5 million relating to the integration of our SAP enterprise
resource planning system, and (4) a $6.5 million increase in legal costs, which more than offset
the charges as described below.
Charges included in general and administrative expenses for fiscal 2006 and 2005 were as
follows:
Fiscal 2006:
On December 2, 2005, after receiving the requisite approvals, we entered into a definitive
agreement with Organon and Savient to acquire the exclusive rights to Mircette for $152.8 million
(see Fiscal 2005 charges below). Based on final valuations of the assets acquired, we recorded an
additional charge in fiscal 2006 of $0.8 million (bringing the total charge to $64.0 million) for the
difference between amounts recorded as a probable loss at June 30, 2005 and the final loss amount.
We also incurred transaction costs during fiscal 2006 (primarily legal and accounting fees) of $1.8
million. Additionally, we received $11.0 million from a third party as partial reimbursement of the
$64.0 million charge recorded in conjunction with this transaction. The $11.0 million reimbursement,
together with the additional settlement charge of $0.8 million and the transactions costs of $1.8
million, were all classified as
63
selling, general and administrative expenses and resulted in a net
benefit of $8.4 million to selling, general and administrative expenses for fiscal 2006.
General and administrative expenses also included a payment of $22.5 million in settlement of
an anti-trust case related to Warfarin Sodium.
Fiscal 2005
On June 15, 2005, we entered into a non-binding letter of intent (LOI) with Organon
(Ireland) Ltd., Organon USA and Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to acquire the NDA for Mircette,
obtain an exclusive royalty free license to sell Mircette and Kariva in the U.S. and dismiss all
pending litigation between the parties in exchange for a payment by us of up to $155 million.
Because the transaction included, as one of its components, a payment in settlement of litigation,
it was presumed under GAAP to give rise to a probable loss, as defined in Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies. Based on valuations of the assets we
acquired and total estimated payments, we recorded a charge of $63.2 million as of June 30, 2005 to
reflect the proposed litigation settlement.
Research and Development
The following table sets forth research and development expenses for fiscal 2006 and 2005
(dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Research and development |
|
$ |
140.2 |
|
|
$ |
128.4 |
|
|
$ |
11.8 |
|
|
|
9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in research and development expenses costs was due to (1) an increase of $9.5
million in costs associated with clinical trials, (2) the inclusion of $5.6 million of stock-based
compensation that was not similarly included in fiscal 2005 and (3) an increase of $5.6 million in
raw material costs. These increases were offset by a reimbursement of $5.0 million for previously
incurred costs under a third party development agreement and a $4.0 million decrease in costs
associated with bioequivalents studies supporting our generic product activities.
Other Income (expense)
The following table sets forth other income for fiscal 2006 and 2005 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Other income (expense) |
|
$ |
17.2 |
|
|
$ |
3.9 |
|
|
$ |
13.3 |
|
|
|
341% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income increased to $17.2 million in fiscal 2006 from $3.9 million in fiscal 2005
primarily as a result of a $10.3 million gain in the value of our foreign currency option related
to the PLIVA acquisition. This gain was the result of fluctuations and volatility in the exchange
rate between the Dollar and the Euro.
Additionally, we recorded a net gain during fiscal 2006 of $5.2 million related to our equity
investment in two venture funds, compared to a loss of $0.8 million during fiscal 2005.
Income Taxes
The following table sets forth income tax expense and the resulting effective tax rate stated
as a percentage of pre-tax income for fiscal 2006 and 2005 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Income tax expense |
|
$ |
186.5 |
|
|
$ |
114.9 |
|
|
$ |
71.6 |
|
|
|
62% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax rate |
|
|
35.7 |
% |
|
|
34.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
The effective tax rate for fiscal 2006 was slightly higher than the statutory rate of 35%
due to the expiration of the federal research and development tax credit on December 31, 2005,
which was only partially offset by the favorable impact arising from the completion of several tax
audits, the change of the mix in income between various taxing jurisdictions and the enactment of
favorable tax legislation in certain jurisdictions.
65
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Overview
Our primary source of liquidity has been cash from operations which entails the collection of
accounts and other receivables related to product sales, and royalty and other payments we receive
from third parties in various ventures. Our primary uses of cash include financing inventory,
research and development programs, marketing and selling, servicing our debt obligations, capital
projects and investing in business development activities. In 2008, operating cash flows will be a
significant source of liquidity, while debt service costs will be a significant use of cash in
addition to the activities described above.
The following table highlights selected measures of our liquidity and capital resources as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006 (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
Cash & cash equivalents, short term
marketable securities |
|
$ |
534.5 |
|
|
$ |
905.7 |
|
|
$ |
(371.2 |
) |
|
|
-41% |
|
Debt/Capital lease obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term |
|
|
298.1 |
|
|
|
742.2 |
|
|
|
(444.1 |
) |
|
|
-60% |
|
Long-term |
|
|
1,781.7 |
|
|
|
1,935.5 |
|
|
|
(153.8 |
) |
|
|
-8% |
|
Working capital |
|
|
970.9 |
|
|
|
876.1 |
|
|
|
94.8 |
|
|
|
11% |
|
Cash flow from operations |
|
$ |
383.2 |
|
|
|
213.3 |
|
|
|
169.9 |
|
|
|
80% |
|
Ratio of current assets to current liabilities |
|
|
2.25 : 1 |
|
|
|
1.7 : 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities
Our
operating cash flow for 2007 was $383.2 million, reflecting net earnings of $128.4 plus
the add back to earnings of significant non-cash adjustments including depreciation and
amortization of $297.8 million and stock-based compensation expense of $27.8 million. These
components of our operating cash flows were partially offset by an increase in deferred income
taxes of $71.4 million. In addition to these adjustments, our operating cash flows were also
positively impacted by a $10.3 million net decrease in working capital since December 31, 2006. This decrease
was due in large part to the collection of accounts receivables which were slightly offset by an
increase in inventory levels and a net decrease in accounts payable and other accrued liabilities.
Investing Activities
Our net cash provided by investing activities was $198.3 million during 2007. The major
components of our investing activities that generated positive cash flow in 2007 were higher net
proceeds from sales of marketable securities of $384.2 million and net proceeds from the sale of
discontinued operations of approximately $34.1 million, as discussed below. These cash flows were
used in part to pay down debt as discussed in financing activities.
During the second half of 2007, we completed the sale of our operations in Italy and Spain and
our Animal Health business. Through these sales we generated approximately $34.1 million of net
proceeds. In addition to these cash proceeds, in connection with the sale of our Spanish subsidiary
we received a note receivable in the amount of $13.7 million payable by the purchaser in
installments during 2008.
Our investing activities in 2007 also reflected cash expended in connection with acquisitions made during
2007 totaling $89.8 million, including $36.4 million used to acquire additional
PLIVA shares, $32.1 million cost associated with the purchase of
ORCA and $21.3 million of other
product acquisitions.
66
During 2007,
we made investments in capital expenditures of $123.4 million. Our investments in
capital include upgrades and expansions to our property, plant and equipment and technology
investments. These investments will expand our production, laboratory, warehouse and distribution
capacity in our facilities and were designed to help ensure that we have the facilities necessary
to manufacture, test, package and distribute our current and future products.
We expect that our capital investments in 2008 will be between $150 million and $175 million,
and possibly increase further during 2009. A significant amount of these investments will be in
support of a new biopharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Croatia, as well as other investments
in our manufacturing facilities in Europe. In addition, we expect continued investment in
facilities and information technology projects supporting global quality initiatives to ensure that
we have a platform to properly manage and grow our global business.
Financing Activities; Credit Facilities
Net cash used in
financing activities during 2007 was $577.5 million which
includes $724.2 million of principal repayments we made on long-term debt,
$615.7 million of
which was related to our PLIVA
acquisition. These debt repayments, discussed further below, were partially offset by proceeds from
other long-term debt of $100.1 million and proceeds of $36.1 million from the exercise of warrants
and employee stock options and share purchases under our employee stock purchase plan.
During 2006, we entered into $2.8 billion senior unsecured credit facilities (the Credit
Facilities) that consisted of a $2.0 billion five year term facility, a $500 million 364-day term
facility and a $300 million revolving credit facility. A summary of these Credit Facilities as of
December 31, 2007 is as follows:
|
|
|
Five-Year Term Facility: We initially borrowed the entire $2.0 billion available
under this facility, which bears interest at LIBOR plus 75 basis points (5.58% at
December 31, 2007), and matures in October 2011. During 2007 we made principal
repayments of $200.0 million and had an outstanding principal balance of $1.8 billion
as of December 31, 2007. |
|
|
|
|
364-Day Term Facility: We initially drew down $415.7 million of the $500.0 million
available under this facility, which was set to mature on October 23, 2007. Using cash
on hand, we repaid this facility in full during 2007. |
|
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility: No amounts were drawn at December 31, 2007, as such, the
entire $300.0 million facility remains available. |
As of December 31, 2007, we had total debt outstanding of $2.1 billion. This is comprised of
$1.8 billion due under our Five-Year Term Facility and $271.0 million held at our PLIVA subsidiary,
which is discussed in greater detail in Note 11 of our consolidated financial statements.
As noted above, during 2007, we received proceeds of approximately $36.1 million from the
exercise of warrants and employee stock options and share purchases under our employee stock
purchase plan. We expect proceeds from future stock option exercises to decline over time, due in
part, to our decision to issue employees stock appreciation rights (SARs), rather than stock
options. Upon exercise of a stock option the Company receives proceeds equal to the exercise price
per share for each option exercised. In contrast, the Company will not receive cash proceeds when a
SAR is exercised because the employee receives a net number of shares. While the Company will
continue to receive proceeds from any remaining options that are exercised, the amount of such
proceeds is difficult to predict because the proceeds are highly dependent upon our stock price,
which can be volatile.
Auction Rate Credit Market
Included within
our available-for-sale debt securities are market auction debt securities
restricted to highly rated municipal securities. Our typical practice has been to continue to own
the respective securities or liquidate the holdings by selling those
securities at par value at the next
auction, which generally ranges from 7 to 35 days after purchase. The market auction debt
securities investments are investment grade (A rated and above) municipal
67
securities and are
insured against loss of principal and interest by bond insurers whose AAA ratings are under review.
Subsequent to December 31, 2007, the recent uncertainties in the credit markets have prevented
us and other investors from liquidating holdings of market auction debt securities in recent
auctions because the amount of market auction debt securities submitted for sale has exceeded the
amount of purchase orders. On December 31, 2007, we held $218.9 million in market auction debt
securities.
In 2008, we decided
to liquidate our holdings in market auction debt securities and not
reinvest in market auction debt securities in order to intentionally reduce exposure to these
instruments. As of February 29, 2008 we had $43.0 million in market auction debt securities. All of
these securities have not been liquidated due to failed auctions and $14.9 million of the failed
market auction debt securities are associated with our balances at December 31, 2007.
Of this amount, $2.0 million has a future redemption date and we will receive cash for par value in
March 2008. Despite these failed auctions, there have been no defaults on the underlying securities, and
interest income on these holdings continues to be received on scheduled interest payment dates. As
a result, we now earn premium interest rates on the failed auction
investments. If
the issuers of these securities are unable to successfully close future auctions and their credit
rating deteriorates, we may be required to adjust the carrying value of these investments.
Based on our ability to access our cash and other short-term investments, our expected
operating cash flows and our other sources of cash, we do not anticipate that the lack of liquidity
on these investments will affect our ability to operate our business as usual.
Sufficiency of Cash Resources
We believe our current cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities, investment balances,
cash flows from operations and undrawn amounts under our $300.0 million revolving credit facility
are adequate to fund our operations, service our debt requirements, make planned capital
expenditures and capitalize on strategic opportunities as they arise.
Contractual Obligations
Payments due by period for our contractual obligations at December 31, 2007 are as follows
(dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments due by period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
Year |
|
|
1 to 3 Years |
|
|
4 to 5 Years |
|
|
Thereafter |
|
Long-term debt |
|
$ |
2,077.3 |
|
|
$ |
297.2 |
|
|
$ |
466.1 |
|
|
$ |
1,313.3 |
|
|
$ |
0.7 |
|
Capital leases |
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
Operating leases |
|
|
102.4 |
|
|
|
17.0 |
|
|
|
28.6 |
|
|
|
22.5 |
|
|
|
34.3 |
|
Purchase obligations (1) |
|
|
122.8 |
|
|
|
121.7 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Venture fund commitments (2) |
|
|
12.5 |
|
|
|
12.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual interest on debt |
|
|
335.8 |
|
|
|
104.7 |
|
|
|
174.9 |
|
|
|
56.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Milestone obligations |
|
|
44.1 |
|
|
|
32.8 |
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
22.2 |
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,719.6 |
|
|
$ |
596.1 |
|
|
$ |
687.7 |
|
|
$ |
1,400.6 |
|
|
$ |
35.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Purchase obligations consist mainly of commitments for raw materials used in our
manufacturing and research and development operations. |
|
(2) |
|
Payments related to our venture fund commitments are payable when capital calls are
made. |
The contractual obligation table above does not include income tax liabilities recorded in
accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
Interpretation No. 48 Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes: an
Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109. We have not yet entered into substantive
settlement discussions with taxing authorities and therefore cannot reasonably estimate
the amounts or timing of payments related to uncertain tax positions.
See Note 14 for information on income taxes.
68
In addition to the above, we may be obligated to make potential milestone payments to
third parties as part of licensing and development programs. The aggregate amount of these
potential milestone payments total approximately $12.5 million. These amounts relate to several
third parties and such amounts generally become due and payable only upon the achievement of
certain developmental milestones, including the receipt of regulatory approval for certain
products. Because it is uncertain if and when these milestones will be achieved, we have not
attempted to predict the period in which such milestones would possibly be incurred, if at all, nor
have such contingencies been recorded on our consolidated balance sheet.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
The Company does not have any material off-balance sheet arrangements that have had, or are
expected to have, an effect on our financial statements.
Critical Accounting Policies
The methods, estimates and judgments we use in applying the accounting policies most critical
to our financial statements have a significant impact on our reported results. The Securities and
Exchange Commission has defined the most critical accounting policies as the ones that are most
important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results, and/or require us to make our
most difficult and subjective judgments. Based on this definition, our most critical policies are
the following: (1) revenue recognition and provisions for estimated reductions to gross product
sales; (2) revenue recognition and provisions of alliance and development revenue; (3) inventories;
(4) income taxes; (5) contingencies; (6) acquisitions and amortization of intangible assets; (7)
derivative instruments; and (8) foreign currency translation and transactions. Although we believe
that our estimates and assumptions are reasonable, they are based upon information available at the
time the estimates and assumptions were made. We review the factors that influence our estimates
and, if necessary, adjust them. Actual results may differ significantly from our estimates.
Revenue Recognition and Provisions for Estimated Reductions to Gross Product Sales
We recognize revenue from product sales when title and risk of loss have transferred to our
customers and when collectibility is reasonably assured. This is generally at the time products are
received by the customer. From time to time the Company provides incentives, such as trade show
allowances or stocking allowances, that provide incremental allowances to customers who in turn use
such incremental allowances to accelerate distribution to the end customer. We believe that such
incentives are normal and customary in the industry. Additionally, we understand that certain of
our wholesale customers anticipate the timing of price increases and have made and may continue to
make business decisions to buy additional product in anticipation of future price increases. This
practice has been customary in the industry and would be part of a customers ordinary course of
business inventory level.
We evaluate inventory levels at our wholesale customers, which account for approximately 50%
of our sales, through an internal analysis that considers, among other things, wholesaler
purchases, wholesaler contract sales, available end consumer prescription information and inventory
data from our largest wholesale customer. We believe that our evaluation of wholesaler inventory
levels as described in the preceding sentence, allows us to make reasonable estimates for our
applicable reserves. Further, our products are typically sold with sufficient dating to permit
sufficient time for our wholesaler customers to sell our products in their inventory through to the
end consumer.
Upon recognizing revenue from a sale, we simultaneously record estimates for the following
items that reduce gross revenues:
|
|
|
returns and allowances (including shelf-stock adjustments) |
|
|
|
|
chargebacks |
|
|
|
|
rebates |
|
|
|
|
managed care rebates |
|
|
|
|
Medicaid rebates |
|
|
|
|
prompt payment discounts and other allowances |
69
For each of the items listed above other than managed care and Medicaid rebates, the estimated
amounts serve to reduce our accounts receivable balance. We include our estimate for managed care
and Medicaid rebates in accrued liabilities. A table showing the activity of each reserve, based on
these estimates, is set forth below (dollars in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
|
Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
provision |
|
|
provision |
|
|
Actual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
related to |
|
|
related to |
|
|
returns or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sales |
|
|
sales |
|
|
credits in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning |
|
|
made in the |
|
|
made in |
|
|
the current |
|
|
Ending |
|
|
|
balance |
|
|
current period |
|
|
prior periods |
|
|
period |
|
|
balance |
|
Year Ended December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable reserves: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Returns and allowances |
|
$ |
89.8 |
|
|
$ |
76.2 |
|
|
$ |
6.5 |
|
|
$ |
(70.1 |
) |
|
$ |
102.4 |
|
Chargebacks |
|
|
69.7 |
|
|
|
740.3 |
|
|
|
(3.5 |
) |
|
|
(740.8 |
) |
|
|
65.7 |
|
Rebates |
|
|
70.7 |
|
|
|
270.9 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
(267.8 |
) |
|
|
78.4 |
|
Cash discounts |
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
53.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55.1 |
) |
|
|
10.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
242.8 |
|
|
$ |
1,140.7 |
|
|
$ |
7.6 |
|
|
$ |
(1,133.8 |
) |
|
$ |
257.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managed care rebates |
|
$ |
8.3 |
|
|
$ |
10.0 |
|
|
$ |
(0.2 |
) |
|
$ |
(11.7 |
) |
|
$ |
6.4 |
|
Medicaid rebates |
|
$ |
16.0 |
|
|
$ |
22.1 |
|
|
$ |
(5.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(20.2 |
) |
|
$ |
12.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended December 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable reserves: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Returns and allowances |
|
$ |
53.1 |
|
|
$ |
59.7 |
|
|
$ |
4.0 |
|
|
$ |
(27.0 |
) |
|
$ |
89.8 |
|
Chargebacks |
|
|
44.3 |
|
|
|
255.4 |
|
|
|
(1.0 |
) |
|
|
(229.0 |
) |
|
|
69.7 |
|
Rebates |
|
|
32.2 |
|
|
|
120.7 |
|
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
(82.0 |
) |
|
|
70.7 |
|
Cash discounts |
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
22.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17.5 |
) |
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
137.3 |
|
|
$ |
458.2 |
|
|
$ |
2.8 |
|
|
$ |
(355.5 |
) |
|
$ |
242.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managed care rebates |
|
$ |
10.4 |
|
|
$ |
10.1 |
|
|
$ |
0.3 |
|
|
$ |
(12.5 |
) |
|
$ |
8.3 |
|
Medicaid rebates |
|
$ |
13.2 |
|
|
$ |
21.7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(18.9 |
) |
|
$ |
16.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable reserves: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Returns and allowances |
|
$ |
52.7 |
|
|
$ |
59.8 |
|
|
$ |
0.2 |
|
|
$ |
(59.6 |
) |
|
$ |
53.1 |
|
Chargebacks |
|
|
44.9 |
|
|
|
386.0 |
|
|
|
(0.9 |
) |
|
|
(385.7 |
) |
|
|
44.3 |
|
Rebates |
|
|
37.8 |
|
|
|
164.5 |
|
|
|
(3.2 |
) |
|
|
(166.9 |
) |
|
|
32.2 |
|
Cash discounts |
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
40.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39.8 |
) |
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
142.5 |
|
|
$ |
650.7 |
|
|
$ |
(3.9 |
) |
|
$ |
(652.0 |
) |
|
$ |
137.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managed care rebates |
|
$ |
7.5 |
|
|
$ |
20.5 |
|
|
$ |
(1.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(16.6 |
) |
|
$ |
10.4 |
|
Medicaid rebates |
|
$ |
10.1 |
|
|
$ |
29.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(26.9 |
) |
|
$ |
12.2 |
|
70
Returns and allowances Our provision for returns and allowances consists of our estimates of
future product returns, pricing adjustments, delivery errors, and our estimate of price adjustments
arising from shelf stock adjustments (which are discussed in greater detail below). Consistent with industry practice, we
maintain a return policy that allows our customers to return product within a specified period of
time both prior and subsequent to the products expiration date. The primary factors we consider in
estimating our potential product returns include:
|
|
|
the shelf life or expiration date of each product; |
|
|
|
|
historical levels of expired product returns; and |
|
|
|
|
the estimated date of return. |
Shelf-stock adjustments are credits issued to our customers to reflect decreases in the
selling prices of our products. These credits are customary in the industry and are intended to
reduce a customers inventory cost to better reflect current market prices. The determination to
grant a shelf-stock credit to a customer following a price decrease is at our discretion rather
than contractually required. The primary factors we consider when deciding whether to record a
reserve for a shelf-stock adjustment include:
|
|
|
the estimated launch date of a competing product, which we determine based on market
intelligence; |
|
|
|
|
the estimated decline in the market price of our product, which we determine based on
historical experience and input from customers; and |
|
|
|
|
the estimated levels of inventory held by our customers at the time of the anticipated
decrease in market price, which we determine based upon historical experience and customer
input. |
Chargebacks We market and sell products directly to wholesalers, distributors, warehousing
pharmacy chains, mail order pharmacies and other direct purchasing groups. We also market products
indirectly to independent pharmacies, non-warehousing chains, managed care organizations, and group
purchasing organizations, collectively referred to as indirect customers. We enter into
agreements with some indirect customers to establish contract pricing for certain products. These
indirect customers then independently select a wholesaler from which to purchase the products at
these contracted prices. Alternatively, we may pre-authorize wholesalers to offer specified
contract pricing to other indirect customers. Under either arrangement, we provide credit to the
wholesaler for any difference between the contracted price with the indirect customer and the
wholesalers invoice price. Such credit is called a chargeback. The primary factors we consider in
developing and evaluating our provision for chargebacks include:
|
|
|
the average historical chargeback credits; and |
|
|
|
|
an estimate of the inventory held by our wholesalers, based on internal analysis of a
wholesalers historical purchases and contract sales. |
Rebates - Our rebate programs can generally be categorized into the following four types:
|
|
|
direct rebates; |
|
|
|
|
indirect rebates; |
|
|
|
|
managed care rebates; and |
|
|
|
|
Medicaid rebates. |
The direct and indirect rebates relate primarily to the generic segment of our business
whereas our managed care rebates are solely associated with the proprietary segment of our
business. Medicaid rebates apply to both of our segments. Direct rebates are generally rebates paid
to direct purchasing customers based on a percentage applied to a direct customers purchases from
us. Indirect rebates are rebates paid to indirect customers which have purchased our products
from a wholesaler under a contract with us. Managed care and Medicaid rebates are amounts owed
based upon contractual agreements or legal requirements with private sector and public sector
(Medicaid) benefit providers, after the final dispensing of the product by a pharmacy to a benefit
plan participant.
We maintain reserves for our direct rebate programs based on purchases by our direct
purchasing customers. Indirect rebate reserves are based on actual contract purchases in a period
and an estimate of wholesaler inventory subject to an indirect rebate. Managed care and Medicaid
reserves are based on expected payments, which are driven
71
by patient usage, contract performance,
as well as field inventory that will be subject to a managed care or Medicaid rebate.
Prompt Pay Discounts We offer many of our customers 2% prompt pay discounts. We evaluate the
amounts accrued for prompt pay discounts by analyzing the unpaid invoices in our accounts
receivable aging subject to a prompt pay discount.
Revenue Recognition and Provisions of Alliance and Development Revenue
We have agreements with certain pharmaceutical companies under which we receive payments based
on sales or profits associated with the applicable products. Our two most significant of these
agreements are those with Teva regarding generic Allegra and with Kos Pharmaceuticals regarding
Niaspan and Advicor. Revenue from these agreements is recognized at the time title and risk of loss
pass to a third party and is based on pre-defined formulas contained in our agreements, and under
our arrangement with Teva, adjusted for shelf-stock provisions needed to state our revenues on a
basis consistent with our other revenue recognition policies. The estimates we make to adjust our
revenues are based on information received from our partner, whether Teva or Kos, as well as our
own internal information. Selling and marketing expenses we incur under our co-promotion agreement
with Kos are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market and consist of finished goods purchased
from third party manufacturers and held for distribution, as well as raw materials, work-in-process
and finished goods manufactured by us. We determine cost on a first-in, first-out basis.
We capitalize the costs associated with certain products prior to receiving final marketing
approval from the regulatory authorities for such products (pre-launch inventories). For our
generic products, each filing submission is made with the expectation that: (i) the applicable
regulatory authority will approve the marketing of the applicable product, (ii) we will validate
our process for manufacturing the applicable product within the specifications that have been or
will be approved by the regulatory authority, and (iii) the cost of the inventory will be recovered
from the commercialization of our product. Typically, we capitalize inventory related to our
proprietary products based on the same expectations as above, but we do not begin to capitalize
costs until the NDA is filed or in the case of components to a NDA product, the product development
process has progressed to a point where we have determined that the product has a high probability
of regulatory approval. The accumulation of pre-launch inventory involves risks such as (i) the
applicable regulatory authority may not approve such
product(s) for marketing on a timely basis, if
ever, (ii) approvals may require additional or different testing and/or specifications than what
was performed in the manufacture of such pre-launch inventory, and (iii) in those instances where
the pre-launch inventory is for a product that is subject to litigation, the litigation may not be
resolved or settled to our satisfaction. If any of these risks were to materialize and the launch
of such product were significantly delayed, we may have to write-off all or a portion of such
pre-launch inventory and such amounts could be material. For the year ended December 31, 2007 and
the six-month period ended December 31, 2006, lower of cost or market provisions for inventory
obsolescence were not material to our net earnings (loss). At December 31, 2007 our capitalized
pre-launch inventories were $27.3 million.
We review our inventory for products that are close to or have reached their expiration date
and therefore are not expected to be sold, for products where market conditions have changed or are
expected to change, and for products that are not expected to be saleable based on our quality
assurance and control standards. In addition, for our pre-launch inventory, we take into
consideration the substance of communications with the applicable regulatory authority during the
approval process and the views of patent and litigation counsel. In evaluating whether inventory is
properly stated at the lower of cost or market, we consider such factors as the amount of product
inventory on hand, estimated time required to sell such inventory, remaining shelf life and current
and expected market conditions, including levels of competition. We record lower of cost or market
provisions for inventory obsolescence as part of cost of sales.
72
Income Taxes
Our effective tax rate is based on pre-tax income, statutory tax rates and available tax
incentives (e.g.-deductions or credits) in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. The
effective tax rate also includes the impact of changes to our FIN 48 liability. This rate is
applied to our operating results.
Tax regulations require certain types of income and expense to be included in the income tax
return in different periods from when they are reported in the financial statements. As a result,
effective tax rates are frequently different in the financial statements and income tax returns.
Some of the differences are permanent, such as tax-exempt interest income, while others are
temporary, such as depreciation expense. Deferred tax assets generally represent items that can be
used as tax deductions or credits in future years for which tax benefits have already been
recognized in the financial statements. We establish valuation allowances for our deferred tax
assets when the amount of expected future taxable income is not
likely to support the use of these
deductions or credits. Deferred tax liabilities generally arise when taxable income is recognized in
the financial statements before the tax return, when expenses have been deducted in the tax
return before the financial statements and, when the book basis exceeds the tax
basis of acquired assets.
In accordance with APB 23, incremental taxes have not been provided on undistributed earnings
of our international subsidiaries as it is our intention to permanently reinvest these earnings in
the respective businesses. At December 31, 2007, we have not provided for U.S. or foreign income or
withholding taxes that may be imposed on a distribution of such earnings. The amount of unremitted earnings and unrecognized deferred tax
liabilities for temporary differences
related to investments in these non-U.S. subsidiaries is not practicable to estimate.
In the
ordinary course of business there is inherent uncertainty in quantifying income tax positions.
We assess income tax positions and record tax benefits for all years subject to examination based
upon managements evaluation of the facts, circumstances and information available at the reporting
dates. For those tax positions with a greater than 50% likelihood of
being realized, we record the benefit. For those income tax positions where it is more-than-likely-than-not
that a tax benefit will not be sustained, no tax benefit is recognized in the financial statements.
When applicable, associated interest and penalties are recognized as a component of interest
expense.
Contingencies
We are involved in various patent, product liability, commercial litigation and claims,
government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary
course of our business. We assess, in consultation with counsel, the need to accrue a liability for
such contingencies and record a reserve when we determine that a loss related to a matter is both
probable and reasonably estimable. Because litigation and other contingencies are inherently
unpredictable, our assessment can involve judgments about future events. We record anticipated
recoveries under existing insurance contracts when collection is reasonably assured.
We utilize a combination of self-insurance and traditional third-party insurance policies to
cover potential product liability claims on products sold on or after September 30, 2002, and we
have obtained extended reporting periods under previous policies for claims arising on products
sold prior to September 30, 2002.
Acquisitions and Amortization of Intangible Assets
We account for acquired businesses using the purchase method of accounting which requires that
the assets acquired and liabilities assumed be recorded at the date of acquisition at their
respective fair values. Our consolidated financial statements and results of operations reflect an
acquired business after the completion of the acquisition and are not restated. The cost to acquire
a business, including transaction costs, is allocated to the underlying net assets of the acquired
business in proportion to their respective fair values. Any excess of the purchase price over the
estimated fair values of the net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. Amounts allocated to
acquired in-process research and development are expensed at the date of acquisition. Intangible
assets are amortized based on sales over the expected life of the asset. Product amortization
expense is included in the cost of sales expense line item of the statement of operations. When we
acquire net assets that do not constitute a business, no goodwill is recognized.
The judgments made in determining the estimated fair value assigned to each class of assets
acquired and liabilities assumed, as well as asset lives, can materially impact our results of
operations. Accordingly, for significant items, we typically obtain assistance from third party
valuation specialists. Useful lives are determined based on the expected future period of benefit
of the asset, which considers various characteristics of the asset, including projected cash flows.
We review goodwill for impairment annually or more frequently if impairment indicators arise.
As
a result of our acquisitions, we have recorded on our balance sheets
goodwill of $286 million and $276 million, as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. In addition, as a result
of our acquisition of product rights
73
and related intangibles and certain product licenses, we have
recorded $1,483 million and $1,471 million as other intangible assets, net of accumulated
amortization, on our balance sheets as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Derivative Instruments
We use derivative instruments for the purpose of hedging our exposure to foreign exchange and
interest rate risk. Our derivative instruments include interest rate forwards and swaps, forward
rate agreements and foreign exchange forwards and options.
FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities as
amended and interpreted (SFAS 133), requires companies to recognize all of their derivative
instruments as either assets or liabilities in the statement of financial position at fair value
based on quoted market prices or pricing models using current market rates. The accounting for
changes (i.e., gains or losses) in the fair value of a derivative instrument depends on whether the
instrument has been designated and qualifies as part of a hedging relationship and on the type of
hedging relationship. For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as hedging
instruments, a company must designate the hedging instrument, as a fair value hedge, cash flow
hedge or a hedge of a net investment in a foreign operation. The designation is based upon the
nature of the exposure being hedged.
For a derivative instrument that is designated and qualifies as a fair value hedge (i.e., an
instrument that hedges the exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset or a liability or an
identified portion thereof that is attributable to a particular risk), the gain or loss on the
derivative instrument as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in
the same line item associated with the hedged item in earnings.
For a derivative instrument that is designated and qualifies as a cash flow hedge (i.e., an
instrument that hedges the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows that is
attributable to a particular risk), the effective portion of the gain or loss on the derivative
instrument is reported as a component of other comprehensive income and reclassified into earnings
in the same line item associated with the forecasted transaction in the same period or periods
during which the hedged transaction affects earnings.
For all hedging activities, the ineffective portion of a derivatives change in fair value is
immediately recognized in other income (expense). For derivative instruments not designated as
hedging instruments, the gain or loss is recognized in other income (expense) during the period of
change. However, we believe that such non designated instruments offset the economic risks of the
hedged items.
Our treasury policies do not allow for holding derivative instruments for trading purposes.
Foreign Currency Translation and Transactions
Foreign Currency Translation In view of the international nature of our business and the
fact that a significant part of our business is transacted in U.S. dollars our financial statements
continue to be presented in U.S. Dollars. Other significant currencies that are applicable to our
operations include the Croatian Kuna (HRK), the Euro, the Polish Zloty, the Czech Krona, and the
UK Pound.
Monthly income and cash flow statements of all of our subsidiaries expressed in currencies
other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars at that months average exchange rates and
then are combined for the period totals, whereas assets and liabilities are translated at the end
of the period exchange rates. Translation differences on functional currencies are recorded
directly in shareholders equity as cumulative translation adjustments.
Foreign Currency Transactions Outstanding balances in foreign currencies arising from
foreign currency transactions other than the functional currencies are translated at the
end-of-period exchange rates. Revenues and expenses for each month are translated using that
months average exchange rate and then are combined for the period totals. The resulting exchange
differences are recorded in the income statement.
74
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 157 (SFAS 157), Fair Value Measurements, which
defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP and expands disclosure
about fair value measurements. The statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after November
15, 2007. Although we will continue to evaluate the application of SFAS 157, management does not
currently believe that the adoption of SFAS 157 will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial statements.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159 (SFAS 159), The Fair Value Option for
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, providing companies with an option to report selected
financial assets and liabilities at fair value. The statements objective is to reduce both
complexity in accounting for financial instruments and the volatility in earnings caused by
measuring related assets and liabilities differently. Generally accepted accounting principles have
required different measurement attributes for different assets and liabilities that can create
artificial volatility in earnings. SFAS 159 helps to mitigate this type of accounting-induced
volatility by enabling companies to report related assets and liabilities at fair value, which
would likely reduce the need for companies to comply with detailed rules for hedge accounting. SFAS
159 also establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons
between companies that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and
liabilities. The statement requires companies to provide additional information that will help
investors and other users of financial statements to more easily understand the effect of the
Companys choice to use fair value on its earnings. It also requires entities to display the fair
value of those assets and liabilities for which they have chosen to use fair value on the face of
the balance sheet. SFAS 159 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007.
Although we will continue to evaluate the application of SFAS 159, management does not currently
believe that the adoption of SFAS 159 will have a material effect on our consolidated financial
statements.
In June 2007, the EITF issued EITF Issue 07-3 (EITF 07-3), Accounting for Nonrefundable
Advance Payments for Goods or Services to Be Used in Future Research and Development Activities.
EITF 07-3 addresses the diversity that exists with respect to the accounting for the non-refundable
portion of a payment made by a research and development entity for future research and development
activities. The EITF concluded that an entity must defer and capitalize non-refundable advance
payments made for research and development activities and expense these amounts as the related
goods are delivered or the related services are performed. EITF 07-3 is effective for interim or
annual reporting periods in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007. The adoption of EITF
07-3 will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R) (SFAS 141(R)), Business Combinations
(revised), replacing SFAS 141 Business Combinations. This new statement requires additional assets
and assumed liabilities to be measured at fair value when acquired in a business combination as
compared to the original pronouncement. SFAS 141(R) also requires liabilities related to contingent
consideration to be re-measured to fair value each reporting period, acquisition-related costs to be expensed and not capitalized and acquired in-process research and development to be
capitalized as an indefinite lived intangible asset until completion of project or abandonment of
project.
SFAS 141(R) requires prospective application for business combinations consummated in
fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. This statement does not allow for early
adoption. We are currently evaluating the impact that adopting this statement will have on our
consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160 (SFAS 160), Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements an amendment of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51(ARB No.
51). This amendment of ARB No. 51 requires noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries initially to be
measured at fair value and then to be classified as a separate component of equity. This statement
is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning on or after
December 15, 2008. This statement does not allow for early adoption, however, application of SFAS
160 disclosure and presentation requirements is retroactive. We are currently evaluating the impact
that adopting this statement will have on our consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) issued EITF Issue No. 07-1 (EITF
07-1) Accounting for Collaborative Arrangements. EITF 07-1 affects entities that participate in
collaborative arrangements for the development and commercialization of intellectual property. The
EITF affirmed the tentative conclusions
reached on (1) what constitutes a collaborative arrangement, (2) how the parties should
present costs and revenues in
75
their respective income statements, (3) how the parties should
present cost-sharing payments, profit-sharing payments, or both in their respective income
statements, and (4) disclosure in the annual financial statements of the partners. EITF 07-1 should
be applied as a change in accounting principle through retrospective application to all periods
presented for collaborative arrangements existing as of the date of adoption. EITF 07-1 is
effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. We
are currently evaluating the impact that adopting EITF 07-1 will have on our consolidated financial
statements.
Effects of Inflation; Seasonality
Inflation has had only a minimal impact on our operations in recent years. Similarly, our
business is generally not affected by seasonality.
Forward-Looking Statements
The preceding sections contain a number of forward-looking statements. To the extent that any
statements made in this report contain information that is not historical, these statements are
essentially forward-looking. Forward-looking statements can be identified by their use of words
such as expects, plans, will, may, anticipates, believes, should, intends,
estimates and other words of similar meaning. These statements are subject to risks and
uncertainties that cannot be predicted or quantified and, consequently, actual results may differ
materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and
uncertainties include, in no particular order:
|
|
|
the difficulty in predicting the timing and outcome of legal proceedings, including
patent-related matters such as patent challenge settlements and patent infringement cases; |
|
|
|
|
the difficulty of predicting the timing of FDA approvals; |
|
|
|
|
court and FDA decisions on exclusivity periods; |
|
|
|
|
the ability of competitors to extend exclusivity periods for their products; |
|
|
|
|
our ability to complete product development activities in the timeframes and for the
costs we expect; |
|
|
|
|
market and customer acceptance and demand for our pharmaceutical products; |
|
|
|
|
our dependence on revenues from significant customers; |
|
|
|
|
reimbursement policies of third party payors; |
|
|
|
|
our dependence on revenues from significant products; |
|
|
|
|
the use of estimates in the preparation of our financial statements; |
|
|
|
|
the impact of competitive products and pricing on products, including the launch of
authorized generics; |
|
|
|
|
the ability to launch new products in the timeframes we expect; |
|
|
|
|
the availability of raw materials; |
|
|
|
|
the availability of any product we purchase and sell as a distributor; |
|
|
|
|
the regulatory environment; |
|
|
|
|
our exposure to product liability and other lawsuits and contingencies; |
|
|
|
|
the cost of insurance and the availability of product liability insurance coverage; |
|
|
|
|
our timely and successful completion of strategic initiatives, including integrating
companies and products we acquire and implementing our new enterprise resource planning
system; |
|
|
|
|
risks associated with doing business outside the United States, as discussed in Risk
Factors above; |
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in operating results, including the effects on such results from spending
for research and development, sales and marketing activities and patent challenge
activities; and |
|
|
|
|
other risks detailed from time-to-time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. |
We wish to caution each reader of this report to consider carefully these factors as well as
specific factors that may be discussed with each forward-looking statement in this report or
disclosed in our filings with the SEC, as such factors, in some cases, could affect our ability to
implement our business strategies and may cause actual results to differ materially from those
contemplated by the statements expressed herein. Readers are urged to
carefully review and consider these factors. We undertake no duty to update the
forward-looking statements even though our situation may change in the future.
76
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK
We are exposed to market risk for changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange
rates. We manage these exposures through operational means and, when appropriate, through the use
of derivative financial instruments.
Interest Rate Risk
Our exposure to interest rate risk relates primarily to our investment
portfolio of approximately $534.5 million and borrowings under our credit
facilities of approximately $1.9 billion. Our investment portfolio consists
principally of cash and cash equivalents and market auction debt securities
primarily classified as available for sale. The primary objective of our
investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time
maximizing yields without significantly increasing risk. To achieve this
objective, we maintain our portfolio in a variety of high credit quality debt
securities, including U.S., state and local government and corporate
obligations, commercial paper and money market funds. Over 96% of our portfolio
matures in less than three months, or in the case of market auction rate
securities, is subject to an interest-rate reset date that occurs within 90
days. Subsequent to December 31, 2007, the recent uncertainties in the credit
markets have prevented us and other investors from liquidating holdings of
market auction debt securities in recent auctions because the amount of market
auction debt securities submitted for sale has exceeded the amount of purchase
orders. On December 31, 2007, we held $218.9 million in market auction debt
securities and all but $14.9 million of which has been liquidated in 2008 to
date. Despite these failed auctions, there have been no defaults on the
underlying securities, and interest income on these holdings continues to be
received on scheduled interest payment dates. As a result, we now earn premium
interest rates on the failed auction investments. If the issuers of these securities are unable to successfully close
future auctions and their credit ratings deteriorate we may be required to
adjust the carrying value of these investments. The carrying value of the
investment portfolio approximates the market value at December 31, 2007 and the
value at maturity.
We manage the interest rate risk of our net portfolio of investments and debt with the use of
financial risk management instruments or derivatives, including interest rate swaps and forward
rate agreements. See Note 4 to the Companys consolidated financial statements included in Item 8
of this report for a detailed presentation of the Companys financial risk management instruments.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, a 10% increase in interest rates would have increased
the net interest expense of our combined investment, debt and financial risk management portfolios
by $5.4 million.
Foreign Exchange Rate Risk
A significant portion of our revenues and earnings are generated internationally in various
currencies. We also have a number of investments in foreign subsidiaries whose net assets are
exposed to currency translation risk. We seek to manage these exposures through operational means,
to the extent possible, by matching functional currency revenues and costs and functional currency
assets and liabilities. Exposures that cannot be managed operationally are hedged using foreign
exchange forwards, swaps, and option contracts. See Note 4 to the Companys consolidated financial statements
included in Item 8 of this report for a detailed presentation of the Companys financial risk
management instruments.
As of December 31, 2007, a 10% depreciation in the value of the U.S. dollar would have
resulted in a decrease of $13.1 million in the fair value of the Companys foreign exchange risk
management instruments. These movements would have been offset by movements in the fair value in
the opposite direction of the underlying transactions and balance sheet items being hedged.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Our financial statements are filed together with this Form 10-K. See the Index to the
Consolidated Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules on page F-1 for a list of the
financial statements filed together with this Form 10-K.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
None.
77
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain disclosure controls (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 as amended (the Exchange Act)) and procedures that are designed to ensure that
information required to be disclosed in our Exchange Act reports is recorded, processed, summarized
and reported within the time periods specified in the SECs rules and forms, and that such
information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure. Management necessarily applied its judgment in assessing the costs and
benefits of such controls and procedures, which, by their nature, can provide only reasonable
assurance regarding managements control objectives.
At the conclusion of the period ended December 31, 2007, we carried out an evaluation, under
the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of
our disclosure controls and procedures. Based upon that evaluation, the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and
procedures, as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Exchange Act, were effective.
78
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
MANAGEMENTS REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over
financial reporting for Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company). We maintain internal control
over financial reporting designed 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.
Because of its inherent limitations, any system of internal control over financial reporting,
no matter how well designed, may not prevent or detect misstatements due to the possibility of
collusion or improper override of controls, or that misstatements due to error or fraud may occur
that are not detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are
subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that
the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2007 using criteria established in Internal
Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO). This assessment included an evaluation of the design of the Companys internal
control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of its internal
control over financial reporting. Based on this assessment, management has concluded that the
Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,
based upon the COSO framework criteria.
The Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007 has been
audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in
their report which appears herein.
February 29, 2008
79
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Montvale, New Jersey
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2007, based on criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. The Companys management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control
over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Companys 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, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and
evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk,
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the
supervision of, the companys principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons
performing similar functions, and effected by the companys 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 companys 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
companys 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.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, 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 and financial statement schedule as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2007 of the Company and our report dated February 29, 2008
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and financial statement schedule.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
February 29, 2008
80
Changes in Internal Controls
On October 24, 2006, we completed our acquisition of PLIVA d.d. As allowed by SEC guidance,
we excluded the PLIVA business from our 2006 assessment of internal controls over financial
reporting. In 2007, we extended our compliance program under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the
applicable rules and regulations under such Act to include significant PLIVA locations. This
program included the design and implementation of internal controls over financial reporting at the
former PLIVA companies.
The changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred that have
materially affected, or can be reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over
financial reporting, are described above.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
81
PART III
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Certain information regarding our directors and executive officers will be set forth in the
sections titled Election of Directors, Executive Officers and Security Ownership of Certain
Beneficial Owners and Management Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance in our
definitive Proxy Statement for our Annual Meeting of Stockholders scheduled for May 15, 2008 (the
Proxy Statement) and is incorporated herein by reference.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the Code) that applies to all Barr
companies, their officers, directors and employees. This Code and the charters of the Audit,
Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance committees are posted on our website at
www.barrlabs.com. We intend to post any amendments to or waivers from the Code on our website.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The information called for by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the material
under the captions, Compensation Discussion and Analysis, Executive and Director Compensation
and Compensation Committee Report in the Proxy Statement.
The material incorporated herein by reference to the material under the caption Compensation
Committee Report in the Proxy Statement shall be deemed furnished, and not filed, in this Report
on Form 10-K and shall not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as a result of this
furnishing.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
A description of the security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management, as well
as equity compensation plan information, will be set forth in the sections titled Ownership of
Securities of the Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
A description of certain relationships and related transactions will be set forth in the
section titled Certain Relationships and Related Transactions of the Proxy Statement and is
incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
A description of the fees paid to our independent registered public accounting firm will be
set forth in the section titled Independent Registered Public Accountants of the Proxy Statement
and is incorporated herein by reference.
82
PART IV
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a) a) Financial Statement Schedules:
See the Index on page F-1 below.
(b) Exhibits
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 31, 2003 between Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Barr Laboratories,
Inc., a New York corporation (1) |
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement dated November 20, 2003 between Endeavor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (2) |
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 6, 2004, among Duramed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., WCC Merger Sub, Inc. and Womens Capital
Corporation (3) |
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
Purchase Agreement dated as of October 14, 2005, by and among Duramed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Copper 380T, FEI Womens Health, LLC and the
individuals listed on the signature pages thereto. (21) |
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant (1) |
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
Restated By-Laws of the Registrant (1) |
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
The Registrant agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, upon request, a copy of any instrument defining the rights of
the holders of its long-term debt wherein the total amount of securities
authorized there under does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the
Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. |
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Note Purchase Agreement dated November 18, 1997 relating to $10 million of
Series A Senior Notes due November, 2004 and $20 million of Series B
Senior Notes due November, 2007 (4) |
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Credit Agreement (five-year facilities), dated July 21, 2006, among the
Company, certain of its subsidiaries, Bank of America, N.A., as
Administrative Agent, Banc of America Securities LLC, as Lead Arranger and
Book Manager, and certain other lenders. (23) |
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Credit Agreement (364-day facility), dated July 21, 2006, among the
Company, certain of its subsidiaries, Bank of America, N.A., as
Administrative Agent, Banc of America Securities LLC, as Lead Arranger and
Book Manager, and certain other lenders. (23) |
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
Lease, dated February 6, 2003, between Mack-Cali Properties Co. No. 11
L.P. and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (5) |
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Bruce L. Downey, dated as
of March 13, 2006 (22) |
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
1993 Stock Incentive Plan (7) |
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
Amended and Restated Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan,
dated as of February 27, 2008 |
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (8) |
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
1993 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (9) |
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
2002 Stock and Incentive Award Plan (10) |
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
2002 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (10) |
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
Supply Agreement for Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride dated January 8, 1997 (11) |
83
|
|
|
10.10
|
|
Proprietary Drug Development and Marketing Agreement, dated March 20,
2000, between Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Dupont Pharmaceuticals Company
(12) |
|
|
|
10.11
|
|
Amended and Restated Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Excess Savings and Retirement Plan, dated as
of February 27, 2008 |
|
|
|
10.12
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Paul M. Bisaro, dated as of
March 13, 2006 (22) |
|
|
|
10.13
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Carole S. Ben-Maimon, dated
as of October 24, 2002 (6) |
|
|
|
10.14
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Timothy P. Catlett, dated
as of February 19, 2003 (14) |
|
|
|
10.15
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with William T. McKee, dated as
of August 19, 2005 (6) |
|
|
|
10.16
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Fredrick J. Killion, dated
as of August 19, 2005 (6) |
|
|
|
10.17
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Salah U. Ahmed, dated as of
February 19, 2003 (14) |
|
|
|
10.18
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Christine A. Mundkur, dated
as of February 19, 2003 (14) |
|
|
|
10.19
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Catherine F. Higgins, dated
as of February 19, 2003 (14) |
|
|
|
10.20
|
|
Employment Agreement with Michael J. Bogda, dated as of May 15, 2003 (14) |
|
|
|
10.21
|
|
Duramed 1988 Stock Option Plan (15) |
|
|
|
10.22
|
|
Duramed 1991 Stock Option Plan for Nonemployee Directors (16) |
|
|
|
10.23
|
|
Duramed 1997 Stock Option Plan (17) |
|
|
|
10.24
|
|
Duramed 2000 Stock Option Plan (18) |
|
|
|
10.25
|
|
Duramed 1999 Nonemployee Director Stock Plan (19) |
|
|
|
10.26
|
|
Employment Agreement with G. Frederick Wilkinson, dated as of January 5,
2006 (20) |
|
|
|
10.27
|
|
Employment Agreement between Zeljko Covic and PLIVA d.d. dated March 21,
2007 (24) |
|
|
|
10.28
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated October 5, 2006, made between Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Carole Ben-Maimon, amending certain provisions
of her Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (6). |
|
|
|
10.29
|
|
Release of Claims, dated October 5, 2006, made by Carole Ben-Maimon in
favor of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates
(6) |
|
|
|
10.30
|
|
Settlement agreement, dated March 21, 2007, made between PLIVA d.d. and
Zeljko Covic (24) |
|
|
|
10.31
|
|
Amendment to the March 13, 2006 Employment Agreement with Bruce L. Downey, dated December 21,
2007 |
|
|
|
10.32
|
|
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc 2007
Stock and Incentive Award Plan (25) |
|
|
|
10.33
|
|
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc 2007
Executive Officer Incentive Plan (25) |
|
|
|
21.0
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Company |
|
|
|
23.1
|
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP |
|
|
|
23.2
|
|
Consent of KPMG Hungária Kft. |
84
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Bruce L. Downey pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)
and 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of William T. McKee pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)
and 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |
|
|
|
32.0
|
|
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2004 as an
Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K and incorporated herein by
reference. |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as Exhibit 4-3 to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(6) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2006 as an
Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K and incorporated herein by
reference. |
|
(7) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-8 Nos. 33-73696 and 333-17349 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(8) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 33-73700 and incorporated herein by
reference. |
|
(9) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-8 Nos. 33-73698 and 333-17351 incorporated
herein by reference. |
|
(10) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Appendix to the
Registrants Proxy Statement relating to the 2002 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(11) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(12) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(13) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2000 and incorporated
herein by reference. |
|
(14) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 and incorporated
herein by reference. |
|
(15) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Proxy Statement relating to the 1993 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders and incorporated herein by reference. |
85
|
|
|
(16) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Proxy Statement relating to the 1998 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders and incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(17) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Proxy Statement relating to the 1997 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders and incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(18) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Proxy Statement relating to the 2000 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders and incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(19) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the Duramed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(20) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(21) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 and
incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(22) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2006 as an
Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K and incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(23) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2006 as an
Exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K and incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(24) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2007 as an
Exhibit to the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2007 and incorporated herein by reference. |
|
(25) |
|
Previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 29, 2007 as an Exhibit to the Registrant's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 and incorporated herein by reference. |
86
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto
duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
Date: February 29, 2008 |
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ Bruce L. Downey
|
|
|
|
Bruce L. Downey |
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been
signed by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Bruce L. Downey
|
|
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
February 29, 2008 |
|
|
(Principal
Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ William T. McKee
|
|
Vice President, Chief
|
|
February 29, 2008 |
|
|
Financial
Officer and Treasurer
|
|
|
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer and
|
|
|
|
|
Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Harold N. Chefitz
|
|
Director
|
|
February 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Richard R. Frankovic
|
|
Director
|
|
February 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James S. Gilmore III
|
|
Director
|
|
February 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Peter R. Seaver
|
|
Director
|
|
February 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ George P. Stephan
|
|
Director
|
|
February 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
87
PART IV
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
|
F-2 |
|
|
F-3 |
|
|
F-4 |
|
|
F-5 |
|
|
F-6 |
|
|
F-7 |
|
|
F-8 |
|
|
S-1 |
F-1
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Montvale, New Jersey
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31,
2007, the six month period ended December 31, 2006 and the years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005. Our
audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15A. These
financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial
statement schedule based on our audits. We did not audit the financial statements of PLIVA d.d. (a
consolidated subsidiary) (PLIVA) as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from October 25, 2006
to December 31, 2006, which statements reflect total assets constituting 58% of consolidated total
assets as of December 31, 2006 and total revenues constituting 23% of consolidated revenues for the
six month period ended December 31, 2006. Those statements, before the effects of the
retrospective adjustments for the discontinued operations discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated
financial statements, were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our
opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for PLIVA, before the effects of the
retrospective adjustments for discontinued operations discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated
financial statements, as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from October 25 to December 31,
2006, is based solely on the report of the other auditors.
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 and the report of the other auditors provide a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of the other auditors, such consolidated
financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2007, the six month period ended
December 31, 2006 and the years ended June 30, 2006, and 2005, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, based on our
audits and (as to the amounts included for PLIVA) the report of the other auditors, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, effective July 1, 2005. As a
result, the Company began recording fair value stock-based compensation expense for its various
share-based compensation programs in the year ended June 30, 2006.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2007, based on the criteria established in Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 29,
2008 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
February 29, 2008
F-2
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders
PLIVAd.d. (a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc):
We have audited, before the effects of any retrospective adjustments for discontinued operations,
the consolidated balance sheet of PLIVA d.d. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for
the period from October 25, 2006 through December 31, 2006. The 2006 consolidated financial
statements are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these consolidated financial statements 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 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 audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the 2006 consolidated financial statements, before the effects of any retrospective
adjustments for the discontinued operations, present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of PLIVA d.d. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for the period from October 25, 2006 through December 31, 2006, in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
We were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the retrospective adjustments for
the discontinued operations and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of
assurance about whether such retrospective adjustments are appropriate and have been properly
applied. Those retrospective adjustments were audited by a successor auditor.
/s/ KPMG Hungária Kft.
Budapest, Hungary
March 1, 2007
F-3
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands, except share and per share data) |
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
246,492 |
|
|
$ |
231,975 |
|
Marketable securities |
|
|
288,001 |
|
|
|
673,746 |
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
|
496,636 |
|
|
|
511,136 |
|
Other receivables |
|
|
86,048 |
|
|
|
67,462 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
501,207 |
|
|
|
426,270 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
74,183 |
|
|
|
82,597 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
57,618 |
|
|
|
35,925 |
|
Current assets of discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,888 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
1,750,185 |
|
|
|
2,087,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
1,115,904 |
|
|
|
1,004,418 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
39,808 |
|
|
|
37,872 |
|
Marketable securities |
|
|
16,542 |
|
|
|
8,946 |
|
Other intangible assets, net |
|
|
1,483,422 |
|
|
|
1,471,493 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
285,955 |
|
|
|
276,449 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
69,811 |
|
|
|
63,740 |
|
Long-term assets of discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,945 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
4,761,627 |
|
|
$ |
4,961,862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Shareholders Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
152,099 |
|
|
$ |
137,361 |
|
Accrued liabilities |
|
|
290,094 |
|
|
|
271,402 |
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital lease obligations |
|
|
298,065 |
|
|
|
742,191 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
37,082 |
|
|
|
21,359 |
|
Deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
1,991 |
|
|
|
8,266 |
|
Current liabilities of discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
779,331 |
|
|
|
1,211,893 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and capital lease obligations |
|
|
1,781,692 |
|
|
|
1,935,477 |
|
Deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
193,039 |
|
|
|
221,259 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
103,090 |
|
|
|
84,326 |
|
Long-term liabilities of discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,581 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments & contingencies (Note 19) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest |
|
|
38,154 |
|
|
|
41,098 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $1 par value per share; authorized 2,000,000; none issued |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $.01 par value per share; authorized 200,000,000;
issued 110,783,167 and 109,536,481 at December 31, 2007
and December 31, 2006 |
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
1,095 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
681,689 |
|
|
|
610,232 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
1,006,341 |
|
|
|
877,991 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income |
|
|
277,873 |
|
|
|
76,600 |
|
Treasury stock at cost: 2,972,997 shares |
|
|
(100,690 |
) |
|
|
(100,690 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
|
1,866,321 |
|
|
|
1,465,228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities, minority interest and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
4,761,627 |
|
|
$ |
4,961,862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEE ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
F-4
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Year Ended June 30, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product sales |
|
$ |
2,334,136 |
|
|
$ |
831,351 |
|
|
$ |
556,643 |
|
|
$ |
1,169,783 |
|
|
$ |
1,030,672 |
|
Alliance and development revenue |
|
|
121,858 |
|
|
|
65,882 |
|
|
|
79,313 |
|
|
|
144,682 |
|
|
|
16,727 |
|
Other revenue |
|
|
44,588 |
|
|
|
7,531 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,500,582 |
|
|
|
904,764 |
|
|
|
635,956 |
|
|
|
1,314,465 |
|
|
|
1,047,399 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
1,171,099 |
|
|
|
369,323 |
|
|
|
172,067 |
|
|
|
377,902 |
|
|
|
317,434 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
763,784 |
|
|
|
259,030 |
|
|
|
126,305 |
|
|
|
308,765 |
|
|
|
285,244 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
248,453 |
|
|
|
106,758 |
|
|
|
66,006 |
|
|
|
140,158 |
|
|
|
128,384 |
|
Write-off of acquired in-process
research and development |
|
|
4,601 |
|
|
|
380,673 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) from operations |
|
|
312,645 |
|
|
|
(211,020 |
) |
|
|
271,578 |
|
|
|
487,640 |
|
|
|
316,337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
|
33,359 |
|
|
|
15,720 |
|
|
|
8,904 |
|
|
|
18,851 |
|
|
|
11,449 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
158,882 |
|
|
|
34,115 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
711 |
|
|
|
1,773 |
|
Other income (expense), net |
|
|
20,713 |
|
|
|
(72,944 |
) |
|
|
(593 |
) |
|
|
17,168 |
|
|
|
3,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) before income taxes
and minority interest |
|
|
207,835 |
|
|
|
(302,359 |
) |
|
|
279,634 |
|
|
|
522,948 |
|
|
|
329,876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
64,546 |
|
|
|
34,630 |
|
|
|
101,507 |
|
|
|
186,471 |
|
|
|
114,888 |
|
Minority interest (loss) gain |
|
|
(1,164 |
) |
|
|
629 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) from continuing
operations |
|
|
142,125 |
|
|
|
(336,360 |
) |
|
|
178,127 |
|
|
|
336,477 |
|
|
|
214,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss from discontinued operations |
|
|
(13,164 |
) |
|
|
(1,795 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss on disposal of discontinued
operations |
|
|
(611 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss from discontinued operations |
|
|
(13,775 |
) |
|
|
(1,795 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) |
|
$ |
128,350 |
|
|
$ |
(338,155 |
) |
|
$ |
178,127 |
|
|
$ |
336,477 |
|
|
$ |
214,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share
continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.33 |
|
|
$ |
(3.16 |
) |
|
$ |
1.71 |
|
|
$ |
3.20 |
|
|
$ |
2.08 |
|
Loss per common share discontinued
operations |
|
|
(0.13 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) per common share
basic |
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
(3.18 |
) |
|
$ |
1.71 |
|
|
$ |
3.20 |
|
|
$ |
2.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share
continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.31 |
|
|
$ |
(3.16 |
) |
|
$ |
1.66 |
|
|
$ |
3.12 |
|
|
$ |
2.03 |
|
Loss per common share discontinued
operations |
|
|
(0.13 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) per common share
diluted |
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
|
$ |
(3.18 |
) |
|
$ |
1.66 |
|
|
$ |
3.12 |
|
|
$ |
2.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares basic |
|
|
107,212 |
|
|
|
106,377 |
|
|
|
104,219 |
|
|
|
105,129 |
|
|
|
103,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares diluted |
|
|
108,631 |
|
|
|
106,377 |
|
|
|
106,984 |
|
|
|
107,798 |
|
|
|
106,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEE ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
F-5
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders Equity
For the Year Ended December 31, 2007, Six Months Ended December 31, 2006, Years Ended June 30, 2006 and 2005
(in thousands, except shares)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
Paid |
|
|
Retained |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
Treasury Stock |
|
|
Shareholders' |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
in Capital |
|
|
Earnings |
|
|
Income / (Loss) |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Equity |
|
Balance, June 30, 2004 |
|
|
104,916,103 |
|
|
$ |
1,049 |
|
|
$ |
377,024 |
|
|
$ |
664,681 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
420,597 |
|
|
$ |
(708 |
) |
|
$ |
1,042,046 |
|
Comprehensive income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214,988 |
|
Unrealized loss on marketable
securities, net of tax of $320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(561 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(561 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214,427 |
|
Tax benefit of stock incentive plans
and warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,212 |
|
Issuance of common stock for
exercised stock options and
employees stock purchase plans |
|
|
1,136,141 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
18,506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,517 |
|
Issuance of common stock for
exercised warrants |
|
|
288,226 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2,747 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,750 |
|
Purchases of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,552,400 |
|
|
|
(99,982 |
) |
|
|
(99,982 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, June 30, 2005 |
|
|
106,340,470 |
|
|
$ |
1,063 |
|
|
$ |
454,489 |
|
|
$ |
879,669 |
|
|
$ |
(561 |
) |
|
|
2,972,997 |
|
|
$ |
(100,690 |
) |
|
$ |
1,233,970 |
|
Comprehensive income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
336,477 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
336,477 |
|
Unrealized gain on marketable
securities, net of tax of $106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
336,661 |
|
Tax benefit of stock incentive plans
and warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,026 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,026 |
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,092 |
|
Issuance of common stock for
exercised stock options and
employees stock purchase plans |
|
|
2,838,738 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
64,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,207 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, June 30, 2006 |
|
|
109,179,208 |
|
|
$ |
1,092 |
|
|
$ |
574,785 |
|
|
$ |
1,216,146 |
|
|
$ |
(377 |
) |
|
|
2,972,997 |
|
|
$ |
(100,690 |
) |
|
$ |
1,690,956 |
|
Comprehensive income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(338,155 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(338,155 |
) |
Currency translation adjustment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,850 |
|
Unrealized gain on marketable
securities, net of tax of $21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(261,200 |
) |
Unrealized gain on pension and other
post retirement benefits, net of tax of $11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Tax benefit of stock incentive plans
and warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,615 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,615 |
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,926 |
|
Issuance of common stock for
exercised stock options and
employees stock purchase plans |
|
|
357,273 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
10,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,909 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2006 |
|
|
109,536,481 |
|
|
$ |
1,095 |
|
|
$ |
610,232 |
|
|
$ |
877,991 |
|
|
$ |
76,600 |
|
|
|
2,972,997 |
|
|
$ |
(100,690 |
) |
|
$ |
1,465,228 |
|
Comprehensive income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,350 |
|
Cumulative net loss on derivative financial instruments designated as
cash
flow hedges, net of tax benefit of $6,448 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,868 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,868 |
) |
Currency translation adjustment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210,730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210,730 |
|
Unrealized gain on marketable
securities, net of tax of $108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
744 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
744 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
328,956 |
|
Unrealized gain on pension and other
post retirement benefits, net of tax of $304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
667 |
|
Tax benefit of stock incentive plans
and warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,358 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,358 |
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,750 |
|
Issuance of common stock for
exercised stock options and
employees stock purchase plans |
|
|
1,246,686 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
33,349 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,362 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2007 |
|
|
110,783,167 |
|
|
$ |
1,108 |
|
|
$ |
681,689 |
|
|
$ |
1,006,341 |
|
|
$ |
277,873 |
|
|
|
2,972,997 |
|
|
$ |
(100,690 |
) |
|
$ |
1,866,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEE ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
F-6
BARR
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Year Ended June 30, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) |
|
$ |
128,350 |
|
|
$ |
(338,155 |
) |
|
$ |
178,127 |
|
|
$ |
336,477 |
|
|
$ |
214,988 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
297,819 |
|
|
|
72,536 |
|
|
|
25,347 |
|
|
|
61,757 |
|
|
|
40,510 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
(6,658 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest |
|
|
901 |
|
|
|
(629 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
27,750 |
|
|
|
13,926 |
|
|
|
13,894 |
|
|
|
27,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation |
|
|
(10,358 |
) |
|
|
(10,615 |
) |
|
|
(24,622 |
) |
|
|
(29,026 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax (benefit) expense |
|
|
(71,438 |
) |
|
|
(35,219 |
) |
|
|
28,311 |
|
|
|
34,739 |
|
|
|
7,100 |
|
Provision for losses on loans to Natural Biologics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,050 |
|
Loss (gain) on sale of divested products |
|
|
512 |
|
|
|
(5,200 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss (gain) on derivative instruments, net |
|
|
9,730 |
|
|
|
75,888 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,300 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Loss on sale of discontinued operations |
|
|
611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(8,969 |
) |
|
|
(2,916 |
) |
|
|
(647 |
) |
|
|
(8,768 |
) |
|
|
2,480 |
|
Tax benefit of stock incentive plans and warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,846 |
|
Write-off of in-process research and development associated with acquisitions |
|
|
4,601 |
|
|
|
380,673 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Increase) decrease in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable and other receivables, net |
|
|
47,228 |
|
|
|
(12,500 |
) |
|
|
(66,024 |
) |
|
|
(85,652 |
) |
|
|
36,678 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
(32,162 |
) |
|
|
40,354 |
|
|
|
14,825 |
|
|
|
24,598 |
|
|
|
12,614 |
|
Prepaid expenses |
|
|
(16,321 |
) |
|
|
(6,648 |
) |
|
|
(4,513 |
) |
|
|
(2,929 |
) |
|
|
6,396 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
3,165 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
(2,318 |
) |
|
|
6,978 |
|
Increase (decrease) in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable, accrued liabilities and other liabilities |
|
|
(37,449 |
) |
|
|
17,824 |
|
|
|
(71,240 |
) |
|
|
(43,340 |
) |
|
|
1,169 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
45,875 |
|
|
|
16,023 |
|
|
|
11,269 |
|
|
|
25,009 |
|
|
|
(6,774 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
383,187 |
|
|
|
213,346 |
|
|
|
104,756 |
|
|
|
327,339 |
|
|
|
363,035 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment |
|
|
(123,358
|
) |
|
|
(33,667 |
) |
|
|
(36,045 |
) |
|
|
(61,000 |
) |
|
|
(55,225 |
) |
Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment |
|
|
2,846 |
|
|
|
11,245 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
Proceeds from sale of discontinued operations |
|
|
34,096 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired |
|
|
(89,780 |
) |
|
|
(2,301,630 |
) |
|
|
(378,128 |
) |
|
|
(378,430 |
) |
|
|
(46,500 |
) |
Purchases of derivative instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(48,900 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Settlement of derivative instruments |
|
|
(7,414 |
) |
|
|
(12,576 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of marketable securities |
|
|
(2,086,699 |
) |
|
|
(2,159,934 |
) |
|
|
(960,438 |
) |
|
|
(2,120,480 |
) |
|
|
(1,220,869 |
) |
Sales of marketable securities |
|
|
2,470,903 |
|
|
|
2,082,007 |
|
|
|
1,124,641 |
|
|
|
2,108,979 |
|
|
|
1,152,485 |
|
Investment in debt securities |
|
|
(2,000 |
) |
|
|
(3,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(318 |
) |
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
(3,018 |
) |
|
|
(6,647 |
) |
|
|
(6,990 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
|
198,276 |
|
|
|
(2,417,217 |
) |
|
|
(252,987 |
) |
|
|
(506,475 |
) |
|
|
(177,031 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal payments on long-term debt and capital leases |
|
|
(724,181 |
) |
|
|
(30,027 |
) |
|
|
(4,733 |
) |
|
|
(5,468 |
) |
|
|
(20,004 |
) |
Proceeds from long-term debt |
|
|
100,115 |
|
|
|
2,440,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of deferred financing fees |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of treasury stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(99,982 |
) |
Excess tax benefits from stock based compensation |
|
|
10,358 |
|
|
|
10,615 |
|
|
|
24,622 |
|
|
|
29,026 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options, employee stock purchases and warrants |
|
|
36,126 |
|
|
|
14,306 |
|
|
|
42,559 |
|
|
|
64,207 |
|
|
|
21,267 |
|
Other |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities |
|
|
(577,532 |
) |
|
|
2,412,017 |
|
|
|
62,448 |
|
|
|
87,765 |
|
|
|
(98,719 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange-rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
10,586 |
|
|
|
(593 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
14,517 |
|
|
|
207,553 |
|
|
|
(85,783 |
) |
|
|
(91,371 |
) |
|
|
87,285 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
231,975 |
|
|
|
24,422 |
|
|
|
115,793 |
|
|
|
115,793 |
|
|
|
28,508 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
246,492 |
|
|
$ |
231,975 |
|
|
$ |
30,010 |
|
|
$ |
24,422 |
|
|
$ |
115,793 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW DATA: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the period: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest, net of portion capitalized |
|
$ |
179,526 |
|
|
$ |
6,245 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
351 |
|
|
$ |
1,458 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes |
|
$ |
88,583 |
|
|
$ |
52,807 |
|
|
$ |
75,180 |
|
|
$ |
126,723 |
|
|
$ |
74,711 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEE ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
F-7
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(In thousands, except for share and per share amounts)
(1) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
(a) Principles of Consolidation and Other Matters
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Barr or, the Company), is a Delaware holding company whose
principal subsidiaries, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Duramed) and
PLIVA d.d. (PLIVA) are engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of generic and
proprietary pharmaceuticals.
The Companys consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). The consolidated financial
statements include all companies that Barr directly or indirectly controls (meaning it has more
than 50% of voting rights in those companies). Investments in companies where Barr owns between 20%
and 50% of a companys voting rights are accounted for by using the equity method, with Barr
recording its proportionate share of net income or loss for such investments in its results for
that period. The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its
majority-owned subsidiaries, after elimination of inter-company accounts and transactions.
Non-controlling interests in the Companys subsidiaries are recorded net of tax as minority
interest.
On October 24, 2006, the Company completed the acquisition of PLIVA (See Note 2). As of that
date, the PLIVA assets acquired and liabilities assumed were recorded at their respective fair
values. The Companys results of operations for the six months ended December 31, 2006 include
PLIVAs revenues and expenses from October 25, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
On September 21, 2006, the Company changed its fiscal year end from June 30 to December 31.
The Company refers to the period beginning January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 as 2007, the
period July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 as the Transition Period, the period beginning July
1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 as fiscal 2006 and the period beginning July 1, 2004 through June
30, 2005 as fiscal 2005. All information, data and figures provided in this report for fiscal
2006 and 2005 relate solely to Barrs financial results and do not include PLIVA.
Certain amounts in the Transition Period, fiscal 2006 and 2005 financial statements have been
reclassified to conform to the presentation for 2007. Certain amounts in the Transition Period have
been reclassified as discontinued operations and as assets and liabilities of discontinued
operations. See Note 3 for further details.
(b) Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make
estimates and use assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported
amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. These estimates are often based on
judgments, probabilities and assumptions that management believes are reasonable but that are
inherently uncertain and unpredictable. As a result, actual results could differ from those
estimates. Management periodically evaluates estimates used in the preparation of the consolidated
financial statements for continued reasonableness. Appropriate adjustments, if any, to the
estimates used are made prospectively based on such periodic evaluations.
(c) Foreign
Currency Translation and Transactions
Foreign
currency translation
The consolidated financial statements are presented in United States Dollars (USD), rounded
to the nearest thousand. The functional currency of the Company is the USD.
Monthly statements of operations and cash flows of all of the Companys subsidiaries that are
expressed in currencies other than USD are translated at that months average exchange rates and
then are combined for the period totals, whereas assets and liabilities are translated at the end
of the period exchange rates. Translation differences are recorded directly in shareholders equity
as cumulative translation adjustments.
F-8
Foreign currency transactions
Outstanding balances in foreign currencies are translated at the end of period exchange rates.
Revenues and expenses for each month are translated using that months average exchange rate and
then are combined for the period totals. The resulting exchange differences are recorded in the
statement of operations.
(d) Revenue Recognition
The Company recognizes product sales revenue when title and risk of loss have transferred to
the customer, when estimated provisions for product returns, rebates, including Medicaid rebates,
chargebacks and other sales allowances are reasonably determinable, and when collectibility is
reasonably assured. These provisions are presented in the consolidated financial statements as
reductions to revenues. Accounts receivable are presented net of allowances relating to the above
provisions. Medicaid rebates are presented as an accrual net of allowances relating to these
provisions. Cash received in advance of revenue recognition is recorded as deferred revenue.
Alliance and development revenue includes: reimbursements relating to research and development
contracts, licensing fees, royalties earned under co-promotion agreements and profit splits on
certain products. The Company recognizes revenues under: (1) research and development agreements as
it performs the related research and development; (2) license fees over the life of the product
license; and (3) royalties under co-promotion agreements and profit splits as described below.
The Company is party to agreements with certain pharmaceutical companies under which it
receives payments based on sales or profits associated with the applicable products. The most
significant of these agreements are with Teva regarding generic Allegra and Kos regarding Niaspan®
and Advicor®. Alliance revenue is earned from these agreements at the time the Companys
third-party partners record sales and is based on pre-defined formulas contained in the
agreements, and under the Companys arrangement with Teva, adjusted for shelf-stock provisions
needed to state the Companys revenues on a basis consistent with its other revenue recognition
policies. The estimates the Company makes to adjust its revenues are based on information received
from its partner, as well as its own internal information. Of total alliance and development
revenue, approximately 70%, 79%, 92%, 92% and 39% was earned from the alliances with Teva and Kos,
on an aggregate basis, for the year ended December 31, 2007, for the six months ended December 31,
2006 and 2005 (unaudited) and for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Receivables related to alliance and development revenue are included in other receivables in
the consolidated balance sheets. Selling and marketing expenses incurred under the co-promotion
agreement with Kos are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
Other revenue primarily includes certain of the Companys non-core operations, as well as
consulting fees earned from services provided to third parties. The Companys non-core operations
include its diagnostics, disinfectants, dialysis, and infusions business. Consulting fees are
recognized in the period in which the services are provided.
(e) Sales Returns and Allowances
At the time of sale, the Company simultaneously records estimates for various costs, which
reduce product sales. These costs include estimates for price adjustments, product returns,
chargebacks, rebates, including Medicaid rebates, prompt payment discounts and other sales
allowances. In addition, the Company records allowances for shelf-stock adjustments when the
conditions are appropriate. Estimates for sales allowances such as product returns, rebates and
chargebacks are based on a variety of factors including actual return experience of that product or
similar products, rebate arrangements for each product, and estimated sales by our wholesale
customers to other third parties who have contracts with the Company. Actual experience associated
with any of these items may be different than the Companys estimates. The Company regularly
reviews the factors that influence its estimates and, if necessary, makes adjustments when it
believes that actual product returns, credits and other allowances may differ from established
reserves.
(f) Stock-Based Compensation
The Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial
Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 123 (revised 2004), (SFAS No. 123(R)) Share-Based Payment,
effective July 1, 2005. SFAS 123(R) requires the recognition of the fair value of stock-based
compensation in net earnings. The Company has four stock-based employee compensation plans, two
stock-based non-employee director compensation plans
F-9
and an employee stock purchase plan, which are
described more fully in Note 15. Stock-based awards grated to date consist of stock options, stock
appreciation rights and the employee stock purchase plan. Stock options and stock
appreciation rights are granted to employees at exercise prices equal to the fair market value
of the Companys stock at the dates of grant. Generally, stock options and stock appreciation
rights granted to employees fully vest ratably over the three years from the grant date and have a
term of 10 years. Annual stock options granted to directors vest and are generally exercisable on
the date of the first annual shareholders meeting immediately following the date of grant. The
Company recognizes stock-based compensation expense over the requisite service period of the
individual grants, which generally equals the vesting period. Prior to July 1, 2005, the Company
accounted for these plans under the intrinsic value method described in Accounting Principles Board
(APB) Opinion No. 25 (APB 25), Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and related
interpretations. Under the intrinsic value method, no stock-based employee compensation cost was
reflected in net earnings. For purposes of pro-forma disclosure, stock-based compensation expense
for awards granted prior to July 1, 2005 is measured on the grant date fair value as determined
under the provisions of SFAS 123, Accounting for Stock-based Compensation. See Note 15 for further
details.
(g) Research and Development
Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. These expenses include the costs of
the Companys research and development efforts, acquired in-process research and development, as
well as costs incurred in connection with the Companys third party collaboration efforts.
Pre-approved milestone payments due under contract research and development arrangements that are
paid prior to regulatory approval are expensed when the milestone is achieved. Once the product
receives regulatory approval, the Company records any subsequent milestone payments as intangible
assets.
(h) Advertising and Promotion Costs
Costs associated with advertising and promotions are expensed in the period in which the
advertising is used and these costs are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
Advertising and promotion expenses totaled approximately $106,765 for the year ended December 31,
2007, $50,819 and $28,406 for the six-months ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 (unaudited) and
$59,240 and $52,006 for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
(i) Income Taxes
Income taxes have been
provided using an asset and liability approach in which deferred
tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the differences between the financial statement and
tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the years in which the
differences are expected to reverse. A valuation allowance is provided when, based on available evidence, it is more-likely-than-not that a portion of the
deferred tax assets will not be realized. Deferred tax assets and
liabilities are adjusted for changes in enacted tax rates and laws.
In the ordinary course of business there is
inherent uncertainty in quantifying income tax positions. The Company
assesses income tax positions and records tax benefits for all years subject to
examination based upon managements evaluation of the facts, circumstances and information available at the reporting dates.
For those tax positions with a greater than 50% likelihood of
being realized, we record the benefit. For those income tax positions where it is
more-likely-than-not that a tax benefit will not be sustained, no tax benefit
is recognized in the financial statements. When applicable, associated interest and penalties are recognized as a component
of interest expense.
F-10
(j) Earnings Per Share
The following is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators used to calculate
earnings per common share (EPS) as presented in the consolidated statements of operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
(table in thousands, except per share data) |
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
Numerator for basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share
Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations |
|
$ |
142,125 |
|
|
$ |
(336,360 |
) |
|
$ |
178,127 |
|
|
$ |
336,477 |
|
|
$ |
214,988 |
|
Net loss from discontinued operations |
|
|
(13,775 |
) |
|
|
(1,795 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) |
|
$ |
128,350 |
|
|
$ |
(338,155 |
) |
|
$ |
178,127 |
|
|
$ |
336,477 |
|
|
$ |
214,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator: Weighted average shares basic |
|
|
107,212 |
|
|
|
106,377 |
|
|
|
104,219 |
|
|
|
105,129 |
|
|
|
103,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.33 |
|
|
$ |
(3.16 |
) |
|
$ |
1.71 |
|
|
$ |
3.20 |
|
|
$ |
2.08 |
|
Loss per common share discontinued operations |
|
|
(0.13 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share basic |
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
(3.18 |
) |
|
$ |
1.71 |
|
|
$ |
3.20 |
|
|
$ |
2.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator: Weighted average shares diluted |
|
|
108,631 |
|
|
|
106,377 |
|
|
|
106,984 |
|
|
|
107,798 |
|
|
|
106,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.31 |
|
|
$ |
(3.16 |
) |
|
$ |
1.66 |
|
|
$ |
3.12 |
|
|
$ |
2.03 |
|
Loss per common share discontinued operations |
|
|
(0.13 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share diluted |
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
|
$ |
(3.18 |
) |
|
$ |
1.66 |
|
|
$ |
3.12 |
|
|
$ |
2.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculation of weighted average common shares diluted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares basic |
|
|
107,212 |
|
|
|
106,377 |
|
|
|
104,219 |
|
|
|
105,129 |
|
|
|
103,180 |
|
Effect of dilutive options |
|
|
1,419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,765 |
|
|
|
2,669 |
|
|
|
2,872 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares diluted |
|
|
108,631 |
|
|
|
106,377 |
|
|
|
106,984 |
|
|
|
107,798 |
|
|
|
106,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not included in the calculation of diluted earnings
per-share because their impact is antidilutive: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding |
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
1,833 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
F-11
During the year ended December 31, 2007, the six-months ended December 31, 2006 and 2005
(unaudited) and the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, there were 1,246,686, 357,273,
2,000,494, 2,838,738 and 1,136,141 shares respectively, issued in the aggregate upon exercise of stock options and under the
Companys employee stock option plans.
(k) Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents, for the purpose of the balance sheet and the statement of cash
flows, consist of cash on hand and balances with banks, and highly liquid investments with
insignificant risk of changes in value and original maturities of three months or less from the
date of acquisition.
(l) Investments in Marketable Securities, Debt and Equity Method Investments
Investments in Marketable Securities and Debt
The Companys investments in short-term marketable securities primarily consist of commercial
paper, money market investments, market auction debt securities, municipal bonds and federal agency
issues, which are readily convertible into cash. The Company also invests in long-term marketable
securities, including municipal bonds. Investments that the Company has the ability and intent to
hold until maturity are classified as held to maturity. Held to maturity investments are
recorded at cost, adjusted for the amortization of premiums and discounts, which approximates
market value. Investments that are acquired principally for the purpose of generating a profit from
short-term fluctuations in price are classified as trading. Trading securities are recorded at
fair value, with resultant gains or losses recognized in current period income. Debt securities and
other marketable securities are classified as available for sale. Available for sale securities
are recorded at current market value with offsetting adjustments to shareholders equity, net of
income taxes. The cost of investments sold is determined by the specific identification method.
Venture Funds and Other Investments
Investments in which the Company has significant influence over operating and financial
policies of the investee are accounted for under the equity method of accounting. Under this method
the Company records its proportionate share of income or loss from such investments in its results
for the period. Any decline in value of the equity method investments considered by management to
be other than temporary is charged to income in the period in which it is determined.
The Company makes investments, as a limited partner, in venture capital funds as part of its
continuing efforts to identify new products, technologies and licensing opportunities. The Company
accounts for these investments using the equity method of accounting.
(m) Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined on a first-in,
first-out (FIFO) basis. In evaluating whether inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market,
management considers such factors as the amount of inventory on hand, estimated time required to
sell such inventory, remaining shelf life and current and expected market conditions, including
levels of competition. The Company records as part of cost of sales write-downs to lower of cost or
market.
(n) Credit and Market Risk
Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to credit risk consist principally
of interest-bearing investments and trade receivables. The Company performs ongoing credit
evaluations of its customers financial condition and generally does not require collateral from
its customers.
(o) Fair Value of Financial Instruments
Cash, Accounts Receivable, Other Receivables and Accounts Payable The carrying amounts of
these items are a reasonable estimate of their fair value.
F-12
Marketable Securities Marketable securities are recorded at their fair value (See Note 8).
Other Assets Investments that do not have a readily determinable market value are recorded
at cost, as it is a reasonable estimate of fair value or current realizable value.
Debt The estimated fair values of the Companys debt approximated $2,076,442 and $2,676,998
at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. These estimates were determined by discounting
anticipated future principal and interest cash flows using rates currently available to the
Company.
(p) Derivative Instruments
The Company uses derivative instruments for the purpose of hedging its exposure to foreign
exchange and interest rate risk. The Companys derivative instruments include interest rate
forwards and swaps, forward rate agreements and foreign exchange forwards and options.
FASB Statement No. 133 (SFAS 133), Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities requires companies to recognize all of their derivative instruments as either assets or
liabilities in the balance sheet at fair value based on quoted market prices or pricing models
using current market rates. The accounting for changes (i.e., gains or losses) in the fair value of
a derivative instrument depends on whether the instrument has been designated and qualifies as part
of a hedging relationship and on the type of hedging relationship. For derivative instruments that
are designated and qualify as hedging instruments, a company must designate the hedging instrument
as a fair value hedge, cash flow hedge or a hedge of a net investment in a foreign operation. The
designation is based upon the nature of the exposure being hedged.
For a derivative instrument that is designated and qualifies as a fair value hedge (i.e., an
instrument that hedges the exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset or a liability or an
identified portion thereof that is attributable to a particular risk), the gain or loss on the
derivative instrument as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in
the same line item associated with the hedged item in earnings.
For a derivative instrument that is designated and qualifies as a cash flow hedge (i.e., an
instrument that hedges the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows that is
attributable to a particular risk), the effective portion of the gain or loss on the derivative
instrument is reported as a component of other comprehensive income and reclassified into earnings
in the same line item associated with the forecasted transaction in the same period or periods
during which the hedged transaction affects earnings.
For all hedging activities, the ineffective portion of a derivatives change in fair value is
immediately recognized in other income (expense). For derivative instruments not designated as
hedging instruments, the gain or loss is recognized in other income (expense) during the period of
change. However, the Company believes that such non-designated instruments offset the economic
risks of the hedged items.
(q) Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment is recorded at cost, including the allocated portion of the
purchase price arising from the PLIVA acquisition. Depreciation is recorded on a straight-line
basis over the estimated useful lives of the related assets (3 to 20 years for machinery,
equipment, furniture and fixtures and 5 to 45 years for buildings and improvements). Amortization
of capital lease assets is included in depreciation expense. Leasehold improvements are amortized
on a straight-line basis over the shorter of their useful lives or the terms of the respective
leases, with such amortization periods generally ranging from 2 to 10 years. Maintenance and
repairs are expensed as incurred and conversely renewals and betterments are capitalized.
(r) Acquisitions and Related Amortization Expense
The Company accounts for acquired businesses using the purchase method of accounting, which
requires that the assets acquired and liabilities assumed be recorded at the date of acquisition at
their respective fair values. The Companys consolidated financial statements and results of
operations reflect an acquired business after the completion of the acquisition and are not
restated. The cost to acquire a business, including transaction costs, is allocated to the
underlying net assets of the acquired business in proportion to their respective fair values. Any
F-13
As of December 31, 2007, the aggregate intrinsic value of awards outstanding and exercisable
was $109,096 and $98,263, respectively. As of December 31, 2006, the aggregate intrinsic value of
awards outstanding and exercisable was $123,479 and $107,399, respectively. As of December 31, 2005
(unaudited), the aggregate intrinsic value of awards outstanding and exercisable was $164,390 and
$130,702. In addition, the aggregate intrinsic value of awards exercised during the year ended
December 31, 2007 were $33,306, during the six-month period ended December 31, 2006 and 2005
(unaudited) were $6,573 and $67,216, respectively, and for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 and
2005 were $99,304 and $29,961, respectively. The total remaining unrecognized compensation cost
related to unvested awards amounted to $38,713 at December 31, 2007 and is expected to be
recognized over the next three years. The weighted average remaining requisite service period of
the unvested awards was 22 months. The following is a summary of the total fair value of awards
that vested during the periods set forth below:
The Company has four employee stock compensation plans: the Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2007
Stock and Incentive Award Plan (the 2007 Stock Plan); the Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2002 Stock
and Incentive Award Plan (the 2002 Stock Plan); the Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993 Stock
Incentive Plan (the 1993 Stock Plan); and the Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. 1986 Option Plan (the
1986 Option Plan), which were approved by the shareholders and which authorize the granting of
options to officers and employees to purchase the Companys common stock. These plans also
authorize the granting of other awards based on Company common stock to officers and employees,
including but not limited to stock appreciation rights, unrestricted stock, restricted stock,
performance unit and performance share awards. On May 17, 2007, all
shares available for grant under the 2002 Stock Plan were transferred to
the 2007 Stock Plan and all subsequent grants have been made under
the 2007 Stock Plan. On February 20, 2003, all shares available for grant
in the 1993 Stock Plan were transferred to the 2002 Stock Plan and
all subsequent grants were
made under the 2002 Stock Plan until May 17, 2007. Effective June 30, 1996, options were no longer granted under the
1986 Option Plan. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2007, the six months ended December 31,
2006 and 2005 (unaudited) and fiscal 2006 and 2005, there were no options that expired under the
1986 Option Plan.
Until fiscal 2006, all awards granted under the 1993 Stock Plan and the 2002 Stock Plan were
either non-qualified stock options (NQSOs) or tax-qualified incentive stock options (ISOs). All
options outstanding on October 24, 2001 became fully exercisable upon completion of the Duramed
merger. Options granted after October 24, 2001 become fully exercisable over periods as short as
one year and as long as five years from the date of grant, provided there is no interruption of the
optionees employment, and subject to acceleration of exercisability in the event of the death of
the optionee or a change in control as defined in the plan under which the options were granted.
Options granted to date under the 1993 Stock Plan, the 2002 Stock
Plan and the 2007 Stock Plan expire ten years after
the date of grant except in case of earlier termination of employment, in which case the options
generally expire on such termination
or within defined periods of up to one year thereafter, depending on the circumstances of such
termination, but in no event more than ten years after the date of grant.
During fiscal 2006, the Company began to grant employees stock-settled stock appreciation
rights (SSARs) rather than stock options, and to grant certain employees tax-qualified incentive
stock options (ISOs) in tandem with alternative stock-settled SARs (Tandem ISOs/SSARs). Each
Tandem ISO/SAR gives the employee the right to either exercise the ISO with respect to one share of
stock or exercise the SSAR with respect to one share of stock, but not both. Employees must pay
the option exercise price in order to exercise an ISO, but they do not pay any exercise price in
order to exercise a SSAR. Upon exercise of a SSAR, the employee receives the appreciation on one
share of Company common stock between the date of grant of the SSAR and the date of exercise of the
SSAR. The
concerning Shires Adderall XR product. On June 20, 2007, the
Company received a Civil Investigative Demand, seeking documents and data. The Company is
cooperating with the agency in its investigation.
The Company operates in two reportable business segments: generic pharmaceuticals and
proprietary pharmaceuticals.
Generic pharmaceutical products are therapeutically equivalent to a brand name product and are
marketed primarily to wholesalers, retail pharmacy chains, mail order pharmacies and group
purchasing organizations. Products sold in the U.S. are approved for distribution by the FDA
through the ANDA process. Products sold outside the U.S. are subject to similar approval processes
in the jurisdictions where they are sold. The Company also distributes, from time to time, product
manufactured for the Company by the brand name company. Ciprofloxacin is an example of a
distributed product that is included in the generic pharmaceuticals segment.
The Company also includes in its generic segment revenue and gross profit from the sale of its
developed and manufactured API to third parties.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, one customer accounted for 15% of generic product
sales. In the six-months ended December 31, 2006, two customers accounted for 17% and 11% of
generic product sales. In the six-months ended December 31, 2005 (unaudited), three customers
accounted for 20%, 16% and 15%. In fiscal year 2006, four customers accounted for 22%, 13%, 12% and
10% of generic product sales. In fiscal year 2005, five customers accounted for 15%, 15%, 13%, 12%,
and 10% of generic product sales.
Proprietary pharmaceutical products are generally patent-protected products marketed directly
to health care professionals. These products are approved by the FDA primarily through the New Drug
Application process. Barrs proprietary segment also includes products whose patents have expired
but continue to be sold under trade names to capitalize on prescriber and customer loyalties and
brand recognition.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, three customers accounted for 32%, 25% and 16% of
proprietary product sales. In the six-months ended December 31, 2006, three customers accounted for
36%, 16% and 15% of proprietary product sales. In the six-months ended December 31, 2005
(unaudited), three customers accounted for 27%, 12% and 12% of proprietary product sales. In fiscal
year 2006, three customers accounted for 30%, 15% and 11% of proprietary product sales. In fiscal
year 2005, three customers accounted for 26%, 20% and 11% of proprietary product sales.
The Other category includes alliance and development revenues and revenue from
certain non-core operations.